Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

targren:
Jim, you've got a valid point here, without a doubt. Taking negative criticism to a game you like as an insult to yourself, your clan, your religion, and your country is, to put it mildly, a tad excessive. On the other hand, though, your admonition feels a bit one-sided (acknowledging that your show has length considerations) though. While the "gaming community" could certainly use a bit more temperance, dignity, and self-respect, they don't have any monopoly on foaming-at-the-mouth extremism. I did note that you acknowledged this when you mentioned "extreme viewpoints," but one point you kept coming back to isn't true: "No one wants to take your games away."

While it's definitely true that not everyone calling out an "-ism" has that in mind, there is certainly no lack of a very vocal, rabble-rousing minority calling for "bans" on whatever target du jour that offends their sensibilities or opposes their pet crusade, spanning both sides of the poorly-named "conservative/liberal" line.

Did you miss the part in history where videogames were declared protected by the US Constitution? No one can take your games away. Unless your country moves away from Democracy, it is completely unthinkable.

wombat_of_war:
jim has opened the bottle on a larger issue than just games. look around these days you can only love or hate things, you can only be a real fan or a poser, hardcore or dismissed as a casual. its not just gaming its movies, tv shows, music, politics, everything you cant open a news story only without the comments being vicious or the exact opposite.

i dont know whats happened but we seem to of whole heartedly embraced black and white thinking and having only polarised views enmass without even realising we do it.

It's your choice to conform to that binary.

Alandoril:
Perhaps, but there are those out there who will use those tiny little things to attempt to undermine the entire art form.

Not that it justifies the willful ignorance of certain issues but yeah, in this day and age when people can somehow equate Mass Effect with child killing...you can see why some gamers over-react.

I doubt that FOX News reporters get deep enough into Skyrim to uncover potentially sexist quests. When people say "I think the Dead Island torso is offensive" or "I can't find a single woman in CoD", these are mostly gamers that feel excluded. The gaming public has become vast enough that if you make a game tailored to a single group, especially if it flatly ignores or belittles all the other groups in order to appeal to its target demographic, it's going to get noticed.

And the slippery slope arguments that we're going to stare into blank screens if this continues are bullshit. I enjoy politically incorrect humour too -- in my circle of friends, where everyone uses it and understands it's a joke. But would I tell Hitler jokes in front of an Auschwitz survivor? HELL NO! The attitude that I should be allowed to do so, because the aforementioned survivor's sensitivity is actually leading us to a humourless dystopia, is toxic. It only serves to justify people that can't hold their tongue when they know they should.

Dude, people hate Anita not because she's criticising video games, but because she's a con artist.
Her videos are so enlightening that they can be summarised simply by two phrases "Sex sales" and "Companies make targeted products" That's it! She was very efficient in stirring up the trolls just to make her case and to convince a bunch of self riches gamers to give her money so they can pat themselves on the back on how progressive and caring they are.

People who took her seriously are just as superficial as her videos are...

But that's beside the point. You, just like many other similar minded people, like to lump as gamers all together in one group regardless of age. You do realise that gamers are people with ages varying from 13 to 40, right? and that adolescent boys are in general very aggressive, gynophobic and don't take criticism very well because they don't have any life experience, right?

I'm pretty sure that if you take any group of gamers at ages above 30 that you'll never find a single gynophobic or sexist opinion.

JudgeGame:

Did you miss the part in history where videogames were declared protected by the US Constitution? No one can take your games away. Unless your country moves away from Democracy, it is completely unthinkable.

You're joking, right? There's so many things wrong with that, I'm not sure where to start.

Did you miss the part of History where the Constitution, even the 1st Amendment, is regularly being ignored or weakened with sophistry about "the public good","obscenity", etc.? Where books are still banned from public libraries in the US in spite of it? Where "offensive" expression and language are punished with massive fines from the FCC? How about where just about every year, some Helen Lovejoy tries to restrict the sale of "violent and offensive" video games, in spite of frequent smackdowns which, if you read the opinions of the ones that get to SCOTUS, are usually 5-4 with a roadmap of "how to change #5's mind, next time."

Or the fact that, as hard as it may be to believe, a good percentage of gamers actually don't live in the US.

And that's ignoring the commercial pressure. When the anti-ism crowd screams at the top of its lungs that it'll never buy such and such again because it's offended, it's not entirely without merit to think that you, as a group, have to be just as loud and obnxious so that the marketroids know your side exists, too. It's "voting by rabble."

Whats the problem with the Skyrim slut shaming quest?

