Gamers make bad feminists

[Cyberjester]

Feminism is an important social movement, and sadly, judging by the comments that are rapidly spreading throughout game blogs, forums, and so on, more or less all of us have decided instead to become puritan anti-boob crusaders.

You must have missed the Brink boycott because the developers put all their effort into costumes rather than putting in a female character. Or the Red Orchestra 2 "We want Russian female snipers". Feminism is huge in video games, which hilariously means it isn't huge. It's around so much that we've gotten used to it and no longer notice all the "Women are badly represented in video games". Although that could be because the average model/magazine does a worse off job... C'est la vie.

It's also been sidelined by "Gays in video games" and "Race in video games", all important arguments that video game designers have no chance of meeting each agendas focus. Although it all boils down to

puritan anti-boob crusaders.

or "Eeeew, you put a boob in a video game! What sexist exploitative jerks you are! 'twenty minutes of whinging follow'". Designers nowadays seem to be taking the fatalistic view and not even bothering since it's a lose-lose-lose situation.

Sounds like someone is getting their definitions from fox news. Actually feminism is about equality, people that say its about female dominance are getting their definition from right wing idiots who seek to discredit it.

Nah, it's in the name. Feminism is like Masculinism, each of them targets a single specific gender. Equalism or whatever would be the more accurate term. That and quotas, worst idea ever if equality was the idea, second only to no paternal leave for guys. And that would be where people get the "Women pushing for female dominance" thing from, anyone pushing solely for one genders rights whilst deriding all males is always going to be seen as gender biased.

I could point to examples where feminists I know when they're talking will be "And like all males, the bellboy was astounded I didn't tip him when". But then I'd be pointing solely to my own experience which if statistics has anything to say (and it does), it would be telling you that personal experience does not equal the norm. You are simply one more point on the graph which will add up to give you a median which is the norm. Or you could be an outlier, or even biased and only notice "anti female" comments.


As a closing comment because I think I'm rambling, note that the first comment isn't sexist, it's what the commenter perceived to be the focus of the game, and yet he ignored that and focused on the jungle textures instead. Which is probably the least sexist thing around unless ignoring said breasts makes one a puritan? Although in this case we can just pass it off as "geek", the sort that would ignore the stripper for the preview of the cool new game.

 

[Eamar]

That and quotas, worst idea ever if equality was the idea, second only to no paternal leave for guys.

Sorry to pull out one tiny part of your post, but I just wanted to point out that

1) quotas are an incredibly contentious issue within feminism, with many feminists (myself included) believing that they are completely unhelpful. Speaking for myself, I'd be insulted if I was offered a job purely because they needed X number of women. Feminists who share this view believe in meritocracy.

and 2) as I've pointed out in another post, I have never heard a feminist complain about paternity leave. Quite the opposite, in fact. As far as I understand it, feminists are pushing for both parents to be involved in parental leave because it balances things out in the workplace and helps break down expected gender roles. Maybe it's different in Australia (I'm British), I don't know...

 

[Treblaine]

My only dislike of the Hitman trailer is how unnecessary the sexist outfits are. They dress like normal nuns, but choose to dress like dominatrices to fight. Why? What does it add?

The fact that he beats them up doesn't mean much to me, they were trying to murder him, it's no different from if they were men or robots.

I recognize that there wa sclear objectification going on in the trailer, though some people have told me its meant to be ugly as part of the world I dont know enough to comment, you seem to say sexualizasion is the same as objectification. Do you mean this or does sexualization need to have a point to be there?

Ah... I meant 'sexy' not sexist.

I do think that sexualisation needs a point, even if it is only minor. Take characters such as Lara Croft and Rayne. They are sexy, and it's a part of their identity that while they are appealing to look at, it's not their defining characteristic.

They are more defined by being strong willed, independent and extremely capable. Their sexuality is there to make them appealing, but it doesn't define them.

In this trailer it's sexy outfits for the sake of sexy outfits. There is no logical or practical reason for why these assassins, walking through the rain towards a motel would need to strip off nun outfits for leather and PVC. It simply has no point at all.

If he'd been fighting them in a strip club, then sure, there'd be a logical reason, but a hotel parking lot? Why?

