Category Archives: Gender

[Redacted] – Games, Censorship, and Sexual Violence

One of the big news stories in gaming at the moment is about Australia’s refusal to issue classification to Devolver’s Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number due to sexual violence (link to Kotaku Australia). In Australia, media that “depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults” may be denied classification, and would therefore be made unavailable to consumers.

The report from Australian Classification includes a description of the scene which caused the game to fail classification (**trigger warning for sexual violence** – highlight below to read scene description):

In the sequence of game play footage titled Midnight Animal, the protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people, who collapse to the floor in a pool of copious blood, often accompanied by blood splatter. After stomping on the head of a fifth male character, he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks. He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him. This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasised by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black.

I don’t think I need to explain how the above scene might “offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults,” emphasis here on “reasonable.” I don’t think that there’s any question that this scene is distasteful, violent, misogynistic, and disturbing, made all the more so because this is the protagonist engaging in this behavior, rather than a villain or other NPC.

Response to the Australian Classification decision has been mingled approval and outrage, with responses that include “It’s a video game” (the implication being that it’s therefore somehow acceptable or “not real” violence); “there are movies that have rape scenes in them and they are given R18+ or AV15+”; “I’m 100% anti censorship, If any line is crossed the statement should be made with our wallets, Not by the fun police”; and this example of eloquence:

Then don’t buy the damn game. I am fed up with all you Fucktards who just beg for the opportunity to be offended. It is simple. You don’t like it then stay away from it. Jeez who are we now just a bunch of whiny fucking pricks who are not happy unless we are stating our useless fucking opinions. Pretty much just pissing on anyone who has the drive or guts to do something like make art be it games or film or whatever. SHUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING MOUTHS AND LET PEOPLE GET ON WITH THERE PASSIONS.

Grammatical and lexical issues aside, this final commenter strikes at the heart of much of the present discussions about gender and gaming. Said commenter clearly does not understand the implicit cultural valuation present in the creation and dissemination of cultural artifacts – the idea that what is contained within a work of culture (popular or otherwise) somehow impacts or reflects some aspect of that culture.

I do not think that Hotline Miami 2 has the same kind of cultural cache as Selma or The Imitation Game, or even Dragon Age: Inquisition orGTAV, so my guess is that there are far more people who haven’t heard of the game than have, thus minimizing the actual impact of its censorship. But at the same time, denial of classification to the game is censorship – plain and simple.

As horrified as I am by the content of the above quoted scene, I can’t support banning it.

Here’s why.

Censorship of any kind is a detriment to culture. It stifles voices that can contribute to a discussion, and it also exposes places where a society needs work. This is one of the latter cases. If our art – and yes, videogames are art – contains the glorification of sexual violence, then we need to consider why, just as we need to consider why our art contains the glorification of racism, sexism, homophobia, and genocide.

Would I prefer that this game did not exist? Absolutely. But since it does, it has every right to continue to do so, and to be available with clear warnings to the general (adult) public. And that’s one of the primary distinctions between my viewpoint – and that, I think, of many feminists speaking out in gaming – and that which is attempting to silence mine. While I might think that GGers shouldn’t hold the opinions they do, I believe they have the right to hold them. I believe they have the right to speak up about them, so long as that does not infringe upon the rights of others.

And that last point is the key to all of this, for me. Anything has the right to exist – any art, any speech, any opinion – so long as it does not bring harm to others. That might mean restricting the age of those eligible to purchase an item. It might mean putting warning labels on it. It might mean putting it in a special section of a store. But it does not mean refusing its right to exist.

Much of what has happened re: GG in recent months does bring harm to others. It has not only further marginalized the already outcast, but it has brought active harm to people for having opinions about games. People have lost homes, income, and health as a consequence of the actions of a few whose impetus for protesting is that they disagree with an opinion. That is not free speech – that is censorship of the worst kind.

So while I do not like Hotline Miami 2 and will never play it, while I will criticize its developer’s decision to include interactive rape and say that such a thing should not exist, I will never say that it must be silenced, eliminated, or censored. It should be treated carefully, but respectfully, as should any work of art or culture.

What I – and, I think, other so-called “social justice warriors” hope for is not the censorship of offensive and harmful material, but the decision to not make material that has little value other than offense and harm. We hope for a society that considers its impact and takes action to make sure that what it has to say is said to contribute to the world rather than to detract from it. We hope for artists and creators and, yes, fans and critics who consider a variety of viewpoints and take the initiative to “first, do no harm.”

Put it in Reverse

So there’s this word that’s been bothering me quite a bit recently when it comes to posts on or about a lot of recent events. It’s “reverse.” As in, “reverse sexism,” “reverse racism,” “reverse persecution.”

It bothers me because there is no such thing. Sexism is the discrimination against someone because of gender – which gender is irrelevant. Racism is discrimination based on race – which race is irrelevant. Persecution is persecution – you can’t “reverse” it and have it still be persecution.

And yes, I understand what people mean when they use the phrase, but that’s half the problem. “Reverse” is used by people of a privileged class when they feel as though that privilege is being taken away from them. It never (or rarely) occurs to them that what they’re feeling is the product of the “original” -ism act; it’s still sexism if a man isn’t allowed to wear a short skirt or show off his pecs at work, even though that’s “targeted” against a man rather than a woman. It’s all part of the same horrible sexism package that says that women are X thing and men are Y thing and everyone ought to conform to that standard.

It’s the same story when we look at race or religion or sexual orientation or anything else that humans have come up with to discriminate against one another. It’s all bad news for everybody. And sure, there are people who are more privileged within those -ism constructs – I’m certainly not denying that – but even privilege is harmful, to both those with it and those without it.

Also, if someone pulls out the biological determinism argument one more time, I’m going to start throwing things. Biological determinism is – pardon my proverbial French – utter shite. Sure, people with XY chromosomes and penises can’t physically become pregnant, but aside from basic physiological functions, there’s nothing about biology that dictates superiority or a preference for work in the STEM fields.

Case in point – computer work used to be considered “women’s work” because it was thought of as secretarial. Programmers were women because it was coded (har har) female. Well, that shifted, and now we think of it as coded male, but neither the core concept of programming nor our basic biological building blocks have changed. Farming – coded female in some societies, male in others. Makeup was coded male in Europe for a long time, and so were high heels. Shopping was something men did in much of medieval Europe because women weren’t to leave the house. Music, drama, art, all coded male. Teaching, until the nineteenth century, coded male.

You get my point. We code behaviors, clothing, and expectations based on social influences – influences which shift based on innumerable factors, very few of which are biological. Yes, it is a truth that you don’t find many women in STEM, or construction, or gaming. But instead of saying that “women just don’t like” those things, or that “women aren’t programmed for” them, let’s think about why it is that women aren’t engaging in those institutions.

Could it be that these fields, because coded masculine, are hostile environments, even though the individuals in them might be welcoming? Women don’t go into STEM because they’re told from a young age that they should be wives and mothers, teachers or nurses, something nurturing, someone emotional, not someone rational who gives up her weekends to a lab or an office. Boys are taught to be competitive, to be driven, to fight for dominance. This social training predisposes us from a young age to gravitate toward (and away from) certain things, to automatically dismiss entire career paths at the age of nine or ten or twenty as something that isn’t “for us.”

And to a certain extent, that’s true. It isn’t “for us” because we grew up with that belief. We developed into teenagers and adults who had already made choices based on preferences evolved in highly gendered and -ism-ed childhoods. Some of us defied those -isms and took on careers and hobbies that weren’t coded to our race or gender or religion. Some of us didn’t. And all of those choices are legitimate. But it doesn’t change the fact that we’re pigeonholing our own children by not questioning those social constructs.

And, worse, we’re watching those constructs kill people. Charlie Hebdo. Mike Brown. Trayvon Martin. Eric Garner. Leelah Alcorn. Guantanamo. Matthew Shepard. Abu Grabe. Rafael Ramos. Wenjian Liu. We watch institutionalized -isms kill people and then justify them as “the way things are.” Biological determinism. Or, as I like to call it, excuses and bullsh*t.

New Year, Same Old Sh**

So yesterday I returned to the internet (for all intents and purposes) after two weeks of travel, holiday celebrations, and other things that kept me away. I did not read Twitter for two whole weeks, checked Facebook maybe once every few days, and answered only emails that I wanted to answer.

It was great.

Yesterday, when I finally returned to Twitter, it was with hope that 2015 would be better than 2014, which – let’s be honest – pretty much sucked for everybody.

