There are giants in this industry, and then there’s Ernest Adams. A developer, lecturer, scholar and teacher, Ernest’s book Fundamentals of Game Design is the essential text on the subject, while his newest work Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design, written with Joris Dormans, is a much-needed formalization of game mechanics grammar and understanding.
In his spare time, Ernest founded the International Game Developers Association and shipped 15 games over 23 years.
He’s also one of the nicest people you’ll meet, and I consider myself fortunate to be able to call him a friend; one who’s assisted me many times in my career. All that you need to know about Ernest in order to get along with him just fine is that he has no time or patience for people who are stupid or disrespectful – and that being one of the nicest people you’ll meet doesn’t mean he won’t be aggressive about subjects that anger him.
Ernest has written a column for Gamasutra since the place was founded over 14 years ago, with a largely free editorial hand. Unfortunately, that site chose not to publish this piece as it was written… something that makes me bite my tongue. Interestingly I went through a similar incident several months ago with my Culture Clash column for the IGDA. Perhaps wrongly, I elected to rewrite the piece to assuage the opinion of someone who frankly had no right to judge what I said.
Ernest chose another path, and here is his view, in his words, without dilution; because courage to stand up to wrongs (editorial and social) is another one of his qualities.
— Steerpike
A Call to Arms for Decent Men
By Ernest W. Adams
Originally published at the Designer’s Notebook
Normally I write for everybody, but this month’s column is a call to arms, addressed to the reasonable, decent, but much too silent majority of male gamers and developers.
Guys, we have a problem. We are letting way too many boys get into adulthood without actually becoming men. We’re seeing more and more adult males around who are not men. They’re as old as men, but they have the mentality of nine-year-old boys. They’re causing a lot of trouble, both in general and for the game industry specifically. We need to deal with this.
Why us? Because it’s our job to see to it that a boy becomes a man, and we are failing.
When we were little boys we all went through a stage when we said we hated girls. Girls had “cooties.” They were silly and frilly and everything that a boy isn’t supposed to be. We got into this stage at about age seven, and we left it again at maybe 10 or 11.
Then puberty hit and, if we were straight, we actively wanted the company of girls. We wanted to “go with” them, date them, and eventually we wanted to fall in love and live with one, maybe for the rest of our lives. That’s the way heterosexual boys are supposed to mature, unless they become monks.
My point is, you’re supposed to leave that phase of hating girls behind. Straight or gay, you’re supposed to grow the hell up.
What might be temporarily tolerable in a boy when he’s nine is pretty damned ugly when he’s fifteen and it’s downright psychopathic when he’s twenty. Instead of maturing into a man’s role and a man’s responsibilities, a lot of boys are stuck at the phase of hating girls and women. The boys continue to treat them like diseased subhumans right through adolescence and into adulthood.
Men are more powerful than women: financially, politically, and physically. What distinguishes a real man from a boy is that a man takes responsibility for his actions and does not abuse this power. If you don’t treat women with courtesy and respect – if you’re still stuck in that “I hate girls” phase – then no matter what age you are, you are a boy and not entitled to the privileges of adulthood.
- If you want to have some private little club for males only – like keeping women out of your favorite shooter games – you’re not a man, you’re an insecure little boy. A grown-up man has no problem being in the company of women. He knows he’s a man.
- If you freak out when a girl or a woman beats you in a game, you’re not a man, you’re a nine-year-old boy. A man doesn’t need to beat a woman to know he’s a man. A man is strong enough to take defeat in a fair game from anybody and move on.
- If your masculinity depends on some imaginary superiority over women, then you don’t actually have any. Manliness comes from within, and not at the expense of others.
- And if you threaten or abuse women, verbally or physically, you are not a man. You’re a particularly nasty specimen of boy.
When this puerile mentality is combined with the physical strength and sexual aggressiveness of an older boy or an adult male, it goes beyond bad manners. It’s threatening and anti-social, and if those boys are permitted to congregate together and support each other, it becomes actively dangerous. Yes, even online.
Of course, I don’t mean all boys are like this. Most of them get out of the cootie phase quickly and grow up just fine. But far too many don’t. If we don’t do something about these permanent nine-year-olds pretty soon, they’re going to start having boys of their own who will be just as bad if not worse, and life will not be worth living. Life is already not worth living on Xbox Live Chat.
In addition to the harm they do to women – our mothers, our sisters, our daughters – these full -grown juveniles harm us, too. A boy who refuses to grow up has lousy social skills, a short attention span, and a poor attitude to work. Furthermore, all men – that’s you and me, bro – get the blame for their bad behavior. And we deserve it, because we’ve been sitting on our butts for too long. We let them be bullies online and get away with it.
