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.
2014/08/29 19:11:44
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/08/29 19:14:53
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
sirlynchmob wrote: But they do not go beyond 'hyper' That is a nonsense argument as there is no beyond hyper, it was something that you just made up. You have sexuality, and hyper sexuality.
sirlynchmob wrote: Strippers are just hard working men & women, usually putting themselves through college. Just because you might have a symptom of sexual addiction, does not mean everyone views them the same way.
I have no idea what you are rambling about. Hyper-hyper-sexuality? Hypersexual disorder?
Being sexualized means emphasizing sexiness. Like trying to look good when going to a party a girl you like will be at. Now if you go to that party -- or to any party -- dressed like a stripper just before the end of his act THAT is being hypersexualized.
The confusion is coming from your improper use of words.
FFS. Strippers go beyond ("hyper") run of the mill sexuality.
here you made up hyper-hyper-sexuality.
disorder: read the link, or research it.
sexualized means: : to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or quality
which can apply to anything, not just women and strippers. like pillows and cars.
Hypersexualize is not even an accepted word, no dictionary has it listed. so if a woman chooses to go out dressed like a stripper, you're objectifying her as hypersexualized. You shouldn't objectify women, they don't like it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 19:20:11
2014/08/29 19:15:42
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
David Cage disagrees and believes you lack courage for thinking differently than him.
Who?
Peter Molyneux's (as the crowning Uwe Boll of game development) replacement who would much rather make movies than video games, but he owns a video game company so he just makes movies that last for hours with hordes of quick time events and calls them games
/cheap shot at David Cage
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 19:17:04
David Cage disagrees and believes you lack courage for thinking differently than him.
Who?
Peter Molyneux's (as the crowning Uwe Boll of game development) replacement who would much rather make movies than video games, but he owns a video game company so he just makes movies that last for hours with hordes of quick time events and calls them games
/cheap shot at David Cage
His games could also end up in a tropes Vs women video.
2014/08/29 19:19:25
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
That is the usual practice, as there is not as much need for procrastination on the weekends/better ways to do it.
sirlynchmob wrote: The confusion is coming from your improper use of words.
Honest question, is English your native language? I always wonder if people who require dictionaries to understand usage in a forum post are sincerely confused or just frustrated that they cannot swing a real dictionary at me IRL.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 19:23:22
I have no idea! [edit]Oh, it has been answered above[/edit]
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 19:28:35
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/08/29 19:34:52
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.
That's true, it's not equivalent to what I just said. But it's also not at all anything like what you said, either. You brought up women being able to "own" their sexuality through choice. That has nothing to do with the preponderance of digital women in chainmail bikinis. It is a statement about how when real-life women dress in scanty outfits, it's OK because they chose to do so. I was pointing out that you cannot apply that standard to video game characters, because fictional people cannot choose anything.
It is not about the fictional characters choosing anything, it is about the creators of such characters choosing things.
I am sure you will grant that visual representations of people represent concepts about real people that actually do matter to real people, otherwise why would Christians have got so furious about Piss Christ for example.
Therefore a character can have meaning and/or impact in the real world. That impact is the result of the choice made by the designer interacting with the existing views and thoughts of the audience.
Sigvatr wrote: David Cage basically is your run-of-the-mill "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY AWESOME WORK" guy.
Hey. I'd be willing to give him that his games are entertaining. But apparently if we're not on our knees and pulling it out of his pants as thank you for giving us the greatest thing ever, then we just don't freaking get it.
The even more bizarre thing is that he's got some pretty good/interesting thoughts of the games industry. If only he wasn't such a douche
mattyrm wrote: After careful consideration (all of the entire gaming feminism thing was new to me as of last week) I have come to a conclusion that I think should satisfy almost everyone... hear me out, I am famously good at building bridges. ....
Spoiler:
I posit, that 99.9% of feminist would disagree with some of the seminal points of Anita Sarkeesians video. Therefore, I would say that she is saying what she does, to gain infamy, get a rep, get people talking, and (it always boils down to this in the real world) make money. And as such, there is no need for men to get defensive either, because she is inventing a position that almost no women take to stir up interest.
I followed a link on one of those videos to that whole fething "elevatorgate" thing, told my missus the story, and she basically said "I don't know a single woman who would possibly be offended by that" For those of you that haven't heard about it. In a nutshell, the girl who started "Skepchic" (Rebecca Watson) told a story about being in an elevator in Ireland after a night out, and a bloke said to her..
