Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[Smeatza]

I took the time to read the Skyrim is sexist article and it's quite frankly laughable.
It's just another low content article crammed with enough feminist buzzwords to get the publicity it was seeking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for there being a dialogue over isms in video games and the video game industry. But let's not make the same mistake of the sensationalist media that has been persecuting video gamers for all these years.

Dead Island is the perfect example. It's had people crying sexism from the start because of all the women zombies in bikini's and the violence towards them. Put it in context though and it all makes sense and there isn't really anything sexist about it (the game that is, not the decision making behind it).
However even if you put it in context, the racial stereotyping in that game is probably the most extreme I've ever seen from a video game.
But does that get discussed? No, either because there is not as much potential cash to be earned discussing racism as there is for sexism or because feminist activists are more numerous/shout louder than racism activists.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I took the time to read the Skyrim is sexist article and it's quite frankly laughable.
It's just another low content article crammed with enough feminist buzzwords to get the publicity it was seeking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for there being a dialogue over isms in video games and the video game industry. But let's not make the same mistake of the sensationalist media that has been persecuting video gamers for all these years.

Dead Island is the perfect example. It's had people crying sexism from the start because of all the women zombies in bikini's and the violence towards them. Put it in context though and it all makes sense and there isn't really anything sexist about it (the game that is, not the decision making behind it).
However even if you put it in context, the racial stereotyping in that game is probably the most extreme I've ever seen from a video game.
But does that get discussed? No, either because there is not as much potential cash to be earned discussing racism as there is for sexism or because feminist activists are more numerous/shout louder than racism activists.

I've been saying the same thing about Dead Island, minus the race aspect. As said before in the thread, intent and context are ignored in favour of reasons to get mad.

 

[Namehere]

I suspect the perception of racism or sexism will not leave our society for some time yet. The reality will linger, in pockets, for a short while but it is actually dying.

We're on the verge of magnificent breakthroughs in all sorts of different areas, from Quantum Computing to Gene therapy techniques. It's hardly inconceivable that at some point in the next thirty years, if even that long, someone will come out with a pill that allows you to change your gender over night. The toughest part of the whole procedure will probably be the bureaucratic paper/data work associated with it.

It is unlikely that anyone is going to change the mind of anyone else on this issue. The deep rooted psychological scarring left by holding such beliefs and having acted on them, then witnessing them shatter, is too much for many to bare. Worse still are those who can not give up their hatred, because its all they have left to define themselves by. They knew no other way to prevent themselves from being victimized. These people too can not change, they must be allowed to die off gradually with the changing of the generations. And they will.

Until these events occur there is little we can do as a group, but a great deal we can do to console the wounded and confront the offenders, not with simple hostility and anger, but with care and consideration. We needn't destroy the people who act this way we must merely destroy the impact of those actions. And if we see a problem somewhere, in our daily lives, that is something we can attend to. To attempt to wage some sort of war/struggle against what is basically stupidity is an act of futile madness. There's no cure for stupid. You simply have to be smart enough to find a way around it.

Hope this hasn't run on.

 

[EvilestDeath]

Accept my J-isms on your face Jim

 

[longboardfan]

Accepting the Isms

Games are racist. Games are homophobic. Games are sexist. And that's okay!

Watch Video

Missing the point again. These people that have some sort of hard-on for blaming games for crimes that 'they couldn't have possible committed' or something that cause gamers to 'circle the wagons,' have political motivations that extend well beyond the realm of reason and appropriate response. I'd rather circle the wagons than meet these political/legal engineers half way because they'll take it as a complete win and run amok. I mean its hard enough to convince non-gamers that violence in video games is okay much less try to convince the squeaky clean posers trying to ban video games that just maybe its okay that games show aspects of society that aren't politically correct and may in fact be offensive.

