John Walker's Electronic House

You Probably Aren’t Reading The Original Post

by on Jun.25, 2014, under Rants

I’ve deleted this.

I stated at the top of the piece that it was a deliberately one-sided argument, a counter to an ongoing topic I’ve seen come up over the years, and made emphatically clear that things about it would be wrong. But this is not a possible way to go about things, it turns out. A large part of the reaction has been incredibly inappropriate, with people interpreting an argument that contained,

“And I am quite certain that some brilliant writers are not receiving the consideration they deserve because of their sex, sexual identity or nationality. There are boys’ clubs in this business, and this business is a massive majority of white men. Hello. The lack of diversity in the coverage is a significant problem, and is most clearly revealed in the tacit or overt tolerance for the worst tropes of the games themselves. It’s a mess.”

as one that was arguing that there were no such problems, or even that I was deliberately attempting to oppress people. That’s insane, and not something worth trying to deal with. I know it’s a lie, and the people close to and important to me know it’s a lie. But it remains a terrible lie.

It’s been pointed out to me that my article, on a different day, might have been received differently, but right now a few people are hurting too much for it to be a useful contribution. This may well be the case. I haven’t engaged with that side of things, presumably I don’t follow the relevant people on Twitter and missed it. I was capturing thoughts I’ve had for a long time, and wasn’t responding to any individual. But if it just caused more hurt, then it wasn’t useful either. I likely wandered into a discussion I don’t know about, and looked like I was directly attacking specific people. I wasn’t, and I apologise to anyone who was hurt by it.

I have worked so hard to fight for the rights of freelancers, both when I was one, and since I’ve been in a position to employ them. I vociferously campaign against companies that are exploiting freelancers by not paying them. I am proud of what I’ve done. Since what I wrote was either so faulty and poorly communicated, or so wilfully misinterpreted, to suggest the opposite, I can see no good in leaving it up. Thank you to everyone who understood what I was saying, and thank you to those who engaged with where the argument was wrong and provided excellent replies. The comments are still below.

:

34 Comments for this entry

  • Chris

    Makes you wonder why 4 white females haven’t started their own games magazine/site…..

  • Optimaximal

    Doesn’t the whole ‘bedroom writer’ thing still hold water? Get a free blog, write the words and try and work a way of making money that way.

    Complaining on the Twitters will just make everyone hate you more than they already do.

  • Jed Tinsel

    A bunch of discussion…

  • Daniel Johnston

    It reads like you’re intending to answer the more entitled elements of a general online discussion, but you name Jenn and Cara. Would it be worth clarifying that you’re not accusing them specifically of the issues you raise? From reading Jenn’s article, her individual point doesn’t seem particularly arrogant, more a grappling with what the reality of this career means for her future life choices.

    Also, linky: http://jennfrank.tumblr.com/post/89241678105/why-do-you-write

  • John Walker

    Daniel – yes, good point. I will clarify.

  • Mitch Bowman

    You’re right John, I’m not owed a job in games journalism. I’m fine with that.

    People like Cara Ellison, Leigh Alexander, Jenn Frank, etc. though? They are owed jobs in games journalism. Because they’re better at it than a hell of a lot of the people currently languishing in well-paid staff writer positions, pooping out mediocre preview after mediocre preview.

    The points people are making about freelancer pay aren’t coming from a place of entitlement or greed (at least not all of them). In many cases, they’re coming from people who have already accepted that games journalism is never going to pay their rent. It’s not arrogant or entitled to want the people whose writing you value and respect to be able to do this for a living, preferably without resorting to shit like Patreon, or to writing listicles for garbage SEO-traps that no one reads.

  • Rob

    John, I don’t want to comment too much on this piece because I’m sorta sitting out of journalism and all that so it’s not really my domain but I did want to mention a thing about “you’re not owed a living”.

    I’ve been on the receiving end of this a few times over the past few years, pretty much every single time I’ve challenged a decision that effects the people who are already at the bottom rung of the ladder. Like with the greenlight fee, it was one of the most popular refrains I heard.

    “Valve don’t owe you a living”

    And this is absolutely true. They don’t. Not at any point and all that jazz.

    The thing that gets forgotten though is that the people at the bottom rung of the ladder are far, far more aware of this than anyone ever gives them credit for. They know full well they’re not owed a living because the systems around them are hinged all too precisely around reminding them of that every single day. They wake up and they know they’re not owed a living. They go to sleep knowing they’re not owed a living.

