//Should be placed in the header of every page. This won't fire any events

Dear Online Commenters, Regarding Sexism & Misogyny (and Gaming)


This post may be mostly about what's happening in gaming culture, but it concerns online conduct in general.  Some background: online video blogger, Anita Sarkeesian, started a campaign to fund a series looking at women in gaming. Alyssa Rosenberg from ThinkProgress describes what happened next:

Her YouTube account, in which she explains the project, was flooded with comments equating her to the KKK, calling her a “fucking hypocrite slut,” comparing the project to an act of war, and flagging the video as promoting hatred or violence. Her Wikipedia page was vandalized, her picture replaced with pornographic images, and people tried to [shut down] the Kickstarter proposal Sarkeesian was using to raise money to support the project.

Of course Ms Sarkeesian – who you can punch in the face, if you want – is only one of the many women attacked online. She has been brave enough to display all the hate she has received; most people like her usually remain silent because telling only makes it worse.

In support of Ms Sarkeesian and all women facing sexist attitudes, I want to offer some pointers to my fellow males (and the minority of females). I do not speak for anyone other than myself; these are merely my arguments and suggestions using the best reasoning I can offer. I do not call it definitive or perfect. I apologise for the dogmatic nature of the language but brevity usually means sounding like this.

So, to my fellow males…

1. Learn to listen

Don't tell women how they should've responded to threats, intimidation, and flirtations. Don't tell them the environment, gaming culture, and so on, really isn't as bad as many are making it out to be. Because it is: but we're not the targets of rape-threats, we're not the targets of creepy pervs demanding we remove our clothes (“tits or gtfo”). Most of us are the silent bystanders and that must change (see Point #3: "Be Vocal"). We shouldn't be basing our judgments on ignorance and our lack of being targets of hate.

Let's make this clear: Even one incident is one too many and demands attention. That it happens so often, even if it's only women feeling unnecessarily threatened, is and should be unacceptable (see Point #3: "That's just how it is, bro"). 

Instead we should be making the environment such that women never need to respond. It should be that such events never happen. Just as if you hate what soldiers do, you shouldn't  hate individual army men and women, but be trying to make their jobs obsolete.

Secondly, obviously all the raised attention sexism and misogyny is getting can make it seem like the incidents are occurring more than they actually do. Perhaps it does "seem" or "feel" like everyone is talking as though it happens all the time - but that's completely irrelevant to what we should be doing to try minimize, as much as possible, such horrible events from occurring at all (Events such as Sarkeesian's and all the comments she received, or this one, or this one.)

2. If you don’t care, don’t comment

If you don't like all the attention sexism in gaming and ‘nerd culture’ is getting, I recommend you don't comment. You make matters worse by saying "I think everyone should just calm down". Then, you're derailing the point.

We're trying to figure this out; we're concerned. If you aren't interested, fine: the best thing you can do, then, is to remove yourself from the conversation. Otherwise, you're a stranger wading into a heated conversation between colleagues telling them "This bores me! Let's talk about something else!" No one likes that person. Don't be that person. Go somewhere else and have a good time, but leave us to talk. No one is forcing you to be here.

3. If you do care, be vocal and intolerant of intolerance

Obviously we, as a species, tend to remember worse incidents, bitter stupidity, rather than the benign, friendly ones. Obviously a few idiot men undermine the whole environment for normal or gentlemanly ones. How many women are willing to reveal their sex during multiplayer games now, because when they do, they get hit on, threatened and so on? How many are even willing to comment publicly, online, in writing about their experience? How many will see what happened with such a benign goal as Ms Sarkeesian’s and decide they want no part of a ‘culture’ that can’t even tolerate the discussion, because a woman is involved?

This should not be happening and we must be vocal about our hatred of it.

3.1 If we’re not vocal, there’s a great danger our silence will be perceived as cover and safety and endorsement of sexism or misogyny.

3.2. Perpetuators of such intolerance or loud-mouthed misogynists will claim a free speech violation, because they don't understand free speech.

