Television

Social Justice on the Small Screen: Primetime Tackles GamerGate, Men's Rights, & Campus Rape

Ripped from the headlines Twitter timelines

|

On Wednesday night, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit aired a new episode loosely based on GamerGate. Anyone who was expecting a fair and nuanced take on the controversy a) was likely disappointed, and b) clearly doesn't know Dick Wolf. In the episode Raina Punjabi, a feminist video-game developer and Zoe Quinn/Anita Sarkeesian stand-in, makes a ridiculous game about starting a matriarchy (title: Amazonian Warriors) before being kidnapped from a speaking engagement by masked men menacingly intoning, "No social justice in gaming!" She is then beaten, raped, and made to address the public in webcasts reminiscent of ISIS beheading videos.

In the end, Punjabi is rescued—thanks in part to Ice-T's mastery of the Dark Net—and tearfully laments that she ever believed in a role for women in gaming. The episode manages to make feminists look absurd and gamers look like a horde of misogynistic psychopaths. It was pretty standard treatment for Law & Order, where all of the franchises, but especially Special Victims Unit, tend to focus on "ripped from the headlines" (or Twitter timelines) stories in the most sensationalistic, melodramatic, and moral-panic filled way possible. 

"Had we made up a 'SVU does GamerGate' bingo card, we might have made out like bandits," writes Sam Machkovech at Ars Technica. "The following bullet points all made appearances: swatting; doxing; a woman's public gaming appearance marred by death threats; wacky gaming phrases like 'no reset button in the real world'; the use of the phrase 'social justice warrior' as a slur; and a fake website named, we kid you not, RedChanIt."

Kotaku's Jason Schreier called the episode "corny, terrifying shlock that demonizes hardcore gamers and turns complicated conversations over misogyny in gaming into a cartoon caricature of good vs. evil." Others have criticized the show's conclusion, which seemed to imply that perhaps women should just stay out of the gaming world. 

I don't think there are any great takeaways from this debacle (though I do highly recommend watching the episode for comedic/oh-no-they-didn't value). But it's perhaps interesting to note that social media social justice battles have made other major TV appearances in the past week, as well. 

milestellers.tumblr.com

On Tuesday's episode of the sitcom Parks And Recreation, main character Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) found herself battling a group of men's rights activists (MRAs) calling themselves the "Male Men." The Male Men are upset because Leslie's husband Ben (Adam Scott) is running for office, and he has volunteered to bake a pie himself for "the Pie-mary," a baking contest traditionally taken on by candidates' wives. A group of MRAs show up to protest, with lines like, "Can we have one conversation about feminism where men get to be in charge?" Eventually, Ben and Leslie tell them off, ending with the line: "You're ridiculous and men's rights is nothing." 

Both MRAs and those who hate MRAs have written against the way the show reduced them to easily-dismissed stereotypes. But as with Law & Order's GameGate episode, I'm not sure we should make too much of it. Parks and Recreation is a sitcom populated almost exclusively by over-the-top characters and stereotypes/situations taken to an absurdist level. If there's any cultural insight to be gleaned here, it's simply that groups and terms like "men's rights activist" and "social justice warrior" have made the über-mainstream. 

The most interesting of the hot-topic cultural debates to make it on to the boob tube this week comes via Switched at Birth, a popular sitcom on ABC Family. In a two-part episode that culminated Tuesday night, one recurring character (Tank, played by Max Adler) is expelled from the University of Missouri-Kansas City when main character Bay Kennish (Vanessa Marano) accuses him of rape.

Tank and Bay had been at a college party together, both drinking, when some sort of sexual incident occurs. Refinery29 recaps

Bay told her mother what happened, but pretended the story was about a friend of hers. She asked her mom if it was wrong that her "friend" cheated, even though she doesn't remember. Instead, her mother replied that it was wrong her friend was raped. Bay was dumbfounded — it never occurred to her that she might be a victim of a crime. Regina insisted that, at least in her opinion, if Bay's "friend" was really drunk, then she couldn't give consent. Bay wasn't so sure; that label sounded scary and foreign, and it didn't describe how she felt.

She decided to discuss the night with Tank, who became defensive. From his perspective, Bay wanted to have sex. She was the one who kissed him, and if she had said no at any time he would have stopped.

We then watched two different flashbacks of Tank bringing Bay water in bed during the party. We don't know whose version of events to trust, or if either one provided an accurate portrayal of what happened. In Tank's version of the night, Bay insinuated that she was going to dump Emmett and leaned in for a flirty kiss, laughing about being really drunk. In Bay's version, her vision was blurry, and she was visibly intoxicated, mumbling incomprehensible things about her boyfriend. She pulled away from Tank's kiss and said how drunk she was before passing out. The conversational details are the same, but the tone and body language were very different. We also find out that Bay felt sick and hit her head during the party.

