Prove to me that the Gaming Community Excludes Women

[Dizchu]

Gone Home is a quite standard adventure/puzzle game, and like I said, I suspicious when most people say "Its not a game", especially if they consider something like The Walking Dead a game. While I wouldn't say its "gay-centric", because there's multiple character arcs to explore, it was very clearly inclusive of an LGBT character, and actually made it a significant point of relevance in Sam's character arc, which is what many detractors that its not a game usually ask - "You can have them, but they have to be there for a reason!" As for the response that people didn't like it and thought something was wrong with reviewers because of that, I suppose two main groups among the detractors - those who didn't like it because its "SJW bullshit", and those who didn't like it because they've never experienced the adventure genre like most reviewers have.

Good points. I disagree that Gone Home is a standard adventure game though. It takes the mechanics of a game like Myst and relocates it to a very mundane setting. I was at a talk with Steve Gaynor and he made a point of the game being a stripped-down version of the more subdued portions of Bioshock 2. I am an outspoken defender of Gone Home and some of the criticisms it gets are absolute bullshit.

Depression Quest - not a game.

Thomas Was Alone - not a game.

Dys4ia - not a game.

I have played Thomas was Alone and Dys4ia. Thomas was Alone was a fantastic experience and Mike Bithel is fairly well-respected, at least to my game design tutors (I believe they were associates at some point too but shhh...). Dys4ia was also a very good game experience, and it struck a chord with me personally due to the transgender theme. I haven't played Depression Quest, nor do I have much desire to play it so I can't really comment.

I will say though, that Thomas and Dys4ia have been more well-received than you're letting on. Dys4ia has been rated 4/5 from users and has almost 500,000 views on Newgrounds. Thomas was Alone's user Metacritic score (8.1/10) also indicates a widespread acceptance of that game. Depression Quest's backlash was heavily influenced by that of its creator, Zoe Quinn... so public opinion will be skewed for external reasons.

 

[Dizchu]

There's no excuse for using the word "feminazi" in 2014, and you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously if you do. Dance about it how you like.

I explained to you that I am not excusing the word itself, but rather the sentiment behind it. It's like the term "social justice warrior". Much of its use isn't against anyone that stands up for gay rights, transgender rights, women's rights, etc. (you know, actual social justice) but against people who use the plights of others to get on a soapbox and spout complete nonsense.

I am a vocal trans-activist and feminist and I have not been called a feminazi or "SJW" once. I have been called a misogynist though, a word that at this point can be applied to anyone that has ever existed if you twist the definition enough.

 

[fezzthemonk]

It is interesting that you bring race into it as well. While there are at least a substantial number of female protagonists, I think I can count on one hand how many black protagonists there are. I got... 3 off the top of my head. Prototype 2 guy, CJ from GTA SA and the black guy from GTA 5(haven't played it yet).

This is the funniest thing to me. We don't hear anything about other races as main characters in games.Even in the games where you can craft a character, I can be a tan white guy at darkest. Also, could i play as a black guy who's not a gang member? I don't exactly mind, but i think we occupy more than just the organised crime market.

 

[fezzthemonk]

Did they get a backlash because of this? I don't think so.

IIRC, they did, just that it didn't go very far. Maybe it didn't catch the public's attention and explode.

It got kinda big but it was mostly due to the fact that a game had a sex scene. Only small focus on the possibility that it could be a lesbian one.

 

[TaboriHK]

I explained to you that I am not excusing the word itself, but rather the sentiment behind it. It's like the term "social justice warrior". Much of its use isn't against anyone that stands up for gay rights, transgender rights, women's rights, etc. (you know, actual social justice) but against people who use the plights of others to get on a soapbox and spout complete nonsense.

I am a vocal trans-activist and feminist and I have not been called a feminazi or "SJW" once. I have been called a misogynist though, a word that at this point can be applied to anyone that has ever existed if you twist the definition enough.