Some of you might think it’s sexist that I’m dumping this problem on us men. It isn’t; it’s just pragmatic. Women can not solve this problem. A boy who hates girls and women simply isn’t going to pay attention to a woman’s opinion. The only people who can ensure that boys are taught, or if necessary forced, to grow up into men are other men.
Let’s be clear about something else. This is not a political issue. This is not a subject for debate, any more than whether your son is allowed to swear at his mother or molest his sister is a subject for debate. There is no “other point of view.” The real-world analogy is not to social issues but to violent crime. Muggers don’t get to have a point of view.
So how do we change things?
First, we need to serve as positive examples. With the very little boys, we need to guide them gently but firmly out of the cootie phase. To the impressionable teenagers, we must demonstrate how a man behaves and how he doesn’t. Be the change you want to see. Use your real name and your real picture online, to show that you are a man who stands behind his words. Of course, you can’t prove your name is real, but it doesn’t matter. If you consistently behave with integrity online, the message will get across.
Secondly, we men need to stand up for courtesy and decency online . We can’t just treat this as a problem for women (or blacks, or gays, or anybody else the juvenile bullies have in their sights). Tell them and their friends that their behavior is not acceptable, that real men don’t agree with them, that they are in the minority. Say these words into your headset: “I’m disappointed in you. I thought you were a man, not a whiny, insecure little boy.” Don’t argue or engage with them. Never answer their questions or remarks, just repeat your disgust and disapproval. Assume the absolute moral superiority to which you are entitled over a bully or a criminal.
Finally, we need to put a stop to this behavior. It’s time for us to force the permanent nine-year -olds to grow up or get out of our games and forums. It’s not enough just to mute them. We need to build the infrastructure that precludes this kind of behavior entirely – Club Penguin has already done it for children – or failing that, we have to make the bullies pay a price for their behavior. Appealing to their better nature won’t work; bullies have none. We do not request, we do not debate, we demand and we punish.
I have some specific suggestions, from the least to the most extreme.
- Mockery. In 1993 50 Ku Klux Klansmen marched through Austin, Texas. Five thousand anti -Klan protestors turned up to jeer at them. Best of all, several hundred lined the parade route and mooned the Klan in waves. The media ate it up, and the Klan looked ridiculous. The hurt that they wanted to cause was met not with anger but with derision.
The juvenile delinquents are just like the Klan: anonymous in their high-tech bedsheets, and threatening, but in fact, a minority. Let’s use our superior numbers and metaphorically moon the boys who can’t behave. They’re social inadequates, immature losers. Let’s tell them so, loud and clear, in front of their friends.
- Shut them up. The right to speak in a public forum should be limited to those who don’t abuse it. James Portnow suggested this one in his Extra Credits video on harassment. Anyone who persistently abuses others gets automatically muted to all players. The only players who can hear them are those who choose to unmute them. Or another of James’ suggestions: New users don’t even get the right to talk. They have to earn it, and they keep it only so long as they behave themselves. This means a player can’t just create a new account to start spewing filth again if they’ve been auto-muted. Build these features into your games.
- Take away their means. If you’re the father of a boy who behaves like this online, make it abundantly clear to him that it is unmanly and unacceptable, then deny him the opportunity to do it further. We don’t let nine-year-olds misuse tools to hurt other people. Take away his cell phone, his console and his computer. He can learn to behave like a man, or he can turn in his homework in longhand like a child.
- Anonymity is a privilege, not a right. Anonymity is a double-edged sword. A limited number of people need it in certain circumstances: children, crime victims, whistleblowers, people discussing their medical conditions, political dissidents in repressive regimes. But those people normally don’t misuse their anonymity to abuse others; they’re protecting themselves from abuse.
I think the default setting in all online forums that are not intended for people at risk should require real names. After a user has demonstrated that they are a grown-up, then offer them the privilege of using a pseudonym. And take it away forever if they misuse it. I haven’t used a nickname for years except in one place where all the readers know who I am anyway. Has it made me more careful about what I say? You bet. Is that a good thing? Damn right it is.
- Impose punishments that are genuinely painful. This suggestion is extreme, but I feel it’s both viable and effective. To play subscription-based or pay-as-you-go (“free-to-play -but-not-really”) games, most players need to register a credit card with the game’s provider. Include a condition in the terms of service that entitles the provider to levy extra charges for bad behavior. Charge $5 for the first infraction and double it for each subsequent one. This isn’t all that unusual; if you smoke in a non-smoking hotel room, you are typically subject to a whopping extra charge for being a jerk.
Now I’m going to address some objections from the very juvenile delinquents I’ve been talking about – if any of them have read this far.
