Category Archives: International

Just how seriously should we take #Gamergate?

 

 

image

It started with a jilted lover and a vengeful post. It then spun off into what is arguably a rabid hate group against what they perceive as ideological corruption. Since its inception in August, #Gamergate has led to at least three women leaving their homes in face of death threats over Twitter, Intel pulling their ads from gaming website Gamasutra, and a shooting threat at Utah State University. Gamergaters claim to be ethical crusaders; their opponents say they are at best trolls, at worse digital terrorists.

I’ve stared into the abyss – the endless feed of #Gamergate and #StopGamerGate2014 tagged posts, online imageboard 8chan and gaming forums, in an attempt to find what is the common thread in this movement. And what, in fact, is #Gamergate.

A confused and angry bunch

If it can be said that #Gamergate has a “base”, it is internet message board 8chan (a.k.a. “hatechan,” as 8chan users themselves call it), which came to be after the far better known imageboard 4chan started curtailing doxxing (the public release of personal documents to facilitate harassment) attempts – mostly focused on female game producers, critics and journalists. In itself, 8chan is contradictory: they claim to be a free-speech site, yet use their speech in attempts to censor so-called “Social Justice Warriors” – feminists, LGBT activists, anti racism activists, etc; its users claim they are not misogynists, yet the site contain numerous boards dedicated to harassing women, and to “destroy feminism”.

8chan is central to much of the #Gamergate movement; users are referred to as “Leaders of gamergate”, its largest board is “/gg/” – dedicated solely to #Gamergate – and may users see it as their safe haven against “political correctness”. Their worst fear is the end of gaming as they know it due to pandering to “feminazis” and the creation of a Comics Code Authority-style censorship board. Some of them seem sincere enough in their claims against “corruption in gaming journalism” – the problem is what they perceive as corruption.

A recent example of thier incongruity came after the release of Bayonetta 2. In response to the website Polygon’s less-than-stellar review of the Wii U title, which noted issues regarding objectification and over sexualization of women as problematic, #Gamergate started a campaign to get the gaming website blacklisted by Nintendo. In a way, their notion of corruption is “discourse I don’t agree with” – while ethics mean cronyism, as Polygon ought to be punished for the “crime” of not giving a perfect score to an AAA game (a large budget, mainstream title). Meanwhile, older and well known cases of actual corruption in gaming media – such as the firing of Jeffrey Gertsmann over his negative review of “Kane&Lynch” in 2007, which suggested a cosy relationship between news outlets and gaming companies – are ignored in the name of those perceived cases of ideological corruption. In fact, one of their main gripes is with the criteria set for game reviews. In short terms, they want “objective, unopinionated and impartial reviews” – a complete oxymoron. Another point of major contention is the alleged collusion of journalists with feminists and minorities to “fix the system” and “force their political agenda” onto the game market. . 

“A hate group”

The targets of gamergaters harassment are well known by now: Game developer Zoe Quinn, feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, who’s been on their radar for the past two years, and game developer Brianna Wu. The movement started with the harassment of Zoe Quinn over her alleged sexual misconduct.

Quinn had already faced harassment earlier this year, when her award-winning game Depression Quest became the target of a harassment campaign led by “wizardchan” – an online imageboard frequented by male virgins who blame “society” and “feminism” for their inability to have a relationships, who claimed Zoe was exploiting depression and mocking their pain. Then, in August, her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni came out with “thezoepost”. In this 9000 words blogpost, Gjoni claims Quinn cheated on him with five people connected to the gaming industry and the gaming press, to “ascend in her career”. One such partner supposedly was gaming journalist Nathan Grayson – whom according to Gjoni, she slept with to get favorable reviews of Depression Quest. The fact that Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest nor ever wrote about the game was seen by most gamergaters as irrelevant.

While maintaining their main concern was about ethics, gamergaters have discussed, judged, and condemned Quinn’s sex life, genitalia and behaviour. All three were forced to leave their homes over concerns for their own safety.

As a whole, the movement alternates between denying responsibility for the threats and harassment, denying the latters’ existence, or even claiming the victims themselves created the threats. While recently condeming doxxing on twitter, 8chan has at the same time being used to expose the id and home address of those women who #Gamergate perceive as enemies.

