I don't get it. Violence, good. Sex, NO NO NO WE CANT HAVE THAT!!!

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Your words in God's ear.

I would think that a sex-positive person would say: "Objectification is a perfectly normal human sentiment, everyone is doing it subconsiously and it only becomes a problem when it never stops, which is only the case for extreme cases like sociopaths. Noticing someones body features does not prevent me from seeing her as a person during it or afterwards. Liking beautiful things is normal and doesn't hurt anyone, as long as I don't shame people who don't conform to my standards of beauty."
Not: Objectivication is bad and that it happens differently for male and females is also bad.

And regarding Mrs. Sarkeesian and Mr. Thompsons underpinning philosophies, my understanding of them is as following

Jack: Violence in Video Games causes real world violence.
Anita: Sexism in Video Games causes real world sexism.

so you can maybe understand why I drew a parallel here.

PS: I read Rain too . Glad to meet another fan.

Really to put it in short, easy terms. You see women in video games most often going into battle wearing things that no one should wear into combat. Objectification does happen differently between men and women, for one any objectification of men is far more niche and far less accepted. That is a sex-positive view, because it's about presenting women as sexually empowered, not as sexual objects for male gaze. This webcomic sums it up nicely. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/]

PS: Yet another Rainbeau here.

Edit: Also look up /not-yours/ on Robot Hugs, that one also sums up the point nicely.

 

[Burnswell]

It's about raising children. Little kids have to learn about controlling violent behaviour but sex isn't even on their radar yet.
Secondly, apparently historically poorly fed populations have had their puberty delayed, Britain at one point had people reaching puberty at 18 and that was where we inherited our ideas about adulthood being at 18 from, as hard as that is to believe with the experience of our very well fed population. Now we see that age as being more about being old enough to have learned to take care of yourself and therefore theoretically another life too.

 

[FalloutJack]

Ummm...I've seen plenty of movies with violence and sexual content. Not as in X-Rated, but it's still there. What's the haps, bro?

 

[Fox12]

Umm. What? Someone got into the blow. Have you seen American television? Game of Thrones, MTV, BET, Nip/Tuck, Girls, ect. Where have you been? Sex is everywhere. People love it. And I live in the middle of the Bible Belt.

I sometimes have a problem with how sex is portrayed, but that doesn't mean I don't want to explore it in fiction. For instance, if a sex scene is randomly inserted into a work of fiction, and it's out of place, then I'll criticize it. The same is true of violence. It's more about good storytelling, and less about prudishness. People get so defensive when their stuff is criticized, they can't accept that there may be flaws.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Well, objectification is bad, and it isn't bad "when it never stops", its bad when it occurs, fullstop. If we're using the standard "x is only bad when it never stops" you can just as easily say "racism is only bad if it never stops", which is both kind of a nonsense notion for various reasons but it disregards the instances that it effects people. Racism is bad, fullstop. Objectification of human being is bad, fullstop. Pointing out that it happens differently to people based on their gender doesn't carry any inherent moral wrongness, and given that there are pretty obvious examples of people being objectified based on their gender, such as conscription being based on gender (men being valued for their strength, women being valued for their fertility), I don't see how any person could deny that it occurs.

Okay, I see we don't agree on a fundamental level here that makes further constructive discussion impossible. Again, I don't think objectification is bad, because it happens naturally and does not lead to bad behaviour normally. To be crass, I can think "nice tits" and then not treat the women in question any different than any other woman. I know that this is sadly not normal for everyone, but human stupidy is the one surefire constant in the universe after all. I know that it happens differently for males, but I meant more the things men get objectified over, not the rate it happens or anything. One thing I agree with you on this topic is that objectification of males is niche, but I want more of it in media for equal opportunity, not less of both. This video nicely sums up my views of objectification in general:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw

Also, you don't have to do some conjecture on what a sex-positive person "would" say, you can find out what they do say. There's a fuckton of sex-positive feminist literature out there, especially nowadays with the strong political push for proper treatment of sex workers. You don't have to guess, you can figure it out for yourself, which is something you should do if you actually want to discuss the philosophy in any constructive manner. If you don't know anything about a philosophy you cannot really criticize it to any meaningful capacity. Its like how you can't reasonably criticize the gameplay of a game and point out its flaws if you're not actually familiar with the gameplay.

You may notice I wrote sex-positive person, not feminist. That sort of attitude is just something I think a sex-positive person should be, namely someone who doesn't think that sex, or deeming something as sexy, is bad.

Thats not an philosophy, thats a conclusion which is rooted in a philosophy. You and Jeffrey Dahmer have both come to the conclusion I shouldn't murder this person who is annoying me" but whereas you came to that conclusion because "murder is wrong" he came to it because "I wouldn't get away with killing this dude in the middle of a crowded area". You wouldn't say that you're equally moral people because you took the same course of action. If you're going to criticize the philosophy you have to criticize the philosophy, not knee-jerk to a conclusion that you don't know where it came from. Context is important, after all. Hell, the same philosophy can come up with completely different responses to the same scenario.

For the record, thats not even an accurate assessment of their assertions either. One asserts that violent videogames alter the brain chemistry of people, particularly children, and turns them into unstable psychopaths who enjoy hurting real people and would inevitibly commits mass acts of violence. Jack Thompson asserts a direct correlation between acts of violence and violent videogames. The other asserts that in each piece of media there exist values, some implicit, some explicit, and that we both consciously and subconsciously notice these values which has the potential to effect how you view yourself and others. Propaganda relies on this principle, albeit propaganda deliberately sets out to change people's minds into thinking certain ways about political or philosophical matters rather than is just incidentally telling a story, and while lots of things could technically be considered propaganda most people can tell the difference between this [http://histoforum.net/lesmateriaal/animalfarm.jpg] and this. [https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/bf/77/05/bf7705a6d8e87b74c5bd3b0e9f624c97.jpg] People usually don't get upset about the former because it approaches the viewer as an equal, trying to convince them rationally of a position, whereas the latter is trying to manipulate the viewer's feelings, trying to override their rationality to get them to act in a way that they normally wouldn't. Nobody would deny that media can explicitly influence how you think and behave - unless they're going to try and purport that nobody alters their daily plans based on the weather forecast on the news. Implicit influence? Well, most people believe that, they just believe it selectively, which is a double-standard. Most people will say that society imposes unrealistic standards on men and women, whether they be physical or behavioural standards. I know the common response is "you shouldn't rely on the media to feel good about yourself" but not only does that kind of miss the point its irrelevant because it happens regardless. Hell, most of the people who normally say that get pissed off when they read some sort of editorial or another. It happens to everybody, even adults.

