Gamers | Hacker News Reader

Gamers

mattgemmell.com

39 pointsingve187 comments

As usual, a discussion of bullying which makes no attempt to understand the bullies beyond broad suppositions of demography. Approximately 16 billion words have been written about how bullies are terrible people, etc. etc., yet your condemnations seem to have little effect - what was Einstein's definition of insanity? Try something new.

When you want to harass someone - and let's be honest, you, dear reader, have indeed wanted to harass someone at some point in your life - what do you do? You pick something you believe they will be sensitive to and remind them of it in a mean-spirited way. So, if the bully can tell you're a girl in a male-dominated space, that's what he's going to pick. You may (and problably do) receive this as worse harassment than I receive being called a faggot ("Lol another guy calling me a faggot"), but the bully doesn't need to be a worse person in order to choose to harass you in that way. Both times, it's the exact same guy, and both times, he's just reaching into his insult grab bag. What's he's not doing (necessarily, anyways) by calling you a "stupid slut" is revealing his deep-seated mistrust of women. If you're coming to that conclusion, you're overrating the complexity of the thought process that goes into online harassment. Which is to say, the problem is not what he thinks - it's that he's not.

Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and telling a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid whore"? The latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America will be raped in their lifetime. (edit: 1 in 6 is more accurate http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...) It's not an unrealistic threat, and it's much more likely to bring up trauma.

Yes I would. But I would disagree that that difference is relevant to understanding the problem. In a nutshell, that was the point of my post. Understanding must come first.

Bullies will find a way to harass people, regardless of gender, is your point? I agree with that. The article is trying to point out that the gaming community is hostile towards women. I don't think your point is all that relevant to the discussion.

But it masks the true problem, that online communities tend to be hostile to everyone. Not just gaming communities and not just women.

Bullshit. They are not equally hostile to everyone.

Are you saying this anecdotally or do you have data to back this up?

http://blog.pricecharting.com/2012/09/emilyami-sexism-in-vid...

Not as academic as I'm sure we'd both like, but there's not a lot of funding for studies that deal with online harassment.

How can there be more online harassment against women when most hardcore gamers are men? You're full of shit.

This is a study about sexism not harassment.

If you're not going to read the sources you specifically requested, I'm not going to bother.

I did read your source, I think you miss understood me, I am saying that "sexual harassment" is biased towards women, if you asked a different set of questions that was focused on general harassment you would have a much less biased report, that would show that men are too harassed when playing online games. It would be like asking a group of straight men and homosexual men if they felt they were being harassed for their sexual preferences.

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/146144481245... this too

"Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice."

What did the study find when male voices where played in female dominated online communities? To draw a conclusion dont you need to contrast it with that?

If you wanted to draw a completely different conclusion, sure, but this is talking about how the male-dominated gaming community treats women. It's not talking about how a female-dominated gaming community would treat men.

Anecdotally, the gaming communities that I've been a part of that have had more representation of women have been much more pleasant.

So do you think harassment is a male problem?

You're the only one who's full of bullshit in this thread.

Well, you and the OP, assuming you're not the same person. I have a feeling you might be, though.

No, it's not, though I will cede that the distinction is a subtle one. My point is that their specific words are not important to them. They're just saying whatever. By the letter of the definition, it is sexual harassment, but by the spirit of their actions, it is not. And if you don't understand why someone is acting the way they are, you stand little chance of persuading them to change their ways. You can stand around and quote rape statistics all you want - it will fall on deaf ears. It has.

So let's say that is true. It obviously doesn't matter to the woman who hears it. So how do we fix it?

We point out agenda-designed bullshit whenever we hear it, like I just did with you, twice.

First you identify the real problem. The root problem is not that people are harassing women, the true problem is people are harassing people online. You can argue that you think it is worse when women are effected but that distinction does not get us closer to a solution and only serves to drive a wedge between people. Arguments about who is victimized more are useless.

That's a really interesting point. Thank you for the perspective.

HN won't let me reply to your more recent comment for some reason.

As I see it, you have two options: a) change millions of people to your liking; b) change yourself to your liking. It is not "obviously" true that strangers' words must affect you. If it feels that way, it's because you haven't learned how not to let them. (This is the point the others miss when telling you to just ignore it. The skill is a learned one, not as simple as choosing ketchup vs. mustard, like they make it out to be.)

Let's practice: If they don't care what they're saying, then why do you? Non-rhetorical.

Are you suggesting that this hypothetical situation is much more likely to bring up traumatic emotions, or are you suggesting that more women are actually attacked as a result of online encounters? If the former, then I'm not convinced that other peoples' reactions to things that somebody says (over the Internet, no less) should be that person's responsibility. If the latter, then that's quite the claim, and one without a shred of proof from you.

The former. If you're not convinced other peoples reactions to what you say matter, then try making dead baby jokes in front of someone who's had a miscarriage.

As for the latter, I would suggest instead that more women are driven away from the gaming community because of online encounters. People can say "oh just ignore it" or "grow a thicker skin", but with that reaction eventually you'll have a community of just male gamers who don't mind being told they're going to be raped while playing a game.

You do not have a right to not be offended.

And more than that, if I spent the time required to avoid offending people that I talked to, I wouldn't have any time left over to think about anything else. I'm not willing to do that, for more reasons than just that I value my time highly.

I value my right to free speech at least as highly as I value my time, possibly more.

> Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and telling a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid whore"? The latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America will be raped in their lifetime.

Granting, for the sake of argument, the basic premise that the latter statement would have greater weight if the proportion of women who would be raped in their lifetime was greater than the proportion of men for whom that is true [1], and granting the assertion about the lower bound on the prevalence of rape victimization for women [2], you would need to also provide [3] an upper bound on the prevalence of rape victimization for men that was lower than that lower bound for women for this to work.

