Misogyny or Sexual Persecution? [Update!]

[Jesterscup]

I'm starting to suspect many people read the title of the thread, and perhaps the OP, and comment based on that, or perhaps what they may assume may be the content of the thread.

On and on with the lazy writing arguments and the usual keyboard warriors come bursting in. I say simply balking at the very usage of a old trope rather than discussing HOW said trope is employed is fast becoming a lazy criticism.

Have you actually read this thread through, because yes thats occurred in this thread, but not been dominated by it, and actually there have been some very interesting discussions on the nature of sexuality and the portrayal in various forms of media for various target markets. In fact more than once criticism has been levelled ( not just by myself ) at those who've trotted out complaints of the whole 'Anita-hitman' thing.

Motivations don't have to be always be truly noble, they can be low brow and fantasized, especially in games that premise themselves in fantasy. That is the goal of story in video games, to prompt action. We can crticize the methods but all tools and devices are on the table. If a dev decides were going to be filthy and based from the get go, but they give some characters with dignity thats it. Case closed.

No problem with that at all. But can you also accept that there issues that appear when that was not the intended goal, that there are stereotypes that exist throughout culture. In this thread we've already discussed stereotypes in children's orientated media. I'm not saying "we/they shouldn't do this" I'm saying they should be aware of issues, and at least consider them. The ironic part of your statement is that if a dev decides to make something 'filthy' they have already considered the issues, much more so than say someone making a children's platform game and making the only woman who ever appears in it a powerless victim of kidnap and other villainy.

Broad generalisations aren't going to get us anywhere, but discussing the ethics of say the op making erotic art, or stereotypes in specific genera or styles of games will. or even looking at the different messages these stereotypes send.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The problem is still there, however, so it's not 'case closed' just yet. I'm not expecting a workable solution to emerge from a single thread, but we can't just declare the issue solved because we've explained why it's there.

See, I generally just have a problem with the existence of "vast" amounts of titillation being referred to as a "problem" in the first place.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with targeting a product toward a specific demographic. I don't, after all, go into a shoujo manga expecting it to be tailored to my "needs." The "problem" some vocal people seem to have is with the existence of games like, say, Senran Kagura: Burst, when it clearly wasn't made with them in mind.

By the same token, I'm of the mind that titles with a healthy mix to their demographic should pander to as many preferences as are within said demographic.

With that said, the only real problem I can see is a lack of product being targeted toward specific demographics, which would certainly be a better status quo and, in turn, get more of the womenz involved in the hobby.

For that to happen, however, women need to be a bigger potential market...which would require game makers to make more games suited to them...which would require a bigger potential market in order to be financially feasible...which would require game makers to make more games suited-

Yeah.


Really though. I want more women in gaming. It'd certainly help my dating prospects...just, you know, leave my titty games alone and I'll happily root for your ladyboy titles.

 

[gargantual]

I'm starting to suspect many people read the title of the thread, and perhaps the OP, and comment based on that, or perhaps what they may assume may be the content of the thread.

On and on with the lazy writing arguments and the usual keyboard warriors come bursting in. I say simply balking at the very usage of a old trope rather than discussing HOW said trope is employed is fast becoming a lazy criticism.

Have you actually read this thread through, because yes thats occurred in this thread, but not been dominated by it, and actually there have been some very interesting discussions on the nature of sexuality and the portrayal in various forms of media for various target markets. In fact more than once criticism has been levelled ( not just by myself ) at those who've trotted out complaints of the whole 'Anita-hitman' thing.

Motivations don't have to be always be truly noble, they can be low brow and fantasized, especially in games that premise themselves in fantasy. That is the goal of story in video games, to prompt action. We can crticize the methods but all tools and devices are on the table. If a dev decides were going to be filthy and based from the get go, but they give some characters with dignity thats it. Case closed.

No problem with that at all. But can you also accept that there issues that appear when that was not the intended goal, that there are stereotypes that exist throughout culture. In this thread we've already discussed stereotypes in children's orientated media. I'm not saying "we/they shouldn't do this" I'm saying they should be aware of issues, and at least consider them. The ironic part of your statement is that if a dev decides to make something 'filthy' they have already considered the issues, much more so than say someone making a children's platform game and making the only woman who ever appears in it a powerless victim of kidnap and other villainy.

Broad generalisations aren't going to get us anywhere, but discussing the ethics of say the op making erotic art, or stereotypes in specific genera or styles of games will. or even looking at the different messages these stereotypes send.

Awww Maan. I had such a thorough response prepared and the page quit on me again.

Oh well what was I going to say?

Oh right. I understand where you're perspective is coming from. I feel that the other responses are still too dismissive though. From Showtime documentaries like 'Sexy Baby' I'm aware of what effects over saturation on titillation in one area and sanitized violence can possibly have. On people wondering where they fit in, but visual lust in games to magazine advertisement, film etc its driven by a wider demographic consumer demand than we might think.

But its a metric that we can't accurately 'minority report' and examine the global negative effect of with any sort of solid empiricism. We can draw from history however the pros and cons of having a safe values driven media that is largely catered towards the family towards the exclusion of risque entertainment or audiences curious and craving for them. It'll just fuel demand or create a blackmarket. So best solution is just variety so the impressionable are well informed.

Even Movie Bob covered it. Hollywood lost ground at the turn of the 60's because the indie 70's put out the exploitation, grit and curiosity that the establishment didn't want to cover because of prudency, family values and the hays code. It became its own Streisand effect.

So considering over saturation of the taboo in video games. The best education is for games of that genre to keep exploring the seedy and dark, but make sure the balance and laws of cause and effect for actions in that world are communicated if they claim to be authentic. Violence, economy, and sexual projection. So parties get a clearer picture in worlds that claim to be realistic. Variety in those games helps messaging, rather than concerning ourselves with how neutered or homogenized they are to all tastes and avoiding discussion of certain subject matter entirely. Better to give players the opportunity to know if they feel good or bad about certain visuals.

I mean...heck...that's why target marketing is an important hallmark of media communications.

Mind you this is IF we worried about negative internalization between reality and fantasy, but I think a majority of players can take these games only in the context of the game world and disassociate when the machines turned off. Games now they mostly aspire to be wild kooky action worlds with the 'veneer' of authenticity. Counter-Strike looks real, plays very tactical, but I wouldn't dare say it mirrors the SWAT team discipline or experience, and that's the separation I feel folks like @Silvanus aren't demonstrating as much that they understand like you do. Its about taking those visuals in a controlled simulated environment and in some cases throwing out the textbook on reality purely for escapism.

Without that understanding of plays unruly, but just looks a certain way. even The Sims could lead to subtle or harmful internalization. To create a fake life and live entirely through an avatar? It'd would be more healthy for an individual to develop knowledge of self and improve themselves in the real world wouldn't it? I've witnessed far unhealthier addictions to World of Warcraft and Second Life firsthand, so sometimes the more visually and depraved and unruly bro games can actually prove to be a bigger disclaimer, than safe titles that play WAY too close to our real world insecurities.

And to the Anita Hitman thing. Hardly any lets plays do exactly what was done in her video, the only conclusion is that the beating up of the strippers was deliberate for that tropes vid and saying guys were meant to derive a perverse pleasure from a scenario that isn't facilitated and detrimental to game progress. Its still misrepresenting the devs regardless of how well meaning her intentions were. The arguments seem to suggest that if it wasn't the developers intentions they wouldn't allow any abuse of stripper NPCs. Imagine what kind of weird game mechanic message itd send. Strippers are invincible gods and not common people with similar vulnerabilities? Of course not. A lot of players poke, twist bend and prod everything, so any walls you put up in level design also send messages to them too. We regard life carefully because of vulnerability, or see the shock value in entertaining the absurd, backwards and reprehensible, because we're aware of how the real world works.

I mean other players are not trying to lose points and go outside these rules which are a greater dictator and influence of gameplay. Her argument coming down to. (Doesn't matter if your trying to be dark and seedy, you should still be tasteful in doing so. Therefore strip clubs should be off limits because of presumed larger ramifications in society.) Well taste is subjective. You can be tasteful but it's always a choice. Quantitative assessments arent always the same as Qualitative. Tasteful and foul communication come from the same birth. Its all in testing the waters and seeing what in context, something is received a certain way and what isn't. She's generalizing too based on the bias of the vid, and not really giving the devs the benefit of the doubt, all to make a connection. Kat Bailey made the same disingenuous presumptions about Castlevania Lord of Shadows 2. In misrepresenting the devs intentions to make Drac more of the classic vamp, by saying it was intended rape. If the gaming community were at large appalled with the status quo in AAA the sales would reflect, and they would go the way of disco music.

I think we could also consider the millions of folks who play these games religiously, but don't comment on these internet with concerns like we care enough to do. They understand for themselves. They appreciate realistic visuals but don't take them as complete gospel in relation to the narrative. Just another surreal dimension to mess around with, escape into or just have fun with at their leisure. its a far cry from

CAPTCHA: Real Life Experience

but hey, it does what it says on the tin.

 

[grassgremlin]

heres a question

is it utterly nessicary for things to be overtly male gazy all the time? I don't mean just attractive...most fictional character are conventionally attractive by default

like...people found Elizabeth from BI attractive and (by extension) sexy. And she spent most of the game in a relitivly normal outfit....her corset was a little busty (IMO) but I doubt it would have made much of a difference for people liking her....people LOVE ellie from LOU and Alyx vance..yet they didn't need a "make over" like Ashley from ME3 got

I mean dead or alive is...its own niche thing...that's fine no one in their right mind would bother complaining about that

No, it's not. I'll parrot what I said before from my other posts.

On that note, in a perfect world their can be room for both. I don't want all video games to be campy goofy affair as much as I don't want games to start to be some introspective serious artsy mumbo jumbo. At the end of the day video games are entertainment and we need variety.

A poster stated to me it's unnecessary for Dungeon Based Loot Crawlers and Fighting Games to have fan service or suggestive characters featured.

That last sentence. Their is a lot of sense being made in that. While I am preaching the benefits of sexual equality, I do play games where sex is not a factor in the games design and I would be happy if they stay that way.

Dungeon Based Loot Crawler is subjective. That really depends, however, fighting games, I dunno. This is entirely opinion, but I honestly can't see that genre without one or two sexy characters. That's my own preference, I like fighting and sexy characters, but I do somewhat agree if the environment doesn't ask for it.

Dead or Alive is a good exampled of unnecessary objectification. Sans for a very few characters, none of the women seem like they should be dressed the way they are. My most hated fighting game character is Kasumi for that exact reason. I never seen such a ridiculous contradiction of a character. Shy, reserved, innocent girl, wearing what appears to be kimono ribbon and thigh-high stockings. Sorry, but you raising my suspension of disbelief to high, game.

 

[grassgremlin]

I am not a misogynist. I relate better to women, I was raised mostly by women, and I've never really related to any men I've ever known. Being transgendered, I even think of myself as a woman, or at the very least not a man. Men are alien to me, and in my own family men have treated me like utter garbage because I didn't act "normal." So when I say I believe Anita Sarkeesian is not a true feminist but a female sexist (not to debate it here), it has nothing to do with what I personally have between my legs. I have simply played the games she cites, and know from context that she rips the scenes (and youtubers intentionally doing misogynist things) completely out of context to fit the paradigm that all these games go out of their way to make women property.

The reason I even discuss this flamebait is to say this: sexual desire can exist apart from objectification as long as that person's entire being is not being ignored to make that person a sex object. Can I find a person sexy AND have a meaningful friendship with that person? Yes. How do I know? I've done it. I'm doing it right now. Maybe it's because I'm not "normal," but I seem to not see sex the same as anyone else I talk to. I've only ever seen it as a thing to do, not a purpose. Unless you work in "that" industry, then sex is a purpose, but you get what I mean.

On the other hand, I am a Grammar Nazi. I am here to take you to ze grammar concentration camp, OP. Come quietly, und ze fanfiction vill not be harmed.

CAPTCHA: "have purpose"

I honestly have no way to respond with this. I also grew up surrounded by women, but I'm not transgendered. I was lucky to have a few men in my life treated atleast normally, but I would be called out for acting feminine by others. It was 50/50 for me.

Anita Sarkeesian is for another thread, so I'm just gonna leave your opinion where it is. You have the right to have it. I just think she's not harming anything for existing.

For the last one. Criticize away. I know my grammar sucks. I usually go back over to correct things.

As long as you're not a asshole about it, I'm okay with it.
And By Asshole, I mean telling me how much you hate me because I got sentences, words and punctuation wrong. I experience it and it sucked. I literally got dogged for my grammar.

 

[Jesterscup]

Even Movie Bob covered it. Hollywood lost ground at the turn of the 60's because the indie 70's put out the exploitation, grit and curiosity that the establishment didn't want to cover because of prudency, family values and the hays code. It became its own Streisand effect.

So considering over saturation of the taboo in video games. The best education is for games of that genre to keep exploring the seedy and dark, but make sure the balance and laws of cause and effect for actions in that world are communicated if they claim to be authentic. Violence, economy, and sexual projection. So parties get a clearer picture in worlds that claim to be realistic. Variety in those games helps messaging, rather than concerning ourselves with how neutered or homogenized they are to all tastes and avoiding discussion of certain subject matter entirely. Better to give players the opportunity to know if they feel good or bad about certain visuals.

Yes absolutely, I don't disagree with your argument in anyway. Bemoaning about GTA? jeez you know what you're buying and why you're buying it, buying some hentai tentacle pron game, same there. My issues are within the more subtle exploitations of tropes and stereotypes, I've talked about it ad nauseam on this thread.

Homogenising media to make it inoffensive does no good at all, and if we can look that the 50's and 60's TV, that 'values' based media was soo steeped in tropes and stereotypes that if anything it was a far worse problem then than now.

Strippers are invincible gods and not common people with similar vulnerabilities?

I actually remember playing games like that, when the "background dressings" were sprites, and see already I'm engaging in the whole hitman thing, because there is a new point to think about and mull over.

Another point, and I am strongly resisting the caps here...

An awful lot of the posts in this thread have held a common thought.... if I may paraphrase

"I object to the censorship/removal of sex and violence from appropriate media for the sake of being politically correct"
( please feel free to improve this statement, my version sucks, but you get the jist, I'll happily sign up for it. perhaps "leave our porn alone" is better )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally no-one ( here ) is contradicting that statement, at least I've not seen a post that does.

By the same point I'll make the statement:
"I object to the use of stereotypes for the purposes of 'inclusiveness' or artificial comedy value" ( something we've already covered here ). and as a for instance, this deals with a huge bunch of "damsel in distress" tropes in one fell swoop.

Now I accept that there is a glaring issue with this statement, what if someone chooses to do that deliberately? Southparks 'token' for instance. I think most of us would go, "yeah there is a point there, but it needs saying better".

I'd much rather see us working to make better statements.

 

[DrOswald]

Maybe, if I may be bold, society, our society doesn't know how to handle sex. Either that but it's placed into such a taboo manner that people get desperate or sexually repressed. I dunno. That's a shot in the dark. I could get flamed for that statement, right there.

I agree with this 100% and it is definitely a factor. The irony is that in my experience erotica ( porn films not included ) has less of a problem with these tropes, because when they do it's either conscious & deliberate, or a subversion of said trope ( but yes they still exist in erotica just the same) .

If I may I'd like to take your example of Nightwing & SpiderWoman. To be clear I'm not saying that the following is *always* how this happens, but it is pretty common, and once you're aware of it you notice it everywhere.

If we take Nightwing, and look for sexually provocative images of him most of these are likely to be with him in a strong, powerful even perhaps controlling or dominating stance. Whereas a similar search for Spider-Woman is likely to show her in a weak, vulnerable, controlled or dominated stance. Yes there will be exceptions. Now neither is wrong, but this leads to the 'sexual woman = disempowered woman' concept.

Spoiler: as an example - you've all seen this

Lets look at that for a second, particularly at black widow, is she any less sexy in the bottom picture? And personally I prefer Cap in the bottom one too...

I am really not sure how you read that top image of Black Widow as disempowered in any way. Can you please explain?

 

[grassgremlin]

Another point, and I am strongly resisting the caps here...

