Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT
 

matthew_lane:
sexist, bigoted, facism. You don't get to dictate what others can & cannot enjoy.

That's what you are doing though, by keeping over sexualised women in games.

You say to me 'Well you could just play a different game this one isn't for you'. That's telling me to like it or GTFO isn't it.

The problem with gaming is I can like RPG's but the attitude towards women can prevent me from playing, say, The Witcher. That's selfish especially when the reasoning is 'We like titties so tough shit'

You outright deny things that are plain fact.

- Women are sexualised in video games.
- You are saying to me like it or leave
- Eye candy isn't a decent female character.

You fall back on semantics and 'fallacies' because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on in this argument. You are avoiding the facts and instead pursuing how I am presenting my argument. The grammar nazi behaviour is also hilarious.

Stamping your feet and saying 'No it isn't true' is not a viable argument I'm afraid.

Finally the reason I brought up Miranda's armour is that it makes no logical sense to wear a catsuit in a universe where body armour is available and used by the same gender characters. Unless of course she is just intended to be a sex object.

Boudica:

matthew_lane:
Sure you could, but that would be a presuppositional statement & if you did that i would have to point & laugh at you.

I don't think it's a fantastic idea to suggest you would point and laugh at someone for any form of argument when you yourself continually fail to capitalize words and letters (ironically, you do capitalize words after a colon, one place you need not) and use "&" in sentences. It'd strike me as odd for one to mock another while making obvious errors time and time again, see.

Ah yes: When all else fails, point out spelling errors. The last resort of someone who can't refute whats been said.

matthew_lane:

Boudica:

matthew_lane:
Sure you could, but that would be a presuppositional statement & if you did that i would have to point & laugh at you.

I don't think it's a fantastic idea to suggest you would point and laugh at someone for any form of argument when you yourself continually fail to capitalize words and letters (ironically, you do capitalize words after a colon, one place you need not) and use "&" in sentences. It'd strike me as odd for one to mock another while making obvious errors time and time again, see.

Ah yes: When all else fails, point out spelling errors. The last resort of someone who can't refute whats been said.

That's totally different from pointing out grammatical errors as part of your argument and using them to try and ridicule people isn't it /sarcasm >_>

Moonlight Butterfly:
That's totally different from pointing out grammatical errors as part of your argument and using them to try and ridicule people isn't it /sarcasm >_>

When did i point out a grammatical error?

matthew_lane:

Boudica:

matthew_lane:
Sure you could, but that would be a presuppositional statement & if you did that i would have to point & laugh at you.

I don't think it's a fantastic idea to suggest you would point and laugh at someone for any form of argument when you yourself continually fail to capitalize words and letters (ironically, you do capitalize words after a colon, one place you need not) and use "&" in sentences. It'd strike me as odd for one to mock another while making obvious errors time and time again, see.

Ah yes: When all else fails, point out spelling errors. The last resort of someone who can't refute whats been said.

I'm not arguing with you. I was arguing with you, but I won the debate and you moved on to continue your conversation with Moonlight. I interjected to point out a potential hole you were headed towards; a friendly caution to avoid looking foolish :)

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:
That's totally different from pointing out grammatical errors as part of your argument and using them to try and ridicule people isn't it /sarcasm >_>

When did i point out a grammatical error?

Well I guess it's more like linguistics but the very first line of your last post to me. :/

Boudica:
I'm not arguing with you. I was arguing with you, but I won the debate and you moved on to continue your conversation with Moonlight. I interjected to point out a potential hole you were headed towards; a friendly caution to avoid looking foolish :)

LOL, Parkers Law

matthew_lane:

Boudica:
I'm not arguing with you. I was arguing with you, but I won the debate and you moved on to continue your conversation with Moonlight. I interjected to point out a potential hole you were headed towards; a friendly caution to avoid looking foolish :)

LOL, Parkers Law

Wow you really fall back on those Laws and fallacies don't you, you will be going on about strawmen next.

Boudica:

runic knight:
you could admit you actually don't know the motivation for every male gamer out there

Well it's a good thing I didn't say anything about "every male gamer out there," then, isn't it!

Because sexually repressed men crave an outlet and objectified women in video games provide one such release.