- “What’s the big deal? It’s harmless banter. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the game.” To start with, it’s our game, not yours, and we get to decide what’s acceptable behavior. You meet our standards or you get out. Apart from that, nothing that is done with intent to cause hurt is harmless. The online abuse I have seen goes way beyond banter. Threats are not harmless, they are criminal acts.
- “But this is part of gamer culture! It’s always been like this!” No, it is not. I’ve been gaming for over 40 years, and it has not always been like this. Yours is a nasty little subculture that arrived with anonymous online gaming, and we’re going to wipe it out.
- “This is just political correctness.” Invoking “political correctness” is nothing but code for “I wanna be an asshole and get away with it.” I’ll give you a politically-incorrect response, if you like: fuck that. It’s time to man up. You don’t get to be an asshole and get away with it.
- “You’re just being a White Knight and trying to suck up to women.” I don’t need to suck up to women, thanks; unlike you, I don’t have a problem with them, because I’m a grown man.
- “Women are always getting special privileges.” Freedom from bullying is a right, not a privilege, and anyway, that’s bullshit. Males are the dominant sex in almost every single activity on the planet. The only areas that we do not rule are dirty, underpaid jobs like nursing and teaching. Do you want to swap? I didn’t think so.
- “It’s hypocrisy. How come they get women-only clubs and we don’t get men-only clubs?” Because they’re set up for different reasons, that’s why. Male-only spaces are about excluding women from power, and making little boys whose balls evidently haven’t dropped feel special. Female-only spaces are about creating a place where they are safe from vermin.
- “But there’s misandry too!” Oh, and that entitles you to be a running sore on the ass of the game community? Two wrongs don’t make a right.. I’ll worry about misandry when large numbers of male players are being hounded out of games with abuse and threats of violence. If a few women are bigoted against men, you only have to look in the mirror to find out why.
- “Free speech!” The oldest and worst excuse for being a jerk there is. First, you have no right to free speech in privately-owned spaces. Zero. Our house, our rules. Second, with freedom comes the responsibility not to abuse it. People who won’t use their freedoms responsibly get them taken away. And if you don’t clean up your act, that will be you.
OK, back to the real men for a few final words.
This is not about “protecting women.” It’s about cleaning out the sewers that our games have become. This will not be easy and it will not be fun. Standing up to these little jerks will require the same courage from us that women like Anita Sarkeesian have already shown. We will become objects of hatred, ridicule, and contempt. Our manhood will be questioned. But if we remember who we are and stand strong together, we can beat them. In any case we won’t be threatened with sexual violence the way women are. We have it easier than they do.
It’s time to stand up. If you’re a writer, blogger, or forum moderator, please write your own piece spreading the message, or at least link to this one. I also encourage you to visit Gamers Against Bigotry, sign the pledge, and share it.
Use your heavy man’s hand in the online spaces where you go – and especially the ones you control – to demand courtesy and punish abuse. Don’t just mute them. Report them, block them, ban them, use every weapon you have. (They may try to report us in return. That won’t work. If you always behave with integrity, it will be clear who’s in the right.)
Let’s stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the women we love, and work with, and game with, and say, “We’re with you. And we’re going to win.”
Send an email to the author at ewadams@designersnotebook.com.
This article is reprinted with permission of the author and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. For information on sharing, distribution, and attribution, click the link above.
I know men were supposed to read this, and, not me, but: Thank you, Ernest, for being an ally.
This is great stuff and it applies to every arena not just gaming. Echoing, AJ, thank you Ernest for saying what needs to be said and needs to taken to heart. I’ve seen this “culture of boys” more and more and it’s getting disturbing, to say the least.
I think it would go a long ways if more and more gaming sites insisted on real names and accountability. Taking responsibility for your actions is the first step out of boyhood and into manhood.
Hooray! But one dissent. I’m not sure that requiring real names is a great idea. I probably can’t put this as well as other folks, but look up the nym wars (in relation to Google+’s “real name” policy); one question is what counts as a real name, but even beside that there are reasons for people to stay pseudonymous. Could be as simple as not having tenure.
yes. I really enjoy this blog, and this post is just a huge breath of fresh air. I have been directing an orchestral group that plays video game music, and it has been wonderful to see that our musicians are equally populated with men and women, boys and girls. When someone says something immature between songs at our concerts, I never hesitate to embarrass and belittle them as much as possible. There should be no apologies for standing up as a good person in the company of hateful or mislead idiots.
Hear, hear. I for one will take every word to heart and be mindful (more so) of my interactions, anonymous or personal, online and off. Thanks for sharing a great article and plea, Ernest.
I applaud the sentiment, but not to the extent of insisting that women are never excluded under any circumstances. Respected and not bullied, absolutely, but there should still be room for boys only clubs as well as girls only clubs (not to mention LGBQ clubs) for those who feel more comfortable in segregated environments.
