The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NEXT
 

1:50 Sexism against men doesn't trivialize or cancel sexism against women.

2:50 Happens to both genders but doesn't mean either is ok. Also, source? You have a description box for this reason. "Everyday in the real world qualified woman lose out on jobs and advancement because this or that gatekeeper of opportunity overwhelmingly likely to be a heterosexual white male."

Then you go on to trivialize any sexism men do face in the work force. Great job, keep up the good work.

DrVornoff:
Well I got the idea that you believe I did something wrong and falsely accused people. If I did, then that would be bad and I'd like to own up to it.

You kinda did. I mean, you generalized an entire group based on the actions of a few.

DrVornoff:
I'll do some digging. See what I can turn up. Ultimately, the books are the best sources of information. Most of them aren't nearly as specific as you might think. Volumes like Cialdini's "Influence" have broader use and I'd actually recommend it anyway for its practical value.

I believe studies are a better way to prove something than books, especially when it's something specific.

DrVornoff:
I won't be watching her videos, I never donated to her fund, and frankly I'm content to let her sink or swim on her own.

Great.

DrVornoff:
That's the claim that's going around. I'm going to wait and see how this pans out before I make a call.

Who made that claim? There's nothing on her Kickstarter, her blog or her YouTube account.

DrVornoff:
Other than wanting to keep improving the production values?

The production values were already through the roof for a YouTube series. She does not need professional grade equipment.

DrVornoff:
So your issue is the lack of regulation?

I guess.

DrVornoff:
I'd really like to talk about the fact that this kind of reaction doesn't shock us anymore and try to think of something we can do about it. 4chan are one part of a larger problem.

That's an entirely different discussion and unless you want to derail this thread let's just stick to this one for now. How about you make a thread on R&P or something and see where that goes?

DrVornoff:
Assuming he threw the first punch. If he was just being a dick to them and they decided to beat the piss out of him, not so much.

Not exactly. If a person thinks their life might be in danger and attacks preemptively that can still be considered self defense.

DrVornoff:
I think fraud is a little strong a word, because it's not as if she's failing to deliver the product she said she would. Her method of garnering publicity was dishonest, but I wouldn't call this a felony.

Fraud is defined as intentional deception made for personal gain.

She lied to her audience (deception) for personal gain (donations). Even if she does deliver on her promises we have no guarantee she won't pockey a couple thousand or more and seeing as she was more than willing to lie and deceive her audience, I have a hunch she'll do just that.

DrVornoff:
Then perhaps we can agree that we don't see anyone as being an innocent party here, but we can't agree on who to go after first.

Well, 4chan definitely didn't scam people out of their money so I'd say Anita's crap is more urgent than 4chan's incessant blabberings.

rbstewart7263:
You're confusing video game characters with actual people. Women who make conscientious decisions about their bodies and what to put on them are empowered. But video game characters don't make decisions about what they wear; the people designing them do, and those people are typically men. Too much emphasis on the sexuality of female characters is degrading to women.

Then more women should make games.

If feminism is equivilent to empowerment then let us seek what is more empowering. Lets also ask ourselves which one will get the job done more efficiently and faster.

Women taking control and making the videogames and characters they want to see?

or

Feminist journalists eyeballing and critiquing the work that your average male game developer makes. criticizing his work because it doesnt suit your vision of empowerment until said game you want to see is made.

And I dont want to hear about hiring practices and ea and such and such. The creators of braid and fez worked without having to have these accoutrements and if you are empowered; if you are in fact mine and the equal of every man out there making these games. then you should get out there and make some damn videogames.

You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.

cobra_ky:

Ramzal:

And honestly, if you judge any of them just for their clothing (And by you, I mean anyone) you are as judgmental and objectifying as anyone else is. I mean really, the pre-bias that someone is either lacking in intelligence or in self respect due to the clothes they are wearing is one that has got to go. I've seen it too many times when a woman is simply dressed a certain way and immediately put in "Skank" or "Whore" bin of humanity. One of the most intelligent women I know and has a 3.9 GPA wears short shorts that come to the edge of her butt because she feels comfortable in them. It's a bit of a side issue that I am stating here, however I have a really big problem when people outcry because of a lack of clothing.

I'm even confused by it. A larger majority of women at one point began to wear less clothing to oppose men who at the time demanded that women cover up more to decrease the chances of anyone looking at their wives. But now that men find it sexy or someone if comfortable expressing themselves in a fashion sense, it's degrading?

You're confusing video game characters with actual people. Women who make conscientious decisions about their bodies and what to put on them are empowered. But video game characters don't make decisions about what they wear; the people designing them do, and those people are typically men. Too much emphasis on the sexuality of female characters is degrading to womem.

That's a double standard. You are involving how women feel about created characters being shown but you cannot relate it to how normal women being dressed. You're kind of making a hole of bias that it only works one way. My point is that there are women who dress as revealing as women created in video games. Dressing yourself is part of self expression and self comfort.

Truth be told, if anything sends a message about women dressed scantily in games, it shows that the character herself is comfortable with herself and has no issue with wearing a certain kind of clothing around others. Think about that for a second. There has been at least more than once that everyone has stopped and said "You know what...? I don't think I want to wear this shirt out. It's not something I want to wear in public." It's a form of self consciousness.

I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."

image

This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?

image

Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?

The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.

You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.

Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.

I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?

In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.

Ramzal:

That's a double standard. You are involving how women feel about created characters being shown but you cannot relate it to how normal women being dressed. You're kind of making a hole of bias that it only works one way. My point is that there are women who dress as revealing as women created in video games. Dressing yourself is part of self expression and self comfort.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Video game characters do not dress themselves. They are "dressed" by their artists and designers, who are the actual people expressing themselves through this fictional character.

