kingkarolthesecond

What men mean when they talk about their “crazy” ex-girlfriend is often that she was someone who cried a lot, or texted too often, or had an eating disorder, or wanted too much/too little sex, or generally felt anything beyond the realm of emotionally undemanding agreement. That does not make these women crazy. That makes those women human beings, who have flaws, and emotional weak spots. However, deciding that any behavior that he does not like must be insane– well, that does make a man a jerk.

And when men do this on a regular basis, remember that, if you are a woman, you are not the exception. You are not so cool and fabulous and levelheaded that they will totally get where you are coming from when you show emotions other than “pleasant agreement.”

When men say “most women are crazy, but not you, you’re so cool” the subtext is not, “I love you, be the mother to my children.” The subtext is “do not step out of line, here.” If you get close enough to the men who say things like this, eventually, you will do something that they do not find pleasant. They will decide you are crazy, because this is something they have already decided about women in general.

clstone
discovergames:

plus10tofireresist:

Read the article here: 
Polygon’s Bayonetta 2 Review is Fine
From the article: 
"3) He’s probably not talking to you. If you’re in #Gamergate, there’s a good chance you’re not in Polygon’s target audience, because Polygon believes in talking about social and progressive issues in video games, and most of #gamergate doesn’t seem to give a rats ass about that.  Which is fine!  But here’s the thing – the goal of a review is not whether or not the reviewer is representing the opinions of anyone on reddit.  The goal of a review is to represent the concerns of their audience. If you review “Atlas Shrugged”, you’re going to write a very different review if you review it for Daily Kos vs. whether you review it for Breitbart.”
Gamergate is mad at Polygon for giving Bayonetta a 7.5/10 and the above image illustrates just how mad they are. 

Good read. My favorite part is the discussion of “collusion.” The article points out that one of GamerGate’s (supposed) chief concerns is “collusion” among the games media; that people like Ben Kuchera of Polygon and other sites all get together to push a single narrative. And now those same people are mad at Polygon, and their sole “evidence” of Polygon’s wrongdoing is the fact that their score is different from other sites. That’s right: it’s unethical for a bunch of websites to all agree on something, but it’s also unethical for one site not to agree with all the others. And to cure this “corruption,” they are asking for a corporation to put financial pressure on a media outlet to change their stance - something that much more resembles actual “corruption” than anything they’ve ever called out.
Which, of course, just brings it all back to the bottom line: GamerGate exists for harassment first and foremost, and their only other aim is to remake the whole industry in their image. The things that they personally like are righteous, proper, and “objective; while the things they don’t personally like are “unethical,” and “corrupt.”
Sorry guys - it doesn’t work that way. Some people are going to enjoy different things than you do, or enjoy the same things in different ways. Some people are going to have opinions that conflict with yours (or don’t involve you at all). Understanding that, and understanding that diverse viewpoints actually strengthens this medium you claim to love, is part of being a grown up. So grow up already.

discovergames:

plus10tofireresist:

Read the article here: 

Polygon’s Bayonetta 2 Review is Fine

From the article: 

"3) He’s probably not talking to you. If you’re in #Gamergate, there’s a good chance you’re not in Polygon’s target audience, because Polygon believes in talking about social and progressive issues in video games, and most of #gamergate doesn’t seem to give a rats ass about that.  Which is fine!  But here’s the thing – the goal of a review is not whether or not the reviewer is representing the opinions of anyone on reddit.  The goal of a review is to represent the concerns of their audience. If you review “Atlas Shrugged”, you’re going to write a very different review if you review it for Daily Kos vs. whether you review it for Breitbart.”

Gamergate is mad at Polygon for giving Bayonetta a 7.5/10 and the above image illustrates just how mad they are. 

Good read. My favorite part is the discussion of “collusion.” The article points out that one of GamerGate’s (supposed) chief concerns is “collusion” among the games media; that people like Ben Kuchera of Polygon and other sites all get together to push a single narrative. And now those same people are mad at Polygon, and their sole “evidence” of Polygon’s wrongdoing is the fact that their score is different from other sites. That’s right: it’s unethical for a bunch of websites to all agree on something, but it’s also unethical for one site not to agree with all the others. And to cure this “corruption,” they are asking for a corporation to put financial pressure on a media outlet to change their stance - something that much more resembles actual “corruption” than anything they’ve ever called out.

Which, of course, just brings it all back to the bottom line: GamerGate exists for harassment first and foremost, and their only other aim is to remake the whole industry in their image. The things that they personally like are righteous, proper, and “objective; while the things they don’t personally like are “unethical,” and “corrupt.”

Sorry guys - it doesn’t work that way. Some people are going to enjoy different things than you do, or enjoy the same things in different ways. Some people are going to have opinions that conflict with yours (or don’t involve you at all). Understanding that, and understanding that diverse viewpoints actually strengthens this medium you claim to love, is part of being a grown up. So grow up already.

dearcoquette

On misogynistic terror threat lemonade

dearcoquette:

Anita Sarkeesian had to cancel a lecture at Utah State because some psychopath threatened to murder a bunch of people if she spoke because “feminists ruined his life” and other head-in-ass dribble like that. And apparently Utah’s open-carry policy prevented the police from doing firearm searches of the attendees. This is just so many levels of fucked up.


Actually, this is turning out to be a pretty great story, and Anita Sarkeesian is playing her hand beautifully.

Here’s the fucked up thing: Anita gets death threats all the time. As a woman trying to bring a feminist message into gamer culture, she’s a constant target for harassment, and she’s given any number of public lectures under threat of violence. What was different about today is Utah’s conceal-carry gun laws.

No matter how much USU or the police assured Sarkeesian of her safety, they still couldn’t prevent people from legally bringing concealed firearms to the venue, and after the overt threat of a mass shooting at the event, she was able to leverage her cancelation into a national story. It’s really quite impressive.

I’m glad that she canceled the event, and I’m glad that this story is getting so much attention. Up until today, only a handful of gamers and feminists even knew who Anita Sarkeesian was. This is going to elevate her profile to the national stage, freshly dipped in righteousness, with a galvanized message about how much we all need feminism in a culture so obviously steeped in misogynistic violence.

And the cowardly twerp who wrote the death threat? I’ll bet a thousand bucks right now that he’ll be spending the holidays (and likely the next few years) in federal prison. The FBI is damn good at finding little neckbearded fuckboys who think they know how to mask an IP address, especially when there’s the added pressure of national publicity.

It started out fucked-up, but I have a feeling this story will have a happy ending.