Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[SecsNoises]

Look. We all know why bronies get the stick. I have heard no end of comments from people who have never even watched the show that the ponies look too sexy and that they find that disturbing. I really didn't care until I couldn't ignore the outrage any longer.

Generally, the people who attack bronies having never watched the show are the ones who take the extremely shallow view "it's a cartoon for little girls, therefore the men who watch it must be deranged individuals"; in the more extreme cases, we're all just paedophiles using our like of the show as bait.

I find it's easier not to entertain these people, much less allow them to ruin our enjoyment of the show.

It's pretty much universally accepted that the ponies in MLP are a bit too sexy.

By who exactly? Are you saying that the writers and animators designed the characters to be sexy to Bronies?

Here is Fluttershy during S01E01, aired before the internet following had taken off -

Now here is her in the last episode -

See? Absolutely no change in her character design; given that the success of the show with adult males was entirely unexpected, I think we can conclude from this she was never designed to be sexually appealing.

---

And yes, I am aware there are many sexualized pictures of the ponies around the internet. But saying they make the show - and the intention of the writers - perverse is false -

Firstly, there are pornographic fan drawings of pretty much every character out there. In truth, MLP is no worse than any other popular show/game/movie in that regard.

Secondly, to say that erotic fan-made media makes MLP sexualized by intention of the writers is like downloading several X-rated mods and saying Skyrim's world is hyper-sexualized. That content only exists if you deliberately expose yourself to it; it is in no way affiliated with the writers.

And in answer to your "youth and innocence" argument.

See: Infantilization of female sexuality. A very old and well established concept.

Here is what I said again: Last time I checked, those are traits associated with youth and innocence in cartoons.

As in, when a person designs a character with large eyes and big eyelashes, they tend to do so with portraying innocence in mind, as such is reflected by the character's personality.

I think in the context of a children's show, it's taking it a step too far to say "Ermagawd! Infantilization of female sexuality!".

If you have a problem with that point, I will refer you to here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

 

[Epona]

Acceptance is the first step towards change. So accepting this is asking for our games to change (and that can be seen as taken away).

 

[wizzy555]

Yes, it's not like it's in the dictionary or something...

Nor is it specifically mentioned right at the start of the Wikipedia article on physical attractiveness.

Heh, some wild idea I had there...

Shhhhhhh feminist philosophy single handed over turns, Plato, Kant and Dewey's aesthetics beyond all retort. Didn't you know that?

[sarcasm]

 

[Devin Barker]

i am somehow blissfully ignorent of the problems with earthworm jims creator... any one have a link to anything i can read up on?

I don't have a link, but the skinny is that Doug TenNapel has a career as a far right wing media pundit and radio personality. As such, he makes no secret of his views on many of the familiar, controversial issues de jour. It doesn't stop him making good games though. In fact, in some ways, it has helped his games; The Neverhood, for instance, is a brilliant, unique title that is largely inspired by bible stories and his religious upbringing.

ah right on, good to have context. yah it probably wont stop me from playing his games (to be honest im sure he does not see a whole lot of money per unit sold) sux the dude is a d-bat though

 

[Wolcik]

Valid points and all, but I what I want to say that after hearing the screamy monologue for some time the more varied voice acting at the end cracks me up - "it's a thing" was so different from all the rest that I was surprised and entertain in a humorous way.

 

[Hagi]

See, that's the problem with this video. It doesn't take the side of having these issues open to debate. It takes the side of having these issues open to debate but only for everyone who agrees that they're sexist/racist/homophobic.

If someone attempts to silence your point of view then the appropriate reaction is to ignore them, you have a right to your opinion that nobody can take away. The appropriate reaction is not to attempt to silence them in turn, they also have a right to their opinion that you can't take away.

This is just not true, I think. This video takes the side of those who agree that there is a dialogue here worth having. Calling out the silencers as just that, silencers, is not the same as being a silencer in turn. This is something that simply needs to happen to foster a healthy debate that a HUGE part of the video game audience thinks need to be had.

