Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I died a little inside there, Ash.

That comic was fantastic.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Also, shout-out to the most win male character in the history of everything.

Sadly, that is not an official skin.

There should still be a village people series though.
Like, Cop Braum, Construction Worker Jayce, Indian Malzaphar, etc ,etc

Seaward wrote:I'm taking issue with the assertion that a female who enjoys playing with a sexy avatar must be brainwashed.

Except that's not what I said. I suggested that this is an explanation for the numbers you see.
Because that's kind of how current society works. Beauty contests, beauty product advertisement, .. actually, normal ads as well. There's a large number of "leftovers" from a time (50s-80s) when gender roles were a lot more established. Times change, but arguably they don't do so overnight.

Seaward wrote:That's not remotely close to what I said, no. I said that I don't care if "sexified" female characters exist in a game or not, and certainly don't find either case to be as annoying as the people who complain about them via wildly disingenuous arguments.

For this to be a valid argument, you'd have to prove people's arguments as being disingenuous first.
To recap: Are you suggesting that there are not strong sexist tendencies in the gaming industry and that they have not shaped the way the majority of games look like?

 Lynata wrote:
Are you suggesting that there are not strong sexist tendencies in the gaming industry and that they have not shaped the way the majority of games look like?

Yep. There aren't. What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic. By catering to the majority group, you increase profit. The majority target group of games with perceived sexism are straight males.

 Sigvatr wrote:
What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic..

Good business decisions can still result in a sexist outcome. Just because you're playing to the interests of an audience doesn't mean the audience isn't sexist, nor does it mean that the business itself isn't sexist in making its decisions.

The point is that it ain't sexism as it's motivated by rational business decisions. It can certainly yield to visuals or scripts perceived as being sexist.

 Sigvatr wrote:
What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic..

No it's not. It's financial logic colored by decades of sexism and racism within the industry, alongside centuries of deeply flawed business/marketing culture that we're still overcoming to this day.

Businesspeople are, in the end, still people. They are not cold, unfeeling machines with no biases and no cultural context.

Their intention is irrelevant. If the stuff they make is sexist then it's sexist and the company should be ashamed.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The point is that it ain't sexism as it's motivated by rational business decisions. It can certainly yield to visuals or scripts perceived as being sexist.

Ignorance that something is prejudicial or biased doesn't make it perfectly rational. Prejudice doesn't just come in the form of bigotry.

TheCustomLime wrote:Their intention is irrelevant. If the stuff they make is sexist then it's sexist and the company should be ashamed.

^ This. To me, the logic that a product is not sexist because its content was determined solely by "rational business decisions" is not very far from saying US slavery wasn't racist because it was cheaper to have a couple Blacks working your plantation.

Also, it'd kind of merely be shifting the blame, not changing the end result. If the games industry isn't sexist but rational (something disputed by a number of insiders and anecdotal evidence) but creates sexist products because they sell, then this means the players are sexist. Would that actually be better?
The truth is probably somewhere in-between, but I'd argue it's easier to change the industry than to change the playerbase. The latter would, over the generations, slowly follow the former as the media begin to favour greater equality and thus slowly shift cultural perception.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The point is that it ain't sexism as it's motivated by rational business decisions. It can certainly yield to visuals or scripts perceived as being sexist.

Ignorance that something is prejudicial or biased doesn't make it perfectly rational. Prejudice doesn't just come in the form of bigotry.

It's not ignored, it's tolerated. Competitive FPS is widely dominated by male players. Developer chooses to introduce female characters with giant boobs in tight clothing. Rational decision.

Is that questionable morals-wise? Fosho. Is the developer sexist because of that? Nope. Neither is the decision to do it.

Sexism, by its very definition, happens on an interpersonal level, not in video games. Video games can contribute to reinforcing stereotypes albeit I have yet to see a study that proves a direct corrolation. See: violence in video games reinforcing violent behavior, i.e. permanent exposure to said content would directly influence a person's negative attitude.