Yeah, but I don't really care about your philosophy if your conclusion is harmful in any way. Your example with Dahmer only works in one way, not the other: When two people with different philosophies reach an immoral decision, both are immoral at the end. The end does not justify the means in my book. Even if they come from two very different schools of thought, they both reach the same conclusion: Video games are dangerous and should be banned/altered, when every serious long-time study suggests otherwise. She can have all the good intentions she wants, but as long as she reaches the same conclusion as dear Jack I will disagree with her, her starting point is utterly irrelevant in that regard.

Furthermore, how Video games supposedly influence people is just as irrelevant, when research suggests that the overwhelming majority of people is not affected. Be it brain chemistry or explicit and implicit values, if video games really affect our behaviour that much, according to crime statistics (that includes sexual crimes) they are doing a really crappy job. To break it down, the scientific consensus is that video games do not cause an increase in violence, so why do they cause an increase in sexism? Every explanation on how Video games affect people is not exclusive to one topic, so if Video games really were causing and nurturing sexism, they would be doing the exact same thing with violence. Even worse, there are far more violent video games than games with supposedly sexist content. How excactly are Video games causing sexism when there is way less portraited than violence? In short, if video games cause sexism they would have to do the same with violence.

Propaganda is something created with the goal to spread a certain belief. I highly doubt that there are games created to purposeful cause sexism. The weather channel is created with the goal in mind to affect peoples behaviour, most video games are not.

And last but not least, "you shouldn't rely on media to feel good about yourself" is a very good piece of advice, and it is a shame that not more people follow it - but this doesn't invalidate it. "You should not murder" is also a very good piece of advice, and sadly a lot of people don't follow it, that doesn't mean we should stop saying it. Murder also happens to everybody, especially adults, but that does not validate it in any way. We should help people to feel good about themselves without relying on media, not change media itself.

Shippng Kyrain til the end of time.

Never! Emily and Rain will be the most adorable parents ever!

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Your words in God's ear.

I would think that a sex-positive person would say: "Objectification is a perfectly normal human sentiment, everyone is doing it subconsiously and it only becomes a problem when it never stops, which is only the case for extreme cases like sociopaths. Noticing someones body features does not prevent me from seeing her as a person during it or afterwards. Liking beautiful things is normal and doesn't hurt anyone, as long as I don't shame people who don't conform to my standards of beauty."
Not: Objectivication is bad and that it happens differently for male and females is also bad.

And regarding Mrs. Sarkeesian and Mr. Thompsons underpinning philosophies, my understanding of them is as following

Jack: Violence in Video Games causes real world violence.
Anita: Sexism in Video Games causes real world sexism.

so you can maybe understand why I drew a parallel here.

PS: I read Rain too . Glad to meet another fan.

Really to put it in short, easy terms. You see women in video games most often going into battle wearing things that no one should wear into combat. Objectification does happen differently between men and women, for one any objectification of men is far more niche and far less accepted. That is a sex-positive view, because it's about presenting women as sexually empowered, not as sexual objects for male gaze. This webcomic sums it up nicely. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/]

PS: Yet another Rainbeau here.

Edit: Also look up /not-yours/ on Robot Hugs, that one also sums up the point nicely.

I know and agree that Objectification happens differently with women, I just think that this is natural and not a bad thing. I guess my comment was poorly worded in that regard. I refer you to the same video that I postet in my reply to MarsAtlas.

Regarding the sexy battle dresses, I don't get the realism argument against it. Of course what they are wearing is not realistic. They fight with huge impractical weapons and/or magic against hordes of enemies, their clothing is the least realistic thing about the situation. I get the variety approach though, some sensible and/or cool dressed fighters instead of sexy are nice to see too. But when a game is clear on what it wants to be, and if it wants to be softcore porn, then that is fine with me, where is the harm in that?

To be perfectly honest, I find it kind of insulting that I have to proof that these kind of designs or games don't affect me. I am a grown adult, am I maybe trusted to differentiate between fantasy and reality? I know that over-sexualized characters are just that - fantasy, not real, and I would never hold a real person to Video game standards, that would be ludicrous. That and that unspoken accusation that as a male my sexual urges have total control over me and I can't find a person both sexy and recognize her as a person at the same time.

I read both of your suggested comics, and one, I don't believe in a "patriarchy", gender norms suck for everyone who does not fit them and should not be enforced the way they are, but that's about it in my eyes. Second, a lot of the examples boil down to "don't be a dick" to me, the objectification is not the problem here, it is the actions that come from people with no manners or self-control. As a male, I can assure you I never thought of a female as a "thing" just because I found her to be attractive, and I think a lot of this harassment comes from a place of selfishness. It is not that men need to control women or don't recognize them as people, they just put their own wants and needs, i.e. trying to fulfill their urges (be it sexual or otherwise), above other people. Not above other things, above other people, they do think of women as people, they just think they themselves are more important. And that is a human sentiment, not a male one.

Basically, I think objectifing someone does make that person the object of my sexual desire, yes, but that is all it does. It doesn't suddenly erase the humanity of the "sexobject", I think I can objectify someone and view her as person at the same time, this duality is somewhat mandatory even. I find someone desirably because she is human, not in spite of it. I am not aroused by furniture. And how I act on these urges is entirely up to me, and I consider myself able to not be a dick. Is everyone? Sadly not, but again, that is not the fault of some ominous patriarchy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even if they come from two very different schools of thought, they both reach the same conclusion: Video games are dangerous and should be banned/altered, when every serious long-time study suggests otherwise.

When has Sarkeesian ever said this? Now, she's said that people should be aware of certain issues about games and the game industry, yes, but if you condemn her for that you have to condemn literally every video game critic or gamer who says things aren't absolutely perfect.

Propaganda is something created with the goal to spread a certain belief. I highly doubt that there are games created to purposeful cause sexism. The weather channel is created with the goal in mind to affect peoples behaviour, most video games are not.

So? Why must it be purposeful to have an effect? If we know something can be done intentionally (and fairly easily), does it not follow that it could be done unintentionally?

In any case, if you were to swap "cause sexism" with "promote a certain worldwide which includes ideas of gender and sexuality", I'd dare say this is a thing that happens a lot. Anyone that wants to make a good, wholesome game has to decide what good and wholesome mean, for example.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Even if they come from two very different schools of thought, they both reach the same conclusion: Video games are dangerous and should be banned/altered, when every serious long-time study suggests otherwise.

When has Sarkeesian ever said this? Now, she's said that people should be aware of certain issues about games and the game industry, yes, but if you condemn her for that you have to condemn literally every video game critic or gamer who says things aren't absolutely perfect.

