t- , )
M ■
OPINION
10
WWW.GUILFORDIAN.COM
GamerGate: keep calm and respect women in gaming
Disaster has struck. The princess has been kidnapped, and now you, the valiant hero, must
rescue the powerless victim. Soimd familiar? Anita Sarkeesian, host of the web series Feminist
Frequency, thinks so.
A few months ago, Sarkeesian released a video that critically analyzed
the role of female characters in games. The video
enraged many a gamer who disagreed,
crying that games wiU be games. Behind
the moniker GamerGate, Sarkeesian
critics lit up message boards
everywhere.
Arguing that no change
should be made to
accommodate the swelling
number of female gamers
fails to acknowledge
important evolution in an
industry that desperately
needs progressive change.
"GamerGate has concerned
itself with tackling feminism, the supposed behemoth of an ethical issue in game
journalism, rather than paying any mind to journalistic integrity," said Early College
junior Harris Billings. "I find their attacks on feminist video game journalism to be childish
and completely degrading to their image."
The controversial movement's other points can, and should, spur discussion, but not until
those supporting the argument can calm down and find a common opinion.
The predominant pillar of GamerGate creates aggressive backlash against comments
made concerning the treatment of women in games. The cries of the offended tell social
justice advocates and feminists not to touch gaming's flawed portrayal of women.
Many supporters of GamerGate stand too close to the problem to imderstand its
implications. Critics point to a problem, and many gamers jump to defend their hobby
before they can even hear what is wrong with it.
BY AUBREY
KING
Staff Writer
"I think women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for
games to be more inclusive," said Sarkeesian in an interview with Stephen
Colbert. "We're asking for games to acknowledge that we exist, and that we
love games."
The fear of outsiders, and the bullying that results from it, has plagued the
industry almost as long as it has been around. On a daily basis women are
harassed online just for being women.
"When I join a game of C^l of Duty, the comments are usually sexual," said
Early College junior Laura Williams. "No one takes me seriously, and some of
the comments really make me feel gross."
These angry, offensive gamers refuse to see how bad the sexism has
become. These gamers often treat female players as badly as the games'
stories portray female characters.
'A lot of games' themes and characters are geared toward
men," said junior Ryan Siebens. "They focus on bulky males
and over-sexualized women. Developers should look to
make games that show women in a more equal light."
The movement also targets the gaming press,
throwing out accusations of sex scandals to push up
review scores.
"I think that is a compelling way to reframe attacks
on women," said Sarkeesian in her Colbert interview.
"(Problems with) ethics in journalism isn't what's
happening; iP s actually men going after women in hostile
aggressive ways."
Those who really support GamerGate need to take a
breath and calm down. The complaints of these critics do not
mean the next Elder Scrolls game will not have attractive female
characters, but it does mean the industry needs to take some steps
to move away from the "boys club" mentality and toward a more
universal platform.
Letter to the editor: considering Edwin
Black’s lecture and ‘‘free” speech
Lately, I have been thinking about
academic freedom, freedom of speech
and protected speech. Steven Salaita's
case has made me keenly aware of the
ways in which protected speech is not
so protected and academia is not so
free. In fact, it can get pretty expensive.
It cost Salaita his livelihood, his
security and the security of his family.
While many on campus were
offended by Edwin Black's impending
lecture, aghast at Guilford's hosting
of him for a second time and confused
by our providing a space for ideas
potentially threatening to the
dignity and humanity of community
members, no one entertained the
thought of silencing Black. Concerned
students simply decided not to listen.
They walked out. Black was free to
speak, and the students were free not
to engage. Their decision to do so,
in the manner of a walk-out, meant
that they were actively not listening.
This is very different from simply not
showing up, a passive gesture with no
overt communal intentionality.
As the students filed out in silence,
a high-level administrator, who
interacts with students on a daily
basis, shouted^t them. Black then
shamed the stiments who left and
praised those who stayed. According
to Black, "Guilford should not be
happy that this was the first time
in (my) career that anyone has
orchestrated (a walk-out from one of
my talks)." The students made their
protest in silence, but the response,
from people with power over them no
less, was anything but. There was not
even the customary moment of silence
to begin the talk.
What interests me about Black's
visit, besides the highly telling
silences of those refusing to listen, the
resounding sounds of those refusing
to be silenced and perhaps, more
importantly, refusing to be unheard,
is the way it was packaged for us,
the remaining audience members. In
both the introduction and conclusion
to his talk. Black's visit was cast as
an exercise in multiple perspectives.
