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.

@OP: Honestly the only "misogyny" I've ever encountered in my years of gaming was from Counter-strike numerous times and ONLY Counter-strike. There's probably a valid reason for this somewhere, but this narrative that's been painted that (male) gamers exist to harass women is utter horse crap. If anything, gamer culture LIKES women due to the popularity of 'girl gamer' streams.

Try playing almost any MMO. Pay attention to how people treat/act around or towards female characters. You can see sexism in action (or, hey, experience it yourself, if you choose a female avatar, regardless of your RL gender).

I played DCUO. I did not notice anything, but I barely ever spoke to anyone in that game. And barely anyone ever spoke to me.
Also, I had a female character, but which was really not the eye-catching kind:

 Psienesis wrote:

@OP: Honestly the only "misogyny" I've ever encountered in my years of gaming was from Counter-strike numerous times and ONLY Counter-strike. There's probably a valid reason for this somewhere, but this narrative that's been painted that (male) gamers exist to harass women is utter horse crap. If anything, gamer culture LIKES women due to the popularity of 'girl gamer' streams.

Try playing almost any MMO. Pay attention to how people treat/act around or towards female characters. You can see sexism in action (or, hey, experience it yourself, if you choose a female avatar, regardless of your RL gender).

Sexism =/= misogyny though.

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
That's not an apt comparison. And even if you are correct about art, the answer could also be "none at all"

Its perfectly apt. It's not even a matter of proof but a matter of logic. If one state is true, it is impossible for the other to be false, and it would take an incredible amount of ignorance and/or obtuseness to honestly believe that people do not use media to help shape their views (i.e. influence).

Just looks at Ayn Rand and how her books almost single handed spawned modern Libertarianism, or how Uncle Tom and Gone with the Wind as books have shaped (to the point of subverting history) the perception of Antebellum and Civil War Southern America. All those celebrities and fans who talk about how much they loved <insert fictional hero> as a kid and how embracing that character got them through hard times. Everytime some moron with a 6th grade level of critical reading offers a banal argument about how the US government is an Orwellian conspiracy and that's why they hate the US Government. All the people who describe themselves as "South Park Republicans."

You do know Ayn Rand said libertarians were the hippies of the right, and they stole her ideas, she also rejected the idea she was a libertarian. the libertarian idea was around long before Rand was even born. Libertarians aren't even a culture, they're a sub culture.

So you'd say that one book spawned the modern libertarian movement? What about Isabel Paterson's & Rose Wilder Lane's? What influence did their books have on the movement? Obviously none at all. How have south park republicans effected society? None at all, comes to mind. Did the gobots, any effect on society? nope.

How did the Iliad effect you personally? what world or cultural views changed after you read it? What art spawned the gun culture?

Art imitates life, it doesn't affect cultures. Cultures make art to reflect their culture. Rarely some really good art might cause a person to rethink his views on something, but more often than not, the persons existing views led them to examine the art.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Someone did not watch the video I linked to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjFTHTgEVU&feature=youtu.be&t=10m43s
Enjoy Google expert Dr. Brian Welle destroying your methodology .
Is that “proof” enough for you?

No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it. Try again. I doubt you even watched it, or you did and totally missed the point.

Where in that video did they discuss where these biases come from? Where did it say they come from video games?

Does everyone have biases? Of course. Parents each their biases to their kids and kids spend the first 6 years of their life absorbing all of their parents biases.

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it.

.
Do you understand English, sir? Methodology. It is an English word, learn its meaning. Just click on the video link, you will be directly at the part of the video where he explains that asking people to rate themselves the way you proposed does not work. I went through the trouble to just point to it so I could rub it in your face! I cut through the whole implicit association test and went right at the “this test was invented because sirlynchmob's methodology does not work”.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it.

.
Do you understand English, sir? Methodology. It is an English word, learn its meaning. Just click on the video link, you will be directly at the part of the video where he explains that asking people to rate themselves the way you proposed does not work. I went through the trouble to just point to it so I could rub it in your face! I cut through the whole implicit association test and went right at the “this test was invented because sirlynchmob's methodology does not work”.

You should spend more time finding proof that video games leads to sexism.

my methodology works fine, it was a clever way to ask, "are you more sexist because you play video games?" well are you? If what you keep claiming is true, you should be.

It's not methodology. It's some kind of passive aggressive retort.

sirlynchmob wrote:
my methodology works fine, it was a clever way to ask, "are you more sexist because you play video games?"

Yeah, it was a (supposedly) clever way to ask a dumb question. Asking people if they are more or less sexist do not work to find if they are more or less sexist. That is what the video explained.

I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life


Wow that is a dry read, but interesting.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You do know Ayn Rand said libertarians were the hippies of the right,

Yes I know. Ayn Rand was an odd duck. Quite happy to insult Libertarians while at the same time espousing the same ideals and producing their gospel.

the libertarian idea was around long before Rand was even born.

And? Modern Libertarianism in the US is quite different from that of previous times. Today it's become much closer to Republicanism, where as previously is was just a wee bit of authority away from Anarchy.

So you'd say that one book spawned the modern libertarian movement?

I said almost. The influence of Rand on Libertarianism as we know it today is overwhelming. That isn't a statement that no one else ever influenced it, merely an acknowledgement of the most obvious influence.

How did the Iliad effect you personally?

Not particularly much, but then, the entire idea of 'Heroes' as we know it was born by the Greeks and works like the Iliad. Arguably the effect of the Iliad is so widespread in Western culture and so deeply rooted that we can't escape it, meaning yes it's effected all of us. So much so we can't even fathom how much.

As for books that did effect me, try Starship Troopers, The Forever War, the papers of Tolkein, a whole gakton of history books that would take forever to list, etc etc. You're entire world view has been shaped by media, whether you realize it or not.

Art imitates life,

Yep. And likewise Cultures reflect their art. It's a two way street. Culture is nothing more than ideas, art being one of the more evocative ways of sharing ideas. If one were to as

it doesn't affect cultures.

?

Art is culture. If you really don't think art changes culture, then you must have missed Art History or something, because the entire field is basically nothing but the study of art and culture and their mutual evolution over time.

Rarely some really good art might cause a person to rethink his views on something

I do hear that 90% of everything is crap.

nomotog wrote:
I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life

Spoiler:

The findings are supportive of an additive versus an interactive model, whereby either chronic or temporary construct accessibility may be sufficient to produce sex discriminatory behavior.

Wow that is a dry read, but interesting.

It's also the second listed source for this, funnily enough

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/06/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/

(it always comes back to Anita )

 LordofHats wrote:
You're entire world view has been shaped by media, whether you realize it or not.

The idea that media doesn't influence is laughable, but it is significantly less laughable than statements like "Games cause sexism!" or "Games cause violence!".

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life

Spoiler:

The findings are supportive of an additive versus an interactive model, whereby either chronic or temporary construct accessibility may be sufficient to produce sex discriminatory behavior.

Wow that is a dry read, but interesting.

It's also the second listed source for this, funnily enough

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/06/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/

(it always comes back to Anita )

Well they are the center of the universe so it makes sense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The idea that media doesn't influence is laughable, but it is significantly less laughable than statements like "Games cause sexism!" or "Games cause violence!".

What's laughable is that people keep harping "games cause sexism lol thats stupid" as a means of completely dismissing all discussion on how media influences people and society. As though it's impossible for games to have any role in sexism unless they directly turn eight year olds in to woman hating rapists even though no one (not even certain internet personalities) ever made that argument.

Personally I'm sick of hearing about it, but i do weirdly enjoy reading these threads. I do think that there is always a fantasy element of games that is failed to be taken into account by the pro group. I mean in mount and blade warband I have a great time killing horses left ,right, and centre. I intesnsely hate horses in RL and being able to belt the things in a game is very cathartic, and it's not like i get to do that often in a game. In RL i would never harm a horse.

 Bullockist wrote:
In RL i would never harm a horse.

I would, but only because I've sworn vengeance against all Equine kind.

Awesome another horse hater,that makes 3 i have met now on Dakka. Next time you come to australia we shall have to go horse Bola'ing , I happen to know a suburb where there are lots of evil horseses.

I think the title of the thread should be internet culture, not gaming culture. A lot of the themes of the whole feminism v gaming thing can be seen all over the internet.


My biggest complaint in all of this is how often now we're calling criticism harassment. Hell a lot of the time we're basically labelling annoyance as harassment.



"Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive." wikipedia

"Behaviour intended to disturb or upset and it is characteristically repetitive." That basically sounds like what I put myself through just using the net half the time, hell I get upset often engaging with fellow humans online, even sharing an opinion often it's not hard to predict the individual you're engaging with may be "disturbed" or "upset by" it's often enough simply hearing that they're wrong on a certain topic. As for repetition, that speaks not just to topics that come up again and again that always go unresolved but also the very act of constantly checking forums or twitter or what have you. But I mean it's so easy now "mr admin or moderator or community manager, even through I totaly engage in an unhealthy amount of bad air amongst my fellow humans online, this individual replies to me with stuff I don't like, being told I'm wrong upsets me and I find it disturbing".


We've created a far too simplistic dichotomy of what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable. At this point basically any criticism = negative, negative = harassment, harassment = bully/troll. We're on the level of scientology, if you disagree with me you're suppressive person.

There are plenty of fringe individuals who have had a total blast fanning the flames on both sides because it's so easy. Look at 40k right now, every other day you've got bols running competing articles, one decrying 40k isn't and can never be played competitively, then an op ed claiming it's very competitive and if you don't like it it's because you're bad at the game. The comment war generates more hits than the articles ever would because now it's time to fight it out. We're all left whining about whining.

 Bullockist wrote:
I do think that there is always a fantasy element of games that is failed to be taken into account by the pro group. […]In RL i would never harm a horse.

Stuck in the “Monkey see, monkey do” interpretation of influence, are you not?
That is just not how it works!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Stuck in the “Monkey see, monkey do” interpretation of influence, are you not?
That is just not how it works!

Stuck in the "I don't gotta prove the stuff I say" interpretation of evidence, are you not?
That is just not how it works!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong.

Assuming that there is a connection, then, doesn't make much sense to me.

Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”.

This is incorrect. The imitiation theory has long been debunked and is no longer used in any science related to it. It was used at the very beginning when scientists tried to prove a direct correlation between violence and behavior by letting children watch violent movies and then watch whether they copied the behavior or not e.g. by hitting an inflatable clown doll. For a very long time now, supporters of the violence theory refer to a habitualization thesis which means that prolonged exposure to any stimulus leads to a lowered tolerance towards the behavior in question - which is precisely what you refer to in the second part of your post and which is exactly the same as it is with people who claim that video games lower tolerance / increase the acceptance of sexism.

There is no correlation between video games and violence / sexism. There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite. Assuming the opposite therefore is irrational.

 Sigvatr wrote:


There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite.

Source for that?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite.

Source for that?

...are you asking me for proof that there is no proof?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite.

Source for that?

...are you asking me for proof that there is no proof?

No, I'm asking you for proof that evidence (what evidence?) points to the opposite.

Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stuck in the "I don't gotta prove the stuff I say" interpretation of evidence, are you not?

Unlike you and your beautiful, masterfully detailed proof! Oh wait, you do not need proof, you are better than that. Only I need proof. Because, uh, reasons!

 Sigvatr wrote:
There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite.

What evidence? I would say that evidence very strongly points toward this. But at least we agree that there is no definite, formal proof either way.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.

So what you're doing is slamming someone for not having evidence for his claims with a claim that has no evidence?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.

So what you're doing is slamming someone for not having evidence for his claims with a claim that has no evidence?

Not sure how you can misunderstand it...it's...simple. If you don't have proof, you don't assume anything. Is there proof? No. Assuming a correlation therefore is foolish. If you don't have direct proof, all you can do is to look at evidence to back up your opinion. In this very case, due to being directly comparable, you can look at the violence discussion that proved there not being a correlation. This isn't a formal proof / disproval as you can never directly cross-relate an issue, as similar as it might be. It's used to debunk opinions, not facts.

Uhh, Sig, I think he was asking for proof on this:

"...evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite."

I already referenced that in my previous post