She can't afford not to. She has never outright stated it, yes, but her followers have. And knowing that she promotes a brand of feminism that places higher emphasis on the collective and specifically states that the choices of a single woman have to be made with the big picture in mind to be feministic, what do you think she would do if she had total control over Video games as an art form? NOT changing stuff that goes against her beliefs for the benefit of the individual goes against her own political and social world view. She has some points, yes, but her criticism is not constructive by any means. Also, she said far more than "being aware", she usually uses a sharper tone, language and an agency that implies more grave measures should be taken. I can analyze a work and grasp the author's intention without him or her explicity stating it. Her biggest problem is that she has an opinion about video games and searches for proof to validate it, instead of researching a topic and then forming an opinion on it. This shows in her shoddy research, cherrypicking and outright lies, and I can very well criticize her for that without condemning every other critic on the planet. (On a side note, would someone who says things are absolutely perfect just not be considered a critic? Pointing out that stuff is not perfect is kind of their job.)

Propaganda is something created with the goal to spread a certain belief. I highly doubt that there are games created to purposeful cause sexism. The weather channel is created with the goal in mind to affect peoples behaviour, most video games are not.

So? Why must it be purposeful to have an effect? If we know something can be done intentionally (and fairly easily), does it not follow that it could be done unintentionally?

In any case, if you were to swap "cause sexism" with "promote a certain worldwide which includes ideas of gender and sexuality", I'd dare say this is a thing that happens a lot. Anyone that wants to make a good, wholesome game has to decide what good and wholesome mean, for example.

This paragraph was more about the word choice of propaganda in comparison with Video games than anything else. Of course media can have unintentional affects, but that has nothing to do with propaganda, which is widespread media with a certain agenda meant to be spread.

I wrote earlier in the post you are referring to why I think these unintentional effects don't really excist or are negligible at best.

Now producers of Video games can use their medium to promote their world view, I give you that, I just state that it is not really that effective, and that this worldview they are pushing is for the most part not sexism.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I know and agree that Objectification happens differently with women, I just think that this is natural and not a bad thing. I guess my comment was poorly worded in that regard. I refer you to the same video that I postet in my reply to MarsAtlas.

Just because something is pro-ported to be natural does not make it a good thing, or something that we should just write off. Because that's how stagnation happens, by saying something isn't a problem and silencing dissent/

Regarding the sexy battle dresses, I don't get the realism argument against it. Of course what they are wearing is not realistic. They fight with huge impractical weapons and/or magic against hordes of enemies, their clothing is the least realistic thing about the situation. I get the variety approach though, some sensible and/or cool dressed fighters instead of sexy are nice to see too. But when a game is clear on what it wants to be, and if it wants to be softcore porn, then that is fine with me, where is the harm in that?

I don't see any harm particularly, unless it only goes one way. The Mass Effect series for example is not what I'd call soft core porn, but look at the difference between how female characters are presented versus males. With the exception of possibly Fem Shepard and the ship's doctor, the rest are all boner bait. Better yet there's Quiet from Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, who they gave the BS excuse: "She breaths through her skin." These sort of examples aren't the exception, they're the rule. I can live with sexy characters, especially in fighting games, but in war games it's obviously absurd. Then you look at Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2, since I practice a fair share of 'Fashion Souls' I can tell you that there is basically nothing that's not at least functional looking. If the realism concept can have merit in a fantasy series like Dark Souls, then sci-fi has no excuse, especially when everyone else but the sex bait women wear power armor. I see plenty of harm in that because it's purely designed to objectify women in a sexual fashion.

To be perfectly honest, I find it kind of insulting that I have to proof that these kind of designs or games don't affect me. I am a grown adult, am I maybe trusted to differentiate between fantasy and reality? I know that over-sexualized characters are just that - fantasy, not real, and I would never hold a real person to Video game standards, that would be ludicrous. That and that unspoken accusation that as a male my sexual urges have total control over me and I can't find a person both sexy and recognize her as a person at the same time.

I never said you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy, or find a woman sexy and see her as a person at the same time. The problem is that in video game media, male gaze is used to drive sales in a manner that's exploitative to men. It also presents an unrealistic standard of beauty for women, regardless of what you say, this exposure does have a desensitizing effect. That's why a lot of people can only get off to super model/Adonis grades of attractiveness, or anime standards of beauty. Also because you pulled some great reading between the lines, I'm not saying everyone has to be butt ugly either, but that doesn't mean that variety is unwanted either.

I read both of your suggested comics, and one, I don't believe in a "patriarchy", gender norms suck for everyone who does not fit them and should not be enforced the way they are, but that's about it in my eyes. Second, a lot of the examples boil down to "don't be a dick" to me, the objectification is not the problem here, it is the actions that come from people with no manners or self-control. As a male, I can assure you I never thought of a female as a "thing" just because I found her to be attractive, and I think a lot of this harassment comes from a place of selfishness. It is not that men need to control women or don't recognize them as people, they just put their own wants and needs, i.e. trying to fulfill their urges (be it sexual or otherwise), above other people. Not above other things, above other people, they do think of women as people, they just think they themselves are more important. And that is a human sentiment, not a male one.

The point you missed is that most males think they're perfectly fine, the first Robot-Hugs "harassment" comic illustrates that because such things kinda fly over peoples heads. It's something you've been able to internalize over the course of your life as normal. Objectification is not the same as seeing another person as a "thing", or an inanimate object, it's placing them in a category regarding how you can use them. Now gender norms suck for everyone period because they enforce standards and cause people to constantly police each other's genders. It's not just don't be a dick, it's about societal privilege, and this comic should shed some light on that. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/] Also don't tell me privilege doesn't exist, there are still a few trans women on these forums, along with cisgender women, and people who are disabled, and members of racial minorities, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual members... That's just to name a few and we can attest societal privilege exists.

Basically, I think objectifing someone does make that person the object of my sexual desire, yes, but that is all it does. It doesn't suddenly erase the humanity of the "sexobject", I think I can objectify someone and view her as person at the same time, this duality is somewhat mandatory even. I find someone desirably because she is human, not in spite of it. I am not aroused by furniture. And how I act on these urges is entirely up to me, and I consider myself able to not be a dick. Is everyone? Sadly not, but again, that is not the fault of some ominous patriarchy.

I can tell you as someone who's asexual, that your duality isn't at all mandatory. Furthermore I happen to know that you can find someone attractive without sexually objectifying them, because most of my friends are capable of that. You can find someone sexually attractive without objectifying them. That's actually more the requirement of seeing someone as a whole person, being aroused by someone doesn't objectify them, wanting all women to be beholden to your sexual desires is objectification. When it comes to sexual objectification, thats more a function of only seeing a person for their sexual value, and it's surprisingly common. People tend to do that most when watching pornography. Women do it too in fact. Objectification isn't inherently wrong, but it gets into troublesome territory when it's unequal and inherently exploitative.

