I'm glad we've made a space you're in, hopefully feel a bit safer for you to be in. :)

I just noticed the link on my above entry was busted. I've fixed it, but if it's not working the website for The Message is http://www.gamermessage.com/

RobBoyle wrote:

feminism's basic principle: treating women as people.

Is it permissible to express a belief that such a basic principle is not owned by feminism, and is a viewpoint that is shared by those who do not adopt the label? Is it also permissible to express an imagining that feminism may have other principles basic to it besides this?

RobBoyle wrote:

We believe we live in a world where patriarchy and male privilege are real, ongoing problems, and equality for all people, regardless of sex, is a worthy goal.

Are you open to discussion those who share your belief in the latter, but take a more multifaceted view of the former (ie that both genders enjoy certain privileges in social construct) and do not simplify sexual favoritism as purely 1-sided?

RobBoyle wrote:

we at Posthuman find the politics of MRAs to be toxic, offensive, and completely removed from reality.

This is a bit vague, could it be narrowed down to particular issues? There is a world of difference between some of the more extreme things I've seen in that genre and some of the tamer things. Something like "genital integrity for infants of both genders" falls under the scope, for example.

RobBoyle wrote:

We have also found the conduct of MRAs on our forums to be far from ideal. We do not appreciate that MRAs are driving other fans away from our forums.

Is it possible to judge behaviour on an individual basis and not judge it on the basis of those theoretically associated with those with a disruptive past? Theoretically someone could come along trolling and saying "I'm a jew!" or "I'm a feminist!" or "I'm an atheist" and post a bunch of porn or start flaming people. This might potentially be done as a facade to give a group a bad reputation rather than representing the basic behaviours or viewpoints of a group.

RobBoyle wrote:

We want the Eclipse Phase community to be one that is inclusive of all viewpoints, but we must draw a line when there is a viewpoint that insists on attacking and offending others as an essential aspect of its existence.

Is it considered an offensive attack to disagree with the generalization that such behaviours are inherent aspects of holding viewpoints related to the movement? I have definitely witnessed people engage in attack-based behaviour, but this is visible in pretty much any movement, it seems unfair to judge an entire group based on those individuals. Many groups experience schisms on the basis of disagreeing on such tactics.

RobBoyle wrote:

We are looking forward with Eclipse Phase, not back -- towards the future, not the retrograde gender divisions of the past. No matter how MRAs may like to cloak their beliefs in the language of inclusiveness and equality, they support neither, and instead fulminate against the loss of privilege long afforded one half of society at the cost of another.

This stereotype might apply to some faction calling itself MRA but I respectfully disagree with such a generalization as inherent. It may be difficult to argue this if the default reply will be to accuse posters of dishonesty and duplicity though. Are you perhaps open to the idea that, even if the movement were infested with liars, there might be some honest people among them who buy into this 'cloak' in a genuine fashion?

RobBoyle wrote:

Those who must attack the idea of another's equality to better preserve their own benefits are not the sort we wish to encourage.

Mkay... not exactly something I've witnessed in looking into the movement. If you've seen it, I really think it ought to be attributed to whoever is conveying the view, and not anyone who adopts the label, which is rather broad-sounding, one must admit.

RobBoyle wrote:

They're likely to do more harm than good in their toxic concern trolling and false equivalencies.

Is it possible that discussion of similarity resulting from comparison may be misinterpreted as declarations of equality? Even in the case of people using 'same' language in a wrong way, that could be the fault of bad phrasing by someone wanting to point out similarities of trait but not sum identicality.

RobBoyle wrote:

please fire yourself as an Eclipse Phase fan. We don't want you. We want our forums to be open and inclusive

This is the first I'm hearing of this system, it sounds interesting. It doesn't seem particularly open and inclusive to tell people to go away, and that they are unwanted.

RobBoyle wrote:

spouting offensive MRA bullshit will get you banned from our forums.