Other women have been caught in this debacle, too. Social researcher Jennifer Allaway was targeted by what she calls a “hate group” in late September. While conducting a study on the importance of diversity in game content, she was targeted by gamergaters with attacks and insults. “If members of gamergate took my study seriously, I would have welcomed them. The fact that they used my own study to mock the purpose of it and harass me shows that, to them, anything or anyone asking questions about diversity deserves mockery,” she said.

The whole environment has become “exhausting”, Allaway noted: “I have multiple friends in the game industry who have faced far worse harassment than I, and seeing what they go through makes me want to speak out more. The worst is seeing your friends leave. Women have worked so hard to make the industry a safe space for themselves, and now that feels threatened.” Among those who have quit due to the harassment, is award winning journalist Jenn Frank, who abandoned gaming journalism after being repeatedly threatened, insulted, and having her personal info posted online following an article she wrote for The Guardian regarding the harassment faced by Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

More than a vocal minority

The persistence of threats and harassment brings into question whether the angry and hateful side of the movement is simply a minority. Game developer Molly Carroll has doubts on how “minor” is the hatred in #Gamergate. While she notes that the official cause of #Gamergate is indeed worthy, as gaming journalism is in need of refinement, she is skeptical of whether people are truly in it for that cause. As she notes, the hatemongers have gained prevalence over whatever rational segment there ever was: “Sadly, one cannot deny that the actions of the anti-women portion of Gamergate have outnumbered and gained attention over that of any other,” she says.

Due to the way things progressed and escalated, as the focus increasingly shifted from claims about “ethics” to the position of women in gaming, #Gamergate was joined by women-haters and neo-nazis, who used it as an outlet for their hatred: “It isn’t even about games any more, its just an outlet for these kinds of people [to act] without consequence,” Carroll claimed.

#Gamergate in itself, in her perception, has accomplished nothing. At least, not anything the movement aimed for. “I suppose the situation has offered food for thought, but an actual tangible effect? No. At least not yet, and I highly doubt anything will come from it,” she said. If anything came out of this, is that the treatment of women is gaining more attention and sympathy than ever before. However, as Allaway noted, one must not keep silent over #Gamergate: “Silence is acceptance. If we are silent against the actions of #gamergate, then we are saying that we consent to the threats and harassment to our community. They have the ability to impact our culture if we do not put a stop to them.”

A “Culture War”

Some gamergaters themselves are no longer defining their “war” as one against corruption in gaming journalism, but as a “culture war” to keep gaming culture unaltered, to curtail any attempts at moving it towards a more inclusive environment, and to end critique of it – all the while maintaining they are the ones being oppressed. A recent post on 8chan read:

“Gamergate is about drawing a line in the sand and stating that ‘We will give up X freedoms to make you comfortable, but that is all we will ever give you.’ Freminists [sic] are demanding games be more inclusive for women. Black action groups are demanding games have more black protagonists. Gays are demanding more gay characters, and Trans are demanding trans characters.

The point of gamer gate is us stating that we have a culture independant [sic] of other cultures. That we will maintain our culture despite newcomers asking for more and more stipulations and changes to it. They have taken our right to speak freely in public. They have taken our right to debate freely in acadamia [sic]. They have taken our right to pubic [sic] expression and art. We are drawing the line at the edge of the internet and any one who tries to further force us to concede our freedom of expression will face us there.”

This kind of claim is nothing new: it harkens back to moral outrages over minority rights, and the reversal of blame so common in them. To Allaway, this indicated a “knee-jerk reaction” by people that until now were the only ones being catered to. “This is of course ridiculous, because there will always be games that cater to them more than women and other minorities” she addsed, “but they fear what this dialogue will do to games as a whole, and are willing to silence anyone who is a part of changing that.”

According to Carroll, another leading factor are misconceptions as to what is causing changes in gaming. “Currently some of the bigger figureheads spearheading these efforts and getting the most media attention are women. So naturally people assume that its women who are changing games in what they see as a bad way”, she noted, adding that those changes are still very slow. “For every step they [gaming companies] take forward, such as the removal of booth babes – skimpy clad women used to promote products in events and conventions –  from gaming events, there is a step back,” she said.

The “War” narrative has been used before, in an interview conceed by Zoe Quinn’s ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni (the author of the “zoepost” and arguably, the catalyst to #Gamergate) to Buzzfeed, Gjoni claimed he “quit his dayjob” as waging “internet warfare” took too much of his dedication. Nowadays he focuses mainly on coordinating #Gamergate – and says he would do it again – although in the same interview he said he regrets the harassment. According to him, the threats against his ex girlfriend are not his faullt: she should’ve done more to prevent that. Sadly, is another feature of some gamergaters: shifting the blame unto the victim, while portraying themselves as the ones being persecuted.