No one is stopping them from writing incomprehensible blogposts or making loud noises in their forums. But - just as with any place, anywhere - there are guidelines and rules of conduct in gaming, nerd culture, etc., we should be defending and upholding. Consider: we don't go naked to work (unless you're a pornstar or stripper and even then, not everyone in the studio), we don't defecate in the middle of our office floor, we don't break windows for fun, and so on. We’re acting selfishly since we’re ignoring our actions negatively impact the lives of others.

Yes, in many of these instances, there are legal prohibitions but most sane people simply don't need to be told not to use their desk as toilets. Furthermore, I struggle to find a reasonable argument that you are being “censored” or “restricted” because someone stops you from doing these things (in that case, it’s probably similar to claiming police are “censoring” thieves.)

We should be intolerant of sexism, racism and all kinds of unjustified hatred (you can hate many people, like child rapists and so on, so there is such as a thing as “justified hatred” in my view).

3.3. This doesn't mean we gamers should be silent in our frustrations, that gamers can't curse, that we're being prudes in our online conduct.

This, more generally, is obviously a difficult area, but we can at least set - as our baseline - not tolerating sexist or racist remarks. If someone stops you from defecating into your office desk, writing obscenity on the walls of the street, we're not stopping you from doing that elsewhere. It's simply is not appropriate here nor does anyone else want it there.

To repeat, it's the selfish nature of acting this way that is also troubling: not recognizing that your conduct affects others, not recognizing them as persons with interests and concerns. There are others involved. We shouldn’t be selfish and arrogant, thinking everyone is merely there to serve as tools for our entertainment, instead of fellow passengers on this particular ride.

A compromise might be that you can create specific places online where people will deliberately be rude, antagonistic, open, 4channish. I have no problem with that, myself (as long as the users aren't boring in their personal attacks and only make sexist remarks. If you're going to be insulting, don't be boring, since then it makes it obvious you are being specific in your hatred and have a bone to pick.) Furthermore, everyone will know this is an area where people can go if that's what they're looking for. It shouldn't, however, be the default scenario when someone joins conversations, logs on to play a game, requests to make a video series about women in games, etc. (See Point #4: "That's just how it is, bro")

4. "That's Just How it Is, Bro!"

I've encountered this exact line from people many times, when arguing about this. Two points (and ignoring that I'm clearly not your 'bro'):

4.1. We're not arguing about how the world is - though that is something that needs careful deliberation. I've noticed though that in the same breath, after people claim we're overblowing the extent of sexism, they will also say "that's just how it is, man!". Well, which is it? Overblown or an accurate portrayal? It can't be both, since the former claims embellishment, while the latter indicates reality.

4.2. It's still irrelevant since we want to change "how it is, bro!" We do not want an environment which the better sex thinks is filled with immature, hormonal teenage misogynists. Sure, I think that perhaps most men are not like this and indeed are civil and respectful. Civil men are like all the chefs that put correct ingredients into a pot; but all you need is one guy to piss in it to make it distasteful for everyone. Sure, most of us didn't piss in it, but I'm still not willing to present it as inviting for people - regardless of sex - to wade in.

4.3. Finally, imagine someone telling Martin Luther King, Jr. or Nelson Mandela that they should just accept the racist laws and environment of their countries: "That's just how it is, bro!" -- do you think anyone is helped with that attitude? Do you think a person bleeding out should be told, “that's just how it is, bro!” No, we fix things, we bandage wounds, we clean up our act, we try constantly to make things better. I’m not claiming we’re in the same league as the Mandelas and Kings of the world: I’m arguing merely that no one should accept the assertion that we must tolerate how things are.

Claiming "that just how it is" is merely a cover for apathy and therefore tolerance for an environment that should change (see Point #3.1.).


It's difficult writing on this, being male and not subject to the abuse my female friends have experienced for being female and a gamer. I am regularly attacked personally online, because of my views on infant euthanasia/infanticide, incest, and other subjects. But I expect it, since these are topics people feel deeply about and it does actually affect life and death decisions. I understand it.

I hate that it happens and occasionally, after months of a constant barrage of people telling me to kill myself and claiming my parents are horrible, I might need to meditate or buy another stress-ball. But this should not be the norm for us ordinary gamers just trying to have fun online. I'm not claiming I'm stronger than anyone - indeed, I'm just as affected by online hatred as anyone, but it still shouldn't happen in an otherwise ordinary, non-threatening space like games or online discussion.

