Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[wizzy555]

Sorry I've corrected the typo.

I LIKED the slut shaming mission. I thought, "OMG This is slut shaming, I'm not comfortable doing this, what would my character do?"

This is a similar thought process to the cannibal mission and most of the thieves/assassin missions.

So if you want to tell me that I shouldn't be standing up for the artists decision in this case and that my free speech is causing terrible harm, then yes that is a type of silence shaming.

 

[Blunderman]

What the hell are you even talking about? Did I say it did?

Don't worry about it.

 

[wizzy555]

Sorry I've corrected the typo.
So if you want to tell me that I shouldn't be standing up for the artists decision in this case and that my free speech is causing terrible harm, then yes that is a type of silence shaming.

But I didn't tell you that. No one told you that. There's nothing wrong with defending the mission because you think it's clearly defined as one of the "evil" missions of the game. That qualifies as engaging in a debate.

If, on the other hand, you told the people who complained that they were just being a bunch of oversensitive whiners/white knights/feminazis and they should shut up and GTFO if they don't like something, then that would be an attempt to ignore the potential problem and silence anyone who tries to talk about it. And that's generally the response that the gaming community comes up with.

I've not called anyone over-sensitive whiners or told them to shut up - I did call one person stupid.
I do however oppose the notion of changing the game "for the better" and will bring up censorship and free-speech issues in that defence.

Perhaps you should consider that before you start yelling about free-speech defences.

A clarification, it's not that I think it was clearly defined as an evil quest - no quest in skyrim is "clearly defined", that's why I like it. I do however consider it an "evil quest".

 

[maninahat]

That's where the problem lies: Skyrim encourages players to take part in a behaviour that has become associated with the oppressors of womankind, by turning slut-shaming into a mission objective. As I mentioned in a previous post, game progression requires you to do this mission, and outside of not doing the Thief quests, there is no choice. You are expected to do this deed and get rewarded for it. In so doing, the player has to endorse slut-shaming as much as they endorse any of the other thief guild activities. Presumably, the devs thought you'd have as much fun doing this as killing or stealing.

Um. No, game progression absolutely does not require you to do this mission, nor is it a Thieves Guild quest or required to progress with the Thieves Guild. I'm sitting on a Nightingale who never did it and another working toward Nightingale who never did it. The Thieves Guild requires you to play the role of enforcer in a protection racket-- you have to go hassle business owners to pay their debts to the mob, basically. Haelga is one of the ones you need to collect from to progress as a thief. You can either beat her up, as with all three of the business owners, or you have an optional method of threatening her statue of Dibella (IIRC, you threaten her statue, break the Pawned Prawn guy's ugly sculpture, and threaten the Argonian innkeeper's family for the optional quests. Or, you can skip the optional persuasion methods and just hit them. Actually, depending on the order you did it in, the third merchant will usually hear about what you did with the other two and just hand you the cash. Haelga was my third, so she caved the minute I walked through the door.)

The slut-shaming quest is completely outside the Thieves Guild mission, it's simply a single quest from her (very grudgy) niece. You absolutely do *not* need to do it to progress in the game or with the Thieves. You can decline it and nothing happens to your game. I agree that it's a nasty quest, my first character did it and it's on my mental list of "quests that made me feel so oogy I'm never doing them again", but you're way overblowing it here. I really don't know what the devs intended, since on one hand they made Haelga kind of a joke character (look under her bed!) but on the other hand they made the niece who gives you the quest *really really clearly* lazy, unpleasant, ungrateful, and completely deluded about the sleazeball guy she has a fixation on.

Oh. That's embarrassing. I must have misremembered. My mistake.

Well, it may not bar your progress with the Thieves guild, but it is still a quest which your character can not express an opinion on, one way or another. As with many optional quests, the only choice begins and ends with "should do I do the quest at all, or not bother?"

 

[NEO117]

Ok, since we?re talking opinions, I?m gonna state mine. I put it in Pastie because it's long and I don't want to make people scroll through all that.

The following is merely that, an opinion, and will not be stated as a fact in any way, shape or form.

http://pastie.org/5839924

 

[PotatoeMan]

Skyrim gives you the option to make choices so she didn?t have to complete that quest or accept it. Wouldn?t the dark brotherhood missions be considerably more morally questionable? Would the quest be acceptable if it was a male character?

