Monday, October 27, 2014

Women and #GamerGate

Dalrock explains the female compulsion at the root of it all:
Feminism at its core is envy of men and a desire to usurp their position. It would be difficult to overstate just how deep this feeling is. This isn’t just about the apex fallacy, it is about a deep desire to “be one of the guys”.  Any group of men getting together to create or enjoy anything will result in women wanting in. The only question is which category the women belong to. Some will want to try to experience the manly enjoyment/pride directly, and will take real steps to be (like) one of the guys. These are the ones who tend to defend the male space.  They don’t want it ruined because they want to experience it.  But others (a much larger group) will realize that they can’t actually experience this, and will then set out to stamp out what they can’t have.  The first category inadvertently paves the way for the second, assuming they don’t themselves shift priorities mid stream.
This is a remarkable explanation of what we've seen take place in the game industry since 1995. I mention that year because that was the year that I met Brenda Laurel at CGDC just prior to her founding Purple Moon, which was the first serious attempt by a woman to exploit an aspect of the vertical game market that first exploded with Facebook, then mobile.

Laurel is a feminist, with all the problems and issues that entails, but she was not only a legitimate, if pedestrian game developer, she was not at all interested with the rest of the game industry, let alone interested in trying to ruin it. Even the troubled transvestite who calls himself Spacekatgal is more interested in selling his own game than in interfering with other games, his crusade against Assassin's Creed notwithstanding. But the likes of Anita Sarkeesian fall squarely into Dalrock's second group, as she is a parasite whose primary motivation is to invade the male space and destroy it.

Is it "the curse of Eve"? Is it some yet-to-be explained female pathology? Who knows. But it is a repeatedly observable phenomenon.

30 comments:

Rek. said...

Student jailed for slapping a sleeping woman in the face with his penis while a friend filmed it on his phone

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803524/Student-jailed-slapping-sleeping-woman-face-penis-friend-filmed-phone.html

LP 999/Eliza said...

Dark Souls 2 might suggest the curse of want.

As time goes on women won't bother jumping into the twitter feed about GG, it now appears to be men commenting.

WellTec said...

Fact

WellTec said...

Whats worse is that every single male concession only highlights even more male hierarchical superiority, which makes un-feminine women even more angry. That is why the feminist beast is never satisfied, and that is why appease-concessions will never work.

Jason Roberts said...

This, in so many words, was the explanation I got from a woman who explained to me why she didn't want to serve on an all-female American military sea-service vessel.

verusconditio said...

I can attest to the first group as well. It is a very real and a very powerful phenomenon.

~ Stingray

Cataline Sergius said...

Damaged women are just damaged women being damaged women.

The real problem is the men who support them, they would be nothing without them.

The sad and annoying part these "men" don't really understand why they are even doing this. The reason of course is a misplaced attempt to demonstrate higher value. But it's one that I have never seen rewarded.

Anybody remember Spaceboy?

verusconditio said...

Women are just women being women.

Don't mistake what Dalrock talks about here as just damaged women.

This inclination is in all women.

~ Stingray

Practically said...

Amen to this post and Stingray's comment.
Those of us women in the first group should tread very softly and know when not to tread at all.

Brad Andrews said...

Brenda Laural and the "games for Women" meme had been running at least 3 to 5 years earlier. I do not think I went to that GDC, but the ones I were at did have talks on the topic. I am fairly sure the last one I was at was 1992 and Brenda Laural was a speaker then.

John Rampton said...

Men have survived by their strength, speed, and their ability to focus on, and become competitive at certain skills. Women survive by multi-tasking, and social connections, but this is only useful as an auxiliary role, regardless of whether it is a patriarchal or matriarchal society. Any standards unique to a field were created by a man's competitive nature, not a woman's tendency to sabotage her peers. But when a woman sees a group united by any common thread, she will always see the social. She will only see a group she must infiltrate. It's like "The personal is political" is programmed in her, or something. Would any species survive without woman's nature being such?

Corvinus said...

"Whats worse is that every single male concession only highlights even more male hierarchical superiority, which makes un-feminine women even more angry. That is why the feminist beast is never satisfied, and that is why appease-concessions will never work."

"This inclination is in all women."

Which is why "shuddup and make me a sammich" is the only answer.

John Rampton said...

Allow me to elaborate on the last sentence. With what we know about sexual reproduction; things like reliable genetic drift and the crossing of telomeres during meiosis, any new combination may produce a superior trait, but more like will produce an interior one. Would any species which reproduces sexually survive without most of its women seeking out the most superior of the species, and mating with it? Is this social prowess a "bigger picture" kind of thing?

jimmy-jimbo said...

