Jimquisition: Solving the Sexism Situation

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT
 

Alpha Maeko:
His points might come across better if his audio equipment/setup/post-processing didn't seem so half assed.

Audio debacle aside, I think accusations of sexism are a little too frequent, now days. We're becoming a society too easily insulted by just about anything.

It's not "nowadays" it's been an issue in geek culture since the very beginnings. We've seen the same complaints about women in comic books, on the cover of fantasy novels, and how they are portrayed in PnP RPGs.

The basic issue is generally that nerds (the core fan base) have little luck with girls (shock!) and as such by trying to be feminist in being critical of such things, they hope it will make them, and their interests more attractive to women.

Of course this overlooks important issues, like how women who create fantasy and artwork produce images that are almost identical to the ones that men produce, if not worse. We're dealing with a physical ideal, which is universally appealing. Women, wish they could look like that, just as guys wish they could be with girls that look like that. A failure to understand this is incidently why attempts to be girl-friendly backlash on the guys who try and it and after decades of the same basic position nerds still aren't any more attractive to women... which is more about them being nerds, than the artwork and images in the things the nerds happen to like.

I know Jim is trying to be funny, but to be honest there has never really been an issue with nearly naked macho-men not getting equal time. Forget doing a search for "Devil May Cry" on Deviant Art, take a walk through the romance section of your book store where the lonely women shop and look at all the nearly naked beefcake on display... want to talk about objectification of a physical ideal... I think more of that is produced than the combined nerd-marketplace (or so it seems, the Romance section frequently being bigger than the sci-fi section, and that's not even getting into all the grocery stores, drug stores, and other places that carry nothing but this kind of schlock... with maybe some Steven King or paranormal romance thrown in from time to time).

There is also the whole fact that even the whole "idealized pictures of women giving young girls self-confidence issues and encouraging unhealthy behaviors" isn't one sided. Those beefcake pictures of guys get criticized just the same, it's just usually in athletic circles. People cry just as much about guys with arms as big around as his head, as they do about girls with breasts as big as their head. The women cry about things like anorexia and girls running to get cosmetic surgery in their pre-teens, and the guy side has people crying about how the images encourage guys to take steroids to meet the masculine ideal.

When it comes to the costumes themselves, people need to understand that men and women are differant. Like it or not there are very good reasons why women have been oppressed through history, it's not JUST because of guys being twats, but because women needed to be protected, especially at the lower tech levels. Truthfully the whole idea of women's equality is a fairly recent concept, and very much almost exclusive to western first world countries (despite lip service). Countries with gender equality are greatly outnumbered by those in the second and third world that do not practice it, and there is a general coorespondance to the less advanced a nation being, the more sexits it tends to be.

To put things into perspective, consider that the issue isn't JUST women being weaker than guys in terms of strength. It might shock some of you to learn that breasts tend to be very sensitive, and the size doesn't really influance this. When it comes to combat (which is really what we're talking about when it comes to fantasy) it makes no sense to put women in plate armor, because it won't help them. The whole "give girls sensible armor" arguement is ridiculous. A blow to the chest on a breastplate that gives a guy a bruise underneath will take a girl out of the fight. This means that anything that puts weight on the chest is NOT going to benefit women at all, as there is no payoff. "sensible armor" being a massive disadvantage for anatomical reasons.

In general when it comes to fighting, it's all about movement and durability. The big reason why your typical super hero walks around in tights and shorts is because that's the kind of thing someone heading out to perform serious physical activity wears, normal clothing constricts and reduces your range of movement. Throwing a high kick in normal pants will probably slow down your end results at best, and rip out your pants seams at the worse. This is why when they fight or put on displays martial artists will wear special costumes like Pajamas (Gis and similar things) or tights. Tights are also worn by acrobats and such for the same reason, it's much easier to flex all over the place and start doing backflips in a set of tights. Given that your typical super hero is supposed to be an acrobat or combat master, their costumes have been traditionally based around what people who really did those things wore. Your vigilante going out looking for fights might very well have an advantage in terms of mobility by wearing tights and shorts, over an opponent who is dressed normally. It looks "ridiculous" by the standards of someone in street clothes, but at the same time he's wearing a mask, and by the very nature of being a super hero doesn't care what other people think, he's out to efficiently bust heads. Durability can be a factor when your looking at a character who isn't relying on the same kind of physical action and isn't invulnerable (ie for Superman he doesn't need armor, since bullets bounce off of him without it), wearing a chain mail shirt to take on gang bangers with knives is awesome, but when your looking at girls that chain mail isn't going to help the same way. A stab to the chest, and sure the chain mail might stop the blade, but she's still going to be on her back, so it's not a viable option.

When it comes to female fantasy characters, a guy saying "okay, let's ignore physical performance" and is assuming that Red Sonja or a similar charater can max out in physical abillity to the same degree as a guy, or this will otherwise be written around, still has to work around the anatomy. It doesn't make since for a female warrior to walk around in plate mail or chain mail, because it will provide absolutly NO advantage, superior speed or whatever doesn't even figure into it. The female warrior's best bet is to wear as little as possible to get the highest range of movement possible, that means going with things like bikini, especially in a tech level that doesn't allow for modern fabrics and things like Kevlar and Spandex. In an oriental-type setting silk clothing and various martial arts clothing might be an option, but if your doing western fantasy or Conan-type barbarism that isn't really an option conceptually. A lot of the artwork of an idealized, heroic female character, standing there nearly naked, is actually pretty realistic, that's what it would probably look like in that setting.... not even getting into the lollercaust of someone complaining about a picture of say Red Sonja and Conan back to back, where BOTH of them are nearly naked, but people complain about her (and yes I know Sonja wasn't originally in the same universe as Conan, but she was put there in comics and such and that's where artwork of that sort comes from).