Given the bloody summer in Gaza,
we were reminded how important it
is to listen to different perspectives.
So does it follow that because Black
represents a "different" perspective it
is necessarily valuable? Is difference
all we aspire to, the most important
requirement in determining the value
of a perspective? And is what he says
more important than how he says it?
Representing a multiplicity of
perspectives is a noble goal, especially
at a place like Guilford, where our
core values ought to quicken and
invigorate our actions. But we must
endeavor to humanize everybody and
not dehumanize anybody. I am afraid,
however, that nobody was humanized
by Black's talk, whether in the content
of his speech or in the spectacle of
its performance. The students who
walked out were dehumanized. The
Palestinians who, according to Black,
use their children as human shields
and train them to harass Israeli
soldiers in "riots," peaceful protests,
against the Israeli "establishment,"
Occupation, and demand to be
sprayed with sewage water, were
dehumanized. The audience members
questioning Black's statements, and
whom Black harangued and all but
accused of racism and ignorance,
were dehumanized.
It is often the case that opposing
views are dehumanized. However,
in Black's lecture, everyone was. The
man who tragically lost a daughter
to a terrorist bombing in Jerusalem
and was, in talk-show fashion, called
upon from the audience to give his
testimonial and broke into tears, was
dehumanized as a prop in Black's
magic-show extravaganza. Black even
managed to dehumanize himself.
By frequently positing himself as
the center of all knowledge and
meaningful experiences, emphasizing
the superiority of his perspective
above all others and talking over
audience members whom he himself
called upon to speak. Black distanced
himself from us as an individual with
whom one could engage in civil and
useful discourse.
Black's talk, from beginning to end,
was a performance. This makes sense
as it was actually part of a promotional
tour for his new book and, hence, a
free lecture offered to the College. But
perhaps in the pursuit of "multiple
perspectives," we ought to aspire to
more than just free difference. After
all, there is free speech and then there
is speech for free. Perhaps we ought
to aspire to difference that allows
everyone to be free — free to speak, to
be silent and to dialogue.
Diya Abdo, Chair, associate professor
of English
IS wee s
The rhetoric of the
War on Terror is akin
to terrorism itself
We craft this editorial on Veteran's Day, reminding
ourselves of the scars left on several generations by the
ubiquitously termed "War on Terror."
The word "terrorism" has become meaningless, used
by the United States' government to support a perpetual
war that has left too many of our brothers and sisters
needlessly maimed.
We would like to raise them into the light by
acknowledging their sacrifice.
We also wish to point out that the word "terror" has
become, itself, a form of terrorism. -
It is a bandied-about term that has been misused
by pro-war elements of our society to instiU fear in the
American citizen of an overmatched enemy.
Violence is always a threat in a free society, but from
Guantanamo Bay to Abu-Ghraib prison, it appears
terrorism is coming from within our society.
The label of terrorist is not applied universally. Often
the term is linked to extreme groups in the Middle-East as
a means of othering.
This claim lacks nuance, approaching complex systemic
violence with mere name calling while cfistracting us
from trying to understand the motivations behind the
violence.
The terminology has been used throughout history
to this effect. The term terrorism can be traced back to
the Roman Empire in 105 B.C. and was translated as "to
frighten."
The word became synonymous with the Reign of
Terror, led by Maxitmlien Robespierre, under the French
Revolution.
During the American Revolution, British officers
fighting the colonists referred to the American militia's
tactics of evasive combat as acts of terror.
Terrorism is meant to frighten and intimidate an enemy,
while the term terrorist is meant to objectify and vilify.
Our veterans have served valiantly in the service of
their nation.
However, we have reached a point where we are
embroiled in a war with no seeming end, against an
enemy that is still undefined.
Perhaps those who use the word so carelessly are
instilling a form of terrorism into the culture of our nation.
We can think of no greater way of serving our veterans
than helping to expose this truth, and to highlight the
fact that the word terrorism has, itself, become a form
of terrorism.
Reflecting Guilford College's core Quaker values,
THE TOPICS AND CONTENT OF StAFF EDITORIALS ARE CHOSEN
THROUGH CONSENSUS OF ALL 13 EDITORS AND ONE FACULTY
ADVISOR OF The Guilfordian’s Editorial Board.