 

[Polarity27]

The quest-giver in this instance is pissed at being asked to work to support the business that feeds her, and more to the point, angry that her promiscuous aunt dissed her wannabe boyfriend, so she wants a little revenge.

That, and all of Svana's text is seriously slut-shaming. Svana is grudgey against her aunt (despite her aunt taking her in when she was homeless) because a) she doesn't approve of her religion or her consenting sexual behavior, b) she thinks working in the working-bunkhouse is beneath her (even though she doesn't do much work, if you listen to Haelga's text), and c) her aunt tells her that her dearly beloved, Sibbi Black-Briar, is essentially a worthless piece of shit who isn't seriously in love with her. Haelga is pretty clearly in the right about the latter, as any two-second conversation with Sibbi aptly demonstrates. But no, there's no sexism at all in "my aunt is too loose, help me shame her!" (Also, if you deny Svana's quest, she seems to realize that she was out of bounds.)

My impression was that Svana's main complaint was that the patrons at Haelga's wouldn't keep their hands to themselves, and her concern that Haelga being willing to bang any guy that walked in set a precedent she was expected to live up to. Then again, I don't remember either of them mentioning Sibbi in that quest at all, so I may be remembering it wrong. I do recall being disappointed that I couldn't use the marks to blackmail her into paying off her debt to Brynjolf, since I got Svana's quest in the middle of collecting.

It's not in the quest dialogue, it's in the dialogue you hear if you stand around there and listen to them talk to each other. There's a thing where Haelga tells Svana that Sibbi is basically just using her, and Svana gets absolutely furious because he's The One for her. I heard that and the whole quest suddenly made a lot more sense-- teens whose parent-figure questions their romantic choices can be downright mean. I think also if you talk to Haelga she mentions Svana not pulling her weight with the work, too.) I don't remember Svana thinking *she* was going to have to bang people too, more that she's basically embarrassed by the whole thing, by the place she's living/working and by the aunt who took her in. The overheard dialogue gives a lot of missing context, IMO.

Oh. That's embarrassing. I must have misremembered. My mistake.

Well, it may not bar your progress with the Thieves guild, but it is still a quest which your character can not express an opinion on, one way or another. As with many optional quests, the only choice begins and ends with "should do I do the quest at all, or not bother?"

That's absolutely true, but that makes it a general Skyrim problem and less a problem with that specific quest. There were a bunch where I wished there was a "how cracked are you to think I would *ever* do that for you?" dialogue option. Although Svana does seem chastened a bit if you turn the quest down in the dialogue, so there's that.

Sorry I've corrected the typo.

I LIKED the slut shaming mission. I thought, "OMG This is slut shaming, I'm not comfortable doing this, what would my character do?"

This is a similar thought process to the cannibal mission and most of the thieves/assassin missions.

So if you want to tell me that I shouldn't be standing up for the artists decision in this case and that my free speech is causing terrible harm, then yes that is a type of silence shaming.

This is what is bothering me. The Elder Scrolls series has slavery, mass murder, war, cannibalism, child murder, imperial oppression, genocide, xenophobia, racism and much more, but what got Prell upset was a minor "slut shaming" side-quest. I remember in Morrowind where you bought a female slave, dolled her up, forced her to march across a plain filled with 500 pound man-eating frogs and pterosaurs to "deliver" her to a tribal leader.

It's all so retarded. There is SO MUCH in Skyrim, but THE ONE THING that got to people was something that could have happened in real life. You know, to make the game more believable and achieve IMMERSION.

The reason many of us were annoyed with that quest is that it *does* happen in real life. It's a "jfc, I have to put up with this shit in real life every damn day, and now I have to run into it in my happy funtime escapist game TOO?" Plus, there really aren't indications that there's a lot of issues with sexuality in the culture of Skyrim, so for a lot of people it did the opposite of what you said-- it *broke* immersion because it was a sudden dose of real life discrimination in a game that isn't otherwise full of that.