We are not all the same and there is a worrying tendency to confuse the idea of equal treatment with identical treatment.
Oops, that should have been LGBTQ clubs – and please note who comes first in that list! I reckon it’s often the white hetersexual male who is becoming the downtrodden and/or undervalued member of society, regardless of whether he is a sexist pig or chivalry personified…
I like this line esp: “This is not about “protecting women.” It’s about cleaning out the sewers that our games have become.”
“I reckon it’s often the white hetersexual male who is becoming the downtrodden and/or undervalued member of society, regardless of whether he is a sexist pig or chivalry personified…”
Nope, wrong! It’s like what the guy at “Yo, is this racist?” says when someone complains about Black Entertainment Television — every other network is White Entertainment Television, we white heterosexual men don’t need our own special space.
Also, you might want to consider the ways in which the notion of chivalry itself is sexist.
White heterosexual males control the overwhelming majority of the wealth on the planet, plus the governments of the majority-caucasian countries. They are not even remotely “downtrodden.” What’s happening is that all the other suppressed and marginalized people are trying to get the same level of power and privilege that white heterosexual men enjoy, so they make the news a lot more often.
If you’re a white heterosexual male and you personally don’t feel very privileged, try pretending to be female in Xbox Live Chat and see what happens.
I can understand the view that chivalry itself can be viewed as sexist, but at the same time I think a lot of comes down to perception. When I open a door for a woman I’m not being secretly sexist, because (a) I open doors for dudes too, and (b) well, heck, I was brought up that it’s polite to do that. The main thing is that men should be gentlemen.
I certainly have no problem with semi-exclusive groups that exist for the right reasons. Black Entertainment Television is a channel that was set up to encourage the expression of a certain culture, not to exclude other cultures (at least, I don’t think so – more likely part of its raison d’etre is that black culture was excluded from other networks). It’s like, say, father’s groups. Provided the group’s charter isn’t aggressively “no Moms allowed,” it doesn’t bother me because its intent isn’t exclusionary.
The main thing is the treatment. And it’s not just directed at women, though Ernest’s article focuses on that item and I think it’s a great place to start the Great Behavioral Cleansing. There’s nothing wrong with smack talk and good natured name-calling. But what we see now is more and more vicious, more and more endemic to the culture of the experience… it has to stop. And the more I think about Ernest’s points, the more I agree that the only way to stop it is for the community of the decent to rise up and say “we won’t accept that behavior.”
I was fortunate enough to read an earlier draft of this article, when it was still to be published by Gamasutra, and Ernest made a point he later cut for brevity’s sake but is still worth mentioning. Concepts like integration and free speech do not magically appear simply because they’re codified into rules or laws. Kennedy and Johnson had to send armed Federal troops into the American south to forcibly integrate certain universities because it was the right thing to do. That part of the story is often forgotten or glossed over. And that’s where his suggestions of punishments that stick holds real weight. If you smoke in a non-smoking hotel room, you get hit with a service fee. You broke the rules of the hotel. Why should it be different in a game?
Now, I recognize that building infrastructures to support this into games may not be an easy task, but it can be done… and frankly, I think it should be done.
Re: chivalry; right, there’s nothing wrong with holding the door for the people coming after you, because that’s part of a framework of people being nice to each other and treating each other differently. But the word “chivalry” is loaded enough that I think it’s not good to conceive of yourself in that way. The word bears a suggestion of “women are delicate flowers who need to be protected,” and of course if you look at the historic Code of Chivalry it was not exactly non-sexist.
On the Great Behavioral Cleansing: I don’t do online gaming enough to talk about the situation there, but I’d be a little cautious about prematurely moving from “Stop being such sexist assholes!” to “Stop being such assholes!” (Though, of course, people should stop being such assholes.) In a field I do know something about, there was a discussion about harassment and sexism in philosophy job interviews (something that, a while ago, led to an official prohibition on holding interviews in a room that had a bed in it — many of the initial interviews are done in hotel suites). The discussion almost immediately turned to a bunch of horror stories about how terribly interview committees treated everybody, men included; and eventually a few women stepped in to say “That’s all true, but remember that we have to face whole extra layers of awful treatment, and immediately talking about generic awful treatment tends to obscure that.”
I agree that chivalry is a form of sexism, but I am not convinced that this makes it a bad thing. In my experience many women still like to be treated in this way, although I still recall my father getting an earful some years ago from a young “lady” for whom he held open a door.
What we are really bemoaning here is not so much sexist as boorish/loutish behaviour on the part of some males. The sad thing is that such behaviour was once an almost exclusively male characteristic, but now hard drinking and “laddish” behaviour are often displayed by young women.
