| Zekkyou said: I think it mostly comes down to the effect of extremes on each side. You have a minority on the gaming side who think that only games that pander to men are good, and a minority on the feminist side that think anything that panders to men is bad. The problem with extremes if they tend to be the most ideologically driven, so will shout louder and work harder than anyone else to get what they went. They can quickly become the face of an idea, which slowly drags those around them further out as the see how 'terrible' the face of the other side is. The real-world effect can be interesting. The overwhelming majority of feminists will tell you they're want equality, but from the perspective of an outsider it will sometimes seem like they're actively working to widen inequality (education being the one of most significant examples). Then on the gaming end, the overwhelming majority will tell you they couldn't care less what the gender or race of a games protagonist is, yet to an outsider it will sometimes seem like the whole gaming community will at random get angry at a game for it. 'Tis a silly business. |
Extremists generally taint all things, sometimes to the point that the original meaning is lost and people who were drawn to that no longer want to associate with the group. The longer this continues, the more splinter positions develop.
We see that with feminism, especially, where a lot of feminists very much disagree with one another about what "feminism" means.
Even beyond that, opposition almost always centers on the most extreme arguments, further shifting the perspective.
Personally, I think feminism is much the same as "Gamers Gate", where the original point has been so sullied by the worst examples that it should largely be discarded by those who really want equality. As it stands, when someone declares themselves a feminist, I have to wait for them to tell me what kind of a feminist they are before a conversation can even happen.