I don't think there's an excuse for the sentiment either. There's not some cabal of women out there manipulating innocent men with their virulent man-hate. You don't have to agree with people who have extreme opinions. I don't all the time. I put a single general use label on this group: absurd. Notice it's not a label that incorporates a word salad that implies that women who want equal rights are genocidal lunatics.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

But this is more of a problem with developers. As far as I know, women are quite underrepresented in the dev community. This shows. Very few games have a female PC(in games where you can't choose gender) compared to generic McWhiteguy. I can think of a dozen games that fit that mold, but only a handful of female PCs. It's like developers don't expect men to be able to relate with a female character. Yes, there are some things men just won't get, but I've yet to see a game feature menstruation or pregnancy as game mechanics. All the rest can be understood.

I find this particular sentiment to be a straw man at best. Where is it written that because women or men make up a certain portion of the population, they must make up that same proportion of every occupation? Women and men have different interests and thus pursue different avenues in terms of career. To say that women are "underrepresented" is to suggest that there is some active mechanism that keeps them out of games and that it isn't personal choice? Did anyone stop to consider that perhaps all the women who want to be in gaming and have pursued the means to get in are already there?

I think this is where people really find problems with individuals like Anita Sarkeesian. They attack men in the gaming community with blanket-labels of misogyny, and suggest that they are actively keeping women out of gaming. Yet, Anita is perfectly free to develop a game and market it to see if it flies. The problem isn't that "men" don't want Anita to develop a game, the problem is that "men" don't want Anita telling them that they are holding her back in the world of gaming, that they are holding other women back in gaming, and that they need to stop enjoying the games THEY enjoy and start enjoying the games she says they should so that it can balance out some imaginary notion of "representation."

Now who's making strawmen? We're not talking about a 70/30 split here.

Women make up a bit less than half of the core gaming population and are about 22% of game developers. This doesn't even mesh with the number of female gamers(not casuals). The discrepancy is between players and creators, not gender numbers in general. This demonstrates that women do not lack an interest in video games and should probably be more represented in the creation of games.

I'm not saying there's some big conspiracy or something, just that we fall into our old modes of thinking and what we've been told. We've been told that gaming is mostly a male thing. These are things that "everyone knows". They generally go without being challenged. This is not good.

In the end, like what you like but admit that other people can criticize what you like and then proceed to make things you don't like. Movies do it all the time. Some movies are made for men, some are made for women, some are a bit more neutral. Tell me, given that they make up 45% of the audience, don't you think something should be made that appeals just to women? Is that so unreasonable?

I don't expect to like every AAA release, why should you?

 

[Dizchu]

I don't think there's an excuse for the sentiment either. There's not some cabal of women out there manipulating innocent men with their virulent man-hate. You don't have to agree with people who have extreme opinions. I don't all the time. I put a single general use label on this group: absurd. Notice it's not a label that incorporates a word salad that implies that women who want equal rights are genocidal lunatics.

I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm getting at. I don't think you'll find much opposition to women's rights in the western world outside of fundamentalist religious communities, anachronistic conservatives and complete idiots that think some sort of matriarchy is infringing on their precious "masculinity". People who want basic equal rights for males and females will seldom be called "feminazis" or "SJWs" by people outside of those groups. The term "SJW" in particular relates to a certain brand of Tumblr-style narcissistic slacktivism, not anyone that believes in social justice.

 

[TaboriHK]

I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm getting at. I don't think you'll find much opposition to women's rights in the western world outside of fundamentalist religious communities, anachronistic conservatives and complete idiots that think some sort of matriarchy is infringing on their precious "masculinity". People who want basic equal rights for males and females will seldom be called "feminazis" or "SJWs" by people outside of those groups. The term "SJW" in particular relates to a certain brand of Tumblr-style narcissistic slacktivism, not anyone that believes in social justice.

On the contrary, there's a ton of opposition to women's rights in the western world, and a generous portion of it is highly visible in the gaming community. And I didn't read feminazi on Tumblr, I read it in this thread. And it embarrasses me.

 

[Dizchu]

On the contrary, there's a ton of opposition to women's rights in the western world, and a generous portion of it is highly visible in the gaming community. And I didn't read feminazi on Tumblr, I read it in this thread. And it embarrasses me.

I said outside of religious and conservative groups. It's probably a much worse scenario in the USA (not claiming that you're american by the way) where there is a more prominent right-wing, but here in the UK the younger demographics outside of "lad culture" are very much opposed to sexism. It's called out and mocked and perpetrators lose their jobs or at least get a bad reputation.

