My two cents is that this can be a dangerous course to take. Humans have a long and sad history of turning specialty groups and events into exclusive groups and events. Acceptence has never been found by seperating one group from another.
OniaPL: Umm... I actually don't understand why the LGBT -community would need their own gaming convention. There isn't anything dickish about it though, and I don't see why that particular question even would be dickish.
Abomination: From what I understand from this comic the Gaymer convention is going to take place in a secluded mountain temple and the activities will include homosexual pooping and peeing... maybe some application of makeup.
While I will not ever attempt to stop a Gaymer convention I don't see why one is needed. In almost every circle of gaming I interact on I have at least 3 homosexual friends and one trans(vestite/sexual)... I seem to attract them or something.
Certainly there are those who are disrespectful to homosexuals (homophobia is a terrible term, it implies an irrational FEAR, not petty malice and hatred) but I believe you will find them everywhere. Are there gay sporting events, gay debate clubs, gay chess clubs, gay boxing clubs? It just seems so redundant and self-segregating.
Would I be allowed to attend this Gaymer convention despite my sexual orientation? Do I require a homosexual escort while on premises? Do I have to be blindfolded on the trip there and back?
Ukomba: The problem is that it's self segregation. I can understand why they'd want to do it, but not convinced it's a good thing.
Read the epilogue text underneath the comic and then rethink your statements. Here, I even found the relevant bit for you: "They ask why a minority pushing for acceptance and integration would "segregate" themselves. They're innocent questions, but they come from minds that, quite often, don't comprehend that being able to "fit in" (hoho) pretty much anywhere is one of the numerous luxuries that come with being straight. Indeed, feeling like you fit in is pretty much the entire point of going to a con isn't it?"
Also:
Abomination: Would I be allowed to attend this Gaymer convention despite my sexual orientation? Do I require a homosexual escort while on premises? Do I have to be blindfolded on the trip there and back?
Yes. Why wouldn't you be able to attend if you were straight? Also your following questions are exactly the veiled dickishness that Cory/Grey are talking about. Don't be so naive/insultingly ignorant.
Also also:
Abomination: Are there gay sporting events, gay debate clubs, gay chess clubs, gay boxing clubs?
Yes there are. Do you have any idea how gays are treated/shunned in the sporting world? It's slightly better than it was now but it's still not great. In a predominantly straight-male dominated event, it takes a while before change/equality comes along.
Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.
Edit: Also, minor nitpick, that's not a heterosexual flag on that guy's T-shirt in the first panel. It's an asexual flag. Kind of an odd mistake to make on a site that has such an unusually high percentage of self proclaimed asexuals.
Owyn_Merrilin: Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.
Straight people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being LGBT. This isn't a controversial statement, it's a tautological fact. If you're not a member of group A, you don't know what it's like to be discriminated for being a member of group A. Now that doesn't mean that you're unfamiliar with discrimination (see: my post on the kyriarchy), but it does mean that straight people never have to face the consequences of being non-straight (because they're straight. It's a tautology).
Like I said before, whether this con is a step in the right direction or not in terms of overall equality is up to the LGBT community to decide on their own.
Owyn_Merrilin: Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.
Straight people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being LGBT. This isn't a controversial statement, it's a tautological fact. If you're not a member of group A, you don't know what it's like to be discriminated for being a member of group A. Now that doesn't mean that you're unfamiliar with discrimination (see: my post on the kyriarchy), but it does mean that straight people never have to face the consequences of being non-straight (because they're straight. It's a tautology).
Like I said before, whether this con is a step in the right direction or not in terms of overall equality is up to the LGBT community to decide on their own.
True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.
Owyn_Merrilin: True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.
That's the signature style of the kyriarchy. Take a white male with a regular job. Everything goes well until he comes out or the office finds out about his sexuality. Suddenly he's being passed for promotions that he was a shoe-in for, his coworkers "forget" to invite him to parties or drinks, he gets saddled with the work nobody wants to do, and he can say goodbye to anyone offering help or even companionship. One change of label and suddenly he's at the bottom of the social pyramid, because the kyriarchy deems it so. And it gets worse, obviously, there's the lack of gay marriage and adoption, the hate crimes, the hate speech, the institutionalised homophobia and so on.
