A Cosplayer's Response to Xbox's GDC "Core Values"

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

That makes overt sexual content at such an event less acceptable.

If that so, why then the dancers?

That's a good question: why the fuck did Microsoft even do this? All a corporate after party needs is an open bar and a fleet of knowledgeable and discreet taxi drivers. These people can easily find their own fun after loading up on the free double-neat whiskeys and ergo only embarrass themselves rather than the host.

 

[josemlopes]

I think everyone is thinking way too much about this.

Whoever was planning the after party (note, not Phil Spencer, not a game developer, not a console enginneer) thought that since its a party there should be some dancers to hype up the people and avoid the party getting stale. Obviously that person made the dumb choice of hiring something rather low budget with not much going for it other then looks and some dance moves (not much artistic purpose behind it other then looking nice). So yeah, suprise suprise when they look like that.

Those dancers are kind of like these (the ones on this video are probably a bit lower budget though)

Sorry for making you watch that video.

So yeah, dancers. They are called "entertainment" and are an actual thing at event parties, the problem here is that this one was way low budget.

Screaming on twitter that Microsoft hired sluts or strippers is being somewhat of an asshole in regards to the dancers.

Does anyone really belive that someone went "You know what we really need? Some hot chicks in school uniforms, I wanna see every single person in that party with a raging boner".

 

[Erttheking]

Probably because someone thought it'd be fun and not turn into a drama because of hypocritical and offense-seeking twitter users?

As usual, whatever the intent was, it goes out the window and people assume that maliciouness and callous disregard for half of the planets population is behind it all.
The usual moral superiority complex comes into play and everyone has to show off how considerate they are and then you have a question like the one you quoted, becoming somehow relevant.

You know why exactly why these dancers were hired, but you assume everyone out there knows the ridiculous drama there is in gaming, which obviously isn't the case.
Hell, even I think it's a bad idea, not because of sexy dancers being offensive to some, but because there are people who specifically go out of their way to scream murder about these things and it's best to avoid giving them any excuse to do so, because they have an extremely negative effect on gaming.

Because if you have a problem with this, you're hypocritical and an attention seeker. Apparently. God forbid someone voices dissatisfaction with something you don't have a problem with.

You really couldn't be blowing this anymore out of proportion with the "half of the planet" comment. Hyperbole is a poor way to make your point. No one is making accusations of active malice here. But you can not be actively malice and still fuck up. These people did.

Moral superiority complex? When people stop making hollow statements about how those who think this isn't hunky dory are prudes, acting like they're some champions of women's sexuality, that statement will hold water.

I suppose we do know why they were hired. Tone deafness.

Oh what negative effect on gaming? People keep talking about how controversies have a negative effect on gaming, but aside from the most mild and I mean mild of effects, I've never seen them have any effects what soever.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Say what? This is not about the women who were hired to dance at the party. It doesn't matter if they are models, strippers, porn stars or bag ladies straight off the street, because it is not about those women. The issue is with the people who organized the event and decided to go for entertainment that is unbecoming in a professional and inclusive environment. They went for a form of entertainment that is known to cause many women (and some men) discomfort, especially in an environment where women already are the minority.

What Kerzner did, and you are doing here, is bad form. Instead of listening to the arguments made by Spencer and those that agree with him you twist it so that this is not about the people hosting the event but rather the individual women who plied their trade by dancing there. None of us have spoken about those women in a derogatory fashion, instead we have criticized those that arranged the party, and it would be becoming if you addressed that instead of accusing us of slut shaming.

Except, I think the entire point of the article is that women dressed skimpily are a part of the environment, and should be included as well. Which is where cosplaying comes in. By saying that bringing in scantily clad women goes against the core values of Microsoft, even though they've got many examples of women dressing skimpily in their own games that are, at times, celebrated, they go on to imply that those aren't wanted. Her opening bit is even talking about where cosplayers feel like they're being shamed out of wearing outfits that are considered "slutty" or too skimpy. What does it imply when Microsoft itself also agrees that women in skimpy costumes are to be apologized for?

They hired women to dance, in a nightclub and suddenly this is bad? When did gaming become so puritanical that women should be slut-shamed out?