[1] Which I would not grant except for the sake of argument, without additional argument for it, because there are a number of problems I see with that premise on its face, but they are secondary to the more glaring problem of the missing comparison.

[2] Which really should be supported by something.

[3] And, as in [2], support.

You're really going to argue that more men are raped than women in America?

> You're really going to argue that more men are raped than women in America?

No, I'm going to argue that if you choose to make an argument implicitly premised on the different rape victimization by sex, you can't support it with just an unsupported statistic for one sex.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...

> About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.1

> In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.2

Male rape is highly stigmatized, my uncle was raped and never reported it. Reported != Actual.

That's a great point, and I completely agree that reported stats are not equal to the actual stats. I would still say that there are more women raped in America than men.

I would say that there are more women reporting rape in America than men asserting anything other than that is your opinion.

You would be lying if you did that.

http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-US...

That article didn't cite any of its data, and it even conflates reported rapes with rape estimates.

It's US Justice Department figures.

> Male rape is highly stigmatized

Incidentally, this (even assuming reliable victimization stats that weren't distorted by it) is one of the reasons why I wouldn't assume that the threat was necessarily less serious issued against a male based simply on victimization stats indicating that women were more likely to be victimized.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-US...

TIL, thanks for the link. However, I don't think they have xbox live in prison.

You talked about real rape, and so did I. Moving goalposts gets you nothing.

> However, I don't think they have xbox live in prison.

People who have been in prison can, quite easily, have Xbox Live.

Not with the sentence lengths and recidivism rates of our justice system. Do you know how hard it is to get a job and stay out of prison with something like a felony on your record?

You're wasting your time. Xboxes has nothing to do with your claim. You made a claim about women being victims of actual rape more often. That is a lie. You got caught lying.

Oookay buddy. I didn't know about the prison statistics. I do now, and I even thanked you for providing the link. It has everything to do with the argument, because we're talking about online harassment, which you can't do or be a victim of if you're in prison.

No. You made a specific claim about women being the victims of rape more often. That got debunked as a lie, and yet you're repeating the claim all over the thread. You can't claim ignorance at this point. You're malicious.

Check timestamps?

Stop lying.

Stop trolling.

Stop trying to derail. Stop lying. Stop using hate speech.

> Not with the sentence lengths and recidivism rates of our justice system.

There's very many more ex-prisoners in the US than prisoners, so that's manifestly false. (As of 2008, about 1.5 million prisoners and 5.5 million ex-prisoners [1].)

[1] http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010...

Don't believe that link. It's garbage designed to pander to women-hating adolescents — a group that the person you replied to has no problem flaunting his affiliation with.

Thanks, I figured that out eventually.

Being the most raped sex isnt a prize to be coveted, I think he is trying to point out (while immaturely) that the stats quoted by pyrocat where not fair and where heavily biased.

What's immature about calling out lies and hate speech?

Nothing, and in part I agree with you, but your delivery leaves cracks for them to bully you while ignoring what your saying.

I appreciate your concern, but these people are not capable of bullying me. They cannot get to me. I know their mentality and their tactics inside and out.

Don't believe this poster. She's garbage designed to pander to man-hating female supremacists - a group that the person I just replied to has no problem flaunting her affiliation with.

I am not sure why you think its realistic to take the threat of rape while playing a video game seriously. Do you have any data to back up this claim that it is in fact a serious threat? I am not trying to detract from the message that it is bad but this seems silly.

I'm saying it's more of a realistic threat to women than it is to men. And because of data (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...), when it's a women, the likelyhood that the person hearing the threat has been raped is pretty high.

Where is the data that shows how many people who have been raped after playing a video game.

That statistic is complete bunk.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-in-four-lie...

Rape is a bigger threat to men.

http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-US...

You knowingly perpetrate lies under a sexist agenda. You have absolutely no shame.

Neither of your links cite any actual sources, and the second link conflates "reported rapes" with "estimated rapes".

I'm actually concerned why you aren't hellbanned yet.

The former cites its source, and the latter is US Justice Department figures.

You're a typical female supremacist. You try to ban what you can't shout down. You're sickening.

Asking for people to be banned is against the etiquette, you shouldnt be calling for people who link to bunk websites to be banned as you would both end up banned.

That statistic is complete bunk.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-in-four-lie...

You seem to have a thing for posting sources that don't cite anything they claim.

It cites its source. It's a link. Try clicking on it.

Sometimes sexual harassment is just harassment.

Many male dominated institutions (the army) are hotbeds of sexual harassment that has nothing to do with desire on anybody's part. It's just an effective way to rattle somebody.

The primary sexism is that any male victim to speak out will be ostracized or further harassed. Thus the bad behavior continues until a woman, empowered to speak out by her gender, becomes a target.

You don't think there's man-on-man rape in the army? Even if it's "just an effective way to rattle somebody" does that make it any less terrible? Or not worth fixing?

Actually no. This is a specious argument that make men the victim. He specifically called out three instances where women were "empowered to speak out by her gender" and had the roiling mass of manchildren strike back, specifically with more sexual harassment (as well as some of the more mundane harassment).

A guy who tells a girl he's going to do some sexual act to her over an XBox Live chat isn't doing it to rattle his opponent. He's doing it to drive her away.

I think hes saying people who are lashing out are trying to choose the most effective tool at their disposal, I have received many xbox live taunts, "you are gay", "fagget" etc. Because that is what they believe to be the best way to hurt my feelings, it isnt an inherit desire to be homophobic, or in the case of women sexist, but the desire to be hurtful in a way tailored for the intended target.

> "you are gay", "fagget" etc.

> Because that is what they believe to be the best way to hurt my feelings

TLDR: These people probably aren't trying to hurt your feelings, their language -- while shocking to you -- is a product of a different culture.

I think this is a cultural difference between you and them. You must realize that much of HN -- I'm assuming this includes you -- lives in a bubble of left-leaning people from left-leaning urban areas.

