French Politicians Want To Fight #GamerGate With Video Game Sexism Labels
(Last Updated On: June 3, 2016)

The French government, led by lawmakers Catherine Coutelle and Axelle Lemaire, want to address sexism in video games with a three-pronged attack, including the possibility of introducing harsher labels for games that don’t depict women in a favorable light, along with special tax incentives for developers who espouse greater representation of women in games, and scholarships for women to help put more of them in the field of game design.

The news was posted up on French website Le Figaro Tech & Web. A translation of the article was provided by Twitter user John Craft, where you can check out the full English version in a Pastebin file.

According to the article, they write…

“The state secretary references, without mentioning it, gamergate. This conservative and sexist movement online led to harassment of many video game professionals, mostly women. In her response, Axelle Lemaire quotes Feminist Frequency, a series of videos analyzing the representation of female characters in video games. Its author, blogger Anita Sarkeesian, regularly is targeted by gamergate, and has several times been threatened of murder and rape.”

The threats of murder and rape did occur, but not from #GamerGate. In fact, one of the individuals sending the death and rape threats was tracked down by the denizens of the #GamerGate Harassment Patrol. They found out that the individual was located in Brazil. Upon bringing this information to Anita Sarkeesian, it was promptly ignored and the media continued to paint #GamerGate as a harassment campaign, even though it’s actually about ethics in journalism.

Nevertheless, the media narrative is in full swing. WAM!’s peer reviewed report may have shown that #GamerGate on Twitter is not a harassment campaign, as reported by TechRaptor, but that doesn’t mean anything to the media narrative at large.

According to the article, they want to encourage developers to depict better examples of female representation and in-game characters, and according to Lemaire she states that games need to…

“[…] promote equality between men and women, treating such serious and specific topics related to sexism and violence against women.”

The French Center of Cinematography and Moving Images are being pressured to reevaluate how the FAJV (a fund for video games) is distributed and how financial bonuses should be handed out to French game studios that focus on diversity. Earlier this year Lemaire tried having funds pulled from video game projects that could be considered sexist, as reported by DualShockers.

The more disturbing development is that the Ministry of Culture want to create a new label for sexism in games; having a label on the box to determine whether or not a game contains any sexist acts against women.

According to the article, Lemaire and some other lawmakers want to make it where the labels on the boxes could make games with negative sexism labels harder to advertise in the market and more difficult to sell, similar to 18+ or AO rated titles…

“This latter action would involve the amendment of the European PEGI. A game considered sexist could be lumped into the “discrimination” category. The latter currently covers incitement to hatred against certain religious or ethnic groups. A game rated in this category is automatically not recommended for children under 18 years. These titles may not benefit from advertising on television in prime time.”

This could be a huge step back in terms of actually promoting diversity in games, given that games that have equal opportunity violence against men and women could be labeled as sexist, very much in the same way that GTA V, Sleeping Dogs and Hitman were labeled as sexist by Feminist Frequency because gamers were given the option to kill or harm female NPCs.

The article also does not provide examples of what could be classified as a “sexist” depiction in a game. Would Mai from The King of Fighters be considered “sexist” because she’s scantily dressed? Or how about games like X-Blades, where the protagonist runs around in a thong? Some of the individuals on the regressive left labeled Chun-Li’s depiction as being sexist because in Street Fighter V her boobs sometimes jiggle.

Many games that have been put under the microscope for sexism have usually made it possible for both male and females to undergo the same levels of violence, so some developers may need to reevaluate how females are depicted in games if the sexism label is put into effect in France.

[Update 6/3/2016:] I was linked to some excerpts from B-Volleyball-Ready that explains that Anita Sarkeesian believes developers need to have more “moral restrictions” in their games, and she lists off eight different things that developers should do when making female characters.

The list was featured on Mankato Free Press and includes things like women being mo-capped not to move like supermodels, women sounding more in pain when they’re attacked instead of sounding like they’re having an “orgasm”. Women not looking sexy or being sexy during combat because “violence should never be sexy” and to stop emphasizing the female form (e.g., breast, buttocks, thighs, etc.). She also states that there should be more females of different types featured in games of different sizes and not “taken” female characters.


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Sevuz

    I see a BIG black market in the future for video games if this goes on.

  • TT

    Comment les puissants sont tombés.

