What Atari Was Really Like, According to Women Who Were There
kotaku.com
kotaku.com
EDIT: This is the article she's talking about: https://medium.com/@Brad_Glasgow/the-metoo-fueled-character-...
> Talking specifically about Brianna Wu, Loni Reeder said, “based on her political aspirations, personal assumptions, and libelous accusations against a man [Nolan Bushnell] where no complaints have been raised or filed — she made a big, unfounded noise against Nolan — and the Pioneer Award honor was withdrawn.”
> ...
> To Summarize…
> •Activists expressed prior desire to bring the #MeToo movement to the video game industry.
> •No one who has worked with Nolan Bushnell has complained of any impropriety.
> •Several past employees, including women, have come forward to speak in Bushnell’s defense.
> •Al Alcorn directly refutes Brianna Wu’s interpretation of his story.
> •All former Atari employees are telling stories that are consistent with one another.
> There were drugs, there were hot tubs, there were relationships, and none of that would fly today. But none of it indicates a culture that was hostile to women.
> Indeed, Loni Reeder and other former Atari employees recently worked on a spreadsheet in order to contradict the sexism claims being lobbed at Nolan Bushnell. According to their research, in those pre-Warner days of Atari, 36% of the workforce were women.
It's sounds like the accusations are basically a twitter political hit-job with little grounding in fact. Social media was a mistake.
The first question would be: is sexism okay if nobody minds? The immediate, modern answer has become "No." A zero-tolerance policy is being adopted by most organizations in the world, due to mounting pressure to hold people accountable for unacceptable behavior.
But it's clear that has not always been the case. If we rigidly judge all past behavior based on modern standards, we end up with cases like this. And maybe that's fine? Maybe we should judge all old actions based on modern standards, because we should continue to live by our current standards. But is this fair to the people who lived decades ago? Should we just say, they should have known better?
This second question is how other controversies have developed recently, such as the tearing down of monuments depicting people who represent injustice. We are judging their former actions based on modern-day standards. And again: maybe this is fine. But I don't think our society has come to a definite conclusion.
In any of these cases, a moderate person would perhaps try to find a common understanding and seek the best solution that weighs all the merits of each individual case. But society is not shaped by moderation. Emotional exuberance is how human society is guided, and the silent consent of the majority drives it forward. So expect more controversy for quite some time to come.
I guess I understand this from the perspective of HR, but I'm actually not sure I'm comfortable with this either.
The thing that separates rape from sex is consent. Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent. Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable?
I don't feel comfortable regulating the behavior of consenting adults. That is too close to violating their human rights.
Again, I get it if you're a company, and may be a large company that has to accommodate a number of people, some of whom might be new and might not be comfortable with these aspects of a company's culture, then it makes sense to regulate behavior for others. But it feels to me like this might bleed into other aspects of life.
> The thing that separates rape from sex is consent.
That's not true, but I'm sure a lot of people are trying to make that seem true.
> Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent.
What determines whether behavior is okay or isn't is society's moral standards. Consent is a part of this in some circumstances. You could argue that there are unwritten societal rules that we implicitly consent to as members of a society, but certainly not everything we do in society involves consent.
For example, according to law, I do not need your consent to talk to you. But it would appear that saying hello to a stranger is not considered bad behavior. Perhaps I have implicit consent to say hello to strangers? Or perhaps we just didn't need consent?
> Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable?
A lot of reasons, again, depending on the circumstance. The concept of 'informed consent' in medicine requires that a person be fully informed of the risks and consequences of a procedure before they can legally be said to have consented. This is to protect the patient as well as the surgeon. There is no consenting for assault according to federal law, which is designed to prevent difficult legal situations where someone might be said to have invited an assault. And there is the concept of 'implicit consent' when you obtain a driver's license that you will submit yourself to a chemical test for driving under the influence if a police officer has cause.
You don't really have human rights. You have human privileges.
> That's not true, but I'm sure a lot of people are trying to make that seem true.
What do you think the difference is then? And why do you think that your definition of the difference is more correct than the definition that the difference is consent?