And the first Tweet I see is about how GamerGate is currently doxxing and harassing transwomen, outing them to people in their workplaces and communities, and generally making their lives hell. I read about how 8chan claims no affiliation with GamerGate, but how they clearly support forums devoted to it. I read about how women I know are making “public” Twitter accounts for their businesses because they can push that off on PR people and not have to read lengthy streams of hate every day.

Same old sh**.

I’m not a New Years resolution type. I don’t believe in declaring the first of the year as the time to start a diet or a new exercise regimen. I believe that if you’re going to make a change, “today” is the day to start it, not a specific date on an arbitrary calendar. And yet, I had some hope that the holiday season might inspire people to be kinder to one another, to respect one another a little more, to acknowledge the humanity in each other.

Apparently not.

If you are the resolutions type, let’s all try to do each other a favor this year. Let’s treat each other with respect. Let’s be kinder, more sympathetic, more thoughtful. Let’s consider how our actions, our words, and our creations impact one another before we put them out into the world. Let’s consider how we would feel if we were in another person’s shoes. Let’s try to let go of our privilege and share it with those who have less.

Let’s try to be a little more human, and a lot more humane.

Invisible Benefits

Today, Feminist Frequency released a new video – “25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male” - that has almost nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series. I say “almost nothing” because it’s pretty clear that many of the things listed in this new video are the product of many of Sarkeesian’s own experiences in playing and speaking about videogames.

The video is a series of men listing off some of the “invisible privileges” of gaming while male and is based on a post made several months ago by Jonathan McIntosh. (At the time, I wrote a response to some of the comments on McIntosh’s piece). I still agree with my assessment: that while I take issue with the comments – obviously, they’re comments – the piece itself is not really objectionable.

Upon second thought, though, I found that the video did raise my awareness about something else that’s often made invisible in gaming, and which isn’t acknowledged in the video itself. We’ve been doing a lot of talking about gender in games recently, but we haven’t really been doing much talking about race in gaming (which is kind of pathetic, given the very important conversations about race that are being had outside of games due to the events in Ferguson, Missouri). At one point in the video, a black man says that he won’t be sexually harassed at a convention – which may well be true, but just because he won’t be sexually harassed doesn’t mean he won’t be harassed for the color of his skin or his choice to wear his hair in dreadlocks.

One of the things I remember most vividly from the time I spent playing various Call of Duty games is that most of the chatter coming from other players wasn’t sexist (okay, so I wasn’t talking to them, so they didn’t know they were playing with a woman), but it was very racist. My modus operandi at the time was generally to mute everyone else in my game so I didn’t have to hear what they said, but what I caught in the few seconds that took was almost always either racist or heterosexist or both. I didn’t say anything, mostly out of concern that then the tide would turn against me for being female, but that’s always bothered me about CoD.

The video made me realize that in our attempts to rectify sexism in the industry we often end up ignoring the intersectionality of oppression – the overlap of oppressive systems that simultaneously marginalize multiple groups. Because the black man in the video has probably faced racism at conventions and while playing online, just as women face sexism in those spaces – and it’s just as important that we recognize his experience as it is that we recognize women’s experience.

Now imagine what it’s like for a woman of color, who receives both types of harassment. Now imagine being a queer woman of color.

I’m not saying this to criticize the video – we can’t always do all the things. I’m saying this because it’s important to remember that there are other systems of oppression in place that are very harmful in very real ways to multiple groups of people, and that we need to remind ourselves, even if we choose to focus primarily on one of those ways, that we can’t forget about the others (either the issues or the people they represent).

All of us need to remember that our experience is not the experience of everyone – and for some of us that means we need to acknowledge our privilege and other people’s oppression even as we are ourselves oppressed.

Bad Hair Day

So this post is actually a response to a comment on my first Dragon Age: Inquisition post on TLF. The comment reads as follows:

Kristin I’ve been wondering how you feel about the overtly masculine representation of women in Dragon Age.

You seem sensible based on your blog, so hopefully you wont outright accuse me of being a sexist.

I don’t believe women should feel like they have to look or act a certain way.

However, within the world and time period that Dragon Age tries to emulate, women tended to favor a certain air of femininity and classical beauty.

Yet, it seems to me that in the interest of “progressive aesthetics” Bioware has forced short hair cuts, muscular (to an almost cartoonish nature) body types and scarring onto every single female in the entire game world.

I can understand why women get upset when games portray every female in the game as Megan Fox, but I dont see how portraying every female as a buff version of Ellen is any better.