The USA is a different matter altogether. The political divide seems to be a lot more extreme, which is possibly why so much sensationalism and hyperbole happens on both sides.

The reason you heard the word feminazi here (which I generally disapprove of, but hey it's free speech) is because the sort of exaggeration social media spaces like Tumblr gets exposure, whether it be through journalism or Youtube personalities or word of mouth. When a feminist loudly exclaims things like "transwomen are just men that want the patriarchy to infiltrate womankind" or "all men are privileged by default and are responsible for all the misogyny their fellow males perpetrate" it's gonna get attention. Yeah, it unfairly clouds actual issues. But this whole "check your privilege" thing didn't occur in a vaccuum.

 

[Something Amyss]

My problem is with the highly simplified narrative that a large group of straight white males want gaming to be a "boy's club" and wish to exclude others.

A simplification you are making. It's no less dishonest than were someone to say "my problem is with the way gamers are pro-rape."

You're oversimplifying the criticism and then getting offended by it.

Do you disagree that the sentiment that a large proportion of gamers want to exclude everyone different to them has been spreading around? People are attempting to speak for and claim to know the motivations of large groups of people and I'm merely suggesting alternatives.

Define "large population," because I could answer "yes" and "no" to that depending.

Many of the most well-known and adored female characters in video games have been celebrated for reasons other than them being two-dimensional sex objects with poor writing and characterisation. Samus, Lara Croft, Zelda, Jade, Alyx, Glados, Shodan, etc. They counter this idea that there is this poisonous hyper-masculine male gaze that wants submissive, objectified female characters.[/.quote]

They actually don't. I mean, that's a pretty small list, you have some questionable choices, and did I mention it's a short list?

Pointing out a handful of exceptions doesn't disprove anything.

That seems to be exclusion on the part of publishers rather than the gaming audience, based on stereotypes that I think many of the accusations I am concerned about have exacerbated.

That's the argument you're misrepresenting, though. Gamers are largely left out of it until they get hostile.

It's never okay to intentionally exclude anyone.

Then you have several examples. And if you want to shift it to players, just look at this site and the arguments that women won't play the games, or you have to play to the majority, and so on.

My definition includes any of them. Anyone that plays games. The fact that all of these demographics do exist suggests that there is more incentive to include rather than exclude.

So why is it met with hostility both by publishers and by a "large" body of gamers? What reason can you come up with, and why might that dovetail with the issue you're misrepresenting?

I haven't reached a conclusion yet.

Bullshit. You're arguing backwards from "women aren't excluded."

If that is their sole target then that must mean that the large backlash I have witnessed on social media from women, gays, lesbians, people of all colours that have either been mistaken to be angry white males or have been insulted by the large amount of oversimplification by sloppy analyses must have been misled?

What's that? It looks like you're trying to argue that two wrongs make a right. That doesn't make sense, though.

 

[TaboriHK]

I said outside of religious and conservative groups. It's probably a much worse scenario in the USA (not claiming that you're american by the way) where there is a more prominent right-wing, but here in the UK the younger demographics outside of "lad culture" are very much opposed to sexism. It's called out and mocked and perpetrators lose their jobs or at least get a bad reputation.

The USA is a different matter altogether. The political divide seems to be a lot more extreme, which is possibly why so much sensationalism and hyperbole happens on both sides.

The reason you heard the word feminazi here (which I generally disapprove of, but hey it's free speech) is because the sort of exaggeration social media spaces like Tumblr gets exposure, whether it be through journalism or Youtube personalities or word of mouth. When a feminist loudly exclaims things like "transwomen are just men that want the patriarchy to infiltrate womankind" or "all men are privileged by default and are responsible for all the misogyny their fellow males perpetrate" it's gonna get attention. Yeah, it unfairly clouds actual issues. But this whole "check your privilege" thing didn't occur in a vaccuum.

I can't speak for the UK, I live in the United States. And I think it's lazy to say that sexism is just a religious or conservative problem. I live in a very liberal area and trust me, every group has this problem to some extent.

