The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Netrigan]

Okay, I had to laugh at one thing. I clicked to around the five minute mark and they were talking about how these arrogant people say all sorts of stupid stuff like they're not leaving behind a trial. First example is how this one reviewer pads scores because she wants devs to get their bonuses.

Wait, I thought that's what GamerGate wanted. I could swear I was having exactly this discussion with three or four Gaters where they were the ones arguing for high scores for exactly this reason.

No there's a difference between giving a lower score because of "The Feels" or a game not perfectly reinforcing ones own socio-political stance and giving a higher score.

E.g. Polygon giving Bayonetta a lower score because of sexualisation while giving Gone Home a Higher score because the reviewer was close friends (And still was) and worked with the team that made Gone Home before reviewing it on Polygon and not pointing out this possible bias.

And if said issue brought down their enjoyment of the game, then it's a legitimate reason to give the game a lower score. Especially in this day and age when many games are story driven, the content of the story plays a much more important part of the equation than before. What the story is saying and how it's saying it matters, especially if they're trying to draw me in with a particular character.

One of the big problems I'm having with GG is over the whole review issues, because GG wants to push their opinions about review writing on everyone else. You are not the Thought Police. You don't get to dictate what reviews do and don't find enjoyable in their video games. We can only encourage every reviewer to give his honest opinion.

Dev's bonuses should not be tied to game reviews. That's fucking emotional blackmail. If you like New Vegas, better bump up that score... never mind that we didn't make any substantial chance to the game since Fallout 3 and it's still got the same Biblical horde of bugs. Give them higher scores or it's on you when they have to lay off a bunch of people.

Because linking bonuses to sales would just be madness.

And Gaters being Gaters go after the reviewers who seem to be doing nothing more than expressing their honest opinion instead of the people who made this mess by linking said bonuses to review scores in the first place. They're the ones saying "you can't give lower scores, think of the devs"... and that's supporting the hopelessly corrupt system that is trying to blackmail reviewers into keeping those high scores flowing.

But we're not supposed to talk about those ethics. Those ethics are aren't journalistic in nature, therefore are of much less importance. God forbid, we hold anyone else's feet the fire. Someone reviewed Bayonetta wrong. That's the real corruption.

Okay, I'm ranting, but, seriously, honest reviews are the cornerstone of the system. The reason I don't trust the system is I see the same damn opinions from everyone. I've got three reviewers I seek out when I'm unsure about buying a game: Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and Angry Joe. I'm sure there are others, but those three guys don't seem to give a damn what anyone else thinks and will straight-up attack a game they think is lacking. Was Saints Row 3 fun? Yup. Was is a big disappoint for SR fans? Oh, yeah. And someone like Angry Joe just went after all the ways he thought it came up short. I love that Jim Sterline gave Assassins Creed 2 an insanely low score. If he didn't like it, that's exactly what he should have given it. We need more like him.

We don't need the bloody Thought Police cracking down on every voice that doesn't fit in with the herd.

 

[Farther than stars]

So you see, net advantage would not necessarily entail the non-existence of a negative relation between video games and gender equality (at least not in a meaningful, numerically scientific way).

But if as negative exposure increases, negative results DECREASES, it shows that any effect, if real, is negligible. Perhaps existent, but small enough as to not matter.

Well, no, it can still matter. If you earn 10 dollars for every 9 dollars you lose by paying for stuff, your net wealth increases by 1 dollar for every 10 earned, but that doesn't mean the 9 dollars are negligible. Losing 7 dollars for every 10 earned, for instance, would still make your net wealth grow more rapidly. In the end, I suppose it's a personal opinion how much sexism you're willing to tolerate as long as there is still societal progress overall, but personally I think societal progress could be going quite a lot faster, considering the ridiculous discrepancies that still exist between men and women, even in Western societies. If, to that end, developers and gamers need to be more aware of sexism in games, I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[Netrigan]

So you see, net advantage would not necessarily entail the non-existence of a negative relation between video games and gender equality (at least not in a meaningful, numerically scientific way).

But if as negative exposure increases, negative results DECREASES, it shows that any effect, if real, is negligible. Perhaps existent, but small enough as to not matter.

