Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Vega on August 27, 2014, 05:49:41 pm
-
Not that I want to start this up again, but Anita Sarkeesian had to leave her home after someone threatened her and her family's life (giving addresses):
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160
This has gone way beyond Zoe Quinn now.
-
I'm assuming she has filed a police report and they are looking into it?
-
Yes.
-
good
-
That's...um...really disturbing. I do hope she can get somewhere safe and away from that psychopath.
-
*Cracks fingers*
So who needs someone somewhere sometime dead?
-
does anyone else not give a ****? ****!
-
Yep. I was worried this would begin to escalate. Hopefully some pushback will happen, now that it's getting media attention. (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/27/joss_whedon_blasts_misogynistic_video_games_tweets_support_for_feminist_frequency_founder/)
-
And now Zoe Quinn has been driven out of her house as well. But I'm sure she's making it all up.
-
if people are making legitimate threats the they can be legitimately arrested.
-
If you can ever trace it back to the source.
-
This dick is probably stupid enough to think there would be no repercussions from his posts. I doubt he took much effort to hide his tracks.
-
That's...um...really disturbing. I do hope she can get somewhere safe and away from that psychopath.
"that psychopath" is a disturbing number of people.
-
internet tough men are not a new phenomenon.
-
I think the fact that you can get someone to flee their home by making internet death threats has at least as much to do with the motivation behind these people as actual will or means to murder.
-
does anyone else not give a ****? ****!
Yup.. OMG someone posted anonymous threat of violence to a popular and controversial person's twitter! STOP THE PRESSES!!!
I thought people with 100k+ followers get trolled like this daily, especially if they dont hide their controversial political opinions, thats a magnet for trolls.. Block/report to the police and move on.. Seems like the situation is far better than I thought - from her tweet it seems like this is a rare situation that does not normally happen every day, thats why it was worthwhile to make a tweet about it.
-
I thought people with 100k+ followers get trolled like this daily, especially if they dont hide their controversial political opinions, thats a magnet for trolls.. Block/report to the police and move on.. Seems like the situation is far better than I thought - from her tweet it seems like this is a rare situation that does not normally happen every day, thats why it was worthwhile to make a tweet about it.
The difference is that someone like Tim Schafer can say "look at this video, it's important and you should listen to what this person says", and get lots of responses along the lines of "Oh no, the feminists got to you too!", while when Anita Sarkeesian does it, she gets threatened with rape, murder, identity theft, gets called a whore, a slut, gets told to stay in the kitchen and other fun things.
And yeah, "block/report and move on" is easier said than done. If a large part of your daily interactions with people consisted of them screaming abuse at you, sooner or later it's going to take a toll on your psyche.
-
if people really wanted you dead, they would do something less passive aggressive to threaten you, like sticking a puppy's head in your mailbox. this person is probibly not even in the same zip code let alone the same state/country. you dont like it, then pack heat. this is murica people!
-
if people really wanted you dead, they would do something less passive aggressive to threaten you, like sticking a puppy's head in your mailbox. this person is probibly not even in the same zip code let alone the same state/country. you dont like it, then pack heat. this is murica people!
Yes. Which means that a professional hit squad is just one 911 call with a spoofed area code away.
-
Maslo...
It's one thing to threaten all those things
It's another to *post their address* while threatening those things
Someone saying "I'm going to kill you" holds a helluva lot less weight than "I know where you live. I'm going to come over there at 123 Fake Street and do things and stuff". The fact *you don't know if they have that ability or not* is what fuels paranoia and inevitably some massive problems psychologically.
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
-
if people really wanted you dead, they would do something less passive aggressive to threaten you, like sticking a puppy's head in your mailbox. this person is probibly not even in the same zip code let alone the same state/country. you dont like it, then pack heat. this is murica people!
Yes. Which means that a professional hit squad is just one 911 call with a spoofed area code away.
OK but if you're going down that rabbit hole, of all the demographics to be hit by a malicious SWAT raid 'white woman' is probably one of the safest.
-
i think we ought to change that. women of the white variety get away with a lot of things they shouldnt. im not going to say what, that would be sexist.
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
if you say stupid/deceitful/insulting/whatever things and someone gives you **** for it. do you not deserve it?
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
if you say stupid things and someone gives you **** for it. do you not deserve it?
You deserve to have your arguments challenged and destroyed by reasonable discussion. You don't deserve childish insults and physical threats. This sort of **** doesn't make her look bad, it makes people think "she's persecuted, so what she's saying must be true".
-
childish threats are just that, childish. hardly worth my attention. when you try to carry out the threats and trip one of the wires and set off the attached warhead, well then, didnt you deserve it?
-
Childish threats may not be particularly noteworthy, but if you get enough, it tends to make it really easy to paint any criticism, no matter how reasonable, as childish insults (or, in her case, misogyny).
And physical threats like this are definitely worthy of concern. No one should have to be in fear for their life because of what they say, no matter how stupid it is. Freedom of speech matters. You're dangerously close to saying that people who get lynched deserve it.
-
concern yes, censure no. its actually very useful to know who doesn't like you. when it comes right down to it we are all at the mercy of the other humans. if you fail to be civil, rights be damned. after all they are like locks, purely psychological, and quite easy to break. it just takes one crazy bastard who doesn't play by the rules to break them. now you have nothing to protect you but cops with horrible response times and/or your own whits/firearms. isnt human interaction fun!
-
Crime is always going to happen. Doesn't mean it needs to be tolerated.
-
your right, lets nuke all the things and call it a day. all humans are criminals in my book.
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
I've seen accusations of dishonesty flung about freely regarding the TvW videos, but I've never seen a sane person come up with sane explanations. It's all "Game <x> was misrepresented!" or "This scene was taken out of context!", which to me sounds more like people desperate to justify their particular tastes than good, factual critique.
I've also not seen a good refutation of the overall point Sarkeesian makes (that being that representation of women in games is deeply problematic due to it falling in a narrow range of stereotypes).
I would like to see both of those things though; After all, any hypothesis is only as strong as the criticism it can withstand.
EDIT: I mean, if this is the supposed poster boy for reasoned critique of Sarkeesian's work, said critique isn't all that well-reasoned, I imagine:
(http://i.imgur.com/IKGUFGN.png)
-
With regards to her work, the only real issue I have with Sarkeesian is that sometimes I think she confuses Stereotype with Cliche. She's bang-on about the tendency to habitually define the female roles in games to be demanding something of the male ones, but I do think sometimes when it gets to games that do have female protagonists, she does seem to forget that computer games are, well, computer games, and are played as such, not 'people simulators'.
@The E
Thunderf00t has been relying more and more on these single sound-bites lately, which don't stand up too well to analysis, I preferred it when he was less accusatory and angry about it all.
-
its clearly in jest. oddly amusing too. but not worth attention. the internet is overflowing with this type of post. they likely suffer from some kind of personality disorder.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/oCC31BM.jpg)
I do not want to discuss this guy again. Pretty clear what he's about.
-
The problem is that the Gaming Community is its own great big cyclic cluster-**** that has become its own worst enemy.
For example, this person attacks Sarkeesian, she, rather than informing the authorities that there's someone with obvious mental issues stalking her instead decides to show the post to the world as a 'poster' for the worst that the gaming community has to offer. Now, that image will eventually percolate, but the message that 'this represents the worst of the Gaming community' will blur into 'this represents the Gaming community' by the time it reaches mainstream.
Like all Media communities, we love to make a Drama out of a situation, maybe that's part of what attracts us to computer games in the first place.
-
The problem is that the Gaming Community is its own great big cyclic cluster-**** that has becomes its own worst enemy.
For example, this person attacks Sarkeesian, she, rather than informing the authorities that there's someone with obvious mental issues stalking her instead decides to show the post to the world as a 'poster' for the worst that the gaming community has to offer. Now, that image will eventually percolate, but the message that 'this represents the worst of the Gaming community' will blur into 'this represents the Gaming community' by the time it reaches mainstream.
Like all Media communities, we love to make a Drama out of a situation, maybe that's part of what attracts us to computer games in the first place.
The effort to downplay what's going on is reaching new levels of rediculousness and attempts at redirection.
-
No, you misunderstand, the effort to overplay what is going on and turn it into a 'Rome is burning' situation is in full swing. Your post is an excellent example of it in fact.
Just because someone says that the gaming community tends to over-dramatize things and make a 'show' of it is not a statement on what is going on at all, it's a statement on the reaction on it, but any statement that could possibly be taken as detracting from your viewpoint must be a belittlement of what happened in your eyes.
Ask yourself, what does showing it to the Internet actually achieve compared to reporting it to the authorities? Beyond a great deal of drama, very little. Pointing that out is not attacking Sarkeesian, not at all, we all do it, it's the nature of the Gaming Community itself I'm afraid.
As I said before, Drama from a Crisis.
-
No, you misunderstand, the effort to overplay what is going on and turn it into a 'Rome is burning' situation is in full swing. Your post is an excellent example of it in fact.
Just because someone says that the gaming community tends to over-dramatize things and make a 'show' of it is not a statement on what is going on at all, it's a statement on the reaction on it, but any statement that could possibly be taken as detracting from your viewpoint must be a belittlement of what happened in your eyes.
Ask yourself, what does showing it to the Internet actually achieve compared to reporting it to the authorities? Beyond a great deal of drama, very little. Pointing that out is not attacking Sarkeesian, not at all, we all do it, it's the nature of the Gaming Community itself I'm afraid.
As I said before, Drama from a Crisis.
If your opinion is that she's the problem, I have no interest in your opinion.
-
Thank you for explaining the entire problem with the gaming community in one sentence.
-
The whole GamerGate topic is intriguing, so I've done a bit of investigating and, as is tradition, I've found something a little odd.
Rumour has it that these threats on Anita Sarkeesian are fake. Source is /v/, and even though they've got some interesting findings up on the Quinnspiracy KnowYourMeme page, I want to do a bit more research before I say one way or another.
Will provide more info as I find it. There may be a wait, since it's my bedtime (hah).
-
I don't have to take an opinion contemptuous of victims of scary death threats seriously.
-
The whole GamerGate topic is intriguing, so I've done a bit of investigating and, as is tradition, I've found something a little odd.
Rumour has it that these threats on Anita Sarkeesian are fake. Source is /v/, and even though they've got some interesting findings up on the Quinnspiracy KnowYourMeme page, I want to do a bit more research before I say one way or another.
Will provide more info as I find it. There may be a wait, since it's my bedtime (hah).
Rumor is also that she needs a good raping. What's your point?
-
Post the part where I am 'contemptuous' of anything or anyone other than the tendency to over-dramatize things precisely as you are doing here.
-
Why is the fact that Anita *said* what happened to her more important to you than that it happened. Can we go 10 minutes without anyone telling her to be quiet?
-
That... is the most ridiculous thing I've read for quite a while. I didn't say she should 'be quiet', I said that the gaming communities habit of over-reacting to situations is often what creates those situations in the first place. I said her method of dealing with it, and the reaction to that method, is an example of our love of Drama. I ALSO said she should contact the authorities, because they are the ones in the position to make that person stop, which is I would have thought is the ultimate goal of all this.
I don't even know how to continue with you, this thread has so emphatically proved my point that I really don't think I need to say anything else.
Edit : When did 'if you're not with us, you're against us' become so popular anyway?
-
One thread on this topic ended up locked. The secobnd will go quicker. Everyone stop being so confrontational.
-
Maybe she can contemplate the distinction you're talking about, flip, when she can sleep in her own bed. Show the slightest bit of empathy at the very least.
-
Once again, where did I say I didn't have empathy, where did I say that what happened to her wasn't wrong?
You've got this template and you are determined to squeeze me into it, aren't you?
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
I've seen accusations of dishonesty flung about freely regarding the TvW videos, but I've never seen a sane person come up with sane explanations. It's all "Game <x> was misrepresented!" or "This scene was taken out of context!", which to me sounds more like people desperate to justify their particular tastes than good, factual critique.
I've also not seen a good refutation of the overall point Sarkeesian makes (that being that representation of women in games is deeply problematic due to it falling in a narrow range of stereotypes).
I would like to see both of those things though; After all, any hypothesis is only as strong as the criticism it can withstand.
I don't actually disagree with Sarkeesian's premise, but I actually do think it matters what examples she uses. The recent Hitman one is a great case, actually.
Basically, part of a mission in Hitman: Absolution goes through a stripclub. Naturally, this being Hitman, you have the ability to kill pretty much anyone you want, which includes the strippers. But, since they're innocents, you're penalized for doing so. Sarkeesian uses this as an example of sexism, treating it as though that was the whole point of the game, that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." All the while using footage of the player dragging the bodies around in a great big circle to show just how objectified and disposable these women are.
Not only is this them being treated like every single other npc in the game, be they male or female, but she says earlier in the video (generally speaking) "...this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged." which is crap, given that, again, Hitman penalises you for killing innocents, and in that specific case, they're actually out of your way. It's like she takes the mere existence of vulnerable female characters as encouragement to harm them.
What is that if not misrepresentation? It's completely dishonest. There are plenty of good examples to make her point, some of which she uses herself (the Mass Effect one in particular), so why is this kind of dishonesty even necessary?
The video is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZPSrwedvsg), should you want to watch it. Part I'm talking about is at 21:46, but the whole thing is worth watching.
There's also the whole part where she doesn't seem to understand what a background character is, but I'm not talking about that right now.
While I'm on the topic, I noticed a trend with her a while ago: she focuses on the way female characters get treated, whether or not male NPCs in a given game also get treated the same way. Now, she explains that this isn't ok because of a power differential in modern society. Ok, that's fine. What is the solution, then? If a game has female characters, they must be in a position of power or it's sexism? Women can't be vulnerable ever, and a game can't even show sexist situations or it's reinforcing the patriarchy?
Christ, she uses footage from New Vegas (among others) to illustrate this. I don't know if you've played it, but that game is probably as far from sexist as you can get in the modern gaming industry. It depicts sexism (hi Caesar's Legion), but it deals with it quite seriously. I'm not saying that, as a counterexample, this invalidates her premise. It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't support it. I haven't played every game she chooses to talk about, so how do I know she's not doing this elsewhere with other games? Whether it's conscious or not, it undermines her entire methodology, and I rather dislike her for it.
But if there's one question I wish I could ask her, it's this: Can a game depict sexism without being sexist in itself? Can it allow the player to engage in activities that could be considered sexist without being sexist itself? Given the way she deals with her critics, I don't think I'd be likely to get a serious response.
Honestly, I wish I had the patience to go through all her videos and actually write something up. Like I said before, I don't actually disagree with her central premise, but I do have a problem with the way she demonstrates it, and I don't think she deserves most of the praise (or the hate) she gets.
I do hope this qualifies as a sane explanation. :)
And like Flipside, I used to rather like Thunderf00t's stuff (and his science-related work is still excellent), but I think he's getting a bit too angry about this issue. I've been avoiding his feminism-related videos for a while. His complete and utter lack of tact really doesn't help, given how heated this discussion is in the first place.
-
You accused her of making drama for informing people via Twitter Flipside. Twitter is also used as a way to quickly get word out to colleagues, you know.
*Sigh*i shouldn't have snapped. I am just really really tired of people telling her what she can say and when, AS this stuff is going on. Really, really tired.
-
No problem, I know it's an emotion evoking situation, and largely for very good reasons.
I suppose the thing is, I'm a strong advocate of Women's Rights, but I also believe in looking at a situation from as neutral position as possible, there is a reciprocity being generated by people's behavior, a vast cycle of attack/counter-attack on a huge variety of things, that's the nature of the Internet. Yes, what should have happened when that conversation was posted was a reasoned, intelligent debate on gender and perceptions of it and how to prevent this kind of thing. However what DID happen, what everyone knew would happen was a God-Almighty ****-storm. This surprised no-one.
This isn't a comment about gender really, it's a comment about people, male AND female, and the fact that we spend so much energy getting angry about a problem, we have none left to solve it.
-
Flipside is expressing the opinion that if Ms Sarkeesian wanted this matter dealt with with the minimum amount of fuss, she should have simply left her home and only published this matter after the person had been apprehended. Going public doesn't help calm things down and, if anything, actually makes it harder to investigate the matter as the ****wit behind it will now know that the cops are investigating. He would have been much easier to catch if she hadn't said anything.
I'm sure Flipside would express the same opinion regardless of the sex of the person in question so quit trying to see this in black and white terms.
EDIT : Ninja'd by Flipside himself anyway.
EDIT 2: This (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/28/culture-rape-victim-blame-too-far) is a bit of a tangent, but I think it was one of the best things I've read about feminism in a while.
-
My position: she has a goddamn right to speak publicly about it, that this isn't just a random death threat but the crest of a very nasty wave that is hitting all of us, and that people need to know how bad this is getting.
-
And at what point will we be able to actively do anything about it?
That's the main issue isn't it. What can one do to stop these people?
You can call them out, you can inform people what is right and what is wrong, you could have an entire army defending folks from death threats tangible or benign. It won't stop people from forgetting what it is to be a decent human being
So my question is: What is the plan?
-
My position: she has a goddamn right to speak publicly about it, that this isn't just a random death threat but the crest of a very nasty wave that is hitting all of us, and that people need to know how bad this is getting.
And I wouldn't deny her that right.
Doesn't mean it was the most sensible thing to do though. For one thing, this is going to give other trolls the idea that this kind of tactic does succeed in making people scared enough to leave their homes. Other trolls who might take better precautions to prevent themselves getting caught.
-
The problem is that the Gaming Community is its own great big cyclic cluster-**** that has become its own worst enemy.
For example, this person attacks Sarkeesian, she, rather than informing the authorities that there's someone with obvious mental issues stalking her.
Bolded part is incorrect. Sarkeesian has informed the authorities about this. I think the post was made mainly because of what transpired earlier: People claimed that Zoe Quinn (from dat ****storm a week earlier) was, in fact, not being harassed at all and that she was lying about the whole ordeal to get more attention to herself. This was evidenced by her "Lack of proof" for these things.
-
I will also, just for balance say that I stated a very similar opinion in the Zoey Quin thread regarding her ex-boyfriend posting all those details in the first place, that it may feel 'vindicating' but it causes far more problems than it solves.
I suppose an interesting thought experiment is this :
Imagine someone manages to identify the guy (or possibly even girl) who made those comments, found out their address as they did with Ms Sarkeesians' parents, went there and killed that person, all from information in that picture.
Has anyone won? Has anything been achieved? Will the world be a safer, more tolerant place for women? Nothing has changed, and possibly, things would have just got a little bit worse.
We walk the path of Nietzsches' monsters if we are not careful.
-
Anyone who follows my Twitter feed will know that I'm fond of counter-mobbing assholes who post anonymous death/rape/torture/whatever threats against women online for expressing an opinion. It's a strange phenomenon that men get the death threats and a variety of bull****, but with women it becomes uniquely personal.
That said...
I'm not convinced that reacting to these things by moving out of your house and creating a further social media ****storm is necessarily the right course of action. The fact that someone manages to dig up an address on social media does not make the threats any more credible, and a better course, IMHO, is simply to contact law enforcement, advise other people of the event to act on your behalf, and liberally exercise the block function. The majority of these accounts are anonymously created for the sole purpose of being abusive on social media; refusal to play the game makes it less likely they'll continue.
Law enforcement has begun to take online threats much more seriously, and in the absence of a credible threat, I think it's much wiser to treat these people as the powerless scum they are. Generally speaking, people who are going to pose a true threat to your health/safety don't advertise. These tweets/posts/etc are horrific fantasy played out in text designed to make their authors feel good; the best way to thwart them is to ignore them utterly. There's a fine line between reasonable precaution and actions that empower the scum far beyond their actual means.
Part of the solution to this is Twitter/Facebook in particular implementing much stricter banning approaches for harassing activity.
-
My position: she has a goddamn right to speak publicly about it, that this isn't just a random death threat but the crest of a very nasty wave that is hitting all of us, and that people need to know how bad this is getting.
I think letting the people making these threats know how much of an effect they can have is a legitimate downside to publicising them.
-
I will also, just for balance say that I stated a very similar opinion in the Zoey Quin thread regarding her ex-boyfriend posting all those details in the first place, that it may feel 'vindicating' but it causes far more problems than it solves.
I suppose an interesting thought experiment is this :
Imagine someone manages to identify the guy (or possibly even girl) who made those comments, found out their address as they did with Ms Sarkeesians' parents, went there and killed that person, all from information in that picture.
Has anyone won? Has anything been achieved? Will the world be a safer, more tolerant place for women? Nothing has changed, and possibly, things would have just got a little bit worse.
We walk the path of Nietzsches' monsters if we are not careful.
Then the fault lies with the killer. The right to publicly shame your attacker is as important a right as any. It does not make her a drama queen, and if it does, then some drama is justified.
And both Anita and Quinn have stated that the authorities have been contacted about this latest series of threats.
-
In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.
You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?
-
I will also add that I wish people would quit talking about the "Gaming Community" as if it is some cohesive, self-identifying group. More women than every play games of various types, and mobile gaming is rapidly moving towards dominance over traditional console and PC titles. There is a core of young-to-middle-aged-men who play "hardcore" (as they see it) games and view themselves as the rightful custodians and judges of gaming, but they are but a tiny proportion of those who play electronic games of one kind or another. Part of the problem with the entire narrative is that there is a gaming community to begin with, and that it is counter-feminist (or, arguably, counter-female). There are undoubtedly a self-identifying core of males who play games that can be charitably described as anti-female (and are more accurately described as simply scumbags), but they are by no means representative of anything but their core, sadly dysfunctional group.
-
Anyone who follows my Twitter feed will know that I'm fond of counter-mobbing assholes who post anonymous death/rape/torture/whatever threats against women online for expressing an opinion. It's a strange phenomenon that men get the death threats and a variety of bull****, but with women it becomes uniquely personal.
That said...
I'm not convinced that reacting to these things by moving out of your house and creating a further social media ****storm is necessarily the right course of action. The fact that someone manages to dig up an address on social media does not make the threats any more credible, and a better course, IMHO, is simply to contact law enforcement, advise other people of the event to act on your behalf, and liberally exercise the block function. The majority of these accounts are anonymously created for the sole purpose of being abusive on social media; refusal to play the game makes it less likely they'll continue.
Law enforcement has begun to take online threats much more seriously, and in the absence of a credible threat, I think it's much wiser to treat these people as the powerless scum they are. Generally speaking, people who are going to pose a true threat to your health/safety don't advertise. These tweets/posts/etc are horrific fantasy played out in text designed to make their authors feel good; the best way to thwart them is to ignore them utterly. There's a fine line between reasonable precaution and actions that empower the scum far beyond their actual means.
Part of the solution to this is Twitter/Facebook in particular implementing much stricter banning approaches for harassing activity.
Is that what you would really do if you were in her shoes? You can say a lot of things about someone's actions from a distance.
As for stricter banning on twitter, yes, I totally agree, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY STUFF LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE REVEALED PUBLICLY. Being silent is to noone's long term benefit even though it may be better for the speaker in the short run.
-
I dunno if Twitter/Facebook banning would help that much; making a sockpuppet isn't exactly hard, and you can't ban messages before the target actually reads them.
-
In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.
You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?
Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?
-
I dunno if Twitter/Facebook banning would help that much; making a sockpuppet isn't exactly hard, and you can't ban messages before the target actually reads them.
I know. We need to design systems that can isolate people from harrassment much better.
-
The right to publicly shame your attacker is as important a right as any.
That's not a right, it's a privilege
As for stricter banning policies, that's just a stop gap since it only dams certain rivers from flowing. That, and much like a dam, it'll only make people who do this sort of thing build up for something more
It's easier to keep an eye on your enemy when you know where they'll be. If they are forced into the shadows, who knows what they'll be doing. It only creates the illusion you've won, but odds are they're cooking something up and are none too happy they've been temporarily silenced
-
In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.
You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?
Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, like I said, Human nature. Raise a flag, any flag, and troops will gather on both sides of the battlefield. And the crux of the problem is that both sides do still see it as a battlefield, even if it's a digital one.
-
Technical measures are not going to stop harassment by themselves, at least unless you do something insane like requiring all online communications be traceable to a real-world identity.
-
It'll at least deter the ****s and giggles types.
A simple idea. How about a straigt up customizable word filter you can toggle. How funny would it be to make them couch their slurs behind proper language?
-
In that case then, surely, the actions of this lone nutter attacking Ms. Sarkeesian are also the responsibility of the attacker alone and therefore should not be used as an example of misogynism in the Gaming community? In fact, every single person who contacted her did so entirely of their own volition.
You see, it has to work in both directions, or it isn't fair, that's kind of the point of equality, if we aren't applying it equally, then what is it?
Can I say that the scale of harrassment and misinformation that's being sent at Anita and Zoe is really extraordinary in its size, and the amount of support it is getting on othet internet forums is betraying the prevalence of this attitude, and that this threat may be just the most extreme example? I can say that, right?
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, like I said, Human nature. Raise a flag, any flag, and troops will gather on both sides of the battlefield. And the crux of the problem is that both sides do still see it as a battlefield, even if it's a digital one.
The problem cannot be buried, it cannot be soothed, it cannot be dismissed. None of those things work or help anyone. It has to be either challenged or accepted.
-
Is that what you would really do if you were in her shoes? You can say a lot of things about someone's actions from a distance.
In a word, yes. I'd contact law enforcement, I'd let my family and immediate neighbours know, and I'd pay it no further attention unless I or law enforcement found a credible threat.
As for stricter banning on twitter, yes, I totally agree, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY STUFF LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE REVEALED PUBLICLY. Being silent is to noone's long term benefit even though it may be better for the speaker in the short run.
I don't have an issue with public revealing. I think they way in which she did it made her seem powerless, and her attackers seem more powerful, which is an odd approach for a feminist theorist to take, particularly one who critiques power imbalances. Calling it scary stuff and blasting [Trigger Warning] across it gave it credibility, as opposed to the simple derision and contempt it deserved. It goads these trolls who feed on the reaction they get. No reaction, no fun for them.
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
100% this.
I fear she is going to ride the crest of another wave of sympathy with this. I can see it now already, I just have to Google news her and everyone's digging in behind her.
Anita Sarkeesian is not the poster girl feminists should want representing them.
-
I'm keeping an eye on this thread. When I saw it had reached four pages, I thought it might have turned into the last thread, but people seem to be keeping level heads. Let's keep it that way.
(I want to commend Flipside and Mr. Vega for resolving a heated exchange amicably. I was thinking I'd have to issue a warning, but that's no longer necessary.)
-
The problem is that we need to Evolve beyond this, but Evolution quite literally means 'Change over Time'. We can create laws, we can police the internet, we can throw these people in jail where some of them quite obviously deserve to be, but the eradication of the attitude itself is a cross-generational event. Our desire to change society far, far outpaces our ability to do so, all change, no time.
The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.
It's that old 'Assertive' vs 'Aggressive' argument.
I think the thing is, it's not a War, it's a problem, a deep seated global social problem. You aren't going to stop gang-rape in Africa by getting angry about it, you are never going to shout those people into stopping, you do so by understanding the social and sexual pressures that lead to its prevalence and dealing with those, and then giving it a few generations, it's the only way.
So yes, stand against inequality in all its forms and with all your resolve, but if one side sees it as a no-holds barred battle, you can bet the other side will too, and that only leads to lots of people banging their heads together and going nowhere.
@Goober : No problem, I wouldn't have been setting a very good example if I hadn't been willing to try to see things from the other viewpoint ;)
-
That's an excellent post. I'd like to highlight this part in particular:
The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.
This also has the effect of when you're hammering someone who has come in with an open mind to discuss the subject reasonably, that person will simply believe all the more strongly they are right since all the other side has to offer is attacks and closed-mindedness instead of reasoned debate.
-
The problem is that we need to Evolve beyond this, but Evolution quite literally means 'Change over Time'. We can create laws, we can police the internet, we can throw these people in jail where some of them quite obviously deserve to be, but the eradication of the attitude itself is a cross-generational event. Our desire to change society far, far outpaces our ability to do so, all change, no time.
The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.
It's that old 'Assertive' vs 'Aggressive' argument.
I think the thing is, it's not a War, it's a problem, a deep seated global social problem. You aren't going to stop gang-rape in Africa by getting angry about it, you are never going to shout those people into stopping, you do so by understanding the social and sexual pressures that lead to its prevalence and dealing with those, and then giving it a few generations, it's the only way.
So yes, stand against inequality in all its forms and with all your resolve, but if one side sees it as a no-holds barred battle, you can bet the other side will too, and that only leads to lots of people banging their heads together and going nowhere.
@Goober : No problem, I wouldn't have been setting a very good example if I hadn't been willing to try to see things from the other viewpoint ;)
There are two objectives here: One, create safe spaces online where women can communicate publicly without fear of harrassment. This will take some technical and institutional experimentation to pull off. Two, call out witch hunts, invasions of developers' private lives, and harassment campaigns like this and encourage others to do so that it becomes publicly unacceptable to support it. This will take longer, but i think you all forget how short a time scale the internet can operate on compared to the rest of society. The goal is not to engage the trolls - it's to throw them into everyone's field of view, to get everyone who isn't a troll to act.
-
That's an excellent post. I'd like to highlight this part in particular:
The trick here, to my mind is to forget debating with the idiots who troll the Internet, you aren't ever going to change them, if they weren't attacking someone for being a feminist, they'd be attacking someone for being gay, or being black etc. If they commit a crime, report them, but don't engage them. And, indeed, engaging them creates a situation where the defenders become automatically hostile to any dissenting voice because they are so used to trolls and general obnoxiousness, it's that pre-emptive defensiveness that means that many people feel like they are walking on eggshells whenever they want to openly debate the subject with a position that doesn't entirely align with the mainstream.
This also has the effect of when you're hammering someone who has come in with an open mind to discuss the subject reasonably, that person will simply believe all the more strongly they are right since all the other side has to offer is attacks and closed-mindedness instead of reasoned debate.
Her videos have the occasional inaccuracies. I can live with that. But her points are good ones. Sexual violence is often used as a lazy and cheap way of darkening a setting or a character up. And why, in the most escapist of media, we can't seem to get away from THAT of all things.
-
One, create safe spaces online where women can communicate publicly without fear of harrassment. This will take some technical and institutional experimentation to pull off
While these "safe places" would be theoretically free of harassment, that doesn't mean it'll prevent anywhere else from linking to these safe havens and commenting about it elsewhere. Second issue with that being it defeats the point of talking about unpopular ideals which is to provoke reactions good or bad in the first place. If you set parameters to these discussion areas, you're creating a community that will only bring in like minded individuals as people who disagree with them will avoid (possibly due to the chance that any sort of opposing remarks would be met with aggression or getting ganged up on to the point where proper discussion is no longer viable. And what is talking about important societal things without viable discussion?) or heckle them elsewhere.
I'm also just saying these things as a way to fleshout the idea, not to shoot it in the head
Two, call out witch hunts, invasions of developers' private lives, and harassment campaigns like this and encourage others to do so that it becomes publicly unacceptable to support it. This will take longer, but i think you all forget how short a time scale the internet can operate on compared to the rest of society. The goal is not to engage the trolls - it's to throw them into everyone's field of view, to get everyone who isn't a troll to act.
I'm going to say that the suggestion is similar to trying to tame the internet. It'll take more than just time to get people to act against trolls/legitimate folk who believe what they're saying. You'll essentially have to censor out people in order to ensure that there isn't that one person who will take it personally. People in real life have troubles enough not taking things too personally, the internet is no different
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
What reasonable discussion?
You yourself can't even make a comment without attacking her character. You characterize her work as "dishonest", which in turn means you're calling her a liar. The fair and objective criticism would be to call her work "inaccurate", but you didn't, you attacked her character indirectly instead by questioning her integrity and intent. You are part of the problem.
**** like this is what is wrong with the internet. People can't separate the argument from the person making the argument, and this is particularly true where women are involved and attacking the character becomes the go-to course of action.
-
While these "safe places" would be theoretically free of harassment, that doesn't mean it'll prevent anywhere else from linking to these safe havens and commenting about it elsewhere. Second issue with that being it defeats the point of talking about unpopular ideals which is to provoke reactions good or bad in the first place. If you set parameters to these discussion areas, you're creating a community that will only bring in like minded individuals as people who disagree with them will avoid (possibly due to the chance that any sort of opposing remarks would be met with aggression or getting ganged up on to the point where proper discussion is no longer viable. And what is talking about important societal things without viable discussion?) or heckle them elsewhere.
I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.
-
Wha? Moderated fora exist all over the web, they're exactly what you describe.
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
What reasonable discussion?
You yourself can't even make a comment without attacking her character. You characterize her work as "dishonest", which in turn means you're calling her a liar. The fair and objective criticism would be to call her work "inaccurate", but you didn't, you attacked her character indirectly instead by questioning her integrity and intent. You are part of the problem.
**** like this is what is wrong with the internet. People can't separate the argument from the person making the argument, and this is particularly true where women are involved and attacking the character becomes the go-to course of action.
Inaccurate? No, we'd say if it was inaccurate if it was inaccurate.
Look at her last train wreck of a video (not the one she's just released the one before) and what she had to say about Hitman Absolution. That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.
-
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
What reasonable discussion?
You yourself can't even make a comment without attacking her character. You characterize her work as "dishonest", which in turn means you're calling her a liar. The fair and objective criticism would be to call her work "inaccurate", but you didn't, you attacked her character indirectly instead by questioning her integrity and intent. You are part of the problem.
**** like this is what is wrong with the internet. People can't separate the argument from the person making the argument, and this is particularly true where women are involved and attacking the character becomes the go-to course of action.
I think Aesaar's and Lorric's biases are as apparent as mine at this point. "Twisting" is certainly a matter of loose opinion.
So who wants to justify the Hitman posters she put up for context then?
Wha? Moderated fora exist all over the web, they're exactly what you describe.
They're too specialized in character. We need some place like the Escapist forums with much tighter moderating. Maybe even an invite system.
-
For me to be able to verify anything about Hitman: Absolution, I'd have to actually play it, and this is the game whose teaser trailer had "gun-toting, PVC and latex-clad nuns being killed in a hail of bullets". Sorry, not happening.
-
For me to be able to verify anything about Hitman: Absolution, I'd have to actually play it, and this is the game whose teaser trailer had "gun-toting, PVC and latex-clad nuns being killed in a hail of bullets". Sorry, not happening.
Well that's fine, just as long as you apply the same standard to everything Anita has to say, unless you have played the game in question.
-
Also Hoover, something like that for a twitter like system as well, but still publicly viewable.
-
Well that's fine, just as long as you apply the same standard to everything Anita has to say, unless you have played the game in question.
I have played most of the games she cites as examples. I agree both with her overall point, and her choice of examples. I have no reason to believe that she is maliciously twisting examples.
-
Also WTF God of War III.
-
For me to be able to verify anything about Hitman: Absolution, I'd have to actually play it, and this is the game whose teaser trailer had "gun-toting, PVC and latex-clad nuns being killed in a hail of bullets". Sorry, not happening.
Well that's fine, just as long as you apply the same standard to everything Anita has to say, unless you have played the game in question.
And I have found nothing inaccurate in her descriptions of the games I have actually played.
But even not having played the game, but having now watched the section of the video in question, I'm going to go ahead and call this:
Basically, part of a mission in Hitman: Absolution goes through a stripclub. Naturally, this being Hitman, you have the ability to kill pretty much anyone you want, which includes the strippers. But, since they're innocents, you're penalized for doing so. Sarkeesian uses this as an example of sexism, treating it as though that was the whole point of the game, that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." All the while using footage of the player dragging the bodies around in a great big circle to show just how objectified and disposable these women are.
Not only is this them being treated like every single other npc in the game, be they male or female, but she says earlier in the video (generally speaking) "...this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged." which is crap, given that, again, Hitman penalises you for killing innocents, and in that specific case, they're actually out of your way. It's like she takes the mere existence of vulnerable female characters as encouragement to harm them.
What is that if not misrepresentation? It's completely dishonest. There are plenty of good examples to make her point, some of which she uses herself (the Mass Effect one in particular), so why is this kind of dishonesty even necessary?
...complete bull****. No, sorry, her point was not that Hitman: Absolution does not penalize you for killing innocent people. Her point is that killing innocent people is one of the game's systems, and exploring game's systems is the point of playing games. It seemed clear from the video that she wasn't saying that the game "forces" you to kill prostitutes; it's saying that the game did not have to include them in the first place. Once you include them as player-interactable entities, in a game where your range of interactions are almost all violent, you are expecting somebody to do that.
Christ, she uses footage from New Vegas (among others) to illustrate this. I don't know if you've played it, but that game is probably as far from sexist as you can get in the modern gaming industry.
...Not even close.
-
Thing is, if (unmodded, it's bound to have happened somewhere) Skyrim had included prostitutes, there would have been a similar kind of outcry. The weird part is that no-one seems to mind that I shout a particularly annoying female mage in Winterhold off the bridge and into the chasm every time I visit there :/
It's a question of context as well as content, and that's kind of where things get blurry.
-
Thing is, if (unmodded, it's bound to have happened somewhere) Skyrim had included prostitutes, there would have been a similar kind of outcry. The weird part is that no-one seems to mind that I shout a particularly annoying female mage in Winterhold off the bridge and into the chasm every time I visit there :/
It's a question of context as well as content, and that's kind of where things get blurry.
She is at least armed.
-
The strippers aren't there as eye candy and they aren't there as just objects to be interacted with. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukm2GqAtnpw#t=13m00s
They have dialogue, and not throwaway dialogue. They're there to enhance the game's narrative.
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so, just like you're not a bad person for killing people in games in the first place.
-
Inaccurate? No, we'd say if it was inaccurate if it was inaccurate.
Look at her last train wreck of a video (not the one she's just released the one before) and what she had to say about Hitman Absolution. That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.
Hitman Absolution? You're defending Hitman Absolution?
The game with a trailer which featured a bunch of leather-clad, big breasted stripper nun assassins? Holy **** man did you pick the wrong mountain to climb.
Killing civilians loses points. Right.
So how important are these points?
Can you kill every stripper in the joint and still win the mission? Is killing those strippers more enjoyable than accumulating points? These are the real questions to be examined not whether a point system exists. The fact that a killing an innoncent woman or man is worth only a 1000 point reduction or whatever number attached to it basically reduces them to banal mission objectives from the get go which pretty much proves what anita is saying. Women are objectives, notches on the point belt whether its positive or negative. Interestingly when trying to research the impact of points on the win/fail state of any given mission I came to this page:
http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/A_Personal_Contract/Walkthrough
Hitman approaching a naked woman in the shower. Wow. What a great glowing example of a game treating women with respect.
Do you want a REAL game where killing an innocent results in REAL punishment?
It's called Thief Dark Project. If you kill a person, on expert difficulty, you lose the mission. Automatically. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman. Killing people results in fail state.
Hitman absolution seems to have no such fail state.
The question then is, does the point system coincide with player intent? Putting a point system in doesn't mean that the player is going to follow it. A good game is one where designer intent and player intent is the same as a natural result of game play and objectives. The fact that you can choose to kill innocent women, and still finish the game, tells me that player incentive is shallow at best and a half-assed poorly executed attempt. If killing the people, results in spectacular take down moves and hiding the body thrills, and if these actions are more enjoyable than "lose a few points" then the game does indeed encourage killing innocents.
And if you search out Hitman Absolution criticism. I think you'll find that a lot of people's biggest problem with the game is this very point system which you are trying to defend. Because the point system goes against what the players want to do.
-
The strippers aren't there as eye candy and they aren't there as just objects to be interacted with. Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukm2GqAtnpw#t=13m00s
They have dialogue, and not throwaway dialogue. They're there to enhance the game's narrative.
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so, just like you're not a bad person for killing people in games in the first place.
We're discussing the game itself.
I also support any favorable comparison of Thief I.
-
You're a HITMAN. Why would you fail a mission for killing an innocent? That doesn't make sense, you're a HITMAN. If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.
-
You're a HITMAN. Why would you fail a mission for killing an innocent? That doesn't make sense, you're a HITMAN.
Because they're not your target? What do you think "hitman" means?
If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.
:wtf: What does that have to do with... anything?
-
You're a HITMAN. Why would you fail a mission for killing an innocent? That doesn't make sense, you're a HITMAN.
