This is the second in a series about how and why reactions to events in the gaming community, such as the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are so problematic. It is based on conversations I’ve had with people who I really respect who have a hard time seeing why their “gut” reactions aren’t sexist. These “gut” reactions are built on years being surrounded by a culture that degrades and disenfranchises women and their experiences to the point where you can’t trust your gut reaction anymore because it’s been so heavily influenced by a sexist culture. To give people a taste of what it’s like to game online, I’ve added in some quotes of threats and insults that women have gotten online. And it’s only the tip of the iceberg.
“am sorry 4 asking this but would you send some pics of your bare feet and would you like to see a big cock”
Sometimes I ponder the reasons why many gamers I know, often male, who are otherwise awesome don’t see sexism as a problem in video games. I covered one of these reasons in “Why It’s Sexist Vol. 1: She Made It Up (For Attention). In that post, I talked about the knee-jerk reaction of many gamers to disbelieve women who report being sexually assaulted or threatened when they speak out in the community. The idea that women make up things for attention, ranging from everything from rape allegations to medical ailments, have pervaded the history of Western culture in literature, movies, music, and games. Oh yeah, and in reality. Women’s reports are often questioned and not trusted. At any rate, I explored that in my previous post.
“wow retard r u on ur rag or somethin”
In this post, I want to talk about the reaction of many gamers when women talk about being abused and threatened online: assuming it’s just a bunch of angsty kids and teenagers. Women like Sarkeesian and Quinn have had death threats against them, personal information published online, had their parents and family members called and told they were whores, had their coworkers and bosses contacted, had inappropriate things mailed to them, in addition to the regular email/twitter/forum threats they face every day. Not only is it wrong to assume that those doing the threatening are just kids, but it’s dangerous and it’s completely and utterly dismissive of what’s actually happening.
“know what just give me a nice blow job. am only being friendly its only psn not like its real right”
The level of violence and reality entwined in these threats are not suggestive of teenagers. Perhaps saying you will rape someone to death on xbox live chat could be done by a messed-up kid. But doxing women, publishing personal information, sending items to their homes, and even making a game where you punch a woman in the face over and over is, I hate to say it, a pretty sophisticated level of harassment. Not to mention that we have irrefutable proof that Quinn’s attacks were conducted by her exboyfriend, not a teen, and his internet cohorts, also not teens.
“I just put a dead squirrel in Zoe Quinn’s mailbox lmao #gamergate”
But then again, that’s not really the issue. If people wanted proof it wasn’t teenagers, you wouldn’t have to look that far. My question is why do we discount women’s views of reality so much that we automatically assume the threat is less than is being reported? Why do so many gamers read no more than a headline and assume it’s just ‘boys will be boys’ and that she is “overreacting.” The ‘boys will be boys’ attitude hasn’t ever helped make a community more equal or better.
“i like how on youtube you turned off comments to show how weak women are because you cant take one or two rape jokes”
Another thing that goes with this argument is that it’s just a bunch of virgins who don’t know how to act around women. We have seen this play out in the recent California murders. When everything about society says that women’s bodies aren’t there own and that boys and men are owed things like sex and attention from women, no doubt things will and have ended violently. Claiming it’s just a bunch of angsty virgins who are doing this essentially blames women for their own assault and harassment. I (hopefully) don’t need to tell you the history of blaming women for attacks against them, sexually or otherwise. Claiming it’s a bunch of kid virgins doing these serious things is just one more way of blaming women.
Hopefully this gives you some pause the next time you want to dismiss the threats being made against women who speak out online. Because that’s what saying “it’s just a bunch of nerd kids” is doing: dismissing real threats and violence based on no evidence or reasoning other than your own fucked up gut instinct.
3 thoughts on “Why It’s Sexist Vol 2: It’s Only a Bunch of Nerd Kids Doing This Stuff”
Well as a GG supporter I can tell you that the prevailing thought behind being skeptical of Anita and Quinn speaking of threats is that they have a history of dishonesty that warrants skepticism. Zelda Williams was sympathetic by comparison.
I’m sure they got a lot of grief from trolls, though, but you can get writing a negative review on a popular game.
We don’t have ‘knee jerk’ reactions in general. It pretty much comes down to them as people.
I was thinking the same thing! Like, I’m not racist. Most of the people I hate just happen to be black. And I hate when people stand up for equal rights– not because of what they’re arguing. But because black people and those who stand up for black people have a history of dishonesty that warrants skepticism. It’s definitely not “knee jerk.” It’s based on evidence and has NOTHING to do with their race.
What a strange reply. Let’s break it down and hopefully we can agree that you perhaps missed the point.
“Like, I’m not racist. Most of the people I hate just happen to be black.”
Not sure how this pertains to my post, unless you’re saying most of the people GG goes after are female. That’s not the case. And we don’t hate anybody. I’m sorry you feel this way.
“And I hate when people stand up for equal rights…”
Neither Anita or Zoe do this.
“…Because black people and those who stand up for black people have a history of dishonesty that warrants skepticism.”
You’re not making sense. I mean, I know this is a sarcastic agreement sort of thing but this specific is the most nonsensical. We’re not attacking a class of people. I was saying Anita and Zoe themselves have a bad rep, and it validates skepticism.
“It’s definitely not “knee jerk.” It’s based on evidence and has NOTHING to do with their race.”
Change race to gender and this line is actually correct.