I think the same can be said about any serious consideration of video games so in this instance there is a compound pressure.
That's possible. I've certainly seen non-feminist critiques of video games, even very well thought-out and presented, get attacked furiously. In those cases, I suspect a lot of it comes down to some people having difficulty separating criticism of the things they like from themselves.
This, pretty much. Mostly stuff like violence in video games, I also remember some uproar when people complained about Resident Evil...4? 5? having black zombies. Black zombies in a game that takes place in Africa was considered to be racist...some uproar.
Oh, let's not forget about the ending controversy in the case of ME3. Oh boy. Everyone who said that he liked the endings was shot down.
Sigvatr wrote: You don't get flamed because you're a woman, you get flamed because you're an enemy in a competitive gaming enviroment.
Online gaming is pretty onerous by all accounts. But I don't think it's gender-blind by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, we aren't really talking about online gaming. We're talking about a woman talking about how female charatcers are portrayed in video games. To wit, no one has yet made a beat 'em up of Jean-Maxime Moris, despite his recent comments about the industry and female characters regarding Remember Me -- despite the obvious fact that this is part of the game's publicity (i.e., he has just as much a profit motive as Anita Sarkeesian).
That was RE5. But that was a small group not necessarily of gamers or inside the industry saying something insanely stupid and gamers pointing out the stupidity. Same thing happened when Fox did that news report on sex in Mass Effect, with an expert witness who hadn't even seen any material relating to the game and who cited sources that had nothing to do with video games or Mass Effect (EDIT: Or even sex).
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: people having difficulty separating criticism of the things they like from themselves.
This is why I think Sarkeesian's initial point in her vid -- that problematic things can be enjoyable -- is so important. It seems to me that many people in her audience missed that, for whatever reason.
I think the same can be said about any serious consideration of video games so in this instance there is a compound pressure.
That's possible. I've certainly seen non-feminist critiques of video games, even very well thought-out and presented, get attacked furiously. In those cases, I suspect a lot of it comes down to some people having difficulty separating criticism of the things they like from themselves.
This, pretty much. Mostly stuff like violence in video games, I also remember some uproar when people complained about Resident Evil...4? 5? having black zombies. Black zombies in a game that takes place in Africa was considered to be racist...some uproar.
I don't want to turn the thread into a discussion of black zombies, but having played the game I think you are oversimplifying it. A white dude stomping on the head of a black dude and crushing it like a watermelon is not really a neutral image. There is other imagery in the game as well that, even not being an expert in race relations, attempts to evoke historical racist imagery.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'll bring up one reason some women "don't find it an issue": because there's immense pressure to "not find it an issue."
Actually I'd disagree (EDIT: Actually no, I agree, I just want to clarify what I think the pressure is). I'd think most women don't find it an issue because culturally, they are indoctrinated like most us into the ideal of what a woman is. They don't see a problem with it because our culture says there isn't one. Group think at work.
I wouldn't describe that as group think, but a lot of these influences are pretty subtle. I bring up the pressure to not find it an issue because you can see it in most places you see these discussions - like in this thread, for instance.
There are a lot of people who seem very invested in sexism not existing and who are prepared to try to shout down any dissenting voice.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: people having difficulty separating criticism of the things they like from themselves.
This is why I think Sarkeesian's initial point in her vid -- that problematic things can be enjoyable -- is so important. It seems to me that many people in her audience missed that, for whatever reason.
It's really important that people understand it.
It seems to be an enduring problem around sexism, racism, whatever, in our culture. The thing is, everyone is exposed to sexist and racist ideas to some extent and it's difficult to impossible to not be affected by them to a degree. Having those influences doesn't make you a horrible sexist pariah who should be shunned; it just makes you a person in our culture. There's no class separation here - we're all sexist. There's no attempt to judge or mark or condemn anyone. There are attempts to examine people's actions and how they fit into the big picture.
"Context is all-important" seems to be my theme, here, so: it's important to be able to place criticism into the correct context, not as a condemnation, but as examining a thing to see how it fits into our culture and might be problematic there.
He started it yes, but the story got propagated by mainstream media. It wasn't even initially picked up on by gamers until it got mentioned on CNN (or maybe it was MSNBC). Newsweek isn't really something people read to catch up on games news.
I wouldn't describe that as group think, but a lot of these influences are pretty subtle. I bring up the pressure to not find it an issue because you can see it in most places you see these discussions - like in this thread, for instance.
It's not just about an overt pressure though. I use the term group think because I find pressure to vague a term to describe what is happening. A lot of people don't care because they don't think there is a problem. Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The push for equality just collapsed in its wake, because people by and large assumed the war was over. Sure there was still a lot of push but by and large even though we still see a lot of racism, people don't think of it as a problem. Likewise, women were given equality under the law, so people at large assume the war is over and that anyone still fighting the fight is a misandrist (and it isn't helped that the crazy ones get a lot of the press).
When the idea gets brought up that sexism is still a big problem the thought of the group is "nah you're just crazy, no one is that sexist anymore" and everyone else (especially men probably) not being that invested in the first place just nod their heads. They give it no thought. Women I think is more problematic, but I think in much the same way they think the war is over. Many women could get being the fight for political rights, but I think they have a harder time getting invested in the fight for cultural equality cause they still see women in a traditional role in many respects and never question that.
Manchu wrote: Online gaming is pretty onerous by all accounts. But I don't think it's gender-blind by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, we aren't really talking about online gaming. We're talking about a woman talking about how female charatcers are portrayed in video games. To wit, no one has yet made a beat 'em up of Jean-Maxime Moris, despite his recent comments about the industry and female characters regarding Remember Me -- despite the obvious fact that this is part of the game's publicity (i.e., he has just as much a profit motive as Anita Sarkeesian).
I was specifically referring to the video with the interview she gave; the video was on the last page.
Sigvatr wrote: You don't get flamed because you're a woman
Scientific research says otherwise. Women are three times more likely to be flamed than men-- simply for having a female voice.
The study has been linked to and mentioned numerous times. "Communication in multiplayer gaming: Examining player responses to gender cues" by Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff and Lindsey M. Rose.
Findings were summarized as such:
Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice.
And the study also included bits like this:
On several occasions the female condition was exposed to derogatory gendered language. For example, in one particular game nearly every utterance made by the female condition was met with a negative response by a particular gamer. When the female condition said ‘hi everybody’, the other gamer responded with ‘shut up you whore’ followed a few seconds later with ‘she is a [racial slur] lover’. When the female condition said, ‘alright team let’s do this’, the other gamer replied, ‘feth you, you stupid slut.’
About that, I've been thinking, was that necessarily a sexist comment from the start?
So -- even Megan Marie says she is aware that the interviewer's question was a reference to Triumph the Insult Comic's Star Wars convention interview bit.
Was Triumph's bit sexist? To put a sharper point on it, was Triumph's bit sexist in a way that is hurtful and offensive to a reasonable person?
If not, then what about this interviewer's comment was different so as to make it hurtfully sexist?
If there is no meaningful difference, then sexism came in later. Megan Marie called the guy out for being unprofessional. By her account, he then called her an oversensitive feminist. That, as far as we know, is when things became explicitly about sexism.
The reason I bring this up is because the interviewer's comment is called, in the article posted by Ahtman, "inexcusable behavior." That strikes me as overblown. What should be said is that the way the cosplayers were dressed or the fact that they were women, things like that don't excuse his "behavior."
("Behavior" in this context is an extremely loaded term, of course.)
Calling the behavior, at least as far as the initial question itself, "inexcusable" is too much. One possibility is that the guy screwed up a Triumph reference joke.
In that same article, one of the cosplayers in question says she has cosplayed in far more revealing outfits in the past without garnering any similar comments.
But here's how it went down this time:
“I’m pretty sure my initial reaction was one of those stunned chuckles, but I think I was too caught off guard to be angry or upset at the moment,” she said. “It wasn’t until later when the shock wore off and analyzing what happened that I realized how messed up the whole thing was. I’ve been victimized before and none of the times have I ever reacted immediately. I don’t know if it’s the way I’m programmed to just smile and accept or if it’s just a fear of making a scene.”
In the moment, she was not upset or angry. Later on, she realized his behavior was "messed up."
She says that she was not angry at the time because of some kind of social programming/pressure, which I believe exists as a matter of gender and beyond. (In American middle-class culture, people are expected to minimize embarrassing situations.) Could there not also be some pressure/programming, perhaps generated by subsequent controversy (there at the scene and later on in interviews like this one), to assign greater significance to what happened than she felt at the time?
I think something like this applies to what happened between Megan Marie and the interviewer. She did not hear the interviewer's question but instead saw an uncomfortable look on the cosplayers' faces. That put her on the attack (she "moved in ... forced smile on [her] face, so to give him the benefit of the doubt"). That is the moment of escalation right there.
Notice that, by her own account, Megan Marie did not say anything about sexism or chauvinism. She merely said the interviewer's comment was unprofessional. The interviewer apparently understood this to mean that she was calling him out for sexism -- his defense was to call her an oversensitive feminist.
There's a lot of pressure/programming here to identify certain interactions as politically charged along the lines of gender. You put even a little energy into this system and the people involved really polarize.
Manchu wrote:Are you saying Anita Sarkeesian is an extremist?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: But with that said, why do you specifically think that some women don't find this an issue?
I suspect it has more to do with case-by-case circumstances than any global issue. But to the extent that there is a global issue, I think it has to do with most people -- even people who enjoy playing video games -- not thinking that video games are very important in a cultural sense.
What about gamers who happen to be female, then? They are culturally affected. What makes the ones who realize the problem (granting for the sake of argument that there is one) different from those who do not?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Yes, Beyond Good and Evil was a lovely game.
~
I'll bring up one reason some women "don't find it an issue": because there's immense pressure to "not find it an issue."
See, to me, this is a deliciously ironic generalization about the timidity of women.
I don't disagree. Even at the very mention of feminist topics, many people hunker down and get defensive-- no matter how moderate or friendly the person bringing it up tries to be. Sometimes, one doesn't have to bring it up at all, but just be PRESENT.
Monster Rain wrote: What makes the ones who realize the problem (granting for the sake of argument that there is one) different from those who do not?
I don't think there is any global cause or at least none that I know about.
Okay, let's take a different angle, then. Two women, both gamers, have been presented with the same set of facts (the subject of this thread). One sees it as a bellwether of institutionalized misogyny, and one doesn't consider it a big deal because these are fictional, cartoonish entertainment outlets with no greater implication since she doesn't consider Peach or Zelda to be a proxy for all womankind. Who is right?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I'll bring up one reason some women "don't find it an issue": because there's immense pressure to "not find it an issue."
See, to me, this is a deliciously ironic generalization about the timidity of women.
Were you intending to call me "timid" there? That line was based on personal experience. I limit how much I engage in these discussions because they are emotionally draining to participate in. The one in this thread, despite some pretty dubious posts, is extremely level-headed and respectful compared to many. I know I'm not alone in this because it is a very commonly-expressed sentiment.
Surprisingly enough, being relentlessly attacked by what's easy to perceive as a never-ending horde of anonymous people is stressful, and that's what commonly happens in discussions of these issues. Not an attempt at reasoned discussion or discourse, but relentless attack in an effort to silence the one speaking up, and suggesting that it doesn't affect anyone or give us a reluctance to speak up is disingenuous in the extreme.
Manchu wrote: I wish you would just make your arguments rather than asking questions that assume points you need to (attempt to) prove.
I ask questions to ensure that I am making correct interpretations of what you are saying. Also, I'm detecting strong double standards, leaps of logic, and cognitive dissonance in this thread and I consider you to be reasonable, so you are more or less my barometer on the topic. Of course, now that I've told you that it won't work anymore.
Manchu wrote: The question of origin is not really important. The fact is that it exists. Why do you think it matters what the origin is?
