Slashdot Mirror
Intel Drops Gamasutra Sponsorship Over Controversial Editorials
An anonymous reader writes Processor firm Intel has withdrawn its advertising from Gamasutra in response to the site's decision to carry feminist articles. The articles had drawn the ire of the self-described "Gater" movement, a grass-roots campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists. Intel was apparently so inundated with criticism for sponsoring the Gamasutra site that it had no choice but to withdraw support. An Intel spokesperson explained that "We take feedback from our customers very seriously especially as it relates to contextually relevant content and placements" and as such Gamasutra was no longer an appropriate venue for their products."
I've written at length about this particular topic - it's a bane on the existence of the internet at the moment.
I am not endorsing abusing the woman by any means, but she wrote a deliberately inflammatory article which decided to single handedly lump all gamers in as trouble and make the label gamer a "dirty word" In doing so, she alienated a *LOT* of people who previously had no stake in this entire saga.
People are doing the wrong thing on both sides of the fence on this debate. As someone who has followed it for 6 weeks and dealt with excessive censorship in regards to discussing it too, I recommend simply avoiding this one, it's nasty.
Posting Anon, I really can't be bothered with potential backlash (and this post is hardly spiteful but you never know at the moment)
their advertising because the site will carry female journalists and articles about female gamers? That sounds like the type of decision that backfires on a company.
>> "Processor firm Intel has withdrawn its advertising from Gamasutra in response to the site's decision to carry feminist articles. "
Nope. Intel removes advertising after Gamasutra lead a charge of articles saying gamers were dead. Obviously Intel are quiet taken with PC gamers and the millions they spend on CPU's each year. As Gamasutra was no longer a site targeted at that demographic they decided not to waste the money advertising to people who aren't there.
>> "The articles had drawn the ire of the self-described "Gater" movement, a grass-roots campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists. "
Nope. it's a campaign is to rid Gaming of shitty, biased, corrupt journalists who conspire against their supposed audience. Like whichever anonymous cockroach submitted this article. These same journalists like to hide behind feminists and minorities to avoid criticism.
>> "Intel was apparently so inundated with criticism for sponsoring the Gamasutra site that it had no choice but to withdraw support."
Nope. Intel realised that advertising on sites that are aggressive and hateful towards the demographics being targeted by an ad campaign is counter-productive and a waste of marketing budget.
As ever anti-GG brigade are there telling lies and twisting the truth. So which PR company did this submission company come from Slashdot? We know you know. Anonymous my arse.
They only care that people are complaining, it's a PR thing. They are pulling their advertising because there is some controversy going on with the site, so it's easier to pull out then pick a side and anger people. Intel would plaster their logo on the side of churches if they knew that people wouldn't complain about it.
I know that the submitter lifted this line from the article, "campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists", but I read the earlier articles on this subject. The attempt was not to "discredit prominent female games journalists." The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
They're concerned about being sued by readers for repetitive stress injuries stemming from eye-rolling at these articles.
as the stuff people were complaining about.
Intel has pulled an advertising campaign from video gaming website Gamasutra after it reportedly received a number of complaints from self-identified gamers upset that the site was championing fair gender representation in video games.
Wow, could this have been written to represent one side any more strongly?
Another would be that video game players(intel's customer) are kind of sick of feminist extremists posting articles about about how all gamers are a bunch of basement dwelling woman haters.
This medium seems to get attacked a lot by people who don't understand it. Which I kind of understand. If you saw someone playing GTA you'd probably think they're a murderous psychopath.
First we had Jack Thompson blaming games for school shootings. And now we have third wave feminists blaming games for some kind of rape epidemic.
...The articles had drawn the ire of the self-described "Gater" movement, a grass-roots campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists....
The GamerGate movement had nothing to do with that at all, nor has it been about feminism. It actually started when a male Kotaku journalist published an article about a female game developer that he was sleeping with without disclosure, an act that is generally intolerable in any credible journalistic circle. From there, the mainstream gaming media outlets started with "defending it" to "attacking 'gamers'". It was almost funny how coordinated it was, because on August 28th almost every one of the gaming sites posted a "Gaming is Dead" article in unison (http://gamergate.giz.moe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1409546711940__large.jpg) when they were unable to squash it.
This article is a perfect example of the problem. It's near impossible to get a truthful story, because it turns out that most of the big names in games journalism have similar skeletons in the closet.
The issue is video game reviewers and sites providing unearned positive praise for a product due to:
- Bias from personal relationships, including those of a sexual nature
- Political pressure to over-represent games which claim to be the product of a given minority group
If the 'customer' in this case, is the person expecting a fair and non-biased review of upcoming and current games, they are not served by these biases, especially when they're not revealed from the beginning. This is a basic failure of journalistic integrity.
