Arkham City.... Sexist?

[TheCowman]

Oh, yes, it's totally sexist. What they should have said is "You nasty, unlikable woman who is in no way representative of the entirety of women in the world, despite being strong enough to beat up us burly men with ease. Oh, you make me so angry!"
Yeah, they totally should have said that. In Marvin the Martian's voice, because they're clearly not from this world.

That.... would actually be pretty dang hilarious.


Could we get a skin of Batman in a top hat and monocle to go along with it?

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

If I ever become a game developer I'm going to make a game that will be offensively and shamelessly sexist... towards men.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Could we get a skin of Batman in a top hat and monocle to go along with it?

With Gary's Mod, anything is possible.

 

[Iron Mal]

Again, I appologise in advance for what must be getting to be stupidly long by now (I have a serious problem with not being able to edit myself).

Actually, that's what makes it a good comparison -- even when something can be objectively proven or disproven, people still debate and fabricate. As this is an issue that can't be objectively proved either way, I think it's a good idea not to categorically dismiss all examples of sexism claims.

No, it's still a terrible comparison. When there is a large and significant difference between two things then it isn't very good as a comparison.

I don't catagoricaly dismiss all sexism claims, I just have a bit of a divide between what I would call instances of actual discrimination (which aren't very common in comercially released games for obvious reasons) and what seem to be people finding nit picks to kick up a fuss about (which this very much seems to be a case of).

You're going through them, yes. Thoughtfully may be overstating it, because you're not endeavoring to understand that opposing viewpoint before trying to argue against it.

I do underdstand the opposing viewpoint, I know what you think and why you think it.

I just happen to think that the idea you're suggesting is ridiculous (and upon asking others of their thoughts on your stance, they agreed with me in largely dismissing the idea as ridiculous).

So before you say I'm overstating myself when I say I've been thoughtful be aware that I've had it been said verbatum that I'm giving this very discussion between us more thought than it actually deserves (or as my Dad once said to me, 'having an arguement on the internet is like running a race as a retard, sure, you might win but you'll still be retarded').

And relying very heavily on false dichotomies. Who asked you to agree? I've got no problem with disagreement. But you're not doing it well, that's the problem.

You seem to base your arguements against me highly on trying to pull out claims of 'strawman!' or 'false dichotmies!' as if they're red cards or instant win conditions (for the reccord, it doesn't really make your opinion any more valid or mine any less valid, it's usually only those who have little experience in actually argueing and debating with people who believe otherwise).

You're asking everyone to agree or you wouldn't be so quick to defend your point from criticism or attack (and besides, most of us prefer people to agree with us rather than disagree).

There aren't different grades or qualities of disagreements, you either agree with someone or you don't (it's a pretty binary thing).

It's my arguements you don't like(more likely than not because you don't agree with them).

You're demonstrating marked inconsistency between these two paragraphs. Clearly you do not understand what I'm trying to say. Because what this comment was directed at isn't the fact that you picked apart or challenged my view -- it's the fact that you took it upon yourself to tell me what I can or can't claim to be for or against. You'll notice that I'm pointing out apparent inconsistencies in your view, which then invites you to address what could simply be a misunderstanding. What I'm not doing is telling you what you really believe or don't.

I do understand what you're trying to say, you believe that the women in Batman: Arkham City are poorly represented because the thugs and goons in it only use the word '*****' to refer to them (thereby implying a negative view of women which you believe to be a part of the writer's bias which in turn consititutes sexism from your perspective).

You feel that if there were a wider variety of words used to insult these women it would show that the villains (and therefore the writers and audience) see them as more than just a ***** because they took the time to think up insults specific to them and their characterisation.

This theory breaks down when you stop to realise that what the thugs and goons call these women has absolutely no impact or bearing on how they're written or characterised.

Harley Quinn, Catwomen and any other women in the game aren't lesser characters because of the variety of curses thrown at them by others, they're lesser characters if they themselves aren't well written or developed (which is something completely and utterly seperate from the combat dialogue).

This would be like saying that if I was to call you stupid over and over again that you'd suddenly be a vastly different person.

To go even further, your overall arguement seems somewhat hypocritical. For a moment let's imagine that were were to change the scenario (hypothetically), imagine that it was every black character in the game being referred to by a single racial slur (pick any one you want, doesn't make a difference to me).

Now you've come along and said that's racist because they've only used one racial slur and that it would cease to be racist if they mixed it up with other insuts and terms of abuse (to suit them better to the characters they're verbally assaulting).

Somehow I doubt you'd get many people on your side with that because, frankly, that doesn't make any damned sense and makes it sound like you're missing the biggest elephant in the room.

It's derogitory because they are referred to soley by slurs and terms of abuse (whether they be varied or not), if you're going to be offended by anything then that should be it and throwing in more varied dialogue wouldn't suddenly make it acceptable.

I've already offered several. It's a matter of record.

You offered two to be specific, and neither of them were very good (and I explained why, neither of them sounded like natural dialogue and were things that would get very tiring to listen to over and over because of that lack of a natural tone).

They aren't major players in the story, no. But they do account for a large quantity of the content in the game. While each individual thug is a "nothing" character, the randomized dialogue is a constant feature of the game world. You've got to separate story decisions from game design decisions. Dialogue can fall under both of those categories. The problem with this dialogue is from a design standpoint -- what may have originally been a minor problem with lazy, repetitive writing becomes a major issue if those lines of dialogue are heard hundreds of times during a playthrough.

Again, you misinterpret what part of the game they add to (namely, the combat, not the story and dialogue). They could be robots who beep and buzz and their impact on the dialogue and characters would be practically non-existant (with the exception of the punches and lead pipes they swing at Batman of course) just like it is at the moment (again, it isn't the thugs who define the female characters, they define themselves).

It's a somewhat worrying implication that you seem to believe that it's more important to a female character's presence if she's more creatively insulted by the men than how she talks, acts and conducts herself (that in itself could be percieved as a sexist attitude).

Not by me, and not in the context of this discussion. That's what makes it a strawman. You're attacking a view that I did not put forth, and then chalking it up as "point scored" for your side.

We were keeping score?

Please excuse me while I go get a scoreboard and some chalk.

You are inventing definitions and redefining standard terminology to suit your needs. If we do not use the common definition, terminology is meaningless... but you seem to attach great significance to the difference between "bias" and "-isms," so it seems like you don't want to make them devoid of meaning.

Of course there is a standardised, dictionary definition for the words 'sexism' and 'bias' but just like the words 'irony' and 'religion', these definitions aren't always the ones that are widely used by the general public and aren't the ones that immediately come to mind in conversation (especially the case with irony, which really irritates me).

I am not attempting to strip any word of meaning, which is why I gave a very clear and explicit description of how I personally define the two (and I do have a strict difference between the two as you know) and I actually have a reason for my particular divergance from what may be printed in the dictionary.

Ad hominem. Note that I attack views and issues, while you attack the person. So, I'll not be lectured on this issue by you.

Since when was calling someone intelligent a personal attack?

And I've attacked your issues and views quite a lot, you just chose to ignore them and hide behind the titles of the varieties of logical fallacies as if they make your views unassailable.

If you refuse to discuss such matters and elect to hide behind intellectual terms rather than use your intellect then that's your prerogative, I can't make you listen if you simply don't want to.

No, it wouldn't. The heroes are being intentionally written. Writers are concentrating on this part, and so they are more aware of the tone and impact of what they assign to these characters. Intent is exactly what keeps the "subconscious" from showing through in everything we do. The subconscious is only present when we are not paying attention.

Intent is usually what results in us putting the most meaning into things, we intend certain things therefore we write them in.

Also, it's not like our subconscious is an annoying little imp who jumps out when you're not looking to write 'kill the whores' on the screen in front of you, it's a passive part of our every waking moment that supposedly influences all of the choices and thoughts we have based on our experiences and perception of the world around us.