When it comes to modern comic book characters, the same basic logic applies, with the women wearing pretty much the same stuff the dudes are, and for the same reasons. Like it or not a bikini or one piece, spandex, or a unitard, are all viable and realistic options. Sure it appeals to guys, but at the same time you'll notice that nobody makes a big deal about all the guys running around in the same body costumes, or relying on nothing but their manly chest muscles to protect them. In the modern comics genere the issue of modern body armor can be raised, but typically in comics super-science comes into play. The stuff the X-men wear for example is a form of super-science spandex body armor, so everyone wears it. Other super heroes are typically wearing unstable molecules or something similar. The issue of "why isn't this girl wearing a turtle shell Delta Force vest" is rarely a logical question when noone who is "super" wears stuff like that, largely because they have better just for being a
super hero. It's actually a very equal presentation, and I find it kind of odd that when you think about it most arguements like that, or about women wearing full plate mail or breast plates come down to people actually saying "she should be unusually modest just for being a lady" or "it's better to gimp yourself and take a beating than risk someone thinking you look good in what everyone else is wearing".

Long rant, and I've said it before (a few times) but this is my thoughts on the subject.

Jim is funny, but I think his show needs some work, it hasn't really "clicked" with me yet.

But in this reply you seem to say that you defintivly *know* that jimquition makes bad content that isn't up to the standard of the rest of the site.

I admit, as before, that you are entitled to dislike him but it is you last paragraph I have a problem with.

i7omahawki:
but I do have a problem with this site hosting it, when it contradicts what they state they believe (and have recently won awards for.) In that spirit, I would prefer it if the Escapist got rid of him, and that you could watch his videos elsewhere. Either that, or for the Escapist to admit that they aren't standing for anything in particular, and just want to whore themselves out for more views. Either one is fine, but currently they are behaving like hypocrites.

I mean no offence but who are you to say that in order to keep jimquistion as a show the escapest has to admit to wanting views more than it's entegrty?

You dislike it fine, but as long as the owners of this site see somthing in his content that they like doesn't that impliy that they feel it has somthing worth contributing to this site?

Just because the site has one contributer that you dislike doesn't mean that the site is betraying it's image, it just means that you find one of their contributers not very funny.

I dislike lots of the escapest videos, but I don't think they should be exsiled off the site because i don't like them.

DSQ:

I dislike lots of the escapest videos, but I don't think they should be exsiled off the site because i don't like them.

True, however when it's not just you but a large part of the community then the escapist staff should at least think about pulling it. Tbh I can't find myself to like the guy, I don't like the sound of his voice and he's not the video type either.

DSQ:
But in this reply you seem to say that you defintivly *know* that jimquition makes bad content that isn't up to the standard of the rest of the site.

I admit, as before, that you are entitled to dislike him but it is you last paragraph I have a problem with.

i7omahawki:
but I do have a problem with this site hosting it, when it contradicts what they state they believe (and have recently won awards for.) In that spirit, I would prefer it if the Escapist got rid of him, and that you could watch his videos elsewhere. Either that, or for the Escapist to admit that they aren't standing for anything in particular, and just want to whore themselves out for more views. Either one is fine, but currently they are behaving like hypocrites.

I mean no offence but who are you to say that in order to keep jimquistion as a show the escapest has to admit to wanting views more than it's entegrty?

You dislike it fine, but as long as the owners of this site see somthing in his content that they like doesn't that impliy that they feel it has somthing worth contributing to this site?

Just because the site has one contributer that you dislike doesn't mean that the site is betraying it's image, it just means that you find one of their contributers not very funny.

I dislike lots of the escapest videos, but I don't think they should be exsiled off the site because i don't like them.

Actually, my view is the reverse of you seem to think it is. Whether I liked it or not, and I've seen some of Jim's better videos elsewhere, I think it clashes with the Escapist's OWN ethic.

"The Escapist is a leading video gaming destination offering video game enthusiasts high-quality, innovative and exclusive content with a considered approach to its audience."

Jim's video, funny or not, is not high-quality, innovative, or considered. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant, I am saying that it clashes with the ethos that they have given themselves.

I would have absolutely no problems with someone enjoying the video, I just don't see how it fits in with what the Escapist have said about themselves.

What annoys me in particular is that I got a passive aggressive 'warning' about criticizing this site, for what I see as a breach of its intent, AND a message thanking me for helping it get a Webby.

I get a 'warning' for asking for some kind of consistency in this site, while a content provider can essentially troll the audience with an argument that seems facetious and certainly not sincere.

Therumancer:

It's not "nowadays" it's been an issue in geek culture since the very beginnings. We've seen the same complaints about women in comic books, on the cover of fantasy novels, and how they are portrayed in PnP RPGs.

The basic issue is generally that nerds (the core fan base) have little luck with girls (shock!) and as such by trying to be feminist in being critical of such things, they hope it will make them, and their interests more attractive to women.

I don't know that its necessarily a case of nerds just being unattractive. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the Escapist's readers self-identify as a nerd, being that its a gaming website and gaming has its roots in nerd culture, but I'm sure if you asked there's a sizable number of nerds that have had pretty good luck in the scoring department.

