Jimquisition: Solving the Sexism Situation

Spygon

New member
May 16, 2009
1,105
0
0
MatsVS said:
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.
can we replace Jimquisition with this guy as he seems already be doing alot better job in a few sentences than jim has in two videos.
 

clarissa

New member
Nov 18, 2010
71
0
0
Ok. I did not want to give this issues this much of a thought, but...
Farseer Lolotea said:
So, do you appreciate any of the following:

1) Getting Godwinned for voicing your opinion?
If godwin is what I think it is, I don't think it is possible in a serious conversation. And I would talk about sexism only if it a serious conversation. Like an post-modernism context. And, imho, some "places on the internet" are not the proper place to hold a serious conversation...
Farseer Lolotea said:
2) Getting called the C-word?
You mean c-u-n-t? Not at all. I don't mind either. Generally people who use these sorts of tools in a proper conversation are never holding a proper conversation, so it's is like, paradox.
Farseer Lolotea said:
3) Being told that your only value is as eye candy, and having presumptions made about your appearance (by someone who has no actual idea of what you look like, mind you) if you disagree?
4) Being told that you should get off the Internet and go back to some domestic task or another?
5) Being told that you should ask a man's permission before doing anything?
Same as before. I mean, if this happened to you, why do you even argue about this? You know what your opponents are like, you know it is worthless. Unfortunately, just like 99% of the stuff we have in our western world, games were made firstly by men to be played by men (specially American). And it is not like we are having this conversation in the last two decades. Since the 60s feminism is there to break certain paradigms, but it is difficult like that.

I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.

Farseer Lolotea said:
6) Being told that a physical assault committed upon you would be well deserved, entertaining, or both?
My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.


Farseer Lolotea said:
Sexualizing men more in video games probably wouldn't do much good, at any rate. If I were to try to explain why, I'd either get Godwinned, called a sexist myself, or both.
Well, you are not going to be gowinned or whatever talking to me, as I don't do that to anybody, and I am very curious about your opinions. So, if you are willing to talk, fell free to explain me your reasons.
 

Farseer Lolotea

New member
Mar 11, 2010
605
0
0
First off: a "Godwin" is playing the "WWII Germany" card, if you get my drift.

clarissa said:
I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.
No argument here. More effort is put into making female characters attractive. I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.

My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.
This isn't anything that was aimed specifically at me. (Some of them have been, but not that one.) But for reasons I don't really want to go into on a public forum, it's relevant to the topic at hand.
 

clarissa

New member
Nov 18, 2010
71
0
0
Just a question out of curiosity:
Farseer Lolotea said:
I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.
Have you ever studied this subject more in depth? I mean, have you ever studied feminism or things like that? Because if you can speculate about those you mentioned, well, I guess you probably have a good knowledge about it and the arguments proving it.
 

Farseer Lolotea

New member
Mar 11, 2010
605
0
0
clarissa said:
Have you ever studied this subject more in depth? I mean, have you ever studied feminism or things like that? Because if you can speculate about those you mentioned, well, I guess you probably have a good knowledge about it and the arguments proving it.
Well, mostly, I read sociology texts for fun.
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
Please please PLEASE don't drop Jim.

I'm not a fan of his videos but the debate and smugitute his videos are generating on this forum is making for endless enjoyment. So many hyper-intelligent super genius people arguing about so little.....

You're talking about 2 videos having the same amount of comments as about 4 Yahtzee videos.

Only thing worse than being talked about etc.
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
Farseer Lolotea said:
First off: a "Godwin" is playing the "WWII Germany" card, if you get my drift.

clarissa said:
I don't really like the graphics we have in our games today. I am much more 8 or 16 bit than anything else. But generally, all males depictions in video game I saw so far are disgusting. They are very ugly. Women, not so ugly.
So what can I say? I like to see beautiful stuff, at least when I am playing games.
No argument here. More effort is put into making female characters attractive. I could speculate as to the ramifications of that, but I'd be digressing.

My word, who told you that? I mean... who? For me it is so surreal to imagine that this could be, in our world, a valid argument. I mean, it is not like you have to prove this person wrong, because first of all there is no conversation if the other person is thinking in that extend. That is unhealthy, you should avoid these things.
This isn't anything that was aimed specifically at me. (Some of them have been, but not that one.) But for reasons I don't really want to go into on a public forum, it's relevant to the topic at hand.
This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality. And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
jrplette said:
The issue stands, however, that society is generally structured to meet the needs of men, particularly white men, better than it meets the needs of other groups of people. There are plenty of stats out there to back that up, like the fact that, on average and all other things being equal, women only earn 85 cents to every dollar a man would earn working the same job and the same hours
Despite the fact that this is oft quoted, it's actually still very controversial. Dr Warren Farrell published a critique of that statistic a few years back (I could scrounge up the video lecture if you're interested) that showed that the 'simple version' of the gender-pay statistic massively underplays the true factors behind the pay gap in order to appease a certain branch of feminism (the guy knows what he's talking about, he was the first ever elected head of the National Organisation for Women and probably the first prominent male feminist of second-wave feminism). He showed that the genuine correlation lies positively between pay, hours spent on the job, hazardous conditions, electives (e.g. offering to consistently take on extra workloads) and so on with strong negative correlations to number of children (for women), sociability of work (e.g. teaching rather than research) and marriage. He showed that women who are unmarried with no children earn more than their male counterparts.