  • Olivia

    These people are so stupid, I just can’t understand sjw if you dont like a game or movie turn it off. That’s what I do,if a movie had a scene that I didn’t like I’ll turn the channel. But some people want to ban video game’s movies that they don’t like god. I guess it’s true there are two types of people in the world, the people who want to be left alone and people who want to control and censor movies and video game’s you like rant over.

  • Azure

    What about books and movies?

    Heck we should protect men to by adding sexism against men stickers too. I’m all about equality here if you are going to do it for women then it should be done for men too.

  • Michael P

    If these joy vampires get their way, the future is going to be a bland as crackers, neo-puritan borefest. Funny that these hypocrites never seek to suppress female sexual agency and censor media like Mills and Boon novels and movies like Magic Mike.

    It’s a point of pride and proof that we’re above this victimhood nonsense that we’ve never tried it either.

  • Mr.Towel

    I’m sorry if that is too offensive for europeans around here… but I live in a Banana Republic and if what I just read haven’t said that this bullshit was happening on France, I would assume it would be happening in just another Banana Republic… This is the kind of shit that happens in Totalitarian Regimes like Venezuela, Cuba, North Corea, cesspit countries in Africa… And now Western Europe…

    Liberté? Non. Egalité? Non. Fraternité? Non.

    L’État est Dieu!

    How much the French have fallen. This is sad.

    • Michael P

      Agreed. I know little of France but freedom within artistic expression was their thing, this is sad news indeed.

  • C G Saturation

    This kind of bullshit would never fly in Japan. Tons of Japanese male and female friends that I’ve spoken to said the same thing: feminists are selfish scammers and are full of shit. I wish the rest of the world wasn’t so gullible and moronic.

  • Benjamin Peters

    France has got 99 problems, but these people are just making up one.

  • Muten

    OK, more information before you buy a game is a good thing. But labaling a game as sexist is silly, you are trying to read intent in the mind of the developers at that point. Maybe they want to use more specific description?

    No examples giving about what is sexism on their minds, its not like “you know it when you see it” sort of thing that we have with porn or violence, I hope they use the term proper “discrimination on the basis of sex” and thats that.

    • No one important

      It should not be that hard to determine when the depiction of women on a videogame is sexist or not. There is such thing as gender studies being taught in universities, right? Surely there is people with academic titles that can determine that and are more reliable than people with no related education.

      • Mr.Towel

        The problem is: Sexism is a concept of equivalence. Nothing too complex till there… until you realize it is Equivalence of subjective judgements.

        The perspective can always be thrown around in a logical reasoning to provide the appearance of equivalence which would not exist under another perspective. Sexism is a hazy cultural object as much as the objects it tries act upon.

        • No one important

          So what are these gender studies for if they cannot even determine if something is sexist or not, being such a hazy cultural concept. Hopefully these games are not being sold to a tribe in the Amazonas.

          • The problem with gender studies is that gender roles vary per culture.

            In some aborigine tribes or native wilderness tribes or jungle tribes — the women go around topless and the dudes wear nothing but thongs. The women take care of the kids and maintain home life while the men build the houses and hunt for food. Every aspect of that kind of simple life is considered “sexist” by today’s gender studies alum.

            Today’s society praises the instance of a single-mother raising kids, working two jobs while trying to battle her way up the management chain so she can provide a better life for herself and her kids. It’s considered “empowering” by the gender study groups to be overwhelmed, overworked and over-achieving in order to overcome the status quo. At the same time it’s all the fault of the institutionally empowered “Patriarchy”.

            Personal accountability and responsibility is thrown clean out the window. It’s sexism if a woman isn’t qualified for a job. It’s the “Patriarchy’s” fault if a woman can’t afford a luxury car on middle-management salary. It’s the fault of the “male gaze” that an overweight woman can’t get a date. And it’s the fault of “harassment” when someone is proven wrong with facts.

            The reality is that true sexism has been buried and muddied under the weight of people using a field to pass off all forms of responsibility.

            Yeah, those primitive folks could be considered “sexist” in their way of life compared to more “civilized” cultures, but at least they haven’t developed an entire field dedicated to passing blame and dodging the need to be accountable for one’s actions.

  • Ghost

    Who cares about what nazi sympathizers think.