Guess we took different things away from the video.

I agree on your point that this is a discussion worth having and needing to be had. I just didn't think the video represented that point very well. Rather due to only attacking one side of the debate, those that disagree that some things are sexist, it took a clear side and presented it instead as a discussion that's really already been had and concluded with a supposedly obvious outcome, all these things are sexist.

On that point I disagree. Whilst there have been many discussions on things that were most definitely sexist and careless of the developers I also believe that there's been no lack of discussions on things that simply weren't sexist and instead the result of people getting carried away in the hype of sexism.

A discussion needs to be had, but it needs to be had without automatically painting either side as the villain as long as they're willing to discuss it rationally. I feel this video failed at that point by clearly hinting one side is in the wrong and acting out of insecurity.

 

[JudgeGame]

Look. We all know why bronies get the stick. I have heard no end of comments from people who have never even watched the show that the ponies look too sexy and that they find that disturbing. I really didn't care until I couldn't ignore the outrage any longer.

Generally, the people who attack bronies having never watched the show are the ones who take the extremely shallow view "it's a cartoon for little girls, therefore the men who watch it must be deranged individuals"; in the more extreme cases, we're all just paedophiles using our like of the show as bait.

I find it's easier not to entertain these people, much less allow them to ruin our enjoyment of the show.

It's pretty much universally accepted that the ponies in MLP are a bit too sexy.

By who exactly? Are you saying that the writers and animators designed the characters to be sexy to Bronies?

Here is Fluttershy during S01E01, aired before the internet following had taken off -

Now here is her in the last episode -

See? Absolutely no change in her character design; given that the success of the show with adult males was entirely unexpected, I think we can conclude from this she was never designed to be sexually appealing.

---

And yes, I am aware there are many sexualized pictures of the ponies around the internet. But saying they make the show - and the intention of the writers - perverse is false -

Firstly, there are pornographic fan drawings of pretty much every character out there. In truth, MLP is no worse than any other popular show/game/movie in that regard.

Secondly, to say that erotic fan-made media makes MLP sexualized by intention of the writers is like downloading several X-rated mods and saying Skyrim's world is hyper-sexualized. That content only exists if you deliberately expose yourself to it; it is in no way affiliated with the writers.

And in answer to your "youth and innocence" argument.

See: Infantilization of female sexuality. A very old and well established concept.

Here is what I said again: Last time I checked, those are traits associated with youth and innocence in cartoons.

As in, when a person designs a character with large eyes and big eyelashes, they tend to do so with portraying innocence in mind, as such is reflected by the character's personality.

I think in the context of a children's show, it's taking it a step too far to say "Ermagawd! Infantilization of female sexuality!".

If you have a problem with that point, I will refer you to here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

That isn't what I said at all if you'd read back you might notice I said the opposite of that. I get the feeling you are taking this very personally and you shouldn't because I am not critizicing the show or bronies. Frankly, I'm not interested at all in following this conversation as this has fuck all to do with discussing social issues in videogames and is derailing the topic from anything worth my time. You don't think there's anything sexual about the ponies? Good for you. I think there is and I know there are other people who find them very sexual.

 

[JudgeGame]

-snip-

With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[SecsNoises]

That isn't what I said at all if you'd read back you might notice I said the opposite of that. I get the feeling you are taking this very personally and you shouldn't because I am not critizicing the show or bronies. Frankly, I'm not interested at all in following this conversation as this has fuck all to do with discussing social issues in videogames and is derailing the topic from anything worth my time.

Here is your quote -

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression from this you believed they were given giant eyes, exaggerated eyelashes and whatever else as a means of sexing them up. And, going above and beyond that, it's an irrefutable claim which is held by everybody.

I didn't see it as a criticism in the slightest, just a blatantly false assertion which needed correcting. For funsies.

You don't think there's anything sexual about the ponies? Good for you. I think there is and I know there are other people who find them very sexual.