During a pivotal moment in their confrontation, Bay told Tank that she may not have said "no," but had she ever said "yes?" Tank doesn't answer the question. It was obvious that Bay "wanted it," he insisted. Did she really expect him to ask her if every touch was okay?    

So far, so good—it actually sounds like the show presented a nuanced look at how the same sexual situation may be perceived differently by two different (and intoxicated) individuals. Refinery29 described Tank as a "fan favorite" character, so ostensibly viewers aren't meant to take him as pure villain. Where Law & Order and Parks and Recreation gave us clear-cut, caricaturish versions of good guys and bad guys, ABC Family actually confronts the fact that sometimes good and bad are blurry. 

In an inteview on Zap2it, show creator Lizzy Weiss said her team "really wanted to [open] up a dialogue about this. Right now there is not consensus. It is so polarized on campuses, not just between genders—but administrators, professors and parents in particular. What is considered rape or assault? We really wanted to do a story in which everyone has to look at their choices. Everyone has to think about and talk about how to behave under these circumstances."

Eventually, in the second episode, Bay decides not to press charges or pursue further action—though the university goes ahead with a Title IX case against Tank anyway. Bay is pressured to tell her version of events to the Title IX investigator, which she does, after which Tank is expelled from the university. The episode, titled "Black and Gray," seems rather ambivalent about whether justice has been served, leaving genuine room for fans to hash out the matter on social media (which many did under the hashtag #BaysDecision). 

Compared to most media coverage of campus assault, Switched at Birth did a commendable job, but that doesn't mean the episodes were without their faults. Take this conversation between Bay and her friend about what took place: 

"I was drunk." 

"So what? That doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants." 

"What if I said yes, but I don't remember it?" 

"Could you have?"

"All I know was when I woke up, I felt like something was wrong. But, is that crazy, going on intuition?"

"No. You have to trust yourself." 

I'm not sure that teaching young people to trust some vague feelings of wrongness as a basis for sexual assault allegations are a good idea. Here we literally have on character saying, "It doesn't really matter whether you said yes or no, what matters is your impression of the incident the next day." And throughout the episode, we have characters pushing the idea that Bay was "too drunk to give permission," as she tells Tank. He replies: 

"I didn't know it was without your permission!" 

Bay: "Somewhere, in your mind, did some part of you know that what you were doing was wrong?"

"I was drunk, too!"

"But, did you have a feeling that you were doing something wrong?"

"I don't know! I don't know…"

Again, the idea seems to be that vague, subjective impressions are key. Even though Bay didn't say no, and may have said yes, this consent isn't supposed to have counted because she was had been drinking. Tank's drunkenness, meanwhile, is ultimately presumed not to matter, with his guilt or innocence predicated on whether he felt any shame during the act. What kind of impossibly unworkable consent standards are these?

To her credit, Switched at Birth's creator doesn't necessarily seem to think this is optimal, only the way things are. In an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine, Weiss said "we want to help guys understand: Even if it's a yes, if she's too drunk to know she's saying yes or to remember it the next day, you might be called to the carpet for that. And, you need to be aware of that making those choices going forward."

I suppose that may be a smart lesson to teach in this current climate. But it's also a relatively insane way to look at rape law: No doesn't mean no, yes doesn't mean yes, and all drunk sex is rape. Because, honestly, college kids (and grown adults) aren't going to stop having sex while drunk. Which leaves us only the takeaway that nothing said during a sexual encounter matters at all. 

NEXT: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Democratic National Convention, 50 Shades of Stupid, Homeless Libertarians: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. a) was likely disappointed, and b) clearly doesn’t know Dick Wolf.

    One of the funniest things Ann Coulter ever wrote about Lore and Order (paraphrased):

    The guilty party is always a rich white man who recites the Second Amendment before disemboweling his victim.

    1. Yeah, pretty much.

      One dumb trope I hate on those shows: “His wallet wasn’t taken, so we know it wasn’t just a robbery gone wrong.” Pro tip to murderers: always take the wallet.

      Oh, and another: “We’ll identify the victim through dental records.” Unless you have a good idea who the victim is, this is nonsense. It’s not like there’s some central repository of dental records you can search.

      1. It’s not like there’s some central repository of dental records you can search.

        Yet…

        *rubs hands menacingly*

      2. Your post is even funnier if read in the voice of Michael Westen.

    2. People hate on Coulter, but I wish Reason were half as good at snark and polemic writing as she is.

      1. People hate on Coulter because Coulter’s a buffoon. She’s basically just a right-wing court jester who got very irritating very quickly.

        1. next, you’re going to say something unkind about sarah palin, and the room is going to get real quiet

        2. People hate on Coulter because she gores their sacred cows. She is not a buffoon. A lot of what she writes is funny as hell even if you don’t agree with it. You can appreciate good polemics even if you don’t like it. It is a polemic not philosophy.