I just can't believe the “be one of the guys” argument. They really don't. Women don't want to be one of the beta guys. (Women seem to want to be with one of the alpha guys, but alphas have followers and women do not follow in that sense.)

Women try to outdo each other as alpha females. They are at an inherent disadvantage to be considered an honorary male.

Women will always take men's interests and tailor it to their own. Thus the talk of making computers, games, sports, and other male interests more appealing to women always start with fashion and colors (like pink). Make things less complicated and more familiar to the female mind.

Women will always want what they don't get even if it is sold in a retail outlet and marketed to "everyone". It is invisible to them. So they want in? Just buy the darn thing. But NOOOO. They want tailoring like a new dress. Will a guy then buy a game tailored to women?

Iowahine said...

Curse of Eve manifests in this particular female pathology.

As a female, it can be hard to accept that by God's design, I am "second" and created to be a helpmate - especially when I had rejected God and bought into secular ideology, feminism, and saw the Female Imperative as a right without responsibilities, not a revocable privilege. Unfortunately, many of us did lose our way and as what we could provide became less time-consuming - household support and child-rearing via labor-saving devices and mandatory public education (not to mention more reliable birth control and abortion) - we had time to notice we were bored, replaceable, under-appreciated, unfulfilled, unhappy - whaa, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Hence, the big long temper tantrum that is feminism (and the way of a smaller creatures - think children and small yappy dogs). As with most temper tantrums, giving in only escalates the drama. Those males who couldn't compete for sexual access to women without pedestalizing, placating, or white-knighting have been the wiling accomplices in destruction of family and western civilization. But then, you all here know this already. Those of you willing to lead are much appreciated and applauded. Personally, I’m working on my willful, cheerful submission in support of such leadership.

I recall first reading here on this topic and being bewildered if not downright crestfallen to learn I wasn't more equal to men as I had come to believe most of my secular life (not to mention, long past the wall). It was rough going for a while, but it is a bitter pill best swallowed whole. Peace comes with acceptance of truth, and it’s not so bad being a helpmate suitable. As Gemma Teller said to that psycho-bitch/bi-sexual/androgynous Agent Stahl in Season One of Sons of Anarchy: "You should try unscrewing that penis once in a while; it's fun being a girl."

Feather Blade said...

Thus the talk of making computers, games, sports, and other male interests more appealing to women always start with fashion and colors (like pink).

Pink as a color for girls is a phenomenon that only appeared early last century. There were even debates in women's magazine of the day about which color was more appropriate for boys and girls. Many argued that boys should be dressed in pink as it is a more energetic color, "light red" if you will, and that girls should be dressed in blue because it is a more soothing, gentle color.

Somehow the "pink for girls" brigade won, and now we have manufacturers putting pink grips on hammers and guns because they have such a low opinion of women that they believe only "girly colors" will induce women to buy such things.

That's what we call "pandering." Some women find it actively offensive and go out of their way to avoid such items.

Bluntobj Winz said...

I think the impulse comes down to a tribal impulse of sorting out who belongs or not. If there is a group of men, there will be interest by females in joining it. I'm talking about deep evolutionary desires here. If that group cannot be joined, then it must be a hostile group and treated as such. I think this impulse is the root of any form of marxism and fascism; sort out who belongs and who does not, who subsumes themselves to the group and who does not. All those who do not or cannot belong must be cast out or warred upon. If a group refuses to be subsumed into another, then do war upon them. You can scales this concept up and down to fit the group size you have, from individual to nation.

I think women feel this impulse to a greater degree now because they don't have their destructive impulses moderated by men in a significant way anymore.

Doom said...

Eve? No. Eve, the daughters of her anyway, have always had their little... quirks. But they know better, and are too weak anyway. At least in the presence of a son of Adam.

Lilith is the one you should consider. She, too, is weak, but will use whatever trick or trap she can to prove the lie she chose to be her truth. She doesn't mind even dying in the process, death is what she believes in. She is simply too cowardly to actually commit suicide. She wants suicide to be a cultural, social, and personal norm. She wants those who are strong enough to enforce it. And, really, she is winning.

SarahsDaughter said...

Somehow the "pink for girls" brigade won, and now we have manufacturers putting pink grips on hammers and guns because they have such a low opinion of women that they believe only "girly colors" will induce women to buy such things.

That's what we call "pandering." Some women find it actively offensive and go out of their way to avoid such items.


The words in bold are why we should be ignored.