So shut it, keep your head on, and just maybe (just maybe), we'll get to keep our next console generation filled with lots of bland, Gears of Modern Mass Effect 4 look alikes. In the mean time, I'll be playing and buying copies of really old games from Atlus's back catalog where I SUMMON DEMONS FROM THE DEPTHS OF MY FRACTURED SOUL. Good god, we can't even have a school shooting without the freaking Presnit of the US threatening to ban all guns while pundits and other groups attack "violent games," what makes you think that I'll still be able to legally buy and play games where the protagonists summon demons with the option to kill GOD. Oh, and I forgot to mention the people blaming game for mental health issues.

I'm not that big into bait and switch, and I never read or knew about this article you mention by this chick. I just can't take women seriously when they talk about sexism in gaming. Its all they talk about. Their body, their choice, and get these tits out of games. Anita is politically motivated and highly funded by political organizations like NOW. So pardon me if I take anything she says with a heavy dose of "kill it with fire." I HATE and LOATH the politically motivated. They say one thing and then work to kill off whatever hot button issue offends them with legal disputes, censorship, and legal precedents. I mean really, do you expect me to go back in time, and support Jack Thompson? Or does Anita get a pass because she's a woman?

 

[Quadocky]

I mean really, do you expect me to go back in time, and support Jack Thompson? Or does Anita get a pass because she's a woman?

No, that is not what the controversy was about.

She was attacked because she was a woman, regardless of what she said or was going to say in the first place. That is what was so controversial.

Jack Thompson was not attacked for being a man. The two events are completely different.

And saying its a 'political' motivation is incorrect given the obviously hostile backlash.

To clarify, you will generally see 'political' motivation in a more underhanded fashion in order to maintain broad appeal (such as appearing neutral or 'middle of the road' like some of those crazy Anti-Obama ads published by 'grassroots' organizations). Anita was obviously not attempting to garner broad appeal so much as inform.

 

[m19]

She was attacked because she was a woman, regardless of what she said or was going to say in the first place. That is what was so controversial.

No she was not. She got attacked because if what she was talking about, same as Jack Thompson. Just because a woman is being attacked doesn't me she is attacked because she's a woman.

 

[hazydawn]

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.

Exactly what I'm thinking ^^

Just because in Skyrim there is this one quest where you're able to(you don't have to) shame a woman for sleeping with three men doesn't mean the game itself is sexist. Same with killing Paarthurnax at the end of the game. Just because it shows up in your quest journal doesn't mean you have to do it, no, you decide to do so. But lets assume the fictional land of Skyrim would be sexist.
Just because a game depicts a sexist, racist or whatever society, doesn't mean the game developers are promoting the idea of it.
It's actually astounding to what degree Skyrim isn't sexist and racist. Women are soldiers, adventurers and bandits just as men are, they hold influential postitions. Yes there is racism in the game but that only makes it more realistic, imagine if our world had cat or lizard people in it, I think we'd still regard them as less "human".

 

[Quadocky]

She was attacked because she was a woman, regardless of what she said or was going to say in the first place. That is what was so controversial.

No she was not. She got attacked because if what she was talking about, same as Jack Thompson. Just because a woman is being attacked doesn't me she is attacked because she's a woman.

No, I don't know why you are disagreeing with me given your statement is blatantly false.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

She was attacked because she was a woman, regardless of what she said or was going to say in the first place. That is what was so controversial.

No she was not. She got attacked because if what she was talking about, same as Jack Thompson. Just because a woman is being attacked doesn't me she is attacked because she's a woman.

No, I don't know why you are disagreeing with me given your statement is blatantly false.

Clearly @m19 \s statement isn't false. There are plenty of feminists one the internet with some clout. Anita Sarkeesian had a big following before Tropes vs. Women. A following of 30,000 subscribers and colleges that paid her to speak on the issue of gender equality.


She was attacked because she spammed 4chan specifically with her ads for the Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter (also know as the only YouTube video she didn't moderate/censor in her favour).

Don't try and pass this off as an attack on a woman because she's a woman, when that's clearly not the case. 4chan's volatile and hostile reputation was used to garner attention and trolls took the bait. There are plenty or people attacking, and quite frankly destroying Ms. Sarkeesian's points with intelligent discourse everyday on this site. And it's not because she's a woman.