          Gimore rightly mentions Palin because hating on Coulter, like hating on Palin, is a way for stupid poorly read people to act smart. That is really all there is too it. It is a social signal. Most people who bitch about Coulter have never read a word of her work.

          1. “Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave….We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males.”

            “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

            Ann Coulter’s funny as hell writing which, apparently, I’m simply not smart or well-read enough to understand.

            1. “I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”

              “My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”

              Man, that Ann Coulter. She is such a card.

              Apparently saying vile, horrible things is okay provided you just say ‘BUT I’M A POLEMICIST!’

              How about Ann Coulter mocking the Christian doctors who caught Ebola? That was another hilarious polemic of Coulter’s which I clearly am simply too dumb and illiterate to appreciate.

              1. I am for flogging too. I think flogging is much more efficient and humane than prison. Modern prison is a sadistic system invented by religious fanatics in the 19th Century.

                Coulter is dead on right there.

                1. And yet Heinlein is able to make a way better case for corporal punishment randomly in Starship Troopers than Coulter trying as hard as she can.

              2. “I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”

                For whatever weird reason, I was reading about the cat-o’nine-tails today. On ships with young boys and schools that used them, to get whipped by the adult size (as opposed to the children’s size which was called, I shit you not, a “boy’s pussy”) was seen as a badge of honor if you could “take it like a man” and not cry out in pain.

                Ann Coulter has no idea how men think.

            2. Yeah Irish, that is totally over the top and funny as hell. And beyond that, even if you hate that is one paragraph out of thousands she has written. That hardly disproves the funny stuff she has written elsewhere like the quote above.

              You are among friends Irish. You don’t have to single. Its okay.

              1. John, just because someone doesn’t think Ann Coulter is funny like you do doesn’t mean they’re a humorless square or sucking up to liberals.

          2. I know that Coulter is over the top on purpose much of the time, but she’s still over the top. So I very frequently don’t like what she has to say.

            She’s also not sounding very friendly to libertarians, which is most of us, so this, too, is ungood.

            1. She is not a Libertarian. That doesn’t mean she isn’t funny or a good polemic writer.

              1. Yeah, that’s not really my cup of tea. I’d rather read P.J. O’Rourke for that sort of thing.

  2. Apparently women make excellent victims.

  3. feminists look absurd and gamers look like a horde of misogynistic psychopaths.

    One of these two characterizations is accurate.

    1. Yep. Otherwise there wouldn’t be all those thousands of Grand Theft Auto murders.

      1. Bravo.

  4. I don’t think there are any great takeaways from this debacle

    Incorrect. The takeaway is never, ever watch police procedurals, especially ones that have multiple incarnations (at the same time) and super especially if they star David Caruso.

    1. Oh great, someone else who doesn’t think Caruso is underrated.

      1. You’re a funny guy, Paul. I like you. That’s why I’m going to kill you last.

        1. I think it’s bias against Gingers.

          Of all the Harry Potter actors, which one hasn’t been seen much?

          That’s right, Ron Weasley.

        2. That’s why I’m going to kill you last.

          Alright, dammit! A GoFundMe account to hire Dana Snyder to read all of Epi’s posts, now!

        3. I lied.

    2. You know, there is one time I actually thought he was great. Mad Dog and Glory.

      1. He was actually very good in Session 9 which was also notable for being one of the first all-digital-filmed movies. It’s quite suspenseful and they make some really scary use of the fact that digital cameras can film in very low light. There’s a scene in a tunnel where the only light comes from a flashlight, and it’s pretty fucking scary. Such a thing would be impossible with 35mm.

        Caruso can actually act if the director controls him. Let him chew the scenery and it becomes painful.

        1. That’s true for other actors, I note darkly. As you know, I’m in the Kubrick/Hitchcock camp, believing that actors should be treated as cattle. Quite literally, though I draw the line at actual slaughter and use for food.

          We’d still have Val if a few directors had abused him more.

          1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT VAL KILMER

            1. If he’d only been physically, emotionally, and spiritually abused by the right director, we’d be watching Real Genius IV right now. In which he’d have won his third consecutive Oscar for Best Actor.

  5. Of course the name is Dick Wolf. Of course it is.

  6. LOL. If you were to just say “women can’t handle their liquor” you’d be pilloried as an evil patriarchal misogynist oppressor. But that’s exactly what the feminists are saying.

  7. Parks and Recreation is a sitcom populated almost exclusively by over-the-top characters and stereotypes/situations taken to an absurdist level.

    Andy Dwyer: All those years at the Parks Department you never told us you had a brother.

    Don Swanson [to Ron]: You worked at the Parks Department?

    Ron Swanson: Tour’s over!

  8. Are you fucking kidding me? That’s the actual plot? That wasn’t cribbed from the The Onion?

  9. So basically “Parks and Rec” made a less funny version of Al Bundy’s “No MA’AM” episode?

  10. “Special Victims Unit”

    They outline the body with snowflakes, and ensure it is referred to by preferred pronouns.