"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"
She then kicked off about it, saying it was inappropriate, mentioned misogyny, the men (justifiably) went "hang on, that's ridiculous" and then it all went nuts and she successfully became a name. Mission accomplished. My hypothesis is that Anita, Zoe, and the vast, vast majority of "internet famous" people (both men and women) on this topic (femism/male activism) are doing what they are doing for one simple reason, to make money. So surely it is likely that they don't actually believe much of what they say because they are well aware that there is no such thing as bad publicity? I mean, Ill pose the question to everyone in here, feminists included, does anybody at all in the real world find a polite pick-up line offensive? Nobody I know does, not a single women ever would say that guys approach crossed a line, so why get pissed at feminists?
Have you ever politely said to a woman "Excuse me, I think you are really pretty/interesting and I know it sound a bit weird, but would you like to go for a drink or something?" and been verbally abused? I dont know anyone that has.
I mean sure, Ive been told "sorry I don't give my number to strangers/sorry ive already got a boyfriend" plenty of times, but not once have I been accused of being a penis wielding oppressor. This type of thing just doesn't happen in the real world. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup that is purposely and cynically stirred for money. I see no reason to get annoyed at feminists, and even pretty militant ones, because the vast, vast majority of women and feminists themselves do not agree with much of what these attention hungry business people say. And lets be honest, they probably don't either. Does Rebecca Watson really think that guy crossed a line?
Of course not.
Anita might actually be ok in person, I dont like her on the face of things, but I wouldn't doubt that she probably doesn't even agree with much of what she says, shes probably just a master of marketing. I have the same theory about plenty of people. I always wonder If I would actually get on with people like Bill O'Reilly in person, because he has created a persona. And Ann Coulter for example.... I'm expecting her to come out as a democrat satirist in about 5 years time.. but then in her case I might just be giving her too much credit.
Pretty much raised that suspicion myself (not near as eloquently however ).
Would it be wrong to say these videos are just a nicely produced means of trolling?
It had been a while I had seen the videos so I now I feel obligated to see if she offered any possible solutions to the wrongs or tropes pointed out.
It is just freaky how we can have many pages of argument but to what end?
As long as there is an unbalance in gender/cultural... whatever viewpoint within a group the motives of a group will always be suspect.
More women in a lead role within the game / programming community will help with balancing the stories and scenarios within the game, or at the very least create new tropes for us to criticize.
A side note on why our various "lectures" at each other are rather maddening:
Came across this word:
"Mansplaining" (which I am trying to minimize) which Rebecca Solnit coined.
"In her account, men interrupt women, they repeat what a woman has already said and hog the plaudits, and they explain things at length to women."
"...men talk to determine and achieve status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection. To use metaphors, for men life is a ladder and the better spots are up high. For women, life is a network, and the better spots have greater connections."
jreilly89 wrote: I have made several points with evidence and you disagree. You have made several points with little evidence and I disagree.
Actually, I made brilliant points backed by incredibly accurate date that proves how awesome I am as a man, and you wrote random babbling nonsense. Truth.
Well, maybe…
Please, provide this incredibly accurate data. I took direct quotes from her video transcripts (I could not be bothered to watch her videos) as my evidence. I saw no evidence you provided, rather just theories and assumptions. Please show me this evidence, in case I am crazy
mattyrm wrote: Well, loads of obvious ones leap out to me. First of all the polarizing views about gamers, they don't stand up in the real world, there is no such thing. My dad mainly does nothing but read, dig the garden, and play golf on my old gamecube, does that make him a gamer?
There's a heated debate going on in various places about whether or not someone like him even qualifies as a gamer. The "not a real gamer/geek/nerd/etc" thing is quite a real phenomenon, sadly.
mattyrm wrote: At 12:11 (I only watched part 1) where she says its all about male power fantasies, when in those days we were all kids, most gamers were under 15 surely? I played games like that when I was 7.. so did millions of others.
Which really doesn't change anything. A lot of games really are about male power fantasies.
That said, I'd like to leave an asterisk here*, because here's an area where I agree that her views become controviersial amongst feminism, which I'll talk about at the end of my response.
mattyrm wrote: When she says that clearly it is a myth than men are more physically strong than women?
I don't remember her saying that, but I think most feminists would agree there are differences between the genders; the disagreement becomes "how big is it, and what causes it".
mattyrm wrote: My missus is a feminist, she wouldn't claim she could ever beat me in an arm wrestle
I could beat numerous male acquaintances of mine in arm wrestling. This is because I exercise, and they don't, however. Lifestyle plays an important role in how muscles develop.
*Now on to the asterisk: Sarkesian is, philsophically, a pacifist. She believes in the idea of "competition = male, cooperation = female". This is a contentious idea held by minority (though I'm not sure what size) within the feminist movement. As such, she is taken to assume any game that uses violence as a game mechanic is a male power fantasy, which is where I very much disagree with her.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2014/08/29 19:57:37
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Talizvar wrote: Would it be wrong to say these videos are just a nicely produced means of trolling?