The definition above becomes more hairy once you realize that there is no easy way to determine consent. Even if someone verbally agrees to something, you don't necessarily know if they were properly informed as to the consequences, or if they were intimidated, or misled, or felt obligated, or even if they were mentally competent at the time.
As an aside: if rape and sex are separate, does that mean rape doesn't involve sex? But sex is basically copulation. And that can certainly happen during rape. And rape can happen without copulation. So they're separate ideas, but whether they apply to one another depends on the circumstance.
So basically, the entire definition depends on the particular interpretation of two different concepts and trying to differentiate them in context. If you can establish those things with certainty, perhaps the definition is valid. But there's a lot of 'if's floating around for that to be a reliable definition.
This is why the law doesn't use the word! Instead there are laws against specific kinds of behavior that could be said to be rape, but use different terminology and apply in different ways. It's counter-productuve to cling to this one word to describe complex situations just because of the emotional weight and general ambiguity that the word carries.
At least, I presume that's what you mean...
I'm guessing something else about Atari's culture prevented the kind of problems that can crop up when you have a relaxed sexual attitude, but it isn't as easy to identify.
Would women like to return to a workplace atmosphere like early Atari's? I don't have a poll (and I hate to speak for them) but I would be very surprised if more than a small percentage of the women I know would say "yes".
Yeah, that's what it sounds like the whole truth is - there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it. #NotNolan focuses on the former, Glasgow on the latter, but the whole truth is a combination of the two. (And the Kotaku article attempts to convey both of those.)
So I'm particularly curious if there were women who weren't okay with the culture, felt uncomfortable or threatened, and left. Selecting for people who worked somewhere for a long time is naturally going to select for people who didn't have serious problems with the work culture / convinced themselves they were okay with it.
Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it?
Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Because at the time there were no strong taboos about this and everyone seems to have been enjoying themselves.
> it's a serious problem.
What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.
Nope, but if every single workplace is structured in a way that one group of people likes them all and one group of people dislikes them all, that does seem like a problem for the second group. (Also I think that describing it as just not a workplace they "like" is a poor way to describe it, but.)
I am actually of the opinion that, while I side with the opinions of the SJW folks at Google, for a Google-sized company to be so political in one direction is unfair to people of other political leanings, regardless of how strongly I disagree with those leanings. I do actually think that there should be a comparable workplace option in terms of pay and prestige for people with those political views who can't "bring their whole selves to work" at Google. I am more than happy to compete with them in the market and to recruit away any of their employees who don't hold those views, and I am extremely happy to fight via market and political means against specific policies they might seek to promote, but I don't think they should be cut out of employment entirely.
And whether you feel like a sexualized culture is an uncomfortable place to work is a lot harder to change than your political views. (Partly because it's correlated with gender a little more strongly than political views are, but even ignoring gender, it's correlated with things like base personality and sexuality and cultural upbringing.) If some people like a sexualized culture, great, I'm glad they have places to work - if all the good places to work are sexualized, I think that's a problem.
> What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.
This story started out because a present-day conference is presently considering giving an award to one of the people in this story, who is still alive, because that conference believes there's some relevance to the industry in the present that they represent.
Nobody is talking about whether to give an present-day award to Cato. Nobody is even talking about whether to give a present-day award to Nabokov, who died around the time being discussed here. If you want to call that ancient history, sure. But you can't simultaneously hold the position that this particular culture was ancient history and it's deserving of an award today.
I'm fine with the conclusion "This is not our present-day culture, and we don't think that it's appropriate for us to either endorse or condemn it, so let's focus on giving awards for present-day achievements instead" - which is more or less what ended up happening, it sounds like.
Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers?
What's that supposed to prove? That I might retroactively impose modern values in some other area? For all I know, they enjoyed having the extra free time.
That's leaving aside the question of whether the particular unknown-unknown is actually better for them, or just something we'd like to be better for them.
You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck."
I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where someone could graduate top of her class in law school and be offered a secretarial position in a law firm. Back then, law firms were full of bright women who could have been lawyers, who became secretaries because that's just the way things were. Most people didn't see anything wrong with it, except the vocal minority. But ask women today, and you'll get a very different response. That's not a "cultural" difference. People back then weren't just more okay with wasting their potential. It’s just that their understanding of what is possible was circumscribed. The difference now is that people now know what's possible. "I can be a lawyer and not a secretary?" "I can work in an office without my coworkers inviting me into a hot tub?"
