Skullgirls Dev Dismisses Cries of Sexism

CK76

New member
Sep 25, 2009
1,620
0
0
Freedom means we can say and do things that bother, annoy, offend, etc. others. I have a simple policy about anything I feel that way about, I don't support it by simply ignoring it.

The game industry will provide outlets to all types of gamers, and to me it is a good thing to see variety of ideas thrown against the wall and see what sticks. I might check this out, like to try a demo first.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Char-Nobyl said:
Lieju said:
For me 'bimbo' means one-dimensional female character who is dumb and only serves as fanservice. Skinny, big breasted women (maybe 'traditionally attractive' is a good way to describe that) can also be well-developed and intelligent and interesting characters. As I have been saying; the characters in this game can be all that, it's just the usual level of writing in video-games (as well as my pessimism) that makes me doubtful.
But that's the problem: that's the Guantanamo Bay approach. I've met people who 'look' like the sort of person who would be the idiot-fanservice girl in a work of fiction, but life doesn't work that way. Working under the "shallow until proven otherwise" mindset is only going to cause problems.
I hope you realize I'm talking about video-games and their writing here, not real people. And since most female characters (and male) in video-games are badly written, that causes certain expectations. You kinda sound like you're arguing just argument's sake. Or you haven't read my comments and replies very thoroughly. How many times do I have to type this out: no matter their looks, a female character can be still interesting and complex.
(Although personally, I'd hope to see more female characters with realistic body-proportions)
Char-Nobyl said:
Not from what I can see in the Eurogamer article. That was pretty much the basis of the interview.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.333232-Skullgirls-Artist-Weighs-In-on-Sexism-Controversy

Char-Nobyl said:
See, that's the issue: it involves lying about something to get a reaction. You can't call attention to something that doesn't exist without lying about it existing.
Depends how you define 'lying'. If you define it as misrepresenting an issue, maybe. (But communication always includes misrepresentation to some extent, on purpose or not)
But you can just mention a person that has been complaining, instead of ignoring them because they represent a small minority.
At any rate, I fail to see what you are trying to argue here. All I ever said that the dev/press were blowing this out of proportion.

Char-Nobyl said:
That's more the toddler mindset of 'all attention is good attention.' There's no reaction to the outrage: it's just trying to elicit outrage for the sake of itself.
There's the publicity. Spreading the ideology, getting free press. There are a lot of trolls in the world but I find it difficult to believe an organisation like PETA would do stuff just for the lulz, and that they don't hope to gain something.

Char-Nobyl said:
Erm...that's more the idea behind a "conspiracy theory" than conspiracy. The latter just means that you planned to do something before you did it. It doesn't even need to be in a group.
Maybe my English is bad, then. Although, legally, conspiracy includes a group of people. Also
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
And even if we are going with your definition of 'planning to do something beforehand', that's not what I said either. Where did I say someone was planning anything?
Also, do you really use the word 'conspire' like that?
As in "I'm conspiring to make an omelet for myself this evening"

It has been fun having this discussion, but I feel it's going nowhere, and unless you'll make some genuinely interesting points, I won't reply to you anymore.
 

chif-ii

New member
Aug 31, 2010
206
0
0
Does it really matter if it's a woman or a man? If it's displaying sexuality in an exaggerated and distasteful manner, it's still sexist, no matter who drew it. Smut is smut no matter what.

But I don't think that's what's happening here. When I look at that trailer, I see a parody. I see a developer making fun of every single sexed-up female in fighting games, from Morrigan to Felecia to Chun...actually, I don't think Chun-li is a good example of that, but you get the point.
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
ExileNZ said:
For the most part I agree with you, although for me the how and the why are pretty closely linked.

Also, let's not confuse sexy with sexist, re: scantily-clad females. That said, I gather SG has no shortage of pantyshots, which for me are rather firmly in the latter category.
Yes, I do suppose the two are pretty tightly linked together...

I don't go out of my way to confuse the two. That being said, I tend to be a tad skeptical on the whole premise behind "sexy" ladies in games. They are very rarely made that way in an effort to empower women, since a lot of the industry still operates under the notion that men are their primary targets...so it really just results in a lot of lip service when developers start up on the "GRRL POWA" talk to dodge having to really take a look at how their approaching females in games.
 

ExileNZ

New member
Dec 15, 2007
915
0
0
Technicka said:
ExileNZ said:
For the most part I agree with you, although for me the how and the why are pretty closely linked.

Also, let's not confuse sexy with sexist, re: scantily-clad females. That said, I gather SG has no shortage of pantyshots, which for me are rather firmly in the latter category.
Yes, I do suppose the two are pretty tightly linked together...