Growing up in a different time and place, in middle and high school I always thought calling someone "faggot" or "gay" was roughly the same as "idiot", "jerk" or "asshole" -- a generic insult not meant to be taken literally. And in the context of a multiplayer game, especially online, such a word is typically used to express momentary anger at the in-game situation, not trying to attack you personally.

It was quite a culture shock to me when I got to college and discovered that most people on campus viewed insulting someone by calling them a "faggot" to be political incorrectness of the same order as calling someone a "nigger" or "retard".

I understand what you are saying but I can assure you this isnt delivered in the same way you are describing, its not hard to misinterpret the intent of someone sending you all caps messages and screaming down their mic.

Well, if you're seriously left-leaning you might think calling somebody a "faggot" is praise...

Female privilege allows you to frame a man for rape or sexual harassment even if the man did absolutely nothing.

Why must the entirety of society watch their tongues just to make sure poor little victim you doesn't get mildly offended?

Ignore it, tell them to fuck off, and move on. It's a fairly simple concept really. You are WEAK if some randoms comments in an online video game get you this rattled.

This isn't about watching your tongue. This is about not harassing someone.

I actually recognized your name from the other thread on the front page right now about a woman being harassed due to her having a rare skin disorder.[0] In it, you post a comment[1] clearly contradicting your opinions here, including such things as:

> I truly believe after spending so much time on Reddit I became a worse person [...] It's taken me quite awhile to get back to being a normal, nice, human being

What caused you to do such a 180?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6937945

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6938146

Sorry I'm really not seeing the contradiction. Do you mean about me spending time on a site and not heeding my own advice of turning the other way or what? Or is it me sounding like an asshole in the comment you replied to?

You being an asshole in the comment I replied to. It's like you posted the comment in the other thread and completely forgot about it.

It's difficult to sense tone in a comment.

Judging from the article and how people are defending this line of thinking it is actually about "Not sexually harassing women" than stop harassing people, we will fix nothing when we focus on one group and say their harassment is special and is caused by special reasons.

I agree with this article but disagree with the authors choice to not call himself a gamer. Be the change you want to see in the world. Own the label and be "one of the good ones" and eventually you can be proud to call yourself a gamer. At least, that's what I'm going to do.

Oh come on. I can't talk about the others, but Dina Karam had no business being within ten metric AUs of Mighty No.9

She was hired, BY HER OWN ADMISSION, because her bf works for Comcept. The only bit of art she posted was a godawful female version of Beck (the main character) with a lip piercing and lipstick like a companion-for-hire after a busy night. Much better versions were made by fans later, btw. The outcry is because she's completely unqualified at her job. Here's a youtube video summarising the first few days of the disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDSfUJBCj0 .

It's like hiring a dudebro who has only played Madden on the team for a spiritual successor for Ico.

There have been MegaMan games with female protagonists, btw. Of the newer ones ZX springs to mind.

Sorry for the hasty post, I didn't back that kickstarter and it still makes me mad. I went and backed Shantae. At least the designer on that team is a sane woman who knows her craft.

what on earth does her skill as an artist have to do with being a community manager? do you know anything about game development?

You know what, here's a few representative snapshots from the backer forums. http://imgur.com/a/oUd1p There may be duplicates.

Lots of broad generalizations without any stats. I have gamed in the past in guilds with female members, and none of them have been treated particularly poorly.

The anonymity of the internet will always bring out the worst in some, and that is a much more powerful factor than being a gamer.

I think the majority of the trash talking happens with anonymously matched competitions where voice chat is enabled.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder how much of the problem is a result of the games themselves. A majority of games, and almost all "real games" (as categorized by people who identify themselves as gamers), are not only violent, but portray violence as the most straight forward way to resolve conflict.

If someone is truly engrossed in a medium where the default interpersonal resolution method is to "defeat" the opposing party by whatever rules are deemed legal by the system, it's not hard to see why every time that person is provided with an alternate viewpoint it would be met with toxic hostility.

If the only tool you have is a gun or sword, everything looks like a target or monster.

As a side note, I've been finding puzzle and adventure games much more appealing as of late because it's not all about killing other people.

I get that a lot of games aren't about such things, even if weapons and shooting are their medium; but it seems like a few choice games recently have been about that and it's really awkward. The new Killzone is about two racist factions where you basically play the bad guys, for example.

On the other hand, games like League of Legends and Counter Strike may have death, but they have about as much impact as getting shot with a paintball round. It's a way to say 'tag' in an effective way (Counter Strike) , or to push someone out so you can complete your objective (League of Legends), and those are just normal sporting activities.

I don't know. Pardon me while I wave my cane and yell loudly to get off my lawn, but I agree with you about these sorts of issues in recent games.

I see it less being an issue of violence, and more of an issue of conflict being the only means of resolution. It's become so pervasive, that a game where you don't fight or compete against SOMETHING is considered very weird.

As for puzzle and adventure games, have you tried Antichamber or Gone Home? Those two are among my favorite games to have come out this year.

I'm working through Gone Home right now. I had no idea what the story was going to be about when I bought it. I thought it was a horror game. It's good so far, to say the least.

I shall continue playing it in the coming days / weeks.

I agree, but there are problems with dressing up a game of "tag" like Counter-Strike in the clothes of violent conflict. The other day a contractor came to my house as I was playing CS:S. He asked if I was in Baghdad. He translated the Arabic on the walls. I realized he might find this game incredibly offensive. Racially ambiguous terrorists fight whiteish police in often middle eastern locales (dust2...?). The game itself is normalizing or maybe is just an example of normalized, simplistic, xenophobic ideas. It is a game of tag and strategy that you might compare to american football in some ways, but its stylized to attract people interested in participating in this "world" of us vs. them, all conflicts are solved by violence fantasy land that has none of the nuance of real life. Is that a problem? Is it a symptom of some of the attitudes the author talks about re. insecurity and fear in "gamers"?