Also the patriarchy isn't some ominous shadow organization, like you seem to think it's supposed to be, it's again an expression of societal privilege. In this case it's the societal power men tend to have, physically, politically, professionally, and socially. In fact this comic highlights it perfectly and is a true experience of a trans woman. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/technigal/]

Edit:

gender norms suck for everyone who does not fit them and should not be enforced the way they are, but that's about it in my eyes.

Also I want to highlight this, because it's a perfect example of privilege. That gender norms suck for people who don't conform.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Snip

So, are you fine with sexual characers in Video games or not? You say you are fine with them, but you also say they cause unrealistic beauty standards. (given that beauty is subjective and idealized, isn't any kind of beauty standard inherently unrealistic?) Don't get me wrong, I am all for variety in Games, but for me that boils down to "You can have as much realism and widely spread body types as you want, just let me keep my hyper-sexualized ninja schoolgirls."

Also, Mass Effect? I played Part 3 and I didn't think any of the characters were sexualized, which means I didn't notice much pandering or characters with flimsy backstory only there to be sexy. Okay, maybe Edi a bit. But even she wasn't baiting my boner at all. That guy only made some supportive comments when Traynor decided to pay the Commander's shower a visit. I guess that stuff is subjective as well. That or the aforementioned ninja schoolgirls have desensitized me.

Apart from that, is reading between the lines considered an impressive skill to have or a bad thing to do? Not a native english speaker, so I genuinely don't know.

I actually don't know any people who can only get off to such extremes, so I don't know how farspread that problem is. I would say that would be a matter of Video Games affecting a problem that was already there, not creating a new one.

Wait wait wait wait. The way the term was used online I thought as soon as I find someone sexually attractive, I am objectifing them. So you say Objectification is not just finding someone sexy, but thinking that you have rights to the other person because of that? Because I would agree with you then, that is bullshit. I just haven't heard the term used in that way.

Regarding the patriarchy though, the term would only be usable if men had an exclusivity on privileges that gave them a power imbalance. I would say men and women both have privileges the other gender doesn't have, just different ones, and that the power balance is pretty equal. Gender norms still suck, but the word patriarchy would imply women suffer more than men do in general.

 

[Parasondox]

It's also probably ties into the double standard for me and women. Men, if they sleep with tons of girls, are considered pros, or desirable. Women though? Filthy two-bit slut.

You just reminded me of a frustrated rant I had with a friend a few days ago. It wasnt towards her. It was about a guy she had relations with. He claimed that because she had sexual partners in the past, she wasn't worth anything and is only good for fucking. Which is what he wanted to do with her. You see, the thing this guy is a massive piece of shit who as this bullshit alpha male mentally of, "I'm the most important. I can do what I want, fuck who I want cause I am better". He has had many sexual partners in the past but think women who have that too are worthless. Fuck that 1950s thinking. He made her feel as if she was worthless and is now afraid to get into a relationship because of it.

The guy is a ****.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Because violence is easier to get than sex, and violence solves more problems! Sex causes problems! Sex requires way more effort than punching someone! Hate's a delicious drug that's way easier than getting sex!

Nah, prolly not it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So, are you fine with sexual characers in Video games or not? You say you are fine with them, but you also say they cause unrealistic beauty standards. (given that beauty is subjective and idealized, isn't any kind of beauty standard inherently unrealistic?) Don't get me wrong, I am all for variety in Games, but for me that boils down to "You can have as much realism and widely spread body types as you want, just let me keep my hyper-sexualized ninja schoolgirls."

I'm essentially fine with characters that are sexual, even sexy ones, but in a most cases context is extremely important. That's why I object to a scantly clad character rushing into battle wearing a skimpy outfits because they're female, when all the men are wearing armor. I said they can desensitize people, mostly because they actually can. Also while beauty standards can be subjective, there are obviously acceptable norms that are considered most widely attractive. I'm not saying that there are subjective differences, like people who are attracted to overweight folk, but they're the exception to the rule. Really noone can take away the "hyper-sexualized ninja schoolgirls", because they sell, because sex sells.

Although the big problem I seem to have is that this eye-candy only seems to go one way, that is the straight guys and lesbian women get their eye-candy, especially in games with romance options. On the other hand straight women and gay guys get very little if anything for decent eye-candy, or romance options. This isn't so much an issue for me personally, despite being asexual, I appreciate females and femme-type folk(other trans women, feminine genderqueer, and etc...) more than male/masculine appearances. Still I know enough people who like the hunky dudes, which they get far to little of. Then again I'm not holding out much hope for depictions of trans characters, in spite of my desire to see them, because I'm a trans woman.

Also, Mass Effect? I played Part 3 and I didn't think any of the characters were sexualized, which means I didn't notice much pandering or characters with flimsy backstory only there to be sexy. Okay, maybe Edi a bit. But even she wasn't baiting my boner at all. That guy only made some supportive comments when Traynor decided to pay the Commander's shower a visit. I guess that stuff is subjective as well. That or the aforementioned ninja schoolgirls have desensitized me.

Well with the Mass Effect series the first game had pretty standard armor, while Mass Effect 3 was a pretty gritty war drama... Which I still haven't had a chance to play all the way through anyways. The big offender is Mass Effect 2, especially with camera angles that emphasized Miranda's butt, not to mention Miranda's really skin tight outfit and seductive mannerisms. But all the female characters got that treatment, from Tali to Kasumi, especially Kasumi. The only female character they didn't play up for sexy was the ship's doctor, which they only avoided due to her apparent age. As for EDI, well she's kinda Joker's soul mate there, but they did play her really sexy. Still having not had much exposure to Mass Effect 3, I can't say for certain, but it seems some fan backlash from Mass Effect 2 and it's overplaying of the sexy elements might have gotten the third game toned down.

Apart from that, is reading between the lines considered an impressive skill to have or a bad thing to do? Not a native english speaker, so I genuinely don't know.

"Reading between the lines" is synonymous with another saying; "putting words in my/someone's mouth." Basically you took offense at things I did not actually say and things I most certainly did not accuse you of being. It's not a good thing and I might have been a bit harsh, but you did kind of go off on me as if I personally accused you of being unable to tell fantasy from reality, which I did not do.

I actually don't know any people who can only get off to such extremes, so I don't know how farspread that problem is. I would say that would be a matter of Video Games affecting a problem that was already there, not creating a new one.

There are quite a few people who are that way, it's really bad in Japan with people lusting for a "perfect anime waifu", in the US it leans more towards idealized models and such. Basically it relies on what society considers an "acceptable" figure, this is especially true for women, it's especially sexual in nature, and yes it's a trend that's existed before video games. In Europe and North America for example women in the 19th century would wear extremely tight corsets, so tight in fact they couldn't breath properly in them. Unrealistic standards of beauty are nothing new, women in China had their feet deformed with bindings to keep them small, as another example. Traditionally men have been expected to fit into a certain image of masculinity, generally being muscular and following facial hair fashions for example. So it's an age old issue and it does effect both sexes and gender variant people, but it effects women more and trans women like me even more. In that last case, it's because the double standard applied to trans women is impossible to meet. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/double-standards/] Which is why I'm thankful that I pass well, most people never know I'm trans.