Because they're not your target? What do you think "hitman" means?
You hire a hitman to kill people. Why would the buyer care as long as they got the job done.
The game has a scoring system. Games since the dawn of time have had scoring systems. If you want a high score, you've got to do the job as cleanly as possible.
-
If you find harrassment distasteful noone makes you read it!
I see we don't want to talk about value judgements now.
-
You're a HITMAN. Why would you fail a mission for killing an innocent? That doesn't make sense, you're a HITMAN. If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.
Because someone's paying you to kill a specific person and doesn't want a ****load of innocent blood on their hands to bring down the cops on them?
Or because you're a professional hitman? Not a murderer?
Interesting, another comparison from one game to another would be say Grand Theft Auto and Driver San Francisco.
Both games involve the player driving around a city like a maniac, often away from the cops. The main difference in the driving segments is that in Driver San Francisco, it is IMPOSSIBLE to run over pedestrians. They will always get out of the way. Running over people is not a part of game play, it's not something they put in.
So why are they there? Because it's a city. You need people walking around to make the city believable.
Hitman's in a strip club and strip clubs need strippers but the system or opportunity to kill strippers is completely unnecessary. And that's Anita's legitimate complaint about Hitman.
-
If you find harrassment distasteful noone makes you read it!
This is fun!
Stop that please. It's not the same. If you harass someone, you bring the harassment to them. No one brings the game to you and shoves it down your throat.
Interesting, another comparison from one game to another would be say Grand Theft Auto and Driver San Francisco.
Both games involve the player driving around a city like a maniac, often away from the cops. The main difference in the driving segments is that in Driver San Francisco, it is IMPOSSIBLE to run over pedestrians. They will always get out of the way. Running over people is not a part of game play, it's not something they put in.
So why are they there? Because it's a city. You need people walking around to make the city believable.
Hitman's in a strip club and strip clubs need strippers but the system or opportunity to kill strippers is completely unnecessary. And that's Anita's legitimate complaint about Hitman.
But it doesn't matter if it does get put in either.
There is power in not doing something as well. You get to play the game however you want.
-
I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.
Question becomes: What's defined as harassment and by whom?
As for the invite system, it could create a community where people are intelligent and discuss things rationally, but then you'd have to ensure only certain people can invite or undergo a filtering process which creates more segregation than just regular strict moderating.
My thoughts on a "safe haven" for female discussion (escaping harassment is one thing, but on equal grounds we're all subject to being harassed. Most people just aren't because they don't make as fun targets and the attention they get is also small) means that the people fighting against it all have won. They successfully beat back the female presence to their own little piece of the internet which is the same as telling them they shouldn't do "x" and therefore should be at "y"
I recall this one gay rights activist who was met with a threat on his life if he stood up and gave a speech to the crowd. He gave it anyways fully knowing what might happen. He didn't run and hide to a safe haven to discuss his ideals, he demonstrated to his opposition that his voice wasn't going to be stopped
Life is unsafe and so is the internet. If you stand for something, have the will to kick ass and chew bubble gum when you do it. Otherwise, you're not suited to spearhead it. Progress has never been achieved without those people being harassed all the while pushing for it.
That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.
Tried to come up with something of what twisting is best described as myself, but decided google was better
"What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible?
The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution."
Is she trying to persuade you that her opinion is the one true opinion or interpretation? I've seen her stuff. All she's doing is presenting how she sees it and lets the viewer decide for themselves as they interpret her message. Bias plays a lot into opinionated videos by both the speaker and the viewer. If you're already against her, you're going to pick her stuff apart piece by piece finding each "misinterpretation" (by whose standards does one trust what is and isn't a misinterpretation? Simply because one doesn't agree doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it different)
EDIT: DAMMIT PEOPLE TRYING TO POST HERE TWELVE REPLIES SINCE WRITING THIS MAN I'VE BEEN WRITING THIS TOO LONG HOLY HELL. POST ALREADY D:
EDIT2: Well looks like I made a new page
-
Is a game dredging up something really ugly or isn't it? We understand that we don't have to play it. But if if the very best thing you can say about a game is that you do not have to play it, that's not a good sign.
-
But it doesn't matter if it does get put in either.
There is power in not doing something as well. You get to play the game however you want.
Except Anita is criticizing the game, and the game's enabling of the actions being discussed, not player play styles. So how you want to play is irrelevant and doesn't support your "counterargument"
And Hitman Absolution is very linear compared to previous titles from all accounts so saying that the game encourages you to play the way you want is a joke.
-
I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.
Question becomes: What's defined as harassment and by whom?
As for the invite system, it could create a community where people are intelligent and discuss things rationally, but then you'd have to ensure only certain people can invite or undergo a filtering process which creates more segregation than just regular strict moderating.
My thoughts on a "safe haven" for female discussion (escaping harassment is one thing, but on equal grounds we're all subject to being harassed. Most people just aren't because they don't make as fun targets and the attention they get is also small) means that the people fighting against it all have won. They successfully beat back the female presence to their own little piece of the internet which is the same as telling them they shouldn't do "x" and therefore should be at "y"
I recall this one gay rights activist who was met with a threat on his life if he stood up and gave a speech to the crowd. He gave it anyways fully knowing what might happen. He didn't run and hide to a safe haven to discuss his ideals, he demonstrated to his opposition that his voice wasn't going to be stopped
Life is unsafe and so is the internet. If you stand for something, have the will to kick ass and chew bubble gum when you do it. Otherwise, you're not suited to spearhead it. Progress has never been achieved without those people being harassed all the while pushing for it.
That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.
Tried to come up with something of what twisting is best described as myself, but decided google was better
"What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible?
The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution."
Is she trying to persuade you that her opinion is the one true opinion or interpretation? I've seen her stuff. All she's doing is presenting how she sees it and lets the viewer decide for themselves as they interpret her message. Bias plays a lot into opinionated videos by both the speaker and the viewer. If you're already against her, you're going to pick her stuff apart piece by piece finding each "misinterpretation" (by whose standards does one trust what is and isn't a misinterpretation? Simply because one doesn't agree doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it different)
EDIT: DAMMIT PEOPLE TRYING TO POST HERE TWELVE REPLIES SINCE WRITING THIS MAN I'VE BEEN WRITING THIS TOO LONG HOLY HELL. POST ALREADY D:
EDIT2: Well looks like I made a new page
We cannot ask women to be in the same state of mind as that gay man every waking moment! Noone can keep that up. That's why some developers just leave. You want to take abuse 24/7?
-
Also:
As always, it's important to keep in mind that it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable.
Just because a problematic element is pointed out about a game you happen to like does not mean that either the problematic element does not exist or you must immediately disown the game.
-
If you're spearheading a movement or advocating for one Mr. Vega, you need to because you're going to be getting a whole ****ton of flak until it ends
And that gay guy was eventually assassinated. He lived that in every waking moment as he was an activist. His name was Harvey Milk
EDIT: I'm also not talking about female developers, I'm talking about activists and those advocating against whatever the crap for women
-
If you're spearheading a movement or advocating for one Mr. Vega, you need to because you're going to be getting a whole ****ton of flak until it ends
And that gay guy was eventually assassinated. He lived that in every waking moment as he was an activist. His name was Harvey Milk
EDIT: I understand that women being in a job as developers isn't exactly as grand as what I compared it to, but your existence is the very fight for that idea whether you like it or not
Yeah I'm not buying the apathy or martyrdom dichotomy. It ain't THAT bad.
-
Disclaimer: I've only ever played about an hour of Hitman Contracts out of the whole series, so I have little experience with it.
That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of eliminating settings and experiences that may be viewed as sexist from games if those settings and experiences reflect reality in a game that is set in a realistic universe.
By all accounts, in the Hitman series you can kill basically whomever you please during the missions and experience the consequences of it. The game does not induce a fail-state for anything aside from a failure condition. In this context, if one chooses to set a particular mission in a stripclub - another realistic setting that, like or not, actually exists - if rather seems overtly sexist to induce a fail-state only for the killing of one particular class of NPC in that area based on arbitrary political grounds.
There is a great deal of sexism in games that is blatant, overt, and arguably intentional, from the way certain females are dressed to the way they are voiced to the way in which they behave. I think there's plenty of room to thrash that ecosystem without drifting into areas that are more controversial and range much closer to artistic/narrative freedom. This is one of the fundamental issues that I, coming as I do from a philosophical bent based on Marx and Foucault, take with much of modern feminism (which derives in part from Marxism too): there is a severe risk of over-reach, a risk that many of the most radical modern feminists seem utterly oblivious to. There is a principle in democratic legal jurisdictions called de minimis non curat lex, meaning "the law does not concern with trifles," and I note that many people who conduct sociological and philosophical critique could benefit from an understanding of it.
It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists. It clearly does. I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
-
Yeah I'm not buying the apathy or martyrdom dichotomy. It ain't THAT bad.
My overall point is that if you're going to take a stance on something that means a great deal to you, you don't back down or flee to some safe haven to talk about it to like minded individuals. You fight and rise above your critics
I just used some extreme examples to highlight that point. Seems it got lost in translation because of the severity and for that I apologize
EDIT: It could just be because people don't see it as much of a big deal as most other rights/status pursuing endeavours, but anything that yearns to change societal norms is still just as important, even on the internet.
-
Thing is with that particular situation is finding the line between 'game' and 'simulation', people demand the freedom to do what they wish within their own little sandbox in games, but there's a massive difference of opinion on what defines a sandbox and what simply defines gratuitous content, and with the increasing demand for freedom of action within these sort of open world games, it's going to become more predominant.
-
I say next time someone tries to kill a stripper, she pulls out a Dirty Harry special and caps yo ass
-
It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists. It clearly does.
Boy, I wish systemic feminism existed.
I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
The existence of bigger problems does not make smaller problems irrelevant; pointing out smaller problems is not trivializing bigger ones.
-
In watching some of her latest Tropes Vs Women, I note that a number of these critiques focus on depictions that could be considered historical in nature. Audiences are already very familiar with the historical inequality of women, and it makes sense in a historical context to use these sorts of quasi-realistic depictions to advance narrative and setting, particularly in game worlds that rely on immersive settings that are not present-day reality. She critiques that violence against women is used as a setpiece, but ignores the fact that it is a realistic setpiece based on material we are all familiar with from history and even modern day life. I agree that gratuitous use of this is inappropriate, but there are a number of scenarios in which this makes contextual sense. At what point is displaying objectification gratuitous, versus simply factual?
-
In watching some of her latest Tropes Vs Women, I note that a number of these critiques focus on depictions that could be considered historical in nature. Audiences are already very familiar with the historical inequality of women, and it makes sense in a historical context to use these sorts of quasi-realistic depictions to advance narrative and setting, particularly in game worlds that rely on immersive settings that are not present-day reality. She critiques that violence against women is used as a setpiece, but ignores the fact that it is a realistic setpiece based on material we are all familiar with from history and even modern day life. I agree that gratuitous use of this is inappropriate, but there are a number of scenarios in which this makes contextual sense. At what point is displaying objectification gratuitous, versus simply factual?
I'd say right around the point where it does nothing without which its lack would be notable. I could come up with some examples, but they would be by their very nature artificial.
-
Disclaimer: I've only ever played about an hour of Hitman Contracts out of the whole series, so I have little experience with it.
That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of eliminating settings and experiences that may be viewed as sexist from games if those settings and experiences reflect reality in a game that is set in a realistic universe.
By all accounts, in the Hitman series you can kill basically whomever you please during the missions and experience the consequences of it. The game does not induce a fail-state for anything aside from a failure condition. In this context, if one chooses to set a particular mission in a stripclub - another realistic setting that, like or not, actually exists - if rather seems overtly sexist to induce a fail-state only for the killing of one particular class of NPC in that area based on arbitrary political grounds.
There is a great deal of sexism in games that is blatant, overt, and arguably intentional, from the way certain females are dressed to the way they are voiced to the way in which they behave. I think there's plenty of room to thrash that ecosystem without drifting into areas that are more controversial and range much closer to artistic/narrative freedom. This is one of the fundamental issues that I, coming as I do from a philosophical bent based on Marx and Foucault, take with much of modern feminism (which derives in part from Marxism too): there is a severe risk of over-reach, a risk that many of the most radical modern feminists seem utterly oblivious to. There is a principle in democratic legal jurisdictions called de minimis non curat lex, meaning "the law does not concern with trifles," and I note that many people who conduct sociological and philosophical critique could benefit from an understanding of it.
It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists. It clearly does. I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
Are there legitimate consequences in Hitman for killing innocents?
Let me tell you a story.
In Surrey, British columbia, a sub-urb of Vancouver there was a gang war going on between rivals and for the most part I think most people didn't care because as long as they killed eachother, that was fine.
Then one day, six people were executed in an apartment building and two of those people were not criminals but innocent bystanders including a furnace repairman and a teen-aged tennant. And overnight the whole lower mainland woke up to the violence that was happening in the city and were wondering why something wasn't being done about it.
It's an event like this that makes me question the "realism" of such games. Including a realistic environment because it exists in real life doesn't have nearly the same credibility when the actions that a person perpetrates on that establishment don't have real world consequences. If you can kill a slew of civilians, women or otherwise, and not instantly have a massive man hunt for your character that ends with you hiding in a bush in some guys backyard before getting shot 15 times. Or having your contractor string you out to dry or kill you themselves out of fear that your actions will ultimately lead back to them.
Without those real world consequences, these real world locations become cartoon caricatures. They're places the designers deem interesting to serve as a backdrop to different missions, at which point you have to question "why is this location interesting?". Well it's interesting because it's full of naked women of course. They're just window dressing, like crates in a warehouse to be shot apart or kicked. And they're chosen not because it's true to life, but because it will move games and appeal to a male demographic which is young and explorative or still thinking fondly of Sopranos or Duke Nukem.
It's a real world location but not treated with real world respect which is the fundamental problem with portraying women (and people) in video games from the outset.
-
Boy, I wish systemic feminism existed.
Holy **** was that a swing and a miss at making my point. Systemic sexism
I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
The existence of bigger problems does not make smaller problems irrelevant; pointing out smaller problems is not trivializing bigger ones.
It's like I just wrote a whole post about the concept of de minimis which was promptly ignored.
Psychologically and sociologically, we know that there are a limited number of concepts, causes, and issues that people will care about at any one time. Ergo, for maximum impact, it makes sense to focus on the largest of these issues throughout. Focusing on smaller issues allows for the trivialization in public consciousness of the issue as a whole, and is counter-productive as a force for change.
There is a reason police don't typically arrest you, throw you in jail, charge you, and a judge ultimately sentences you to prison for driving 1 km/hr over the posted limit. Is speeding a systemic problem? Hell yes. Does it have all kinds of negative consequences? OH hell yes. Is expending resources on very trivial offences [compared on a relative scale to others in the same category] a good way to use resources and effect change? Nope.
-
It's an event like this that makes me question the "realism" of such games. Including a realistic environment because it exists in real life doesn't have nearly the same credibility when the actions that a person perpetrates on that establishment don't have real world consequences. If you can kill a slew of civilians, women or otherwise, and not instantly have a massive man hunt for your character that ends with you hiding in a bush in some guys backyard before getting shot 15 times. Or having your contractor string you out to dry or kill you themselves out of fear that your actions will ultimately lead back to them.
Without those real world consequences, these real world locations become cartoon caricatures.
This is much more of a legitimate critique than one that focuses on the inclusion of the setting in the first place, or the game mechanic that allows you freedom to murder as you please but heaven forbid the prostitutes in the strip club.
Some games focus on consequences for game-world actions quite well (Dishonored, which I've been playing the crap out of lately, makes strides in this direction). Some aim for realistic settings, but place no emphasis on gameplay. I'd argue those are inferior games on that basis.
-
If a game has killable NPCs, and there is a level in a strip club, then there is absolutely nothing sexist about killable strippers. In fact, it would be sexist to have a special exception for strippers to not be killable!! So that is not a valid argument at all.
The existence of a strip club level itself is another matter, however I think it fits into the criminal underwordly narrative of Hitman games so I hesitate to call it sexist.
-
I'll admit I rather enjoyed picking up hookers then beating them with a baseball bat in an alley in all GTAs (also driving off docks, jumping out of C4 covered vehicles, taking a selfie of my myte in GTA V getting a blowjob before pulling her out of the vehicle and having the other myte run over her)
Cops came after you if you did that. Suppose that's a consequence eh
-
It's to our detriment to focus our attention on her critique of hitman to the exclusion of the other games she discusses.
-
If a game has killable NPCs, and there is a level in a strip club, then there is absolutely nothing sexist about killable strippers. In fact, it would be sexist to have a special exception for strippers to not be killable!! So that is not a valid argument at all.
The existence of a strip club level itself is another matter, however I think it fits into the criminal underwordly narrative of Hitman games so I hesitate to call it sexist.
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
-
The goal is not to engage the trolls - it's to throw them into everyone's field of view, to get everyone who isn't a troll to act.
That is the goal of trolls, too. Trolls thrive on publicity.
From a strategic point of view the best thing to do is to ignore the trolls, if you want them to stop. Thats just how it is.
-
If a game has killable NPCs, and there is a level in a strip club, then there is absolutely nothing sexist about killable strippers. In fact, it would be sexist to have a special exception for strippers to not be killable!! So that is not a valid argument at all.
The existence of a strip club level itself is another matter, however I think it fits into the criminal underwordly narrative of Hitman games so I hesitate to call it sexist.
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
I think it would be more pertinent to ask do we need to not have games where you can kill strippers.
Because you could say we don't need to have games full stop.
-
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
Yes, we do.
Do we need games that include a strip club?
Ocassionaly, yes, strip clubs are part of life and thus have their place in any storytelling medium, including games, if it fits the narrative.
Therefore, yes, we ocassionaly need that kind of games where we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them.
Do you see how that is not sexist in itself?
-
It's to our detriment to focus our attention on her critique of hitman to the exclusion of the other games she discusses.
Agreed. I did end up listening to a chunk of her latest video. While she has a number of examples that are blatant and I also disagree with, there are also a number of examples that I think she teeters over that de minimis line. Things like the sequence from BioShock, the portion of RDR concerning the rescue of the named female NPC, and the example from the latest Assassin's Creed being among them.
At a broader level, this is why I find the Marxist school of thought with a side of Foucault to be much more useful than feminist sociological perspectives, because I find that school often gets too focused on the trees and misses the fact that someone just clearcut a continent. (I'm just using all kinds of metaphor today).
-
It would be nice if people could just admit that they enjoy exploitative power fantasies rather than bending over backwards to try to defend the games as being non-exploitative. These are some repressed individuals.
-
If a game has killable NPCs, and there is a level in a strip club, then there is absolutely nothing sexist about killable strippers. In fact, it would be sexist to have a special exception for strippers to not be killable!! So that is not a valid argument at all.
The existence of a strip club level itself is another matter, however I think it fits into the criminal underwordly narrative of Hitman games so I hesitate to call it sexist.
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
i want my torture simulator.
-
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
I think this is the wrong question.
I think a better question is: would you support a game developer who makes games in which exercising free will within the game's limits in a blatantly discriminatory manner has no consequences?
My answer is, obviously, no. I think it requires thoughtful critique. That said, I despise games that impose unrealistic, jarring, artificial limits on player agency within the game world that are inconsistent with the games normal mechanics. Games like the original Mass Effect did this wrong - you ever notice how if you shoot at non-hostile or friendly NPCs, you just miss, despite being able to pack your gun around the entirety of Citadel Station? On the other hand, to use Dishonored again - sure, I can stab a Loyalist in the neck or hop in the bath with Callista, but I will face immediate and realistic contextual consequences for doing so (game ends, conspiracy dissolved).
Should we insist games avoid sexist stereotypes for locales and characters? Fine line, there. I'd prefer games embrace those stereotypes and show how they are an undesirable reality, rather than ignore them altogether.
-
It would be nice if people could just admit that they enjoy exploitative power fantasies rather than bending over backwards to try to defend the games as being non-exploitative. These are some repressed individuals.
I'm thrilled that you felt the need to bring a carefully broad passive-aggressive characterization to a thread which has many nuanced positions amidst some unfortunate chaffe as well. I'm obviously hoping that wasn't aimed at me, but it is rather difficult to tell. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion?
-
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so
wow
-
In watching some of her latest Tropes Vs Women, I note that a number of these critiques focus on depictions that could be considered historical in nature. Audiences are already very familiar with the historical inequality of women, and it makes sense in a historical context to use these sorts of quasi-realistic depictions to advance narrative and setting, particularly in game worlds that rely on immersive settings that are not present-day reality. She critiques that violence against women is used as a setpiece, but ignores the fact that it is a realistic setpiece based on material we are all familiar with from history and even modern day life. I agree that gratuitous use of this is inappropriate, but there are a number of scenarios in which this makes contextual sense. At what point is displaying objectification gratuitous, versus simply factual?
Is it really (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) historically-accurate, though?
-
id rather you beat up strippers in a game than in real life. its not the job of game developers to dictate morality. trying to force ones views on someone with a gameplay mechanic sounds kind of like propaganda.
i rather liked games like carmageddon, where you get awesome awards for splattering pedestrians into your grill. you might take issue if the driver only plowed through female pedestrians (granny was always my favorite). but the whole game was purely about committing blatant acts of vehicular homicide. give the feminists what they want and then the anti murder people will want some too.
-
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so
wow
Explain. Please.
-
id rather you beat up strippers in a game than in real life. its not the job of game developers to dictate morality. trying to force ones views on someone with a gameplay mechanic sounds kind of like propaganda.
Yes, we don't want to brainwash people into thinking killing strippers is wrong.
-
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
Yes, we do.
Do we need games that include a strip club?
Ocassionaly, yes, strip clubs are part of life and thus have their place in any storytelling medium, including games, if it fits the narrative.
Therefore, yes, we ocassionaly need that kind of games where we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them.
Do you see how that is not sexist in itself?
Hitman Absolution, not sexist at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ_jhw5TuxA
:P
-
id rather you beat up strippers in a game than in real life. its not the job of game developers to dictate morality. trying to force ones views on someone with a gameplay mechanic sounds kind of like propaganda.
Yes, we don't want to brainwash people into thinking killing strippers is wrong.
If we started down this road, most games would end up off the market.
-
Should we insist games avoid sexist stereotypes for locales and characters? Fine line, there. I'd prefer games embrace those stereotypes and show how they are an undesirable reality, rather than ignore them altogether.
Then do it well and take it seriously. Don't use it cause you need a cheap way to make your game 'dark' or so you can create victims for the male hero to save.
-
Should we insist games avoid sexist stereotypes for locales and characters? Fine line, there. I'd prefer games embrace those stereotypes and show how they are an undesirable reality, rather than ignore them altogether.
Then do it well and take it seriously. Don't use it cause you need a cheap way to make your game 'dark' or so you can create victims for the male hero to save.
Is it really (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) historically-accurate, though?
There is an extensive and well-documented history of the murder, mutilation, beating, raping, subjugation, and oppression of women by virtually all cultures in one form or another throughout history. We're not exactly lacking for source material. The history of some of the world's most prominent religions are practically treatises on the subject.
The treatment of this history in games is often uncritical and mishandled, but it draws definitively from verifiable history. I don't think its inclusion in games is problematic; I think it's treatment can be better handled. But again, this comes back to the lesser offences point; given the choice between tackling that issue, which is a relative non-starter among big studios at present, I think there's a much better argument for asking them to give my female DA:O protagonist some armour that covers her ****ing legs and midriff.
-
id rather you beat up strippers in a game than in real life. its not the job of game developers to dictate morality. trying to force ones views on someone with a gameplay mechanic sounds kind of like propaganda.
Yes, we don't want to brainwash people into thinking killing strippers is wrong.
If we started down this road, most games would end up off the market.
Good.
Then we'd get more games with a brain in them like Papers Please instead of a bunch of AAA Michael Bay wanna-bes.
Get more games like Spec Ops The Line and their ilk. Games that make you think, games that educate while still being enjoyable. Games which help people relate and empathize with other people instead of creating a world where its okay to make death threats over twitter and ordinary people applaud acts like Phil Fish getting hacked and having all his personal information leaked. What kind of world or culture do we ****ing live in where someone's life can get invaded and people are happy about it?
Honestly I don't identify myself a "gamer" because gamers like those on escapist more often than not disgust me. Threads like this bring to light more despicable individuals (in the twitter post, not the participants).
And how can games be considered art when NPC and setting interactions like those described in Hitman are considered a perfectly acceptable bar rather than something that should be pushed higher and explored with greater maturity and narrative depth.
"You can sneak through a strip club, listen to and beat up strippers. Games are art"
No games, as they are now, are largely trash.
-
Re Hitman: what, exactly, is the 'correct' way to do things, then? Not have strippers in the game (strip clubs do, after all, exist, and do contain strippers)? Make the strippers immune to bullets? Instafail the player for harming one? To me, one of these solutions is a cop-out and the others are really jarring to the mechanics of the game. The line of reasoning that having violent mechanics in a game and allowing them to be used on women somehow promotes violence against women (even when it's mechanically and narratively disincentivised!) is completely broken.
-
I just find it weird how people get so bogged down in arguing the specific examples and details of her videos. I've found her videos to be pretty helpful in learning to recognize unobvious and subtle sexist representations and tropes. It doesn't matter to me that the examples she uses are probably 99% unintentional and non-malicious and just a result of dudes making games for dudes without expressly giving thought to gender representation. I'm mostly just interested in learning to better detect implied sexism so that I can better avoid it if I ever happen to author something, and her videos are as good as any for that; I treat her points largely as food for thought than straight arguments for why thing X in game Y is sexist and bad and should be avoided.
I might be more willing to argue the details if she slammed my game/book/show/whatever for something I don't think it contains, but as long as that doesn't happen I'll just try to grab what I can and leave the controversy to others.
-
the solution to the stripper issue is obvious, have male strippers as well as female strippers that you can beat up and kill. should get more feminists to play it. then of course that makes the gay rights people angry, now games have 4 kinds of strip clubs. 5 if you dont want to offend transgenders. games need more strippers anyway. really its the anti murder people i dont want telling me how to play my games.
-
I don't think it would work the way you think it would Akalabeth.
Even today we've seen developers playing it safe. Imagine if you introduced restrictions that would wipe most games off the market. You'd end up with a bunch of sanitised, cotton wool encased cookie-cutter games. Closing down options closes down creativity and people wouldn't push boundaries with the risk of their game being wiped off the market for violating some standard.
For every piece of art, there's uncountable pieces of trash.
-
Re Hitman: what, exactly, is the 'correct' way to do things, then? Not have strippers in the game (strip clubs do, after all, exist, and do contain strippers)? Make the strippers immune to bullets? Instafail the player for harming one? To me, one of these solutions is a cop-out and the others are really jarring to the mechanics of the game. The line of reasoning that having violent mechanics in a game and allowing them to be used on women somehow promotes violence against women (even when it's mechanically and narratively disincentivised!) is completely broken.
Create a game where strippers are believable, empathetic characters and where acts of violence against such characters come with realistic, long-term consequences.
Or hell, just create a game where crime is realistic and not glamorized.
You'd end up with a bunch of sanitised, cotton wool encased cookie-cutter games.
Some would argue that this is the state of the industry already.
Just not in the way you're inferring.
-
Uhh Akalabeth what you're opposed to is, it seems, basically the entire concept of escapist fantasy. That is so far outside the scope of the current discussion it's not even funny.
-
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so
wow
Explain. Please.
I honestly don't know, I feel like I'd need an explanation for what you wrote first, but alright.
There's a difference between playing generic videogames you kill people in, and uploading a video of your character beating up and killing prostitutes. The first usually implies a silly fascination with being a hollywood blockbuster superhero, the second implies fascination with beating up and killing female sex workers.
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
-
Well, this thread went toxic in a hurry. Sorry I said anything. Clearly shouldn't have.
-
Uhh Akalabeth what you're opposed to is, it seems, basically the entire concept of escapist fantasy. That is so far outside the scope of the current discussion it's not even funny.
That depends upon how narrow your definition of escapist fantasy is.
Did anyone imagine doing paperwork as a border-customs guard to be escapist fantasy? And yet it exists
What about a game where you play a Bouncer in a strip club? And its your job to ensure the comfort and safety of the club's assets, namely the dancers. And your failure or success depends upon your success in doing your job. That would be both a real life situation, and one where the player as Bouncer could get to know the stories, probably repetitive stories, of the various dancers which end up in the club. Some getting out, some falling in, maturing or changing into different mind-sets, etcetera. The contextual consequences of a dancer getting hurt, the problem of gangs moving in and taking over the club or threats outside of the club, dancers falling into drugs or prostitution, etcetera.
Howabout creating a game where the player cares and feels something when a stripper gets hurt or killed.
How would this be a fun game? That's the challenge. But one of the most popular games out there is Wolf Among Us, basically a guy going and talking to people, including strippers. So the challenge is undoubtedly not insurmountable.
People say it would be the loss of escapist fantasy, yet at the movies action flicks have become more realistic and comic book movies have likewise adopted a real-world slant. Yet many of these movies are still fun, just like pure escapism like Pacific Rim is also fun.
-
Sure, you can find people beating up and killing the strippers in videos too, but there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that, and you're not a bad person for doing so
wow
Explain. Please.
I honestly don't know, I feel like I'd need an explanation for what you wrote first, but alright.
There's a difference between playing generic videogames you kill people in, and uploading a video of your character beating up and killing prostitutes. The first usually implies a silly fascination with being a hollywood blockbuster superhero, the second implies fascination with beating up and killing female sex workers.
Well for what I wrote, simply put, there's a difference between playing a game and reality.
Why would you think someone had a fascination with beating up and killing female sex workers? Why not simply the fact they did it because they were there in front of them and they felt like it at the time and they like uploading their gameplay videos to Youtube?
Now if they had a channel dedicated to similar videos, then I'd start to feel uneasy.
However, I feel the uploading of a video isn't really what we need to be looking at, it's a distraction. Doing anything in a game is completely harmless. It harms no one. Even those virtual victims don't stay dead.
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
What of it?
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
the importance of that part was getting a bit ambiguous (but yes, you shouldn't 'be a lorric' about it)
Uhh Akalabeth what you're opposed to is, it seems, basically the entire concept of escapist fantasy. That is so far outside the scope of the current discussion it's not even funny.
That depends upon how narrow your definition of escapist fantasy is.
Did anyone imagine doing paperwork as a border-customs guard to be escapist fantasy? And yet it exists
What about a game where you play a Bouncer in a strip club? And its your job to ensure the comfort and safety of the club's assets, namely the dancers. And your failure or success depends upon your success in doing your job. That would be both a real life situation, and one where the player as Bouncer could get to know the stories, probably repetitive stories, of the various dancers which end up in the club. Some getting out, some falling in, maturing or changing into different mind-sets, etcetera. The contextual consequences of a dancer getting hurt, the problem of gangs moving in and taking over the club or threats outside of the club, dancers falling into drugs or prostitution, etcetera.
Howabout creating a game where the player cares and feels something when a stripper gets hurt or killed.
How would this be a fun game? That's the challenge. But one of the most popular games out there is Wolf Among Us, basically a guy going and talking to people, including strippers. So the challenge is undoubtedly not insurmountable.
People say it would be the loss of escapist fantasy, yet at the movies action flicks have become more realistic and comic book movies have likewise adopted a real-world slant. Yet many of these movies are still fun, just like pure escapism like Pacific Rim is also fun.
who you sound like right now (https://twitter.com/PeterMolydeux)
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
Yes, that's also relevant. Everyone'll think about hitting someone up at least once in a lifetime, but uploading a video of your character beating up someone and calling it "me beating up and killing my boss" is decidedly unhealthier.
But even just fantasizing about beating up and killing prostitutes is necessarily misogynist in itself, uploading it just takes it further into the "bad person" territory.
-
who you sound like right now (https://twitter.com/PeterMolydeux)
I'm honoured.
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
Yes, that's also relevant. Everyone'll think about hitting someone up at least once in a lifetime, but uploading a video of your character beating up someone and calling it "me beating up and killing my boss" is decidedly unhealthier.
But even just fantasizing about beating up and killing prostitutes is necessarily misogynist in itself, uploading it just takes it further into the "bad person" territory.
Why?
As long as you don't do it for real, there's nothing wrong with that. The video isn't being shoved down anyone's throat either. They know what they're coming into.
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
What of it?
If it were "what someone does by themselves in their own free time", nobody would (or should, anyway) give a ****; sharing it with the world is what causes one to question why they went through the trouble of recording and uploading themselves doing this thing.
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
Yes, that's also relevant. Everyone'll think about hitting someone up at least once in a lifetime, but uploading a video of your character beating up someone and calling it "me beating up and killing my boss" is decidedly unhealthier.
But even just fantasizing about beating up and killing prostitutes is necessarily misogynist in itself, uploading it just takes it further into the "bad person" territory.
Why?
As long as you don't do it for real, there's nothing wrong with that. The video isn't being shoved down anyone's throat either. They know what they're coming into.
For somebody who seems to have an awful lot of opinions about a video that wasn't shoved down his throat, you seem awfully inclined to tell other people they shouldn't have opinions about things that weren't shoved down their throats.
-
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
What of it?
If it were "what someone does by themselves in their own free time", nobody would (or should, anyway) give a ****; sharing it with the world is what causes one to question why they went through the trouble of recording and uploading themselves doing this thing.
'bad person' is a pretty strong judgement to make based on what someone does by themselves in their own free time
...and then uploads to the internet for everyone else to watch them do...
Yes, that's also relevant. Everyone'll think about hitting someone up at least once in a lifetime, but uploading a video of your character beating up someone and calling it "me beating up and killing my boss" is decidedly unhealthier.
But even just fantasizing about beating up and killing prostitutes is necessarily misogynist in itself, uploading it just takes it further into the "bad person" territory.
Why?
As long as you don't do it for real, there's nothing wrong with that. The video isn't being shoved down anyone's throat either. They know what they're coming into.
For somebody who seems to have an awful lot of opinions about a video that wasn't shoved down his throat, you seem awfully inclined to tell other people they shouldn't have opinions about things that weren't shoved down their throats.
Well for the first part, people like to upload themselves playing games. I don't have the means to do this, but if I did, I would upload them to Youtube, and the primary reason would be so they would not take up space on my hard drive.
Do you think these people are trying to make some sort of statement by uploading the videos or just uploading the videos? I don't think you can take anything from it unless they actively speak on it.
Second part, show me where I said that. Show me where I told anyone they're not allowed to have an opinion.
-
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
Yes, we do.
Do we need games that include a strip club?
Ocassionaly, yes, strip clubs are part of life and thus have their place in any storytelling medium, including games, if it fits the narrative.
Therefore, yes, we ocassionaly need that kind of games where we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them.
Do you see how that is not sexist in itself?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
I agree we do.
Do we need games with children NPCs?
Of course.
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
Now I'm sure that there too you could go find a woman you consider particularly slutty and kill her, but I won't attack the game because of that. I do however think that allowing you to walk in and kill a strip club worth of whores is the wrong decision because it's easily preventable and because it's really really gross when someone does it.
-
Well for the first part, people like to upload themselves playing games. I don't have the means to do this, but if I did, I would upload them to Youtube, and the primary reason would be so they would not take up space on my hard drive.
And would your videos also include portions of you killing strippers?
Do you think these people are trying to make some sort of statement by uploading the videos or just uploading the videos? I don't think you can take anything from it unless they actively speak on it.
They chose to and went through the effort to record it, and they chose to and went through the effort to upload it; it is a statement of some sort by the very nature of its existence on the internet. They found it worth their time and effort.
Second part, show me where I said that. Show me where I told anyone they're not allowed to have an opinion.
If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.
I'm not sure what the point of that statement is you're not telling people to shut up about it.
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
-
First part, in the case of a game like Hitman Absolution the answer would be no, because I would upload "serious" playthroughs of games.
I just don't agree with the idea behind your second part though. If I was just uploading a video for my personal collection, there would be no statement.
Second part, show me where I said that. Show me where I told anyone they're not allowed to have an opinion.
If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.
I'm not sure what the point of that statement is you're not telling people to shut up about it.
What I'm trying to say is it's not WRONG. Though I'll listen to why people think it is wrong with an open mind, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not wrong.
Perhaps someone does not want to do such a thing. Perhaps just the fact you are able to would ruin the entire game for them. But at the same time it's not wrong if someone else does do that.
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?
-
You're killing a stick figure in Fallout. It's appalling on a abstract level. Now imagine playing as Lee in the Walking Dead and having to shoot Clementine dead (and several children do die in that game, one as a possible mercy killing by the PC). Now how does it feel?
You can do it, you just better not have a hint of exploitation.
-
First part, in the case of a game like Hitman Absolution the answer would be no, because I would upload "serious" playthroughs of games.
I just don't agree with the idea behind your second part though. If I was just uploading a video for my personal collection, there would be no statement.
It also wouldn't be "uploading for everyone else to watch" if it was just your "personal collection".
-
It would be nice if people could just admit that they enjoy exploitative power fantasies rather than bending over backwards to try to defend the games as being non-exploitative. These are some repressed individuals.
I'm thrilled that you felt the need to bring a carefully broad passive-aggressive characterization to a thread which has many nuanced positions amidst some unfortunate chaffe as well. I'm obviously hoping that wasn't aimed at me, but it is rather difficult to tell. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion?
No, that wasn't directed towards you Ryan. I was referring to the men who have clearly had a nerve struck by the Sarkeesian videos and felt compelled to go on the offensive against her examples (or her) rather than acknowledging the actual cause of their distress: that someone exposed their exploitative power fantasies for what they were.
If you love blowing the heads off virtual hookers and also feel ashamed of it, it's a lot easier to pretend that the games aren't about those power fantasies than it is to confront why you feel that love/shame.
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?
One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily and for the thoroughly sinning but redeemable citizens of Dunwall.
-
You're killing a stick figure in Fallout. It's appalling on a abstract level. Now imagine playing as Lee in the Walking Dead and having to shoot Clementine dead (and several children do die in that game, one as a possible mercy killing by the PC). Now how does it feel?
You can do it, you just better not have a hint of exploitation.
Abstraction's a pretty general concept, games don't stop being an abstraction the second you stick 3D graphics on them. One reason people find attacking NPCs entertaining is that it can pretty quickly show up absurd corners of the game design.
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?
One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily.
dude one of the 'good' options in dishonoured is kidnapping a woman for a crazed admirer
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?
One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily.
dude one of the 'good' options in dishonoured is kidnapping a woman for a crazed admirer
Even if it saves her life. But yes, I know, the game is heavy on the Victorian and Gothic horror despite (or alongside) its main message.
-
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.
Perhaps. What value does allowing it add tho? The message that killing children makes people hate you? And the ability for people who want to kill children in video games to do it.
I realize that allowing it would from the game mechanics perspective be the default, so it's forbidding it that needs the "why", but I do think "no you can't simulate killing children in our game" is the better message to send.
Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?
Have a vindictive stripper sister of one of them shoot you in the back three days later for all I care.
Look I'm not saying this "unfortunate" combination of game mechanics is the worst thing to ever happen to women in gaming, but I know that if a game allowed you to go into a gay club and beat up and kill everyone without consequence, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. And if someone uploaded a video of himself doing that, I'd probably fantasize about beating them up and uploading it to youtube. If you include a victimized group into your work (and it doesn't get much more victimized than sex workers) you need to take responsibility for what you're portraying.
-
Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
-
AHAHAHAHAHA
https://twitter.com/CousinDangereux/status/505101848173633539
Ok, my day is made. And I now have a recommended reading list!
-
It seems we didn't really get anywhere in the end with that latest round of posts. But now that that's over, I'd like to bring back Aesaar's post. It kind of got lost in the shuffle before and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle now. It's a good post imo and he asks some good questions that I'd be interested in seeing people try to answer, and I'd be interested in hearing more from him.
I wish he had the patience to go through all her videos and write something up too.
One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work. A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment. The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.
I've seen accusations of dishonesty flung about freely regarding the TvW videos, but I've never seen a sane person come up with sane explanations. It's all "Game <x> was misrepresented!" or "This scene was taken out of context!", which to me sounds more like people desperate to justify their particular tastes than good, factual critique.