All that discussion, and as far as I can see one post that accurately states the intention of the article. Yeah, reading it I also thought that the point of it was that a sex-negative viewpoint of the video game industry excludes sex-positive people, and that the reaction from Microsoft only helped to foster a climate of sex-negativity in the industry, which in turn excludes certain women. So not allowing sexy women at such events is not helping the inclusion of all women. What of the woman who want to dress sexy at gaming related events? (Which I thought was the link to cosplaying some commenters seemed to miss)
I agree, the main complaint should have been that there were not enough sexy dancers (to be precise, male ones), not that there were any at all.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

So when you talked about attention seeking hypocrites you were talking about something competently different then?

That sentence doesn't even make sense considering what it was replying to.

I wasn't even freaking talking about you here.

Are you going to bring up these "effects" or not? Because I can't help but notice that people love to talk about all these dangerous effects, yet can't ever seem to pin them down for me. And if listing these concerns is apparently something you don't want to do, (Something about being my entertainment, whatever the hell that means) then frankly I don't know why you bring them up to begin with

In summary you don't reply to any my points. At all.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

In summary you don't reply to any my points. At all. Do I win?

Yup, because I don't like the way you "debate" and you tend to drag things out forever with no interest in understanding, but rather trying to reach some universal truth, ignoring any concept of opinion.

That last bit you edited away, which I added to the quote, sums up nicely what kind of person I think you are.

I think you may have grievously misunderstood what a debate is, because it doesn't leave much room for opinion, and it really isn't about understanding each other.

 

[Erttheking]

In summary you don't reply to any my points. At all. Do I win?

Yup, because I don't like the way you "debate" and you tend to drag things out forever with no interest in understanding, but rather trying to reach some universal truth, ignoring any concept of opinion.

That last bit you edited away, which I added to the quote, sums up nicely what kind of person I think you are.

Ignoring the concept of opinion? I've been ignoring the very concept of opinion? Huh? What? How does...what? The hell are you talking about?

That comment was sarcastic based on all of the antagonism you were showing me, antagonism that didn't disprove anything I said...so yeah. I retracted the end of it because I thought it came off as a little too much. Wishing I had left it in now.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Are you going to bring up these "effects" or not? Because I can't help but notice that people love to talk about all these dangerous effects, yet can't ever seem to pin them down for me. And if listing these concerns is apparently something you don't want to do, (Something about being my entertainment, whatever the hell that means) then frankly I don't know why you bring them up to begin with

I think the effects of these controversies are a lot like global warming. You don't see any immediate effects because there are none yet, or as you put it, mild ones at best. The key word is yet. To start torturing my metaphor, these controversies start changing the climate of the gaming industry, slowy enough that one doesn't notice it while it happens, only that it has happened afterwards. All these negative press about sexy female representation = bad female representation creates a climate that is increasingly hostile towards a certain type of games and players. Give it maybe a decade, and we could see serious effects like wide-spread boycotts or even laws against games that go against a percieved public opinion. Heck, you can think what you want about the japan-only release of Dead or Alive Xtreme 3, the publisher was able to use this climate, be it as reason or excuse.

The problem of female inclusion in gaming should be handled in a way that leads to more variety, not less. And some people percieve the present climate change as an hindrance to that goal, and like some glaciers exactly where and how big they are. But that is just my opinion. Who knows, some New Yorkers might like their new community outdoor pool.

 

[Frankster]

Oh if only they had hired some male dancers, much drama could have been spared. At least that's what I'm assuming, the idea of people hating on paid dancers in an AFTERPARTY in a NIGHTCLUB is a disturbing one. I literally cannot think of a place more suitable.

(FWIW: Male Dancers are fine, too. The problem is, to paraphrase someone who ran an "Aerial Dancing" company interviewed for some Travel Channel show I can't remember the specifics on, most straight women are fairly comfortable with - or if not, simply ignore - dancing women. Most straight men WILL complain or get angry/leave the party when surrounded dancing men. This is likely a pretty common issue with those who organize live entertainment, to the point where they likely only suggest male dancers on request or for bridal/LGBT themed events - but never having rented go-go dancers, hey, it's just a guess.)

I've got a friend who works as one of these "event entertainers" and can confirm this part, or at least it aligns with what my friend told me. Basically people like her work for an agency and get informed regarding upcoming events (could be for gaming, could be for a car event, could be for a private party held by rich dudes, anything really) and can refuse/agree to any job as they please so they tend to have an element of choice and flexibility in what they do. Most of these entertainers tend to be women by a sizeable majority because women are stereotypically more accepted as entertainment dancers whereas male dancers ain't, translating to there being a lot more demand for female workers in this area. My friend started doing this just after school at 19, she has been doing this on/off for something like 6-7 years now.