Surely a man doesnt have to feel sexist simply for wanting to see MAYBE ONE woman who dresses and wears her hair in what some might consider to be a “sexist manner”.

I am of course speaking of wearing a dress and maybe having shoulder length hair. Apparently that entire look is just a male created social construct.

First, hair in Inquisition is terrible. Awful. The “butch” haircuts that bother you are not the product of a “progressive aesthetic” so much as they are the result of some very bad hair design and animation. Everyone’s hair is chunky and obscenely shiny, as though the rifts have suddenly caused everyone in Thedas to become obsessed with pomade. (And don’t even get me started on facial hair… Dorain. Bull. Ugh.)

But yes, Tommy, you’re right that all the women seem to have short hair, or their hair is pulled back very tightly against their heads. That’s not because BioWare has an intrinsic objection to long hair (some of the styles in their other games included pony tails, braids, and weird Medusa-looking long hair), but can you imagine what THIS hair would look like? Ew. It’s an animation problem, not a preference for butch haircuts. Personally, I’d love my male Qunari Herald to have long Fabio-locks, but that’s not a choice for him, either.

Second point – I’m sorry, Tommy, I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing. In fact, the only woman who has short butch hair (with a weird braid-headband-thing that I also hate), muscles, and scars is Cassandra. Also, she’s really not THAT muscly. I know women with bigger biceps than she has (okay, so I know some pretty badass women, but still – I have bigger muscles than Cassandra).

Also, Cassandra is a soldier who pretty much killed a dragon on her own. I’d be more suspicious if she didn’t have muscles and scars. She also isn’t Ellen – Cassandra’s romance options are male-only. And as for her un-sexy armor, well, Bull remarks at one point that he’s happy to see a woman wearing a normal chest-plate because boob-armor actually directs blades toward your heart. That’s right, boob-plate armor is more likely to kill you. So it’s good that she’s not wearing sexy armor – and since she’s a soldier, she should be wearing armor.

But the other women have varying hair styles. Leliana’s hair is shoulder-length (in a hood, so we don’t have to see how bad that hair really is). Sera has a short hair-cut, but no scars or muscles. Josephine’s hair is in an up-do.

Then there’s Vivienne. Vivienne… is gorgeous. She also has the best hair in the game. Seriously. Look at her. She’s got great hair, she’s sexy, and she’s incredibly feminine while still being powerful. Sure, she’s wearing pants, but LOOK AT THEM. Her outfit is fabulous.

So here’s the other thing about Tommy’s question. Of the women in your companion party, Sera is giggly (and really weird, okay), Vivienne is sultry, and Cassandra would sooner hit you than flirt with you. That’s three completely different types of women. Sure, none of them is in a skirt, but you’re at war. Have you ever tried engaging in combat in a skirt? It doesn’t work.

But if a skirt is what you’re looking for, what about Josephine? She, like Leliana of the shoulder-length red hair, is one of your primary advisors, she’s a romance-able character, and she’s in a dress. (Okay, you can’t see all of it in the picture, but you get the idea.)

On top of all of this, there are plenty of women outside the companions and advisors who are wearing skirts and flouncing about being useless in war. Pretty much every woman in Val Royeaux is wearing a skirt, a mask, a ruff, carrying a fan or flowers… Being rather “girly,” in fact. Most of the women in the Chantry are wearing skirts (so are the men). The woman who runs the bar in Haven is in a dress. Maeve is wearing a dress. Fiona wears a dress.

So I guess I’m just not seeing a lack of dresses. I’m also not seeing a lack of femininity – what I am seeing is a variety of types of femininity… and masculinity. Bull, Varric, Dorian, Cullen, and Blackwall all present different styles of male-ness. Cassandra, Sera, Vivienne, Leliana, and Josephine all present different styles of female-ness. Sure, only one of them is in a dress, but they are all feminine in different ways.

Yes, scarred, muscly, pixie-cut Cassandra is feminine, too.

Being Heard

So a few weeks back, the University’s PR firm inquired about taking a post from this blog and pushing it out – with minor modifications – to the world at large. This was, first and foremost, a minor source of terror.

It went out on Friday, with additional news outlets continuing to pick it up this week.

Here’s a link to one of the outlets – Seattle Times - chosen because a student came up and mentioned seeing it to me. It’s more or less the same as an earlier post, but I like to document publications here.

No, I’m not reading the comments.