But for pity's sake, all the people complaining about that quest are GAMERS. They play Skyrim, they LIKE Skyrim. They're not saying "Skyrim is an awful, terrible game", they're saying "Skyrim is an awesome game in which I've become totally immersed and logged countless hours, and while I was playing, I ran across these things that really bugged me". The same with a lot of women I know who played/play WoW-- you pretty much have to log a bunch of hours to run across all the little things that bug you. It's not that it made them stop loving the game, it's not "censorship", it's not even hatred, it's just... disappointment. And so what if that's the button that pushed Prell and the other things weren't? I've seen other people upset about some of the other elements, because that's *their* button. Which is, after all, the point of this video. People have shit that bugs them in the *games they otherwise love*. It's not the end of the universe that these people say so.

 

[Something Amyss]

Do you look like Kratos? Or Dante? Or Phoenix? Or any other of the idealized male figures that are the exclusive body-type for male main characters in games? Because it makes total sense for cratos to be bare-chested right?

Kratos and Dante are two different types, so that's already kind of funny. But the funnier thing is that guys like Kratos and Phoenix are idealised. They are the male ideal, however, hypermasculine man-children made for hypermasculine man-children.

We have women designed to appeal to men and men designed to appeal to men. OMG SEXISM WORKS BOTH WAYS!

Will the females be horribly murdered then? We already have Anders and that pilot guy from ME. Now it's the others side turn.

Are you sure you're quoting the right person? Well, anyway, let's address this.

Women have been victims and plot devices throughout most of gaming and have racked up a pretty high body count. Citing two examples does not demonstrate how now "it's the other side's turn." And I don't remember Anderson being secualised in his death.

You see, the games are developed for male audience - mostly.

And I agree with that, which further puzzles me.

while you do have a point in that theres no good reason for kratos being bare chested and showing off his muscles, but if you think that he is sexualised then you are so wrong. yh sure there are probably a few women out there who think hes sexy but not many. its mostly done for a male power fantasy in those cases

While I agree with your core point, I disagree that this isn't "sexy." It's just what men think is sexy. I'm almost expecting people to offer up a "no homo" sort of response to this notion, but seriously, men like to look at sexy men when playing their power fantasies.

 

[Something Amyss]

I clicked that link. He refers to people who complain about sexism as "entitled little cunts". That's all you need to know.

So...A microcosm of the real world? >.>

Skyrim gives you the option to make choices so she didn?t have to complete that quest or accept it.

It was easy to come across and whether you accept it does not change the notion that the plot involves slut shaming someone.

But for pity's sake, all the people complaining about that quest are GAMERS.

Thank you. I think a lot of people miss this. It becomes an "us vs them" mentality, even though the "us" and "them" are really part of the same group. And really, isn't this part of Jim's point? You can enjoy a game and criticise it. Skyrim has flaws. Most of them aren't even sexist. It's still freaking FUN, though.

You know, to make the game more believable and achieve IMMERSION.

Yes, reality is what's required to be immersed in the Elder Scrolls. That's why it sticks to normal mundane events, such as shouting down a dragon with ancient words of power. I know I couldn't be immersed in Skyrim if fantastic elements were included.

Why is there this misconception that the endgame of all criticism is censorship? I didn't see anyone saying, "I was offended by this mission, therefore I think Bethesda should be court-ordered to release a compulsory patch that removes it from the game".

Crying "censorship" to try and end criticism is nothing new.

So if you want to tell me that I shouldn't be standing up for the artists decision in this case and that my free speech is causing terrible harm, then yes that is a type of silence shaming.

Excuse me, as I haven't read EVERY post in the whole thread, so I may have missed this. But has anyone actually told you you cannot speak? Boots simply called you on the logic of your criticisms, which appear to relate to the concept of "I have free speech so STFU," which is not how things work.

Your right to speech does not make you immune to criticism.

 

[Polarity27]

Skyrim gives you the option to make choices so she didn?t have to complete that quest or accept it. Wouldn?t the dark brotherhood missions be considerably more morally questionable? Would the quest be acceptable if it was a male character?

IDK, that's one of those quests for me that got progressively more awful as I did it, and by the end I felt terrible for having done it. And it would indeed be different if it were a male character (not *okay*, but different) because it's not something that happens to men in real life the same way it happens to women. You basically tear this poor woman down for... nothing, really.