I've also not seen a good refutation of the overall point Sarkeesian makes (that being that representation of women in games is deeply problematic due to it falling in a narrow range of stereotypes).
I would like to see both of those things though; After all, any hypothesis is only as strong as the criticism it can withstand.
I don't actually disagree with Sarkeesian's premise, but I actually do think it matters what examples she uses. The recent Hitman one is a great case, actually.
Basically, part of a mission in Hitman: Absolution goes through a stripclub. Naturally, this being Hitman, you have the ability to kill pretty much anyone you want, which includes the strippers. But, since they're innocents, you're penalized for doing so. Sarkeesian uses this as an example of sexism, treating it as though that was the whole point of the game, that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." All the while using footage of the player dragging the bodies around in a great big circle to show just how objectified and disposable these women are.
Not only is this them being treated like every single other npc in the game, be they male or female, but she says earlier in the video (generally speaking) "...this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged." which is crap, given that, again, Hitman penalises you for killing innocents, and in that specific case, they're actually out of your way. It's like she takes the mere existence of vulnerable female characters as encouragement to harm them.
What is that if not misrepresentation? It's completely dishonest. There are plenty of good examples to make her point, some of which she uses herself (the Mass Effect one in particular), so why is this kind of dishonesty even necessary?
The video is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZPSrwedvsg), should you want to watch it. Part I'm talking about is at 21:46, but the whole thing is worth watching.
There's also the whole part where she doesn't seem to understand what a background character is, but I'm not talking about that right now.
While I'm on the topic, I noticed a trend with her a while ago: she focuses on the way female characters get treated, whether or not male NPCs in a given game also get treated the same way. Now, she explains that this isn't ok because of a power differential in modern society. Ok, that's fine. What is the solution, then? If a game has female characters, they must be in a position of power or it's sexism? Women can't be vulnerable ever, and a game can't even show sexist situations or it's reinforcing the patriarchy?
Christ, she uses footage from New Vegas (among others) to illustrate this. I don't know if you've played it, but that game is probably as far from sexist as you can get in the modern gaming industry. It depicts sexism (hi Caesar's Legion), but it deals with it quite seriously. I'm not saying that, as a counterexample, this invalidates her premise. It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't support it. I haven't played every game she chooses to talk about, so how do I know she's not doing this elsewhere with other games? Whether it's conscious or not, it undermines her entire methodology, and I rather dislike her for it.
But if there's one question I wish I could ask her, it's this: Can a game depict sexism without being sexist in itself? Can it allow the player to engage in activities that could be considered sexist without being sexist itself? Given the way she deals with her critics, I don't think I'd be likely to get a serious response.
Honestly, I wish I had the patience to go through all her videos and actually write something up. Like I said before, I don't actually disagree with her central premise, but I do have a problem with the way she demonstrates it, and I don't think she deserves most of the praise (or the hate) she gets.
I do hope this qualifies as a sane explanation. :)
And like Flipside, I used to rather like Thunderf00t's stuff (and his science-related work is still excellent), but I think he's getting a bit too angry about this issue. I've been avoiding his feminism-related videos for a while. His complete and utter lack of tact really doesn't help, given how heated this discussion is in the first place.
-
Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
That R G commenter in the thread below is ****ing delusional.
Man alive, where do these people come from.
-
No no, I want to hear more about the hit list.
Seriously though, we acknowledge the difference between portrayal and exploitation. Most of these games just try to cover their exploitation with this excuse.
-
It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists. It clearly does. I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
That's exactly why I linked the article about rape culture earlier. By going after the people who made anti-rape nail polish, certain feminists have seriously undermined their own cause. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where something like that wasn't necessary. Yes, anyone who blames a victim for not using such polish is scum. But the guys who invented the polish are no more bad guys than someone who designs burglar alarms.
This article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2) is a another great example.
-
Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
I feel like I made this point much more succinctly on page 4. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761110#msg1761110)
-
Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
I feel like I made this point much more succinctly on page 4. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761110#msg1761110)
Aside from this passage (although this is really more for Flipside and Bobboau):
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
-
It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists. It clearly does. I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.
That's exactly why I linked the article about rape culture earlier. By going after the people who made anti-rape nail polish, certain feminists have seriously undermined their own cause. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where something like that wasn't necessary. Yes, anyone who blames a victim for not using such polish is scum. But the guys who invented the polish are no more bad guys than someone who designs burglar alarms.
This article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2) is a another great example.
I'm going to avoid going down the usual "they're not representative of us" route and go straight into "I disown these views and disassociate myself from those who hold them, and I hope that the rest of us who call themselves feminists, and mean it, will shun these beliefs as well."
It's like the line about voting: if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote in it. Well, if someone has been persecuted or assaulted because they're a woman, you don't get to tell them they aren't.
-
This article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2) is a another great example.
Radfem is on a page so far away from every other critical sociological discipline it had might as well be on another planet; it's certainly not a true representation of the feminist perspective. When I read pieces by radical feminists who uncritically talk about the proliferation of the female sex after the male sex has destroyed itself because it's evil or something, I decide that (1) I have better things to do, and (2) some people really need to lay off the hallucinogens. I don't think Sarkeesian comes even close to radfem - for one, she can make a cohesive and compelling argument with no evidence of frothing around her mouth - but she does fall into a similar trap where she risks having her work dismissed as irrelevant and trivial. For that matter, I think it's beyond risk and actually happening. She makes a number of excellent points, but she also loses credibility on the quibbling points that she raises.
I fall back to something I learned writing lengthy critical analyses in my university courses while listening to other people watch CSI: when one has a smoking gun, a confession, a videotape, and DNA evidence, one need not include the circumstantial evidence of carpet fibres, shoe prints, and the eyewitness testimony of the schizophrenic drug addict down the back alley. It seems odd that Sarkeesian has gotten as far as she has without learning that lesson. Then again, she comes from an entire school of thought that hasn't collectively learned that lesson, so it's not that surprising.
-
This article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2) is a another great example.
Radfem is on a page so far away from every other critical sociological discipline it had might as well be on another planet; it's certainly not a true representation of the feminist perspective. When I read pieces by radical feminists who uncritically talk about the proliferation of the female sex after the male sex has destroyed itself because it's evil or something, I decide that (1) I have better things to do, and (2) some people really need to lay off the hallucinogens. I don't think Sarkeesian comes even close to radfem - for one, she can make a cohesive and compelling argument with no evidence of frothing around her mouth - but she does fall into a similar trap where she risks having her work dismissed as irrelevant and trivial. For that matter, I think it's beyond risk and actually happening. She makes a number of excellent points, but she also loses credibility on the quibbling points that she raises.
I fall back to something I learned writing lengthy critical analyses in my university courses while listening to other people watch CSI: when one has a smoking gun, a confession, a videotape, and DNA evidence, one need not include the circumstantial evidence of carpet fibres, shoe prints, and the eyewitness testimony of the schizophrenic drug addict down the back alley. It seems odd that Sarkeesian has gotten as far as she has without learning that lesson. Then again, she comes from an entire school of thought that hasn't collectively learned that lesson, so it's not that surprising.
[EDIT]Ok, reading your post carefully this time, I see what your point is. But I still think your assessment of her is incorrect.
Mind you, I agree with one thing the radical feminists believe, which is in rejecting our culture's idea of the "female brain." Maybe there are innate differences that mean something, but we have no ability to distinguish them from the developmental effects of steering a child with a growing, plastic brain into activities that fit our cultural beliefs of what they should be doing. I don't think this should be called a radical notion, either. In fact it should be obvious to all.
-
I don't think that article depicts the viewpoint of mainstream feminists but unfortunately there are lots of people who do.
I mentioned the nail polish thing because that is definitely going to cause some backlash against feminists.
-
The amount of people who are actually dumb enough to attack the polish is likely an extremely small number. Some of them are just venting about yet another likely-ineffectual method of protecting themselves. But weird things do begin to happen when the base of your movement isn't composed of enough heterogeneous groups that are in good communication with each other so they can keep each other honest and in perspective.
-
id rather you beat up strippers in a game than in real life. its not the job of game developers to dictate morality. trying to force ones views on someone with a gameplay mechanic sounds kind of like propaganda.
Yes, we don't want to brainwash people into thinking killing strippers is wrong.
If we started down this road, most games would end up off the market.
Good.
Then we'd get more games with a brain in them like Papers Please instead of a bunch of AAA Michael Bay wanna-bes.
Tackling this whole line of thinking here because for starters, games are a simulation and most people know the difference of right or wrong when they're going in there. These people are also *supposed* to be of a certain age and aren't subject to being "brainwashed" by what they know isn't real life. The problem here is that we've got young children seeing these games without a full understanding of what is supposed to be conveyed
I drive on the sidewalk in GTA. Does that make me a bad person for laughing hysterically as the physics is awesome and I start to admire just how great the physics engine is?
The first usually implies a silly fascination with being a hollywood blockbuster superhero, the second implies fascination with beating up and killing female sex workers.
They had a fascination killing female sex workers *in game
When they translate that into real life, let me know as that'll give your interpretation some heavier weight
But even just fantasizing about beating up and killing prostitutes is necessarily misogynist in itself, uploading it just takes it further into the "bad person" territory.
I fantasize about killing strippers, hookers, random strangers, fat people, cops, black people, white people, zombies, aliens, countless other things. Does that make me misogynist, racist, discriminatory, bad, alienating (see what I did there, with the aliens?), not open to discussion (zombies) and a slew of other titles that don't mean anything?
I've streamed my shenanigans in limbo where I purposely killed the kid several dozen times for ****s and giggles because it amused me. The way he died amused me. Am I bad person for taking enjoyment out of mine or other people's deaths in games?
causes one to question why they went through the trouble of recording and uploading themselves doing this thing.
Given how little effort it is to do that it isn't really much of a feat
I can stream a game and then upload what I streamed without so much as breaking a sweat.
And would your videos also include portions of you killing strippers?
I did that in a gay bar in GTA Ballad of Gay Tony. Reason being is because damn was it awesome when they all rushed to the door and then got blown up by the C4 I had planted there. They flew *everywhere*. It was beautiful
I would totally share that with people time and time again because holy **** it's amazing
Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?
Well, I'm going to presume that in Hitman if you do that and anyone sees you, things happen. So I watched the video and saw that people curl up into a ball and don't run away.
That's just lazy programming on the part of the devs. Why the hell wouldn't they I don't know... run the **** away? That's generally what people do when someone gets shot or dies around them. They run the **** away.
If you love blowing the heads off virtual hookers and also feel ashamed of it, it's a lot easier to pretend that the games aren't about those power fantasies than it is to confront why you feel that love/shame.
I take great amounts of pleasure doing things in games. I like to milk whatever I can out of an experience and find new ways to make the game fun. I don't feel shame or sadness because it's just a game. Unless the game is supposed to provoke a reaction such as Army of Two: The 40th Day where each choice you make in that game has this aftermath graphic novel presentation of what happens because of it, I don't give it any thought.
but I do think "no you can't simulate killing children in our game" is the better message to send.
I disagree. Take how you train someone for example. When you're training someone for a position, you can just how explain how things are and just to follow that because that's just how things are. Or, you can also tell them the reason why things are like that. It develops a larger and more intricate understanding of right or wrong when you don't just tell someone how it is, but why it is.
So, I say kill the children, dogs, people, whatever, and then give the player a consequence showing just why that's not a good idea to do.
Little sidenote: I was behind on a lot of posts and just needed to say stuff
-
the first time i went hunting, i was concerned that i would hesitate on the trigger. now when i got that spike in my crosshairs, all i could hear from my brain was 'KILL IT!'. it was easy, i just pretended it was a person.
-
Aaand we're back.
-
clearly because I always figure out if windows are breakable in games and go out of my way to break them means that I have a prejudice against windows and it's not a far cry to assume that I'll oppress them in real life as well
-
oppress all the things!
-
Am I bad person
in order for us to do this i'd need a diploma and you'd need to pay me, so
As for the topic in general there's a huge difference between wanting to hurt: someone, people in general, or prostitutes. But the fact is when a man fantasizes about hurting a woman, chances are he is in fact fantasizing about hurting a woman, and I'm not inclined to believe otherwise. I mean every misogynist worth their salt will tell you they don't want to slap that ***** just because she's a woman, but because of how bossy and *****y she is, really.
And anyway, even if you do a playthrough of you beating up and killing everyone and everything regardless of how prostitute they are, please don't upload your stupid (not actually) prostitute killing spree video on youtube because it looks misogynist and therefore for all intents and purposes is (this is an important point).
So, I say kill the children, dogs, people, whatever, and then give the player a consequence showing just why that's not a good idea to do.
Yes please! do go make a video game all about how bad of a threat for women sexualized violence realy is I support you 100% man.
Or were you thinking more in line of a game where when you kill a kid you get 31 bad karma point + various bonuses for execution?
What I'm trying to say is that Skyrim's an arguably fun game about absorbing dragon souls and collecting vegetables and stuff, I don't think it'd be a good game about killing kids and it really doesn't need to be.
-
It comes down to this: do we really need to have games in which we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
Yes, we do.
Do we need games that include a strip club?
Ocassionaly, yes, strip clubs are part of life and thus have their place in any storytelling medium, including games, if it fits the narrative.
Therefore, yes, we ocassionaly need that kind of games where we can walk into a strip club, gawk at strippers, and then kill them.
Do you see how that is not sexist in itself?
Do we need games with killable NPCs?
I agree we do.
Do we need games with children NPCs?
Of course.
Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.
Now I'm sure that there too you could go find a woman you consider particularly slutty and kill her, but I won't attack the game because of that. I do however think that allowing you to walk in and kill a strip club worth of whores is the wrong decision because it's easily preventable and because it's really really gross when someone does it.
Very bad example. If you call for killable NPCs but to have a special exception for strippers, then that is sexist and a double standard! It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics. Are women the equivalent of children??
With children it is at least partially true, but I am still uneasy with Skyrims way of doing it. Breaks immersion, and I did install killable children mod during my playtrough. Which isnt morally wrong at all for an adult to do.
-
But the fact is when a man fantasizes about hurting a woman, chances are he is in fact fantasizing about hurting a woman,
This sentence doesn't make any sense. You've said the exact same thing twice
Are you saying that killing people in games is a fantasy being played out, and they're actually in real life like that? Or are you saying that if they're doing that in the game, that makes them like that in real life by result of what they're doing in game?
Yes please! do go make a video game all about how bad of a threat for women sexualized violence realy is I support you 100% man.
Or were you thinking more in line of a game where when you kill a kid you get 31 bad karma point + various bonuses for execution?
Sexualized violence implies that we're targeting them because of what they are depicted as, rather than what they actually are: Polygons
http://vsac.ca/sexualized-violence/
Now I can't speak for everyone by saying that everyone merely attacks them because they're just polygons for our playground of destruction, because that would be an implausible statement. Much like saying that it doesn't influence people who don't know any better *AND WHO SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING THESE GAMES IN THE FIRST PLACE*
And anyway, even if you do a playthrough of you beating up and killing everyone and everything regardless of how prostitute they are, please don't upload your stupid (not actually) prostitute killing spree video on youtube because it looks misogynist and therefore for all intents and purposes is (this is an important point).
But it's okay if I target only white people in my senseless murdering of people right?
I can't target black people because I'll be called a racist. I can't target fat people because I'd be called discriminatory. I can't kill a woman because dear god that makes me a misogynist.
Or perhaps I'm playing a game, realize it's a game, and don't in any way reflect real life behaviour in that game. Afterall, I don't really want to run around running people over
...Or do I DUN DUN DUN
The point there is that unless you ask these people, you don't really know why they're doing what they're doing
I am also a believer that kids who are still highly impressionable should not be playing these games. Afterall, the ability to kill without repercussions in a game might translate to them as being okay in real life, and that's not okay. Games like that are catering to a mature audience, and a mature audience should know what is right, and what is wrong.
-
And anyway, even if you do a playthrough of you beating up and killing everyone and everything regardless of how prostitute they are, please don't upload your stupid (not actually) prostitute killing spree video on youtube because it looks misogynist and therefore for all intents and purposes is (this is an important point).
Hell no. If you do a prostitute killing spree because you enjoy killing women or sex workers and upload that, then that is misogynist and possibly bad. But if you do it because you like to massacre the NPCs and upload gameplay videos of it and some of them just happen to be prostitutes, then there is no misogtyny. This is an important point.
The act of killing a prostitute in game is not misogyny or sexism in itself. That very much depends on the rationale and circumstances of doing so.
-
I've never played Skyrim myself, but I did read about and watch videos of the unkillable children back then and it was just such a ridiculous thing.
They made a game where you can massacre soldiers, old ladies, animals, you name it, but made children the sole exception because killing children is a taboo. It's a clear drawing of a line where, as far as the developer/publisher/whoever is concerned, butchering anyone or anything else is fine enough to allow, but killing a child is supposedly crossing a magical threshold and going "too far", so that's where the line gets drawn. That's just disingenuous, cheap and hugely hypocritical.
I certainly wouldn't want to see that kind of solutions used in any game. If anything, it implicitly condones the butchery of everyone and everything except children, due to clearly establishing children as the only group that is not ok to kill; that would not be the case if there was no such exception.
-
I've never played Skyrim myself, but I did read about and watch videos of the unkillable children back then and it was just such a ridiculous thing.
They made a game where you can massacre soldiers, old ladies, animals, you name it, but made children the sole exception because killing children is a taboo. It's a clear drawing of a line where, as far as the developer/publisher/whoever is concerned, butchering anyone or anything else is fine enough to allow, but killing a child is supposedly crossing a magical threshold and going "too far", so that's where the line gets drawn. That's just disingenuous, cheap and hugely hypocritical.
I certainly wouldn't want to see that kind of solutions used in any game. If anything, it implicitly condones the butchery of everyone and everything except children, due to clearly establishing children as the only group that is not ok to kill; that would not be the case if there was no such exception.
Permitting and condoning are two different things, and given that the wanton killing of NPCs would result in fewer quests and so forth it can be argued that slaughtering entire cities is not condoned by the game at all because the player loses out on tangible rewards.
And it's funny thing, but people always ***** about not being able to kill kids in Skyrim yet in 100+ hours of play the problem never came up for me because guess what, the game never gave me reason to kill a bunch of civilians for no reason.
-
If anything, it implicitly condones the butchery of everyone and everything except children, due to clearly establishing children as the only group that is not ok to kill; that would not be the case if there was no such exception.
Permitting and condoning are two different things
Yes. That's what I was talking about.
If you permit everything, then you do not condone any particular in-game behavior (unless it's otherwise rewarded, obviously). If you permit only some things, or forbid only some things, then you implicitly condone the behaviors that are permissible, due to the fact that you are now forbidding things that are "not ok" to do in your game. When you do that, the only conclusion for the player to draw is that the permissible things are "ok" to do (or at least considerably "more ok"), because otherwise some of those too would have been forbidden.
One doesn't get to make a game where you're expressly allowed to carve up every living thing you come across in graphic detail, and then remain intellectually honest while forbidding one group of NPC's from being killed because killing of those NPC's would be sick, morbid or inappropriate.
And just before anyone draws real-life parallels: I'm talking in context of games.
-
It's identifiably that is the weird turnkey of this conversation, after all, there should really be no difference to who you ran over/shot/garotted etc, why should everyone get annoyed about the prostitutes, but not worry about it happening to black youths in gang regalia etc, it's the same 'crime' in the same game.
The difference I think with things like Skyrim over GTA is the fact that in GTA people are identifiable as people who live and work around us right now, people whose roles in life are a part of our own. After all, I've never had to tell someone not to go somewhere after 10pm because it fills up with Necromancers, but I have told people to avoid popular prostitution areas.
Once you remove the 'real world' aspect of it, you can do a lot more.
-
I note that this discussion has essentially become the same as the moral panics over violence in games that were so common in the decade before last, in which case the question of actual evidence of real-world harm is pretty central.
It's also pretty orthogonal to the issue of gender representation in gaming.
-
Permitting and condoning are two different things, and given that the wanton killing of NPCs would result in fewer quests and so forth it can be argued that slaughtering entire cities is not condoned by the game at all because the player loses out on tangible rewards.
And it's funny thing, but people always ***** about not being able to kill kids in Skyrim yet in 100+ hours of play the problem never came up for me because guess what, the game never gave me reason to kill a bunch of civilians for no reason.
True.
Though I do think the taboo on child murdering was mishandled. I'd have preferred more of an in-world mechanic, where if you, as Dragonborn, murder a child, you are struck dead by Akatosh on the spot and the game tells you that. Or eaten by Aldiun. Or a myriad of other game-ending consequences that make sense in the context of the game world. I point back to Dishonored again, mostly because its the most recent example of a game I've played where they took the care to do this. Sure, you can kill pretty much whomever you want, but there are game-ending consequences of killing essential characters.
Developers often seem lazy in how they prescribed game limits, particularly in more open-world titles. From invisible walls, to invulnerable NPCs, it just speaks to an inherent lack of creativity and the fact that they don't seem to truly care if they break immersiveness.
herein lies my fundamental opposition to arguments like Sarkeesians concerning the prostitutes and the way women are sometimes treated in games: women are sometimes/often/frequently treated this way in real life. If you are making an authentic game experience, you can't tiptoe around that. I think there is a value in including real-world sexism in real-world games, because it exists, and its wrong, and hopefully if its presented in a respectful way, people seeing it in game will make that connection in their lives as well.
It's like the gigantic ****ing cop-out of the 'rape' sequence in the new Tomb Raider. It's pretty implicitly sexualized and implied that Lara is going to be raped if she doesn't fight back... yet if you miss the sequence, the game doesn't take the opportunity to continue that implication and present the very message that sexual violence is neither exciting, nor OK, nor suitable for viewing because you thought you might intentionally avoid the good solution and watch a video game depiction.... nope, instead if goes "ha! just kidding! he wasn't actually going to rape her, but just kill her flat out instead, because that's much more socially acceptable!" BULL****. The developers had a very real opportunity to create a social message and inspire shame in those people who intentionally missed the game-continuing sequence to see a sexualized female character get raped, and instead of taking that approach (tastefully, this is not me advocating them rendering a rape scene, but rather staying true to their message and creating a social message aimed at douchebag players) they just went "whoops, yeah, not going there" and flipped the tone.
Games can be tools for social change. Many developers are too chicken to try it, and I fear some critique like Sarkeesian's make them less likely, not more.
-
It's also pretty orthogonal to the issue of gender representation in gaming.
It was more a discussion as to whether or not you having the ability to kill strippers makes you someone who begins to think that it's okay in real life
Then it became a talk of whether uploading your shenanigans of killing those hookers brings misogyny to the table
It all started here
"Yes, we don't want to brainwash people into thinking killing strippers is wrong."
Gender representation being tangential? I agree. The way we depict women in games has nothing to do with you deciding to pile all of their dead bodies into various positions.
-
OK but it's now moved onto this whole thing about invulnerable children and this idea that allowing representations of abhorrent acts in a video game is in itself morally unacceptable.
-
Better path: can we nail down the difference between portrayal and exploitation?
And MPRyan, how the **** should the rape scene have been handled? Aside from what the reaction would have been, we can at least try to avoid triggering PTSD reactions as much as we can.
You forget when the "almost rape" backstory came out in a press release prior to the game coming out Crystal Dynamics got shredded for it, and right so. Rape as backstory just might be the single most hated trope there is by women, the cheapest of the cheap when it comes to giving them a dark and troubled past.
-
And MPRyan, how the **** should the rape scene have been handled? Aside from what the reaction would have been, we can at least try to avoid triggering PTSD reactions as much as we can.
You forget when the "almost rape" backstory came out in a press release prior to the game coming out Crystal Dynamics got shredded for it, and right so. Rape as backstory just might be the single most hated trope there is by women, the cheapest of the cheap when it comes to giving them a dark and troubled past.
Two options:
1. Do not include any implication of a rape sequence to begin with, and stick to a simple intended killing.
2. Continue with the implication, and cautiously present the implicated horror of the sexual violence without actually depicting it onscreen, being careful to treat it as an abhorrent act, rather than a quasi-pornographic fantasy sequence.
Here's the thing: rape was not actually a part of Lara's past. Successfully killing a man who was going to rape and kill her is (according to the reboot). There's an important distinction there... and as a practical matter, I don't think including an attempted rape in a female character's development in a story set ostensibly in modern times is all that much of a trope or stretch; it's reality for many, many women. In the context of Tomb Raider, it is fully believable that this male cult member will carry out his violence against a female captive in a sexualized manner.
This is one of the reasons that I get perturbed at people who criticize female and male characters receiving different treatment in games; they receive different treatment in real life, and if your game setting is a close approximation to real life, then ignoring the fact that much of the violence directed toward women is sexual in nature does the horror of reality a supreme disservice. It reeks of a sanitizing lens on real-world problems, which games, like film and books, can be used to honestly approach and critique. Exhibit A: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series
As for PTSD, frankly any violent game should come with PTSD warnings for both sexes to begin with. This is not a uniquely female phenomenon, although a game that takes the approach that I would have preferred in TR (instead of its terrible compromise decision) should probably contain additional warnings about sexual violence specifically.
-
It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics.
Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.
But the fact is when a man fantasizes about hurting a woman, chances are he is in fact fantasizing about hurting a woman,
This sentence doesn't make any sense. You've said the exact same thing twice
Sorry for writing it that way, but I did think it'd be clear from the context.
You're arguing there's a difference between hurting women in particular and hurting humans in general. I explicitly agreed with that, but added that when someone fantasizes about hurting a woman it's far too often (at least partly) about hurting a woman, and not just about hurting a person that happens to be a woman.
When someone takes their time to beat up the bunch of most stereotypical victims of sexualized violence and thinks of it as a particularly* upload worthy moment, based on common sense and experience I know what I'm going to think their motivation is.
*this is how I understood the comment originally: someone uploading that particular scene; it being just a part of the whole gameplay video changes things somewhat (not that muchwhat tho but whatever)
Or are you saying that if they're doing that in the game, that makes them like that in real life by result of what they're doing in game?
No, I'm not saying that, I'm not that ridiculous.
As for the poor children of Skyrim, it has nothing to do with moral panic or tabooness of it, it's that I find it to be such a non issue. It's a game where you can collect and carry a truckload of cabbage and then eat it all in one sitting to regain to regain health lost after a dragon nearly burned you to death, and it's not being able to kill children that's disturbingly immersion breaking. Like come on.
No it's not about how such a horrifying act of violence would corrupt our youth, it's about how unnecessary it is to allow your game to be used as a children murder simulator when literally the only benefit is that people on the internet won't complain about how immersion breaking not being able to kill children is.
MP-Ryan's suggestion of insta-killing you for it is just as good and funnier, but not that much different I think.
I think there is a value in including real-world sexism in real-world games, because it exists, and its wrong, and hopefully if its presented in a respectful way, people seeing it in game will make that connection in their lives as well.
I agree, but depending on how big of an issue you're tackling and the amount of player involvement, there's a large chance of screwing it up, and there's things no one will blame you for not including.
-
Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.
I'll still respond to it: So was the white male cowering in the corner. Civilians are powerless.
You're arguing there's a difference between hurting women in particular and hurting humans in general. I explicitly agreed with that, but added that when someone fantasizes about hurting a woman it's far too often (at least partly) about hurting a woman, and not just about hurting a person that happens to be a woman...
...based on common sense and experience I know what I'm going to think their motivation is.
There's a lot of fluff, not a whole lot of facts. You think you know their motivation, you don't know their motivation. You can argue that your experience and common sense of the matter back up your statement, but it's circumstantial in nature and only possibly alludes to it.
Take this for example: I took my time to beat up a hooker. From this you derive I have a fantasy to hurt women because of "common sense and personal experience". Now here's some fact - I took my time to beat up that hooker because it was a mechanic in the game that could be taken to some pretty hilarious results. It's also easier to pick up a hooker to send off a bridge than it is to kidnap someone in the car (though watching them jump out at high speeds is pretty hilarious. Specially when a semi hits them afterwards. So close yet so far)
*this is how I understood the comment originally: someone uploading that particular scene; it being just a part of the whole gameplay video changes things somewhat (not that muchwhat tho but whatever)
Video in question about Hitman? Well it was a fifty minute gameplay video which happened to contain him using a strip clubs personnel to his amusement. Plenty of civilians just standing around. They didn't run, so really they were just asking to get shot (this is fault to just lazy programming on the part of devs. In reality, programming costs are to blame for people piling strippers and strip club clients in piles).
No, I'm not saying that, I'm not that ridiculous.
Just checking. Sentences that make sense in context to one person don't always make sense to another, specially when there is so much context to derive from.
No it's not about how such a horrifying act of violence would corrupt our youth, it's about how unnecessary it is to allow your game to be used as a children murder simulator
Children murder simulator. Sounds like something Microsoft would make
I just like being able to murder everything I see in games. However, it's not a detriment to my experience or immersion. I'll just call it what it is: The more I can kill the merrier
-
herein lies my fundamental opposition to arguments like Sarkeesians concerning the prostitutes and the way women are sometimes treated in games: women are sometimes/often/frequently treated this way in real life. If you are making an authentic game experience, you can't tiptoe around that. I think there is a value in including real-world sexism in real-world games, because it exists, and its wrong, and hopefully if its presented in a respectful way, people seeing it in game will make that connection in their lives as well.
The counter-argument is that the inclusion of these elements in games helps perpetuate the viewers acceptance or perceptions of women and also helps to reinforce patriarchal ideals about society. And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
Sarkeesian I think is an advocate of not challenging these ideals or stereotypes by their inclusion, but rather by their exclusion. By replacing weak female characters with strong ones, women who are strong as women not as men.
Games can be tools for social change. Many developers are too chicken to try it, and I fear some critique like Sarkeesian's make them less likely, not more.
Why would anyone be afraid of Anita Sarkeesian? She's under constant abuse from a very vocal and vitriolic gaming community. Depression Quest, a game which allegedly tries to tackle some of these important issues was just involved in the biggest **** storm of recent memory. The vast majority of game developers are still men, not women. The vast majority of games, particularly successful ones have male protagonists, not women. Why would any developer be inclined to tackle social issues and gender inequality in such an environment?
Even Tomb Raider, a top-selling game with a female protagonist has been described by some journalists I follow as a torture simulator. The guy joked about the cops being called to his apartment because the whole thing is about Lara getting hurt and beat up, to the point where he felt dirty after playing the game despite enjoying the gameplay.
The developers aren't afraid of Sarkeesian, they're afraid the male hardcore masses wont buy their game and independent developers, particularly female ones, are probably not too inclined either unless some developers start making reactionary games to recent controversy.
-
And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
I don't like this example, because porn involves real people doing real things, games do not.
Games are exaggerated fantasy Worlds with characters who are not real people.
-
And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
I don't like this example, because porn involves real people doing real things, games do not.
Games are exaggerated fantasy Worlds with characters who are not real people.
"Porn videos are exaggerated fantasy world with characters who are not real people."
(both figuratively and to some extent, literally thanks to plastic surgery for both men and women). Much like games, no?
And News flash. People also get off to Computer Generated and Hand Drawn porn. You don't need to be viewing real people to have a real effect on the human psyche.
You can submit the theory that people affected by this phenomena (PIED I believe it is, Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction) have only subjected themselves to real video and not Computer Generated material, however without a study to explore the idea it's pure guesswork.
-
And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
I don't like this example, because porn involves real people doing real things, games do not.
Games are exaggerated fantasy Worlds with characters who are not real people.
"Porn videos are exaggerated fantasy world with characters who are not real people."
(both figuratively and to some extent, literally thanks to plastic surgery for both men and women). Much like games, no?
That's pretty weak. The sex act is real. The people are real. Games have a clear separation between fantasy and reality. I know anything I do in-game has no effect on anything real, and usually doesn't even have a lasting effect in-game.
-
Why would anyone be afraid of Anita Sarkeesian? She's under constant abuse from a very vocal and vitriolic gaming community.
A portion of a very, very large amount of people does not make an entire community vitriolic
Rephrase it to "the ones that make us all look bad" and "internet ****disturbers"
And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
Alternate theory: They masturbated an extreme amount making their stamina that of a juggernaut. And then they masturbated too much leaving them dysfunctional in bed.
Course, your number of *thousands* is a tiny spec in comparison to how many people live in a country. It's similar to saying that a certain number of people a year suffer from a disease
And I do agree that media influences how society perceives certain things. That's generally the point of the media
However, we as individuals are fully capable of determining whether or not it actually controls how we think.
Much like games, no?
More in line with movies and Metal Gear Solid hence why the people in porn are called "actors"
-
Why would anyone be afraid of Anita Sarkeesian? She's under constant abuse from a very vocal and vitriolic gaming community.
A portion of a very, very large amount of people does not make an entire community vitriolic
Rephrase it to "the ones that make us all look bad" and "internet ****disturbers"
Whether their numbers are large or small they're likely defining public perception.
Women suffer abuse just from speaking during an online match.
And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
Alternate theory: They masturbated an extreme amount making their stamina that of a juggernaut. And then they masturbated too much leaving them dysfunctional in bed.
Medical Study > internet theory.
However, we as individuals are fully capable of determining whether or not it actually controls how we think.
Oh really? You pre-determine every thought that comes into your mind? Every thought is a product of deliberate intent?
Don't think so.
People choose how they act, they don't always choose how they think.
Much like games, no?
More in line with movies and Metal Gear Solid hence why the people in porn are called "actors"
Games don't have actors?
Animated porn doesn't have actors?
-
Btw on the subject of ZQ, Moviebob wrote an article talking about some of what's going on:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/columns/moviebob/12173-Comparing-Film-Journalism-and-Games-Journalism
I don't tend to like this guy but might be worth reading.
-
Now here's some fact - I took my time to beat up that hooker because it was a mechanic in the game that could be taken to some pretty hilarious results.
look I'm sorry if you're feeling yours or hypothetically yours hooker beating sensibilities are implicitly slighted by my generic statements on hooker beaters, but that's not what we're on about, and I'm going to have to stand by what I originally said, which is:
There's a difference between playing generic videogames you kill people in, and uploading a video of your character beating up and killing prostitutes. The first usually implies a silly fascination with being a hollywood blockbuster superhero, the second implies fascination with beating up and killing female sex workers.
and I believe it's true generally speaking and especially so if that's what the video is about (in which case it definitely can't not be misogynistic).
Besides it's really not like the situation's symmetrical and that it's all just the same; beating up scantly clad women has implications I'd expect a well socialized individual to recognize and to feel uncomfortable with them at least enough to not share it on youtube for everyone, women included, to see. Saying that you'd have no trouble uploading a video like that because it's all just polygons to you is irrelevant, because in making the internet such a toxic place for women, it really doesn't matter one bit who's "trolling", who's just being ~edgy~ and who's like you know god forbid really sexist.
And it's exactly the same with video games. There's an excuse for every scene someone could call sexist and they're bound to be good at least some of the time, but the end result still sucks just as bad.
-
Personally I'd expect a "well socialised individual" to not pass judgements on people based on playing a game, and not draw conclusions about their real life personality from what they do in a game.
Are you going to look down on anyone who plays on Team Evil in a game or chooses the evil character or the evil story arc?
Do you condemn games developers for putting evil characters into their games?
-
I'd expect a "well-socialized individual" not to tolerate rape threats (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87989.msg1756411#msg1756411) either, so I don't think you're really an expert on the subject, Lorric.
Besides which, I absolutely pass judgements on people based on how they play video games. If someone uploads a video of themselves playing Skyrim with a bunch of sexy armor mods and killing children, I am very definitely going to be judging them based on their choices.
-
I'd expect a "well-socialized individual" not to tolerate rape threats (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87989.msg1756411#msg1756411) either, so I don't think you're really an expert on the subject, Lorric.
Hmmmm... those are things which I just see as empty words. No intent of doing any actual harm behind them. Though I'll certainly grant you such talk can make me feel uneasy, and there's scope for it to be done in a way which would make me feel there was more to it than just empty words.
Besides which, I absolutely pass judgements on people based on how they play video games. If someone uploads a video of themselves playing Skyrim with a bunch of sexy armor mods and killing children, I am very definitely going to be judging them based on their choices.
And what would it make you think of them?
-
Personally I'd expect a "well socialised individual" to not pass judgements on people based on playing a game, and not draw conclusions about their real life personality from what they do in a game.
Are you going to look down on anyone who plays on Team Evil in a game or chooses the evil character or the evil story arc?
Do you condemn games developers for putting evil characters into their games?
We were talking about playing a game and uploading it on youtube.
If it is just playing the game, and you spend time to beat up every woman in a strip club and kill her, I'll conclude you're probably a creep who I don't in fact want to be well-socialized with anyway, which I think is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. But that's completely irrelevant for this discussion, isn't it?
The rest about evil story arcs and evil characters is completely unwarranted, please don't strawman me.
-
Personally I'd expect a "well socialised individual" to not pass judgements on people based on playing a game, and not draw conclusions about their real life personality from what they do in a game.
Are you going to look down on anyone who plays on Team Evil in a game or chooses the evil character or the evil story arc?
Do you condemn games developers for putting evil characters into their games?
We were talking about playing a game and uploading it on youtube.
If it is just playing the game, and you spend time to beat up every woman in a strip club and kill her, I'll conclude you're probably a creep who I don't in fact want to be well-socialized with anyway, which I think is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. But that's completely irrelevant for this discussion, isn't it?
The rest about evil story arcs and evil characters is completely unwarranted, please don't strawman me.
I'm just trying to get an understanding of how the "other side" sees this. And why we are so different in how we'd interpret it. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, it's a pretty ingrained gamer thing, if you're going to kill stuff, you just go and kill everything in the room. It's just mindless fun and you're not doing one iota of harm to a real person. I like to explore games and gameplay mechanics, I like to test the boundaries of what I can do in a game. It doesn't mean anything beyond that.
So while you believe your conclusion is reasonable, I would feel very insulted if I was on the receiving end of criticism based on my actions in a video game.
I wasn't trying to strawman you. In fairness I can see why you might have thought I was, but it just comes back to me trying to get a feel of where the boundaries are and what is and isn't acceptable to you. I'd like to make another thread on it, and that might be best, but I'm not sure how to.
-
I'm just trying to get an understanding of how the "other side" sees this. And why we are so different in how we'd interpret it. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, it's a pretty ingrained gamer thing, if you're going to kill stuff, you just go and kill everything in the room. It's just mindless fun and you're not doing one iota of harm to a real person. I like to explore games and gameplay mechanics, I like to test the boundaries of what I can do in a game. It doesn't mean anything beyond that.
So while you believe your conclusion is reasonable, I would feel very insulted if I was on the receiving end of criticism based on my actions in a video game.
I wasn't trying to strawman you. In fairness I can see why you might have thought I was, but it just comes back to me trying to get a feel of where the boundaries are and what is and isn't acceptable to you. I'd like to make another thread on it, and that might be best, but I'm not sure how to.
See my answer to deathfun; i don't want to talk about you and i'm really not saying that to be rude, i'm saying that because the topic we're talking about is more general than why Lorric beats people up in videogames and what Meneldil thinks about it, which isn't even suited for a public forum anyway.
What I am talking about is my opinion on what are motivation of most of the people who'd do something like that, and yes, it's based solely on what i hear and see men talk about (you know things like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..."), and on what I see and hear men do, but what else would it be based on, really.
As for me judging someone based on what they do in a video game, the only way for me to know what you've done and judge you is for you to tell me, and if you're going around telling random strangers how much you love the mechanics of beating up women in video game strip clubs, then you're at least astoundingly unaware of what it sounds like, which in turn makes it all the more likely that it is in fact exactly what it sounds like. And if you're telling it in a mixed company, then it is perfectly reasonable for women in it to feel threatened, attacked or insulted. Just ask the women participating in this discussion, really.
-
See my answer to deathfun; i don't want to talk about you and i'm really not saying that to be rude, i'm saying that because the topic we're talking about is more general than why Lorric beats people up in videogames and what Meneldil thinks about it, which isn't even suited for a public forum anyway.
Well we don't need to get into me personally, but in terms of providing an example of someone who it would have no bearing what I do in a game on what I would do in real life, that person is me.