Wait wait wait wait. The way the term was used online I thought as soon as I find someone sexually attractive, I am objectifing them. So you say Objectification is not just finding someone sexy, but thinking that you have rights to the other person because of that? Because I would agree with you then, that is bullshit. I just haven't heard the term used in that way.

Well objectification has become a buzzword, which both sides of the debate tend to misuse. A lot of feminists call any sexualized imagery objectification, which lets anti-feminists and the like call it a bullshit term. What objectification boils down to is basically seeing a person to fulfill a need, but nothing more. It's not entirely wrong, but it can become an issue in media due to over exposure. This can also apply to ad media, like ads with women wearing specific clothing to sell a brand, or clinging to men to sell a certain brand of men's cologne. Basically objectification is a cognitive disconnect, where you don't really see the person as a person, but an objectified image of that person. We do actually do it a lot though, it's mostly an unconscious reaction, it can even apply to people you meet day to day, when you categorize them as you walk past. Like you might see an attractive woman as just a source of attraction, especially if you don't interact with her, or you might see a big burly shady looking dude and objectify him as a threat in your mind. Sexual objectification though can be a serious issue, because it can cause people to disconnect anyone they find attractive from being a person in their mind. It's a mechanism of desensitization there too, too much exposure experienced by the right person, or for long enough, can cause that kind of mentality to stick. So that's why a lot of feminists are extremely against sexually objectifying imagery, but most often those are sex-negative feminists. Sexual objectification can be empowering too, it's just one of those weird things, that can be good, but is a good thing you can have too much of.

Regarding the patriarchy though, the term would only be usable if men had an exclusivity on privileges that gave them a power imbalance. I would say men and women both have privileges the other gender doesn't have, just different ones, and that the power balance is pretty equal. Gender norms still suck, but the word patriarchy would imply women suffer more than men do in general.

Not really, there is kind of an imbalance regarding privilege. For example men can cat call at women to their hearts content in public, but if a woman does the same she gets called a slut. Women have a severe lack of access to STEM fields, which is why they're starting to be given special scholarships from advocacy groups to help correct that. Women have far less freedom when it comes to career choices and are often seen as less competent by men by default. Remember the "Technigal" Robot-Hugs comic earlier I posted on this page? Kinda case and point. Plus long term objectives for women are kinda limited to an expectation of motherhood, which makes it extremely difficult for women to hold down careers, especially political careers. Almost all of the expectations placed upon women puts them in a subservient position to men, no matter where you look. Still these things are changing, but we're still a long ways off from any sort of parity in gender treatment. That's even more true for trans and intersex folk than it is for women too.

 

[Thaluikhain]

She can't afford not to. She has never outright stated it, yes, but her followers have. And knowing that she promotes a brand of feminism that places higher emphasis on the collective and specifically states that the choices of a single woman have to be made with the big picture in mind to be feministic, what do you think she would do if she had total control over Video games as an art form? NOT changing stuff that goes against her beliefs for the benefit of the individual goes against her own political and social world view.

Well, yes, but then give anyone total control over anything, and you'd expect them to try and change things for the better, according to what they think better is.

Also, she said far more than "being aware", she usually uses a sharper tone, language and an agency that implies more grave measures should be taken. I can analyze a work and grasp the author's intention without him or her explicity stating it. Her biggest problem is that she has an opinion about video games and searches for proof to validate it, instead of researching a topic and then forming an opinion on it. This shows in her shoddy research, cherrypicking and outright lies, and I can very well criticize her for that without condemning every other critic on the planet.

She's looking for examples to prove her points, yes, but I don't see a problem with that. If I was to ask you what she is saying that is wrong, you'd look for examples of what she's said in much the same manner.

Now, you can say her evidence is shoddy, that's fair enough, but that's another issue.

(On a side note, would someone who says things are absolutely perfect just not be considered a critic? Pointing out that stuff is not perfect is kind of their job.)

True.

I wrote earlier in the post you are referring to why I think these unintentional effects don't really excist or are negligible at best.

Now producers of Video games can use their medium to promote their world view, I give you that, I just state that it is not really that effective, and that this worldview they are pushing is for the most part not sexism.

In of itself, sure, videogames are merely a small part of our culture, but it's still a part, and worth examining, providing we don't forget the rest of society.

As for the worldview not being sexist...there's is a lot of sexism in society, it'd be very surprising if that wasn't reflected in the cultural elements, such as books, movies and games of that society.

I read both of your suggested comics, and one, I don't believe in a "patriarchy", gender norms suck for everyone who does not fit them and should not be enforced the way they are, but that's about it in my eyes. Second, a lot of the examples boil down to "don't be a dick" to me, the objectification is not the problem here, it is the actions that come from people with no manners or self-control. As a male, I can assure you I never thought of a female as a "thing" just because I found her to be attractive, and I think a lot of this harassment comes from a place of selfishness. It is not that men need to control women or don't recognize them as people, they just put their own wants and needs, i.e. trying to fulfill their urges (be it sexual or otherwise), above other people. Not above other things, above other people, they do think of women as people, they just think they themselves are more important. And that is a human sentiment, not a male one.

Ah, but are people deciding to be dicks, or do they just have a strange idea of what constitutes being a dick?

I'd suspect it's the latter in large part, which means people have to be aware of the issues. If someone is being a dick because they don't realise they are, then doesn't that mean I could be doing the same thing unless I'm paying attention, and even then?

Also, I don't see why selfishness is exclusive with seeing women as less. Historically, that's hardly been an unusual attitude.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I'm essentially fine with characters that are sexual, even sexy ones, but in a most cases context is extremely important. That's why I object to a scantly clad character rushing into battle wearing a skimpy outfits because they're female, when all the men are wearing armor. I said they can desensitize people, mostly because they actually can. Also while beauty standards can be subjective, there are obviously acceptable norms that are considered most widely attractive. I'm not saying that there are subjective differences, like people who are attracted to overweight folk, but they're the exception to the rule. Really noone can take away the "hyper-sexualized ninja schoolgirls", because they sell, because sex sells.

Although the big problem I seem to have is that this eye-candy only seems to go one way, that is the straight guys and lesbian women get their eye-candy, especially in games with romance options. On the other hand straight women and gay guys get very little if anything for decent eye-candy, or romance options. This isn't so much an issue for me personally, despite being asexual, I appreciate females and femme-type folk(other trans women, feminine genderqueer, and etc...) more than male/masculine appearances. Still I know enough people who like the hunky dudes, which they get far to little of. Then again I'm not holding out much hope for depictions of trans characters, in spite of my desire to see them, because I'm a trans woman.