Juxtaposition and contrast are powerfully evocative techniques in the visual arts, the combination of nuns habit and then PVC dominatrix outfit is contrasting enough, even more so how it is in a rainy and dingy Motel. The contras of modern polymer submachine guns with that classic car Agent 47 drives all is there. It accentuates EITHER element, makes them all register more.

And what does it say about the organisation that comes to attack 47? A close up on one of the nun-assassin's shoulder reveals a tattoo of the logo of 47's former employer. This is the kind of crazy organisation they are. They aren't the type to just to hire some local drug dealers to make a hit, they are INSANE! It shows a weird kind of loyalty to dress like that for an assassination.

Remember according to the canon, IO interactive didn't dress them in Dominatrix-Nun outfits. These characters were dressed by their employer, who we have not met yet. What does this say about your opponent in this game?

 

[TheSear]

Feel free to report me. I know I will get a warning/suspension/ban for this but it is worth it. Sanquin, you are an absolute asshole who has no idea what the feminism movement is, or what the hell you are talking about. You are sexist, and a prick. Fuck you.

Firstly, those are both terms used for males, so in case you indeed think I am...I'm female. Secondly, really now, I am sexist for not wanting to associate with the bullshit that feminists pull, as a fellow female?

You can't base an entire movement on the few feminists you have heard of. You do realize if it wasn't for feminists you would have nothing. And I guess you are not sexist then, you are a misogynist.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Maybe it's just my experience but - like I said - when someone on the internet shouts "Sexism!" they're usually not talking about any of the things that matter.

Let's put it this way - racially motivated genocide is racist. But so are the stories of of H.P. Lovecraft, Gone With the Wind, the imagery intentionally evoked by this magazine cover [http://media.indiatimes.in/media/content/2012/Mar/king_kong_1330665718_1330665722_640x640.jpg], a Call of Duty player screaming n***** on Xbox live, and so on. I think the last thing I'd say about sexism is that it is overreported by the internet.

EDIT: And, as Eamar said, the it's possible to be opposed to large problems and small problems.

 

[Treblaine]

That and quotas, worst idea ever if equality was the idea, second only to no paternal leave for guys.

Quotas weren't even an idea of feminists, they were a facile response to feminist criticism BY those who were alleged of sexism.

For example: feminists would note that in a job that both:
(1) Women were eminently suited for, and
(2) women of such capability existed

Yet there were virtually no women employed. But the employers completely ignored the meritocracy part of their argument and just thought:

"Well if they complain about not enough women, then I'll set a quota for X-number of women. That'll shut them up"

But that is NOT them committed to sexual equality, they are being lazy and taking the path of least resistance and understanding to get some free press to just dismiss an argument. They will recruit any woman and put her in an unimportant role just to shut people up. Employers do the same with unions and other things. It's not about meritocracy, it's about politics.

It's superficial in that feminist can no longer say "Y U No Employ women" when it misses the POINT of what they were saying in how it didn't follow the meritocracy for women.

See to fill these quotas THAT WERE SET BY THE COMPANIES ACCUSED OF SEXISM, they hire not those most suited to the job but those who will be the least trouble. Remember, they only set these quotas to dismiss criticism, they have a bias just to sacrifice just enough money to pay a few salaries to get good press for dealing with city planning and so on. That means hiring for dead end jobs in the company with no promotion prospects and where they can have the least influence. Like hiring women for receptionist (most visible, few promotion prospects) but not for any job that will get them in the board room meetings.

There are some feminists who think they can use quotas to their advantage but I think this is drinking from a poison chalice. What is needed is a genuine meritocracy. A quota will bias toward hiring a certain gender will lead to "hiring for show", the quota exists only for appearances so you will only get an employee for appearances. A genuine employee who contributes to the team is not the objective with quotas.

Companies embrace quota laws and regulations, as they don't really have to change any of their ways of thinking or their power structure. You set the quota employment drives or low importance jobs in the workforce. But I don't know how you can change deep seated biases in the company hierarchy. The tricky part is the face-to-face interview that is supposed to be just to see if they "work with the team" really is it after all the vital statistics where they don't know if "Alex Jones" is a man or woman's name they see it's a woman and say (for a high importance job):

"I just don't think you'll fit with the company"

Is that because of their particular personality traits, or because they are female. There is no way of knowing.

