Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[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.

 

[I.Muir]

Whoa there mentioning Anita is one of the things that tend to blow up in your face

The reason I didn't like her getting abused were completely different to most other women on the internet. It got her attention and funding from masses of white knights so she can now live of the cash she would not have even used to make videos with no research anybody else could have done for free. She purposefully manipulates forum opinions to bathe in the adoration of idiots and anything at all especially if they make a good point is censored if it does not 100% support her opinion. Only it's not her opinion is textbook feminism and I have not even bothered to pay attention to what she has to say when she started to accuse Christmas carols of being sexist.

I live by a simple code with a few simple rules. Do not be a dick is the most prominent and I disapprove of harassment of all kinds male or female over the internet and on the street. Whilst Anita did not deserve to be attacked I think she has more than recovered from any slights and used the whole thing as an example time and time again about how all of us, gamers as a whole are misogynistic (some women included no doubt).

She will always take issue with stupid things unrelated to actual sexism but it's ironic that actual misogyny caused her to become what she is now. If it was not there she would be just another nobody and we would all be better off. Im just concerned with the amount of pull she has.

 

[Nurb]

I agree with almost everything, Jim, the needless black and white absolutism, the unwillingness to talk about certain subjects, and the lingering fear gamers have that their games will be "taken away".

Gamers are afraid their hobby and/or passion will be sanitized and homoginized in order to please every interest group, and to a small degree, that's true. The thing to remember though, with any creative medium, that it's not up to anyone but the creators to decide what goes into a game, despite some nashing of teeth from fanboys. Wether the game contains something that could be interpreted to be offensive to some people, or overtly doing it on purpose for all to see, offending someone is not a crime, and being offended does not make someone a victim.

Of course people can voice their opinion on a game, no one should be shut up for raising a concern and developers having a rational discussion about certain issues and deciding if something should be changed is always good, but in the end, we need to remember games do not influence behavior or alter thinking just as movies and tv don't. So if someone says something is offensive, that could be, but other than giving their opinion, it doesn't matter.

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.

I'll just repost this for the point it makes.

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

 

[Baresark]

As someone who adamantly thought the "Zombie Bait" thing was ugly and distasteful but couldn't agree that it was misogynistic in nature as was pointed out in the RPS article and then parroted ad nauseum by every pole jocking fanboy of that writer, it is stupid how people cannot see a problem with certain things. If something is in bad taste, it's not a condemnation of the entire game to say so. The annoying part is how people demand things get removed over it. I'll return to the "Zombie Bait" statue debacle. Was it in bad taste? Yes. Was it ugly and not incentive at all to purchase the game? Yes. Was is earth shattering and needed to be removed from the market? No, it wasn't. But everyone who was all over that wanted confirmation it was going to be taken off the market. It's not good enough not to like something and not support something. No, that thing has to be destroyed because it was overtly "misogynist and over sexualized".

I agree, people are stupid when it comes to how they will stick by something that is ultimately inconsequential such as some of the things you have mentioned. But peoples over reaction to those things are equally as ridiculous to people's over reaction to "Zombie Bait". Either way, neither perspective pushes the medium forward, just freezes it in it's tracks.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

Jim's kind of got a point. And it's an unfortunate side effect of the world we live in. In a world where the mainstream media leaps to viciously blaming video games for things that they aren't responsable for, it's actually undertstandable that gamers are a pretty defensive lot.

 

[Magmarock]

Great video as always Jim and I'll be sure to check out move defense force.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Hmmm, I'm unsure if I'd label Skyrim sexist just based on that quest. I mean, couldn't you argue that any player who goes ahead with it is sexist? Or made sexist decisions? Especially since it's optional...though, then again. Whoever on the dev team concocted the quest is guilty of...ah what the Hell.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

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

And just out of curiosity: HOW exactly did the pony argument start? (Not wanting to read through 7 pages of big-wall-'o-text)

I was wondering that myself actually XD. From what I had gathered from what I read, someone finds ponies too sexy cause they have big eyeballs and exaggerated eyelashes and that is the general consensus. The other defended saying that isn't the case which he than replied that wasn't what he was saying.

I'm just going to point big eyeballs are quite common as it is the easiest and fastest way to emote emotion, they are big so you focus on them. Exaggerated eyelashes again is another animation technique so you can tell the gender of something that isn't easily identifiable(ponies, dragons, cars) quick and easy. This is again widely used in many types of mediums.

Now it's my turn to get on topic. XD

I don't disagree that we need to stop fighting to stop these arguments but that is where it ends. From what I can tell, we are past that point and that we are willing to talk about it, just people haven't stopped pointing fingers and actually discussed it. For one every true call out for any of the "Ism", there are three that are completely moronic that you have to reach to get. Anita doesn't deserve any remorse as she went looking for a fight(4-chan of all places), would you feel bad for me if I walked into a black neighborhood yelling racial slurs and got beat up for it?

No, my big problem with the calls out for "ism"'s is we yell this is bad yet make no attempts to fix it just like Jim is done now. If your going to stir up shit, do something with it and say how to fix it. If not, shut up as all your doing is pissing a lot of people off for no fucking reason.

If we want to fix things Jim, you need to get your fans to document every "ism" you can find and point out why this is not acceptable. Document it to specific publishers and have their fans write letters about it. after a month or so, send it(whether electronic or not) to the CEO or whoever accepts packages in bulk. hell you could of made a video on that instead of making this video which could be summed up as "PLEASE PROTECT THE CHILDREN!"

We know it's there, we are past the point. now it's time to stop being lazy and do something about it.

 

[Phlakes]

-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

I know you're trying to put yourself above him with that, but I'd just like you to know that this is one of those stock replies with a 100% backfire rate.

Carry on.

 

[Gilhelmi]

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 with you. I am thinking about researching the Underground Railroad (American Civil war edition), The Masons of Europe (when they were being oppressed by the fallen church), and the French Resistance (WW2 edition). Why you ask? Because, based on the responses every time someone dares to say Religion has a right to exist, the Militant Atheist start the verbal attacks. Based on the history of most religions, that is usually shortly before the major persecution follows. First it is dissenting views (which are healthy, actually, as long as everyone remains civil), but then things go down hill when it get loud yelling, then the indirect persecution (such as denying rights given to everyone else, This is the stage of the persecuted Christians in the US. First Amendment does not apply to us, according to the president anyway), then the direct persecution (with attacking property, This was the persecuted Abolitionists(Christian) during the US Civil war who helped to Abolish Slavery).

I am wondering, if I should just keep my head low and clean up the mess after everything collapses, as history has shown, always happen when a nation gets overly arrogant.