Jimquisition: Solving the Sexism Situation

[InsomniJack]

I'm starting to see how focused he is on sexual things. Not just in this vid, but in the other vids that I've seen of him. His pieces seem rather... Freudian. But that's probably just me.

Otherwise, I can't say that this grabbed me. The answer being to turn the tables by putting men in thongs? Sorry Jim, but I think I'll stick to the Mass Effect 1 method by putting your female squad members in fully clothed armor like the male squad members. That seems to be the mature thing to do.

With each vid I see of him, he's looking more and more like the poor man's Yahtzee. Which is amazing to consider, because Yahtzee's content is already dirt cheap to make.

 

[Lesd3vil]

Being fair, after the first one of these I was a bit iffy, but this one made me laugh my sack off... More like this and I'll keep coming back

 

[Saluki_princess]

A different, perhaps more radical, solution:

How 'bout we objectify no one, and only place men or women in revealing clothing when it is tangential to exploring their character and/or fits their cultural/geographical background. You know, as in good storytelling that is inclusive and realistic at the same time.

We can always hope and pray... I'd love to see the day.

 

[Nexus4]

I see this sorta stuff better presented on The Big Picture. To me Jim is just another obnoxious critic that this industry is already full of. Whilst his arguments have some good points, I don't think enough goes into fleshing them out; everything seems really underdeveloped in this argument. Also the dick jokes are just plain bad, Yahtzee did that sorta thing to death and its not really funny anymore.

 

[DannibalG36]

MOAR.

He's incredibly crass. I like it.

And you whiny pseudo-intellectuals can slap Duke's ballsack.

 

[mythil]

Please escapist, take this man off of the website

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

The thread almost reminds me of baby birds begging their momma for food with Jim as the mom....

 

[Mordereth]

@TheEscapist: So you'll fire the Unforgotten Realms guys, you'll "take a break" with Doraleaus and Associates (although that may have been more about them wanting to go make a move), but you'll give basically anyone a schpiel show?


@TheRestOfYouForumerPredictingJim'sDemis: How can you be so certain?

Movie Bob's still here.

He just needs to ditch the camera and he's fine.

 

[Genixma]

hmm...this one was actually somewhat good. Bit odd. But good. It's much more believable then the last one for some reason.

 

[Knight Templar]

I knew I'd head that, "put fenix in a thong" joke before.
http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/777

The comic handled it better.

 

[Rythe]

I ended up watching this because a lady friend mentioned how bad it was and I wanted to see the train wreck. The video didn't disappoint.

I'd say this should be a podcast because there's absolutely no creative, interesting, or insightful visuals, but that'd assume he actually said something creative, interesting, or insightful to begin with.

It's not even funny. Shock humor got old about two minutes into Robin Williams and that was years ago. The imagery didn't even pretend it was suppose to be funny, so I won't insult us all by saying the humor failed visually too.

There's nothing here but a straight rant that tries to get by on energy alone, blindly taking on an ancient topic from a stupidly misogynistic and counterproductive standpoint.

The only takeaway is for people who believe, or want to believe, that it's okay to pare female characters down until they're nothing but walking boobs as long as we do the same thing to male characters too, or at least do it equally. What a stupid, annoying, insulting future that would be.

Yes, we all like eye candy in games, but the real problem goes far beyond what a character is wearing, which assumes that wardrobe choices even enter into the equation to begin with.

Way to miss the point, add nothing to the discussion, and be creatively bankrupt while doing it. I can't even say that he was maybe going for irony here, because the idea is far, far too stupid for me to entertain.

 

[swood]

What the hell? How does this have anything to do with sexism?

This isn't about people being mistreated, discriminated or violated based on their gender; this is about tits and butts in games. People like tits and butts, so they put 'em in games. Nothing sexist about it.

Seriously? How can anyone think this is an important thing to discuss? There is no situation to solve!