The kyriarchy always finds a way to screw you over, because that's what it does best. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems of one of the oppressed minorities because there's another minority that has it bad as well.
Owyn_Merrilin: True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.
That's the signature style of the kyriarchy. Take a white male with a regular job. Everything goes well until he comes out or the office finds out about his sexuality. Suddenly he's being passed for promotions that he was a shoe-in for, his coworkers "forget" to invite him to parties or drinks, he gets saddled with the work nobody wants to do, and he can say goodbye to anyone offering help or even companionship. One change of label and suddenly he's at the bottom of the social pyramid, because the kyriarchy deems it so. And it gets worse, obviously, there's the lack of gay marriage and adoption, the hate crimes, the hate speech, the institutionalised homophobia and so on.
The kyriarchy always finds a way to screw you over, because that's what it does best. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems of one of the oppressed minorities because there's another minority that has it bad as well.
Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand[1] it's what ostracism feels like.
Owyn_Merrilin: Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand it's what ostracism feels like.
A lot of people understand what ostracism feels like. That's the point. If you're female, a person of colour, LGBT, low-class, disabled/handicapped, foreigner, a nerd and so on, you understand what ostracism feels like. People who haven't been ostracised are a tiny minority, which is why your argument rings hollow. Just because one group knows what ostracism feels like doesn't give them the right to judge another group for their methods of dealing with such ostracism, particularly when the latter group is a subgroup within the former.
If you really feel a kinship with LGBT people regarding ostracism, support them instead of criticising and judging them. After all, that's probably what the non-gamer majority did when the first gamer cons were getting started. Let's not be like them.
Owyn_Merrilin: Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand it's what ostracism feels like.
A lot of people understand what ostracism feels like. That's the point. If you're female, a person of colour, LGBT, low-class, disabled/handicapped, foreigner, a nerd and so on, you understand what ostracism feels like. People who haven't been ostracised are a tiny minority, which is why your argument rings hollow. Just because one group knows what ostracism feels like doesn't give them the right to judge another group for their methods of dealing with such ostracism, particularly when the latter group is a subgroup within the former.
If you really feel a kinship with LGBT people regarding ostracism, support them instead of criticising and judging them. After all, that's probably what the non-gamer majority did when the first gamer cons were getting started.
Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community[1] wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.
[1] yes, a part. I have a feeling if I took a poll of my gay friends and relatives, support for the self imposed segregation we're seeing here wouldn't exactly be universal
Owyn_Merrilin: Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.
I highly doubt anyone's saying that. I think there was probably a miscommunication of sorts and it ended up in a misunderstanding. Nobody's saying that nerds don't know what bullying feels like. The problem is that several people in and out of this thread are very much contradicting your position that "most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like" because they are displaying a remarkable lack of sympathy regarding why a minority may want to have their own safe space. You really can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't have a majority of "Why do gaymers want their own con? That's ridiculous!" posts while claiming that nerds know exactly what LGBT people feel. Clearly, they don't. Or, if they do, they lack the necessary sympathy.
Owyn_Merrilin: Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.
I highly doubt anyone's saying that. I think there was probably a miscommunication of sorts and it ended up in a misunderstanding. Nobody's saying that nerds don't know what bullying feels like. The problem is that several people in and out of this thread are very much contradicting your position that "most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like" because they are displaying a remarkable lack of sympathy regarding why a minority may want to have their own safe space. You really can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't have a majority of "Why do gaymers want their own con? That's ridiculous!" posts while claiming that nerds know exactly what LGBT people feel. Clearly, they don't. Or, if they do, they lack the necessary sympathy.
Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.
Owyn_Merrilin: Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
The problem with this is that you're still judging, criticising and telling LGBT people what to do. That's what's not cool. It's okay to have opinions, but this just doesn't affect you in any way. It doesn't detract from regular cons and they won't be banning straight people from entering. This doesn't affect people outside the LGBT community in any way, so it is quite firmly none of their business. Again, whether this is good or not for equality is up for debate, but it's a debate straight people have no place in.
Owyn_Merrilin: Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.