I guess I'll have to see if this criticism qualifies. I think a better criteria than 'offensive' (for indeed, some of the stereotypes you have express which I view untrue have offended me) might be to just focus in on 'bullshit'. Ie whether stuff is true or not. Or alternatively, divisive language which attacks a group (stuff like 'take away women's vote' or 'kill all men') would also be a decent basis. This should apply both ways though. Just as 'feminists all hate men' is BS, 'MRAs all hate women' would also be BS. The tone of this post gives me the impression the former would be more readily censored than the latter though.

RobBoyle wrote:

recent attacks by Elliott Rodger just reinforce our stance on this matter and MRA politics.)

Don't even know who this guy is, LOL. Has he been elected as some kind of political leader? Had not known the group to be organized to such a degree. There is internal conflict and differing viewpoints on a lot of stuff.

Urthdigger wrote:

Elliot Rodger murdered a bunch of innocent people as a way of striking back at the women he felt wronged him.

.. which all the major MRA groups then started applauding, except for the one he was particularly associated with which took its servers offline to avoid the heat. The problem here is, you are attempting to define the goals and motivations of movements based on what they sound like they should mean, in a vacuum, instead of what has clearly been established as how 95% of them conduct themselves. If someone involved in American politics says "I'm a conservative" and you just look at the word itself, it certainly seems like this person is the sort who would be all about conserving dwindling natural resources by promoting solar and wind, and urging for calmness and caution when his peers propose some military agenda. In the actual real world we live in though, this person is self-identifying with the political faction believing in the exact opposite of that. "Men's Rights Advocates" sound like they SHOULD be all about addressing social issues where men are treated unfairly, but in actuality, the term is used more or less exclusively by hate groups who believe women to be sub-human creatures or monsters with strange powers of mental manipulation who must be kept in check while our top men find a proper way to keep them from threatening our way of life. "Feminism" meanwhile sounds like it's seriously and exclusively some sort of explicitly pro-women movement unconcerned with anything beyond making the world a better place to be a woman, but again, if you actually look at the people who self-identify as such, you'll find that 95% of them actually are all about abolishing all forms of sex/gender based discrimination, [b]including[/b] the bits where men are encouraged to be all "brave and manly" and handle the dangerous tasks.

I agree with this move by PS. That said: No Witchhunts. That shit is not acceptable, any more than what the MRAs were doing. Yes Divine I'm looking at you, but it's a general comment on this policy as well. I cannot imagine a faster way of destroying what community is here.

DivineWrath wrote:

Its things like that that make me worry and wonder if you are an undercover MRA activist trying to figure the new limits before spewing hate. You are after all, appear to be being polite while asking questions with a possibly pro-MRA anti-feminist stance.

Wow, it sure didn't take you long to reinvent McCarthyism. "Undercover MRA activist (sic)"? Really? This is why I don't do ideologies. It turns people into ... that. Feminists are no different from other True Believers in their incestuous paranoia.

Edit: When a community begins worrying about undercover agents with sinister heretical or counter-revolutionary agendas, it's time for all rats with a sliver of intelligence to abandon ship. This swine should follow suit, and not engage in pointless attempts at rationality. I hope your dogmatic adherence to the revealed word of the latest Stirnerian Spook makes you proud.

[color=red]Tyciol you have been a member of these forums for 1 day and 9 hours.[/color] [color=red]Long enough.[/color] [color=red]Enjoy your membership at other discussion forums.[/color]

I just wanted to say thanks to PS and the mods for dealing with this issue firmly and like adults. I've been a fan for awhile, but this just boosted my love of PS. Thanks!

This thread is open so that people can comment directly to the PS+ team. It is not a place for various commenters to discuss aspects of interpretations of the statement. Kindalas

[color=red]Active account for 1 hour and 6 minutes.[/color] [color=red]Was obviously long enough to show colours.[/color] [color=red]Bye[/color]

Is there any chance that we can get the offending posts in this thread deleted? I really don't think we need to see the pro-MRA vitriol on any of the forums here, it just tarnishes the community and leads to ugly zones. Plus it will discourage other like minded individuals from getting the same idea by copying the behaviour. Especially when it comes to account spamming. Just a thought. Also I would just like to put my two cents in here and say that I think that the stand Rob and the Posthuman Studios team have made is fantastic and that while I am already an avid fan of their work and philosophies, I think I love them just a little more (possibly more than my own parents, and girlfriend?). Thank you again guys for taking a stand against the scum of the internet.