Here:

 Lynata wrote:
This. To me, the logic that a product is not sexist because its content was determined solely by "rational business decisions" is not very far from saying US slavery wasn't racist because it was cheaper to have a couple Blacks working your plantation

This shows a lack of understanding of the term. The comparison is bad as your comparison refers to actual oppression on an interpersonal level, actual racism. We're talking video games here which could (!) be doing no more than reinforcing stereotypes. That's a mightly long shot you'd take there.

An actual sexist video game would have to be a game that actively enforces a discrimination of women.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Rational decision.

And still sexist.

Is that questionable morals-wise?

So your argument is that it's questionable moral wise but not sexist? Then on what grounds is it morally questionable?

Sexism, by its very definition, happens on an interpersonal level,

You're subscribing that all prejudice is based in bigotry. It's not. Prejudice can arise in numerous ways.

You can play logical loop de loops all day, but you're simply limited your understanding to avoid having to deal with the wider issue that people can inadvertently bring harm to other people while not intending to do such. People indirectly harm one another every day in every part of the world. Sometimes in little ways sometimes in big ways. Reinforcing negative stereotypes about women is sexist. Maybe its the most minor form sexism can take, but sexist none the less.

 LordofHats wrote:
Maybe its the most minor form sexism can take, but sexist none the less.

It's a question of your definition of "sexism". Rational definitions refer to attitudes and interpersonal behavior.

Your definition (as intepretated by me after reading your posts, correct me if I'm wrong) is the (very) wide (post)feminist definition. It's highly looked down upon by most people invested in the issue because it's mainly used to emotionalize people and statements usually made from this point of view mostly lack any profound reasoning. One example was given above: a lot of people sharing this "definition" draw a direct correlation from e.g. perceived reinforcement of stereotyping sex roles without having any evidence.

If you think that e.g. the portrayal of mostly naked women in video games makes children become sexists, then you also think that playing violent video games makes children become murderers.

Do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


So your argument is that it's questionable moral wise but not sexist? Then on what grounds is it morally questionable?

I said that it *can* be questionable morals-wise. Morals are as colorful as a rainbow and I am, like anyone else, in no position to judge them.

Personally, I think that it depends on the game whether a certain portrayal is appropriate or not. As already stated above, if my Defiance character would start encountering pretty much naked women with giant hopping breasts, I'd be all up the developer's butt as it breaks my immersion. If in a game such as DoA Beach Volleyball, women have giant boobies that hop around like they're made of jelly, I'd be completely okay with it. Same goes for any FPS shooter. There's no immersion to begin with, so go ahead with it.

The key thing is that the former part of the post is about the definition. Only the latter is about personal opinion.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your definition (as intepretated by me after reading your posts, correct me if I'm wrong) is the (very) wide (post)feminist definition.

Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. This is a straightforward discriptive definition and has nothing to do with feminism.

You've attempted in this thread (and this happens in discussions of racism too) to limit sexism to bigoted behavior. One doesn't need to be a bigot to be prejudiced. One doesn't need to hate members of one sex to take actions or engage in behavior that is sexist.

If you think that e.g. the portrayal of mostly naked women in video games makes children become sexists, then you also think that playing violent video games makes children become murderers.

It's highly looked down upon by most people invested in rational discussion to form straw men!

Children and adults use media fictional and nonfictional to help them define the world around them. Numerous studies have been produced linking depictions in media with human behavior. There's a wide chasm between the claim that violent media desensitizes people to real world violence and the claim that violent media turns people into murderers. The former has evidence to back it up, the later does not.

The claim being made is that sexist depictions in media reinforce sexist stereotypes, which isn't the same thing as saying that skimply dressed women in a video game produce women haters.

Morals are as colorful as a rainbow and I am, like anyone else, in no position to judge them.

The entire purpose of morality is to make judgements about behavior. Moral relativism isn't an argument that all morals are right.

Sigvatr wrote:This shows a lack of understanding of the term. The comparison is bad as your comparison refers to actual oppression on an interpersonal level, actual racism. We're talking video games here which could (!) be doing no more than reinforcing stereotypes. That's a mightly long shot you'd take there.