    1. (Scene: Crime Lab)

      Cop: “so…do we have a cause of death yet?”

      Lab Coat: “I think so… but you’re not going to like it.”

      Cop: “Bad, huh?”

      Lab Coat: “…it looks… like it was Othered.”

      Cop: “Sheesh… that makes… what, 5 this month?”

      Lab Coat: [nods] “…we can’t be sure… but it has all the signs of a Serial CisHetPig”

      Cop: “Well… we don’t have a lot of leads…. but maybe…. maybe we can start a Tumblr of our own… lure it out….”

      1. Heh.

      2. “Next on Law & Order: Special Snowflakes Unit….”

        1. OMFG that is brilliant, someone needs to make a web series of that

  11. “groups and terms like “men’s rights activist” and “social justice warrior” have made the ?ber-mainstream.

    (sits in rocking chair, lights pipe)

    “Back in my day…..” (puff puff) “…. we just called them ‘assholes'”

    “…it was a simpler time…”

    1. Remember a time before Tumblr, when oppinionated 20-somethings were just assholes? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

      1. LiveJournal

        1. Yeah but even that was ruined by SJW’s

          I stopped posting on LJ after some moron started cross posting stuff from the Libertarianism group to some ONTD snark group and after we had a discussion on age of consent laws several mysterious strangers started sending anonymous messages to my wife’s lj account warning her that she was living with a serial pedophile who had raped at least a dozen children.

  12. Look Elizabeth,

    Just don’t worry your pretty little head about these problems. Stay away from those scary video games and leave them to the men who can handle these kinds of things. Why don’t you go off and read a Jane Austin novel or something.

    Isn’t modern feminism empowering Elizabeth?

  13. Enough Law & Order. Bring back CSI and Gil Grissom!

      1. Screw that. Tenspeed and Brown Shoe.

        1. Unsolved Mysteries and Rescue 911!

          1. Police Squad!

            1. R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen.

    1. The one where the lead female investigator is a retired stripper?

      1. That’s a great idea. Well, not what you said, but what I’m going to say. A new PI show based on a current stripper (stripper at night, private dick by day). She’s a stripper, and her assistants and friends are strippers and (stripper) clients.

        Gonna just go out on a limb and say this has to be an HBO show.

  14. Even though Bay didn’t say no, and may have said yes, this consent isn’t supposed to have counted because she was had been drinking. Tank’s drunkenness, meanwhile, is ultimately presumed not to matter, with his guilt or innocence predicated on whether he felt any shame during the act.

    Funny, that.

    “we want to help gals understand: Even if it’s a yes, if he’s too drunk to know him saying yes or to remember it the next day, you might not be called the next day, or even a couple days later. But, it’s important to remember, he’ll still be very grateful for that drunk, sloppy beej you gave him.”

    Fixed.

    1. Yeah, the article was way too even handed with Weiss’s show.

      “No. You have to trust yourself.” is a (presumably mutual) friend tossing the guy under the bus and committing them both to victimhood with little else but a vapid axiom. Over something that has, quite literally, been nearly forgotten already. It smacks of every manner of bad legal and psychological practice/advice.

      Moreover, the ‘what does your gut say’ is not just murky legal water, it’s bad legal water. And Weiss’s self-righteous trope about ‘helping guys’ smacks of all the ‘men need to be responsible for rape’ and puritan protectionism that propagated it. Bad things do happen and the criminal justice system does screw up, guys are hardly the only ones who need help understanding this if anyone needs help at all.

      1. See below re agency.

        It’s beyond parody that these people are in charge in any kind of capacity. it’s fucking terrifying that moral and mental midgets as these are considered our betters.

        This entire idea of criminalizing drunk sex is little more than a witch hunt and the same rigorous scientific tests are being applied to see whether rape occurred or not.

        1. As a matter of law–the real kind, not this fictional shit these psychos want to impose on us all–being drunk does not get you off the hook for other kinds of consent or responsibility. The only time that can conceivably work is when you’re basically unconscious, but it’s already rape to have sex with someone who didn’t consent (in most cases, that would include someone who is unconscious).

  15. The more I think about this the less I see it as sexism. It’s looking more like the last death howl of leet geeks. You know the ones I mean. The ones who mention (asked or, more likely, unasked) how they were on BBS systems and bitterly complain that, starting with Windows 3.1, The True Faith has been defiled by the unwashed masses. Or the ones who get seizures when they hear someone say that Yahoo Messenger is better than Internet Relay Chat. The tenor of the commentary reminds me of WoW players who “played since vanilla” bitching about new players and expansions (and the new players that like the expansions) as if they had some higher proprietary claim to WoW and Blizzard.