You do touch on something interesting that a lot of my female friends and past girlfriends have mentioned to me, though: nerdy guys do seem to have a tendency to hold pretty progressive views in regards to gender equality and rights and such. Maybe its a widely adopted strategy to score, but if I have another possible explanation. Nerds are generally regarded as an "other" group during childhood, and I'd guess (although I can't speak for everyone) that most nerds (myself included) faced their fair share of bullying and ostracizing as children. Isn't it possible that, having experienced dehumanizing treatment by their peers as children, they would understand how painful and undesirable that sort of treatment is, and would thus be more inclined to act oppositely to that abuse by holding egalitarian progressive views about how to treat people? Thats how I've come to understand how I came to my world-view; maybe that holds true for others.

Therumancer:

There is also the whole fact that even the whole "idealized pictures of women giving young girls self-confidence issues and encouraging unhealthy behaviors" isn't one sided. Those beefcake pictures of guys get criticized just the same, it's just usually in athletic circles. People cry just as much about guys with arms as big around as his head, as they do about girls with breasts as big as their head.

True. There is a strong societal pressure on both sexes to live up to an ideal and it certainly leaves its mark on our collective psyche. I've heard it argued that the male ideal is particularly brutal on the grounds that on top of being gigantic, muscley, and square-jawed, men are also expected to remain stoic, unemotive, and silent about any pain or anguish they experience, including the stress that comes from trying to live up to the masculine ideal. Women do have to benefit of being allowed to express whatever they are feeling, although that has given rise to the negative stereotype of women being irrational and overemotional, which is itself a harmful mentality and a difficult image to have to fight against.

Again I would like to clarify that there is a difference between sexuality and objectification; sexuality is merely the sexual component to a person's character, and if respected and properly exercised, can contribute to the deepening and appreciation of a person as a whole. Objectification, however, consists of the dehumanizing of an individual, of disregarding all aspects of their personhood, including their thoughts, feelings, and agency, for to purpose of exploiting one characteristic or another for one's own ends. This process is hurtful and unwelcome by anyone who has been subjected to it, and I don't believe that further objectifying everyone is the right answer.

On the whole, members of all groups are given a societal ideal to live up to and negative stereotypes to fight against. The issue stands, however, that society is generally structured to meet the needs of men, particularly white men, better than it meets the needs of other groups of people. There are plenty of stats out there to back that up, like the fact that, on average and all other things being equal, women only earn 85 cents to every dollar a man would earn working the same job and the same hours, but there's also a lot more complex societal issues that non-whites and non-males have to deal with. In America particularly, minorities (especially blacks) face shorter economic legacies than whites, having had less time and opportunity to accrue wealth and pass it down the generations the way whites have; this historical imbalance also makes it extremely difficult for those in low-income neighborhoods to escape poverty and move up the socioeconomic ladder since society's infrastructure doesn't create a safety net for them the way it does for whites. Likewise, women did't become accepted into the general workforce until the 1940s, and only after extensive post-war campaigning were they allowed to remain in the workforce. Even so, however, it has taken over 70 years for them to reach a near comparable work-presence as compared to men, but they are still underrepresented in certain fields like science and mathematics (especially engineering and computer science), and part of that is that the men who dominate those fields don't create a welcoming, inclusive culture. Part of that may be that a lot of those fields are dominated by OLD men too, which would explain the hard-line discrimination since they grew up in a time when women were strongly discouraged from working; as younger companies (like Google, for instance) take their place that is going to change, but we still aren't quite there yet.

I realize I've only barely scraped the surface of the topics I touched on above and if anyone is interested in those subjects I would strongly encourage them to do further research on their own; googling "ethnic and gender politics" should turn up some decent results on the topic.

What I'm getting at, though, is that I feel as though, despite the inequalities that still exist in our culture, we are getting closer to reaching that egalitarian ideal of an open, accepting society where everyone is welcome and everyone is afforded the same opportunities, and I feel like the Escapist has beholden itself to that ideal. Being so close, I don't feel as though Jim Sterling has the right to the sort of forum the Escapist provides just so he can spout sexist, exclusionary garbage. Calling his critics "proper ignorant cunts," and that one blogger in particular a "feminazi slut," as well as all of his so-called jokes regarding the feminist movement and women in general just speaks to a perception of slipping power and a scramble to reassert dominance. To me, Jim's style of humor (although I hardly find it humorous) says that he is afraid of losing the position of power he has (or believes he has) and is frantically trying to re-establish it by way of name-calling, belittlement, and objectification. That the gaming community at large has allowed Jim to continue carrying on in this manner, which is alienating and unfriendly and is not going to help further gaming as a legitimate lifestyle choice in the eyes of society at large, is saddening and I wish it were otherwise. At the very least, though I hope the Escapist comes to understand that what Jim Sterling represents, regardless of his motives or excuses, is unacceptable at this stage in the game and will discontinue allowing him and his offensive material to use their site to reach a larger audience than he could reach otherwise.

Honestly if you don't like the video, don't watch it kids.

xFullmetalx:
Honestly if you don't like the video, don't watch it kids.

First of all: how could anyone know whether or not they liked the video without watching it?

Secondly, this is not just an issue of one video.

xFullmetalx:
Honestly if you don't like the video, don't watch it kids.

And if you don't like what we have to say about not liking it, then don't read what we have to say.

OT: I don't find this guy particularly funny or witty, though I am willing to give him another chance.

At this point I'm just repeating whats already been said, but:
Jim is right here, he just isn't that great to watch.