Well, no, it can still matter. If you earn 10 dollars for every 9 dollars you lose by paying for stuff, your net wealth increases by 1 dollar for every 10 earned, but that doesn't mean the 9 dollars are negligible. Losing 7 dollars for every 10 earned, for instance, would still make your net wealth grow more rapidly. In the end, I suppose it's a personal opinion how much sexism you're willing to tolerate as long as there is still societal progress overall, but personally I think societal progress could be going quite a lot faster, considering the ridiculous discrepancies that still exist between men and women, even in Western societies. If, to that end, developers and gamers need to be more aware of sexism in games, I don't think that's too much to ask.

There's an old saying, "science advances one tombstone at a time". The people will pudding brains have to die off and be replaced with people who are open to progress... then when they become old and set in their ways, the process repeats itself.

And so it is with social progress. You advance too fast, the pudding heads make a lot of noise and things slow down. There are fewer and fewer pudding heads every year, so you can make advances.

Sometimes there's going to be silly over-corrects. I was watching "Hey Ash Whatcha Playing?" last night and one of the episodes warned of a transphobic joke they accidentally made. And, frankly, I don't think you could say it was "transphobic", more like "cisnormal". When some guys on-line asked if Ashly was a girl, she had to pull out a book with sketches of genitals (one boy, one girl) and checked to see which she had. And that's being a bit silly in the "let's not offend anyone" game. But that's part of the process as well. We all kind of have to figure out what we can and can't say, because the vast majority of us aren't trying to offend and/or insult people. We're just so damn good at it naturally

 

[Silvanus]

Actually Stephen Totilo confirmed the allegations were true even if you don't support the claims made in The Zoe post. What can't be determined is if the sex was somehow played into the coverage either paying forward or playing back.

What allegations? That they knew eachother? I'm talking about sexual accusations (as you were yourself, before the goalposts were moved). Stephen Totilo "confirmed" no such thing [http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346] about those accusations.

For those allegations, there is nothing to go on except lurid speculation, and the assumption of guilt.

 

[Bocaj2000]

\At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.

We do. The problem is that we get dismissed, censored, and fought against whenever we do. This is an obnoxiously slanderous Scotsman fallacy used by the other side to dismiss the rational majority at every turn.

Rational majority of what? I'll answer that. A leaderless mob of angry people who use a hashtag where the only requirement to be in this angry mob is to use the hashtag... That about sums up #GG's image problem. Please stop saying GamerGate has a rational majority because any rational person would realize why it is not rational to associate themselves with leaderless angry mob.

We are NOT an "angry mob". You are simply one of the thousands tricked into believing such slander by the unethical journalism that GG is fighting so hard against.

mob 3. any group or collection of persons or things. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mob

"You are simply one of the thousands tricked into believing such slander by the unethical journalism that GG is fighting so hard against." that's an interesting idea
*snip*
The only gaming news site i hang out on is the escapist. It was the only conclusion i could draw from what I've seen on this site. I don't have twitter or facebook.

"a movement about anti-censorship, journalistic ethics, and anti-corrupt independent gaming."

*snip*

Yea i'm not buying that when GamerGate wishes to censor a review because they don't agree with it.

You're just dismissing me without bothering to see my point of view. Your immature "but it's wrong" video simple proves that you are not taking me seriously and I doubt that you even wish to have a discussion. Instead you would probably prefer that I disengage and not challenge your beliefs. I might do that later but not yet.

First of all, don't be nieve about the connotations of calling something a mob:
"The description of a member of an angry mob, or an angry mob in general, is generally negative, focusing on such aspects as their filth or ugliness. This can sometimes be done to undermine their beliefs/goals through an ad hominem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_mob

Second of all, one person does not represent a whole. While you draw from only one source (and if you click links in the forums, then several sources), I have drawn my opinion from discussions on the Escapist, Reddit, several blogs (particularly TotalBiscuit's), and plenty of discussions with friends and professors. From all this, I have found three general truths:
-Everyone that I have spoken to dislikes the extremists that are on both sides, particularly the doxxers.
-The GG supporters value open discussion and believe that they have been slandered through the use of censorship, dismissal, and unethical journalism. I haven't spoken to a single one that doesn't believe in the cause. These are entire groups whom wish to simply be seen for what they truly are.
-Anti-GG believes that the cause isn't even real and that every GG supporter either is an extremist or is an apologist. They dismiss any evidence that proves otherwise. In many blogs or articles, GG supporters are censored entirely. They use individuals to discredit groups and ignore when they are called out on it.

