[goldensaucer]

I'm finding a lot of the responses to this article disheartening. There's a common trend of "she should've said something," and while many here disapprove of the PR guys' treatment of the writer, they're still quick to defend his innocence or obliviousness. Focusing on how the author could've done better to defend herself against sexism is pretty problematic and indicative of this brand of derailing the conversation: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/education.html

[chc]

The problem is that she raises two separate issues, one of which was his fault and one of which was partly his and partly hers. People are following her lead and conflating the two.

1. The guy was a sexist prick.

This was his fault, and she obviously doesn't deserve any of the blame for his broken worldview.

2. She didn't get to play the game.

This was partly her doing. He still deserves some of the blame because it's his job to represent his company well to her and he didn't do that. But she didn't so much as indicate a desire to play it, which I don't think is too much to expect from an adult acting in a professional capacity. Non-videogame journalists have to deal with much fiercer opposition to their reporting than some sexist twit making unwarranted assumptions, but somehow political stories still get written (by women, no less).

[pvarangot]

Have you though that maybe she is a video-game journalist and not a non-video-game journalist partly because she doesn't want to deal with what you describe?

Its ridiculous to demand the same amount of experience in dealing with adverse situations to people who choose to review commercial products for a living and to political or war journalists. Specially when you are demanding expertise in approaching a hostile subject in order to get your facts prior to forming your opinion.

[nuaccnt]

There's women are more-stupid/less–competent than men sexism and there's women are less likely to have spent time attaining a useless (and kinda dorky) skill at first person shooters non-sexism.

[saraid216]

It's victim-blaming.

The interesting thing about victim-blaming is that it's paradoxical. It both presumes that the victim is vulnerable and that they're superhuman: that they can both be hurt and power through that hurt like a storybook hero without more cost than a few extra words.

This is one of the nastier side effects of the self-empowerment movement. By accepting personal responsibility and demanding others do the same, we isolate each other and make it harder to override the Bystander Effect.

[ta12121]

Not everything is always black and white.

Of course the PR people should not be sexist.

But if a person doesn't take even the slightest, tiniest effort to defend themselves against something that is wrong, they're "going to have a bad time" whether that thing which is wrong is something politically charged like sexism, or simply individual malice.

Also, prejudice like this is most likely due to ignorance, and the best antidote to ignorance is education.

[saraid216]

I like how you say "not everything is black and white" and then proceed to give black-and-white prescriptions.

From an armchair, it's terribly easy for you to say, "Well, instead of backing down, you should have told him off." Not everyone is, or should be, the strong and assertive, constantly vigilant culture warrior shrugging off the whips and scorns of ignorant simpletons. Most especially, as the Derailing for Dummies link explains, most people have finite energy and even if they are strong and assertive some of the time, they cannot be that way all of the time.

A direct quote out of the article:

  Every time I protested [over "the next few days of E3"], the offender would say — 
  as if it were a proven fact — “Well, girls aren’t usually into this stuff, you know.”

Somehow, you and everyone else saying that she should have ripped him a new one missed this sentence. It's a very important sentence, and I'm disappointed she didn't highlight it more clearly.

By the time she starts educating, she is no longer doing her job as a member of the press reviewing games. She is doing an entirely different job, which she did not arrive prepared to do, and for which she receives no compensation except the desperate hope that one person might possibly listen.

How would you feel, if you were constantly distracted from your job in order to fill in for something for which you have no training, no interest, and no pay?

[ta12121]

Saying that sexism is wrong and saying that a victim of sexism should stand up for herself are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and just because the former is true the latter isn't necessarily "blaming the victim".

Suppose a student leaves his laptop on a table in the school library while on a bathroom break and it is stolen. Is it "blaming the victim" to tell him not to leave his valuables unattended, just because it is clearly the thief who did something morally wrong?

[goldensaucer]

Your analogy doesn't work. The student locking their computer is a preventative measure, not a reactive. Williams couldn't have prevented others' attitudes towards her. She did nothing to invite the behavior. This is more akin to telling the student they should've had a better lock when they had already locked their computer, but had it stolen anyway.

[saraid216]

No, there are two problems here.

The first is that you're insisting on excerpting from the "How to React to Every Situation" book. Your claim is that "if you are oppressed, you should always stand your ground". No exceptions. No compromises. Every deviation from the right and true way is a failure.

This is wrong.

The second is that the entire condescending piece of advice is being offered as if she hadn't already done it. You seem to feel that, because her first and immediate reaction was not confrontational, this makes her a failure. It doesn't matter that, the second time, she did stand up for herself and did speak up. You only care about the first time.

Why?

Victim-blaming is reinforcing a victim's status as victim by giving unwanted and unneeded advice. It's saying, "You poor wretch. If only you worked harder, you'd be as awesome as me. Work harder." That is what you are doing.

[anewguy]

It's not victim blaming per se. When a male has a problem, he is trained to keep it to himself. If he shares it with anyone, he is most likely told to suck it up and fix it. To live a male existence is to live without sympathy. It is little wonder that we have little sympathy for anybody else. When someone comes to us with a problem, we respond with the only advice we have ever been given - fix it.

When you are a male, every shortcoming, every bad situation is chalked up to your own personal inadequacy. There are no social forces to blame anything on.

Maybe it makes us stronger. Maybe it makes us dicks. Maybe a bit of both.

[king_jester]

This is completely and totally untrue. You get tons of support living as a male when you encounter life problems. People readily sympathize with men when they describe issues in their life and a lot of discussion and depiction about bad situations revolves around male perspective.

How else could a tread about a woman's experience in gaming journalism turn into a discussion about how oppressed you are as a man? This very thread is an example of how male perspective dominates discussions, even about people who don't identify as male.

[saraid216]

Maybe sweeping bitter generalizations are not actually very useful except in pretending to be wise.

[snowwrestler]

I certainly won't defend the jerky guys, but I will say that to be an effective journalist you have to be willing to be a jerk to people sometimes, or at least manipulative--regardless of gender.

In this case the sexism is obvious in the stories, but in general most PR reps believe it is their job to "manage" (manipulate) journalists. Journalists need to be ready to fight this--with anything from friendly persuasion to persistent confrontation.

The PR rep's job is to deliver a carefully crafted story to the public; the journalist's job is to tell the truth. The roles are inherently confrontational.

[calibraxis]

I wish that could be the case, but the journalist's goal is to help the magazine profit, like any other employee. (For more info, Robert McChesney is a good historian of journalism.) The two roles are often symbiotic: the PR rep feeds the journalist. The journalist's company generally sells eyeballs to advertisers, which have interests in common with the companies that the PR reps work for. The reviewed company may even be a major advertiser.

(Of course, there may be some differences of interest, since they're not employed in the same corporation.)