 

[WindKnight]

Thats not true I am an amazing feminist. I fucking love tits and am all for giving them equal rights.

Then you're not a feminist but an equalist. Feminists, these days, are only all about women's rights. No longer about just equal rights. Or rather, feminists these days are all about getting special treatment just so they can 'feel' equal to men even though they do less work, are weaker, etc. (Not saying women all do less work or are weaker, just that the ones that are want to still feel equal for doing/achieving less.)

So yea, you're an equalist! Same with me.

Sounds like someone is getting their definitions from fox news. Actually feminism is about equality, people that say its about female dominance are getting their definition from right wing idiots who seek to discredit it.

Pretty much this. people talking negatively about 'feminist agendas' and treat feminists like their trying to crush all men underneath their heel want you to feel sorry for the poor, maligned white heterosexual male who is being so badly mistreated now! I mean, he dominated society for so long, why should he be forced to share it with people not like him?

 

[Schadrach]

Lots of things are sexist, but not a lot of things are Hitler.

I would like to announce that this is my new favourite out-of-context quote.

OT: Honestly, better a bad feminist than this douche [http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87615]. Though obviously, I'd rather choose neither.

I'll take that and raise you:

From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

The difference is that your quote is from an internet troll from a site full of them (sorry, but Spearhead is generally horrible). My quote is from a book, one that's considered an important feminist publication -- Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller.

Feminist is such a stupid word, what it stands for is equality yet is worded to only apply to women as if they are the only ones who have problems and can fight for them.

While I agree that nowadays "feminism" might not be the first choice of word, you do have to bear in mind that the term was coined at a time when women who were unhappy with being stay-at-home mothers and housewives were literally treated as mentally ill... It was considerably more appropriate then. And we all know how hard it can be to change established terminology.

Just wanted to point that out

I don't think people have a problem with first wave feminism, its second wave feminism and people like Andrea Dworkin that people have an issue with.

Second wavers and their ideological descendents are certainly the ones who generate most of the ire. Ones who misquote statistics, use false statistics, and try to be willfully ignorant of studies (there are studies that show most domestic violence is reciprocal, others that show that most child abuse is performed by mothers, etc, etc) that disagree with them also go in that pile (or use intentionally slanted definitions to make comparison difficult). The question to ask yourself is, what variety of feminist makes up the majority of those that actually have any real influence? What variety make up the majority of those with positions in government, or lobbyists. The answer is unfortunately not sex positive moderate third wavers. In one of those "stopped clock, twice a day" scenarios, a particularly hateful MRA once expressed this as:

... liberal feminism is the friendly face of the ideology, which when challenged uses the humanist goals of equal legal rights, bodily autonomy and other humanist ideas to diffuse suggestions that it is a supremacist hate movement.

By contrast, radical feminism is liberal feminism?s ugly, violent and politically potent big sister.

There's also a significant share of confirmation bias and wearing heavy blinders going on on every side. For example, there was a case last year where an MRA got access to a forum associated with RadFemHub, and posted a dump of the forum. Several MRA sites and also Manboobz (a site dedicated to mocking MRAs) covered the event. The MRAs were posting examples from the forum along the lines of "I wish I could throw the male children I care for professionally out the window" and "Women in a village in Papua New Guinea are killing all their male children? You go girl!" while Manboobz used threads like "My computer is broke, help!" to show what those paranoid MRAs are going on about. Both of those were certainly present in the data, but both were showing extremes of what was present.

Note similarly that you'll see feminist blogs go on about rape cases in some detail, especially about how some of them being found not guilty is inherently proof of rape culture because no woman would ever, ever lie about something so serious, but barely a peep about the Brian Banks case.

People who call themselves feminists and mean they're for equality somewhat remind me of those who donate to Peta because they want to help animals. Those who are most invested in Peta/Feminism aren't doing what most people who support them think they are. And bad things happen as a result.

This is actually not a bad analogy.

In this trailer it's sexy outfits for the sake of sexy outfits. There is no logical or practical reason for why these assassins, walking through the rain towards a motel would need to strip off nun outfits for leather and PVC. It simply has no point at all.

If he'd been fighting them in a strip club, then sure, there'd be a logical reason, but a hotel parking lot? Why?