It's not like the thing has an off switch for when it's 'serious work time' (doubley so for creative professions like writing).

When writing for the throw-away mooks, the writers aren't setting out to deliberately make a particular point in a meaningful fashion. And that leaves the door open for their own subconscious biases to sneak in. As in anything, you get the most honest picture of a person when they are not trying.

That, again, makes no sense.

Lazy writing doesn't spawn subtext, it spawns blank, boring characters.

You get the most honest picture of a person when they are trying hard, when they aren't trying, you probably get a blank slate who's more of a bunch of skill sets or stereotypes than an actual character.

False dichotomy yet again -- close relative of the strawman. These are not the only two choices.

There you go again with the logical fallacies.

I could start a drinking game out of how many times you try doing that to respond to me.

Here's another alternative:

It's just something that happened in writing, the thug's dialogue wasn't that important so not much attention was given to them, and the writers inadvertently put out something that displays a rather sexist slant on the dialogue writing. It's not the end of the world, no one's demanding a recall or a ban or a boycott, but it may very well be something to consider moving into the future.

Refer to my point above about how lazy writing doesn't spawn subtext.

And even then, I still call upon Occam's razor here ('the simplest explanation is often the correct one') and given the lack of any real reason to suspect sexist attitudes or opinions from Batman: Arkham City besides this claim that the use of the word '*****' is now suddenly sexist, it's still most likely that this is simply someone spoiling for a fight and trying to make one.

 

[Dastardly]

- snip -

Here's why you're not allowing this "discussion" process to work:

1. You continue to tell me what I think, or what I am saying, or what I have a problem with, despite my reasoned assertions to the contrary.

2. And rather than recognizing this as the very definition, you continue to assert you "understand" me "completely."

3. You fail to recognize the reason I cite fallacies like "strawman" and "false dichotomy." It's not because these claims are some "instant win" (in fact, that claim is in itself yet another strawman of my argument). The reason I bring this up is to make it clearer to you that you aren't discussing my view. You're discussing your own concept of an opposing view you've heard that may bear some resemblance to mine... but you're arguing with me about views that are not mine.

These fallacies prevent forward motion in useful discussion, because they prevent you from arguing against what I'm actually saying.

4. At this point, you're simply attempting to win by multiplication of words. I'm demonstrating with each reply that the same content can be expressed in a much more condensed format. Saying more doesn't mean you have more to say.

 

[Iron Mal]

Here's why you're not allowing this "discussion" process to work:

I've been allowing discussion freely, you're the one who keeps bringing up reasons why I can't speak and how I apparantly suck at arguements (trust me, I have more than enough experience at it that I'm a heavyweight at argueing).

1. You continue to tell me what I think, or what I am saying, or what I have a problem with, despite my reasoned assertions to the contrary.

In my last post I gave a summary of what your overall opinion on the matter seemed to be in an attempt to express that I do in fact understand what your views are.

If I am wrong and still misunderstand, however, then I would have to question the quality of your reasoned assertations since reading your responses gave exactly that impression.

Of course you understand your views (they're your views) but if you don't make a point of conveying them clearly (which seems to be the case if my attempt at reciting what you said your opinion was didn't work) then it's no suprise that your views are going to be hard to get to grips with or understand.

Don't blame me for what appears to be a problem with the clarity of your writing and thoughts.

2. And rather than recognizing this as the very definition, you continue to assert you "understand" me "completely."

You should be aware that repeating your arguement over and over again under the pretense of 'you haven't properly responded to that' or 'you don't understand' until it reaches the point where no-one can be bothered to fight back (I'm not far from simply saying 'fuck it' and ignoring you, I already stated in my last post that even upon asking others their opinion on this issue they told me that I was giving this ridiculous claim more thought than it actually deserved) is in itself a logical fallacy (arguementum ad nauseam, also, take a shot).