This was further compounded by a backlash that centered around censorship of any discussion of these issues, no matter how applicable or tangentially related, which pointed these issues out, which is seen as patently unfair - not to mention draconian.
Perhaps the worst part of it all is that those trying to hide this discovery - or promote their side with no argument - chose something ethically sound to stand against, Women's Rights. This is unfortunate, because women's rights have nothing to do with this issue, and pretending it does only weakens future ACTUAL complaints that involve Women's Rights.
Pretty sure I didnt say it was, but this hair-trigger reaction to anything thats not resounding support is exactly the sort of drama I was talking about. I didnt immediately come out and defend Zoe Quinn, so I must be "the enemy".
This "movement" sure has a way of turning people off before they even have heard the full story.
Intel has pulled an advertising campaign from video gaming website Gamasutra after it reportedly received a number of complaints from self-identified gamers upset that the site was championing fair gender representation in video games.
When you write:
However, Women's Rights activist/advocates should be firmly expressing their disdain towards this horrible movement of Femi-nazi's.
Why? When people point out that "gamer" no longer includes just a small hard-core subset of males who orgasm over every new video card and think that all female characters in games should have "vital statistics" that would put a Barbie doll to shame, they're not being "femi-nazis." The appeal of games like Minecraft (58% female) shows that the word "gamer" is either an archaism or needs to be updated to include the new reality.
If the old guard doesn't like that women are "invading their space", they need to realize that it's simply not just "their space" any more.
You are missing the point.
Most gamers, male and female alike, just want to play video games. They want to be able to simply ask, "Hey, wanna play Street Fighter/Quake/Halo/Warcraft/etc?" without any drama, and 99% of the time that is how it goes amongst friends. Random idiots online are trying to get a rise out of you, don't pay attention to them. For most gamers, it doesn't matter if someone is male or female. There are plenty of creepy males and females online, but they're not the norm.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software is related to the above statement.
Apparently, also, Anita Sarkeesian, being a horrible human being undeserving of the attention they get, may have very well fabricated the death threats against herself. http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/09/anita-sarkeesian-fabricate-story-contacting-authorities/
The major, and salient, point is the fact that there is an endemic corruption in journalism as pertains to gaming. Not just that, but most of them, except for IGN strangely enough, are connected to a sort of PR company (Silverstring Media) that is more focused on generating controversy than on anything related to gaming, equality of sexes, improved representation of strong women in video games, etc.
They're pushing a hardline, militant form of feminism, attempting to pervert the word further to gain more legitimacy, Feminism used to be about equality of the sexes, removing all institutionalized discrimination and attempting to foster an environment more conducive to viewing each other as equals, or perhaps even, view each other as just other human beings. Rather than "that black dude", or "that asian chick", etc, you think of them as people like yourself.
Another equally important point is the over-exaggeration of all gamers (and I myself view anyone who sets aside some of their free time specifically for playing a video game of SOME SORT (computer, console, handheld, cellphone even!) to be a gamer, hardcore gamer being the more nebulous term) as being mysogynists and constant desire to sexualize women in games as if their lives depended on it. I understand, in say, Dragon's Crown that the male characters are probably not even close to every woman's fantasy of their perfect man, and that the female characters (except the thief, whom is more modestly dressed) are quite sexualized... But I can accept the ridiculousness, you know why? It's all part of the game's style and aesthetics. Most of it is ridiculous!
Take a look at Mount & Blade, without any modifications mind, and play as a woman. You put on plate armor, it's the same shape as men's armor, because boob-plate would be ridiculous in a game attempting some realism (and make melee blows more likely to strike the center of the chest). There are other games like that, and other games that are on the more ridiculous sexualization side, though I feel it'd be better to
>You could keep your politics out of my entertainment
There is no such thing as non-political entertainment. Your entertainment came with political views, whether they were consciously put in there or not. You just can't see them because they're the defaults. So no, until you can find a way to engineer society in a way that there are no such things as "default settings", I will continue to inject my politics into everything, until they become the new default setting.
For the record, your examples of how "both genders get idealized" are stupid and don't equate. The muscular body-builder type of ideal is an ideal of strength, control, and power. The kinds of ideals we push women characters to aren't about those things - they're about looking attractive to men, and reduction of the character to a sexual object. When we reverse these ideals, the women who are idealized as strong, powerful, and in-control look about the same as the men who occupy that same niche. But if we look at how the men fare, well... If we just blindly apply the objectification tropes we apply to women, to the men, the kinds of people who think the way you do would be instantly offended. If we apply objectification, but tune it towards what women want, we get movies like Twilight and cartoons like Free, which again result in horrible backlash from the "I don't want feminism I want equality" people.