No, I didn't find the DB missions more questionable. It's the unreality of them, because slut shaming is something I've encountered IRL and I've never had someone offer to pay me to murder other people IRL, nor will I. Although there is *one* DB mission that gave me the same sense of creeping oogy that the Svana quest did, and that's Muiri's optional quest to murder her ex-friend. I took one look at the wiki for that and basically said "no way in hell, you spiteful little shit, am I going to fuck up that family any more than they already are". I think there are a few quests that get, idk, oddly personal in Skyrim, and I don't mind the basic idea of fictional murder half as much as I mind quests where you basically destroy someone's life and you get to see the damage.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I have a hard time convincing myself this question even deserves an answer.

The entire zombie genre dehumanizes people. Literally. It's horror, it's kind of the point. If you think all but a very few men actually get off on this then maybe you are the sick one.

Intent is important.

Bravo. Then tell me, what is the intent of the large breasts?

I don't see how smaller breasts would have made this statue less of a problem. See, the whole controversy with this statue was silly in my opinion. The statue is literally a hallmark to the vast majority of slasher and horror cinema. I've seen more mutilated bikini babes in those kinds of movies than I can count with all my fingers, toes and limbs. Not once did I think,"maybe these beach goers should wear more clothing, for the sake of self respect". It just seems silly to be angry at a statue of a busty woman in a bikini when the setting of the game being promoted is an island vacation spot.

Now to the other issue that had people mad at this statue, violence against women. I honestly think that if you're mad about the fact that the statue is a mutilated corpse, you're just looking for something to get mad at in a sense. Think about it. The corpse is missing all limbs, and the event of the game is a zombie infection spreading. For a corpse to be that mutilated would lead to one of two things really. One, this busty beach goer was attacked and torn apart by zombies. Two, this busty beach goer was infected and now a zombie, which lead to her being dismembered by an uninfected human.

Which brings me to my point, getting mad at the statue for violence against women is a real big stretch because either you're suggesting that the zombies should be less vicious when they attack women (good luck with that), or that people should be less vicious when dealing with female zombies (again, good luck). In the setting of the game, its an island paradise, a place known to attract good looking women in bikinis for a vacation. Zombie infections aren't less forgiving on females, busty or not. Survivors aren't less willing to kill female zombies. Again, busty or not. To me, its just another victim of the zombie infection's chain of problems. To get mad at the fact that there are breasts and gore seems unrealistic. In that sense you're inadvertently should be displeased with anyone who goes to island places and wants to pick up women.

As was said before, Intent is important. And to be honest I think the intent of the statue was to encapsulate the setting of the game and the situation the player will be dealing with in one piece. If it were a bloody chiseled chest with a bit of swim trunks, it would had the same effect, to a lesser degree.

 

[Undeadpool]

THANK YOU, JIM!!

After watching Giant Bomb ERUPT in flames anytime anyone dares to even float the notion that videogames might have some inequalities in them (and that's the community, not the editorial staff), it's good to just have someone come out and say "What's the harm in TALKING about this stuff???"

 

[Polarity27]

The reason many of us were annoyed with that quest is that it *does* happen in real life. It's a "jfc, I have to put up with this shit in real life every damn day, and now I have to run into it in my happy funtime escapist game TOO?" Plus, there really aren't indications that there's a lot of issues with sexuality in the culture of Skyrim, so for a lot of people it did the opposite of what you said-- it *broke* immersion because it was a sudden dose of real life discrimination in a game that isn't otherwise full of that.

IT HAS GENOCIDE. There is an Elf Gestapo running around shouting slogans about how they are going to exterminate anything that isn't an Elf.

The Elder Scrolls were never about never offending anyone. It's not a flaw. It's an element. Just because it insults you, does not mean it is flawed. You don't like it because of your reasons? Fine. You are certainly able to do that. No problem. Just don't attribute it to a flaw until all the the females look like they do in Tera. Even then, the sexism would be arguable. It is incredible how a single instance can have a game labeled as having sexist elements as a negative element.