I firmly reject the notion that sexism exists in an institutionalised fashion in the workplace as a whole since it seems to be largely backed up by this woefully under-researched 'women earn less than men' myth. Another disproof of the sexism theory as applied to science was recently published in nature, finding no sexism at any stage of the physics, engineering and mathematics PhD path and finding that eventual likelihood of professorship strongly reinforced Farrell's findings i.e. there are fewer female natural science professors because fewer women take the necessary prerequisites to achieve that role (heavy research etc). It seems to be a non-issue perpetuated by people who want to scare up controversy to sell feminist books.

messy said:
And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.
Really? In my area men who behave like that aren't called 'playas' they're called 'man-whores'. I've oft heard it said that men are respected for promiscuity but I've only ever seen that in the extreme lower classes.

In my experience, promiscuity from either gender is viewed as either weak-will or treated with indifference depending on who's asked. Then again, I live in a metropolis.

messy said:
We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".
Really? That's actually been a defence in court? Or is that merely presumption? Again, I've oft heard it said by people looking to stir up controversy that it's a 'woman's fault for dressing provocatively', but not from anyone who's respected by the public.

What I'm getting at here is that there's a huge difference between saying 'some people think something' and 'this thing is widely believed'. I can cite individuals who believe in aliens, that doesn't prove that society as a whole agrees that aliens exist.
 

Farseer Lolotea

New member
Mar 11, 2010
605
0
0
messy said:
This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality.
I wasn't even really referring to the chainmail bikini thing; I was talking about character models. The "cute monster girl effect."

For what I mean, take a look at some of the races in WoW: Even if the gear covers just as much on the female character, she's probably going to look a lot less "nonhuman" than her male counterpart.

And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.
The idea that video games are going to give kids ideas is a big can o' worms all on its own. But regardless of what, I'd say that that's not even why the video is inappropriate. Hell, the video itself is only part of what's inappropriate here.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london
I'm on the wrong side of the pond, and I'd freeze if I tried that anyway.

By the way? Some of the comments on that and associated articles are just...precious.
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
BGH122 said:
jrplette said:
The issue stands, however, that society is generally structured to meet the needs of men, particularly white men, better than it meets the needs of other groups of people. There are plenty of stats out there to back that up, like the fact that, on average and all other things being equal, women only earn 85 cents to every dollar a man would earn working the same job and the same hours
Despite the fact that this is oft quoted, it's actually still very controversial. Dr Warren Farrell published a critique of that statistic a few years back (I could scrounge up the video lecture if you're interested) that showed that the 'simple version' of the gender-pay statistic massively underplays the true factors behind the pay gap in order to appease a certain branch of feminism (the guy knows what he's talking about, he was the first ever elected head of the National Organisation for Women and probably the first prominent male feminist of second-wave feminism). He showed that the genuine correlation lies positively between pay, hours spent on the job, hazardous conditions, electives (e.g. offering to consistently take on extra workloads) and so on with strong negative correlations to number of children (for women), sociability of work (e.g. teaching rather than research) and marriage. He showed that women who are unmarried with no children earn more than their male counterparts.

I firmly reject the notion that sexism exists in an institutionalised fashion in the workplace as a whole since it seems to be largely backed up by this woefully under-researched 'women earn less than men' myth. Another disproof of the sexism theory as applied to science was recently published in nature, finding no sexism at any stage of the physics, engineering and mathematics PhD path and finding that eventual likelihood of professorship strongly reinforced Farrell's findings i.e. there are fewer female natural science professors because fewer women take the necessary prerequisites to achieve that role (heavy research etc). It seems to be a non-issue perpetuated by people who want to scare up controversy to sell feminist books.

messy said:
And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.
Really? In my area men who behave like that aren't called 'playas' they're called 'man-whores'. I've oft heard it said that men are respected for promiscuity but I've only ever seen that in the extreme lower classes.

In my experience, promiscuity from either gender is viewed as either weak-will or treated with indifference depending on who's asked. Then again, I live in a metropolis.

messy said:
We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".
Really? That's actually been a defence in court? Or is that merely presumption? Again, I've oft heard it said by people looking to stir up controversy that it's a 'woman's fault for dressing provocatively', but not from anyone who's respected by the public.

