Well, if you guys want to start linking to abuse numbers we can do that all day.
http://www.ncadv.org/files/Domestic Violence Stylized--GS edits.pdf
1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experience some sort of violence within their lifetime.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
Intimate partner violence (IPV) made up of 20% of crime experience by men, 3% for men.
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
30% of women and 10% of men have experienced rape, violence, or stalking.
See, the problem is you guys already have your minds made up, and all you want to do is try to find information that you think backs up what you're saying. You're not interested in finding truth, just something that validates your thoughts.
Kalker3, is there any proof of what you're saying? I have yet to witness either side being anything but negative to the other. I want to see facts before we can declare something true. And not just some guy saying he got banned, let's see what he wrote and when.
Foxi4, I never said anything about segregating men, that's ridiculous. Please don't put words in my mouth. I stated the fact that men are the vast majority when it comes to violent crime. I also stated what I believe to be fact (though there's no real way to quantify this) that women are the vast majority when it comes to what I call emotional crime.
Gahars, there's a very big difference between calling out a toxic culture and calling out an entire gender. I'll use the NFL as an example. There's plenty of people who have called out the toxic culture in the NFL locker rooms, but no one takes that as them damning the entire group of players. The fact that you don't see this shows how entrenched your views are, and how unwilling to accept anything else you are.
And who has ever said that being masculine is akin to being an asshole? Maybe a few bra-burning bitches, but then you associate that with all of us? And I'm the one who's assuming?
And I grew up in the time of the Panthers, so I know they weren't violent in the beginning. There were those who did violence in the name of the Panthers (sound familiar?) but those weren't true members.
Btw, your first link was pretty good, though one of the top comments is that that guy isn't so much anti-Gamergate as he is anti--asshole, which would describe me as well. Your second link is less useful. It's just some guy dodging questions and making the anti-Gamergate people look bad. Keeping it up does more harm to the other side than help them. In your 3rd link the chick is neutral,as you said. That doesn't prove your point.
And you're wrong, Gawker isn't bleeding sponsors. I wish they were, but you're kidding yourself if you think that they're going away.
Finally, come on, you can't act like having a form letter that people are supposed to use, and instructing them exactly how to change certain things "DO NOT COPY AND PASTE" isn't manipulative. The people doing that aren't doing it because they're legitimately offended, they're doing it in a thinly veiled attempt to hurt Gawker, etc. These people are instructing others on how to fabricate their emails to the sponsors, in order to be most effective. That's manipulative, you have to admit that.
One final thing (for real this time), I do definitely agree that it's how the trope is used rather than what it is. My only quibble would be that if you make an interesting damsel then that rises above the damsel trope and thus is no longer a trope in my eyes. That's me, though.