    And no-one expects to be owed a living. Well, some do but invariably, they’re the ruthless fucks who’ll do anything to make sure they get what’s theirs and they’re probably not very nice people.

    So the people you end up hurting in saying “you’re not owed a living” are the people who are fully aware of this fact and have systems pushing against them, systems the people who say “you’re not owed a living” are fully aware of most of the time, perfectly willing to acknowledge and on.

    But it hurts to be told that because it’s an awful reminder of how the system is rigged against you and you’re kinda powerless to do anything about it. And with the best of intentions, it’s easy to read as “so shut up, pull up your bootlaces and work harder” and I know that’s the last thing you’d say to a person and the last thing you’d want someone to feel.

    But that’s precisely what “you’re not owed a living” does to people. It stinks of “pull your bootlaces up”, “so deal with it” and all manner of other dismissals and it doesn’t help anything or anyone, it doesn’t further the discussion and it’s quick to shut it down or upset people more.

    There’s an open and honest discussion of the reality of all the systems surrounding us in games and in journalism to be had, sometimes people need to shout from the bottom to get heard. Sometimes they misfire, sometimes their anger *is* misplaced but it’s better to listen to what they have to say than close it down. And I know it wasn’t your intention but that’s exactly what “you’re not owed a living” does. Except it hurts people too.

  • inspectorvector

    While a lot of this is undoubtedly true, I see some of it as slightly patronising. In my own experience, I am very limited in what I can do because of illness, which is why I write on music production from home instead of lawyering, which is what I’m qualified to do. If I had foresight, I would have studied coding at university, but writing is about my only workable skill set at present. I feel determined and enthusiastic about games writing, but not entitled to it. I have never been paid for games writing, and I don’t know if I ever be will be. That’s, as you say, is partly down to seats at the table.

    However, I feel there’s a confusion here between determination and belligerent expectations. Every writer I have ever spoken to knows there is a struggle, and no one I’ve known aspiring has ever assumed a golden egg. I know the intention of this is to provide an unfortunate truth and the context for that, but it appears as a suggestion of delusion amongst people who are frustrated, and a request not to keep subdividing what the established writers get. Obviously, this isn’t the only industry this is going on in, and ‘there isn’t enough room at the inn’ is far truer than ‘lazy’, which the unemployed elsewhere often get. I know you shouldn’t name and shame who/what you mean when you say you’ve seen talk of entitlement, and maybe that is common, but for some people it’s one of few realistic goals, and frustration is not always equatable with a silver spoon in the mouth with games mousse on it. I’m a big fan of yours, and a lot of writing that inspires me has come from RPS. I don’t mean to be an angry commenter, and am not claiming you’re implying what I’ve taken from this, but I just wanted to share my reaction to reading this as someone who is trying.

    I also agree with Rob. Thank you.

  • Aporthius

    Agreed with Rob. The “not owed a living” angle is analogous to the bullshit Republicans pull regarding bootstraps and the poor being lazy. And yeah, no-one is more aware of “not being owed a living” than the people who are currently investing their time and effort into something that, surprise, isn’t paying them a living! They are FAR more aware of this fact than you are.
    And framing the argument that way also dismisses all the massive problems in our industry, and comes across as an “I got mine so fuck you” sort of deal. It sounds genuinely awful and it makes you sound like an uncaring asshole. Trust me when I say the people at the bottom of the ladder are all too aware of the struggles of working in the industry, far more so than someone who’s working in a relatively comfy environment.
    Ooh, and beyond THAT? Not everyone agrees with the “you’re not owed a living” thing. There are governments that subsidize their citizens with a minimum income. The idea that you have to do X and Y, and meet goal Z just to be able to live is a fucking horrendous one, especially when various forms of bigotry make it harder for already oppressed groups to achieve said goals. On that note, most of the people I’ve seen express dissatisfaction with the state of the industry have, in fact, been minorities. So congrats on that front, Walker.

  • John Walker

    I think it’s pretty important to point out that I did not write “the universe doesn’t owe you a living”, but “the universe doesn’t owe you the job you *want*.”

    I want to be a comedy writer for radio. I want to be a successful published fiction writer. At school I wanted to be a vet.

  • ultrapeanut

    I have to be honest: the more times I look over this, the more dismissive and condescending it reads. I fully believe that wasn’t your intent, but — as the previous few comments have said so well — that doesn’t prevent it from being so.