  • Parrikle

    > WAM!’s peer reviewed report may have shown that #GamerGate on
    > Twitter is not a harassment campaign, as reported by TechRaptor,

    Techraptor got that one wrong by misinterpreting the statistics WAM provided. It wasn’t possible, using WAM’s data, to make any claim as to what percentage of GamerGate supporters were involved in harassment, and therefore it isn’t possible to use that data to argued whether or not GamerGate on Twitter was a harassment campaign.

    • Techraptor got that one wrong by misinterpreting the statistics WAM provided. It wasn’t possible, using WAM’s data, to make any claim as to what percentage of GamerGate supporters were involved in harassment in general, and therefore it isn’t possible to use that data to argued whether or not GamerGate on Twitter was a harassment campaign.

      You’re wrong.

      More than 9,000 people were on the blocklist. They were following those people to see if those on the list would be reported for harassment. Only 12 people were reported for harassment. It says it right there in the article. I can’t believe a year later and people are still purposefully ignoring the data in that report.

      • Parrikle

        That’s where you make the mistake – they weren’t following those people. If they had sampled the tweets by members of the blocklist they could have come to a rough conclusion about how many were involved in harassment. But that wasn’t the methodology they employed. Instead they only looked at instances of harassment reported to WAM, without the additional data of what percentage of Twitter-based harassment the reported harassment accounted for.

        Accordingly, you can use the data to say that 12% of harassing accounts reported to WAM was from accounts on the blocklist, or you can use the data to say that at least .65% of accounts on the blocklist were determined by WAM to be involved in harassment, but you can’t use that data to approximate what percentage of blocklist accounts sent harassment. To do that you would either need to sample all tweets by blocklist accounts, or have figures on what percentage of harassment was reported to WAM.

        • To do that you would either need to sample all tweets by blocklist accounts, or have figures on what percentage of harassment was reported to WAM.

          You’re putting the cart before the horse.

          They were monitoring what levels of harassment had any connection to #Gamergate. There’s NO reason to monitor the individual Twitter accounts.

          They were using the blocklist as a sample size to monitor who on the list was reported for harassment.

          You’re trying to muddy the data. #GamerGate was supposed to be labeled as a harassment campaign, thus naturally the gauge should be on whether or not people who are associated with it used the hashtag in some way to send harassment (since that’s what the media had been saying).

          Only 65 people in relation to the tag from the blocklist were reported for harassment. If you sampled the tweets from individuals from the list then you’re going to get all sorts of noise, (i.e., people who may have used language or terms or inflammatory words outside of any relation to #GamerGate).

          Why would you even suggest corrupting the data like that when individually people’s personal tweets on their account do NOT represent #GamerGate?

          • Parrikle

            > They were monitoring what levels of harassment had any connection to #Gamergate. There’s NO reason to monitor the individual Twitter accounts.

            No, they were monitoring harassment reported to them, not what levels were connected to GamerGate or any other group. Out of interest they looked at their harassment reports and compared that to the accounts on the blocklist, but that wasn’t a methodology that could tell you anything beyond “some people on the blocklist posted harassment” .

            Try an analogy – I’m interested in knowing about Trump supporters, so I ask people to report Trump voters to me. I get 100 reports of people who will vote for Trump, and in studying them find that 90 of those reports were of Republicans. I am therefore correct in saying that 90% of those reported to me as Trump voters were Republicans. If I then know that there are (for example), only 90,000 Republicans in the world, I could then say that at least 0.1% of Republicans will vote for Trump. What I can’t say is that only 0.1% of Republicans will vote for him, because I don’t know what percentage of Republican opinions were passed on to me.

            That’s the situation we have here. We can say that at least 0.65% of GamerGate supporters were involved in harassment, but without knowing what percentage of harassment was reported to WAM, we can’t say that only 0.65% of supporters were harassers. If the reporting rate was 10%, the real number might be 6.5%. If the reporting rate was 1 in 100 incidents, it would be 65% of GG supporters. But as we don’t know the reporting rate, we can’t even guess at what percentage of GG supporters were involved except as a lower limit.

            Working with data is hard, but I wish that Techraptor had taken more care instead of publishing incorrect information.

          • Tehy

            Your argument has nothing to do with statistics anyhow. Your argument is just that ‘harassment’ is poorly defined, to which I say if it’s not being reported then it’s not much of a problem.