What I am talking about is my opinion on what are motivation of most of the people who'd do something like that, and yes, it's based solely on what i hear and see men talk about (you know things like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..."), and on what I see and hear men do, but what else would it be based on, really.
It's the same for me. I just don't draw a connection between the two, I see a very clear boundary separating fantasy from reality in just about all it's forms. Of course it's possible for someone to fantasise about something they would truly carry out of they had the chance, but when we speak of games, they are escapist. They are exaggerated. And they are real World consequence-free. As long as you know where the line is, and I give people that credit, there is no connection between what you do in-game and what you do in real life. I'm curious why you feel there is a connection.
A stronger example is an actor is not going to become the role they play, even though they will immerse themselves extremely deeply into it. So it is the same with the role someone chooses to play in a game. One minute they might be going on a killing rampage, the next there's another game being played, and they're playing a completely different role.
A rape fantasy has no harm in it by itself. You're not harming anyone by using your imagination.
As for me judging someone based on what they do in a video game, the only way for me to know what you've done and judge you is for you to tell me, and if you're going around telling random strangers how much you love the mechanics of beating up women in video game strip clubs, then you're at least astoundingly unaware of what it sounds like, which in turn makes it all the more likely that it is in fact exactly what it sounds like. And if you're telling it in a mixed company, then it is perfectly reasonable for women in it to feel threatened, attacked or insulted. Just ask the women participating in this discussion, really.
That's not what I'm doing. Let's say I decided to go beat up or kill some NPCs. My motivation would just be to see what happened. Would I be able to harm them at all? If so, what happens? What will they do? Run from me? Defend themselves with their fists? Gang up on me? Pull weapons? I'm just playing the game and seeing what happens when I do certain things in-game.
HLP is overwhelmingly male, as are you. I've been here over two and a half years regularly and in all that time I only know of one member who is female, who is not in this thread and who I won't reveal, compared to a large number who I know are definitely male.
But if there was a female enjoying doing things to men in a game I would not feel threatened. Even if she was capable of doing those things to me in real life. Because it's only a game.
In terms of unaware of what it sounds like, I am unaware of why you and Ralwood feel you can judge people based on their actions in a game.
-
Oh really? You pre-determine every thought that comes into your mind? Every thought is a product of deliberate intent?
Don't think so.
People choose how they act, they don't always choose how they think.
Don't think so? You haven't studied me so don't go presuming you know how my brain works.
But here's something to explain things a little bit better: I say elephant. You now are thinking of an elephant. Is that thinking? It's a thought right? Not entirely. Thinking is fleshing out an idea or concept inside your brain. You then create something out of it. My elephant is now pink, wears a tutu and works on the planet Mars.
Media sells you an idea. It's up to you whether or not you accept the idea as a whole or bring it into your brain and start picking it apart. Thoughts are random unless directed so on a technical level, yes, you're right that we don't choose our base thoughts. We do however choose where those base thoughts end up.
EDIT: Forgot to say this: What are actions but the end of a thinking process which led to action? Action is a byproduct of thinking unless it's instinctual or "out of the blue random". We generally don't go about our days randomly doing actions, so it's safe to say that the majority of our actions were just base thoughts at one point.
Games don't have actors?
Animated porn doesn't have actors?
Wow you missed the point entirely. Games have you taking an active part. Movies are something you just watch. If you know some erotica I can take part in by all means please let me know (none of that 3D polygon crap, I want... I WANT MY POUND OF FLESSSSSHHHH [Borderlands reference])
and I believe it's true generally speaking and especially so if that's what the video is about (in which case it definitely can't not be misogynistic).[/quote
I actually decided to do a quick search on youtube for videos specifically about killing hookers
I saw a whopping two results which were *just* about killing hooker(s), and I don't consider the plural one anything more than a challenge. Because it was a challenge of finding and killing only hookers (you say misogynist, I say specific killing challenge which just happen to be hookers. Could have easily just been any other NPC like "People who wear red")
Besides it's really not like the situation's symmetrical and that it's all just the same; beating up scantly clad women has implications I'd expect a well socialized individual to recognize and to feel uncomfortable with them at least enough to not share it on youtube for everyone, women included, to see.
I beat up a scantily clad women in a game. I fail to see the massive implications by dead polygons
Now what exactly happens if a female say, makes a video which involves her doing this? Does that make them misogynist?
Besides which, I absolutely pass judgements on people based on how they play video games. If someone uploads a video of themselves playing Skyrim with a bunch of sexy armor mods and killing children, I am very definitely going to be judging them based on their choices.
And such is your ability to do so
Doesn't make your judgements accurate which is the main point
I'll conclude you're probably a creep who I don't in fact want to be well-socialized with anyway, which I think is a perfectly reasonable conclusion
Yes. Completely reasonable to judge someone you've never met [/sarcasm]
Again, just because they were strippers does not mean he spent time to kill them *because they were strippers*
See my answer to deathfun; i don't want to talk about you and i'm really not saying that to be rude, i'm saying that because the topic we're talking about is more general than why Lorric beats people up in videogames and what Meneldil thinks about it, which isn't even suited for a public forum anyway.
Well actually no, it isn't unrelated or unwarranted to discuss what we personally do. We're talking about people who play games (I play games) and then upload stuff (I upload stuff). I'm part of those particular individuals who do these things therefore I am EXACTLY the person to at least provide a voice to those who CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES because they DON'T POST HERE and we DON'T KNOW THEM
You can't make broad accusations/judgement on people in an encompassing general form and then dismiss someone who is a part of that broad encompassing general form defending himself. In the end, my point was always "you don't actually have any facts on why they do as they do" so passing judgement on them while it is your purview to do so, doesn't make them as accurate as you make it seem they are.
What I am talking about is my opinion on what are motivation of most of the people who'd do something like that, and yes, it's based solely on what i hear and see men talk about (you know things like "I'd love to rape her." or "Just give me five minutes alone with her..."), and on what I see and hear men do, but what else would it be based on, really.
And we've arrived at two important things. It's an opinion, a theory as to their motivation (which is also technically judging myte. By presuming their motivation, you are presuming the "why". By presuming the "why" you presume you know them. Judging)
And two: Basing opinions from people you *think* are the ones doing that *who are also a minority*. How many videos I saw just about hookers supports that as those were a small amount amongst a great many. However, you have yet to correlate one to the other. There's a fact gap here. Those people spewing off what they'd do to a gal (something I'm not fond of hearing about but tolerate because it's the internet. You say that to my face however, I'm going to smack you in the back of the head) may not even be the ones making those videos. Until you prove the correlation, it's just a theory making things more complicated than they may actually be. Occam's Razor and whatnot. Simplest answer, is probably the right one. Simplest answer here is they played a game, uploaded the video for ****s and giggles, and didn't give it a second thought. Why did they beat up the hooker and upload it? Because they can. There's may be nothing more to it than that.
Now, I do not disagree that it *can* be a motivator, but I won't go about saying it like it's the only reason for the uploaders actions.
I disagree with passing judgement based on lack of correlation between people who spew comments like that to people who upload videos of beating up hookers. Afterall, I am one of those people and my motivations behind it differ from your judgement or opinion (though I don't consider myself a credible "fact" as I am part of this conversation and thus conflict of interest comes up, but the principle behind it is there)
-
I say specific killing challenge which just happen to be hookers. Could have easily just been any other NPC like "People who wear red")
But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?
I'll conclude you're probably a creep who I don't in fact want to be well-socialized with anyway, which I think is a perfectly reasonable conclusion
Yes. Completely reasonable to judge someone you've never met [/sarcasm]
Wait... isn't it?
Well actually no, it isn't unrelated or unwarranted to discuss what we personally do. We're talking about people who play games (I play games) and then upload stuff (I upload stuff). I'm part of those particular individuals who do these things therefore I am EXACTLY the person to at least provide a voice to those who CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES because they DON'T POST HERE and we DON'T KNOW THEM
Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it.
First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women. Which is I won't hesitate to say a far more important and interesting topic.
Second, if we were to talk about you in particular that would obviously put me in an awkward position with respect to the forum rules.
Third, I still haven't got that diploma, and you're still not paying me.
You can't make broad accusations/judgement on people in an encompassing general form and then dismiss someone who is a part of that broad encompassing general form defending himself. In the end, my point was always "you don't actually have any facts on why they do as they do" so passing judgement on them while it is your purview to do so, doesn't make them as accurate as you make it seem they are.
If I made a broad accusation/judgement on people in an encompassing general form, you are 100% free to think of yourself as an exception, and there's no need for you to convince me you are one.
As for the lack of evidence, surprisingly enough no one's been willing to come out and champion my cause by saying he's exactly the example of what i've been talking about, so it seems it's going to remain circumstantial. I am aware of how unconvincing one could find it, and I'm sorry I can't do better, but we are where we are.
And two: Basing opinions from people you *think* are the ones doing that *who are also a minority*. How many videos I saw just about hookers supports that as those were a small amount amongst a great many. However, you have yet to correlate one to the other. There's a fact gap here. Those people spewing off what they'd do to a gal (something I'm not fond of hearing about but tolerate because it's the internet. You say that to my face however, I'm going to smack you in the back of the head) may not even be the ones making those videos. Until you prove the correlation, it's just a theory making things more complicated than they may actually be. Occam's Razor and whatnot. Simplest answer, is probably the right one. Simplest answer here is they played a game, uploaded the video for ****s and giggles, and didn't give it a second thought. Why did they beat up the hooker and upload it? Because they can. There's may be nothing more to it than that.
No way is there a correlation gap between people talking what they'd like to do if they could and people who do it in a simulation and upload it to youtube.
What you're arguing is that not all latters are the formers. But seeing that I've explained why I think the latter's bad regardless of the motivation, I'm not that bent on pursuing it.
-
It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics.
Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.
But it does imply that pretty strongly. Never including strippers in a game, on principle, just because they are women or sex workers, is sexist against women and demeaning to sex workers. Special game mechanics that prevent you from killing strippers, while other NPCs can be killed, is sexism too. It does put strippers on the mental level of children and is quite insulting, IMHO.
The best way to champion women rights in games is not to ignore potentialy controversial topics, but to portray them in a manner that is realistic and tasteful (as much as a gunfight in a strip club can be), and not overdo it.
-
But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?
I wasn't aware violence against prostitutes related to violence against polygons
Wait... isn't it?
So you believe it's perfectly reasonable to judge someone you've never met, with just by watching what they do in a video game?
Yes, completely reasonable. It's almost as though they convey everything they've ever wanted to do in real life with what they do in a game. I really want to hunt dragons, take on saving the world quests and [/sarcasm] driving a tank down mainstreet. I actually want to do that last part because man that would be awesome.
Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it. First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women
So then the behaviour of people in games which you're arguing is fueling what sort of place video games and the internet are women, is unrelated to the discussion of how these places are for women...
you are 100% free to think of yourself as an exception, and there's no need for you to convince me you are one.
Not trying to convince you I am one, I'm trying to present a theory that the majority could be like me, and polygons be polygons. I could also be the minority, and the behaviour patterns of people in life match up to their actions in game.
No way is there a correlation gap between people talking what they'd like to do if they could and people who do it in a simulation and upload it to youtube.
Again, behaviour patterns and the "why". There are two groups, one that says they will do these things, and people who are uploading videos of them killing (note that sexual assault isn't actually something you can do in most games [I say most because there's probably a game where you can]). I don't deny that one can cross into the other where why they upload and do these things are to satisfy their fantasies, but again, which is the majority, which is the minority. I emphasize that because it highlights whether or not the problem is as deep seeded into our gamer psyches as people make it seem.
And just so that we can conclude all of this, I ask a concise paragraph why it's bad for me to upload gameplay/highlight videos of people/specific people dying.
Mostly because in all this sheer amount of text, sometimes things get lost in translation
-
It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics.
Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.
But it does imply that pretty strongly. Never including strippers in a game, on principle, just because they are women or sex workers, is sexist against women and demeaning to sex workers.
Of course it is, that's why I'm not advocating it.
On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.
But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?
I wasn't aware violence against prostitutes related to violence against polygons
It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.
Wait... isn't it?
So you believe it's perfectly reasonable to judge someone you've never met, with just by watching what they do in a video game?
Yes, completely reasonable. It's almost as though they convey everything they've ever wanted to do in real life with what they do in a game. I really want to hunt dragons, take on saving the world quests and [/sarcasm] driving a tank down mainstreet. I actually want to do that last part because man that would be awesome.
No that wasn't what you asked and what I answered to, but I'll agree it was probably a cheap shot on my part.
As for what you're asking now, I won't be looking at what you're playing over your shoulder anyway.
Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it. First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women
So then the behaviour of people in games which you're arguing is fueling what sort of place video games and the internet are women, is unrelated to the discussion of how these places are for women...
No, their motivation is irrelevant. To put it bluntly, if someone ****s on your doorstep, it doesn't really matter stenchwise whether it is because they hate you or whether it's because a doorstep is a cuboidal combination of polygons, especially so if you know it for a fact your whole living space is covered in excrement of people that do hate you. That's what I'm on about, actually.
videos of them killing (note that sexual assault isn't actually something you can do in most games
It was beating up and killing in the original post I took issue with, which I do find suggestive either of sexualized violence or hate murdering them
or you know just testing out the polygons, whatever.
Just please don't go write a rapefic and post it on a forum that actually has female readership claiming you're just testing your writing skills. And when someone calls you out on it don't start explaining them how discriminatory they're being for assuming you're writing rapefics because you think rape is sexy, when it's obviously perfectly possible to do it purely to test your writing skills.
No I'm not saying that's on the same level, but I was hoping hyperbole could work as the concise paragraph you requested. Let me know how it went.
-
On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.
Maybe if you were playing a violent pimp I would agree with this line of thought. Otherwise it is not special since they are just another victim of an assassin and the sexist connotations are merely in your head, not the game itself. And as I said, personally it seems actually more demeaning to me to have special ad-hoc game mechanics and exceptions only for strippers, just because they are sex workers or women.
-
It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.
Know what my theory is? Actions in video games do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of a person. You have to actually ask the person what their thoughts are because actions in a game don't mean anything unless there's meaning given by the person doing the action. Polygons are not real people and thus, we aren't obligated to treat them like real people.
No that wasn't what you asked and what I answered to,
No, that's what I asked but what *you didn't think you were answering to*. Context was lost and I wasn't clear either so it isn't surprising. It's cleared up now so whatever
No, their motivation is irrelevant. To put it bluntly, if someone ****s on your doorstep, it doesn't really matter stenchwise whether it is because they hate you or whether it's because a doorstep is a cuboidal combination of polygons, especially so if you know it for a fact your whole living space is covered in excrement of people that do hate you. That's what I'm on about, actually.
That's a fair point about the impact not really mattering, if the analogy was actually the same. Poop at your door is a sleight against you personally. Poop you go out of your way to find isn't, and you're only bringing the stench into your house if you take it with you personally (ie start taking things personally despite them meaning jack)
Gameplay videos are something you go find and watch. They're not forced in your face and thus, benign in nature. There is no political statements or motives behind a video (unless explicitly said by poster) that's just a short clip of a game.
To conclude this in a way that makes sense: Someone directs a violent act in a game and says "This is you", that's **** being flung in your direction. Someone uploads a video to the internet about them doing some violent act in a game, you never see it. It's not **** being left at your door, that person didn't send it your way.
It was beating up and killing in the original post I took issue with, which I do find suggestive either of sexualized violence or hate murdering them
or you know just testing out the polygons, whatever.
I watched that video. This was it's description
In which we Enjoy Talking a Lot and Killing Strippers a Lot. We strangle and kill many strippers, then make piles out of them and watch them ragdoll and roll around the floor. Then we take the piles and make binders out of them. We sell them to Mitt Romney for thousands of dollars. After the event we also murder a considerable amount of police, and chinese merchants, however I rapidly tire of this, because it completely lacks strippers, and I quit before the level is finished.
You see what you want to see out of it. That's the joys of confirmation bias.
I still maintain that even if you find it disgusting, hate murdering or sexualized, the motivations as to why may not be something that supports that. I maintain that you'll just have to ask him. Not really hard to do, I mean, he's on youtube. Send him a message, ask him why, and then we'll both have our answers. (Going back to the previous response, would you have ever known about this video if it didn't come up here? It's not **** on anyone's doors unless someone makes it **** on a door)
What we think is irrelevant to what actually is.
Though, whether or not the game itself is misogynistic, I'm more inclined to lean to yes on that.
Just please don't go write a rapefic and post it on a forum that actually has female readership claiming you're just testing your writing skills
I'll just go on a long winded thing about everything starting with the presentation:
Youtube, you search for something you want to watch, you browse over videos it suggests for you, or you're someone who just watches recently submitted (which is a filter setting, not a category. You still need to search [unless I'm blind and haven't found that category. Please point it out if it's there])
Forums on the other hand (ones like HLP, not reddit or 4chan) while still technically you had to search for (trying to find a community that fits where you want to be), you're not searching for posts (unless you are, but if you're searching for rapefic you're looking for conflict on purpose). Posts are also not displayed to you based on what you watch or how they fit on a search parameter. They're just there (you don't have to be at the right place at the right time to see them), but you still have to click at your own risk (much like a video). If it doesn't interest you and you don't click it, you move on to something that does. If you click it and are horrified by it, you're subjecting yourself to it (unless there was a trick in the title. Then it's malicious. However "Fun with strippers" is a pretty straightforward title).
don't start explaining them how discriminatory they're being for assuming you're writing rapefics because you think rape is sexy, when it's obviously perfectly possible to do it purely to test your writing skills.
I'm not saying anyone is discriminating against anyone (both people assuming and the people killing hookers *in a game*). I'm saying people are assuming motivations from the possibly benign and then making it into a faulty political statement about games/gamers overall.
I understand that some people find this content offensive, but I'm not subjugating them to it. I'm not forcing them to see or read it. I'm harmlessly posting a video that carries no explicit statement and of which you'll have to search to find it. It caters to an audience that enjoys watching this stuff as it entertains.
I'm also not saying anything in the lines of "I'm just testing my writing skills". To stick with the hyperbole, it's more along the lines of "I enjoy writing about this topic, but it does not mean I condone its actual happening".
We are just playing a game, but we also enjoy what we do as it entertains us.
I will also state, that until you find *real people being killed and treated this way* entertaining, you're in the clear.
On the note about viewership, I know my viewer base and I know they'll accept what I do. If I write a rapefic, it'll be going somewhere where the viewers accept it. This guy killing strippers, did the same thing.
As for the more concise paragraph, I understand your position a bit more than I did before.
-
On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.
Maybe if you were playing a violent pimp I would agree with this line of thought. Otherwise it is not special since they are just another victim of an assassin and the sexist connotations are merely in your head, not the game itself. And as I said, personally it seems actually more demeaning to me to have special ad-hoc game mechanics and exceptions only for strippers, just because they are sex workers or women.
They are highly sexualized women you can brutally murder without any real consequence in the world in which every video game that feasibly can features either highly sexualized women you can brutally murder without any real consequence or someone else brutally murdering highly sexualized women just to prove that he is in fact a bad guy. You say we need video games with strip clubs, but why every game needs a strip club or a brothel where women can be or are being murdered in such a way that they are nothing more than sexual objects even in death is beyond me. And when a game does feature a strip club or a brothel it is perfectly reasonable that it would be treated with special care because there is a difference between how strip clubs work in real life as opposed to say bakeries, seeing that the rape culture is something a sickening number of real life women are constantly getting raped for, but there's no bakery windows getting broken because of a bakery window breaking culture. Games don't exist in a limbo.
But anyway, I made a very big mistake of only watching the two latest Sarkeesian's videos just now - a mistake because they're far more thorough than I thought and because she's already addressed a good amount of potential criticism in a very satisfactory manner.
That's a fair point about the impact not really mattering, if the analogy was actually the same. Poop at your door is a sleight against you personally. Poop you go out of your way to find isn't, and you're only bringing the stench into your house if you take it with you personally (ie start taking things personally despite them meaning jack)
based on it being very well known and public, i consider youtube to be a very public space, and public spaces to be the ****ty doorsteps of our lives :deep:
and i think it's wrong to say women take depictions of their gender in public discourse and media too personally, seeing how personally it affects them.
-
You say we need video games with strip clubs, but why every game needs a strip club or a brothel where women can be or are being murdered in such a way that they are nothing more than sexual objects even in death is beyond me.
Why every game? I am not aware of many games that feature murdering prostitutes. I am not saying games dont have some issues with sexism, but this particular example is just not very valid.
-
It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.
Then I hereby arrest you for thoughtcrime.
Don't lie to me, you thought about punching someone in the face before.
Cause you know, thinking relates to doing, so better arrest everyone that thinks of murdering strippers because they're all going to murder strippers in real life, amirite.
Entertaining the thought of something, engaging in a simulation of something, is equivalent to doing the action!
-
It's also a theory that makes pretty strong empirical claims, which makes the paucity of empirical evidence whenever it's discussed pretty glaring.
-
I have had a lot of relationships with a wide variatie of female shaped polygons and pixels. Most of these have probably been consensual, 99% of these have been sensual in nature.
Am I a criminal yet?
-
I think this thread could learn from this:
(http://i.imgur.com/dqL5q.jpg)
This has turned toxic. I'd recommend everyone to calm down and thoroughly think your arguments.
-
Somewhere Battuta is shuddering uncontrollably right now, and he has no idea why.
-
It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.
Then I hereby arrest you for thoughtcrime.
Don't lie to me, you thought about punching someone in the face before.
Cause you know, thinking relates to doing, so better arrest everyone that thinks of murdering strippers because they're all going to murder strippers in real life, amirite.
Entertaining the thought of something, engaging in a simulation of something, is equivalent to doing the action!
It's also a theory that makes pretty strong empirical claims, which makes the paucity of empirical evidence whenever it's discussed pretty glaring.
I have had a lot of relationships with a wide variatie of female shaped polygons and pixels. Most of these have probably been consensual, 99% of these have been sensual in nature.
Am I a criminal yet?
ok so this is what happened (and i apologize if i'm distorting deathfun's post in any way):
deathfun points out that people getting beaten up in a video game could just as well have been people wearing red
i of course agree that anything is possible, but generally speaking people don't get beaten up in real life for wearing red, but they do for being female sex workers to the point where there's a dedicated encyclopedia article on the subject
deathfun points out that polygons aren't real people
i point out that in this case it's safe to assume that people acting on one thing and not the other implies they think about one thing and not the other, which in turn implies they play one thing and not the other, so no, statistically speaking it couldn't just as easily have been the other
deathfun points out that it still could have been, which is true, and that i still haven't shown the reverse, that actions in video games reflect thoughts, which is also true, but i'm not even claiming they do so i leave it at that
then the three of you take literally the most banally true sentence i could've written, and point out how dumb i'd look if i said it implied something dumb
then i come and write a dumb "no wait thats not what i meant :(" post and i really don't see how all of this helps us move the conversation any further, especially so since i think it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this
[Note that the closest I came to mentioning "thought crimes" is saying that thinking misogynist thoughts makes you a misogynist, which is a tautology, and that if you do something that could easily be seen as misogynistic in a video game and then use it as a conversation opener I'd see it as a no-no to us becoming bffs. But for better or for worse misogyny and not being friends with me are not crimes.]
-
not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?
...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.
also, since when did Jack Thompson get proven right? I mean I remember one game where I single handedly overthrew the martian colonial government by using nanites to deconstruct their orbital warships. I suppose I had better be put on a watch list.
-
not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?
...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.
Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.
-
ok so this is what happened (and i apologize if i'm distorting deathfun's post in any way):
deathfun points out that people getting beaten up in a video game could just as well have been people wearing red
i of course agree that anything is possible, but generally speaking people don't get beaten up in real life for wearing red, but they do for being female sex workers to the point where there's a dedicated encyclopedia article on the subject
This is also where I point out how the real life connection is irrelevant to someone's intent in a game
Then if I recall, that was where you pointed out where the impact to seeing it is the same
deathfun points out that polygons aren't real people
i point out that in this case it's safe to assume that people acting on one thing and not the other implies they think about one thing and not the other, which in turn implies they play one thing and not the other, so no, statistically speaking it couldn't just as easily have been the other
You're... going to have to rephrase that by defining "thing" and "other" for the sake of people knowing what you're talking about
deathfun points out that it still could have been, which is true, and that i still haven't shown the reverse, that actions in video games reflect thoughts, which is also true, but i'm not even claiming they do so i leave it at that
Which basically ended the two of us discussing about it since it'll be just repetition until new facts are introduced
then the three of you take literally the most banally true sentence i could've written, and point out how dumb i'd look if i said it implied something dumb
then i come and write a dumb "no wait thats not what i meant :(" post and i really don't see how all of this helps us move the conversation any further, especially so since i think it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this
I agree with Mene here. What you guys basically did was take things way out of context.
[Note that the closest I came to mentioning "thought crimes" is saying that thinking misogynist thoughts makes you a misogynist, which is a tautology, and that if you do something that could easily be seen as misogynistic in a video game and then use it as a conversation opener I'd see it as a no-no to us becoming bffs. But for better or for worse misogyny and not being friends with me are not crimes.]
based on it being very well known and public, i consider youtube to be a very public space, and public spaces to be the ****ty doorsteps of our lives :deep:
and i think it's wrong to say women take depictions of their gender in public discourse and media too personally, seeing how personally it affects them.
Youtube is yes, very public and so are forums. However, the videos themselves are more difficult to randomly come across than browsing a forum hence why I took issue with the analogy
Depictions? Yes, you can take that personally. Someone's actions (unless specifically made as an attack)? No. That was my point. Taking someone's gameplay video as a sleight against your gender (unless specifically said it's a sleight or statement by the author) isn't reasonable grounds to take it personally. They're not doing it to you or your gender, they're doing it to polygons in a game who just so happen to be your gender.
Take issue with the game itself for depicting, not the person who's just enjoying himself (again, unless he specifically makes it a sleight). You could argue that a ganers choice to play a game depicting women as this are them being complacent to the oppression they face.
-
not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?
...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.
Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.
Removing realism from games and adding limitations to not offend anyone is not evolution, its degeneration.
-
it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this
Indeed I can't but wonder how so many people seem so unable to see how going into the details of a single person's individual in-game actions is so completely useless, and completely beside the point.
-
it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this
Indeed I can't but wonder how so many people seem so unable to see how going into the details of a single person's individual in-game actions is so completely useless, and completely beside the point.
When the actions of a gamer doing a playthrough is being used to justify Anita's point, it becomes relevant
-
not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?
...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.
Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.
Removing realism from games and adding limitations to not offend anyone is not evolution, its degeneration.
EDIT - That's not what I was saying. So not really sure where that's coming from.
And by the way, realism in games? What games are we talking about? Arma? Operation Flashpoint Red River? Were we discussing those games? Seems to me that those are some of the only few games I've heard of that have realistic combat. Oh maybe Forza? Some other driving games? They're said to be fairly realistic in car handling. Or maybe European Bus Simulator?
-
it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this
So talk about the general point instead?
-
The counter-argument is that the inclusion of these elements in games helps perpetuate the viewers acceptance or perceptions of women and also helps to reinforce patriarchal ideals about society. And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
Sarkeesian I think is an advocate of not challenging these ideals or stereotypes by their inclusion, but rather by their exclusion. By replacing weak female characters with strong ones, women who are strong as women not as men.
Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.
I'm all for a shift in the way female characters are portrayed in video games (visuals aside, I actually thought DA:O and Mass Effect 2/3 accomplished this fairly well for player characters), but I think she undermines her point by dredging up pretty minor issues like the fact that a game about being a hitman includes a scenario where he is in a strip club, and the female strippers can be murdered just like everyone else. That's called setting, and I don't think it's a true problem anywhere near the scope of everything from the way actual female characters are modelled and textured to how they are written.
Why would anyone be afraid of Anita Sarkeesian? She's under constant abuse from a very vocal and vitriolic gaming community. Depression Quest, a game which allegedly tries to tackle some of these important issues was just involved in the biggest **** storm of recent memory. The vast majority of game developers are still men, not women. The vast majority of games, particularly successful ones have male protagonists, not women. Why would any developer be inclined to tackle social issues and gender inequality in such an environment?
Even Tomb Raider, a top-selling game with a female protagonist has been described by some journalists I follow as a torture simulator. The guy joked about the cops being called to his apartment because the whole thing is about Lara getting hurt and beat up, to the point where he felt dirty after playing the game despite enjoying the gameplay.
The developers aren't afraid of Sarkeesian, they're afraid the male hardcore masses wont buy their game and independent developers, particularly female ones, are probably not too inclined either unless some developers start making reactionary games to recent controversy.
If you're a developer who wants to do things differently and try to portray realistic females characters - which will always be an exercise in trial-and-error and knowing full well that it will directly challenge a very vocal but small cadre of self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" in the process, how motivated are you going to be to do that knowing full well you are now going to take crap from two vocal minority groups completely unrepresentative of the majority of people who play games?
My points here is all about picking and choosing meaningful battles to effect change in the way games use gendered roles and portray them. I think Sarkeesian, for sake of trying to beat her point into the ground, overextends in her criticism and makes it LESS likely that major developers will pay attention to the lessons that are actually contained in her videos. We see this in debate all the time - instead of focusing on the glaring issues she brings up, they can instead nitpick - much like has been demonstrated in this thread - that many of her examples are trivial and therefore trivialize her entire argument, despite the main points being completely accurate and relevant.
TL;DR: Like many who approach sociological issues from the feminist theorists' perspective (which, for those unfamiliar with the theoretical side, is distinguished from the Marxist & Neo-marxist/Foucauldian schools by approaching power and class conflict/imbalance through an at least partial gendered lens, depending on the subtype of feminist; feminist theory is predominantly an offshoot of Marxist theory), Sarkeesian undermines her very legitimate points by introducing examples that her primary intended audience will find utterly trivial. Which assumes her audience is not fellow feminists, I suppose, but the whole point of critical analysis is to convince other people, not like-minded ones.
-
Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.
Which is relevant... how?
-
We interrupt this discussion to report that the conspiracy theorists have reached an all time high in loonieness:
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/506171725516521472
-
zoe quinn is preparing to stage a nuclear attack on the east coast
-
The counter-argument is that the inclusion of these elements in games helps perpetuate the viewers acceptance or perceptions of women and also helps to reinforce patriarchal ideals about society. And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.
Sarkeesian I think is an advocate of not challenging these ideals or stereotypes by their inclusion, but rather by their exclusion. By replacing weak female characters with strong ones, women who are strong as women not as men.
Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.
And? Sarkeesian isn't the advocate for the portrayal of men in games. The way that men are treated neither excuses nor validates the treatment of women. Further, I would suspect that "gendered roles" for men in general equates to "dominant" role. Akin to "The hero for this video game is another white anglo-saxon, woe is the white man for being portrayed in another stereotypical role."
I'm all for a shift in the way female characters are portrayed in video games (visuals aside, I actually thought DA:O and Mass Effect 2/3 accomplished this fairly well for player characters), but I think she undermines her point by dredging up pretty minor issues like the fact that a game about being a hitman includes a scenario where he is in a strip club, and the female strippers can be murdered just like everyone else. That's called setting, and I don't think it's a true problem anywhere near the scope of everything from the way actual female characters are modelled and textured to how they are written.
My understanding of that video is that she's not complaining that the women can be murdered, but rather that they're background decoration. The fact that they cna be killed is a consequence of the role that they're place in, but the main problem is the role itself.
People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.
The funniest comment I've heard in months was on the Escapist where an individual responded to me and said that Call of Duty Modern Warfare was a realistic game. There's nothing realistic about that game or any of these other military shooters. From hitscan guns to regenerating health to over the top situations that make James Bond look like mister bean.
Realistic games are simulation games. 99% of gamers likely don't play simulation games because they're not that fun. They're for a niche audience.
If you're a developer who wants to do things differently and try to portray realistic females characters - which will always be an exercise in trial-and-error and knowing full well that it will directly challenge a very vocal but small cadre of self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" in the process, how motivated are you going to be to do that knowing full well you are now going to take crap from two vocal minority groups completely unrepresentative of the majority of people who play games?
Completely unrepresentative? Women are no longer the minority:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/
Whether you consider mobile games a game or not, they're making a ton of money and women are the ones playing them.
As for devs taking notice of Sarkeesian.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137124-Saints-Row-Writer-Supports-Change-for-the-Representation-of-Women-in-Games
Our own beloved Volition is taking notice of what she's saying and believe they are doing better in their portrayal of women, and accepting the criticism she's levied as some of their games in the past.
I've heard rumours that Anita is a consultant on both Mirror's Edge 2 and Remember Me 2 as well, though it may just be the former.
-
As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
In my book, Anita is a lazy con artist that found a niche that has placed her in a sweet spot. I find it unfortunate that this is the case, because I also find that the wider points she tries to raise in a very incompetent way should be raised in a way better manner.
Regarding the discussion above, I find that some commenters have a hard time figuring out the difference between fantasy and reality, and curiously enough, it's when people find this ambiguous that I wonder if they aren't dangerous...
-
Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
Can you provide actual evidence of her examples being fake or badly chosen, instead of taking it for granted and calling her a "lazy con artist"?
-
People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.
The funniest comment I've heard in months was on the Escapist where an individual responded to me and said that Call of Duty Modern Warfare was a realistic game. There's nothing realistic about that game or any of these other military shooters. From hitscan guns to regenerating health to over the top situations that make James Bond look like mister bean.
Realistic games are simulation games. 99% of gamers likely don't play simulation games because they're not that fun. They're for a niche audience.
Note, "realism" can mean different things for different people. For a simmer like me, it's accurate, by the numbers, representation of how the real thing operates. Few people actually look for that sort of things, those that do are usually the most "hardcore" gamers you can find (due to the fact sims, like things they simulate, often require a lot of dedication to learn and even more to master), and are a completely different demographic than usually imagined. Ironically, those very gamers often advocate having women portrayed realistically. :) Why? Because it's realistic, duh. See the reactions on BI forums upon finding no women in the latest ArmA at all. Some did indeed call BI out on sexism (the actual reason for their omission is likely technical. It's a lot of work to implement a new body type with AIII's loadout system, as discovered by one girl currently attempting to do just that in a mod).
But this is a small group. What I call "realism" most people call "rivet counting". :) Thinking of "realism", they're thinking of the game's self-consistency. For example, if the game establishes you can kill people, then introduces a character that is unkillable (with no good in-story reason for that), then it breaks self-consistency and "reminds you" you're in a game. If the world, no matter how fantastic, is self-consistent, then it can be immersed in. Notice that we want the same from books and movies. No fantasy universe can get away with breaking it's own rules, unless it's explicitly addressed. Ideally, any question you can ask can be answered in universe. If there's no in-universe reason, forcing you to answer "game mechanics", then the immersion breaks, unless it's a mechanic so ingrained in our minds we don't mind it (and even then, different people have different tolerances). Note that it's not dissimilar to a book or a movie. If you came across a (serious) book in which someone swings a sword at a stripper and it goes right through without harming her, would that "work"? No, it'd likely plunge the book right into farce/parody (unless, of course, the sword swinger realizes something is very wrong and reacts accordingly).
This is what realism means to most. The setting has to make sense within itself. If a district is seedy, you can expect a strip club. The strip club will likely hire human strippers. Being human, those strippers could die. You're free to make up a seedy district without strip clubs (say, they're illegal in the setting), with inhuman strippers (say, alien) or even ones that can't be interacted with (say, holographic), but it has to make sense. The closer your setting gets to reality, the more constrained you are. Hitman won't have holograms, and it'd be unlikely they'd have banned strip clubs by that time. So you're out of luck. The more "free-roaming" the game, the more of such things they should have, or else you risk breaking immersion. A lineal FPS set in WWII might have you not come across any woman at all, and that's fine. In some adventure games, you don't come across any humans at all. An open game set in more-or-less modern world, like GTA, on the other hand, has to have various female characters, in different professions (including the oldest one), because there would be something "amiss" if it ignored the fact they exist IRL.
In books and films, you're free to ignore certain aspects of human life, society, etc. as unimportant to the plot and thus not worth mentioning. It's implied to be there, but not mentioned because it's obvious and/or not needed right now. For lineal games, you can usually do the same. In a free-roaming game, on the other hand, the game devs stop being the sole authors of the story. The author just creates an universe in which the player creates his/her own story. This is my take on it. The author's duty in such case is to give the player a consistent, working universe. In an open world, the player is entirely responsible for his/her character's actions. On the other hand, the universe should punish acts that should, logically, be punished by it's laws. If you can murder everyone within a strip club and get away with it unbothered, it's an even bigger immersion breaker than having unkillable strippers.
-
As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.
Horse****.
According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.
Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?
What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?
People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.
-
This is what realism means to most. The setting has to make sense within itself. If a district is seedy, you can expect a strip club. The strip club will likely hire human strippers. Being human, those strippers could die. You're free to make up a seedy district without strip clubs (say, they're illegal in the setting), with inhuman strippers (say, alien) or even ones that can't be interacted with (say, holographic), but it has to make sense. The closer your setting gets to reality, the more constrained you are. Hitman won't have holograms, and it'd be unlikely they'd have banned strip clubs by that time. So you're out of luck. The more "free-roaming" the game, the more of such things they should have, or else you risk breaking immersion. A lineal FPS set in WWII might have you not come across any woman at all, and that's fine. In some adventure games, you don't come across any humans at all. An open game set in more-or-less modern world, like GTA, on the other hand, has to have various female characters, in different professions (including the oldest one), because there would be something "amiss" if it ignored the fact they exist IRL.
You're not describing realism. You're describing believability or consistency or immersion.
If what your describing is what realism means to many people then those same people need to look up realism in a dictionary.
As for open world games. The world is what you choose to make it. It's entirely possible to make a seedy area without strip clubs, to make an open world game without prostitutes. Seedy areas may contain these elements but these elements are not required for seedy areas nor are seedy areas required for open world games.
Funny if we were talking about Sewer levels in first person shooters, would this locale have the same number of proponents as strip clubs do? Sewers exist, therefore a game wherein a gun fight takes place in a sewer is necessary. What about rats? Rats are underground therefore a roleplaying game with areas underground must have rats or they will be missed. That's pretty much the same as saying prostitutes are required for seedy areas. But personally if I never have to fight another rat in a video game I would be a happy man indeed.
Where are the sewer levels with rats advocates I wonder? Would they have the same number? Or would no one care because despite potentially adding believability to a world they wouldn't be missed.
-
And? Sarkeesian isn't the advocate for the portrayal of men in games. The way that men are treated neither excuses nor validates the treatment of women. Further, I would suspect that "gendered roles" for men in general equates to "dominant" role. Akin to "The hero for this video game is another white anglo-saxon, woe is the white man for being portrayed in another stereotypical role."
You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces]. A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point. They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc. It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting. In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub." Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place. But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.
There is nothing wrong with gendered setpieces if it serves a function in conveying setting, plot, or background, particularly in a quasi-realistic context of something like the Hitman games.
My understanding of that video is that she's not complaining that the women can be murdered, but rather that they're background decoration. The fact that they cna be killed is a consequence of the role that they're place in, but the main problem is the role itself.
People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.
See above. And you just defeated your own argument: it's "a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance." Indeed. And if I wanted to pick an establishment that is a collision of public access, seediness, and potential for criminal enterprise, strip club sits right at the top of the list. There is nothing inherently wrong with the artistic choice. Is it clever? No. Is it groundbreaking? No. Does it come off as more than just a little tired? Sure. Is it in invalid choice? Nope. This is why Sarkeesian is arguing the trivial - there is ample justification for the inclusion of a strip club as a setting other than simply "objectification of women." Enough to make an argument, anyway. Compare this to something like "all your male characters have armour, yet the females just have a steel bra and a slightly elongated belt" where there is literally no justification other than gender issues, where there is a much stronger argument. Is Sarkeesian wrong about the strip club scene in Hitman? Not really. It's a singularly uncreative choice. But it's an arguable choice, when there are so many that are purely indefensible. This is why I keep hammering on this issue - instead of picking meaningful battles, she applies the shotgun approach and launches at all of the ones she can find, diluting her core argument.
Completely unrepresentative? Women are no longer the minority:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/
Whether you consider mobile games a game or not, they're making a ton of money and women are the ones playing them.