    1. You think that about Gamergate? Could you explain that more fully for those of us who are not geeks?

      1. I just think the MRA angle is overblown in comparison to the butthurt nerd angle. It was one of the most damning charges (on their side) that Sarkeesian “wasn’t even a Gamer, mannn”.

        1. Yeah. But from what I have seen Sarkesian is a nut and a hustler. I still haven’t figured out what she does or why anyone should know who she is. Yet, she manages somehow to make a living peddling SJW bullshit.

          I think a lot of what is going on is that there is a lot of overlap between the gaming community and the sci fi community. The SJWs have totally taken over the sci fi community such that any author who doesn’t toe the SJW line or at least keep quiet is liable to lose their publisher or at the very least never get any awards or recognition. I think gamers didn’t want to see them do the same thing to the gaming community.

          1. The SJWs have totally taken over the sci fi community

            Can’t say I agree with you on this. There’s been a little SJW movement in SciFi but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to Top Man-itis, which is a bigger issue. Scalzi and Flint leap to mind as SciFi writers who have ruined their fiction because of their political beliefs. But there are Stirlings and Pratchetts out there to counter it.

            1. Have you looked at who wins the HUGO awards recently? All SJW crap.

              I

              1. The Hugo awards are retarded, they’re the Emmy of scifi awards. No one cares.

                Scifi is still dominated by people who write well, and some of them are totally libertarian leaning, while others are total socialists, while others are not political at all. There are even some mild conservatives (like Peter F Hamilton who I’m reading right now).

                Awards are always taken over by SJW-types because they think appearances are everything, so they want to ensure “their” writers are winning the awards. But their interference just means that the awards come to mean nothing at all. SJW have never been able to understand that or why, because they are fundamentally stupid as all getout.

                1. I couldn’t care less about the Hugos. The award has no bearing at all on whether I read a book or story, or pay attention to a winning author. None.

                  1. You might not, but Publushers do, especially when looking for new authors and stories to publish.

                    Then when the do publish the SJW bs and sales drop rather than conclude that no one wanted to read a story about a genderqueer black woman with albinism who is kidnapped and aliens and brougt to a far away world and forced to engage in backbreaking manual labor on a plantation all day they instead conclude that the public desire for science fiction books is waning and that guy who would have gone on to be the next Larry Niven instead ends up becoming and insurance salesman who writes fan fic in his free time.

                2. It’s more than that. The SJW types believe that perceptions ARE reality. They fundamentally believe that the world is a construct of how people perceive and think about it, so if you control how things are perceived and and how they talk about things, presto, new reality. This is why they are absolutely obsessed with controlling the media and the words people get to use.

                  Of course, perceptions matter, but what makes them stupid is that they don’t realize that perception isn’t the only thing that matters, and fundamentally controlling how things look and how they are talked about is ineffectual if there are actual facts of reality impinging upon other people’s perception (and not just their propaganda). In other words, SJWs are people who believe that propaganda is all there is. It is everything. There is no reality outside of the propaganda universe you live in. Which is why they are control freaks about it, they can’t understand why their best efforts to control everything people see and think fails to result in the socialist utopia they dream of.

                  1. The SJW types believe that perceptions ARE reality. They fundamentally believe that the world is a construct of how people perceive and think about it, so if you control how things are perceived and and how they talk about things, presto, new reality.

                    That’s a keen observation, Hazel. SJWs hail from those disciplines of social science that are rooted in post-positivist constructivism as an epistemological stance. Indeed, if it weren’t for a belief that a new reality can be “constructed”, there would be no point to grievance studies. It would be like “Well, we did all this research to show that women are marginalized. Now what?”

                    1. “Well, we did all this research to show that women are marginalized. Now what?”

                      Wait; you mean I am wrong to think that already?

                  2. Interesting observation, Hazel. It would explain why they don’t understand why their shit fails so badly; they think they’re controlling perception and completely discount the fact that others can *actually see* reality too. Why they’re so fucking tone-deaf in their attacks.

                    1. they think they’re controlling perception and completely discount the fact that others can *actually see* reality too.

                      You haven’t mentally descended deep enough into their bullshit. they don’t completely discount anything. Their “philosophy” is simple. 1) There is no objective reality, and 2) Right and wrong are defined by me.

                      Therefore they are entirely comfortable controlling the narrative, and blaming “evil” people for spoiling the narrative with their privilege.

                      If their “philosophy” makes your head hurt, it should! It’s moral relativism wrapped in existentialism wrapped in moral absolutism. Hell, they have entire degrees in college based on making sure that the “streams don’t cross” lest their entire “philosophy” go up in a giant puff of smoke.

                      As HM put it, post-positivist constructionism: we each construct our own reality based on our perceptions, each person’s reality is legitimate, and any learnings (such as morals or ethics) derived from a person’s reality are as legitimate as their reality.

            2. Pratchett? He’s been putting his politics in his books for probably 20 years now.

              Almost creepy. Fascism is good, as long as the right man is in charge who brings the right kind of left wing progress.