Because sexually repressed men crave an outlet

Sexually repressed men

So, are you arguing that sexually repressed men don't crave an outlet? Or that "every male gamer" is a sexually repressed man? Because, using your exact words, those are your only two options.

funny, I could have sworn I put something else there... oh yes

let alone even those arguing against her

Sorry, suppose I shoulda been clearer. Given that the comment seemed directed at the people she was arguing with, and that your rebuttal was aimed at her comment and by that back at the ones arguing with her, you still come off as insinuating either one of two things. Now, you are either saying about the people arguing with her specifically, of which is presuming to know what motivates them, why they aren't supporting her and so on, or you are using her statement as a general catch-all that by the nature of catch-alls, encompasses all or most men. And again, present a generalization and presume to know the reasons for the behavior of them.
So, are you saying Matt there and myself are arguing this because we seek an outlet or are you arguing an unspecified general "male gamer" section of the population that would, a the very least to justify the generalization be a sizable portion of it, have to be seeking release.

matthew_lane:

Boudica:
I'm not arguing with you. I was arguing with you, but I won the debate and you moved on to continue your conversation with Moonlight. I interjected to point out a potential hole you were headed towards; a friendly caution to avoid looking foolish :)

LOL, Parkers Law

Firstly, it's Danth's law. Secondly, we aren't arguing, so I cannot be using an argument in fallacy.

Oi, Matt.

Statements like this

matthew_lane:
What you are talking about is essentially removing anything that does not comply to your personal interests & that is sexist, bigoted, facism.

do nothing but make you look bad, for a number of reasons:

1) It's the same ad hominem bullshit that is exactly the problem I was talking about in my last post.

2) It is entirely wrong - a complete misrepresentation of the feminist side of the argument and also nothing at all that Moonlight said.

3) You misspelled fascism. Also, you have no idea what that fascism actually is - nor, I suspect, bigotry and sexism. You throw these words at Moonlight with no other intent than insulting her, and no actual idea of what they really mean.

runic knight:

Boudica:

runic knight:
you could admit you actually don't know the motivation for every male gamer out there

Well it's a good thing I didn't say anything about "every male gamer out there," then, isn't it!

Because sexually repressed men crave an outlet and objectified women in video games provide one such release.

Because sexually repressed men crave an outlet

Sexually repressed men

So, are you arguing that sexually repressed men don't crave an outlet? Or that "every male gamer" is a sexually repressed man? Because, using your exact words, those are your only two options.

funny, I could have sworn I put something else there... oh yes

let alone even those arguing against her

Sorry, suppose I shoulda been clearer. Given that the comment seemed directed at the people she was arguing with, and that your rebuttal was aimed at her comment and by that back at the ones arguing with her, you still come off as insinuating either one of two things. Now, you are either saying about the people arguing with her specifically, of which is presuming to know what motivates them, why they aren't supporting her and so on, or you are using her statement as a general catch-all that by the nature of catch-alls, encompasses all or most men. And again, present a generalization and presume to know the reasons for the behavior of them.
So, are you saying Matt there and myself are arguing this because we seek an outlet or are you arguing an unspecified general "male gamer" section of the population that would, a the very least to justify the generalization be a sizable portion of it, have to be seeking release.

No, sorry, you can't misinterpret my words and form a poor argument with them. You either worded yourself poorly or made a very silly argument. My wording was concrete :)

Sexually repressed men

Said what I meant and meant what I said. Can you say the same?

Moonlight Butterfly:

runic knight:
snip

But we ARE trying to encourage them not to but when we do we get rape threats and abuse.

Hold up right there. I am not condoning that behavior, but what the hell? Where the hell is that coming from? What damn relevance is that aside from appealing to emotion? I know it occurs and I know it is horrible but...the hell?! I get rape threats when I kick the ass of a 10 year old online. I get death threats when I disagree with someone on youtube. Presenting it as though that is a response gotten because what you are arguing instead of because the individual you are arguing with is a vile asshole hiding behind anonymity is just manipulative. The issue there is more anonymity abuse, not necessarily of male gamers being abusive. Not that they can't be, but I have been online long enough to know EVERYONE can be abusive. I've seen my little pony fans pull out some truly vile language before, and I have heard threats of women saying they'd cut my dick off when arguing feminism. The internet is full of terrible terrible people, but how does that really relate to this debate?

I'm not saying there should be a law to prevent this kind of shit just that games devs need to see that it's not pleasant or appropriate. Much like racism.

But that is the problem. Some people do find it pleasant and appropriate. And they pay for that product. Devs will side with whoever pays the bills. Hell, if they can satisfy some and keep most impartial or at least tolerant enough, they will, and in fact, they do. Most guys I know don't really care for the acetic of chainmail bikini's outside of porn, but most don't care too much about it either, least not enough to avoid the gameplay. Some devs just want to pander to a known audience then risk a fickle new one.

Boudica:

runic knight:

Boudica:
Well it's a good thing I didn't say anything about "every male gamer out there," then, isn't it!

So, are you arguing that sexually repressed men don't crave an outlet? Or that "every male gamer" is a sexually repressed man? Because, using your exact words, those are your only two options.

funny, I could have sworn I put something else there... oh yes

let alone even those arguing against her

Sorry, suppose I shoulda been clearer. Given that the comment seemed directed at the people she was arguing with, and that your rebuttal was aimed at her comment and by that back at the ones arguing with her, you still come off as insinuating either one of two things. Now, you are either saying about the people arguing with her specifically, of which is presuming to know what motivates them, why they aren't supporting her and so on, or you are using her statement as a general catch-all that by the nature of catch-alls, encompasses all or most men. And again, present a generalization and presume to know the reasons for the behavior of them.
So, are you saying Matt there and myself are arguing this because we seek an outlet or are you arguing an unspecified general "male gamer" section of the population that would, a the very least to justify the generalization be a sizable portion of it, have to be seeking release.