Some extreme feminists would probably regard Ernest’s article as sexist condescension. Those who appreciate this sort of protection most may well be those who would still like to be cosseted as members of the “fair sex!”
“Kennedy and Johnson had to send armed Federal troops into the American south to forcibly integrate certain universities because it was the right thing to do.”
Well, actually Kennedy and Johnson only did so at proverbial gunpoint, but that’s beside the point.
On the subject of chivalry, you can interpret it a number of ways, not all of them sexist. Isn’t giving women extra curtsey a proper reaction to observing their general mistreatment? Chivalry, in its original meaning, was a reaction to and a revolt against the barbaric behavior of the typical “knight” of the middle ages.
And if you’re going to claim that women don’t need protection, well, to some extent, you’re correct. But how many women feel safe walking alone at night? Everyone knows the figures for sexual assault rates at this point. I think you can separate the idea of chivalry as a response to disrespect of women from the idea that women are morally, intellectually, and physically inferior to men and need to be watched over at all times.
And even if you strip away those practical justifications, what’s so bad about it? I’m nice to random women I meet because I like to be (and also probably because most of the people in my life who have actually treated me well have been women, so I like to return the favor). What’s sexist about that? Do I have to give a reason why I do something? Does everything we do in our society have to have a rational justification, especially if it’s an act of kindness?
There is nothing wrong with being nice to random women, and it doesn’t require a rational justification (though it’s easy to give one: being nice to people is a nice thing to do). And there’s something to the argument that men should show extra deference to women because of the sexism they face — though really, trying to rehabilitate the chivalric code in this respect is utterly absurd, even if it was the state of the art for good treatment of women at the time we’ve surely moved a long way past it.
But cosseting — the phenomenon where men condescend to women and assume that they can’t get along on their own — is very real and very obnoxious. That’s what “chivalry” tends to mean in this context (Lex himself is calling it a form of sexism). I was reading a piece by a games journalist who never got to play any of the games at some expo (E3?) because the reps at the booths insisted on playing them through for her. I’m sure they thought they were being very chivalrous; as a woman, she obviously needed their help.
Lex, I very much doubt that the women who appreciate a man calling out other men for sexual harassment are all those who would like to be cosseted as the “fair sex.”
Speaking as a gamer woman, I don’t necessarily want a man to protect me on-line, but, if someone goes over the line, it’d be nice for someone other than me to call them out on it. I think the overall call seems to be to ostracize rather than support and encourage anti-woman behavior in on-line spaces. It’s a call that I can get on board with.
Here’s I don’t want: People “helping” in the sense of flirting with me badly. That might be the sexist chivalry you guys are mentioning, and in that sense, it comes across as unwanted sexual attention and is still obnoxious.
An article on this subject from today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
I came back to this subject to put a link to the NYT article from today. But Scout has already done it. Thank you Scout. There are great men, even gentlemen in the gaming community. And Scout is one of them. Kay
I came back to this subject to put a link to the NYT article from today. But Scout has already done it. Thank you Scout. There are gentlemen in the gaming community. And Scout is one of them. Kay
Thank you very much for this declaration Ernest; and, thanks to Tap for passing it along. I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that men must stand up for what they believe and what they know to be true by protecting the rights of ALL women, in whatever circle those men may travel in. By extension, we should act upon our displeasure with those who seek to disenfranchise, demean or otherwise degrade people they choose to discriminate against. We can not expect our society, our communities, to be just if all we do is just allow anti-social behavior to flourish unchecked.
As an African American male, I have the unfortunate paradox of being part of a group, simply by nature of my birth, that has become perverse with self-loathing, misogynistic, anti-intellectual, consumer-glorifying behaviour. I make no apologies or excuses for it. Rather, I attempt to inject change in my surroundings as a means of balancing the imbalance I am confronted with. This is the only way. Silence and apathy are only means of cooperation and complicity.
Thank you, again. Sincerely, Johnathon “Brown Fang” Lipscomb.
@Lex
“Oops, that should have been LGBTQ clubs – and please note who comes first in that list! I reckon it’s often the white hetersexual male who is becoming the downtrodden and/or undervalued member of society, regardless of whether he is a sexist pig or chivalry personified…”
That statement is very telling, and typical of white males who rationalize their bigotry and general sense of entitlement. As you bemoan the “tragic plight” of the “downtrodden” white male and aspire to be an exemplar of the white male institution known as chivalry you, by definition, set yourself apart from and superior to all those who are not white, male and chivalrous. This shows a common, insipid ignorance of the historical facts that white male chivalry created and/or fostered prostitution, slavery, serfdom, apartheid, nazism, war-profiteering and a number of other “pleasures” that are generally frowned upon by compassionate people all over the world. You will note that I meant “compassionate” not “civilized” because those same white, chivalrous males considered themselves the very models of civilization while they were committing their travesties. More on topic, it is white male dominance that has fostered the society in which boys feel free to attack women verbally and physically at will, due to our occidental society’s systemic, patriarchal devaluation of the only people on planet who have the potential to give birth.