A habit isn't exactly a practical outfit if you are after any kind of mobility, either. So the habits needed to go for practical reasons, but what was under tham unfortunately wasn't exactly practical either. Something practical that still kind of resembled the habit in some stylized fashion (to keep the theme going) probably would have been best.

 

[LiquidGrape]

The fundamental issue of modern feminism as a movement is its failure to be more inclusive of women of colour in the discourse.
This can also be applied to QLGBT matters. Race is still the most pervasive issue.

Feminism's opposition to the patriarchy, however, is more or less unquestionable as far as I'm concerned. The Male Gaze of video games is a perfect example, and always worth addressing.

 

[Legion]

A habit isn't exactly a practical outfit if you are after any kind of mobility, either. So the habits needed to go for practical reasons, but what was under tham unfortunately wasn't exactly practical either. Something practical that still kind of resembled the habit in some stylized fashion (to keep the theme going) probably would have been best.

Absolutely, I wasn't suggesting they should keep the habit's on, the disguise works until they reach the target then they take them off to reveal practical clothing, that's what should have happened.

 

[sanquin]

-snip-

Okay, let me rephrase what I said in the very beginning then:

My definition of feminists are hypocrite bitches/assholes that want better rights for women, not equal, so they have to do less to achieve the same. My definition of equalists is men and women that truly want to be equal. That say 'if something counts for one gender, it also counts for the other'.

Because of this I do not want to be associated with feminists and call myself an equalist instead. And also because of this I call other people that are for real equal rights an equalist, and not a feminist. Because I really see the label 'feminist' as an insult.

 

[sanquin]

Firstly, those are both terms used for males, so in case you indeed think I am...I'm female. Secondly, really now, I am sexist for not wanting to associate with the bullshit that feminists pull, as a fellow female?

You can't base an entire movement on the few feminists you have heard of. You do realize if it wasn't for feminists you would have nothing. And I guess you are not sexist then, you are a misogynist.

Feminists in the past were good. They were more like what I call equalists. The 'new' feminists of today are the bitches that I dislike/hate. I should have been more clear on that I guess.

Also, maybe read up a little more on what misogyny is. Because I don't even see how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Belated]

Sexy does not mean sexist. I've said it many times before: There's nothing wrong with putting sexy girls in your games for people to gawk at. (That's right, PEOPLE. Because there are lesbians and bisexuals out there who find them attractive. And I'm not just talking out my ass. I know a few personally.) Sexuality is a completely natural thing. Arousal is an emotion, and there's nothing wrong with indulging the emotion through media. If you think there's too many games featuring half-naked babes, the answer isn't to get rid of the babes. The answer is to add more hunks in order to appeal to all crowds.

A real feminist doesn't hate sexuality. She hates how society reacts to it.

That said, I have no idea what the OP was getting at. Can't tell if he's saying the same thing I'm saying, or if he's saying the opposite.

 

[Eamar]

Okay, let me rephrase what I said in the very beginning then:

My definition of feminists are hypocrite bitches/assholes that want better rights for women, not equal, so they have to do less to achieve the same. My definition of equalists is men and women that truly want to be equal. That say 'if something counts for one gender, it also counts for the other'.

Because of this I do not want to be associated with feminists and call myself an equalist instead. And also because of this I call other people that are for real equal rights an equalist, and not a feminist. Because I really see the label 'feminist' as an insult.

Then I'm sorry, but your definition of "feminist" is incorrect. Now obviously I'm not going to start telling you what words to use in your own life, that's entirely up to you, but using a word that means "advocating equal rights for women" as an insult meaning "hypocrite *****/asshole" is going to be needlessly inflammatory to the majority of feminists who don't fit your definition, no?

I mean, sure, you have your own personal definition for those people ("equalist"), but they're not going to know that, are they?

 

[Darkmantle]

SNIP

Dammit, doesn't anyone read anymore, I never said women were saints or better, I said that feminism is about equality, and stupid people think it means women are superior or men are inferior and I didn't say a damn thing about men not or being abused or some shit like that.
My point is that if you call yourself a feminist and you think that means anything beyond gender equality (like being superior or giving you a right to create a different gender inequality), you are a retard and you are using the wrong word to describe yourself.

I did read it, but what I am saying is that while you say feminism is about equality, I have yet to see it. All talk, no action. Where's the feminist organization that helps promote awareness of abuse against men, or help open men's shelters?

