So consider this a bit of a response to ex feminist frequency member Kathrine Cross.

What has been happening to gaming under the claims of “pop culture criticism” is a joke.

For sites to give Gone Home rave reviews for a story so cliche and overused it was being made into a joke in 1992 (before the game was even a concept). It says a lot about pop culture commentators for me with a short period of time on google being able to point this out. The story of the lesbian running away with her lover. Hell the coming of age / sexual awakening story of someone realising they’re a lesbian isn’t some new thing. Gone Home itself also does nothing exactly ground breaking itself. You walk round a house and find information and solve extremely easy hand holding excuses for puzzles which amount to little more then find the pass code / info and input it. The game doesn’t even run that well at least for me on a machine that’s definitely passed the recommended specs.

You talk about how it’s we that want or claim to need safe spaces yet even after rather civil discourse of with me disagreeing with you, you chose to block me for it.

People in Gamergate have called for debates. You and your ilk refused multiple times claiming you refuse to debate with the likes of us. When people complain about elitist pop culture critics this might be part of where it comes from.

I mean when a peon like me can look at Gone Home and point stuff out so easily that undermines a lot of the reason it seemingly got praise I think there’s a fair bit of a problem with the reasoning. Along with the uncritical acceptance of certain ideas among people claiming to be pop culture critics these days.

You claim to yearn for a good honest argument yet refuse any debates and block for even quite civil disagreement.

Maybe it’s just as well you left Anita when you did as her series seems to be going down. Some-one who asks where the Monster Women are in DOTA2

Yet someone who also doesn’t seem to know of the existence of Broodmother

That’s not even touching on the fact Anita claimed Death Prophet and Naga Siren were adherences to feminine beauty standards.

So many of the claims being made can be shown to be rather silly.

This idea of needing to tone down the sexualisation of characters in games so often ignores the stylistic approach of the artists. people may mock the chainmail bikini but often it’s teamed up with the male loin cloth.

The arguments presented by you and those who associate with you are “We need more realistic armor” yet the moment the a game doesn’t include diversity because of it trying to be historically accurate the argument shifts to “ Well it’s a fantasy world so why can’t we have this diversity yet you can accept [insert any fanatical creature or element]”. The fact said arguments keep being switched out as required just shows how inconsistent the arguments being put forward are.

You and your associates often call for Empathy yet claim something along the lines of we need female playable characters in all games because women need to be represented and be able to play some-one like them. But isn’t that just playing into the argument that the large male player base for many games means having a male lead should be the obvious choice? It seems gamers don’t really care who the main character is considering multiple female lead series have found success in gaming. That doesn’t mean there can’t be more but it also begs the question if you’re suggesting that women can only enjoy playing as female leads yet men are somehow meant to empathise with female leads because reasons? Men in gaming can and do play female characters and games with female leads and have done for many years. Women in gaming have played male characters too.

I’m here for what the medium already does do. I’m not here for a game to have to beat me round the head and yell right in my face what politics of the game are about. Games if you look can and do already present allegories for real world politics and situations. They however don’t hugely moralise them. They give the player choice an don’t treat them as a child who doesn’t know right from wrong. The present complex a nuances worlds not utopian visions of the future as some of your associates have seemed to want from them. The truth is in games just like in the real world people can succedd not merely but following the “good” or “right” path.

I’ve seen you ask for evidence of claims you wish to guide or control gaming? Well the question is why align and work with Anita if it did not for minimal pay?

As you are no doubt aware William H. Hays in the past gained a position that served him well and was quite secure in “cleaning up” film. Frediric Wertham also gained a similar position after his claims about comic book. Even Mary Whitehouse gained a fairly secure spot with her NVLA organisation. It is not hard to see the value of causing a panic and presenting one-self as part of the solution.

Much of what was brought up by Mizahnyx in response to you. Articles such as this and as well this very much belay the intent. The seeming claim that the press shouldn’t be criticised because it was totally just fighting for these minorities. Yet when said minorities pointed out the press couldn’t use them as a shield you then object. You claim Gamergate was using them as a shield. What because all you had were petty accusations and labels to throw? Throwing a label with no evidence is not criticism anymore than me calling you a poopy head is. It relies entirely upon belief and the assumption that you are telling the absolute truth or in the absolute right.

while expending great energy claiming that there was nothing wrong whatsoever with gamer culture’s treatment of women

Strange because after many hours of research and what 20 videos and 100s of articles there’s yet to be proof beyond people not liking something or personal distaste that gaming actively excludes women. Who again was expending great energy again? This is kafkatrap, by Gamergate (which consists of close to 70,000 people in Kotaku in Action alone) objecting to such claims is being taken as evidence of a huge problem. There is no situation presented in which the problem is not some severe extreme case, or no possibility seen. There’s no possibility acknowledged that the objection is the the underhanded and misrepresentative methods used to portray gaming as something in need of fixing.

A careful examination of GamerGate reveals an anarchic social movement that is now fully given over to paranoid purge logic, purist orthodoxy, deep suspicion of outsiders and institutions, and, above all, a willingness to believe that the ends will justify the means.

From the CON leaks it was very clear that this was more on you. than Gamergate.

I put it to you, why should gamers inherently trust outsiders entirely, when they know little about gaming yet claim to be here to fix the problem?

Would you trust a worker who claims not know little about pipework to fix plumbing?

Earlier in the article you mention how Gamergate would Boycott certain people but were against Blacklists. How is it that you seem to believe it somehow Gamergate’s duty to read a certain journalist you approve of and not go elsewhere? After all is the reader not the customer to the journalist to an extent? while your own side claiming to be about diversity was suggesting blacklisting people for different opinnions? Trying to have them cast out of the industry one way or another.

Later in the article you say

When I wrote about the subject I warned fellow feminists that the tendency to view our opponents as irredeemable enemies could easily take on a life of its own.

So redeeming eh? Do you require us to repent? To confess before some-one? To Kneel? To be taught the error of our wicked ways?

That you view us as people to be redeemed says much of your imagined position. That we are some un-enlightened souls who need to see the light. It speaks volumes of how we are seemingly viewed.

I could further rip said article to shreds but then that is not the point of my writings here.

The other piece from Feministing where you interviewed Brianna Wu (whom we know from the CON leaked logs you yourself were privately in contact with Wu working as a go between to try and bring her into the group and initially see if she was trustworthy enough to follow instructions. The piece presents plenty of unproven claims and claims that Wu (who runs her own company and isn’t a STEM graduate) knows whats best for the STEM field to get women into it.

The articles reflect the fear mongering seen in the past in the days of William Hays, Fredric Wertham and Mary Whitehouse. The fear of some violent debauched group set to somehow bring down civilised society.

It’s no different than those in the past who showed up dressed as Rambo in the audience when Mary Whitehouse debated in the past.

I have no doubt that this will be ignored or presented as “harassment” or a “call out” well as you said you wanted someone to make an argument I’m making one. In your own articles you chose to call out gamers for their actions such as the Mass Effect 3 ending or the way they criticised Anita and others. yet was Anita and your articles themselves not also callouts? The difference being the control you had over descending opinions, which is why I and many others are blocked by you.

Either way consider this just one of many arguments I’ve made that will likely go unanswered because I am likely seen as “not worthy” of debating with such “intellectuals” who come claiming to lead gaming to some perceived utopian vision.