What is most interesting is how gently the other white males on this post chose to handle your misguided statements. I applaud Ernest for addressing your short-sightedness directly and with little window dressing. For the rest of you, with your distractions about the sexist nature of chivalry, you can do better.
We are all influenced in our outlook and perception of the world by the accident of birth, and this covers the time into which we are born as well as the place, ethnic origin, wealth class and of course sex. We all bleed if cut, but there are differences: we have to recognise both sides of this coin and deal with them in order to find our individual paths through the obstacle course of life.
I think that the Leonard Cohen lines “I will help you if I must, I will kill you if I can…I will kill you if I must, I will help you if I can” sum up the extremes of attitude/position quite well (in gaming as in life!).
I was always brought up to believe that with social advantage comes social/moral obligation, and this leads me see benefits in a benign form of feudalism, including notions of chivalry and charity. The problem is that at some point this spills over into condescension.
There have always been bullies and despots, and their skin colours have varied. If mankind first blossomed(?)in Africa as some suggest, then the earliest examples may well have been black and probably hairy. For centuries their impact/influence has been largely localised by geographical and communication considerations, and there has been some possibilty of containing/curtailing the worst excesses. However, the brave new world of the internet and the rise of social networking have opened Pandora’s box.
For me, one of the most worrying aspects of the communication revolution is how it allows anti-social individuals to find and draw strength from each other. This covers a spectrum which stretches from child-molesters (and beyond) down to internet bullies (including those who pick on women). In “the good old days* there was a liklihood of such persons being identified and held in check to at least some extent by the attitudes and actions of the majority, but not any more!
Of course, as Ernest highlights, there is also the hugely increased opportunity to put on an act. Am I actually a repressed white heterosexual expressing his own views, and is Brown Fang all that he seems, or is this all an extract from an RPG?
OK, Lex, so I had my motivations for not being more blunt than I was in my initial response to you — mostly, this isn’t my blog, and I didn’t want to start cursing out other commenters — but at this point, stick it in your ear.
“I was always brought up to believe that with social advantage comes social/moral obligation, and this leads me see benefits in a benign form of feudalism, including notions of chivalry and charity”? Where to begin? First of all, before you talk about benign forms of feudalism you might want to do a little reading about what feudalism was actually like, ’cause it sure sounds like you got your idea of it from fantasy novels.
But aside from that, your whole idea depends on the idea that those who have social advantages get to keep them. That’s what feudalism was about. What you don’t understand is that with social advantage comes the moral obligation to ensure that social advantage goes away. You seem to think that, as a white heterosexual male, you should use the advantages that gives you to make sure that people who aren’t white heterosexual males stay below you in the social hierarchy, but you’re going to maybe be nice to them as a form of charity. That makes you an asshole.
The line about “Some black person was mean to some other black person in prehistoric Africa, and that’s on a par with racism” is beneath contempt, but I’m curious as to how you might try to explain what you meant by “probably hairy” without being even more obviously racist.
Actually I was a student of history, I was born in Africa, and I embrace social improvement, but not at the price of a descent into anarchy. I also believe that leadership should be by example and that respect has to be earned, regardless of race, colour or creed.
In short, an unashamed dinosaur not famed for being politically correct, but probably generally regarded as being gently provocative without being offensive!
I have absolutely no problem with Ernest’s exhortation, but I suspect that change on gaming (and social media) sites will only come if strict censorship/policing becomes the norm. There are relatively few sites that have either the will or the resources to achieve this: the same applies to governments when it comes to trying to control discrimination in the workplace (or elsewhere). In any event who will be trusted to set or enforce the parameters?
Ah yes, the refreshing student of history who denies the science of evolution, as one might dismiss the science of global warming, while reminding us all that we need a benevolent, white, male ruler because otherwise the world would be thrown into anarchy: he’s intelligent and charming enough to not offend people in an overt, abrasive fashion. I believe it was this type of gentleman who fought suffrage from the comfort of the home his wife kept clean for him.
Thank you Lex for providing the most common examples of the arguments foisted upon us by the most capable and formidable dinosaur children amongst us. I do, sincerely appreciate your more genteel approach; because, I understand that it gives solid foundations to the extreme degenerate approach in a way that makes for engaging academic discourse and political drama. It’s so polite and practiced–and proven to stagnate progress for a time before it is toppled to civil rights actions.