Good for you! And good for them too!

I can't say I really care. Cloppers gonna clop.

 

[JudgeGame]

-snip-

Give me strength. I meant that for some reason you assumed I thought the sexualization was intentional when I explicitely said it wasn't. I'd like it if you could stop insisting on this and we could drop this argument. You are starting to make me feel uncomfortable.

 

[Darken12]

Thank you, Jim, now I can link your video over and over and over whenever someone overreacts to someone pointing out an -ism in a game. This was truly a public service.

 

[thisbymaster]

Why are people afraid of the "Isms"? Because they are an easy target for the government to crack down on without effecting the voting population(old people) and it would bring in votes from the people who are to stupid or poor to have vote games. If you think that couldn't happen look at the rating system in the US and Australia

 

[MB202]

I think MovieBob says this a lot, rather, there are mature things we can talk about when it comes to video games, but rather than talking about it, the vast, vast, VAST majority of games would rather sweep it under the rug, sometimes to avoid looking bad to the "media" (although people can have this conversation anywhere and it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, matter) other times its just because talking about it would "ruin the fun". Really.

 

[maninahat]

People don't seem to understand that not all stories are moral messages. Skyrim has a mission to abduct a priest into a cannibal cult and EAT him, this is not a "pro-cannibal" message. Like-wise the "slut-shaming" quest in skyrim is not "pro slut-shaming". Skyrim is a true RPG in that it gives you the option to be entirely unethical but lets you stop and do something else should you decide to.

Skyrim is a good example of one of the more gender equalised games on the market. The women (in the unmodded versions) are hardly sexualised and you find people of different genders in most professions.

BTW I'm not telling anyone to shut up, I'm disagreeing with you.

snip

snip

That's only a partial reply, even if the game is railroaded you don't have to interpret it as a moral message. Further more the slut shaming is part of the thieves guild quest which asks you do to a number of morally questionable things. Your choice is not to be in the thieves guild.

How about you explain starting from predicates why it is sexist to begin with, instead of picking at minor points.

PS: "It offends me isn't an answer"

Firstly, I don't have to interpret any moral message from anything. Any interpretation is usually the result, naturally arrived at via the various implications of a game. These implications may be intentional on the part of the developers, or purely accidental, but either way that doesn't matter because implications still carry meaning, however unintentional.

Secondly, with all things in popular media, there is a difference between looking at something in isolation, and looking at something in its social context. Specifically, for a very long time, our societies have stigmatised sexually proactive women. Skyrim, perhaps unintentionally, harkens back to the mentality we have been trying to get away from all these years. 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.

So what's the difference between slut shaming and all the stealing and killing that the Thieves Guild does? Well, in the broader social context, murder and theft have always been looked down upon by society, but in the realm of games, they are fun escapism, free (for the most part) from the baggage of real life. Real life murder and game murder are totally distinct, and the difference is patently clear to any gamer in this day and age. Mistreating women, however, hasn't always been looked down upon by society. The distinction between in-game sexism and real-world sexism is less obvious to some players, as we live in an age where casually sexist views are still commonplace, and even accepted in some circles. We have only recently tried to break away from this mentality, becoming aware of how messed up our views of women really are. As a consequence, there is a greater sensitivity in regards to entertainment's depictions of women vs depictions of crime in general. You could have a slut-shaming mission against a man, and it wouldn't have the same unfortunate implications, in much the same way as how a black man in white face paint has a different set of implications to a white man in black face; only one of those two reference an ugly period of historical racial prejudice.

In a perfect world, in-game sexism would be seen by all gamers in the same detached, fun manner as theft, murder, or other crimes against humanity. But we live in a world where the average person can still expect to see sexism daily, in one form or another, so it is harder to see game sexism in that same detached way. It is quite likely that many people sitting down to play Skyrim will have at some point dismissed a woman as a slut, perhaps even earlier that same day. Until society fully rejects sexism in the same way we've long rejected theft and murder, the mistreatment of women in games is still going to carry the baggage we have been trying to get rid of. Right now, to many people, it feels less like a piece of fun escapism, and much too close to home.