Actually, let's visit that little claim about a lack of sexism in Tamriel. Go play Daggerfall. Elysana uses you to unwittingly brutally murder a suitor. No man makes you do anything like that. Morgiah promises her firstborn to a necromancer. Again, the women around Iliac bay have some serious issues. On the other side of the spectrum, Barenziah sends you to hunt down copies of her biography, where it is told how she was subdued and rendered unconscious and forced to give an abortion by Tiber Septim. She is portrayed as a typical naive girl throughout the affair.

Read the books. They are one of the most entertaining elements of the game.

Learn to read, please.

One, I said "there really aren't indications that there's a lot of issues with sexuality in the culture of Skyrim". SKYRIM. The game. Please show me where I said "Tamriel". Daggerfall was made a lot earlier, so perhaps the devs learned some shit.

Two, where the living fuck did I say, or did Jim say, that a game should never offend anyone? Skyrim is a game with sexist elements because it's made by people in a sexist *culture*. People are going to fuck up, for all kinds of reasons, some which are better reasons than others. Worldbuilding is hard, I've done it-- you think you've got a really good through-line on your invented culture and that it's nicely internally consistent and someone will read it or play it and say "well yeah, but what about this?" And you say "well, fuck" and try not to screw that thing up next time. Goddamn, you seem to want a game to be complete sewage before someone's allowed to say "y'know, this thing here is kinda sexist..." People will find shit that bugs them in games they like. Get over it. (That's what the video you hopefully watched is saying, after all.)

Third, yeah, I can say it's a flaw all I like, deal with it. (Unless you were saying "you don't like it" about the *game*, in which case you really, really didn't read what I said.) Personally? I've been waffling all over this thread about that quest. I don't like it, but it's not as much of a needle-scratch for me as it has been for others. I think if you do stand in the room and listen to the characters, the problems with it are mitigated quite a lot-- the overheard dialogue take it from a potential general statement about what is and isn't okay to "angry teen with a 'ur not my mom and omg, who cares if my bf's a felon!' grudge", and yeah, from a characterization standpoint, "I hated my aunt so much I got The Dragonborn to diss her for me!" says a lot about Svana, and none of it good.

But shit, look at how badly people misunderstood or misremembered that quest just in this thread alone. I mean, one person even got "it's a Redguard thing" out of a quest *with no Redguards in it*, and a whole bunch more seem to think it's a cultural/religious thing, which tells me that, yes, the quest failed. That's what makes it different than the Thalmor genocide-- you'd have to be *spectacularly* dense to not get "we think the Thalmor are evil" out of that game. They are 100% unambiguously written as bad guys; the only characters who don't comment on how awful the Thalmor are *are Thalmor*. Even the Imperials hate the Thalmor. Hell, even the Altmer at the College of Winterhold hates the Thalmor. But it's possible to play Svana's quest and not get "Svana is a bad individual, and doing this quest makes you a bad person" out of it; an awful lot of people did, in fact. If you're a writer and most of the people who read what you wrote get the wrong thing out of it, that's a flaw in your writing-- either you've got issues you didn't realize you had, or you failed to communicate what you meant. (Also? If someone from a background that's had to deal with actual, RL genocide says "I wanted to like Skyrim, but I think it fumbled the elf genocide thing", what other than "ok" am I going to say to that? *I* don't think it did, but that's also not *my* background-- and even if it was, it's no skin off my nose that another gamer disagrees with me. I don't have to agree with them, nor do I feel the need to stan for my favorite game.)

 

[TheIronDuke]

Actually, I'd already seen Movie Defence force before watching this video.

So, I went and watched it again because Jim asked me to, and I'd hate if he was sad.

 

[Something Amyss]

Your example is blatantly false equivalence.

It's pointing out the absurdity of the statement, TYVM.

The equivalent of a female made to appeal to men is a man made to appeal to women.

Which don't tend to get made. That is, not in gaming. The real false equivalence tends to be that an exposed male chest is somehow the analogue here, where it's really not.

And the reason we don't have it is because people are afraid to try, because on the one hand, there are people who will cry whatever on it and try to get it run into the ground without bothering to think about it's intent and on the other, you have the damned trolls who will make the situation worse by making all gamers look like fratboy douchebags who think that these things are funny and they should be allowed to indulge in it without anybody calling them out on what they are.