Still, to your last point, that gaming sites and governments are incapable of sustaining the strict censorship required to repress discriminating speech, you obviously missed the fact that what Ernest has proposed is not a centralized, feudal system of top down controls, but a decentralized social practice that supersedes institutional or governmental interests. It is a form of civil disobedience and civic responsibility. Perhaps it was typed in a frequency only heard by mammalian ears, rather than those of the extinct reptilian variety; but, I’m sure a socially aware woman could explain it to you if you could manage to hear her. If you had followed the link to the Extra Credits video you would have been spoon fed a more complete list of forms of actions that might be taken without the need for draconian business practices or liberty-squelching laws.
The most important take-away from Ernest’s post is that as men we should do everything in our power to let the offensive boys around us know that what they are doing is NOT acceptable and that they should grow up and be man enough to accept the very real and very valuable contributions of others. Insecure boys have an intrinsic need to bolster their failing confidence by denigrating, subjugating and dehumanizing others. Men are secure enough in themselves to push past those base urges and see things more clearly.
That’s a very long-winded way of saying, “Hey, cut the verbal gymnastics crap and grow a pair little boy. You’re wrong– and if you keep acting like and infant, we’re not going to allow you to be around us any more.”
Aw shucks, it sounds like you aren’t going to back my bid for world domination; too bad!
“I embrace social improvement, but not at the price of a descent into anarchy.”
Nope, can’t get the lower orders get too uppity. You’ve already outed yourself as a guy who thinks sexism isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and since you didn’t explain your “hairy” comment I’m going to figure it’s as racist as it sounded, so go fuck yourself.
I have to say that I struggle to understand how “hairy” has somehow become a racial slur. However, if I have unintentionally insulted the members of a tribe of hirsutes the existence of which I was previously unaware, I apologise unreservedly!
Beyond that, I can only suggest that you pay closer attention to the sentiments expressed so well in Ernest’s article which started this thread, including “we men need to stand up for courtesy and decency online.”
Over and out.
Right, my way of standing up for courtesy and decency online in this case is, when I meet a self-proclaimed sexist who whines about how much oppression a white heterosexual male faces, I tell him to fuck off. You don’t get to use a call for decency as an excuse to express your deeply fucked-up views without getting called on it. And someone who prides himself on not being “politically correct” — which, as usual, means “I want to be an asshole without getting called on it” — really ought to spare us the horrified gasps.
You still haven’t explained what “hairy” has to do with anything, which is why (given your other proclivities), I assume it’s racist. You can take care of this by explaining what non-racist thing you meant by “black and probably hairy.”
Late reply, I know, but terrific piece Ernest. I’d also like to point out that the ‘Gamers Against Bigotry’ site has been hacked unfortunately, presumably by said little boys.
This thread has taken a disturbing turn. It’s the kind of thing I came to this site to escape. It’s one thing to not tolerate immature behavior (something I agree with Mr. Adams on, and thank him for stating so boldly). It’s quite another to engage in summary judgement against and form lasting opinions, based on just a few paragraphs, of those with whom you may disagree but who have otherwise not been uncivil or disrespectful.
Lex opened with the idea that he ought to be able to exclude women from certain spaces, went on immediately to a whine about how white straight guys are the truly oppressed, declared that sexism isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and finished with what I’m pretty sure was a nasty racist slur that he’s refused to explain.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I really don’t think the moral of the behavior that Ernest Adams called out in the OP is that we should be polite to sexists and racists. Even if they’re not actively harassing anyone at the moment.
Thanks for the moral support SB.
As an amateur psychologist and agent provocateur, my concern is that Matt W appears to be exhibiting characteristics sometimes associated with a bigot… 😉
My (main) serious point is simply that I do not see discrimination as necessarily being negative. By definition, it is the ability to see fine distinctions and differences: without it, how can anyone actually afford others the consideration and respect which is their due?
Matt W – an interesting thread. You clearly have a lot of class, such a shame it’s all third!
I wouldn’t mourn the passing of Tap just yet SB. Lex knew exactly what he was doing by expanding the discussion beyond gaming and using it to suggest that the culprits Earnest called out might be hapless targets of overly shrill PC warriors and besides chicks can be douches too. He eventually got the response he was fishing for, I suspect.
Yes that is a pretty damning list. I see now that his guilt is beyond question. It’s too bad that we can’t meet him in person and give him a proper “Fuck off” to his face. Maybe add in a little spit for good measure. If we had enough guys we could rough him up a little too. It’s no worse than he rightly deserves.
Synonamess, I’d like you to answer this question sincerely: Do you think that the list of positions that Lex has taken is not particularly damning? I think the statement that “I do not see discrimination as necessarily being negative” is more damning than anything I could say about him, but perhaps you disagree.