It seems that, when women are pushed towards the sexual object ideal, people like you are okay with it; but when we turn men into sexual objects you guys scream bloody murder. Now imagine a world where every time you see a man anywhere, they are either engineered (in the case of media representation) or are engineering their appearance to look submissive, inferior, or passive. Imagine a world where every man aspired to look, act, and be like Edward from the Twilight series. I think you would be a little justifiably pissed - but you can't be, because now you're just pushing your politics onto everything, and why can't I just enjoy a night looking at hawt guyz OMG LOL - queue rabid hate storm of angry Twilight-playing teenage boys.
Oh and by the way, "feminism" is such a ridiculously big-tent ideology that Sarah Palin qualifies as one, as well as the transphobic crazies that want to remove all hints of masculinity from existence. As well as many millions more of people who are reasonable, and just happen to see the obvious problems you are continually missing.
For anyone interested, here is a link to the article Intel pulls ads from Gamasutra over. It is ... colourful in its descriptions of gaming to say the least.
About ten or so articles like this appeared over the course of a few days at the end of August across most of the top game news sites. Apparently, a lot of gamers were upset enough to write into site advertisers to request they stop sponsoring the offending site with ads. Intel have evidently made a dash for the door out of a building the owners have decided to set on fire.
The author of the piece, Leigh Alexander is a described feminist critique of video games and video game culture, as well as wider "geek" cultures. Her personal views on geeks and their fandoms are ... equally colourful.
I am not convinced that this person is not an ultra-conservative plant sent to discredit feminist and progressivism in geek and gaming culture. If she is, she's making a spectacular effort at doing so. This entire furore is doing real damage to the genuine participation of women in the video game and even wider tech. Intel's pulling of ads might help take the oxygen out of this fire before the industry gets burned.
May the Maths Be with you!
I actually applaude Intel's decision because of articles like that. As someone that grew up playing Atari, NES, Genisis and everything that came after, the contempt most gaming sites show for people that actually buy and play games is abhorent. It's about as tone deaf as those stupid "don't pirate movie" ads they play in movie theatres before the movie (that you paid to see) starts.
You shouldn't care. Unfortunately, the people who should care do not. There is a lot of ugly misogyny in games. This is because such a large percentage of gamers are scumbags or young men who engage in the online equivalent of pulling a girl's pigtails because she makes them feel funny in the pants and they don't yet know why.
The problem is that, being online, there are no longer limits. If you're a woman gamer, and you don't respond to certain male gamers they way they want you to, you will get death threats, rape threats and doxxing. And it goes from 0-60 in nothing flat. Playing online games all day has left many of these young men completely without any sort of self-governance of their id. And people end up getting hurt. Sometimes in very real-world ways.
The fact that most games are written and told from an adolescent male point of view does not help. It creates a sort of greasy milieu where it's easy to believe that any behavior toward a woman is acceptable.
Lots of good gaming sites like Gamasutra are looking to include more female voices in coverage of games, because it turns out (much to our surprise) that there are actually women gaming out there and interestingly enough, they don't want to be treated like shit every single goddamn day of their lives. I don't know anything about these "gaters" (and when I google it I get a bunch of misspelled information about Florida college football) and I haven't read Gamasutra in a while (I don't see anything on their current front page that would indicate any striking feminist agenda at work). But I do know that Microsoft would throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar bump in stock price, so whatever the facts are in this story, there's a good chance that Microsoft is in the wrong. Because.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The majority of the gamers who wrote Intel agree with you. In fact, the entire furore over the past month seems to have cemented the idea of "gamer" as a inclusive, universal identity into the collective mind of the gaming community across the web.
However, that was not the argument the Gamasutra and other articles made. The gaming press collectively declared that "Gamers were dead", that gaming as a descriptor was obsolete, that the "identity was dead", or referred only to a obsolete subset of exclusionary, female unfriendly, "selfish", "conservative", "tribalistic", and -- implied by the accompanying stock images -- fat angry unkempt adult males.
Meanwhile, games companies, marketing firms and online game fansites were still actively using the term to refer to everyone who, well, plays games. Even Forbes magazine was shaking its head in disbelief at the game media's attack on its own consumers. People are now asking how much damage recent controversies may have done to the public image of the gaming industry.
A $80 billion dollar industry which had achieved almost universal consumer acceptance and success may have just been torpedoed as a woman-hating "Cathedral of Misogyny" by its own press publications. Intel is cutting its losses before the conflagration spreads to the rest of tech.
May the Maths Be with you!
In the glory gays of gaming you could swear and taunt and not have to worry about getting arrested for homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogyny etc.
Whereas nowadays SWAT teams are standing by to immediately arrest and imprison people for inappropriate use of language.
Heck, I'm still picketing the Supreme Court demanding the release of Mel Gibson.