          2. The businesses that drive those communities are going after the widest audience they can. If they have a choice between selling to 100 MRAs or 1000 SJWs their choice is pretty obvious, no? It’s got more to do with a broadening appeal of the genre in response to market pressure than any nefarious machinations.

            1. If they have a choice between selling to 100 MRAs or 1000 SJWs their choice is pretty obvious, no?

              Except that that is not the choice. It is like saying “we can make more money selling make up to a thousand men than we can to a hundred women”. That is true as far as it goes. But it is not true in reality unless men are interested in buying makeup. The same thing is true here. Selling SJW SCIFI is a losing game because few SJWs don’t’ want to read it.

              Same with video games. Women don’t pay for video games or pay for the ones they do the same way men do. So the money is in selling to young men. That is the market. If it wasn’t, people would be catering to someone else.

              All people like Sarkeesian are trying to do is to bully companies into going against their own interests.

              1. Their interest is to make money and if they can do that by appealing to a more culturally and politically diverse audience rather than just a relative few hardcore players then they’ll do that. No one who doesn’t own or manage a game publisher (or book publisher or movie studio) has any higher proprietary claim to that company’s output.

                1. The thing is, the whole Gamergate argument focuses on just one aspect of gaming, the sort that appeals to men.

                  Meanwhile there’s a huge aspect of gaming – casual games, they almost entirely caters to women. It’s a billion dollar industry, but it’s being completely ignored in the argument.

                  Instead, they are targeting games that men like and are trying to ruin them. It’s not about building women up – they already have a large aspect of the gaming industry that caters to them – it’s about tearing men (and boys) down.

              2. All people like Sarkeesian are trying to do is to bully companies into going against their own interests.

                Why hasn’t anyone noticed that the underlying motivation of all the SJWs seems to be the thrill of power from forcing people/companies to do something they didn’t want to do or isn’t in their best interest? I’ve said this before but SJWs are just bullies who justify their bullying by doing it as a crowd and by pretending that it’s for some noble cause. They’re like a schoolyard wedgie-giver who says that they’re giving wedgies because people need to all have their underwear equally bunched up in their ass crack, FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.

                1. To what effect though? Mostly I see a bunch of self-satisfied twits who think they’re a lot more powerful than they really are.

                  As for the rest…I’m looking through a list of upcoming XBONE games and I don’t see HALO: Master Chief Gets In Touch With His Feminine Side And Hosts A Racially Diverse Swap Meet just yet. 2016, maybe?

                  1. Fuck, you’re a long-winded moron.

        2. wasn’t even a Gamer, mannn

          Because part of her shtick is to explicitly say that she’s a gamer.

        3. ‘Gamer’ is apparently quite a social identifier to a lot of this people. Despite playing games I’ve never really got that aspect of it, may have something to do with the social stigma and legislation attempts against gaming in past years. A lot of these people take the term ‘gamer’ so seriously that the breaking point and the birth of this whole ‘Gamergate’ thing was a product of numerous articles on gaming sites shitting on the concept of ‘gamers’ and declaring the ‘gamer’ identity ‘dead’. They had their Picard-esque ‘THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, NO FURTHER’ moment once their identity was challenged.

          1. That’s because the SJWs were defining “gamer” as “heterosexual White male, aged 13 to 35, who enjoys games with action, usually focusing on military adventure, and scantly-clad women as opposed to glorified choose-your-own-adventure books that detail a 20-something’s narcissism.

            1. Well the SJW’s can put their money where their mouth is. Despair.com is creating a choose-your-own-adventure book called the “Glass Ceiling”. They have set up a crowd funding site and everything. Surely their servers are being overwhelmed by SJW’s clamoring to invest…

              http://thepessimist.com/2013/0…..s-ceiling/

            2. “GamerGate’er” here. Just perusing though the comments and wanted to stop in to say thanks. You seem to get the heart of the issue. People don’t take gaming seriously, that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect an “outsider” to understand my hobby anymore than I’d understand why gearheads muck around in engines.

              I’ve been gaming for 30 years, we’ve always been demonized in the press. Regardless, it’s been a big part of my life. I played with my father when there was an ocean between us. I play with both my sisters and my brothers (I come from a split family). I was bullied and tortured for it all through high school by the same people running the press now. I’m very successful in my life, I have a degree in Comp. Sci., a great job, a wife and a daughter (both of which I play games with). I enjoy a HUGE variety of games.

              The term “Gamer” is something to be defined by each individual. To me it has significant meaning, it’s something I feel I’ve suffered for. Now that being a “nerd”, a “geek”, a “gamer” happens to be cool people with no interested in the medium want to use the term, but they don’t like the people that are already using it.