Also, I'm pretty tired of the argument "they're being childish, so I get to be childish." Children get to be childish. Adults need to hold themselves to a standard, and a better one than we do. Or at least don't pretend that the problem doesn't exist to the extent it does.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I don't like the term feminazi but I think it's worth pointing out that the term, while it was originally used by right-wing idiots to describe any activist for women's rights, is these days used mostly to describe the extremists. And don't deny that there are extremists. There are feminists out there that are absolutely vitriolic towards transgender people. There are feminists that actually want female superiority. However these kinds of feminists are thankfully not common in this discussion.

The kind of feminism that is getting a lot of attention is the hyperbolic "media propagates widespread misogynistic ideals" kind. I'd argue that sexist games, film and literature are the result of sexist individuals, not the other way around. By focussing on the negative rather than the positive it is spreading a very bleak message to potential game developers, both male and female. My kind of feminism supports constructive criticism and the celebration of good role models and female representation. It doesn't require overly basic assumptions

But this is the problem. The discussion is currently targeting low-hanging fruit. Issues like gender identity, patriarchal culture, heteronormativity etc. are being overlooked because a certain game has strippers or boobs or shitty writing.

...What internet communities have you been hanging around? Can I join?

Around here the words feminazi or radical feminist are used for any feminist who criticizes the western world as opposed to some foreign culture where women's treatment isn't exactly like ours. Anita Sarkeesian is the token example for radical feminist or feminazi despite her being one of the least confrontational feminists I've ever seen.

2-Permanently concerned and outraged people that calls for people being fired because they drew a sorceress with big tits

Don't you know it? Those people have constantly got a stick up their ass.

Spoiler

I swear, I didn't put that there.

I have no idea why that image decided to embed itself into my post

 

[Dizchu]

A simplification you are making. It's no less dishonest than were someone to say "my problem is with the way gamers are pro-rape."

The barrage of "Gamers are dead" articles suggests otherwise. Over and over again it's about how "young white men" are "angry" that there are "differing opinions" in the gaming industry. I've read them and they indicate a lack of communication between journalist and consumer. They assert exclusion without evidence and use Tumblr-esque buzzwords like "privilege" and "SJW" to paint a picture of lonely basement-dwellers that have never spoken to a girl before wanting them to get out of their "boy's club".

You're oversimplifying the criticism and then getting offended by it.

What is it that I am missing? What nuance from the "Gamers are dead" articles am I overlooking?

Define "large population," because I could answer "yes" and "no" to that depending.

As in a proportion large enough to warrant the numerous "Gamers are dead" opinion pieces. As in a proportion larger than just a group of abrasive trolls and fanboys.

They actually don't. I mean, that's a pretty small list, you have some questionable choices, and did I mention it's a short list?

Pointing out a handful of exceptions doesn't disprove anything.

A handful of exceptions? I didn't want to get into more obscure examples, particularly from the adventure game genre where I feel females have a satisfyingly good representation. My point was to bring up the most well-known female characters, most of which... aren't tasteless.

Yeah Lara Croft's initial design was highly questionable and I am extremely disappointed with the whole "I accidentally made her boobs 50% bigger and the rest of the team thought it was great" story. But I am not gonna lie, my female friends that grew up in the 90s absolutely loved the Tomb Raider games and found the idea of being essentially an acrobatic female Indiana Jones great. They didn't find her design repulsive, it didn't stop them from enjoying the games. The "video game sex symbol" bullshit that was around at the time was probably a product of the disproportionate marketing to the young male demographic in the 90s but if they tried that approach today it'd be ridiculed.

Tastelessly sexualised female characters like those in fighting games and JRPGs don't have the same level of popularity. Everyone knows who Zelda and Lara Croft are, characters that have defining qualities that don't rely purely on their physiques or submissive roles in their stories. I am not denying for one moment that negative portrayals exist I just think it is demonstrable that positive portrayals fare much better in the long term.

That's the argument you're misrepresenting, though. Gamers are largely left out of it until they get hostile.

It seems only the hostile ones get any attention, which is where the "gamers are dead" articles drew their conclusion.

So why is it met with hostility both by publishers and by a "large" body of gamers? What reason can you come up with, and why might that dovetail with the issue you're misrepresenting?

But I don't believe inclusion or diversity gets met with widespread hostility. Yeah you'll get a vocal group of trolls and fanboys that are too socially inept to realise that those things won't harm their games, but from what I've seen people are willing to play as black characters or female characters. You may have more of a point with gay or transgender characters, though. In fact I don't believe trans characters get any representation outside of games where the player is allowed to make trans characters. However as a trans individual I don't see myself being "excluded" from the gaming community more than I do society in general.