The majority of games are an evolution of sales, if people wanted other games in the majority they would exist in the majority already.

One perspective is that this "real gaming" is like a sport with the physical component completely removed and the players completely segregated. There's zero stress to your cardiovascular system and zero possibility of physical injury due to contact. In other words you're free to run your mouth while enjoying the hormonal surges of high competition in an anonymous setting. I don't think that makes a trash talker a maladjusted social misfit though.

It's not a "gamer" problem, it's societal problem, issues with children/teenagers who tend to gravitate towards games and then have an anonymous mask to hide under. Social norms push men towards, and women away, just as blue is for boys, pink for girls. Obviously the social context for video games is changing, and with that doesn't not come full cultural acceptance, in fact the opposite. With anonymity to hide behind, people will voice their opinions more openly, and without consequence.

The Depression Quest story is not one of misogyny, rather the state of Steam Greenlight, who's "community" has a strong opposition to experimental games, and personal attacks against Quinnzel were simply called misogyny. This is why people dislike the movement. Misogyny and any personal attack on women are not the same. Anything that can remotely offend a woman is not misogyny. Things like the PyCon incident, and ideas like this further damage the movement.

Side Note: The holier than thou attitude through out the whole article is really off-putting. It's extremely prevalent throughout (game/tech industry at least, can't say I read too many other feminist material) feminist articles, and it only hurts the cause. Sarkeesian is the worst offender.

I agree that the "gamers" as defined by the author are a rowdy bunch (for lack of a better term) but I have a hard time understanding the author's motive. Is the article trying to bring a feminist perspective to gaming?

While it would be nice if we could all be respectful of race and gender while shooting at the pixel versions of each other, what problem does it solve? Do we want more female gamers? Is this behavior of immature people anonymously venting or raging harmful to society or to the individual's development?

Games are really one of the few outlets for aggressive behavior in the modern world with zero risk of physical harm. It satisfies competitive urges and requires a variety of mental and physical coordination skills (that may or may not be domain specific). Even if you cleaned up the language used there's always going to be trash talk and new "leet speak" or euphemisms to get around censorship.

It just reads like a half-baked article that lobs a blanket insult at male gamers without any real substance.

You can see a nice list of the costs of gaming consoles with inflation here, http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gami.... Add in the cost of games at around $50 to $60.

You can do the math, but based of this statement " I’ve owned most of the consoles and handhelds, and I’ve played games on various computers too" I'm going to say he is several grand in, conservatively. I only point this out because it seems to me that gaming is something he actively pursues, if not in time then financially.

I get called a faggot multiple times a game pretty much every time I play online. Usually it's a kid that I'm beating. I don't particularly enjoy that, so I mute the person and talk to friends. It is what it is. I still proudly consider myself a gamer though.

I play all types of games. I do find the harassment tends to come from first person shooters, but it's an aggressive idea to virtually kill someone. For me it's a nice thirty minute way to blow off steam after a long day.

I would like to add that when I hear someone talking to a female player in a sexually degrading way I say something. Others do to. People also get called out for using racial slurs.

There is this odd overlap of adolescence and adults in the gaming world. Kids shouldn't be playing some of these games, but they are, and they act like kids act. Stupid.

Adolescent boys have a long history of doing and saying repulsive things. It's not ok, but it isn't new. My experience is that this behavior is getting better. Especially as we dialogue about it.

I appreciate that he wants to discuss this topic, but the entire piece rubbed me the wrong way.

I think the crux of it is despite being a gamer, the author wants to distance himself while criticizing said "gamers" from his high horse. Also, the author admits to avoiding multiplayer so it's mostly his opinion on secondhand information from female gamers (selected from a pool of the most offensive stuff).

Not saying that etiquette isn't an issue but this article doesn't really advance the cause. However, the way you call out the behavior and setting an example is really the only viable solution.

As an opinion piece I think it does more of a disservice than anything not just with the blanket statements but the author basically does the very thing he's criticizing only in more civilized language, essentially calling "gamers" (of which he conveniently disassociates himself from) a bunch of socially-stunted basement dwellers.

It's great to be aware of social issues, but I find myself disagreeing with the foundation of this article. While online gaming is a very easy way to expose yourself to the harsh realities of prejudice in the world, I don't believe there is a relevant relationship between sexism and games as a medium. Considering the differences between Call of Duty players and Animal Crossing players, I think the studious will quickly recognize that the same differences are identifiable between firing range patrons and a members of a gardening club. Proof-reading that last sentence gives me one thought "well, that's just a no-brainer!" as it should. The gaming community comprises hundreds of niches that have their own personalities and behavior, just as the "television-watching community" does. To draw conclusions about the whole based on behavior of the relative few is offensive to me as a gamer.

I do agree with his sentiment that aggressive games breed aggressive behavior. I am not entirely sure this is bad per say but its pretty obvious? Cant we all be nice and civil to each other while we run around trying to murder each other. I personally do not understand this long running commentary about sexism in games, isnt it just a function of those types of games? If its not sexism, its homophobia or its racism anything to bring your opponent down, Call of Duty is not the sport of gentlemen, its mock warfare.

Is it really the "violence" ??

Have you ever played "Mortal Kombat" at a house party? As super-violent as it is, people generally are pretty chill about winning and losing... as long as its person-to-person.

On the other hand, I've played a game of Chess online once, and after making one or two good moves, I've been called homophobic names before the guy rage-quit on me.

You can take the least stressful activities, and if they're online, you WILL find people screaming death-threats at each other for some insane reason.

I think the online environment makes people somehow susceptible to stress and anger. At least, I personally go online to relax after the day... but with that relaxation... my inhibitions are released as well. I'm an introvert by nature, when I'm in public, I'm keeping tabs on my own behavior, watching what I say and trying to not be an asshole.