No, sorry, you can't misinterpret my words and form a poor argument with them. You either worded yourself poorly or made a very silly argument. My wording was concrete :)

Sexually repressed men

Said what I meant and meant what I said. Can you say the same?

Yet you can't re-examine how a clarification might affect your initial statements... odd.
Care to address my point above, about how your comment seems to apply to either 2 posters i nthe thread specifically or to an at-least sizable portion of gamers as a general? You know, and show how you know the motivations of either category.

I mean you could continue to display that you have no actual interest in discussion by seeing an issue of communication between us as something else and proceed to keep hopping on that til the straw falls out, but perhaps you'd like to address my complaint after all?

runic knight:

Moonlight Butterfly:

runic knight:
snip

But we ARE trying to encourage them not to but when we do we get rape threats and abuse.

Hold up right there. I am not condoning that behavior, but what the hell? Where the hell is that coming from? What damn relevance is that aside from appealing to emotion? I know it occurs and I know it is horrible but...the hell?! I get rape threats when I kick the ass of a 10 year old online. I get death threats when I disagree with someone on youtube. Presenting it as though that is a response gotten because what you are arguing instead of because the individual you are arguing with is a vile asshole hiding behind anonymity is just manipulative. The issue there is more anonymity abuse, not necessarily of male gamers being abusive. Not that they can't be, but I have been online long enough to know EVERYONE can be abusive. I've seen my little pony fans pull out some truly vile language before, and I have heard threats of women saying they'd cut my dick off when arguing feminism. The internet is full of terrible terrible people, but how does that really relate to this debate?

I'm not saying there should be a law to prevent this kind of shit just that games devs need to see that it's not pleasant or appropriate. Much like racism.

But that is the problem. Some people do find it pleasant and appropriate. And they pay for that product. Devs will side with whoever pays the bills. Hell, if they can satisfy some and keep most impartial or at least tolerant enough, they will, and in fact, they do. Most guys I know don't really care for the acetic of chainmail bikini's outside of porn, but most don't care too much about it either, least not enough to avoid the gameplay. Some devs just want to pander to a known audience then risk a fickle new one.

I've been gaming for 26 years I'm not 'new'

Maybe Sarkeesians work will make them take a better looks at how they portray women. I think that women can still be beautiful with being over the top tits and ass.

Like you said there are a lot of guys out there who don't mind so devs should take note of that and try make characters that rely on depth of character rather than panty shots.

I don't think demographic is a valid excuse for sexism, if gaming was say, a white majority would you think racist games were appropriate?

Moonlight Butterfly:
That's what you are doing though, by keeping over sexualised women in games.

No, its the exact opposite. Artists have freedom of expression to create whatever they like within legal boundaries. You not liking something is not actually a stipulation for any of those legal boundaries.

If people want some games with sexualised characters in it for the benefit of male or female viewers then there is no reason not to give them that product.

Moonlight Butterfly:
You say to me 'Well you could just play a different game this one isn't for you'. That's telling me to like it or GTFO isn't it.

No it really isn't. Its the equiviliant of me playing Command & Conquer & then saying "i don't like this type of game, become a different sort of game i like. Or i hate football games, this football game shouldn't exist because i don't like football games.

someone coming along & saying "Well you could just play a different game if this one isn't to your liking." Because thats totally the same thing as telling me to like it or GTFO isn't it? OF COURSE ITS NOT.

No one is telling you you can't play a game, just that the games are not all made specifically for you, in the same way they aren't all made specifically for me. Yet you seem to be specifically arguing that all games be specifically tailored to your personal interest: No.

Moonlight Butterfly:
The problem with gaming is I can like RPG's but the attitude towards women can prevent me from playing, say, The Witcher. That's selfish especially when the reasoning is 'We like titties so tough shit'

No, there was no problem with the game the witcher, the problem was that YOU didn't like it. An as a futher extrapolation of that same paradigm, there is not "problem with gaming." The problem lies in that you don't like particular games & can't except that you not liking them is not a sufficent reason for those games not to exist.

Moonlight Butterfly:
You outright deny things that are plain fact.

No, i'm denying your logic, because its not plain facts, its subjective conjecture, predicated on your personal, subjective opinion. If it were plain facts, it would be both objective & deomnnstrable... An then there would be no argument here.

Moonlight Butterfly:
- Women are sexualised in video games.