To look at it another way: I've never met a woman who was like "you know what I want? For it to be more okay for men to make sexual advances at work." “I think it would be great if things were like Mad Men again.” They don’t say that, because that was a state of affairs that overwhelmingly benefited men.
Literally, by all accounts, they liked it and did not view it as problematic. They didn't just "tolerate" it.
And honestly the correct adjective is probably "sexualized" not "sexist."
> You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck."
No, they're not any more objective. If they were, they'd take the testimony of the people who where actually there more seriously, seeing as those are the facts. Instead, we get contemporary subjectivity passed off as the objective truth. The 2018s are aslo in a sense violating these Atari women by taking away their right to characterize their own experiences and lives.
The most interesting aspects of this part of Atari, by far, are left unexplored because we can't escape the rubric of 2018 gender discussions.
> I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where...
Did any of those women work for Atari by chance? As a lawyer you should know that you can't pull random facts out of one case to "prove" another. We are not talking about a generalization about "women of a generation," we're talking about Atari in a specific time period.
Why? Assuming the answer is 'yes', what does this change? Assuming the answer is 'no', what does this change?
If the answer is "no," that changes my belief about whether today's cultural norms against sexist workplaces are an objective good.
(Both of these changes would be small but measurable updates.)
What article did you read? Nothing linked says anything like that.
Ctrl-F "sexist" in the article linked in the grandparent comment:
no results and any quotes from any of the Atari women.
Ctrl-F "sexism" in the article linked in the grandparent comment:
one result:
> Indeed, Loni Reeder and other former Atari employees recently worked on a spreadsheet in order to contradict the sexism claims being lobbed at Nolan Bushnell.
Not that it matters, because, again, they made a game where you grab a woman's tits, and the CEO has made a big deal about the playboy environment for years.
> “There was a certain amount of sexism as far as ogling,” she said. “But that went both ways.” [emphasis mine]
You'd make a shitty historian because you can't seem to help but impose your modern POV onto historical events. These people clearly had a very different perspective than you on all of this, and their perspective is, frankly, the more important one.
If we’re talking about Confederate generals, it is worth saying that plenty of people at the time said their actions were wrong and they were defending an unjust system. Yet they did so anyway.
> Activists expressed prior desire to bring the #MeToo movement to the video game industry.
I'm not sure why this is highlighted as a bad thing. People should be free to speak up about these sorts of thing in any industry, and there's not going to be any industry totally free of incidents.
> No one who has worked with Nolan Bushnell has complained of any impropriety.
As we've seen with Weinstein, some abusers have decades of misbehavior they've managed to successfully cover up with NDAs, legal threats, and other forms of coercion.
> Several past employees, including women, have come forward to speak in Bushnell’s defense.
Again, frequently seen in cases of abusers. People spoke in defense of Weinstein, too. Trump trots out female friends and employees. Some settlements require the victims to issue a statement that they're retracting the claims. etc.
> I'm not sure why this is highlighted as a bad thing. People should be free to speak up about these sorts of thing in any industry, and there's not going to be any industry totally free of incidents.
It's not a bad thing to have the video game industry able to call out sexual harassment when it occurs. It is a bad thing to paint something as harassment that wasn't perceived as harassment by the "victims", in the name of getting #MeToo rolling in the video game industry. Essentially, it's false accusation in order to advance the movement. That's not going to end well.
The victims in the Nassar gymnastics case were largely convinced as part of the abuse that the "treatments" they were normal and legitimate.
It's entirely possible for victims to become inured to mistreatment. It's not necessarily bad for an outside person to say "hey, that sounds like it was harassment/misconduct/rape/etc. and not OK."
Again, I don't know the players here, the history, and can't evaluate either side of things. I do object to the "if the victims don't complain it can't have happened" line of thinking.
It's starting with the conclusion and stretching whatever you find to meet it, versus looking at reality and accurately describing what you find.
Whenever someone starts with a conclusion, you can't trust that their facts accurately depict reality. It's now a propaganda piece or a sales pitch, and you can only trust that it's the best thing they could find to support their agenda.