Pretty much, yes. With the advent of casual gaming and gaming becoming more mainstream, now a gamer isn't automatically an ostracised nerd. And besides, the evil genius in the Kyriarchy is that it gets oppressed people to oppress each other. What happens here is a clear example of that. Gamers are quick to react with violent outrage at the accusation that games might be homophobic, racist or sexist because they've endured attacks from the media, their families, authority figures, peers and society in general. And this is another example of that. One of the most common reactions in this thread has been "Why? What's wrong with regular cons? Are you saying there's something wrong with regular cons? There's nothing wrong with regular cons! There's nothing wrong with gamer culture! We're all enlightened progressive individuals! Now shut up, I don't want to hear any of you minorities!"
It's an understandable reaction, but it doesn't help at all.
Owyn_Merrilin: Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.
I highly doubt anyone's saying that. I think there was probably a miscommunication of sorts and it ended up in a misunderstanding. Nobody's saying that nerds don't know what bullying feels like. The problem is that several people in and out of this thread are very much contradicting your position that "most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like" because they are displaying a remarkable lack of sympathy regarding why a minority may want to have their own safe space. You really can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't have a majority of "Why do gaymers want their own con? That's ridiculous!" posts while claiming that nerds know exactly what LGBT people feel. Clearly, they don't. Or, if they do, they lack the necessary sympathy.
Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.
Likie I said in an earlier post
They don't want to have to defend themselves all the time. They want a safe comfortable environment. Because they don't want the simple act of enjoying media with their partner or even alone to always be about defending their lifestyle. They want to go somewhere where they're the norm.
And when Gaymer X is over they'll probably go to PAX eventually or another big con, they'll probably still be involved in LGBT movements for equality but every once in awhile they get to take it easy and just relax and fit in the way straight people do all the time everywhere they go.
It's notgiving up, it's just they don't want everything to be some kind of struggle all the time.
Darken12: "Straightmers" already exist. They're called gamers. That's why we have "girl gamers" too, because the default is the straight white male.
I think it is an important distinction to make that homosexuals and heterosexuals do not play video games, people do. That is to say that they are people first, everything else at least should come secondary. It is true that the majority of these people consequently happen to be heterosexual males. Currently this majority is being blatantly targeted in various ways in the industry and society in general, but a person's sexuality doesn't have to have anything to do with the medium or their way of living nor should it. It shouldn't be a defining factor, a simple piece of information that is consciously taken into account and misused.
I just don't see how further seperating people who for example happen to play video games into various subgroups of sexuality, gender or race helps create equality in the long-term. A momentary sense of recognition and belonging perhaps, but not of equality or societal unity.
Even though gays should receive the same rights and acceptance as everyone else, they should also be able to have their own events, clubs, literature, etc. Arguing that gays shouldn't be able to hold their own con if they want to be accepted as equal, is similar to saying that Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Jewish and other cultures should not be allowed to conduct their own (religious and secular) festivals and customs in a predominantly Christian/anglo-saxon society.
I'm a Singapore-born Chinese living in Australia, and in past decades the Asian-Australian community has received condemnation from a small (but vocal) minority for refusing to integrate and forming "ghettos". Should Asians be able to function within Australian society at a minimal level? Yes I think we should. But must we subscribe and conform to every single aspect of the "Aussie lifestyle" that is presented in the mainstream media, without any means to celebrate our unique cultural niche? Of course not! Gaymer X is just an event held by and for gaymers, with other groups welcome, just as Chinese New Year is something done by and for Chinese people, but we don't mind if other people come and sample the delicious treats. And while there may be lingering religious aspects of Chinese New Year, it's basically Christmas for us (if not even more secular).
Ultimately, none of these events aimed at target groups are carried out in order to get away from the "insufferable straight/white/male/18-25 year old demographic". They merely provide a comforting background where we can relax and get in touch with a facet of ourselves (Those who were arguing sexuality doesn't define us are partially wrong; sexuality doesn't define ALL of us, only one small crystal of our precious snowflakes), and engage with others who share that facet which may not be shared in the mainstream, just as gaming and other "geek" cons were created so gamers (gay or not) and geeks could share their interests.
Owyn_Merrilin: Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
The problem with this is that you're still judging, criticising and telling LGBT people what to do. That's what's not cool. It's okay to have opinions, but this just doesn't affect you in any way. It doesn't detract from regular cons and they won't be banning straight people from entering. This doesn't affect people outside the LGBT community in any way, so it is quite firmly none of their business. Again, whether this is good or not for equality is up for debate, but it's a debate straight people have no place in.
Owyn_Merrilin: Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.
Pretty much, yes. With the advent of casual gaming and gaming becoming more mainstream, now a gamer isn't automatically an ostracised nerd. And besides, the evil genius in the Kyriarchy is that it gets oppressed people to oppress each other. What happens here is a clear example of that. Gamers are quick to react with violent outrage at the accusation that games might be homophobic, racist or sexist because they've endured attacks from the media, their families, authority figures, peers and society in general. And this is another example of that. One of the most common reactions in this thread has been "Why? What's wrong with regular cons? Are you saying there's something wrong with regular cons? There's nothing wrong with regular cons! There's nothing wrong with gamer culture! We're all enlightened progressive individuals! Now shut up, I don't want to hear any of you minorities!"
It's an understandable reaction, but it doesn't help at all.
Do you not see the exclusion you're promoting, though? You're taking the perception that gays aren't welcome at regular cons, and basically saying "well, since we're not welcome there, you're not welcome in this discussion." It doesn't really come across as inclusive to me. It's not even really a debate, anyway. More some people expressing confusion at the need for a gay specific con, and then other people first saying "well you couldn't possibly understand," and once someone comes in saying they probably could, being told they don't have a place in the discussion, because they're straight. Which is really ironic, since this is supposed to be a completely inclusive convention. Although why they didn't just call it something like "gamers without labels[1]" if that's what they wanted is beyond me.
[1] something better could easily be thought of, that name took me two seconds
Darken12: "Straightmers" already exist. They're called gamers. That's why we have "girl gamers" too, because the default is the straight white male.
I think it is an important distinction to make that homosexuals and heterosexuals do not play video games, people do. That is to say that they are people first, everything else at least should come secondary. It is true that the majority of these people consequently happen to be heterosexual males. Currently this majority is being blatantly targeted in various ways in the industry and society in general, but a person's sexuality doesn't have to have anything to do with the medium or their way of living nor should it. It shouldn't be a defining factor, a simple piece of information that is consciously taken into account and misused.
I just don't see how further seperating people who for example happen to play video games into various sub-groups helps create equality in the long-term. A sense of recognition perhaps, but not of equality or unity.
I explain that here. The short version is "I call myself differently because that word doesn't apply to me." Women, LGBT people and people of colour are never going to get what they want (entertainment aimed at them) if they continue to be quiet while the entertainment industry pretends they don't exist. Quietly accepting the gamer label means quietly accepting the tacit implication that you're assumed to be a straight white male by the industry. That is not going to get you anywhere.
Owyn_Merrilin: Do you not see the exclusion you're promoting, though? You're taking the perception that gays aren't welcome at regular cons, and basically saying "well, since we're not welcome there, you're not welcome in this discussion." It doesn't really come across as inclusive to me. It's not even really a debate, anyway. More some people expressing confusion at the need for a gay specific con, and then other people first saying "well you couldn't possibly understand," and once someone comes in saying they probably could, being told they don't have a place in the discussion, because they're straight. Which is really ironic, since this is supposed to be a completely inclusive convention. Although why they didn't just call it something like "gamers without labels" if that's what they wanted is beyond me.
You misunderstand. Nobody's saying that straight people can't ask about the gay specific con, I'm saying that straight people have no business inserting themselves in a discussion that doesn't affect them at all. It's like a man butting into a conversation between women to talk to them about periods or pregnancy. Unless he's a physician or similarly qualified expert, he has no business talking about something he's not a part of and will never affect him (unless he has a pregnant/menstruating wife/girlfriend, and even then he's being affected very indirectly).
One of the hallmarks of male privilege, for example, is the firm belief that you as a man have a right to have your opinion heard and taken seriously by women, regardless of subject, while at the same time rolling your eyes or dismissing women's opinion on topics like sports, cars, business or the like. This is what you're doing here. You're dismissing the problems, wants and needs of the LGBT community while complaining that your opinion ought to be taken seriously.
