Scenario 2 is basically what feminists are doing to men. A few men do something, and now suddenly we need pervasive, invasive, due process rights destroying changes to the law, making it toxic for ALL men. We're also supposed to accept the denigration of masculinity in all aspects of culture and life as some kind of penance. Those who question it are labeled misogynists. Fuck that.

I'll bet that the anecdotes depicted in this article were actually subjected to scenario 1, and took it personally instead of constructively. The reality is that ALL developers get trash talk like that, not just women. I don't see why they should be singled out for special sympathy. Even developers of successful games get vitriol from some players. If the game sucks, the devs get more. We don't sympathize with derek smart do we?

I'm tired of being told both that women are 'equals' while also being told that I'm responsible for their emotional well being. Either women are adults or they are children. They need to decide which way they want to be treated. The fact that comments have been disabled on the article speaks volumes about the logical integrity of the post.

Yes it is. Grow up. Stop crying like a baby. Learn to deal with internet trash talk for what it is. You whine just like those anita sarkeesian feminists. It's much more likely that you are lashing out for being owned by those players, than it is they actually intend to hunt anyone down.

Perhaps, but adults need to take some responsibility for the situations they put themselves in. End of story. Crying victim every time you're criticized does not encourage respect, and that's what these professional victim blog articles are all about.

A couple of anecdotes from a few troll posts do not qualify as 'daily harassment of women.'

That's true.

ah.. no true scotsman would...

.. there's a reason paranoia is a typical stereotype associated with eastern bloc societies. ...and the united states these days. Corporates cannot dominate without a powerful state willing to back them.

Refusing to acknowledge the icky parts doesn't make them go away.

You know what you doing take off every 'zig!

and democrats want expression contrary to their image and ideology censored and punished. We'll probably have both by 2050.

Because 'free' tv isn't really free anymore.

False dilemma. We could watch the video with adblock plus installed and not let you waste our time with some ad selling bullshit we don't care about.

Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

You mean things like internet access and cable tv? those are expensive services and they're full of ads. It's gotten so bad that ads are displayed around the edges of content on tv shows, and sites want internet customers to use their limited bandwidth allocations to download fat flash ads and wait for them to play....on so called 'premium' services. Fuck that.

I have no sympathy for advertisers at this point.

The issue is that male focused groups are criticized for it while female groups are lauded. Sure, the society for male nurses might be mostly male, but try building a society specifically for male engineers. What happens? The SJWs come out in droves clamoring for the death of the 'patriarchy.' Meanwhile the last 50 years of new laws and social reforms lobbied for by feminists force organizations to select for women because of their sex and not their accomplishments.

Criticism of feminism's hypocrisy is often taken as misogyny when it is not, which is what a lot of feminist critics deal with on slashdot and the mainstream media. These arguments are just ad hominem attacks (eg calling them misogynists) and other fallacies (like taking it as 'proof' of patriarchy) because feminists don't have sound justifications for granting women privilege in society under the guise of fighting for everyone's equal opportunity. This cannot be true as long as feminists only concern themselves with the needs and whims of one sex. Many of them have no qualms about 'redefining' masculinity as well, which is ironic considering how they don't want men dictating what a woman should be in any sense.

You're right, though, people should be able to concern themselves with their own interests and ally as they see fit, but it is wrong to have the state dictate which cross sections are permitted to do this, labeling some as 'oppressors' and others as 'oppressed,' by default. This 'chicktech' initiative is no more or less discriminatory than my male engineering society example above. If one should be allowed then so should the other.

The litmus test is in applying the opposite logic. What would the situation be if they were promoting boys instead, and someone like yourself came along and answered feminist criticism with "but see they accept women too!" Even if they did, their primary discriminator is still the sex of the student instead of relevant discriminators, like aptitude and interest. The bottom line is you (or some other feminist) would have called someone out for saying