Isn't that, technically, par the course for a pseudo-medieval culture? Its not like Cyrodiil where everything is "civilized." This is the harsh northern territory we are talking about that is steeped in tradition and very "hand to mouth." Those cultures were never known to be open minded.

I expect "sexism" in Skyrim. I would take notice if there wasn't. It would be applying modern standards to a culture that, frankly, isn't the same as us.

The world isn't gender neutral now, how can it be gender neutral in a harsh, traditionalist pseudo-medieval world? Its like expecting modern day morality from post apocalyptic wasteland raiders. It doesn't make sense in the setting.

The world is a nasty place, and fictional worlds shouldn't shy away from the bad stuff from our world. That just leads to squeaky clean, unbelievable, and sterilized worlds.

boots:

Nurb:

and there's this old chestnut from someone who's had to hear his very existence is offensive:

You know, I've seen that old chestnut brought out to defend everything from rampant misogyny to claims that the only reason that LGBT people complain about homophobia is because they know deep down that they are freaks (kind of ironic, considering the source). I love Stephen Fry but I don't agree with everything he says, and I really wish he hadn't come out with that. It's an attempt at justifying the dismissive attitude towards any kind of complaint about "isms" that Jim mentions in this video.

Besides, lovely as he is, Stephen Fry has also come out with the occasional arseholish statement. To whit: "I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"

More eye-rolly than actually offensive, but my point is that you can like a person (or a game) without having to like everything that they say.

I think you are wasting your breath by playing Nurb's game. The "offense is meaningless" argument is just trying to derail the conversation with warped logic. Sexism isn't sexism because it's offensive, it's sexism because it's sexist i.e. it discriminates gender. There is no direct relation between discrimination and offense. However, when we call out discrimination, we word it as "I am offended by this discrimination" which is a completely valid wording to a complaint and does not subtract from the importance of the actual discrimination. Even if there was nobody to offend, the problem would remain.

Stephen Fry is referring in his quote to people who are offended by homosexuality. In this case, the offense itself is discrimination. I am apalled that people use this quote in defense of bigotry. Frankly disgusting.

targren:

JudgeGame:

Did you miss the part in history where videogames were declared protected by the US Constitution? No one can take your games away. Unless your country moves away from Democracy, it is completely unthinkable.

You're joking, right? There's so many things wrong with that, I'm not sure where to start.

Did you miss the part of History where the Constitution, even the 1st Amendment, is regularly being ignored or weakened with sophistry about "the public good","obscenity", etc.? Where books are still banned from public libraries in the US in spite of it? Where "offensive" expression and language are punished with massive fines from the FCC? How about where just about every year, some Helen Lovejoy tries to restrict the sale of "violent and offensive" video games, in spite of frequent smackdowns which, if you read the opinions of the ones that get to SCOTUS, are usually 5-4 with a roadmap of "how to change #5's mind, next time."

Or the fact that, as hard as it may be to believe, a good percentage of gamers actually don't live in the US.

And that's ignoring the commercial pressure. When the anti-ism crowd screams at the top of its lungs that it'll never buy such and such again because it's offended, it's not entirely without merit to think that you, as a group, have to be just as loud and obnxious so that the marketroids know your side exists, too. It's "voting by rabble."

You would be much more convincing if you had examples of developed, democratic governments who have censored videogames in the recent past. The only country who has an anti-games stance I can think of is Australia and as far as I know they no longer enforce "refusing classification" on videogames. The US Supreme Court already ruled irrevocably that videogames are protected by the First Amendment to the same degree all media (films, newspapers...) are.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/the-constitution-and-you-video-games-and-the-first-amendment/

And you seem to have a problem with the law of supply and demand. Without this law, videogames would not even exist, so your position is several layers of ignorant. Besides, it's proven that videogame companies are unfazed by the protests of people outside of the target demographic of 18 to 35 year old white men and then some, so your worries border on paranoia.

I think you're giving people too much credit by saying they are just defensive of their favourite hobby. I don't think this forum is so quick to justify and excuse racism and sexism because they want to protect their games, I think they are ready to excuse racism and sexism because, well, a lot of people here are racist and sexist. It sort of comes with the demographic.

JudgeGame:

Stephen Fry is referring in his quote to people who are offended by homosexuality. In this case, the offense itself is discrimination. I am apalled that people use this quote in defense of bigotry. Frankly disgusting.