The convention isn't about equality or inclusion. It's about giving the LGBT community a safe space that caters to them and thinks about their problems and neglected wants and needs within the gamer community. Whether this is a good idea in the long term or not, and whether it's hypocritical of us as a community or not is up for debate, yes, but it's an internal matter within the community. It doesn't concern straight people because the problems that we face are not your problems, and the decisions we're making do not affect you at all. We don't have to include straight people in that discussion because it doesn't concern them at all. It would be like a random stranger from another city asking to be included in a conversation about what colour to paint your bedroom. It's absolutely irrelevant for them and you are not obligated to listen to their opinion at all.
anthony87: I mean if that's really the case then I wanna know where the convention is for all the Irish gamers that are called "Micks" and accused of being alcoholics all the time.
Gonna regret the fuck out of this post in the morning...
In Ireland maybe... You can't really compare the two, they get a con we get a country (or at least most of one). It's not a struggle for me to find Irish people and feel included. Even if you don't leave in Ireland there's probably at least one Irish pub within walking distance of you.
I personally, like others, don't see how a GayCon would be any different from a regular con in terms of content, but I also don't see the point of conventions all together. However, I still don't understand how something like this would be any different by doing this.
Of course that isn't to say that they should do it. After all, a group organizing a convention can dictate it however they wish, as long as the venue agrees with it. If one only wants to allow gay, lesbian, and bi people they can do that, or if one only wants to allow straight people, they can do that too. Of course that's not to say that people can't disagree, it's just to say that if they want to exclude a certain group they have every right to do so.
And as for the whole 'inclusion' thing, I really don't see where people are coming from. I've never once gone to a gay only, or gay oriented event before and I've never felt disfranchised or not included.
TKretts3: I personally, like others, don't see how a GayCon would be any different from a regular con in terms of content, but I also don't see the point of conventions all together. However, I still don't understand how something like this would be any different by doing this.
Of course that isn't to say that they should do it. After all, a group organizing a convention can dictate it however they wish, as long as the venue agrees with it. If one only wants to allow gay, lesbian, and bi people they can do that, or if one only wants to allow straight people, they can do that too. Of course that's not to say that people can't disagree, it's just to say that if they want to exclude a certain group they have every right to do so.
You do realise straight people are allowed attend right? Cons are generally straight focused, because gaming is generally white -hetero-male focused. Cons have booth babes and marketing aimed at hetero males. Passive aggressive gay bashing and just straight up gay bashing goes on in gaming culture. This is just a con where the LGBT community is the norm and the focus.
TKretts3: I personally, like others, don't see how a GayCon would be any different from a regular con in terms of content, but I also don't see the point of conventions all together. However, I still don't understand how something like this would be any different by doing this.
Of course that isn't to say that they should do it. After all, a group organizing a convention can dictate it however they wish, as long as the venue agrees with it. If one only wants to allow gay, lesbian, and bi people they can do that, or if one only wants to allow straight people, they can do that too. Of course that's not to say that people can't disagree, it's just to say that if they want to exclude a certain group they have every right to do so.
You do realise straight people are allowed attend right? Cons are generally straight focused, because gaming is generally white -hetero-male focused. Cons have booth babes and marketing aimed at hetero males. Passive aggressive gay bashing and just straight up gay bashing goes on in gaming culture. This is just a con where the LGBT community is the norm and the focus.
A friend of mine is gay and attends a lot (Read, A LOT) of them every year, and the way I hear him talk about them suggest more that the non gay oriented Cons aren't exactly 'focused' towards any crowd except for the subject of the Con. However, in terms of the booth babes I can certainly agree that it's focused to attract straight male gamers, though I would mainly criticize the owners of the venues for that. As for marketing, I don't see how it's focused at straight gamers. Would you care to explain?
On the topic of not liking gay people, it's not that I don't like gay people, it's just I hate flamboyance. I hate really camp people that are straight too. I mean it's probably just that all the gay guys I've met have been preening arseholes, but I don't judge every gay based on those guys twattishness.
I also think musicals are for retarded people who don't understand subtlety.
Edit: Also, minor nitpick, that's not a heterosexual flag on that guy's T-shirt in the first panel. It's an asexual flag. Kind of an odd mistake to make on a site that has such an unusually high percentage of self proclaimed asexuals.