Because, simply, if we know the origin we can understand and potentially change the issue. Or at least know where the essence of the problem lies.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I'll bring up one reason some women "don't find it an issue": because there's immense pressure to "not find it an issue."
See, to me, this is a deliciously ironic generalization about the timidity of women.
Were you intending to call me "timid" there?
Not at all, fellow Dakkanaut.
It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason there isn't potentially more outrage on this issue is due to women caving to social pressure, which to me equates to timidity on their part.
It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason there isn't potentially more outrage on this issue is due to women caving to social pressure, which to me equates to timidity on their part.
If that's your take on the issue then I'd suggest you are so far removed from the realities of the situation that you would be better off reading more about it rather than commenting. People not speaking up when presented with an issue of sexism or harassment because they know how these things go down (it's not usually in a happy way for the person making the complaint) is commonplace. It's nothing to do with timidity.
It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason there isn't potentially more outrage on this issue is due to women caving to social pressure, which to me equates to timidity on their part.
If that's your take on the issue then I'd suggest you are so far removed from the realities of the situation that you would be better off reading more about it rather than commenting. People not speaking up when presented with an issue of sexism or harassment because they know how these things go down (it's not usually in a happy way for the person making the complaint) is commonplace. It's nothing to do with timidity.
Correct.
See here:
Spoiler:
Melissia wrote: I've censored it the best I can, but here it is.
On Blogging, Threats, and Silence
Content note: This post includes excerpts of threats and abusive language.
I got my first rape threat as a blogger when I was on Blogspot, so new that I still had the default theme up and hadn’t even added anything to the sidebar. I can’t even remember the pseudonym I was using then, and I probably had about 10 hits on a good day, seven of which were me compulsively loading the page just to make sure it still existed, and the other two of which were probably my friends. I wrote a post about some local political issue or another, expressing my misgivings, and a reader kindly took time out of his day to email me.
‘You stupid [C-Bomb],’ he said, ‘all you need is a good [Expletive]ing and then you’d be less uptight.’
I stared at it for a couple of minutes, too shocked to move. There it was on my screen, not going away. Someone really had thought it was appropriate not just to write this email to a complete stranger, a totally unknown person, but to send it. I deleted it, and spent another few minutes staring at the blank hole in my inbox where it had been before shaking it off and moving on.
It was harder with the next one, and the next, and the next, but by the time I’d clocked around 20 threats, and was up to around 30 readers, I’d learned the art of triage. The quick skim to find out if there was any actually personal threatening information, like identifying details, or if it was just your garden variety threat with no teeth behind it. I kept them all in a little file in case I needed them later, and forwarded the worst to the police department, not in the belief they would actually do anything, but in the hopes that information would be there, somewhere, in case it was needed someday.
‘I hope you get raped to death with a gorsebush,’ one email memorably began. I gave the letter writer some style points for creativity, but quickly deducted them when I noted he’d sent it from his work email, at a progressive organisation. I helpfully forwarded it to his supervisor, since I thought she might be interested to know what he was doing on company time. ‘Thanks,’ she wrote back, and I didn’t hear anything more about it. Several months later I attended a gala event the organisation was participating in and watched him sitting there on stage, confident and smug.
I thanked my stars that he had no idea who I was, that he didn’t know that the ‘stupid, fat bitch’ he’d emailed was sitting there in the audience, calmly staring back at him. Later, I wondered why I didn’t just turn around and walk out the minute I saw him. I certainly stopped donating and supporting, and I happily told people why.
He’s still there, and people tell me I’m not the only one who has received alarmingly graphic communiques from him for speaking my mind. His was the first of many emails so meticulously detailed that it felt like the uncomfortable realisation of a fantasy, and it only got worse when I changed platforms, to TypePad and then WordPress, accumulating more and more readers along the way, being more and more outspoken, being more and more open about who I was, finally writing under my own name, a calculated decision that exposes me to considerable risk, every day, a decision I cannot come back from. It is not a decision I regret, but it did bring home a new risk for me, that I had made it a lot easier for those electronic threats to become a reality.
I was careful in all the ways they tell you to be, to make it difficult to find my house, for example, and most of the rape threats, and the death threats, the casual verbal abuse from people who disagreed with my stances on subjects like rape being bad and abortion being a personal matter, weren’t really that threatening in that they didn’t pose a personal danger to me, and I was rarely concerned for my safety. That wasn’t the point, though, which is what I told a friend when she got her first rape threat and called me, sobbing. I wished she’d been spared that particular blogging rite of passage, but unfortunately she hadn’t been.
‘They want you to shut up,’ I explained. ‘That’s the point of a rape threat. They want to silence you. They want you to shrink down very small inside a box where you think they can’t find you.’
And it works. I see it happening all the time; blogs go dark, or disappear entirely, or stop covering certain subjects. People hop pseudonyms and addresses, trusting that regular readers can find and follow them, trying to stay one step ahead. Very few people openly discuss it because they feel like it’s feeding the trolls, giving them the attention they want. Some prominent bloggers and members of the tech community have been bold enough; Kathy Sierra, for example, spoke out about the threats that made her afraid to leave her own home. She’s not the only blogger who’s been presented not just with vicious, hateful verbal abuse, but very real evidence that people want to physically hurt her, a double-edged silencing tactic, a sustained campaign of terrorism that is, often, highly effective.
It took a few years to reach this point, but I finally have, the point where I do have concerns about my physical safety, and have had to reevaluate certain aspects of my life and work. I’ve gotten those emails that send a long chill down my spine and create a surging feeling of rage, mixed with helplessness. People have sent me my social security number, information about my family members, identifying details that make it very clear they know exactly how to find me. They have politely provided details of exactly what they’d like to do to me and my family, they send me creepy things in the mail.
‘I’m glad your stupid cat died,’ someone wrote me last October. ‘You’re next, [female dog],’ and followed up with my street address.
‘I’m in the process of moving,’ I told the officer who responded, ‘but it concerns me and I wanted you to know.’
I spent the remaining week almost entirely at the new house, working on the house during the day and slinking home late at night, leaving the lights off to make it look like I wasn’t home, leaving my distinctive and highly identifiable car parked at a distant location. My neighbours left their porch light on for me, illuminating the backyard in a wash of harsh, white light. I’d spent years seething about how it kept me up at night, but those nights, I was grateful for it, reading my book under the covers in the dim glow of a flashlight.
‘You must be worried about fans finding you,’ my landlords say, and I want to laugh it off, the idea that I have ‘fans’ who would be dedicated enough to come this far to find me.
‘It’s not the fans I worry about,’ I say, darkly.
It’s a good week, these days, if I only get 15-20 emails from people telling me how much they think I should die, or how much they hope I get raped, or how much they hope my cat dies or I lose my job or fall in a hole or get shot by police or any number of things people seem to think it’s urgently important to tell me in their quest to get me to shut up. We are not talking about disagreements, about calls for intersectionality, about differing approaches, about political variance, about lively debate and discussion that sometimes turns acrimonious and damaging. We are talking about sustained campaigns of hate from people who believe that we are inhuman and should be silenced; the misogynists, the ‘men’s rights activists,’ the anti-reproductive rights movement, the extreme conservatives, the fundamentalists. The haters.
Joss Whedon fans in particular seem to be especially creative, although Glee fans are running a close second; Glee fans tend to be more fond of sending me photoshopped pictures of myself covered in what I think is supposed to be cum, although it looks more like mashed potatoes, or possibly whipped cream. Joss fans prefer to say it in text, intimately, lingering over the details. And of course there’s the usual abuse from people who think that people like me are not human beings, and thus feel it’s entirely reasonable, even necessary, to assault us, the people who write about topics like reproductive justice, domestic violence, intersections between race and class and disability and gender and the social structures that contribute to continued oppression.
I don’t talk about it very often because I don’t really know what to say. I get rape and death threats. I get emails calling me witch, r#tard, all the other epithets you can think of and then some. I get abusive phone calls, and sometimes have to unplug my landline for a few days. So do a lot of other bloggers. It never really stops, unless you stop, which means that every day you need to make a conscious decision. Do I keep doing this? Do I keep going? Or is this the day where I throw in the towel and decide it’s not worth it anymore?
Like a lot of bloggers in the same position, I have tried to balance a desire to not remain silent with the need for increasing caution; not, for example, making information about where I stay when on trips available, making it clear that the only place people will find me is at public events in locations where there’s a security presence, being careful about pictures I post of my house and neighbourhood to make it harder to find, making sure close friends have contact information for me and my neighbours in case of emergencies. Thinking carefully about the kinds of events I want to attend. Things that are second nature to me seem to disturb other people, but I’ve learned the hard way that this is what I need to do to be safe.
But I’m still not going to shut up, and not just because I am bullheaded and don’t take kindly to being told to be silent or die. I don’t shut up for all the people who were forced to shut up, for the ghosts who drift through the Internet, for the people too terrified to leave their homes at all, let alone try to coordinate safety concerns to attend events, for the people who ask friends to open and sort their email because they can’t handle the daily vitriol. I don’t shut up for all the people who have been silenced, who did throw in the towel because they just couldn’t take it anymore. Not because they were weak or not committed to the cause, but because they, and their families, were in danger.
When it became evident that I wasn’t going to shut up, that I wasn’t going to let threats from hateful donkey-caves dictate what I chose to cover and not cover, the campaigns shifted; I still got rape and death threats, but then came the websites dedicated to hate and speculation, the harassing phone calls. Then came the commenters sowing insidious trails at sites that linked me or discussed my work, the emails to friends and colleagues, the attempts to discredit me.
And, of course, the attacks on my readers. One of the reasons I was forced to close comments on my personal site was because people would stalk my readers to their own sites and harass them, and we had similar problems at FWD/Forward, and I see them here at Tiger Beatdown as well. Puzzled and upset readers sometimes forward the email they’re sent after they comment, or talk about something in a post, or attempt to participate in discussions; anti-abortion activists, for example, sending them hate screeds for being open about their abortions in what they thought was a safe space. Hateful people pick on people they assume are small and helpless, simply for voicing their opinions, or being present in a space, or being associated with the target of their hatred.
Then came the hackings, the repeated attempts to silence me in the crudest way possible.
This is something else people don’t talk about, very often; the fact of the matter is that if you run a feminist or social justice site, you will be hacked. Probably on multiple occasions, especially if you start to grow a large audience. Some of these hackings are just your usual cases of vandalism, people testing servers to see if they can do it, not with any specific malice directed at you. Others are more deliberate, more calculated, and they come with taunting and abuse.
Many feminist sites stay on services like Blogspot because of the higher security they may offer; people who host their own sites do so in awareness that if they aren’t very knowledgeable about technology, they need someone who is for when they get hacked, and it’s not if, but when. Readers often don’t notice because it flashes by, or it causes problems with the backend, the site management, not the front end. Sometimes they do, when hackers inject malicious code that changes the appearance of the front page, or attempts to load malware on the computers of visitors, or just takes the site down altogether, sometimes with a message making it clear that it’s personal.
Then your readers start screaming at you because the site isn’t working, and when you wade through your inbox it’s an even split between taunting messages from the hacker and readers demanding to know why the front page looks funny, yelling at you if you were asleep when it happened and didn’t have time to post an update somewhere to let people know what was going on for several hours.
You wake up every day wondering if your server is still up, and how much cleanup you may need to do to keep the site operational. That’s the reality. You wake up wondering what will be in your inbox, your moderation queue, your Twitter stream, and sometimes you lie in bed, staring at the ceiling, wondering if you really want to keep doing this. The reality is that when people recognise you in public spaces and shout your name, you tense; is this person going to harm you? You spend the first five minutes of your interaction fighting the flight instinct, not paying attention to a single word the person is saying. When someone emails to ask to meet you when you’re traveling, your first reaction is not ‘oh, it would be lovely to meet readers, yes, please, let’s hook up at that dark shady bar in a city I don’t know.’