Ramzal:
Truth be told, if anything sends a message about women dressed scantily in games, it shows that the character herself is comfortable with herself and has no issue with wearing a certain kind of clothing around others. Think about that for a second. There has been at least more than once that everyone has stopped and said "You know what...? I don't think I want to wear this shirt out. It's not something I want to wear in public." It's a form of self consciousness.

You can't assume intention like that. Everyone's also stopped and said "ugh, i really don't want to wear this but it's the only thing clean." And there are plenty of people, of both genders, who aren't comfortable with themselves regardless of what they're wearing.

Ramzal:
I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."

The difference is that video games, by and large, provide a distorted view of what women are or can be. Their sexuality is overemphasized and other aspects of their personality are diminished.

Ramzal:
image

This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?

That is Tila Tequila, who has since been assaulted by one partner, had a fiancee die on her, and checked herself into rehab for her drug problem after she tried to kill herself.

She certainly doesn't have an "air of confidence" now and i hope nobody would try to see her as a role model.

Ramzal:
image

Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?

That woman is in the middle of filming a music video. She's acting.

It's telling that both your examples are celebrities who have to maintain a public image. Virtually all forms of media, not just video games, have a problem with oversexualizing women. What about all the normal, everyday women out there, who are perfectly capable of expressing confidence without revealing clothing? Go outside and look at the women who are simply going about their daily lives around you. How many are wearing as little as the women in your examples are? More importantly, how many aren't?

Ramzal:
The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.

You don't understand. We're not talking about an individual work of art here. We're talking about a mass media industry that determines what kind of games are available to the mass market. The type of games they produce are incredibly narrow in the ways in which they depict women. Nobody's talking about censorship here, we're talking about a broadening in the ways women are depicted, so that they have more bearing on reality.

The problem isn't that attractive female characters exist. There's nothing wrong with a video game character wearing revealing clothing, if it's in keeping with the character's personality. The problem is that there aren't enough characters who don't. Of course women should be able to choose what they wear, but they don't get a realistic image of what's available to them from the media.

Ramzal:
You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.

Again, i have no idea what you're saying here. I'm biased towards actual human beings?

Ramzal:
Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.

The word 'degrading' has a lot of definitions. No one asked you to pick just one. Nor did anybody ask you to decide what is or is not humiliating for anyone else.

Ramzal:
I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?

i suppose a business suit would be more appropriate for a swordfight, but again, the problem isn't that sexy characters exist. The problem is that the vast majority of female characters are sexualized while very few of the male characters are.

Ramzal:
In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.

Don't change the subject. As deplorable as that man's behavior was, it doesn't make the way women are depicted in media any more acceptable.

cobra_ky:

Chatney:

Ramzal:
snip

I feel obliged to chip in here and thank you for making such a good, comprehensive argument on the topic at hand. Up until now, it's been looking kind of empty on this side of the issue.

If you could help explain it to me at all, i'd appreciate it. The English isn't too great and frankly i can hardly understand what he's saying :/

I'm sorry, what? My English isn't to great? My message was clear. Grammatical errors are present, due to a tenancy of mine (No one is perfect) however it is not difficult to read at all. Four others have read my post--from my screen and could understand it. I don't want to turn this into a flame war, however do not insult my capability to express myself or my opinion through writing, or dismissing my point by claiming that it cannot be understood through basic knowledge of the English language. It's superlatively rude.

For example:

If you could help explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. His English isn't very clear and frankly I can hardly understand what he's saying. :/

See? Not the most polite action to take.

Ramzal:
You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.

You may not have noticed that that is a completely different person, who copied and pasted part of my argument because apparently they don't know how to quote. My actual reply is above.

They were trying to respond to me, and i might was well do so now:

rbstewart7263:
Then more women should make games.

If feminism is equivilent to empowerment then let us seek what is more empowering. Lets also ask ourselves which one will get the job done more efficiently and faster.

Women taking control and making the videogames and characters they want to see?

or

Feminist journalists eyeballing and critiquing the work that your average male game developer makes. criticizing his work because it doesnt suit your vision of empowerment until said game you want to see is made.

And I dont want to hear about hiring practices and ea and such and such. The creators of braid and fez worked without having to have these accoutrements and if you are empowered; if you are in fact mine and the equal of every man out there making these games. then you should get out there and make some damn videogames.

Whether you want to hear it or not, employment discrimination exists and that makes it harder for women to get into the industry, especially a decision-making position at a major publisher like EA, where you can actually control the types of games that make it to the mass market and are highly promoted and publicized.

Ramzal:

cobra_ky:

Chatney:

I feel obliged to chip in here and thank you for making such a good, comprehensive argument on the topic at hand. Up until now, it's been looking kind of empty on this side of the issue.

If you could help explain it to me at all, i'd appreciate it. The English isn't too great and frankly i can hardly understand what he's saying :/

I'm sorry, what? My English isn't to great? My message was clear. Grammatical errors are present, due to a tenancy of mine (No one is perfect) however it is not difficult to read at all. Four others have read my post--from my screen and could understand it. I don't want to turn this into a flame war, however do not insult my capability to express myself or my opinion through writing, or dismissing my point by claiming that it cannot be understood through basic knowledge of the English language. It's superlatively rude.

For example:

If you could help explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. His English isn't very clear and frankly I can hardly understand what he's saying. :/

See? Not the most polite action to take.

i apologize then. i was looking for clarification but i myself was not expressing my thoughts clearly either.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Video game characters do not dress themselves. They are "dressed" by their artists and designers, who are the actual people expressing themselves through this fictional character.

If you cannot comprehend my point there, then you do not understand the definition of a double standard and I cannot be of assistance. Also you don't seem to have the ability to take a character for what it is. It's an idea of a person. The only thing stopping it from being an actual human being is the lack of an actual, physical body. Very rarely is it in games that every woman is dressed the same. You are generalizing and even placing a blame onto someone for simply creating an idea.

But for arguments sake, lets go off of the thought that you are right and that it's 100% the artists idea to make a woman dress like that... what is your point? It's expression. Last I was aware, people are free to express themselves in any way they wish. To tread on that is to attempt to censor expression. Which is an action of oppression.

While I do NOT condone this, that kind of action is why some men refer to feminist as femi-nazis. Attempts are made to oppress expression or actions for the beneficial gain of one party, regardless of the costs.

You can't assume intention like that. Everyone's also stopped and said "ugh, i really don't want to wear this but it's the only thing clean." And there are plenty of people, of both genders, who aren't comfortable with themselves regardless of what they're wearing.

It's not an assumption, it's fact. A woman who weighs 300 pounds but can walk outside with a tank top on in 90 degrees is more comfortable with herself than a woman who is 130 and wears a long sleeve because she doesn't want people to notice the hair on her arms. I know more women than you are giving me credit for, and in my spare time I do inquiry over this subject with them.

More often it's a subject of not wearing a certain type of clothing because of an image you give off, or a missed image you may.

Ramzal:
I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."

The difference is that video games, by and large, provide a distorted view of what women are or can be. Their sexuality is overemphasized and other aspects of their personality are diminished.

That is an inflated claim and for that to be validated you would need to speak for the majority of women in the world. Which, I can assure you, you do not and cannot. This kind of behavior that you are projecting does more harm to women than good.

Ramzal:
image

This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?

That is Tila Tequila, who has since been assaulted by one partner, had a fiancee die on her, and checked herself into rehab for her drug problem after she tried to kill herself.

She certainly doesn't have an "air of confidence" now and i hope nobody would try to see her as a role model.

So because she was sexually assaulted that makes her success invalidated? Because her fiancee died on her, that makes any accomplishment she may have obtained for nothing? And yes, she tried to kill herself. Over something that is very serious and diminishing. No one could blame her for that action because it's a terrible thing to go through. She hit a bottom, but that's how humans work, we hit a bottom, we take a drastic action and we build ourselves from that.

In order to keep living past that attempt, she'd need confidence, power, and self belief that life is worth living. How dare you attempt to cheapen someones life struggles and hardships just to make a point. If anything she serves as an example of how strong a human being is, while how frail and random our lives could be--regardless of our position in life. I would have no shame for a daughter of mine to look up to her.

Ramzal:
image

Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?

That woman is in the middle of filming a music video. She's acting.

It's telling that both your examples are celebrities who have to maintain a public image. Virtually all forms of media, not just video games, have a problem with oversexualizing women. What about all the normal, everyday women out there, who are perfectly capable of expressing confidence without revealing clothing? Go outside and look at the women who are simply going about their daily lives around you. How many are wearing as little as the women in your examples are? More importantly, how many aren't?

I am glad you asked me this question, because yesterday on my way back home from an interview I decided to stop and sit in the grass as I watched people pass by. It was 70 degrees with high humidity. I thought about my own argument and considered the possibility of my claim being erroneous. So I took the time to count how many women showed more features of their bodies than women who wore full pants or a t-shirt.

Needless to say I was quite surprised and slightly grossed out by old women wearing revealing tank tops. Out of the 52 women who passed by my vision an overwhelming majority of 47 of them were wearing short shorts, tank tops, running shorts, or just decorative clothing with revealing cleavage. My wife being one of those who was wearing a low cut shirt as well.

Does this suffice? Or do you intend to state that 47 women--including elderly--are bringing shame to women for simply wearing what they are comfortable in?

Ramzal:
The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.

You don't understand. We're not talking about an individual work of art here. We're talking about a mass media industry that determines what kind of games are available to the mass market. The type of games they produce are incredibly narrow in the ways in which they depict women. Nobody's talking about censorship here, we're talking about a broadening in the ways women are depicted, so that they have more bearing on reality.

The problem isn't that attractive female characters exist. There's nothing wrong with a video game character wearing revealing clothing, if it's in keeping with the character's personality. The problem is that there aren't enough characters who don't. Of course women should be able to choose what they wear, but they don't get a realistic image of what's available to them from the media.

I gave you a list of women in games and 9/10 of them do wear not revealing clothing, are beautiful and deep characters. When comparing that list to men, female characters have a vast overwhelming number in comparison. I find myself wondering why I am debating with evidence and you are not. What female characters are you referring to that are dressed a certain way and it does not fit their character?

Your statement, while with well intention if bare-bones without examples, evidence, or specific claim. I am not trying to shoot your argument down, but I do wish to see some examples of your claim, so that I may either agree with you or have a chance to challenge it. Without anything to back your words, you come short.

Ramzal:
You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.

Again, i have no idea what you're saying here. I'm biased towards actual human beings?

I am saying you have an agenda driven double standard.

Ramzal:
Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.

The word 'degrading' has a lot of definitions. No one asked you to pick just one. Nor did anybody ask you to decide what is or is not humiliating for anyone else.

1) "to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt: He felt they were degrading him by making him report to the supervisor. "

2)"to lower in character or quality; debase. "

3)"to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title, especially as a punishment: degraded from director to assistant director. "

4)"to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc. "

5)"Physical Geography . to wear down by erosion, as hills. Compare aggrade. "

These are the definitions of "Degrading." I will use Ivy in each of these explanations.

1) In order for Ivy to be degrading to women, a character must call her foolish or "slutty" for attempting to fight as she is dressed, and while that occurs, she has to confirm their claim by having her pride be in question. This does not happen, and even when a character attempts to question her pride in any of the games, she returns with a confident statement as words have a duller edge than a blade, or simply get right to slicing them because she doesn't have time to play "We're in the fifth grade."

2) Her quality is not lowered by her clothing. She is an effective fighter, and is comfortable with her capabilities and limitations.

3) Her father tried this. It didn't work out for him very well in the long run.

4) She is strong, intense, and brave. No fault there.

5) She is not a rock.

In order for women as a whole to be debased by Ivy and her clothing, it would need to be taken to a personal level. In which is opening yourself to playing the victim in a victimless crime/lack of crime.

Ramzal:
I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?

i suppose a business suit would be more appropriate for a swordfight, but again, the problem isn't that sexy characters exist. The problem is that the vast majority of female characters are sexualized while very few of the male characters are.

No, it would not. As a Quan Dao user in training, I used to practice frequently with my partner Mary. She used a Chinese straight sword mainly or daggers. She had expressed that wearing extremely restrictive clothing while using a sword is much like setting yourself up to fail. The clothes promote restrictive movement, while using a sword you have to flow like water. Either strong tides that are slow or fast waves that are small, you have to move in a certain way, but tight clothing limits this.

That is not true that very few male characters are sexualized in comparison to female. Sexuality of expression for females comes mainly from the breasts, legs, and rear. Males it is focused on the biceps, quads, shoulders, and back. The larger majority of male characters have extremely detained muscles in these areas. If it's not more often that males are sexualized it's just as often.

Ramzal:
In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.

Don't change the subject. As deplorable as that man's behavior was, it doesn't make the way women are depicted in media any more acceptable.

I did not change the subject. I am stating that the effort (And now, money) that is put to fight degrading portrayal of women in video games is wasted and misdirected. Fighting for women equality is not something the majority of people are against. However this is not wear that fight is needed as more women in video games are powerful enough and capable enough as it is.

You mean to tell me that you would rather give your money, to someone woman who wants to research womens equality in video games rather than giving that money to a cause to knock a war criminal who kidnaps, kills and rapes women in Africa? This cause is as important as that is? Or is it just not an issue because it's not your home it's happening to, but Ivy could be in your PS3 so it's your problem?

cobra_ky:

Ramzal:
You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.

[quote]You may not have noticed that that is a completely different person, who copied and pasted part of my argument because apparently they don't know how to quote. My actual reply is above.

They were trying to respond to me, and i might was well do so now:

I apologize then. Any comment I have made at that time or onward is do to a misunderstanding. But that person just made a mistake. No need to assume they don't know how to use the function. Mistakes happen.

PercyBoleyn:
You kinda did. I mean, you generalized an entire group based on the actions of a few.

Then let me amend that to say that this is one of the reasons some people become sexist assholes.

I believe studies are a better way to prove something than books, especially when it's something specific.

The books I use generally do cite the studies they're drawing from. Cialdini in particular is a PhD in psychology and lists his sources.

The production values were already through the roof for a YouTube series. She does not need professional grade equipment.

I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to upgrade, they can. Need isn't really a concern.

I guess.

Only a guess? You'll need to expound on that.

That's an entirely different discussion and unless you want to derail this thread let's just stick to this one for now. How about you make a thread on R&P or something and see where that goes?

Perhaps once some of this dies down. Looking back over the last week at all the threads, I get the feeling it would just devolve into fights over this particular incident, the thread would get locked, and I'd probably end up with another suspension for telling people to shut the fuck up and get back on topic.

Not exactly. If a person thinks their life might be in danger and attacks preemptively that can still be considered self defense.

If a dude heckles you and you hit him, claiming self-defense is going to be a long shot.

Fraud is defined as intentional deception made for personal gain.

She lied to her audience (deception) for personal gain (donations). Even if she does deliver on her promises we have no guarantee she won't pockey a couple thousand or more and seeing as she was more than willing to lie and deceive her audience, I have a hunch she'll do just that.

And if she does, she'll have to deal with the fallout of her actions. Until then, I'm not going to go on a witch hunt.

Well, 4chan definitely didn't scam people out of their money so I'd say Anita's crap is more urgent than 4chan's incessant blabberings.

If that's what you want to go after, I'm not going to stop you. But why do you need me to join the fight too?

DrVornoff:
Then let me amend that to say that this is one of the reasons some people become sexist assholes.

What do you mean?

DrVornoff:
The books I use generally do cite the studies they're drawing from. Cialdini in particular is a PhD in psychology and lists his sources.

Well that's great then, give me those studies.

DrVornoff:
I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to upgrade, they can. Need isn't really a concern.

Well, actually, in her case it is seeing as she used other people's money to do so altough no one really knows seeing as she isn't exactly transparent about these things.

DrVornoff:
Only a guess? You'll need to expound on that.

I already did, then I pointed out that regulations wouldn't solve everything. Read my previous posts.

DrVornoff:
If a dude heckles you and you hit him, claiming self-defense is going to be a long shot.

Depends on the situation.

DrVornoff:
And if she does, she'll have to deal with the fallout of her actions. Until then, I'm not going to go on a witch hunt.

Even if she does not there is more than enough evidence to prove she deceived her audience.

DrVornoff:
If that's what you want to go after, I'm not going to stop you. But why do you need me to join the fight too?

I don't need you for anything, I'm just trying to make you, and everyone else for that matter, understand that this isn't a clear cut case of the evil mysoginistic trolls harassing the poor feminist woman. I mean Jesus fucking Christ a bunch of YouTube kids called her a slut and suddenly every single gaming website on the internet picks up on it, calls gamers a bunch of mysognistic pieces of shit and downplays the importance of the men's rights movement. Is that not at the very least unsettling for you? These are websites with actual fucking influence over peoples opinions. If you still think it's not a big deal just read this fucking thread starting from page one.

I did make a mistake in regard to the quote function. the problem with posting such things late at night.

In response to the comment that there is bias when it comes to the hiring practices of ea or whoever i will agree with you on that.

Depending on who you get as your interviewer you may be discriminated against for being male,female,white,black etc etc. however.

I believe i said that one does not need these kinds of things to make a videogame. You dont have to work for ea to do it. The guy who made fez was working for himself. the guys who did super meat boy, also not working for ea.

they are men whos to say that women too cannot create the same level of art of the same quality; under similar circumstances.

I agree with feminist tenants that a person should have free will over there life irregardless of whats between there legs.

I do not agree with the majority of methods that they use in an attempt to achieve this. blogging and critiquing the art of someone else to try and police them into creating things that better support your views spreads alot of negativity. The pointing fingers the nihilism of it all does nothing to help better games and art.

instead of expecting men to make the games women want women should make the games women want so that we all can learn from each other. If I for example created a piece of art and you told me everything you thought was wrong with it without telling me why you dont like it or ways to make a positive change to said piece of art than your not helping your just bitching.

What I believe is simple if you want something like this you need to do it yourself. dont preach to me about female power and then act powerless and not do for yourself when others before you have done so. We have plenty of feminist bloggers ready to tell us how our art is wrong, not enough feminists are creating art to show us what is right, if in fact there belief is in fact an empowering belief.

Now go make some indie games goddamnit! lol

Calibanbutcher:

DrVornoff:

Giant Snip

Just one thing, concerning 4chan:

A stranger comes to your favourite website and starts spamming it with a video begging for money.
You try to engage said stranger in a discussion, upon which the stranger starts calling you trolls, which is quite insulting, really.

The stranger still continues to spam.

What kind of reaction would one expect under such circumstances?

I do believe, that, since the stranger came to your site and started spamming and insulting you, hostility is not only to be expected but also justified.

If I was to log into a feminist forum and start spamming about men's rights and how I need money to make a documentary about men's rights and then proceeded to insult everyone seeking discussion with me, would still accuse the members of said forum of being misandrious if they finally gave in and started insulting me?

I know someone was spamming 4chan saying they were her, but I didn't see the insulting parts and whatnot. Do you have any screenshots or something, I'm curious.

PercyBoleyn:
I don't need you for anything, I'm just trying to make you, and everyone else for that matter, understand that this isn't a clear cut case of the evil mysoginistic trolls harassing the poor feminist woman. I mean Jesus fucking Christ a bunch of YouTube kids called her a slut and suddenly every single gaming website on the internet picks up on it, calls gamers a bunch of mysognistic pieces of shit and downplays the importance of the men's rights movement. Is that not at the very least unsettling for you? These are websites with actual fucking influence over peoples opinions. If you still think it's not a big deal just read this fucking thread starting from page one.

Snapping at me isn't helping.

I never denied that the stereotypes are a problem. Where do you think I said they weren't?

Calibanbutcher:
If I was to log into a feminist forum and start spamming about men's rights and how I need money to make a documentary about men's rights and then proceeded to insult everyone seeking discussion with me, would still accuse the members of said forum of being misandrious if they finally gave in and started insulting me?

No. But if they spammed the fuck out of you back and harassed you on social media, that would still be a dick move. Amazing as it may seem, I am capable of logical consistency, thank you.

DrVornoff:
Snapping at me isn't helping.

Why would I snap at you?

DrVornoff:
I never denied that the stereotypes are a problem. Where do you think I said they weren't?

I wasn't specifically talking about stereotypes, nor did I try to imply that you thought they weren't a problem. My comment was more of a generalized view of why I think this issue is important and why you, along with other people, should take an active stance against it.

DrVornoff:
No. But if they spammed the fuck out of you back and harassed you on social media, that would still be a dick move. Amazing as it may seem, I am capable of logical consistency, thank you.

Harassment is only a problem when the person harassed is actively affected by it. Anita wasn't. She instigated it, she wanted people to react the way they did in order to garner attention for her project. If it goes too far then sure, punish the ones still going at it. However, right now, the harassment isn't the most urgent issue at hand.

DrVornoff:

PercyBoleyn:
I don't need you for anything, I'm just trying to make you, and everyone else for that matter, understand that this isn't a clear cut case of the evil mysoginistic trolls harassing the poor feminist woman. I mean Jesus fucking Christ a bunch of YouTube kids called her a slut and suddenly every single gaming website on the internet picks up on it, calls gamers a bunch of mysognistic pieces of shit and downplays the importance of the men's rights movement. Is that not at the very least unsettling for you? These are websites with actual fucking influence over peoples opinions. If you still think it's not a big deal just read this fucking thread starting from page one.

Snapping at me isn't helping.

I never denied that the stereotypes are a problem. Where do you think I said they weren't?

Calibanbutcher:
If I was to log into a feminist forum and start spamming about men's rights and how I need money to make a documentary about men's rights and then proceeded to insult everyone seeking discussion with me, would still accuse the members of said forum of being misandrious if they finally gave in and started insulting me?

No. But if they spammed the fuck out of you back and harassed you on social media, that would still be a dick move. Amazing as it may seem, I am capable of logical consistency, thank you.

Aaand that's where the problem with 4chan comes into play:
usually it is impossible to find and harass someone on 4chan, since, everyone is anonymous, so no usernames, which means, that in order to retaliate, they have to go somewhere where they can identify you, case in point:
Yotube. She (or someone pretending to be her) spammed them with a youtube video and reacts adversly to the youtube video being spammed with mean comments, which is understandable, yet it was to be expected and not necessarily because 4chan is a bad place.
She / an impostor came to a place the 4chan users like, insults the people there (sorry, no screenshot, didn't think I would be needing them as evidence) which results in the video, which was spammed, being harassed.

It might be that someone pretended to be her, since no-one was able to verify that she herself spammed 4chan and proving the opposite is also next to impossible, so if it wasn't her who spammed 4chan, then the true culprit is whoever spammed 4chan in her name.
And yes, in some of the threads, insults were directed at the 4channers themselves, although I did not take screenshots and, again, I can not prove that it was her, nor can I disprove that it was her.

Anyways, spamming an anonymous site with a video, which basically means that you give everyone a way to contact you (your target), will probably result in a strong, hostile reaction.

Lilani:
Japan isn't totally innocent, you know. Ivy from Soul Calibur is always brought up in these sorts of discussions, and both she and her games are the products of Capcom. And she is rightly used as an example, because there is absolutely no reason for her to be dressed like that. It is not explained by her character or her storyline. The only reason she's like that is for gratuitous oogling.

I'm sure this has probably been brought up already, I didn't read through all the posts yet. And if it hasn't, I'll be amazed. But Ivy from Soul Calibur and her games are products of Namco, not Capcom. If you're going to berate something, at least be accurate about it.

MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to bitch about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.

PercyBoleyn:
Why would I snap at you?

Considering you were talking to me like you usually do clueless, arrogant wingers...

I think this issue is important and why you, along with other people, should take an active stance against it.

I understand. But the longer this goes on, the more I feel inclined to back off even on my own outrage and sit and wait to see what happens. I'm getting tired. At this point I want to back off and watch the events from a distance so I can decide what to do next or even what to think.

Calibanbutcher:
Anyways, spamming an anonymous site with a video, which basically means that you give everyone a way to contact you (your target), will probably result in a strong, hostile reaction.

I guess I still haven't gotten rid of some of my old idealism.

hooksashands:
MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to bitch about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.

That's the hardest thing to explain to some* feminists, believe you me. I get into arguments with people over things like that all the time, it's actually nuts.

DrVornoff:

PercyBoleyn:
Why would I snap at you?

Considering you were talking to me like you usually do clueless, arrogant wingers...

I think this issue is important and why you, along with other people, should take an active stance against it.

I understand. But the longer this goes on, the more I feel inclined to back off even on my own outrage and sit and wait to see what happens. I'm getting tired. At this point I want to back off and watch the events from a distance so I can decide what to do next or even what to think.

Calibanbutcher:
Anyways, spamming an anonymous site with a video, which basically means that you give everyone a way to contact you (your target), will probably result in a strong, hostile reaction.

I guess I still haven't gotten rid of some of my old idealism.

That's naivety, not idealism.
Expecting a group of people to react amiably to being spammed (and insulted, forgot to add that in the post above) has nothing to do with idealism. It's naive.

DrVornoff:
Considering you were talking to me like you usually do clueless, arrogant wingers...

Now you're just being silly.

DrVornoff:
I understand. But the longer this goes on, the more I feel inclined to back off even on my own outrage and sit and wait to see what happens. I'm getting tired. At this point I want to back off and watch the events from a distance so I can decide what to do next or even what to think.

Yeah, okay.

It's not sexist to say women like sex. It is sexist to make every single woman in the game or whatever like sex, even when none of the male characters like sex.

Oh, and by the way:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4719-Gender-Games

Calibanbutcher:
That's naivety, not idealism.
Expecting a group of people to react amiably to being spammed (and insulted, forgot to add that in the post above) has nothing to do with idealism. It's naive.

Did I say I expected them to react amiably?

Darkmantle:

hooksashands:
MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to bitch about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.

That's the hardest thing to explain to a feminist, believe you me. I get into arguments with people over things like that all the time, it's actually nuts.

You know, the hardest thing to explain to MRAs and people who spout MRA-type arguments is that men and women are not on equal footing. In spite of all the evidence - extraordinary numbers (1 in 6!) of women being victim to sexual assault, the notorious gender gap in pay, the very need for there to be laws that say it's okay for a woman to do Man Things like voting or owning property (laws which are constantly coming under attack) - there's still a pernicious narrative that women have it pretty good, so can we focus more on man problems please?

Besides, his point isn't that you can't be offended/demeaned by depictions of men, it's that the industry is built entirely to please "you", the young single white male. Unrealistic depictions of men and women are there because the industry majority believes that its entire userbase is young men who want to save Ms. Triple-D Tits with their six pack abs and twelve-inch raging erections. That's a problem for both genders, obviously, which is a central tenet (probably THE central tenet) of feminism - The Patriarchy Hurts Everyone.

The core difference, though, is that the patriarchy is built to help men and demean women, and for all the limitations put on men, it genuinely does help men. Consider, say, the gender breakdown of books reviewed by major publications. Or, hell, all the stuff I listed in the first paragraph of this little mini-essay. Men as a rule have it easier than women in all arenas. That's why it's so important to unpack representations of women - the best way to break down the patriarchy is to show genuine support for the gender it's trying to push down. Conversely, fixing men's issues won't grant women a reprieve from the patriarchy, it'll just make the patriarchy more liveable for men.

Consider this, if you will. The whole "Misandry in Video Games" thing is about criticizing all the "hurtful stereotypes" (to quote the video) of male protagonists in games. That's it, that's their focus - one character role. The "Tropes vs. Women" series wouldn't make it one minute into a video if they had to even list all the AAA titles that had female protagonists. Men have a whole ocean of representation in games; women have Chell and Faith and Lara Croft and a whole roster of oversexualized Tekken/SF/DoA et al. characters. This in spite of the fact that almost half of all gamers are women.

P.S. I take issue with the implied notion that an industry dominated by men is somehow engaging in systemic man-hate.

my_ledge_ends:

Men as a rule have it easier than women in all arenas.

Including nursing, being a teacher for small children, other fields dominated by women, divorce procedures, and the draft?

my_ledge_ends:

That's why it's so important to unpack representations of women - the best way to break down the patriarchy is to show genuine support for the gender it's trying to push down.

So how do we know when this patriarchy is dead?

my_ledge_ends:

Conversely, fixing men's issues won't grant women a reprieve from the patriarchy, it'll just make the patriarchy more liveable for men.

And fixing women's issues won't necessarily make life easier for men. There is no powerful group of people making all/most game designers design men a certain way and design women another way. They do that on their own free will. If there were no more patriarchy then what would stop people from making more degrading games? Even if the audience for it becomes niche they could still do it.

I don't think patriarchy will ever die, at least in the west. We've been a male dominated society for so long, that any attempt at change is going to be like headbutting a brick wall.

Personally I don't see how a matriarchal society would be any different from a patriarchal one; you'd be just swapping out one set of problems for another, regardless of what feminists say.

The main problem I have with feminists in general is that, in absence of a really big cause, like voting rights, equal pay, civil rights, right to run for office, etc. They go looking for trouble in places where the problem is either a simple misunderstanding, or so laughably minor, all it does is perpetuate the negative stereotypes the movement has picked up over the years.

Machine Man 1992:
Personally I don't see how a matriarchal society would be any different from a patriarchal one; you'd be just swapping out one set of problems for another, regardless of what feminists say.

Who do you know who was asking for one? Who here brought it up?

The main problem I have with feminists in general is that, in absence of a really big cause, like voting rights, equal pay, civil rights, right to run for office, etc. They go looking for trouble in places where the problem is either a simple misunderstanding, or so laughably minor, all it does is perpetuate the negative stereotypes the movement has picked up over the years.

How many do you know?

I hate to do this, but....

my_ledge_ends:

P.S. I take issue with the implied notion that an industry dominated by men is somehow engaging in systemic man-hate.

You know, the hardest thing to explain to MRAs and people who spout MRA-type arguments is that men and women are not on equal footing. In spite of all the evidence - extraordinary numbers (1 in 6!) of women being victim to sexual assault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knXHUQ2A1J4&feature=g-user-u
times are a changing. Both genders have real issue with sexual assault, it's time to address the problems of today, not the 80s or 90s

the notorious gender gap in pay,

that's been disputed, because if you take out CEO earnings the pay gap drops to a notorious 2-3 percent, and I'm hesitant to believe even that. Most of those studies do it by total, not job by job, and that's a big flaw with the stats.

the very need for there to be laws that say it's okay for a woman to do Man Things like voting or owning property

but there are indeed laws! That's what you don't get! we've dealt with those issue because of prejudice in the past. you CANNOT use those instances to prove anything about the situation of today. You would hold this generation responsible for the pasts mistakes. It was unfair back then, I know, but vengeance isn't a good policy.

it's that the industry is built entirely to please "you", the young single white male. Unrealistic depictions of men and women are there because the industry majority believes that its entire userbase is young men who want to save Ms. Triple-D Tits with their six pack abs and twelve-inch raging erections. That's a problem for both genders

yeah, that is the problem for both genders, and you are never going to be able to fix it unless you ADDRESS both genders. Do you think I liked to be stereotyped by the industry as you have described? that all it takes to please me are big tits and stupid wide shoulders? I try to avoid games like that, because I don't want that.

Men as a rule have it easier than women in all arenas

Nope. Prison rates, male dominated. Suicide rates, up for men. Workplace deaths, up for men (by a lot mind you). Majority of soldiers sent to die over seas, men again. Domestic violence, about even. Child custody cases, men lose. By dismissing all of men's problems and framing your argument as the system ALWAYS help men, you are undermining your own claims of trying for equality.

P.S. Not man hate, man stereotyping, just like I'm sure they don't systematically hate women either, they sure do use stereotypes though. the problem is analytics based game design, where clueless marketing people try to guess what should be in the game to make it sell.

PercyBoleyn:

DrVornoff:
I think fraud is a little strong a word, because it's not as if she's failing to deliver the product she said she would. Her method of garnering publicity was dishonest, but I wouldn't call this a felony.

Fraud is defined as intentional deception made for personal gain.

She lied to her audience (deception) for personal gain (donations). Even if she does deliver on her promises we have no guarantee she won't pockey a couple thousand or more and seeing as she was more than willing to lie and deceive her audience, I have a hunch she'll do just that.

DrVornoff:
Then perhaps we can agree that we don't see anyone as being an innocent party here, but we can't agree on who to go after first.

Well, 4chan definitely didn't scam people out of their money so I'd say Anita's crap is more urgent than 4chan's incessant blabberings.

You're not specifying who she is committing fraud against. If it is against the US government, then report it to the US government. If it is to her backers on kickstarter, that isn't even possible. Nothing has been delivered, and she is still within the scheduled production timeline. If you feel you have been defrauded by Sarkeesian, it is your obligation to take the matter to a court, not an internet forum.

It's most likely that you're talking about the backers on kickstarter being defrauded. If that's the case, then no. She has done no fraud at this point. I find your assertions beyond absurd if you think she has committed fraud at this point for the kickstarter project.

PercyBoleyn:
Even if she does deliver on her promises we have no guarantee she won't pockey a couple thousand or more and seeing as she was more than willing to lie and deceive her audience, I have a hunch she'll do just that.

That isn't fraud or a problem. If you're talking about her organization being 'non-profit', that only means the surplus funds must further the organization. That does not mean she isn't allowed to write herself a check as the talent, writer, and promoter of her show.

It's not a problem because she is well within her rights as an organization to take money people give her for her product. That's really the only thing happening here. She is getting paid for making online videos.

Also, imagine her doing exactly what you hunch will happen: delivering a shitty product and taking a lot of money. Show me the problem. She is making money off a shitty product. The people paying her would not victims; they would be fools.

This is exactly how capitalism works. People pay for a product, and they get a product. This particular example of capitalism is not an example of misconduct or fraud.

hooksashands:
MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to bitch about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.

MovieBob is not trying to explain why women are the only ones with a case; he is explaining why women have a stronger case. He goes over this in the video.

You're allowed to have whatever reaction to video games you desire. If you want to get a boner at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead. If you want to feel diminished at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead.

Your door can swing whichever way you like.

The point bob is addressing is the trend in video games as well as the obvious primary intent behind those aspects. He is not addressing you as a single person with personal reactions to the video games.

Darkmantle:

my_ledge_ends:
it's that the industry is built entirely to please "you", the young single white male. Unrealistic depictions of men and women are there because the industry majority believes that its entire userbase is young men who want to save Ms. Triple-D Tits with their six pack abs and twelve-inch raging erections. That's a problem for both genders

yeah, that is the problem for both genders, and you are never going to be able to fix it unless you ADDRESS both genders. Do you think I liked to be stereotyped by the industry as you have described? that all it takes to please me are big tits and stupid wide shoulders? I try to avoid games like that, because I don't want that.

To say that both genders have problems with portrayals in video games is to ignore the scale of both issues. Both may be bad, but one is enough worse than the other for it to be a problem.

Also, unrealistic portrayals are not inherently the problem. It's not possible to get a realist portrayal of a person in any media, because there are logical constraints. Every single video game character is an unrealistic portrayal. What makes unrealistic portrayals a problem is when there is not a variety of unrealistic portrayals. Since there are only two genders to talk about, comparing them is not unreasonable. There is more variety of portrayals of men in video games than there are for women in video games.

If there were more, but still pretty close, there wouldn't be a problem. The point of the other side of the discussion is that there is enough more so that it is a problem.

Finally, unrealistic portrayals are only half of an issue. The full issue is to consider the 'amount of character' a character has. I don't know exactly what the name for this is, because I'm no critic, but I can recognize it in non-game media. When a character doesn't have enough 'character', they're frequently referred to a 'shell'. In games it is harder to pin down, because characters don't really have characters in the same sense as in movies or books; most of the 'character development' happens through game-play. That is, game-play lends 'amount of character' as well as story-driven character in video games.

It's not really a secret that women generally have fewer 'amount of character' as men in video games. The point is that they have enough fewer to warrant it a problem.

Men have more 'character' characters, and men have more variety of portrayals. And women have sufficiently less than men such that this is a problem. This isn't an equal gender problem. If these problems were closer together, but both pretty shitty, that's an equal gender problem. They're not close at all.

MovieBob:
Tropes vs. MovieBob

Debunking a recurring argument.

Watch Video

I used too not like your videos.

I now like them

TY you Bob for saying these thing far more eloquently then I.

Yoshi Bibi:
MovieBob is not trying to explain why women are the only ones with a case; he is explaining why women have a stronger case. He goes over this in the video.

Except women don't have a stronger case. More accumulated examples, maybe. But the fact is almost every male character created within the last nine years falls into similar territory, representing one or more of the following archetypes:

-Obscenely muscular, swearing beefsoldier.
-Androgynous manboy with unlimited supply of wangst.
-Average build guy who must have an obligatory scar to show he's still badass.
-Short brown hair mary sue.
-GAY AND FEELING FAAAABULOUS
-Goth prettyboy swordsman who is entirely too serious.
-Comic relief fat guy. Loves to eat.
-Irritating thief dude. Greedy and a womanizer.

I could keep going but what's the point.

Yoshi Bibi:
You're allowed to have whatever reaction to video games you desire. If you want to get a boner at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead. If you want to feel diminished at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead.

No shit? Thanks for pointing out my options as far as the obvious is concerned.

Yoshi Bibi:
Your door can swing whichever way you like.

Hence the double-hinge.

Yoshi Bibi:
The point bob is addressing is the trend in video games as well as the obvious primary intent behind those aspects. He is not addressing you as a single person with personal reactions to the video games.

No, he specifically discourages men from sharing the same outrage because "omg wemen hav it so much worss u dun undarstandz!", then goes into turbo bullshit mode by telling men that they are cultivating both an unrealistic body image for women (to make them feel bad) and the same for themselves (to feel more confident, somehow). By extension of your logic, women who get pissed off about this are just having a "personal reaction."

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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
Registered for a free account here