He doesn't leave the viewer thinking like Extra Credits or The Big Picture.
He isn't funny like Loading Ready Run, Zero Punctuation and Unskippable.
In my opinion, he's simply full of himself and manages to take the simple answer to a touchy sunject.
Yes I think more people need to be slapped in the face and told to get over these issues by doing the simple easy thing, but Jim doesn't do that very well...

8bitlove2a03:
First of all, this is me voting for the Escapist NOT to kill this show.

Me too. This guy is funny. Nice accent btw.

I really don't care about sexism. I am a girl and I have never thought about it, although he-in-the-video is right. But in my opinion, I would rather see beautiful women almost naked than beautiful men naked.
I don't know, I don't like muscles too much.

clarissa:
I really don't care about sexism. I am a girl and I have never thought about it, although he-in-the-video is right.

So, do you appreciate any of the following:

1) Getting Godwinned for voicing your opinion?
2) Getting called the C-word?
3) Being told that your only value is as eye candy, and having presumptions made about your appearance (by someone who has no actual idea of what you look like, mind you) if you disagree?
4) Being told that you should get off the Internet and go back to some domestic task or another?
5) Being told that you should ask a man's permission before doing anything?
6) Being told that a physical assault committed upon you would be well deserved, entertaining, or both?

Just saying.

Sexualizing men more in video games probably wouldn't do much good, at any rate. If I were to try to explain why, I'd either get Godwinned, called a sexist myself, or both. Suffice to say that the beefcakes would have to be well characterized.

Jesters of the Moon was playing through this, that I like.

Jim Sterling I ordinarily like. However his bits on here are a bit excessive and vapid.

Hopefully his show improves in quality. =\

L-J-F:
1000 points for having a position that isn't bolted down in self-righteous political correctness.

Do even you know what that word means? Or do you just use it as a place holder because it sounds pretty?

i7omahawki:
"The Escapist is a leading video gaming destination offering video game enthusiasts high-quality, innovative and exclusive content with a considered approach to its audience."

Jim's video, funny or not, is not high-quality, innovative, or considered. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant, I am saying that it clashes with the ethos that they have given themselves.

I'll admit the camera isn't very good but I think the writting is, because i found it funny and it gave me a different pov on the issue. Also I like his suit.

I think you miss understand me. You say: "is not high-quality, innovative, or considered." again i ask; who are you to deside defintivly if it is of high quality (this one you are more likly to be right, but while his set and camera is cheap, I argue his writting and overall syle is high quality.) It is very hard to prove whether somthing is or is not "innovative or considered" and even if you could, you have given no evidence of your argument.

Other than the fact you did not enjoy it why is the video not innovative or considered as I beleive it to be.

But I must agree it is pretty lame you got a warning tho. We are just having a discussion.

I understand if you don't reply.

DSQ:

i7omahawki:
snip

I'll admit the camera isn't very good but I think the writting is, because i found it funny and it gave me a different pov on the issue. Also I like his suit.

I think you miss understand me. You say: "is not high-quality, innovative, or considered." again i ask; who are you to deside defintivly if it is of high quality (this one you are more likly to be right, but while his set and camera is cheap, I argue his writting and overall syle is high quality.) It is very hard to prove whether somthing is or is not "innovative or considered" and even if you could, you have given no evidence of your argument.

Other than the fact you did not enjoy it why is the video not innovative or considered as I beleive it to be.

But I must agree it is pretty lame you got a warning tho. We are just having a discussion.

I understand if you don't reply.

Oh I'll reply, you've engaged my argument thoughtfully and disagree with some actual points, which is better than the Escapist, obviously. If I get banned for discussing this then I'm not missing much by not being on this site, haha.

I guess I'd say it isn't 'innovative', because the arguments are actually very old and don't bring a new perspective to the table. "Video games aren't movies," - No shit. "Objectifying women = bad, objectifying everyone = solution." This annoys me more because not only is the argument obvious, it is also wrong-headed and, well, childish. He doesn't even offer to rebuke the many possible criticisms his 'idea' raises. For instance that objectifying everyone brings his beloved medium closer to pornography than film, and he thought the comparison to film was insulting in his previous video! That is why I also don't think it is 'considered'.

I think I've qualified my points here, and I stand by the fact that Jim's videos don't gel well with what the Escapist claim is what they're trying to do. So it's not a matter of enjoying it or not, it's a matter of whether it belongs here according to statements the Escapists have made of themselves.

I like reading about world events, but it doesn't belong here. I like reading philosophy, but that doesn't belong here either. I've seen some of Jim's other videos, and some of them aren't so bad, but good or not, the style, message, presentation -- everything, doesn't seem to belong on this particular site.

And he doesn't seem to fond of this community anyways.

Spot1990:
[quote="Aprilgold" post="6.281273.11055794"]Sorry to toss this in here, if you don't belive what I mean, hes not fit to talk on this subject in the first place if he can't get passed his own sexism, oh, LINK IT.... [insert funny swear word here.]
http://gomakemeasandwich.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-his-words-why-jim-sterling-is-in.html

Now read any of the quotes, but I'm going to say this, and only this you should take away. If were allowing this man to speak for gamers, at gamers or with gamers, then I'd rather be stricken with lightning then have a man who treats women like that. I'm disgusted at this, and in case you want to read some here, I won't post it, because this site is for gamers, by gamers, and should be respected the way this medium should. I think someone who treats women like that shouldn't be allowed to talk about sexism, nay talk about subjects in a manner that would degrade gaming as a medium only for perverts, children and utterly horrible people.
Jim, if your reading, you can go to a pit and stay there away from this community, because I don't want you here, and none of the respected, or the general users want you here at all. Jim, dig that pit pretty large, infact, dig it to the earths core, that way, you'll be nice and cozy, but still away from here.