I agree that it is weird when we have games with oversexualized female characters and normal men, but my solution would be to sex up the men as well, not ban the sexy women. I am all for more male eye-candy and romance options, again, variety is a good thing. I know sex sells, that was not the point. What I essentially asked was if you are okay with them existing at all, not because you can't do anything about them. Basically, if you were in a hypothetical position of total control over the Game Industry, would you ban them or let them be? There are some character types I hate, i.E. the slaps of rage, armor and muscles most Triple-A shooters generously call protagonist, but I wouldn't want them GONE, because I know some people like them, and who am I to take someones fun away? I just don't want them to be my only option. Important here: I also don't excisting game series to change, I want new ones that provide the variety. If some Game wants to cater to archetypes I don't care about, more power to them, that is okay, I can play different ones. Again, variety. Dragon Age Inquisition has a trans character, but he is not romancable.

"Reading between the lines" is synonymous with another saying; "putting words in my/someone's mouth." Basically you took offense at things I did not actually say and things I most certainly did not accuse you of being. It's not a good thing and I might have been a bit harsh, but you did kind of go off on me as if I personally accused you of being unable to tell fantasy from reality, which I did not do.

Huh... when I looked into the term, I found meanings like "searching for the hidden meaning of a text or argument", not a bad thing. As I understood it "Putting words in someones mouth" is deliberately misconstructing someones argument to discredit them with points they nerver meant or said. "Reading between the lines" is the ability to look past the initial text or argument to point out what they actually meant or implied, even when they never explicity stated it. Something that goes on my nerves is the tendency of people online to go "I never explicitly said that". Yeah, sometimes you don't have to state something explicitly, your intentions come across in subtext, word choice and tone. It is perfectly valid to adress the concieved meaning, implication or logical consequence of a statement. You can't go around saying "I am gonna beat him until he doesn't move anymore!" and then say "Well, I never stated I want to MURDER him!". No you didn't, but it was both heavily implied and the logical consequence of what you were saying. Anyways, I neither meant nor said that you think I can't differentiate between fantasy and reality, it just was the logical consequence of some of your arguments. I was not trying to attack you, I just hate this sentiment that does exist, sorry if I came off as to harsh.

There are quite a few people who are that way, it's really bad in Japan with people lusting for a "perfect anime waifu", in the US it leans more towards idealized models and such. Basically it relies on what society considers an "acceptable" figure, this is especially true for women, it's especially sexual in nature, and yes it's a trend that's existed before video games. In Europe and North America for example women in the 19th century would wear extremely tight corsets, so tight in fact they couldn't breath properly in them. Unrealistic standards of beauty are nothing new, women in China had their feet deformed with bindings to keep them small, as another example. Traditionally men have been expected to fit into a certain image of masculinity, generally being muscular and following facial hair fashions for example. So it's an age old issue and it does effect both sexes and gender variant people, but it effects women more and trans women like me even more. In that last case, it's because the double standard applied to trans women is impossible to meet. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/double-standards/] Which is why I'm thankful that I pass well, most people never know I'm trans.

The thing with Japan is that many men with their insane rising workloads don't have the energy left to invest in a normal relationship, so they are fine with a synthetic one. I don't think the problem comes from japanese men no longer finding normal women sexy. I can imagine that can happen to some, but that would be extreme cases.

Well objectification has become a buzzword, which both sides of the debate tend to misuse. A lot of feminists call any sexualized imagery objectification, which lets anti-feminists and the like call it a bullshit term. What objectification boils down to is basically seeing a person to fulfill a need, but nothing more. It's not entirely wrong, but it can become an issue in media due to over exposure. This can also apply to ad media, like ads with women wearing specific clothing to sell a brand, or clinging to men to sell a certain brand of men's cologne. Basically objectification is a cognitive disconnect, where you don't really see the person as a person, but an objectified image of that person. We do actually do it a lot though, it's mostly an unconscious reaction, it can even apply to people you meet day to day, when you categorize them as you walk past. Like you might see an attractive woman as just a source of attraction, especially if you don't interact with her, or you might see a big burly shady looking dude and objectify him as a threat in your mind. Sexual objectification though can be a serious issue, because it can cause people to disconnect anyone they find attractive from being a person in their mind. It's a mechanism of desensitization there too, too much exposure experienced by the right person, or for long enough, can cause that kind of mentality to stick. So that's why a lot of feminists are extremely against sexually objectifying imagery, but most often those are sex-negative feminists. Sexual objectification can be empowering too, it's just one of those weird things, that can be good, but is a good thing you can have too much of.

So we basically agree that finding someone (or some images) sexy is not a bat thing by default, and that objectification is a natural process that is not bad by default either. Great, that is more or less all I have to say about the subject.

Regarding the patriarchy though, the term would only be usable if men had an exclusivity on privileges that gave them a power imbalance. I would say men and women both have privileges the other gender doesn't have, just different ones, and that the power balance is pretty equal. Gender norms still suck, but the word patriarchy would imply women suffer more than men do in general.

Not really, there is kind of an imbalance regarding privilege. For example men can cat call at women to their hearts content in public, but if a woman does the same she gets called a slut. Women have a severe lack of access to STEM fields, which is why they're starting to be given special scholarships from advocacy groups to help correct that. Women have far less freedom when it comes to career choices and are often seen as less competent by men by default. Remember the "Technigal" Robot-Hugs comic earlier I posted on this page? Kinda case and point. Plus long term objectives for women are kinda limited to an expectation of motherhood, which makes it extremely difficult for women to hold down careers, especially political careers. Almost all of the expectations placed upon women puts them in a subservient position to men, no matter where you look. Still these things are changing, but we're still a long ways off from any sort of parity in gender treatment. That's even more true for trans and intersex folk than it is for women too.

Ok, I have to disagree with you there. Women have access to STEM fields, they are being treated favorably even, with scholarships and the like, the majority of women just don't want to study it, and that is okay. Personal freedom and all. A lot of the differences in men and women in the workfield comes from different choices people make, not structural advantages men have over women. Women have all the freedom to choose whatever job they want. Granted, they may face social pressure in some professions, but that goes for men in certain fields (childcare, flight attendant, beautican) too. Saying women have less freedom would only be accurate if some jobs would be forbidden for women to have, which is simply not true in the western world. And while women may be looked upon as less able, men are viewed by society more often as exchangeable and not in need of protection. And with offers of companies to their female employes to freeze their ovules, it seems to me the expectation of career women is to not have kids, not a shorter career (To be fair, men are not expectet or allowed to stop working to raise their children). So again, I still think men and women have it equally bad, just in different ways. I won't argue with you about the treatment of LGBT people, I think you are right in that regard, and you have far more experience than me in that field anyways.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

She can't afford not to. She has never outright stated it, yes, but her followers have. And knowing that she promotes a brand of feminism that places higher emphasis on the collective and specifically states that the choices of a single woman have to be made with the big picture in mind to be feministic, what do you think she would do if she had total control over Video games as an art form? NOT changing stuff that goes against her beliefs for the benefit of the individual goes against her own political and social world view.