    “The universe doesn’t owe you the job you *want*” might as well be “the universe doesn’t owe you a living” when literally anyone seeking a job paying a living wage these days is met with that same level of scorn. Most of us in shitty financial circumstances understand, in excruciating detail, what is an is not “owed” to us. And we’re often mocked or criticized for being upset when we try to address it.

    I also cannot stress how frustrating it is to see this tired, pathetic argument being trotted out again in the face of marginalized people expressing their exhaustion from dealing with an industry and a society that more or less tells them they shouldn’t exist at every turn.

  • RevStu

    I’m always terribly uncomfortable when people start their arguments with “If you’re saying X, what you’re REALLY saying is Y, and Y is terrible, so…” [insert long and usually well-practiced diatribe against Y].

    What John says above is incontrovertibly right. There is little money in games journalism, and what there is is thinly spread. To be entitled to any of it, you need to be two – and exactly two – things:

    (1) Really good at writing;

    (2) Noticed.

    The first one lets about 97% of people out straight away. Not until you’ve been an editor sifting through job applications do you realise just how few people can write their way out of a wet paper bag.

    But assuming you pass that test, you need to draw attention to the fact, and frankly that ought to be a massive advantage to any minority candidate, because if you’re a transgender Muslim lesbian in a wheelchair AND you can write well about videogames you’ll stand out like you’re 80 feet tall and made of fucking neon.

    (You’re probably one of the very few people, in fact, who CAN make a decent living out of games journalism, because angst-ridden employers will compete to hire you.)

    But really, why do you want to be “hired” at all? Patreon and other crowdfunding solutions provide a far better future for games journalism than its past. Why have a middleperson sucking out the profit from your work? Why get locked into the cycle of access and advertising and surrendering ethics? Why not just get paid directly by the people who appreciate you?

    You’ll probably have to write for nothing for a while to establish your name, but then MOST skilled professional jobs have apprenticeships where you have to learn your trade. That’s normal.

    You may still not be able to make it work, because gamers are incredibly stingy and reluctant to pay anything ever for videogames journalism. I wish I was running a seaside arcade full of classic coin-op cabinets, but there isn’t a market for that and no amount of moaning will change the fact. But them’s the breaks.

  • Rob

    “I think it’s pretty important to point out that I did not write “the universe doesn’t owe you a living”, but “the universe doesn’t owe you the job you *want*.” ”

    Yeah, I know.

    For me this part boils down to a way of approaching the problems in a constructive manner. Telling people this isn’t news to them whatever the distinction is here but does have the effect of making them feel berated further.

    The fight isn’t about being handed the job someone wants because they want it, it’s about improving the lot of everyone involved in these things. That it’s obviously also a personal issue is a thing that happens and I know that it’s not the easiest thing to divorce views from.

    Yes, there will inevitably be a degree of “what about me?” creeping into things because people are hurt and when people are hurt, well, you know and all that. It doesn’t translate as entitlement, just “oh man, give me a break for once!” although that’s not always easy to see because of the anger or upset.

    What I know from this post and from RPS in general is that you too have been there and RPS is very much a reaction to that. You all use RPS as a platform to pay reasonable rates now you can, use RPS to pay promptly. To not be the things that people rail against because you’ve been there. And in that way, you’re throwing the ladder down more than a lot of other outlets and this is a tremendously good thing. I know you’ll take chances on writers and games and your pay is, by the standards of most of the payscales I’ve seen over the past few days, fair. I have somewhere a mail from Jim (I think?) offering *me* what I’d consider a more than fair rate so I know to have trust in you there.

    So at this point it becomes more about nodding along, listening and saying “yeah, been there, I know” and then “and I don’t want to be that and we try hard not to be that and we work at that all the time” because then you’re not slighting someone, however incidentally, indirectly or without intent. The very moment you bring the concept of entitlement into this is the part where people think you’re not listening. The moment you say “doesn’t owe you a living” is when you could be the guy putting the straw on the camel, the thousandth paper cut or whatever else and for that reason alone, I’d steer away from it. Everyone has heard that and I’m not including you in this (or I wouldn’t be posting here) but it -is- a tool to keep people down.

    For me these things are always about asking “am I putting the ladder down or am I kicking someone when they’re down?” and I’ve fallen on the wrong side of that fence so many times but I try and be better. That’s all I’m really trying to get at here. You can address the reality of things in a way that’s better and with your experience and with what you do at RPS, I reckon that could be a really powerful thing for people to hear.