If you don't believe how common this is, then read these articles by TotalBiscuit:
http://blueplz.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html
http://blueplz.blogspot.com/2014/10/whose-side-am-i-on.html

 

[bobdole1979]

It's important from a consumer stand point to understand if the reviewer is protecting and informing the consumer or protecting and selling their friends game.

I shouldn't have to tell professionals to be professional and leave the personal stuff at the door but it seems many would rather hide this stuff than be honest.

No reviewer in the world does this. Because as I sated NORMAL WELL ADJUSTED ADULTS REALIZE THAT REVIEWS ARE BASED ON THE REVIEWERS PERSONAL BIAS!!!

If they weren't THEN EVERY SINGLE REVIEW WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/?search=guardi

Here we have Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Guardians of the Galaxies, one of the top grossing movies of the year. Notice how there is a wide range of reviews. Even reviews that give it the same score give it the score FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. In these reviews THEY DO NOT LIST ALL THE BIASES they have.

Because they don't have to. People already understand that.

So should I rate games down for not having an environmentally friendly message and showing cars that run on fossil fuels ?

Or should I maybe put the game first and my own personal politics second ?

I mean should hardcore PETA supports be fine rating Mario down because of the possibility the Tanooki suit is fur or maybe the Cat costume for that matter ?

YES YOU SHOULD!!!! That is what REVIEWERS ALREADY DO!!!!!! Peta has done that EXACT SAME THING http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/

Your personal preferences are what shape your play experience! This is why we have multiple reviews. Odds are a Woman isn't going to rate The Expendbles as high as say a Man would. And a Man wouldn't rate The Notebook as high as a Woman does.


How do you not understand this very basic concept?

 

[The Deadpool]

I did not call it proof; I did not call it conclusive. I called it evidence. It is.

Inconclusive evidence. As defined by the people searching it.

If you have reason to believe that all these studies started out

Yeah, just look at their hypothesis, and the lack of double blind studies.

And remember, STILL inconclusive results.

That's not semantics. Those are noticeably different definitions.

"The action of producing effect" and "the producer of an effect" are "noticeably different"?

Surely, you jest...

Just because you've decided that a certain part of their argument-- what they argue we should do-- is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. It's still part of their argument.

It IS irrelevant because the premise is WRONG. It doesn't matter what you want to do about the sky being pink: It's still blue.

Thompson wasn't wrong because he wanted the government to regulate something that causes children to murder children. He was wrong because he thought video games don't cause children to murder children.

Well, the hypothesis would only predict that if games had a uniformly negative influence, which I've already said I don't believe.

And, as we've covered, your belief isn't in discussion. Hers is.

Although I am confused. Are you saying the average gamer does NOT have a noticeably greater pressure towards misogyny than the average non gamer?

Well, no, it can still matter. If you earn 10 dollars for every 9 dollars you lose by paying for stuff, your net wealth increases by 1 dollar for every 10 earned, but that doesn't mean the 9 dollars are negligible. Losing 7 dollars for every 10 earned, for instance, would still make your net wealth grow more rapidly.

And there would be an easily noticeable difference between the person spending 9 an hour (gamers with the noticeably increased tendency towards misogyny) and those spending 7 an hour (NON gamers) at the end of the week (336 dollars more).

Again, this is not what we find. The people who play the most games and are most involved in the community are not shown to be any more sexist than the people who play the least or not at all.

If, to that end, developers and gamers need to be more aware of sexism in games, I don't think that's too much to ask.

IF we could show that would actually help, then we could start talking about what one considers sexist and what one considers not sexist.

 

[The Deadpool]

Actually Stephen Totilo confirmed the allegations were true even if you don't support the claims made in The Zoe post. What can't be determined is if the sex was somehow played into the coverage either paying forward or playing back.

What allegations? That they knew eachother? I'm talking about sexual accusations (as you were yourself, before the goalposts were moved). Stephen Totilo "confirmed" no such thing [http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346] about those accusations.

For those allegations, there is nothing to go on except lurid speculation, and the assumption of guilt.

not quite sure what you need as an admission of it happening I mean that article you linked says

" Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review. [...] our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true."

He does seem to deny the whole thing.

 

[bobdole1979]

Looking through it almost all of them focused on the film itself first and didn't rate it badly for not supporting their political views.

that is 100% incorrect if it was then EVERY REVIEW WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME I don't believe you looked at any of the reviews.

Another perfect example is why some reviewers hated Captain America 2 because it was very anti Obama. Did they their political beliefs before hand? Nope

So you're arguing I should write 4 times more about that than the rest of the game ?

No i'm saying YOU SHOULD let review things based on YOUR experiences.

I mean how much more do you need that they were together a full sex tape ?

I mean how much more do you need that they were together a full sex tape ?

The accusations being denied was positive coverage for sex (which strictly speaking is true he never did exchange that while at Kotaku) unless of course someone gets Matti Lesham to give an alternative version of the events at Gamejam

Now you have to prove that his review or coverage of the game would have been any different had he never met Zoe Quinn. Otherwise you are just guessing that it is.

How does this concept not make sense to you if you put all personal politics first infront of the game itself then you are not helping consumers you're political grandstanding using the game as a soapbox. It's egotistical and actually downright disrespectful to the product itself.

I can't link to it here but I have written a 99% subjective review as a joke to show the problem with putting the game last in a review. If you wish I'll PM you a link so you can see the problem with putting the game last in a video game review.

Because IT DOESN"T MATTER! All reviews are based on the reviewers opinion WHICH IS SHAPED BY THEIR BELIEFS. WELL ADJUSTED GROWN UPS UNDERSTAND THIS WHY DON"T YOU?

 

[The Deadpool]

Odds are a Woman isn't going to rate The Expendbles as high as say a Man would. And a Man wouldn't rate The Notebook as high as a Woman does.

That sounds terribly sexist...

 

[Netrigan]

And if said issue brought down their enjoyment of the game, then it's a legitimate reason to give the game a lower score. Especially in this day and age when many games are story driven, the content of the story plays a much more important part of the equation than before. What the story is saying and how it's saying it matters, especially if they're trying to draw me in with a particular character.

So should I rate games down for not having an environmentally friendly message and showing cars that run on fossil fuels ?

Or should I maybe put the game first and my own personal politics second ?

I mean should hardcore PETA supports be fine rating Mario down because of the possibility the Tanooki suit is fur or maybe the Cat costume for that matter ?

If it impacted your enjoyment of the game, yes. Absolutely.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the reviewer played Bayonetta and said, "alright, that was a shit ton of fun... now how does it stack up politically" and it's much more likely the two are intertwined.

Such as, I find Rockstar's habit of deconstructing controversial scenes to make sure the gamer understands they're not endorsing that kind of behavior to be irritating as fuck. Every fucking game has long-ass monologues in between missions, because they want you to know they subscribe to all the correct political opinions. And damn straight I'd dock them for that, because it's fucking annoying.

I know people who are hardcore against cruelty to animals, so hunting whales in Assassins Creed IV offends them on a pretty deep level (and weren't there some upgrades that required you to do it?). And why is there whale hunting in a game about pirate assassins, an activity not suited to either profession? Because we have to shove this giant world full of content, even if it's not terribly fun content.

One of the big problems I'm having with GG is over the whole review issues, because GG wants to push their opinions about review writing on everyone else. You are not the Thought Police. You don't get to dictate what reviews do and don't find enjoyable in their video games. We can only encourage every reviewer to give his honest opinion.

How is it difficult to have two separate things and allow things to be discussed in more depths ?
Movie Bob does just think by having two shows. Escape to the movies for reviews and The big picture to look at in depth themes and ideas present.

Why does there need to be a line drawn between the two? They're both opinion pieces. If you don't like the way the reviewer reviews games, you don't have to support them.