It’s concerted, focused, and deliberate, the effort to silence people, especially women, but not always, as I can attest, and particularly feminists, though again, not always, as I can attest, online. The readers, the consumers, the fans, may not always notice it because people are silent about it. Because this is the strategy that has been adopted, to not feed the trolls, to grin and bear it, to shut up, to put your best foot forward and rise above it. To open your email, take note of the morning’s contents, and then quickly shuttle them to the appropriate files for future reference or forwarding to the authorities. To check on the server, fix what needs fixing, and move on with your day. To skim the comments to see what needs to be deleted, to know that when you write a post like this one, you will have to delete a lot of heinous and ugly comments, because you want to protect your readers from the sheer, naked, hate that people carry for you. To weigh, carefully, the decision to approve a comment not because there’s a problem with the content, but because you worry that the reader may be stalked by someone who will tell her that she should die for having an opinion. And when it happens to people for the first time, they think they are alone, because they don’t realise how widespread and insidious it is.
All of the bloggers at Tiger Beatdown have received threats, not just in email but in comments, on Twitter, and in other media, and the site itself has been subject to hacking attempts as well. It’s grinding and relentless and we’re told collectively, as a community, to stay silent about it, but I’m not sure that’s the right answer, to remain silent in the face of silencing campaigns designed and calculated to drive us from not just the Internet, but public spaces in general. To compress us into small boxes somewhere and leave us there, to underscore that our kind are not wanted here, there, or anywhere.
*GAG GAG GLUCK* You have discovered the only vocables worth hearing from Sady’s [Expletive]-stuffed maw…die tr*nny whore…[slut walk] is a parade for people who suffer from Histrionic Personality Disorder aka Attention Whores…I know where you live, r#tard…why don’t you do the world a favour and jump off a bridge…Feminazi…
A small sampling of the kinds of things that show up in our inboxes, in comment threads, on attack websites, in things sent to our readers.
Rape threats happen. Death threats happen. People threaten friends, families, jobs, household pets. Stalkers go to considerable lengths to collect and exploit information. People who are open about this, who do talk about threats and stalking and danger, and they are out there, are punished for it. They get more abuse, they’re told that they’re making it all up, that it’s all in their heads, that they are exaggerating, entirely new hate sites spring up to speculate about them and talk about their ‘desperate ploys for attention.’ That’s what I have to look forward to for writing this piece, for laying out some of the costs of social participation for you, for openly discussing the thing which dare not speak its name, the brash, open hostility reserved for people who do not shut up.
This is a reality, and it doesn’t go away if we don’t talk about it.
This was written by s.e. smith. Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 3:21 pm
Manchu wrote: The question of origin is not really important. The fact is that it exists. Why do you think it matters what the origin is?
Because, simply, if we know the origin we can understand and potentially change the issue. Or at least know where the essence of the problem lies.
As near as I can tell, figuring out the origins of the phenomenon is at most step 2. Step 1 is acknowledging that it exists in the first place. When you make step 1 conditional on accepting step 2, it's impossible to believe you are actually interested in step 2 at all. Getting back to step 2 itself, I think the origin is extremely difficult to trace because the phenomenon is so pervasive. To use an admittedly shaky analogy, we don't need to know why there is a universe to do ecology.
Monster Rain wrote: due to women caving to social pressure, which to me equates to timidity on their part.
Using language like "caving in" and "timid" is pretty overwrought and it comes off as dismissive. If someone reasonably believes speaking out will lead to being disproportionately attacked, then not speaking up is not really a matter of "caving" or being "timid." It's a smart short term strategy that has unfortunate long term consequences, such as leading people (seemingly like yourself) to believe that not speaking out is either a justification of the issue that could be spoken out about or an indication that the issue doesn't exist at all.
It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason there isn't potentially more outrage on this issue is due to women caving to social pressure, which to me equates to timidity on their part.
If that's your take on the issue then I'd suggest you are so far removed from the realities of the situation that you would be better off reading more about it rather than commenting. People not speaking up when presented with an issue of sexism or harassment because they know how these things go down (it's not usually in a happy way for the person making the complaint) is commonplace. It's nothing to do with timidity.
So, hypothetically ( not really) when a woman says she doesn't think that Videogame tropes are oppressive to women she is doing so out of a response to social pressure?
Everyone thinks it, basically, but are afraid to say so?
Monster Rain wrote: So, hypothetically ( not really) when a woman says she doesn't think that Videogame tropes are oppressive to women she is doing so out of a response to social pressure?
No, the point is that social pressure can contribute because it does exist.
Compel wrote: Ok uh... Yeah... That quoted post from Melissa just scared the daylights out of me.
Dunno what 'tiger beatdown' is though...
From their editor's (self-effacing) "About Us" page:
Sady Doyle started Tiger Beatdown in September 2008, because she was bored, and also for some reason no-one wanted to publish her various long-winded ramblings on gender. Since then, she has conned various sectors of the Internet into publishing all sorts of various long-winded ramblings on gender, and has also gotten them into newspapers and/or magazines! And then some magazines hired her, specifically the Rookie and the In These Times. Her name is right near Kurt Vonnegut’s, on the In These Times masthead, which means his vengeful ghost has an 89% chance of visiting her if her column is bad. His vengeful ghost would be elderly and charming! And really into Mark Twain! So good luck to her on that!
It's a feminist blogroll, which usually has a good sense of humor as well.
Monster Rain wrote: One sees it as a bellwether of institutionalized misogyny, and one doesn't consider it a big deal because these are fictional, cartoonish entertainment outlets with no greater implication since she doesn't consider Peach or Zelda to be a proxy for all womankind. Who is right?
As usual, I will have to construct your argument out of the points your question assumes. A woman who does not consider Peach or Zelda to be a proxy for all womankind is being, to my mind, pretty reasonable. But that is not the substance of the feminist critique. Therefore, to the extent that she has not understood the critique, your hypothetical female gamer's hypothetical conclusion is not especially relevant to the subject at hand.
Let's set up a different hypothetical: what if there is a woman who does not believe that female characters have been overwhelmingly portrayed in video games as non-agents/objects. I would say she is objectively incorrect. How about another one: what if a woman said that female characters in video games have indeed been overwhelmingly portrayed as non-agents/objects but this has not limited the role that female characters tend to have in video games. From everything I know about the subject, I'd still say she's wrong.
In short, because this is what I have to assume that you are getting at, I don't believe that being a woman specially enables a woman to be right on these issues.
Sadly, Bioshock: Infinite, while a good step in the right direction, is still from my understanding kind of perpetuating the problem. She is the "emotional center" of the game, but not the person whose decisions are important to the game-- that's Mr. Gundude's part to play.
Thus, the male lead does stuff, while the female lead sort if sits there and feels stuff.
Also, before anyone bitches, keep in mind, that despite this criticism I still believe that it will likely be one of the best games released in the past few years and plan on getting it as soon as I overhaul my aging processor (which hopefully will be pretty soon). Seriously, learn to understand that one can enjoy something while still criticizing it.
Nah, Elizabeth is about as active as a FPSNPC can possibly be. She provides ammo, healing,magical energy ("salt"), money, and indirect combat support to Booker. The only thing more such a NPC could do is be an active combatant. But her character is not doing this (at least initially) as a matter of her youth and principles rather than as a matter of her gender. Another female character in the game, who is also black, is the tough woman leader of one of the two main factions. BioShock Infinite is to my mind a pretty big step in the right direction without being a game that is all or only about that step.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, Elizabeth is a worthy successor to Alyx Vance. I have no doubt she will be as beloved of both male and female gamers in years to come as Alyx.
I'm glad to hear my interpretation of the various reviews was wrong.
Melissia wrote: Sadly, Bioshock: Infinite, while a good step in the right direction, is still from my understanding kind of perpetuating the problem. She is the "emotional center" of the game, but not the person whose decisions are important to the game-- that's Mr. Gundude's part to play.
Thus, the male lead does stuff, while the female lead sort if sits there and feels stuff.
Also, before anyone bitches, keep in mind, that despite this criticism I still believe that it will likely be one of the best games released in the past few years and plan on getting it as soon as I overhaul my aging processor (which hopefully will be pretty soon). Seriously, learn to understand that one can enjoy something while still criticizing it.
I haven't played the game but doesn't she get involved in the action and make her own decisions as well?
Monster Rain wrote: At any rate, this conversation has been highly diverting.
I'm sure the women in the thread are glad that our deeply personal issues and suffering were entertaining enough for you.
Also, that treating important issues as your personal entertainment isn't in itself problematic or messed up at all.
I wouldn't say it's particularly messed up to not care about issues that are deeply important to complete strangers. That's actually pretty normal, and at least he was up front about not caring. I'd rather have honesty than false sympathy.
Monster Rain wrote: At any rate, this conversation has been highly diverting.
I'm sure the women in the thread are glad that our deeply personal issues and suffering were entertaining enough for you.
Also, that treating important issues as your personal entertainment isn't in itself problematic or messed up at all.
I wouldn't say it's particularly messed up to not care about issues that are deeply important to complete strangers. That's actually pretty normal, and at least he was up front about not caring. I'd rather have honesty than false sympathy.
There's a difference between finding apathy at the suffering of others, and finding amusement at the suffering of others.
Monster Rain wrote: At any rate, this conversation has been highly diverting.
I'm sure the women in the thread are glad that our deeply personal issues and suffering were entertaining enough for you.
Also, that treating important issues as your personal entertainment isn't in itself problematic or messed up at all.
I wouldn't say it's particularly messed up to not care about issues that are deeply important to complete strangers. That's actually pretty normal, and at least he was up front about not caring. I'd rather have honesty than false sympathy.
There's a difference between finding apathy at the suffering of others, and finding amusement at the suffering of others.
Well yeah, the difference is usually 2-3 vodka drinks.
Sigvatr wrote: You don't get flamed because you're a woman
Scientific research says otherwise. Women are three times more likely to be flamed than men-- simply for having a female voice.
The study has been linked to and mentioned numerous times. "Communication in multiplayer gaming: Examining player responses to gender cues" by Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff and Lindsey M. Rose.
I totally missed this reference. I am not familiar with the article, so only got the abstract; I'd appreciate if you could somehow give me the entire study, PM me for e-mail.
I do appreciate the inclusion of scientific articles. We need to be precise though. You used the article to prove that women get flamed more often than men in video games. This is a wrong conclusion. The article used one specific game, Halo 3 and did not cross-reference any other games. The only logical conclusion you can make with this particular article is that in Halo 3, women get flamed more often than men. If you want to be really precise, we'd need more information than just the abstract - info on subjects, methods, means etc.
But if we're now talking science:
* The Lara Phenomenon: Powerful Female Characters in Video Games
Summarizing all studies, about 65-75% of characters in video games are male, ~25% of characters are female. ~75% of leads are male compared to ~21% female and ~4% weren't able to be related to a certain gender (e.g. Final Fantasy games). So that's a solid base to begin with and we got actual numbers to work with.
Now on to numbers of how people actually play video games.
* College Students Video Game Participation and Perceptions: Gender Differences and Implications
68% of male studetens played two or more hours per week compared to only 21% of women. No difference in watching someone else play (the "girlfriend phenomeon". Men were significantally more likely to pass on sleep or classes for video games.
And what do people play?
* Killing for Girls: Predation Play and Female Empowerment
Women are much more likely to play games typically representing classical feminie attributes such as shopping, nurturing and socializing with others and are significantally more active in social games. Women also have a long history of playing MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft but prefer non-competitive activities whereas males predominantely took part in PvP activities.
...and on to aggression.
* The Effects of Pathological Gaming on Aggressive Behavior
Only 7% of females as portrayed in this article played violent video games compared to 57% of males. Males were reported to show significantally moer physical aggression than females.
