"On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not agree that changing their micro-culture to accept women – women who wanted, after th

"On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not agree that changing their micro-culture to accept women – women who wanted, after their entry, to change the micro-culture more – was a good thing." My impression is rather that one side is people who don't want to be insulted just because of some anonymous freaks who threaten women (who may or may not be gamers). I've seen many female gamers speak up against the campaign against gamers, for example. It amazes me how many supposedly intelligent people are unable to get that aspect. (Like the John Scalzi tweet - guess there is another author I can safely skip, along with Cory Doctorow). It's also funny to see all the people who write "I am a gamer myself (but somehow I am better than the other gamers)" and go on to insult gamers. Shouldn't it be obvious to them that the accusations can not be true, simply by logic ("I am a gamer and I believe I am not sexist, therefore not all gamers are sexist"). The last thing I read impresses me, though: GamerGate supporters (I think they are the "we don't want to be insulted" crowd) apparently are now writing to sponsors of magazines who crap on gamers, and sponsors are withdrawing their support (for example for Gamasutra and Gawker). I am very excited about that strategy because it also exposes the hollowness of the accusations. I don't think the "gamers are sexist" crowd can counter with the same approach, because contrary to their claims they won't find any popular offenders to complain about. It's all just rumors of anonymous offenders, nobody who depends on a sponsor.