Actually it was about religion.

erttheking:
To be perfectly honest I think this website in general has made me more paranoid in general. I don't want to talk about racism sexism or homophobia in video games, Hell, I'm starting to reach the point where I don't want to talk about ANYTHING in video games because this website can be rather volatile. And I defended the Tomb Raider reboot, I didn't think that it was sexist, and I did jump on the Hitman trailer, because I did think that that was sexist. I have opinions I guess I'm just tired of massive flame filled debates that seem to go nowhere. I'm really starting to think that's all that goes on here.

I agree in that I don't think the new tombraider is sexist and I think I did kind of display the kind of attitude jim was talking about in regards to that specific incident because I am kind of paranoid that such an out cry would cause a step backwards in the portrayal of women in games

ccdohl:

-Dragmire-:

Jimothy Sterling:

Yes.

Instead of a penis, I have a really small talking car between my legs. It sings at night.

.....Does it... Does it transform?

OT: I, and I imagine many reasonable people who make up the midground in these debates, try to stay out of negative game related fiasco's, the bigger ones anyway, due to both sides' most vocal people being so heated on the subject that progress to any meaningful resolution or understanding seems impossible, through internet conversation anyway.

I'm honestly curious. What is the other side? Are there people who argue an honestly misogynist point of view, or is it just a bunch of feminists critiquing the culture against trolls? I know that people criticize the feminist point of view, but I have never heard much what could be called debate points for misogyny in games, so much as a breaking down of the criticisms.

There is no "one" other side. There are multiple types of feminism and often they end up calling each other misogynists. There are of course genuine racists and misogynists too.

wizzy555:

JudgeGame:

Stephen Fry is referring in his quote to people who are offended by homosexuality. In this case, the offense itself is discrimination. I am apalled that people use this quote in defense of bigotry. Frankly disgusting.

Actually it was about religion.

Fair enough. My point still stands.

manic_depressive13:
I think you're giving people too much credit by saying they are just defensive of their favourite hobby. I don't think this forum is so quick to justify and excuse racism and sexism because they want to protect their games, I think they are ready to excuse racism and sexism because, well, a lot of people here are racist and sexist. It sort of comes with the demographic.

thats a pretty bold statment

I'd say more misguided than sexist

Vault101:
thats a pretty bold statment

I'd say more misguided than sexist

If you are sexist because you are misguided, you are still sexist. The fact that the people who cry about 'reverse-racism' and how 'there's no more sexism in the West' haven't taken a moment to educate themselves or actually consider other people's perspectives before spouting misinformed nonsense doesn't excuse that behaviour. In my eyes it makes it even more appalling.

AdrianRK:
Dude, people hate Anita not because she's criticising video games, but because she's a con artist.
Her videos are so enlightening that they can be summarised simply by two phrases "Sex sales" and "Companies make targeted products" That's it! She was very efficient in stirring up the trolls just to make her case and to convince a bunch of self riches gamers to give her money so they can pat themselves on the back on how progressive and caring they are.

People who took her seriously are just as superficial as her videos are...

But that's beside the point. You, just like many other similar minded people, like to lump as gamers all together in one group regardless of age. You do realise that gamers are people with ages varying from 13 to 40, right? and that adolescent boys are in general very aggressive, gynophobic and don't take criticism very well because they don't have any life experience, right?

I'm pretty sure that if you take any group of gamers at ages above 30 that you'll never find a single gynophobic or sexist opinion.

Man, I miss being young. I wish I was as young as you.

Because judging from your own logic, you must be about 12.

Look, I cannot believe I have to say this. Its clear to just about anyone.

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

Also, I love how you have somehow indicated that sexism stops at age 30. I would like you to meet my father at some point. Or some of the over 30's gamers that I know.

Oh, and as for her videos?

The breakdown on Lego and its shift from gender neutral products over to incredibly gendered and incredibly sexist products is one that went under a hell of a lot of radars. Her video on it predates most of the media attention it gathered and is quite the deconstruction. I, for one, found it rather informative. Yes, you can very simplistically break down most of her arguments to what you broke down most of her arguments to, but you can break down most international relations to "Countries don't like each other much and fight about it, or don't and trade stuff". Just because you can turn an argument into a more simplistic form, one which you can understand with your aforementioned 12 year old brain (Just making a link to your own post, friend), does not mean that the argument itself is simplistic or without merit.
OT:

I agree with Jim. I think its about time we can seriously discuss some of the issues with our beloved art form without a sudden tide of hatred based upon our judgments being more than gameplay related.

bastardofmelbourne:

tkioz:
Honestly a major part of why I simply don't give a shit about the "isms" is due to what I've heard called the "colonialism syndrome" or sometimes the "Holocaust syndrome". Growing up I was exposed to a good decade and a bit of "education" by teachers who wouldn't understand history if it kicked them in the genitals, and after a while pretty much everyone got so utterly sick of hearing about how "evil" their ancestors were for what they did to the Indigenous Australians that they simply stopped caring about the issue completely and embraced apathy, and in some extreme cases actually did a complete 180 and started being actively racist.

