Thanks for opening this thread Harley. I've been patiently watching this discussion unfold, and it developed the way I was suspecting it would. I really have one long point to make about this issue.
The main issue is simply this. To an extent at least, the two sides of the debate talk past one another. Let me try and spell out how I think it happens. I'll use the so-called gamergate controversy as a paradigm case (albeit somewhat extreme). Two of the major complaints made by Sarkeesian and co. were sexual objectification of women in the video game industry and disproportionate amounts of harassment targeted at women online. Now leaving aside issues of Sarkeesian's personal honesty, responsibility in research, and transparency, many (most?) people felt there was something wrong with her complaints themselves.
Importantly, this is not to say that to the minds of these people, the content of Sarkeesian's complaints were invalid. I mean I doubt many people would think online harassment is something we should celebrate, or even ignore. While few would think there needs to be legal action involved (except in cases of libel, slander or defamation), they do need to be socially stigmatized. No society should
promote harassment for the sake of it. Same goes with sexual objectification- its effects are tangible and have been reported (
link); it's tied to body image perceptions, and women do suffer from negative body image more so than men (
link,
other link); and to top it all off- media and advertising have been instrumental in manipulating especially women's body image for their own purpose (
link). The most reasonable counter-arguments to the complaints by Sarkeesian, therefore, wasn't that objectification and harassment aren't objectively concerning issues, but that
locating instances thereof in video games and comment sections simply isn't that important. There are more important things to focus on in life, more difficult problems to solve, and hence their efforts would probably be better spent elsewhere. This basic reasoning was tied to other concerns too- of them that by using the name of feminism to probe into insignificant issues, Sarkeesian and co. were diverting attention away from more important instances of sexism which do legitimately deserve our attention.
Now, whether you agree or disagree to this line of thinking, it's certainly more respectable than simply saying sexism or objectification isn't a social concern at all. As I see it, the distinction wasn't always made explicit. This is where the talking past one another began. The whole situation was made more complex by the fact that some of the most vocal critics of Sarkeesian included controversial, even disreputable figures.
At this point, I'll step out of the gamergate example and try and generalize some of these points. Every time a debate on this issue occurs- be it on so-called safe spaces, racial appropriation, anything that might be seen as something of a cry wolf- I see people dividing up into two unbridgeable, non-negotiable factions of thought. Most of the time, the people who think we're too soft and coddled a generation (unless, of course, they're genuinely racist or sexist- in which case their points don't deserve any room on the discussion table) believe these are simply manufactured grievances- we're bringing too much attention to something insignificant. Due to the polarized nature of the discourse, this message doesn't always make its way to the other side; and said other side feels their interlocutors don't think racism and sexism are real concerns.
This is also because the most vocal parts of both sides tend to be the most extreme voices. Interestingly, there's an expectation from the more 'moderate' liberals/progressives to speak out against the more extreme fringes of their movement (one of the most famous recent instances is probably Sargon of Akkad's appeal to The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur,
link). However, as one poster above pointed out, it makes little sense for someone to condemn that one fringe person on Tumblr claiming the existence of '33 genders' when homophobia is an actual, tangible issue in society. 9 times out of 10 a liberal commentator would be more invested in talking about actual racism and homophobia instead of talking about the fringe.
All in all, the discussions continue to become more and more polarizing, the tones become more and more obnoxious. We continue to see the development of two self-containing echo chambers at both sides of the discussion. All of the important nuances and distinctions and clarifications probably lie somewhere in the middle.
Hopefully this made at least some extent of sense.