As for devs taking notice of Sarkeesian.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137124-Saints-Row-Writer-Supports-Change-for-the-Representation-of-Women-in-Games
Our own beloved Volition is taking notice of what she's saying and believe they are doing better in their portrayal of women, and accepting the criticism she's levied as some of their games in the past.
I've heard rumours that Anita is a consultant on both Mirror's Edge 2 and Remember Me 2 as well, though it may just be the former.
I made a very similar statement on page 3 or 4. Again, my point whistled right by your head.
The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial. The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people. These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers. On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.
So my point - again, the thing I keep hammering on - is that if feminists like Sarkeesian want a meaningful effect on the games industry to the benefit of the medium and the majority of people who play it, they should focus not on the trivial and mundane, but the glaringly obvious and unjustifiably sexist aspects of female (and male for that matter!) characters portrayed in games. And there are a bloody shipload to choose from without dallying in the sidestreets of "oh dear, there's a stripclub setting in a game about being a criminal and it has strippers in it!"
-
In my book, Anita is a lazy con artist that found a niche that has placed her in a sweet spot. I find it unfortunate that this is the case, because I also find that the wider points she tries to raise in a very incompetent way should be raised in a way better manner.
I don't know about the con artist part - all I know of Anita Sarkeesian's critiques comes from her Tropes Vs Women - but I certainly agree with your second sentence. I don't find the examples of her work I've seen compelling critical analysis or particularly well-crafted. Maybe her Master's thesis was better... she did earn her M.A. at York University, so it must have avoided at least some of the trivial argumentation she displays in her latest work. EDIT: Then again, York U is the institution where a professor quite reasonably told a male student he couldn't opt out of groupwork because it required him to work with female students (which student said was against his religion... ha), and the Dean tried to override the prof, so it's hard to tell some days.
-
You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces]. A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point. They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc. It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting. In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub." Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place. But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.
Dominic Osmond, friend of Edward Wade, a mercenary of the Colombian drug cartels, and friend/informant to Blake Dexter Blake owner of Dexter Industries.
Helped the above mentioned individuals track and kidnap some genetically enhanced girl named Victoria.
So what do you think Dominic Osmond does?
Well he runs a strip club of course!
Given such a disparate narrative and assembly of characters it would be hard to justify this locale being specifically set inside of a strip club for reasons of either realism or believability or immersion. It's a creative choice that could have gone a dozens different ways and yet went for the lowest common denominator.
See above. And you just defeated your own argument: it's "a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance." Indeed. And if I wanted to pick an establishment that is a collision of public access, seediness, and potential for criminal enterprise, strip club sits right at the top of the list. There is nothing inherently wrong with the artistic choice. Is it clever? No. Is it groundbreaking? No. Does it come off as more than just a little tired? Sure. Is it in invalid choice? Nope. This is why Sarkeesian is arguing the trivial - there is ample justification for the inclusion of a strip club as a setting other than simply "objectification of women." Enough to make an argument, anyway. Compare this to something like "all your male characters have armour, yet the females just have a steel bra and a slightly elongated belt" where there is literally no justification other than gender issues, where there is a much stronger argument. Is Sarkeesian wrong about the strip club scene in Hitman? Not really. It's a singularly uncreative choice. But it's an arguable choice, when there are so many that are purely indefensible. This is why I keep hammering on this issue - instead of picking meaningful battles, she applies the shotgun approach and launches at all of the ones she can find, diluting her core argument.
Funny I thought my argument was that Hitman was not a realistic game. And that its lack of realism negated the NEED for specific real world elements to be introduced. Thus every choice included in the world is a creative choice and its these creative choices that Sarkeesian and others would draw issue with. Creative choices can be scrutinized, particularly ones that would be expected. Its very often the thing that people take for granted that are the worst offenders of gender inequality because they're subversive rather than overt. Overt examples like chainmail bikni is obvious and apparent, another game set in a strip club is not.
What you call shotgun approach, an academic would call citing examples.
The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial. The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people. These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers. On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.
Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?
-
Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
Can you provide actual evidence of her examples being fake or badly chosen, instead of taking it for granted and calling her a "lazy con artist"?
Aesaar made a terrific treatise on its few pages Back and rather than addressing it, all I saw from you guys was "lol u defending hitman seriously? Lol", which was 100% besides the point. If anything, it should make you annoyed that Anita makes these arguments so badly that the conversation stopped being about sexism and became about wilful misrepresentation. You need more than having a case, you need to be good at your rethoric and at your honesty. You need, iow, to respect your audiences intelligence.
-
As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.
Horse****.
According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.
Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?
What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?
People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.
she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?
Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.
Horse****.
According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.
Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?
What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?
People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.
Where did I ever stated such games aren't games, such gamers aren't gamers, etc? My point is way sharper than what your prejudices allow it: if you are going to criticize games like hitman or GTA or Last of Us, don't pretend that half of the audience for these games are women, this is flatly untrue. Now you can demand all the representation in these games of any kind of human you can think of, women, women of color, Asian old men, whatever. You can, and should, demand these different ethnicities and genders, transgenders, etc. be represented without bigotry, misogyny or stereotypes. Do all of that, I'm right behind you. Hell, I mostly played mass effect with Jane Shepard and she was great, I love to experience diversity myself.
But please, do stop using bad argumentation. Just because women also play games, it does not mean every game should cater to their desires, just like not every game should cater to men's.
-
Given such a disparate narrative and assembly of characters it would be hard to justify this locale being specifically set inside of a strip club for reasons of either realism or believability or immersion. It's a creative choice that could have gone a dozens different ways and yet went for the lowest common denominator.
Funny I thought my argument was that Hitman was not a realistic game. And that its lack of realism negated the NEED for specific real world elements to be introduced. Thus every choice included in the world is a creative choice and its these creative choices that Sarkeesian and others would draw issue with. Creative choices can be scrutinized, particularly ones that would be expected. Its very often the thing that people take for granted that are the worst offenders of gender inequality because they're subversive rather than overt. Overt examples like chainmail bikni is obvious and apparent, another game set in a strip club is not.
Every choice in a game is a creative choice. You argued - successfully - that Hitman is a fantasy that draws on real-world aspects to form its universe. A setting like a strip club is not blatantly out of line with that universe. It's not an inspired choice, but it's not an invalid or gender-driven one either.
What you call shotgun approach, an academic would call citing examples.
Depends on the academic, I suppose. I've handily earned degrees in both hard sciences (genetics) and the soft sciences / liberal arts (sociology and psychology). I find her approach to be an attempt to broaden her argument by mixing the trivial with the egregious in the hopes of cementing a point, instead of steadily deconstructing major equality and power issues in key areas in a concerted manner. If she is trying to win broad support for change, she fails at her premise, as too many of her arguments are prima facie debatable. Sarkeesian still writes and argues in a preaching-to-the-choir approach (at least in the Tropes series), a manner which she should have been disabused of in the second year of her undergrad. Perhaps she was and she's just being a little bit lazy; I'd have to read her thesis for a good idea of her thought process, and I have neither the time nor the motivation. This, incidentally, is a major hurdle she would have to overcome: for an issue like sexism in video games, she has a limited audience with limited patience for lengthy arguments. Her best approach is to make them strongly and concisely; she does neither.
Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?
Statistics. The vast majority of 'gamers' are not gamers at all; they are people who happen to play video games. In short: predominantly younger (under 50), middle-class, majority male but with an increasing female cohort, hailing from countries based on principles of classical liberalism, predominantly secular or minimally religious, and either currently being educated or have received a minimum of high school education (in the case of adults). This is not, as a whole, a demographic set that whips into a frenzy over social issues they perceive as minor. This is not a demographic set that will care one whit if a game includes a strip club in a game about assassinations. These are people who, as a whole, have a capacity to care about social issues, but limited by their time. In short, people you should be aiming concise, convincing, incontrovertible arguments toward concerning sexism who will then react to it.
-
Just because women also play games, it does not mean every game should cater to their desires, just like not every game should cater to men's.
Assuming that females who play games have the same desires for content that certain feminist critics argue for. That is not necessarily the case. There are many things that feminists argue both for and against that I completely agree with; there are many others that I think they need to quit quibbling over trivialities. I suspect many other men and women who play games feel much the same way, if they pay attention to the issue at all.
-
Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?
Statistics. The vast majority of 'gamers' are not gamers at all; they are people who happen to play video games. In short: predominantly younger (under 50), middle-class, majority male but with an increasing female cohort, hailing from countries based on principles of classical liberalism, predominantly secular or minimally religious, and either currently being educated or have received a minimum of high school education (in the case of adults). This is not, as a whole, a demographic set that whips into a frenzy over social issues they perceive as minor. This is not a demographic set that will care one whit if a game includes a strip club in a game about assassinations. These are people who, as a whole, have a capacity to care about social issues, but limited by their time. In short, people you should be aiming concise, convincing, incontrovertible arguments toward concerning sexism who will then react to it.
So pure supposition then.
-
You're not describing realism. You're describing believability or consistency or immersion.
If what your describing is what realism means to many people then those same people need to look up realism in a dictionary.
My point exactly. "Realism" gets thrown around far too much. It sounds good, implying some "natural order of things" which somehow seems more important than believeability. See "Reality is Unrealistic" trope. What it really means is "reality is unbelievable". It often is, but this is where "realistic games" and realistic games (simulators) diverge. The former will go with what people thing things work like. The latter will go with what they actually work like.
As for open world games. The world is what you choose to make it. It's entirely possible to make a seedy area without strip clubs, to make an open world game without prostitutes. Seedy areas may contain these elements but these elements are not required for seedy areas nor are seedy areas required for open world games.
Of course. But it's usually more believable if those elements are present, especially if you can't/won't write your universe in a way it's logical for those elements to be missing. Many games have supposedly seedy districts with nothing but a shop and a few thugs to beat you up. Others go all-out, with prostitutes waiting on street corners, thugs, gambling, drinking... Then you don't even need to be told the area is seedy. Well done, those things make the game seem "alive", immersive. The Witcher does a run down, shady district perfectly. So does Metro: Last Light. Indeed, Metro games are a perfect example of a game that is very fantastic, but immersive and frighteningly believable, especially for someone from Eastern Europe.
Funny if we were talking about Sewer levels in first person shooters, would this locale have the same number of proponents as strip clubs do? Sewers exist, therefore a game wherein a gun fight takes place in a sewer is necessary. What about rats? Rats are underground therefore a roleplaying game with areas underground must have rats or they will be missed. That's pretty much the same as saying prostitutes are required for seedy areas. But personally if I never have to fight another rat in a video game I would be a happy man indeed.
Err... actually, no. Sewers, as portrayed in video games, generally don't exist except in places like Paris and New York. If you're going for actual realism, sewers are tiny pipes chock-full of sewage. Manholes generally lead to storm drain system, which isn't exactly spacious in most places, either. Unless you're in a place where the sewer system is old and special, such as Paris, then excluding sewers is a perfectly sensible choice. Oh, and entering sewers/storm drains actually is prohibited to most people, unlike entering a strip club. If your protagonist is underage, then you can handily exclude a strip club from the game by having a closed door and a big, muscular bouncer who'll tell you to scram if you get near. As expected of a bouncer. Applying this to an adult protagonist would be tougher (but not impossible).
As fir the rats, they are generally known to be annoying, but directly harmless unless you corner one. They're not usually "fought" by humans. They are often present as "atmospheric" creatures, running and scurrying about, just as real rats do. Generally, "dangerous" rats need to be larger than usual, which warrants a justification (TES, for example, makes it's "rats" have little in common in what we know on Earth). In fact, I suspect TES only gets away with it because they've done it so bloody long that it became expected of them to have abnormally sized rats as early-game enemies. Other games trying that without a jab at TES series would get flak for using an old cliche.
-
Aesaar made a terrific treatise on its few pages Back and rather than addressing it, all I saw from you guys was "lol u defending hitman seriously? Lol", which was 100% besides the point. If anything, it should make you annoyed that Anita makes these arguments so badly that the conversation stopped being about sexism and became about wilful misrepresentation. You need more than having a case, you need to be good at your rethoric and at your honesty. You need, iow, to respect your audiences intelligence.
So you didn't actually read the thread, and have no actual evidence to support your claims. Good to know.
You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces]. A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point. They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc. It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting. In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub." Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place. But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.
That is not what you said before; the statement I took issue with was your presentation of something related to video games' portrayal of men as though it was in any way relevant to a series of videos solely about sexist tropes related to women, despite that being completely outside the scope of the video series in question. Your "clarification" here bears no resemblance to the original statement, so I'm still not sure why you made it in the first place.
But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?
At this point, MP-Ryan, it sounds like all you're arguing is that "her arguments could be made better", which... is self-evident, and not very profound, since nothing is perfect.
-
But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?
Because it's necessary? You need set pieces, of both genders. Strippers in a strip club, but also it's patrons. Strippers dance, patrons gawk, it's the only thing they ever do, and the only thing they need to do. World without those would be empty and lifeless. You need a guard holding a halberd in the Throne Room, or a cashier at the store, even if you can't buy anything. The only thing that differentiates strippers from any other set piece is that they are sexualized. It's that way in real life, too. In that case, the game portrays something that exists in real life. It's not even making a statement or anything. It just has a strip club. It's not a requirement for a game, especially a game like that, to take place in an idealized, perfect world where there's no gender inequality. It's hard to have a believable criminal underworld without a lot of gender discrimination. Or without murder, thievery and blackmail. That the world the game takes place in isn't perfect isn't a bad thing, quite the contrary. Of course, you can sometimes gloss over the worse parts of the world. But not in a game like Hitman, which is about the criminal scum in those very parts of the world.
It's not wrong to make games about criminals, either. Glamorizing crime and criminal life might be, but if they're shown as scum they are, then there's no problem. Pretending that gender discrimination doesn't exist doesn't change anything, either. It's good to make a statement about, as long as you're not heavy-handed with it, but that's all. For me, it's another bad thing about criminals.
-
But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?
Because it's necessary?
Why, exactly? What law of the universe required that a strip club be present in that particular game? What vital necessity was fulfilled by its presence?
It's not a requirement for a game, especially a game like that, to take place in an idealized, perfect world where there's no gender inequality.
It's also not a requirement that it has to have a strip club, that the strip club has to have strippers in it at the time the player goes through it, and that they be within the player's field of interaction so that players can kill them. None of these are required.
-
In my book, Anita is a lazy con artist that found a niche that has placed her in a sweet spot. I find it unfortunate that this is the case, because I also find that the wider points she tries to raise in a very incompetent way should be raised in a way better manner.
I have no problem with people criticizing her methods, but I do have to ask how someone doing exactly what they said they were going to do with the money they asked for can be described as a con artist.
-
I have no problem with people criticizing her methods, but I do have to ask how someone doing exactly what they said they were going to do with the money they asked for can be described as a con artist.
Am I being too harsh? Perhaps con-artistry is too much? I have always been very sympathetic in regards to Anita, especially considering what she had to put up with. I found her videos way before "it was cool" and the videos I saw were about movies, games came after and I was amazed at the harsh response she got over them.
And irrespectively of the demeanour of her critics (Thunderf00t's tone comes to mind), I have seen things about what she has done that makes me dislike her. A lot. Not only the examples she chooses in her own videos are wrong headed, she over generalizes and makes wild crazy statements (the statement of "it's a myth that men are stronger than women" comes to mind) and that was fine before I realised she was making a huge ton of money out of this. I had regarded her videos as amateurish attempts at criticism and they were free of charge, why are people so pissed about?
But she made a kickstarter out of the pity she instilled in the "community" that is being so villified right now in the gaming press, she promised 12 videos in a year for 5 thousand bucks. She got 160k bucks and made 3 videos. Why? Well, the industry got enamorated with what she symbolizes, a way to "greenwash" their own image (in a very analogous way that companies used environmentalism as a marketing tool), she got the jobs she wanted, so why waste any more time making videos for free in the internet?
Let's not even dwell much on the fact she kept repeating she "loves games" when we all know this was a white lie to get "inside" the community "she's one of us, she's just critical of the things she loves". She didn't. And Thunderf00t might be a complete asshole (I think he is), but his paranoia about Anita sharing this persecution of her right on top of her last video release is probably right on the money.
I don't know, I'm probably being too unfair to her, I have no personal qualms with her (I love critical pieces like Errant Signal and so on), but she just smells wrong for me. Zoe Quinn was another person which personally seems incredibly distasteful as a human being, but that doesn't mean I agree with the witch hunt that was created around her persona. The level of hatred and aggression thrown at these women is just beyond the pale, but that should have never been used as an argument for their own causes. It's self-serving and creates a ridiculous atmosphere of divisiveness and polarization. It's as if now the internet is divided between the monster mysogynistic basement dweller gamers and white knight mangina pussies, as if anyone of us would fit in such idiotic categories or even believed for a second this duality is a good representation of anything resembling reality. If you read all the gaming sites today however, you'd think exactly that.
Oh and of course:
-
Sarkessian can be debunked using the same set of articles that dealt with and beat Thompson.
"Show me the evidence." Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games. Instead, you find the opposite. There's no statistically significant correlation.
Which gives rise to the popular feminist diatribe "games keep rapists indoors." It's postmodernist bullcrap. Makes me want to repeat that wonderful feat of getting a virtually randomly generated article into a major postmodernist academic journal again.
As for basement trolls, welcome to the internet. I have had all kinds of personal threats aimed at me over the years. Some were brilliantly nonsensical. The internet just doesn't like being played or being spoken down to.
Now, I go on record as saying that I don't particularly like the gaming community as a whole. I find it irrational, overbearing and frankly far too ****ing opinionated for the level of understanding it has. It just so happens that I apply the same standards to game developers and critics as well. Yes, gaming can be a hostile environment, but no more so than anywhere else in society and it sure as hell isn't split down gender roles.
Game journalism is pitiful. It's embarassing and if this "medium" ever wants to be taken seriously, it needs a complete clearout.
EDIT: I should note, by the way, that this crying of misogyny is something that happens almost constantly amongst female columnists. It's not even a particularly new tactic either - religious pressure groups, trans exclusionary feminists and even Jack Thompson were constantly crying about oppression. One of the main tactics of the pressure group is to reframe any critique as hatred.
-
Oh and of course:
Of course WHAT? So she says in one video that she doesn't like a certain type of videogame, and that means she likes NO videogames? Try harder. Seriously. If that's the sort of thing you want to uses to "debunk her", whatever the **** that means, you are no better than she is in finding arguments for your position; you are arguably worse, since she at least has the decency to cite a variety of sources for her positions.
"Show me the evidence." Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games. Instead, you find the opposite. There's no statistically significant correlation.
Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.
As for basement trolls, welcome to the internet. I have had all kinds of personal threats aimed at me over the years. Some were brilliantly nonsensical. The internet just doesn't like being played or being spoken down to.
Have you been doxxed? Have people spent time and effort to learn your personal details, hack your various bank and social media accounts, harrassed you over the phone, mail, and any other communication method available? No? Then you have no basis of comparison, and claiming that you know what it's like is laughable.
-
Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.
Her meta argument is IDENTICAL to Thompsons. We need to change this BECAUSE. It's not good enough to say "women need better representation in games". You need to say why. The implication, as it is in all feminist arguments of this nature, is that this phenomenon is damaging to culture. If her argument was simply "I want women to have better representation in games with more positive role models" then that's not a bad message, but it isn't. It has -never- been about that.
There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs and rapelay games and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet. All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities. I just don't play any of that - why would I? I'm not a scumbag.
Have you been doxxed? Have people spent time and effort to learn your personal details, hack your various bank and social media accounts, harrassed you over the phone, mail, and any other communication method available? No? Then you have no basis of comparison.
I had someone send packages to my house which went to the police because they disagreed with me on the internet. I am also bisexual in real life and have faced physical violence due to that which I will not go into - I learned how to kickbox because of this.
I still have the scars, by the way. I recommend you don't pursue that line of argument any further. I don't think you've ever had someone tell you to your face that you're a disease spreading cancer on society and mean it.
-
Her meta argument is IDENTICAL to Thompsons. We need to change this BECAUSE. It's not good enough to say "women need better representation in games". You need to say why. The implication, as it is in all feminist arguments of this nature, is that this phenomenon is damaging to culture. If her argument was simply "I want women to have better representation in games with more positive role models" then that's not a bad message, but it isn't. It has -never- been about that.
Hasn't it? I mean, that was the message I got from these videos.
Also, why is the limited representation of women in games not damaging? I'd like you to explain to me why one of the most dominant media forms in our culture is completely irrelevant when it comes to shaping expectations and behaviours of those who consume them.
Finally, what's so bad about better representation of women (and by extension non-heteronormative people)?
There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs and rapelay games and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet. All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities.
You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here (http://female-protagonists.tumblr.com/list)? Isn't that a bit short? Are the millions of sales that games like that hitman game, or any of the GTA games get indicative of it being a "niche" phenomenon?
I still have the scars, by the way. I recommend you don't pursue that line of argument any further.
Okay then, I won't.
-
Of course WHAT? So she says in one video that she doesn't like a certain type of videogame, and that means she likes NO videogames? Try harder. Seriously. If that's the sort of thing you want to uses to "debunk her", whatever the **** that means, you are no better than she is in finding arguments for your position; you are arguably worse, since she at least has the decency to cite a variety of sources for her positions.
"I am not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about videogames in the process of doing this"
Proceeds to go on interviews claiming to "love games, I'm I'm a a f f fan of videogames"
You might rationalize this away as not being sufficient evidence, "lacks context" or some other reason you are thinking about. That's fine, I don't have any grudges with anyone who thinks she's being honest here, it's not an irrational opinion at all. I watch that and all her marketing approach, all she has achieved, all the usage of victim status to get herself points and so on and I paint a picture of her persona in my head which is less favorable.
"Show me the evidence." Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games. Instead, you find the opposite. There's no statistically significant correlation.
Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.
She did claim that "while it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences this is simply not the case, in short the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected" "IOW, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how women are perceived and treated in the world around them".
She's stating all these abhorrent things that happen in videogames have an impact in "real life" mysogyny and so on. Well, except there's no evidence for this. Zero. Zilch. None. Doesn't mean we should like all these abhorrent things. Doesn't mean these things are out of the scope of critique. It just means the rationale and the fearmongering ala Thompson is just the wrong way to deal with it. If anything, correlation between violence and violent games are negative, so isn't that funny.
-
"I am not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about videogames in the process of doing this"
Proceeds to go on interviews claiming to "love games, I'm I'm a a f f fan of videogames"
You might rationalize this away as not being sufficient evidence, "lacks context" or some other reason you are thinking about. That's fine, I don't have any grudges with anyone who thinks she's being honest here, it's not an irrational opinion at all. I watch that and all her marketing approach, all she has achieved, all the usage of victim status to get herself points and so on and I paint a picture of her persona in my head which is less favorable.
Because, as we all know, noone can ever change their opinions, ever. That is just not done. Completely unbelievable that one person could say two more or less contradictory things over the course of several years.
She did claim that "while it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences this is simply not the case, in short the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected" "IOW, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how women are perceived and treated in the world around them".
She's stating all these abhorrent things that happen in videogames have an impact in "real life" mysogyny and so on. Well, except there's no evidence for this. Zero. Zilch. None. Doesn't mean we should like all these abhorrent things. Doesn't mean these things are out of the scope of critique. It just means the rationale and the fearmongering ala Thompson is just the wrong way to deal with it. If anything, correlation between violence and violent games are negative, so isn't that funny.
So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?
-
First off, thank you for not pursuing that further. It isn't a pleasant story and I have no wish to share it other than to make the point that these people are not the only ones who have been abused.
Hasn't it? I mean, that was the message I got from these videos.
Also, why is the limited representation of women in games not damaging? I'd like you to explain to me why one of the most dominant media forms in our culture is completely irrelevant when it comes to shaping expectations and behaviours of those who consume them.
Finally, what's so bad about better representation of women (and by extension non-heteronormative people)?
You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here (http://female-protagonists.tumblr.com/list)? Isn't that a bit short? Are the millions of sales that games like that hitman game, or any of the GTA games get indicative of it being a "niche" phenomenon?
Well, I didn't really want to spoil it but my own campaign right here is fronted by a woman, Lilian Shawcross and even (by design) passes the Bedechel test in every mission two women feature. If you want the evidence to prove it then I can happily show you my design documents from the last eight months - one of which is already posted on my thread. I chose to be the change I wanted to see, rather than just complain about it. For the record, my campaign also features LGBT people - namely a bisexual male, which puts me in a crowd of uh... I think about 3 or 4 games? In total? Not even male power fantasies cater to mine, after all.
Most RPGs will sort that out by default and other than Planescape Torment, nearly all of them allow you to do as you like with your character with only LGBT relationships excluded until the last few years. On that list alone I see the best multiplayer RPG of all time (NWN), Baldurs Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect, all roguelikes and MMORPGs and the list if those games were included would be virtually endless. I should also note that the gaming industry accepted LGBT relationships long before we got the right to marry - far from being regressive, it was progressive even by the standards of most modern media.
Not every game is character centric or even human. You'd have to be mad to put a gender on Katamari Demarci. What about Earthworm Jim, a game about a species that by definition is hermaphoditic? Never mind the ending where he turned out to be a giant cow in a suit, or rather where they all turned out to be that. What about XCOM, where the gender of your best (and worst) troops is entirely randomised? Or real time strategy games? I notice Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm and Starcraft: Brood War isn't mentioned despite the most important character in the whole series being female - the so called Queen ***** of the Universe. These are not small games either. Some of these titles are amongst the most lauded and loved in the whole gaming sector. Never mind that some of the games on that list are considered amongst the best games of all time. Portal for one comes to mind.
There are also tons of games out there which don't have protagonists. Even our own, Freespace 2, doesn't really have much of one - Petrarch doesn't even refer to the gender of the protagonist. The protagonist is a blank slate. So what you're really arguing for is protagonist representation in two or three very specific genres of games:
- first person speaking protagonist games
- first/third person adventure games
- character driven games
The first: Well let's be honest here. Other than maybe one or two shooters in recent history, is there really anything to recommend the plots from first person shooters or first person adventure games? They tend to be a mechanism through which gameplay is delivered, rather than the other way around. With an ideal first person shooter, you need to have a character capable of dealing with often hundreds of adversaries for hours on end without really slowing down. Originally, that was the thing that seperated out modern military spunkgargleweewees from old fashioned shooters - that you didn't necessarily play an immortal rocket jumping supersoldier that never spoke a word.
In that context, does it even matter what gender the protagonist is? They have all the impact of a wet condom filled with jelly. The Master Chief even has a generic name: John. What's the difference between the Master Chief being called John or Jane? Well, a different voice actor for one - two voice actors. Doubling all the voice acting dialogue to take out gendered references or double them up. The main issue with changing it now as we know the Master Chief. He's a guy. A big gruff super soldier guy and it's hard to retcon all of that. Is there anything stopping you from rewriting the Halo series with a female protagonist? Not really. It already has a lot of female SPARTANs. They're already doing superhuman bull**** so the gender doesn't really matter.
What you're actually asking for is better writing and there, we agree. I like my games to have tight, fun narratives and those narratives can then be easily twisted. I doubt anyone really give the character of the Master Chief any real thought beyond "he wears some power armour and carries a big gun." Nameless characterless space marine has become a trope itself. It's got no real connection to anyone living - it's just a useful vehicle. I don't really see anything wrong with putting a woman in that power armour. It's equally as stupid, equally as unrelatable and equally as boring.
It even has its satire and critiques. Take Spec Ops: The Line which absolutely tore apart the lone man on a mission narrative and make you genuinely feel ill. It was also universally lauded for its story but - of course - its mechanics weren't brilliant and it wasn't a particularly good game. It was just an amazing experience.
So what about character driven games then?
Here, you have a problem. Character driven games are immensely dialogue or exposition heavy. Sure, you can rely on the scenary to do a lot of the work, but mostly its just writing and storyboarding. If you're spending 8,000 hours of your life writing dialogue for a character, you:
A - have to want to do it
B - have to have some connection to it
C - it's your character
The audience has no rights other than to decide whether they want to purchase your product or not. This is where my patience with these people wears thin. I wanted to write a story about a female soldier in wartime dealing with losing close friends, family and eventually moving on and becoming institutionalized. So I did it. It's taken the best part of EIGHT MONTHS.
I didn't tell anyone else to do it.
I didn't demand the industry to accomodate.
I just got off my arse and got to writing and DID IT. Just the same as all of us have done it. Anyone here who has released a campaign knows how much of a ballache just scripting a bit of convincing dialogue can be. I've written entire segments of dialogue that I have had to bin because either the mission was overloaded with spam or just plain didn't work. Never mind getting the characters right, writing background fiction, setting up assets, tables, scripting. All that **** you have to do and this by the way is on top of not getting paid for it.
You just do it because you want to and at the end of the day, it's something I wanted to do and write.
Maybe someone will play it and it'll catch on. Maybe it won't. What's important is I did something that I wanted to. I will never turn around to someone else involved in content creation and tell them the stories they should be writing. I might disagree with their take on it, but I will never turn around to someone like Battuta or Darius and tell him how he should be writing his stories.
If I want to do my own take on it, I'll bloody do it and give them the credit for having inspired me to write something, as I did when I wrote the little take on Steele I did. I have no right to tell others what they should be doing and frankly, all the social justice in the world isn't going to get me to write a female character if I don't want to write one.
-
Because, as we all know, noone can ever change their opinions, ever. That is just not done. Completely unbelievable that one person could say two more or less contradictory things over the course of several years.
Except the idea is that she never did. She has stories on how she convinced her parents that the "GameBoy" wasn't just for "boys" and other cute but daring and activist stories. She's "always" been a gamer herself, she tells us. Watch her interview with IGN.
So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?
No, the counterclaim is that videogames are not producing a widespread mysogynystic virulent infection on society. Just as it didn't do so in regards to violence in the nineties. I was very clear on this but you seem hellbent on strawmanning me on this. If you insist on it, well I don't think I'll have anything to add.
e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.
It's probably hard to distinguish between "telling people what to do" and "I'm just making critiques", so I always assume they are doing the latter, even if they are being aggressive over it. My problem with Anita has never been that one in particular. Even if I dislike her, I do watch her videos, there could be some important things that she somewhat tries to convey in them that might be helpful and interesting.
-
So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?
This is only one example, but similar effects have been reported for a variety of media.
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime07-12-20.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294/
The low standards of both positive and negative studies suggest that if there is an effect, it is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. So yes, it has virtually no impact at all. Indeed, given that western society continues on a trend of becoming less violent, less misogynistic, less racist and more LGBT tolerant, any correlations are going to be negative no matter what is suggested.
-
There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs
Name me a few, because I can think of none.
and rapelay games
1 rapelay game. Which caused such a stink with western media that it made a large amount of japanese (erotic) developers decide that they would never try to sell anything outside of japan anymore.
and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet. All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities. I just don't play any of that - why would I? I'm not a scumbag.
Playing niche stuff or playing stuff that caters to your specific fetish makes you a scumbag now? Delicious sweeping global remark.
I find this oddly ironic coming for someone who just went "but muh LGBT", you want people to cater to your niche but in the same breath call every other niche that is not yours scumbags.
You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here (http://female-protagonists.tumblr.com/list)? Isn't that a bit short?
A bit short indeed, because that list isn't nearly close to being complete (As it says on the site itself even). So why even bother using it to make a point?
-
I really wish I didn't try to be reasonable about this whole debate. It's much easier to just shout and get angry at people.
Name me a few, because I can think of none.
I saw a (free trial) game last night called Girl Fight which is featured on the PS store which purports to be a "female fighting simulator" for which the box art is two extremely scantily clad anime looking girls feeling each other up.
That's just the one I played most recently. There's plenty of others to choose from. Just look at the box art. Does it have tits and arse? Then it's a DOA Volleyball ripoff - a game which had literally no redeeming features beyond breast physics.
For the record, it was 1.4 gig. We played the Pacific Rim movie game instead. An hour of Gypsy Danger punching Knifehead. Good times.
1 rapelay game. Which caused such a stink with western media that it made a large amount of japanese (erotic) developers decide that they would never try to sell anything outside of japan anymore.
Rightly so. It was ****ing horrible. I don't want to play a game where I stalk and rape someone. I sure as hell don't want them to become mainstream. They aren't the only games of that genre, though thankfully most of them are hideous flash based GIF art designed to last long enough to wank to. I found one after one google search - I won't link to it but it involves forced anal intercourse all told from the perspective of a rape survivor recounting her "loving rape."
I can play vampires, mass murderers, even play DEFCON where I wipe out the human race, but I am not going to play a game where the reward for me clicking on a womans arse is to watch her squeal and scream "GET OFF ME" while getting a full frontal view of her genitals.
It's just... messed up. I could understand if there was a redeeming quality to the game itself, but there never is. They're always awful, both in content and gameplay. I don't play ****ty games unless there's a bit of comedy value for it.
Playing niche stuff or playing stuff that caters to your specific fetish makes you a scumbag now? Delicious sweeping global remark.
I find this oddly ironic coming for someone who just went "but muh LGBT", you want people to cater to your niche but in the same breath call every other niche that is not yours scumbags.
Er. What? I said I was LGBT in defense of the fact that someone implied that I don't know what harassment feels like. Well, I do. I never said a word about developers cowtowing to my personal desires. My personal desires are more than happily dealt with in real life, thank you. I don't need fantasy romance options to get my kicks.
Maybe I am being harsh (I probably am), but it feels queezy, the idea of playing a game where the primary objective is to rape someone. It's just.. wrong.
-
e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.
It's probably hard to distinguish between "telling people what to do" and "I'm just making critiques", so I always assume they are doing the latter, even if they are being aggressive over it. My problem with Anita has never been that one in particular. Even if I dislike her, I do watch her videos, there could be some important things that she somewhat tries to convey in them that might be helpful and interesting.
Yes, see, this is what I mean. If you turn around to me and say "hey, you're a good/okay/bad writer, but you're a bit light on the ground for women. What's the issue there?" then that's a failing on my part. If I am not writing women and I don't say "well I didn't see much room for women in this story, but have always had [X idea] involving women where a women finds herself in [Y situation] and has to [do Z]" then that is a discussion worth having.
What I dislike is when people say "Your work is bad because you don't have enough women in it." What about if I don't have much confidence in my ability to write women? What if I don't want to include women in this story because I feel there's enough misogyny already out there and everyone in the story dies? What if I just don't feel this character in particular is appropriate to be a woman?
There is a huge difference between giving critique and making demands. A critique takes what is and shows you what it could be. A demand takes what isn't and tells you what yours should be.
EDIT: I should note that if people want to continue this discussion with me, please feel free to send me messages in private. I so far have managed to keep my interactions with HLP as positive as possible and enjoy my time modding, writing mission files and enjoying the creativity of this community. I have no desire to get any deeper into political debate than I have to so I have said all I am going to say on this.
I'd much rather work on my campaign than dick about discussing issues that ultimately won't change anything.
-
Except the idea is that she never did. She has stories on how she convinced her parents that the "GameBoy" wasn't just for "boys" and other cute but daring and activist stories. She's "always" been a gamer herself, she tells us. Watch her interview with IGN.
And going from one opinion to its opposite and then coming back around to the starting position is forbidden?
See, the thing is, the argument seems to boil down to "You said this one thing once, therefore whenever you are saying something else, you're lying", which I find to be rather silly.
I mean, the full quote is "...so it's not exactly a fandom, I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this. And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, and it's just gross, so...".
Interesting how the video you cited cut out the "And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but..." part.
In addition, I'm having trouble seeing this as hard, irrefutable proof of duplicity. Seems to me that she's got an issue with the kinds of games that are pulling in the big money; not necessarily every game ever made.
No, the counterclaim is that videogames are not producing a widespread mysogynystic virulent infection on society. Just as it didn't do so in regards to violence in the nineties. I was very clear on this but you seem hellbent on strawmanning me on this. If you insist on it, well I don't think I'll have anything to add.
Okay, so they're not causing misogynism. I can buy that. But are they helping in the defeat of misogyny? Or are they acting as a retardant? My guess is more towards the latter rather than the former, because most games are stuck in terms of gender representation on what game writers believe teenage boys can accept, which apparently isn't a whole lot.
e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.
Yes, this.
-
A serious question. Is it possible to get yourself banned from individual forums? I really don't want to infect myself with a temptation to get involved in political rows if I can avoid it.
If so, I'd like never to read this forum ever again :)
-
Name me a few, because I can think of none.
I saw a (free trial) game last night called Girl Fight which is featured on the PS store which purports to be a "female fighting simulator" for which the box art is two extremely scantily clad anime looking girls feeling each other up.
Sounds right up my alley.
That's just the one I played most recently. There's plenty of others to choose from. Just look at the box art. Does it have tits and arse? Then it's a DOA Volleyball ripoff - a game which had literally no redeeming features beyond breast physics.
But that doesn't make it a 'DOA Volleyball ripoff.' Because it doesn't seem to involve volleyball at all. And DOA Volleyball didn't set some kind of new unprecedented trend that other developers started following, which is why you had me confused. I literally thought you meant there are boat loads of games I must have missed that ripped off the 'sexy volleyball' aspect. Just because a game tries to increase its sales with tits and asses doesn't make it a 'DOA Volleyball ripoff.' You are highly overrating dead or alive xtreme's impact. Sex sells, Dead or alive didn't set that trend.
Rightly so. It was ****ing horrible. I don't want to play a game where I stalk and rape someone. I sure as hell don't want them to become mainstream. They aren't the only games of that genre, though thankfully most of them are hideous flash based GIF art designed to last long enough to wank to. I found one after one google search - I won't link to it but it involves forced anal intercourse all told from the perspective of a rape survivor recounting her "loving rape."
I can play vampires, mass murderers, even play DEFCON where I wipe out the human race, but I am not going to play a game where the reward for me clicking on a womans arse is to watch her squeal and scream "GET OFF ME" while getting a full frontal view of her genitals.
It's just... messed up. I could understand if there was a redeeming quality to the game itself, but there never is. They're always awful, both in content and gameplay. I don't play ****ty games unless there's a bit of comedy value for it.
I am not disagreeing with anything here. I was just pointing out that there was only one rapelay game, and not multiple as your post stated.
Er. What? I said I was LGBT in defense of the fact that someone implied that I don't know what harassment feels like. Well, I do. I never said a word about developers cowtowing to my personal desires. My personal desires are more than happily dealt with in real life, thank you. I don't need fantasy romance options to get my kicks.
Well I may have misread what you said, but to me it read like you were calling people who like certain niches scumbags while you point out how you fall in a particular niche yourself.
-
I thought we were coming at loggerheads for no reason, really. I'm kinda glad that turned out to be the case :)
-
And going from one opinion to its opposite and then coming back around to the starting position is forbidden?
See, the thing is, the argument seems to boil down to "You said this one thing once, therefore whenever you are saying something else, you're lying", which I find to be rather silly.
Could you please stop doing that? Where have I said she is "forbidden" and so on? She's not. She can say whatever she wants to say and I'll have my opinions based on what I hear her say. To bring your level of discussion to my advantage, Are you forbidding me of having an opinion on Anita? Come on it's ridiculous.
I mean, the full quote is "...so it's not exactly a fandom, I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this. And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, and it's just gross, so...".
Interesting how the video you cited cut out the "And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but..." part.
In addition, I'm having trouble seeing this as hard, irrefutable proof of duplicity. Seems to me that she's got an issue with the kinds of games that are pulling in the big money; not necessarily every game ever made.
Well, if she would "love to play video games but" that means she's not a gamer, period. Is this a problem? Not at all. You don't need to be a gamer to have an opinion on games. That's not my problem. My problem is that she goes on interviews claiming she is a gamer, always has been, she loves games, etc. Then, to her closest audience she says "shooting peopls is so gross". And again, this is not an argument against her claims.
Then she goes on making videos using other people's "Let's Play" without even a thank you note, or a reference or anything. Didn't she buy all those titles? What is she doing using all other people's videos if the research was hers anyway? And for all the academic talk, no source whatsoever in any of her videos. None. No link, no bibliography, zero, zilch.
Okay, so they're not causing misogynism. I can buy that. But are they helping in the defeat of misogyny? Or are they acting as a retardant? My guess is more towards the latter rather than the former, because most games are stuck in terms of gender representation on what game writers believe teenage boys can accept, which apparently isn't a whole lot.