I'm sure they are... so what? Men are sexualised in romantic comedies, romance novels, womens magazines, adverts targetted at women & even computer games. There is nothing wrong with someone looking sexually attractive. Why did the producers of the second twilight film put a buff shirtless teen age boy on there movie poster? Because humans are sexual beings & like seeing sexy characters in there escapsim. Nothing wrong with that.

Moonlight Butterfly:
- You are saying to me like it or leave

No, i'm saying choose your media input & stop expecting everything to adapt to your personal self interest.

Moonlight Butterfly:
- Eye candy isn't a decent female character.

No, a decent character is a decent character. But there is no exclsuion rule that states a decent character cannot also be sexually attractive.

Moonlight Butterfly:
You fall back on semantics and 'fallacies' because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on in this argument.

no, i'm pointing out when you make basic breaches of logic by falling back on logical fallacies. Abn pointing out when you make semantic gaffs, by over stepping the definition of terms & concepts is also vitally important.

Both are important in maintaining communication & intellectual honesty. For example, you were using the term oversexualisation, until i corrected you to the term you really meant which was "any sexualisation." Since then, you've been much more intellectually honest about what you mean.

Likewise me pointing out your use of logical fallacies is only occouring because you insist on using so many of them & i refuse to allow you to slide them past me. If you find it to be a problem, mayhap you would consider not using invalid arguments & i won't need to point them out when you do.

Moonlight Butterfly:
You are avoiding the facts and instead pursuing how I am presenting my argument.

No, i'm trying to define the fuzzy logic you are using & so far your entire argument seems to be "i don't like it, so it should change because i don't like it." Please correct me if i'm wrong, because that seems like a very childish & self entitled stance to take.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Stamping your feet and saying 'No it isn't true' is not a viable argument I'm afraid.

Oh i see. Now you've moved on to making red herring statements, in the hopes of moving your opponent on to the defensive. I"m sorry M.B, that doesn't work with me.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Finally the reason I brought up Miranda's armour is that it makes no logical sense to wear a catsuit in a universe where body armour is available and used by the same gender characters. Unless of course she is just intended to be a sex object.

Nope. For starters its not a cat suit, its just really tight over the arse. Its actually got crenelated sleeves & an admiral cross on the front. Not to get tautological on you, but thats not a cat suit; a cat suit is a cat suit.

As for why is she wearing it? Because she is. Why does Krato wear a kilt rather then armour, why does Alec not forge the metal he finds into plate mail? Because realism has nothing to do with Escapism.

runic knight:
your comment seems to apply to either 2 posters i nthe thread specifically or to an at-least sizable portion of gamers as a general

Actually, in case you missed it, it applies to "sexually repressed men." You can misread the comment all you like. I'll quote it until it sinks in.

Andre Rapp:

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.

When your argument is 'She probably has the technical skills to do it' and 'people on /v/ will react if they think it's her whether she did it or not', yeah 'So what' is the appropriate response, cause the first isn't evidence, just a statement of capability, and the second isn't evidence, it's an admission that /v/ doesn't care about evidence.

So far you have 'Some anonymous troll made it look like her' which when you're dealing with 4chan must be taken with a grain of salt.

'Hey I'm Anita blah blah blah' Bitch please. It's 4chan. What's more likely... she said some feminist stuff to her peer group and some anon trolled 4chan pretended to be her and successfully trolled some butthurt channers into going after her...

...or she made a dedicated attack against 4chan instead of going after a target that, in the grand scheme of things, actually matters?

Naive.

Trilligan:
I'm going to wander down a tangent, and link a little something about The Big Bang Theory.

For those of you who don't want to read all that (though you should, it's pretty insightful, methinks), the long and the short of it is this:

The Big Bang Theory is sold to audiences as a show about nerds, for nerds. But, in reality, if you stop and consider what is being said, how the characters in that show are depicted, you may easily come to the conclusion that it is a show about mocking nerds, for people who aren't nerds but want to feel superior towards them. It is a valid interpretation and a valid criticism.

Will all people agree? No. But there is evidence that supports that conclusion, and it makes the blogger who posted it extremely uncomfortable watching the show, because it is presenting his particular group of people in a singularly two-dimensional way, demeaning them and their identity in order to entertain a different, more 'mainstream' part of the culture.

Sound familiar? It should. This is how many women feel about the way they are presented in games and gaming culture.

When your specific subset of the population is being grossly misrepresented to pander to a different subset of the population, it's perfectly understandable that you would hate that, and want to see it changed. It's perfectly understandable that you would speak out about how much it needs to change, and level criticism against the attitudes that brought that skewed position about.

All true. I'm with you so far, though I think it still has every right to exist even if the show is sort of "blah" to me. Some people enjoy it so why not?

