Well, That's One Way To Combat Misogyny In Gaming

Enthusiasts of military-style first-person shooters are not well known for their progressive thoughts on the matter of gender. The organisers of a large LAN party in Texas, scheduled to celebrate the launch of Battlefield 3, have decided the best way to deal with any slurs hurled at female gamers is to simply forbid them from attending.

"Nothing ruins a good LAN party like uncomfortable guests or lots of tension, both of which can result from mixing immature, misogynistic male-gamers with female counterparts," the organisers originally wrote in an event FAQ. "Though we've done our best to avoid these situations in years past, we've certainly had our share of problems. As a result, we no longer allow women to attend this event.

This paragraph has since been removed, as the stink over the exclusion went viral, and replaced with: "This event is a 'gentlemen's retreat'; as such we do not allow women to attend."

Later, they clarified that with:

"We actively discourage gamers from being the kind of mysogynistic jackwagons seen in the Reddit post, and such behaviour should not be tolerated. Frankly, we don't like that kind of player either. So far as this event goes, it is an special event designed specifically for male gamers. Further, it is meant as a getaway designed to help said male contingent become better men both for themselves and for those who love us."

This is a large, private event and its organisers certainly have the right to associate with whomever they please. But given what I usually hear over my headset in military shooters like Battlefield, I wonder if this party would so outwardly ban any black gamers from registering. Because it would be so, you know, uncomfortable to hear them being insulted.

Or maybe the answer here is to forbid that kind of obnoxious behaviour, and kick out anyone who breaks the rule, $US49 registration be damned. Or maybe this event is more about the comfort of the organisers than the participants.

Battlefied 3 Launch Party Information [PowersGaming, h/t Some Random Female Gamer]


    Oh Jesus Christ, the MRAs have found us.

    It's not that women have been worse off historically - they are worse off right now, today, all over the world. If you deny that then you deny reality.

      "MRA's" huh? You mean Men's Rights Advocates, I assume?

      Sorry, I'm not a Men's Rights Advocate. I'm an Individual Rights Advocate. Both men and women happen to be individual human beings.

      Again, your entire statement is riddled with Class Analysis. You apparently believe that all men are collectively responsible for the oppression of all women. Well, sorry, but "collective responsibility" makes absolutely no sense. Groups are concepts; they are abstractions formed by the human mind's analysis of reality. They do not exist in and of themselves. Only particular entities exist. There are individual men and there are individual women, but "men as a class" and "women as a class" only exist as abstractions.

      "Responsibility" can only apply to an entity with the capacity to make choices. Since a group is merely a concept and not even an actual entity, a group cannot be held responsible. Individuals, on the other hand, are entities and they do have the capacity to make choices. Indeed, they are the only entity that can do so.

      Your methodology leads to two utterly perverse conclusions. First is that it more or less burdens men with a secularized version of Original Sin. And secondly, it actually excuses the evils of individual sexists and even rapists. After all, the 'system of patriarchy' is to blame because it 'socially constructs' each and every one of us (thus rendering us incapable of rational choice), and thus a rapist is merely a product of the system. As are all women that don't agree with Carol Gilligan or Catherine MacKinnon.

      In short, this kind of reasoning makes all individual men responsible for something that they didn't actually do, as well as (perversely) absolving certain men (rapists, sexists etc) from individual responsibility for things they DID do.

      Additionally, your methodology treats abstractions as more real than particular entities (i.e. treats classes as more real than members of said classes). This is Platonism, or Reification.

      I could go on about the epistemological shortcomings of your position, but I don't see any real reason to.

      And just for the record, I am not a defender of 'traditional' concepts of gender. I consider those ideas to be just as Platonistic, methodologically collectivistic, and utterly boneheaded, as the misandrist subtypes of feminist theory.

      And no, I never denied the fact that many (probably most) women in most parts of the world must deal with sexism. So I am not 'denying reality.'

      If you want a real example of denying reality, look at the Platonistic methodology you use, which treats abstractions as 'more real' than matter.

    The fact that it's a private event doesn't necessarily make it legal.

    A restaurant, for example, is clearly private property, but generally speaking they couldn't legally refuse to serve black people.

    Oh, good gravy! Yes, it's a private party, they can enforce whatever rules they want. But the REASON for disallowing women was not because it was intended to be a men-only shindig. It was so that all the asswipes could continue being asswipes without the lazy organizers actually having to control peoples' behavior, or the asswipes learning to control themselves (which they should do no matter who is present).

    Honestly, as a woman, I'd rather everyone just be themselves and have fun instead of feeling like they have to behave a certain way around us (so long as they're not being asswipes, of course). I prefer hanging out with guys anyway.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now