Bullshit. You're arguing backwards from "women aren't excluded."

I think you are misinterpreting me. I am currently at a point where I am very skeptical that they are excluded en masse, however given enough evidence my opinion will develop with more nuance. I think it was inaccurate for me to say that "I haven't come to a conclusion yet" because "yet" implies that I'll ever come to a definite conclusion. If gender discussions have taught me anything, it's that these issues are extremely complex and touch upon such diverse subjects as human anthropology, evolution, psychology, media, advertising, and so on. However, it's because these issues are so complex that I find the use of generalisations and stereotyping to be misleading at best.

What's that? It looks like you're trying to argue that two wrongs make a right. That doesn't make sense, though.

My argument is that people aren't willing to play ball and address more complex and admittedly uncomfortable issues. People don't like being misrepresented for the convenience of basic narratives. The whole recent Gamergate controversy is, if anything, evidence of a lack of communication and a prevalent eagerness to paint with broad strokes. Maybe I'm guilty of it too, maybe I misinterpreted what certain journalists said, but it's because I'm used to gender discussion being done on such a basic level that I find it depressing.

 

[DrWut]

I don't like the term feminazi but I think it's worth pointing out that the term, while it was originally used by right-wing idiots to describe any activist for women's rights, is these days used mostly to describe the extremists. And don't deny that there are extremists. There are feminists out there that are absolutely vitriolic towards transgender people. There are feminists that actually want female superiority. However these kinds of feminists are thankfully not common in this discussion.

The kind of feminism that is getting a lot of attention is the hyperbolic "media propagates widespread misogynistic ideals" kind. I'd argue that sexist games, film and literature are the result of sexist individuals, not the other way around. By focussing on the negative rather than the positive it is spreading a very bleak message to potential game developers, both male and female. My kind of feminism supports constructive criticism and the celebration of good role models and female representation. It doesn't require overly basic assumptions

But this is the problem. The discussion is currently targeting low-hanging fruit. Issues like gender identity, patriarchal culture, heteronormativity etc. are being overlooked because a certain game has strippers or boobs or shitty writing.

...What internet communities have you been hanging around? Can I join?

Around here the words feminazi or radical feminist are used for any feminist who criticizes the western world as opposed to some foreign culture where women's treatment isn't exactly like ours. Anita Sarkeesian is the token example for radical feminist or feminazi despite her being one of the least confrontational feminists I've ever seen.

2-Permanently concerned and outraged people that calls for people being fired because they drew a sorceress with big tits

Don't you know it? Those people have constantly got a stick up their ass.

Spoiler

I swear, I didn't put that there.

I have no idea why that image decided to embed itself into my post

You have convinced me, that artist has to go. There is no excuse for those shoes.

 

[Dizchu]

I can't speak for the UK, I live in the United States. And I think it's lazy to say that sexism is just a religious or conservative problem. I live in a very liberal area and trust me, every group has this problem to some extent.

Also, I'm pretty tired of the argument "they're being childish, so I get to be childish." Children get to be childish. Adults need to hold themselves to a standard, and a better one than we do. Or at least don't pretend that the problem doesn't exist to the extent it does.

I'm not saying it's just a problem with the religious or conservative points of view, they just seem to be where most of the truly nonsensical sexism comes from. I don't deny that every group has a degree of sexism, Western society is very patriarchal after all. There are differing opinions as to what is or isn't sexist, some think that men and women have different standards to adhere to, others like myself think everyone should be held to the same standard.

However there comes a point where sexism is not tolerated and it sparks outrage if it gets exposure. Maybe "that point" comes as too little, too late... but it doesn't get ignored. The Steubenville incident sparked an outcry despite certain media outlets trying to garner sympathy for the rapists. There was a huge amount of disapproval for the journalists involved and it spread quickly through social media. You'd be hard pressed to find many people branding those that called out the journalists as "feminazis" and "SJWs".

I don't understand how I'm being childish for trying to explain a certain misunderstood sentiment with what I hope to be less emotionally-charged language.

Around here the words feminazi or radical feminist are used for any feminist who criticizes the western world as opposed to some foreign culture where women's treatment isn't exactly like ours. Anita Sarkeesian is the token example for radical feminist or feminazi despite her being one of the least confrontational feminists I've ever seen.

Really? "Around here"? I find The Escapist forums to be more level-headed than most, so I am very skeptical of this. If you were on some masturbatory pro-masculinity site like The Return of Kings then I'd agree with you. But here I think people would have a better grasp of what counts as moderate/extreme/disingenuous feminism.

I'm not sure I'd call Anita Sarkeesian a "radical" feminist, but she does seem to be a feminist that doesn't respect the voices of other feminists. Much like Christina Hoff Sommers actually. She does make wild assertions without evidence though, claiming that media influences society rather than the other way around. It's very much Jack Thompson-style rhetoric, as much as I hate that overused comparison.

Calling Sarkeesian "non-confrontational" is kinda inaccurate. Her series is called "Tropes vs. Women". As in "media is attacking women with sexist tropes". It is an indication of the direction her videos take too, illustrating a sort of malicious intent on behalf of game designers. "X, Y and Z are misogynistic" or "rooted in misogyny" are very sensational claims to make. Hatred of women and misrepresentation of women are two very different things and by conflating the two it muddies arguments. I'd say it is quite an extreme view that avoids nuance or any suggestions for improvement.

I personally think that the conflation of the intentions behind terms like "feminazi" and "SJW" with feminism and social justice as a whole is doing more harm than good. I think it's an indication of a lack of discussion. Why do they use the term "feminazi"? Is it just because they dislike feminism as a whole? Is it because there is mistrust due to a few feminists co-opting a legitimate cause for narcissistic and antagonistic reasons? I don't use the word purely because I don't want people to think I mean feminism as a whole when I use it, and because the person who coined it was a bigoted asshole.

Also fun and probably irrelevant fact: The only person I personally know who likes Sorceress' design is a female game designer.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

You have convinced me, that artist has to go. There is no excuse for those shoes.

I can't believe you thought it was the boobs. It was always about the shoes. No woman in her right mind would want to identify as someone wearing those

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Really? "Around here"? I find The Escapist forums to be more level-headed than most, so I am very skeptical of this. If you were on some masturbatory pro-masculinity site like The Return of Kings then I'd agree with you. But here I think people would have a better grasp of what counts as moderate/extreme/disingenuous feminism.

I'm not sure I'd call Anita Sarkeesian a "radical" feminist, but she does seem to be a feminist that doesn't respect the voices of other feminists. Much like Christina Hoff Sommers actually. She does make wild assertions without evidence though, claiming that media influences society rather than the other way around. It's very much Jack Thompson-style rhetoric, as much as I hate that overused comparison.

Calling Sarkeesian "non-confrontational" is kinda inaccurate. Her series is called "Tropes vs. Women". As in "media is attacking women with sexist tropes". It is an indication of the direction her videos take too, illustrating a sort of malicious intent on behalf of game designers. "X, Y and Z are misogynistic" or "rooted in misogyny" are very sensational claims to make. Hatred of women and misrepresentation of women are two very different things and by conflating the two it muddies arguments. I'd say it is quite an extreme view that avoids nuance or any suggestions for improvement.

I personally think that the conflation of the intentions behind terms like "feminazi" and "SJW" with feminism and social justice as a whole is doing more harm than good. I think it's an indication of a lack of discussion. Why do they use the term "feminazi"? Is it just because they dislike feminism as a whole? Is it because there is mistrust due to a few feminists co-opting a legitimate cause for narcissistic and antagonistic reasons? I don't use the word purely because I don't want people to think I mean feminism as a whole when I use it, and because the person who coined it was a bigoted asshole.

Also fun and probably irrelevant fact: The only person I personally know who likes Sorceress' design is a female game designer.

I've seen some other gaming sites that completely blow the Escapist out of the water in terms of sexist posts, so it's certainly one of the better places. It's still got some massive polarization issues though. Too often an extremist feminist seems to be "a feminist I disagree with". If I looked at the "7 Female game developers speak about gamergate" thread I'm sure I'd find people calling them extremists.