The reason we don't have our Huck Finns is because we started off as a completely commercial medium and haven't really had any Renaissance in terms of deep content. It was awesome when our media became capable of dealing with complexities, but even then, we sought parity more with blockbusters than art films, because we already had commercial distribution in place.

With the fiscal trouble so many of the gaming companies are having, we've skipped right over many steps and headed towards self-destruction.

And the reason we don't call for bans is because that's not something wise people do. I don't care what kind of horrible shit is made into games, movies, TV, whatever (and there's a lot of horrible shit that has been made), you don't ban things. As soon as you start down that road, you open the door for anything to be banned regardless of message or content just because popular opinion disagrees with it.

But again, you've stepped out of your own hypothetical where you attempted to shame a group of people who aren't doing things to explain why it doesn't happen. The point being more that people kneejerk to things like your hypothetical claims of political correctness ( a rose by any other name...) or the people who immediately accuse those who point out bigotry or offense with claims of bans or trying to strip away offensive material.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Guys...one question. Why does sexism in games are such an issue? Why can't you just enjoy it like all normal people do?

You guys live in almost a Nazi world, where you can't do/talk/think about certain things. Why do you even CARE about such things?!

Sexism is an issue because there's this idea that sexuality characters in video games is somehow worse than movies, music, or everyday actions done by all of us in the real world. Its also because its the latest scapegoat to hit gamers that we haven't been able to deflect immediately as we have in the past like violent video games causing violence.

I personally think that in some cases, people are personally looking for sexism. It's like racism, or any kind of ism. If you look for it, you'll find it. But when people find whatever "ism" they want, instead of looking at any form of intent, they go on the internet and scream about it. Happened with the KSI incident, happened with the Dead Island Statue, and it happened with Anita Sarkeesian.

People ignore intent in order to scream pseudo-intelligent ramblings. It helps them sleep better at night because they think they're a better person than anyone who disagrees.

 

[Legion]

Guys...one question. Why does sexism in games are such an issue? Why can't you just enjoy it like all normal people do?

You guys live in almost a Nazi world, where you can't do/talk/think about certain things. Why do you even CARE about such things?!

Sexism is an issue because there's this idea that sexuality characters in video games is somehow worse than movies, music, or everyday actions done by all of us in the real world. Its also because its the latest scapegoat to hit gamers that we haven't been able to deflect immediately as we have in the past like violent video games causing violence.

I personally think that in some cases, people are personally looking for sexism. It's like racism, or any kind of ism. If you look for it, you'll find it. But when people find whatever "ism" they want, instead of looking at any form of intent, they go on the internet and scream about it. Happened with the KSI incident, happened with the Dead Island Statue, and it happened with Anita Sarkeesian.

People ignore intent in order to scream pseudo-intelligent ramblings. It helps them sleep better at night because they think they're a better person than anyone who disagrees.

I agree.

There is of course, sexism in gaming. But the idea that it is a problem that gaming has specifically, or that it is a larger issue than it is in the rest of society or the media is just delusional. Most of it are ridiculous ideas like a woman being scantily clad being sexist when many women in real life are happy to wear little clothing (and why shouldn't they?). Or the idea that not having a female in a lead role is inherently sexist, regardless of whether in the context of the game it makes sense or not.

If the game suggests that these things happen because women are only good for eye candy, or aren't important enough to be the the lead role, then yes, that's a problem. But there are very few examples of games where this is the case.

It obviously also doesn't help when you get the genuinely sexist, racist or homophobic people chiming in and threatening to rape people such as Anita Sarkeesian for her videos, but to suggest that these are "gamer/gaming related" traits is ignoring the larger reality.

That reality is that anonymity makes some people reveal their nastier sides, and it certainly isn't limited to gaming. You hear almost daily about celebrities getting abuse from things such as twitter, or if you read the papers about people getting nasty comments on their facebook walls for no obvious reason. It's not a gaming thing, it's not a problem with the culture, it's a problem with society at large.

Then there is the difference between sexist content, and a game being sexist. The former is not necessarily bad, not if it is there to make a point or to add realism. If the game is condoning sexism, or portraying sexist intentions on behalf of the creators, then yes, that's an issue, but most examples people use are not like that at all. Jim's example with the "slut shaming" mission is sexist in the sense that the characters involved could be sexist, but that doesn't make Skyrim itself sexist, because the game is not suggesting that what they did was right.