I don't go out of my way to confuse the two. That being said, I tend to be a tad skeptical on the whole premise behind "sexy" ladies in games. They are very rarely made that way in an effort to empower women, since a lot of the industry still operates under the notion that men are their primary targets...so it really just results in a lot of lip service when developers start up on the "GRRL POWA" talk to dodge having to really take a look at how their approaching females in games.
A fair enough comment, but the two aren't mutually exclusive - look at Lara Croft.
She was designed to be both a respectable, self-reliant "strong woman character" (as Joss Whedon would put it), but she was also there because if you're going to spend hours in 3rd person, most males would rather stare at a woman's butt (can't find the link, but it's somewhere in the Tomb Raider Retrospective). So while she was a product of her (very male-dominated) time, she was also a role model and an empowering figure (Angelina Jolie was far from the only person eager to step into Lara's shoes).

Of course, Lara's had her own problems and is only one example, but you get where I'm going with that.
 

Whatthe

New member
Dec 14, 2011
2
0
0
I think the real issue is not that the game is sexist at all. People believe that the portrayal of women in this game is sexist. The issue is WHY do they believe it is sexist?

To some the matter is that the women in the game are portrayed in a way that could be called "fan service" i.e. that their only purpose is to please a male demographic. The point being that this act is sexist. I think the real challenge here is to define WHY this belief exists. The comparative judgement here is about beauty not about whether one sex is better than the other.

Saying that it would be "not sexist" if the developer chose to make both attractive and unattractive female characters does not change the comparative judgement about beauty. So is the real offense here that there are no portrayals of ugly people?
 

Char-Nobyl

New member
May 8, 2009
784
0
0
Lieju said:
I hope you realize I'm talking about video-games and their writing here, not real people. And since most female characters (and male) in video-games are badly written, that causes certain expectations. You kinda sound like you're arguing just argument's sake. Or you haven't read my comments and replies very thoroughly. How many times do I have to type this out: no matter their looks, a female character can be still interesting and complex.
Yeah, probably that one. I do enjoy a good argument.

Lieju said:
(Although personally, I'd hope to see more female characters with realistic body-proportions)
Fair enough. The flip side of that is the male proportions, which gives the RE5 depiction of Chris 'Zombies-Must-Drop-Protein-Shakes' Redfield.

Lieju said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.333232-Skullgirls-Artist-Weighs-In-on-Sexism-Controversy
Yes...that was this article. But at the bottom of that, there's the Eurogamer link labeled "source." That was the original interview.

Lieju said:
Depends how you define 'lying'. If you define it as misrepresenting an issue, maybe. (But communication always includes misrepresentation to some extent, on purpose or not)
Ironically, I can usually tell if a person is lying if their excuse begins with "Depends how you define 'lying.'" That's not the case with you, obviously, but it was a funny thought.

Anyhoo, yeah. Intentionally misrepresenting facts is lying, because 'misrepresenting' means you're presenting them in a different way than how they actually are. You can 'misrepresent' the number 'six' by referring to it as the number 'seven,' for instance. Or you can 'misrepresent' the number of complaints on an issue you invented by referring to 'zero people' as 'several people.' You can't inflate an issue that doesn't exist. The Summer of the Shark was blown out of proportion, but only by sheer virtue of nobody in the public bothering to check shark attack statistics from previous years and compare them to that year. If reporters had invented attacks, that would have been straightforward lying.

Lieju said:
There's the publicity. Spreading the ideology, getting free press.
Yeah, but the sort of attention you get from faking publicity stuff is generally the bad kind, especially when you're trying to market a product. Sony's been bitten in the ass a lot for faked 'fan creations' that hurt their sales when people uncovered (relatively quickly) that it had been Sony-sponsored.

Lieju said:
There are a lot of trolls in the world but I find it difficult to believe an organisation like PETA would do stuff just for the lulz, and that they don't hope to gain something.
The "Lobster Empathy Center [http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2008/06/18/Jail-for-Sale-PETA-Party-in-the-Clinker.aspx]" plan says otherwise. It certainly doesn't bode well when the writer sounds like he can barely keep his erection in his pants, writes out maniacal laughter, and screams with glee at the concept of a "PETA-party," which to all the UK Escapists will sound like a word invented to describe a large assembly of pedophiles.

Not to mention that this is a prison...ie, a building meant to hold large numbers of people. Ignoring the cosmetic issues with it, that sort of thing could be a godsend to a city with a growing homeless issue or, I don't know, a collapsing housing market. This is just another PETA example of trying to snatch up things that could genuinely help human beings right now in favor of animals they have no chance of doing anything about. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the funding from this stillborn venture to buy up hundreds of gallons of much-needed donor blood and dumping it on top of people leaving a steakhouse.

Though to the point of them not adhering to the "All attention is good attention" mindset, I bring up their crashing of Columbia University's graduation ceremony. Apparently, they make a habit of this. And how do I know about it? Well, news, for one thing, but also because my cousin was one of the students graduating. And on one of the most significant days of her life, a group of loudmouths seized the microphone and called everyone present a murderer.