Does this entail a rejection of poststructuralist, Foucauldian feminists as well? Because reading through this thread I sort of get that vibe.

[color=red]Psyfer this isn't a discussion thread.[/color] [color=red]Diagoras one of the PS+ team may respond when they get the chance.[/color]

(Lifelong "girly-boy" genderqueer here, for whatever it's worth. In a universe ideal to me: nothing. But, well, you know.) This is a great community for a great IP, and I'm in agreement, as I'm pretty sure most people are, with the goodness of the values espoused in Rob's post and the badness of behavior by members of the community that seeks to drive others away. Not just because [i]Eclipse Phase[/i] deserves all the eyes it can attract, but because I think people are awesome. I've completely missed the posts in question that spurred this thread, so I can't speak to them, specifically. It sounds like those members were being serious assholes. But I do want to echo the responses of a few others in saying that this "if you self-identify as an MRA, GTFO" stance seems pretty terrible. Sexist comments are regularly made by people who identify as something that is supposed to be anti-sexist by definition. Sexism is ugly, to say the least, and it seems to me that camps under those banners are prone to attracting bigoted people in one way or another as they find ways for it to confirm their biases, because the human brain is incredible that way. But regardless of which group suffers from a bigger problem with it, I'd really be loathe to blanket them with statements that require that those views define the group, when its alleged basic principle(s) do(es) not appear inform that objectionable behavior, and especially when, as Rob says, you agree with that/those principle(s). I've seen comments in this thread about how one group makes the alleged aims of the other redundant, but even if that is true, I think that it seems irrelevant to the morality of those positions as held by individuals identifying as a part of either. At the risk of treading Kindalas' line into discussion with another poster here, I just want to refer to Kassil's PETA analogy. Despite the professed values of animal rights activists being very agreeable to most of us, organizations like PETA exist. Yet I can't imagine this same stance being taken against animal rights activists—even if the majority of them were on-board with PETA, which I think is a far cry from what's going on with "men's rights", though it seems to have been implied by some replies here. Not to mention Rob's association of MRAs with Elliott Rodger, which seems less like associating animal rights activists with PETA and more like associating transhumanists with Ted Kaczynski. To borrow a phrase from Tumblr, [i]I can't even.[/i] Anyway, sorry if this seems meandering, or if I seem out of the loop. I do follow these topics of discussion closely on corners of the Internet more directly relevant to them, but I suspect that I'm awkward at treading lightly, whether I succeed at it or not. Also, thanks for having this thread open for replies.

Oh hey look, it's written by Tim Colwill, and it is in exactly the tone I would expect from a games 'journalist' given the actions of similar websites in the last fortnight. I'm not sure that connecting your stance on MRAs to the current situation surrounding the cronyism and corrupt nature of gaming journalism furthers your cause.

[color=red]Start another thread to discuss gaming journalism in the off topic forum.[/color] Kindalas

You sound dangerously like an MRA apologist/sympathizer Aerisfang. Because the big difference is that the minority hating the patriarchy is a problem that will eventually self correct. When the patriarchy spawns propagandist ideologies designed solely to continue moderating the behaviour of the those not in power whilst shoring up it's own power-base THAT IS A PROBLEM. Equality of persons is the goal here, that does not mean equality of opinions. Some opinions are simply lesser than others and are not welcome (for other real life examples you might look at how neo-nazi propaganda, hate speech and private or public membership is outlawed in Germany). If you find this upsets your sensibilities then you are not welcome in this community.

Aerisfang wrote:

-I absolutely condone so called ''MRA''s that seek to attack feminism and keep women in their current opressed state and support 100% PS's decision to ban them from this community. They can go spew their bullshit elsewhere.

I believe you mean 'condemn', not 'condone'.

Uhhhhhh fuck, I did mean condemn, sorry. Condone sounds awfully like the french "Condamner". My mistake.

[color=red] Closed for now [/color]