Evidence that they are working as a "retardant"? Come on. People do not take games that seriously. People know fully well the difference between reality and games, and we kinda know they are silly teenage stupid little things. Now, can it be better written? Yes, obviously. I'm for all that ****. I love me good art, and if games are the "cinema of the 21st century" then there should definitely be a good discussion on how all the parts of a game entail exactly what messages, in what ways, etc., so that we at least know what we are doing more than "having fun".
But that's not what is happening right now. There's a huge polarization going on between durr durr monster gamerzz and social justice druids on the new "internet journalism media" landscape, with **** being flown from one side to the other, it's quite amazing to watch. No criticism can be made on the high priests of this new revolution lest one be accused of mysogyny or "being on the side of the monsters" or whatever. Anita and Quinn are beyond reproach right now because they have been elevated to the symbolic level of this revolution, which is mind-boggingly bonkers to me, and actually convinces me that all the revolutionaires don't really care about their cause, they only care about burning everything to the ground.
-
Well, if she would "love to play video games but" that means she's not a gamer, period. Is this a problem? Not at all. You don't need to be a gamer to have an opinion on games. That's not my problem. My problem is that she goes on interviews claiming she is a gamer, always has been, she loves games, etc. Then, to her closest audience she says "shooting peopls is so gross". And again, this is not an argument against her claims.
I think we're going to need more context on that one. Games=/=shooting people. One can love gaming without caring about violence. She might love playing games, but not violent/bloody ones. And that's fine. I also don't care much for gore, though I don't mind it, either. ArmA could, perhaps, use more gruesome injuries, but only if they go hand-in-hand with an improved medical system (thus adding to gameplay). Not to mention plenty of games don't feature violence at all. People who flip-flop between opinions without a very good reason (or are dishonest about the fact they changed their mind) can be seen as unreliable, but in that case, she could've just been talking about shooters specifically. I think she knows better than to equate video games with violent shooters.
-
Evidence that they are working as a "retardant"? Come on. People do not take games that seriously. People know fully well the difference between reality and games, and we kinda know they are silly teenage stupid little things. Now, can it be better written? Yes, obviously. I'm for all that ****. I love me good art, and if games are the "cinema of the 21st century" then there should definitely be a good discussion on how all the parts of a game entail exactly what messages, in what ways, etc., so that we at least know what we are doing more than "having fun".
This brings back the question: Do games (and other elements of pop culture) have the ability to influence opinions, or are they just "silly teenage stupid little things"? Are "silly teenage stupid little things" capable of forming the expectations of those who consume them?
Personally, I believe that this is the case. Yes, we know that it's just a game, or just a movie, or just a song. But if you're exposed to something over a long time, it's going to influence how you think and feel about the world outside of the game. Not in a big way, mind you, not in terms of "I like FPSes so I'm gonna shoot me a school", but in terms of "If I want to get into a relationship with a person, all I have to do is accumulate enough points until sex happens" (AKA the PUA problem).
When I play certain games, I feel emotions. I feel grief, anger, joy, hope, elation, satisfaction and disgust. Games certainly have an effect on me. Games, just like books and films, have shown me things about myself. I am thus not capable of shrugging and saying "no, this isn't important, this doesn't affect me".
-
"IOW, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how women are perceived and treated in the world around them".
So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?
This is where I brought up the point about age. The young (if you want an example of impressionable, see parenting) can be influenced far more easily than someone older, more mature and has a better understanding of society.
That is also why I brought up that games with settings like these should not be played by people *who aren't even able to go in them in real life*. Sure that changes from place to place, so my general rule is eighteen.
I am also not saying that twenty somethings cannot be influenced by media or society, it's just harder to pitch a new idea as everything they've learned prior in their life will influence how they receive that idea. If you're brought up thinking women are objects, then women are objects. The new idea to them being "They're not" isn't going to be received well as it turns everything they know upside down. Meanwhile, the ones that were taught that they were just as deserving as respect and fair treatment as anyone else, will see the message of them being objects and go "Well that isn't quite right" and either take issue with it overall, or accept that the particular media they're seeing was meant for a mature audience who already believe what they believe.
I suppose what I'm introducing is an extension of how genders are portrayed in games by adding in target age. If we're putting out games meant for teens or younger with gals always being the damsel in distress (see Mario), it's a possibility that they're going to take that as a message from the game as they're more susceptible to the influence of media. In the case of something like Hitman, a strip club is definitely *not* going to help that influence be *good* and should *not* be given to a ten year old for Christmas.
Mature themes for mature audiences. The issue isn't the game itself, it's who ends up seeing it.
Conclusion statement on that: Why is any of what I said relevant? It has nothing to do with the overall message about representation in games or Anita's point right? You're just saying that kids shouldn't be playing GTA. I'm saying it's more relevant than you'd think because it's who ends up playing these games anyway. As stated earlier, stripclubs are for adults and if your game has a stripclub, with that generally comes an M rating. M ratings are *supposed* to prevent little kids from experiencing them much like a bouncer at a door.
Yes, your game doesn't *need* a stripclub, but then again your game doesn't need a farm, or an office building, police station etc etc. Nothing needs to be in your game, but nothing should be off limits to use for political reasons (I'm referring to Anita's stance as political). Every location possible *needs* to be something a developer can choose to use without being scrutinized for their choice as otherwise you're technically trying to censor them.
If you don't want stripclubs in games meant for mature audiences, you damn well should be seen making statements about their existence in your city. That's how your argument will ever carry weight about chosen settings not being in the game.
EDIT:
When I play certain games, I feel emotions. I feel grief, anger, joy, hope, elation, satisfaction and disgust. Games certainly have an effect on me. Games, just like books and films, have shown me things about myself. I am thus not capable of shrugging and saying "no, this isn't important, this doesn't affect me".
This I agree with, though I can't help but notice the "certain games" part. Hitman, I'm going to presume, doesn't really hit you in the emotional department eh?
-
Last time I can remember reading anything on the subject of brain-formation, it said that the human brain was still developing into the mid-twenties, but I don't think you'd have a lot of luck if you tried to say that M-rated games shouldn't be played until you're 25.
-
Last time I can remember reading anything on the subject of brain-formation, it said that the human brain was still developing into the mid-twenties, but I don't think you'd have a lot of luck if you tried to say that M-rated games shouldn't be played until you're 25.
Yes, the brain takes a while to fully develop, but at which point does the ability to determine how much something influences you becomes reinforced? I don't know which part of the brain that is, I'll have to look it up
EDIT: Prefrontal cortex is generally where the executive functions are located
(Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social "control" (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).)
Can take as long into your mid twenties to full develop (note "Can take" not "Will take")
Interesting article which relates to discussion
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
However, on my points: Seeing something at 12 is still significantly more different than at 18. At eighteen, while still susceptible to influence, you're less so.
-
This brings back the question: Do games (and other elements of pop culture) have the ability to influence opinions, or are they just "silly teenage stupid little things"? Are "silly teenage stupid little things" capable of forming the expectations of those who consume them?
Personally, I believe that this is the case. Yes, we know that it's just a game, or just a movie, or just a song. But if you're exposed to something over a long time, it's going to influence how you think and feel about the world outside of the game. Not in a big way, mind you, not in terms of "I like FPSes so I'm gonna shoot me a school", but in terms of "If I want to get into a relationship with a person, all I have to do is accumulate enough points until sex happens" (AKA the PUA problem).
When I play certain games, I feel emotions. I feel grief, anger, joy, hope, elation, satisfaction and disgust. Games certainly have an effect on me. Games, just like books and films, have shown me things about myself. I am thus not capable of shrugging and saying "no, this isn't important, this doesn't affect me".
I agree with all this. However, to actually determine what exactly is this influence that a game has on one's life is not something you can just assert on youtube as if it's obvious and even silly to question, because "gender studies" or some other ideologically filled, low-scientific content based study will tell you. I'd guess all these influences are really really hard to calculate, and to pretend that all speculations and hypothesis that are raised in this field are more than eloquent blind guesses is just wrong. You can even get the entire signal upside down! I can still remember how Mortal Kombat and so on were fought in the highest political echelons for the more than obvious consequences they would have in our society, only to observe an almost collapse on violence in all reported statistics henceforth. Many ad hoc explanations can come about to explain what "really" happened there, some had to do with games, others not so much (the most often shared, the idea that violent games distract people from real violent acts and so on), but because of the ad hoc nature of all of these, and given how hard it is to narrow down exactly what happens, what can we really say about this subject?
Better to have these conversations in a humbler way, tone down the condescending reasoning that "gender studies show therefore its true" shenanigan, and try to have a mature dialogue on what goes on or not. To drop the scientific pose is a requirement though.
-
I suppose this is an oft-repeated argument, but I'm coming on to 42 years old now, and when I was young me and my friends used to run around the streets with plastic replica rifles and pistols playing 'War'. No specific War, just war in general.
Now, I will say that, during that game everyone involved was either a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy', you'd never convince someone to play a civilian, and the way we were raised would have probably meant that any civilians would need saving from the bad guys, and shooting one would lose the game.
I think it's about presentation and acknowledgement. And what I mean by that is, take games like Bioshock, which asks you to perform an act that is reprehensible (I've never actually chosen that option, though I don't mind if other people do), at least that makes it seem like a moral dilemma, that it is a choice that there will be repercussions for. Or even take something like Katamari Damacy, that games includes destruction on a Universe-wide scale, it is, in it's own charming way, one of the most destructive game ever created, and yet it's incredible fun because of its disconnection with reality.
It's interesting, when you think about it, that Saints Row 4 got past most of the morality merchants by consistently reminding the player that what was happening was inside a computer and that the 'civilians' are just images in the program...
-
"I am not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about videogames in the process of doing this"
Proceeds to go on interviews claiming to "love games, I'm I'm a a f f fan of videogames"
she also said in that same video "I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people, ripping their heads off". So I think it's somewhat open to interpretation. Either way the comments were levied four years ago, things may have changed since then.
You know it's interesting.
I got into this very same discussion on a completely unrelated site of the internet. And you know what that person talked about? The things you're quoting AND hitman absolution.
Like, you critics. Are you actually crticizing her videos? Or are you watching videos which criticize her and repeating what they said? It honestly seems like the latter. And if your only criticism is repeating what another guy said then don't you think you should watch these videos for yourself and make up your own mind about it? Like Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?
Just sounds like the party line. And if she has dozens of videos and it's the only criticism is a few examples then it sounds kinda weak to be honest.
-
That seems like a challenge for me to watch all her videos
That's also a lot of effort for absolutely no reward or point
-
That seems like a challenge for me to watch all her videos
That's also a lot of effort for absolutely no reward or point
Well it's great to know you both have an open mind and speak from experience.
-
Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?
because it's the easiest target, it's the most obvious staging of a situation that is intended to misrepresent the game and it's tone.
-
That's hardly an improvement
But I'll bite anyways and say that simply because I find them not really captivating to watch and the fact there is a lot to watch does not mean I don't have an open mind. I don't know where the whole speaking from experience comes from though
To me, it'd be a waste of my time to watch something that isn't really interesting to me. Gender roles and characters in some games don't portray women as empowering, while others sexualize them and then others make damn good characters with them. In the end, I'm not interested in the politics of my games; I'm only interested if my game is entertaining to play. Only when the discussion starts associating irrelevant behaviours in game do I step in and make note that a player's actions in game do not necessarily equate to gender issues in real life
-
I've always seen it as a little bit of 'letting the devil out'. In other words, we all talk about having the analogy of an 'angel' and a 'devil' on our shoulders, one is compassionate the other gratuitous and selfish, and both are tempting us.
Thing is, take the mage from Skyrim that I keep shouting into the abyss, I don't do it because she is a 'she' at all, I do it because she keeps saying she thinks she'd be a better Archmage and, to me it's not violence against a woman, it's violence against someone who is really annoying. Now, in real life, I'd walk away long before I resorted to violence, that is an option in-game as well, but when you are in a safe environment like a game, you can listen to that devil a little more freely.
I cannot say whether that has affected my thinking, since I have no Control experiment to compare it with, no way of knowing what sort of person I'd be if I hadn't played violent games, but I suppose it's down to the individual as much as the media.
-
because it's the easiest target, it's the most obvious staging of a situation that is intended to misrepresent the game and it's tone.
Please explain how the gameplay is any more "staged" than any other gameplay video, and exactly how it "misrepresents the tone" of Hitman: Absolution.
-
because it is a stealth game, killing random civilians is more likely to lose you the game. you are supposed to sneak by those strippers. and the only reason she has footage of someone killing them and playing with the bodies is because she did it. she did it just so she could show how objectifying of women the game is.
-
because it is a stealth game, killing random civilians is more likely to lose you the game. you are supposed to sneak by those strippers. and the only reason she has footage of someone killing them and playing with the bodies is because she did it. she did it just so she could show how objectifying of women the game is.
Um
http://youtu.be/MVElJbjDqOs?t=14m29s
(Embed doesn't seem to want to work)
-
because it is a stealth game, killing random civilians is more likely to lose you the game. you are supposed to sneak by those strippers. and the only reason she has footage of someone killing them and playing with the bodies is because she did it. she did it just so she could show how objectifying of women the game is.
And it still is. The fact that you can kill the strippers is incidental to the fact that you have to pass through an area filled with scantily clad females. The only reason that scene is in there is because someone thought "Let's have an assassination in a strip club" during the design phase, and the only reason those women are there because someone decided it would be a good idea to have that assassination play out while the club is doing business.
At all points, there was someone on the design team who argued for the presence of these women. Women explicitly designed to titillate and arouse.
-
Hasnt it been explained a thousand times already? A game that allows you to kill strippers is not sexist or misogynistic at all, assuming it is not the focus of the game and is merely allowed due to all NPCs in the game being killable. Claiming otherwise is a total misrepresentation of the tone of the Hitman game, and forcibly searching for misogyny where there is none.
At all points, there was someone on the design team who argued for the presence of these women. Women explicitly designed to titillate and arouse.
Which is not problematic at all because strip clubs exist in reality and fit the narrative of the game, so it is OK to include one. Now if the game was full of strip clubs and half-naked women, then that would point to a certain tendencies to sexual objectification from the design team. Not one part of one level, tough.
If you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree.
-
Which is not problematic at all because strip clubs exist in reality and fit the narrative of the game, so it is OK to include one. Now if the game was full of strip clubs and half-naked women, then that would point to a certain tendencies to sexual objectification from the design team. Not one part of one level, tough.
If you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree.
They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.
-
They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.
Lots of settings are not required, that doesnt mean there was some deeper intention behind including them. You are really grasping at straws here and searching for misogyny where there is none.
It is only problematic if there is too much of scantily clad women or the depiction is somehow over the top, but the mere presence of one strip club is indicative of nothing at all.
Let me repeat: if you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree. That is borderline censorship and such toxic attitude would lead to pointless restrictions and limitations on what is "allowed" or not to depict in art. That is not what women rights are about at all.
-
Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.
In fact it doesnt matter at all what the intention was, its not like we can read the minds of the design team and get infected by misogyny from there. This is about the game itself, not the thought process of the design teams. And no matter what was the reason behind it, there is nothing wrong with having a single strip club level in a game for mature audience, thats far from over the top. What matters is that in the end, the game seems to be designed well.
-
They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.
You've repeatedly (well, at least twice) brought up "it wasn't absolutely necessary to include it" in response to the idea that the inclusion of the strip club is not a problem, whereas you're surely aware that most creative decisions are "unnecessary" and that there's rarely some kind of a specific intention behind those kind of decisions (aside from providing variety, perhaps). I can't figure out what you could possibly be arguing for with that line of thought.
-
Lots of settings are not required, that doesnt mean there was some deeper intention behind including them. You are really grasping at straws here and searching for misogyny where there is none.
Really. Of course there was a deeper intention there. Nothing in a game is there unintentionally, and the intention here was "We haven't done a strip club yet, so let's do it". And when it came to populate that club, there was an opportunity there to include some sexy females, so that happened. And unfortunately, the rules of the game world mean that each and every one of them has to be killable, because apparently that's what Hitman players expect.
So, point 1: There is nothing intrinsically necessary about including a strip club.
Point 2: There is nothing intrinsically necessary about the presence of scantily clad women.
Point 3: Therefore, they are background decoration. They are there to make a point about the character the player is sent to assassinate. That point apparently being that said character likes to surround himself with pretty ladies in varying states of undress.
Point 4: Using female bodies as sexy background decoration is unnecessarily common.
It is only problematic if there is too much of scantily clad women or the depiction is somehow over the top, but the mere presence of one strip club is indicative of nothing at all.
If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.
Let me repeat: if you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree. That is borderline censorship and such toxic attitude would lead to pointless restrictions and limitations on what is "allowed" or not to depict in art. That is not what women rights are about at all.
No, I am not arguing that certain areas should be off-limits to games. Neither, it may surprise you to learn, is Sarkeesian. Her point, which I agree with, is that by using these locations, game developers take a lazy route to characterization and to offer a bunch of cheap sexual thrills, and that if game devs do decide to include these locations, they should do better than that.
You've repeatedly (well, at least twice) brought up "it wasn't absolutely necessary to include it" in response to the idea that the inclusion of the strip club is not a problem, whereas you're surely aware that most creative decisions are "unnecessary" and that there's rarely some kind of a specific intention behind those kind of decisions (aside from providing variety, perhaps). I can't figure out what you could possibly be arguing for with that line of thought.
Yes, and the fact that there's rarely some kind of specific intention behind it is the problem here. If you want to include a strip club in your game, go ahead. But please don't just do it because it's a fun location. Or because it allows you to insert nudity into your game. After all, you are making a conscious decision to include a location that is known for degrading women into sex objects, and unless this is somehow necessary for your narrative (and I have trouble imagining a situation where it really is), it is something you should think twice about.
As I said back in the first Tropes vs Women thread here, tropes themselves are not intrinsically bad. Thoughtless use of them is.
-
If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.
If Sarkeesian wanted to say that there is too much sexual stuff in that particular Hitman game (the only valid criticism), and that is indicative of something, then she should have said that and do the video that shows more than one strip club level to actually support her point. But I maintain that criticism of a single strip club level alone is completely unfounded and smacks of "omg strip club in a game, muh mysoginy!!?!" simplistic thinking.
If you want to include a strip club in your game, go ahead. But please don't just do it because it's a fun location.
As I said back in the first Tropes vs Women thread here, tropes themselves are not intrinsically bad. Thoughtless use of them is.
No, thoughtless use is totaly fine! There is nothing wrong with including a strip club just because. Games have no obligation to try to offer a comprehensive criticism of gender issues surrounding sex workers anytime they want to include one!
What may not be fine is their use that goes over the top so that it is no longer thoughtless and transits into "obvious objectification thoughts" territory. Overly sized boobs, nude females and strip clubs all over the game, that kind of things. Did Hitman do that?
-
Really. Of course there was a deeper intention there. Nothing in a game is there unintentionally, and the intention here was "We haven't done a strip club yet, so let's do it"...
Except your assassination target which runs a prostitution setup (tying in what makes sense in terms of him helping a couple guys looking for a girl - Victoria, the one Agent 47 saves). With that person being friends with a mercenary from a drug cartel and someone who runs their own company (the two guys he also helps find Victoria), he isn't just some lowly pimp who works the streets. This gives him a certain amount of status in terms of what he does, so running a club would make sense (when I think criminals who run businesses [I also think Bad Boys], cash businesses for laundering money comes to mind. When you think the owner of this club is someone who runs prostitutes, what mixes legitimate front and cash business best? A strip club). Add into the fact this guy threatens violence to his prostitutes, and will actively rape and kill them joking that "he's sending them to Hawaii" because the room they do that in has tropic wallpaper. That sounds like a guy who doesn't give a damn about women. Another point to how it makes sense being, what's the easiest way to sell your goods? By putting them on display. His goods are the prostitutes, so let them strip for the patrons, who afterwards pay him for that service.
Now it wouldn't make sense to assassinate someone when a club isn't at full force, too many things could point to murder. Witnesses however, seeing a disco ball "accidentally" fall on your head creates that accident as well as many patrons seeing it happen. No murder, no followup investigation about foul play.
Bam, there's your intention (and much like yours The_E, it's based off of guesswork and not fact. Neither of us know what went through the devs minds)
So that covers Point one, two and three. Four is a broad statement not pertaining to the game, but to the fact "sex sells" which isn't exclusive to women
If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.
Hitman did it in a way that made sense, at least from how I see it
-
You know it's interesting.
I got into this very same discussion on a completely unrelated site of the internet. And you know what that person talked about? The things you're quoting AND hitman absolution.
Like, you critics. Are you actually crticizing her videos? Or are you watching videos which criticize her and repeating what they said? It honestly seems like the latter. And if your only criticism is repeating what another guy said then don't you think you should watch these videos for yourself and make up your own mind about it? Like Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?
I'm just lazy like that. Sorry, I can't be bothered to deeply investigate all her claims, and the Hitman example was the one she spent most time with, so I guess it was an important case study. Don't you find interesting that the best case study she has is an absolute misrepresentation? I do. I wasn't the one who brought it up too, therefore I was merely following the discussion.
Regarding any insinuation that I don't watch her videos and am just redirecting thunderf00t's criticisms or whatever, be disillusioned about that. I am subscribed to her channel for 3 years now and have seen her videos about the subject matter. I have also seen her latest, which seems to be her best overall. I have also seen claims that she keeps being dishonest in this one too, but the simple fact that she is not making too many assumptions, assertions or factual claims in it is a big plus for me. I will wait for the criticism of it too. Does this sound lazy? Well, sorry I have no time to do more than this.
Just sounds like the party line. honest.
Every message has the potential of sounding like "the party line", there is a "party line" for everything nowadays. You also sound like another "party line" advocate, and so does The_E and so on. It's not a crime nor a criticism. It's a kind of rethoric that is not serious.
-
Except your assassination target which runs a prostitution setup (tying in what makes sense in terms of him helping a couple guys looking for a girl - Victoria, the one Agent 47 saves). With that person being friends with a mercenary from a drug cartel and someone who runs their own company (the two guys he also helps find Victoria), he isn't just some lowly pimp who works the streets. This gives him a certain amount of status in terms of what he does, so running a club would make sense (when I think criminals who run businesses [I also think Bad Boys], cash businesses for laundering money comes to mind. When you think the owner of this club is someone who runs prostitutes, what mixes legitimate front and cash business best? A strip club). Add into the fact this guy threatens violence to his prostitutes, and will actively rape and kill them joking that "he's sending them to Hawaii" because the room they do that in has tropic wallpaper. That sounds like a guy who doesn't give a damn about women. Another point to how it makes sense being, what's the easiest way to sell your goods? By putting them on display. His goods are the prostitutes, so let them strip for the patrons, who afterwards pay him for that service.
Those are in-story justifications for that setpiece. But what came first? The story, or the setpiece? Unless there is a developer commentary addressing this, we can't know this.
If it is the first, why does it have to be an assassination in the club? Why not kill him at home? Or somewhere on the road? Why do it in a club full of people who can witness you coming and going? Nothing in that story makes a strong argument for doing it in the club, it just sets up the background for that particular character, and so it could just as well be only part of the mission briefing. In fact, we can take that story and do something with it that doesn't involve the potential to murder a couple strippers; we can do something with it that retains the thin veneer of "this is an assholeish rapist, therefore it's OK to kill him" without all that.
If the justification was the "We never did a strip club before" thing, then why does it have to be a strip club in the middle of its business hours? Why not before opening or after closing? Accidents can happen (and consequently be made to happen) at all times of day, after all. Why does it have to be a strip club with female strippers?
Now it wouldn't make sense to assassinate someone when a club isn't at full force, too many things could point to murder. Witnesses however, seeing a disco ball "accidentally" fall on your head creates that accident as well as many patrons seeing it happen. No murder, no followup investigation about foul play.
So a known underworld figure suddenly dies of acute discoball poisoning, and the police will not take a close look at what happened? The insurance companies involved will not investigate?
So that covers Point one, two and three. Four is a broad statement not pertaining to the game, but to the fact "sex sells" which isn't exclusive to women
Last I checked, sex-based adverts are still overwhelmingly aimed at men.
-
Well that has probably an evolutionary explanation. Women are less interested in male bodies than men are in women's.
Emphasis on "less". It's a relative thing, not absolute. Don't strawman me please.
-
Those are in-story justifications for that setpiece. But what came first? The story, or the setpiece? Unless there is a developer commentary addressing this, we can't know this.
Hence why calling outs devs for picking it becomes a matter of figuring out "why" of which *no one knows* (haven't seen any dev commentaries on it) and thus any sort of attacks against their thoughts is just pointless to mention since the conversation about it *goes nowhere without facts*
Why not kill him at home? Or somewhere on the road? Why do it in a club full of people who can witness you coming and going? Nothing in that story makes a strong argument for doing it in the club
Here's a story element that makes sense: You need to protect a girl from certain people. Certain people are looking for this girl. Certain people have information about this girl. Time is not on your side. Furthermore, the stripclub is part of a *seven piece mission* (as in, it's just one of many parts of the entire mission itself) set in the seedy area of Chicago (you know, where you find criminals and clubs run by them. Also, this mission takes place during the night, why would the owner of a club that runs all hours of the night by anywhere *but* the club?). Not only that, be the subsequent mission timeline all take place in Chicago in the *same night* adding to the whole "time is of the essence" thing
So I'll also point out that doing it at his house, while he's driving or some other thing just isn't something Agent 47 is at liberty to make happen. There's a reason why the mission itself is called Hunter and Hunted, the previous one is called Run For Your Life, and the one before that has tells you about Blake looking for Victoria in Chicago and Osmond being the informant.
If the justification was the "We never did a strip club before" thing, then why does it have to be a strip club in the middle of its business hours? Why not before opening or after closing? Accidents can happen (and consequently be made to happen) at all times of day, after all. Why does it have to be a strip club with female strippers?
See above explanation: Time is not on Agent 47's side. Not only that, but everyone knows where Osmond is going to be - His club
Have you played the game? I haven't, so I'm reading the wiki for the game to get a better understanding how the story plays out. Not perfect, but it works better than watching LPs
EDIT: If you take issue with it having to be a seedy area... again, which came first, setting or character.
So a known underworld figure suddenly dies of acute discoball poisoning, and the police will not take a close look at what happened? The insurance companies involved will not investigate?
"A disco ball falls to Dom's head which was loosened by 47, killing him instantly."
That and it was noted in the story that Agent 47 has been more reckless this night. Note, that *it all takes place in a single night*
Last I checked, sex-based adverts are still overwhelmingly aimed at men.
Quite true considering how effective they are against men. Photoshopping is where I have problems with it as that's just fake. That's more demeaning to a woman more than anything because you're taking the body of a woman who willingly modeled for you and then made it into something else.
EDIT: It's lazy, it's stereotypical and fits the trope, but it makes sense story wise and serves to drive the gameplay to different locations in Chicago. Not really much else to say
-
Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?
because it's the easiest target, it's the most obvious staging of a situation that is intended to misrepresent the game and it's tone.
No. I suspect the real reason is because it's the one that's chosen by videos critical of hers. Specifically thunderfoot and whatever else.
Instead of actually watching her videos, videos striving to make games better, they watch a video critical of her which is nothing but insults and nitpicking and they form their "opinion" from that. And by form their opinion I mean they repeat the opinion of someone else and don't actually watch the videos and think critically for themselves.
Like if one 30 second example in a half hour video is the best criticism that people can come up with then it's a pretty weak ass counter argument.
That's hardly an improvement
But I'll bite anyways and say that simply because I find them not really captivating to watch and the fact there is a lot to watch does not mean I don't have an open mind. I don't know where the whole speaking from experience comes from though
You've made up your mind from the get go. You said they're not worth your time, despite not actually viewing them.
And "speaking from experience" is a sarcastic remark to reflect on the fact you haven't actually experienced the videos at all.
To me, it'd be a waste of my time to watch something that isn't really interesting to me. Gender roles and characters in some games don't portray women as empowering, while others sexualize them and then others make damn good characters with them. In the end, I'm not interested in the politics of my games; I'm only interested if my game is entertaining to play. Only when the discussion starts associating irrelevant behaviours in game do I step in and make note that a player's actions in game do not necessarily equate to gender issues in real life
Yeah it's not interesting to you, but you're arguing about it for hours on end on the internet.
And if not arguing then reading a discussion about anita sarkeesian until some element of the conversation is worth your involvement. Either way, same result.
Time invested in a topic in which you are unwiling to invest time.
-
So instead of reading me and learning that I have indeed watched her videos, you go ahead and assert your holy truth that I and others have done no such thing, instead resorted to the heretical practices of watching non-kosher people's videos.
This lacking of reading skills from someone who is bashing others for not watching other people's videos. Perhaps you know my love of irony, but I could live without your kind of it right now.
-
So instead of reading me and learning that I have indeed watched her videos, you go ahead and assert your holy truth that I and others have done no such thing, instead resorted to the heretical practices of watching non-kosher people's videos.
This lacking of reading skills from someone who is bashing others for not watching other people's videos. Perhaps you know my love of irony, but I could live without your kind of it right now.
No the irony is that you expect I'm reading half of your posts when you're on my ignore list. Odds are I'm not, I read this one because I guessed rightly that it was a response to me.
Either way, generalized statements like the one I gave are not refuted by one exception, if you're an exception remove yourself from the categorization and move on. They're generalized because they're speaking, in general. In general everyone is making the same criticisms, in general everyone is saying the same things. But fact is when a person knows Anita's videos are more varied than the criticisms then one must question how these critics all came to same conclusion.
If they came to the same conclusion on their own it means the rest of Anita's video is pretty water-tight in its criticism.
If they didn't, then it just means they're repeating someone else.
Neither outcome reflects favourably on the critics.
-
You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces]. A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point. They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc. It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting. In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub." Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place. But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.
That is not what you said before; the statement I took issue with was your presentation of something related to video games' portrayal of men as though it was in any way relevant to a series of videos solely about sexist tropes related to women, despite that being completely outside the scope of the video series in question. Your "clarification" here bears no resemblance to the original statement, so I'm still not sure why you made it in the first place.
But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?
Let's take a look at the original statement, your response, and the clarification above:
Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.
Which is relevant... how?
And then of course the clarification is above. Which is exactly what I alluded to previously.
In other words: gendered setpieces are not, in and of themselves, inherently sexist or offensive on their own if they portray believable and realistic phenomena in order to enhance plot, setting, and background. The fact that women act as strippers at a level much greater than men may indeed an aspect of sexism in society concerning the objectification of women; the fact that such an element is included in a videogame to convey a setting is not. If a game designer included a scene because "hey, we can include -semi-naked women!" and there was no other justification then sure, that's sexist. But there are other conceivable reasons why the setting itself can be chosen that don't make it an inherently sexist inclusion.
Sarkeesian conflates the inclusion of gendered setpieces in video games with sexism, which isn't accurate; both genders are often portrayed in gendered roles because it reflects reality, which indicates sexism in society, and it would be to do the medium a disservice to gloss over that fact. If such scenarios are used uncritically then certainly the developers deserve critique for their creative choices, but there is nothing inherently wrong with their inclusion.
At this point, MP-Ryan, it sounds like all you're arguing is that "her arguments could be made better", which... is self-evident, and not very profound, since nothing is perfect.
What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so. Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."
-
So pure supposition then.
No, actual statistics. http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf as an example, extrapolated for middle class demographics (who have the most purchasing power and who have the greatest expenditures on entertainment items).
"Gamers," as have been framed throughout this thread, are a tiny proportion of people who play video games. Similarly, the type of feminist critiques that Sarkeesian relies on and her methods appeal to a narrow set of the population as a whole, a set that doesn't overlap significantly with the broad base of people who happen to play video games.
I'm not suggesting she does not make some valid critiques. I do believe her methods and analyses are generally sloppy and in need of refinement to make her point forcefully and convincingly, unless all she wants is to be a contentious sideshow. Critical analysis in general is a methodology where less is more. She doesn't get that, and falls into the trap of relying on weak and trivial examples when she has plenty of ammunition on more egregious issues. It's unnecessary, and it's part of the reason her work is so often criticized and disregarded. Sarkeesian may be a lovely person, but her critical analysis is unrefined and loose. She relies too much on the idea that her audience shares her worldview, which is the deathknell for anyone who wants to be taken seriously doing critical analyses.
-
What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so. Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."
No one would have given a **** if she had meticulously constructed her arguments in an airtight research paper because no one would have read it. She has effectively baited a bunch of people to go in hot and heavy on all sides, investing a healthy chunk of time talking about an issue that was previously fairly low profile. She has made a big splash, making allies of all the right people (game developers) and enemies of all the right people (entitled internet ****lords).
I think the technique issues that you're quibbling about are part of what makes her videos so effective. The ****ty examples that people can argue over are just as useful for her as the more obviously pandering/exploitative ones, and more important still is the sheer volume of misogynous garbage from AAA studios that she crams into the videos. She isn't acting as an academic; she wants to stir up ****. She's engaged people, and drawing that kind of widespread attention is good for her and good for her side of the argument.
-
So pure supposition then.
No, actual statistics. http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf as an example, extrapolated for middle class demographics (who have the most purchasing power and who have the greatest expenditures on entertainment items).
Now who's defeating their own argument?
The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' . . . The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people.
The document you provided above lists that opinion as having 48% support. Last I checked, 48% wasn't a majority nor was it "vast".
Four out of the top five selling video games are rated "mature" and would be classified as "hardcore". What is the hardcore stereotype? Apparently it's not someone who plays "hardcore" games?
Meanwhile these statements are unsupported and complete guesswork, at least so far as your evidence is concerned:
. . .nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial. These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers. On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.
"Gamers," as have been framed throughout this thread, are a tiny proportion of people who play video games. Similarly, the type of feminist critiques that Sarkeesian relies on and her methods appeal to a narrow set of the population as a whole, a set that doesn't overlap significantly with the broad base of people who happen to play video games.
Incidentally just finished watching the women as background decoration videos, parts 1 and 2.
Pretty sickening overall. Not sure why anyone would have issue with what she's saying in either content or relevance.
I'm not suggesting she does not make some valid critiques. I do believe her methods and analyses are generally sloppy and in need of refinement to make her point forcefully and convincingly, unless all she wants is to be a contentious sideshow. Critical analysis in general is a methodology where less is more. She doesn't get that, and falls into the trap of relying on weak and trivial examples when she has plenty of ammunition on more egregious issues. It's unnecessary, and it's part of the reason her work is so often criticized and disregarded. Sarkeesian may be a lovely person, but her critical analysis is unrefined and loose. She relies too much on the idea that her audience shares her worldview, which is the deathknell for anyone who wants to be taken seriously doing critical analyses.
I don't agree at all that her videos are designed for people with similar mindsets. Rather they're made for people who are unfamiliar with the concepts she's presenting. That's why she's explaining the academic premise behind everything she's saying. Essentially babying her audience.
If she were making these evideos for people who agreed with her she' d assume some things about the audience. She doesn't. The fact that she doesn't is the reason that many people complain that her videos are dry. Though I suspect what people really want is sensationalist as many youtube videos or media these tend to be these days.
-
What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so. Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."
No one would have given a **** if she had meticulously constructed her arguments in an airtight research paper because no one would have read it. She has effectively baited a bunch of people to go in hot and heavy on all sides, investing a healthy chunk of time talking about an issue that was previously fairly low profile. She has made a big splash, making allies of all the right people (game developers) and enemies of all the right people (entitled internet ****lords).
But has she really? Aside from an award and consulting on two projects, has she heralded a fundamental shift in sexism in games? Or are developers still allowing their art departments to draw their adult females characters in less square-footage of clothing than my 7-month old daughter wears?
I think the investment you refer to has been fairly small. There is a core group that recognizes that Sarkeesian makes so valid points, another core group that rain **** upon her, and a big collective majority that go "meh." People act on social justice issues where there is a compelling case to do so, whether in politics or media, and that case is so ironclad that it makes the opposition look absurd. Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument. This diminishes her effectiveness as a force for change. If her purpose is to stir up a ****storm, she gets an A+. If her purpose is to act as a catalyst for change, she gets a C.
I think the technique issues that you're quibbling about are part of what makes her videos so effective. The ****ty examples that people can argue over are just as useful for her as the more obviously pandering/exploitative ones, and more important still is the sheer volume of misogynous garbage from AAA studios that she crams into the videos. She isn't acting as an academic; she wants to stir up ****. She's engaged people, and drawing that kind of widespread attention is good for her and good for her side of the argument.
But it's not, for the reasons I outlined above. Simply calling attention to a contentious issue, using the example of politics, is more likely to cause people to switch off than pick a side and run with it. She has fallen into that trap. Keep in mind that even someone like me who takes an interest in social justice issues pointedly avoided most of Sarkeesian's work and the ****storm it spawned precisely because of the ****storm until this very thread.
Getting people talking is a pointless waste of time; getting them to do something about it is a laudable goal. I think Sarkeesian, to date, is very good at the former, and very poor at the latter.
-
It's hit the BBC now :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29028236
I don't actually agree with her second statement as she words it, that not giving the benefit of the doubt to a woman claiming harassment is 'victim blaming'. Having been the victim of sexual harassment in the opposite direction, spending 3 years working for a manager who told me that my gender made me a 'born liar who couldn't be trusted', and knowing the effect it had on my life and my self-confidence, I believe that ANY accusation of harassment, regardless of gender, that isn't taken seriously is 'victim blaming', it shouldn't be gender specific.
-
No one would have given a **** if she had meticulously constructed her arguments in an airtight research paper because no one would have read it. She has effectively baited a bunch of people to go in hot and heavy on all sides, investing a healthy chunk of time talking about an issue that was previously fairly low profile. She has made a big splash, making allies of all the right people (game developers) and enemies of all the right people (entitled internet ****lords).
I think the technique issues that you're quibbling about are part of what makes her videos so effective. The ****ty examples that people can argue over are just as useful for her as the more obviously pandering/exploitative ones, and more important still is the sheer volume of misogynous garbage from AAA studios that she crams into the videos. She isn't acting as an academic; she wants to stir up ****. She's engaged people, and drawing that kind of widespread attention is good for her and good for her side of the argument.
So you're saying that the flaws in her reasoning, methods, argumentation and example cherry picking (if not outright fabricated) are just features, not bugs? Even worse, that all of this is correct because it antagonized the "right kind of people" while making the right kind of friends?
I guess I'm not that fond of machiavellian strategies that end up polarizing the entire internet into a big cluster**** of shouting matches between assholes of all kinds, I'd even say that this kind of method might be good at creating a good chunk of attention, but exactly the wrong kind of attention for all the wrong reasons. Youtube is now filled with angry mobs calling names to each other instead of having a reasoned and calm conversation like the one MP and a few others are trying to achieve here.
-
You've made up your mind from the get go. You said they're not worth your time, despite not actually viewing them.
And "speaking from experience" is a sarcastic remark to reflect on the fact you haven't actually experienced the videos at all.
I didn't have my mind made up from the get go, and I challenge you to prove that statement false
Sarcastic remark that isn't based on fact. I've seen a few of her videos, I just haven't watched *all* of her videos. That is how I know I don't care to sit through *all* of them
Yeah it's not interesting to you, but you're arguing about it for hours on end on the internet.
I was arguing the fact that a players actions in a game don't dictate anything more than just them playing a game. It isn't indicative of behaviours of their real life actions (unless otherwise stated blah blah I'm done repeating myself with that). At the end of the discussion, both sides were more fleshed out and we both gained a better understanding.
In the end, the topic of conversation isn't about any of her other videos. If you really want to discuss her other videos, make the branch and post some examples and I'm sure we'll watch it so we can comment about it. However, that's not what we were talking about
You're like the guy who came into a circle of people who were talking about the game last night and started to rag on them about how they're judging the performance of the quarterback for that one football game. Yes, we're all aware he managed to win the past two, but this conversation isn't about his overall performance. If you want to talk about all the games, then introduce that in a way that you're not insulting our intelligence so that we will be open to have a conversation with you about it. I'm sure as hell not open to engaging you further now.