 

[m19]

Which don't tend to get made. That is, not in gaming.

So? It doesn't mean there is something wrong with games made for men. Someone will make the gaming's version of Twilight eventually if there is a market for it.

The real false equivalence tends to be that an exposed male chest is somehow the analogue here, where it's really not.

What is?

 

[Legion]

I agree.

There is of course, sexism in gaming. But the idea that it is a problem that gaming has specifically, or that it is a larger issue than it is in the rest of society or the media is just delusional. Most of it are ridiculous ideas like a woman being scantily clad being sexist when many women in real life are happy to wear little clothing (and why shouldn't they?). Or the idea that not having a female in a lead role is inherently sexist, regardless of whether in the context of the game it makes sense or not.

If the game suggests that these things happen because women are only good for eye candy, or aren't important enough to be the the lead role, then yes, that's a problem. But there are very few examples of games where this is the case.

Uh-huh. Sure. Yeah. It is very rare to find women in games who play unimportant roles or are just eye candy. Sure. Right. I'm sorry, I'm going to need a bit more time to wrap my head around that claim.

It obviously also doesn't help when you get the genuinely sexist, racist or homophobic people chiming in and threatening to rape people such as Anita Sarkeesian for her videos, but to suggest that these are "gamer/gaming related" traits is ignoring the larger reality.

That reality is that anonymity makes some people reveal their nastier sides, and it certainly isn't limited to gaming. You hear almost daily about celebrities getting abuse from things such as twitter, or if you read the papers about people getting nasty comments on their facebook walls for no obvious reason. It's not a gaming thing, it's not a problem with the culture, it's a problem with society at large.

Then there is the difference between sexist content, and a game being sexist. The former is not necessarily bad, not if it is there to make a point or to add realism. If the game is condoning sexism, or portraying sexist intentions on behalf of the creators, then yes, that's an issue, but most examples people use are not like that at all. Jim's example with the "slut shaming" mission is sexist in the sense that the characters involved could be sexist, but that doesn't make Skyrim itself sexist, because the game is not suggesting that what they did was right.

Did any of you actually watch this video? Jim made - quite clearly - the point that just because a game might contain sexist elements, it doesn't make the game itself sexist. If someone has a problem with that mission, they're not automatically condemning the entire entire game as sexist. It is possible to talk about the isms without attaching an "ism" label to the entire game.

Also, I can't begin to tell you how sick I am of hearing, "there are bigger problems with sexism in the world, why don't you concentrate on them instead?"

Those other problems do get talked about. They really do. No one is saying that sexism is limited to gaming, and I have no idea where you'd even get that idea from. But does that mean that we're not allowed to talk about sexism in gaming? Saying stuff like this just gives the impression that you're standing in front of your precious games like an overprotective parent and jabbing your finger going, "No, there's nothing wrong here. Look over there, there are way more interesting things happening over there." Which is not the response of someone who genuinely doesn't think there's a lot of sexism in gaming.

Go back and watch Jim's video again. Then one more time for good luck. However many times it takes for you to get the message that it's OK to talk about the isms, and that no one is trying to take your video games away.

I never said there was a lack of women in unimportant roles. I said that it isn't an issue if there is, as long as it isn't done to make a point that women shouldn't be. That there are no female soldiers in Spec-Ops: The Line is not making a statement that women are not important, the context of the game simply doesn't have any female combatants. The developers of ICO saying that they deliberately chose not to make a female as the lead due to it requiring a lot of climbing on the other hand, is an example of when there is actual sexism in place.

I never said anything remotely like "There are bigger issues to deal with." or suggested that they don't get talked about. I was stating that this idea that gaming is sexist is ignoring the fact that gaming isn't sexist. Our culture is. You are not going to remove sexism in gaming as long as sexist attitudes are widely accepted in society. Gaming is not going to be the element that drives true equality forward, it is far too niche.

Having a game include a homosexual main character is not going to miraculously stop all the homophobic idiots you deal with in multiplayer games and forums disappear. It needs to be dealt with out in the real world before it gets dealt with in fictional ones. That's not to say that sorting it out in gaming is a bad idea, but the way people talk, you'd think it's a greater priority.