You can only bang on about something, no matter how important the topic is, so long before people get utterly sick to death of hearing about it and just want people to STFU. Yes there are problems in the gaming industry, yes colonialism was bad, yes the Holocaust was evil, but if you keep banging that drum without break for long enough otherwise reasonable people will simply tune you out... or worse start opposing you out of sheer spite.

You need to be careful when it comes to "preaching" or you'll do more harm then good... just look at PETA, the organisation that has done more harm to Animal Welfare then Cruella De Vil!

Speaking as an Australian who went through the same era of education who has a passing familiarity with international criminal law, what our government did to the indigenous Australians technically constituted genocide.

If you think the issue is being hammered too hard, just think about that, and think about the fact that the Australian government still hasn't recognised that and didn't offer anything resembling an apology until 2007. We basically look like Turkey, sitting there pretending that thing with the Armenians never happened.

I'm not condemning Australia specifically - nearly every country in the world has a gross crime against humanity in its national history, usually because they occurred before crimes against humanity were legally formalised - but it's important for a nation to recognise and indeed emphasise its past failures, rather than glossing over them in the name of patriotism. Almost no nations ever do that, and considering that Howard tried very, very hard to exculpate any mention of our treatment of the Aborigines from the history curriculum, I don't think it's justified at all to say that the issue is overblown.

Think about it this way. If you've been told that colonial Australia treated its natives horribly so many times that it is literally sickening, that's a good thing. It shows that the education system, or at least your microcosm of it, isn't whitewashing its national history the way John Howard wanted them to. If it bothers you, then simply every time a teacher or a hippy or one of those goddamn Socialist Alternative people on campus tells you that our government committed genocide, say "Yes, yes, I've been informed," and move on. They do get so deflated when you drop that line.

Ahh yes the "you're a racist because you're sick of hearing about it" argument. I'm sorry that doesn't count either. I'm not a racist, I simply think the focus on one single side of any argument to the exclusion of all else is dishonest and does a disservice to history.

My "history" classes focused almost exclusively on the "crimes" of "white" Australians, without much information presented at all on the aspects of history, for example when one history teacher spoke about the settlement of Australia she constantly referred to it as a "white invasion", it was only years later that I wondered... can you really have an invasion when your "army" is made up of SLAVES?

Yes, the treatment of Indigenous Australians was a Horrible Crime, but what about the Horrible Crime committed against the "white invaders" by the British Empire? Most of them were slaves in deed if not in law, they had zero choice, they were grabbed off the streets for the most mundane of reasons, herded into ships by the hundreds, and taken half way around the world, forced to work, and faced the whip or the noose if they refused or even spoke back... Where was the information ABOUT THAT?

A balanced examination of any argument is what is needed when you talk about anything, you can't simply focus on your personal pet agenda, you need to examine every aspect, you need to understand the good things, the bad things, the indifferent things, anything else is a disservice to history and the argument itself.

bunji:

Do you look like Kratos?

WOULD NOT want that ugly ass angry ball of death anywhere near me, sexualised? in some way mabey but kratos is a power fantasy for boys..not a sex fantasy for women

Or Phoenix?

pheonix?

....marcus pheonix?

image

....you know what? no...no *BUZZZT* wrong, you lose, game over..I want you to look at a picture of marcus pheonix..really hard and re-evaluate your life

seriously though objecfitication on a fundamental level for BOTH genders is different....both men and women objectify the female body...its hard to exaplin but I can't stress enough its not the same

a pathetic counter-weight to the trillions of times more male enemies that are killed.

men get killed because they are in the action, because they are the do'ers, the movers, the shakers..in worst case scenarios women get relegated to the sidelines

I am perfectly fine with women being killed/maimed/god knows what else because thats kind of the point isnt it? thats why I didnt have a problem with the new tomb raider game

at worst objectification feeds into the Idea women can only exist as sexy fantasys....that the Idea of a women *gasp* in a practical outfit is unthinkable and what the hell are you even thinking girl? GO PUT ON THOSE HEELS! because your only worth how pretty you are

do I have problem with rediculous outfits? I read comics, I accept it to a certain level...my problem isn't that they shouldnt exist..its that they shouldn't be the ONLY thing that exists for female charachters

manic_depressive13:

If you are sexist because you are misguided, you are still sexist. The fact that the people who cry about 'reverse-racism' and how 'there's no more sexism in the West' haven't taken a moment to educate themselves or actually consider other people's perspectives before spouting misinformed nonsense doesn't excuse that behaviour. In my eyes it makes it even more appalling.

somones a bit hysterical today arent we? in case you forgot men are objectified JUST as much as women in games..I mean check out Marcus Pheonix and that sexy scowley, jowley scared face of his.....

