The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

aattss

New member
May 13, 2012
106
0
0
http://www.cracked.com/article_19262_6-glitches-that-accidentally-invented-modern-gaming.html

fyi it began as a bad mouse click (partly)
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
rbstewart7263 said:
You're confusing video game characters with actual people. Women who make conscientious decisions about their bodies and what to put on them are empowered. But video game characters don't make decisions about what they wear; the people designing them do, and those people are typically men. Too much emphasis on the sexuality of female characters is degrading to women.


Then more women should make games.


If feminism is equivilent to empowerment then let us seek what is more empowering. Lets also ask ourselves which one will get the job done more efficiently and faster.


Women taking control and making the videogames and characters they want to see?

or

Feminist journalists eyeballing and critiquing the work that your average male game developer makes. criticizing his work because it doesnt suit your vision of empowerment until said game you want to see is made.

And I dont want to hear about hiring practices and ea and such and such. The creators of braid and fez worked without having to have these accoutrements and if you are empowered; if you are in fact mine and the equal of every man out there making these games. then you should get out there and make some damn videogames.

You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.

cobra_ky said:
Ramzal said:
And honestly, if you judge any of them just for their clothing (And by you, I mean anyone) you are as judgmental and objectifying as anyone else is. I mean really, the pre-bias that someone is either lacking in intelligence or in self respect due to the clothes they are wearing is one that has got to go. I've seen it too many times when a woman is simply dressed a certain way and immediately put in "Skank" or "Whore" bin of humanity. One of the most intelligent women I know and has a 3.9 GPA wears short shorts that come to the edge of her butt because she feels comfortable in them. It's a bit of a side issue that I am stating here, however I have a really big problem when people outcry because of a lack of clothing.

I'm even confused by it. A larger majority of women at one point began to wear less clothing to oppose men who at the time demanded that women cover up more to decrease the chances of anyone looking at their wives. But now that men find it sexy or someone if comfortable expressing themselves in a fashion sense, it's degrading?
You're confusing video game characters with actual people. Women who make conscientious decisions about their bodies and what to put on them are empowered. But video game characters don't make decisions about what they wear; the people designing them do, and those people are typically men. Too much emphasis on the sexuality of female characters is degrading to womem.
That's a double standard. You are involving how women feel about created characters being shown but you cannot relate it to how normal women being dressed. You're kind of making a hole of bias that it only works one way. My point is that there are women who dress as revealing as women created in video games. Dressing yourself is part of self expression and self comfort.

Truth be told, if anything sends a message about women dressed scantily in games, it shows that the character herself is comfortable with herself and has no issue with wearing a certain kind of clothing around others. Think about that for a second. There has been at least more than once that everyone has stopped and said "You know what...? I don't think I want to wear this shirt out. It's not something I want to wear in public." It's a form of self consciousness.

I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."



This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?



Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?

The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.

You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.

Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.

I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?

In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Ramzal said:
That's a double standard. You are involving how women feel about created characters being shown but you cannot relate it to how normal women being dressed. You're kind of making a hole of bias that it only works one way. My point is that there are women who dress as revealing as women created in video games. Dressing yourself is part of self expression and self comfort.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Video game characters do not dress themselves. They are "dressed" by their artists and designers, who are the actual people expressing themselves through this fictional character.

Ramzal said:
Truth be told, if anything sends a message about women dressed scantily in games, it shows that the character herself is comfortable with herself and has no issue with wearing a certain kind of clothing around others. Think about that for a second. There has been at least more than once that everyone has stopped and said "You know what...? I don't think I want to wear this shirt out. It's not something I want to wear in public." It's a form of self consciousness.
You can't assume intention like that. Everyone's also stopped and said "ugh, i really don't want to wear this but it's the only thing clean." And there are plenty of people, of both genders, who aren't comfortable with themselves regardless of what they're wearing.

Ramzal said:
I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."
The difference is that video games, by and large, provide a distorted view of what women are or can be. Their sexuality is overemphasized and other aspects of their personality are diminished.

Ramzal said:


This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?
That is Tila Tequila, who has since been assaulted by one partner, had a fiancee die on her, and checked herself into rehab for her drug problem after she tried to kill herself.

She certainly doesn't have an "air of confidence" now and i hope nobody would try to see her as a role model.

Ramzal said:


Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?
That woman is in the middle of filming a music video. She's acting.

It's telling that both your examples are celebrities who have to maintain a public image. Virtually all forms of media, not just video games, have a problem with oversexualizing women. What about all the normal, everyday women out there, who are perfectly capable of expressing confidence without revealing clothing? Go outside and look at the women who are simply going about their daily lives around you. How many are wearing as little as the women in your examples are? More importantly, how many aren't?

Ramzal said:
The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.
You don't understand. We're not talking about an individual work of art here. We're talking about a mass media industry that determines what kind of games are available to the mass market. The type of games they produce are incredibly narrow in the ways in which they depict women. Nobody's talking about censorship here, we're talking about a broadening in the ways women are depicted, so that they have more bearing on reality.

The problem isn't that attractive female characters exist. There's nothing wrong with a video game character wearing revealing clothing, if it's in keeping with the character's personality. The problem is that there aren't enough characters who don't. Of course women should be able to choose what they wear, but they don't get a realistic image of what's available to them from the media.

Ramzal said:
You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.
Again, i have no idea what you're saying here. I'm biased towards actual human beings?

Ramzal said:
Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.
The word 'degrading' has a lot of definitions. No one asked you to pick just one. Nor did anybody ask you to decide what is or is not humiliating for anyone else.

Ramzal said:
I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?
i suppose a business suit would be more appropriate for a swordfight, but again, the problem isn't that sexy characters exist. The problem is that the vast majority of female characters are sexualized while very few of the male characters are.

Ramzal said:
In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.
Don't change the subject. As deplorable as that man's behavior was, it doesn't make the way women are depicted in media any more acceptable.
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
cobra_ky said:
Chatney said:
Ramzal said:
I feel obliged to chip in here and thank you for making such a good, comprehensive argument on the topic at hand. Up until now, it's been looking kind of empty on this side of the issue.
If you could help explain it to me at all, i'd appreciate it. The English isn't too great and frankly i can hardly understand what he's saying :/
I'm sorry, what? My English isn't to great? My message was clear. Grammatical errors are present, due to a tenancy of mine (No one is perfect) however it is not difficult to read at all. Four others have read my post--from my screen and could understand it. I don't want to turn this into a flame war, however do not insult my capability to express myself or my opinion through writing, or dismissing my point by claiming that it cannot be understood through basic knowledge of the English language. It's superlatively rude.

For example:

If you could help explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. His English isn't very clear and frankly I can hardly understand what he's saying. :/
See? Not the most polite action to take.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Ramzal said:
You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.
You may not have noticed that that is a completely different person, who copied and pasted part of my argument because apparently they don't know how to quote. My actual reply is above.

They were trying to respond to me, and i might was well do so now:

rbstewart7263 said:
Then more women should make games.


If feminism is equivilent to empowerment then let us seek what is more empowering. Lets also ask ourselves which one will get the job done more efficiently and faster.


Women taking control and making the videogames and characters they want to see?

or

Feminist journalists eyeballing and critiquing the work that your average male game developer makes. criticizing his work because it doesnt suit your vision of empowerment until said game you want to see is made.

And I dont want to hear about hiring practices and ea and such and such. The creators of braid and fez worked without having to have these accoutrements and if you are empowered; if you are in fact mine and the equal of every man out there making these games. then you should get out there and make some damn videogames.
Whether you want to hear it or not, employment discrimination exists and that makes it harder for women to get into the industry, especially a decision-making position at a major publisher like EA, where you can actually control the types of games that make it to the mass market and are highly promoted and publicized.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Ramzal said:
cobra_ky said:
Chatney said:
Ramzal said:
I feel obliged to chip in here and thank you for making such a good, comprehensive argument on the topic at hand. Up until now, it's been looking kind of empty on this side of the issue.
If you could help explain it to me at all, i'd appreciate it. The English isn't too great and frankly i can hardly understand what he's saying :/
I'm sorry, what? My English isn't to great? My message was clear. Grammatical errors are present, due to a tenancy of mine (No one is perfect) however it is not difficult to read at all. Four others have read my post--from my screen and could understand it. I don't want to turn this into a flame war, however do not insult my capability to express myself or my opinion through writing, or dismissing my point by claiming that it cannot be understood through basic knowledge of the English language. It's superlatively rude.

For example:

If you could help explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. His English isn't very clear and frankly I can hardly understand what he's saying. :/
See? Not the most polite action to take.
i apologize then. i was looking for clarification but i myself was not expressing my thoughts clearly either.
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
I have no idea what you're saying here. Video game characters do not dress themselves. They are "dressed" by their artists and designers, who are the actual people expressing themselves through this fictional character.
If you cannot comprehend my point there, then you do not understand the definition of a double standard and I cannot be of assistance. Also you don't seem to have the ability to take a character for what it is. It's an idea of a person. The only thing stopping it from being an actual human being is the lack of an actual, physical body. Very rarely is it in games that every woman is dressed the same. You are generalizing and even placing a blame onto someone for simply creating an idea.

But for arguments sake, lets go off of the thought that you are right and that it's 100% the artists idea to make a woman dress like that... what is your point? It's expression. Last I was aware, people are free to express themselves in any way they wish. To tread on that is to attempt to censor expression. Which is an action of oppression.

While I do NOT condone this, that kind of action is why some men refer to feminist as femi-nazis. Attempts are made to oppress expression or actions for the beneficial gain of one party, regardless of the costs.

You can't assume intention like that. Everyone's also stopped and said "ugh, i really don't want to wear this but it's the only thing clean." And there are plenty of people, of both genders, who aren't comfortable with themselves regardless of what they're wearing.
It's not an assumption, it's fact. A woman who weighs 300 pounds but can walk outside with a tank top on in 90 degrees is more comfortable with herself than a woman who is 130 and wears a long sleeve because she doesn't want people to notice the hair on her arms. I know more women than you are giving me credit for, and in my spare time I do inquiry over this subject with them.

More often it's a subject of not wearing a certain type of clothing because of an image you give off, or a missed image you may.

Ramzal said:
I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."
The difference is that video games, by and large, provide a distorted view of what women are or can be. Their sexuality is overemphasized and other aspects of their personality are diminished.
That is an inflated claim and for that to be validated you would need to speak for the majority of women in the world. Which, I can assure you, you do not and cannot. This kind of behavior that you are projecting does more harm to women than good.

Ramzal said:


This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?
That is Tila Tequila, who has since been assaulted by one partner, had a fiancee die on her, and checked herself into rehab for her drug problem after she tried to kill herself.

She certainly doesn't have an "air of confidence" now and i hope nobody would try to see her as a role model.
So because she was sexually assaulted that makes her success invalidated? Because her fiancee died on her, that makes any accomplishment she may have obtained for nothing? And yes, she tried to kill herself. Over something that is very serious and diminishing. No one could blame her for that action because it's a terrible thing to go through. She hit a bottom, but that's how humans work, we hit a bottom, we take a drastic action and we build ourselves from that.

In order to keep living past that attempt, she'd need confidence, power, and self belief that life is worth living. How dare you attempt to cheapen someones life struggles and hardships just to make a point. If anything she serves as an example of how strong a human being is, while how frail and random our lives could be--regardless of our position in life. I would have no shame for a daughter of mine to look up to her.

Ramzal said:


Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?
That woman is in the middle of filming a music video. She's acting.

It's telling that both your examples are celebrities who have to maintain a public image. Virtually all forms of media, not just video games, have a problem with oversexualizing women. What about all the normal, everyday women out there, who are perfectly capable of expressing confidence without revealing clothing? Go outside and look at the women who are simply going about their daily lives around you. How many are wearing as little as the women in your examples are? More importantly, how many aren't?
I am glad you asked me this question, because yesterday on my way back home from an interview I decided to stop and sit in the grass as I watched people pass by. It was 70 degrees with high humidity. I thought about my own argument and considered the possibility of my claim being erroneous. So I took the time to count how many women showed more features of their bodies than women who wore full pants or a t-shirt.

Needless to say I was quite surprised and slightly grossed out by old women wearing revealing tank tops. Out of the 52 women who passed by my vision an overwhelming majority of 47 of them were wearing short shorts, tank tops, running shorts, or just decorative clothing with revealing cleavage. My wife being one of those who was wearing a low cut shirt as well.

Does this suffice? Or do you intend to state that 47 women--including elderly--are bringing shame to women for simply wearing what they are comfortable in?

Ramzal said:
The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.

What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.
You don't understand. We're not talking about an individual work of art here. We're talking about a mass media industry that determines what kind of games are available to the mass market. The type of games they produce are incredibly narrow in the ways in which they depict women. Nobody's talking about censorship here, we're talking about a broadening in the ways women are depicted, so that they have more bearing on reality.

The problem isn't that attractive female characters exist. There's nothing wrong with a video game character wearing revealing clothing, if it's in keeping with the character's personality. The problem is that there aren't enough characters who don't. Of course women should be able to choose what they wear, but they don't get a realistic image of what's available to them from the media.
I gave you a list of women in games and 9/10 of them do wear not revealing clothing, are beautiful and deep characters. When comparing that list to men, female characters have a vast overwhelming number in comparison. I find myself wondering why I am debating with evidence and you are not. What female characters are you referring to that are dressed a certain way and it does not fit their character?

Your statement, while with well intention if bare-bones without examples, evidence, or specific claim. I am not trying to shoot your argument down, but I do wish to see some examples of your claim, so that I may either agree with you or have a chance to challenge it. Without anything to back your words, you come short.

Ramzal said:
You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.
Again, i have no idea what you're saying here. I'm biased towards actual human beings?
I am saying you have an agenda driven double standard.

Ramzal said:
Edit: Also, eyes over here people.

Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.

"This is degrading to women."

Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.

In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.
The word 'degrading' has a lot of definitions. No one asked you to pick just one. Nor did anybody ask you to decide what is or is not humiliating for anyone else.
1) "to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt: He felt they were degrading him by making him report to the supervisor. "

2)"to lower in character or quality; debase. "

3)"to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title, especially as a punishment: degraded from director to assistant director. "

4)"to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc. "

5)"Physical Geography . to wear down by erosion, as hills. Compare aggrade. "

These are the definitions of "Degrading." I will use Ivy in each of these explanations.

1) In order for Ivy to be degrading to women, a character must call her foolish or "slutty" for attempting to fight as she is dressed, and while that occurs, she has to confirm their claim by having her pride be in question. This does not happen, and even when a character attempts to question her pride in any of the games, she returns with a confident statement as words have a duller edge than a blade, or simply get right to slicing them because she doesn't have time to play "We're in the fifth grade."

2) Her quality is not lowered by her clothing. She is an effective fighter, and is comfortable with her capabilities and limitations.

3) Her father tried this. It didn't work out for him very well in the long run.

4) She is strong, intense, and brave. No fault there.

5) She is not a rock.

In order for women as a whole to be debased by Ivy and her clothing, it would need to be taken to a personal level. In which is opening yourself to playing the victim in a victimless crime/lack of crime.

Ramzal said:
I will give you an example of women being degraded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw

This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw

This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?
i suppose a business suit would be more appropriate for a swordfight, but again, the problem isn't that sexy characters exist. The problem is that the vast majority of female characters are sexualized while very few of the male characters are.
No, it would not. As a Quan Dao user in training, I used to practice frequently with my partner Mary. She used a Chinese straight sword mainly or daggers. She had expressed that wearing extremely restrictive clothing while using a sword is much like setting yourself up to fail. The clothes promote restrictive movement, while using a sword you have to flow like water. Either strong tides that are slow or fast waves that are small, you have to move in a certain way, but tight clothing limits this.

That is not true that very few male characters are sexualized in comparison to female. Sexuality of expression for females comes mainly from the breasts, legs, and rear. Males it is focused on the biceps, quads, shoulders, and back. The larger majority of male characters have extremely detained muscles in these areas. If it's not more often that males are sexualized it's just as often.

Ramzal said:
In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.

I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.
Don't change the subject. As deplorable as that man's behavior was, it doesn't make the way women are depicted in media any more acceptable.
I did not change the subject. I am stating that the effort (And now, money) that is put to fight degrading portrayal of women in video games is wasted and misdirected. Fighting for women equality is not something the majority of people are against. However this is not wear that fight is needed as more women in video games are powerful enough and capable enough as it is.

You mean to tell me that you would rather give your money, to someone woman who wants to research womens equality in video games rather than giving that money to a cause to knock a war criminal who kidnaps, kills and rapes women in Africa? This cause is as important as that is? Or is it just not an issue because it's not your home it's happening to, but Ivy could be in your PS3 so it's your problem?
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
cobra_ky said:
Ramzal said:
You already made this point. And I responded to it. You may have missed my response. If you didn't, you (And I hope this isn't the case) flat out ignored it.

You may not have noticed that that is a completely different person, who copied and pasted part of my argument because apparently they don't know how to quote. My actual reply is above.

They were trying to respond to me, and i might was well do so now:
I apologize then. Any comment I have made at that time or onward is do to a misunderstanding. But that person just made a mistake. No need to assume they don't know how to use the function. Mistakes happen.
 

rbstewart7263

New member
Nov 2, 2010
1,246
0
0
I did make a mistake in regard to the quote function. the problem with posting such things late at night.

In response to the comment that there is bias when it comes to the hiring practices of ea or whoever i will agree with you on that.


Depending on who you get as your interviewer you may be discriminated against for being male,female,white,black etc etc. however.

I believe i said that one does not need these kinds of things to make a videogame. You dont have to work for ea to do it. The guy who made fez was working for himself. the guys who did super meat boy, also not working for ea.

they are men whos to say that women too cannot create the same level of art of the same quality; under similar circumstances.


I agree with feminist tenants that a person should have free will over there life irregardless of whats between there legs.

I do not agree with the majority of methods that they use in an attempt to achieve this. blogging and critiquing the art of someone else to try and police them into creating things that better support your views spreads alot of negativity. The pointing fingers the nihilism of it all does nothing to help better games and art.


instead of expecting men to make the games women want women should make the games women want so that we all can learn from each other. If I for example created a piece of art and you told me everything you thought was wrong with it without telling me why you dont like it or ways to make a positive change to said piece of art than your not helping your just bitching.

What I believe is simple if you want something like this you need to do it yourself. dont preach to me about female power and then act powerless and not do for yourself when others before you have done so. We have plenty of feminist bloggers ready to tell us how our art is wrong, not enough feminists are creating art to show us what is right, if in fact there belief is in fact an empowering belief.


Now go make some indie games goddamnit! lol
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
DrVornoff said:
PercyBoleyn said:
I don't need you for anything, I'm just trying to make you, and everyone else for that matter, understand that this isn't a clear cut case of the evil mysoginistic trolls harassing the poor feminist woman. I mean Jesus fucking Christ a bunch of YouTube kids called her a slut and suddenly every single gaming website on the internet picks up on it, calls gamers a bunch of mysognistic pieces of shit and downplays the importance of the men's rights movement. Is that not at the very least unsettling for you? These are websites with actual fucking influence over peoples opinions. If you still think it's not a big deal just read this fucking thread starting from page one.
Snapping at me isn't helping.

I never denied that the stereotypes are a problem. Where do you think I said they weren't?

Calibanbutcher said:
If I was to log into a feminist forum and start spamming about men's rights and how I need money to make a documentary about men's rights and then proceeded to insult everyone seeking discussion with me, would still accuse the members of said forum of being misandrious if they finally gave in and started insulting me?
No. But if they spammed the fuck out of you back and harassed you on social media, that would still be a dick move. Amazing as it may seem, I am capable of logical consistency, thank you.
Aaand that's where the problem with 4chan comes into play:
usually it is impossible to find and harass someone on 4chan, since, everyone is anonymous, so no usernames, which means, that in order to retaliate, they have to go somewhere where they can identify you, case in point:
Yotube. She (or someone pretending to be her) spammed them with a youtube video and reacts adversly to the youtube video being spammed with mean comments, which is understandable, yet it was to be expected and not necessarily because 4chan is a bad place.
She / an impostor came to a place the 4chan users like, insults the people there (sorry, no screenshot, didn't think I would be needing them as evidence) which results in the video, which was spammed, being harassed.

It might be that someone pretended to be her, since no-one was able to verify that she herself spammed 4chan and proving the opposite is also next to impossible, so if it wasn't her who spammed 4chan, then the true culprit is whoever spammed 4chan in her name.
And yes, in some of the threads, insults were directed at the 4channers themselves, although I did not take screenshots and, again, I can not prove that it was her, nor can I disprove that it was her.

Anyways, spamming an anonymous site with a video, which basically means that you give everyone a way to contact you (your target), will probably result in a strong, hostile reaction.
 

goliath6711

New member
May 3, 2010
127
0
0
Lilani said:
Japan isn't totally innocent, you know. Ivy from Soul Calibur is always brought up in these sorts of discussions, and both she and her games are the products of Capcom. And she is rightly used as an example, because there is absolutely no reason for her to be dressed like that. It is not explained by her character or her storyline. The only reason she's like that is for gratuitous oogling.
I'm sure this has probably been brought up already, I didn't read through all the posts yet. And if it hasn't, I'll be amazed. But Ivy from Soul Calibur and her games are products of Namco, not Capcom. If you're going to berate something, at least be accurate about it.
 

hooksashands

New member
Apr 11, 2010
550
0
0
MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to ***** about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
hooksashands said:
MovieBob tries to explain why women are the only ones who deserve to ***** about not feeling comfortable with their body image and this upsets me some. I refuse to go along with this utterly insane idea that heterosexual and gay men alike insert muscled, hairless dudes into their games because it makes them feel better about their own body image. No, it fucking doesn't. I can't stress how inadequate I feel next to a perfect-bodied homunculus.

Telling a man he has no right to reject Dante's chiseled granite abdomen is like telling a girl she has no right to reject Lara's impossibly perky DD-cup.

Like it or not, Bob, the door swings both ways.
That's the hardest thing to explain to some* feminists, believe you me. I get into arguments with people over things like that all the time, it's actually nuts.