An online “war” over games might seem like a silly thing – and in many ways, it is – yet since its inception #Gamergate, either intentionally or by irresponsibility, has led to fear, harassment and aggression online. Whatever they think their intentions might be in theory, in practice their behaviour is little more than that of an angry mob – and should be treated as such.

 

Written by Pedro Leal

Image credit: gamergate365

‘A mass movement needed to happen’ – Hong Kong’s umbrella revolution

HK3
FROM A CLASS BOYCOTT by student activists, to the sudden kick off of the long awaited Occupy Central Movement, the mass protest started on 28th September in Hong Kong is the biggest in the city since 89 Democracy Movement in 1989. While depicted by international media as the most peaceful revolution, there actually exits very opposite opinions of the movement among citizens.

Conflicts and confrontations between protesters and the police, between pro-occupy and anti-occupy supporters, filled the movement with the unnecessary element of verbal and physical violence. The infiltration of triads and gangs in the protest also questioned the movement’s nature and raises concerns that more violence would be caused.

Entering its third week, the movement appears stagnated: both the government side and the protesters are looking for a direction. Student leaders, scholars and professors know well that Beijing is not going to back down at this stage and give Hong Kong full democracy. C.Y. Leung, a puppet of the Chinese government, is unlikely to step down because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would “lose face” by doing this. In other words, the protest has not achieved and is not likely to achieve anything concrete any time soon.

Many thus blame this on the immature decision of student leaders and the youth. Because of their blind impulse, Hong Kong has been paralyzed and the daily life of general public is disturbed. School has to be suspended; shops in central areas are forced to close; traffic, business is interrupted, all in exchange for a movement where no significant achievement is foreseeable.

However,  the mass protest is needed and is a milestone for the future of Hong Kong, politically and socially.

The lack of confidence in the government is hindering the city’s development

In the past few years, Hong Kong citizens have lost confidence in the government. In a survey conducted by Public Opinion Program of the University of Hong Kong, ratings of the current governor C.Y. Leung has constantly been below 50, which – among previous governors – is a failed performance. As a result of the lack of trust, members of the Legislative Council (Legco) – half being elected by eligible voters and thus representing the will of the public – hardly agreed on any budget plan, public expenditure or law proposed. From 2012 to 2014, radicals from the opposition camps have staged filibusters four times, as a way to prevent votes on several proposals they were against, and as a gesture to show their dissatisfaction of the governor. Legco is an important body in enacting, amending and repealing law, also in examining and approving budgets, taxation and public expenditure. If Legco is not functioning, Hong Kong cannot move forward.

The lack of trust in the governor, to a very large extent, is because he is not elected with the system of universal suffrage. He was appointed by the CCP. He is not legitimated to represent the people and whatever he does, the public interprets as Chinese agenda – to tighten its political control over the city. This civil disobedience, as how the student leaders call it, is a fight to accomplish full democracy, which is actually fundamental for the city to move forward.

A public lecture for the HongKongese

The Occupy Movement is not merely a protest, which the anti-occupy supporters argue just causes public disorder, but a very important lesson for the 7 million inhabitants to stop and think about what they really want from the government, and how they want their city to develop.

It is also literally a lesson because along the occupied areas, professors and scholars have been constantly giving public lectures about democracy, social movements and current political issues. It also provides a platform for discussion between citizens with different political orientations, which is quite rare among the politically silent Hongkongese. The city dwellers have a reputation of being politically apathetic and ignorant. This mass movement has taught them that it is not a privilege to practice political freedom. It is instead the basic right that should be enjoyed by people in a civilized city, and it is also their responsibility to participate in every political decision.

Beside the poorly functioning government that hinders the city from moving forward, the atmosphere of the society has been grim and tense in recent years. This is not entirely but to a large extent because of the increasing number of mainland Chinese moving to, traveling, or doing business in Hong Kong

A cultural difference between mainland Chinese and HongKongese has to be addressed

SARS in 2003 brought an economic depression to Hong Kong. The by then governor C.H. Tung carried out Individual Visit Scheme, which allows easy access for mainland Chinese to visit Hong Kong. From then on, various kinds of social problems have emerged: Chinese pregnant women travel to Hong Kong and give birth in order to obtain Hong Kong citizenship; the speculation of milk powder products that drove up the price of milk powders; of Chinese tourists eating, drinking, littering and even defecating in public transports outraged the local citizens. These are just some of many examples.