              1. The “Gamers are dead” articles are what threw me into this mess. People trying to shame me and throw me out of my own hobby, my own identity, so they can use it for themselves while sitting around coffee shops sipping over priced coffee in undersized cups while discussing the latest walking simulator made by their close friend and it’s relevance/effect on society. At the same time they’re making it ok to demonize and bully gamers that don’t think like them. Gamers like my daughter, who I refuse to let go through what I did.

                The gaming media is suppose to be our voice, and we expect better from them. The route of this issue is they’ve become too buddy-buddy with each other. They chose what devs and projects will get seen by the masses and what devs and projects will be shamed or ignored. They’ve lied and cheated and bullied their “audience” to protect their friends, who just happen to be horrible people and they’re hypocrites. I’m not standing for it.

                I write e-mails and comment to spread information. I don’t threaten to rape or kill anyone, and I have no plans to support anyone doing so. I want diverse games and I don’t care who, or what gender, makes them. There’s room for everyone, I’m happy to share “Gamer”, something that means a lot to me, with everyone and anyone that wants it.

                The conditions are:

                1. 1) Be respectful and tolerant toward others. You want to play walking simulators? Great, but don’t S**t all over FPS, or MMORPG, or Adventure, or puzzle gamers.

                  2) Stick to YOUR community and worry about the people that play your type of games and leave others to deal with their own. I’m not a First Person Shooter (FPS) fan, so it’s not my place to tell FPS fans how they should behave when playing with other FPS fans. I do play MMORPGs and I will report bad behavior when I see it.

                  3) Stop putting us all in one box, categorizing us as misogynist and pretending because we don’t like the same things that means we’re sexual deviants, violent offenders, wailing man-babies and misogynists. Gaming is as diverse as movies, TV, Comics, board games and a dozen other hobbies. We aren’t the same person so stop treating us like we are.

          2. They had their Picard-esque ‘THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, NO FURTHER’ moment once their identity was challenged.

            Agreed twice over. Much of the sexism that occurs in video games is no different from or is directly lifted tropes from popular culture anyway the only difference is that the medium is newer and/or less familiar to more people.

            If you claimed to be a musician studying mysogyny in music, everybody has a lay of the land wrt your skills, treatment of women in music, current female musicians, etc. Studying mysogyny in gaming? You can have to lifelong gamers of any sex have completely opposite clues of what you’re talking about.

            1. Much of the sexism that occurs in video games is no different from or is directly lifted tropes from popular culture anyway the only difference is that the medium is newer and/or less familiar to more people.

              That, and I’d say that a large part of ‘gaming community’ is far more desperate for societal and academic recognition of their field than others, largely due to, again, the social stigma. I haven’t read gaming sites in years but I remember ‘are games art?’ being a long, extremely stupid discussion that was recycled over and over again by journalists. Many of those same journalists view themselves as, to some extent, the gatekeepers to the medium. Such a medium, with its insecurities coupled with a pseudointellectual base of elitist critics is an easy breeding ground for social justice concepts.

          3. I’ve never really got that aspect of it

            Not being a gamer myself, I’ve never really understood people who say they don’t “get” it. People form social identities around cars, motorcycles, sports teams, bands, drugs, anime/manga, and so on. It’s not really surprising, then, that a large number of people form social identities around gaming.

            Then again, for each one of those, plenty of people talk about how they don’t “get” it either. More for some than for others.

            A lot of these people take the term ‘gamer’ so seriously that the breaking point and the birth of this whole ‘Gamergate’ thing was a product of numerous articles on gaming sites shitting on the concept of ‘gamers’ and declaring the ‘gamer’ identity ‘dead’. They had their Picard-esque ‘THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, NO FURTHER’ moment once their identity was challenged.

            You have your timeline wrong. The “the end of gamers” articles were written in the midst of the controversy, not at the start of it (though it probably made it bigger, or at least last longer).

            1. I get why people identity that way, I’m just never gotten why I would want to base my identity around that.

              In regards to the ‘gamers are dead’ article I meant it more in the sense that it was the wind that fanned the spark. It was one of the most boneheaded responses to criticism I’ve seen.

    2. We were on the internet before it was cool, poser.

  16. The “too drunk to give permission” idea really kind of infantilizes women.

    Basically it says chicks can’t handle the booze and are incapable of making decisions for themselves after a couple of drinks.
    So the man has to do the thinking for her and be responsible. It’s a rather old-fashioned view of human relations. The drunk girl as helpless damsel in distress to the chivalrous gentleman.

    1. It doesn’t kind of infantilize them Hazel. It does. No one would ever excuse a man for his behavior when drunk. Imagine some male celebrity saying a bunch of racist things and then later claiming “I was drunk and didn’t know what I was doing”. They would be excoriated for even claiming it. Women are these special flowers that just can’t handle their drinks like men.

      I am a man and it is so insulting it makes me angry. If I were a woman, I am not sure how I would keep from strangling one of these assholes for claiming that.

      1. “I am a man”

        citation ?