But when I'm at home and just browsing the internet, I'm not going to be holding back my words or thinking about other people's feelings. I'm completely tired of doing that all day. Plus, I'm at home, and (mostly) anonymous online. Why should I care about how I look or about other people's feelings?

I know it is lazy, but I'm just trying to be honest. And if anyone disagrees, please tell me about your experience with "Online Chess" vs "In-Person games of Mortal Kombat". I can almost guarantee you, the behavior of online-chess players is probably worse.

I agree with you 100%, the anonymity gives people incredible courage, but face to face people are more likely to be civil. But I think that is because the threat of physical violence is high if you said such hurtful things to other people.

As an introvert, I disagree. Simply being around more than 2 people stresses me out... and part of that stress means that I'm quieter and more reserved. But that stress does not apply to me online, perhaps its the lack of face-to-face contact.

Besides, the whole Youtube experiment has proven that "anonymity" means absolutely nothing to your typical troll. Forcing people to display their names has only made the system worse.

You could argue that Youtube's experiment didnt actually stop anonymity.

The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and distrust of women.

The thing is, if you forget about the abusiveness towards women in online games (most people aren't even aware it happens), this is still the prevailing societal view of 'gamers.' Losers who don't get any girls. That's why many don't like to call themselves 'gamers,' or admit to a new group of people that video games are one of their hobbies.

I think it is always a huge mistake to assume people mean the literal meaning of words they use. Im not even sure people using such words in a sort of banter (Im sure I could have chosen a better word there...) environment even think of them as words, more like they are sounds, like a contemporary growl or bearing of teeth replacement.

I mean, when someone says "fuck you", should I take them up on the offer?

Context and delivery is everything.

> The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and distrust of women. The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male – and no doubt skew towards the young side. No-one’s surprised by that. I’m not surprised.

Well thanks. Man, I don't even know where to start.

I'm male, 30+, and have been cursed at too. Sure, they didn't tailor their insults towards me being female (because I'm not) but that's just it; online, it's just words. Ignore them. That's what you do.

I've met my girlfriend online, and we've been together for about 5 years now. I've been active in the unreal tournament community, counterstrike, world of warcraft, Utopia, etc. Many, varied.

Sure there are some rotten apples, just like in real life.

Just ignore them, just like you ignore that drunk guy at the cafe that keeps getting close. If you can ignore the beggar on the street, or the street-marketeer, or the adds messing with your movie experience, you can ignore idiots on the web too.

.edit: okay, let me stress that YES this is an issue, but;

1) I take offense to calling the entire gaming world a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally adolescent males. I'm a gamer. Calling me the above doesn't put me in a great mood.

2) The site linked in that post has whole posts dedicated to getting the middle finger + the word "bitch". Learn to ignore them damnit.

3) > The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male

- well sure, you're female. Females aren't going to do this because, well, they'd be insulting their own sex?

- well yeah, they're in the majority. In most communities I've been active 90% is male, so chances are 9 in 10 off of sheer numbers alone.

- well of course, females won't approach you in a sexual context because most people are straight.

- well obviously, if there is any discrimination, it'll be practiced by the larger part of the community, vs the smaller part. It just doesn't happen the other way around.

None of these make me respect the writers opinion.

If the point of this article is to piss off the good guys, it's working. Now get the hell off my internet, because you're just as bad as the people sending you nasty messages.

> it's just words. Ignore them.

This advice is pretty hollow coming from someone who doesn't have to put up with constant sexual harassment, who doesn't have to deal with cat calls and the fear of being raped that comes with them, and who can use their real voice on game chat without getting rape threats. Check your privilege.

You dont think being called a fagget is sexual harassment?

It is, but unless you actually are gay in real life and have had to deal with being called a faggot in real life, I'm going to have more sympathy for females who have to deal with sexual harassment online. They're both terrible behavior that we (as a gaming community) should object to when we hear it.

I have sympathy for everyone who is harassed online, I do not think anyone is actually being singled out for harassment because of who or what they are. If people really wanted to fix it they need to admit that this fact is true first, because treating this as a sexism problem is disingenuous.

Women get way way way more shit online than men. Ignoring that is disingenuous.

You seem to be making a lot of assertions of fact without anything to back it up. I would say that is disingenuous.

Fair enough, I just assumed people would accept the premise that women get more harassment online than men without me having to cite a study. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Lets think about it for a second though, if gaming is male dominated and incredibly hostile and full of harassment wouldn't the victim of the harassment be predominately male?

> the premise that women get more harassment online than men

If you are a woman, online, than you'll be harassed more than if you were a man, online.

If you want to go by ratio, then yeah, but that has nothing to do with the argument. The point is that the gaming community is driving away women with this behavior.

"The point is that the gaming community is driving away women with this behavior", I havent seen any studies or research to suggest that women stop playing games after being harassed, no more or less than men.

It does, in fact, have to do with your claim that harassment happens to women more often. That can't be the case if men outnumber women by a large factor, which is the case in hardcore gaming.

The "community" has no obligation to keep people in, it is the individual's choice what to do and how to deal with anything resulting from that choice.

As for women vs men, we all take our daily abuse, and in an anonymous online community the level of abuse is just that much higher. We learn to deal with the adolescent abuse because that's the only remedy.

Bullies will be bullies, they hone in on (perceived) weaknesses, when a woman feels harassed in an online community, it's not the fault of the community at large, it's just a fact of the world we live in.

I no longer play games, but I used to play a lot online, the abuse was daily. I and men I know receive non-violent abuse daily in real life well, not to mention the physical threats flying around; know that as a man anyone anywhere has the "right" to threaten you just for being a man. (Check your female privilege.)