Though these public behavior problems seem minor and trivial, they actually disturb the harmonious order and daily life of the locals. Criticism from the locals against the mainland Chinese has gone from objective to subjective, from reasonable to radical, from fair comments to personal attack. It is an inevitable product when two very different cultures are put to live under the same roof. It is the result of the accumulated daily clashes.

Needless to say, Chinese tourists have helped boost the economy of the city, but the cultural clash in the society cannot go on any longer. Hatred, discrimination, and binary divisions would only deteriorate the relationship between Hong Kong and China. This protest represents the fundamental ideology shared by Hong Kongese but not with mainland Chinese because of historical context – the thirst for freedom and democracy.

By the time this article is published, the police will have launched again another round of eviction in the occupied area. Anti-occupy protestors, at the same time, tried to clear out roadblocks surrounding the occupied zone and suppress the pro-occupy supporters. Triads and gangs, who it is  suspected were sent by the government or anti-occupy group to create disorder and chaos, were also trying to confront and provoke the police, creating unnecessary violence.

It is important that at this stage of the movement, protestors do not forget the major purpose that drove them to take to the street in the first place. Their attention should not to be diverted by ingenuine gangs who are trying to disunite the peaceful public.

As the old saying goes, it takes more than one day to establish a full democratic system. But in any case, this mass movement has taught the Hong Kong public the power of collective efforts and has changed the city’s culture of being politically passive. It is one of the most revolutionary events that has happened, and there is still a long way to go.

Written by Cheuk Yin Chan
Images taken from Instagram 

Controversial Nobel Peace prizes were still a human rights victory

Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 12.35.23 PM
THE NOBEL PEACE Prize Committee once again recognised the dedication of individuals in standing up for peace and human rights, after two years of celebrating institutions. This year’s focus was on children’s rights. Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai were jointly awarded the Prize “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.”

Kailash Satyarthi has been leading the Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save Children Movement) in India since 1980. Together with a group of 80,000 volunteers, he liberated more than 78,000 children from labour exploitation, as he denounced than many more – tens of millions –  are still used in some form of labour or almost slavery.

Malala Yousafzai is a campaigner for girls’ education. At 11 years of age, she was contributing to the BBC Urdu language service, describing life in her home region of Swat, Pakistan, which was under the Taliban’s control. She documented the Taliban’s crackdown on music, culture and education for girls. She became known worldwide in 2012, when the Taliban attempted to murder her by shooting her in the head. She has since received medical care in the UK, where she presently resides with her family after having received asylum. At 17, she is the youngest ever Nobel laureate, and became the fourteenth woman to win the Peace Prize since 1901.

While this year’s victory is not as extravagant as Al Gore’s in 2007 or Barack Obama’s in 2009, not everyone agreed with the Nobel Committee decisions. Supporters of other nominees, notably Edward Snowden, were disappointed. Others are not fully convinced by Malala’s victory because it is not about “peace” or because she is seen as an opportunity for the West to reiterate the narrative of the evil savages while remaining silent about the damaged caused by their wars and drone strikes.

Despite Western media focusing on some of the things Malala says, while understating her Muslim and Socialist convictions, Malala remains a remarkable, deserving Peace Prize winner. Whatever the West’s depiction, she does and says what she believes is right – not what she thinks will please people’s ears. When she opposed the Taliban’s regime, it was her own initiative: there was no “West” to protect her. She proved herself to be an inspirational young woman, taking charge of her own destiny and standing up to those who tried to silenced her. Her honesty, bravery and compassion, in spite of what she’s suffered, is worthy of respect and recognition.

Most importantly, this year’s Peace Prize has to be understood as a union of both Malala and Mr. Satyarthi. Focusing on Malala only not only diminishes the impressive work that Mr. Satyarthi has carried out, but also is missing the point of the award. The Committee specifically selected a man and a woman, a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, a younger and an older person. This was to send the powerful message: that anyone can do something to improve people’s lives, and promote peace and development.  The education of children is a fundamental step in building peace in and across nations: “The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism,” read the motivation.