I've never considered Tropes vs Women to be a confrontational title, and I don't think it's intended to be either. I also think that a lot of people misunderstand what exactly misogyny means, which is probably not helped by the vague and misleading definition. This is the one most people are probably using when they speak about misogyny.

Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

As opposed to the one most people who have an issue with the term go with, which is "A hatred of women". I don't really watch her videos much because I find them bland and non-committal as well as not particularly insightful but I don't think those that I have seen even use the word misogyny. I'll search through the scripts of her episodes to see though.

Said once in Damsel in Distress part 2 - Says that sometimes the use of brutalized women to inject "mature themes" into a game can cross the line into blatant misogyny

Said once in Women as Background Decorations Part 1 - "A line can be drawn from the crude sensationalized misogyny of Duke Nukem"

Said twice in part 2
- "female prostitutes are assaulted and murdered by johns amid a torrent of misogynistic slurs"
- "These games also tend to frame misogyny and sexual exploitation as an everlasting fact of life, as something inescapable and unchangeable."

This is just from her videos, I don't follow her twitter accounts, but she mentions the word in only half of her videos, and in the final two uses she's referring to misogyny that the game is trying to portray has misogyny. She's never accusing gamers who play these games as being misogynistic, and as far as I'm aware Duke Nukem is supposed to be a sensationalized mysoginistic womanizer.

As far as I've seen, she never really criticizes people, she criticizes tropes and uses of women that she thinks are objectionable. That's why I used the term non-confrontational.

Speaking about that Jack Thompson bit, I think it's really hard to claim that media doesn't influence people's attitudes. I'm not saying that if you watch misogynistic drivel then you will go off and beat women. However, when certain tropes are universally painted as normal or in a positive light I have a hard time believing that it won't influence your perception of it in real life. Media is the main thing that connects people who have never met each other before, and it no doubt plays some role in what cultural similarities they will share.

I think that violence is a lot easier to rationalize away because so often it's painted as so absurd you wouldn't assume it has any grounding in reality. How people act around each other or treat each other tends to try to appear grounded in reality though.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, I share your opinion on throwing dismissive labels at people. If you're looking for any sort of discussion with someone you should keep as far away from personal attacks as possible. If your goal is to get them to shut down and stand over their corpse as the victor, sure it could maybe work. But if your goal has anything to do with convincing them that what you believe is right then you're shooting yourself in foot

As to your last comment, that's one thing that I think depressingly gets lost in all of the talk about her objectification (something I have an issue with myself), just how god damn awful her design is in the first place

 

[Bakuryukun]

Ha. Buddy, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[DrWut]

-snip-

"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It?s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."

C-mon, man. How is this not confrontational? Saying that Hitman creators want their players to kill prostitutes for sexual pleasure is a very serious accusation to make against both creators and player. It's also an outright lie that, in the same way as the Tropico 5 review by Polygon, tries to equate the possibility of doing something bad with the implicit endorsement of those actions, which is crazytalk.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

This is just from her videos, I don't follow her twitter accounts, but she mentions the word in only half of her videos, and in the final two uses she's referring to misogyny that the game is trying to portray has misogyny. She's never accusing gamers who play these games as being misogynistic, and as far as I'm aware Duke Nukem is supposed to be a sensationalized mysoginistic womanizer.

As far as I've seen, she never really criticizes people, she criticizes tropes and uses of women that she thinks are objectionable. That's why I used the term non-confrontational.

Anita is more referring to the developers being sexist and/or misogynistic, not the people buying the games. She obviously never directly says that, but heavily judging a developers' work as sexist/misogynist is sort of implying that the devs themselves must have that mindset, since they made the game.

But still Anita represents the more extreme (and fucked up) side of feminism since she completely disregards all context, all situations, all character personality/plot/etc and focuses solely on "that moment" when any female is having something bad happen to them. Then she stamps it as sexism/misogyny (implying the developers are such), files it under the trope. Rinse & repeat.
Oh and of course, she accepts zero feedback and refuses to participate in any kind of debate/discussion. Monologue monologue monologue.

That's why people are getting so angry about it, because it IS quite confrontational and insulting to keep hearing such bullshit.
Doesn't help that journalists repeatedly keep using Anita her for clickbait purposes to pull attention to their article/editorial/whatever (since her name carries massive clickbait value).