An awful lot of the posts in this thread have held a common thought.... if I may paraphrase

"I object to the censorship/removal of sex and violence from appropriate media for the sake of being politically correct"
( please feel free to improve this statement, my version sucks, but you get the jist, I'll happily sign up for it. perhaps "leave our porn alone" is better )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally no-one ( here ) is contradicting that statement, at least I've not seen a post that does.

By the same point I'll make the statement:
"I object to the use of stereotypes for the purposes of 'inclusiveness' or artificial comedy value" ( something we've already covered here ). and as a for instance, this deals with a huge bunch of "damsel in distress" tropes in one fell swoop.

Now I accept that there is a glaring issue with this statement, what if someone chooses to do that deliberately? Southparks 'token' for instance. I think most of us would go, "yeah there is a point there, but it needs saying better".

I'd much rather see us working to make better statements.

Oh, oh, oh, oh. Yes. People really need to pay attention to what's being said. You've raised the best point about this entire discussion.

I'll give a good example to add to this.

We have . . . the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown.

Spoiler

Our Voluptuous Sorceress

This character was heavily criticized in various media outlets, especially, of course, Kotaku.
To quote not exactly, "it was as if a 12 year old had designed the character."

When you look at her, you can see why this was the conclusion this individual had came to.

Now, the argument has been that the entire game relies on characters with exaggerated proportions.
Very well, allow me to present the other female characters.

Spoiler

Now four of the Men

Spoiler

Well, this isn't fair. This must be a world where women eat so well that they can full out there bodies in alarmingly spectacular ways, while the men can be lucky enough to appear like the last image.

Here's so more pictures of female characters in this game.

Spoiler

Shot in the dark, but I'm not sure there were comedic intentions behind the Sorceresses design. HOWEVER, if it was designed for comedy, it's actually extremely offensive.

When you think about the prevalence in T&A in video games, this is a pretty bad joke. Mostly because when you see all the other women, the joke kind of dies. If she was the only one so busty, lamenting how her humongous knockers gets in the way of her casting spells. "Oh dear, if only my boobs didn't flop so, I would be able to cast my magic properly." then it could be comedy, but if you're trying to go for satire, you failed when every female character seems to be perfectly okay lying about with there assets for all to see.

Not just the big chested sorceress, but the prevalence of sexual themes through out the female characters. Even Tiki, who is what I would aptly named, "Slutty Tinkerbell."

Spoiler

Sure, Dragon's Crown has the right to have as many sexualized women as the artist wants.
I actually like George Kamitani's work, so not trying to knock him down for drawing what he wants.

Are people out of line for saying that he has the artistic fetishm of a 12 year old? Yes. But, this game can't be exempt from the discussion. In this case, I'm not sure Dragon's Crown was designed to be a niche' audience game, but from the art you do get the impression it's a boy's only affair.

 

[Jack Action]

Are people out of line for saying that he has the artistic fetishm of a 12 year old? Yes. But, this game can't be exempt from the discussion. In this case, I'm not sure Dragon's Crown was designed to be a niche' audience game, but from the art you do get the impression it's a boy's only affair.

Well, personally, the art gives me the impression that someone went a bit wild with the concept of 'ridiculously designed characters', more than anything. I can't see many women being attracted to the Dwarf, much like I can't see many men being attracted to the Amazon.

I'm staying away from the point about the side-characters though.

 

[grassgremlin]

Are people out of line for saying that he has the artistic fetishm of a 12 year old? Yes. But, this game can't be exempt from the discussion. In this case, I'm not sure Dragon's Crown was designed to be a niche' audience game, but from the art you do get the impression it's a boy's only affair.

Well, personally, the art gives me the impression that someone went a bit wild with the concept of 'ridiculously designed characters', more than anything. I can't see many women being attracted to the Dwarf, much like I can't see many men being attracted to the Amazon.

I'm staying away from the point about the side-characters though.

I'll just say that I always get the idea that when people say 'ridiculously designed characters' they're referring to it being used as satire. Though It could just mean they're referring to the ridiculousness of how sexual it is.

I will, however, say that this art is kind of unfair. All the women in this game are beautiful sexy goddess and I had to look for the sexy bare-chested men who weren't big because it signifies strength. The last male image is a good example. That does look like a sexy muscular man. In fact, I can say George loves drawing women. 70-80% of the art I was looking for to source was female characters. The rest were creatures and the occasional dude. I counted four other half naked men in about 50 images.

Edit: Anyone else notice the skeleton in that sorceress pic in my last post? . . . or the fact her ass is so big she can't bend over without her staff riding up the crack? Ridiculous indeed.

 

[gargantual]

Even Movie Bob covered it. Hollywood lost ground at the turn of the 60's because the indie 70's put out the exploitation, grit and curiosity that the establishment didn't want to cover because of prudency, family values and the hays code. It became its own Streisand effect.

So considering over saturation of the taboo in video games. The best education is for games of that genre to keep exploring the seedy and dark, but make sure the balance and laws of cause and effect for actions in that world are communicated if they claim to be authentic. Violence, economy, and sexual projection. So parties get a clearer picture in worlds that claim to be realistic. Variety in those games helps messaging, rather than concerning ourselves with how neutered or homogenized they are to all tastes and avoiding discussion of certain subject matter entirely. Better to give players the opportunity to know if they feel good or bad about certain visuals.

Yes absolutely, I don't disagree with your argument in anyway. Bemoaning about GTA? jeez you know what you're buying and why you're buying it, buying some hentai tentacle pron game, same there. My issues are within the more subtle exploitations of tropes and stereotypes, I've talked about it ad nauseam on this thread.

Homogenising media to make it inoffensive does no good at all, and if we can look that the 50's and 60's TV, that 'values' based media was soo steeped in tropes and stereotypes that if anything it was a far worse problem then than now.

Strippers are invincible gods and not common people with similar vulnerabilities?

I actually remember playing games like that, when the "background dressings" were sprites, and see already I'm engaging in the whole hitman thing, because there is a new point to think about and mull over.

Another point, and I am strongly resisting the caps here...

An awful lot of the posts in this thread have held a common thought.... if I may paraphrase

"I object to the censorship/removal of sex and violence from appropriate media for the sake of being politically correct"
( please feel free to improve this statement, my version sucks, but you get the jist, I'll happily sign up for it. perhaps "leave our porn alone" is better )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally no-one ( here ) is contradicting that statement, at least I've not seen a post that does.

By the same point I'll make the statement:
"I object to the use of stereotypes for the purposes of 'inclusiveness' or artificial comedy value" ( something we've already covered here ). and as a for instance, this deals with a huge bunch of "damsel in distress" tropes in one fell swoop.

Now I accept that there is a glaring issue with this statement, what if someone chooses to do that deliberately? Southparks 'token' for instance. I think most of us would go, "yeah there is a point there, but it needs saying better".

I'd much rather see us working to make better statements.

Oh sure. I understand you're not saying it. Its just I've only found a few such as yourself who've measured their concerns with that precedent at heart. and that constant messaging isn't as 'pernicious' to everyone as culture critics claim it is. Combating stereotypes to me is as simple as adding variety to the mixture so people don't feel they are a monolith in a certain world, and have their go to people, if they take that world to heart. But art imitates life. We bat around TV tropes and debate their uselessness rather than asking in reality what is this media abstracting, or caricaturing? What in our world is mirroring so heavily through fiction. Instead we blame the fiction as the raisers of the dead. The prime facilitators of cultural backwardsness. Its excusing real world perpetrators of abuse and misguidance from their responsibility. I still ask myself where do these fiction creators get their source material from?


It does seem to take a certain type of impressionable for some consumers to miss the point that its designer's prefence, and nothing to role model after. And for many young players that get the point I just want their voices to be heard in the larger conversation about media and pop or pulp fiction. It feels like were the old guy in Monty Pythons the Holy Grail. Saying 'I'm not dead!' whilst others are insisting we're dead.

on the deep end, people like Leigh Alexander, Matt Lees seems to be playing minesweeper (and not very well) with the sentiment of cultural censorship of a certain type of game or gamer. (Like they feel they know who the jihadi's are in their mind, so its okay to generalize and profile people based on their demographics and interests, and threaten ostracism. It is the commercial executioner's axe of the commoner.)

It reminds me of the article from the Atlantic "The Culture of Shutup" It essentially says, we do have values and try to police harmful communications, but if we as a people do not demonstrate how much we value an open marketplace of ideas. Should then laws see fit to continue defending them? or finally chip away selectively at their original purpose of what we can express.

The say Like 'your type of games and culture are going away for the betterment of society'. That hurts It feels like they're misunderstanding the nuance of the gaming community just as bad as marketers on the opposite end that prejudge our interests and oversaturate commercialism in games without enough tact. I believe there is a perfect center for some hardcore, and light intellectualism, human depth, wild eccentriy and good mixtures of both, that this town is big enough for everyone and these opposite camps of blind thoughtless excess vs empty cultural Marxist viewpoints are really hurting the medium or misunderstanding it in different ways.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

 

[Jack Action]

I'll just say that I always get the idea that when people say 'ridiculously designed characters' they're referring to it being used as satire. Though It could just mean they're referring to the ridiculousness of how sexual it is.

I will, however, say that this art is kind of unfair. All the women in this game are beautiful sexy goddess and I had to look for the sexy bare-chested men who weren't big because it signifies strength. The last male image is a good example. That does look like a sexy muscular man. In fact, I can say George loves drawing women. 70-80% of the art I was looking for to source was female characters. The rest were creatures and the occasional dude. I counted four other half naked men in about 50 images.

Edit: Anyone else notice the skeleton in that sorceress pic in my last post? . . . or the fact her ass is so big she can't bend over without her staff riding up the crack? Ridiculous indeed.

Not so much satire, more of an outright joke.

Though I remember someone linking a tweet in a thread about Dragon's Crown's characters a while back, from the guy who designed them, and he said he created them like this simply because he liked drawing characters like this.

I'll concede the second point, though on a side-note, "power fantasies" (a description I'm not fond of, when it comes to protagonists) for men (at least from my perspective) involve things we think would be attractive to the opposite sex.

Related: I wonder if clear dialogue on this issue will result in... err.. male "power fantasies" that women find attractive.

 

[AkaDad]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

 

[Jesterscup]

Oh sure. I understand you're not saying it. Its just I've only found a few such as yourself who've measured their concerns with that precedent at heart. and that constant messaging isn't as 'pernicious' to everyone as culture critics claim it is. Combating stereotypes to me is as simple as adding variety to the mixture so people don't feel they are a monolith in a certain world, and have their go to people, if they take that world to heart. But art imitates life. We bat around TV tropes and debate their uselessness rather than asking in reality what is this media abstracting, or caricaturing? What in our world is mirroring so heavily through fiction. Instead we blame the fiction as the raisers of the dead. The prime facilitators of cultural backwardsness. Its excusing real world perpetrators of abuse and misguidance from their responsibility. I still ask myself where do these fiction creators get their source material from?

I Like to use the term 'cultural artifact' , and yes art imitates life. But art has also been used to show us what life can be for both good and ill. I'd wager that the strongest source for creative inspiration comes from what already exists ( I've made this point before in the thread). We are still dragging round, like a millstone ( tap, force other player to discard 2 card from the top of their deck), the cultural legacy of thousands of years of oppression towards various groups. And it's only by having an awareness of these artifacts ( tropes and stereotypes are only 2 small facets of this ) that we can make informed choices.

Now partly this could be solved by addressing the diversity of development groups, partly by teaching & informing. But Debate has to be had, because there are many dubious and tricky ethical questions hanging around here, and thats what ( for me) makes discussions like this thread, where we explore these. Seriously read through this thread, we've discussed adult media, chainmail loinclothes, stereotypes in childrens entertainment. I've no interest in having a 'meta-discussion' about the 'sides' only in taking part in the same discussion they are having.

 

[AkaDad]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

 

[Jesterscup]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

I blame the cars, if we didn't have cars then nobody could steal them, for for that matter kill people in them....

Spoiler: All Crime is committed by the living, so.....

There actually is a greater meaning to this post for those who will see it.

 

[AkaDad]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

Yes, context can be a substitute, that is my point.

Here's my original quote: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Now here's the same quote with a tweak: All gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Isn't adding a disclaimer to the first quote insulting your intelligence?

If someone else had wrote the first quote I wouldn't be offended because I don't verbally abuse, sexually harass, or issue death threats.