  • CFIT

    It’s not musical chairs. I would put it the other way: there far more people out there who deserve a $100k/year salary than who are actually paid it. The difference is down to some combination of skill, privilege and dumb luck, in increasing order of importance.

    What pisses me off is the notion that somehow merit is the sole or most important factor for those few seats at the table. Many, many of us, in this field or another (like mine), are deserving of a sweet work situation. I don’t begrudge those who sit at that table. Even those who get where they are thanks to a privileged position usually deserve to be there.

    But, if you’re sitting at the table or if you’re sitting on the sidelines, the reason why you add more and different voices is not just because “it’s right”. That logic leads to having the token non-white-males who address #nonwhitemale topics. You add more and different voices because it makes the table bigger. I reject completely your zero-sum logic that dividing the pie up between more people reduces the amount available to anyone. That’s how Conservative governments argue to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the rich. By including more people in the dialogue, you increase your societal relevance, or at least you should. And that affects the bottom line, and is why I read RPS.

    But if you’re at that table, and enjoying the fabulous riches, Learjets and game t-shirts that you continually brag about, you probably should be particularly understanding of those who are occasionally frustrated at having a skill set with an uncertain future, driving themselves to burnout for a sub-poverty wage. Many certainly deserve a living, and if they aren’t accusing someone of owing them one, don’t suggest that that’s what they’re trying to do.

    TL;DR: Hate the game, not the players.

  • aliceffekt

    If you think that that meritocracy applies in the real world, get a clue.

  • Ben Abraham

    John, please tell me where you think all these bedroom Picasso’s and motorway Schumacher’s are hiding. I must say I find the idea wonderful but utterly divorced from reality. Who has the time to practice that much everyday anymore? Who has the economic freedom to pursue the skills that get them the breaks that leads to becoming ‘known’?

    Maybe this whole discussion isn’t about being owed a job, so much as it’s about being owed an opportunity. An opportunity that just so coincidentally always seems to go to someone who has had a little bit easier of a time of it, with a bit more savings in the bank, a bit more of a buffer between having the stars over their head and the gutter for a pillow, a bit more of an easy fit within the existing culture of an outlet.

    Everything I’ve seen in my (admittedly not that long) life so far has told me that anyone *so* good that they’re a bedroom picasso has had the opportunity to get that good. Not everyone gets that opportunity, and to pretend that the complaints people are raising about this issue comes from a false sense of entitlement is patronizing, but worse it’s misleading.

  • John Walker

    Ben – good gracious, what a mad argument. I’m friends with a number of extremely talented artists, who paint or sculpt remarkable works, who work full time in sometimes poorly paid jobs. I think you may have gone a bit odd there.

  • Till

    See, now that’s an incredibly condescending, mean reply. Ben made a perfectly valid argument – full-time jobs are a serious hindrance on practicing any other craft.

  • Depot CodeR

    Hey there. Good article. Would have been better without going into the whole “female writer” thing. It really derailed your argument. As a women I find this oft-repeated line so deeply patronising it makes me want to vomit.

    If women want to write, they will. If they’re good, they’ll get readers. If they’re really good – and lucky – they’ll get paid for it.

  • Michael Lambert

    This article reads as condescending and is extremely inconsiderate of the struggles that marginalized groups go through to get a seat at the table.

    I’m not a journalist, I’m a programmer, which distances me a bit from this discussion. But I’m worried to see that the same backwards “meritocracy” mindset has infiltrated your industry as well.

  • Seth Tipps

    I think one thing a lot of people forget or just plain don’t know is that websites for gaming consumers are a real pain to monetize. Most gamers aren’t going out and buying a full price game more than once or even twice a month. I don’t even do that, because frankly indie titles are a better return on my investment, but I digress… Games writing pays terribly for a reason – there’s a lot of it, and the advertising isn’t that efficient, so it’s cheap.

    Something John said a long time ago is pretty relevant here. If you like games, play games. If you’re a writer who plays games, that might mean you can make some money by writing about them, but it doesn’t mean you have to. Too many people seem to think that being a gamer means you can write about games. If you write for a living, you have to put those professional considerations above your hobby of gaming. Those who put the writing first will usually be able to find other things to write about.

    Another note – someone talked about “high paying staff writer jobs”. They don’t exist. Editors are frequently paid well below $40k a year. Imagine what the lowly staffer gets.

