Gamers who harass women are literally losers

[Tanooki]

As others said, study not necessary as it's obvious it happens, but now with MATH!

That said, as horrible as it gets, there is a bit of a two way street with it as certain women do forcefully attack male gamers or the companies on the whole to crap all over stuff like that Sarkeesian woman and her followers/like minded types who take garbage too far. Forcefully imposing will changes nothing too, just makes it worse. I wonder if someone could put the rise of her tactics to that chart and see if anything comes of it.

[MrPopo]

Thanks for the write up JT!

[marurun]

there is a bit of a two way street with it as certain women do forcefully attack male gamers or the companies on the whole to crap all over stuff like that Sarkeesian woman and her followers/like minded types who take garbage too far..

No. This is stupid and wrong. Even if you don't like Sarkeesian, her tropes series is important to the discussion. Her personal comments sometimes go too far for me, but her overall analysis is pretty good. And truth told, if you were a woman and under attack ALL THE DAMN TIME, well, let's just say I'm surprised more women don't go postal on men in general. There is no two-way street here. There is a one-way path of horrible invective.

[J T]

Thanks for the write up JT!

Sure thing. Always happy to help people better understand the language of science.

[Sarge]

I don't have a problem with Sarkeesian herself. I have a problem with her poorly-researched, poorly-presented arguments that wouldn't even pass muster in a junior high debate. So yeah, I can see where people might get a little angry with her.

Also, if it's not obvious, hating on women is idiotic. But it's also not surprising. Of course, it typically correlates with lower-skilled individuals, so we probably shouldn't be surprised that they'd go for the easy jabs. It's probably also likely that many women won't fight back like a guy often would, which makes them a perceived easier target. And as we all know, losers love easy targets. Just like thieves usually target people that they perceive to be weak, which is often women and guys that look pitiful.

[Tanooki]

there is a bit of a two way street with it as certain women do forcefully attack male gamers or the companies on the whole to crap all over stuff like that Sarkeesian woman and her followers/like minded types who take garbage too far..

No. This is stupid and wrong. Even if you don't like Sarkeesian, her tropes series is important to the discussion. Her personal comments sometimes go too far for me, but her overall analysis is pretty good. And truth told, if you were a woman and under attack ALL THE DAMN TIME, well, let's just say I'm surprised more women don't go postal on men in general. There is no two-way street here. There is a one-way path of horrible invective.

Not stupid or wrong, hell you're even agreeing with me. I didn't say she was wrong, but her comments go to far at times. Needs to dial it back a few and deal with it in a slightly better manner would help get more people behind her instead of at her throat unlike the true douchebags who just troll.

[dsheinem]

I have a problem with her poorly-researched, poorly-presented arguments that wouldn't even pass muster in a junior high debate.

^ As someone who has watched many of her videos, teaches courses in argumentation, has judged at college debate tournaments, and is a tenured professor of rhetoric, I feel completely qualified to say that this opinion is utter is horse shit.

Either you don't understand what her specific arguments, what a good argument is, or what her videos are trying to accomplish as a whole.

Ultimately all she is doing in her videos is cataloging video game tropes that are specifically tied to representations of sex and gender. You don't have to agree that those tropes are a problem, that they are pervasive, that they are intentional, etc. - and she really isn't making those claims. The videos all basically say: "Hey! Here's a trope that recurs in games!". Conclusions you may want to make about whether those tropes are good or bad, whether her examples are the best ones, whether she's "fair and balanced," etc. are irrelevant to her basic point which is that these tropes exist.

[Exhuminator]

Nah. Sarge is right.

Anita is a hypocritical* researcher conwoman lacking a proper frame of reference, with a clearly slanted bias seeking sensationalist media attention. She actually went to school for that.

*She doesn't want men to see women as simple sex objects, but she cakes her face with makeup and never has a single salon dyed hair out of place. Why aren't pure and natural female looks good enough for a show called FEMINIST FREQUENCY?

[Sarge]

I have a problem with her poorly-researched, poorly-presented arguments that wouldn't even pass muster in a junior high debate.

^ As someone who has watched many of her videos, teaches courses in argumentation, has judged at college debate tournaments, and is a tenured professor of rhetoric, I feel completely qualified to say that this opinion is utter is horse shit.

Classy.

Either you don't understand what her specific arguments, what a good argument is, or what her videos are trying to accomplish as a whole.

Even classier. Very nicely done, sir. I think you're missing flaws in several of her arguments because you are inclined to agree with her, but what do I know? I'm not a tenured professor of rhetoric that judges college debates.

To be honest, there are sometimes points that she tries to make that I actually agree with. But she often does so very poorly, and I feel too many people give her a pass because she's "bringing up the right questions".

(EDIT: Solid job presenting evidence on the "Women as Reward" video, though. See, I can be nice sometimes!)

[Exhuminator]

I feel too many people give her a pass because she's "bringing up the right questions" PENIS GUILT

ftfy