          • Parrikle

            > Anyhow, your ultimate argument is that harassment is just measured poorly; I heartily disagree and there’s no way to check.

            Yes. That’s the problem – tracking the percentage of harassment on Twitter is extremely difficult, so it is very hard to draw solid conclusions from studies, an impossible if the methodology isn’t designed to do that.

          • Tehy

            But they thought it wasn’t. In fact, it looks very easy, because who gets harassed and doesn’t report it?

          • Parrikle

            > who gets harassed and doesn’t report it?

            Honestly? Pretty much everybody. Very few people report incidents of harassment online.

            And no, they didn’t see it as easy, because they weren’t trying to track harassment numbers. They were only trying to assist those who reported harassment to them.

          • Tehy

            Lol

            ‘very few people report incidents of harassment online’

            where did you get that from? if someone actually harassed me, i’d report them immediately for doing so… you’re probably just thinking of people sent mean tweets or something.

          • Parrikle

            Depending on the source you are looking at, less than 22% of harassment incidents are reported.

          • Tehy

            if you had a source, why wasn’t it included in your original comment already

            bullshit detector going off wildly. probably not twitter related

          • Parrikle

            http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

            It didn’t seem worth highlighting – this is a given in regard to any research on harassment, that the reporting rates are always very low. But ok, Other studies show the same basic results.

          • Tehy

            Yeah, this definitely wasn’t worth highlighting…wait, what’s this?

            “22% reported the person responsible to the website or online service”

            sort of shoots a hole in your ‘1 in 100’ type of claims doesn’t it? Not to mention

            “Those with more “severe” harassment experiences responded differently to their most recent incident with harassment than those with less “severe” experiences. Those who have ever experienced stalking, physical threats, or sustained or sexual harassment were more likely to take multiple steps in response to their latest incident than those who have only experienced name-calling and embarrassment, 67% vs. 30%. ”

            so it’s looking like, by your logic, about 2% of the blocklist might be harassers? That’s…still really, really low, dude. Do note i’m excluding things like ‘name-calling and embarrassment’ from ‘harassment’ because no duh. This study basically confirms what i had believed: if you cast a wide net for harassment, people might not report it…but when shit hits the fan, people actually do ask for help because why the heck wouldn’t they. Seriously, if I am being sexually harassed on a social media service, they are going to solve the problem, period.

          • Actually the WAM! report addresses the very thing you bring up. A large majority of the reports were from social media bystanders who witnessed what they felt was harassment and then reported it to WAM! 43% of the people who actually received harassment reported it but 57% of bystanders took initiative to report it to WAM!

          • Parrikle

            Accordingly, twice as many people reported an unknown percentage of harassment, as opposed to half as many people reporting an unknown percentage of harassment. Yet it remains an unknown percentage. The WAM data remains an unknown percentage of the overall harassment, which is why the researchers stated that it cannot be used in the way that Techraptor used it.

          • The WAM data remains an unknown percentage of the overall harassment,

            “Overall harassment” is a worthless figure, though. Overall harassment based on what? Mean things said? Pestering? Spam? Actual hate speech? One-off conversations? Drive-by tweets? It’s a nebulous, junk measurement since there’s no such thing as being able, in anyway, to gauge “overall harassment” without first strictly defining what accounts for measurable harassment.

            According to WAM! they were going by reports on instances that had some measure of incitement that they could gauge. Extrapolating that to anything more muddies the data.

            twice as many people reported an unknown percentage of harassment, […] Yet it remains an unknown percentage

            Doesn’t matter, they were only measuring what was relevant, which is why throughout the report they indicate that they had to throw out x amount of data that could have been defined as harassment but was irrelevant to Twitter and irrelevant to their statistical analysis.

            If you keep trying to look at the data as an isolated sample, then you’re only going to reach the conclusion that it’s worthless for any sort of gauge in relation to #GamerGate. However, common sense and real life is blatantly starring us in the face, and the data CAN be compared to the other statistical analysis out there, which measured other facets of the tag in use and they came to similar approximations.

            Each individual analysis isolated within its own demarcation makes it useless. But if you extrapolate that data and compare with all of the other data sets out there, you can see a trend. The trends from the data sets are not useless because those can be stacked up against real life. For instance, right now, click on the hashtag for GamerGate on Twitter or follow the tweets that have been used in the tag for the past week and see if anything is there that could be classified as harassment.