It's because she uses the worst kind of straw feminism to argue her uninformed points. All of her points are cherry picked and lack context. It's also because she's what's known as an anti-sex feminist. Her branch of feminism portrays the idea that women can't make the decision to do anything sexually of there own will, but instead do it at the behest of men. That in itself is sexist thinking. There are plenty of pro-sex feminists (some on YouTube who outright call Sarkeesian out) who majorly disagree with a lot of Anita's views.

They're women, why aren't they getting attacked? Because their points make sense and are informed. Anita Sarkeesian thinks that when a girl wears showy clothing that they're doing it for attention, not because they generally like the clothing.

Point is, stop perpetrating the idea that Anita Sarkeesian is getting attacked simply because she has breasts. That point was defeated when this whole thing started.

 

[Quadocky]

She was attacked because she was a woman, regardless of what she said or was going to say in the first place. That is what was so controversial.

No she was not. She got attacked because if what she was talking about, same as Jack Thompson. Just because a woman is being attacked doesn't me she is attacked because she's a woman.

No, I don't know why you are disagreeing with me given your statement is blatantly false.

She was attacked because she spammed 4chan specifically with her ads for the Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter (also know as the only YouTube video she didn't moderate/censor in her favour).

Don't try and pass this off as an attack on a woman because she's a woman, when that's clearly not the case. 4chan's volatile and hostile reputation was used to garner attention and trolls took the bait. There are plenty or people attacking, and quite frankly destroying Ms. Sarkeesian's points with intelligent discourse everyday on this site. And it's not because she's a woman.

Point is, stop perpetrating the idea that Anita Sarkeesian is getting attacked simply because she has breasts. That point was defeated when this whole thing started.

Oh yes, normally people wouldn't give out misogyny and rape threats, but once you spam 4chan all best are off!

Gimmie a break. Really? Really?!

And the whole thing about sex-positve and sex-negative doesn't mean diddly squat unless you actually understand feminism in the first place. I can tell you that giving someone rape threats is NEITHER sex-positive or sex-negative.

Also its a funny thing, there seems to be a lapse of 'intelligent' discussion in any regard to Anita. Most of the discussion I see is pettiness shrouded in self-righteous smugness.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Oh yes, normally people wouldn't give our misogyny and rape threats, but once you spam 4chan all best are off!

Gimmie a break. Really? Really?!

May want to word that better. I have no idea what you're going on about here.

And the whole thing about sex-positve and sex-negative doesn't mean diddly squat unless you actually understand feminism in the first place. I can tell you that giving someone rape threats is NEITHER sex-positive or sex-negative.

You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed. If you think that anyone who attacks Anita Sarkeesian with "get back to the kitchen" or "suck my dick" is to be considered seriously, you're gonna have a hard time debating with people who actually have arguments against her. In fact, you haven't really argued against those points at all. You've argued the non-important points of the trolls.

Also its a funny thing, there seems to be a lapse of 'intelligent' discussion in any regard to Anita. Most of the discussion I see is pettiness shrouded in self-righteous smugness.

Yet, you've not really engaged in any points. You're just judging people's points and trying to tell people that Anita Sarkeesian was attacked because she's a woman. You haven't actually argued why you think she's right, or why you think those who disagree with her are in the wrong.


You're calling people self-righteous and smug while patting yourself on the back for pointing out that trolls scream.

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

 

[hazydawn]

You're really good at debating AzrealMaximillion ^^
It's always fun to me reading good, thought-out arguments.
Even when they go against the opinion I hold at that time but make me question my believe.
Sadly I never reach that level myself :S

 

[longboardfan]

Oh yes, normally people wouldn't give our misogyny and rape threats, but once you spam 4chan all best are off!

Gimmie a break. Really? Really?!

May want to word that better. I have no idea what you're going on about here.

And the whole thing about sex-positve and sex-negative doesn't mean diddly squat unless you actually understand feminism in the first place. I can tell you that giving someone rape threats is NEITHER sex-positive or sex-negative.