But it is sexism, because it adversely affects one gender. Objectification is a serious issue that can't be solved by just putting men into skimpy clothing. The issue with putting women in bikini's is it plays into societal expectations for women to be "sexy" and to be objects of lust. Saying people just like to looks at tits and ass is wrong, they like to look at WOMENS' tits' and asses'. I don't see any real ogling and objectifying of men in the video game industry because let's face it games that focus on jiggle physics and ass shots are made by people who don't respect female gamers. If they did they would maybe start treating female characters with the same care and respect that they do male characters. Oh and last time I bought a game it wasn't because the game had fantastically crafted breasts it was because the game was well made and fun.

 

[jrplette]

As I've stated before, Jim's approach to sexism in gaming is inherently sexist. Indiscriminate objectification doesn't solve to issue; many people have already pointed this out. Several people have suggested the alternative of eliminating objectification, which IS the proper response to this issue in that it eliminates the dehumanization of the characters and players on the basis of their sexuality. I think the argument could be made that Jim Sterling was attempting, through his advocation for to former option, to actually endorse the second option. But he does not do it well. He does it very, very badly, so badly that it drags up all the negative stereotypes that exist about gamers in society at large and damages our reputation as a sub-community.

The issue at hand is that Jim's approach is, holistically, rooted in heterosexual male privilege. Society is constructed in such a way that heterosexual males are considered a "default" or "norm" and homosexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, and women are alternatives to this norm. His comment that "men like tits" and his argument that sex sells so its fine are rooted in a world-view that strips an individual of all meaning except that which can be attached to their sex. This is what ZP, EC, and MB have argued is a MAJOR PROBLEM with gaming. We ALL know its a major problem with gaming. Women are frequently not well characterized and instead their value exists only in how attractive they are for the viewer.

Maybe I can't appreciate that the "irony [is] that they're making themselves look like some proper ignorant cunts." By "themselves," I assume he means individuals like myself who take issue with his assumptions about sexuality. Frankly, resorting to name-calling is just childish and unprofessional. And as I've said before, gaming does NOT need that sort of personality representing it as a community.

 

[BonsaiK]

Thought I'd check out what the fuss was about. Turns out I have no strong feelings about it either way. He's a real dissapointment as a video maker, he's very poor at delivering his message verbally. He just comes off like some amateur making YouTubes. His articles are way better and funnier. Proof that just because you can write and think doesn't mean you are also going to be a gifted public speaker.

 

[Beach_Sided]

He's not interesting or insightful with his comments/ranting, and it definitely should not be a video as it's just him stood in a bad suit for 5 minutes.

I know it has created all this attention now (which it was no doubt intended to), but I think this feature will die very quickly.

 

[Tom Hill]

We can justify with reasons, we're all capable of that and a lot have.

but what really matters to the escapist is that

"I am not entertained by this man, he puts my back up, he makes me feel uncomfortable, I do not laugh, I like the subject he is talking about so I expect better, I am disappointed twice now."

Will not watch a third, despite his high billing on the right sidebar.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Is this 18 pages of "I don't like this guy?" I skimmed a few spaced out, and that's all I saw. o_o

 

[Wargamer]

We can justify with reasons, we're all capable of that and a lot have.

but what really matters to the escapist is that

"I am not entertained by this man, he puts my back up, he makes me feel uncomfortable, I do not laugh, I like the subject he is talking about so I expect better, I am disappointed twice now."

Will not watch a third, despite his high billing on the right sidebar.

Actually, what should matter to the Escapist is the fact that people who have seen this guy, and been offended by him (either due to his content, or the fact he's happily insulting us all on Twitter behind our backs) will spread the word.

According to a commonly-quoted rule of marketing, people will tell three friends about a good experience, and ten about a bad one. Count up how many people are pissed off about Jim, and then work out what kind of damage that is going to do to the Escapist's reputation. "Oh, you want to know about The Escapist? It's a site with some fat bigot spouting sexist crap and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with his world view."

Yeah... Escapist, do you REALLY want that to be your website slogan?

Seriously people, if you do not like this guy and want him gone, SEND AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT.

 

[Rararaz]

Perhaps people are right and it would be better as a column but I'm not convinced of that.

it was better than last week but I say that in the same way that, when i used to be a lifeguard, finding a solid turd in the pool is better than a loose, runny one...

 

[vaderaider]

I decided that I woudn't dismiss this after one episode but know I have watched another I'm probably going to give Jim a miss.