What I'm getting at here is that there's a huge difference between saying 'some people think something' and 'this thing is widely believed'. I can cite individuals who believe in aliens, that doesn't prove that society as a whole agrees that aliens exist.
Well I know someone who was raped and they were told "he probably just got a bit carried away." (this was by medical staff when she went to get checked for pregnancy after it happened, I know medical staff aren't trained to deal with this sort of thing but they're not going to saying "got a bit carried away" to a mugging are they?) Which although not the same thing doesn't do much to help the problem. And a Canadian officer (in the link I originally posted) did tell women to stop dressing like sluts which is a bit worrying.

And I'm sure there are people bucking the trend, but the fact that a "slut walks" appear to be happening in large numbers over the country with large numbers turning up suggesting that this problem is something a lot of people feel is real (now ofcourse you could argue that its all in their heads). See I see this attitude quite a bit, personally I'm glad its on the decline.

Even if the whole "rape" issue is over blown (which I really don't think it is, apparently a large majority of cases are gotten out of using "implied consent" e.g she invited you to her room she must have wanted to have sex with you) , the over objectification of women however is defiantly happening.

Sorry I don't have any stats to back this up. So feel free to discredit what I say, but I still believe objectification in video games of either sex is bad. To judge people on a physical basis is stupid, especially since these are the first qualities to decline as we get older.
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
Farseer Lolotea said:
messy said:
This is one of the problems brought up with increased objectification. Wearing revealing clothes etc. has become a direct link to one's sexuality.
I wasn't even really referring to the chainmail bikini thing; I was talking about character models. The "cute monster girl effect."

For what I mean, take a look at some of the races in WoW: Even if the gear covers just as much on the female character, she's probably going to look a lot less "nonhuman" than her male counterpart.

And sexuality is perceived very differently between the two sexes. Now it is become less in recent years however, if a man has sex with loads of women he's a "playa" or a "stud" however a women is still more likely to be branded a "slut" or a "whore". Women are shamed for being overtly sexual, we'd be continuing a culture where a woman can't really win.

Now of course its fine to dress however the hell you want. But if in video games everyone is scantily clad and "sexy" this, along with pretty much every form of media, will result in further emulation by both boys and girls. However it will still be women who suffer worst. We still live in a culture where it can actually be a women's fault for being raped because she dressed like a "slut".

And I don't think by oversexualising everyone you would remove this stigma.
The idea that video games are going to give kids ideas is a big can o' worms all on its own. But regardless of what, I'd say that that's not even why the video is inappropriate. Hell, the video itself is only part of what's inappropriate here.

Also;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862764-slutwalk-march-for-protesters-in-lingerie-coming-to-london
I'm on the wrong side of the pond, and I'd freeze if I tried that anyway.

By the way? Some of the comments on that and associated articles are just...precious.
Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?
 

Farseer Lolotea

New member
Mar 11, 2010
605
0
0
messy said:
Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?
No, we really don't. (Not that I'd object to outfits that were equally skimpy on male characters, or anything. But I'd prefer if "skimpy" were the exception rather than the rule on both sexes, because it usually looks ridiculous.)

That's part of why Sterling is off-base in this video; and that's not even going into his prior behavior.
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
Farseer Lolotea said:
messy said:
Oh yeah the comments aren't great. Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive but I've been to a few talks/debates about this sort of thing recently so I've got a fair bit of stuff exploding from me.

Well I think it safe to say that media does effect people. I think this is just a fact, the extent to which each from of media does is less so well established. But my argument is that we already have so much objectification is every other form of media do we really need more in video games?
No, we really don't. (Not that I'd object to outfits that were equally skimpy on male characters, or anything. But I'd prefer if "skimpy" were the exception rather than the rule on both sexes, because it usually looks ridiculous.)

That's part of why Sterling is off-base in this video; and that's not even going into his prior behavior.
Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?
 

Farseer Lolotea

New member
Mar 11, 2010
605
0
0
messy said:
Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?
He's dismissive, he oversimplifies, he comes off as smug and condescending, and he doesn't seem to know the difference between objectification and admiration?
 

messy

New member
Dec 3, 2008
2,057
0
0
Farseer Lolotea said:
messy said:
Ok in that we're in agreement. What else do you think is wrong with the video, may I ask?
He's dismissive, he oversimplifies, he comes off as smug and condescending, and he doesn't seem to know the difference between objectification and admiration?
I agree whole heartedly with these views.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
messy said:
Well I know someone who was raped and they were told "he probably just got a bit carried away." (this was by medical staff when she went to get checked for pregnancy after it happened, I know medical staff aren't trained to deal with this sort of thing but they're not going to saying "got a bit carried away" to a mugging are they?) Which although not the same thing doesn't do much to help the problem. And a Canadian officer (in the link I originally posted) did tell women to stop dressing like sluts which is a bit worrying.
He or she should have immediately reported that person. It's disgraceful that he or she was treated in such a manner. I'm starting to work with the Metropolitan Police and literally none of us (in my precinct) would behave in such a manner. There is simply no excuse for implying to a rape victim that he or she deserved it or that the perpetrator isn't wholly to blame. Relay my deepest sympathies to the victim and let him or her know that we're working hard to put pieces of shit like that behind bars with the other animals.

