I have a question about Gamergate

[El Capitano Gatisto]

No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too?



Hahaha.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by Raven Reaper How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too? Hahaha.

Hey, check it out. *drops mic*

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Raven Reaper How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too? Hahaha.

Always read a study yourself before believing the nice pie charts. That is an interesting finding, but one that offers no general insight into the argument you are trying to make. The authors of the study can outline this themselves:

There are several limitations of this work. The first set centers around the measures of partner violence. All measures were assessed using only participant reports about their own perpetration of violence and that of their partners. The data are thus subject to all the biases and limitations inherent to this form of data collection, such as recall bias, social desirability bias, and reporting bias. Regarding reporting biases, there has been much discussion of whether there are differences in reported IPV by the gender of the reporter. A meta-analysis of the reliability of the conflict tactics scale concluded that there is evidence of underreporting by both genders, and that underreporting may be greater for men,34 for more severe acts of IPV.21 It would have been ideal to collect violence data from both partners, but those data were not collected from the full Add Health sample. A second measurement issue pertains to the scope of violence measures. The 3 questionsincluded in the Add Health study do not capture all forms of violence that occur between relationship partners, including many of the more severe forms of partner violence on the Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g., used a knife or gun, choked, or burned). Questions about emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression were also not included. Similarly, only a single item assessed injury to victims and it focused on injury frequency and excluded injury severity and whether medical attention was needed or sought. Thus, it is unclear whether the data presented here would be similar had the violence and injury assessment been more thorough or if different forms of violence had been measured and analyzed separately. Perhaps more important than the limited measures of violence and injury is the fact that no data were collected about the causes or function of violence. Such data are needed to understand why relationships with reciprocal violence are more violent and more likely to result in injury. We speculated that retaliation may lead to escalating violence and injury, but data are needed to examine this hypothesis. Future studies should focus on the causes and context of reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV. Another limitation is that the Add Health study obtained partner violence data primarily about relationships considered to be important as defined by the Add research team. Thus, it is not clear how this selection bias may have impacted the findings—that is, whether the findings would be the same with a fuller sample of relationships. However, our findings are consistent with previous research on other samples that have shown reciprocal partner violence is fairly common with adolescents11 and with broader populations.8,9 Finally, as noted, the data collected were part of a nationally representative sample selected when participants were in middle and high school. The use of a nationally representative sample greatly increases the generalizability of the findings, but this particular sample is of limited range in age (18–28 years) and likely does not include the most severely abused victims who are subjected to extreme control by their partners and may be unable or unwilling to participate in research.22

Apologies for the formatting, I have copied that from the study. It is a common tactic for smarmy internet sites to cherry-pick study findings from academia and employ colourful pie charts to try to make some sort of wider point. When you look at the methods of this study, all of those limitations are obvious, which is why the authors have stated them.

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

[Savio]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

If instead of saying this:

Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.

She said this:

Not a coincidence it’s always Blacks and Hispanics committing crimes. The pattern is connected to ideas of ghetto mentality in our culture.

would that not be considered racist?

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by Savior If instead of saying this: She said this: would that not be considered racist?

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Savior If instead of saying this: She said this: would that not be considered racist?

It could be suggested it is because you (not her) used the term "ghetto mentality." Ghetto itself is an antiquated racist term. It was utterly inevitable that you would exchange the original terms for one referring to race to hope to make your point, but you changed the entire emphasis while you were doing it. I'd like to think Anita Sarkeesian would be a bit more nuanced than you when making a statement like that.