Trilligan:

And what is the response to this? In the case of women in gaming, the response is a vast onslaught of hate and vitriol, cries of 'suck it up' and 'your opinion doesn't matter' and other misogynistic bullshit espoused by some of the more troglodytic of this forum's membership. Ultimately, this just fuels rage and turns the whole thing into a shitstorm instead of a viable debate - because the anti-feminists by and large don't want viable debate. They occupy and indefensible position, and they are forced to defend it by being belligerent and turning the debate into an ad hominem slugfest. Like they do with Miss Sarkeesian.

Anti-feminist huh? Aside from the rather universal aspect of assholes you get online thanks to anonymity, I have found few topics that don't have their fair share of them on both sides. I've had a woman threaten to cut my dick off before over an argument about feminism. While I certainly don't think this response is a sign of feminism as a whole, I do not think opposition to Sarkeesian should be lumped together with the assholes there too, especially not when the issues brought up have been argued in threads all over the place and unless you have a confirmation bias, you can see ugliness all around but also people on both sides being rational.

I can see that people cause issues but please don't insult me talking about what other assholes have done as though I have any say or any culpability in that. I am an individual and I argue as one. Presenting this here is utterly worthless once you realize everyone arguing this topic is an individual. I've been trying to have discussions and debate on this topic for a while now and have been moderately successful. I couldn't care less about what the trolls want or don't want. If you want to toss your hat in the ring on the topic, I am happy. If you want to keep tossing out the trolls as though some measure of morality of positions, then just stop. It looks bad to watch someone doing that, like they feel they have to justify their stance by the worst of the opposition.

matthew_lane:
snip.

Well you are just repeating yourself now and thus forcing me to repeat myself. All of the things I have said are facts. Okay Miranda wears a skin tight 'outfit' I didn't realise you were Gok Wan sorry lol.

Escapism isn't an excuse for sexist portrayals of women just as it isn't an excuse for racism.
I don't get why devs can't just treat their female characters with more respect and why gamers are so insistent on women only being eye candy. It's very sad.

Making female character less about sex and tittilation and more about their own character would not cause any problems and would only improve games.

Nothing is stopping them from being attractive as well as avoiding male gaze and ridiculous outfits.

Boudica:

runic knight:
your comment seems to apply to either 2 posters i nthe thread specifically or to an at-least sizable portion of gamers as a general

Actually, in case you missed it, it applies to "sexually repressed men." You can misread the comment all you like. I'll quote it until it sinks in.

In a topic concerning Sarkeesian, best know for the issues of women and tropes in games and male gamer's view of women, in a discussion about male gamer's view of video game characters, in a specific instance relating to two male gamers "not" letting moonlight get the games she wants, you quoted her and made a comment related to sexually repressed men in general and with no relation or purpose in the overall discussion?

why....?!

I...you do get how quoting her suggests your post relates to hers in some manner, specifically to the question she asked, right?

Moonlight Butterfly:

Nothing is stopping them from being attractive as well as avoiding male gaze and ridiculous outfits.

you know who woulda been a good example of that?

image

Izzy. Sensibly dressed, bad-ass, and attractive without being on display.

...Damn EA ~.~

Moonlight Butterfly:

runic knight:

Moonlight Butterfly:

But we ARE trying to encourage them not to but when we do we get rape threats and abuse.

Hold up right there. I am not condoning that behavior, but what the hell? Where the hell is that coming from? What damn relevance is that aside from appealing to emotion? I know it occurs and I know it is horrible but...the hell?! I get rape threats when I kick the ass of a 10 year old online. I get death threats when I disagree with someone on youtube. Presenting it as though that is a response gotten because what you are arguing instead of because the individual you are arguing with is a vile asshole hiding behind anonymity is just manipulative. The issue there is more anonymity abuse, not necessarily of male gamers being abusive. Not that they can't be, but I have been online long enough to know EVERYONE can be abusive. I've seen my little pony fans pull out some truly vile language before, and I have heard threats of women saying they'd cut my dick off when arguing feminism. The internet is full of terrible terrible people, but how does that really relate to this debate?

I'm not saying there should be a law to prevent this kind of shit just that games devs need to see that it's not pleasant or appropriate. Much like racism.

But that is the problem. Some people do find it pleasant and appropriate. And they pay for that product. Devs will side with whoever pays the bills. Hell, if they can satisfy some and keep most impartial or at least tolerant enough, they will, and in fact, they do. Most guys I know don't really care for the acetic of chainmail bikini's outside of porn, but most don't care too much about it either, least not enough to avoid the gameplay. Some devs just want to pander to a known audience then risk a fickle new one.

I've been gaming for 26 years I'm not 'new'

Maybe Sarkeesians work will make them take a better looks at how they portray women. I think that women can still be beautiful with being over the top tits and ass.

Like you said there are a lot of guys out there who don't mind so devs should take note of that and try make characters that rely on depth of character rather than panty shots.

I don't think demographic is a valid excuse for sexism, if gaming was say, a white majority would you think racist games were appropriate?

New as in concentrated target audience. If they switched gears and decided to make games based on your specific taste and demographic, it would be a new direction.
I think they can too. I do doubt she will do anything to help that, but that opinion mostly stems from her as a horrible journalist in my mind.
Many devs do, or make games that instead don't use very powerful graphics at all, use non-human characters, or some other way of avoiding the issue or trend in general. The ones left, some concentrate on story, some pander, some do both. Myself, I have been pushing for story and character depth as a whole. My mind is that once that is fixed, both genders will inherently be stronger characters as a result. But that is just me.
As for white majority, most protagonists are white, or asian I guess, in part as a result of target demographics. Less so now, but earlier on it was pretty noticeable. There is a difference in that and racism though. I do recall some outrage about a shooting game where the only level with an achievement for killing all the enemies was the only one with black characters as enemies. Racism there being the game rewarding killing of another race. Hell, for sexism I would point to Metroid: other M in how the game story, gameplay and controls all work around a woman being weaker then the male military guy, to the point of hamstringing you in game and denying access to weaponry that would otherwise help. Point being, it is not the use of characters, or even the traits of them, but the overall product that should be judged. A sexy character alone, no matter how risque is not enough to judge a game sexist any more then a game with a black protagonist who is athletic is to judge it racist. Context an theme are kind of important. Otherwise you may as well call every piece of art out there with a naked female body sexist.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Well you are just repeating yourself now and thus forcing me to repeat myself. All of the things I have said are facts. Okay Miranda wears a skin tight 'outfit' I didn't realise you were Gok Wan sorry lol.

Well, its an important distinction. You are using the term cat suit like its somehow a negative. Cat suits were popularised in the 1970s & 1980's along with Disco.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Escapism isn't an excuse for sexist portrayals of women just as it isn't an excuse for racism.

Except its not sexist. You keep on coming back to this presuppostional statement sexy =/= sexist. As for your attempt to link it to racism, thats another red herring statement in which you attempt to muddy the rhetorical waters, by calling on a unifer like racism. Other popular statements are rape, hitler & nazi's. Please don't use any of these as a go to comparison.

Moonlight Butterfly:
I don't get why devs can't just treat their female characters with more respect and why gamers are so insistent on women only being eye candy. It's very sad.

Becuase they don't insist on them being only eye candy. That is your interpretation of there motive, which is both an appeal to motive & again a fundemental attribution error. You've become so wrapped in your own absolutist narrative now, that you've lost all objectivity.

The other problem with an absolutist narratives like the one you've constructed is that it only takes a single counter example to destroy your house of cards: At that point you've either got to abandon your position as lost, or try to continue to justify your position.

So here you go, the female character in Portal. Bang there goes the house of cards: You've now either got to abandon the position, or try to add in how gamers insist on sexualising this character.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Nothing is stopping them from being attractive as well as avoiding male gaze and ridiculous outfits.

They already do this. In fact this has been the predominate mode for most games, since gaming began.

runic knight:
related to sexually repressed men in general and with no relation or purpose in the overall discussion?

No, silly billy. I offered one reason why. You can try all you like, you simply can't twist it into a shape you'd like.

Boudica:

runic knight:
related to sexually repressed men in general and with no relation or purpose in the overall discussion?

No, silly billy. I offered one reason why. You can try all you like, you simply can't twist it into a shape you'd like.

Boudica:

Moonlight Butterfly:
How about you just let us have decent female characters. WHY IS IT SO BAD.

Because sexually repressed men crave an outlet and objectified women in video games provide one such release.

Hmm, after rereading it, that first part really seems directed at Matt there. That makes the second part, your part, feel it applies to him as an answer to why he wont. -shrug-

But if that isn't that case, my mistake.

matthew_lane:
snip

You just seem to be in complete denial over this whole issue.

I can see you have convinced yourself that women have to be over the top tits and ass to possibly be attractive.

I; wasn't saying ALL women in games are eye candy just that when you bring up an issue with it men suddenly get all knee jerk defensive and deny that there is even a problem.

The way women are portrayed in say, DOA is in a negative sexist way and offensive.

Again you are trying to deflect with bringing up narratives and laws and fallacies. Racism is exactly the same as sexism. It makes people feel exactly the same way. Which is why I know that over sexualisation is sexist because it makes me feel unwelcome and like the dev is telling me he doesn't want me to play his/her game. It's exclusionary.

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:
snip

You just seem to be in complete denial over this whole issue.

I can see you have convinced yourself that women have to be over the top tits and ass to possibly be attractive.

That is just dishonest! Sorry, but come on! Nothing he has said has supported that at all and here you are trying to tell him his own motivations on this? Bad form, bad form!

runic knight:
Some people enjoy it so why not?

You don't see the problem with the proliferation of media that is meant to entertain one group of the population through the degradation, dehumanization, objectification or mockery of another group within that population?

Are you okay with 'blackface,' for instance? The caricature of African Americans or native African cultures as sub-human and inferior to white people?

runic knight:

Anti-feminist huh? Aside from the rather universal aspect of assholes you get online thanks to anonymity, I have found few topics that don't have their fair share of them on both sides.

I find the weight of assholes in this particular debate use misogynistic terms and attack women who have an opinion, rather than the other way around.

runic knight:
I do not think opposition to Sarkeesian should be lumped together with the assholes there too

A certain amount of 'lumping together' is going to occur when your argument borrows rhetoric from the assholes. Rhetoric that calls Sarkeesian a troll, for instance, simply because she has the gall to be critical about sexist portrayals of women.

runic knight:
I can see that people cause issues but please don't insult me talking about what other assholes have done as though I have any say or any culpability in that. I am an individual and I argue as one.

Again, when you borrow your argument from the worst your side of the debate has to offer you're going to be doing harm to your own position.

Also, when did I single you out as having any particular opinion at all? I don't recall quoting you.

runic knight:
Presenting this here is utterly worthless once you realize everyone arguing this topic is an individual.

Telling someone you disagree with that their argument is worthless is not at all conducive to any form of constructive debate.

runic knight:
I've been trying to have discussions and debate on this topic for a while now and have been moderately successful. I couldn't care less about what the trolls want or don't want. If you want to toss your hat in the ring on the topic, I am happy. If you want to keep tossing out the trolls as though some measure of morality of positions, then just stop. It looks bad to watch someone doing that, like they feel they have to justify their stance by the worst of the opposition.

Calling me a troll isn't conducive to any form of constructive debate, either. I need no justifications to have an opinion, nor should I feel the need for justification to call attention to people when they forego debate and instead turn a discussion into a lot of pointless, nonsensical bickering.

If you aren't doing that, then I must not be talking about you. Why presume I am?

runic knight:

Moonlight Butterfly:

runic knight:
snip

But we ARE trying to encourage them not to but when we do we get rape threats and abuse.

Hold up right there. I am not condoning that behavior, but what the hell? Where the hell is that coming from? What damn relevance is that aside from appealing to emotion? I know it occurs and I know it is horrible but...the hell?! I get rape threats when I kick the ass of a 10 year old online.

People arguing with each other in games is very different from a large group of people swarming one woman's blogs and videos and posting death/rape threats En Masse. And when the video is about sexism, with some valid concerns mixed with overblown ones........

Edit: And I hasten to add, this wasn't just angry 10 year olds having a temper tantrum, this was a concious attempt to control a woman's behaviour via a standard 4chan method....

runic knight:

Moonlight Butterfly:

matthew_lane:
snip

You just seem to be in complete denial over this whole issue.

I can see you have convinced yourself that women have to be over the top tits and ass to possibly be attractive.

That is just dishonest! Sorry, but come on! Nothing he has said has supported that at all and here you are trying to tell him his own motivations on this? Bad form, bad form!

Runic, don't judge M.B to harshly: M.B is obviously boxing above her weight class here.

B.M trying to attribute motives to me that i do not actually possess is exactly what i called her on before when i told her to stop using "appeal to motive." One also cannot attribute motives to anyone else, without immediately falling foul of fundemental attribution errors, which is a form of cognitive bias.

I would however point her attention back a page to where is said

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.

In other words, i'm all for unrealistic armour, but only as a viable option for armour design in computer games. Likewise i'm also all for giant tits & tight arse on female characters in computer games, but again only as one viable stylistic choice among many possible viable stylistic choices: Not as the be all & end all of stylistic choices (if you'll excuse the pun)

An i'm going to level with you here: 10+ years of table top gaming & i've yet to ever have someone come to the table and describe his or her character as ugly, or even mediocre looking. People want there avatar in a game, any game to at the very least look bad ass, or physically sexy. Doesn't matter if the player was male or female... Because thats how escapism works.

EDIT: Yes the first line is deliberate irony.

runic knight:

I don't doubt Anita's intellectual dishonesty at all. In fact, I just made a thread comparing the topic of tropes and games to a meal but anita's discussions to fast food, in terms of value, in terms of damage they can do and in terms of how predominant her videos and arguments were in comparison to a good "meal" on the topic itself. And I know she flubbed the Barda bit bad. I laughed at that and the whole "refrigerators" vid as it ignored that support characters and secondary characters are little more then kindling at times, especially whenever poor writers want to create unearned gravity and drama. Think the DC crossovers, like infinite crisis events are sort of notorious for killing scores of characters to either thin the lines of support characters, foster the next line of books or just rewrite the stories. Linkara's foaming at the mouth rage about Lian Harper demonstrates how it is often more a sign of very very poor writing (though surprised she didn't end up on the list of refrigerator ladies, since she is a little girl and all)

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is intellectual dishonesty (ie intentional) but a combination of not doing any actual research and only seeing what you want to see.