Well, yes, but then give anyone total control over anything, and you'd expect them to try and change things for the better, according to what they think better is.

[

Sure, but I object to the idea that changing things for the better means less options instead of more. All her work and philosophy suggests she wants no sexually designed women in games and would abolish these if she could. (Quote Anita: "Sex doesnt sell. Sexism sells.") Basically, I disagree with her idea of "better". I don't like neither shooters in general not the macho archetype that is often portrayed in them, but I wouldn't want them gone, not even the games who have them to change, just some variety. I know people like these kinds of games, so I wouldn't want to deprive them of them. And after all, even I found one or two shooters I like.
To sum it up, "I don't like it so it shouldn't exist or there should be less of it" is a deeply self-centered view, and I would prefer something like "I don't like it, what can I play instead?" For the record, arguments like "It is dangerous and harmful so it shouldn't exist" have to be empirically proven, and for Video Games, the research points to the opposite end.

Also, she said far more than "being aware", she usually uses a sharper tone, language and an agency that implies more grave measures should be taken. I can analyze a work and grasp the author's intention without him or her explicity stating it. Her biggest problem is that she has an opinion about video games and searches for proof to validate it, instead of researching a topic and then forming an opinion on it. This shows in her shoddy research, cherrypicking and outright lies, and I can very well criticize her for that without condemning every other critic on the planet.

She's looking for examples to prove her points, yes, but I don't see a problem with that. If I was to ask you what she is saying that is wrong, you'd look for examples of what she's said in much the same manner.

Now, you can say her evidence is shoddy, that's fair enough, but that's another issue.

The problem with that is that when you are looking for evidence for a point instead of using evidence to get to a point, you will always find some, even if the examples are not really sighnificant or have to be constructed. (which she did. A lot.) Her starting point should be "Are Video Games sexist?", not "Video Games are sexist, how can I prove that?". Because here we have an underlying sense of "I can't be wrong, my assumption can not be incorrect", while a real reaseacher always have to have the very real possibility in mind that at any time, he could be wrong. A lot of great inventions have been made accidentally by people with a different goal, but an open mind.

Now regarding your example, of course I would look for her mistakes in that case, because you specifically asked me for examples of them. If you would ask me "Is she right or not?" and I would only present you her constructed arguments and not the points she made that are valid, then we'd have the same problem.

In of itself, sure, videogames are merely a small part of our culture, but it's still a part, and worth examining, providing we don't forget the rest of society.

As for the worldview not being sexist...there's is a lot of sexism in society, it'd be very surprising if that wasn't reflected in the cultural elements, such as books, movies and games of that society.

Of course Video Games are worth examining, I am just objecting to some of the results of these examinations, not the act of examination itself (as long as it is done fairly, see above)

Ok, I agree with you here, but my point was that the worldview chosen to convey ist not deliberately sexist. I meant that no one sits down with the goal to create a intentional sexist Video Game, and the industry is often treated like they do.

Ah, but are people deciding to be dicks, or do they just have a strange idea of what constitutes being a dick?

I'd suspect it's the latter in large part, which means people have to be aware of the issues. If someone is being a dick because they don't realise they are, then doesn't that mean I could be doing the same thing unless I'm paying attention, and even then?

Also, I don't see why selfishness is exclusive with seeing women as less. Historically, that's hardly been an unusual attitude.

No one decides "I am gonna be a dick today", at least I hope so. Dickishness is always defined by other people, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that most of the described behavior in the comic is not accepted as normal by the biggest part of society, it is considered rude, not part of the norm. Expect for manspreading. Manspreading as a concept is pure, unadultered bullshit and creating problems where there are none.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sure, but I object to the idea that changing things for the better means less options instead of more. All her work and philosophy suggests she wants no sexually designed women in games and would abolish these if she could. (Quote Anita: "Sex doesnt sell. Sexism sells.") Basically, I disagree with her idea of "better". I don't like neither shooters in general not the macho archetype that is often portrayed in them, but I wouldn't want them gone, not even the games who have them to change, just some variety. I know people like these kinds of games, so I wouldn't want to deprive them of them. And after all, even I found one or two shooters I like.
To sum it up, "I don't like it so it shouldn't exist or there should be less of it" is a deeply self-centered view, and I would prefer something like "I don't like it, what can I play instead?"

Ah, but it is "less" or "proportionally less"? I don't see much more complaining about trends, the very title "Tropes vs women" is about common themes, not the existence of lone examples.

I agree that arguing about the existence of sexist elements is very different than the dominance of them.

The problem with that is that when you are looking for evidence for a point instead of using evidence to get to a point, you will always find some, even if the examples are not really sighnificant or have to be constructed. (which she did. A lot.) Her starting point should be "Are Video Games sexist?", not "Video Games are sexist, how can I prove that?". Because here we have an underlying sense of "I can't be wrong, my assumption can not be incorrect", while a real reaseacher always have to have the very real possibility in mind that at any time, he could be wrong. A lot of great inventions have been made accidentally by people with a different goal, but an open mind.

Now regarding your example, of course I would look for her mistakes in that case, because you specifically asked me for examples of them. If you would ask me "Is she right or not?" and I would only present you her constructed arguments and not the points she made that are valid, then we'd have the same problem.

Well, yes, but I'm not seeing any reason to assume that she hasn't sat down and thought about this at some length before coming up with the video series. In any case, isn't she talking about examples of sexism and how sexism works in teh industry, not researching whether or not this is an issue?

Ok, I agree with you here, but my point was that the worldview chosen to convey ist not deliberately sexist. I meant that no one sits down with the goal to create a intentional sexist Video Game, and the industry is often treated like they do.

I think that's based on a misunderstanding there, criticisms of the industry usually aren't about people sitting down and deciding to be sexist, it's about repeated mistakes in this area. The expectation is that the industry can be better, which isn't going to be the case if the sexism was intentional.

OTOH, sometimes there are fairly blatant examples, but it's not like gaming is unique in that.

No one decides "I am gonna be a dick today", at least I hope so. Dickishness is always defined by other people, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that most of the described behavior in the comic is not accepted as normal by the biggest part of society, it is considered rude, not part of the norm.