There is probably more to all of this, but I'll so I'll leave it for now and let someone else have their say.

 

[wizzy555]

Firstly, I don't have to interpret any moral message from anything. Any interpretation is usually the result, naturally arrived at via the various implications of a game. These implications may be intentional on the part of the developers, or purely accidental, but either way that doesn't matter because implications still carry meaning, however unintentional.

Secondly, with all things in popular media, there is a difference between looking at something in isolation, and looking at something in its social context. Specifically, for a very long time, our societies have stigmatised sexually proactive women. Skyrim, perhaps unintentionally, harkens back to the mentality we have been trying to get away from all these years. 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.

So what's the difference between slut shaming and all the stealing and killing that the Thieves Guild does? Well, in the broader social context, murder and theft have always been looked down upon by society, but in the realm of games, they are fun escapism, free (for the most part) from the baggage of real life. Real life murder and game murder are totally distinct, and the difference is patently clear to any gamer in this day and age. Mistreating women, however, hasn't always been looked down upon by society. The distinction between in-game sexism and real-world sexism is less obvious to some players, as we live in an age where casually sexist views are still commonplace, and even accepted in some circles. We have only recently tried to break away from this mentality, becoming aware of how messed up our views of women really are. As a consequence, there is a greater sensitivity in regards to entertainment's depictions of women vs depictions of crime in general. You could have a slut-shaming mission against a man, and it wouldn't have the same unfortunate implications, in much the same way as how a black man in white face paint has a different set of implications to a white man in black face; only one of those two reference an ugly period of historical racial prejudice.

In a perfect world, in-game sexism would be seen by all gamers in the same detached, fun manner as theft, murder, or other crimes against humanity. But we live in a world where the average person can still expect to see sexism daily, in one form or another, so it is harder to see game sexism in that same detached way. It is quite likely that many people sitting down to play Skyrim will have at some point dismissed a woman as a slut, perhaps even earlier that same day. Until society fully rejects sexism in the same way we've long rejected theft and murder, the mistreatment of women in games is still going to carry the baggage we have been trying to get rid of. Right now, to many people, it feels less like a piece of fun escapism, and much too close to home.


There is probably more to all of this, but I'll so I'll leave it for now and let someone else have their say.

So there's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just given your social setting it presses the wrong buttons so to speak - i.e. "it offends you" or rather your society.

As a European liberal (liberal as in let people do as they want unless it directly harms others, not American liberal as in do as I say for the greater good) I axiomatically reject social sensitivities angle for moral criticism, you could of course still say it was rude or a bad business decision or it objectively upsets people. In fact the very same argument can be made in favour of slut-shaming - sexual activity upsets all the moral conservatives out there and you wouldn't want to do that - poor moral conservatives.

Now you've had your logical argument and we still disagree.

BTW: "mistreatment of women" has never not been looked down upon, just the definition of mistreatment has changed drastically

 

[Tradjus]

The problem with this entire video is that people -are- trying to take our games away. Games are -still- a scapegoat among legislators in multiple countries and every time one of these issues pops up, gamers close ranks for a -reason-.
I think that not acknowledging that there are dangers too openly talking about this stuff is the same as not acknowledging that it exists in the first place, while I'd love to have more open discussions about it, I wouldn't love to have my comments picked out and quoted by some crapsack on Fox News as evidence that Gamers want games deemed violent or sexist banned forever. Cherry picking comments made by us is one of their games, and it happens a lot.

 

[JudgeGame]

-snip-

So there's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just given your social setting it presses the wrong buttons so to speak - i.e. "it offends you" or rather your society.

As a European liberal (liberal as in let people do as they want unless it directly harms others, not American liberal as in do as I say for the greater good) I axiomatically reject social sensitivities angle for moral criticism, you could of course still say it was rude or a bad business decision or it objectively upsets people. In fact the very same argument can be made in favour of slut-shaming - it upsets all the moral conservatives out there and you wouldn't want to do that - poor moral conservatives.