Female harassment is a sham, it's just general harassment. Difference is women are allowed to complain and make a fuzz. Ideally we'd all be allowed to do so.

You're assuming I'm female.

Nobody should accept any premise from you. You are a shameless, serial liar.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433079/virtual-harassment-g...

http://www.vg247.com/2012/09/08/study-80-of-gamers-believe-s...

> Matthew’s study found that women were harassed four times more than men

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/08/sexua...

http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/

HN, please downvote this guy.

I think you should'nt ask people to downvote that is against the etiquette, I think you will find that this study you link to Matthew's is a very biased study as it only focuses on one type of harassment (sexual), the type that women are over represented in, but then when describing the conclusion calls it harassment, but didnt actually ask the participants if they were harassed, just sexually harassed.

I think you should'nt ask people to downvote that is against the etiquette

I would say that's correct. That doesn't mean I don't feel just the same as the parent, though. It seems about half the posts from transitionality that I've seen on the page so far are shameless attacks. It's blatant enough that I'm actually considering whether it's a performance piece trying to make a point about harassment (but which side the point is supposed to be on is unclear, as it could just be very poorly thought out).

In either case, I don't think it has any place on this site.

Agreed, but asking people to downvote comes across as bullying.

pyrocat told lies.

She stated in several places a 1-in-6 statistic for female sexual harassment, which is a lie.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-in-four-lie...

She also stated in several places that females are the victims of rape more often, which is again a lie.

http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-US...

I've made these corrections at several location throughout the thread, wherever I could catch her doing it. It's very unlikely for you to not have seen them.

I can only conclude that your mobbing campaign against me is knowingly malicious, and that you are in cahoots with pyrocat, if not the same person.

In this context, probably not. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6938877

I'm obviously not talking about actual rape happening.

But let's for a second compare it to "I'll beat you up, son!" and the like.

It's the internet. It happens. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that half of the examples on the site that was linked in that article, are nothing more than someone typing the word "b*tch" behind some random insults.

Yeah, there are a lot of assholes on the internet[1]. You can either choose to let it get to you, or you can recognize it for what it is and get on with your life.

[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

And the Academy Award for Best Drama goes to...

Let's not pick at straw men here. If you don't see the difference between real rape threats and Xbox LIVE shit talk, you need not wonder why you may make such an easy target for online bullies.

"Check your privilege"? Putting aside the fact that that phrase just sounds gross, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume the situations of online strangers. Check your logic.

There is a difference between "shit talk" and rooting out personal contact information to then send death or rape threats. I don't think anyone expects an experience akin to high tea with the Queen, but no one deserves to be threatened. Everyone, consciously or not, wants respect.

It's simple in theory but hard in practice. It likely has to come from guidance. As a parent, I expect I will have to teach her how to engage with people both on and offline.

There's a reason we force kids to line up and shake the opposing team's hands after a soccer game.

>There is a difference between "shit talk" and rooting out personal contact information to then send death or rape threats.

Of course there is. The problem with this conversation is that it appears to be a polymorphic one. Which of the two are we talking about? I would imagine that there is no consensus on this.

Define constant sexual harassment, what's the context? Just in general? What do you classify as actual sexual harassment?

Everyone has their fair share of shit to deal with, it's unfair to place priority on a cause due to gender.

What about all the shit guys have to deal with? Where are our support programs, where are our campaigns?

For example: one of the things I'm struggling with is finding a girlfriend simply because I do not own a car, and yes I have been rejected on this because "although you're a great guy, if you can't drive me everywhere, I'll find someone lesser who can". Why is it that I have to initiate every relationship? Why do I have to play the "prove yourself" game?

Let's not blow things out of proportion. Name calling is just that, name calling. Ignore it and move on, you need to develop a thick skin.

Women have it great really great in this world. Yes there are things you can't change such as being physically weaker and symptoms of that (rape), but the entitlement I see from women is insane.

You, as a man, have had more privileges and had to put up with less shit from strangers and society, than women. There's really no getting around that. Guys have to deal with gender bullshit too (expectations of wealth, car, muscles .etc), but as a rule, guys have more privilege than women.

expectations of wealth, car, muscles .etc

You state these things like they are trivial. What do you have to put up with as a woman?

Ask your mom.

My mom grew up in a farm in the middle of nowhere with nothing, in a heavily oppressed country, now she's a top tier executive at a bank. I don't think the touchy feely bullshit most women have to deal with and blog about holds a candle to what my Mom has been through, so I'm not sure your equation works.

Thanks for the non-response.

Then ask her about her career at the bank and if she ever felt it would've progressed more easily if she was male. Otherwise you're just making assumptions about her feelings.

No, we've spoken about this intensely. It is our view that if it is not physically hurting you, find a way to mitigate it or use it to your advantage.

My Mother knows her self worth. Sexist comments and remarks don't do anything to her, because she doesn't let others determine who she is or how she feels. If someone calls me a "faggot", why would I get mad? I'm not a "faggot", so how can this persons words possibly shape me into one?

It just helps her differentiate the people she wants to associate with, and the idiots she doesn't want to associate with.

When you grow up in SHIT, you tend to get lost in meaningless details like insults from people that don't matter to you. When you are fending for your life every single day against criminals, rapists, murders, and starvation for the first 20 years of your life, meaningless bullshit like "the white male patriarchy" tends to get lost on you. Insults and ill treatment excite us because it adds fuel to our fire, you now have a weapon to use against somebody. When we get insulted, we don't get upset, we collect it, and use it against them because ultimately it's meaningless and it's THEIR problem, not mine.

My Mom got to where she was by being great at her job and being a very thick skinned and clever social engineer. The assholes were left behind. She could have dwelled, but she didn't. She could have cried all day and night about some off hand remark that probably wasn't even intentionally sexist in nature, but she didn't, and neither should you.

We don't believe in modern pseudo-feminism, sorry.