It, in and of itself, is not presented as a bad thing.
It lays the foundation for a conclusion that someone with that goal, might be less that prefect at separating it from their good-faith attempt to report accurately on a sexualized office culture.
Of course there are people who will not trust Wu's motivations. However, I'm trying to avoid that tangent by presenting a line of thought where even the most honest attempts to be fair, honest, accurate, etc... can be confounded by other motivations and it's worthwhile to bring those up. In general people are really bad at isolating multiple goals, we typically use systematic approaches and/or review from other people to minimize their influence when seeking accuracy.
"Alcorn’s hot tub board meeting story was intended to be humorous. Alcorn was remembering a time when the board of directors pissed off their attorney by handling legal documents in a pool of water. In retelling that story, an important detail was neglected — who was on the board of directors — and that detail sheds light on the tone of Bushnell’s invitation.
Who was in that meeting, alongside Bushnell and Dabney? Their wives. Paula Bushnell and Joan Dabney were board members. Now, we have a story where at least two married couples were in a hot tub with six other people and an attorney standing by, and Bushnell, married, invited his assistant to join them. Does this sound more like a friendly proposal, or something untoward?"
In particular, the casual dismissal of saying that someone "bills herself as a game designer and activist" and the off-hand reference to "former GDC Pioneer Award winner Markus 'Notch' Pearson" without mentioning Notch's strong ideological biases re social issues and the game industry, make me feel like there's something undisclosed here.
If we're going to be wary of journalists misrepresenting sources to fit an agenda, I feel like we should apply that principle consistently.
- he has skipped interviewing dissenting voices - do you have evidence of this(interviewed by other media) or do you think they have been neglected by everyone?
- he has twisted the interviews to fit the agenda - do you have evidence of the interviewees objecting to their representation, or do you think they are scared/don't care to speak up?
I don't find any of these scenarios plausible or likely, but perhaps you have more evidence than me to demonstrate that Glasgow was spinning a narrative?
Do you have a link or can you sumarize what those biases are?
I think some things he has claimed were jokes but I don't know.
[0]: And these standards aren't broadly shared. Rather there's a vocal minority who wants to classify much of what was previously common behavior as harassment.
As for Atari:
> Holding board meetings in hot tubs, asking a secretary to get in with them. Doling out “the best-looking secretaries” like prizes to the star employees. Code-naming the home version of Pong after a female employee whom Bushnell said in 2012 “was stacked and had the tiniest waist.” Making a 1973 game called Gotcha, with joysticks replaced by a pair of pink silicone domes, meant to look and feel like breasts.
Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong.
This isn't anything like Loving v. Virginia, and that's very easy to see: The Lovings were pretty clearly unhappy with their lot in 1968, hence the lawsuit bearing their name. The people who were actually part of the Atari culture aren't complaining about it, and they're actually organizing to dispute the accusations.
The only people complaining about any of this are twitter activists in 2018, and they don't have any credibility, frankly.
All of the evidence we have at this point is positive towards the Atari culture. If the standard is "it was shitty unless you can prove a negative," then there's not much point talking about any of this. Burn the books because we already know everything we need to know.
And yet, those who were there say:
“sex, drugs, and video games,” but one in which all 12 employees say they freely participated, if they participated at all
If everyone who partakes is (enthusiastically) consenting and those who abstain are in no way coerced to do so, what is "wrong"? Who has been "wronged"? How?
it was the best job they ever had
That is true. However... are you sure you would side with the people who knew this was wrong, were you in 1970? Because in 1970, that would be the conservatives, the church-goers, the ones who were not going along with the sexual revolution and were sticking to older mores.
The direct linear ideological ancestors of the current dominant Silicon Valley liberalism were not decrying this sexual liberation... they were the ones creating it, normalizing it, and outright celebrating it, and rubbing the noses of the redneck rubes in flyover country over it, the same redneck rubes in flyover country that the HN gestalt so frequently sneers at today.
The Silicon Valley of 1970 would not pick up the morals 2018 is trying to impose on them. They would actively rebel, because frankly the #meToo morals are rapidly evolving into, if not already at, something even more strict than what the people in 1970 were already rebelling against as being square and out of date!
This is not a new observation. Many radical feminists, Dworkin for example, were deeply skeptical of the sexual revolution, and acknowledged that she shared some common ground with conservative women in that regard.
Well, part of my point is that Atari isn't "them". It is, for most of HN, "us, only fifty years ago". And not just "us, as in Silicon Valley is like really racist and stuff, but not me, oh no, so us but not the us that includes me", but literally us. These were the direct ancestors of Silicon Valley liberalism.
I'm saying that if the moral harridans of 2018 are going to be going back in history to the 1970s to condemn people (and beyond), I'd like to see some sort of reckoning with the history of what's going on here, if for no other reason than to perhaps convince people to slow down a bit and dampen the wildly swaying pendulum before rewriting the social contract willy-nilly again next week. It honestly blows my mind how the direct lineal descendants of the Sexual Revolution are now putting forth a morality that is actually stricter than what conservatives have stuck too, a morality in which even if everyone is adult and consents it can still be condemned if it isn't 2018-approved, with just-barely-not-nonexistent examinations of how that happened and whether it's really a good idea. Where will the pendulum swing next?
I also disagree with the idea that it’s a “pendulum.” It’s moving in the direction of increased autonomy and self determination for women. Sexual revolution: “we don’t want to be trapped into marriage and motherhood by sexual mores.” Women didn’t want “sex in the workplace”—they were just willing to accommodate it because it freed them from something worse. But now women aren’t forced into marriage and motherhood. But they have more demands. “We noticed that men still have most of the power in the workplace. We want to advance in our careers without having to deal with men trying to use that power to get sex.” These are not contradictory at all.
But I'm a pragmatist and have the annoying habit of looking at the facts on the ground before accepting the theory. When I read the Twitter stream that was linked by seany, I do not see women celebrating that they no longer have to "deal with men trying to use that power to get sex". I see real women being brushed aside, and I see modern day harridans simply assuming and telling them what to feel and de facto what morality they should subscribe to, and whether they should be offended, and if the real women doesn't want to play ball with that, I see real women being essentially disenfranchised from the conversation.
I don't care what pretty theory you wrap around that. It's wrong, and a pendulum that has swung too far. People getting offended on behalf of other people, for events that may very well have happened before the offended people were even born, and disenfranchising them if they disagree is not progress. It's not respectful of women. It is one very loud group using other people, in the worst sense of the term "using", and not caring about what facts get in the way. That is not sustainable, and it will not last, and the longer people try to maintain it by paying too much attention to the pretty theories while ignoring the ugly facts on the ground, the worse the backlash is going to be.
And obviously working at Atari wasn’t like being in Bangladesh. But the basic principle applies. Taking a poll of disenfranchised people is not useful because one of the central features of disenfranchisement is that most people are resigned to it. The question isn’t what they think. That’s not how you judge the culture. How you judge it is to go to people who have experienced something different, and ask them if they’d trade places.
Really bad comparison on my part in GP but I think my point stands. Just because something was "common" back in the day doesn't mean it's acceptable today and we shouldn't be rewarding people for things that today we see as harmful even though they weren't considered to be in the past.
Rewarding shitty past behavior is how we remain stuck with shitty behavior.
And again, you really need to evaluate whether it's a "vocal minority" or is actually a majority with a vocal subset.
The woman who took issue with the framing thought the Kotaku article was too hard on Atari's culture, so that only supports my argument.
The people involved don't think the behavior was shitty. It's only now, 40+ years after the fact, that people on twitter are complaining about it.
Analyzing an era retrospectively is really interesting for that reason. You can see the mass-consciousness that influenced everyone, you can see people getting caught up in the energy of their time. And I wonder what will be said about our time in 50 years. We still look at things with a dualistic perspective; is it right, or is it wrong? I think what I'm looking for in general is balance-- in that, there is no right or wrong, it's a dynamic definition, if it should be defined at all-- and I think the movements of different times take extremes in order to bring balance. A good deal of my thoughts about our culture at the moment is that we are right at the tip of extremism, trying to balance the opposite extremes of the ages before us. So I wonder what balance looks like. If equilibrium can be reached, does that mean stagnation? Surely a bomb will be thrown at the resting pile and we'll have to find balance within that system once again.