-
But has she really? Aside from an award and consulting on two projects, has she heralded a fundamental shift in sexism in games? Or are developers still allowing their art departments to draw their adult females characters in less square-footage of clothing than my 7-month old daughter wears?
I think the investment you refer to has been fairly small. There is a core group that recognizes that Sarkeesian makes so valid points, another core group that rain **** upon her, and a big collective majority that go "meh." People act on social justice issues where there is a compelling case to do so, whether in politics or media, and that case is so ironclad that it makes the opposition look absurd. Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument. This diminishes her effectiveness as a force for change. If her purpose is to stir up a ****storm, she gets an A+. If her purpose is to act as a catalyst for change, she gets a C.
What aspect of her drab and monotone videos is intended to stir up a ****storm?
What degree of change or involvement is required before her impact becomes relevant?
The fact that people are even talking about her or hiring her as a consultant proves that the gaming industry is taking notice.
Booth babes are becoming more scarce and people seem to generally reject the likes of Hitman Absolution's trailer, I would suggest a shift is already taking place and would say that she is a part of it but not necessarily the catalyst. Having watched her latest videos I don't consider the points she picks on trivial, but rather pervasive.
-
The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' . . . The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people.
The document you provided above lists that opinion as having 48% support. Last I checked, 48% wasn't a majority nor was it "vast".
That looks at "reason for purchase" - which also included options like price point in the available responses - not reason for play. Given that the price point was 21%, meaning 31% had some other reason, purchasing was most often due to the factors I named of all the available responses, which are mutually exclusive for the poll but not as actual decisions.
Four out of the top five selling video games are rated "mature" and would be classified as "hardcore". What is the hardcore stereotype? Apparently it's not someone who plays "hardcore" games?
Of course, you'll also note that all four of those land in a category which is only 24% of the type of games played most often online.
Meanwhile these statements are unsupported and complete guesswork, at least so far as your evidence is concerned:
. . .nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial. These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers. On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.
"Gamers," as have been framed throughout this thread, are a tiny proportion of people who play video games. Similarly, the type of feminist critiques that Sarkeesian relies on and her methods appeal to a narrow set of the population as a whole, a set that doesn't overlap significantly with the broad base of people who happen to play video games.
The first is an extrapolation based on social justice issues and politics.
The second is supported by the demographic data from the ESA, and the broad-based appeal of feminist theory among the middle class segment of the general population, which closely relates to the demographics of people who play video games generally. Feminists are a small proportion of the middle class generally (there are few good statistics on this, though at least one study in 2012 pegged feminist political identification, including all from 'soft' to 'strong' feminists among voting women in the neighbourhood of 50% ; they are similarly a small proportion among people who play video games.
Incidentally just finished watching the women as background decoration videos, parts 1 and 2.
Pretty sickening overall. Not sure why anyone would have issue with what she's saying in either content or relevance.
Then you aren't reading or comprehending my posts, since I've been very clear on the precise problems I see in Sarkeesian's work.
I don't agree at all that her videos are designed for people with similar mindsets. Rather they're made for people who are unfamiliar with the concepts she's presenting. That's why she's explaining the academic premise behind everything she's saying. Essentially babying her audience.
If she were making these evideos for people who agreed with her she' d assume some things about the audience. She doesn't. The fact that she doesn't is the reason that many people complain that her videos are dry. Though I suspect what people really want is sensationalist as many youtube videos or media these tend to be these days.
She assumes a great deal about her audience, namely that they will find relatively trivial matters as problematically sexist as she does. She assumes a like-minded stance among her audience members, which is also an assumption that her like-minded audience members are unlikely to pick up on if they have the same views. She does not prepare her argument to face critique or present her strongest arguments with strong supporting evidence. She relies on guilt by association - her method is to fling as many examples she thinks she can point out at the audience in an attempt to avoid critical deconstruction of her arguments. It's a poor method, and baffling choice in an area where she has many legitimately egregious examples to choose from.
I frankly don't like theorists who operate using methods like Sarkeesian's. I find their work lazy, short on real substance, readily critiqued in their own right, and therefore ineffectual as a catalyst for change. It saddens me because it's an important topic that deserves a much more effective and tighter treatment, and the backlash that she has generated has made it much less likely that a better critical analyst will come along and do the work properly.
-
I didn't have my mind made up from the get go, and I challenge you to prove that statement false
That seems like a challenge for me to watch all her videos
That's also a lot of effort for absolutely no reward or point
"Absolutely no reward or point" = Judging an experience before having experienced it.
If you know the outcome of an act before you've acted it, then your mind is made up.
A more objective response would be for example "I've seen some of her videos but didn't find them interesting so I'm unwilling to check out her latest. Thus I don't have an opinion on them either way."
And by "all the videos" I meant all the tropes vs women videos, if you took that to mean all the videos she's ever made you misunderstood.
She assumes a great deal about her audience, namely that they will find relatively trivial matters as problematically sexist as she does. She assumes a like-minded stance among her audience members, which is also an assumption that her like-minded audience members are unlikely to pick up on if they have the same views. She does not prepare her argument to face critique or present her strongest arguments with strong supporting evidence. She relies on guilt by association - her method is to fling as many examples she thinks she can point out at the audience in an attempt to avoid critical deconstruction of her arguments. It's a poor method, and baffling choice in an area where she has many legitimately egregious examples to choose from.
I frankly don't like theorists who operate using methods like Sarkeesian's. I find their work lazy, short on real substance, readily critiqued in their own right, and therefore ineffectual as a catalyst for change. It saddens me because it's an important topic that deserves a much more effective and tighter treatment, and the backlash that she has generated has made it much less likely that a better critical analyst will come along and do the work properly.
If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.
Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.
-
What aspect of her drab and monotone videos is intended to stir up a ****storm?
Feel free to ask swashmebuckle, he implied it was a feature. I just said she was successful at it (reference: The Internet Response to Anita Sarkeesian).
What degree of change or involvement is required before her impact becomes relevant?
Legitimate question. I'd measure it in tangible impacts: has her work led to a diminished incidence of blatant and egregious sexism (no, I'm not defining the terms, I've talked at length before about what sorts of things I call egregious) in titles released since her series began and stated studio design changes in in-progress titles?
The fact that people are even talking about her or hiring her as a consultant proves that the gaming industry is taking notice.
Notice != change. I was trained as a scientist. Show me tangible, causative change in result.
Booth babes are becoming more scarce and people seem to generally reject the likes of Hitman Absolution's trailer, I would suggest a shift is already taking place and would say that she is a part of it but not necessarily the catalyst. Having watched her latest videos I don't consider the points she picks on trivial, but rather pervasive.
Oh, I have no doubt her work is part of changes we will likely see going forward (the movement for which pre-dates her work). I just don't think she's being a particularly effective part of that force for change compared to her actual potential. As for consideration of her points being trivial or not, you (or I) are really not good people to be asking - rather, it would be better to ask her critics, the rational people (not the mob) she should be attempting to convince, what they think of those arguments. That's the point of critical analysis, which is why I don't think she's doing a great job. Most of the discussion around her work is noise, not productive output.
-
Ironically, and despite all the technical flaws, I actually thought this amateur video was quite good at going a bit deeper than Anita in some of the analysis. I say ironically because the dude is clearly trying to make a parody of her, and you can smell his dismissal of the gal throughout:
(the whole script gets better from the first minutes...)
This should be the goal of Anita: to get this kind of conversation flowing. But this is an exception, and not that effective, not the rule.
Regarding all the "counselling" jobs she has been given by the industry, I regard those as typical greenwashing, wait, not greenwashing, feministwashing. I don't take it too seriously. If however I am wrong, and games start to at least be more inclusive, then I will be much happier.
A much better speech than anything Anita has ever done was Manveer Heir's, but this one was absolutely ignored by the wider community at large, because it didn't have the characteristic of being scandalous or controversial. Here's a link to his lecture, you should all watch it:
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where
-
If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.
Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.
Aha! I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"! I'm amazed it took this long.
I would, except:
1. I'm not paid to critically-analyze video games.
2. I'm not paid to be a games journalist.
3. I'm not paid to be an advocate for social issues.
4. I have much more important things to do with my time - raising a family, playing with my kids, spending time outside of some of my absurd hours at work with my wife, etc - than spend it volunteering to fight a social cause which I think comes second to some much more important social causes that I do volunteer my time to deal with.
I play games for fun. I write for fun. I argue on the Internet for fun (and apparently I'm also a masochist, who knew). I don't think writing a critical analysis of gender portrayal in video games would be terribly fun to do uncompensated. If someone would like to pay me my current salary for six months while I take unpaid leave to do it, then I'd be happy to. Alas, I haven't had any offers, so I'll confine my involvement to taking apart poor critical analysis when its raised and waving the "many men who play games should stop being douchebags to women just because they're women" flag on social media.
Sarkeesian, by contrast, is paid to do this. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her work to be of a high quality, which it is not.
-
Oh, I have no doubt her work is part of changes we will likely see going forward (the movement for which pre-dates her work). I just don't think she's being a particularly effective part of that force for change compared to her actual potential. As for consideration of her points being trivial or not, you (or I) are really not good people to be asking - rather, it would be better to ask her critics, the rational people (not the mob) she should be attempting to convince, what they think of those arguments. That's the point of critical analysis, which is why I don't think she's doing a great job. Most of the discussion around her work is noise, not productive output.
Yes but what is the cause of that noise? Is it caused by the videos themselves or by the attack/critique of those videos?
Is it telling that some people who cite examples of her failings don't reference her videos but videos critiquing her videos? Do such references represent the majority or the minority of criticism?
What's apparent is that Anita's videos are bland and monotone.
What is also apparent is that videos critical of her tend to be sensationalist and aggressive.
Of the two, which is the more likely to incite unreasonable discussion?
From my perspective, the widespread knowledge of Sarkeesian was the result not of her own work but of the aggressive reactions against her work. Ironically the same is true of Zoe Quinn, a developer whose game or name I'd never heard of until a week ago. Ironically I think the real impact or recognition that these individuals are receiving is not really the result of their own work, but of their critics. And in some cases, critics is a very generous word to describe them indeed.
If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.
Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.
Aha! I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"! I'm amazed it took this long.
I would, except:
1. I'm not paid to critically-analyze video games.
2. I'm not paid to be a games journalist.
3. I'm not paid to be an advocate for social issues.
4. I have much more important things to do with my time - raising a family, playing with my kids, spending time outside of some of my absurd hours at work with my wife, etc - than spend it volunteering to fight a social cause which I think comes second to some much more important social causes that I do volunteer my time to deal with.
I play games for fun. I write for fun. I argue on the Internet for fun (and apparently I'm also a masochist, who knew). I don't think writing a critical analysis of gender portrayal in video games would be terribly fun to do uncompensated. If someone would like to pay me my current salary for six months while I take unpaid leave to do it, then I'd be happy to. Alas, I haven't had any offers, so I'll confine my involvement to taking apart poor critical analysis when its raised and waving the "many men who play games should stop being douchebags to women just because they're women" flag on social media.
Don't really care what you're paid or not paid to do.
My point is offer alternatives. If you think her work is lazy, offer an alternative, either your own work or the work of someone else. Or suggest topics to her via twitter that she could pursue. Request discussions on aspects of sexism that she's failing to address.
It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.
-
Aha! I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"! I'm amazed it took this long.
It's even an eggregious and hypocritical line of argument, and I have always thought this, especially when it was widely used against Anita herself.
Yes, those who are "generously called" critics also used this argument against her, if you think all these games are sexist and mysoginistic, why won't you do better games instead? Ah of course you can't. And the argument is as fatuous and ridiculous now as it was then.
Wait, am I critiquing Thunderf00t? How dare I? Perhaps I should shut up and instead go on and make a video myself... for ****s sake.
-
It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.
Then perhaps she should make a game that has no sign of sexism or misogyny instead of just "pointing out the problem"?
[edit] Beaten to it. :p [/edit]
-
Yeah, I think that drawing attention and airing it out is an actual step in and of itself in this case. I've only read things that have been linked here or come in through my twitter feed, but it seems like most of the critics and developers that have weighed in have basically come down on Sarkeesian's side. The reactions I've read do include the sort of quibbles raised here, and I think that being able to raise those points makes people feel like they are contributing more than just a vote of support, which probably makes them more likely to write about the subject.
It's not like we're talking about some civic issue where we need to prevent infighting and form a coalition so that we can reach our goal of a 60% supermajority town hall vote to ban exploitative video games. All that needs to happen is for one person on a AAA dev team to realize and point out that having Kratos crush the naked big titty babe in the gate is going to make a portion of their audience feel ****ty. These are things that are easy to omit, and not being perceived as actively hostile towards female players could be huge for AAA sales. A kerfuffle's what we need, and she's given us one.
-
From my perspective, the widespread knowledge of Sarkeesian was the result not of her own work but of the aggressive reactions against her work. Ironically the same is true of Zoe Quinn, a developer whose game or name I'd never heard of until a week ago. Ironically I think the real impact or recognition that these individuals are receiving is not really the result of their own work, but of their critics. And in some cases, critics is a very generous word to describe them indeed.
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong. It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience. The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of: it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable. If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work). The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique. This leads to two possibilies:
1. She does it on purpose - which I think is misguided, if true, or
2. She does it unintentionally - in which case she is merely not competent to fulfill her stated aims.
It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.
I was Ninja'd before I even saw your post.
-
Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.
-
That Kratos' "feat" was mind-boggingly atrocious. I'd refuse to go on playing that game from that point on... and that perhaps is why I never played them from the first place.
-
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong.
Victim blaming in action.
Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it. Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.
What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.
-
It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.
Then perhaps she should make a game that has no sign of sexism or misogyny instead of just "pointing out the problem"?
Would you have asked Ebert to make a movie if he disagreed with something and gave it a thumbs down?
The point is if someone has problems her argument, but supports the premise, then provide an alternative either created by you or someone else. The detractors, such as yourself, of course only focus on the "created by you" part of what I said. I don't care about you doing it. I care about something better.
If something better exists point it out.
If it doesn't, create it.
If you're unwilling, advocate ways she or others can improve what they're doing.
If you don't know of anything better, don't want to do it yourself and don't want to tell Anita ways she can improve then . . what's the point?
And yes Anita disabled comments on her Youtube videos. As have other YT personalities. There are other ways to contact her as made clear by this thread.
-
Victim blaming in action.
Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it. Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.
What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.
I knew that was coming. Let's try the full quote, shall we?
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong. It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience. The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of: it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable. If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u] The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.
Care to retract your bull**** accusation now? Not only was it patently and personally offensive, it's factually wrong.
-
Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211
Three glaring examples in one video.
Once again, the point is not that she doesn't have one; the point is that she actively undermines hers by presenting examples that can be argued against when there are plenty that cannot.
-
Victim blaming in action.
Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it. Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.
What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.
I knew that was coming. Let's try the full quote, shall we?
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong. It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience. The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of: it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable. If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u] The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.
Care to retract your bull**** accusation now? Not only was it patently and personally offensive, it's factually wrong.
Near assailable? Define that.
Is that akin to releasing 50 minutes of content and have the same critics attack one example from many?
Or critics relying upon 4-year old videos to make their case instead of the most up to date and relevant? Or a major complaint being that the quality, not the content, of her videos has not improved by individuals who no doubt did not actually contribute to her kickstarter.
I don't retract anything. Content and publicity are two different things. Content and relevance are two very different things as well.
It can be argued that content drives relevance, and that relevance drives reaction. If her content were poor, her videos would not be relevant and the reaction would be minimal.
That's assuming that reaction is actually based on content which in many cases it most assuredly is not. Critics, particularly those which make video responses have agendas far outside of refuting what she's saying.
Because realistically, in an academic setting a paper which refutes another would not only disprove what the other is saying but present a case of their own. Ie "this is wrong, because of reasons, and my version of events is right, because of reasons, supported by these various points". But invariably, in my experience, the critics have nothing to say other than she's wrong. So who really cares what they have to say when the truth of what they, themselves, are actually presenting is nothing at all.
Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211
Three glaring examples in one video.
Once again, the point is not that she doesn't have one; the point is that she actively undermines hers by presenting examples that can be argued against when there are plenty that cannot.
Three glaring examples of what? Examples of examples that you don't think are important enough to be examples.
Really compelling counter.
Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock and Assassins Creed are all top selling games. Isn't any aspect of those game relevant? Particularly when the core of her argument is that women aren't relevant enough, you're saying these examples are not relevant enough? Does the logic fit there? This woman wasn't abused enough, objectified enough, important enough . .(she's only a sidequest) therefore the example has no relevance when the whole contention by Anita is that women aren't relevant enough and they're just set dressing.
-
The thing for me is that the 2 factors in this are further separated than it appears on the surface. It's safe to say that the people contacting Ms. Sarkeesian are (a) A minority and (b) not representative of either the Games industry or the general game-playing community.
The dangerous stuff, socially speaking, is the stuff that she addresses in her videos, the casual, unthinking attitudes when depicting women, it's often not even done 'intentionally', it's a lack of empathy, rather than active misogyny. It's that kind of 'casual sexism' that most needs addressing in much of the Western world.
The thing is, the Gaming Industries perceptions are something you can actually do something about, with the right kind of pressure and awareness building, the Industry wants to be seen as open-minded and forward-thinking. The trolls, however, will continue to be trolls, it's not computer-game exclusive : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29034943.
A Question, when the noise becomes the argument, where does the argument itself go? If the man who threatened to rape that MP had been someone who had any kind of vested interest in the future design of British Banknotes, then maybe a link could be suggested, but he isn't, he's a trolling idiot who found himself a victim. He is not a strong contender for being a member of the 'Banknote illustration evaluation community', as it were.
That's why I am concerned with the 'highlight the trolls' approach, I don't want to see one set of stereotypes replaced with another, it achieves nothing.
-
Alkabeth: I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated. Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.
-
The hilarious part is when Akalabeth argues that the critics of Anita have an agenda. You know, as if agendas are this sinister thing behind illuminati stuff and not part and parcel of what Anita herself and other feminists or indeed any other activists have themselves.
Akalabeth is an intelligent guy. He's just got this belligerent condescending facade that is really a barrier of communication. When he lets it down, he can be a good debater. Fat chance that's gonna happen here though, for all I've seen.
-
The thing is, the Gaming Industries perceptions are something you can actually do something about, with the right kind of pressure and awareness building, the Industry wants to be seen as open-minded and forward-thinking.
You should really see the Manveer's video I've linked up here. Whatever Anita fails to deliver, he is actually extremely competent at, despite the fact that he lacks her degree of "communication studies", go figure.
Manveer is one of Bioware's top shots, so he is both inside the industry and doing this which I think is quite more influential. One of Bioware's funny acts this year was when they showcased Dragon Age Inquisition with a female protag in action, and the trolls got themselves enraged and furious. Bioware has lots of flaws, but in this particular sensitivity, I love these guys. Especially when they troll the morons like this.
-
Alkabeth: I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated. Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong. It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience. The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of: it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable. If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u] The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.
Um, no?
First of you'd need to prove this is true:
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction
Her Tropes series kickstarter received full funding in 24 hours. Which proves she had some significant public recognition prior the major backlash against her.
Secondly she the only person I'm aware of advocating better depiction of women in video games so the content alone would bring recognition.
Thirdly public knowledge can be pinned on video game news websites deciding to cover her kickstarter and her videos.
The fact that her videos are associated with abuse against her, does not demonstrate that her public knowledge is the result of it. And that abuse likewise does not demonstrate poor content.
Fact of the matter is, you associated the backlash against her videos as HER FAULT. She's "DOING IT WRONG".
I don't give two ****s if you say 'such and such reactions are unjustified'. You are still blaming her.
Here's a fresh idea, blame the argument? Separate the argument from the person presenting it? Ie
"If the only reason a work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, then it was poorly written"
And you demand she create some perfect, unassailable argument on an entirely subjective topic? That's impossible. This isn't a physics discussion. There's no mathematical proofs.
It's a discussion based on content which is invariably interpreted based not on truths but on personal experience.
-
@Luis, sadly, the link doesn't work for me, says an error occurred. I was having problems adding a yt tag a few days ago, but assumed it was my own mistake, but I think a few people are getting it now.
With regards to the current situation, I think we need to be careful not to assume any publicly provided information is 'beyond criticism', and we should also be careful not to confuse said criticism with an opinion on the intentions, actions or gender of the author.
Yes, some criticisms of her work have very obviously been attacks on the author, but as I said in my previous post, letting that become the stereotype just stifles the discussion.
-
The hilarious part is when Akalabeth argues that the critics of Anita have an agenda. You know, as if agendas are this sinister thing behind illuminati stuff and not part and parcel of what Anita herself and other feminists or indeed any other activists have themselves.
Akalabeth is an intelligent guy. He's just got this belligerent condescending facade that is really a barrier of communication. When he lets it down, he can be a good debater. Fat chance that's gonna happen here though, for all I've seen.
No the hilarious part is when you and MP Ryan and every other person makes the focus of a discussion the person involved in the discussion.
You said Anita is lazy
MP Ryan said he likes Anita, thinks she's nice, then blamed her inability for the storm of controversy.
Then you critique me.
Personally I don't care WHO is making an argument. What I care about is content.
Thunderfoots arguments begin with a personal attack. He has videos talking about feminism as a poison on society.
Anita's videos are impersonal and informative.
It doesn't matter to me if Anita has never played a video game in the last 10 years. What matters if her examples or videos are relevant to me and to games in general.
-
I personally have no idea what it is you're arguing Akala
I just see a lot of yelling, assuming, skewing and defense like you're intimately knowledgeable of Anita
Oh and
"Absolutely no reward or point" = Judging an experience before having experienced it.
If you know the outcome of an act before you've acted it, then your mind is made up.
A more objective response would be for example "I've seen some of her videos but didn't find them interesting so I'm unwilling to check out her latest. Thus I don't have an opinion on them either way."
First part: Absolutely no reward or point is in reference to my not gaining anything from them (other than time I could have used playing the piano) because I don't care (my arguing over the internet isn't really indicative of whether or not I care either), something I've stated quite often. That, and I had already experienced it so again, I would know what I would be getting into
Second part: I said that very objective message fifteen pages ago
And by "all the videos" I meant all the tropes vs women videos, if you took that to mean all the videos she's ever made you misunderstood.
We're not mind readers and since there is no context in terms of which videos you mean "all the videos", I'm going to take that at face value. This is compounded by the fact you keep mentioning her other videos in a non-specific manner
-
Alkabeth: I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated. Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.
By the way the sentence I quoted wasn't out of context. It's contextually self-contained. You associate the noise with the inability of the person instead of simply the inadequacies of the argument. The fact that you remark upon personal attacks later as being inexcusable doesn't change or shift the initial blame. It's still a statement which focuses on the author not the argument. "She's not doing it right", therefore she receives forceful retorts and a lot of noise, the by-product of which is in some cases vicious attacks. Would you label this discussion as being extremist or just noise? Yet in this thread she's been called a con artist. She's a con artist because she's not "doing it right". That's the noise that you're pinning on her alleged inadequacies.
And the fact of the matter is your statement is factually wrong.
Anita gained notoriety during the abuse she suffered during her kickstarter campaign. She was attacked during her pitch to garner funding to create content rather than as a result of the content itself. Thus you cannot tie the noise surrounding her work to the work itself, when much of that noise is still an echo of the initial shouting during her kickstarter. She created videos both before and after her kickstarter but the surge in her publicity was the result of her kickstarter and its pitch.
-
@Luis, sadly, the link doesn't work for me, says an error occurred. I was having problems adding a yt tag a few days ago, but assumed it was my own mistake, but I think a few people are getting it now.
Hm? Try this link again? It works for me (weird): http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where
Yes, some criticisms of her work have very obviously been attacks on the author, but as I said in my previous post, letting that become the stereotype just stifles the discussion.
It's also evidently untrue. People like The Amazing Atheist also made their own videos criticizing her and were quite polite in tone and demeanour. It's a shame that the one competent vlogger who is trying to critique into everything Anita says is clearly going insane, but there are others too.
She created videos both before and after her kickstarter but the surge in her publicity was the result of her kickstarter and its pitch.
Regardless of the moral righteousness of the involved, the mere fact that it was the flame war that interested people monetarily rather than the actual content of her videos was a very wrong way to start a career... not her fault obviously. But she then kept capitalizing on it, claiming she got it worse than any other controversial vlogger because she is a woman, plus gamers are overwhelmingly these basement virgin dwellers with nasty mysoginistic tendencies, don't you know? Therefore, omg! we must save this princess from the dungeon dragons of the internet underworld.
Yeah, she became herself one of her own favorite tropes. The irony, it burns. And lo and behold, this dungeon community didn't appreciate the lovely characterization this woman made of them. Why didn't they I wonder. And lo and behold, more angry lashing out unfolded, how unpredictable! Which in turn she uses as further advertising of her own cause, belittling, offending and caricaturizing a quite heterogeneous group, only because a bunch of trolls thought she was this amazing target of their joyful nihilism. Well, she used them perfectly!
But nevermind all this media manipulation shenanigans. I am way more interested in what the "silent majority" of people who play games actually think and believe, for I think it is this bigger group which will influence the market in the future.
-
Just to clarify my earlier post, I don't think there's anything duplicitous or unethical about Sarkeesian trolling with intentionally debatable material (if she is indeed doing it on purpose, which I also don't think matters). I think she's very good at the internet and is doing a real service for everyone who enjoys or might enjoy these types of games (whether she enjoys them or not) by exposing the really bad stuff in as high profile a way as she can manage.
If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.
-
I see Alkabeth is unfamiliar with the First Law of Holes. Quibble, contort, and prevaricate (yes I meant that word, bloody autocorrect) all you like, itdoes not change what I've written or the meaning of it. We're done until you find yourself some integrity.
If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.
This is where you and I disagree. I don't think giving people who would otherwise support your work "minor points to disagree with" is a good way of writing in support of social change. Sticking to primary egregious examples to support one's argument is a tried and true method because it works. Prof don't give bonus marks for weak supporting points mixed with strong ones for a reason.
-
I see Alkabeth is unfamiliar with the First Law of Holes. Quibble, contort, and prevaricate (yes I meant that word, bloody autocorrect) all you like, itdoes not change what I've written or the meaning of it. We're done until you find yourself some integrity.
Victim blaming is about holding a person responsible.
It's not about saying what they do or do not deserve.
You saying a person does or does not deserve abuse is not the same as saying they are not responsible for it. You are very clearly assigning responsibility for the noise surrounding her videos as her "not doing it right", and the abuse as a part of that noise is likewise assigned to her because of failures in her argument. Even going so far to suggest those failures might be deliberate.
Ergo, my comment was justified.
Now YOU can apologize for questioning my integrity.
-
You should really see the Manveer's video I've linked up here. Whatever Anita fails to deliver, he is actually extremely competent at, despite the fact that he lacks her degree of "communication studies", go figure.
I'm about 1/5th of the way through as I write this and he's thus far very good.
-
Akalabeth take a look at these two statements.
"Israel keeps electing governments which make their problems worse."
"The Jews keep electing governments which make their problems worse."
While both might be defensible statements, it's pretty obvious that making the second one is going to cause a bigger ****storm than the first since anyone making it is going to have to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism. People who agree with both are then going to have to explain that in elections the Jews are a significant majority and if they voted differently the outcome would be different. Which is then going to cause it's own further debate. The debate would very quickly become about those issues rather than the one the original poster was trying to talk about.
And all this because of choosing a couple of words incorrectly. The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems. If they ignored that, then it isn't unfair to blame the ****storm that follows on them. They did do it wrong. They did post something which would cause problems when they had a better choice.
Anita makes the same mistake. She has some very good points to make but her choice of examples is often lacking and likely to cause it's own debate, undermining the point she wants to make. And it's not victim blaming to call her out on her choices. If she is deliberately choosing highly contentious examples when she has much better material at hand, she should be self-aware enough to know that she is going to be called on it. She should know that it's going to mean that less people hear the point she wants to make.
If she doesn't know that, then she's (as MP-Ryan put it) doing it wrong.
If she does, then she's deliberately setting off a debate about her work (In a place where she should know that a debate can rapidly degenerate into ****storm).
-
Reposting Luis' link because this is 56 minutes well spent: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where
Heir nails it. 100%. He's concise, clear, picks relevant examples, uses relevant supporting data, and is passionate as a force for change. Sarkeesian could learn a few things from him.
And thank you, kara. While I refuse to elaborate or debate with Alkabeth further until he acknowledges his improper conduct, that is a good summation. Sarkeesian clearly does not deserve the personal attacks and threats she's received for expressing her work, a point I've made several times here and on Twitter. She s absolutely at fault for the contentious legitimate debate, quibbling over examples, and the other 'noise' that has occurred as a result of her videos that detracts from their very legitimate core points and purpose. If that ****storm was unintentional, she is absolutely at fault and she has made serious errors in her manner of critical analysis which have led to it.
Writing critical analysis is not all that different from publishing scientific papers or presenting political white-papers: the author owns the results. If you do your job well, the results may be positive debate or simple agreement. If you do your job poorly, you invite negative and strong critique and vehement disagreement. All of those results are expected and perfectly acceptable, and those negative results are the ****storm and noise to which I referred earlier and believe Sarkeesian has some responsibility for, for these reasons, which I also made clear earlier.
-
Agree about the link, very informative and interesting presentation. Worth the time.
-
Akalabeth take a look at these two statements.
"Israel keeps electing governments which make their problems worse."
"The Jews keep electing governments which make their problems worse."
While both might be defensible statements, it's pretty obvious that making the second one is going to cause a bigger ****storm than the first since anyone making it is going to have to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism. People who agree with both are then going to have to explain that in elections the Jews are a significant majority and if they voted differently the outcome would be different. Which is then going to cause it's own further debate. The debate would very quickly become about those issues rather than the one the original poster was trying to talk about.
And all this because of choosing a couple of words incorrectly. The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems. If they ignored that, then it isn't unfair to blame the ****storm that follows on them. They did do it wrong. They did post something which would cause problems when they had a better choice.
Anita makes the same mistake. She has some very good points to make but her choice of examples is often lacking and likely to cause it's own debate, undermining the point she wants to make. And it's not victim blaming to call her out on her choices. If she is deliberately choosing highly contentious examples when she has much better material at hand, she should be self-aware enough to know that she is going to be called on it. She should know that it's going to mean that less people hear the point she wants to make.
Aren't you avoiding the real issue here? You equate "Jew" to "contentious examples"?
No, what you really mean to compare is "Jew" to "Feminist".
So, it isn't unfair to blame Anita for the ****storm that follows because she self-identifies as a feminist?
And it's not victim blaming right? That a self-identified feminist gets abused over the internet?
And thank you, kara. While I refuse to elaborate or debate with Alkabeth further until he acknowledges his improper conduct, that is a good summation.
You think my conduct is improper, then report it.
Don't moan about it for another 3 pages.
-
Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211
Three glaring examples in one video.
You still haven't explained how they're weak and undermine her point.
-
You still haven't explained how they're weak and undermine her point.
Pages 5-8. De minimus.
I'm starting to feel like it's Groundhog Day.
To be very brief in recap, her use of the ship kidnapping in AC, the ghostly voice in BioShock, and the sequence with the named female PC in RDR (all from T vs W 2) are all trivial because these are games set either in our universe or a close approximation of our universe in which violence directed toward women was historically common, particularly among men who wished to portray themselves as powerful, and these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context. It's a relevant and emotion-based method of narrative construction in those contexts. Given the very good ammunition she has in other games or in other points of those same games, the inclusion of arguably-reasonable depictions like these in her argument is either laziness, as she appeals to quantity rather than quality of examples, or intentionally designed to be contentious, which makes for a waste of everyone's time and undermines her core arguments.
-
You think my conduct is improper, then report it.
I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary and you'd be reasonable and own up to your mistake and move on, but pretty soon you're going to need a field for all those strawmen you're busily constructing. Wish granted.
-
Aren't you avoiding the real issue here? You equate "Jew" to "contentious examples"?
No, what you really mean to compare is "Jew" to "Feminist".
No, that isn't what I meant. I consider your attempt to characterise me as having said that as a bad faith argument and I'm reporting your post.
-
So we can also conclude that Heir is a good alternative to Sarkesian, therefore answering to Akalabeth's ridiculous demand that we should produce one.
And did someone say JEW? omg this thread is filled with holocaust deniers i mean it must be so, someone said JEW omg omg omg
-
This is one case of zealotry that I recommend we end with fire.
-
I am way more interested in what the "silent majority" of people who play games actually think and believe, for I think it is this bigger group which will influence the market in the future.
I'm not sure the majority cares.
Taking myself as an example: some games I've been playing lately are Smite, Planetary Annihilation, and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD. I haven't really given it any thought before now, but I wouldn't say any of those games are blatently sexist.
I guess you could argue Smite is because most of the female gods have large breasts. Most of the male gods have large muscles, though. Is equating the two sexist? I don't really know, I just want to play and win my match. Am I a misogynist now?
Planetary Annihilation has a female computerish (reminds me of the original Command & Conquer) voice that notifies you of enemy attack or resource depletion. Why not a male voice? Is that sexist? I don't really know, I just want to build enough planetary thrusters on this moon to crash it into my enemy's planet. Am I a misogynist now?
Zelda, well, she's kind of a damsel in distress at one point I guess, right before the last dungeon of the game when Ganon captures her. After you find her, she helps you defeat Ganon by shooting him with Light Arrows while you slash him up. But then, maybe Link should be shooting him while Zelda slashes him up. Or you should get to play Zelda and search for Link. Because the game doesn't give you that option, is it sexist? I don't really know, I just want to continue the adventure. I don't feel like a misogynist.
Granted, none of these games are Hitman or GTA5 (I haven't played either of them), but I wanted to try to give you a look at what at least one person who plays games thinks and believes. I don't really think about sexism in the games that I play, but maybe the games that I play aren't sexist. Or maybe I don't care enough and I'm a misogynist. I really don't know. I just want to play. I really think most gamers just want to play. *shrug*
-
If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.
This is where you and I disagree. I don't think giving people who would otherwise support your work "minor points to disagree with" is a good way of writing in support of social change. Sticking to primary egregious examples to support one's argument is a tried and true method because it works. Prof don't give bonus marks for weak supporting points mixed with strong ones for a reason.
I'm perfectly ok with being in the minority on this point. I just really doubt whether many people would be engaged like this, hammering out points on page 20 of an unrelated forum, educating themselves, watching the Heir video etc. if the Sarkeesian video was an immaculate white paper.
The key point is that the vast majority of people are already basically on Sarkeesian's side, but they have little incentive to invest time. Without the ****storm, maybe some of her supporters would retweet the link? Probably at least her family and college friends. What Sarkeesian did instead was give everyone an excuse to argue on the internet (something that people really love doing, I'm sure you would agree).
The problems Sarkeesian & company are pointing out aren't things that should be illegal or even considered immoral, they're just backwards and inappropriate for mainstream fare. Issues like that don't need ironclad authoritative essays. It's just crappy art. What they need is publicity, exposure, light, what have you. Now she is an internet celebrity and can be interviewed any time a politician's child is caught running over hookers in GTA online. None of this would have been possible without her being wrong on the internet.
-
To further establish on how I'm not some sort of TF minion or bot or whatever it is that any bad faith commenter will bring up just to stir up the conversation, here's a good takedown on TF's, especially for a newcomer:
-
these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.
If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.
For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.
-
I'm pretty sure the community supporting her purpose in general would be a lot larger, however, if people stopped attacking every criticism of those videos as implied sexism.
The argument that the attention can do good is a valid enough discussion point, a lot has been achieved by being noticed, however, the habit of interpreting everything that doesn't wholly agree with her as implied misogyny or a personal attack that this has led to, I think, drives away a lot of people who would otherwise openly support her goals, but just don't want to get caught up in the ****storm that any form of dissent seems to cause.
-
these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.
If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.
For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.
My purpose has never been to argue if these trivial examples are or are not unequivocably sexist. I've been taking issue with Sarkeesian's work for the simple reason that she uses trivial examples among the very egregious ones when there is actually no need to do so and it undermines her point instead of supporting it... a statement I've now repeated probably half-a-dozen times. I've no interest in making the argument conclusively one way or the other for those three examples because it is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation... which is the reason I highlighted them to begin with.
In other words, I've been criticizing Sarkeesian's methods and work product, not her broad themes or her as a person. Perhaps this discussion would be more productive and civil if people could separate <the criticism of Sarkeesian's work as poorly done> from <statements that she is a bad person, or that she has no point and there is no sexism in games>. Nobody here is saying the latter. The "if you dare criticize anything to do with us then you're completely against us!" mentality that occurs among some groups of feminists really needs to end; it's not conducive to reasoned discussion. Or, in other words: what Flipside said.
-
these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.
If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.
For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.
My purpose has never been to argue if these trivial examples are or are not unequivocably sexist. I've been taking issue with Sarkeesian's work for the simple reason that she uses trivial examples among the very egregious ones when there is actually no need to do so and it undermines her point instead of supporting it... a statement I've now repeated probably half-a-dozen times. I've no interest in making the argument conclusively one way or the other for those three examples because it is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation... which is the reason I highlighted them to begin with.
In other words, I've been criticizing Sarkeesian's methods and work product, not her broad themes or her as a person. Perhaps this discussion would be more productive and civil if people could separate <the criticism of Sarkeesian's work as poorly done> from <statements that she is a bad person, or that she has no point and there is no sexism in games>. Nobody here is saying the latter.
Except you haven't actually made a cogent argument that her work is poorly done. You're saying that it is poorly done and seem to expect agreement with this point as a given; when asked why it's poorly done, you say that some of her examples are trivial and weaken her point... and again, seem to expect agreement with this point as a given. When asked how they're trivial and weaken her point, you say "it can be argued" that the examples are actually reasonable and therefore trivial... but again, you don't actually make the argument. At each step of the way, you fail to actually deliver on the original point.
Are you actually arguing that the examples are trivial regardless of whether or not they're examples of sexism?
-
It's self-replicating though. There are small parts of the videos which are contestable in their interpretation, that's healthy and fine. People contest these parts as people do and some of the people reading those responses in turn decide to attack Ms. Sarkeesian claiming that it is 'irrefutable proof' that she is wrong. These tend to get publicized, making them 'larger than life' aspects of the entire video. And so, because these are the parts that are drawn attention to, they detract from the overall message.
People will peer review this work, nothing will prevent that, and part of the purpose of peer review is to suggest ways in which the reviewer feels the work could be advanced, improved or clarified. Now, those contentious points may have been added for the advancement of publicity, they may have been inflated simply by their own attention, or they may simply have failed to communicate their point in a manner that convinced the reviewer, MP-Ryan has simply said what he himself felt about the video and the way it has been publicly received and dealt with, he's pointing out weaknesses in the presentation as he sees them.
That is why he is saying that 'it could be argued', because he is pointing out where points of contention might be raised, in his opinion, and where the work might need shoring up, he's not saying that he is arguing that, which is why he's not providing an answer to that specific question, he's saying that it would be possible to argue that and therefore some more work might be needed to counter-attack that argument.
MP-Ryan said that the project had 'weaknesses', I think people are misinterpreting that term a little. From an analytical point of view a weakness does not mean it is wrong, it means that there are parts of the axiom which need to be stressed further to be proved.
Edit : And I'll also point out that, where MP-Ryan has directly disagreed with her work, he has already posted his reasons why, because of nature of the games involved and the possibility of arguing that the sexism shown there was contextual, he's entitled to that opinion without being told he is attacking the author merely by stating it.
-
There is a communication breakdown here. Part of it is my fault, since I'm using a legal standard of 'reasonable,' which means what another objective everyperson would believe is appropriate and understandable given the same information at hand. Perhaps I have also not been clear that I am critiquing her methodology and choice of content, and not necessarily her general conclusions. With that in mind:
1. A number of her examples can be subjectively and reasonably argued as being either examples of sexism, or not examples of sexism, depending on the subjective interpretation of the audience member. The three examples I selected earlier can be reasonably argued to not be sexism on the basis of historical representation and narrative building, or reasonably argued to be sexism as they are creative decisions in the design process and not absolutely essential to the game (which brings in the counter-argument that nothing is essential to any game, and so forth).