  • NM

    Good God, John, you didn’t half attract a bunch of whining solipsistic self-entitled wankers to this a article. I suppose it was to be expected.

    Some of these idiots who think we’d all be reaming rainbows if it weren’t for The Businessman in his Suit and Tie really do need to make their peace with the reality of the 2nd Law.

  • Craig Bamford

    A small note on economics.

    Game websites subsist on advertising. That advertising usually comes from game creators. Those game creators that bother to advertise on sites like, say, RPS (instead of spamming “PLAY NOW MY LORD” on general purpose sites) rely on consumers.

    Go read Piketty. Consumers don’t have any goddamned money. Maybe a few top managers do, and they have practically all the money, but by and large they just aren’t going to buy enough games to make it worthwhile.

    Gamers don’t have money. Game companies don’t have money. Game websites don’t have money. Nobody does, really, except maybe King, Supercell, and Valve. And PewDiePie, for some reason.

    So like in so much else, this whole thing is a symptom, not a cause. It’s just wealth and income concentration destroying yet more lives. The solution isn’t invocation of children’s games or paens to meritocracy or barely-concealed contempt for those who did/didn’t make it.

    The solution’s a damned wealth tax.

  • Jacoby

    It’s pretty sad you have to point out people aren’t owed a living and they respond negatively to that.

  • Sam Chester

    Well, I thought it was a good article, and rings true across so many areas of work and so many people that I think it was really valuable, and didn’t at all come across as condescending. Quite the opposite. Although I don’t know what the word for the opposite of condescending is… prodescending?

    Real shame you had to pull it, John, I’m glad I read it when it was up.

  • disconnect

    John, I think what RPS has been doing is great (esp. in regards to keeping up the pressure on publishers and devs with regards social issues etc. despite the whining it inevitably produces from a certain vocal contingent) — but is there even more you can do? Greater diversity in your regular freelancers, more one-off pieces from new voices? I’ve seen people dismissing RPS due to the overall white dude-ness of the “About Us” page — given that you presumably don’t have the budget to bring new staff writers (or whatever the fancypants publishing terminology is) on board right now, is there more you can do to give freelancers greater visibility, eg. byline pics for those who want them? And I don’t mean that in a sticking-plaster, “being *seen* to be diverse will get us off the hook” kind of way, but if part of the problem for lesser-known writers is that they *aren’t* known then maybe something like that would help them get their name out there a bit more? I dunno I’m just kinda throwing thoughts out there tbh

  • CFIT

    [post-retraction]

    Thank you for your retraction. If I were to make one observation that hasn’t been made yet (or, to be charitable, to gloss your retraction comment), you specifically outlined that your arguments were there purely to provide “an opposing viewpoint” and not to represent your heartfelt opinion. In the hostile space of the internet, there can be no distinction between positing something “for the sake of argument” and holding a dear belief.
    For what it’s worth, in my view, RPS has evolved from being that website that filled the gap left by the Escapist becoming a television channel to the website that leads the charge in defending explicitly the vision that everybody plays PC games, therefore everybody should be included in them, and, if necessary, speaking truth to power on that subject. RPS has also been outspoken on the Games press, pushing a vision of something nobler than “the guy who rehashes publisher PR”, and insisting on the fair treatment of freelancers. As I tried to say above, your message of inclusivity is much more powerful and resonant than one of mathematical gender/race/creed equality (or, to put it another way, you want the voices on your team to reflect the full spectrum of people who are passionate about PC games, and not just to speak to them).

    But here you go and start something “just for the sake of discussion”, well, it’s nice for you to be honest, especially if it’s a problem that’s been bothering you. Yeah, but you’re probably better off discussing it in a less public forum first. Out here in the wild internet, why the hell would you want to tacitly allow everyone to put up opinions “Just for the sake of discussion?” We know your weak spots. I honestly didn’t try to hit them, but I can be certain that people would target them. That said, in my academic field, a particular woman did write a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education back in the ’90s. I didn’t read it, but many of my colleagues remember it as A) describing her experience, post-Ph.D., and B) asserting the position that she was owed a job on finishing. She probably never said B), but that’s how it’s remembered. That’s before the internet, and in a field where social media participation is not obligatory. You guys have to live your lives on twitter and blogs. I end up knowing more about you that I want to, and you can take the absence of outright nastiness as a sign that the internet does have its limits, in spite of what it may seem.

