Criticism and Advancement: Why I Support Both GamerGate and Feminist Frequency

Disclosure: I do financially support Feminist Frequency, and after my rant here you may understand why a bit better.

Let me say straight up that I'm rather fond of Fredrick Nietzsche's philosophies on how suffering, pain, and adversity is the path to growth and strength. As such it should come as no surprise that criticism, differing viewpoints, alternative perspectives, and even personal attacks are welcome (though challenging) experiences, because they help me refine my opinions, strengthen my rhetoric, and harden my proverbial skin.

This is a big part of why I support GamerGate, and also why I support Feminist Frequency. These days a lot of people would argue that these two should be in separate camps, and that I'm some kind of abomination, hypocrite, or somehow mentally deranged or whatnot. A lot of this connects back to my very Nietzscheian perspective. Put another way, there's a wonderful piece of dialog in Star Trek: TNG (S2E21 "Peak Performance", about a minute in) that I'll draw from to give another perspective on it:

Data: "For over nine millennia, potential foes have regarded the Zakdorn's as having the greatest innately strategic minds in the galaxy."
Worf: "So no one is willing to test that perception in combat?"
Data: "Exactly."
Worf: "Then the reputation means nothing."

Now replace a strategic mind and combat with pretty much any form of idea, concept, or whatnot. The same still applies, unless an idea is able to survive the rigor of being challenged by other ideas, it cannot be said to truly deserve any renown. Also, by going through the process of surviving that challenge it becomes more robust, more refined, and more capable.

Unfortunately there's one thing that will kill the ability for an idea to survive these rigors: censorship. If there's no dialog to challenge an idea with, then how can it be challenged? If it cannot be challenged, then how can it be reputable?

Using this logic it's pretty clear why I support GamerGate, I believe. Censorship limits the ability for ideas to be challenged, and also to grow. Using similar logic I support Feminist Frequency, as what good is gaming of we 'sacred cow' it and censor criticism of it? If gaming is truly to grow, evolve and improve then it most accept such criticism and respond, either through rebuttal or revision (or both).

So, my ideology puts me at a rather interesting split between the more radical (I'll get into what exactly I mean by 'radical' in another post at another time), and more publicly seen, sides of GamerGate and gaming feminism. Both sides would accuse me of selling out to the other, GamerGate for supporting Sarkeesian, and gaming feminism for buying into a distraction from feminist issues. I would debate either on those points though, gladly, for exactly the reasons I've stated above. I support discussion, I support my ideas being challenged, I support being beaten down, because I know how to pick myself up and go at it again (-:

Now there are moderates on both sides, and those like me who straddle the middle, who can completely understand what I'm saying here. I'm hoping this is the majority, though sadly I know it's not a vocal majority. Level-headedness and clear thinking doesn't tend to jive with being highly vocal. The voice of reason often gets crowded out in the open room.

Regardless, I think there needs to be more people like Sarkeesian, bringing more perspectives on gaming, including critiques of Sarkeesian's work. I also feel the same about GamerGate, and something I've been appreciating the twitter feed for the diversity of opinions I come across on it, both the ranting scathing hateful stuff, the thoughtful contemplation, and everything in-between.

Hopefully that provides insight into my stance on a few things.

- Jason