Regardless of where and how you apply it, racism is still racism, and sexism is still sexism. What I'm questioning is not different levels of application, but the concept of something not being racist/sexist just because it is executed out of "rational business concerns" rather than a person's bias.

And I'd argue that general acceptance of slavery has just as much a passive "educational" effect on children growing up in such an environment as video games. In both cases they are not "actual oppression on an interpersonal level", but reinforcing stereotypes - in the case of slavery, the plantation owner telling his kids that this for the slaves' own good. Financial concerns were merely an excellent breeding ground for racism - it feels better to exploit someone if you manage to talk yourself into thinking that this is how it's meant to be.

On a sidenote, given the important effect of media on the youth, how can we say for sure that they are reinforcing a stereotype rather than creating it? What would be a young, impressionable child's first contact with these stereotypes in a modern world environment? Does it truly come from the parents nowadays, in the majority of cases?

Perpetuating stereotypes to the masses is still sexism/racism. Sexism/racism takes many shapes, forms and avenues. Consumer products is one of the better known ones.


I watched a video recently about GameTheory's opinion regarding the portrayal of women in Smite. They argued that classical portrayal of these characters were also of bareskinned women. That may be but these depictions weren't nearly as sexualized as Smite would have you believe. Nudity=/=Cheesecake.

 LordofHats wrote:
This is a straightforward discriptive definition and has nothing to do with feminism.

As above.

You've attempted in this thread (and this happens in discussions of racism too) to limit sexism to bigoted behavior. One doesn't need to be a bigot to be prejudiced. One doesn't need to hate members of one sex to take actions or engage in behavior that is sexist.

As above.

It's highly looked down upon by most people invested in rational discussion to form straw men!

Who brought the comparison up?

Children and adults use media fictional and nonfictional to help them define the world around them. Numerous studies have been produced linking depictions in media with human behavior. There's a wide chasm between the claim that violent media desensitizes people to real world violence and the claim that violent media turns people into murderers. The former has evidence to back it up, the later does not.

Can you provide a study making a direct correlation on this matter?

The claim being made is that sexist depictions in media reinforce sexist stereotypes

That is pretty much correct in a lot of cases. The problem is being precise. I'd rather argue that the portrayal of barely clothed women to entertain a...simple audience is an objectification rather than reinforcing classic stereotypes. Having them in a military shooter, for example, would be breaking up with classic stereotypes. Portraying them in a clearly sexualizing manner is an objectification.

The entire purpose of morality is to make judgements about behavior. Moral relativism isn't an argument that all morals are right.

We will have to agree to disagree here then unless we're at a misunderstanding. You can, of course, judge another moral standard coming from your own, but you can't say that there are "wrong" morals by an objective standard.

 Lynata wrote:


And I'd argue that general acceptance of slavery has just as much a passive "educational" effect on children growing up in such an environment as video games.

I'll just leave this here for you to think about it again. It's a poorly thought.out comparison, it has no valid claim other than your personal opinion and it's pretty darn offensive. Wait a few hours, think about it again and decide whether you really want to go down that route.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Perpetuating stereotypes to the masses is still sexism/racism.

As above.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Perpetuating stereotypes to the masses is still sexism/racism. Sexism/racism takes many shapes, forms and avenues. Consumer products is one of the better known ones.


I watched a video recently about GameTheory's opinion regarding the portrayal of women in Smite. They argued that classical portrayal of these characters were also of bareskinned women. That may be but these depictions weren't nearly as sexualized as Smite would have you believe. Nudity=/=Cheesecake.

Ya the game theory episode kind of bugged me because it seamed that it hovered around the idea that how sexualized you were was based around how naked you were and it kind of missed some of the other facets.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Can you provide a study making a direct correlation on this matter?

So what you're saying is that you don't do your homework and expect me to do it for you?

objectification

Objectification meets the classic definition of discrimination. By definition to objectify something is to deny it human agency, i.e. discriminatory, i.e. objectification of women is sexist. I'm not sure if you're trying to make a separate point or responding to a point with something unrelated

you can't say that there are "wrong" morals by an objective standard.