Thought# there is some backlash now...
Interestingly enough she has admitted to me disliking gaming events most of all, she works in Paris and when previously working as a boothbabe (quel horreur! D apparently there would be people who got offended at her type of..."entertainment" and then take it on out on her or try to do things like "tricking" her into admitting she knows little about the game she is representing (she says this is the only industry event this ever happens to her on a regular basis, usually when hired to stand pretty next to something people don't give her as much shit as some gamers do).
Fortunately she doesn't mind dealing with some creeps in order to get a nice paycheck for some easy days work shaking her posterior and making clients feel good about themselves (her literal description of her job, something I wish I could do personally but alas to be a male equivalent you need to have a stupidly good body whereas women can get away with having more varied body sizes...Gotta love the irony of that eh? xD)

 

[Erttheking]

Are you going to bring up these "effects" or not? Because I can't help but notice that people love to talk about all these dangerous effects, yet can't ever seem to pin them down for me. And if listing these concerns is apparently something you don't want to do, (Something about being my entertainment, whatever the hell that means) then frankly I don't know why you bring them up to begin with

I think the effects of these controversies are a lot like global warming. You don't see any immediate effects because there are none yet, or as you put it, mild ones at best. The key word is yet. To start torturing my metaphor, these controversies start changing the climate of the gaming industry, slowy enough that one doesn't notice it while it happens, only that it has happened afterwards. All these negative press about sexy female representation = bad female representation creates a climate that is increasingly hostile towards a certain type of games and players. Give it maybe a decade, and we could see serious effects like wide-spread boycotts or even laws against games that go against a percieved public opinion. Heck, you can think what you want about the japan-only release of Dead or Alive Xtreme 3, the publisher was able to use this climate, be it as reason or excuse.

The problem of female inclusion in gaming should be handled in a way that leads to more variety, not less. And some people percieve the present climate change as an hindrance to that goal, and like some glaciers exactly where and how big they are. But that is just my opinion. Who knows, some New Yorkers might like their new community outdoor pool.

Thank you for being clear and upfront.

I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I mainly disagree for one reason. Things are actually dying down. You rarely see people talking about sexism anymore compared to what it used to be like. Sure there's a controversy here and there, but I remember what it was like when it was starting and OH BOY was it a lot worse than it was now. People just don't like bringing it up because things always turn sour. So people are being a lot more quiet about it now.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Thank you for being clear and upfront.

I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I mainly disagree for one reason. Things are actually dying down. You rarely see people talking about sexism anymore compared to what it used to be like. Sure there's a controversy here and there, but I remember what it was like when it was starting and OH BOY was it a lot worse than it was now. People just don't like bringing it up because things always turn sour. So people are being a lot more quiet about it now.

Your words in God's ear, if that is an English phrase.

But on the other side, female representation and treatment is still a problem in the industry, just not such a big one like it is made out to be. The fact that "things always turn sour" is not really a good one because it prevents constructive discussion. I sometimes feel like every time someone yells about stupid stuff like this topic, they drown out two people with helpful ideas, and that is not good for the medium. For example, everyone knows who Anita Sarkeesian is, but almost no one knows Liana Kerzner, who has ideas about feminism in video games that are actually useful to the medium. I don't want the problem to be hyperinflated, but I don't want it to be quiet either. I would prefer it solved.

 

[Erttheking]

Thank you for being clear and upfront.

I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I mainly disagree for one reason. Things are actually dying down. You rarely see people talking about sexism anymore compared to what it used to be like. Sure there's a controversy here and there, but I remember what it was like when it was starting and OH BOY was it a lot worse than it was now. People just don't like bringing it up because things always turn sour. So people are being a lot more quiet about it now.

Your words in God's ear, if that is an English phrase.

But on the other side, female representation and treatment is still a problem in the industry, just not such a big one like it is made out to be. The fact that "things always turn sour" is not really a good one because it prevents constructive discussion. I sometimes feel like every time someone yells about stupid stuff like this topic, they drown out two people with helpful ideas, and that is not good for the medium. For example, everyone knows who Anita Sarkeesian is, but almost no one knows Liana Kerzner, who has ideas about feminism in video games that are actually useful to the medium. I don't want the problem to be hyperinflated, but I don't want it to be quiet either. I would prefer it solved.