Dunno about that, in theory much of it isn't seen as being wrong, but not seriously so. You get phrases like "boys will be boys", "can't take a joke" and so on. Plenty of people will recognise it as wrong in the abstract, but excuse it in practice.

Expect for manspreading. Manspreading as a concept is pure, unadultered bullshit and creating problems where there are none.

Eh, it was taken from the New York rail systems campaign (IIRC) as an example of a mentality, not a serious issue in of itself.

 

[beastro]

People who have an issue over this don't get North Americans as a whole are very private about sexual matters and don't like it flaunted, it has no relation to what they think of it behind close doors.

They are also, people of action despite being fairly insular, which is why you have so much of the cliche of have the reluctant hero going off to fight evil.

Sex, on the other hand, is something which is looked on as sacred and not to be bandied about in a casual manner.

Taken it to their extremes they are a problem, but it in and of itself they are something I strongly agree with.

tl;dr American history is that of "murder good, sex bad" and it hasn't really begun to turn around until the past few decades.

Except it isn't to the extreme you present it as and that is reflected in the very conflicted and decisive reactions Americans have always had with regard to things like war. Not only have Americans always had an issue with war and the military, but they and militarization were always looked on as dark aspects of the Old World that they left behind when they left Europe.

Violence is progress, and perhaps no better symbol of that is a frontiersman with a rifle

And again your view is skewing it in ways that it was never taken as.

The Frontierman is one of freedom and self-reliance, someone who sticks to their own business and is willing to protect it while trying to interfere in others unless provoked. The frontier is taken as a place where everyone can have their own little space and not trample on others in contrast to Europe in centuries past which was small cage filled with too many animals shoved into it.

In the end your post is more a reflection of your own perception of your country than one with a basis in how your country has historically viewed itself with regard to violence and sexual matters.

This is an easy one. You can glorify killing because it's been done millions of times over in order to "save the day". You will never have a movie where someone has to have sex to save lives.

That's a flippant way of saying that committing violence is viewed as a regrettable necessity that shouldn't be enjoyed that sits the heart of historical American views of things like the military and war.

WWII and modern American views of the military and soldiers are the aberration in a country which as historically looked on them with only lightly veiled contempt and suspicion.

Most Americans (and Westerners as a whole) won't have to do something like that, so they vicarious and enjoyably presented view of violence, while when it comes to sex, that is something they all do and do so their domain away from prying eyes.

Because violence is easier to get than sex, and violence solves more problems! Sex causes problems! Sex requires way more effort than punching someone! Hate's a delicious drug that's way easier than getting sex!

Nah, prolly not it.

Nice to see people going to the other extreme and trivializing the opposite side in such a way.

Makes you wonder what the youth of centuries down the line will think of our perceptions and more.

Things change, yet they remain the same.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Ah, but it is "less" or "proportionally less"? I don't see much more complaining about trends, the very title "Tropes vs women" is about common themes, not the existence of lone examples.

I agree that arguing about the existence of sexist elements is very different than the dominance of them.

Even it it were proportionally less, there are two ways to achieve that: increase the "good" or decrease the "bad". And given the emphasis Anita places on the latter in her work, I have no doubt that is the action she wants to take, and I object to that. And my whole problem with her (apart from the shoddy reserach, fabrication and lies) is that she argues for a dominance, not an existence. Because this hyperbole evidently causes strong reactions from people, which renders a healthy discussion we need to have about this subject impossible.

Well, yes, but I'm not seeing any reason to assume that she hasn't sat down and thought about this at some length before coming up with the video series. In any case, isn't she talking about examples of sexism and how sexism works in teh industry, not researching whether or not this is an issue?

Why would she be talking about it if she didn't think it was an issue? I am not doubting that she sat down and thought about stuff, a lot of her examples needed some serious work to fit her topic after all. On the surface, yes, she is talking about that, but again, because she has decided beforehand that it is a serious issue, she presents mostly fabricated evidence to blow the topic up to proportions it doesn't need to be. But looking deeper, she is mainly talking about the effect the sexism she portrays has, and this is another main problem with her work. Especially here she just tells what she thinks about the topic, and presents this as scientific fact. Her main thesis is still: sexism in Video Games causes real like sexism, and that is not supported scientifically in any way. If she would only present (correct) examples of sexism in the industry without ascribing it this massive underlying negative affect it has, I would not object her work, I would applaud it.

No one decides "I am gonna be a dick today", at least I hope so. Dickishness is always defined by other people, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that most of the described behavior in the comic is not accepted as normal by the biggest part of society, it is considered rude, not part of the norm.

Dunno about that, in theory much of it isn't seen as being wrong, but not seriously so. You get phrases like "boys will be boys", "can't take a joke" and so on. Plenty of people will recognise it as wrong in the abstract, but excuse it in practice.

Expect for manspreading. Manspreading as a concept is pure, unadultered bullshit and creating problems where there are none.

Eh, it was taken from the New York rail systems campaign (IIRC) as an example of a mentality, not a serious issue in of itself.

Yeah, but the way it was presented suggested that it wasn't even wrong in absract, but the norm everbody expects to happen.
And sadly, there are enough people who argue seriously against manspreading, and at the same time support a womans right to wear whatever she wants or go topless if she so desires. Double standards is all I'm saying.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even it it were proportionally less, there are two ways to achieve that: increase the "good" or decrease the "bad". And given the emphasis Anita places on the latter in her work, I have no doubt that is the action she wants to take, and I object to that. And my whole problem with her (apart from the shoddy reserach, fabrication and lies) is that she argues for a dominance, not an existence. Because this hyperbole evidently causes strong reactions from people, which renders a healthy discussion we need to have about this subject impossible.

Not seeing that myself, but ok.

Why would she be talking about it if she didn't think it was an issue? I am not doubting that she sat down and thought about stuff, a lot of her examples needed some serious work to fit her topic after all. On the surface, yes, she is talking about that, but again, because she has decided beforehand that it is a serious issue, she presents mostly fabricated evidence to blow the topic up to proportions it doesn't need to be. But looking deeper, she is mainly talking about the effect the sexism she portrays has, and this is another main problem with her work. Especially here she just tells what she thinks about the topic, and presents this as scientific fact. Her main thesis is still: sexism in Video Games causes real like sexism, and that is not supported scientifically in any way. If she would only present (correct) examples of sexism in the industry without ascribing it this massive underlying negative affect it has, I would not object her work, I would applaud it.

Fair enough.

Yeah, but the way it was presented suggested that it wasn't even wrong in absract, but the norm everbody expects to happen.

I don't see how those two are mutually exclusive, though it takes a little doublethink.

And sadly, there are enough people who argue seriously against manspreading, and at the same time support a womans right to wear whatever she wants or go topless if she so desires. Double standards is all I'm saying.

Taking up to much space is not quite the same as wearing what you choose, though.