    If you pile into someone else’s bad day, the only thing you’ll get in return is to share her misery. We need you to focus your energy on fighting the good fight. Mammals of the same species in situations of scarcity become abusively aggressive towards each other. Don’t do that. Your work has inspired another generation of games journalists to take up the keyboard, a generation far better than what you and your colleagues could put together. Yes, you’ll have that on your conscience. And inspiring people to waste their lives fighting the good fight is a helluva lot better than encouraging internet lynch mobs.

  • Jimbo

    I wonder, Mr Walker, if you feel any sense of perspective having been on the receiving end of the kind of aggressive verbal lynching you so heartily inflicted on the likes of Penny Arcade?

    Or is this, like, just totally different?

    You seem to enjoy the pulpit; it’s healthy for you to be in the pews for a change.

  • Nick Mailer

    CFIT: You’re a censorious prig. And that’s the nicest thing I could say in response to your repressive, oppressive drivel.

  • RevStu

    Nick: you seem to have misspelt “insufferable cunt”.

  • NM

    CFIT:

    “In the hostile space of the internet, there can be no distinction between positing something “for the sake of argument” and holding a dear belief”

    TRANSLATION:

    “I will no longer allow anyone to debate anything anymore. Banal orthodox opinion is now considered Eternal Truth and any attempt to question or counter it will be considered an act of war”

    CFIT:

    “defending explicitly the vision that everybody plays PC games, therefore everybody should be included in them, and, if necessary, speaking truth to power on that subject”

    TRANSLATION:

    “When I say ‘speaking truth to power’, I mean ‘speaking only the truths I explicitly authorise. Anything else will be considered ‘hostile’ ”

    CFIT:

    “Out here in the wild internet, why the hell would you want to tacitly allow everyone to put up opinions “Just for the sake of discussion?” ”

    TRANSLATION:

    “Ideas are threatening. NOBODY SHOULD ARE ENUNCIATE THEM PUBLICLY. Happy Pigs are to be protected from Unhappy Socrates at all costs!”

    CFIT:

    “And inspiring people to waste their lives fighting the good fight is a helluva lot better than encouraging internet lynch mobs.”

    TRANSLATION:

    “I get to decide who’s fighting the good fight and who’s a part of a lynch mob. My decision is final. DO NOT ARGUE (because that’s hostile!)”

  • CFIT

    Y’all are reading too much into it.
    Saying “Just for the sake of argument” means “Weapons free in the comments”. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you’re going to post it publicly, you are not entitled to have that opinion go unchallenged. And inviting everybody to take potshots is going to make a mess.

    Ideas need to be discussed, but if you’re not looking for a comment-thread bitchfest with a bunch of half-baked morons thinking “Oh, he’s writing against X’s opinion, I’m for X, therefore, censorship!” If you’re not ready to deal with the morons, pull back.

    More importantly, the internet is a social space. Yes, if you see a friend whose mother just died, you’re perfectly within your legal rights to make a joke about it. And I’d be socially justified to call you an asshole. That’s the real reason why I think it was right not to follow the discussion: John’s central argument is, of course, right; but in the social (media) context that gave rise to it, it just had the point of bringing everyone down. And where the hell is the good in that?

    “Fighting the good fight” in this case means inspiring people to your cause, whatever the hell it is. A Lynch Mob means doing stuff like “Hey, look, here’s so-and-so being a steroid-fueled jerk. Here’s his contact information, go get ‘em!”

    I am impressed at the impact that John has had on his world, especially through RPS, and there is a fundamental distinction between advocating censorship and supporting someone’s careful consideration of their own opinion. He’s been instrumental in maintaining RPS as a welcoming place for all.

    Now I’ll go off and make other people suffer my cuntitude. I’m sorry, NM that you feel that your repeated and violent assertions of male privilege are being hampered by a few suppressed comments, and that a few people are actually trying to combat bigotry.

  • dtec

    John, I hope you see how easy it is to end up on the wrong side of the internet’s fiery wrath when something is “poorly communicated” or “wilfully misinterpreted”. Because I feel that you and RPS have been on the other side of the mob at times, or at least stoked its flames.

  • Robert

    I think it’s good to sometimes explore the opposite side to an argument, especially if you don’t agree with it, to make sure you don’t get lost in dogma.
    It’s a shame that the subject is so explosive you can’t do that without incurring the wrath of those who can’t see things as anything other than a black and white issue.