Maybe the question I'm asking, maybe the question every body is asking, is what's my role in this? I'd rather not think about it and just live my life the way I want to live, but surrounded by so many extremes, so many ideals, I find I'm constantly being pushed to participate. And maybe that's not a bad thing. I tend to throw a little middle-ground in there. It's very complex at the moment.
> “Every woman of my vintage knows what sexual harassment is, although we didn’t have a name for it,” she told the session’s moderator, Nina Totenberg, before detailing an incident when she was a student at Cornell in the 1950s and preparing for a chemistry test.
> “My instructor said … ‘I’ll give you a practice exam,'” Ginsburg said. The next day she discovered that the practice exam was, in fact, the real test. “And I knew exactly what he wanted in return,” she said. “And that’s just one of many examples.”
> Ginsburg said there was nothing a young woman could do about harassment at the time. The general attitude of the day, she said, was “get past it” and “boys will be boys.”
[0] speaking in general, not just this story
How so? This seems like a pretty good defense of it:
> Over the last week, Kotaku interviewed 12 of Atari’s earliest female employees, in the hopes of hearing their stories—good or bad—about working at Atari in the ‘70s and early ‘80s. The culture they told us about was certainly, as Playboy described it, one of “sex, drugs, and video games,” but one in which all 12 employees say they freely participated, if they participated at all. Many interviewees said it was the best job they ever had, adding that news of Bushnell’s rescinded award struck them as shocking or unfair.
> “It’s drive-by assassination,” said Loni Reeder, who worked at Atari for two years and, later, co-founded a company with Bushnell. “I think there’s an element of telephone being played. Every day was not a wet t-shirt contest.” Reeder added, “There’s a collective anger amongst us toward the individuals who made this a big deal.”
There's this idea now that workplaces are oppressive unless they are totally asexual, but stories like these prove that false. It's a cultural idea that's embedded in our current time, and it isn't necessarily even progress unless you assume the now is best and the past is worse.
EDIT: found the source https://twitter.com/roundsqrcupola/status/927331324574216193
Many of these things are cultural and very much dependent on society and how you were brought up in it. That's not to say that society as a whole cannot mess it up in a legendary way (judging from an outside perspective).
I see history not as a linear progression towards a culture or society that is more just, better or more moral. It's not been proven either way, but I suggest non-action and non-judgment on an individual level. I understand you to mean that we should actively pass judgment on individuals that are part of a culture that we consider inferior because they are older.
"If it isn’t the women of Atari who paint a bad picture of Nolan Bushnell, it’s the culture he created there that, decades later, has mushroomed into something else. It’s a culture where bragging about “stacked” secretaries as late as 2012 garnishes Atari’s mythos instead of muddying it. It’s a culture where Carol Kantor’s groundbreaking research isn’t evoked as often as a hot tub purchased to lure in new talent. It’s a culture that, today, celebrates the sexiness of Atari’s early women employees more loudly than their contributions. If it isn’t the women of Atari who paint a bad picture of Nolan Bushnell, it is his braggadocio attitude, his carnival-barker hype with a chauvinist tinge, that does."
Also why does anyone care what the culture of Atari is today? Look at their website https://www.atari.com . They are NOT a force in the gaming industry. No one looks to them to set expectations of behavior. They basically only exist to port classic implementations of ancient games onto new hardware. If there core offering is nostalgia, I wouldn't be surprised if there office culture is a little behind the times.
This feels like the a take down piece on the shitty culture at my local gamestop. It might not disagree that Atari culture sucks, but I don't understand why anyone should care.
Disclaimer: Nolan Bushnell was briefly my neighbor. He was a super shitty neighbor and his construction workers parked on my lawn. In case he reads this... all the neighbors still don't like you 15 years later. Should I write on article about it to expose him?
I should probably delete my comment but I will let the dumbassary stand for shaming purposes.
Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, and the like, have weponized victimhood into lucrative careers. They embody everything wrong with the direction into which modern feminism is morphing - this article, what transpired at google recently, gamergate, all symptomatic of narcissistic, sociopathic women using perceived, and in some cases invented, oppression and harassment, in order to accumulate power and wealth.