For example, her portrayal of Captain Janeway as a *favorable* female lead character in her "The Smurfette Principle" is a prime example of this. Depending on the episode Janeway is either portrayed as crazier then Captain Garth and Janice Lester combined while being dumber then John Gill (a point reviewer SF Debris loves to bring up again and again) or Captain Mary Sue. But she doesn't see this.

I would so further and say the 'support characters and secondary characters are little more then kindling' situation is related to a larger problem--a general inability to show adult characters in a meaningful loving relationship.

Reed and Sue Richards is about the only major married comic book couple I can think of where the couple has not been promptly dumped into comic book limbo not to be heard again for years, the partners have not separated or divorced, the partner hasn't been killed off for good, or the marriage hasn't been rectonned as never existing.

We got a good taste of this in Earth-2 where after being introduced to Alan Scott's boyfriend we find out next issue that 'yep he didn't last long; they killed him off'.

maximara:
I wouldn't go as far as saying it is intellectual dishonesty (ie intentional) but a combination of not doing any actual research and only seeing what you want to see.

Yep, she gets objective things wrong like 90% of the time, so one is led to believe that she is either ignorant on her prefered topic, or knows all about the topics she speaks on & are deliberately misrepresenting them: Ignorant or Liar, there is no third option.

maximara:
I would so further and say the 'support characters and secondary characters are little more then kindling' situation is related to a larger problem--a general inability to show adult characters in a meaningful loving relationship.

In serialised fiction yes. However thats an issue with long term serialised fiction, rather then the writers. Also you've got to admit that relationships beyond the declerations of undying love stage are boring. The fun is in the chase, not in the capture, especially if its the primary spark for the narrative.

maximara:
Reed and Sue Richards is about the only major married comic book couple I can think of where the couple has not been promptly dumped into comic book limbo not to be heard again for years, the partners have not separated or divorced, the partner hasn't been killed off for good, or the marriage hasn't been rectonned as never existing.

Personally i never thought much of there marriage, but to be fair i've always found the fantastic four astoundingly boring. Reeds obsession with working in his lab, Sue's dutiful wife & the homoerotic posturing between the Human Torch & The Thing (not that there is anything wrong with that), left me bored.

maximara:
We got a good taste of this in Earth-2 where after being introduced to Alan Scott's boyfriend we find out next issue that yep he's dead.

Less said about the reboot the better: Its been a balls up before even issue 1 of Justice LEague came out. DC seems to have jumped off the writing deep end & seemingly have forgotten how to write a solid narrative. Not that Marvel is any better with its Marvel Now project: Same disintering marvel shit, in a brand new disinteresting marvel wrapper.

I'm a huge comic book fan, but my comic pull list has been sitting at zero comics for a few months now.

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

**blinks**

What the hell did that have to do with anything I said in my previous post?

I'm not talking obscure stuff you have to really reach for using 'formulas' - I was saying that I hold modern literature (including games) to a certain standard. Twilight (which YOU used as an example of misogyny in modern literature) is a very good example of a novel that fails that test.

You bring up points - I agree with you - and suddenly you no longer agree with those points. At first I just thought we were talking past each other. That no longer seems to be the case.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Schadrach:
SNIP

I have never heard of a con where men aren't welcome. So that point is kind of moot.

Again you are acting like gaming is a male space, it isn't so stop thinking that it is.

ITS NO MORE A MALE SPACE THAN BOOKS ARE and btw it used to be in about the 1800's that if a women wanted to publish a book then we had to publish it as a guy. That's right we had to 'unfairly push' into that 'male space' (HAHAHAHAHAHA. NO.) too right? That's what you think.

How can you not even know your history.

/facepalm.

I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

It's like talking to creationists.

Either I have utterly failed at writing, you've responded to the wrong post, you've utterly failed at writing, or you're "snip"ping me to strawman my position, because it doesn't really seem to make sense in terms of what I said, especially since I never mentioned a "con where men aren't welcome" (rather a PAX pre-party (for both East and Prime) where exactly that is in fact the case), and I certainly did not claim gaming was a male space (in fact, I said that western culture tends to denounce the entire concept of male space while holding women's space as sacrosanct). I also don't recall "unfairly pushing" into spaces (but rather mentioned that men pushing into stereotypically female spaces are generally expected to and generally do conform to the space, while women seem to generally expect the space to conform to them instead) -- even this isn't a "women are a hive mind" comment but rather one of general social trend.

Again, I'd ask you a simple question regarding "male space" -- name a space in which you, as a woman, are expressly excluded (not "not catered to" or "uncomfortable" but actually excluded), excepting certain parts of military service. Bonus points if you can give an example where it is accepted and not considered proof of misogyny from the group in question.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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