Not quite. The asexual rainbow has a purple bar. There isn't really a "straight" rainbow, but the one we chose is based on an actual T shirt.
Verkula: How is it implied, and whats so diferent in Gaymercon, other then whats obvious? No, im curious.
Im not against it, if the advantage of making these are so big, but I feel like it makes it harder to get to equality if people keep separating themselves, though I know im probably just freakin naive.
We're gamers, so let's look at games. For games that have the option of making a character of any race, sexuality or gender, we have a disproportionate amount of "straight white male" as the default. See the Dragon Age:Origins trailer, the Dragon Age II trailer, the Mass Effect posters (I, II and III), and this is BioWare, who is arguably the most egalitarian and inclusive studio. It gets worse from there.
Then we have a comparison between Uncharted and Tomb Raider, two similar games with protagonists of opposite gender. Uncharted has a male lead. He's covered head to toe in practical clothing. Tomb Raider's female lead, on the other hand, has exposed legs, midriff, arms and cleavage. Why? Because Lara Croft is meant to be a character for straight males to drool over, while Nathan Drake is a character for straight white males to project into. Lara Croft is a sexual fantasy, Nathan Drake is a power fantasy. Both are aimed at straight white males.
In relation to the trailers and box art, they're not appealing to straight white males, but rather to males in general. They show footage and images of attractive - sexy - males. That is, they're tall, muscular, tan, et cetera. Unless you're trying to say that gay males can't be muscular, which I very much doubt you're saying considering the tone of your post, I don't see how those trailers and box art apply. They do very much show how oriented towards males, and to whites, marketing is, though.
As for the Laura Croft/Nathan Drake angle, your analysis is completely true. In fact I'm only writing this because you forgot to mention that Nathan Drake is a sexy beast. ;)
mgirl: The 'segregation' argument from people baffles me. I mean, if you're going to look at it like that, surely gay pride parades/celebrations, or LGBT rights groups, or even university groups, of which I am involved in, would all also come under the same blanket.
It's nice to see that at least some people get it, its about fitting in, and to not have to worry about people treating you differently.
But they do come under the same blanket and are complained about and it's not about fitting in. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that gay people feel out of place at a fucking gaming convention, where nerds and outcasts parade around in bright costuming that they've spent a year creating.
Thats not the point, if someone did do a heterocon it would get blasted by every gay rights group out there for being a bigoted and homophobic venture. It's double standards and that defeats the whole point of such movements in the first place as they are supposed to eliminate double standards NOT propagate them.
Not even going to bother with this side of things anymore. I already addressed why things wont be called that, and why it would be bad if they were.
How typical, its so easy to decry established group for bias and bigotry but when a minority does the same its just fine and dandy or it doesnt exists or doesnt warrant addressing. Bigotry exists on both sides of the coin.
Grey seems to think that people who disagree with him on this issue or either naive or dicks. There are many more possibilities such as they are applying a strict interpretation of the "separate is not equal" principle.
Thats not the point, if someone did do a heterocon it would get blasted by every gay rights group out there for being a bigoted and homophobic venture. It's double standards and that defeats the whole point of such movements in the first place as they are supposed to eliminate double standards NOT propagate them.
Not even going to bother with this side of things anymore. I already addressed why things wont be called that, and why it would be bad if they were.
How typical, its so easy to decry established group for bias and bigotry but when a minority does the same its just fine and dandy or it doesnt exists or doesnt warrant addressing. Bigotry exists on both sides of the coin.
There would be no purpose in a heterocon because almost every convention is already 95% the way to being a heterocon.
First they have their own bars, now their own conventions... both probably being really good places to meet people you could connect with. That's pretty greedy, gays!
My anger is fake, but my jealousy is somewhat real.
Daveman: On the topic of not liking gay people, it's not that I don't like gay people, it's just I hate flamboyance. I hate really camp people that are straight too. I mean it's probably just that all the gay guys I've met have been preening arseholes, but I don't judge every gay based on those guys twattishness.
well flamboyant people are gonna be famboyant people...gotta learn to deal with it
I also think musicals are for retarded people who don't understand subtlety.
One day, sexual orientation will cease to be a factor in how you view a person.
Until then, there's Gaymercon.
That's why.