Mr F.:

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

I don't think that's a fair definition of an academic. If she was funded by an academic funding council she wouldn't have needed the kickstarter.

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

I don't think that's a fair definition of an academic. If she was funded by an academic funding council she wouldn't have needed the kickstarter.

Have you ever MET an academic?

Academics are poor. Funding is shite. Sure, some people do well. But for every Brian Cox there are ten people going "Well, I can buy new shoes next week, better to have wet feet then no food or books". I would define someone who researches and lectures at Universities to be an Academic.

I might go into Academia myself after Uni.

Mr F.:

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

I don't think that's a fair definition of an academic. If she was funded by an academic funding council she wouldn't have needed the kickstarter.

Have you ever MET an academic?

Academics are poor. Funding is shite. Sure, some people do well. But for every Brian Cox there are ten people going "Well, I can buy new shoes next week, better to have wet feet then no food or books". I would define someone who researches and lectures at Universities to be an Academic.

I might go into Academia myself after Uni.

Yes someone who researches and lecture at a University, not a "guest speaker".

Have I MET an academic? I've met hundreds, I'm a few months away from being an academic.

JudgeGame:

So we've established it has sex appeal.

Is it that much of a logical stretch to see the relation between sex appeal and violence against a female body and notice the symbolic association with sexual violence against women. You know, that thing that is talked about on the news and is a serious problem in practically every country on the planet.

Like Jim said, I just refuse to believe anybody with human intelligence and not completely ignorant of society could fail to understand why, to people who care about violence against women, this is pretty offensive, in bad taste and morally horrifying.

That interpretation is yours. If you want to be offended, be offended by what people mean. Not by the meaning you put in it. It's horror, it's in the name. It's aware it's wrong.

Contrary to popular belief most victims of violence are men. Yet we don't raise a stink about every depiction of violence in the media.

And really, you don't even have to look at it from the female perspective. If instead of a woman's tits, it were an erect cock, bloodied at the base, a lot of people would find that really offensive and they would feel scared of anybody who bought that, and in that list of people who would be offended would be me.

http://laughingsquid.com/wesker-son-a-resident-evil-6-butcher-shop-featuring-edible-humans/

Scroll down. (Warning: gruesome)

I don't remember any outrage.

T_ConX:
>Anita Sarkeesian

Haven't heard that name in a while. Whatever happened to her?

Oh, it seems like after getting her six-figure pay day, she hasn't made any videos in the last SEVEN MONTHS!

Why did we think this woman was a threat?

Last I heard of her, was when she started to crowd source her research as well

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

wizzy555:

I don't think that's a fair definition of an academic. If she was funded by an academic funding council she wouldn't have needed the kickstarter.

Have you ever MET an academic?

Academics are poor. Funding is shite. Sure, some people do well. But for every Brian Cox there are ten people going "Well, I can buy new shoes next week, better to have wet feet then no food or books". I would define someone who researches and lectures at Universities to be an Academic.

I might go into Academia myself after Uni.

Yes someone who researches and lecture at a University, not a "guest speaker".

Have I MET an academic? I've met hundreds, I'm a few months away from being an academic.

Sister (PhD), sisters bloke (PhD) parents (MA's, from the time when you didn't need a PhD to do conference tours or end up a visiting professor) so yes. In my immediate family there are four. Plus I take part in a lot of Psychological research, just cause and end up chatting to a lot of the dudes who are doing it. And, as I am a Uni student (As mentioned) I meet them a lot, what with the whole "Talking to my lecturers if they have the time" thing.

Swing and a miss.

I see "No true Scotsman" being applied here. She is not enough of an academic for you because reasons. I suppose my father was an academic until he stopped lecturing to do research and write a book, then he became one again once he began lecturing. And my mother is not an academic whilst being a guest speaker, but she is whilst she is back on Campus?

I still hold that abandoning her career for 150,000 dollars is pretty fucking stupid and that those who think that someone would do so for such a paltry sum need their heads examined.

May I ask what you are currently doing research in? As in, what is your field?

Mr F.:

May I ask what you are currently doing research in? As in, what is your field?

Let's just say I've spent more time doing particle physics research in the last two years than Brian Cox has.

