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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
I mean more like taking out story stuff just because it offends her, like if something messed up happens and there happens to be a woman involved, she'll go off the deep end connecting it things that aren't apparent to anyone but her.

Uh, okay?

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
The poisonous part is the SJW insanity, especially the sex negative stuff, and the mass stupidity when you question the reasoning and logic behind their statements.

So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]

No no, there is sex negative feminists and sex positive feminists. Positive believes in the empowerment of sex where as negative demonize it in nearly ever regard (I wish I could go into detail but its kind of well... too detailed for dakka) especially men.

Anita leans on sex negative where even saying hello or smiling can be considered harassment technically. Look up Elevator-gate with Rebecca Watson for another example of sex negative.

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Positive believes in the empowerment of sex

I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:

That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.

In my view sex negative feminism is nuts. Let's face it ,sex is probably THE prime drive behind humans behaviour and to declare it as wrong or god forbid rape is outright strange.

I'm all for sex positive feminism as it has a positive influence, I am yet to see anything written by a sex negative feminist that actually has a chance of being a force for something positive.

I was reading something on penetration is rape , or something like that the other day by a ""lesbian feminist"" who was spouting off about penetration being rape and I was wondering if she had considered hands being rape as well.

I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment, sounds like we need to segregate men and women and possibly cover up the eyes of women so as not to engender harrassment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Positive believes in the empowerment of sex

I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:

Spoiler:

That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.
It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator. I honestly cannot say I would ever be offended looking at that.

 Bullockist wrote:
I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment

Because there is absolutely nothing she ever said that could imply so.
That is why Mechanical Crow said: “Look up Elevator-gate with Rebecca Watson for another example of sex negative.”

 Bullockist wrote:
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.

There is nothing wrong with it. However, it is neither ubiquitous, nor particularly empowering, really. I have hardly ever read about men being “empowered” by sex.

 Bullockist wrote:
It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator.

It is. Quite a lot actually. Nothing about this outfit says “Roman”. It says “Fantasy holy warrior/knight, sexy version”.

take a step back and look at what he is wearing, how close is it to what gladiators wore? it's virtuially a remake of a Hoplomachus except he has a sword. sure it's a little sexed up but so what.

If anything he's wearing more armour than gladiators tended to.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If anything he's wearing more armour than gladiators tended to.

Actually it depends, some well funded gladiators wore full leather gear and breastplates.

They didn't really want their cashcows back then getting too hurt and all.

It is. Quite a lot actually. Nothing about this outfit says “Roman”. It says “Fantasy holy warrior/knight, sexy version”.

Maybe in your view maybe, he's "Sexy roman"

Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.

Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.

 Bullockist wrote:
In my view sex negative feminism is nuts. Let's face it ,sex is probably THE prime drive behind humans behaviour and to declare it as wrong or god forbid rape is outright strange.

I'm all for sex positive feminism as it has a positive influence, I am yet to see anything written by a sex negative feminist that actually has a chance of being a force for something positive.

I was reading something on penetration is rape , or something like that the other day by a ""lesbian feminist"" who was spouting off about penetration being rape and I was wondering if she had considered hands being rape as well.

I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment, sounds like we need to segregate men and women and possibly cover up the eyes of women so as not to engender harrassment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Positive believes in the empowerment of sex

I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:

Spoiler:

That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.
It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator. I honestly cannot say I would ever be offended looking at that.

I'm feeling very, VERY inadequate right now.... That dudes bigger than my freakin arm.

 Bullockist wrote:
sure it's a little sexed up but so what.

So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.

 Kojiro wrote:
Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.

Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.

Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.

She made the claim publicly, it's hardly that much effort to 'follow'. I posted the information only because other said that 'it was none else's business' what she did with the donated money. Legally that is simply false, by Anita's own actions which she publicly announced. But don't let that stop you trying to denigrate simple statements of fact.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
sure it's a little sexed up but so what.

So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.

 Kojiro wrote:
Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.

Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.

Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.

Right. So disagreeing a person's political views = an obsession?

Are we not permitted to disagree with Anitas views?

I could say the same thing about you. You spend lot of time here defending Anita and denigrating her critics. If you're not a backer or supporter of Anita yourself, why do you care so much? What's your problem?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right. So disagreeing a person's political views = an obsession?

I disagree with the idea that less gun restriction is better. But you know that guy who makes video about how there should be less gun laws? I do not care at all about how he uses the money that was given to him. I cannot be bothered to watch his video. (I cannot even be bothered to learn about his existence actually, but surely there must be one similar to that.) If I was more interested, I would try to debunk his arguments. But really, how he use the money that was given to him by backers that seem fairly happy with how it is used, as it matches his stated goal fine enough? Cannot give a damn.

So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.

You might want to look into the actual philosophy behind it, rather then just insult another variant of feminism straight off.

Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.

This loops back on there not being enough women in the industry, especialy at the top. Men are terrible at designing sexualised men, hell, I still have no idea what women like.
What men think of when you say sexualised men is not the same as when you ask a woman that same question. (in my experience)

Sadly, with how stuff like this keeps going down, I don't see this changing all that quickly. It's sad but true that this industry, or at least a loud portion of it, actively shuns women. I still have no idea where this comes from.