messy said:
And I'm sure there are people bucking the trend, but the fact that a "slut walks" appear to be happening in large numbers over the country with large numbers turning up suggesting that this problem is something a lot of people feel is real (now ofcourse you could argue that its all in their heads). See I see this attitude quite a bit, personally I'm glad its on the decline.
To be honest, a comment from the Guardian really sums up my opinion on 'slut walks':

"I think Slut Walk is a novel approach and hopefully will help prove the point that men actually aren't animals lurking in alleys to rape scantily clad women, as evidenced by the fact that, you know, you can go on one of these walks and not be raped."

I think showy half-arsed feminism like the 'Slut Walk' reeks more of narcissism than any attempt to address any equality issue, real or fictional; people like to have an enemy against which they can pit their anger and feel like they're doing some social good (especially if that enemy doesn't actually exist and therefore can't fight back). I must again reiterate that I've never experienced any of this so called objectification of women and that whenever I've spoken to a sociologist or feminist on the matter their examples of 'objectification' have been asinine attacks on male heterosexuality. You like to look at porn? OBJECTIFICATION! ... No, masturbatory aid. Novel concept, I know.

I've literally never heard of an instance of objectification from the modern day that wasn't just a flagrant attack on male heterosexuality. Of course heterosexual males will be attracted to women. That oughtn't be a source of shame. It saddens me that feminism has spent so long trying to say that female heterosexuality is something to be proud of, but male heterosexuality is 'objectification'.

messy said:
Even if the whole "rape" issue is over blown (which I really don't think it is, apparently a large majority of cases are gotten out of using "implied consent" e.g she invited you to her room she must have wanted to have sex with you) , the over objectification of women however is defiantly happening.

Sorry I don't have any stats to back this up. So feel free to discredit what I say, but I still believe objectification in video games of either sex is bad. To judge people on a physical basis is stupid, especially since these are the first qualities to decline as we get older.
I'm afraid I'll have to dismiss it out of hand. I've heard a lot of claims that sexual assaults and rapes are dismissed due to sexism and then when I look into the case I find that the officers investigating just couldn't find any way to actually pin down the perp. It strikes me as akin to saying that because we catch incredibly few burglars or muggers (because those crimes are often patternless and rarely well evidenced) there must be an institutional bias in the police in favour of theft.

We live in a system of law where police can't just double pinky swear that they've got the right guy, they need evidence in accordance with PACE, and for that I'm glad; the alternative would be far higher conviction rates with far lower accuracy and I'd rather never jail a criminal than jail innocent people. But this system means that, unfortunately, a lot of criminals get away with their crimes. When the crimes are fairly minor people tend to accept this argument, but when the crimes are massive, like rape or murder, people jump to the conclusion that the police are either incompetent or biased.

Sadly, life isn't fair and we don't always catch the bad guy and when we do catch the bad guy the courts don't always accept our evidence.

Lastly, I'd love an instance of this objectification of women because I'd genuinely like to hear of an instance of this. Perhaps I don't understand what's meant by the term, but it seems to be a very incoherent term: we are all objectified in all walks of life. When one puts on a police uniform one is seen only in that dimension, when one becomes a parent one is seen only in that dimension and, unsurprisingly, when one is engaging in sexual behaviour one is seen only in that dimension. I once heard Germaine Greer make the argument that 'men not seeing women as humans with *ahem* biological processes is objectifying'. What she seems to have missed is that people view others in accordance with their role at that given time, so the idea of a shitting partner is rather incompatible with the role of a sexual mate.

I can only see this objectification being a problem if one were seen only in one given role, regardless of whether that role had anything to do with gender. If I were seen only as a cop then that'd preclude me from behaviours in off-duty time (incidentally, that happens), if women were seen only as sexual partners then that would preclude behaviours associated with other roles like intellectual pursuits, if men were seen only as stoic providers than that'd preclude men from roles like nannying. But I can't imagine what evidence could be provided in favour of this behaviour since single instances prove no long term trend.
 

A Curious Fellow

New member
Nov 16, 2010
284
0
0
New episodes of Jimquisition appear every Monday, only at The Escapist!

... Okay I'm sorry, why is the Escapist proud of that fact?
 

Archany

New member
Jun 16, 2010
13
0
0
I got about 30 seconds through the new video before I had to turn it off, the guy makes some nice points, but he just isn't made for camera, it's just him talking deadpan to a camera for four minutes, that doesn't make an entertaining show