Several responses, in no particular order:
- The headline of this article is misleading, at least in the fact that the issue is not women in the "game industry." It is women in the "public eye." Having read the article, I didn't see any complaints about harassment occurring in their workplace from their employers or coworkers. The examples were almost exclusively the responses of fans, online gamers, and other anonymous douche-nozzles. I would be shocked if the number of vile and inappropriate fan communications with someone like Jennifer Lawrence or Selena Gomez doesn't absolutely dwarf any of the sick stuff sent to these women. Which says to me that the problem is not one centered around "games." It is a problem of how people communicate with each other when (a)there is a high level of anonymity or (b)little threat of direct consequences. The same loser who is posting "show us your bewbs!" in an online chat room would likely not even have the courage to speak to one of these women that way face-to-face, especially in front of her boyfriend/brother, etc. This issue might have a different solution than one totally spawned in the "games industry," which is why I think this categorization is not helpful.
- There is a cognitive disconnect between the various claims of injury and capability, and this is not limited to women's issues. In fact, just about any group that dons the "victim" label runs afoul of this disconnect, whether it is a particular sexual or racial minority or even white Christians claiming to be discriminated against. Almost all "victim" groups assert that they are being discriminated against based on an incorrect assumption of inferior capabilities, while at the same time claiming that they are so fragile that even micro-aggresive transgressions are too much for them to bear. Which is it? In this case, I just have a hard time reconciling an article with a half-dozen trigger-warnings in front of it with the idea that women are just like anyone else in the workforce. Either women are so sensitive to these issues that they can be incapacitated by them, or they aren't? It seems like most "victim" groups don't want to be treated differently... unless it benefits them.
This comment was edited on Jul 23, 2014, 21:52.
- Almost all of these discussions of equality (whether racial, gender, et al.) ignores the fact that
none ALL [edit- ooops, typing too fast] of the progress that has already been made has come primarily from the actions of the majority. Blacks in the US didn't gain equality because they outnumbered whites and forced people to treat them equally. They didn't have the numbers or the power. They gained equality because they successfully demonstrated the moral superiority of their positions. They proved to the majority that the majority was morally wrong. And then the majority changed themselves. Even if every single black American had violently rebelled, they could not have forced the Civil Rights movement on an unwilling majority. They, instead, forced the majority to face the disconnect between what the majority preached (equality) and what they practiced (bigotry). Unfortunately, where the civil rights movement has been less successful is where it has given up the moral high-ground (reverse-discrimination, quota-based hiring and university admissions, etc.). Women face the same problem. Equality is a moral high-ground for them. It is nearly unarguable... at least until they stray from convincing to lashing out. There is a fine line between identifying obvious transgressions and generalizing them so that your allies get swept up with your enemies. I don't think many women would have a problem with getting men to condemn their stalkers, their abusers, and their harassers. When they start generalizing, accusing all men of being victimizers, the moral high-ground becomes very shaky. This article borders on that...