There's a lot of vitriol going back and forth by both sides of this latest iteration of the 'Battle of the Sexes'. I think abstracting back, a lot of very good points are being brought up that need to be discussed (lots of bad ones too, in the interest of intellectual honesty). It's not until you get a bit more granular that ugly heads start to rear up and we ultimately end up with this.
We're at an unfortunate point right now that dissent is a tacit admission of complicity with the various social ills that people like Sarkesian are trying to explicate on a large scale at best, and treated as an existential threat to 'progress' at worst. No, that's not an indictment of the entire movement of feminism, but it's also not hard to find for anyone who goes and looks for it.
I used to care about this, a lot. Now? I prefer to just sit back and let both sides of screaming ninnies tire themselves out so that the people who are willing to reach across the table, admit that their movements have baggage and are mature enough to look past that baggage can have a melding of the minds to get things accomplished.
The death threats here, just happen to be example of muddling of side "A".
Name calling, death-threats, "doxxing", there's mud being flung here, calling it a "false equivalence" when I've implicated both parties of not moving the ball forward seems rather obtuse.
Obviously I do not intend to speak as if the social conversation about sexism in gaming, tech and other industries is an actually even battle where both sides have equal rhetorical or empirical firepower to "win" or "lose".
And if indeed the problem is that I called it a 'battle', then I'll conditionally accept correction on that (even if I think it ignores the larger point I was attempting to make).
I think now is a good time for me to step aside from this before we go off the rails.
More generally I fear I don't understand the larger point you're trying to make if you weren't trying to do the "two sides, both have some good points and some bad points, let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing.
Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool.
Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this:
1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be addressed. Absolutely and positively.
2) Many who carry the banner of "Feminist" and many who carry the banner "Gamer" have taken unfortunate and problematic stances, as well as have made unfortunate and problematic statements to get "their" side more validity to the point where taking a side either way carries many severe consequences in the interest of moving a conversation forward.
3) Instead of simply jumping to one side because of how the other side reacts, I personally have decided to abstain from participating further until I see an opportunity where I personally feel comfortable participating and not be accused of being sexist/misogynist/whateverist or otherwise chided for not expressing myself in absolute support.
Is that a little less ambiguous?
Then there's the "feminist" crowd which wants that sort of thing to not happen, and also talk about videogames.
Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation.
In your opinion then, what's a better way to present it? I'm trying to look at this as broadly as I possibly can without getting strung up in highlighting granular, "this instance" and "that instance" responses, effectively coming across as a 'single issue debater'.
No it absolutely should not, and the applications that we've seen when this framework of thought is proof enough of what happens when we give the victim more legal weight than the accused.
Title IX is a perfect example of this flawed implementation of "justice" to the point where the victims receive all the benefits of due process, but the accused does not. Taking the victim at their word is preposterous and absolutely and wholly contrary to the way our legal framework was designed, and ought to work:
Quote: "OCR’s language implies that the rights of accused students at public colleges do not merit lengthy discussion and further suggests by negative implication that accused have any rights at all.57 The Letter also states that “[w]hen taking steps to separate the complainant and alleged perpetrator, a school should minimize the burden on the complainant, and thus should not, as a matter of course, remove complainants from classes or housing while allowing alleged perpetrators to remain.” In other words, alleged perpetrators should automatically suffer life-upending punishments like expulsion from their residences upon accusation because they are likely guilty. The writing on the wall from this treatment of due process rights is unmistakable: it implies, “oddly and ominously, that the statutory rights of the accuser trump the constitutional due-process [sic] rights of the accused.”"
Source: "A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENT DEFENDANTS: TITLE IX AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES" (http://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chaselaw/docs/academics/...) p.61 pp.2 - p62 pp.1
You can absolutely have a civil discourse on how sexism manifests itself in the video game industry and others, and misogynist violence is absolutely never okay. But once we get to the point where conversations depend on giving one person more credence than another simply because of their status, or role in the affair, we're entering very dangerous waters.
One such example of the treacherous possibilities comes from the events of October 2012 at Ohio University where two students publicly engaged in lewd acts, photographs showed the female participant smiling, engaging and interacting with the male participant, and still cried rape to the detriment of the male participant even when local law enforcement could not find evidence to indict;
Source: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2013/11/is_this_a_campus_rap...
No.
No we do NOT give the accuser "more weight".
Like mailing syringes filled with unknown chemicals. Or threatening ten year old "comedians" with "a shanking".
The fact is that you cannot attribute such things to the majority for any side in such matters. It's intellectually dishonest.
https://i.imgur.com/eUjdl5K.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzQqokICUAEyhWy.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzFBQrMIEAA487S.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bzko-VhIgAAX9WK.png
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/464779743175655425
https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/522156760623484928
It's ridiculous to say that that side is only "pointing out this unfortunate fact," especially after so many Gamergate supporters have denounced the doxxings and threats.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jabgg/can_...
Death threats have, unfortunately, always been very common among controversial figures. Obama gets 30 a day, about 40,000 in total.
"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation..."
Death threats would certainly qualify under that.