I identify as a humanist, instead of a feminist, for just that reason.

Not to burst your bubble, but it is possible to be humanist in principle, while acting to help women exclusively under the auspices of feminism. If you believe that women are getting the predominance of abuse, then you'll help women. The feminist organisations are entirely for the promotion of awareness of issues which they see as discrimination against women, which doesn't mean they don't believe in discrimination against men, it just means that it's not their issue.

I too would identify as a humanist, but I wouldn't dismiss feminist activism simply because I need them to work towards eliminating the aspects of sexism which discriminate against males. That's not their purpose, and in fact, good activists know that they must be focussed on one issue. The more issues they take on, the more they consider or form an opinion for action on, the more people who agree with their main issue they remove from their movement. I would however, dismiss groups who don't believe in discrimination against males, but their beliefs need not be identical to their actions.

For instance, I'm a humanist, but I might support an LGBT group. I wouldn't ask them to then support a straight help group (Do these actually exist? Just out of curiosity), or a racial discrimination group, because each extra opinion they take will offend some of their followers, and diminish their following, and activist groups need a following to have impact. In fact, humanist activism, from the perspective of correcting societies flaws in particular area, would be identical to the individual groups activism anyway. (Barring of course, things like humanist charity work, of course)

While this is a fair point, it is not a fair example. When reputable, widely accepted, feminist groups actively skew statistics to paint men in a worse light , so that they can play the victim card, that crosses the line for acceptable for me.

To use your example, if the LGBT were to say that since 90% of all straight marriages fail, gay marriages should be given special treatment, would you continue your support.

Again, with Domestic abuse. Many feminist organizations say 90% of domestic violence is perpetrated by Men, when in reality all the studies have pegged it as anywhere between 50/50 to 60/40 with men over representing. I find this out right lying to be an affront to a "equal rights" movement, and puts the whole movement firmly in ill repute.

also in b4 "no true scotsman" fallacy.

 

[SextusMaximus]

I make a terrible feminist, because I've got a penis.

 

[sanquin]

Then I'm sorry, but your definition of "feminist" is incorrect. Now obviously I'm not going to start telling you what words to use in your own life, that's entirely up to you, but using a word that means "advocating equal rights for women" as an insult meaning "hypocrite *****/asshole" is going to be needlessly inflammatory to the majority of feminists who don't fit your definition, no?

I mean, sure, you have your own personal definition for those people ("equalist"), but they're not going to know that, are they?

If you've been on the internet for longer than a few days you should know all to well how people view feminists in general. Not just guys, plenty of girls as well. So it's not 'just me' and there are plenty of people that see feminist as a derogatory term as well.

Wrong definition or not, to dismiss it outright and suggest that I'm a small minority thinking this way, is wrong as well.

 

[Eamar]

If you've been on the internet for longer than a few days you should know all to well how people view feminists in general. Not just guys, plenty of girls as well. So it's not 'just me' and there are plenty of people that see feminist as a derogatory term as well.

Wrong definition or not, to dismiss it outright and suggest that I'm a small minority thinking this way, is wrong as well.

Correction: having been on the internet for more than a few days I know all too well how people on the internet view feminists in general.

Oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of people I've interacted with in real life do not have this problem. They don't necessarily agree, but they have the common sense not to use "feminist" as an insult.

EDIT: my apologies, that last part was needlessly confrontational. I was pissed off, is all.

EDIT the second: but tell me, I am a feminist. I am unrepentant about calling myself one and am not about to start using your definitions. There are others on these forums, in this thread, who are the same. Are we "hypocrite bitches that you hate?"

 

[TheSear]

Or rather, feminists these days are all about getting special treatment just so they can 'feel' equal to men even though they do less work, are weaker, etc.

Feminists in the past were good. They were more like what I call equalists. The 'new' feminists of today are the bitches that I dislike/hate. I should have been more clear on that I guess.

Also, maybe read up a little more on what misogyny is. Because I don't even see how you came to that conclusion.

Because in your point of view, women have to work and do a lot in order to be worthy of equal rights, whereas men automatically qualify for better treatment by the fact that they are men, regardless of how much work they do.

This is denigration of women, therefore falls under misogyny. Hopefully you see the link.