2. There are many, many examples of blatant and egregious sexism in video games which are, in essence, indefensible. We can all think of examples. My go-tos are character art, particularly in the depiction of clothing and armour for female and male characters in identical roles, or the overemphasis or absurdities regarding female breast depiction in games. These are commonly recognized as sexism and are generally supported as examples of sexism in mass media. There are many others.
3. Therefore, I characterize some examples cited as sexism as trivial - those that can be reasonably argued for and against - and some examples as egregious - those only the most ardent of anti-feminists would typically argue against. So, to answer your last question, yes - if an example can be reasonably argued in both directions, sexist or not sexist, then it is trivial for the purposes of a critical analysis. This doesn't imply a values judgement that it is just fine, or absolutely terrible - it simply means it is unimportant as it is not at a level of significance appropriate to support an analysis.
4. When constructing a critical analysis of a subject, you typically select a number of examples (depending on the length of your piece) which conclusively support the argument you are attempting to make to an audience which is assumed will treat your work with a critical eye and may disagree with you. The examples you select are the strongest of those available to support your point. Selecting arguable examples which dilute your argument or provide cracks in your conclusions which can be dissected serves to undermine your analysis, as it can be viewed through the lens of de minimus - e.g. your selected examples are predominantly trivial evidence for your argument, therefore the critical analysis based upon it has predominantly trivial conclusions because the perceived problems you are critiquing are so minor that they do not deserve the level of attention you fix upon it.
5. Sarkeesian's work mixes examples of the trivial with the egregious - meaning examples which can be argued against by a reasonable viewer, and examples that cannot. This serves to undermine her basic premise, as it creates noise, diversion, and focus on the weakest aspects of the supporting evidence for her argument. Effectively, it allows her critics to re-focus her discussion and analysis onto the weight of small pieces of her evidence, rather than the broad argument. As a method of critical analysis, it is profoundly unsound; if your objective is to foster a change of view among an audience, your action should be to create the strongest argument possible using the best evidence available to you which forces those who critique your work to elevate their criticisms to that level of evidence - meaning they have to provide the strongest level of alternative evidence in order to refute your critical analysis.
6. Alternatively, some have suggested that Sarkeesian may have consciously used trivial examples among the egregious ones in order to open up additional room for attention-drawing debate. I find this equally misguided as I believe it vastly overestimates the benefit of such a vitriolic debate, particularly in light of the well-documented Internet rage directed at women who express an even mildly controversial opinion.
-
1. A number of her examples can be subjectively and reasonably argued as being either examples of sexism, or not examples of sexism, depending on the subjective interpretation of the audience member. The three examples I selected earlier can be reasonably argued to not be sexism on the basis of historical representation and narrative building, or reasonably argued to be sexism as they are creative decisions in the design process and not absolutely essential to the game (which brings in the counter-argument that nothing is essential to any game, and so forth).
2. There are many, many examples of blatant and egregious sexism in video games which are, in essence, indefensible. We can all think of examples. My go-tos are character art, particularly in the depiction of clothing and armour for female and male characters in identical roles, or the overemphasis or absurdities regarding female breast depiction in games. These are commonly recognized as sexism and are generally supported as examples of sexism in mass media. There are many others.
3. Therefore, I characterize some examples cited as sexism as trivial - those that can be reasonably argued for and against - and some examples as egregious - those only the most ardent of anti-feminists would typically argue against. So, to answer your last question, yes - if an example can be reasonably argued in both directions, sexist or not sexist, then it is trivial for the purposes of a critical analysis. This doesn't imply a values judgement that it is just fine, or absolutely terrible - it simply means it is unimportant as it is not at a level of significance appropriate to support an analysis.
This, at last, explains the bizarre usage of the word "trivial". There is no such thing as "trivial" sexism. There is conscious sexism and unconscious sexism; Ms. Sarkeesian is dedicated to pointing out both kinds, not just the most obvious instances of conscious sexism. Yes, her videos could be made to focus on those "egregious" examples that "only the most ardent of anti-feminists would argue against", but that would be not only "preaching to the choir" (in that the most ardent of anti-feminists are not her target audience), but also not very useful.
At this point, MP-Ryan, I think it's time to ask you a clarification about another thing you seem to be taking for granted in this conversation: what is Ms. Sarkeesian's "argument"? What is her "main point"? Because I do not think you would answer that question in the same manner as I would.
-
This, at last, explains the bizarre usage of the word "trivial". There is no such thing as "trivial" sexism. There is conscious sexism and unconscious sexism; Ms. Sarkeesian is dedicated to pointing out both kinds, not just the most obvious instances of conscious sexism. Yes, her videos could be made to focus on those "egregious" examples that "only the most ardent of anti-feminists would argue against", but that would be not only "preaching to the choir" (in that the most ardent of anti-feminists are not her target audience), but also not very useful.
My usage of trivial was explained way back on page 6. I think you need to read my post above again, because you appear to have misunderstood point 3. If she focused only on the egregious examples, she broadens her target audience, not limits it. Including trivial examples limits her target audience to people who already agree with her.
At this point, MP-Ryan, I think it's time to ask you a clarification about another thing you seem to be taking for granted in this conversation: what is Ms. Sarkeesian's "argument"? What is her "main point"? Because I do not think you would answer that question in the same manner as I would.
That sexism in games is systemic, pervasive, tacitly accepted and taken for granted, and is ultimately harmful. All points with which I agree. I just think she could have made her case in a much better manner.
-
Everybody should keep in mind what happened to the last thread. This thread will probably end up being closed at some point as well, and sooner than later if it keeps generating the number of moderator reports it has.
Akalabeth Angel, to put it charitably, you are not doing an effective job of presenting your case. You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally. You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against. Karajorma gave you a great analogy and not only did you fail to understand it, you interpreted it as nearly the opposite of what he said. You also mischaracterized MP-Ryan's position and refused to retract it once confronted. For those reasons, I'm issuing you a forum warning. Persist in your behavior and I'll put you in the HLP Monkeys group for a few days.
To address the most recent moderator reports: a) yes, Akalabeth Angel was acting irrationally, b) no, "find yourself some integrity" is not an actionable personal attack in the context it was posted, c) people are entitled to their opinions.
To make things even clearer, I will make a list of things that are not the same:
1. Criticizing someone's argument
2. Criticizing the way someone makes that argument
3. Criticizing the person
4, 5, & 6. Substitute "attacking" for "criticizing" in the above three points.
One would be wise to keep those six things straight.
-
Akalabeth Angel, to put it charitably, you are not doing an effective job of presenting your case. You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally. You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against. Karajorma gave you a great analogy and not only did you fail to understand it, you interpreted it as nearly the opposite of what he said. You also mischaracterized MP-Ryan's position and refused to retract it once confronted. For those reasons, I'm issuing you a forum warning. Persist in your behavior and I'll put you in the HLP Monkeys group for a few days.
Sweet, a warning.
But spare me the discourse and don't present subjective interpretation as fact.
I also find it laughable that what you call "mischaracterizing" and "misunderstanding" are somehow against forum rules but questioning someone's integrity or characterizing an individual is not.
Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the forum rules before rendering judgements in future:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87037.msg1425036
-
If you're going to react like a petulant child when confronted with moderation, you're not going to generate much sympathy for your case. Warning increased.
-
What is the purpose of guidelines for forum conduct if they are wantonly ignored?
Case in point:
HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions
Guideline not followed.
If you're going to react like a petulant child
Moderators are apparently exempt from the rules governing personal attacks.
As for my alleged misconduct:
The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems . . . Anita makes the same mistake.
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word, and therefore perfectly fits into the analogy Karajoma is trying to make?
The answer is yes, of course it is. Turning a misappropriated analogy on its head and demonstrating the logical conclusion to its author is not arguing in "bad faith".
Also I clearly demonstrated here:
Victim blaming is about holding a person responsible.
It's not about saying what they do or do not deserve.
Why attributing MP-Ryans post as "victim blaming" is completely accurate and why his alleged defense:
(not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).
Is no defense at all.
But feel free to go an edit the forum rules for conduct and add in
. . .not doing an effective job of presenting your case. . . .
You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally . . .
misrepresenting . . .
mischaracterized
as all being against forum conduct because apparently that's what I'm being warned for?
I'm not posting for sympathy. I'm posting to illustrate a clear discrepancy between the rules and discipline. Feel free to publicly clarify.
-
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,
No.
-
Ordinarily I wouldn't have approved your post -- as it was subject to post moderation -- but it turned out to be your last word on the subject...
Guideline not followed.
Actually, it was. I issued you a forum warning which didn't affect your ability to post. Then Scotty increased it to invoke post moderation. Now comes the formal action: you've been monkeyed.
Moderators are apparently exempt from the rules governing personal attacks.
An accurate description of your behavior is not a personal attack.
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word, and therefore perfectly fits into the analogy Karajoma is trying to make?
The answer is yes, of course it is. Turning a misappropriated analogy on its head and demonstrating the logical conclusion to its author is not arguing in "bad faith".
You continue to miss the point of Karajorma's post. Karajorma was criticizing the way that Anita presented her points. You characterized that as blaming her because of her self-identification. That is a mischaracterization of Karajorma's point. You've confused "criticize the way someone makes the argument" and "criticize the person" in my list.
Also I clearly demonstrated here:
Victim blaming is about holding a person responsible.
It's not about saying what they do or do not deserve.
Why attributing MP-Ryans post as "victim blaming" is completely accurate and why his alleged defense:
(not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).
Is no defense at all.
MP-Ryan is not "blaming the victim". He's criticizing the method of presenting the argument, just as Karajorma was.
I'm not posting for sympathy. I'm posting to illustrate a clear discrepancy between the rules and discipline. Feel free to publicly clarify.
Done. Now that will be quite enough from you on this thread.
-
This, at last, explains the bizarre usage of the word "trivial". There is no such thing as "trivial" sexism. There is conscious sexism and unconscious sexism; Ms. Sarkeesian is dedicated to pointing out both kinds, not just the most obvious instances of conscious sexism. Yes, her videos could be made to focus on those "egregious" examples that "only the most ardent of anti-feminists would argue against", but that would be not only "preaching to the choir" (in that the most ardent of anti-feminists are not her target audience), but also not very useful.
My usage of trivial was explained way back on page 6.
No definition of "trivial" is offered on page 6.
Including trivial examples limits her target audience to people who already agree with her.
You're going to need to explain the logic behind that one.
-
Yes, prima facie I would have to agree with you Admiral, in fact it is the trivial examples that are allegedly spread throughout all games that are the real problem here, sexism and objectification "normalized" and banalized (the banality of evil). However, this also highlights the problem of the kind of presentation that Anita takes: she is not interested in trying to bring you to understand this point, she just asserts it and expects you understand her from the get go. It would be far more charitable (in terms of speaking to an audience generally alien to your POV) if you did all the leg work that Manveer Heir does in his presentation, guiding you from A to B to C to D... in order for you to understand where he's at.
As an example, if Anita's purpose is to highligh the "banality of evil" in these games regarding objectification of women, then she should probably guide the listener from the most eggregious examples to the more banal ones and clearly state why these banalities are even worse than crushing a woman under a heavy door knob for precisely being banal. There's never an attempt to justify precisely why these things are bad, we are just expected to accept they are so, irrespectively of our natural suspicion of being fed some kind of gish gallop arbitrary stuff that is self-selected to depict women badly treated (and for instance ignoring all the violence done against men).
In this sense, it is not enough to state women are badly treated in games, because any rational skeptic will obviously think as if men aren't badly treated, I mean wtf is this ****?, you must *show* how these treatments are far biased against women. And sometimes she does this (like when she compares the treatment between men and women being mugged in watch dogs), but most times she doesn't. She just name drops a lot of situations and expect we believe they are a fair representation.
This is why I linked to Manveer. He never goes beyond what his own basic unbiased and fairly objective research can tell all of us, and that's enough to paint a dark picture of gaming. He picks the 25 most revered games in 2013 from some metacritic list and runs basic questions like "how many games are white male protag only?" and stuff like that. And the result is indeed a big eye opener. He then goes on to show actual scientific literature in studying these things and so on. That's the way to do the argument.
-
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,
No.
Yes.
-
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,
No.
Yes.
It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.
You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.
-
At this point, MP-Ryan, I think it's time to ask you a clarification about another thing you seem to be taking for granted in this conversation: what is Ms. Sarkeesian's "argument"? What is her "main point"? Because I do not think you would answer that question in the same manner as I would.
That sexism in games is systemic, pervasive, tacitly accepted and taken for granted, and is ultimately harmful. All points with which I agree. I just think she could have made her case in a much better manner.
I'm sure that's one of Ms. Sarkeesian's beliefs, but it is not the purpose of the Tropes vs. Women video series.
This video project will explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games. The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders.
-
It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.
You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.
well that escalated quickly...
(should you even be in command of that particular decision, regarding the fact that you are involved in that discussion? I dunno, makes me uneasy of ever saying anything challenging any of your positions... )
-
Given that he's been reported a ridiculous number of times this month, and you haven't been, you're pretty safe.
Besides, what makes you think this is only my choice? It's been the point of view of most of the moderators for quite a while now that he needed time off.
-
Sorry it's not my intention to initiate yet another moderation conversation here. It was just startling like watching someone beside me being suddenly sniped. I'll move along.
-
I'm sure that's one of Ms. Sarkeesian's beliefs, but it is not the purpose of the Tropes vs. Women video series.
That is a fair point about the initial intention of the series
However, by pointing out tropes and recurring patterns, there is a side effect of that purpose dabbling into how sexism is pervasive. Whether or not it's intended, it's the effect the viewer receives by watching. Whether or not the effect the viewer receives is because of bias is left in question, but my overall point is that original intent sometimes doesn't match up with received message. A lot of that could be due to how the video is presented, and a lot could be due to people getting angry and making it about that.
In the end, where we are now and how/why we got here in terms of the discussion matters more than the original intent of the video series.
-
@MP-Rayan re setpieces: [sorry for not quoting anything in particular, there's been a lot posts on the subject]
I never understood Sarkeesian's argument to be that women can't work as a setpiece in a videogame, providing historical/cultural background. I understood her problem to be with how these setpieces are presented.
For example, "sex workers get killed" is a context, while "you enter the building and find yourself surrounded by sexualized naked female bodies" is a certain way of presenting that context. And it goes without saying that "sex workers get killed" isn't in fact a theme games usually explore; more often the context would be something like "innocent bystanders get killed", and dead prostitutes just a way of presenting that, which makes the choice even more dubious. Now that's not what happens in hitman (their marketing campaign on the other hand is a particularly shocking example), and the egregious examples are not what you object to, but I'm just trying to illustrate what my issue with these "setpieces" is and what I interpret hers to be.
As for the egregious vs. trivial ["can be argued against" is a strange use of that word but alright], I understand your point and the logic behind it, but I think it's worthwhile to consider things from her or other people in the similar position's perspective. She's making a video about the objectivization of women background characters in video games, and she's including all the ways she thinks video games objectivize women or rather contribute to the more general phenomenon. Contesting a single example among dozens she's put forth theoretically does little damage to the general point, and it is in fact to be expected that people will disagree with some of them.
But, you say, she can't go around talking to the choir, she needs to presume hostile audience, and hostile audience will tear her apart for every example they don't find egregious enough. Of course there's then the question of how egregious does she need to go to get the best results, but that's a technicality and I'll agree there'd be a way to make yourself more credible and less of a target in the eyes of a certain part of the general demographic, and a more effective and wider reaching argument is what you are interested in.
The problem I have with that is that first of all the choir most certainly does need to be preached to; it needs to be set in motion (or at least have more momentum added to it) because it's the more important agent of the social change, and it's hard to set it in motion by being in essence dishonest, ie by talking only about the things the majority deems appropriate or egregious enough to talk about. (Do note that she couldn't talk candidly about anything else anywhere really, because it would end up in the critics' compilation of all the wrong things she'd said n years ago just the same).
You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.
-
Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,
No.
Yes.
It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.
You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.
Actually, feminism IS a highly charged word, if only because people continue to debate what it even means and everybody is passionate about what their own "brand" of it actually IS or means for them. And that leads to discussions and usage of the word as being fairly charged.
So, we'll need to discuss this matter, but I really don't think this is the appropriate course of action to take here, especially not in terms of ever attaining anything of any positive value. And while you may think it was a long time coming, there is still the point that you are involved in the conversation rather immediately.
Which is one of the reasons why, despite my own opinions and perceptions, I've yet to engage in any of these conversations.
-
I disagree with "feminism" being a highly charged word on a level which is comparable to "jew", which is what Aklabeth claimed. I'd say that there are some very important distinctions (rooted in historical context) between the two.
-
You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.
I think that pin pointing the exact problem in Sarkeesian has been hard, at least for me, since I've been hedging and swinging in some different directions. It's in my nature to listen and research about everything involved from very different viewpoints, and some times the result is messier than if I just sticked with first impressions and just be a sheep to someone with a sharp clear message about this whole thing. I think it's worth the trouble though.
Having said this, there are some issues that span a lot of activists that are loosely connected with Anita (I'm talking about feminists in general) that really rub me on the wrong side and make, I think, matters way worse than they could be if they were a lot more minimalistic and focused.
First, Anita really boils my brain for having this knack of absolutely dismissing or ignoring any positive, sincere, friendly or polite criticisms of her. What is her daily focus on twitter, on talks, on her videos, whenever? To show psychopathic trolls attacking her and asking her audience if this isn't sexism. If this isn't mysogyny. Now think about this for a second. Who would ever disagree with this? Only the same nutjob trolls who attacked her. The rest of the audience is like "omg yeah you're right". But she's right about what? That there are mysoginist creeps in the internet? Come on, the sky is blue too, how have we advance the discussion in any way shape or form if the only people she addresses are the psychopathic trolls?
Think about that: the only people she respects enough in order to respond to them are the darkest participants of the discussion. And everyone who disagrees with her is swiftly swept under those same trolls' group by her allies, handwavingly, mindlessly. "Oh you disagree with her? Are you crazy? Have you seen the attacks on her? It's a blatant evidence of mysoginy! How can you possibly disagree with her?" is what it boils down to.
Focus on this particular problem for a moment, consider other prominent people who have fought for social change in some way and compare this behavior. Think about Richard Dawkins for instance. Do we conflate all the hate mails, threats and attacks he is the target of daily with the criticism against his positions? No we don't. And why don't we? Well, probably because for starters Dawkins himself never made that mistake in the first place. He shrubs the trolls and deals with them in comical "hate mail reading by the fireplace" videos, all the while discussing and debating his viewpoints in a civil, respectful manner with all the civil, respectful people who don't agree with his take on the world. In this manner, he is inviting us to politely address him and think rationally about his positions, to disagree with reason not emotion, because that's the way he deals with us himself. This is respect for the audience.
What makes matters worse, Anita herself profited for this lack of respect she had with her audience. By merely addressing the critics who were abusers and rude to her (and ignoring the rational parts of their own tirades, focusing only on the "feelings" displayed within), by showcasing how hated she was, she managed to get 160k dollars in her pocket. This means that there's no incentive whatsoever for her or any other "activist" to go for the rational route and addressing with generosity the big majority of people who are not commited to any position here and are just trying to learn a thing or two here and might have reasonable questions and doubts regarding the things she said. Much better to either ignore these questions or screenshotting those less polite as examples of the widespread "mysoginy" she's such a target of.
How can this woman possibly be a good example of anything? I mean, I admire her tenacity and preserverance, but her methods are lacking and have created a complete polarization, divisiveness and hatred on an issue that should and would probably be ****ing consensual if these people had any tact whatsoever.
-
How can this woman possibly be a good example of anything? I mean, I admire her tenacity and preserverance, but her methods are lacking and have created a complete polarization, divisiveness and hatred on an issue that should and would probably be ****ing consensual if these people had any tact whatsoever.
By being an agent of change? No matter what you think of her methods, fact is that her points have been discussed and ackknowledged, and are being discussed and ackknowledged, by an increasing number of game developers both high- and low-profile. As such, she is highly successful in what she set out to do; that she isn't engaging with her audience in ways you'd want her to doesn't impact that.
Also, I hope you're aware that Twitter is the single worst medium for serious critique in existance, do you honestly expect anyone who gets the number of mentions and replies someone like Sarkeesian gets to actually read every single one of them and reply to the ones that are seemingly rational?
-
No, I expect prominent figures with a strong opinion to address the most reasonable criticisms and argue why they are wrong in a rational way, while ignoring the lower brained shenanigans go down the toilet swiftly. Instead she does the opposite: ignore any reasonable criticism and showcase the trolls. And you cannot escape the nagging suspicion that she does this self-servingly, that is, by ignoring reasonable challenges she's effectively protecting herself from addressing said challenges and avoiding everyone else seeing how she is failing at this, and by showcasing the trolls she's effectively portraying all her detractors as mysoginist monsters thus proving her "point".
The idea she hasn't the "time" to address reasonable critics is not serious. I cannot take that idea seriously. She created a 501c non-profit org to advance these ideas, gathered hundreds of thousands of dollars and now she hasn't the time to take questions seriously, but she has the time to be on twitter and other venues parading her most trollish critics as evidence for her predicament?
By being an agent of change?
****ing hell. It's precisely this ****ty rethorical gambit that infuriates me. Where did I state that the problem is that she is an "agent of change"? This is exactly what I wrote about. Whenever someone criticizes her, this kind of ****ty snark response comes back. Can't you at least read what I actually said before replying?
-
No, I expect prominent figures with a strong opinion to address the most reasonable criticisms and argue why they are wrong in a rational way, while ignoring the lower brained shenanigans go down the toilet swiftly. Instead she does the opposite: ignore any reasonable criticism and showcase the trolls. And you cannot escape the nagging suspicion that she does this self-servingly, that is, by ignoring reasonable challenges she's effectively protecting herself from addressing said challenges and avoiding everyone else seeing how she is failing at this, and by showcasing the trolls she's effectively portraying all her detractors as mysoginist monsters thus proving her "point".
I get it, you have strong opinions about how these concepts should be portraited, and how the people portraiting those concepts should conduct themselves. I disagree with them. Let's leave it at that.
By being an agent of change?
****ing hell. It's precisely this ****ty rethorical gambit that infuriates me. Where did I state that the problem is that she is an "agent of change"? This is exactly what I wrote about. Whenever someone criticizes her, this kind of ****ty snark response comes back. Can't you at least read what I actually said before replying?
You asked, more rhetorical than anything else, "how can this woman be a good example of anything?". The answer is, by showing that culture can still be influenced by single people, that one person with a message and perseverance and tenacity can make that message heard.
You want your prophets to be a certain way. I want them to be something else, and Sarkeesian is closer to that something else than most.
EDIT:
To get away from the pro/con Sarkeesian thing, let's get back to the original thread. Here's a good post by Bob Chipman on the subject: http://moviebob.blogspot.de/2014/09/a-long-post-about-gamergate.html?spref=tw
-
I'm deeply disappointed with your criteria. The kind of divisiveness behavior she's so fond of is what I think is part of a particular american mindset of polarization through drama-queening, overreaction, that is shredding their entire nation and now they are kind of exporting the same mechanisms.
Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.
But let this happen to feminist leaders or feminist icons (like Jennifer Lawrence omg) and suddenly it's mysoginy and terrorism. ISIS level, probably. No, I'm not making **** up, the article writer brings Al Quaeda up as a reference.
This is the kind of "revolution" these people are interested into. Well I'm not, and I try to at least show why it's more than ****ing reasonable to not be.
e: I'll read that article. But just by skimming I could already facepalm at it, especially when he mentions the transformers analogy. Jesus he's oblivious isn't he.
-
Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.
Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).
You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong? I misread that part.
But let this happen to feminist leaders or feminist icons (like Jennifer Lawrence omg) and suddenly it's mysoginy and terrorism. ISIS level, probably. No, I'm not making **** up, the article writer brings Al Quaeda up as a reference.
Really? Let's look at that reference, shall we?
The final link is online radicalisation. In a 2009 study, the law professor Cass Sunstein explored the role that group psychology plays in the radicalisation of jihadis. “Social networks can operate as polarisation machines because they help to confirm and thus amplify people’s antecedent views,” he wrote. He quoted Marc Sageman on al-Qaeda: “The interactivity among a ‘bunch of guys’ acted as an echo chamber, which progressively radicalised them collectively
. . . Now the same process is taking place online.” It would be hard to design a better echo chamber than a tightly knit, insular internet forum. We already know that groups tend to drift to extremes, as members move with the prevailing wind (and moderates leave). Add a dash of alienation and a sprinkle of resentment and you have the perfect crucible for extremist behaviour.
So, from the top: We have an article that explores the how and why of the reaction feminism gets on the internet. One point addressed is that of radicalization of small, tightly knit groups. The article cites a study that cited a person on the behaviour of al-Qaeda, with the citation being so general as to apply to any radicalized group. Then the writer of the article suggests that a similar process of radicalization happens in the anti-feminist crowd.
That, as far as I am concerned, is not a questionable writing decision. There's a difference between saying "These mechanisms are the same ones we saw in al-Qaeda" and "These people are literally al-Qaeda", and it applies here.
-
You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong?
He said it's not even wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
-
Aaargh, stupid english, why you fail me now.
Yes, I read that wrong, and I apologize for that.
-
Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.
Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).
They do exist (see Hulk Hogan's case, where the same media even refused to take down its material when asked for). But it's obviously skewed.
Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.
Is it okay to publish these things? No. Is it okay to classify it as mysoginy? No. Just as it's blatantly wrong and self-serving to whine how anti-semitic one is when someone criticizes the Israel government. But don't you see the hidden intentions here? ****, jesus.
You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong?
No, I said "it's not even wrong". It's a reference to something Pauli once said about a scientific argument (in a way as saying it's worse than being wrong).
So, from the top: We have an article that explores the how and why of the reaction feminism gets on the internet. One point addressed is that of radicalization of small, tightly knit groups. The article cites a study that cited a person on the behaviour of al-Qaeda, with the citation being so general as to apply to any radicalized group. Then the writer of the article suggests that a similar process of radicalization happens in the anti-feminist crowd.
Man, it's incredible. So in order to establish that these groups work really well together and form tighty knit groups, one goes out to bring the Al Quaeda example, but that's fine because it's a high level abstracted analogy, I mean, in NO WAY it is designed to paint these people (who the writer called "TERRORISTS" in the headline itself) as being in a moral level equivalent to Al Quaeda. I mean that would be just the nasty rethorical trick in the book, pretty sure all these brilliant well intentioned people would never stoop so low.
That, as far as I am concerned, is not a questionable writing decision. There's a difference between saying "These mechanisms are the same ones we saw in al-Qaeda" and "These people are literally al-Qaeda", and it applies here.
Well!
-
Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).
Hulk Hogan, Bam Mahgra, Gene Simmons, Colin Farrell, Mini-Me from Austin Powers (his name escapes me at the moment). And that's just off the top of my head!
There is obviously a big market for celebrities having sex. Male or female.
-
Just look at this Gawker page highlighting what they wrote about Hogan's sex tape. Read the material. If you find any shame on the fact they were trespassing Hogan's privacy I advise you to go to the optometrist right away. http://gawker.com/tag/hulk-hogan-sex-tape
One fast passage: "Update: The video posted here has been removed pending litigation. See here for details. If you'd like to watch it elsewhere, you may do so here" (sharing a link). It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad to compare it with the way people are being treated right now because they dared peek to one or two pictures of half naked women (I didn't because I really don't care, but still).
-
Well I don't know if Gawker in particular is the best site for a comparison since I don't think they've been particularly harsh about looking at the women's photos either. But I would agree that I've never seen a site react to the invasion of a male celebrities privacy in the same way.
What you really need to find is a site that complains about the women's pics but doesn't complain about male sex tapes.
-
You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.
I think that pin pointing the exact problem in Sarkeesian has been hard, at least for me, since I've been hedging and swinging in some different directions. It's in my nature to listen and research about everything involved from very different viewpoints, and some times the result is messier than if I just sticked with first impressions and just be a sheep to someone with a sharp clear message about this whole thing. I think it's worth the trouble though.
For all I know what you say could be 100% true, and is mostly a potentially valid criticism of her methods. And criticism of her methods by other (women) feminists in gaming would be a great thing, for that community.
On the other hand I know very little about what she posts on her social media or about her in general. I was commenting solely on the content of her last two videos and what I think could or couldn't be wrong with them, and on a particular point of criticism I don't believe to be effective in the long run.
-
Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.
It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sexual objectification. Here, have a wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification).
-
Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.
It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sexual objectification. Here, have a wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification).
And it sounds like you went on sniping right on a quote where you thought you could slam me something in my head without any regard whatsoever to the context around what I was saying.
I *know* what objectification is, what feminists say about the dychotomy between subject and object, its relation to its corollary arousal, and so on and so on and so on. It is not irrelevant to what I was saying but it is entirely perpendicular. So congrats there, mate.
-
And it sounds like you went on sniping right on a quote where you thought you could slam me something in my head without any regard whatsoever to the context around what I was saying.
It sounds like you're attributing emotional motivation where there is none. I have no interest in "slamming" anything; I was just providing you with information.
I *know* what objectification is, what feminists say about the dychotomy between subject and object, its relation to its corollary arousal, and so on and so on and so on. It is not irrelevant to what I was saying but it is entirely perpendicular.
If you think it's "entirely perpendicular" to what you were saying, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment that you actually know what sexual objectification is.
-
Well I don't know if Gawker in particular is the best site for a comparison since I don't think they've been particularly harsh about looking at the women's photos either. But I would agree that I've never seen a site react to the invasion of a male celebrities privacy in the same way.
What you really need to find is a site that complains about the women's pics but doesn't complain about male sex tapes.
Jezebel is a subset of Gawker. http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544
-
It sounds like you're attributing emotional motivation where there is none. I have no interest in "slamming" anything; I was just providing you with information.
I could say the exact same thing to you, therefore this comment and the last one was absolutely inane and unnecessary. Why the snark? Or are you gonna say something like "it looks like you saw snark where there was none!" back at me? Drop off that attitude with me, please. It's not helpful in any conversation, and it's definitely not going to play well with me.
If you think it's "entirely perpendicular" to what you were saying, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment that you actually know what sexual objectification is.
sigh. Disagree at wiil... If you don't understand why it was perpendicular, then you didn't understand what I said when I compared the treatment of sexual objectification of women and men by the media, who did what, and in what particular case were people shocked and what they were not.
-
I could say the exact same thing to you, therefore this comment and the last one was absolutely inane and unnecessary. Why the snark? Or are you gonna say something like "it looks like you saw snark where there was none!" back at me? Drop off that attitude with me, please. It's not helpful in any conversation, and it's definitely not going to play well with me.
I genuinely was not attempting to be snarky; the "attitude" to which you refer does not exist. The purpose of the comments is that you are stating factually incorrect things as though they were self-evident.
sigh. Disagree at wiil... If you don't understand why it was perpendicular, then you didn't understand what I said when I compared the treatment of sexual objectification of women and men by the media, who did what, and in what particular case were people shocked and what they were not.
...And you still are.
-
Some comparisons of reactions to male vs. female nude leaks:
https://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-levin/5-reasons-not-to-look-for_b_5756888.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/greg-oden-naked-pictures_n_437238.html
Seems like male leaks are taken less seriously than female ones..
-
Slight variation on the same bull**** double standards:
-
This is Maddox's video, right? Because Maddox is kind of a total arsehole, and I wouldn't trust his opinions as far as I can throw him.
-
Doesn't make him wrong here though. It's been quite a while since I've seen anything by him for that same reason.
Do watch the video, it's spot on, informative, and entertaining.
-
This is Maddox's video, right? Because Maddox is kind of a total arsehole, and I wouldn't trust his opinions as far as I can throw him.
Being an asshole shouldn't make what you say any less viable
On that note though, one shouldn't trust anyone's opinions regardless of who they are
Though generally an asshole has no problems tip toeing around what needs to be said either, which is why I generally like them more
But in the end, you'd be judging the person and not what the person has to say.
Rather amusing video to watch at any rate
-
Jezebel is a subset of Gawker. http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544
Oh I know that, but don't they have basically different editorial staff or something?
That said. I love this ****ing double standard.
http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544 - Men justify the leak of women's pictures based on freedom of speech.
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 - We justify our continued posting a transcript of the Hulk Hogan tape (after taking down the video which was filmed without his consent) based on freedom of speech.
-
I've always found it amusing how people seem to think Freedom of Speech applies in these situations. It only does where the Government is involved, not people telling you you can't do this as it violates the Right to Privacy
Right to Privacy on the other hand, restrains both the Government and *private party actions* and is subject to legal action
-
you have the right to say whatever the **** you want. if someone shoots you in the face for what you said, thats your problem. last i checked, women have the right to bear arms. why the total lack of face shooting?
-
Yes, it's your right to say whatever you want
But that doesn't protect you from the legal system when what you're saying and showing is violating someone else's privacy
Saying "it's your right" seems to imply that you're untouchable and anything someone does to stop you violates that right *when it doesn't*
-
Yes, it's your right to say whatever you want
But that doesn't protect you from the legal system when what you're saying and showing is violating someone else's privacy
What an oxymoron
Either it is your right and then legal system cannot touch you or it is not your right and then it can.
-
Yeah because y'know the word 'exceptions' is a communist conspiracy made to actually diminish our freedom!!
-
It's fun watching two natural human rights come into conflict with another
I lean towards privacy winning out here because publicizing someone's sex life male or female has ultimately no point. It's not an opinion or expression (see "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them"), it's a violation.
-
freedom is a *****. it gives everyone the same rights, some of those rights are harmful to others. its pretty much a license to be a dick.
-
There's a good reason why "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is such a classic example.
And that's honestly the best thing I've seen Maddox make in years.
-
Guys, read this:
https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email
Read all of it. They're from the 4chan irc channel.
Ok, so anyone want to admit they were wrong? Bueller?
-
Guys, read this:
https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email
Read all of it. They're from the 4chan irc channel.
Ok, so anyone want to admit they were wrong? Bueller?
Damn. I'm still going to hold off on commenting on this whole ....thing (if I ever do) until some more things shake out, but that is some impressively bad OpSec for the 4chan guys.
-
I saw a link to that elsewhere, but as all things twitter, it's almost impossible to piece together what it's saying and by whom and that the context is, if you don't already know. Looks like some dude who doesn't know how to use capital letters is using Quinn's name and posting chatlogs in which some people hate on her and SJW's because... I guess we haven't seen enough of that so far, or something?
-
Guys, read this:
https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email
Read all of it. They're from the 4chan irc channel.
Ok, so anyone want to admit they were wrong? Bueller?
That anyone even considers anything said by Zoe Quinn as having an iota of truth in it is truly mind boggling to me. It's even ironic, given how we are supposed to be skeptic against ms paint screenshots against her but not her grabs.
One of the "most prominent feminine figures of gaming" whose only contribution to the world was a written adventure game using an available engine (she didn't even code). I'm sure all the brilliant women in gaming coding and crafting and managing complex code, art and innovations must be thrilled that this psychopath is their front figure now.
-
Luis, hyperbole does not help you. You don't like her, you think she's acting wrong here, I get that, but "Psychopath"? Really?
-
Guys, read this:
https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email
Read all of it. They're from the 4chan irc channel.
Ok, so anyone want to admit they were wrong? Bueller?
That anyone even considers anything said by Zoe Quinn as having an iota of truth in it is truly mind boggling to me. It's even ironic, given how we are supposed to be skeptic against ms paint screenshots against her but not her grabs.
One of the "most prominent feminine figures of gaming" whose only contribution to the world was a written adventure game using an available engine (she didn't even code). I'm sure all the brilliant women in gaming coding and crafting and managing complex code, art and innovations must be thrilled that this psychopath is their front figure now.
Did someone hack your account?
Seriously, we've had our disagreements but that was totally out of character for him.
Also, the ABORT ABORT post was actually viewable in /v/ to anyone.
-
Posted, as is usual on 4chan, by an anonymous user.
-
That anyone even considers anything said by Zoe Quinn as having an iota of truth in it is truly mind boggling to me.
What makes you say this?
-
If he brings up the now discredited allegations she doxxed FTFY or the other classic 4chan lines, the admins need to check the ip he's using. I'm not even kidding (ok, a little bit). Calling her a psychopath? That's totally out of character for him.
-
I'd say he is being genuine, perhaps slightly more angry about something. Here's his twitter feed for possible comparisons (https://twitter.com/lmldias).
-
I'd say he is being genuine, perhaps slightly more angry about something. Here's his twitter feed for possible comparisons (https://twitter.com/lmldias).
Wowwwwwwwwww
-
This thread has been putrefying for about fifteen pages now. Can anyone give me a good reason why it should stay open?
-
I am not sure if I (or indeed, anyone) can answer that question without further adding to the putrefying.
-
I'm not sure how switching focus to the person themselves as opposed to what he said overall adds anything to the discussion
That anyone even considers anything said by Zoe Quinn as having an iota of truth in it is truly mind boggling to me. It's even ironic, given how we are supposed to be skeptic against ms paint screenshots against her but not her grabs.
It depends on how things are presented. I'm initially more skeptical with imgur uploads with MS Paint (which direct focus to things intended to make you see what you want to see) vs a couple pages of screenshots which doesn't have focus being directed by the poster
One acts as someone directing how to interpret an image, the other acts as someone explaining it without completely dissecting it allowing for the reader to take away their own little slice.
One of the "most prominent feminine figures of gaming" whose only contribution to the world was a written adventure game using an available engine (she didn't even code). I'm sure all the brilliant women in gaming coding and crafting and managing complex code, art and innovations must be thrilled that this psychopath is their front figure now.
Calling out a game for using an engine they didn't even code doesn't really say much. Plenty of people use existing engines instead of in-house ones. And those that either modify or build ground up, generally have a more significant team/resources to do it
The other bit being is perhaps those women don't see her as you have described. Hard to say, since I haven't heard much from them (yet, could be out there)
EDIT:
This thread has been putrefying for about fifteen pages now. Can anyone give me a good reason why it should stay open?
Opinions, regardless of how they're presented, are interesting
-
So I was wrong. Thanks Deathfun.
-
Oh lord, I step away for two lousy days and look what happens... 4 pages behind...
No definition of "trivial" is offered on page 6.
See the whole series of posts on de minimis, which I have now referred you personally back to twice in this thread after their original posting. I don't know if you simply haven't read them or don't understand them, so please follow up with anything you don't understand or want clarification on.
Including trivial examples limits her target audience to people who already agree with her.
You're going to need to explain the logic behind that one.
People who agree with her are already on board with the idea that those trivial examples represent actual sexism in games. The broader audience is not, hence the amount of debate about those examples.
This is precisely why using trivial examples to make a key argument is a poor strategy and why I am critiquing her so strongly. You don't see a problem with those examples because your ideology matches Sarkeesian's in this area - but that it not true of broader society. That those trivial examples are sexism may be self-evident to you, but it isn't self-evident to the general population at large, which is why using them - if you're trying to convince the population at large and not the group of people who simply nods in agreement - is a spectacularly bad choice if she wants her critiques to actually foment change among all people who purchase and play games.
To use an analogy: Someone makes a video about how human beings are bad for our planet. One example is a picture of a coffee cup discarded on the side of a highway. Another example is a person spraying weed killer in their yard. A third example is someone driving their car. Example 4 is the full IPCC report on climate change, example 5 is the impact of the coal industry on air, land, and water, and example six is a case study of oil spills into the ocean. Which examples do you think are going to hurt your argument in the eyes of the general public, and how much unhelpful, distracting noise do you think will be generated as compared to if you just used the three strongest ones that most people don't directly identify with?
-
This thread has been putrefying for about fifteen pages now. Can anyone give me a good reason why it should stay open?
because if you close it someone else will post another topic about it in a day or two pulling more people into it than if one huge unreadable topic got yet another post appended to the end of it.
worked for me, I was going to make a topic about the death of gamers a few days ago and this thread was here and I couldn't quite fit it in without forcing it, so I didn't say anything. giving people a place to talk about things they want to talk about prevents them from making a place. and as a general policy that I have seen in the chans "you may have ONE thread about this" tends to work well.
-
Well, maybe closing it will give people a chance to calm down, at least. :hammer:
(http://staff.hard-light.net/goober5000/images/hlp-property.jpg)