I see "No true Scotsman" being applied here. She is not enough of an academic for you because reasons. I suppose my father was an academic until he stopped lecturing to do research and write a book, then he became one again once he began lecturing. And my mother is not an academic whilst being a guest speaker, but she is whilst she is back on Campus?

I don't consider every blogger or activist to be an academic even if they have a degree and guest speak at Universities (you can be invited to speak for being nothing more than popular or controversial). If you get paid to do research, or you get published in academic journals, that's fair I think.

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

May I ask what you are currently doing research in? As in, what is your field?

Let's just say I've spent more time doing particle physics research in the last two years than Brian Cox has.

I see "No true Scotsman" being applied here. She is not enough of an academic for you because reasons. I suppose my father was an academic until he stopped lecturing to do research and write a book, then he became one again once he began lecturing. And my mother is not an academic whilst being a guest speaker, but she is whilst she is back on Campus?

I don't consider every blogger or activist to be an academic even if they have a degree and guest speak at Universities (you can be invited to speak for being nothing more than popular or controversial). If you get paid to do research, or you get published in academic journals, that's fair I think.

If you have a degree, lecture and do research that is pretty much the definition of Academic, in my eyes at least. But I will concede that you are not quite there yet until you have been published in a journal. That said, whether she is or is not an academic in your eyes (Or mine) does not detract from my original point re: She is not a scam artist, nobody would throw away their career for not even enough to buy a house.

Even though getting paid to do something is the definition of professional, I disagree that it should be considered a pre-requisite to being referred to as an Academic. I don't like the idea of everything being centered on the money, if you bring cash into it it indicates that the academic with the biggest pay check is the most important.

Mr F.:

Even though getting paid to do something is the definition of professional, I disagree that it should be considered a pre-requisite to being referred to as an Academic. I don't like the idea of everything being centered on the money, if you bring cash into it it indicates that the academic with the biggest pay check is the most important.

I'm more concerned that someone official has decided that your work is of any academic worth.

In regard to is it worth throwing away her career, I don't know what her career potential is or if in fact doing what she does would get her chucked out of academia.

For instance, my contract says I can't take another job while I'm working full time on research, I dunno if crowd-sourcing would count.

Mr F.:

AdrianRK:
Dude, people hate Anita not because she's criticising video games, but because she's a con artist.
Her videos are so enlightening that they can be summarised simply by two phrases "Sex sales" and "Companies make targeted products" That's it! She was very efficient in stirring up the trolls just to make her case and to convince a bunch of self riches gamers to give her money so they can pat themselves on the back on how progressive and caring they are.

People who took her seriously are just as superficial as her videos are...

But that's beside the point. You, just like many other similar minded people, like to lump as gamers all together in one group regardless of age. You do realise that gamers are people with ages varying from 13 to 40, right? and that adolescent boys are in general very aggressive, gynophobic and don't take criticism very well because they don't have any life experience, right?

I'm pretty sure that if you take any group of gamers at ages above 30 that you'll never find a single gynophobic or sexist opinion.

Man, I miss being young. I wish I was as young as you.

Because judging from your own logic, you must be about 12.

Look, I cannot believe I have to say this. Its clear to just about anyone.

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

Also, I love how you have somehow indicated that sexism stops at age 30. I would like you to meet my father at some point. Or some of the over 30's gamers that I know.

Oh, and as for her videos?

The breakdown on Lego and its shift from gender neutral products over to incredibly gendered and incredibly sexist products is one that went under a hell of a lot of radars. Her video on it predates most of the media attention it gathered and is quite the deconstruction. I, for one, found it rather informative. Yes, you can very simplistically break down most of her arguments to what you broke down most of her arguments to, but you can break down most international relations to "Countries don't like each other much and fight about it, or don't and trade stuff". Just because you can turn an argument into a more simplistic form, one which you can understand with your aforementioned 12 year old brain (Just making a link to your own post, friend), does not mean that the argument itself is simplistic or without merit.
OT:

I agree with Jim. I think its about time we can seriously discuss some of the issues with our beloved art form without a sudden tide of hatred based upon our judgments being more than gameplay related.

Ah.. the good old days of typical internet flame wars, where you personally attack people you don't know a thing about when you have nothing to say but you're bothered by their opinion

But onto the more serious part of your reply, I do think it's about time we talked about more serious things regarding our favourite pastime activity, like the fact that the people reviewing games get their money from the people making them, of the fact that a most of the game reviews are barely more than opinion pieces

Helmholtz Watson:

boots:

Errrm. Chill out? Those words in capital letters are a direct quote from you.