3. You fail to recognize the reason I cite fallacies like "strawman" (take a shot) and "false dichotomy." (take a shot) It's not because these claims are some "instant win" (in fact, that claim is in itself yet another strawman (take a shot) of my argument). The reason I bring this up is to make it clearer to you that you aren't discussing my view. You're discussing your own concept of an opposing view you've heard that may bear some resemblance to mine... but you're arguing with me about views that are not mine.

First, citing logical fallacies in an arguement is in itself a logical fallacy (not all arguements need to be grounded in logic and something being logical doesn't automatically make it right, also, take a shot).

Second, I have been discussing your view with quite a lot of effort and energy, I have gone through every part of what you think and offered a detailed response explaining why I disagree with it and how most of your arguements make no sense.

You may not want to acknowledge it, but you may have to accept that your view is limited or flawed (I remember you saying that to me a couple of posts ago but I would like to point out this isn't irony) and that you've been faced with arguements that you cannot refute or fight back against, not because of any logical inconsistancies or because of any trickery on my part, but because your view was a faulty premise to begin with.

These fallacies prevent forward motion in useful discussion, because they prevent you from arguing against what I'm actually saying.

Given the amount of time and thought I put into my responses (I was sat here over the course of an afternoon writing my last one) do you really think I would go to all that effort and thought to not address the point I'm argueing against? (as previously stated, if I haven't addressed your true views then it's more to do with poor explanations on your end)

Also, unless you happen to be a robot or Mr. Spock then logical fallacies do not suddenly prevent the continuation of an arguement unless someone starts getting hung up on them (like yourself and your apparant addiction to the bloody things).

4. At this point, you're simply attempting to win by multiplication of words. I'm demonstrating with each reply that the same content can be expressed in a much more condensed format. Saying more doesn't mean you have more to say.

That's more to do with the longitudinal writing habits I have when it comes to this forum, for my longer posts I usually find myself spending a very long time writing them (as previously stated, my last post was drafted over the course of an afternoon) so I have plenty of time to relax, do other things, listen to music and even discuss with others about the subject to try and get a more in depth view so my arguements can be all the more sound and reasonable.

Naturally, this results in me having more to say than I really should (and in turn, essay length posts) because I've been able to mull the topic over for a few hours and compare and contrast other people's thoughts rather than hurridly trying to respond ASAP (I know you aren't going anywhere so I don't need to hurry).

Granted, some people do just try to pad out their responses in order to make them sound smarter or more confusing so that the other person isn't willing to counter-argue (and therefore make it a 'victory') but I actually do put thought into my posts and address the issues being raised while you have repeatedly pulled out logical fallacies on me and whined on more about me supposedly not understanding you (I would make a joke about whiney, goth teenagers but I can't be bothered).

I hope everyone out there has enjoyed the 'what the hell is with this guy and logical fallacies?' drinking game! Let's play again sometime!

 

[JdaS]

Look, as a free ideals individual I too oppose any oppressive sexism claims against a game that even has "saturated" use of the term "*****" for how it can lead to unreasonable censorship or restriction.

But in Arkham City the term is most definitely NOT saturated. In the whole DLC the term is used all of 3 or 4 times and not a repeated cuss word for in dynamic combat, but single context dialogue that is not even said directly to her face. Catwoman is NOT constantly being called that while in combat, it does not seem to even be in the verbal library of the AI that is fighting you.

I respect the artist for deciding to use this term, I can see how it is used as a tactical "B-bomb" to set the tension for the stealth sequence to make clear how the goons feel towards Catwoman, particularly how serious their lethal intent is.

And there isn't even anything obscene about the term "*****", it is a GENUINE term for a female canine in appropriate use. It is NOT a reference to a sexual or excretory bodily part or bodily function. It is NOT connotative with extreme violence in the same way the N-word is associated with Racist Lynching.

In literal connotation, ***** is the equivalent (though NOT the same as) calling a man a "bull", "buck" or "dog".

Hey, I completely agree with you. I admit I haven't played the game yet as there are a ton of games I want to get on November, thus Batman shall wait.