So yeah. They clearly don't care about getting negative attention. The only alternative is that they're so laughably out of touch with public sentiment that they can't tell one from the other.

Lieju said:
Maybe my English is bad, then. Although, legally, conspiracy includes a group of people. Also
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
Ah, right you are. I was getting my 'premeditation' and 'conspiracy' definitions mixed up.

Lieju said:
And even if we are going with your definition of 'planning to do something beforehand', that's not what I said either. Where did I say someone was planning anything?
Also, do you really use the word 'conspire' like that?
As in "I'm conspiring to make an omelet for myself this evening"
Considering my aforementioned blunder with the definition of conspiracy, I was thinking more of 'scheming,' or its less nefarious cousin 'plotting.'

But yes, those would both be grammatically correct. The main difference between "planning" to do something and "plotting" is that the latter implies malevolent intent. The implications of certain words choices say a lot about the person saying them. Take 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life,' for example. It would seem odd that both sides of a debate are in favor of something, but neither side wants to be 'anti-choice' or 'anti-life,' respectively.

Lieju said:
It has been fun having this discussion, but I feel it's going nowhere, and unless you'll make some genuinely interesting points, I won't reply to you anymore.
Ah, here we go. A perfect example of my previous point. See the implications of the bold section? Whether intended or not, it gives the distinct impression that any debate going on isn't about a clash of opinions: it's about the other side being smart enough to interest you. And the moment that you decide that they're not making "interesting points" anymore (note the difference between 'valid' and 'interesting'), you "won't reply to [them] anymore." That places you as both the opposing camp of an argument as well as that of the moderator, which is like trying to be both the prosecution and the judge in a single trial.

But, of course, that's just implications for you. Plenty of them are unintentional, and I'm guessing that you were trying to say that this has strayed off course enough as it is and we may as well call it quits. Bear in mind, though, that this is ultimately still the internet: whether or not a debate continues is entirely contingent on your will to participate in the thread. If you've no interest in continuing, my genuine and sarcasm-free advice is simply to not reply. Frankly, most names on this site are interchangable for me, and I've no reason to press this issue. It's the debate-of-the-moment, and that moment has passed.

Whew. I feel like a less-interesting version of the dude from 'Memento.' I've forgotten where the conversation started after writing too long on it. Oh well. Later!
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
ExileNZ said:
A fair enough comment, but the two aren't mutually exclusive - look at Lara Croft.
She was designed to be both a respectable, self-reliant "strong woman character" (as Joss Whedon would put it), but she was also there because if you're going to spend hours in 3rd person, most males would rather stare at a woman's butt (can't find the link, but it's somewhere in the Tomb Raider Retrospective). So while she was a product of her (very male-dominated) time, she was also a role model and an empowering figure (Angelina Jolie was far from the only person eager to step into Lara's shoes).

Of course, Lara's had her own problems and is only one example, but you get where I'm going with that.
Amusingly enough, I was thinking of Lara when I made that post. You could easily see where the empowering aspects were for her character: saving herself, making her own rules, essentially being Indiana Jones with girl bits. And then the old practice of "Strong Woman = hot pants and snug tops" It was really a case of 1 step forward, two steps back for female representation in games.

But, yea, I completely see where you're coming from (as we obviously agree on the bigger picture, and just quibble on the details).
 

ExileNZ

New member
Dec 15, 2007
915
0
0
Technicka said:
ExileNZ said:
A fair enough comment, but the two aren't mutually exclusive - look at Lara Croft.
She was designed to be both a respectable, self-reliant "strong woman character" (as Joss Whedon would put it), but she was also there because if you're going to spend hours in 3rd person, most males would rather stare at a woman's butt (can't find the link, but it's somewhere in the Tomb Raider Retrospective). So while she was a product of her (very male-dominated) time, she was also a role model and an empowering figure (Angelina Jolie was far from the only person eager to step into Lara's shoes).

Of course, Lara's had her own problems and is only one example, but you get where I'm going with that.
Amusingly enough, I was thinking of Lara when I made that post. You could easily see where the empowering aspects were for her character: saving herself, making her own rules, essentially being Indiana Jones with girl bits. And then the old practice of "Strong Woman = hot pants and snug tops" It was really a case of 1 step forward, two steps back for female representation in games.

But, yea, I completely see where you're coming from (as we obviously agree on the bigger picture, and just quibble on the details).
Well let's be honest, the furr-lined snow jacket accompanied by short shorts was unforgivable. That she managed to springboard from there to an empowering icon is as impressive as it is ironic (even her creator wasn't happy with how the publisher treated her in the wake of the first game).

Amusingly enough, her exaggerated features actually came from the fact that when they made her more realistically proportioned she just looked (pardon the pun) flat, like a straw dummy.

But yeah, details aside I'm glad to actually see eye-to-eye on this (or at least eye-to-nose, the difference isn't huge).