As a side note, I wish we could get a stat tracker for Anita and Zoe's twitter, where it tracks where all the hate comes from, Country wise. I'm very curious which Nation harbors the highest % of scum.

My bet would be on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxroiTRg7Tg . Because English language. And they are much more numerous than in the UK.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right. So disagreeing a person's political views = an obsession?

I disagree with the idea that less gun restriction is better. But you know that guy who makes video about how there should be less gun laws? I do not care at all about how he uses the money that was given to him. I cannot be bothered to watch his video. (I cannot even be bothered to learn about his existence actually, but surely there must be one similar to that.) If I was more interested, I would try to debunk his arguments. But really, how he use the money that was given to him by backers that seem fairly happy with how it is used, as it matches his stated goal fine enough? Cannot give a damn.

That's disingenuous and you know it.

Anita is not just some random obscure figure on the internet. She's influential, to the point that major games developers are hiring her as a Consultant, and has a considerable media profile, to the point that major mainstream media and "news" organisations are inviting her onto tv to rant about how the entire video game industry is riddled with misogyny.

To the ignorant mainstream media and wider public, her narrative and views shape their perception of video games. Combine her influence with that of other anti video game figures like Jack Thompson and Keith Vaz (British mp). You have a distinct external threat to the industry.

To expand on your analogy...you say you wouldn't care if an obscure person on the internet made a kickstarter for a series of videos about his views and desire for relaxed gun control...but what if that guy began to become influential? What if influential figures began listening to him, and taking his views seriously - journalists, reporters, news channels, other media organisations, even politicians? What if he was hired as an advisor or consultant by legislators and other groups with the power to make changes?

I reject your analogy, it is false. Anita is not some obscure random person on the internet, ranting into an echo chamber like your example.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.

For once, that's something on which I actually agree with you.

Case in point... the classic Lara Croft sex idol irritated me. The over inflated boobs, hotpants, doll like face.

The more realistic, and toned down 2013 Lara Croft was a vast improvement IMO.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.

Alright that's fair enough, I thought it odd that you were criticizing a movement of feminism.

Honestly wouldn't mind some extra male to female ratio though, or at least some fabulous guys.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.

Alright that's fair enough, I thought it odd that you were criticizing a movement of feminism.

Honestly wouldn't mind some extra male to female ratio though, or at least some fabulous guys.

Alot of games actually do that. Just not mainstream games.

Point and click adventure games are exclusively female protagonists.

Triple A titles you will rarely see that happen. Tomb Raider being an exception to this. Minus the who sexting up thing they did with her.

I think there was a discussion a few years ago, between me and another gamer, and I said there isn't enough difference of race or gender or sexuality in Triple A titles. As of now he completely agrees.

I think they shouldn't drag attention to that they are like that. They just are. And they act like its a normal thing. Or they make it a big deal and drag attention to it, but this only works if it is apart of the story.

I mean there are quite a few games that miss this opportunity. Where sometimes the game would be much MUCH stronger.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]

There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]

There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.

Uhhh. Sorry to burst your bubble....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/22/adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys/

The casual gamer currently is a woman above the age of 20.

Teenagers are now considered the minority in gaming

The ESA is terrible to use as a source. They identify someone else as a "gamer" if said person plays mobile games at least 1-2 times a week. If you want to use this as your "gamer" definition...feel free to do it. I don't.

Playing mobile and facebook games doesn't make you a gamer by its classic definition.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]

There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.

Uhhh. Sorry to burst your bubble....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/22/adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys/

The casual gamer currently is a woman above the age of 20.

Teenagers are now considered the minority in gaming

Do note that study also includes Tablet/Phone gamers, which is an entirely different kind of gamer demographic.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Do note that study also includes Tablet/Phone gamers, which is an entirely different kind of gamer demographic.

/e: CURSE YOUR EDIIIIIT!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.

Yes and no.

To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The ESA is terrible to use as a source. They identify someone else as a "gamer" if said person plays mobile games at least 1-2 times a week. If you want to use this as your "gamer" definition...feel free to do it. I don't.

Playing mobile and facebook games doesn't make you a gamer by its classic definition.

Err. Classic Definition?

A "gamer" is someone who partakes in interactive gaming, such as (predominantly) video games or board games. The term nominally includes those who do not necessarily consider themselves to be gamers (i.e., casual gamers),[1] as well as those who spend a notable part of their leisure time playing or learning about games.

They don't consider themselves to be gamers, but...
They do spend just as many hours as a 'gamer'

They don't like to consider themselves one becauses it was a bad thing to be called a gamer for a very long time, And that stigma still exists.

The market currently shows that the average gamer or casual gamers as they are called, make up the majority of the gaming market. I.E Farmville, Ipad and Iphone games.

You can't really disclude them from the discussion. Its like not including point and click games because they don't fit your definition of a game.

In my view, I welcome them to the increasingly large network of gamers. And just categorize into what they do for leisure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.

Yes and no.

To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.

Basically.

 Ashiraya wrote:


To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.

I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.

I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.

I am not so sure. I think everyone knows the reason, the way things got here, you know, the history. That is, sex sells.

However, everyone also knows why WW2 began, why there's carnage in Ukraine, and so on. I do not think this gives the status quo any benefit.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.

I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.

I would agree. I mean there are still a bit of homphobes in gaming and the toxicity is still pretty large in terms of playing games with others.