My only little note here, I'm not going to the escapist on mondays, and I'll be damned if I ever come close to.

Oh, it's that blog. That incredibly biased blog, that seems to ignore the factr that basically every quote they have was said sarcastically.

alright, fine, first, he calls himself a journalist, isn't a journalist, unless I'm wrong, they usually are supposed to report the truth. So calling the ivy covering a scandal, yeah yeah, he could be joking, but think, what if he wasn't? I can get behind a good joke, and I do, but even joking this much, it tells about a person, for example, if you make sexism joke once, then your doing it for laughs, constantly [lets say the equal of said blog] could just mean that you do hate those certain type of people. Now the actual blog fight, if someone made a gay porn of you even if you were straight, how mad would YOU be? Now, it takes 3 simple blog replies, and then he goes on to state a whole bunch of things that I would rather not say. Now if its biased, the simple fact is, jokes on rape, sexism, or domestic violence, sir, your pretty stupid if your going to defend a man that is a awful person, pulling down the medium.

Oh I'll reply, you've engaged my argument thoughtfully and disagree with some actual points, which is better than the Escapist, obviously. If I get banned for discussing this then I'm not missing much by not being on this site, haha.
I guess I'd say it isn't 'innovative', because the arguments are actually very old and don't bring a new perspective to the table. "Video games aren't movies," - No shit. "Objectifying women = bad, objectifying everyone = solution." This annoys me more because not only is the argument obvious, it is also wrong-headed and, well, childish. He doesn't even offer to rebuke the many possible criticisms his 'idea' raises. For instance that objectifying everyone brings his beloved medium closer to pornography than film, and he thought the comparison to film was insulting in his previous video! That is why I also don't think it is 'considered'.
I think I've qualified my points here, and I stand by the fact that Jim's videos don't gel well with what the Escapist claim is what they're trying to do. So it's not a matter of enjoying it or not, it's a matter of whether it belongs here according to statements the Escapists have made of themselves.
I like reading about world events, but it doesn't belong here. I like reading philosophy, but that doesn't belong here either. I've seen some of Jim's other videos, and some of them aren't so bad, but good or not, the style, message, presentation -- everything, doesn't seem to belong on this particular site.
And he doesn't seem to fond of this community anyways.[/quote]

By goodness sir, your brilliant, you've said what I've been thinking for a while now about jim in that one reply. I agree that jim isn't a particular fit for this community. I think you deserve your favorite food.

i7omahawki:

DSQ:

i7omahawki:
snip

snip

Oh I'll reply, you've engaged my argument thoughtfully and disagree with some actual points, which is better than the Escapist, obviously. If I get banned for discussing this then I'm not missing much by not being on this site, haha.

I guess I'd say it isn't 'innovative', because the arguments are actually very old and don't bring a new perspective to the table. "Video games aren't movies," - No shit. "Objectifying women = bad, objectifying everyone = solution." This annoys me more because not only is the argument obvious, it is also wrong-headed and, well, childish. He doesn't even offer to rebuke the many possible criticisms his 'idea' raises. For instance that objectifying everyone brings his beloved medium closer to pornography than film, and he thought the comparison to film was insulting in his previous video! That is why I also don't think it is 'considered'.

I think I've qualified my points here, and I stand by the fact that Jim's videos don't gel well with what the Escapist claim is what they're trying to do. So it's not a matter of enjoying it or not, it's a matter of whether it belongs here according to statements the Escapists have made of themselves.

I like reading about world events, but it doesn't belong here. I like reading philosophy, but that doesn't belong here either. I've seen some of Jim's other videos, and some of them aren't so bad, but good or not, the style, message, presentation -- everything, doesn't seem to belong on this particular site.

And he doesn't seem to fond of this community anyways.

Very intersting! :) I'll admit you have made some very good points and you've forced me to admit something. I've been playing devils advocate a bit. xD I still like his videos tho, but I'm willing to admit it faults.

You are right about the first point, the agruments are old in the sexism world and not very balanced. But it doesn't mean they're not valid.

I think balence is somthing Zero Punctuation comes up against alot, and while everybody still loves ZP I think even you must admit he almost exclivily focuses on the negative. So much so that some of the games in his top five of 2010 surprized me becasues somtimes you can't tell if he is, "if only you got rid of this and you'd be perfect" ranting or achually hates the game. (But he is consistanly high-larious)

Also It is balance complaints that The big picture has to defend it self against as well. But Bob makes a good point that TBP is an opinion show, bob is allowed to be bias, I agrue so is jim. (But Bob is still more balenced though, but this is jims second video I'll give him time to Improve.)

But I think this is where our arguement will end because I think we both have valid points about whether it belogs on this site.

I'll admit the presentation is out of the norm for the escapest and more like a Theguywiththeglasses video.

But I agrue that that means he is giving varity to the site and does ad to the site's remit of showing "the contemporary video gaming lifestyle" and "the diverse global video game culture".

By putting the word diverse in there i think it shows the escapest wants to show many points of view and argubly that no opinion would be outwith the sites remit.

I'll admit Jim is a little less thought out than his fellow video makers but it is pretty much impossible not to "gel well with what the Escapist claim is what they're trying to do" if the escapist is trying to dirverse and show all points of view.