What this means is, first of all that I assumed (by the histrionics of these bloggers and columnists) that the game was "saturated" with sexist content. Even if it was I'd be mildly put off at most. If it's not, as you're saying then I agree with your opinion.

 

[TheFederation]

um, you realise that it's the bad guy saying this right? what else would a thug call a woman who was getting on his nerves

 

[Dastardly]

Don't blame me for what appears to be a problem with the clarity of your writing and thoughts.

You can lead a horse to water. I've been clear and I've been concise by comparison.

1. In this case, the lazy writing has revealed a sexist slant in the treatment of the games characters and/or audience.
2. This sexist slant is probably not intentional, but that doesn't make it any less present.
3. Some people are more bothered by it than others, as with any other sort of bias. But that simply means that fixing it can only be a good thing -- those who find it problematic will be pleased, while those who don't care won't miss it.
4. That's all anyone is trying to do -- raise awareness of a particular point of insensitivity in the construction of an otherwise good game. No one's calling for boycott or firings. Just, "Hey, next time try not to use the word '*****' so much, folks. It's coming across as a lot more sexist than you think."

(I'm not far from simply saying 'fuck it' and ignoring you, I already stated in my last post that even upon asking others their opinion on this issue they told me that I was giving this ridiculous claim more thought than it actually deserved)

Take a shot for "appeal to the numbers." Seriously, what else was this claim supposed to do? Was I supposed to go, "Oh goodness me! There are a handful of other people who agree with him? Surely that means I'm out-voted -- my stars! How could I have been so blind?"

"Other people" agree with me, too. And "other people" have also commented on how I'm approaching this discussion from a more mature, emotionally-neutral standpoint, rather than attacking the arguer. I am, however, attacking the arguer's style, but only because it is in direct conflict with moving the discussion forward -- even then, I've not turned this personal, as you have.

First, citing logical fallacies in an arguement is in itself a logical fallacy (not all arguements need to be grounded in logic and something being logical doesn't automatically make it right, also, take a shot).

This makes no sense. Citing logical fallacies in an argument is only a "fallacy" if the person believes that proves their point. But I certainly haven't said so or demonstrated that. Citing logical fallacies is akin to simply pointing out current roadblocks to your understanding -- the reason you aren't understanding the things I'm saying is due to flawed methodology in your approach to the discussion.

{You'll notice: I'm not saying you aren't "agreeing" because you don't understand. Argument does not demand "agreement." It's fine for two people to arrive at different conclusions. I just feel they should arrive at them well.)

Second, I have been discussing your view with quite a lot of effort and energy, I have gone through every part of what you think and offered a detailed response explaining why I disagree with it and how most of your arguements make no sense.

Movement doesn't equal motion. I can stand and flail my arms until I drop from exhaustion, but that doesn't mean I've gone anywhere. Your effort and energy are not my concern, as they have been mis-applied to discussing points I have not made, statements I have not stated, or misguided attempts to steer the discussion off-course.

You may not want to acknowledge it, but you may have to accept that your view is limited or flawed (I remember you saying that to me a couple of posts ago but I would like to point out this isn't irony) and that you've been faced with arguements that you cannot refute or fight back against, not because of any logical inconsistancies or because of any trickery on my part, but because your view was a faulty premise to begin with.

This has not been demonstrated. Simply asserting, "I already won this," does not make it so.

Given the amount of time and thought I put into my responses (I was sat here over the course of an afternoon writing my last one) do you really think I would go to all that effort and thought to not address the point I'm argueing against? (as previously stated, if I haven't addressed your true views then it's more to do with poor explanations on your end)

You're correct that it's perplexing. You're incorrect to say it's not happening, however. I've stated and restated my views, and will continue to do so in as many different ways as I can in an effort to find the magical combination of words to which you won't append your own perceptions of my views, or another person's views you've incorrectly attributed to me. Here are some of them:

1. You seem to think that, to me, this sexism is a huge deal. I see it as a relatively minor, unintentional mistake that has consequences a little further-reaching than the developers may have realized. It's not something worth condemning the entire game over. It is something worth fixing going forward. It doesn't have to be "big deal" or "no deal at all" -- there exists a continuum between those two extremes.