Um...what? Do you mean to be quoting someone else? I never typed "OMG EVERYTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE SO NOTHING EVER IS OFFENSIVE EVER AGAIN ANYMORE". Here is my exact post....

Oh yeah, that quote came from someone else. However, when it was posted someone legitimately asked who the hell was saying that. To which you responded with "some people got quite offended by the AC3 trailer". So the point still stands.

Here's your original post in full:

Helmholtz Watson:

Zachary Amaranth:

[quote]I am, whoever, a bit weary of people crying out that "OMG EVERYTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE SO NOTHING EVER IS OFFENSIVE EVER AGAIN ANYMORE", because if we go that far, we will be sitting in front of blank screens, lest we offend the colour-blind who can't play, listening to nothing, so as not to offend the deaf.

Okay, who the hell is actually saying that? Seriously.[quote]Go back and look at some threads when the Assisans Creed 3 trailer came out. There were quite a few English people who felt offended that the main character seemed to be singling out Redcoats. They felt that they were demonizing Redcoats. I mean wtf, if there was a game set in Ireland would these same people want the Black and Tan's to be portrayed in a positive light as well?

m19:

JudgeGame:

So we've established it has sex appeal.

Is it that much of a logical stretch to see the relation between sex appeal and violence against a female body and notice the symbolic association with sexual violence against women. You know, that thing that is talked about on the news and is a serious problem in practically every country on the planet.

Like Jim said, I just refuse to believe anybody with human intelligence and not completely ignorant of society could fail to understand why, to people who care about violence against women, this is pretty offensive, in bad taste and morally horrifying.

That interpretation is yours. If you want to be offended, be offended by what people mean. Not by the meaning you put in it. It's horror, it's in the name. It's aware it's wrong.

Contrary to popular belief most victims of violence are men. Yet we don't raise a stink about every depiction of violence in the media.

And really, you don't even have to look at it from the female perspective. If instead of a woman's tits, it were an erect cock, bloodied at the base, a lot of people would find that really offensive and they would feel scared of anybody who bought that, and in that list of people who would be offended would be me.

http://laughingsquid.com/wesker-son-a-resident-evil-6-butcher-shop-featuring-edible-humans/

Scroll down. (Warning: gruesome)

I don't remember any outrage.

There is no implication of violence in those meat products. It's just meat shaped like human bodies. Further more, there are both bodies of women and bodies of men among the products. There is even some black meat, so I can't even call it racist.

m19:

Contrary to popular belief most victims of violence are men. Yet we don't raise a stink about every depiction of violence in the media.

Hate to state the obvious, but you forgot to mention that most perpetrators of violence are men as well.

It's also besides the point, since the conversation was specifically about sexual violence, and that is something which is mostly perpetrated by men against women. According to the Department of Justice, 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are male. The CDC also found that 25% of women will be physically assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (compared to 7.6% of men).

So perhaps why you can see why trying to turn violence against women into something sexy didn't go down very well.

Remember kiddies! Jims opinions does not apply to theISM!

Jim gives backhanded disses to religion twice alone in this review! So yeah, don't be close minded to anybodies opinions and when they cry foul!...except religion....fuck those guys...

/rolleyes.

Skyrim which is set in a middle ages setting has sexist elements in it. Apparently it's sexist to depict the world as it is now. Well people just shout sexist about everything now without thinking so it's not surprising.

AdrianRK:

Mr F.:

AdrianRK:
Dude, people hate Anita not because she's criticising video games, but because she's a con artist.
Her videos are so enlightening that they can be summarised simply by two phrases "Sex sales" and "Companies make targeted products" That's it! She was very efficient in stirring up the trolls just to make her case and to convince a bunch of self riches gamers to give her money so they can pat themselves on the back on how progressive and caring they are.

People who took her seriously are just as superficial as her videos are...

But that's beside the point. You, just like many other similar minded people, like to lump as gamers all together in one group regardless of age. You do realise that gamers are people with ages varying from 13 to 40, right? and that adolescent boys are in general very aggressive, gynophobic and don't take criticism very well because they don't have any life experience, right?

I'm pretty sure that if you take any group of gamers at ages above 30 that you'll never find a single gynophobic or sexist opinion.

Man, I miss being young. I wish I was as young as you.

Because judging from your own logic, you must be about 12.

Look, I cannot believe I have to say this. Its clear to just about anyone.

An Academic (Anita being one. She lectures at Universities occasionally, etc etc) would not sacrifice her entire career over something as small as 150k. One and a half million? Maybe. You could live on that for quite some time and with shrewd investments may never have to work again. But 150k, not even enough to buy a decent house? Really?