MatsVS:
A different, perhaps more radical, solution:

How 'bout we objectify no one, and only place men or women in revealing clothing when it is tangential to exploring their character and/or fits their cultural/geographical background. You know, as in good storytelling that is inclusive and realistic at the same time.

can we replace Jimquisition with this guy as he seems already be doing alot better job in a few sentences than jim has in two videos.

Ok. I did not want to give this issues this much of a thought, but...

Farseer Lolotea:
So, do you appreciate any of the following:

1) Getting Godwinned for voicing your opinion?

If godwin is what I think it is, I don't think it is possible in a serious conversation. And I would talk about sexism only if it a serious conversation. Like an post-modernism context. And, imho, some "places on the internet" are not the proper place to hold a serious conversation...

Farseer Lolotea:

2) Getting called the C-word?

You mean c-u-n-t? Not at all. I don't mind either. Generally people who use these sorts of tools in a proper conversation are never holding a proper conversation, so it's is like, paradox.

Farseer Lolotea:

3) Being told that your only value is as eye candy, and having presumptions made about your appearance (by someone who has no actual idea of what you look like, mind you) if you disagree?
4) Being told that you should get off the Internet and go back to some domestic task or another?
5) Being told that you should ask a man's permission before doing anything?

Same as before. I mean, if this happened to you, why do you even argue about this? You know what your opponents are like, you know it is worthless. Unfortunately, just like 99% of the stuff we have in our western world, games were made firstly by men to be played by men (specially American). And it is not like we are having this conversation in the last two decades. Since the 60s feminism is there to break certain paradigms, but it is difficult like that.

I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.

Farseer Lolotea:

6) Being told that a physical assault committed upon you would be well deserved, entertaining, or both?

My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.

Farseer Lolotea:

Sexualizing men more in video games probably wouldn't do much good, at any rate. If I were to try to explain why, I'd either get Godwinned, called a sexist myself, or both.

Well, you are not going to be gowinned or whatever talking to me, as I don't do that to anybody, and I am very curious about your opinions. So, if you are willing to talk, fell free to explain me your reasons.

First off: a "Godwin" is playing the "WWII Germany" card, if you get my drift.

clarissa:
I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.

No argument here. More effort is put into making female characters attractive. I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.

My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.

This isn't anything that was aimed specifically at me. (Some of them have been, but not that one.) But for reasons I don't really want to go into on a public forum, it's relevant to the topic at hand.

Just a question out of curiosity:

Farseer Lolotea:

I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.

Have you ever studied this subject more in depth? I mean, have you ever studied feminism or things like that? Because if you can speculate about those you mentioned, well, I guess you probably have a good knowledge about it and the arguments proving it.

clarissa:
Have you ever studied this subject more in depth? I mean, have you ever studied feminism or things like that? Because if you can speculate about those you mentioned, well, I guess you probably have a good knowledge about it and the arguments proving it.

Well, mostly, I read sociology texts for fun.

Please please PLEASE don't drop Jim.

I'm not a fan of his videos but the debate and smugitute his videos are generating on this forum is making for endless enjoyment. So many hyper-intelligent super genius people arguing about so little.....

You're talking about 2 videos having the same amount of comments as about 4 Yahtzee videos.

Only thing worse than being talked about etc.

Farseer Lolotea:
First off: a "Godwin" is playing the "WWII Germany" card, if you get my drift.

clarissa:
I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.

No argument here. More effort is put into making female characters attractive. I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.

My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.

This isn't anything that was aimed specifically at me. (Some of them have been, but not that one.) But for reasons I don't really want to go into on a public forum, it's relevant to the topic at hand.

This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality. And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london

jrplette:
The issue stands, however, that society is generally structured to meet the needs of men, particularly white men, better than it meets the needs of other groups of people. There are plenty of stats out there to back that up, like the fact that, on average and all other things being equal, women only earn 85 cents to every dollar a man would earn working the same job and the same hours

Despite the fact that this is oft quoted, it's actually still very controversial. Dr Warren Farrell published a critique of that statistic a few years back (I could scrounge up the video lecture if you're interested) that showed that the 'simple version' of the gender-pay statistic massively underplays the true factors behind the pay gap in order to appease a certain branch of feminism (the guy knows what he's talking about, he was the first ever elected head of the National Organisation for Women and probably the first prominent male feminist of second-wave feminism). He showed that the genuine correlation lies positively between pay, hours spent on the job, hazardous conditions, electives (e.g. offering to consistently take on extra workloads) and so on with strong negative correlations to number of children (for women), sociability of work (e.g. teaching rather than research) and marriage. He showed that women who are unmarried with no children earn more than their male counterparts.

I firmly reject the notion that sexism exists in an institutionalised fashion in the workplace as a whole since it seems to be largely backed up by this woefully under-researched 'women earn less than men' myth. Another disproof of the sexism theory as applied to science was recently published in nature, finding no sexism at any stage of the physics, engineering and mathematics PhD path and finding that eventual likelihood of professorship strongly reinforced Farrell's findings i.e. there are fewer female natural science professors because fewer women take the necessary prerequisites to achieve that role (heavy research etc). It seems to be a non-issue perpetuated by people who want to scare up controversy to sell feminist books.

messy:
And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Really? In my area men who behave like that aren't called 'playas' they're called 'man-whores'. I've oft heard it said that men are respected for promiscuity but I've only ever seen that in the extreme lower classes.

In my experience, promiscuity from either gender is viewed as either weak-will or treated with indifference depending on who's asked. Then again, I live in a metropolis.

messy:
We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

Really? That's actually been a defence in court? Or is that merely presumption? Again, I've oft heard it said by people looking to stir up controversy that it's a 'woman's fault for dressing provocatively', but not from anyone who's respected by the public.

What I'm getting at here is that there's a huge difference between saying 'some people think something' and 'this thing is widely believed'. I can cite individuals who believe in aliens, that doesn't prove that society as a whole agrees that aliens exist.

messy:
This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality.

I wasn't even really referring to the chainmail bikini thing; I was talking about character models. The "cute monster girl effect."

For what I mean, take a look at some of the races in WoW: Even if the gear covers just as much on the female character, she's probably going to look a lot less "nonhuman" than her male counterpart.

And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.

The idea that video games are going to give kids ideas is a big can o' worms all on its own. But regardless of what, I'd say that that's not even why the video is inappropriate. Hell, the video itself is only part of what's inappropriate here.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london

I'm on the wrong side of the pond, and I'd freeze if I tried that anyway.

By the way? Some of the comments on that and associated articles are just...precious.

BGH122:

jrplette:
The issue stands, however, that society is generally structured to meet the needs of men, particularly white men, better than it meets the needs of other groups of people. There are plenty of stats out there to back that up, like the fact that, on average and all other things being equal, women only earn 85 cents to every dollar a man would earn working the same job and the same hours

Despite the fact that this is oft quoted, it's actually still very controversial. Dr Warren Farrell published a critique of that statistic a few years back (I could scrounge up the video lecture if you're interested) that showed that the 'simple version' of the gender-pay statistic massively underplays the true factors behind the pay gap in order to appease a certain branch of feminism (the guy knows what he's talking about, he was the first ever elected head of the National Organisation for Women and probably the first prominent male feminist of second-wave feminism). He showed that the genuine correlation lies positively between pay, hours spent on the job, hazardous conditions, electives (e.g. offering to consistently take on extra workloads) and so on with strong negative correlations to number of children (for women), sociability of work (e.g. teaching rather than research) and marriage. He showed that women who are unmarried with no children earn more than their male counterparts.

I firmly reject the notion that sexism exists in an institutionalised fashion in the workplace as a whole since it seems to be largely backed up by this woefully under-researched 'women earn less than men' myth. Another disproof of the sexism theory as applied to science was recently published in nature, finding no sexism at any stage of the physics, engineering and mathematics PhD path and finding that eventual likelihood of professorship strongly reinforced Farrell's findings i.e. there are fewer female natural science professors because fewer women take the necessary prerequisites to achieve that role (heavy research etc). It seems to be a non-issue perpetuated by people who want to scare up controversy to sell feminist books.

messy:
And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Really? In my area men who behave like that aren't called 'playas' they're called 'man-whores'. I've oft heard it said that men are respected for promiscuity but I've only ever seen that in the extreme lower classes.

In my experience, promiscuity from either gender is viewed as either weak-will or treated with indifference depending on who's asked. Then again, I live in a metropolis.

messy:
We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

Really? That's actually been a defence in court? Or is that merely presumption? Again, I've oft heard it said by people looking to stir up controversy that it's a 'woman's fault for dressing provocatively', but not from anyone who's respected by the public.

What I'm getting at here is that there's a huge difference between saying 'some people think something' and 'this thing is widely believed'. I can cite individuals who believe in aliens, that doesn't prove that society as a whole agrees that aliens exist.

Well I know someone who was raped and they were told "he probably just got a bit carried away." (this was by medical staff when she went to get checked for pregnancy after it happened, I know medical staff aren't trained to deal with this sort of thing but they're not going to saying "got a bit carried away" to a mugging are they?) Which although not the same thing doesn't do much to help the problem. And a Canadian officer (in the link I originally posted) did tell women to stop dressing like sluts which is a bit worrying.

And I'm sure there are people bucking the trend, but the fact that a "slut walks" appear to be happening in large numbers over the country with large numbers turning up suggesting that this problem is something a lot of people feel is real (now ofcourse you could argue that its all in their heads). See I see this attitude quite a bit, personally I'm glad its on the decline.

Even if the whole "rape" issue is over blown (which I really don't think it is, apparently a large majority of cases are gotten out of using "implied consent" e.g she invited you to her room she must have wanted to have sex with you) , the over objectification of women however is defiantly happening.

Sorry I don't have any stats to back this up. So feel free to discredit what I say, but I still believe objectification in video games of either sex is bad. To judge people on a physical basis is stupid, especially since these are the first qualities to decline as we get older.

Farseer Lolotea:

messy:
This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality.

I wasn't even really referring to the chainmail bikini thing; I was talking about character models. The "cute monster girl effect."

For what I mean, take a look at some of the races in WoW: Even if the gear covers just as much on the female character, she's probably going to look a lot less "nonhuman" than her male counterpart.

And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.

The idea that video games are going to give kids ideas is a big can o' worms all on its own. But regardless of what, I'd say that that's not even why the video is inappropriate. Hell, the video itself is only part of what's inappropriate here.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london

I'm on the wrong side of the pond, and I'd freeze if I tried that anyway.

By the way? Some of the comments on that and associated articles are just...precious.

Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?

messy:
Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?

No, we really don't. (Not that I'd object to outfits that were equally skimpy on male characters, or anything. But I'd prefer if "skimpy" were the exception rather than the rule on both sexes, because it usually looks ridiculous.)

That's part of why Sterling is off-base in this video; and that's not even going into his prior behavior.

Farseer Lolotea:

messy:
Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?

No, we really don't. (Not that I'd object to outfits that were equally skimpy on male characters, or anything. But I'd prefer if "skimpy" were the exception rather than the rule on both sexes, because it usually looks ridiculous.)

That's part of why Sterling is off-base in this video; and that's not even going into his prior behavior.

Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?

messy:
Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?

He's dismissive, he oversimplifies, he comes off as smug and condescending, and he doesn't seem to know the difference between objectification and admiration?

Farseer Lolotea:

messy:
Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?

He's dismissive, he oversimplifies, he comes off as smug and condescending, and he doesn't seem to know the difference between objectification and admiration?

I agree whole heartedly with these views.

messy:

Well I know someone who was raped and they were told "he probably just got a bit carried away." (this was by medical staff when she went to get checked for pregnancy after it happened, I know medical staff aren't trained to deal with this sort of thing but they're not going to saying "got a bit carried away" to a mugging are they?) Which although not the same thing doesn't do much to help the problem. And a Canadian officer (in the link I originally posted) did tell women to stop dressing like sluts which is a bit worrying.

He or she should have immediately reported that person. It's disgraceful that he or she was treated in such a manner. I'm starting to work with the Metropolitan Police and literally none of us (in my precinct) would behave in such a manner. There is simply no excuse for implying to a rape victim that he or she deserved it or that the perpetrator isn't wholly to blame. Relay my deepest sympathies to the victim and let him or her know that we're working hard to put pieces of shit like that behind bars with the other animals.

messy:

And I'm sure there are people bucking the trend, but the fact that a "slut walks" appear to be happening in large numbers over the country with large numbers turning up suggesting that this problem is something a lot of people feel is real (now ofcourse you could argue that its all in their heads). See I see this attitude quite a bit, personally I'm glad its on the decline.

To be honest, a comment from the Guardian really sums up my opinion on 'slut walks':

"I think Slut Walk is a novel approach and hopefully will help prove the point that men actually aren't animals lurking in alleys to rape scantily clad women, as evidenced by the fact that, you know, you can go on one of these walks and not be raped."

I think showy half-arsed feminism like the 'Slut Walk' reeks more of narcissism than any attempt to address any equality issue, real or fictional; people like to have an enemy against which they can pit their anger and feel like they're doing some social good (especially if that enemy doesn't actually exist and therefore can't fight back). I must again reiterate that I've never experienced any of this so called objectification of women and that whenever I've spoken to a sociologist or feminist on the matter their examples of 'objectification' have been asinine attacks on male heterosexuality. You like to look at porn? OBJECTIFICATION! ... No, masturbatory aid. Novel concept, I know.

I've literally never heard of an instance of objectification from the modern day that wasn't just a flagrant attack on male heterosexuality. Of course heterosexual males will be attracted to women. That oughtn't be a source of shame. It saddens me that feminism has spent so long trying to say that female heterosexuality is something to be proud of, but male heterosexuality is 'objectification'.

messy:

Even if the whole "rape" issue is over blown (which I really don't think it is, apparently a large majority of cases are gotten out of using "implied consent" e.g she invited you to her room she must have wanted to have sex with you) , the over objectification of women however is defiantly happening.

Sorry I don't have any stats to back this up. So feel free to discredit what I say, but I still believe objectification in video games of either sex is bad. To judge people on a physical basis is stupid, especially since these are the first qualities to decline as we get older.

I'm afraid I'll have to dismiss it out of hand. I've heard a lot of claims that sexual assaults and rapes are dismissed due to sexism and then when I look into the case I find that the officers investigating just couldn't find any way to actually pin down the perp. It strikes me as akin to saying that because we catch incredibly few burglars or muggers (because those crimes are often patternless and rarely well evidenced) there must be an institutional bias in the police in favour of theft.

We live in a system of law where police can't just double pinky swear that they've got the right guy, they need evidence in accordance with PACE, and for that I'm glad; the alternative would be far higher conviction rates with far lower accuracy and I'd rather never jail a criminal than jail innocent people. But this system means that, unfortunately, a lot of criminals get away with their crimes. When the crimes are fairly minor people tend to accept this argument, but when the crimes are massive, like rape or murder, people jump to the conclusion that the police are either incompetent or biased.

Sadly, life isn't fair and we don't always catch the bad guy and when we do catch the bad guy the courts don't always accept our evidence.

Lastly, I'd love an instance of this objectification of women because I'd genuinely like to hear of an instance of this. Perhaps I don't understand what's meant by the term, but it seems to be a very incoherent term: we are all objectified in all walks of life. When one puts on a police uniform one is seen only in that dimension, when one becomes a parent one is seen only in that dimension and, unsurprisingly, when one is engaging in sexual behaviour one is seen only in that dimension. I once heard Germaine Greer make the argument that 'men not seeing women as humans with *ahem* biological processes is objectifying'. What she seems to have missed is that people view others in accordance with their role at that given time, so the idea of a shitting partner is rather incompatible with the role of a sexual mate.

I can only see this objectification being a problem if one were seen only in one given role, regardless of whether that role had anything to do with gender. If I were seen only as a cop then that'd preclude me from behaviours in off-duty time (incidentally, that happens), if women were seen only as sexual partners then that would preclude behaviours associated with other roles like intellectual pursuits, if men were seen only as stoic providers than that'd preclude men from roles like nannying. But I can't imagine what evidence could be provided in favour of this behaviour since single instances prove no long term trend.

New episodes of Jimquisition appear every Monday, only at The Escapist!

... Okay I'm sorry, why is the Escapist proud of that fact?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here