The controversy is called Gamergate, and it is strange that the summary doesn't mention it by name. I've never heard "gater" used to describe it before. The anti-Gamergate side has a history of trying to alter the name--they've tried "Game Ethics" and hilariously "We Love Videogames")--in an attempt to take control of the narrative, so maybe that's happening again here.
This is a good summary of the events so far (though decidedly from the pro-Gamergate side):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
The wikipedia article is not much help, as it has adopted the anti-Gamergate narrative that the movement is about misogyny. Many of the primary sources cited are the same ones whose journalistic integrity has been called into question.
Here's an interview with a law and ethics professor about some of the journalistic behavior involved, and whether it's OK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Probably the most disgusting (and damning) behavior of the anti-GG side is the attempt to silence discussion, from the fraudelent DMCA notice to the initial media blackout, and ongoing widespread censorship of user forums/comments.
This is a common argument. While it is technically correct, these institutions should promote a culture of free speech, not merely obey the letter of the law. Legally private spaces, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. have become, de facto, the space for public discourse. While it would be perfectly legal for these entities to censor speech, it would seem fitting for these spaces to promote cultures of free speech if for the sole reason than they are effectively the space for public discourse.
People are leaving, and they're taking their traffic and ad revenue with them. It is certainly within their power to not promote this culture of free speech, but those that are not are currently reaping the whirlwind.
Yes there is. And in society as a whole. And it isn't just misogyny.
I wish that someone with better gaming skills than me would do a few tests. As such:
Create an account with a female name and avatar. Play some games. Record the reactions.
Create an account that appears to be African American. Play some games. Record the reactions.
Create an account that appears to be LGBT. Play some games. Record the reactions.
Create an account that appears to be Jewish. Play some games. Record the reactions.
Create an account that appears to be Muslim. Play some games. Record the reactions.
Create an account that appears to be a teenage male. Play some games. Record the reactions.
I'd say that you'd find an amazing amount of hatred for each of those categories. Not because there really is that degree of specific hatred. But because the people losing are trying to hurt the victor with whatever insults they think might work.
While I believe that that is a MAJOR factor I think it is also an unconscious strategy on the part of the less competent gamers.
If a woman beats you at that game and you call her a whore and she leaves and never comes back then that is one less player who is better than you.
In my experience, no one bothers with directed insults at someone who is a worse player or who agrees with your opinions.
So, IMO, there is no solution in the larger context. But there are ways to mitigate it in the specific category of playing games. And the easiest to implement would be to restrict messages until a player has sufficient investment in a system to behave themselves.
I also hope that, someday, someone will come up with a variation of the Bechdel test to demonstrate how women are depicted in games. If the woman can be replaced with a bowling ball then there is a problem with the writing.
My daughter was kidnapped and is going to be auctioned into sexual slavery! I must kill all the peoples.
vs.
My bowling ball was stolen and is going to be auctioned on eBay. I must kill all the peoples.
In the glory gays of gaming you could swear and taunt and not have to worry about getting arrested for homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogyny etc. None of it is was meant maliciously and it should be considered playful banter.
you know, it's possible to play a game competitively WITHOUT calling the opposing team "fags". By respecting them, you respect yourself. If they pull of good teamwork, don't claim they are "cheating fags" compliment them on it and figure out how you can do the same.
This " basket ball court style trash-talk" isn't necessary, it isn't even necessary THERE.
It's not the gamer brand I'm worried about, it's the feminist brand. Bad feminists make feminism look bad, and stall progress on any noble goal they might be trying to achieve.
And yes, it's not up to me, but I can comment on them, tell them what will and won't work, and slap my head when they ignore common sense and drive their socially-just cause into a ditch.
Harrassing women is bad. Actions to diminish it are good. Actions which will not diminish it, but actually increase it are bad. That's what I'm against. These particular feminists are making gamers hate women more. Here is a feminist who agrees with me. Again, I've been following this for months, I assure you there is nothing righteous in defending these companies choices to "get on board early" because they are sinking the ship. Earnestly, I mean this. It's like unintentional sabotage. If early radio stations made audiences hate Otis Redding through bungling decision-making then black music would have been pushed back, and racisism would have been emboldened. Crazy feminists are doing that sort of damage to woman's causes.
If you really care about actual social progress, you should be able to discriminate between good paths toward improving the world, worthy of defending, and catastrophic setbacks like this one. Otherwise, I assume you are just picking a the side in a fight that will make you feel like a good person. You're just saying "I'm for human rights! I'm for equality!" without examining the issue, and unfortunately RTFA isn't enough for this one, because TFA emblematic of how bogus this whole issue is. So trust me. Social change which makes everyone inclusive is good, and you are right for supporting it. But this isn't that.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay