amyvanhym: (lightheaded)
[personal profile] amyvanhym
I am a woman who plays a lot of video games. I completed a survey on women in gaming for Ryerson last night. Because so many of the questions did not allow me to give my true answers, I typed out my true answers and emailed them to gamerstudy@psych.ryerson.ca. The survey has by now been taken down and the link to it no longer works, but here's a link to Sargon of Akkad's video on it, which I have not watched.

Before I share the email I sent, I have written an introduction:



The Survey as a Propaganda Tool

When we opt to take a survey, we are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. We figure the questions we are given represent honest curiosity and are free of bias. We just want to answer some questions to help someone out, right? And we figure that's all we're doing -- giving information. But when the questions are closed, when they pigeonhole inherently qualitative truths into quantitative answers by forcing respondents to answer on an agree/disagree radio button scale rather than by using their own words, sometimes without even allowing for neutral responses, participants are also receiving information.

Such questions often require participants to group unrelated concepts as though they are related in order to answer. For example: "Respond on a scale from one [disagree] to five [agree]: It is okay to tweet, repeatedly telephone, or personally confront a woman you disagree with on the Internet."

You may think it is okay to tweet, but not to telephone or personally confront, but the question doesn't allow you to distinguish between these things. If you aren't thinking criticially and are afraid of harassment, you may answer 'strongly disagree,' and now you're that much closer to mentally equating tweeting with hostile face-to-face confrontation, and this is also how your answer will likely be taken. If you're thinking critically and are pro-tweeting and anti-face-to-face, you might answer with a neutral 3 -- but this means the people giving the survey are now free to interpret your answer as meaning that you think it's sometimes okay to confront an ideological opponent in person, or phone them repeatedly. Survey unclarity has rendered your answer objectively meaningess, open to be interpreted by survey hosts in service to their own ideological ends.

Closed questions also can get us to assume dichotomies exist where none actually exist. For example: "Would you rather lower taxes on the poor and cancel plans for a new homeless shelter, or raise taxes on the poor and build the homeless shelter?" This implies only two options, and you must pick one. If you aren't thinking critically, you might be convinced that these are the only options: hurting the poor in one way, or hurting the poor in another way. Taxing the rich has been edged out of the equation. That you are participating in this process by answering questions rather than just hearing someone's opinion will make you feel a little more responsible for the contents of the dichotomy, which will make you a little bit more likely to believe that it is a REAL dichotomy.

By taking advantage of our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, ideological survey creators trick us into actually practicing the thinking patterns -- the biases -- of the ideologies motivating the biased questions. And that makes us more likely to believe them. As Dan Dennett says, "Every time you think it you create another copy in your brain! Every time you think it you create another copy in your brain! Every time you think it you create another copy in your brain!"

Don't passively let ideologues create copies of their ideology in your brain. Always view survey questions with a suspicious and critical eye, especially if the survey is being given by anyone in a position of accrediation or authority, in any insitituion, workplace, government agency, or school.

With that out of the way, on to the email and my answers!

(I've added some edits in square brackets for clarification. These edits were not included in the email I sent.)

[Dear Ryerson Psychologists,]

Your study questions were mostly very poor, forcing me to give neutral answers for almost every question. Here are my actual responses. I ended up spending several hours on this tonight. If you appreciated my feedback (and you should -- I'm a smart, informed female gamer, and I've done work for you), I would appreciate a tip. You can send me money through ko-fi here: https://ko-fi.com/A475BA1

OPENING WRITEUP [included in the actual survey; they asked for general opinions on "women in the gaming community"]:

I am a woman and I have been gaming since Nibbles, Lemmings and Pharoah's Tomb. I'm too busy playing games to have much of anything to do with a 'community.' Gaming is fun and challenging. Investing socially in a community surrounding gaming would be pointless, boring and annoying. I'd rather just play games.

I don't use voice chat in gaming. I tried streaming on twitch, and was met with demands from some girl that I use a mic and ramble at strangers. I found this incredibly weird and invasive. I prefer privacy. I thought the point of twitch was to watch people game, but it turns out twitch is less interested in gaming than I am, so I deactivated my account.

Women have always been here, in 'gaming communities,' gaming, chilling, enjoying ourselves peacefully. I think concerns about 'women in gaming' have been a cancer infesting the only part of the 'gaming community' that really matters: the creation, distribution and enjoyment of video games. This cancer has led to censorship and whining -- mostly sexist, racist whining about white men, as if they're some kind of problem. Most of the people who care about the sex of a gamer are less interested in gaming than they are in pushing their Feminist ideology into a sphere where it is unwanted.

A community as a loose cluster of individuals with overlapping interests is fine and healthy. A community as an identity-based group, with attempts to lead and control the group, causes cancer.

The only part of the 'gaming community' that has ever made me feel unwelcome has been not actual gamers, but invasive cultural annexers: Feminists. They claim to speak for me without my consent and they deny my existence -- sometimes even right to my face, since if I disagree with them I 'must be a man.' Guess what Feminists? Video games are not sexist, sexiness is not sexist, I do not share your hateful beliefs, and I am not your shield. Go away.

Last year I dressed up as Vivian James for Halloween. That's about the extent to which my social life and gaming life intersect. [Though I have enjoyed several all-night Age of Empires II LAN parties in the past.]


PAGE 1 OF QUESTIONS


[Scale: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree]

"Obtaining a woman's personal information online without her permission is never okay."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I can't answer. I do not know what you mean by "permission." Has she published it online [publicly] herself? I believe that constitutes permission. But she -- and you -- might not believe that.

"If I want to access information about a woman online, I can do what I need to do to acquire it."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I can't tell whether this is a question about willingness or technical skill.

"Even if I can, I am not free to bypass security to get information about a woman online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable, nonsensical. If you can, then you are free.

"It is okay to gain access to a live stream of a woman's webcam without her knowledge."
- Neither agree nor disagree. The question is not clear. Does she not know that she is streaming, or does she know she is streaming but does not know that I as an individual am accessing the stream? What is being discussed? Is it a public or private stream, or somewhere in between?

"It is acceptable to gain unauthorized access to a woman's information on the internet."
- Neither agree nor disagree. The question is not clear. What constitutes authorization?

"If I have figured out the password to a woman's account or profile, I can do what I want with it."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I am a woman. I do what I want with my profile. It is also unclear what you mean by "do what I want." [If I gained access to another woman's account I would want to] let her know she has a weak password, and not disturb anything, so my answer would be "strongly agree," because that is what I want and I can do that. And yet, I suspect you would presume my desires to be malicious [if I answered that way]. Furthermore, is it relevant [to you] that the person whose account I have accessed is a woman? It shouldn't be.

"To get information about a woman, it's okay to pose as her online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. It is sometimes okay, and that has nothing to do with her sex. In this scenario am I an investigative journalist seeking the truth about a powerful and corrupt politician through social engineering? Or am I a child rapist seeking a young girl as a victim? In some instances my answer is "strongly agree," while in others it is "strongly disagree."

"It is okay to impersonate someone online to learn more about a woman."
- Neither agree nor disagree, for reasons already stated.

"Pretending to be someone else when contacting a woman on the Internet is not okay."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable. Who is doing the pretending? An agent of an oppressive government or government agency? A journalist investigating said government or agency? Context matters.

"It is not appropriate to forge identifying information of a woman on the Internet to learn more about her."
- Neither agree nor disagree. "Appropriate" is too vague a term. Also, for reasons already stated.

"If a woman has an online presence, it is okay for me to use information she puts out there to learn more about her."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable. Who is the woman? What am I learning? [What information am I using? What do you mean by 'okay'?]

"It is not okay to use the Internet to track down a woman."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable. Okay for whom? Who is doing the tracking? A bounty hunter? Her daughter? The government? Her boss? Who is the woman? Is she a missing person? Is she dodging a debt? Is she a journalist who pissed off the state?

"There is nothing wrong with using the Internet to trace a woman's history."
- Neither agree nor disagree. This is getting very redundant. Again, the question is unanswerable. I don't know who the woman is or who the person doing the tracing is. [I also don't know what the history is. Criminal history? Purchasing history? Sexual history? A history of corruption and collusion?]

"It is unacceptable to use the Internet to trace where a woman has been."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable again, because no context is provided.

"Continually monitoring the activities of a woman online is totally fine."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Who is the woman? Is she a pedophile known for luring children? Is she a violent schizophrenic? Has she given permission via a liscencing agreement? [Who is monitoring her? Does she know?]

"It is not okay to use GPS or location tracking to find out where a woman is right now."
- Neither agree nor disagree. This is unanswerable. Again, who is the woman, and who is tracking her?

"I have the right to express my anger towards a woman online as frequently as I wish."
- Agree strongly. How is this even in question? I'll defend my free expression rights no matter what. I don't care whether the recipient is a woman. If she is hateful, if she is an entitled ideologue, if she is a liar, a power-hungry bully, a self-serving superstitious maniac, a sexist, a racist, I will say so. I will repeat myself if need be. I will not stop telling the truth. I live by my own wishes and no one else's. What I wish to do is overwhelmingly the right thing to do.

"Just because someone is telling a woman what they think, it does not mean it is threatening or intimidating."
- Agree strongly. How is THIS even in question either? I mean look at the wording, look at the logic of it. Who would ever claim that to tell a woman what you think is necessarily to threaten or indimidate her?

"There is potential harm in repeatedly messaging, calling or texting a woman."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Messaging, calling and texting are three very, very different things. I can't answer the same way for all three. The question also does not specify the content of the messages, calls and texts.

"It is fine to use the Internet to contact a woman even though she does not want to be contacted."
- Neither agree nor disagree, because again, specifics are not known. Who is she? Has she said that she doesn't want to be contacted, or does she just expect everyone to know? Are people justified in contacting her? Has she done something wrong? What are the contents of the messages? What do you mean by "fine"? Are you talking about whether something is morally right, or are you talking about whether it should be permitted by an authority?

"It is okay to use the Internet to tell a woman what I think about her, regardless of if she wants to know or not."
- You mean me, personally? Yes, I strongly agree, it absolutely is okay. How could it possibly not be? Any adult with an intellect encounters countless opinions every day, many of which they disagree with. Deal with it. No mature adult demands or expects to hear only the opinions she agrees with. [This is especially true if she is making objective claims about reality, rather than merely sharing a piece of art or creative writing. Objective reality involves other real people.]

"Spamming a woman's e-mail, social media, phone or voicemail with messages is wrong."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I don't know who the woman is, who the spammer is, or the contents of the 'spam.' I also noticed you have lumped together several modes of contact which vary starkly in their level of personal intimacy. This is an unanswerable question.

"There is no problem with telling a woman to kill herself on the Internet."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I don't know who the woman is, who the speaker is or what the relationship is. Is this a snide remark from a stranger? Is it in-game shit-talking? Is it a response to some hateful and dishonest piece of 'journalism' she wrote to push an ideological tenet? Or is the speaker her abusive mother or boyfriend? How old is she? Are these kids from school attacking her on Facebook? Or is this a shitpost fest on 4chan?

These questions have been largely unanswerable. They reek of sexism, and of propagandistic brainwashing tactics. You lump very different modes of communication together so that in answering, participants will conceptually link tweets with phone calls, as though they have the same intimacy level. This could be a tactic to make tweets appear threatening (they aren't), or it might just be incompetence on your part. That much I can't tell.


PAGE 2 OF QUESTIONS


"It's okay to create new, anonymous online profiles or accounts for the sole purpose of using them to spam a woman with messages.
- Neither agree nor disagree. I don't know who the woman is, who the 'spammer' is, what definition of 'spam' you are using, or what the content of the spam is. The question is unanswerable.

"There's nothing wrong with threatening real life violence to a woman on the Internet."
- Neither agree nor disagree. You have not stated whether the threat is credible. Credible threats are illegal. Non-credible threats are harmless and amusing. I've received several from Feminists and others. I laughed.

"There's nothing wrong with making unprovoked sexual remarks towards or sexual requests of a woman on the Internet."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Who is the woman? Who is the requester? What is their relationship? Unanswerable.

"It is okay to trick a woman into a compromising situation using the Internet."
- Neither agree nor disagree. What kind of trick? What's a 'compromising situation'? Who is tricking her? Are we talking about a journalist getting a scoop, or are we talking about a thief getting a credit card number? Unanswerable.

"There is nothing wrong with using fake advertisements or profiles to trick a woman online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. What does this even mean? All [or most] advertisements are deceitful, and the majority are aimed at women, because while men work more and earn more money, women spend more (they spend men's money). As for profiles -- anonymity is valuable. Fake profiles are a staple, and some people deserve to be tricked. Is the woman [who is] being tricked a stalker? Is the person who tricked her hiding from her?

"It is unacceptable to bend the truth on the Internet to get the information you want out of a woman."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Who is the woman? How far is the truth being bent? Which truth? Who is the bender?

"It is okay to mislead a woman online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. This is getting ridiculous. Who is the woman? Who is misleading her? How is she being misled? How could this possibly be an answerable question? It has no meaningful content.

"On the Internet, to convince a woman of something, sometimes you have to say things that are not entirely true."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unanswerable. Is the thing you're trying to convince her of true, or is it untrue? If it's true, you don't have to lie to convince her. If it's untrue (like most Feminsit claims), you DO have to lie to convince her. Are you asking me about how this works? Or are you asking a question about my willingness to lie? My true answer to this is "strongly agree," because it is a fact that when people on the Internet try to convince women of untruths, they have to lie in order to do so. But if I answered honestly, that could imply to you that I am willing to lie, which I am not. The meaning of the question is completely unclear.

"It is okay to share intimate photos or videos of a woman online without her consent."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Who took the photos? Who is the woman? How were the photos obtained? What do you mean by "consent"?

"I do not have the right to spread fake stories or rumors about a woman online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. This is inane. Do you understand the difference between having a right and doing right? Everyone has the right to spread fake stories, if their country has free speech protections and if the stories aren't extreme enough to constitute defamation. That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Unanswerable.

"Twisting the truth about a woman online for my personal purposes is not right."
- Strongly agree. I am not a liar.

"Threatening to release private information about a woman onto the Internet in order to get my way is not an acceptable thing to do."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Who is she? What is your definition of 'private'? Who am I? What is the 'my way' that I am trying to get? Is she a powerful politician? Am I a journalist or leaker? Is she an abusive parent? Would 'getting my way' mean protecting her beaten son?

"I'm at liberty to send intimate photos of myself to any woman I choose."
- Neither agree nor disagree. In one sense, yes -- yes I am. I can send whatever I want to anyone. But what are 'intimate photos'? You mean dick pics? I'm a straight woman. For me, an 'intimate photo' that I would send a woman might be a picture of my private Buddhist shrine. Also, any guy who wants to is free to send me pictures of his dick. What do I care? I browse dick rate threads on 4chan. I like dicks, especially dicks that weren't mutilated during their owners' infancy without their consent.

"Women have too much influence on the Internet today."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Far, far too vague. I don't know how much influence women have on the Internet, or what counts as 'influence' to you. I do know that Feminists have far too much influence. They should have [little to] none. But then, Feminists do not represent women. They only represent Feminists.

"Women should know the risks of putting any information about themselves online."
- Strongly agree. How is this possibly in question? When should anyone have less access to information about any risk? This is true for women and men.

"With how pervasive Internet access is today, women should not be surprised if people use it to hunt down more information about them."
- Neither agree nor diagree. Women [and men] should not be surprised that their private information can be used against them, but this has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of Internet access today. It has always been true, since the beginning of the Internet. I have been using pseudonyms since 1997. Not because I'm a woman, but because I'm not [dumb], not even when I was 13.

"Women are fair and reasonable in the demands they express online."
- Neither agree nor diagree. What a sexist question. Some women are reasonable and some are not. That said, it's not very reasonable to express demands online. That's controlling behaviour. The reasonable thing to do is make arguments for propositions. Most of the time the [reasonable] thing to do is [inform people, make your case and] let [them] choose their own actions instead of making demands of them.