Instead, GamerGate is encouraging Nintendo punish them for writing a review you disagree with. And fuck that. Fuck that as hard as anything has been fucked before. I think that's fucking obscene.

Dev's bonuses should not be tied to game reviews. That's fucking emotional blackmail. If you like New Vegas, better bump up that score... never mind that we didn't make any substantial chance to the game since Fallout 3 and it's still got the same Biblical horde of bugs. Give them higher scores or it's on you when they have to lay off a bunch of people.

No I claimed rating down for not meeting your personal politics is a stupid idea. I also said rating up because the developer is your friend is dumb too.

How hard is it to give a score not based on personal politics ?

Because you seem to have this very limited perspective about it, and your unswerving belief that reviewers aren't putting those political beliefs into some kind of perspective.

I was about an old review controversy from 2000 (Japanese open-world game, can't be bothered to google the name) where Gamespot bowed to the pressure of Sega and the fans and gave the game an extra point. The writer of the review talked about his process and one of the things which made up the final score was called "Tilt", which is really just anything the reviewer thinks should affect the final score which isn't part of the other categories. In this case, he gave it a high Tilt because he thought the ambition of the game warranted a higher score than the individual categories allows.

Now I'm not a particular fan of this grading system (I don't think you can quantify the graphics, sounds, etc.) and come up with a meaningful result; but even way back then they knew there were other factors which pushed the score up or down. So take the Tropico 5 review, where he gave it a not-bad score (6.5/10). He knocked it down for its sense of humor (which he thought was juvenile) and for the way it consistently portrayed the natives as totally backward in service of its bad sense of humor; two things which he made clear bugged him throughout the game and drug down his enjoyment. Seeing as humor is a key part of the game's appeal, not liking the humor is a perfectly valid reason to not enjoy the game.

Yet it's on the time-line of journalistic scandals. Bulshit. Bull-fucking-shit.

Because linking bonuses to sales would just be madness.

And Gaters being Gaters go after the reviewers who seem to be doing nothing more than expressing their honest opinion instead of the people who made this mess by linking said bonuses to review scores in the first place. They're the ones saying "you can't give lower scores, think of the devs"... and that's supporting the hopelessly corrupt system that is trying to blackmail reviewers into keeping those high scores flowing.

You can't give low scores because you ate a you had a bad sandwich at lunch.

And you shouldn't put dirty underwear on your head. What's your point?

Tying review scores to bonuses and trying to hold that over the heads of reviewers is a bullshit tactic. They should give their honest opinion and let the chips fall where they may.

Notice how I keep using the word "honest" and you keep using the word "politics"... it's because I don't give a rat's ass what the politics of the reviewer are, so long as he gives an honest assessment of the game based on his natural reaction to the game. If you didn't like Duke Nukem because of the constant sexism, then it's bullshit to say "commenting on sexism has no place in a game review, therefore I shall write a review of the game based on a hypothetical experience with Duke Nukem that didn't include the sexism I found so irritating." That's not an honest review. That's a bullshit review. He's just making some shit up to make other people happy.

But we're not supposed to talk about those ethics. Those ethics are aren't journalistic in nature, therefore are of much less importance. God forbid, we hold anyone else's feet the fire. Someone reviewed Bayonetta wrong. That's the real corruption.

Okay, I'm ranting, but, seriously, honest reviews are the cornerstone of the system. The reason I don't trust the system is I see the same damn opinions from everyone. I've got three reviewers I seek out when I'm unsure about buying a game: Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and Angry Joe. I'm sure there are others, but those three guys don't seem to give a damn what anyone else thinks and will straight-up attack a game they think is lacking. Was Saints Row 3 fun? Yup. Was is a big disappoint for SR fans? Oh, yeah. And someone like Angry Joe just went after all the ways he thought it came up short. I love that Jim Sterline gave Assassins Creed 2 an insanely low score. If he didn't like it, that's exactly what he should have given it. We need more like him.

We don't need the bloody Thought Police cracking down on every voice that doesn't fit in with the herd.

and we don't need reviewers docking scores because the game didn't make their lunch time sandwich good. Or because they don't believe the game is pushing a progressive enough stance and is dare I say it being neutral ?