* Video Game Violence and the Female Game Player: Self- and Opponent Gender Effects on Presence and Aggressive Thoughts
<< Data indicated that both presence and aggressive thoughts were greater when player and gender matched. Opponent gender did not influence presence but did demonstrate a significant effect for aggressive thoughts. Although females generally displayed proportionally more aggressive thoughts when playing as a female, aggressive thoughts were greatest regardless of avatar gender for male opponents. >>
* Gender Stereotypes, Aggression, and Computer Games: An Online Survey of Women
<< Women who played computer games perceived their online environments as less friendly but experienced less sexual harassment online, were more aggressive themselves, and did not differ in gender identity, degree of sex role stereotyping, or acceptance of sexual violence when compared to women who used the computer but did not play video games. >>
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe not 100% fitting but hey, it's video games!
I agree with the article and the official response. Everyone likes attractive women dancing, but a professional conference isn't the right place for such events.
Is there a point to your incoherent rambling or are you just trying to win by verbosity alone?
Extrapolating my own experiences in other games, along with numerous, numerous reports from other female gamers, combined with the evidence in the link I provided certainly gives better proof than anything you can try to provide to the contrary.
Especially when considered within the context of real-world statistics on how women are far, FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted or domestically abused than men, and the historical dominance of men in societies across the globe-- where men often practiced exclusionary tactics and held that they had a right or even duty to commit violence against women. Oftentimes codified in to law.
If Meaghan Marie’s recent post about the sexism she’s encountered in the games industry was at all shocking to you, you either don’t work in the games industry or you’ve had your head up your ass. I applaud her for writing it—it took guts. But she’s just shedding light on attitudes and practices that are business as usual in the industry.
Lots of people read and commented on the post. It created a bubble of discussion that seemed to be beneficial. Then I saw this picture from one of the parties at the Game Developers Conference.
A woman posted it and defended it in comments. This is not to call out this prominent female in the industry because I like her and her involvement in games has done far more good than harm for women. I was taken aback because her caption wasn’t one of disbelief or disgust it was just “oh look.” As if she doesn’t even see the sexism anymore.
Here’s the thing. If you want to survive or thrive in the industry as a woman you could fight this gak every day of your life and never make a dent in it. All you’d do is destroy your own career. If you want to get along you either stop seeing it or you become complicit.
Sexism is rampant in the games industry. How it compares to other industries I couldn’t say. I’ve only ever been in games, and I’ve been in it for 18 years. The sexism I want to talk about is that within the industry itself. Not the fan communities and not the in-game experience though those are without doubt unfriendly places for women.
How can I begin to tell you what it’s like to work in a business that treats you like a curiosity and a plaything? Which anecdotal nuggets can I bust out to illustrate my point? I have 18 years of incidents to draw from. Should I go for shock value and tell you about the time a coworker asked me into his office to proofread a document and whipped his dick out? Naw, that was a one-off. Except that he showed his dick to me on several subsequent occasions. He thought it was funny. I didn’t report him to HR or do anything about it. I told a couple female coworkers and they thought it was funny. Weird, but nothing to get worked up about.
Or how about the time my manager thought it would be amusing to close out one of my Inside Xbox videos with audio of me pretending to have sex in the shower with a video game character? Did I feel uncomfortable? Yes. Did I protest? No.
Other things that barely even made a ripple on the radar: I wore a pendant with a “D” on it (My husband’s first initial). First co-worker “What’s the D for?” Second co-worker “Cup size.” And I laughed.
I laughed when I caught game studio executives taking pictures down my shirt. I laughed when I caught a co-worker at my company looking up my skirt on the stairs. I laughed and found an excuse to change the subject when co-workers instant messaged me with detailed accounts of the kind of sex they wanted to have with me.
I don’t go to GDC anymore, but I confess that when I did, one of my roles there was to get women to attend the party that my employer threw. To try to skew the sausage-fest male female ratio to more attractive (for male developers and publishers) levels. They wanted me to bring hot chicks. Eye candy. So the devs would have something pretty to look at and flirt with. And I did it. Year after year. No, I wasn’t Heidi Fleiss, but I participated in making those women objects.
Why did I do that? For my personal gain. I liked going to GDC. And if I kept bringing boobs to the party, I kept getting to go.
Why did I laugh off the upskirt pics, the ‘nice tits, can I touch them’ comments, the random ‘suck my cock’ text messages from industry dudes I barely knew? I’m not entirely sure. Part of it was the attention. Everyone likes attention. And maybe the gross stuff was the price to pay for the nice stuff. And yes there was nice stuff. Lots of flattery and free drinks and dinners and tickets to stuff and trips. My end of it was to bring the chicks, wear short skirts, smile a lot, and laugh it off when some drunk got grabby or, in one instance, shouted across a party at the top of his lungs “Trixie! I’m going to have sex with you tonight!” Note: He did not.
Why didn’t I report the dick dangler, the coworker who took upskirt photos of me on a business trip, or the exec who hinted I’d be safe from the next round of layoffs if I put out? Why didn’t I have a partner developer thrown out of a party when he shoved his tongue down my throat? Why didn’t I call out every ass-grabbing, talk to my tits, sexist gak?
Because I was afraid of being “that woman.” The once that the internet jumps all over. I knew my career was fethed the minute I went through that door, so I chose silence and the status quo. I was a coward and I didn’t even attempt to make things better for myself or any other woman trying to do their thing in the games industry.
I was absolutely complicit in the way I was treated because I kept holding up my end of the bargain. I got to hang out in the boy’s clubhouse because I showed some skin, laughed at their jokes and didn’t get too worked up if they pinched my ass.
So I’m sorry for that. I apologize to every woman who comes after me that finds gak like this still happening.
To women who actually have the ovaries to stand up and do something about it, like Brenda Romero: You have my utmost respect and admiration.
Last week, the Penny Arcade Report interviewed Jean-Max Morris, creative director of the upcoming female-led game Remember Me. After going into the game’s cyberpunk roots, Morris discussed the publishers who wanted nothing to do with a female protagonist. “We don’t want to publish it because that’s not going to succeed,” he paraphrased. “You can’t have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that.”
As the article made the rounds, I couldn’t help but notice what gamers were getting excited about elsewhere. Tomb Raider had just slipped to number two in the UK sales charts, after two weeks at number one. StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm had already sold 1.1 million copies in its first two days. Indie developer Supergiant Games, the folks behind Bastion, announced their new action RPG, Transistor, which features a leading lady. Their booth enjoyed two hour lines at PAX all weekend. I’m told that the lines for Remember Me were comparable.
I don’t think it’s gamers who have a problem with female protagonists.
That disconnect is what’s been bugging me the most about that article, more than all the girls-have-cooties implications. I read these blanket statements about how male gamers are supposedly allergic to female protagonists, and it doesn’t mesh with my impressions of the gamer community at large. I’m not even talking about stances on gender issues here. I’m talking about why people buy the games that they do. I have a bias in this, I know, but even so, I can’t shake the feeling that the publishers who say these things are failing to understand why gamers actually play.
There are two components to my thinking on this — how I go about playing, and how the guys I know go about playing (spoiler: they’re basically the same thing). I’ll start with myself, even though I’m not the sort of player being considered by these publishers. My purchasing habits strike me as pretty standard for a long-time gamer. I play shooters, RPGs, action games, and anything else that tickles my fancy. My carefully planned monthly budget includes a portion for games. I preorder new titles. I buy DLC. Take away my gender, and I’m exactly the sort of gamer the industry wants.
I developed these habits despite a lifetime of playing heroes that, more often than not, don’t look like me. A male protagonist does not stop me from playing. A male protagonist does not prevent me from developing an emotional attachment to his character. Do I gravitate more toward female protagonists, when they’re available? Yes, if I’m interested in the game itself as well. But will I turn away from an enticing game just because I can’t play as my gender? Of course not. What draws me to a game above all else, regardless of whose story it is, regardless of if there are even any women in the game at all, is whether or not it looks fun. I may feel more at home with a female protagonist, but I’ve got no problem connecting to a hero with a beard and a gravely voice. Gents, correct me if I’m wrong, but seeing as how we’re all human beings here, I imagine that for the most part, you and I react to differently-gendered protagonists in much the same way.
But okay, I’m not the target audience. Perhaps my experiences are moot. I obviously can’t speak directly to what it’s like to be a male gamer, but for what it’s worth, I have spent the better part of my life interacting and socializing with them. We like the same sorts of games. We play with equal enthusiasm. We talk about talent trees and boss fights and weapon upgrades. We sit and watch E3 together. We send each other articles on game releases and industry news. And not all of the male gamers I’ve known or even befriended have shared my views on gender portrayal. I’ve debated these things plenty with people I’ve gamed with. I recall being part of a group that got in a somewhat heated squabble over the Jennifer Hepler debacle before we all sat down and played Descent together. Our opinions on such topics may differ, but set them aside, and we’re buying the same games, and playing in the same way. From a gameplay standpoint, we’ve got the important stuff in common.
So let’s talk gamers in general. You can split us into two groups: those who are drawn to game mechanics, and those who are drawn to story (and yes, there’s a lot of crossover between the two). For those who are keen on mechanics, the protagonist doesn’t matter much. The setting and the story may affect how devoted they become to the game, but these players can and will overlook just about anything if they love the mechanics. The guys of this sort that I’ve played with have no qualms about choosing a female character, so long as her abilities are what they’re after. They’re far more concerned with class than gender.
A story-focused gamer, however, is looking for one of two things: a good story about someone else, or a story in which they can be the star. The latter hinges upon character customization, which nowadays usually means variable gender protagonists. Everybody wins. But for gamers who are happy to play as a pre-defined character, what they don’t want is the same story they’ve seen a dozen times before. They want to experience something new. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can only go through the same narrative so many times before you get bored. These players won’t care what the protagonist’s gender is, so long as the story is engaging.
If we’re talking about courting core gamers (I dislike that term, but there it is), protagonist gender seems like a non-issue. I keep thinking back to Transistor, a game helmed by a dainty lady with a buster sword. The people at PAX weren’t lined up for her, or despite her. They were lined up because Supergiant Games makes great stuff, and because Transistor looks awesome. I’ll confess, seeing that the game had a female protagonist was a side bonus for me. You know what I was primarily excited over? Combat that allows you to stop time and plan out attacks. I had already started digging into that cake before I appreciated the icing. I think a lot of gamers go about choosing games in the same way. Again, I can’t speak for the guys out there, but I’d be very surprised to meet a male gamer who turned up his nose at a combat system that appealed to him solely because he had to play a female character. That seems like an uncommon mindset.
But what if these publishers aren’t talking about core gamers? What if the concern here is the untapped market? Appealing to non-gamers is indeed a consideration you see throughout the industry (for better or for worse). This has been said by others many times before, but if the goal is to interest as many new gamers as possible, how does it make sense to focus only on straight white men between the ages of 18 and 25 (not to mention, how insulting is it to imply that such people are incapable of relating to anyone other than themselves)? And I may be off base with this, but I tend to think that someone who has never bought a game before is probably not going to start with a new IP. They’re going to pick something that they’ve heard of, something recommended by a friend who already plays it. A gamer. A gamer who will be recommending the game for its mechanics, or its story.
I am sure there are some men out there who might be put off by a female protagonist, just as there are women who might feel similarly toward male protagonists, but in my experience, this just isn’t the case for most. Give a gamer — of any gender — a good game with a solid story and fun mechanics, and we’re happy. (That’s not to say that character gender doesn’t matter at all. That’s a whole ‘nother article.)
And as for those hypothetical men who would feel “awkward” about seeing a female protagonist “kiss another dude” — okay, putting aside how immature that notion is, I feel compelled to note that games make me feel awkward all the time. Every time a game puts me in skimpy chainmail without offering an alternative, every time the women in the game are only there to be rescued or ogled, every time a game imparts the message that women are weak or vapid or just not good enough, I am left feeling awkward. And yet, I love games anyway. I’m still here, going bleary-eyed over strategy guides and handing over my hard-earned cash. If I can remain this loyal after the onslaught of awkward that games have put me through, then trust me. The dudes will be fine.