Really Warm Fuzzies

So I recently returned from the National Women’s Studies Association conference where I moderated a fantastic panel on gender in games – looking at perceptions of players, perceptions of developers, journalism media, and pedagogy through a feminist lens. It was warm and comforting. Really warm. Like, tropical island, sunning by the pool with a pina colada warm. Really. It was awesome.

The panelists were fantastic, the audience was supportive and interested, and no one left the panel feeling overtly threatened or attacked. It was a space where it was safe to talk about the threats faced by women in the gaming and tech industries in a real, honest way. It was a genuine discussion of ideas and innovations, and it reminded me that in spite of all the hatred and vitriol out there, there are a lot of people quietly doing good work.

What I’m afraid of is that those people will be driven away from the industry, whether they’re journalists, gamers, or academics, because of the kind of attitude of privilege and hostility that gave birth to GamerGate. Because, let’s be honest, it isn’t just about GG. Anita Sarkeesian was harassed before GG was a thing. Women were feeling marginalized, harassed, and ostracized by the heteronormative masculine practices of their companies and of cons long before GG. The “fake geek girl” produced a backlash against women in “geek culture” (including gaming) before GG.

GG isn’t some insidious new movement or suddenly-sprung-up cohort. It’s yet another symptom of a disease that has plagued the tech industry and geek culture more generally for decades. It’s part of a system designed by those in privileged positions who were not the ultra-privileged but were smart enough to create their own escapism. And now that the worlds they created (sci fi, fantasy, videogames) are no longer the realm of straight white male nerds, that space – that “safe” space – is being threatened.

This has been true since sci fi started becoming mainstream, since videogame consoles began to appear in the average household, and since it became worthwhile to reboot as major films comic book characters like Batman, Superman, and the Avengers. In other words, since the 1990s. It’s taken a long time for the facade overlaying this culture to rupture, but it has, and as more and more people partake in geek culture, the more the culture itself will shift, embracing the variance and diversity of its changing identity.

GG is, as more than one person has suggested, the alligator death-roll of “old” geek and videogame culture. It’s a last desperate attempt to keep the elements of a culture that used to represent “safety” to a select and homogenized group of people who no longer make up the majority of its members. The problem is not that those members feel safe, but that so many others do not feel safe, that the price of the “old” safety is the discomfort and harassment of everyone else.

The thing is, there can be many safe spaces within geek culture. There can be spaces that hold to the old “traditional” stories of gaming. There can be spaces that reject those traditions in favor of other, new stories. There can be spaces that allow for crossover between them. There can be space for all, if we are willing to shrink our own personal bubbles and share the couch.

The End of Feminism?

So one of the other reactions on the internet to movements like Men’s Rights Advocates and GamerGate is a push for the end of Feminism. On the one hand, this makes me throw up my hands and want to bash my head into a desk, because the MRA and GG are the reason we need feminism more than ever. On the other, if I take a minute to actually pay attention to what people calling for the end of feminism are saying – and by “people” I do not mean MRAs or GGers – they have some valid points.

First and foremost is what “feminism” has come to mean for many people. A common understanding is that of the “feminazi,” or “man-hating woman,” who supposedly advocates for a gynocracy and/or the extermination of all men. This image is the one that gave birth to the “Why I don’t need feminism” Tumblr and @WomenAgainstFeminism, which largely seem to display a vast misunderstanding of the definition of “feminism” (technically defined by the dictionary as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men”).

More recently, XOJane published an anonymous piece entitled “I am A Feminist And I Don’t Think We Need The Feminist Movement Anymore” which contains the following description:

American feminism has become a media-obsessed vortex of mostly coastal white women trying to make careers of giddily telling us about the hard reality of everybody’s life to prove they deserve a spot on TV.

This type of “sorority-style” feminism is, I would suggest, even more problematic than the “feminazi” version. On the one hand, it’s avowal of a kind of sisterhood makes it seem attractive, like the “Girl Power” movement of the 1990s and early 2000s. On the other, it serves – also like the Girl Power movement – to reinforce gender stereotypes and further institutionalize other forms of oppression like racism and homophobia by eliminating them under the umbrella of a “sisterhood” that features predominantly middle- and upper-class white women.