            The data does not exist in isolation.

          • Parrikle

            You seem to be misreading the statistics. The 22% is of the 40% of those who responded to harassment, which is 8.8% of the overall amount. However, that’s the number who reported the harassment in the PEW study to the website – not the number who reported the harassment to a 3rd party. If we assume a best case scenario, that approximately 8% of the people who were harassed during the study period reported it, only a subset of that number would have reported it to WAM instead of Twitter. Which returns us to the main point – as the researchers made clear, the data can’t be used to calculate the extent of the harassment coming form accounts on the blocklist, because we don’t know what percentage was reported to WAM – at best, based on general statistics, we know that it is likely to be low, but we don’t know how low.

          • Tehy

            All right, we know it’s likely to be low? Good enough for me.

          • No, they were monitoring harassment reported to them, not what levels were connected to GamerGate or any other group.

            You’re wrong, again. Re-read the report, appendix 1.5. They explicitly mention that they monitored and cross-referenced the data from the blocklist with the reports they received regarding harassment. They threw out the data from accounts that had no alleged relation to harassment reports. They explicitly mention that in the notes on page 24.

            but without knowing what percentage of harassment was reported to WAM, we can’t say that only 0.65% of supporters were harassers.

            Yes we can, until you prove more were harassers. There should be some measure of collected data somewhere showing #GamerGate as a harassment campaign. The Newsweek poll and the two other independent polls show statistical analysis par to what WAM!’s report shows, just on a larger scale.

            WAM! already mentioned in their report the comparison between standard Twitter reports for harassment and the ones specifically linked to #GamerGate. They detail the methodology in section 1.4 of the report:
            https://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf

            So far ALL of the independent and peer reviewed reports say the same thing: majority of the #GamerGate content IS NOT about harassment. The onus is on YOU to provide some sample of data or at least a measure of evidence to show that it was a harassment campaign from the start. The data is sound in proving that it’s a Twitter movement with a lot of social activity. None of the claims hold up to scrutiny regarding it being a harassment campaign.

            You’re welcome to provide data showing some evidence to at least challenge this notion, but you can’t because it doesn’t exist.

            Working with data is hard, but I wish that Techraptor had taken more care instead of publishing incorrect information.

            No, you’re wrong. Either you didn’t read the entire report from start to finish or you’re trolling.

          • Parrikle

            > You’re wrong, again. Re-read the report, appendix 1.5. They explicitly mention that they monitored and cross-referenced the data from the blocklist with the reports they received regarding harassment.

            But that was an aside – it wasn’t what they were doing. They were there to support Twitter users experiencing harassment, and developed a report on what happened during their pilot study. As part of that report, they were curious as to the extent that GamerGate-related harassment would influence the data, so they looked at what percentage of the reports they received came from GG supporters. But they did not look at what percentage of GG supporters engaged in harassment – that is a completely different question, and not one which they had the data to answer.

            They clarified it here:

            http://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/common-questions-about-our-online-harassment-report

            In regard to what can be read from their report about GamerGate, they state:

            ” Since WAM! only had data about alleged harassment that was reported to it, our findings cannot be used to make any representative claims, positive or negative, about any specific subgroup online, including Gamergate.”

            Further:

            “Does that mean that GamerGate is a movement dedicated to harassment? Our evidence can’t answer that question and shouldn’t be used to do so.”

            They are being very clear – their data can say nothing about GamerGate and harassment as a whole, because they didn’t collect the type of data that could do so.

          • so they looked at what percentage of the reports they received came from GG supporters. But they did not look at what percentage of GG
            supporters engaged in harassment

            That is a non-sequitur.

            We’re talking about the hashtag being used to send harassment. WAM! had collected 65 accounts in relation to the hashtag being allegedly connected to harassment (they don’t say if they were the harassers or being harassed) other than that they had a connection to the blocklist.

            Individually the supporters DO NOT matter. Whatever someone does on their personal account has nothing whatsoever to do with #GamerGate.

            They are being very clear – their data can say nothing about GamerGate and harassment as a whole, because they didn’t collect the type of data that could do so.

            That completely sidesteps everything I mentioned in the post: If you claim the data can’t absolve #GamerGate of being a harassment campaign then you MUST have some form of data that shows it at least engaged in being a harassment campaign?