Or do you think that the problem is that (Brown Fang and) I called him out too vigorously? I assure you that I have no desire to spit on Lex, and have absolutely no desire to meet him in person at all. I just don’t think that we’re under any obligation to create a safe space for misogynists on the internet. The idea that misogynists (and racists) ought to have their feelings protected is part of what creates the atmosphere that Ernest Adams was complaining about.
Forgive me for answering your question with a question, but are you absolutely certain of those things? If you were to meet Lex, could it be possible that you actually like him? Or maybe you would find him a bit benighted in his views but overall a good soul. Of course, you may find him abhorrent, or perhaps just a jerk regardless of his philosophy.
I do believe that many of the terms being invoked, such as racist, sexist, discrimination, even bigot, have become so politically charged that, in one sense, they have lost all meaning (and, speaking generally, have become for some a way to stifle open discussion). And in another sense, they can cause people to react in wildly different ways such that it can be very difficult to discover common ground that may well exist.
Understand that I’m not defending Lex as such. He hasn’t written enough for me to form a coherent notion of what to defend or condemn.
What I’m trying to defend is an ideal. One that could be expressed in the words of the Golden Rule. It’s easy to follow that with people we like or admire. Much more difficult with those we don’t. But it’s in those cases where it really matters. If at the end of that personal meeting (or deeper correspondence or whatever) if you find yourselves ultimately at odds, what would it have cost you? Wasted time? Could the possible benefits outweigh the risk? There’s enough ill will and bad faith in the world, I just hate to see more of it created over what could be just a misunderstanding.
Am I absolutely certain of which things? I’m certain that Lex said the things that he said on this thread, and I’m certain that I have no desire to meet him in person for that reason. I’m also certain that the things he said expressed all sorts of prejudice; he said, in so many words, that discrimination* and sexism are not necessarily bad. It would take an incredible amount of mental gymnastics to interpret him as anything other than prejudiced.
As for whether I might find him charming if I met him; perhaps, but so what? That doesn’t mean I have to let his sexist and racist comments pass uncontested. At the end you seem to be trying to suggest that it would be a good idea for us to meet because we might find we have something in common, but there are several billion people who I haven’t met, and I don’t see why I should let someone jump to the head of the line just because he made sexist and racist comments on a blog that I occasionally comment at. That remains a reason not to want to meet him.
About the idea that “many of the terms being invoked, such as racist, sexist, discrimination, even bigot, have become so politically charged that, in one sense, they have lost all meaning (and, speaking generally, have become for some a way to stifle open discussion).” I think there’s a broader point here, because I think it’s overreaction to these terms that stifles an open discussion about racism, sexism, and discrimination, not the terms themselves. But we don’t really need to reach that point in this discussion, because Lex himself has proudly endorsed sexism and discrimination. These are his own words! And when I pointed that out to you, it was you who tried to shut down discussion.
The Golden Rule I follow here is, if someone were expressing bias against a group to which I belong, I would want other people to call him out on it. So if someone is expressing bias against a group to which I don’t belong, I call him out on it. I think an ideal that we should never be rude to people, no matter how abhorrent the views they express, is effectively a demand to create a safe space for people to be bigots on the internet. And that makes you part of the problem.
*I realize that Lex is make a semantic quibble about the word “discrimination,” but come on; if you really want a word for “distinguishing two things that are different” in the context of a discussion of prejudice, you use one that doesn’t also mean “prejudice.”
I have a two part question for Matt W: who is it that you are accusing me of being prejudiced against, and on the basis of which of my comments on this thread?
Women, on the basis of your comment that “I agree that chivalry is a form of sexism, but I am not convinced that this makes it a bad thing”; black people, on the basis of your comment about “black and probably hairy,” which has several racist constructions and no non-racist constructions that I can think of, and which you refused to explain; anyone who’s not a white heterosexual male, on the basis of your absurd statement that “it’s often the white hetersexual [sic] male who is becoming the downtrodden and/or undervalued member of society”; pretty much everyone who’s ever been discriminated against, on the basis of your statement that “I do not see discrimination as necessarily being negative.” There are other somewhat less bald-faced indications of your various prejudices, but those are the most explicit, especially the first quote.
I think we’ve long since moved past the level of civil discourse and debate, in which people discuss differing opinions and find common ground. That’s especially disappointing given that part of the reason Ernest let me run this article was because I told him about the community here, and that it would likely spark some intelligent debate he would find interesting.
We don’t provide a forum for bigotry of any kind here; and continuing a discussion when it’s so patently obvious that one side is delighted by how much it has offended the other is pointless. I’m embarrassed by this whole exchange.
Therefore… abracadabra!