I work with loads of women from third world countries that worked their asses off for their entire early lives just to afford themselves the CHANCE of making it by coming to a first world country with $0. If they don't get off, where do you get off?

Check your privilege.

> If someone calls me a "faggot", why would I get mad? I'm not a "faggot", so how can this persons words possibly shape me into one?

It's fortunate that you can simply choose not to identify with that particular insult, but what about people who do identify as homosexual? Or who are genderqueer?

Edit: Why does this matter? It's just especially shitty and dehumanizing when you identify as something that is seen as culturally acceptable to debase. Privilege is being able to dismiss things with "Hah! That's ridiculous! I'm not a Foo," which still allows room for and/or even implies the denigration of Foos.

That's not to say you should deviate from your fuck-the-haters approach. It's great that you and your mother have sufficiently thick skin to forge ahead in spite of ill-informed discrimination, but not everyone has the same fortitude. The cultural norms we establish can go a long way toward creating a better context for everyone.

What about them? How does being called a faggot hurt someone who is, in fact, a faggot?

It doesn't. People are so quick to point the finger at everyone but themselves.

No, it's not ME who should decide how I feel, it's YOU that should censor what YOU say, for ME!

Avoid, tell them to fuck off if need be, and continue. It's not a very difficult concept.

I have a feeling that this thread was started by (and is being steered by) a couple of social justice warriors, using a combination of their typical lies, guilt-tripping tactics, and anti-male sexism to socially engineer certain opinions.

It's sad that they thought it would work.

No room in life for losers. Wake and realize we live in the best possible times. Go live in a small village where your primary objective is surviving, then come back to your real life, you will be very quickly humbled.

I really think people are just bored man. In an age where I can watch videos of the Earth set from the moon, what the hell is there really to get excited about?

It's depressing. My grandmothers entire goal in life was to dip her toes in the ocean, something that brought (I can't even imagine) an unreal amount of happiness to her, and she finally experienced this at the age of 70.

We have everything. If you want something, you have to keep your head down, put in the work, and you'll get it. That's it! We don't suffer from 99.99% of the problems that have plagued our species since it's dawn.

The entitlement to perfection is sickening.

I wish we could bottle perspective and force these social justice fucks to gulp it down. They need it badly.

Thanks for the contribution of common sense this thread sorely needed.

Eh? I'm not sure where your antipathy is coming from. I'm just here because I tend to enjoy communities that afford a basic level of courtesy to most folks, and have guidelines and moderation that support that context. Like HN's own http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The facet of gamer culture described in the parent article just kinda bums me out, and I don't think we'd particularly lose much by trying to promote greater civility. Maybe other people feel the same? Regardless, cultural norms don't shift unless people respectfully speak up when things aren't working for them.

That's all I'm here for. And I largely agree with rfnslyr ("WHY ARE WE YELLING?" "I DON'T KNOW.") in terms of developing a thick skin and owning your own reactions being an extremely powerful tool. But maybe we could also try to be nicer to one another, sometimes?

With that, I'll respectfully bow out of the conversation.

> The facet of gamer culture described in the parent article just kinda bums me out, and I don't think we'd particularly lose much by trying to promote greater civility.

Why waste your time trying to culture someone who isn't? A switch won't magically flip in their minds?

Why even waste time on random nerds you don't even know? Just play your game, mute them, and have fun.

Hell yeah I'm all for being nice to everyone.

Social justice is a cult. It's dogmatic, it's detached from reality, and it's insane. I hate all cults equally.

I've pointed out numerous lies being perpetrated by your cohorts (or, more likely, sockpuppets) in this thread.

You won't get anywhere with shit. Not here. You need to just go.

Do you have some sort of contact? Like IRC/Steam or something?

I am homosexual. I really don't care if someone calls me a faggot. What's it to them? If someone cares enough about something as intangible as my sexuality to make a flippant comment, I pity them.

The only reason you ever have to get up in arms is of consequences stemming directly from the sexism. Then there's an actual problem.

> but not everyone has the same fortitude.

That's too bad. Sink or swim. Everyone is much too hyper sensitive from growing up in such a protected and privileged culture.

People often forget that in the end, it's you vs them, crying about it on your blog and writing to newspapers and starting all these silly little groups and protests does not do shit.

Keep your head down, play the game, and when/if you come into a position of power, deal the cards you've been holding on to. That is how society works, and that is how everyone who ever came into a position of power has played the game, men and women alike. In fact my boss is a short fat black woman and I work in the investment sector.

If my mom and coworkers made it, so can you, and if you can't, then that is your problem and something you need to work actively to change, not society.

-----

The reality is people ARE going to have different opinions, good and bad. People WILL make sexist jokes. People will berate you for your gender, just because they can. People will do all sorts of shit. You have to accept that no matter what someones stance is, whether it's wrong in your mind, it is still their right.

It is entirely up to you how to choose to react to it.

> I am homosexual. I really don't care if someone calls me a faggot.

Oh man, I wish the whole world was as easy-going in this as you were. Tires me out. People take offense to anything.

For this comment alone, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you.

Cheers for spreading the word.

Thanks man.

There's a decent adaptation of Peggy McIntosh's white privilege checklist for male privilege over at http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

It's certainly not great, but it's at least an ok starting point for considering disparities in societal privilege and expectations between gender presentations.

I would really like it if you could read this as I think you will see this checklist is bunk.

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

False, I work in IT, it is incredibly easy to get a job for a female, every place I worked for is desperate to hire women and say so.

http://pastebin.com/zu16rEdU

I really do love that your answer to #1 proves #2.

There are a handful of companies that are trying to get more women into tech. That's great! However, that doesn't mean #1 is wrong. It just means your industry (or even those companies) is in the minority.