            That question has ZERO to do with WAM!. If I can find data that shows SJWs engaged in harassment and if I can link to evidence showing game journalists engaged in illegal behavior, people claiming that data that shows that #GamerGate is not a harassment campaign should at least be able to point to data that shows that it has engaged in some harassment.

            My question to you has been very simple: what data shows that #GamerGate ever was a harassment campaign and what means were used to arrive at that conclusion?

            You’re essentially arguing against data that proves a negative, and furthermore, making the mistake of attempting to argue from a position as if the positive could be true while showing ZERO data to back up that stance.

            I had this exact same argument a year ago to a stand still, asking others the exact same questions.

          • Parrikle

            Ok We’re getting nowhere. But:

            > My question to you has been very simple: what data shows that #GamerGate ever was a harassment campaign and what means were used to arrive at that conclusion?

            What I’m trying to say is not that GamerGate was a harassment campaign – but that the WAM data can’t be used to say that it isn’t. Perhaps we’ve been on cross purposes? You wrote:

            > WAM!’s peer reviewed report may have shown that #GamerGate on Twitter is not a harassment campaign, as reported by TechRaptor

            What I’m trying – and clearly failing – to clarify is that this statement is incorrect, because it did not show that GamerGate is not a harassment campaign. It also does not show that it is a harassment campaign, but that wasn’t what was written.

            The simple version: the WAM report does not, and can not, say whether GamerGate is, or is not, a harassment campaign. It is not capable of doing that with the data collected.

            Techraptor and others incorrectly said that WAM’s data proved that GG was not a harassment campaign, and that claim was repeated here. But that conclusion could not be drawn from the WAM data, as the researchers subsequently made clear.

            Hopefully this puts us on the same page?

          • But that conclusion could not be drawn from the WAM data, as the researchers subsequently made clear.

            Actually, that’s wrong. That’s working from the supposition that #GamerGate was at some point in consideration for being a harassment campaign.

            That’s one of the few points of contention that I personally have with the data. If you’re going to discount your own statistical analysis (which is what the WAM! report attempts to do) they would still then have to show some basis in which they could reach the supposition that supports the claim that #GamerGate could even be or ever was a harassment campaign.

            I understand that we’re coming at this from two different perspectives but I’ll try to simplify this based on how the scandal is perceived and why the WAM! data at the very least disproves a widespread misconception.

            1.) If the media claims that #GamerGate is a harassment campaign then the onus is on them to prove it. In this case, no evidence was provided.

            2.) WAM! attempted to measure the tag for harassment and it came up with the 0.65% figure. They claim that this proves nothing.

            3.) Their data was already in line with what Chris von Csefalvay had concluded from his data and what the Newsweek report had already concluded: that more than 92% of #GamerGate’s tweets were neutral.

            Thus, how can we say that the WAM! report does not come to any conclusion about #GamerGate when it independently reiterates what the other reports stated and for the simple fact that they’re working from the supposition that it was a harassment campaign to begin with, despite there being zero basis or evidence for those claims?

            Technically speaking, the data at the very least dispels the unsubstantiated claims from the media. That was explicitly the point that Techraptor, myself and other sites were trying to make.

            However, if we were simply looking at the data in a vacuum, then yes, you would be absolutely correct.

          • Parrikle

            > Technically speaking, the data at the very least dispels the unsubstantiated claims from the media. That was explicitly the point that Techraptor, myself and other sites were trying to make.

            The data doesn’t dispel anything, because it can’t prove the claim one way or the other. You suggest that it does, and Techraptor stated that it did, but it cannot say that GamerGate is not a harassment campaign, and thus cannot dispel any claims to the contrary, for exactly the same reason that it cannot say that GamerGate is a harassment campaign. The data they collected simply can’t be used in that way. The one, and only, claim WAM can make about GamerGate is that some accounts on the blocklist were responsible for some harassment that was reported to them, but that is of extremely limited value to the wider issue.

          • The data doesn’t dispel anything, because it can’t prove the claim one way or the other.

            Yes, it could have if the claims were true, because there would have been a much larger pool of individuals from the blockbot reported for harassment, but they were not.

          • Parrikle

            No, because we don’t know the reporting rates. The pool that could report to WAM would be limited to those who knew about WAM during the study period and were willing to report the incident to WAM. That is likely to be a very small subset of those being harassed, but we have no way of knowing without more data, which WAM was unable to provide.