I suggest you reread something on basic moral relativity. It's not an argument that morals can't be judged merely an accounting that moral question may have more than one correct answer. It is not an argument that supports "my morals are different than yours and you can't say I'm wrong." You're arguing moral nihilism.

 Lynata wrote:
Except that's not what I said. I suggested that this is an explanation for the numbers you see.
Because that's kind of how current society works. Beauty contests, beauty product advertisement, .. actually, normal ads as well. There's a large number of "leftovers" from a time (50s-80s) when gender roles were a lot more established. Times change, but arguably they don't do so overnight.

That is, actually, exactly what you said.

And I admit, I absolutely adore the people who think a lot of women wanting to be attractive is just some massive scheme ginned up by the patriarchy way back in the dawn of time when men (those bastards) won the coin flip to determine who would set the agenda for the next seventy thousand years.

For this to be a valid argument, you'd have to prove people's arguments as being disingenuous first.

I thought we already did that, in this very thread, with League, by pointing out people were using selective examples that seemed to prove their case while ignoring examples that hurt it? That's hardly unusual for this sort of argument, though.

To recap: Are you suggesting that there are not strong sexist tendencies in the gaming industry and that they have not shaped the way the majority of games look like?

Yep.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic..

No it's not. It's financial logic colored by decades of sexism and racism within the industry, alongside centuries of deeply flawed business/marketing culture that we're still overcoming to this day.

Businesspeople are, in the end, still people. They are not cold, unfeeling machines with no biases and no cultural context.

All your outrage is, is a free advertising tool for the target demographic

Seaward wrote:

Lynata wrote:Except that's not what I said. I suggested that this is an explanation for the numbers you see.
Because that's kind of how current society works. Beauty contests, beauty product advertisement, .. actually, normal ads as well. There's a large number of "leftovers" from a time (50s-80s) when gender roles were a lot more established. Times change, but arguably they don't do so overnight.

That is, actually, exactly what you said.

"Arguably, that depends on the game - both in terms of what alternate options the game actually offers, as well as what sort of women the game attracts. World of Warcraft, for example, with its focus on social interaction and status as an accepted mass phenomena in the western world, gets a lot of housewives, and many of them ]u}may[/u] be "brainwashed" by the everyday bombardment of idealised beauty in targeted advertisement and other media that may have shaped their understanding of how they "should" look."
-- Lynata

You should've been able to look this up on your own.

Seaward wrote:And I admit, I absolutely adore the people who think a lot of women wanting to be attractive is just some massive scheme ginned up by the patriarchy way back in the dawn of time when men (those bastards) won the coin flip to determine who would set the agenda for the next seventy thousand years.

Nonsense. Everyone wants to be attractive regardless of gender. The issue is in the focus and how it - and other values whose importance supposedly differs based on gender - are being pushed by modern day culture in a vicious cycle of indoctrination and business demand.

But maybe your mind, fearful of the evil feminazi matriarchy lurking in the shadows, just waiting for a chance to subjugate men, has already purged those ads I posted earlier from your memory.
Am I doing this right? @ buzzwords

Seaward wrote:I thought we already did that, in this very thread, with League, by pointing out people were using selective examples that seemed to prove their case while ignoring examples that hurt it? That's hardly unusual for this sort of argument, though.

Certainly - and from both sides. It is a topic people are passionate about*, after all. Yourself included, given the loaded terms you're throwing around.
But .. no, invalidating one or two examples does not automatically invalidate any other argument, and certainly not the core problem.

(*: makes me remember that glorious "war on men" thread on dakka OT some time ago)

Seaward wrote:

Lynata wrote:To recap: Are you suggesting that there are not strong sexist tendencies in the gaming industry and that they have not shaped the way the majority of games look like?

Yep.

Then I suppose that from my perspective you are part of the probem, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. This topic depends a lot on sensitivity and alertness - I myself did not recognise it either until a few years ago, and if you don't see it for yourself, I don't think there is a chance of convincing you just by mentioning how something looks like for us.
Anecdotal evidence such as interviews about studios and publishers deliberately objectifying female characters and their clothing even against their designer's wishes, attempting to push them to the back of the box art (or not having them featured at all), or statements that games with female protagonists "wouldn't sell" could easily be brushed off as exceptions, after all, much like the mere existence of certain games such as Scarlet Blade, the ongoing use of scantly-clad booth babes to appeal to male gamers or sexist remarks during live events.