Is this a Western narrative? Is it too political? The Nobel is a Western institution, it will most certainly look at the world from a Western perspective, especially when choosing prizes for their less scientific categories like Literature and Peace. These prizes are very often politically motivated, and mostly tend to “pander to their audience and honour worldwide harmony” as the satirical website The Onion mockingly described it. This year, the political motivation was to bring closer two activists involved in similar struggles in two neighbouring countries facing tensions and a not-so-frozen border conflict. It was a message of unity in face of divisions.

Many more years will have to go by before an institution like the Nobel Committee will acknowledge the noble efforts of those who have tried to make the US accountable for their actions. That time will come, one day. For now, let us celebrate and be inspired by two people who also fight against powerful forces exploiting the innocents. The recognition of those who are standing up to oppressors and improving the lives of others is always a cause for celebration.

 

Written by Sofia Lotto Persio

Image: screenshot from The Nobel Prize’s Twitter account

Emma Watson’s speech was remarkable, but nowhere near game-changing

THINKING OF FEMINISM, how many see women marching in the streets compared to performing in TV shows and conferences? Feminism has usually been a bottom-up movement, its arguments brought to public attention by grass-roots activists. However, recently an increasing amount of celebrities have become spokespersons for the feminist cause. Beyoncé brought the word and its definition to the houses of millions of Americans (especially young Americans) during the VMAs last August, and last week Emma Watson delivered a powerful speech at the UN.

Given the hostility that many self-proclaimed feminists face online and in real life, the British actress recent speech at the UN was remarkable. Even if she did not speak for everyone, she spoke candidly and openly to everyone. Her speech was significant not just for the way it put feminism even more in the (positive) spotlight, but also because it touched upon a crucial, often debated issue in feminism, the role of men: “Gender equality is your issue, too,” she said.

Celebrities’ involvement does not fail to raise criticism, as they are accused to portray a more “mainstream” version of feminism than the one advocated by “radical” feminists. To some, Watson’s speech was diluting the essence of feminism, to others the idea of “HeforShe” reiterates the idea of women needing men’s support and protection. Yet, showing that men suffer from gender stereotyping does not necessarily mean prioritising their issues or putting them at the centre of the movement, it simply means showing that feminism is a movement that men too can and should embrace. Watson firmly called for ceasing to see gender as binary, and appreciate it as a spectrum instead.

Her words are fair, her intentions are good, and she should receive the media attention that she has, but she’d probably be the first one to reject the idea of being a “game-changer.” In fact, many of what some magazines consider her “best quotes” are things that a lot of people have been saying for a lot of time already. Given the audience and the attention receive, Watson actually missed an opportunity to properly discuss the issue at the heart of the fight for gender equality worldwide: the idea of privilege, both in terms of gender, and also in terms of social class.

Watson started one of her sentences with the words “I am from Britain…” and went on to explain how lucky she was to grow up in a society that valued her development as much as that of a man. The emphasis on her country of birth was problematic because it suggested that the Britain, a developed, Western country, was somewhat of an oasis of equal opportunities. Having access to equal opportunities though, is often not a matter of where you are born, but of which family you are born into.

15311442736_1eecf7355b_b

In fact, while many so-called developed countries, including the UK and the USA, face gender inequality issues of their own, high barriers to good education, health services, and good jobs hardly allow the same opportunities to all citizens. Ms. Watson comes from a background that allowed her to attend private schools and receive the best and most exciting possible education. Actually, children born out of prosperous families in developing or less developed countries also share these same privileges. If Ms. Watson had been born from a family of a different social background, this may not have been the case, or her path to success would have likely been steeper.

The acclaimed “genius response” of the 15 year old boy who wrote a letter to The Telegraph in support of Watson’s speech is no better in this sense. Its opening sentence is “We are lucky to live in a Western world where women can speak out against stereotypes.” Granted, he’s only 15 years old, but even then, he should consider what happens to those women, in the West as in everywhere else in the world, who speak out against stereotypes. They get bullied, they get harassed, they suffer violence. Some women in fact are not that free to speak out to begin with. Not everyone is a Beyoncé, or an Emma Watson.

The recognition of privilege and the fight against it is essential in moving towards a more equal society, one that truly grants equal opportunities in the sexes and within those sexes, too. Emma Watson’s speech is a timid step in that direction, but hopefully one that will encourage more and more people to look at these issues, and to move on from there to dismantle the ubiquitous system of inequality together. That, is what feminism is all about.

Written by Sofia Lotto Persio
Picture Credits: UN Women Gallery