          • The pool that could report to WAM would be limited to those who knew about WAM during the study period and were willing to report the incident to WAM.

            That would be everyone who knew about Sarkeesian, Feminist Frequency, Randy Harper’s blockbot, the IGDA, anyone who followed or was updated on Kate Edwards’ advocacy against #GamerGate, and anyone who had tagged into the #Gamergate tag throughout December since WAM! had been advertised through those outlets during that time. #GamerGate had generated more than 1 million tweets by that time and had already reached millions of people across at least 50 countries.

          • Parrikle

            Sorry, you can guess at it all you like, but the pool remains unknown. If you want to say that the WAM report disproves that claim because of the lack of reports, you need to know the reporting rate.Guessing at it is fun, but meaningless. Knowledge of the #gamergate tag does not equate to knowledge of WAM, knowledge of WAM does not equate to reporting harassment, and reporting harassment did not necessarily mean reporting to WAM. Without more data we just don’t know what was going on in terms of overall harassment levels, exactly as the researchers for WAM said.

          • Knowledge of the #gamergate tag does not equate to knowledge of WAM, knowledge of WAM does not equate to reporting harassment, and reporting harassment did not necessarily mean reporting to WAM. Without more data we just don’t know what was going on in terms of overall harassment levels, exactly as the researchers for WAM said.

            There’s a much simpler solution: The claims of harassment campaigns were bogus.

            The data shows that much. The lack of evidence to the contrary proves it. Problem solved. 🙂

          • Parrikle

            The data doesn’t show anything of the sort. Which, of course, is the point.

          • Jazukai

            Notable feminists sending themselves threats disproved their allegations against Gamergate before statistics even needed to be tallied, people just won’t listen.

  • durka durka

    First of all they drunk the kool aid full on and emptied the damn bottle. Did they even bother fact checking?

    “A game considered sexist could be lumped into the “discrimination” category. ”

    AGAINST NON EXISTENT PEOPLE, NOT EVEN FICTIONAL, COMPLETELY NON EXISTENT, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHTS, FEELINGS OR EVEN PUBLIC APPEARANCES

    • Indeed. It’s absolutely pathetic, and it’s yet more evidence that all these people want to do is remove anything that’s geared towards a straight male audience.

      Because you sure as hell do not hear them complain about violence, mistreatment or “sexism” against male characters.

  • DizzyGear

    Terrorist attacks, Rising anti-Semitism ammong Muslims, The economy is still on its ass, The migrant invasion shows no signs of stopping putting even more strain on the economy, housing and social security, etc etc

    But somehow with all that going on THIS is what politicians are wasting time and tax money on. And even they think its strange the people have lost faith in politicians and the EU in general.

    • Grey

      Focusing on fluff issues with clear cut “solutions,” as opposed to legitimate problems with no easy answer, is a time honored political tradition. If this wasn’t the hot button of the day, they’d find some other equally petty problem to rally against.

    • durka durka

      There is no focus there are people who do one thing, like say a marxist feminist whining about womens rights int he parliament and then there is someone trying to find out how to tax people.
      I don know where you live, but in france there is a massive strike against the labor rights laws they voted, everything is dead, they have hard time getting gas for their cars.

      Also this “migrant invasion” if you take your information from one source you get alot of bs, the vast majority of those people are in fact syrians, but there are so many minorities, aghanis, pakistanis, iraqis, morrocans, algerians, niggerians, kurds, albanians, where the fuck yo all going? So it makes it seem as if it is the opposite case.

  • And Anita and Jim said they weren’t going to take the boobs away.

    • …all we wanted to do is play video games.

      http://i.imgur.com/klClgDC.jpg

    • Sevuz

      Jim is a dumbass who love to suck the living hell out the PC minded people’s cock. Anita is a BIG liar who knows how to play that Feminist violin real good and people eat it all up. So all what they have to say is BS most of the time.

      Yeah I can’t believe they think this is worth time and money right now. But hey they it’s the same type of people that think nothing bad comes of the migrant invasion atm

  • Gorgon

    They should invite 2 more millions afgani migrants while they’re at it.

    • durka durka

      Actually the afhganis are about 300k spread in germany, turkey, greece,lybia and jordan.

      • Tehy

        and with his suggestion, there would be 2.3 million of them