Sigvatr wrote:I'll just leave this here for you to think about it again. It's a poorly thought.out comparison, it has no valid claim other than your personal opinion and it's pretty darn offensive. Wait a few hours, think about it again and decide whether you really want to go down that route.

If you believe it has no valid claim, perhaps you can explain how you arrived at this conclusion, rather than tossing me the result and thinking that's enough for me to accept your opinion.

 Grundz wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic..

No it's not. It's financial logic colored by decades of sexism and racism within the industry, alongside centuries of deeply flawed business/marketing culture that we're still overcoming to this day.

Businesspeople are, in the end, still people. They are not cold, unfeeling machines with no biases and no cultural context.

All your outrage is, is a free advertising tool for the target demographic

That is a statement, not an argument, and you provide no facts to support it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What you perceive as sexism is pure financial logic..

No it's not. It's financial logic colored by decades of sexism and racism within the industry, alongside centuries of deeply flawed business/marketing culture that we're still overcoming to this day.

Businesspeople are, in the end, still people. They are not cold, unfeeling machines with no biases and no cultural context.

All your outrage is, is a free advertising tool for the target demographic

That is a statement, not an argument, and you provide no facts to support it.

Dunno, I would say millions of people pouring money into Anitta Sarkeesian and her listing a bunch of games that are/are not sexist is free marketing to those games in question.

It's kind of like Call of Juarez, the Cartel; I had never heard of it until I had twenty different people telling me it's a plain offensive game to be avoided like the plague. Because those people wouldn't leave well enough alone (Not that they shouldn't have blasted the game, or in this threads case, Sexism) but I heard about a game I never had before. What is free marketing, if not getting people to talk about your game without actually doing anything?

 Lynata wrote:
You should've been able to look this up on your own.

Wasn't much need to. It's not a defensible statement. It's assertion free from supporting facts - though I'm sure Kilkrazy will never jump on you for it, as he's on your team - and it assumes the all-pervasive patriarchy as a matter of course, which is, obviously, absurd.

Nonsense. Everyone wants to be attractive regardless of gender. The issue is in the focus and how it - and other values whose importance supposedly differs based on gender - are being pushed by modern day culture in a vicious cycle of indoctrination and business demand.

I know we don't like to admit it around here or on the trendy parts of the internet, but it's entirely possible that the importance of other values differs between genders. It's the in thing to do to pretend there is no difference between a male and a female of the species, but that's simply not the case.

But maybe your mind, fearful of the evil feminazi matriarchy lurking in the shadows, just waiting for a chance to subjugate men, has already purged those ads I posted earlier from your memory.
Am I doing this right? @ buzzwords

I have no idea if you're doing it right. The rational side of the argument certainly wasn't the one that came up with all the buzzwords. I'd never seriously use "heteronormative cisgendered patriarchy" because I have a little too much self-respect.

Certainly - and from both sides. It is a topic people are passionate about*, after all. Yourself included, given the loaded terms you're throwing around.
But .. no, invalidating one or two examples does not automatically invalidate any other argument, and certainly not the core problem.

The "core problem" is that nobody but those who throw around SJW nonsense can ever win. And I'm well aware that invalidating "one or two examples" doesn't invalidate the argument, because no one's ever going to make the real argument. People whine about "sexified" females? Games get other alternatives. People then whine about how the "sexified" females haven't been removed despite non-sexified alternatives being offered. Because that, really, is what this whole argument boils down to: some people want society at large to stop finding certain things attractive, and that's just never going to happen.

Then I suppose that from my perspective you are part of the probem, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Normally people who want to agree to disagree don't keep arguing after saying so, yet...

This topic depends a lot on sensitivity and alertness - I myself did not recognise it either until a few years ago, and if you don't see it for yourself, I don't think there is a chance of convincing you just by mentioning how something looks like for us.