Yes, if you mean Sarkeesian's videos. It would be wrong in the sense of factually incorrect and in the sense of being mean-spirited.
Trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
Offensive: no.
Provocative: well, yes! Look at the responses to the videos and discussions!
I refute the argument of the description of "trolling" being "factually incorrect".
"Mean-spirited", possibly, not the intent, but the road to hell...
Talizvar wrote: It is just freaky how we can have many pages of argument but to what end?
Like playing a game, discussion is its own reward.
It is the journey not the destination, no?
Agreed.
At least it is clear people care.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2014/08/29 20:00:13
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Because a "small part" of a piece of media can still make the whole thing bad, or at least less good than it could have been. Therefor, it is still worthy of discussion to the extent which it does so for each player.
This is many peoples' position about Sarkesian's videos, for that matter, would you say taht they shouldn't talk about her videos because they only have a problem with a small part of them?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I can kill someone with a kitchen knife. Maybe even a spoon if I use my imagination. That does not mean I'm "meant" to interact with cutlery in that way.
Real life is not a game. This analogy you give does not work. Games are designed and tailored sets of interactions, each possible interaction is crafted in to the game, and undesired interactions are removed from the game, as the designers see fit. Real life is not like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 20:01:00
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2014/08/29 20:05:41
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
I was just parodying you explaining how your arguments were so much better and more convincing than mine.
jreilly89 wrote: I took direct quotes from her video transcripts (I could not be bothered to watch her videos) as my evidence. I saw no evidence you provided, rather just theories and assumptions. Please show me this evidence, in case I am crazy
Okay, I thought you did not want to start that discussion again. Did you changed your mind?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/08/29 20:12:26
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Talizvar wrote: Trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
Offensive: no.
Provocative: well, yes! Look at the responses to the videos and discussions!
I refute the argument of the description of "trolling" being "factually incorrect".
Trolling is not the same thing as provoking conversation. Trolling is about intending to piss people off because you think that's a funny thing to do.
Melissia wrote: Sarkesian is, philsophically, a pacifist. She believes in the idea of "competition = male, cooperation = female". This is a contentious idea held by minority (though I'm not sure what size) within the feminist movement. As such, she is taken to assume any game that uses violence as a game mechanic is a male power fantasy, which is where I very much disagree with her.
I am hesitant to find joy in agreement but it is nice to hear.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2014/08/29 20:15:05
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
I was just parodying you explaining how your arguments were so much better and more convincing than mine.
jreilly89 wrote: I took direct quotes from her video transcripts (I could not be bothered to watch her videos) as my evidence. I saw no evidence you provided, rather just theories and assumptions. Please show me this evidence, in case I am crazy
Okay, I thought you did not want to start that discussion again. Did you changed your mind?
Not better, but I at least took evidence directly from her videos. I would say that gives my arguments the upper hand
Talizvar wrote: Trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
Offensive: no.
Provocative: well, yes! Look at the responses to the videos and discussions!
I refute the argument of the description of "trolling" being "factually incorrect".
Trolling is not the same thing as provoking conversation. Trolling is about intending to piss people off because you think that's a funny thing to do.
Depends on the motivation would it not?
Say there was some financial gain to be had by trying to "elicit an angry response"?
Yes, the classic viewpoint is someone feels powerful by getting people all angry but the intention of creating that anger regardless of motivation I think is more correct.
Feeling the need to use kickstarter to fund "provoking conversation" on tropes about women is a rather interesting thing to do.
I would love the next step to be a kickstarter of women programming games to free us of these old clichés.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2014/08/29 20:25:01
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
As far as I'm concerned, if she can take a scary situation like someone saying stalkerish things, threatening to rape and kill her and her family in horrific ways, and saying they know where she lives (including posting an address)... and make that in to something that helps her, instead of being silenced?
Good for her.
I see no reason to let abusers like that win in the end.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 20:31:07
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2014/08/29 20:38:24
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Some of the stuff I have seen on the internet makes me afraid she will get hurt. I can only imagine that she must feel pretty terrified at least once in a while. And her parents must feel terrified all the time, worrying about their child. But so far she has kept making her vids. And they are still sincere, restrained attempts to explain her viewpoint, seemingly taking into account those most likely to misunderstand her. TBH I think there is a lot to admire about her. I certainly don't hold her notoriety against her; rather a thousand more Sarkeesians than one more Kardashian.
jreilly89 wrote: Not better, but I at least took evidence directly from her videos. I would say that gives my arguments the upper hand
Do you want to start that conversation again? Because you stopped addressing my arguments, not the other way around.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
).
~1.5k