It should not be the norm for a woman involved in gaming or 'nerd' culture to face rape threats because she's concerned about sexism and the portrayal of women in games. She could be completely wrong, but we can criticize her evidence, her data, and her arguments, not her or her sex. You're only proving her point, there, Sherlock, assuming she thinks females are portrayed and treated badly in games and gaming culture.

It seems to me that many people don't know how to respond to criticisms of things they love or cherish dearly: from the view that life is sacred to mere gaming (gamers, in particular, since they're constantly faced with criticisms that it's “childish” to still play with make-believe men who shoot lightning). So when you tell them that they're responding in an immature fashion, that they shouldn't be saying those things, they'll claim they're being “censored”: what they're trying to do, poorly, is defend the thing they love. They’re probably defending in the only way they know how. They are probably not bad people, just poor at communication and naïve about how criticisms and disagreements work.

Hateful gamers don't realize that by attacking people like Ms Sarkeesian and her personal life, they are also not building up a proper, solid defense of what they’re defending! Indeed, they're destroying it faster than critics ever could. If the only way to defend your belief that something is important is through attacking or silencing opponents, how strong or good do you think your belief can be for outsiders? It’s like defending fragile glass by smashing it against a thief: sure, they now can’t take it from you, but no one will want to.


Important link: fatuglyorslutty.com - Collects incidents of sexism and misogyny from online interactions. This tumblr should NOT exist but I'm glad it does. That is the overarching goal.

You can help support Ms Sarkeesian's work by donating here.

Image Credit: CREATISTA/Shutterstock

3D printing might save your life one day. It's transforming medicine and health care.

What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.

Northwell Health
Sponsored by Northwell Health
  • Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
  • Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
  • Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
Keep reading Show less

Why it’s hard to tell when high-class people are incompetent

A recent study gives new meaning to the saying "fake it 'til you make it."

Surprising Science
  • The study involves four experiments that measured individuals' socioeconomic status, overconfidence and actual performance.
  • Results consistently showed that high-class people tend to overestimate their abilities.
  • However, this overconfidence was misinterpreted as genuine competence in one study, suggesting overestimating your abilities can have social advantages.
Keep reading Show less

Maps show how CNN lost America to Fox News

Is this proof of a dramatic shift?

Strange Maps
  • Map details dramatic shift from CNN to Fox News over 10-year period
  • Does it show the triumph of "fake news" — or, rather, its defeat?
  • A closer look at the map's legend allows for more complex analyses

Dramatic and misleading

Image: Reddit / SICResearch

The situation today: CNN pushed back to the edges of the country.

Over the course of no more than a decade, America has radically switched favorites when it comes to cable news networks. As this sequence of maps showing TMAs (Television Market Areas) suggests, CNN is out, Fox News is in.

The maps are certainly dramatic, but also a bit misleading. They nevertheless provide some insight into the state of journalism and the public's attitudes toward the press in the US.

Let's zoom in:

  • It's 2008, on the eve of the Obama Era. CNN (blue) dominates the cable news landscape across America. Fox News (red) is an upstart (°1996) with a few regional bastions in the South.
  • By 2010, Fox News has broken out of its southern heartland, colonizing markets in the Midwest and the Northwest — and even northern Maine and southern Alaska.
  • Two years later, Fox News has lost those two outliers, but has filled up in the middle: it now boasts two large, contiguous blocks in the southeast and northwest, almost touching.
  • In 2014, Fox News seems past its prime. The northwestern block has shrunk, the southeastern one has fragmented.
  • Energised by Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Fox News is back with a vengeance. Not only have Maine and Alaska gone from entirely blue to entirely red, so has most of the rest of the U.S. Fox News has plugged the Nebraska Gap: it's no longer possible to walk from coast to coast across CNN territory.
  • By 2018, the fortunes from a decade earlier have almost reversed. Fox News rules the roost. CNN clings on to the Pacific Coast, New Mexico, Minnesota and parts of the Northeast — plus a smattering of metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.