In your opinion, and I think your opinion is bullshit. I don't want a reviewer to lie about his experience with a game to appease the likes of you. He had a reaction to that game. You may not like his reaction or agree with his reaction, but that's his reaction.

And there are far too many people encouraging them to lie about that reaction. Maybe it's the politically correct forces you complain about, who want said reviewer to lie about having fun and espouse all the right politics. Maybe it's fan who doesn't give a rat's ass that Halo 8's single player campaign is a piece of shit, the game deserves a 10/10 for its multiplayer alone. Maybe it's the corporate masters who don't want to spend advertising dollars to a site that says their games suck.

And fuck all those people. And fuck anyone who wants to inject even more bullshit into the system by demanding game reviews conform to their preferences. Not every game review is aimed at you. They should express a wide variety of opinions. Sites like Metacritic are nothing more than a tool, a place to give a general sense of the reaction and link you to a bunch of different reviews to help the consumer. It should never, ever be tied to bonuses.

 

[bobdole1979]

Odds are a Woman isn't going to rate The Expendbles as high as say a Man would. And a Man wouldn't rate The Notebook as high as a Woman does.

That sounds terribly sexist...

how do you figure? You don't think that most women would have a different perspective on The Expendables then most men? Same with the Notebook. Its a fact that more men went to see the Expendables and more women went to see The Notebook.

or do you not actually know what sexism is?

 

[The Deadpool]

Odds are a Woman isn't going to rate The Expendbles as high as say a Man would. And a Man wouldn't rate The Notebook as high as a Woman does.

That sounds terribly sexist...

how do you figure? You don't think that most women would have a different perspective on The Expendables then most men? Same with the Notebook. Its a fact that more men went to see the Expendables and more women went to see The Notebook.

or do you not actually know what sexism is?

You should chat with some women. Most of the ones I've met take offense to "Girls don't like [blank]" type statements.

 

[bobdole1979]

Odds are a Woman isn't going to rate The Expendbles as high as say a Man would. And a Man wouldn't rate The Notebook as high as a Woman does.

That sounds terribly sexist...

how do you figure? You don't think that most women would have a different perspective on The Expendables then most men? Same with the Notebook. Its a fact that more men went to see the Expendables and more women went to see The Notebook.

or do you not actually know what sexism is?

You should chat with some women. Most of the ones I've met take offense to "Girls don't like [blank]" type statements.

that isn't what i said was it? I made a statement based on facts. Good try though

 

[The Deadpool]

that isn't what i said was it? I made a statement based on facts. Good try though

You are more like your opponents than you think...

 

[Netrigan]

Although I do feel the need to add one addition to my ranting on the subject of reviews.

I support Christian reviews. I support Parenting reviews. If they conform to the basic standard of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, then they deserve a place there. If you do not enjoy something because of your religious views, then it's a perfectly valid opinion... not one I share, but still perfectly valid and one likely shared by many other people. I encourage these critics to get their voices out there.

Parenting reviews are a bit different as there seems to be two standards happening at the same time and they often keep both separate for exactly this reason. First standard is "Do I, The Parent, Enjoy This". Second standard is "Should I Let My Kids See This?" The second standard has everything to do with the type of content, not the enjoyability of said content. A Clockwork Orange is a very enjoyable film indeed, but should get a zero in the second category.

The reason I'm perfectly happy to let people bring their personal politics into any review (game or otherwise) is because I find it's often part of the over-all enjoyment process. I know there are many Borderlands fans who cringe at various things in the story, based on their personal beliefs. Whether it be "they're shoe-horning homosexuality into the game" or "they're mocking my fanboy beliefs", these things do affect people's enjoyment. It's silly to say they don't.

 

[bobdole1979]

that isn't what i said was it? I made a statement based on facts. Good try though

You are more like your opponents than you think...

you really don't get it do you? What i said wasn't sexist but fact. It is a fact that more women saw and enjoyed the Notebook then Expendbles and vice versa.

But please point out how that is sexist otherwise you are just trolling.... or maybe not maybe you really don't understand what sexism is and that is why you are having such a hard time with this whole ethics in journalism