Here I go again, walking into a minefield. And this time post-surgery so my leg feels great. So I dunno what my excuse is this time.
So. #GamerGate.
Hunh.
I buy, play, and enjoy video games, to be sure (my bank account hates me for it every Steam Summer and Winter Sale), but I really don’t consider myself a “gamer”, mostly because I feel nigh entirely detached from the issues that gamers tend to have. I really don’t care how many “p”s a game is rendered in. I find the console wars a silly arms race often won not by the company that has the best product, but by which one of the three fucks up the least. I find “physical vs digital” sales and game ownership to be largely a non-starter.
But one topic that has caught my ear is because journalism WAS an intended field of mine, and the flimsy ethics of journalism and the portions of society they cover extends far beyond video games. That sort of corruption is a sad, despicable fact no matter where you go; be it sports, politics, food (yes… there is corruption within FOOD reviews. And apparently there’s some pretty big money in it).
Yet as I read into the entire #GamerGate fiasco, I find myself tripping over some issues that honestly confuse me. I don’t want to lump anyone into “sides” of this “debate” (because I find that does nothing but stir further ire). So I offer these questions openly to anyone who wants to answer them.
1) Why is Zoe Quinn the flash point here?
Total honesty; I barely played Depression Quest. I honestly felt it was a fairly insipid over-dramatized version of depression from what little I was able to get into it. I don’t get what makes it so important. Yet, a sentiment I’ve seen is that her antics (presuming the entire “Five Guys” thing is even true) were the “flash point” that lit the entire powder keg.
Why?
Why was some marginal indie developer the thing that finally caused all the frustration to explode, and not (for example) Microsoft paying $750,000 to the online publication Polygon? What about Bioware brazenly offering a speaking role in Mass Effect 3 to a TV host at IGN? But it’s the unverified rants from an ex-boyfriend of a mediocre indie developer that sets this all off?
I don’t mean this as an attack. I honestly don’t get it. Am I missing something here? What makes this the straw that broke the camel’s back?
It’s very easy for someone “outside” the fiasco to reach the conclusion that the “gamer” crowd is using “journalistic ethics” as a flimsy cover to attack a woman who is perceived to threaten their “boys club.” I’ll be honest, it’s very easy for me to reach that conclusion, knowing second hand just how hostile the gaming industry and fans can be in general. On top of that, what tends to bubble to the top of the social ocean when women are involved has not historically been pretty.
But at the same time, I know first hand how dirty and insidious journalism can get, and I don’t doubt for one second that gaming journalism is any better. So I don’t think its fair to dismiss that, even as the spark that lit the wick doesn’t make any sense to me considering there were open bonfires burning all around it.
Help me out here.
2) Why are efforts to bridge the gap mostly ignored or rebuffed?
As far as I can tell, The Fine Young Capitalists are a group that is genuinely trying to open avenues for women in gaming and encourage female gamers. When they reached across the aisle to 4chan to try and show that it’s not all about sexism and misogyny, and that you can even find redeeming characters on /v/ of all places, that group nigh instantly came under attack for accepting funding and feedback from gamers who wanted to support their efforts.
Are we running out of enemies so quickly we have to manufacture them now?
What was so frightening about the idea of trying to brush away the battle lines? Why did that scare feminist groups?
I understand that women in gaming have had a rough time. Believe me, I’m very aware of that. And I’m also keenly aware that 4chan is such a wretched hive of scum and villany that it makes the Mos Eisley cantina look like a Young Republicans convention at Dartmouth. But is such a broad brush really necessary? Do we have to assume that any support from an unusual source must inherently be somehow malicious in nature? Is it imperative to assume anyone who doesn’t immediately prescribe to the proper talking point must be an enemy?
3) What is the real fear feeding the fire on both sides?
Because I do believe that at the heart of this conflagration on both sides is fear, and it’s real easy to get one side to say what the other is afraid of.
“They’re afraid that their sexist, bigoted games will be ruined,” is the claim from feminist camps.
“Sexism’s dying, and they’re afraid they’re losing influence,” claim gamers.
But I don’t really think that’s it. That’s the excuses being given to rationalize ever increasing aggression. That’s the equivalent of propaganda; exaggerations thrown through the magnifying class so that one side can dismiss the concerns of the other without actually having to think about it.
That’s the fear talking, but that’s not the fear itself. And of course, getting people to say what they are afraid of isn’t easy, if damn near impossible.
So, I suppose this question isn’t one I expect an answer to. This is something that people should be asking themselves.
What do you fear, and why do you think it will happen if your side “loses” the fight?