For some reason, the tech industry seems to be particularly accommodating for this toxic culture, and the spread of unnecessary guilt. These divisive politics are infesting every facet of our first world culture.
We should not give these people attention. They damage the movement that they claim to champion by behaving so irrationally, so viciously, so selfishly.
Dont believe me? Look up Anita's past as a literal con artist.
I'm not interested in making personal attacks. I'm only highlighting two of the more prominent scammers that hide behind this facade of tolerance and inclusiveness, a behavior which I find particularly abhorrent, especially when combined with life ruinous doxxing and trial by twitter, which these women specifically and hypocritically complain about.
There are two sides to every story, after all. It isn't fair to simply dismiss any inconvenient argument as an ad hominem. Perhaps you should make an open minded attempt to understand why there are millions of successful, rational, adjusted people who feel as I do, but only in secret. Ask yourself, why is it taboo to critically analyze anything associated with these women or modern feminism?
> Perhaps you should make an open minded attempt to understand why there are millions of successful, rational, adjusted people who feel as I do, but only in secret.
Because bigotry is rational. If you can keep out 50% of the competition, why wouldn't you?
Millions of successful, rational, adjusted (relative to their culture) people were huge fans of slavery in the US. The free population of the Confederacy had plenty to lose and little to gain - at least within the timespan of slaveholders' lives, the necessary economic changes weren't going to happen immediately - from slavery becoming illegal. Obviously they were willing to give their lives to prevent that. The fact that certain immoral things are rational, popular, socially accepted, or even inspiring of self-sacrifice isn't really surprising to me. (And supporting casual and pervasive sexism is much, much milder than supporting slavery, so it's even less surprising to see it having lots of support.)
Name calling like "symptomatic of narcissistic, sociopathic women", claiming they invented harassment for personal gain and calling one a "literal con artist" (a person who isn't involved or mentioned at all in this article btw) without explanation are all personal attacks.
And then you actually complain of "divisive politics"? Maybe consider taking some of your own advice, and ask yourself why people might react negatively to the things you write.
I have none assembled, and am not interested in searching reddit, for example, which you could easily do yourself; But I encourage you to look into it, because this is my highest rated comment on HN, suggesting that there is a distinct population on this forum who share these views, but perhaps are unwilling to express them publicly because of what has become a taboo.
If you can't believe I hold my opinions honestly, not based on ignorance or because I haven't "looked into it", then you are in an echo chamber of the worst kind.
Feminism has always had a strong puritanical segment, since before it was even called feminism, back into the suffragist roots. It ties into the divide between secular/egalitarian/rights-oriented and Christian/moralizing/outcome-oriented feminism (and, earlier, suffragism), and also the (related and overlapping, but distinct) divide between bourgeois and proletarian feminism.
But I don't think modern feminism is particularly more puritanical than earlier forms, nor any more contrary to "the roots of women's sexual liberation" (the stream within feminism that is contrary to that still exists, of course, but it doesn't seem to be any more dominant within feminism that at any point in the past; if anything, its weaker.)
Ross Douthat is a politically right-wing anti-feminist; his anti-pornography attitude is unsurprising (and not new [0]; what's new is his attempt to tie it to #MeToo) but has nothing to do with the "sex-negative forms of feminism".
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/10/is-porn...
(I think his stance may be more related to conservatism and religion)
Another possibility that comes to mind is today's hard-core helicopter parenting. As more and more stuff comes out about how ultimately damaging it is it's going to be harder and harder to justify. But it will be interesting watching the school systems have to adjust back to allowing boys to rough house and take risks after so many years of inhibiting it. That's going to be a rough transition.
Could be a sampling bias, an old friend's sister is a tattoo artist in Pittsburgh and I know numerous people with tattoos, but I don't see them going anywhere. Quite the opposite, I think they'll become more common in more segments of the population.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/cipher-pharmaceuticals...
The important thing is not if tattoos will become unacceptable in the future, but trying to think what might change. Porn is another one especially if the pseudo-anonymity aspect is removed. I could certain imagine a future where porn returns to the margins.
I do see your point though. Guess we'll see!