    2. It’s more than that. They’re not merely infantalized, but they’re stripped of all agency. You’re not even human at that point. Just meat, laying on the bed.

      Meanwhile, the man’s drunkenness has no affect whatsoever on his culpability in the act. He’s presumed to be as lucid as if sober.

    3. It also says that if the woman can’t be responsible for her behavior when she is drunk then neither can the drunk male.

      That is if we are honest and consistent, which SJW are not.

  17. Tank was drinking too. In what way did he ever give consent? Did he ever explicitly say “yes”?

    All ignored.

    And not like the answers to those questions matter for either Tank or Bay. The campus rape scare is not about rape, it’s just another instance of empowering the Progressive Theocracy, and disempowering it’s enemies. Women lean more progressive than men, ergo women should get arbitrary power over men.

  18. The whole ‘pretending that Gamergate is the same as ISIS’ thing that pops up in the Law and Order episode (and more generally in the Twitterverse delusions of their opponents) really cements how pathetically out of touch this people are. Really, people disagreeing with you and some saying valid/mean/ridiculous/assholish things at you is the same as organized terrorism? There really is a ‘spoiled Western brat’ mentality in that comparison. Want to know what a real group like ISIS would do in response to Sarkeesian’s youtube videos? Capture, torture, possible gang rape, murder by beheading on camera. The hyperbole is just absurd.

    1. It is just self absorbtion. If Sarkesesian admitted her opponents had a point or were at worst just being childish, then where would that leave her? A third rate journalist arguing about video games. Part of how these people build themselves up is by building up their enemies. Sarkeesian isn’t some third rate hack. She is a courageous fighter for justice just like someone fighting ISIS.

  19. Bay: “Somewhere, in your mind, did some part of you know that what you were doing was wrong?”

    “Why would I believe it was wrong to have sex with a willing partner? That makes no sense.”
    “Because I was drunk?”
    “That doesn’t mean anything. How drunk is ‘drunk’? Is that your post-facto conclusion, that you were ‘too drunk to consent’ or are you stating the fact that you were drunk? Because it was obvious that you were drunk. That does not mean you could not have consented to sex at that very moment.”

    Instead, lover boy answers with a very convincing “I was drunk, too!”

  20. You know, if the makers of our popular television programming are such profound believers in combating misogyny maybe they ought to demand a third party investigation into sexual exploitation off-camera in the entertainment industry.

    1. Woah there you cis gendered asshole.

      The entertainment industry is beyond repoarch due to the neverending search for truth and justice.

      Just because the individuals involveded had their own personal demons does not mean that as a whole their actions are not holy.

      Only non progressives are guilty of there personal actions.

  21. What I want to know is why there is no outrage at the idea that Ice T is an expert in using the “dark” net.

    Surely there must be someone out there who is raging about the inherent racism exhibited by the writers in casting him in this role, or for pretending that their is some separate but equal internet out there.

    I expected that there will be some overlap with the people who are offended by “chink in the armor”, “getting the kinks out” or “niggardly”.

    Oh, I just want to say any time spent watching these shows means less time watching Hawaii 5-O and Scorpion. Those are the best man!

  22. Bay: “Somewhere, in your mind, did some part of you know that what you were doing was wrong?”

    “I was drunk, too!”

    So, does the show explain why we shouldn’t consider her a rapist?

  23. I though Punjabi was the blind Delt with the turban in Animal House .

    1. “Come over here and sit with Haji, Tom, Sylvester and Jagdish!”

  24. Bitches ain’t shit

  25. “Would it make you feel any better, little goil, if they was all pushed outta windows?”

  26. When they came for the gamers, I said, “Good riddance.”

  27. I disagree with this. Law and Order Los Angeles was actually really good about dealing with shit like police abuse and the damage caused by the drug war. Probably why it only lasted one season.

  28. The anti-freedom idea “social justice” and its believers need and deserve to be exposed to ridicule by libertarians.

    1. Good luck with that as long as we have a popular media that identifies with a President that thinks that building a pipeline that his own executive agencies say has little or no enviromental impact and would create thousands of jobs is a bad thing to do.

  29. Anyone who was expecting a fair and nuanced take on the controversy a) was likely disappointed, and b) clearly doesn’t know Dick Wolf.

    The first few seasons of L&O were nuanced. IIRC, in some of those episodes the cops were wrong at first, the alleged perp walked, and case was not solved. But Wolf followed the ad revenue and turned the series, and it’s offshoots, into SWPL porn.

    H&R regulars used to watch L&O. I recall a positive and sentimental thread about Jerry Orbach’s death.

  30. In fairness, the Parks and Recreation episode had some very ridiculous feminists in it, too. They let both sides have it!

  31. The SVU episode sounds kind of hilarious.

    The story is that gamers are so mad that someone has written a non-sexist game that they kidnap and torture the developer? Wouldn’t they just not buy the game?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.