IT is a very big industry, I work in more of the higher end and in that area, there is a huge push to get more women in, these are the same companies that are incredibly hard to get jobs at for men. I think you will find that push to improve ratios is mostly concentrated on the preferred jobs, based on conditions or pay.

I dont see anyone trying to improve ratios in female dominated jobs, like Teaching and Childcare, and if they did #2 would be the same for men in those cases.

At quite a few companies I have worked at the pre-screening is done by the corporate HR department of which has been 100% female in my experience, then the next level is done by team managers and sales teams, which I have found to be fairly evenly split. It is only when you get into the trenches where the engineers are found that the ratio falls apart.

The funny thing is we all work in the same building in the same office, so the company itself has a pretty good ratio its just the engineering jobs that dont have many women, so you cant say its a culture thing because the culture is the entire company not just one job type and/or segment.

Anecdotal, when I do work for government clients they have a much higher female IT workforce especially engineers, they however get 3 weeks extra annual leave, 7 day fortnights and in some cases you can even work part time. And because of unions the pay is very competitive and if not more than the private sector. However there is a "glass ceiling" in government as all wages are set by collective bargaining and applies to everyone. Where in the private sector you have much more latitude to increase your earning potential at the expense of your free time and personal life, something that a lot of my co-workers (men) do to increase the opportunities that their families are offered. It is this kind of work that some of the female engineers are reluctant to do this, and I would say rightful so, from my discussions with them they are not motivated by the pay but are striving for a balance with work and family. However the men I work with are under a lot of pressure to cover their wives earnings so she can stay and look after the children, something they (the wives) are asking for.

It is a very complex topic but I dont think you can truly have 50/50 ratios in every industry without first removing any difference in motivation to work between men and women, and those with and without families. These motivation factors create a huge bias in how people subjectively choose their working conditions and environment.

Both my girlfriend and I play games regularly online and alone (and have all our lives). She has never received a rape threat. I wonder why?

Because anecdotes aren't data? This is a site aimed at hackers and programmers and you really think the utterly thoughtless logic underlying your post passes muster?

Of which the article linked is a shining example of evidence-backed reasoning.

The entire OP is anecdote.

I'm a gamer. I'm in a guild. We have female members. We all, regardless of gender, have at some point been the target of idiots trying to bully. While it is impossible to deny the existence of the cesspit, I take umbrage at it being perceived as the majority of we gamers. It is a problem, yes. But please don't lump me and my entire guild into the same bucket.

Uh, no one is? The article is very clear about who the problem is.

Yes. It's also wrong. The article itself is the problem, and so are you.

I'd love to hear your reasoning.

It's unsubstantiated, unreasoned, unjustifiable hate speech. And you're perpetrating the exact same kind of hate with shameless lies and more hate speech. This shit has no place on this site. Get out.

I think you should look up the definition of hate speech.

You need to stop using hate speech.

"The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and distrust of women. The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male – and no doubt skew towards the young side. No-one’s surprised by that. I’m not surprised."

We have such members. We expect them to abide by our clearly written community standards. We are gamers. They are gamers. We act as a community, which involves not leaving everyone to fend for themselves as an individual.

"The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males"

Sure, the preceding paragraph makes a pass at placing this in context, but this is clearly baiting language. And the problem is apparently so bad that OP doesn't want to even be called a gamer, lest he be lumped in with this cesspit.

Again. For the record. I am a gamer. I'm a lot of other things, too. But I'm a gamer, and so are my slightly maladjusted male and female compatriot guildmates.

The biggest problem I see here is parents letting children play M-rated games. Anecdotally, and with no facts whatsoever to support my theory, I believe this would remove 90% of the problem.

Judging by the comments in this thread, it's not a problem with parents letting children play video games. It's a very real problem with adult men.

I guess the point I was making is that there are a few toxic online communities, but a large majority are not anywhere near the cesspit the article describes. If you just avoid those it really isn't a problem (the games they center around really aren't that interesting anyways for most).

It's just words, just ignore him. You don't need to comment about it. Right?

> If the point of this article is to piss off the good guys, it's working. Now get the hell off my internet, because you're just as bad as the people sending you nasty messages.

Yeah the guy who's talking about the problem is JUST AS BAD as the people perpetrating the problem.

Worse.

Thanks for adding to the discussion! We value your input!

Nobody values yours. This entire thread is full of people shooting your nonsense down. Get a clue already.

My karma score from this thread begs to differ. I'm not here to convince people that my opinion is 100% right, I'm here to provide alternate viewpoints that might broaden someones perspective. All you appear to be doing is trolling.

You're here to lie. I caught you lying twice and exposed it both times. You're also spewing hate speech all over the place. Have some shame.

Hahahahaha

There's nothing funny about either your lies or your sexism. They're terrible. You're terrible.

Your karma score is irrelevant in a hugely biased community like HN, what matters are your arguments' validity, so far those are zero.

Everyone who has lurked and/or participated for a while here knows what kind of comments get praise and what kind incurs the wrath of the gods. Your viewpoints happen to resonate with many, without incurring the wrath of the demi-mods.

As I've gotten the opportunity to run some game events or moderate discussion, I have some thoughts about this.

Making a space positive and inclusive is not a magical process, but it means going a lot farther than telling victims to "ignore the noise." It requires the stakeholders to be proactive. They must consider how to moderate the space in such a way that minority voices are protected.

If this doesn't happen, by default, the loudest majority will command the framework and drain points of discussion into fallacious, self-serving thinking like the low-level insults that permeate most online games. It can happen in many ways, shapes and forms(whether the hotbutton is gender, sexuality, politics, race...), but this quality is true of every space I've observed.

agreed

"The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male" - Source? If 50% of gamers are women I find this hard to believe.

> Show me an angry man who spews hatred towards someone he perceives as different or a threat to him,

I'm sorry, but this describes you.

And your screed is nothing but unadulterated hate speech.

How is this shit even allowed on this site?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com