Now you've had your logical argument and we still disagree.

BTW: "mistreatment of women" has never not been looked down upon, just the definition of mistreatment has changed drastically

Go and open a book. Please.

 

[wizzy555]

-snip-

So there's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just given your social setting it presses the wrong buttons so to speak - i.e. "it offends you" or rather your society.

As a European liberal (liberal as in let people do as they want unless it directly harms others, not American liberal as in do as I say for the greater good) I axiomatically reject social sensitivities angle for moral criticism, you could of course still say it was rude or a bad business decision or it objectively upsets people. In fact the very same argument can be made in favour of slut-shaming - it upsets all the moral conservatives out there and you wouldn't want to do that - poor moral conservatives.

Now you've had your logical argument and we still disagree.

BTW: "mistreatment of women" has never not been looked down upon, just the definition of mistreatment has changed drastically

Go and open a book. Please.

Get an education beyond social justice 101

 

[SpaceBat]

(speaking of Far Cry 3, there was some male on male ACTUAL rape in there, and I don't think anyone cared. Kinda depressing)

Eh, rape (or assault) of males has been used as a source of comedy for decades. It would surprise me if people did notice and discuss it. Also, despite the many rapes that don't get reported, it's still far less a problem for males than it is for females, so nearly all effort goes into discussing the latter I guess.

I would like to thank the people debating here for proving the point of the video.

Many people here seem to be discussing it and not just dismissing the isms, which is encouraged by the video. Discussing whether there is a case of the isms does not inherently mean brushing it off.

 

[grumpymooselion]

I don't think that supposedly 'unacceptable' content is worth getting worked up over, not because I disagree about how offensive it is . . . but because I firmly believe there is a place for that - if used right. I'm going to use film as an example, and note that subjects of racism, sexism and other supposedly no no subjects are elements of some of the best films out there right now. I think the worry on the part of gamers is not that they feel their current games will be taken away, but that future games will be sanitized to appeal to a wider audience. Right now you see films that do this, and reviewers on this very site often note how 'they took it out or changed it to keep ____ rating" or "because it might be offensive" and it's . . . kind of sad. You already see some subjects handled like that in video games, where they're taken out just because they might be offensive to some people.

I'm not saying sexist (or any other) content is good in and of itself, but I do believe it can be a part of a story and world. I'm sorry I can go out on the street and see women that, quite frankly, some other men and women would complain about - be it how they dress or act or what have you as being an offensive representation of their gender. But here's the thing, life isn't sanitized and I don't think 'any' of our stories should 'have' to be either, and that is a worry. The more it's talked about the more I see an extremist view that it doesn't 'just' have to be talked about, but that it has to be eradicated. Talking about it is one thing, but I know exactly why some gamers fear it being talked about - they fear those talks will lead to the censor sanitation of games, and don't think for a second that it's not possible - comics, music and movies have all been subject to people trying to do exactly that to them.

That said, I do think it should be talked about . . . I just don't trust people to not jump to extremes one way, or the other. People of extremist viewpoints tend to jump on such discussions as if the discussion itself if proof of others submitting to their viewpoint, just look at the recent article on how one particular gun control talk was viewed as, 'admitting' there was a problem just for the showing up.

I do understand that all manner of supposedly offensive content can be offensive to some people, but I view a lot of the extremist viewpoints that want to talk about it as 'something wrong' or 'something that needs to be removed' the same way I viewed the people, some years back, who wanted to censor and change Huckleberry Finn, and other famous works, because they were potentially racist, or sexist or what have you. I don't see such talks leading to issues being talked about, as much as people leading others to eradicate particular forms of content from even being developed - but that's wrong in my mind. It doesn't get rid of it, it just puts it in a corner where people pretend it doesn't exist because it's out of the public eye for a time.