2. You seem to think that terminology is malleable... but only to you. You change the meaning of "sexism" and "bias" to suit a distinction you've thought up yourself... but if anyone else tries to do that, you don't seem to want to allow it. If you're going to keep changing the definitions, or "moving the bar" so-to-speak, it makes the use of any of those terms meaningless. Since both of those terms are central to the discussion, that's one reason you're preventing it from continuing.

3. To set the record straight: Bias is the inclination to hold a view even at the expense of other (potentially valid) views. It often takes root as a prejudice -- or a judgement made about someone/thing based on limited, second-hand, or even no evidence. This prejudice leads to discrimination -- unequal treatment of a group based on the aforementioned prejudice. Sexism is one form of that discrimination. None of the above must be "intentional" to be present. In fact, the very reason most of them are such big problems is that people can be unaware of them, yet still visit the effects upon others.

For example, I might find myself overusing the word "redneck" with regard to people from the South. Maybe I hear the accent, which (in media) is traditionally associated with "the redneck" character. Now, what do I think when I hear redneck? Probably just the lovably-simple-minded hunting enthusiast with rightist political views and a well-worn Bible. But what does the Southerner that overhears me think when he hears Redneck? Likely it doesn't have the positive connotation my thought has.

Now, on one hand, I'm just being insensitive. But behind that, I have a pre-judgment in my mind about what Southern accents mean -- a prejudice. I have unknowingly made certain assumptions about the person. Not out of malice or hatred, just lack of understanding and experience. I have also mistakenly assumed that they all share my personal view of what "redneck" means (that's not discrimination, that's just immature thinking).

Now, that prejudice can lead me -- unwittingly -- toward discriminatory behavior toward people with that accent. Or I might intentionally treat them worse, who knows? But this discrimination based on a person's accent, based on prejudice that has fueled bias, is a form of "ethnocentrism."

Do a find-replace with "gender" and "sexism," and that's what I think has happened here. As do "many others, whom I've asked."

Also, unless you happen to be a robot or Mr. Spock then logical fallacies do not suddenly prevent the continuation of an arguement unless someone starts getting hung up on them (like yourself and your apparant addiction to the bloody things).

The fixation is on the part of the user, not the guy that notices its ill effects.

Granted, some people do just try to pad out their responses in order to make them sound smarter or more confusing so that the other person isn't willing to counter-argue (and therefore make it a 'victory') but I actually do put thought into my posts and address the issues being raised while you have repeatedly pulled out logical fallacies on me and whined on more about me supposedly not understanding you (I would make a joke about whiney, goth teenagers but I can't be bothered).

I hope everyone out there has enjoyed the 'what the hell is with this guy and logical fallacies?' drinking game! Let's play again sometime!

Yes, I've pointed out quite a bit of fallacious thinking and reasoning on your part. And at the same time, the record clearly shows I've discussed the points you have brought up. I've done both. At the same time. And in this post, I've done it yet again.

I have also still done so without resorting to direct or indirect insults on your character or intelligence. The same cannot be said for you.

 

[Wade Wilson]

You obviously don't know shit about Batman.

Wow, I'm taking quite the flak for that post.

I have indeed gotten some things wrong. Apparently Batman didn't get campy until the 80s. I'm sorry for my misunderstanding there. As a person who isn't a particularly huge fan of masked heroes, I don't keep up with Batman so indeed I wouldn't know that sort of thing.

I just kind of found campy Batman more entertaining.

Errr...
The late 80s is definitely not the time where Batman became campy... Maybe you should re-read the post that first forced you to reconsider your awkward account of Batman publication history?