"Because of the lack of accountability and consequences online, it is acceptable to target and attack women online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. What a tumult of fuckery. Whether something is acceptable has nothing to do with accountability or personal consequences. That's an authoritarian point of view, and I am not an authoritarian. What do you mean by consequences, really? Are you talking about consequences endured by a critic, or by the person they are criticising? It is acceptable to target and attack a person online when that person is deserving of ridicule.

"It is okay to express and perpetuate misogynistic beliefs online."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unclear. It is in a sense always okay to tell the truth about what you think. It is also okay to engage in joking and satire, which can focus on misogyny. Are such things included in your statement?

"Greater anonymity on the Internet allows me to express my true feelings about women."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Access to anonymity is necessary so that everyone may express themselves safely. If I had "feelings about women," I would answer with "strongly agree," but I don't. I don't conceptualize the world that way. I'm not a sexist.

"Attacking women online helps me gain followers, views, and/or popularity."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I don't really attack people online, but I imagine if I attacked the right people -- bad people, be they male or female -- it would help gain me followers, views and popularity. It has worked for many others.

"One of the advantages of attacking women online is that people acknowledge my opinions."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.

"On the Internet, there is no issue with making sexual comments about women."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unclear. Feminists have made a big issue of sexual comments, as if they are in some way inherently offensive, which they are not. So in that sense, there is an 'issue' of it on the Internet. But I don't think people's sexual comments are an issue. I think they're great [and somewhat rare]. I think prudes, authoritarians and Feminists are an issue.


PAGE 3 OF QUESTIONS


"Female gamers compromise the public's perception of gamers."
- Neutral. Just... what? I've never even thought about this. The public's perception? Who cares? I'm just trying to play games over here. "Compromise" the public's perception? As if it could be valuable in the first place? You really think it's possible for the general public to have an accurate perception about anything in the first place? The general public is [generally] stupid.

"My willingness to identify as a gamer is diminished in the presence of female gamers."
- Neutral. First, I have never "identified" as a gamer. It is not a matter of identity. It is a description. I am accurately described as a gamer. Second, I am female. I am a female gamer. My mother played video games, my girl friends growing up played video games, my sister in law plays video games. We've always been here, free of politics and "identity," gaming peacefully alongside our male peers.

"I feel good about being a gamer, regardless of the number of female gamers there are."
- Neutral. This is nonsensical. There's no "feeling" about "being a gamer." I do not "identify" as a gamer. I am described as a gamer, because I play video games. Playing the games I enjoy is what makes me feel good.

"I would like to see female gamers respected and protected by the gaming industry and community."
- Strongly disagree, because I am not a sexist. No one deserves respect or protection as a result of what is or isn't between their legs. And protection from what? What threat is there? Feminists are the only threat I can think of, and GamerGate already beat them.

"I fear that the gaming community is not tolerant enough of female gamers."
- Strongly disagree. If I believed the gaming community was not tolerant of female gamers, this would not make me feel afraid, it would make me angry. Fortunately, the only people intolerant of female gamers are Feminists, and GamerGate already beat them.

"It is clear that the welfare of the video gaming community is threatened by female gamers."
- Strongly disagree. We female gamers have always been here. The only thing threatening gaming is Feminists [and other pro-censorship authoritarians].

"Female gamers undermine traditional gamer values."
- Strongly disagree while laughing. Is this seriously a question? Gamer values include meritocracy, individuality, independence, and embracing challenges on an equal playing field. Feminists undermine all of these 'traditional' -- and awesome -- gamer values.

PAGE 4 OF QUESTIONS

"Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I have no idea. I don't generalize based on inborn traits.

"Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly."
- Neither agree nor disagree. What a clusterfuck. Are you separating atheists who have rebelled against traditional religions from other atheists (for example, Buddhists)? Or are you describing athesits AS people who have rebelled against established religion? There are so many complex claims packed into this that it's impossible to answer.

"There are many radical, immoral people in our country today who are trying to ruin it for their godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Whaat? What country? What are "godless purposes"? [Some godless purposes are good and some are bad.] What does "put out of action" mean?

"Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral and traditional beliefs."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Which country? What does it mean to "smash perversions"? While some perversions are bad and some moral and traditional beliefs are good, I am not comfortable saying anything difinitive at all in response to this sort of language.

"The situation in our country is getting so serious, the strongest methods would be justified if they eliminated the troublemakers and got us back to our true path."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Which country? Is this some kind of joke? How can a person agree or disagree with a statement that has so little meaningful content?

"Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Unclear wording again. I think everyone should be free to determine these things for themselves for the most part, but "should have their own" implies that they can't want to blend in. People are free to do that too.

"People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old traditional forms of religious guidance, and instead develop their own personal standards of what is moral and immoral."
- Neither agree nor disagree. Right and wrong are not dictated by the Bible, nor are they determined by personal or subjective whim.

"The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, but some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas."
- lmao. This is a joke right? Could you paint a more cliche picture of a fascist?

"There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse."
- Neither agree nor disagree. The matter is far too complicated to answer in any other way.

"What our country really needs, instead of more 'civil rights' is a good, stiff dose of law and order."
- Neither agree nor disagree. 1) lmfao. 2) Civil rights are a matter of law and order. Nonsensical statement. 3) WHOSE COUNTRY?

"Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the 'normal way' things are supposed to be done."
- Neither agree nor disagree. There are good and bad people [and good and bad ideas] in all of these camps.

"The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and the recent public disorders all show that we have to crack down harder on deviant groups and trouble-makers if we are going to save our moral standards and preserve law and order."
- Neither agree or disagree. What 'facts'? No sources provided.


PAGE 5 OF QUESTIONS


"If you were in a group of female gamers how would you feel?"

[From memory: a list of feelings like comfortable, threatened, annoyed, happy, etc, were provided, and for each, there was a scale from I think -4 to +4, with 0 as the centre neutral option.]

- I answered 0 for all, because the only thing I know is that they are female, and I am not a sexist.

PAGE 6 OF QUESTIONS

"Many women have a quality of purity that few men posess."
- Neither agree nor disagree. I don't know what this means. What is "a quality of purity"?

[From memory, options for each statement were: Disagree strongly, disagree, disagree slightly, agree slightly, agree, agree strongly; or something very similar to this.]

I see I'm not allowed to give a neutral answer. I have therefore skipped this section.

PAGE 7 OF QUESTIONS

[Agree-disagree scale went from 1 to 10. Technically this means a neutral answer couldn't be given, as that would rest between 5 and 6, but I decided to play along anyway.]

"Female gamers get more from the video gaming community than they contribute."
5. I have no data. I do not involve myself [much] in 'the video gaming community,' and if I did, I would still have only anecdotal evidence, and would be unable to give an objective answer.

"The rise in the number of female gamers has compromised the quality and type of games that game developers make."
5. This is such a stupid exercise. Like many of your statements, this contains multiple claims, and therefore you are unable to tell what my answer means. I am not aware that there has been a rise in the number of female gamers. I don't know whether this has affected anything. If game developers are censoring their games, it might be because Feminist ideologues have used women as a shield to convince them to do it.

"What female gamers value in their video games is problematic for long-time fans of video games."
5. I have no idea. This doesn't make any sense. Plenty of long-time fans are female. We've been here forever. How would our interests be 'problematic'? What long-time fans are you talking about? Maybe some of them don't like what I like? Maybe female gamers [interests] vary? I can't speak for anyone but myself.

"Female gamers' views on video games can muzzle existing gamers' opinions."
5. How would this happen? Any gamer, male or female, is an individual. How could they possibly muzzle others by expressing their personal preferences? I have seen muzzling, however, done by Feminists. By falsely claiming to speak for female gamers like me, Feminists have muzzled female gamers like me.

PAGE 8 OF QUESTIONS

"An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom."
4. This is an impossible question. What is an ideal society? What is a group? What is the top? What is the bottom? Society is deeply complex and multifaceted, and you've defined none of your terms. This is unanswerable.

"Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups."
4. Are you talking about inborn traits? Or something else? Are you talking about groups defined by their members' skill at completing a defined task? Some kinds of groups are definitely not inferior, some kinds of groups definitely are, [some are equal in whatever unstated given sense], and some are unknown. You haven't even stated how you are grouping people! How could you possibly view this question as answerable?

"No one group should dominate in society."
4. This is ridiculous. What kind of group? What does it mean to "dominate in society"? Unanswerable.

"Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top."
4. What kind of group? What are the top and bottom; what are they the top and bottom of? Deserving of what? This is completely meaningless. Are we talking about the top and bottom of a list of ranked chemistry test scores, or the top and bottom of an alphabetical enrollment list?

"Group equality should not be our primary goal."
4. I don't even know what that means!

"It is unjust to try to make groups equal."
4. Meaningless.

"We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups."
4. Meaningless.

"We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed."
4. Meaningless.


PAGE 9 OF QUESTIONS


"Please estimate and select the percentage of female gamers who possess each of the following traits."

Unattractive
Attention-Seeking
Smart
Talented
Annoying
Friendly

[From memory: Beside each trait the survey provided a slider, requiring participants to choose a percentage from 0% to 100%. To answer at all is to be sexist. There is no other choice.]

Skipped. I am not a statistical study. I can't know the answers to any of these. Why are you encouraging your test participants to be sexist?

PAGE 10 OF QUESTIONS

"Please rate how favorable each of the following traits are on a scale from one (unfavorable) to ten (favorable):"

annoying
unattractive
friendly
attention-seeking
talented
smart

Skipped. I can't answer because no context has been provided in which these traits would be exhibited.

[The traits listed on page 9 and 10 are the same, reordered. I see no way for the testers to tell whether a participant has noticed this. How do the testers tell whether the participant is answering from memory in order to skew results and alter the apparent sexism of their response?]

PAGE 11 OF QUESTIONS

"We are interested in how often you participate in various online behaviors. Please indicate how often you engage in each behavior using the following scale:"

"Gain access to a woman's online accounts or profiles."
Very frequently. I am a woman. I access my own accounts and profiles every day.

"Pretend to be someone I'm not when talking to a woman online."
Very frequently. I use a pseudonym. Strangers, male and female, have no right to know who I am.

"Monitor a woman's activities online."
Very frequently. I motior my own activities constantly.

"Spam or repeatedly expressing anger towards a woman online."
Occasionally -- as frequently as I express the same to men online. Repeatedly expressing anger is not spam, however. It is dishonest of you to lump the two together. I don't spam.

"Intentionally mislead a woman online."
Very frequently. Again, I use a pseudonym.

"Post rumors or intimate photos of a woman online."
Never. How boring.


PAGE 12 OF QUESTIONS


"In the past few years, the video gaming community has seen several news stories involving female members experiencing repeated harassment from many others on social media. Have you heard of such events occurring recently in the video gaming community?"

Yes. [a button provided for yes and one for no]

"We are interested in hearing any opinions or perspectives you may have on these news stories. Please share any thoughts or feelings you have about these news stories:"

Feminist ideologues frequently lie and exaggerate to paint criticism, both legitimate and illegitimate, as harassment. They say hateful and inflammatory things, then use the response they elicit to play damsel in order to manipulate the public into empowering them by pitying them. Their behavior has been downright disgusting. Criticism is not harassment. If you don't want to hear responses to you in the public square, get off your soap box and go away.

[Above answer was included in a text box in the actual survey.]

PAGE [13] OF QUESTIONS

"Sex?" female
"Age?" 32
"Ethnicity?" caucasian
"Country?" Canadian.
"Education?" Some college
"annual income?" [omitted here for privacy reasons]
"How did you find this study?" Sargon of Akkad, YouTube

I have done about $40 worth of work for you. If you would like to pay me for the work I have done for you, you can do it here: https://ko-fi.com/A475BA1

On the other hand, you are free to refuse to pay a woman for her work.

Thanks,

Amy

=====

End of email.

Profile

amyvanhym: (Default)
Amy VanHym

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 1112 131415 16
1718192021 2223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios