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:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area

I think actually you meant “I have never noticed misogyny in gaming in my area”, which is pretty damn different.

Nope I meant exactly what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:


The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?

You can raise you kids how ever you like, but you should blame monopoly for the cause of greed and consumerism in our society, and D&D for the romanticizing criminal behavior, and might as well blame the TV shows while you're at it.

The reality is with the rise of violent video games, violent crimes have decreased. It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.

Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.

Humm I did walk in on this one. While I did make it seem like I think that videos games make people violent, I really don't.

Do I you think a game that allows you to shotgun a man in the face really has a place in society? No

But if your making a argument that all violence is violence no matter how you look at it. And it's just a video game it doesn't mean anything.

Would it mean anything if we lowered the bar even more and allowed more sickening things? I can list at least 10 heinous crimes that speak otherwise. Probably get me flamed here even though I would not condone any of them.

But I guess shooting people in the face, curbing them, and stabbing them 20 times is the same as slaying a dragon or killing a Necromancer before he unleashes a contagion.

I guess I don't know the difference between healthy outlet and sick behavior

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
“Hey, how dare you call me out for lazy writing relying on harmful stereotypes? You should thank me for my lazy writing!”

*record scratch*

Proof that they are harmful?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto.

Well why would you? Those games are rated for adults.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?

Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.

PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?

Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.

Don't forget how global warming stops piracy. Coincidence!? Yes. Yes it is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.

PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT.

I don't have to prove it, Anita already did and she's a qualified media commentator *nods smugly* *stops nodding, looks self righteous* MISOGYNIST! I'm still glad hybrid has fully taken onboard the damsel in distress trope as he seems to defend/protect women world wide, he's like Super Mario in Tropeland.


I thought pirates kept the world temperature down, we should thank the somalis and the dudes in the malacca straights for saving the world, nice people those malaccas!

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
If you don't wan't to be a part of that "culture", then don't be.

Not one of the things that you mentioned is even remotely mainstream so you won't have to deal with that unless you actually go looking for it. So don't.

Just relax and enjoy playing games for the actual pleasure of playing.

I agree with you on this B.S. is just not worth my time. Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area and for the media to flame it as a nation/world wide problem is really uncalled for IMHO. Gamer geeks in general seem far more accepting of women than most other groups. So many places I've played have several women playing. As for Anitia Sareesian and other feminists, just like racisim when you continiously rant about something you end up creating even more resentment which works against your goal of equality.

Personally, when I use to play MMO's, I didn't care if I heard a girls voice on the headset, as long as she knew how to play or gave an honest effort if she was new. The only ones i didn't like was the ones who used my game time to find a date which, I thought was kind of pathetic.

The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?

Because doing such acts in a videogame is fun? Especially if you're really good at GTA, and thus don't get mowed down instantly by the Police, going on a rampage is half the fun of the game. Although I prefer Just Cause 2 as there's more EXPLOSIONS and the grappling mechanic is ludicrously fun.

But don't tell me that getting an RPG and wading through a firefight slaughtering anything that creeps or crawls in GTA or games like it isn't fun, made all the sweeter when a passing civilian vehicle suddenly ends your spree out of the blue for delicious irony. Plus it's a good way to get some anger out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?

Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.

Never said it was the fall of society, I said it tells something about or society. A penny in the bucket of crap. small part of a system gone wrong.

Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?

My 11 year old nephew laughed hysterically when I showed him a Deux Ex video of the bloke double punching two prostitutes, but he would never hit a woman in real life because he has been raised with manners and moral fiber, I have to agree with Bullockist and the rest on this score.

Sounds like mattyrm hasn't listened & believed lately...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sounds like mattyrm hasn't listened & believed lately...

He needs to be educated

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sounds like mattyrm hasn't listened & believed lately...

Never mind, Googled.

And I wish I hadn't, I was blissfully ignorant of the Duke lacrosse case.

 mattyrm wrote:
Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?

Who needs facts when you can have OPINIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON?

 Talizvar wrote:
You know, it seems like a good idea that the label "gamers" should be dead.
Since gamergate or even well before, misogyny will always be attached to it.

I am tired of trying to have decent discussion on the future direction of game software and then having some latent or active prejudice towards women pointed out as preventing it's proper development. Like with anything in life, yes, it can be there, also it can also be done without as well, spend your money appropriately.

This garbage keeps making good people feel like apologizing for their gender, which is also wrong.
What is that rule? If a thread goes on long enough it will talk about Nazis?
I suppose any on gaming will mention misogyny.
Kill the label, it is irredeemable now.

hahahhahahhahahah. Kill the label? Irredeemable? All this bs will be forgotten in a year or two. It's just the latest internet drama that will be a former thing soon enough. Like Anonymous taking on Scientology until they got bored/distracted, Planking and the Harlem Shake. While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.

I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar? Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way. Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well. Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:

You can't say "Oh hey, I want a game with a female character", because that is a foreign language to Game Pubs as of right now. You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead". The moment you convert your desire into Dollar Signs, Publishers will listen. And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.

Actually, as Hybrid pointed out already, it's just one aspect of a game. In interviews for AC:Unity, Ubi came up with godawfully gakky, weak excuses as to why they couldn't allow female characters in co-op (it would double the aminations!)
http://www.polygon.com/e3-2014/2014/6/10/5798592/assassins-creed-unity-female-assassins
...except
http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/11/5800466/assassins-creed-unity-women-animation

Similar for Far Cry 4. Though Hurk kinda works as he's a comedy carryover from FC3. But really? Inches away? Why not just fething do it, then?
http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/11/5801330/far-cry-4-women-ubisoft

Hopefully these stories and the reaction will see a change for more games going forward, for both protagonists as well as co-op characters. Ajay Ghale is pretty much a personality-vaccum empty vessel anyway, so a female model and a few multi-recorded lines "Ajay, my boy!" vs "Ajay, my girl!" shouldn't be too much of a stretch - obviously with a more gender-neutral name.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note to Reds8n/mods: There was no intentional attempt to bypass the language filter - I don't bother with crap like that. My choice of words was obviously simply not picked up by it.
ref:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/548580.page#6555900
...and I found another common profanity I used that wasn't picked up. Broke the word into two and now it works.

 Azazelx wrote:
While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.

The thing is, to profess to be a "gamer" is evolving differently than what it used to mean.
As you pointed out "normal" people play many games, it is not fringe recreation like it used to be, having a "culture" is becoming more a misnomer.

I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar?

So again, as you point out so well, you are not emotionally attached to the label, you game and do not identify as a "gamer" so much of the drivel flung about has little meaning to you.

Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way.

As long as humans are involved this stuff happens and should not surprise...

Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well.

What makes what she says dangerous is people who are involved in determining policy would take much of what she says at face value and maybe less salt than you, which is what makes her rather one-sided views problematic.
This is why she is so vehemently attacked on many points because it is not balanced, it demands a critique which BTW she typically closes all means of discussion or feedback.

Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).

This is the thing as well, the label "journalist" is being attacked where many sources do not behave like they are conveying news impartially, more like an extension of advertising for gaming companies.
A name for a type or group of people conveys a certain meaning with all the benefits and prejudices that entails.

If we as "gamers" make fun of the publications saying they are not behaving like proper "journalists" then it is funny how they turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well gamers are dead! You guys do not exist, what you say then is unimportant, we are publishing for the general public this is not a publication catering to a dead fan base."

This is such riveting school-yard stuff, it may be best this all gets behind us.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

You can't say "Oh hey, I want a game with a female character", because that is a foreign language to Game Pubs as of right now. You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead". The moment you convert your desire into Dollar Signs, Publishers will listen. And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.

Actually, as Hybrid pointed out already, it's just one aspect of a game. In interviews for AC:Unity, Ubi came up with godawfully gakky, weak excuses as to why they couldn't allow female characters in co-op (it would double the aminations!)
http://www.polygon.com/e3-2014/2014/6/10/5798592/assassins-creed-unity-female-assassins
...except
http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/11/5800466/assassins-creed-unity-women-animation

Similar for Far Cry 4. Though Hurk kinda works as he's a comedy carryover from FC3. But really? Inches away? Why not just fething do it, then?
http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/11/5801330/far-cry-4-women-ubisoft

Hopefully these stories and the reaction will see a change for more games going forward, for both protagonists as well as co-op characters. Ajay Ghale is pretty much a personality-vaccum empty vessel anyway, so a female model and a few multi-recorded lines "Ajay, my boy!" vs "Ajay, my girl!" shouldn't be too much of a stretch - obviously with a more gender-neutral name.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note to Reds8n/mods: There was no intentional attempt to bypass the language filter - I don't bother with crap like that. My choice of words was obviously simply not picked up by it.
ref:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/548580.page#6555900
...and I found another common profanity I used that wasn't picked up. Broke the word into two and now it works.

I will go on record every time to say that yes, that is bs and inexcusable. Especially since they had a game where you played as a female assassin in the series, so the animation was already there that they could pillage/copy/VERY least use as a template.

I don't think I really have to say it, but look at how much more popular Femshep is than Menshep. Sometimes the work just pays off, and that's in a roleplaying game where your character actually matters (And has books of dialogue).

 Slarg232 wrote:


I don't think I really have to say it, but look at how much more popular Femshep is than Menshep. Sometimes the work just pays off, and that's in a roleplaying game where your character actually matters (And has books of dialogue).

Eh...you might want to re-check your data. (Mass Effect 3) Shepard is FAR, FAR more popular than Femshep, i.e. 82% vs. 18%. And that's a RPG...ish, where the portion of female players is significantally higher than in other games (not including mobile crap here).

I would like to see those stats for Dragon Age Inquisition. - So would bioware no doubt. One of the things they intentionally did was randomise what the 'default' was in character creation.

In saying that still, 1 in 5 player a female character isn't insignificant at all. As I like saying to people on this topic: If your boss came up to you and said, "I'm taking 18% off your paycheck, after tax for reasons." Would you dismiss it as insignificant?

When did someone say so?

 Talizvar wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.

The thing is, to profess to be a "gamer" is evolving differently than what it used to mean.
As you pointed out "normal" people play many games, it is not fringe recreation like it used to be, having a "culture" is becoming more a misnomer.

The way I see it is that "gamer culture" has gone (semi) mainstream. It's not fully there yet, and it's not like sports - but it also depends on what you see as part of "gamer culture". I mean, there's the larger "geek culture" thing that encompasses the whole sci-fi fantasy comic book shebang and gives us Big Bang Theory. I see the "culture" part not so much as being someone who plays Peggle or Candy Crush on their phones - since playing games is becoming much more normalised - but either being right into it and/or understanding the jargon. MMO. RPG. FPS. Rail Shooter. Cover Shooter. RTS. MOBA. Even using a controller that has three joysticks and 13 buttons (maybe a touchpad as well) without feeling any intimidation from the thing and instead being completely comfortable with it.

At the same time, I consider all of this stuff to be just as much part of "gamer culture". The Warhams we paint and the Zombicides that we play and the Pathfinders that we find. This whole forum. It's a different genre and kind of game, sure, but then so is Just Dance and Guitar Hero when compared to Halo or Madden. After all, someone who is into sports can be into watching F1 and playing Hockey and still be "sports culture" etc.

I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with morons. But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar?

So again, as you point out so well, you are not emotionally attached to the label, you game and do not identify as a "gamer" so much of the drivel flung about has little meaning to you.

Ah, but you see, I do identify as a gamer. I've been a gamer since before many of the monkeys flinging poo at one another right now as part of this were born. I just don't think that the poo is going to stick. As others have said, every group of people contains a good number of feth wits. I've been around for long enough to see that it doesn't stick to me, and that with the rise of Spider Man, Transformers, Big Bang Theory, Sony PlayStation and XBox into the mainstream - along with working alongside "normal people" that it's incredibly obvious that gaming culture isn't poisonous, or the term/identity hasn't been poisoned, or any of that crap. Most people who live outside the goldfish bowl don't know or care about #gamergate or Anita - and a brief interview on the Daily Show doesn't change that.

Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way.

As long as humans are involved this stuff happens and should not surprise...

While I'll agree with that. The problem with the internet and people with differing levels of ...familiarity with "internet culture" as well as more younger people these days seemingly not having a fething clue about posting moronic things is that stupid "death threats" are even more common. See the Code Avarice saga. (Seriously, google it. It's worth a read, a good laugh and a facepalm.) But hey, consequences are a thing.

Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well.

What makes what she says dangerous is people who are involved in determining policy would take much of what she says at face value and maybe less salt than you, which is what makes her rather one-sided views problematic.
This is why she is so vehemently attacked on many points because it is not balanced, it demands a critique which BTW she typically closes all means of discussion or feedback.

See, here's the thing. And I'm not sure if the way the discourse has developed is symptomatic of how polarised the US has become between red and blue viewpoints over the last decade or so - but simply attacking her so vehemently (from the KS onwards) - initially from idiot man-children might be what has caused her and her supporters to double down on their overall viewpoint, and in turn those who slightly disagree doing the same, and Zoe Quinn and her dodgy friends and gakky game getting drawn into the fight so that now both sides are generally so shouty and polarisied that they're generally unwilling to take on or accept valid points that the others make.

Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).

This is the thing as well, the label "journalist" is being attacked where many sources do not behave like they are conveying news impartially, more like an extension of advertising for gaming companies.
A name for a type or group of people conveys a certain meaning with all the benefits and prejudices that entails.

If we as "gamers" make fun of the publications saying they are not behaving like proper "journalists" then it is funny how they turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well gamers are dead! You guys do not exist, what you say then is unimportant, we are publishing for the general public this is not a publication catering to a dead fan base."

Generally speaking, "gaming journalism" has been in the "lolwut?" category for a long, long time. There have been bright sparks, but generally it's been piss poor for decades. Look up almost any mention of Peter Molyneaux over the y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ decades before the recent few that show the gaming press turning on him. But "gaming journalism" has been pretty much accepted for the corrupt thing that it is for many years. Ask Jeff Gerstmann. Despite the attention-seeking "gamers are dead" article (which you seem to be echoing here in a way?) that article was written by a single commentator and published by a single publication's editor/editing staff. It is also just as much a joke as the rest of "gaming journalism" has generally been. I'm hoping that one positive that will come out of this is that game journalism will be a little more like journalism and less like PR, but I suspect that this too will blow over. At least some have added "ethic policies" and started to state where there are potential conflicts of interest. If there are any long-term changes, it'll be the result of competition from sites like GiantBomb, the YouTubers that are big enough to openly have integrity, and places that aren't beholden to game advertisers like Forbes.

This is such riveting school-yard stuff, it may be best this all gets behind us.

It's already behind us for the most part. And I'm still a gamer, just like I was this time last year.

 Soladrin wrote:
Give me proof that sexism in games equates to actual sexism, you know, like with violence.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct. Until there is proof that it does, it doesn't. Period. Assuming the opposite is highly illogical as you'd assume stuff without proof. Thinking that playing video games with sexist content causes sexist behavior puts one in the same corner as people thinking that violent video games cause violent behavior and frequently masturbating causes AIDS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
“Hey, how dare you call me out for lazy writing relying on harmful stereotypes? You should thank me for my lazy writing!”

*record scratch*

Proof that they are harmful?
[…]

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.

PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT.

 mattyrm wrote:
Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?

Hey do you know what? No. Edited by Manchu. Because I cannot answer to a dozen of different people saying the exact same bs while ignoring all the answers I make to anyone else, or just pile in to “haha, how silly is he, let us make fun of it”. Especially when if I push a bit I get inane idiocy like

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?

You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.

I am not sure if that comment was meant as trolling or if it is the result of an intellectual breakdown, but I just do not even want to answer to someone who pretends children always share the social values of their parents, without any other influence, because that is just one step too far into cuckooland. You “win”, rejoice!
If anyone wants to have a real discussion, we can do that by MP. Except H.B.M.C., because H.B.M.C., of course.
Other examples of fallacies and other non-sense that show me I am better off stopping the discussion.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area

I think actually you meant “I have never noticed misogyny in gaming in my area”, which is pretty damn different.

Nope I meant exactly what I said.

Then you are too self-centered to realize that the fact you do not notice it does not mean it does not exist. Congratulation!

 Slarg232 wrote:
A) You make it sound as though video game journalism doesn't matter, which means by extension you don't think video games matter.

Uh, no? Where did you get that totally wrong deduction? This “extension” only exist in your brain.

 Slarg232 wrote:
B) If Video Games cause Sexism, what games have they been playing for the past 2,000 years?

If shooting at people with a machine gun kills them, what machine gun has been used to kill all the people in the last 2000 years? Ah, logic seems too hard to you.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Edit: before you go off about sexism, I am all for a woman president (who is competent, no damn Sarah Palin), am happily married to a woman I respect, and have a daughter.

I am not racist, some of my servants are black! Yeah, that is how much sense you are making right now. Saudi clerics have many wives, and tons of daughters. Sure they must be very feminist!

Yeah, anyone making such statement is obviously not worth discussing with.

Extra:

 mattyrm wrote:
My 11 year old nephew laughed hysterically when I showed him a Deux Ex video of the bloke double punching two prostitutes, but he would never hit a woman in real life because he has been raised with manners and moral fiber, I have to agree with Bullockist and the rest on this score.

Way to miss the point, Mattyrm . Let us take a more… realistic example. In case of conscription, there are many people that would be uncomfortable with, or even flat out refuse, to serve under a woman. Hell, even in civilian life, some people would really dislike having a woman as a boss. Now, would those have been more, or less, hostile to having female superiors if their favorite stories from when they were children, teenagers, or even now, were filled with competent, efficient, strong female officers rather than helpless, clueless damsel distress in wait to be rescue?
And no, it is not just a yes/no switch where just changing one variable with suddenly change everyone's mind, it is just one small part in the biggest scheme of things. But it not being the one and only factor determining everything does not mean it is irrelevant.

Oh boy the thread is catching on fire.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[In case of conscription, there are many people that would be uncomfortable with, or even flat out refuse, to serve under a woman.Hell, even in civilian life, some people would really dislike having a woman as a boss. Now, would those have been more, or less, hostile to having female superiors if their favorite stories from when they were children, teenagers, or even now, were filled with competent, efficient, strong female officers rather than helpless, clueless damsel distress in wait to be rescue?

I had all of those things I was more than happy to take orders from a female of higher rank than me. I think the vast majority of my mates were as well, very few men in the Royal Marines seemed to have any problem taking orders from a lady of higher rank, why would they?

Ergo, even though I can certainly see the logic of your point (you might tend to think it makes sense) apparently the experts say otherwise. Think about it, for me to agree with you, I have to turn what I know about myself and the majority of the people I know upside down. We all grew up playing games with damsels in distress, we all like and respect women and happily served alongside/under them on occasion.

We all played Grand Theft Auto, none of us think its acceptable to car jack people. Don't you see how its basically the exact same thing? How many people played Mario as a kid, how many of them are misogynists? I agree that on the face of it at least, to people like you and I (not professional psychiatrists) you would think that maybe seeing misogynistic tropes might make you more likely to be sexist, but apparently they actually don't, just like how violent games don't make you violent.

I mean, I'm happy to have my mind changed like, have you got any credible intelligence that suggests men (or women) and more likely to hate women because of minor things like the gender of the love interest in a video game?

I'm not saying I don't believe it because I don't want to, I'm saying I don't believe it because me and all my mates grew up in the 80s and I dont think any of them are bigoted or scornful of women, so why would it be true for one thing and not the other?

Well, I guess when you ask for actual proof to support a claim someone keeps making it's BS. Good to know.

 Soladrin wrote:
Well, I guess when you ask for actual proof to support a claim someone keeps making it's BS. Good to know.

When someone says "Games don't cause violence but they do cause sexism" with a straight face, it's time to stop listening to whatever they say.

Seriously I met lots of competent intelligent women in the service, there is absolutely no shame in taking order from a woman of higher rank and I never met a capable, intelligent soldier that thought otherwise.

If a man is a misogynist, its because he is a feth-wit, and probably has some sort of, confidence/mental issues, I very much doubt something as trivial as seeing the occasional sexist movie or playing Super Mario is going to do that to anybody with an IQ above 75.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hey do you know what? No. Or, rather, go feth yourselves, all of you.

A stirring, inspiring and well-crafted rebuttal. Truly you make us all look small when you stride above us waving around such magnificant iron-clad proof as "go feth yourselves".

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Because I cannot answer to a dozen of different people saying the exact same bs while ignoring all the answers I make to anyone else, or just pile in to “haha, how silly is he, let us make fun of it”.

So you're saying that lots of people disagree with you and are calling you on your nonsense, and you don't like having all these people yelling at you for proof?

Well you know what to next:

1. Actually prove your assertions.
1. Post about 'harassment' on Twitter.
2. Pretend to flee your home.
3. Link to your Patreon.
4. Buy a motorcycle.

I think we should all just calm down and take in a relaxing Rape and Revenge movie festival together

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I think we should all just calm down and take in a relaxing Rape and Revenge movie festival together

*falls off chair laughing*

Must be difficult for Hybrid to ride that high horse when the legs have been cut off by a Bunny's vorpal sword.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*falls off chair laughing*

Must be difficult for Hybrid to ride that high horse when the legs have been cut off by a Bunny's vorpal sword.

I'm being serious! Isn't it Shakespear who said

There are no richer bonds forged, among men
Than watching 'I Spit On Your Grave' uncomfortably together

 mattyrm wrote:
Seriously I met lots of competent intelligent women in the service, there is absolutely no shame in taking order from a woman of higher rank and I never met a capable, intelligent soldier that thought otherwise.

If a man is a misogynist, its because he is a feth-wit, and probably has some sort of, confidence/mental issues, I very much doubt something as trivial as seeing the occasional sexist movie or playing Super Mario is going to do that to anybody with an IQ above 75.

Exalted. Sexism has existed for centuries, and guess what? Super Mario was invented in the 80's


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*falls off chair laughing*

Must be difficult for Hybrid to ride that high horse when the legs have been cut off by a Bunny's vorpal sword.

I'm being serious! Isn't it Shakespear who said

There are no richer bonds forged, among men
Than watching 'I Spit On Your Grave' uncomfortably together

""Nothing gets me as hot and bothered as watching Pulp Fiction" -Shakespeare" - Michael Scott

Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.