Anyway, I see you've at least tried to retract earlier your claim that Batman was originally a campy character, so you might now want to consider retracting the following:

It seems to be particularly bad in the recent movies and video games. I know everyone loves "Batman Begins", helped by an attractive guy dying in it.

I'll assume this "attractive guy" that you say died "in" "Batman Begins" is supposed to be Heath Ledger. It's a decent assumption on my part, since it's highly unlikely that you with your apparently very mangled Batman knowledge would be talking about Conway Wickliffe, the other man who died while 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT was being crafted.

 

[LilithSlave]

Yes, I meant to say the 60s. That was a typo.

Also, I don't like how some of y'all are using not knowing about Batman in a condescending fashion. It's silly. Not being educated on pre-60s Batman is not a bad thing.

Just like not being super educated on Astro Boy is not a bad thing.

 

[Korolev]

It's mildly sexist and pandering towards a male audience. I don't think it's "evil", but it is rather.... insulting. Both towards men and women. Maybe it's the prude in me talking, but that cat woman stuff made me groan with disgust. It's about as subtle as Baywatch was. The only difference is that Arkham City doesn't have a slow-mo camera mode whenever catwoman prances about on the screen.

It's still nothing to get too worked up over. I don't think it causes any real harm, but I would like to see Game developers think OUTSIDE the box and do something original with Catwoman, instead of just use her as a sexy thing for male gamers to oggle at (yes, I know the very reason she exists in the first place was for male comic book readers to oggle at, but that's no excuse). You know that's why they put her in there. You know it - don't deny it! There's one reason and one reason only why they made the Catwoman content tied to a new purchase of the game!

But as I've said - I've played Arkham City and while there were one or two things that made me roll my eyes, it's largely harmless. I've seen advertisements that were far more sexist and demeaning towards woman than Arkham City (namely, those atrocious Lynx body deodorant ads. You know the ones I'm talking about).

 

[targren]

Ye flipping gods, I really hope Wonder Woman never shows up in her own game, then...

DC's resident bondage kitten would make these dimwits' heads asplode...

It's mildly sexist and pandering towards comic book fans.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Acier]

Soooooo the escapists response to this when people clearly explain why it is sexist is to get defensive as get out and effectively stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalallalala"

No wonder women are put off by gaming, jesus.

 

[Wade Wilson]

Yes, I meant to say the 60s. That was a typo.

Also, I don't like how some of y'all are using not knowing about Batman in a condescending fashion. It's silly. Not being educated on pre-60s Batman is not a bad thing.

Just like not being super educated on Astro Boy is not a bad thing.

Not knowing about Batman is fine.
Not liking Batman is fine.
I don't even like Batman myself.

But there's something off when you don't know much about the Batman franchise and then criticize it/its fans based on your own ignorance.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

It's still nothing to get too worked up over. I don't think it causes any real harm, but I would like to see Game developers think OUTSIDE the box and do something original with Catwoman, instead of just use her as a sexy thing for male gamers to oggle at (yes, I know the very reason she exists in the first place was for male comic book readers to oggle at, but that's no excuse). You know that's why they put her in there. You know it - don't deny it! There's one reason and one reason only why they made the Catwoman content tied to a new purchase of the game!

She can be sexy without being demeaning though, if she had a smaller bust and had her zipper all the way up we would've been well on the way. ;D

Add to that some smarter, subtler dialogue and the whole portrayal of Catwoman would've been less cringe inducing. (And y'know, her never needing rescuing)

 

[Alandoril]

Well, I suppose yes it could be sexist because it assumes that all criminally minded men are both sexually and/or physically violent.

 

[UmJammerSully]

So many people on the right side of the "argument" but still missing the bigger picture.

Even if the bad guys yell "*****!" and it is sexist, so fucking what!? Games aren't allowed to have sexist characters now?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I just thought it was becuase catwoman was kicking their ass. The reaction a lot of men have to successful women, even in the business world and politics, is that they are a *****/ugly/a whore.

Yes it's sexist but it's also accurate.

 

[cdstephens]

Your first mistake was reading a Kotaku article.