Christa Charter wrote:Why did I do that? For my personal gain. [...] So I’m sorry for that. I apologize to every woman who comes after me that finds gak like this still happening.
Christa Charter's new book:
When a young woman's nude body is discovered on the Xenon game company's corporate campus, community manager Lexy Cooper gets an early morning call from her uncle, homicide detective Mike Malick, to ID the corpse. As Malick investigates the crime, Lexy works the case from inside Xenon and discovers more about the seedy underbelly of the games industry than she ever wanted to know.
Sigvatr wrote: You don't get flamed because you're a woman
Scientific research says otherwise. Women are three times more likely to be flamed than men-- simply for having a female voice.
The study has been linked to and mentioned numerous times. "Communication in multiplayer gaming: Examining player responses to gender cues" by Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff and Lindsey M. Rose.
I totally missed this reference. I am not familiar with the article, so only got the abstract; I'd appreciate if you could somehow give me the entire study, PM me for e-mail.
I do appreciate the inclusion of scientific articles. We need to be precise though. You used the article to prove that women get flamed more often than men in video games. This is a wrong conclusion. The article used one specific game, Halo 3 and did not cross-reference any other games. The only logical conclusion you can make with this particular article is that in Halo 3, women get flamed more often than men. If you want to be really precise, we'd need more information than just the abstract - info on subjects, methods, means etc.
... ... .
You are wrong.
A scientist can of course identify a class of objects, take a representative sample to examine, and make assumptions that can be generalized to the rest of that class. It is a very normal concept.
In order to make your argument correct, it is necessary to assume that Halo 3 is not typical of online shooting games, which clearly is an absolutely absurd idea.
Christa Charter wrote:Why did I do that? For my personal gain. [...] So I’m sorry for that. I apologize to every woman who comes after me that finds gak like this still happening.
When a young woman's nude body is discovered on the Xenon game company's corporate campus, community manager Lexy Cooper gets an early morning call from her uncle, homicide detective Mike Malick, to ID the corpse. As Malick investigates the crime, Lexy works the case from inside Xenon and discovers more about the seedy underbelly of the games industry than she ever wanted to know.
Looks like pure exploitation to me. A great example of the tension she's writing about -- but a sad betrayal of what little conviction she mustered in writing it. As they say on the internet, whatever gets those page clicks.
Manchu wrote: A great example of the tension she's writing about -- but a sad betrayal of what little conviction she mustered in writing it.
Err... what?
I dunno, I don't see it that way myself. Would like you to explain your reasoning.
Mind you I'm not saying the concept is perfect by any means, but it IS intended to explore the idea of sexism and seediness in the gaming industry, so having a few sexist tropes displayed in the story is not necessary contradictory to the message being delivered.
Melissia wrote: Mind you I'm not saying the concept is perfect by any means, but it IS intended to explore the idea of sexism and seediness in the gaming industry, so having a few sexist tropes displayed in the story is not necessary contradictory to the message being delivered.
The cover of that book is T&A -- well, not so much A as extremely skanky short school girl uniform skirt. The story summary begins with a naked female corpse. This is sexism rather than a commentary on sexism.
Ok, well... As far as I can see, that is most definitely a 'Games Industry' thing, or at least, on that scale it is. I've never heard/seen something like that in the more general tech sector. But then, I never did get to go to JavaCon...
The theory I've got is a lot of it is to do with high school fantasies... The games developers were never the 'cool kids' and now, in their industry, they are. So they end up treating everyone, especially the girls there like the stereotypical idiot "jocks."
What about that theory turned around, that women who get involved with these aspects of the video games were never popular in high school and, thanks to the gender ratio, they are "popular" at industry events so they end up facilitating their own objectification?
Manchu wrote: The cover of that book is T&A -- well, not so much A as extremely skanky short school girl uniform skirt.
So, a woman who dresses in a short skirt is a sleazy "skank", then? Don't get me wrong, I likewise wish that was more professionally dressed given the subject matter (I don't exactly see many companies accepting that kind of dress while on the job...), but the language that you're using betrays some psychological issues of your own-- namely, the Madonna-WhoreComplex.
The problem of the portrayal of sexualized women is fairly complex and nuanced-- there's nothing wrong with sexually liberated women, hell, the feminist movement had an entire second wave of feminism specifically to push for the sexual liberation of women. As noted by Sarkesian in her video, the issue is less any single portrayal of a woman and more the overall picture of women in general, as supplied by the various forms of media. In this case, yes, I think the cover is tasteless, but I don't necessarily find anything wrong with the actual subject matter as presented by the summary.
Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky. I really suggest holding back on the urge to assign people "complexes."
What's problematic with this book cover is not the issue of women dressing in sexy clothes generally. It is that the purpose of this or almost any book (at least novel) cover is to entice readers. The cover makes the argument, as it were, that the sexualized portrayal of a female character is what makes the character and the book worthwhile -- and, with the back cover summary (also enticement), there's an evocation of violence against another female character. In fact, this image is not of a character at all but rather the most explicitly depersonalizating portrayal possible: the woman-as-corpse. This is total objectification. Woman-as-corpse is a step past damsel in distress.
This may very well be commentary on sexism in the video game industry. But being commentary is not mutually exclusive with also being the thing that is being commented upon. That is to say, she may be writinig a book exploring the themes of sexism in the video game industry but (at least) the marketing for her book is also participating, in the same exploitative way as the picture on facebook she was complaining about, in that same sexism.
Manchu wrote: Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.
I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.
"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.
Manchu wrote: Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky. I really suggest holding back on the urge to assign people "complexes."
What's problematic with this book cover is not the issue of women dressing in sexy clothes generally. It is that the purpose of this or almost any book (at least novel) cover is to entice readers. The cover makes the argument, as it were, that the sexualized portrayal of a female character is what makes the character and the book worthwhile -- and, with the back cover summary (also enticement), there's an evocation of violence against another female character. In fact, this image is not of a character at all but rather the most explicitly depersonalizating portrayal possible: the woman-as-corpse. This is total objectification. Woman-as-corpse is a step past damsel in distress.
This may very well be commentary on sexism in the video game industry. But being commentary is not mutually exclusive with also being the thing that is being commented upon. That is to say, she may be writinig a book exploring the themes of sexism in the video game industry but (at least) the marketing for her book is also participating, in the same exploitative way as the picture on facebook she was complaining about, in that same sexism.
Maybe it's intended to be ironic? Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term? Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.
Melissia wrote: I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.
Then you do not choose to have the conversation to hand. Rather, you choose to have a strawman conversation.
Now, if you'd like to have this conversation, rather than insisting on mischaracterizing my posts, it would certainly be appropriate to inquire as to the distinction I am drawing.
The distinction is as between the motive of the character wearing the skirt and the motives of the people who create and observe the image. Nothing about the rest of the cover, front or back, indicates why the character would be wearing a skirt that short. From the image alone, we can't know what is in that character's mind regarding the skirt. But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.
Manchu wrote: But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.
That does not excuse the label or the insinuation that was in your post-- whether you put it there intentionally or otherwise it's still there, just like the likely intention of the artist of said cover art.
Manchu wrote: Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.
I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.
"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.
I don't believe in terms like skank, whore, slut, etc as it implies that woman dressing in skimpy clothes and/or have very active sex lives is not OK especially when the male equivalents tend to looked in a more positive light with terms like lady's man, player, undercover guy, etc (although
there's a few negative one's for men as well such as man-whore, douche, etc). Skank, whore, slut, etc don't even really work as insult as there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people which imo is a good thing.
Cheesecat wrote: Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term?
It's a term I'm using to describe the complete end of personhood in a female character. A corpse is an object, undead themes aside. It has zero agency.
Cheesecat wrote: Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
Manchu wrote: Then you do not choose to have the conversation to hand. Rather, you choose to have a strawman conversation.
Now, if you'd like to have this conversation, rather than insisting on mischaracterizing my posts, it would certainly be appropriate to inquire as to the distinction I am drawing.
The distinction is as between the motive of the character wearing the skirt and the motives of the people who create and observe the image. Nothing about the rest of the cover, front or back, indicates why the character would be wearing a skirt that short. From the image alone, we can't know what is in that character's mind regarding the skirt. But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.
Cheesecat wrote: Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term?
It's a term I'm using to describe the complete end of personhood in a female character. A corpse is an object, undead themes aside. It has zero agency.
Cheesecat wrote: Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
Melissia wrote: Is there a point to your incoherent rambling or are you just trying to win by verbosity alone?
Extrapolating my own experiences in other games, along with numerous, numerous reports from other female gamers, combined with the evidence in the link I provided certainly gives better proof than anything you can try to provide to the contrary.
Especially when considered within the context of real-world statistics on how women are far, FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted or domestically abused than men, and the historical dominance of men in societies across the globe-- where men often practiced exclusionary tactics and held that they had a right or even duty to commit violence against women. Oftentimes codified in to law.
This is just hilarious.
You are dead serious about putting your very own, personal, subjective experience over scientific results?
That's just about as irrational as a human being can get and it finally proves to everyone here that you deny cognitive reasoning on purpose and prefer to mindlessly ramble about your own ideas.. In fact, you are the textbook definition of a dogmatic.
Manchu wrote: But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.
That does not excuse the label or the insinuation that was in your post-- whether you put it there intentionally or otherwise it's still there, just like the likely intention of the artist of said cover art.
The label "skanky" does not require excusing as far as I can tell. Why do you think otherwise. And the "insinuation" (presumably that the character is a skank because she's wearing a skanky skirt) exists in your post rather than mine. As I already pointed out, and you continue to ignore to pursue your strawman, I distinguished between an article of clothing and the character wearing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people
Not really. All those words refer to is how readily the woman will have sex or sexual contact with people. No compliment whatsoever is necessarily implied by those slurs.
A scientist can of course identify a class of objects, take a representative sample to examine, and make assumptions that can be generalized to the rest of that class. It is a very normal concept.
In order to make your argument correct, it is necessary to assume that Halo 3 is not typical of online shooting games, which clearly is an absolutely absurd idea.
Melissia was clearly referring to video games in general. We're not talking of clusters here, she used 1 very specific example to use it as an argument for the entirety of video games - which is wrong by all means of objective research on any issue.
Manchu wrote: Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.
I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.
"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.
Wrong. As Manchu already stated, if someone says "She looks like a skank", it's you making the assumption that he also meant that she is a skank. Which he never said at all.
Manchu wrote: The label "skanky" does not require excusing as far as I can tell. Why do you think otherwise.
It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society. THAT is why it needs to be excused.
To be more specific, "Skank" is an insult commonly delivered to women who fail to live up to the "Madonna" side of the Madonna-Whore complex. An insult leveled at women who are too scantily clad-- be it showing an ankle, or being in a miniskirt and tube top, depending on the particular local culture you're speaking of. It refers to sleaziness, promiscuity, and so on, and is just in general an unpleasant term that should be avoided in serious conversation.
Thus my reference to said complex and why I am NOT backing down in objecting to your use of it.
Manchu wrote: And the "insinuation" (presumably that the character is a skank because she's wearing a skanky skirt) exists in your post rather than mine.
No, the insinuation existed in your post. You may not have intended such, but it's there regardless of intent.
Melissia wrote: Why do you think otherwise.It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society. THAT is why it needs to be excused.
Sexually liberated as in "having multiple loose sexual relationships" and thus being in general "open to sexuality"? A person dressing like a person that is purposefully attractive males...not a tough relation to make.
Sigvatr wrote: As Manchu already stated, if someone says "She looks like a skank"
TBF, I never said she looked like a skank. I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.
Melissia wrote: It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society.
I agree with you excluding the red part. The word "skanky" does not necessarily critique sexual liberation. My own usage is a good example of that: I am not criticizing the image for showing a sexually liberated woman; rather I am criticizing the image for showing a woman who is subject to sexism.
Melissia wrote: No, the insinuation existed in your post. You may not have intended such, but it's there regardless of intent.
The insinuation existed in my post as you read it. It was not there when I wrote it nor is it there when other people read it. I'm not saying it's not there -- but it being there is not a matter of my agency.
I agree with Melissia. I don't think you can say "she's wearing a slutty/skanky/whatever skirt" without the implication being on the character of the wearer. I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.
Manchu wrote: [TBF, I never said she looked like a skank. I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.
My apologies then. To you. That makes it even worse as it's one step before "She looks like a skank". By referring to the piece of clothing, the term generally refers to the clothing typically used by women who are purposefully trying to attract men. There are women doing so for a living. Wearing "skanky" clothes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I agree with Melissia. I don't think you can say "she's wearing a slutty/skanky/whatever skirt" without the implication being on the character of the wearer. I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.
You don't refer to the skirt's characteristic, you refer to it being worn by a certain type of woman if you call it "skanky". And again: it's you making the conclusion. If someone says "That makes her look like a skank", you make a verdict on her clothing or her way of dressing, not on her personality. If you feel offended by such a sentence, you made the assumption that the speaker wanted to say that you were a skank - which is not true.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.
The adjective also ends up on the observer. That's the point. The skirt cannot be promiscuous and, as I mentioned, we cannot judge what the character thinks about the skirt because we have no information to inform such a judgment. But we do have information to inform a judgement about what purpose a sexualized female image on the cover of a book serves.
Manchu wrote: I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.
I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank". To say it another way-- how would you moderate someone looking at cosplay images and saying "she's dressed like a slut/whore"?
Manchu wrote: I agree with you excluding the red part. The word "skanky" does not necessarily critique sexual liberation.
Yes it does. It is explicitly a sexual insult, much like "slut" or "whore". Indeed, "slutty" and "skanky" as adjectives are extremely similar, if not the exact same.
Manchu wrote: I am not criticizing the image for showing a sexually liberated woman; rather I am criticizing the image for showing a woman who is subject to sexism.
That's like criticizing racism by calling a black guy a [racial expletive].
Manchu wrote: I'm not saying it's not there -- but it being there is not a matter of my agency.
We are in a thread talking about the subconscious, unintentional sexism of the video game industry in its portrayal of women.
Or perhaps you have forgotten that we both of us have argued that it is not necessarily the intent of the industry to portray women as weak and lacking agency-- yet the result is still an industry with a history of objectifying women, even though some people in this thread do not see it as such?
I already stated that it was not your intent, and I understand it wasn't. But it certainly was the result of your post.
Melissia wrote: I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky. I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".
It is if you had a basic understanding of the English language -__-
Melissia wrote: I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".
I think you may be missing the point -- I didn't say she dresses like a skank. I said she was dressed (by the person creating the image) in a skanky skirt. She has been put in a piece of clothing that sexualizes her for the observer. That sums up countering most of your other points, too.
Melissia wrote: both of us have argued that it is not necessarily the intent of the industry to portray women as weak and lacking agency-- yet the result is still an industry with a history of objectifying women, even though some people in this thread do not see it as such?
I am still arguing that, specifically with reference to the cover of a book by a woman who worked in the video game industry and who is critical of sexism in the video game industry. I'm not saying it's her intent to facilitate this sexism. But she is doing it -- even at the same time as apologizing for it.
Melissia wrote: I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".
I think you may be missing the point -- I didn't say she dresses like a skank. I said she was dressed (by the person creating the image) in a skanky skirt.
This is very nitpicky and I don't necessarily agree the distinction is relevant. But I don't see this tangent going anywhere, so let's just agree to disagree and try to get back on topic.
It's an interesting point though...Samus despite being female never was an actual character as she never had a personality at all, at least not for the first few Metroid games, I don't know about the post SNES-era. In SSB, however, she suddenly was more portrayed as a sexy woman, zero suit leaving little room for creativity, revealing that she was your typical long blond hair / big boobs / dem curves character. Not talking about the short death animation in Super Metroid
To me, it somehow "demystified" her as a character. I wish they'd tried to breathe some life into her instead of just giving her big boobs.
Cheesecat wrote: there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people
Not really. All those words refer to is how readily the woman will have sex or sexual contact with people. No compliment whatsoever is necessarily implied by those slurs.
I'm not totally sure about that, being sexually attractive to lots of people gives you the benefit of being more selective with your sexual partners, allows you to bed more prestigious people and having frequent sex is also supposed to be good for you health.
I'm not totally sure about that, being sexually attractive to lots of people gives you the benefit of being more selective with your sexual partners, allows you to bed more prestigious people and having frequent sex is also supposed to be good for you health.
You have to be careful though about certain people. Being openly sexual to the public also brings dangers.
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.
I'm talking about sex workers which is anyone involved in the sex industry, I didn't make up the term.
I think it's pretty important. Not the word skanky itself. I understand your objections to the specific word. But let's say "sexualizing" instead. This character is portrayed in a sexualizing skirt in order to entice customers. If we can't agree on that then there's no basis for any of the complaints about sexism in the video game industry or beyond.
And it does indeed bring up the issue of what about when actual women chose to wear sexualizing outfits. Are they sexualizing themselves -- and what makes that okay and not okay? I think that's a bit beyond our scope here; I only bring it up to say there is a big difference between female characters and actual women. Actual women have real agency, even if it is socially limited in gendered ways. Characters have no corresponding agency. They can be portrayed as exercising agency but they never have it themselves.
When a character wears sexualizing clothing, that decision is made by someone other than the character. It seems a little ridiculous to spell it out but this is important. When we ask why a female character is portrayed wearing sexualizing clothing, we are asking first and foremost about why someone else has chosen that for her -- and that is a question of context. The context of the book cover is enticement. It is to bait a transaction, an exchange of values, money for ____. Most obviously, it's money for a book. But what makes this book different from others such that you might consider buying it? Well, this book has a picture of a sexualized woman on the cover. The character is being sexualized in order to sell the book.
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I'd say all of those occupations rely on sexist tendency to see women as means rather than ends.
Manchu wrote: This character is portrayed in a sexualizing skirt in order to entice customers.
I agree.
I merely objected to the use of the term "skanky", which has very unfortunate implications-- not necessarily the overall message.
Manchu wrote: And it does indeed bring up the issue of what about when actual women chose to wear sexualizing outfits.
The way someone dresses is their own choice, male or female. I mean, if a man goes to a beach in a "banana hammock" (an undergarment meant to emphasize male genitals), he's also sexualizing himself-- but just like the women who wear skimpy bikinis on the beach, I think it's perfectly okay. It's a complex issue as you say, because choice is extremely important to most people who discuss it.
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.
I'm talking about sex workers which is anyone involved in the sex industry, I didn't make up the term.
Regarding your initial question though, I guess it mostly depends on the circumstances - especially seeing that a lot of women are forced into prositution.
Manchu wrote: Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I'd say all of those occupations rely on sexist tendency to see women as means rather than ends.
Would this apply to men as well (as far as I'm aware most sex workers are women)?
The mistake you've made again here is to assume that being called a slut, whore, skank, etc, implies one is attractive. Again, it does not.
Fair enough, just when I think about people who are accused of being sluts, whore, skanks, etc in my life they tend to be good-looking women who who wear skimpy clothes (who I assume have sexually adventurous lives) so that's the image I associate with them.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.
The adjective also ends up on the observer. That's the point. The skirt cannot be promiscuous and, as I mentioned, we cannot judge what the character thinks about the skirt because we have no information to inform such a judgment. But we do have information to inform a judgement about what purpose a sexualized female image on the cover of a book serves.
I'll just quote your line in question so we're on the same page:
Manchu wrote: The cover of that book is T&A -- well, not so much A as extremely skanky short school girl uniform skirt. The story summary begins with a naked female corpse. This is sexism rather than a commentary on sexism.
The problematic part is your use of the word "skanky." This is problematic because it:
1. supports a system where women are morally condemned based on our sexuality;
2. supports a system where women can be thus condemned based on how we dress;
3. supports your role in this system as someone who is qualified to thus judge women, as a man
It further says, to women reading the conversation, that this is something you feel you are prepared to do and that is appropriate for you to do. This is icky.
The easiest way to avoid this would have been to not use the word "skanky" at all (and as far as I'm concerned there's even less of a good reason to ever use that word than "slutty" or similar, because it's even stronger on the moral judgment) but you could probably have avoided it by saying something like, "what the artist may have intended to portray as skanky." That would move the moral judgment from you to the artist (though you're still invoking the moral framework to an extent) and while it might have made us uncomfortable it probably would have made it more likely that we'd feel dumb calling you out on it. That's good, right?
On the topic of the book itself. I feel obliged to point out it was published in November last year. Her statements are from, what - yesterday? So yeah. It even fits in her description of "I consciously benefited from it at times even when it made me feel bad."
Melissia wrote: The way someone dresses is their own choice, male or female.
Right -- unless that "person" is a fictional character. That's the issue we're dealing with. I particular, on this cover, we don't have enough information to even know if the character is being portrayed as dressing herself that way (she could have been dressed up like that by, for example, some nefarious kidnapper) much less why she's dressed that way as to herself, the character, her own personality. What we have is this image put on the cover of a book in order to sell it. That is no different from this:
So when Ms. Charter apologizes for doing the wrong thing vis-a-vis sexism in gaming throughout her career, I think it's important to note -- hey, she's still doing it. I don't mean to say her apology is worthless because of that. The situation is much trickier. The situation is that she chose and had to choose one interest (career advancement) over another interest (standing up to sexism) because they are in her experience mutually exclusive.
Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.
On one hand you have a strong and competent female lead and a weak male damsel to be rescued, and on the other hand, it's obvious that the game focuses less on her strength and competence and more on her sexuality. :/
I agree that the word is problematic (see above). I don't think it cannot be used because it is problematic. I have tried to explain how I was using the problematic nature of the word to describe the observer rather than the observed -- i.e, it is reasonable to assume the skirt was chosen to sexualize the character's portrayal. Put another way, the skirt was chosen to indicate to an audience whose preferences and prejudices are already known that this character is not only sexy but more particularly skanky. For example:
The issue is that I'm not invoking the moral framework -- I'm pointing out that it is being invoked by the portrayal. All the same, your point that I should be more careful about making these things clear at the outset is well taken. I'd certainly rather discuss what I actually am trying to say than something else.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: On the topic of the book itself. I feel obliged to point out it was published in November last year. Her statements are from, what - yesterday? So yeah. It even fits in her description of "I consciously benefited from it at times even when it made me feel bad."
But ... here's the one published this month:
Melissia wrote: Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.
We're not talking about the game or even the character -- just the cover.
Compel wrote: On the other hand, maybe it just simply is irony...
Again, there is no indication of irony in the thing itself. Any irony would have to come from somewhere else.
Melissia wrote: Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.
On one hand you have a strong and competent female lead and a weak male damsel to be rescued, and on the other hand, it's obvious that the game focuses less on her strength and competence and more on her sexuality. :/
It also looks like it's a reference to sleazy grind-house movies, exploitation films and B-movies.
Neither the image on the cover nor the blurb on the back cover indicates the book is exploring sexism in the video game industry.
We have a sexualized woman on the front, the enticement of a naked female corpse on the back along with promise of a "seedy underbelly" of the video game industry.
Looks to me like sexism rather than commentary on sexism.
Manchu wrote: Neither the image on the cover nor the blurb on the back cover indicates the book is exploring sexism in the video game industry.
We have a sexualized woman on the front, the enticement of a naked female corpse on the back along with promise of a "seedy underbelly" of the video game industry.
Looks to me like sexism rather than commentary on sexism.
Yeah, I just realized it's a fictional story not a book discussing the issues of sexism in the video-game industry.
Well, for just $7 we could find out!! Its review scores are very high.
I don't know if you have better information on the second one, but it appears to have been listed as upcoming at least as far back as December last year, and is slated for release around May. It seems like it has been in the works for some time.
I wonder if these events will have any impact on her releasing that story?
As to reading the book, the reviews, the story itself -- keep in mind this is not the question. The question is the sexualized portrayal divorced from the story, the reviews, the authorial intent, etc., what I think is tantamount the objectification of the character explicitly to sell the book.
As to the timing issue between this portrayal that she is responsible for and her comments about her participation in sexist behavior, keep in mind that she's using the cover image as her facebook avatar to criticize the picture of the women at the party.
I'm not sure that it's explicitly to sell the book. From the reviews it sounds like it might be perfectly in line with the sort of book that it is. It just sounds weird in the context of her recent statement.
Definitely sounds like a "sex, lies and intrigue" sort of affair.
Lolipop chainsaw is a game about a cheerleader fighting off emo/punk rock zombies.
Seriously, how serious SHOULD it take it's lead character? Nevermind how the female villain is fully clothed (Filthy stinking hippy....), her older sister is pretty covered, and her younger sister is rather modest (But not exactly covered).
Slarg232 wrote: Lolipop chainsaw is a game about a cheerleader fighting off emo/punk rock zombies.
Seriously, how serious SHOULD it take it's lead character? Nevermind how the female villain is fully clothed (Filthy stinking hippy....), her older sister is pretty covered, and her younger sister is rather modest (But not exactly covered).
...and nevermind that she always has her boyfriend's talking head on her belt!
'Women are the new core,' says Microsoft narrative designer
A narrative writer for Microsoft Studios has said that "women are the new core" and that creating more diverse stories, including more female characters and ethnicities, will make for better games.
Speaking as part of a presentation at GDC 2013 (written up by GamesIndustry and Polygon), Tom Abernathy--who has worked on Halo: Reach, The Saboteur, and Destroy All Humans--said the games industry hasn't kept up with today's social culture and that the market for video games is changing at a pace that developers and publishers aren't keeping up with.
"Our audience is leaving us behind," Abernathy said. "The world is changing, it has already changed, and we have not been doing a very good job of keeping up with it."
Abernathy pointed to various studies that show the diverse makeup of modern gamers, including research by the Entertainment Software Association and casual game developer PopCap which states that adult women now make up 30 per cent of US gamers.
"Women are not a small special market on the fringe of the core," Abernathy said. "Women are the new core."
Abernathy also said that more diverse games would be good for the business of the games industry, because more diversity would bring in a wider audience and therefore generate more money. "But you need to persuade people that it's OK, and won't hurt sales but might help them," he said.
"Nobody in the room admits to being against making characters female or nonwhite," he added. "But they're scared because they don't know how to defend that choice to their bosses."
"Our industry, our art, and our business stand to gain in every sense simply by holding a mirror up to our audience and reflecting their diversity in what we produce," Abernathy said.
So it sounds as though the hasn't been a cultural shift, judging by the statements made by several people involved in the games industry, but that companies are now recognising a new viable market. Sounds a little familiar.......
Oh yeah,
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As I've already said I believe that when the market change then this too will change. Not that there is some culture shift in attitudes towards women, but that the forecasts show that there will be a suitable return on their investment to justify the risk. That is the nature of almost every business. To make money regardless of morals etc. If they sideline characters it is because of financial reasons, not some cultural baggage unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary.
Or, as an article I posted a couple days ago stated, they really just don't understand their market as well as they think they do. It's already changed, but the companies themselves haven't.
Exploitation of a character/person/resource implies they have little or no choice in the matter.
The Lexy Cooper cover exploits the character image, but not the readers, who have an easy choice to buy it or not.
Unless you support the idea that people especially men are unable to rationally control their sexual impulses.
I don't know but women readers may well see Lexy Cooper as a strong, confident, attractive character partly based on her dress.
People read meanings into other people's actions and often misunderstand them due to various errors and biases. It is called "attribution theory". Thus, a man and a woman can look at the same person/character and make completely different inferences about them.
Melissia wrote: Or, as an article I posted a couple days ago stated, they really just don't understand their market as well as they think they do. It's already changed, but the companies themselves haven't.
And I said that change would come, not when there was a social change, but a financial incentive. I've been pretty clear and consistent on that point, which you poured scorn on. What you said was;
Melissia wrote: I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making
Melissia wrote: I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)? Or does it mean that they are responding to market changes (my argument)?
I'll give you a clue,
Abernathy pointed to various studies that show the diverse makeup of modern gamers, including research by the Entertainment Software Association and casual game developer PopCap which states that adult women now make up 30 per cent of US gamers.
The market has changed, the industry is responding, but the "societal biases" and "cultural baggage" that you speak of are still present.
Maybe you could answer this as well as you seem to have avoided it - Another perspective is, are covers like these; (see above) exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And I said that change would come, not when there was a social change, but a financial incentive.
There has always been a financial incentive.
You're assuming that they have perfect information and are perfectly capable of making completely logical decisions. Which they aren't. Seriously, what the HELL about the video games industry makes you think that they are this competent?
The industry will continue to drag its feet and, as a result, miss out on profits that it could have had otherwise.
Just like countless industries before them after big businesses took over.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)?
Stop attempting to create a strawman, that's not my argument and never has been. People speaking out against sexism in the industry is not the same as the industry no longer being sexist.
That was your argument, your own words which I quoted to you. As I said before, I've been pretty clear in my argument about when the industry will change, and someone from one of the biggest companies in the industry came out and echoed my point.
If you're trying to distort what you've said in light of new material then I think any chance of a reasonable discussion is greatly diminished.
Try actually reading the posts that you're quoting instead of blindly quoting them and then making gak up.
I'm not distorting anything about what I said. I never, not even once, said that just speaking out against the problem would indicate that the problem is somehow magically resolved, and I have no clue where the feth you got that idea from.
If anyone here is doing any sort of distortion, it's you.
Maybe you could answer this as well as you seem to have avoided it - Another perspective is, are covers like these; (see above) exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
I refer you to my previous answer.
TLR if heterosexual men are unthinking beasts, they are cruelly exploited by such covers. However, they aren't.
If you want to have a discussion on how it is exploitative, you should talk to Manchu. I simply stated that I thought it was inappropriate and a little tasteless.
Melissa, you keep ducking the question about the covers, any chance you could share your thoughts on those?
Melissia wrote: Try actually reading the posts that you're quoting instead of blindly quoting them and then making gak up.
I'm not distorting anything about what I said. I never, not even once, said that just speaking out against the problem would indicate that the problem is somehow magically resolved, and I have no clue where the feth you got that idea from.
If anyone here is doing any sort of distortion, it's you.
I quoted your exact words, and somehow I'm distorting them? That's a bizarre argument to make.
What about these quotes? Have I somehow distorted them?
Melissia wrote:I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
You are only claiming such because you are desperately grasping at straws to try to discredit what I have said-- since you do not exactly have much of a point otherwise.
Melissia wrote:I never disagreed that they're motivated by money, but that's not really relevant. I'm saying that cultural values color their interpretation of the data, leading them to jump to inaccurate conclusions-- such as shutting down or forcibly changing (against the will of the writers, a problem that in comic books is called an "editorial mandate") because of a misplaced belief that female leads are unprofitable specifically because they're female.
That's what cultural values DO, they color our interpretations of the data we receive. Because of our culture, we know that a red light means stop, while a green light means go. Because of our culture, we know that a hand held up palm facing you is a sign for "stop", while in another culture, it might actually mean something rather profane and/or sexual. Our upbringing and values colors our interpretation of the data, and this is not really bad, it's necessary for functioning as a human being, but that doesn't mean that nothing should ever change.
Melissia wrote:I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making. Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people? No. He was making a decision to turn them aside because he believed, based off of common cultural perceptions, that they would not be good for business-- that they wouldn't have the money, that they would attract undesirables such as criminals and drug-users, and that they would scare away more desirable customers (who just so happened to be white). Or if they did serve non-whites, the businesses offered inferior services to the black people instead of equal services-- again, perceiving them as less valuable customers, even when they both paid the same prices for the same products.
Many, if not most, did not necessarily think "I hate black people so I'm not serving them". They wanted higher profits so they did things which they perceived would result in higher profits. But that does not make their decisions the correct ones, either financially or morally.
Your position has been that cultural baggage is the reason for lack of investment, you've been pretty consistent in that.
Now, two very prominent female members of the games industry (including the former Xbox Community Manager) have come out with details of the type of sexism still prevalent in the industry - proving that there has been no change in culture in the industry (unless of course you think that your personal anecdotes trump theirs). A writer for Microsoft Studios comes out and says that the are aware that the market has changed to the point were it is viable and they will start breaking into it i.e. that there has been a change because of the market
To reiterate what I said back on Page 28, and which you kept disagreeing with
"As I've already said I believe that when the market change then this too will change. Not that there is some culture shift in attitudes towards women, but that the forecasts show that there will be a suitable return on their investment to justify the risk. That is the nature of almost every business. To make money regardless of morals etc. If they sideline characters it is because of financial reasons, not some cultural baggage unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary." It seems the evidence backs up my position more strongly than it does yours.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Melissa, you keep ducking the question about the covers
No, I'm not.
You're conflating Manchu's argument with mine. If you have beef with Manchu's argument, bug Manchu.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I quoted your exact words, and somehow I'm distorting them? That's a bizarre argument to make.
You quoted my words and then proceeded to ignore them and make up an argument entirely unrelated to the words that were quoted. That is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument, and a perfect example of distortion.
Melissia wrote: You're conflating Manchu's argument with mine. If you have beef with Manchu's argument, bug Manchu
I asked for your thoughts on the matter, I didn't reply to Manchu. Now who is conflating and distorting?
Melissia wrote: You quoted my words and then proceeded to ignore them and make up an argument entirely unrelated to the words that were quoted. That is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument, and a perfect example of distortion.
I quoted your exact words and I responded to the argument that you made, as can be seen clearly from your own words. No matter how much you may wish it there is no distortion on my part.
I gave them. It is not my problem that you haven't bothered reading them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I responded to the argument that you made, as can be seen clearly from your own words
No, you did not.
You made the assertion that this was my argument:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, [that shows] that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved
This is not my argument. It has never been my argument. In responding to this assertion, you are not responding to me.
I'm sorry, I missed your response as I was typing my own. In what way do you feel that "it was inappropriate and a little tasteless."?
Melissia wrote: No, you did not. You made the assertion that this was my argument:
You mean that the words that you posted here for all to see don't mean what they say? Curious.
Melissia wrote: This is not my argument. It has never been my argument. It is nothing more than an ass-pull.
My argument was very clearly that the market was not there and was not being invested in because it was not viable. Your argument was that female lead games were not getting funded or marketed because of "cultural baggage", you even crassly likened it to the racism that blacks suffered in America. I have quoted your own words in full. If there is an issue with what they say it is because of you and how you expressed your argument. So please take your frustration out on the appropriate source.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm sorry, I missed your response as I was typing my own. In what way do you feel that "it was inappropriate and a little tasteless."?
I responded to it way before htis.
To repeat what I said before:
Melissia wrote: Don't get me wrong, I likewise wish that was more professionally dressed given the subject matter (I don't exactly see many companies accepting that kind of dress while on the job...) [...] In this case, yes, I think the cover is tasteless, but I don't necessarily find anything wrong with the actual subject matter as presented by the summary.
tl;dr, I believe she should be dressed more professionally given the job that she is described as having in the novel. Especially when on the clock, as is apparent in the description. That outfit is okay for casual dress, partying, dancing, or just being comfortable, sure, but it is not appropriate work attire.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your argument was that female lead games were not getting funded or marketed because of "cultural baggage", you even crassly likened it to the racism that blacks suffered in America.
Yes, I did.
I never, however, said that a few people speaking up means that the problem was suddenly magically resolved.
That was your ass-pull. You said that. Not me-- you. Do not try to claim that I said it. That would be lying.