Men, there is no way to not offend women. Don't bother trying. Really, tell us to shut up and make a sammich as Corvinus mentioned.

Vox said...

Men, there is no way to not offend women. Don't bother trying.

Exactly. That's what I refer to as le carte blanche.

ray said...

"Is it "the curse of Eve"? Is it some yet-to-be explained female pathology? Who knows."


Scripture tells you exactly why the United Sisterhood of Amerika is prosecuting its endless Jihad Against Men. Female rebellion, envy, power-seeking, greed, and plain old hatred -- backed by U.S. 'men' who facilitate evil for a variety of 'good' reasons. Eve rebelled against the authority of God and Man, and Adam went along, white-knighting against his own Creator.

Some 'yet to be explained female phenomenon'? So, you're questioning what the first chapter of the Bible (God's Word) says? You doubt the validity of Scripture's explanation for evil, and seek Another Phenomenon. After all, did God REALLY say that?

Instead we are to wait until Almighty Science informs us of the 'disease' that the poor darlings are suffering from, which is 'causing' their malevolence, and is 'forcing' them to terrorize and degrade men and boys. Pills then can be prescribed for their 'illness' and we can all Move On to the next beatdown. Wonderful.

Feather Blade said...

Men, there is no way to not offend women

If it makes you feel better, different women find different things offensive. And there's no way to tell what will offend a particular woman until it's too late. ^_^

PhantomZodak said...

they are trying but luckily game companies, especially japanese ones, know where the money comes from. & girls just do not spend their money on games. this is one arena where they will not win.

Eric said...

"Feminism at its core is envy of men and a desire to usurp their position."

No it isn't. It's about destroying gender polarity.

"Is it the curse of Eve? Or some yet-unexplained female pathology?"

No---it's because Gametards have internalized feminist values and think that's normative female behavior. Women who reject feminism don't 'want into male space and to become one of the guys.' Bull-lesbians do that, not real women.

"But it's a repeatedly observable phenomenon."

Only through the distorted lens of Game. Visit some non-feminist indoctrinated country and the women have no interest in invading male space.

Jack Amok said...

"Feminism at its core is envy of men and a desire to usurp their position."

No it isn't. It's about destroying gender polarity.
...
Only through the distorted lens of Game. Visit some non-feminist indoctrinated country and the women have no interest in invading male space.


Nah, you're right about non-feminist societies not having this dysfunction, but you're wrong about the rest.

Feminism's dysfunctions are about women being unmoored from their natural source of social status, vis, their husbands. Feminism was originated and is propagated primarily by ugly women. Not just physically ugly, perhaps more importantly those with ugly personalities. It's a movement driven by women unable to obtain and retain commitment from non-dysfunctional men. The head-cases and flat-out bitches at the core of feminism are angry that other - prettier, nicer, psychologically healthier - women were able to gain status by attracting successful men. They want to end that. They're not out to get men so much as they're out to get their more attractive sisters.

Again, "attractive" isn't just - or even primarily - physical looks. Personality matter a lot. The phenomenon of a woman's "friends" encouraging her to cut her hair (thus decreasing her looks and hamstringing the competition) is well known. Why wouldn't this same covert backstabbing behavior exist for personality as well? "You go girl!" is the psychological equivalent of "You'd look cute with short hair!"

But back to institutions. Feminism seeks to prevent attractive (both physically and psychologically) women from obtaining status through securing commitment form accomplished men. But of course women still have a need for status, so where feminism is successful, women are cut off from their most reliable avenue and are forced to seek status the same way men do - through accomplishment. But few women are psychologically cut out to succeed in that arena, and, frustrated, they assume the game must be rigged against them and try to flip the table over.







Mindstorm said...

@PhantomZodak

Then why creators of MapleStory cater to female tastes?

APL said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/11188153/Did-Bachs-wife-write-his-finest-works.html

More feminist revisionism.

Master Doh-San said...

This looks like a classic case of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. No matter what it is that boys do, the girls want in. Not because they're interested in the actual activity, but because they can't stand being on the outside. As soon as Calvin builds his little clubhouse and puts out the "No girls allowed" sign, Susie and her feminazi cohorts want in. And once they get in, they demand that the club change to suit them. Solution: disband the club and start anew. It might be a pyrrhic victory, but it works.

Christopher B said...

Good points Jack Amok.

As feminists destroyed 'the patriarchy' they left women on their to locate and vet men suitable for relationships. Part of the desire to invade male spaces is hypergamous jealousy that some other woman just might have gotten in before her and is monopolizing the most attractive men there. And the modern trend to aiding women in the invasion just adds fuel to the fire

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.