You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed. If you think that anyone who attacks Anita Sarkeesian with "get back to the kitchen" or "suck my dick" is to be considered seriously, you're gonna have a hard time debating with people who actually have arguments against her. In fact, you haven't really argued against those points at all. You've argued the non-important points of the trolls.

Also its a funny thing, there seems to be a lapse of 'intelligent' discussion in any regard to Anita. Most of the discussion I see is pettiness shrouded in self-righteous smugness.

Yet, you've not really engaged in any points. You're just judging people's points and trying to tell people that Anita Sarkeesian was attacked because she's a woman. You haven't actually argued why you think she's right, or why you think those who disagree with her are in the wrong.


You're calling people self-righteous and smug while patting yourself on the back for pointing out that trolls scream.

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

Thank you AzrealMaximillion, I was going to just keep ignoring the stupid from Quadocky and Jim Sterling's bizarrely out of place and factually incorrect comment about her, but you definitely stepped up and broke his arguments into dust. I didn't see any irrational discourse about Anita going on on Youtube, except in her highly suspect comment sections. All the videos I found broke down her arguments and pointed out the factual errors. That's why I said that I can't take any arguments about sexism and games written by women seriously. Every time I read one of their articles, I feel like a complete lack of research is being done, and that they're only doing it for the money/attention.

I think this comment might explain this irrational support of Anita by gaming journalists on this article I found on a Forbes article on "Do Gaming Journalists Need to Grow Up?":

"And, if I may be so bold, the Anita Sarkesian Kickstarter, which journalists flocked to defend her without considering that her past videos have shown a lack of research on the topics covered, and she clearly had the means to make a webshow on her own dime. I recall a lot of journalists then writing off the dissenting opinion holders as sexist, and a few articles written on the subject seemed more like messages you'd find in forums to draw comments. Not to mention a few seemed almost copy-pasted between each other."

 

[the spaciest]

OK so that whole misogyny in Skyrim thing totally passed me by (ironically because I was playing Skyrim?) so I realize I'm going out on a limb here... Is it really sexist for a game set in a generic fantasy world (for "generic fantasy" read "The Dark Ages with dragons and magiks") to contain a quest where a woman is humiliated for her wanton ways with men?

Isn't that a basic failure to acknowledge that in different portions of the world and at different times*, morality has taken many different forms and things that may seem unacceptable to a contemporary Westerner, would be completely normal.

* not to mention completely made up worlds

I just find the suggestion that all narratives must conform to the current umm.... Moral current, to be just a little absurd and more than a little heavy with the ban-hammer of censorship.

It's interesting that feminists are so vocal about what they consider to be misogynistic in the media, and yet if I were to pick out just a tiny portion of the glaringly misandric mechanisms present in culture, most people's first response would be.... "Hurr durr, what does misandric mean?" That's because the inverse of sexism against women has been so sublimated, even the victims are blithely ignorant and will probably go to great lengths to chastise me for even suggesting that it's a two way street.

What an incredibly fucked up world we live in.

 

[Quadocky]

May want to word that better. I have no idea what you're going on about here.

In a a non-sarcastic tone: A post on 4chan does not warrant abuse. Saying it was trolling is a complete cop-out because even IF it was, it doesn't mean it was correct or right of them anyway. (Mostly it just reeks of victim blaming.)

You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed.

This again? Her research is her own, the context is her feminist perspective. Does that make sense? I did not ignore it, I already basically said is she is correct in her currently published works. In my opinion saying she CRITIQUES pop culture without research or context is blatantly false. I will get to the 'trolls' in a bit here... but before that, I notice you seem to use the word judge instead of critique. You seem to put quite a bit of imagined authority in her hands. Unless you are quite literally thinking she is rendering judgments like Jesus during the Rapture "YOU LIVE!, YOU DIE!"

