Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[AdrianRK]

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

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

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

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

 

[targren]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JudgeGame]

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

Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JudgeGame]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[manic_depressive13]

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

 

[wizzy555]

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

Actually it was about religion.

 

[Vault101]

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

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

 

[wizzy555]

This helps compensate for the badly-missed point of the "Easy Mode" video

Aww, you don't have to feel like compensating for missing the point of my video.

So Jim, all this talk about "compensating"...
Are you trying to tell us something?

Yes.

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

[sub].....Does it... Does it transform?[/sub]


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

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

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

 

[JudgeGame]

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

Actually it was about religion.

Fair enough. My point still stands.

 

[Vault101]

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

thats a pretty bold statment

I'd say more misguided than sexist

 

[manic_depressive13]

thats a pretty bold statment

I'd say more misguided than sexist

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

 

[Mr F.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and as for her videos?

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

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

 

[tkioz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vault101]

Do you look like Kratos?

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

[quote/] Or Phoenix? [/quote]
pheonix?

....marcus pheonix?

[img/]http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/4731i5439B8282A42795D/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1[/img]

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

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

[quote/] a pathetic counter-weight to the trillions of times more male enemies that are killed.[/quote]
men get killed because they are in the action, because they are the do'ers, the movers, the shakers..in worst case scenarios women get relegated to the sidelines

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wizzy555]

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

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

 

[Mr F.]

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

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

Have you ever MET an academic?

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

I might go into Academia myself after Uni.

 

[wizzy555]

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

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

Have you ever MET an academic?

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

I might go into Academia myself after Uni.

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

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

 

[m19]

So we've established it has sex appeal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scroll down. (Warning: gruesome)

I don't remember any outrage.

 

[Deadagent]

>Anita Sarkeesian

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

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

Why did we think this woman was a threat?

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