No real argument there....Hell, I think you and I might be on the same page for the most part.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Thank you for being clear and upfront.

I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I mainly disagree for one reason. Things are actually dying down. You rarely see people talking about sexism anymore compared to what it used to be like. Sure there's a controversy here and there, but I remember what it was like when it was starting and OH BOY was it a lot worse than it was now. People just don't like bringing it up because things always turn sour. So people are being a lot more quiet about it now.

Your words in God's ear, if that is an English phrase.

But on the other side, female representation and treatment is still a problem in the industry, just not such a big one like it is made out to be. The fact that "things always turn sour" is not really a good one because it prevents constructive discussion. I sometimes feel like every time someone yells about stupid stuff like this topic, they drown out two people with helpful ideas, and that is not good for the medium. For example, everyone knows who Anita Sarkeesian is, but almost no one knows Liana Kerzner, who has ideas about feminism in video games that are actually useful to the medium. I don't want the problem to be hyperinflated, but I don't want it to be quiet either. I would prefer it solved.

No real argument there....Hell, I think you and I might be on the same page for the most part.

Ummmmm.... Are you sure you are doint this right? As far as I understand, you are NEVER supposed to just agree with someone on the internet. Aren't you supposed to list some fallacies I made, mock me without addressing my arguments or just call me a wanker? Now I am confused about how this works...

 

[TomWest]

There is nothing wrong with having some lasciviousness occasionally.

Strongly disagree. This is a *company*, not a private individual, and what they permit, the promote.

As far as professionalism goes, this is a party. As others have said, alcohol can cause unprofessional behavior. Some groups even find alcohol offensive.

Indeed, and as a professional organization, it is their responsibility to make it as inoffensive to as much of society as possible, regardless of whether such groups are in the present demographic. So, yes, this means removing many elements that are not offensive to most white, male, Christians, but are offensive to significant numbers in other subgroups.

Companies, by being legal creations of the state, must satisfy the laws and customs of society as a whole, and as such, are *supposed* to be encumbered by restrictions that would not apply to individuals (although individuals must expect to suffer the consequences for conduct that might reflect badly upon their employer).

Inclusiveness is a necessary and important part of our future - but this means that corporate environments and promotion must necessarily be restricted to the admittedly small common ground that constitutes professional behaviour. And that means no alcohol, no impropriety, in corporate events.

And if companies cannot be moved by social opprobrium into social inclusiveness, then we society *will* take legal measures to do so, as it has already been forced to do in many circumstances.

(And enough with the pedantics about being offended by an absence. Indeed, most of us have *preferences* for the presence of elements that cater to our particular subgroup. I like a geek-centered workplace. But the lack of a such a socially exclusive perk is not an offense.)

 

[Czann]

You couldn't be more right.

I can't believe these corporations bend backwards to please easily offended half a dozen hypocrites in Tumblr and Twitter. They only care about the high of moral indignation.

The appropriate answer is "Are you offended? TOO BAD!"

 

[TomWest]

I think your view of this as socially exclusive is actually excluding those of us who are permissive of sexuality.

Terminalchaos, it's useful to think of how you would feel at the default state - i.e. if Microsoft hosted no party at all. Offended? No. There are literally an infinite number of parties that are *not* being hosted at this very moment.

So, are you harmed when harmed when a party occurs that doesn't include your (or my) particular interest? Obviously not, it's simply a lack of gain. It's only when a corporate business *adds* elements that are offensive to some significant population that there's a problem.

And note, this is a corporate functions for which they receive tax deductions for the expense. We as a society are subsidizing these events. Private events are a totally different matter.

You think you advocate for social inclusiveness but you are merely advocating for puritanism.

I'm only advocating for consideration to all significant aspects of society. Corporations should be expected to adhere to the same standards of non-offensiveness in their marketing initiatives as in their workplace.

I don't drink but I find those trying to remove alcohol from social events to be offensive.

This isn't a social event. This is a marketing exercise. If it was a social event, then MS shouldn't be able to deduct this as a business expense, which are, as the name suggests, only allowable for things that are directly related to the business.

What about those of us that find meat offensive?

I fully expect that when the Hindu segment of the population is large enough, that indeed we will see meat gradually disappear from corporate functions.

Once again, there is a world of difference between trying to ban various behaviour (which is what you seem to be worried about) and the the government subsidizing various behaviour through allowable expenses.

And yes, if population subgroup is small enough, then it will get ignored. However, this is not the case here.