I agree with that. It's not a point of view anyone will naturally come to. They have to be indocrinated into it.

Anecdotal evidence such as interviews about studios and publishers deliberately objectifying female characters and their clothing even against their designer's wishes, attempting to push them to the back of the box art (or not having them featured at all), or statements that games with female protagonists "wouldn't sell" could easily be brushed off as exceptions, after all, much like the mere existence of certain games such as Scarlet Blade, the ongoing use of scantly-clad booth babes to appeal to male gamers or sexist remarks during live events.

Oh, we're allowing in anecdotal evidence now? I have a mountain of that.

But make the argument you want to make, under all this veiled nonsense about sexism. It'll feel better.

Actually, it's true that Bioshock Infinite threw Elizabeth off of the front cover because they were worried her being on the cover would throw off sales, Remember Me almost wasn't made because of a female protagonist (And Nilin was supposed to romance someone, and that was a no-no), and that Naughty Dog had to fight tooth and nail for Ellie to be on the front cover of The Last of Us.

Seaward wrote:Wasn't much need to.

If you truly believe this, why start off by claiming I said something different?

And it has just as many facts to support it as the assertion it was a response to.

Seaward wrote:I know we don't like to admit it around here or on the trendy parts of the internet, but it's entirely possible that the importance of other values differs between genders. It's the in thing to do to pretend there is no difference between a male and a female of the species, but that's simply not the case.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false. Fact is that there are cultures outside our own that function differently. There are also studies concerning a shift in skillsets and interests concerning the female population. But I can see how someone could justify a segregating attitude with assumptions on genetic differences. The same thing was done with a different subset of the population not too long ago, too, after all. Humanity as a whole simply seems prone to classifying people based on groups instead of judging them as individuals. I'm not sure this can ever be changed, but the effects of this tendency can be reduced. Western culture already scored successes on this on several other fronts. In fact, it did so on the topic of gender equality as well, we're just not "quite there yet".

Seaward wrote:I have no idea if you're doing it right. The rational side of the argument certainly wasn't the one that came up with all the buzzwords. I'd never seriously use "heteronormative cisgendered patriarchy" because I have a little too much self-respect.

I have no idea who came up with them. But I know that both on dakka as well as on other sites I frequent, the vast majority of debaters using these buzzwords are from the side you claim is "rational", and I know they are opposed by the people I'm siding with. Take a guess what this means in regards to who I am thinking is more rational.

Seaward wrote:Because that, really, is what this whole argument boils down to: some people want society at large to stop finding certain things attractive, and that's just never going to happen.

Here you actually suggest something constructive: the reason behind sexism, and why it's so hard to eradicate. That being said, the notion that society never changes is both pessimistic as well as historically accurate. Things haven't always been this way, they aren't this way everywhere, and they won't stay this way. It's merely a question of "when" and "how".

The same applies to the amount of games people you say "whine" about, especially once you start discounting indie titles and looking at the AAA market, whose titles are advertised and sell the most and thus have a much stronger effect on the population.

Seaward wrote:Oh, we're allowing in anecdotal evidence now?

Perhaps you should read that part of my post again.

Also, just because I've realised and acknowledged I can never "win" this argument with someone like you, it does not mean I do not perceive a need to defend my position once voiced. It just means that personally I already consider it a waste of both our time, and that I may respond in a less comprehensive manner to certain points of the argument. For example, there's no reason for me to bother looking up more examples to complement those mentioned by Slarg232, as I don't believe they are going to have any effect on you.

 Slarg232 wrote:


Dunno, I would say millions of people pouring money into Anitta Sarkeesian and her listing a bunch of games that are/are not sexist is free marketing to those games in question.

I very much doubt there are millions of people buying games for that reason

 Grundz wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:


Dunno, I would say millions of people pouring money into Anitta Sarkeesian and her listing a bunch of games that are/are not sexist is free marketing to those games in question.

I very much doubt there are millions of people buying games for that reason

And before a couple of months ago, I was unaware millions of people were spouting nonsense about a "Patriarchy!"

I doubt too many people have, but if even one or two buys a game due to negative press, that's one or two more sales for the developer.