Melissia wrote: Don't get me wrong, I likewise wish that was more professionally dressed given the subject matter (I don't exactly see many companies accepting that kind of dress while on the job...)
[...]
In this case, yes, I think the cover is tasteless, but I don't necessarily find anything wrong with the actual subject matter as presented by the summary. tl;dr, I believe she should be dressed more professionally given the job that she is described as having in the novel. Especially when on the clock, as is apparent in the description. That outfit is okay for casual dress, partying, dancing, or just being comfortable, sure, but it is not appropriate work attire
But that doesn't answer the question I asked - are they exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your argument was that female lead games were not getting funded or marketed because of "cultural baggage", you even crassly likened it to the racism that blacks suffered in America.
Yes, I did.
I never, however, said that a few people speaking up means that the problem was suddenly magically resolved.
That was your ass-pull. You said that. Not me-- you. Do not try to claim that I said it. That would be lying.
Not once did I claim that two people speaking out against the industry resolved the problem. Far from it. In fact I was very clear that " two very prominent female members of the games industry (including the former Xbox Community Manager) have come out with details of the type of sexism still prevalent in the industry", and that there "hasn't been a cultural shift, judging by the statements made by several people involved in the games industry", and that " the "societal biases" and "cultural baggage" that you speak of are still present".
Now, on reading that it looks like you are the one who is distorting what I have said, but I won't do you the dis-service of accusing you of lying
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But that doesn't answer the question I asked - are they exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
False dichotomy. I never made the assertion that it was exploitative.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not once did I claim that two people speaking out against the industry resolved the problem.
You said that was my argument. It was most certainly not mine. The only person who made that assertion was you, therefor, it was your argument.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But that doesn't answer the question I asked - are they exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
False dichotomy. I never made the assertion that it was exploitative.
I never claimed that you made that assertion. It seems that you are making quite a habit of distorting my words to hear what you want to say, rather than what they do say. I'll take it then that you're just unwilling or unable to answer an honest question seeing as you can't help but distort my words.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not once did I claim that two people speaking out against the industry resolved the problem.
You said that was my argument. It was not an argument I made-- it was one that you made up out of thin air. Ergo, it was your argument, not mine.
What you are claiming is absolutely false, as I have already shown is my quote above. I did not make that argument, nor did I ascribe it to you. What I said was that the experiences of these two women showed that the culture had not changed. How you got the opposite of this is unclear. So unless you're going to provide a quote were I did say that I would appreciate a retraction and an apology.
If you don't like the fact that the assertion which you made up out of whole cloth-- which you, specifically you and no one else, added to your post, and which no one else added to theirs-- is being attributed to you, you are free to disown it and stop claiming that it belongs to people who have never made the argument.
Until then, it is your argument. It certainly is not mine, as I have said over and over again.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But that doesn't answer the question I asked - are they exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?
False dichotomy. I never made the assertion that it was exploitative.
I never claimed that you made that assertion.
Then stop expecting me to respond for someone else's argument.
Melissa, I'd appreciate an honest response to what I've posted instead of trying to divert and distract.
You've accused me of making arguments that I haven't made. I've given quotes to support that you're wrong and you are distorting or misreading what I've said. I've done so politely and without resorting to swearing at you. We can have an honest and mature discussion, and you can substantiate the outlandish claims that you have made. Or you can continue being dishonest in your dealings with me in this thread as evidenced by your inability to produce any evidence to back up your claims, or answer honest questions.
You've been getting honest responses. It is not my fault that you refuse to actually read them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You've accused me of making arguments that I haven't made.
If you're going to get mad at anyone for me calling you out on your strawman bullgak, get mad at yourself.
I have repeatedly stated that I have never argued this assertion:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, [that shows] that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved
And no matter how many times you try to claim that this is my argument, it is not.
The only one who has made that assertion is you. I certainly didn't make it. I can't find anyone in this thread that has made it-- except for you Therefor, it is your argument.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, [that shows] that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved
And no matter how many times you try to claim that this is my argument, it is not.
The only one who has made that assertion is you. I certainly didn't make it. I can't find anyone in this thread that has made it-- except for you Therefor, it is your argument.
Ok, hopefully we can get this resolved once and for all. Here is the quote -
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)? Or does it mean that they are responding to market changes (my argument)?
Notice how you have omitted the question and edited my words so that they have a different meaning. I also gave you the quotes from you that clearly said that the issues about lack of females in games was because of cultural baggage. You have engaged in a gross distortion of what I have said and continued to distort my words because you couldn't form any sort of coherent argument. Then you have had the audacity to claim that I am the one distorting words whenever I have given full an unedited quotes to back up my claims.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Notice how you have omitted the question and edited my words so that they have a different meaning
I never made the assertion that speaking out against the cultural baggage would magically and instantly resolve the problem. Stop making gak up and claiming I said it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Notice how you have omitted the question and edited my words so that they have a different meaning
I never made the assertion that speaking out against the cultural baggage would magically and instantly resolve the problem. Stop making gak up and claiming I said it.
I never made that argument, but lo and behold you keep trying to claim that I have.
Melissia wrote: Yes, your post is disgraceful and you should be ashamed.
One of us has responded with facts and quotes to back up his position. The other has mis-quoted, distorted and swore at the other to make her point. Please, keep digging.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I never made that argument, but lo and behold you keep trying to claim that I have.
Listen (for once)...
The entire purpose of speaking out about the problem is to bring it to the public consciousness-- if no one is aware of the problem, it ain't gonna fix itself. It'll just keep perpetuating itself. That's the entire reason behind Sarkesian's video, actually-- to show the problem that exists with the overuse of women as damsels in distress over all other roles. Through bringing up that the problem exists in the first place, a discussion can be had about why it exists, if it should be solved, and if so, how should it be solved.
Speaking out against the problem is not, however, a one-step solution to remove the problem. I have never claimed that it is. No one in this thread has ever claimed that it is. The only post where any part of it is claiming that it is... is your post. It is thus YOUR argument-- a strawman argument constructed by you.
The entire purpose of speaking out about the problem is to bring it to the public consciousness-- if no one is aware of the problem, it ain't gonna fix itself. It'll just keep perpetuating itself. That's the entire reason behind Sarkesian's video, actually-- to show the problem that exists with the overuse of women as damsels in distress over all other roles. Through bringing up that the problem exists in the first place, a discussion can be had about why it exists, if it should be solved, and if so, how should it be solved.
Speaking out against the problem is not, however, a one-step solution to remove the problem. I have never claimed that it is. No one in this thread has ever claimed that it is. The only post where any part of it is claiming that it is... is your post. It is thus YOUR argument-- a strawman argument constructed by you.
That is not my argument, nor has it been. You are asking me to listen and then trying to twist my words to suit your agenda. I never said that speaking out against sexism would make it go away (were it that easy we wouldn't have had the need for a discussion).
I said that the industry will follow the market and change when it does. You said,
Melissia wrote:I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
Further proof (as if it was needed) that you are distorting my words and assigning a strawman argument to me that I have not made.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)?
Is you.
You. Just you. Only you. No one else. You. Whether you're making the argument honestly or just as a strawman or out of pure ignorance, you're still the only one to make it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)?
Is you.
You. Just you. Only you. No one else. You. Whether you're making the argument honestly or just as a strawman or out of pure ignorance, you're still the only one to make it.
So its not your argument, you've never said anything about addresseding "cultural baggage" that I could have responded to?
So you didn't post;
Melissia wrote:I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
You never spoke of "cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of"? Are you seriously trying to tell me and everyone reading this that you didn't say those words or that somehow I've distorted what you clearly said?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So its not your argument, you've never said anything about addresseding "cultural baggage" that I could have responded to?
I did talk about cultural baggage.
I did not, however, say that it was anywhere close to being resolved, like you continue to claim that I did despite the by now two or three PAGES of me saying otherwise and not a single fething drop of proof provided by you.
So stop claiming I said it. Or are you just trolling?
Melissia wrote: I did not, however, say that it was anywhere close to being resolved, like you continue to claim that I did despite the by now two or three PAGES of me saying otherwise and not a single fething drop of proof provided by you.
I didn't claim that. I asked you if it had been resolved. Then rather than answer the question that I did ask you've embarked on a long and pointless campaign to distort my words, claim that you never posted the words that you did and tried to call me a liar.
If you're going to have the audacity to accuse anyone in this thread of trolling I would strongly suggest you first try looking in the mirror.
You didn't ask anything. You outright STATED that it was my argument that said cultural baggage been resolved.
It has not been resolved. It's not even close. That was never my argument. It still needs to be spoken out against, and it still needs to have actions taken against it from within the companies that are perpetuating it.
Melissia wrote: You didn't ask anything. You outright STATED that it was my argument that said cultural baggage been resolved.
So this isn't a question?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved?
I think its safe to say that, once again, you're doing a fine job of attempting to misrepresent what I've said then having the nerve to ask me if I'm trolling
Melissia wrote: I'm not accusing you of trolling. I'm saying that I'm considering the possibiltiy, given that you've gone on insisting I've made an argument that I didn't make for several pages now, without any proof of it-- with me directly contradicting you the enitre time.
You're right. Posting exact quotes of what you have said proves nothing, whereas mis-quoting me and swearing at me while posting passive aggressively obviously proves that I'm wrong
/sarcasm
If you're going to complain about me supposedly not faithfully quoting your post (even though I did, my edits not taking any context out of it), then you would be best served by not doing it yourself.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)?
You stated, at the end of the question, that his was "your argument", with "you" contextually referring to me.
But I never made that argument. Only you did.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Posting exact quotes of what you have said proves nothing, whereas mis-quoting me and swearing at me while posting passive aggressively obviously proves that I'm wrong /sarcasm
You have never quoted anything that indicated that I believed that the cultural baggage I spoke of was resolved, or even hinting at such a belief. And you'd be hard pressed to considering I never have.
And I never misquoted you. You made the strawman argument, therefor it is your argument. If that pisses you off, stop making strawman arguments.
Melissia wrote: But I never made that argument. Only you did.
So you never said that "cultural baggage" needed resolved? You didn't post this then?
Melissia wrote:I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
You then went on to argue that it was this cultural baggage that was affecting investment in female lead games, and scoffed at my argument that the industry was only interested in a viable market.
Melissia wrote: And I never misquoted you. You made the strawman argument, therefor it is your argument. If that pisses you off, stop making strawman arguments.
Yes you have misquoted me, and distorted my words and tried to make me out to be a troll when you're the one twisting in the wind. The argument that you made is right above, plain as day to see. If anything is pissing me off its the fact that you've had to distort what I have said to try and make a point, which has only served to dig yourself into a hole and yet you keep digging rather than admit your error.
**And because you had to edit something you posted, yet again**
Melissia wrote: You have never quoted anything that indicated that I believed that the cultural baggage I spoke of was resolved, or even hinting at such a belief. And you'd be hard pressed to considering I never have.
Good. Because I never said that it had been resolved, or attributed such a sentiment to you. That's why I asked you had it been resolved in that quote that you have now reposted several times.
Melissia wrote: Once again you use a strawman argument instead of actually responding to the post in question.
THis discussion is over. You are obviously not acting in good faith.
I was responding to the post in question, especially when you try and deny that your words were in fact your words.
You have distorted my argument, quoted me out of context, swore, been passive aggressive this whole time, denied that the words that you posted are your own words and accused me of being a troll. Now you have the gall to say that I'm acting in bad faith when I have provided more than ample clarification and evidence to substantiate my points? This is almost beyond parody
I'm watching the live feed for tabletopday right now.
I don't know whether it's selection bias or whatever but for the 'store feeds' they are doing there are a LOT of female gamers being presented. - So there definitely is a market out there.
I don't know whether it's selection bias or whatever but for the 'store feeds' they are doing there are a LOT of female gamers being presented. - So there definitely is a market out there.
Cool. Also the [Youtube] function requires tha it just be
to work, it doesn't work with user lists like that or playlists, IIRC.