It pretends to advocate for women’s rights, when what it really does is advocate for the rights of a very specific, socially acceptable version of what women are or should be. It doesn’t advocate for the rights of butch lesbians, transwomen, women of color, poor or homeless women, or women who seek to defy gender and social normativity in any way. It states that women who are already granted a certain level of privilege within American society ought to be granted more privilege, and leaves behind the women who don’t fit into that narrow mold.* (*These women should be given more privilege, but so should all the women that aren’t included under the umbrella.)

And I would agree that this kind of so-called “feminism” isn’t helpful. It widens rather than narrows the gap between the privileged and the oppressed, and that isn’t good for anybody.

But where I disagree is with a recent trend of “giving up” on movements and terms that have been partially co-opted by the privileged. I’m not ready to stop being a gamer, and I’m really not ready to stop being a feminist (which makes me a feminist gamer, which is a dangerous thing to be these days).

The anonymous poster at XOJane is right about one thing:

We DON’T NEED feminism like this. We need some thing better; we need something that’s not just ready for Hilary but actually ready for a life that has been hard for a while and is getting harder — though for all their news hawking, they don’t seem to notice.

I hope feminism keeps failing. I hope they laugh these girls right into the implosion the rest of us are living through.

Maybe — just maybe — if it actually goes straight to hell they’ll actually remember what feminism is about.

I don’t hope feminism fails. I hope that enough women and men are able to see through this recent whitewashing (in multiple senses) of feminism as a movement and go back to its roots – fighting the hard fight in the mud and dirt because all women and men deserve social equality, not just the ones with good PR campaigns and disposable income.

Day of the Dead

So this is not going to be a post about Anita Sarkeesian’s appearance on The Colbert Report last night, although I will say that it was not one of the best interviews I’ve seen. I think Colbert had a hard time trying to make sure that he wasn’t “attacking” her (since that’s his persona), given what she’s been through and the kind of message that would send, and balancing his perodic style. It’s hard to quip about horrible harassment and sexism when your subject is both nervous and not trying to be funny (I’m not saying she should have been funny, just that she wasn’t and that made the interview a little more awkward than some).

This is a post on Chris Plante’s piece from The Verge stating that GamerGate is dead. While his opening premise – “As an activist movement with the ability to inspire positive change, Gamergate is dead” – is not wrong, it is a tiny bit misleading, since I’m not convinced that GamerGate ever had the capacity to “inspire positive change,” given where it began. That’s not to say that the now-infamous byline of “ethics in games journalism” doesn’t need some “positive change,” just that I’m skeptical that GamerGate was ever really about that (also, that the kind of change that would benefit games journalism is what they were talking about in the first place).

His point that “GamerGate died ironically from what it most wanted: mainstream exposure,” is also accurate (and ties in to a post I made the other day), insofar as it suggests that GamerGate is not benefiting from mainstream news coverage or the list of celebrities who have now spoken up against it or in favor of feminism (now including Stephen Colbert). And Plante’s quip that “When a fictional ideal of repressive rhetoric thinks your movement is too much, then it’s time to reconsider,” is amusing – although I would suggest that Colbert’s “response” was more in line with his actual politics than his persona’s.

The problem, as I see it, is that Plante’s piece is more hopeful than it is reflective of what’s going to happen within the GamerGate movement. As of this morning, for example, OperationDiggingDiGRA (more on that here) was still examining the work of games academics for signs of feminist conspiracies. GamerGate isn’t about journalism ethics, and that is a conversation that Plante rightfully suggests can take place elsewhere and in a healthier way.

GamerGate is about couching privilege as a “right” and defending that privilege as though it were the most basic tenet of human dignity. And it just isn’t. It’s about mostly straight white men desperately attempting to cling to the (oppressive) power they possess in a “culture” (is gaming really a “culture”? But that’s another post for another day) that they feel has always belonged to them. It’s about the deliberate exclusion of diverse voices in a medium that is rapidly expanding and already includes those voices – which is where the whole backlash came from to begin with. GamerGate, specifically, is about a retrogressive desire to maintain a fictional status quo that never really existed as compensation for perceived loss.

And I’m just not seeing that as “dead.” Women have been able to vote in this country since 1919, and we still don’t make the same amount as equally-qualified men. Jim Crow laws were abolished in 1964, and racism against African Americans continues to be pervasive and institutionalized. GamerGate isn’t on the same scale as these, certainly (although it is the product of a similar social problem), but it isn’t going to just go away in three months.

I hope Plante is right, and this is the beginning of the end for GamerGate. I’m just not going to hold my breath… or my tongue.