If you think that anyone who attacks Anita Sarkeesian with "get back to the kitchen" or "suck my dick" is to be considered seriously, you're gonna have a hard time debating with people who actually have arguments against her. In fact, you haven't really argued against those points at all. You've argued the non-important points of the trolls.

I don't know if I will blow your mind by saying this, but the people who said those things AND MUCH WORSE, were actually serious about what they were saying.

Yet, you've not really engaged in any points. You're just judging people's points and trying to tell people that Anita Sarkeesian was attacked because she's a woman. You haven't actually argued why you think she's right, or why you think those who disagree with her are in the wrong.

You're calling people self-righteous and smug while patting yourself on the back for pointing out that trolls scream.

Because she was attacked because she is a woman? Because those who disagree with her can't seem to do it without accusing her of being a scammer or underhanded in some way? Because those who disagree with her are indeed wrong in most cases given that they seem to revolve around personal attacks based on her integrity rather than developing a decent understanding of feminism and understand how it applies in context of her perspective and critique?

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

The point is: Its like watching a bunch of racists argue whether or not white people can be racist while hanging a black man for looking at a white woman.

Pardon the morbid comparison, but that is basically the depths of wrongness I keep encountering in relation to Anita when people are just so keen on discussion about her.

 

[Quadocky]

Is it really sexist for a game set in a generic fantasy world (for "generic fantasy" read "The Dark Ages with dragons and magiks") to contain a quest where a woman is humiliated for her wanton ways with men?

It's interesting that feminists are so vocal about what they consider to be misogynistic in the media, and yet if I were to pick out just a tiny portion of the glaringly misandric mechanisms present in culture, most people's first response would be.... "Hurr durr, what does misandric mean?" That's because the inverse of sexism against women has been so sublimated, even the victims are blithely ignorant and will probably go to great lengths to chastise me for even suggesting that it's a two way street.

Its mostly misogynistic, and why should a FANTASY game conform to incorrect stereotypes of the 'ye olden times'?

Also that is because there is no such thing as misandry. At least, in terms of comparison to the blatant misogyny that still exists. Saying its a two way street is completely disingenuous in terms of mainstream culture.

 

[RJ Dalton]

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.

That's actually a pretty good point. I therefore have nothing to add.

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.

Okay, I should clarify the way I use the term "political correctness." I use it as a term because it is convenient and there's no other term that quite gets at what I mean. Admittedly, there are people who use it as a boogeyman to defend their whatever-it-is-they-don't-want-to-own-up-to, but how people use the term is not my problem. It's like the way Sucker Punch uses the term "femenism" to try and redefine it's panty shots to deflect criticism. That's not what political correctness is.
Nor is political correctness an actual awareness for the history and feelings associated with things like racism, sexism etc.
No, political correctness is changing words around in the hopes that people won't notice that you haven't really changed the meaning, or the people using our fear of being offensive to try and shame the world into changing to suit their desires. My opposition to this doesn't come from my belief that things were better back in the days of minstrel shows and when it was legally and culturally acceptable to beat your wife so long as "she deserved it" and you didn't do any "permanent damage." No, my objection is that it's a way that people disguise the problem to avoid actually discussing and dealing with it. We dress up offensive material in "politically correct" words, which for some reason makes it okay. Meanwhile, the people who actually do think about it and do see it for the bullshit it is and call it out get buried beneath the foetid mass of plebeians who are looking for any excuse they can to create controversy over something that doesn't conform to their specific wishes for the world, often with the former providing fuel for the latter, after the latter has twisted the fuck out of the original intent.

Actually, now that I've set that down into words, I'm not entirely sure what I was objecting to in Jim's video, because my final conclusion on this is pretty much what Jim was saying, as far as I remember. We need to stop being afraid of the -isms and accept that people can be offended and, rather than turn it into just pointless bickering, we can use it as a springboard for meaningful discussion. I was probably latching onto some minor point or statement he made and, in expanding on it, went out of context. It happens. I blame my schizophrenia. Or possibly the pink-bearded leprechaun river-dancing on my coffee table. It's hard to focus with that kind of a distraction.