Also, I love how you have somehow indicated that sexism stops at age 30. I would like you to meet my father at some point. Or some of the over 30's gamers that I know.

Oh, and as for her videos?

The breakdown on Lego and its shift from gender neutral products over to incredibly gendered and incredibly sexist products is one that went under a hell of a lot of radars. Her video on it predates most of the media attention it gathered and is quite the deconstruction. I, for one, found it rather informative. Yes, you can very simplistically break down most of her arguments to what you broke down most of her arguments to, but you can break down most international relations to "Countries don't like each other much and fight about it, or don't and trade stuff". Just because you can turn an argument into a more simplistic form, one which you can understand with your aforementioned 12 year old brain (Just making a link to your own post, friend), does not mean that the argument itself is simplistic or without merit.
OT:

I agree with Jim. I think its about time we can seriously discuss some of the issues with our beloved art form without a sudden tide of hatred based upon our judgments being more than gameplay related.

Ah.. the good old days of typical internet flame wars, where you personally attack people you don't know a thing about when you have nothing to say but you're bothered by their opinion

But onto the more serious part of your reply, I do think it's about time we talked about more serious things regarding our favourite pastime activity, like the fact that the people reviewing games get their money from the people making them, of the fact that a most of the game reviews are barely more than opinion pieces

But in your eyes the fact that women are shown in a negative light does not matter? Or perhaps the depictions of homosexuals etc, they dont matter? To a lesser degree these days the negative depictions of race within games, they dont matter?

In my eyes a bigger issue is within the very nature of the games we play. I do not really care about the reviewers or how they get paid, I take my advice from other gamers who share my interests, not internet celebutants. I do not bother buying or reading gaming magazines, bar this one, and the only "Reviewer" I follow whatsoever is Yahtzee who, at best, is an entertainer.

I am not necessarily bothered by your opinion. Just bits of it. The whole "Sarkeesian is going to throw away her credibility for a negligible payday" thing irritates me because I think it is based mainly on her having unpopular views and a vagina, a horrendous mixture with regards to the internet. That particular nugget is not necessarily aimed at you, just most people who share the opinion that she is nothing more then a scam artist who planned all of this in advance.

To me, a student of Sociology, Media and Cultural studies and Politics, issues of gender, sexuality and race within games are important and need to be discussed. They need to be discussed in a non insane manner, with people from both sides talking about this like adults. This website does make it hard, plenty of people simply do not think how women or LGBTQ customers feel simply does not matter.

However, I can understand why you think the issues of reviewing matter more. Lots of people do think that games should just be about games, that the only issues to be discussed are structural ones or ones that are to do with how games play and the stories they tell.

EDIT:

danon:
Skyrim which is set in a middle ages setting has sexist elements in it. Apparently it's sexist to depict the world as it is now. Well people just shout sexist about everything now without thinking so it's not surprising.

Or perhaps the fact that the world is quite sexist makes people call it out a lot more but due to your inability to see this you begin to think that people are calling out nothing?

Also, Skyrim is a fantasy game made in this current climate. There is absolutely no reason they could not have made it without the sexist quests. You cannot get away with it by saying its based in a different age so everything is ok. Seriously.

Plus if you read the crap around it the assumption is that men and women are treated equally in the Elder Scrolls universe, with both serving in the military etc etc. If it was based upon a medieval society, as you are claiming, then why the fuck is the captain at the start who sends you to the block a woman? Why the fuck do you ever see women in armour? Why the fuck is it equal on any level?

Strangely enough, if the game was truly based upon medieval societies and was depicted realistically, with men and women in the rolls they were forced into as a result of medieval society, the more sexist quests may have never been noticed. But since they created a supposedly gender equal universe and then added the sexist bullcrap from our own universe it is making a statement. Herp to the Derp.

Using the setting as a justification only makes sense if the setting is consistent.

On the Skyrim note, I'm not sure whether we can put that down to the game being sexist or down to the region of Skyrim itself being a sexist place. Though that would seem a little hypocritical, given that marriage in Skyrim is a trivial affair due to the short and harsh lives most Nords lead. Since long-term monogamy doesn't really befit the society, why on Earth is promiscuity a bad thing? If anything, the potential extra mouths produced by male promiscuity would be the reason for 'slut-shaming', and since no matter how many men a woman has sex with, she's unlikely to produce more than a single child in the space of a year, female promiscuity shouldn't be seen as a problem in the slightest.

Skyrim is a confusing place.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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