GamerGate vs. Cyberfeminism

GamerGate/trolls and cyberfeminism seem to be direct opposites as far as their goals and methods. While the former aims to destroy its target, the latter in its most balanced form desires to encourage, support, and enable all people. One of this week’s readings, Zachary Jason’s “Game of Fear,” details challenges faced by Zoe Quinn, who was targeted by multiple groups and individuals, and argues that Quinn, “like many women in the [gaming]  business, routinely receives misogynistic threats from strangers.” As this statement indicates, Quinn is not the only one with a target on her back. For instance, digital professional Latoya Peterson was hesitant to write a book review of Zoe Quinn’s book, Crash Override, for NPR, not only because she has personally witnessed the victimization of female peers, but also because she saw herself becoming vulnerable to the “toxic . . . culture of online briganding” as a result of simply joining the public discussion regarding Quinn’s harassment. This is an indication of the intimidation that silences women’s voices within the gaming business.

Interestingly, Quinn confesses that she was once an online troll, and recognizes the dynamics of online group behavior. However, the second part of her book’s subtitle, “How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate,” indicates an about-turn in that, because of her own negative experience, she seems to have become an advocate for change in regard to online rhetoric.

Two of last week’s texts, “A Brief History of Cyberfeminism,” and “Camara Retorica,” are helpful in assessing the dramatic difference between trolling and cyberfeminism. In contrast to the damage trolling inflicts , cyberfeminism seeks to be constructive in some way. However, it is important to recognize that this does not mean that the many different faces of cyberfeminism agree on causes and methods, or even with each other. It is significant to look at the overarching messages being communicated:

You have no value. One important observation is that GamerGate and similar trolls send a demeaning message that women in the industry are worthless.

You have value. On the other hand, cyberfeminism examples such as mentoring, inclusion, collaboration (in which everyone’s voice is invited and taken seriously), and the pursuit of social justice, send a message of respect both to men and women.

This clash of ideals is significant in that both messages spill over into the real world and have tangible consequences for better or worse. However, there is a difference between whether “members” of each group would want their real names to become public, basically because GamerGate/trolls are leaning toward the wrong side of public opinion and/or the law. What other issues do you see in this conflict of ideals?

 

 

2 thoughts on “GamerGate vs. Cyberfeminism

  1. What a smart observation. You’ve really identified something basic in a few words. I love how you tied it back to last week’s reading.
    I know plenty of women who are angry, and who have the capacity to be great trolls, but the sustained endurance to habitually tear down another human’s reputation generally seems to be missing. (Fortunately, that’s also true of the great majority of males.)

  2. Hey, Vivien.
    When I was reading Bonnie Nardi’s My Life As a Night Elf Priest, I connected the fact that online gaming is a collaborative activity in a world that is outside the real world with a purpose in mind for its players. It taps into the very basic and almost primal needs humans have to belong and to have a life of purpose. As children, we work out these needs through play. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that tends to teach gender roles at a very early age and one aspect of this is the fact that boys and girls are pretty much segregated. This might be different now from when I was growing up but there still seems to be a Pink Team and a Blue Team. Because of this foundational experience, I think that the tribalism expressed by male gamers through trolling is a hyperexaggerated consequence. Boys have this space that is special and want to protect it at all costs from “the other.” The equivalent would be an allergic response to dust; dust is harmless but the body reacts as if it isn’t when it’s allergic. But that’s what the Internet tends to do, namely exaggerate responses. I actually want to read Zoe Quinn’s book now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *