Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Smertnik:
This whole issue kinda reminds me of MLP. I bet if it wasn't for all those people having a go at the fans of the show it would have remained just another animation series.

You are probably correct. People trying to tell me what I'm allowed to enjoy has only made my convictions deeper. It may be trivial, but humans have principles.

Wandering_Hero:

Therumancer:

Therumancer:
--snip

You still don't understand? Rape threats when someone is complaining about sexism DOES NOT WORK.

Any, if you believe that wild west bullshit. you should congratulate for using 4chan's stupidity against it. Or possibly change your beliefs.

Oh and Occupy Wall Street was an epic fail because of the lack of thought and planning that went into it.

And Lulzsec, which started as a wannabe group of internet robin hoods, then they tried to destroy this forum because some people said they were idiots. Did it prove them wrong, or did it speed up the fbi catching them and having the leader sell his friends out?

You can't bully everyone into submission, sometimes you can get your way with it, but you'll never win the moral highground that way, and it should be obvious now.

If instead of having a bunch of cyber thugs rush her, 4chan had sent a horde of people to intelligently point out what she was doing wrong, you might have achieved something.

Do you wonder why Encylopedia Dramtica crumbled then came back in a small, weakened form that barely anyone cares about? Its because you can't really sustain a community with thuggery, and deep down most people don't want to support that kind of thing.

If you do believe the internet can be a perfect world, or closer to being a perfect world than our own, then your going to have to believe reason, not brutishness will win the day.

Edit: To further clarify, have you seen those forums and chartrooms where a small group takes control of it via the standard 4chan/ed troll methods? Even when it works, what do find tends to happen to such places? Do they become lively and interesting or do they wither away into next to nothing?

In the end we are going to have to agree to disagree, especially seeing as you seem to have absolutly NO idea what I'm actually saying, and are instead projecting your view of what you want me to have said onto it, like many discussions I get into here.

The point, that you seem to miss, is that rational discourse was not going to solve this problm. There is, and probably never will be, any authority that would have shut Anita down for being the troll that she was. That is what makes the internet a "wild west", rational arguements only work when there is effectively a third party with authority to appeal to, one that is going to do it's job. For the most part the current "Troll wars" system, where a troll like Anita (which is what she is) gets clobbered by other trolls tends to work, is it ideal? hell no, but it's actually proobably a lesser evil than a fully regulated internet (which is an entirely differant arguement). The entire point of this is that really it wasn't the trolls that created the monster we now have to deal with, but the internet media who decided to white knight an undeserving target.

I'll also say that "rape threats" are more or less irrelevent, they are pretty much par for the course. People threaten guys with prison rape or whatever all the time, sometimes casually even. It's just a way of trying to legitimize the defense of a person people committed to that really doesn't deserve it. If the rape threats were something unusual in situations like this, then it might be a point, but right now it's so bloody typical that it barely registers on the radar. Anyone who doesn't realize that is probably too naive to be seriously debating this kind of issue to begin with. You can get up on a top of a building and shed tears for the douchebaggery of the internet, but that doesn't change what it is. Should rape threats be being thrown around like that? Obviously not. Is it unusual or something especially heinouse directed at Anita in this arena, nope. If you have a problem with the specific threats made you should actually be argueing the technique, rather than who it was used against, and seperate her, from that paticular aspect of the issue. You could argue there are some things trolls should keep off limits (though that kind of flies in the face of what a troll is) when someone earns their ire in a general sense, and perhaps even make a legitimate point of it. Saying that Anita, herself a troll, should not have been a target is something entirely differant however. It was just business as usual for the internet, that was turned into a catastrophe by a bunch of white knights who saw a pretty girl being trolled, and didn't bother to seriously look at who or what they were defending.

I didn't say more about Occupy Wall Street because it wasn't the gist of this, and would have derailed the conversation. In retrospect it probably wasn't the best example. As I've said before in other threads, they failed because the problem they are protesting to begin with is that the guys causing the problems (bankers, big business) have undermined the system ordinary people can use to prevent exploitation. A non-violent protest accomplishes nothing because the guys responsible can just ignore it from their penthouse offices, as can the people actually within the system who themselves operate on a differant level from the "street" law enforcement that has to deal with the problems. A corrupt politician or buisnessman who can fly over you in his personal helicopter or whatever just really doesn't give a crap if you want to freeze in the street. Non-violent protests of this sort also had their roots in violence, being a show of force, all of the racial civil liberties stuff and other issues worked because of all the violence that had otherwise been going on. A bunch of people showing up and saying "hey, we're being non-violent, but look at the number of people we have here and what kind of riot this could be..." can work, but a bunch of people just sitting around and getting stoned or whatever are just slackers and get ignored like they always do. A point that liberals tend to miss entirely. for something like Occupy Wall Street to work, you'd need to actually see some frightening displays of violence, if say a mob broke into a citigroup meeting, and literally ripped a bunch of the leaders and supporting politicians to pieces and threw their body parts off of a skyskrayper, then non-violent protest might work. The guys doing the protests from that point on, could decry the violence, but the fact that it happened would be in everyone's minds when they saw like a hundred thousand rowdy people saying "we won't be ignored". The great non-violent leaders were people who stopped existing violence, and showed the non-violence as an alternative to what was already going on, if you just do this out of a vaccum, the people doing it are just a bunch of lazy lardos laying around and making noise. A potentially violence person sitting there makes a differance, some dude just sitting there saying "I'm going to do nothing" just makes the authorities go "WTF" and creates a public nuisance and obstruction. THAT's why Occupy Wall Street fails, and will continue to fail. They don't represent an issue that is near the point of exploding sufficiently to scare those responsible.

maximara:
You mean like modern literature like Twilight which when you get right down to it is pulling from modern conservative values that seems to have stopped buying calendars around the time some guy named Jack was carving up women in a place called Whitechapel?
The Twilight series started in 2005 and is written by a woman and yet it makes the treatment of Weena by the Traveler in the _Time Machine_ written over a century ago look "modern".

While we are on the issue of "modern" female writers making their female characters effectively manipulative neurotic idiots take a look at Anne McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ (1968) in general and the character Lessa in particular.

Yes, I'm aware of Movie Bob's review. Good stuff. I've quoted it often.

And yes, I hold Twilight to that standard - which is why Twilight is TERRIBLE.

Being modern doesn't make something good - I never said it did. I am willing to forgive older works because they were reflecting their world. When modern works do stuff like that, I attack them for being sexist, misogynistic, and harmful - as Twilight is - because then the work has no excuse.

IE: H.G. Wells has the excuse that he was merely reflecting the world as it was. Same with Mark Twain (and in fact, Twain was satirizing his era, pointing out the flaws, which makes his work not just acceptable but progressive, a point often missed by his modern critics). Twilight, on the other hand, is modern and therefore should not be a horrible misogynistic mess. It is. Therefore it is crap.

It is also simply badly written, and written by a whiny prima donna who throws a tantrum at the slightest criticism, so it's also crap for those reasons.

And that is my point - I hold the modern military shooter to the same standard. Twilight doesn't meet that standard any more than most modern military shooters do.

The Halo series being a surprising exception, in that it includes strong female characters.

And one again, I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting to accomplish. You don't seem to disagree with me on any points, yet you appear to be trying to. Could you perhaps state your purpose or critical viewpoint so I can respond more directly rather than through cited examples? I feel like we're circling one another, and I grow weary of it.

Blue Ranger:
It would be nice if women like Anita would realize that instead of acting like she speaks for every woman. She doesn't even speak for every feminist.

I'm not aware that she has ever said that. Please show me a quote that proves she thinks she speaks for all women.

She is trying to look at how we can improve female characters, free them from aged tropes and study them from a feminist point of view, again I don't understand why everyone is so angry at her. She isn't trying to penalize games or get them banned she isn't even saying 'all games are sexist'

This whole thing is just a massive overreaction by the gaming community.

gardian06:

Andre Rapp:

gardian06:
before anyone says it. just because she "supposedly" went to 4chan, or maybe someone who knee jerked at her video did (more likely).

doesn't mean that she deserved the stupidity that resulted.

it was the only video that she didn't block rating and screen all comments, then she spent an entire day botspaming 4chan. you cannot debate with her, because she just blocks you. there is no respectful dialog, because she will not hear it. she is the only reason we can only see hate and filth in the argument, because she blocks anyone who brings a reasonable argument, while picking the dumbest of the angry people to let pass, just so she can say "see? they are all like this!"

the thing is because it was 4chan it is not even provable that she even did it. either it was her, someone claiming to be her, or just someone who was drawing attention to the thing, and then it just blew up.

here is a possible story: someone just passing through youtube saw a new video, and was "interested" in the title. that person watch said video, or a portion there of, and went to 4chan posting a few comments about it. that person claiming to be her (not even provable, and even then highly speculative considering how 4chan treats screen names) started spamming about it. result nerd rage at her

realistically this logic holds more merit then the whole she herself did it. for a few reasons:
1) she says she plays video games, so automatically she knows how to bot spam sounds like speculation beyond what many of the comments even claim.
2) harassing 4chan, flame posts are no where near what you should expect. if I did it I would more expect to be put on a terrorist watch list, or have my real identity stolen, or a lot worse shit then just "I am going to poke anonymous to get hate spam; cause that's the worst that will happen"
3) like I have said already identities cannot be proven on 4chan, and if someone claims to have X name does not mean that it is that person, and unless you can prove that her IP address was recorded, and completely traced to her static location that no one else could be using. then the argument is speculation at best, and must be deemed irreverent because it has no factual basis.

realistically even my argument must be thrown out on the same reason, and all we are left with is similar to what both Jim, and Bob have talked about 'an over the top knee jerk reaction that snowballed'

1: it is not hard to quickly post the same copy pasta on /v/, all you need is a proxy and those come with tutorials. if she knows how to submit a youtube video, work a camera, and screen her comments then she knows enough to spam /v/
2: you express horrible ignorance of 4chan, its posters, and how it works in general. if /v/ thinks its you posting, they will react the same and it is in no way any indicator one way or the other
3: she has the motive and is the only one to gain from such an act. if it was one or two threads then that could have been random (even though nobody on /v/ even knew her name before the spam started) but no one else has the motivation or the reason to spam /v/ to such an extent for such a long period of time.

all reasonable evidence points to her

Moonlight Butterfly:
She is trying to look at how we can improve female characters

No she's not: She just wants to get paid to call men sexist pigs (just like she has in the past). An frankly, when all you've got is "sexist tropes" you are an idiot: Talking about made up tropes like this is like relying on tvtropes.com to be the go to source for critical analysis of literature.

Take the damsel in distress trope. Its not in an way sexist, because what the trope should read is "character in need of rescue" trope. Its only sexist, because A.S is going to make the assumption that a male character saving a female character says that all females are in need of rescue. Because Anita isn't doing research, what she's doing is looking for things that conmfirm what she already thinks she knows.

Scientific Methodology
Build a hypothesis, build a test for that hypothesis, follow the evidence wherever it goes.

Bullshit Methodology (Creationists, homeopathists, Anita)
Build a hypothesis, find data that agree's with your hypothesis, ignore any data that would diminish your hypothesis in the least.

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:
She is trying to look at how we can improve female characters

No she's not: She just wants to get paid to call men sexist pigs (just like she has in the past).

Where? Quote? Maybe?

I don't think she is doing that at all. She is, as she says, a pop culture critic. Her area is how women are portrayed.

Her entire kickstarter video doesn't even refer to male gamers at all or how they are 'sexist pigs'?!?!. All she says is that some portrayals of women in video games can be sexist and mysogynistic (which is kind of true just look at Hitman nuns or Rachel from Ninja Gaiden) and that gaming is a popular medium which can help shape society.

She even praises gaming as a medium. She is no Jack Thompson.

Like I said this is all about what people want to think she is saying rather than what she is actually saying.

Let's look at it like this, I enjoy Zelda and Mario. Anita's suggestions that Peach and Zelda are stuck in sexist tropes DOES NOT suggest that I am a sexist for enjoying those games. It merely says that how the women are portrayed is sexist. (in her opinion.)

This is a distinction that her attackers don't seem to see.

If I disagree with Jim Sterling, Moviebob or Yahtzee I don't send them rape threats. I just say 'fair enough that's what they think' and get on with my life. Anita's video will have no more effect on gaming than this sites contributors. She is merely expressing an critical analysis of video games (people do that every day.)

It's like Gamers hear the word feminist and automatically thing negative thoughts. I just think everyone needs to take a step back and see that they are being irrational about this.

Lastly let's have a look at the definition of sexism

Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

That last part is important. Do you think games do that to female characters? I'd argue yes. Hell I'd even argue that it does it to male characters sometimes (that doesn't diminish Anita's argument but merely adds to it, it isn't a competition)

'Scientific Methodology
Build a hypothesis, build a test for that hypothesis, follow the evidence wherever it goes.'

Anita uses the Bechdel test on a lot of films and even brings up scenes that could be considered a pass sometimes even though they are small she then sometimes goes on to recommend that film even if it fails that test. That, to me, is hardly the act of an extremist or someone who is irrational.

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
You mean like modern literature like Twilight which when you get right down to it is pulling from modern conservative values that seems to have stopped buying calendars around the time some guy named Jack was carving up women in a place called Whitechapel?
The Twilight series started in 2005 and is written by a woman and yet it makes the treatment of Weena by the Traveler in the _Time Machine_ written over a century ago look "modern".

While we are on the issue of "modern" female writers making their female characters effectively manipulative neurotic idiots take a look at Anne McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ (1968) in general and the character Lessa in particular.

Yes, I'm aware of Movie Bob's review. Good stuff. I've quoted it often.

And yes, I hold Twilight to that standard - which is why Twilight is TERRIBLE.

Being modern doesn't make something good - I never said it did. I am willing to forgive older works because they were reflecting their world. When modern works do stuff like that, I attack them for being sexist, misogynistic, and harmful - as Twilight is - because then the work has no excuse.

IE: H.G. Wells has the excuse that he was merely reflecting the world as it was. Same with Mark Twain (and in fact, Twain was satirizing his era, pointing out the flaws, which makes his work not just acceptable but progressive, a point often missed by his modern critics). Twilight, on the other hand, is modern and therefore should not be a horrible misogynistic mess. It is. Therefore it is crap.

It is also simply badly written, and written by a whiny prima donna who throws a tantrum at the slightest criticism, so it's also crap for those reasons.

And that is my point - I hold the modern military shooter to the same standard. Twilight doesn't meet that standard any more than most modern military shooters do.

The Halo series being a surprising exception, in that it includes strong female characters.

And one again, I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting to accomplish. You don't seem to disagree with me on any points, yet you appear to be trying to. Could you perhaps state your purpose or critical viewpoint so I can respond more directly rather than through cited examples? I feel like we're circling one another, and I grow weary of it.

IMHO the term "Misogyny" is thrown around way too much; what we really have is much the same thing as with race that the Overthinker pointed out in _Mississippi Pwing 2_ (E23).

A good example of this for fascism can be found in _The Iron Dream_ (1972) by Norman Spinrad. The novel shows the dark side of Joseph Campbell's _Hero with a Thousand Faces_ and much of science fiction and fantasy literature. Here is a tried and true formula that when you really sit down and look at it has some REALLY dark undercurrents.

For example look at _Triple Detente_ (1974) by Piers Anthony where "undesirables" and "unproductive members of society" are exterminated wholesale. Even Star Trek's "The needs of the many (ie the State) out way the needs of the few (ie minorities) or the one (ie you)" has a dark undercurrent when seen through the _The Iron Dream_ prism. In TNG the Prime Directive took a disturbingly dark tone to the point it could be argued it was turned into an Darwinist abomination--'Didn't invent space travel and you are all dying? Well sucks to be you. Next planet.'

But as Sigmund Freud said "a cigar is sometimes just a cigar" and you can overdue it.

For example, using the _The Iron Dream_ prism you can argue that Sailor Moon is pro-Nazi. Think about it: you have a *blond blue eyed* girl coming into possession of a artifact from a long gone civilization (read Atlantis) who fights enemies that drain the vitality from people. Later one it is revealed that she will become Queen of the entire world having *ruled it for a thousand years* and using her power via the long gone civilization to "Cleanse" people of their evil (ie destroy their free will) and anyone who resists this "Cleansing" is sent to the tenth planet of the solar system Nemesis (ie Concentration camp). Furthermore as Neo Queen Serenity Sailor Moon never has anyone keep tabs on the exiles sent to Nemesis which doesn't make sense...unless one assumes there would be no exiles to keep track of (Nemesis now takes on the air of a Extermination camp).

Did Takeuchi Naoko intend these kind of messages? Highly unlikely but you can pull them out none the less but is that the fault of the author or a formula that has "built-in" messages?

There are formulas that people generally don't think twice about using but they come with a lot of baggage.

I don't think sifting through a big pile of games to find something to complain about is a worthwhile use of kickstarter money. I'd be feeling a bit ripped off if I was a donor. Rather than going for the negative all the time Sarkeesian should explain what she thinks would be a positive depiction of women in games. Maybe find a few good examples or at least explain how the bad examples could have done better, though that might take a bit more effort than her current approach. She could at least use that money to hire some help. Seems to me like she doesn't really know what to do with it.

I think negativity is given too much praise in modern culture. It's really easy to bash things and much harder to create. That is why I enjoy Yahtzee's column more than his videos.

I find it really hard to understand the mindset of people levelling abuse and threats at those who raise even inept criticism at them. It just paints them as uncivilised and hateful. This is similar to the recent terror attacks in protest of that anti-islam video. You'd think that this is playing right into the critic's hands. So down with the hate mongering I say.

Andre Rapp:
1: it is not hard to quickly post the same copy pasta on /v/, all you need is a proxy and those come with tutorials. if she knows how to submit a youtube video, work a camera, and screen her comments then she knows enough to spam /v/

So what?

2: you express horrible ignorance of 4chan, its posters, and how it works in general. if /v/ thinks its you posting, they will react the same and it is in no way any indicator one way or the other

So what?

3: she has the motive and is the only one to gain from such an act. if it was one or two threads then that could have been random (even though nobody on /v/ even knew her name before the spam started) but no one else has the motivation or the reason to spam /v/ to such an extent for such a long period of time.

Now you're spreading bullshit.

This is fucking 4chan. You know who has the most motivation to spam 4chan and do dumb shit like this? 4channers. I mean seriously, it's troll central. And you believe, in all honesty, that the most likely person to do any sort of trolling on 4chan is NOT a 4channer? Really?

Oh, and it gets blamed on this woman by naive people? And that's ALSO not intended by these same trolls? Really?!

If you were any more naive I'd ask to see your birth certificate to see if you were born yesterday.

Either that or you think everyone else is that naive and frankly, that's insulting.

all reasonable evidence points to her

Present some, please.

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:
She is trying to look at how we can improve female characters

No she's not: She just wants to get paid to call men sexist pigs (just like she has in the past).

Where? Quote? Maybe?

She called men pigs in one of her feminist frequency videos, which she then redacted the entire video when people called her out on it.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Her entire kickstarter video doesn't even refer to male gamers at all or how they are 'sexist pigs'?!?!. All she says is that some portrayals of women in video games can be sexist and mysogynistic (which is kind of true just look at Hitman nuns or Rachel from Ninja Gaiden) and that gaming is a popular medium which can help shape society.

/facepalm: thats not sexism. Here is the definition of sexism

•Discrimination based on gender
•Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

So take the damsel in distress video. Someone rescuing a female character is not discrimination, nor an attitude, condition or behaviour that promotes a stereotype. An how come its not equally sexist, when its done the other way round. Why is it suddenly not a problem when Catwoman has to save the life of Batman?

Moonlight Butterfly:
She even praises gaming as a medium.

No she doesn't. She praises its abilities to increase things like hand eye co-ordination... Thats not praising gaming for the sake of gaming... Its praising what you can benefit out of it.

Moonlight Butterfly:
She is no Jack Thompson.

Will people stop uising this fucking excuse. If i were to punch you in the face right now, saying "we'll he's no Mike Tyson" doesn't invaldiate the fact i've just punched you in the face. Likewise not being Jack Thompson, doesn't make the shit A.S sprouts on a regular basis, any the less bigoted.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Like I said this is all about what people want to think she is saying rather than what she is actually saying.

no, we know what she's saying & thats the problem. 9 times out of 10 she is objectively wrong in her statements. Note the use of the word OBJECTIVELY in that sentence. These things she says that are wrong are not subjectively wrong, they are wrong demonstrably & require no special world view to measure as being wrong.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Let's look at it like this, I enjoy Zelda and Mario. Anita's suggestions that Peach and Zelda are stuck in sexist tropes DOES NOT suggest that I am a sexist for enjoying those games. It merely says that how the women are portrayed is sexist. (in her opinion.)

Except that its not Sexist... Anymore then Batman needing to be saved by Catwoman is sexist. Or me being bailed out by a female character in a particular open world sandbox game is sexism.

This is whats always been wrong about A.S statements: Scientific methodology versus Bullshit Methodology.

Moonlight Butterfly:
This is a distinction that her attackers don't seem to see.

No, the distinction is that the people trying to defend her don't seem to realise that those of use who actively opposse the bullshit she's speaking are oppossing the bullshit she's speaking.

Moonlight Butterfly:
If I disagree with Jim Sterling, Moviebob or Yahtzee I don't send them rape threats.

Nor did 90% of the people who disagreed with A.S. In fact there seems to be this idea that if you disagreed with Anita you must have immediately sent her a rape threat. I'm sorry, but this use of the term "RAPE" is right up there with the use of the word "HITLER" to win arguments & just as without merit.

Moonlight Butterfly:
I just say 'fair enough that's what they think' and get on with my life. Anita's video will have no more effect on gaming than this sites contributors. She is merely expressing an critical analysis of video games (people do that every day.)

Except that there isn nothing critical about it: see above reference, ala Scientific Methodology versus Bullshit Methodology.

Moonlight Butterfly:
It's like Gamers hear the word feminist and automatically thing negative thoughts.

no, its more like rational people listened to "feminist frequency" & realised that she was talking bullshit... Even other feminists are denouncing her now, as not being representative of there view.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Anita uses the Bechdel test on a lot of films and even brings up scenes that could be considered a pass sometimes even though they are small she then sometimes goes on to recommend that film even if it fails that test. That, to me, is hardly the act of an extremist or someone who is irrational.

Anyone who uses the Bechdel test at all is a gender extremist by definition.

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:

No she's not: She just wants to get paid to call men sexist pigs (just like she has in the past).

Where? Quote? Maybe?

She called men pigs in one of her feminist frequency videos, which she then redacted the entire video when people called her out on it.

Do you have the name of the video?
I am genuinely interested because it sounds like an exageration.

matthew_lane:
snip

Well she redacted the 'men are pigs' statement right (assuming you aren't making it up I see no source) so she regrets it? I admit I have lost my temper many time on this forum and edited things I have said.

Erm so your argument is to repeat a definition of sexism back at me which I already established proves her point about say, the damsel in distress trope.

Attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender:

Damsel in distress is a stereotype and gender role. It's not about being rescued it's about how helpless and feckless the hostage seems to be. In the film 'Along came a Spider' a little girl is kidnapped, even she is portrayed as attempting to help herself and trying to escape.

Princess Peach gets kidnapped over and over so much that it's even a joke that she likes it. That to me is a harmful and sexist stereotype.

As for the rape threat thing, okay let me edit that.

'If I disagree with Jim Sterling, Moviebob or Yahtzee I don't go on a campaign of abuse.'

I think most of this is the fact that men can possibly see how portraying women as helpless idiots or dressing them in pvc straps could possibly be demeaning or sexist.

Even Josh Sawyer at Obsidian has this to say about sexy armour.

This is something that's very important to me and I fight for it (practical but good-looking armor on female characters) whenever it comes up. For me, the goal isn't to be prudish, but to be practical and egalitarian about it.

BTW, this is a very good site: http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

I guess he is an extremist too?

As for the Bechdel test it's requirements are so tiny that I don't see how you can possibly refer to it as extremist.

The movie [media] has at least two women characters;
who talk to each other;
about something other than a man.

That's 50% of the population being featured, talking about anything other than one subject for 0 time limit.

:|

marche45:

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:

Where? Quote? Maybe?

She called men pigs in one of her feminist frequency videos, which she then redacted the entire video when people called her out on it.

Do you have the name of the video?
I am genuinely interested because it sounds like an exageration.

No, i can't remember its name. But to be fair i couldn't remember the name of her Women in Refridgerators video until i just looked it up again & thats one i'm in the middle of using as part of a larger video refuting the entire paradigm (you know, with actual critical analaysis).

The one she deleted was one of 3 that she deleted in total (at least i think it was 3 videos). It might have been the Skidiva bot video she made, but i can't be 100% sure.

matthew_lane:

No, i can't remember its name. But to be fair i couldn't remember the name of her Women in Refridgerators video

It sounds like you have vast knowledge of her work....

Moonlight Butterfly:
Well she redacted the 'men are pigs' statement right (assuming you aren't making it up I see no source) so she regrets it? I admit I have lost my temper many time on this forum and edited things I have said.

But she didn't lose her temper. It was a normal, cold calculating feminist frequency video. This would suggest that the "men are pigs" paradigm/concept is one she holds to be self evident.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender:

Damsel in distress is a stereotype and gender role. It's not about being rescued it's about how helpless and feckless the hostage seems to be. In the film 'Along came a Spider' a little girl is kidnapped, even she is portrayed as attempting to help herself and trying to escape.

Princess Peach gets kidnapped over and over so much that it's even a joke that she likes it. That to me is a harmful and sexist stereotype.

An here you've got the root of the problem: A woman, is not all women." What happens to princess peach is not a sterotype, its the happenstance of a single character. Now if when she's being kidnapped she were saying "oh please white knights, come and save me, for i am a helpless female character & as such are completely incapable of helping to protect my self in any meaningful way, what with me lacking for any kind of social agency & constatnly requiring rescue from a big strong man" that would be "A" case of sexism.

However that still would not make the concept of a character requiring rescue by the player character sexism. It also doesn't make the idea of a female character requiring rescue a sexist proposition.

Moonlight Butterfly:
As for the rape threat thing, okay let me edit that.

'If I disagree with Jim Sterling, Moviebob or Yahtzee I don't go on a campaign of abuse and accuse them of being extremists.'

If Moviebob were talking complete and utter shit we actually would. Thing is that moviebob come speak entire sentences without having 90% of what he says be wrong.

Moonlight Butterfly:
I think most of this is the fact that men can possibly see how portraying women as helpless idiots

But some victims are helpless... Its kind of the default state for a victim. So how is it worse if the female character is helpless... After all Batman is helpless when Catwoman rescues him in Arkham City... Heck there is even an option to get the goods & leave Batman to die, ending the game.

Again this comes down to "A WOMAN" not being "ALL WOMEN."

Moonlight Butterfly:
or dressing them in pvc straps could possibly be demeaning or sexist.

Why owuld it be demeaning to women? How is it any more demeaning then say the costumes worn by men in say "magic mike?" Or on the front covers of every single romance novel essentially ever?

If you don't like it, thats cool, you don't have to partake of it. But you can't have yours & tell me i can't have mine: Thats facism.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Even Josh Sawyer at Obsidian has this to say about sexy armour.

This is something that's very important to me and I fight for it (practical but good-looking armor on female characters) whenever it comes up. For me, the goal isn't to be prudish, but to be practical and egalitarian about it.

I would agree. There is no reason why a character casn't look sexy. I think maybe you are mistaking sexy for sexism. I see no reason why sexy armour shouldn't be a potential art direction a product could go in?

Moonlight Butterfly:
BTW, this is a very good site: http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

I guess he is an extremist too?[/quote]

Why would he be an extremist? He's got a website with armour on it... Its just a stylistic art choice. Thats like me saying i like Leonardo Di Vinci's art work & then you saying "oh so you consider Raphael to be an extremist."

A statement of preference or support for one thing does not indiciate an immediate dislike of something else.

Moonlight Butterfly:
As for the Bechdel test it's requirements are so tiny that I don't see how you can possibly refer to it as extremist.

Oh thats very simple: It ignores the actual qualities of the movie & instead replaces subjective appreciation with a set of objective rule qualifiers, that say nothing about the quality of the actual movie... Wall-E fails the test, Milo & Otis fails the test, Ghostbusters fails the test, half a dozen classics fail the test... Every wild life docu-movie ever made fails the test & almost every republic serial fails the test. Heck, the recent SCUM manifesto fan movie fails the test.... Thats right a movie about feminism, in which an unsuspecting man is shot in the head for being male, fails a test meant to determine if a movie is sexist towards women.

It really couldn't be any clearer that the test is a knee jerk form of extrmism. The fact that it attemptes to make an absoultist statement about a movies subjective qualities based on any criteria makes it extremist. The fact that the qualifiers are gender focused doesn't really make any kind of difference.

CAPTCHA: Tight Lipped... Not like Captcha

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:

No, i can't remember its name. But to be fair i couldn't remember the name of her Women in Refridgerators video

It sounds like you have vast knowledge of her work....

Its called research. Its something i do before i make a positive assertion.

matthew_lane:
snip

So what you are saying is that you don't understand what sexism is and by extension trying to put words in her mouth (still waiting on that nonexistent source btw)

Might point wasn't that one women = every women It was that both sexes if wrongfully imprisoned have the capacity to try and help themselves. Hell, Zelda is portrayed as a freaking Ninja for the majority of OoT and yet she still get's captured and held by Ganon? WAT.

Josh Sawyer is a legendary games dev, a gamer should really know that :|

As for demeaning clothing and oversexualisation I find that sexist becuase it is a condition that fosters stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

I.e. a woman can't just be a character she has to be eye candy for men (I'd say and lesbians but lets face it they aren't even considered here) first and foremost.

Again you are blowing this all out of proportion. What effect do you think Anita's video are going to have that justifies the gamer reaction?

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:

No, i can't remember its name. But to be fair i couldn't remember the name of her Women in Refridgerators video

It sounds like you have vast knowledge of her work....

Its called research. Its something i do before i make a positive assertion.

Yeah that you can't even remember the name of. It's called sarcasm...

DracoSuave:

Andre Rapp:
1: it is not hard to quickly post the same copy pasta on /v/, all you need is a proxy and those come with tutorials. if she knows how to submit a youtube video, work a camera, and screen her comments then she knows enough to spam /v/

So what?

2: you express horrible ignorance of 4chan, its posters, and how it works in general. if /v/ thinks its you posting, they will react the same and it is in no way any indicator one way or the other

So what?

3: she has the motive and is the only one to gain from such an act. if it was one or two threads then that could have been random (even though nobody on /v/ even knew her name before the spam started) but no one else has the motivation or the reason to spam /v/ to such an extent for such a long period of time.

Now you're spreading bullshit.

This is fucking 4chan. You know who has the most motivation to spam 4chan and do dumb shit like this? 4channers. I mean seriously, it's troll central. And you believe, in all honesty, that the most likely person to do any sort of trolling on 4chan is NOT a 4channer? Really?

Oh, and it gets blamed on this woman by naive people? And that's ALSO not intended by these same trolls? Really?!

If you were any more naive I'd ask to see your birth certificate to see if you were born yesterday.

Either that or you think everyone else is that naive and frankly, that's insulting.

all reasonable evidence points to her

Present some, please.

so the defense for the arguments i just refuted are "so what?"
now you're embarrassing yourself. nobody outside her little circle-jerk knew who she was or cared before the spamming on /v/, and continuing to confirm you're total ignorance of the subject is not helping your argument.

Moonlight Butterfly:
So what you are saying is that you don't understand what sexism is and by extension trying to put words in her mouth (still waiting on that nonexistent source btw)

Even if i could remember the name of the feminist frequency video how would that help you? Its one of her redacted ones... By definition you can't go watch it, its been redacted.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Might point wasn't that one women = every women It was that both sexes if wrongfully imprisoned have the capacity to try and help themselves. Hell, Zelda is portrayed as a freaking Ninja for the majority of OoT and yet she still get's captured and held by Ganon? WAT.

Sure & Batman is portrayed as being well... BATMAN. He still required the help of Catwoman to rescue him though. So again we come back to the root of your hypothesis's problem, which seems to be: Its not actually sexism.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Josh Sawyer is a legendary games dev, a gamer should really know that :|

Why should a gamer know that? Am i required to know the name of developers before i play a computer game now? Is this some new form of DRM that i have somehow missed?

Moonlight Butterfly:
As for demeaning clothing and oversexualisation I find that sexist becuase it is a condition that fosters stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Sure & the amish consider a bare ankle oversexualisation & some middle eastern countries demand that women cover themselves from head to toe... I'm sure they are all outraged about women who don't dress accordingly as well, they might even say it fosters stereotypes of negative social roles in western socity... They'd be wrong too, so i suppose you are in good company with that opinion.

At best you can say "i don't like it" which is your right.

Moonlight Butterfly:
I.e. a woman can't just be a character she has to be eye candy for men (I'd say and lesbians but lets face it they aren't even considered here) first and foremost.

What you mean like men in womens magazines, romantic comedies & romance novel covers? Oops, look like we've tripped over the female self interest double standard there. Essentially this is you saying "i want mine, but demand that you not have yours." I'm sorry to tell you, that your self interest doesn't extend as far as telling me what i can & cannot enjoy.

An secondly, you've just made a statment drowned in cognitive bais: In this case a "fundemental attribution error." You have just tried to say that all female characters are sexy because men want sexy. Its not men that want sexy characters in there forms of escapis: Its people. There is a reason the above paradigm exists in female focused products.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Again you are blowing this all out of proportion.

Not at all: This is just the inevitable backlash against women having the only voice in what is acceptable & having unilateral control over setting rules of civil discourse & the increasing intelligence & social awareness of the male section of the population. It was bound to happen eventually.

Moonlight Butterfly:
What effect do you think Anita's video are going to have that justifies the gamer reaction?

If by reaction, you mean that there are a whole lot of people pointing out the faulty methodology, the fact that she's objectively wrong in her statements 90% of the time, ignorant of her stated topics, or just straight up lying about them, i'd say this is exactly the reaction she should get.

If her mission statement of equality were being approached intelligently no one would care, but its not. She has no way to achieve any of her discussed goals, because she refuses to do the proper research. Insteqad she just wanted money for a shopping spree, so she could complain about a hting that only exists inside her head... Even if she has to first invent something to complain about.

matthew_lane:
snip

Batman was buried under some rubble and unconscious I don't see how that is the same as standing in a cage flailing.

As for 'female self interest'. Let's put aside that I personally despise womens magazines, romantic comedies & romance novels, I think they are shallow and vacuous. Let's look at the fact a woman can be attractive without being oversexualised.

You are confusing the two.

image

Note how the top image is stupid has bad anatomy and is out of place and the bottom image is realistic BUT THE WOMAN IS STILL ATTRACTIVE.

do you see? Huh HUUUH.

If no one cares about Anita's point of view then you have nothing to worry about why are you attacking her? You are defending against something you just pointed out as meaningless.

image

matthew_lane:
-snip-

You my friend deserve a cookie for putting into words a concept that had until now pretty much eluded me in presenting adequately. That being, that the presentation of a female character is only representative of A woman and not necessarily all women.

I am curious though your take on broader claims of sexism in gaming based on the frequency of certain trends of tropes with female characters as generally weaker then male counterparts or just lacking purpose or depth in relation or males in similar roles. Or, to put it another way, what do the trends of all the "rescue the princess" and other such tropes in games out there represent and does the pattern of a bias bout weaker female characters that immerse from examining them signify anything? What are your thoughts on overall patterns and trends like this in media in general. Do these in fact create an overall stereotype for the frequency of usage?

Moonlight Butterfly:

Batman was buried under some rubble and unconscious I don't see how that is the same as standing in a cage flailing.

Then that shows a lack of objectivity on your behalf.

Moonlight Butterfly:
As for 'female self interest'. Let's put aside that I personally despise womens magazines, romantic comedies & romance novels, I think they are shallow and vacuous. Let's look at the fact a woman can be attractive without being sexualised.

You'll note i've removed the term oversexualised from your above quote & replaced it with sexualised. There is no such thing s oversexualised, as "over" is a subjective term, not an objective one: I thought i adequately pointed out in the last message, but apparently not.

But the fact that you don't like them is exactly the point i'm making: You don't have to like or dislike them, because there are going to people who do. An your right to dislike something does not include the right for something to cease to exist due to you not liking it.

Moonlight Butterfly:
You are confusing the two.

No i'm, confusing nothing.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Note how the top image is stupid has bad anatomy and is out of place and the bottom image is realistic BUT THE WOMAN IS STILL ATTRACTIVE.

Realism doesn't come into it. Its escapism, realism is the antithesis, the natrual enemy of escapsim.

Moonlight Butterfly:
If no one cares about Anita's point of view then you have nothing to worry about why are you attacking her?

No. Because if you get enough people echoing a stupid sentiment, no matter how much it flies in the face of demonstrable reality, it gains speed & faux validity due to numbers. Such concept are hard to shift when they gain such weight, just look at bullshit like powerbands, creationism & homeopathy.

Moonlight Butterfly:

As for 'female self interest'. Let's put aside that I personally despise womens magazines, romantic comedies & romance novels, I think they are shallow and vacuous. Let's look at the fact a woman can be attractive without being oversexualised.

1. Your opinion on sexualizing is noted but is not trying to mention that really just trying to push your own standard onto others and judging them for it? Isn't that in and of itself an indefensible position to try and argue from, as you are essentially trying to push your subjective opinion as some sort of objective standard, or at the very least presenting your standard as having more merit then the creator themselves. Or to put it simply, just because you dislike it, does that somehow invalidate the creator's choice to use that ascetic design?

2. Most men look at games like DOA and think they are shallow and vacuous. Doesn't matter because both trashy romance novels and trashy volleyball games have an audience enough to validate their existence, regardless personal feelings of uselessness and pandering. So again, comes back to, even if you dislike it, is that justification enough to prompt change in and of itself, especially in light of the fact that as vacuous as they are, they DO still have an audience who enjoy them for what they are.?

Also, something I recalled, isn't Red Sonya the female equivalent of Conan the Barbarian? I recall a lot of loincloth in depictions of him too....

matthew_lane:

just look at bullshit like powerbands...

Powerbands are bullshit!? My good man you are going to have to explain that to TAD GHOSTAL! Without those powerbands he wouldn't have all of his amazing rays to thwart villainy!

I'm calling shenanigans and getting my broom!

matthew_lane:

No i'm, confusing nothing.

.

Yes, yes you are. But you can't even grasp the basic idea of why Anita is not calling all men sexist and isn't trying to ruin or penalise video games. She is merely expressing a valid opinion and critical dissemination of video games. Something which well respected men like Moviebob or Yahtzee do every day.

runic knight:

snip

Yes it is because those portrayals of women are sexist. If there was a racist portrayal of someone would you be okay with it? I'd hope not.

But some men are okay with sexism because it panders to them and they don't care how it makes some female gamers feel. Just like racism may be funny and entertaining to some but very hurtful to those on the receiving end.

I don't like my sex being portrayed as merely eye candy. Why is it such a problem for male gamers that they are more than that? Would it upset you so much if you got your fap material taken away It's not like the internet isn't full of the stuff anyway right?

runic knight:
I am curious though your take on broader claims of sexism in gaming based on the frequency of certain trends of tropes with female characters as generally weaker then male counterparts

Thats actually a good question. An congrats on asking the question, since the first step in developing an answer is asking the right question. My view on game theory is different from people who just play games: I'm both a writer & a Gamemaster, so to me narrative is king, so you'll have to bare with me.

I hold that female characters aren't weaker them male characters, because all characters are not made equal. If a set dressing character is as capable as the main character, then the main character is superflous.

So lets say we are playing Arkham City... All of a sudden every single character in the game is as strong, capable & well armed as Batman... In that case why do we need Batman in the game at all?

When we have a choice between a male & female protagonist there is no difference in there strength/power levels, though they may play differently & your own play style may clash with the given character. I totally had this with Catwoman... I hated playing as her, because i like the glide and grapple style of Batman & Robin. I also had similiar problems with playing Nightwing.

This isn't an issue of gender, its an issue of plot relevence. The most relevent character in the game is your character, because if every other character was as relevent, what point is there for your character?

This is something i must always keep in mind when designing adventures for my players in an already establish setting... How relevent are my characters if Superman just comes and defeats all the bad guys for them.

runic knight:
Or, to put it another way, what do the trends of all the "rescue the princess" and other such tropes in games out there represent and does the pattern of a bias bout weaker female characters that immerse from examining them signify anything?

I honestly don't think there is a trend there. I think there is a trend of "character in need of assistance," but when its a male character in need of assistance no one notices. How many times in an MMO or sandbox game is it a male character who is the quest giver, or in need of rescuing? How often is it a male character being attacked by monsters & requires saving?

We just don't notice them at a societal level, because we still consider men to be disposable & to be fair "set dressing characters" no matter the gender are disposable. They exist to facilitate the actions of the protagonist.

I will often put civilians in danger in my DC adventures game, having villains target them, so to distract the heroes from there main objective... An equal amount of the time its split between men & women... But i've found that if you really want to make the villain appear dastardly, make the "victims" women & children: Because we as a society still value women and children above the lives of men.

Of course this says nothing about a trope were "A WOMAN" is put in danger to facilitate the action of the protagonist. It doesn't say anything about women in the wider world on its own. Of course this can be changed on a case by case basis by inserting sexist rhetoric into the specific case, as mentioned earlier up the page.

runic knight:
Also, something I recalled, isn't Red Sonya the female equivalent of Conan the Barbarian? I recall a lot of loincloth in depictions of him too....

Yes. They are both Hyborian characters & yes the stories were deliberately not egaltarian, in any way. Sex, power, slavery, debauchery, black magic & human sacrifices were abound in that universe.

In fact without those things, it just wouldn't be the Hyborian universe. An yes, Conan spends a lot of those stories wearing tight leather pants... Though a lot of other characters were wearing loin clothes (comic book conan did, novel conan not so much so).

Moonlight Butterfly:

Yes it is because those portrayals of women are sexist. If there was a racist portrayal of someone would you be okay with it? I'd hope not.

But most men are okay with sexism because it panders to them and they don't care how it makes some female gamers feel. Just like racism may be funny and entertaining to some but very hurtful to those on the receiving end.

I don't like my sex being portrayed as merely eye candy. Why is it such a problem for male gamers that they are more than that? Would it upset you so much if you got your fap material taken away It's not like the internet isn't full of the stuff anyway right?

How, exactly? A claim is kinda meaningless without support, so how are these portrayals sexist? He's already mentioned that a portrayal of a woman doesn't necessitate that the woman represents all women. Thus, how is a portrayal of a woman as "sexy" sexist in and of itself?

Your second point I find offense to for both its inaccuracy and its hypocrisy. how DARE you say a damn thing about sexism in any instance when you, right there, have spouted off an unfounded blindly SEXIST ideal as some fact. "Most" male gamers, in america at least, would actually end up being nearly "Most" males in general. Indeed, with about 75% the population of males being gamers, nearly 40% of ALL males in america would fall under that tent, and that is if some how every single misognist out there happened to be a gamer too.
You want to talk about sexism, please don't blatantly demonstrate your own biases and sexist ideals like that.

I can understand you don't want your sex portrayed as eyecandy. I rather find offense to have mine presented as misogynists who selfishly disregard women's rights. The problem being, sexualizing something doesn't mean it is reduced to eyecandy. It is just a characteristic of the whole. If the whole purpose of the woman was to be eye candy, then you would have a better argument, but that is less common the case in gaming. Furthermore, you present the notion that sexualizing something is inherently sexist, a notion I have to disagree with as it would result in countless women out there suddenly being denied their own capacity to think and make decisions if the results of those decisions happen to involve appearances.

matthew_lane:
You'll note i've removed the term oversexualised from your above quote & replaced it with sexualised. There is no such thing s oversexualised, as "over" is a subjective term, not an objective one: I thought I pointed out in the last message, but maybe not.

You'll notice I've removed the terms adequately and apparently from the above quote, as adequately and apparently are subjective terms, not objective ones.

But seriously, it's a debate of opinion and subjectivity is inseparable from this purpose. You trying to pretend there is any validity in the supposed objectivity of personal bias is entirely pointless.

Boudica:
You'll notice I've removed the terms adequately and apparently from the above quote, as adequately and apparently are subjective terms, not objective ones.

They are, but the point i'm making was subjective. Note how i wasn't making an objective statement, or even a positive assertion at all.

Boudica:
But seriously, it's a debate of opinion and subjectivity is inseparable from this purpose. You trying to pretend there is any validity in the supposed objectivity of personal bias is entirely pointless.

Because we aren't talking about subjectivity: Moonlight is trying to make objective statements that such a thing is objective & self evident, when it is clearly not. If it was an undeniable objective stance, then this conversation wouldn't be continuing... It is continuing because the defense of A.S is undefensible. This is also why her proponents are trying for "appeal to motive," in the form of emotionalised loaded language rather then an actual refutation of any of the claims made.

matthew_lane:

Thats actually a good question. An congrats on asking the question, since the first step in developing an answer is asking the right question. My view on game theory is different from people who just play games: I'm both a writer & a Gamemaster, so to me narrative is king, so you'll have to bare with me.

I hold that female characters aren't weaker them male characters, because all characters are not made equal. If a set dressing character is as capable as the main character, then the main character is superflous.

So lets say we are playing Arkham City... All of a sudden every single character in the game is as strong, capable & well armed as Batman... In that case why do we need Batman in the game at all?

When we have a choice between a male & female protagonist there is no difference in there strength/power levels, though they may play differently & your own play style may clash with the given character. I totally had this with Catwoman... I hated playing as her, because i like the glide and grapple style of Batman & Robin. I also had similiar problems with playing Nightwing.

This isn't an issue of gender, its an issue of plot relevence. The most relevent character in the game is your character, because if every other character was as relevent, what point is there for your character?

This is something i must always keep in mind when designing adventures for my players in an already establish setting... How relevent are my characters if Superman just comes and defeats all the bad guys for them.

I ask in hopes of lengthy discussion, so no worries there.
I do see the value of the player character getting more relevance, though that itself can have some issues as i will touch on after your second point. In many games the character of choice to rescue is female. And ass you yourself mention even, there is a cultural mindset of wishing to protect women over men (and children most of all). Because of the decision to use a female character based on this characteristic within our culture (the characteristic of women being more valuable), would not using a female character, female solely because of the added gravity, not be a bias towards inequality and a sign of a sexist view? If the character is chosen because it is a female in hopes of illicit the culturally developed desire to protect the character, is that not in itself somewhat sexist?

matthew_lane:

I honestly don't think there is a trend there. I think there is a trend of "character in need of assistance," but when its a male character in need of assistance no one notices. How many times in an MMO or sandbox game is it a male character who is the quest giver, or in need of rescuing? How often is it a male character being attacked by monsters & requires saving?

We just don't notice them at a societal level, because we still consider men to be disposable & to be fair "set dressing characters" no matter the gender are disposable. They exist to facilitate the actions of the protagonist.

I will often put civilians in danger in my DC adventures game, having villains target them, so to distract the heroes from there main objective... An equal amount of the time its split between men & women... But i've found that if you really want to make the villain appear dastardly, make the "victims" women & children: Because we as a society still value women and children above the lives of men.

Of course this says nothing about a trope were "A WOMAN" is put in danger to facilitate the action of the protagonist. It doesn't say anything about women in the wider world on its own. Of course this can be changed on a case by case basis by inserting sexist rhetoric into the specific case, as mentioned earlier up the page.

There is a trend in what gender is resorted to what role. Males are more often protagonists, Females usually secondary support characters motivated by plot (girlfriend, etc.). While not always the case, even you can see that in games with characters within a role, there is at least a pattern. Your use of women and children in order to get a stronger response is another example that is kinda common.

I don't doubt that male characters are disposable in general, at least considered to females. Centuries of men dying in war breed that into our culture to help cope I suppose. But is not even the pattern of male mook brigades not a sign of a bias and even a stereotype concerning portrayals? Hell, if I recall right there is some trope concerning female mooks being more likely to be "special" mooks, either plot relevant, part of a miniboss squad or some such thing.
Aren't things of that nature, specifically the use of gender specifically to fit certain roles, exactly the sort repeated behavior and repeated matching of traits that signifies a stereotype?
I will add, that even if it is the case of a stereotype, I do not think that itself signifies a sexism. After all, most black characters in games are athletic or strong, though I am of the mind that is a result of player characters required to BE athletic or strong rather then playing to the general sportstar stereotype.

runic knight:
snip

I will change it to 'some' my intended meaning was 'not all' But again you cherry picked something to rage over and ignored the meat of what I said. Well done. It's pretty clear when a woman is attractive and when she is pandering eye candy. I think denying that a problem exists is one of the biggest issues.

Rachel in Ninja Gaiden wears PVC and has well over F cup breasts. Do you think any top heavy women would choose to dress like that if she was a warrior?

Let's look at Miranda too, she is a good female character yeah but she has no reason to be dressed in skin tight clothing and heels and the camera hovers around her arse. This sends a very clear message about what she is there for and ultimately detracts from her character as your second in command.

Very good article on the subject.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173227/Opinion_Video_games_and_Male_Gaze__are_we_men_or_boys.php#.UFQyolGCWmo

Female sexuality isn't inherently negative in media, and I do want to stress that. Sexual dynamics can bring up a lot of interesting mature themes across the board, when treated with intelligence and purpose. But most of the time in games it's treated without any sort of thought, as was the Hitman: Absolution trailer. Most of the time the thought is simply, "well... we have to make the female character sexy, so let's show off her boobs and hips." It is an absolute given that female characters must be somehow sexy. We don't have this same rule for male characters.

Isn't that a little overly simplistic for an industry that can show the horrors of war, the sorrow of losing a child, and other complex scenarios? We can clearly do better. But our views of women are almost always coming from a single perspective; the Male Gaze. When you diminish the female perspective in sexy scenes, and guide the viewer's gaze, they wind up reinforcing stereotypes and tropes that appeal exclusive to heterosexual male sexuality.

There are deeper societal issues at root here, and we can't change all of society. But the fact is we are not all of society. We are an elite group of people that make games that show what we think and feel about the world. We can't change everyone, but we can change our industry, and we can change the depiction of women in our medium. If we do that, we may even influence public opinion.

By representing women in this mono-dimensional manner, both in games and at industry events, we show, subtly or overtly, that we think women are nothing more than boobs and butts. Simultaneously, we males represent ourselves as nothing more than a cock and balls. As males, through our depiction of women in media, and how we treat them in the industry and community, the message we're pushing hardest is the one Katie Williams unfortunately stumbled into; "I would or would not have sex with you."

runic knight:
Aren't things of that nature, specifically the use of gender specifically to fit certain roles, exactly the sort repeated behavior and repeated matching of traits that signifies a stereotype?

Not really. This is not a case of life imitating art, but art imitating life. Women have always been attirubted with more value, because we are only a few hundred years away from a time period before socialised medicine allowed both men & women to step out of there previous biologically determined roles.

Its still ingrained at a fuyndemental level. We still attribute great value in women and children: Hence resucing a woman or a child is given greater social significants then resucuing a man... And rescuing a girl child is given the most relevence.

But with the advent of communication technology, we've seen that this is not the case in practice. Men are just as likely to be victims as women & i think this has been reflected in our media, especially in computer games. The only thing is that some people Anita among them will still see a woman in trouble as sexism, while simulataneously ignoring the male disposibality aspects of the same game.

I had a friend like that, who did the same thing with movies: He was that guy who would always say "black guy dies first" when ever a black character would die... We could sit through an entire movie where every white guy in the darn movie would be killed & then in the last 20 seconds of that same movie a black guy would die & he'd immediatelly say "see, black guy dies first."

He was a great guy, but he just had this giant blind spot, where he'd only notice things he thought he already knew. Anita did the same thing with her femminist frequency video about Women in Refridgerators, when she mentioned the Death of Big Barda.

A.S went on this big spiel about how Big Barda was killed in this comic, to facilitate action by her male husband, Scott Free. An how it was made worse because it didn't look like she fought back & how it inspired a new narrative, at which point she showed a cover page for a Scott Free comic.

What she fialed to mention was that the comic book in question was called "death of the new gods" had 3 other new god characters killed off in that first issue before we see the death of Big Barda (all killed in an identical fashion & all male) & was part of an on going arc, in which we see 3 other new gods be killed & are told of the death of dozens of others.

But those didn't apparently rate a mention on A.S's video. Because Anita didn't recognise the dath of a non female character as an issue. An neither does larger society as a whole, unfortunately. Of course the death of the new gods while being a poor writing descision by DC was not at all sexist.

CAPTCHA: Hammer Time. Damn right Captcha, you can't touch this.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 21 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