I never suggested that Jim was talking about anything other than he was. I was saying that there is a difference between a game containing sexist elements as in "That part of the game is sexist, sexism is bad and shouldn't exist" and "That game has sexist elements to add a sense of realism and depth to the game. It shows the world the game is based in isn't perfect and it doesn't condone sexism, it merely exists in the lore."

Jim seemed to suggest that the "slut shaming" quest was sexist as in the former example. My point was that it is the latter.

I am well aware that he was not talking about sexism elements making an entire game sexist. I was pointing out the difference between a sexist attitude on behalf of the creator, and a sexist attitude on behalf of a character. The former is bad, the latter is not.

To use a film as an example: American History X. Edward Norton plays a racist, the film contains racism. Him calling black people niggers is racist. But nobody would suggest that the film is wrong for having these elements, because it is not condoning it, it is not doing it to reinforce a stereotype, it is doing it to explore the theme of racism.

I see Jim's example of Skyrim as the same thing, where he seemed to imply it was sexist as in, condoning sexist behaviour.

I do not say the things I do out of any fear of "games being taken away", I simply do not see sexism, racism or homophobia (the kind condoning it kind) as being anywhere near as prevalent as people seem to suggest. Of course it exists, but the way people talk about it you'd think it's unavoidable.

You mention earlier that I suggested there aren't many games with eye candy. That is not really what I meant. I was saying that the ratio of games with that kind of thing compared with those that don't have it is so large that in the grand scheme of things it's incredibly minor.

For every game where there are female characters who are nothing more than T+A I could easily mention ten where there aren't. The idea that there are no games women can play without having to run into T+A eye candy is ridiculous, there are plenty of games out there that do not have any of these kinds of things.

Even if they do exist in games, unless the game or developers are suggesting that women are only good as eye candy, it doesn't even matter if in the context of the game that they are. It's not making a grand statement about real women. It's not suggesting that real women are only good as eye candy, no more than the thousands of games with muscular grizzly white men isn't claiming that all men are strong, brave heroes. It's a fantasy world, it's not creating a message of any kind.

The lack of women in important roles in games does not automatically suggest discrimination against women. No more than the lack of homosexuals is suggesting discrimination, if the developers do not feel that these types of characters fit what they want to do with their game, then that's up to them. Unless they are suggesting there is something wrong with either then it's not any kind of ism.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I personally think that in some cases, people are personally looking for sexism. It's like racism, or any kind of ism. If you look for it, you'll find it. But when people find whatever "ism" they want, instead of looking at any form of intent, they go on the internet and scream about it. Happened with the KSI incident, happened with the Dead Island Statue, and it happened with Anita Sarkeesian.

People ignore intent in order to scream pseudo-intelligent ramblings. It helps them sleep better at night because they think they're a better person than anyone who disagrees.

First of all, I have to say that it's hilarious you think it requires actual effort to find sexism in video games. I pray for the day we actually have to look for things to get offended by.

That day is already here. Yes, there is an issue with sexism in gaming, just like movies, TV, the workplace, and every facet of real life. What you're ignoring is intent. It's like when the aforementioned Anita Sarkeesian tried to call ICO sexist because a 12 year old boy was leading a malnourished nearly blind girl to safety. She focuses on the fact that its a boy leading a girl and nothing else. That's the kind of looking for sexism that I'm talking about. Don't ignore the fact that there are a large amount of people who go out of their way to find sexism in things in order to complain. The KSI incident was probably the worst case of it last year in terms of the gaming world.

Secondly, the people who do the most screaming are the gamers who try to shout down any talk about sexism. I have seen some absolutely epic tantrums along the lines of "WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? GTFO! UR ALL FEMINAZIS AND WHITE KNIGHTS AND UR JUST TRYING TO DESTROY GAMING WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!" Most of the people who raise the subject in the first place just come across as a little exasperated.

So you're only focusing on the uninformed conversations rather than paying attention to the few that are actually debating both sides. Let me say this, if you're going to base your opinion of the situation on the horribly uninformed screaming of those who don't want to talk about the issue, you're part of the problem. However if you want to actually say how you feel about this situation, rather than try to look good by criticizing those who rage, by all means you're welcome to.