"Frightening map"

Image source: Reddit / SICResearch

This sequence of maps, showing America turning from blue to red, elicited strong reactions on the Reddit forum where it was published last week. For some, the takeover by Fox News illustrates the demise of all that's good and fair about news journalism. Among the comments?

  • "The end is near."
  • "The idiocracy grows."
  • "(It's) like a spreading disease."
  • "One of the more frightening maps I've seen."
For others, the maps are less about the rise of Fox News, and more about CNN's self-inflicted downward spiral:
  • "LOL that's what happens when you're fake news!"
  • "CNN went down the toilet on quality."
  • "A Minecraft YouTuber could beat CNN's numbers."
  • "CNN has become more like a high-school production of a news show."

Not a few find fault with both channels, even if not always to the same degree:

  • "That anybody considers either of those networks good news sources is troubling."
  • "Both leave you understanding less rather than more."
  • "This is what happens when you spout bullsh-- for two years straight. People find an alternative — even if it's just different bullsh--."
  • "CNN is sh-- but it's nowhere close to the outright bullsh-- and baseless propaganda Fox News spews."

"Old people learning to Google"

Image: Google Trends

CNN vs. Fox News search terms (200!-2018)

But what do the maps actually show? Created by SICResearch, they do show a huge evolution, but not of both cable news networks' audience size (i.e. Nielsen ratings). The dramatic shift is one in Google search trends. In other words, it shows how often people type in "CNN" or "Fox News" when surfing the web. And that does not necessarily reflect the relative popularity of both networks. As some commenters suggest:

  • "I can't remember the last time that I've searched for a news channel on Google. Is it really that difficult for people to type 'cnn.com'?"
  • "More than anything else, these maps show smart phone proliferation (among older people) more than anything else."
  • "This is a map of how old people and rural areas have learned to use Google in the last decade."
  • "This is basically a map of people who don't understand how the internet works, and it's no surprise that it leans conservative."

A visual image as strong as this map sequence looks designed to elicit a vehement response — and its lack of context offers viewers little new information to challenge their preconceptions. Like the news itself, cartography pretends to be objective, but always has an agenda of its own, even if just by the selection of its topics.

The trick is not to despair of maps (or news) but to get a good sense of the parameters that are in play. And, as is often the case (with both maps and news), what's left out is at least as significant as what's actually shown.

One important point: while Fox News is the sole major purveyor of news and opinion with a conservative/right-wing slant, CNN has more competition in the center/left part of the spectrum, notably from MSNBC.

Another: the average age of cable news viewers — whether they watch CNN or Fox News — is in the mid-60s. As a result of a shift in generational habits, TV viewing is down across the board. Younger people are more comfortable with a "cafeteria" approach to their news menu, selecting alternative and online sources for their information.

It should also be noted, however, that Fox News, according to Harvard's Nieman Lab, dominates Facebook when it comes to engagement among news outlets.

CNN, Fox and MSNBC

Image: Google Trends

CNN vs. Fox (without the 'News'; may include searches for actual foxes). See MSNBC (in yellow) for comparison

For the record, here are the Nielsen ratings for average daily viewer total for the three main cable news networks, for 2018 (compared to 2017):

  • Fox News: 1,425,000 (-5%)
  • MSNBC: 994,000 (+12%)
  • CNN: 706,000 (-9%)

And according to this recent overview, the top 50 of the most popular websites in the U.S. includes cnn.com in 28th place, and foxnews.com in... 27th place.

The top 5, in descending order, consists of google.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, amazon.com and yahoo.com — the latter being the highest-placed website in the News and Media category.
Keep reading Show less

Mother bonobos, too, pressure their sons to have grandchildren

If you thought your mother was pushy in her pursuit of grandchildren, wait until you learn about bonobo mothers.

Surprising Science
  • Mother bonobos have been observed to help their sons find and copulate with mates.
  • The mothers accomplish this by leading sons to mates, interfering with other males trying to copulate with females, and helping sons rise in the social hierarchy of the group.
  • Why do mother bonobos do this? The "grandmother hypothesis" might hold part of the answer.
Keep reading Show less
//This will actually fire event. Should be called after consent was verifed