Why is it that any time an "SJW" criticizes something, it's mistaken for "bullying" or "censorship"? Are we to classify anyone who expresses an opinion about a game as a bully?Kathinka said:
Misogyny or Sexual Persecution? [Update!]
- Thread starter grassgremlin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
because the tone of it mostly isn't "hmm, this game is such and such i don't really like this. i would prefer if the main character was a trigender omnisexual pyrofox", but more along the lines of shaming devs with "omg that game is so misogynistic and homophobic!! change iiiiiiiiit! boycot! shame on you dirty women haters! all games need to be changed because i think so, screw what the majority thinks!"Dragonmouth said:
I would believe this if one of the most hated SJWs weren't Anita Sarkeesian, one of the most calm and polite people on the internet.Kathinka said:
i'm not too familiar with the matter anymore, but to my understanding she isn't hated because of the tone or message of her videos, but because of her constant use of cherry picked arguments and outright lies to further her goals. but again, it has been a while since i looked into it, so i could be off here.Dragonmouth said:
I don't expect you to answer this, but since the topic has been brought up. You know what I never understood about the "cherry picking" criticism of Anita's videos?Kathinka said:
Her videos are about tropes. So,take her damsel in distress video. At what point is she not supposed to talk about damsels in distress when the video is about damsels in distress? Unless she chooses to broaden the scope of an individual video then what's the damn point in not "cherry picking" examples of damsels in distress? A specific video isn't about comparing and contrasting different tropes, but about a specific trope. I mean, do people accuse TV trope articles of "cherry picking" examples? Because that's all her video's are, spoken TV trope articles with a dash of "why I think this trope is trite and overused." If a viewer doesn't want to watch a video about (insert trope here) then they shouldn't click on a video that makes it pretty clear that the topic of discussion will be (insert trope here).
This entire argument is beyond stupid. Women can't be objectified by videogames because videogames are not real. It's like saying Lord of the Rings is responsible for Orc Genocide. Hell, billions upon billions of virtual men have been murdered over and over again since the dawn of gaming, and no one cares. Has society really become so feminized that even virtual, not-real, non-existent women are considered victims? It's utterly moronic.
Now, this is just my view of the thing, and not trying to get into an argument with you, but I just would want to at least answer or explain why.mecegirl said:
I think it's mainly because she sets up a clear solid criteria in her videos and then uses examples that would fit within that criteria, but then in some cases uses examples that don't fit within that criteria at all. If you're gonna explain particular subject, you gotta make sure that the research and examples you're showing actually back up your arguments instead of just superficially looking at something without actually examining it. Context is important and key here. You can point out that she said that context doesn't matter when looking at the bigger picture, but the problem with that still it leads to the likelihood of using things superficially without examining it, and in turn would hurt your credibility if someone calls you out on it for making a mistake, and she has made these mistakes before in her videos.
Whether this explains things or not, and I doubt it will change your mind, but that's what I think, and I'd rather respect the wishes of the OP and not try to turn the thread into a discussion about Anita Sarkeesian, because this thread is not about her. If you would like to reply anyway, then maybe a private message would be preferable.
Yeah. You're right. Looking at trends in devs using exploitation, violence, damsel in distress as a prompt often over the years, or even quantitative examinations like the Bechdel test (which Sweden ridiculously SWEARS by) doesn't acknowledge the means by which creative products come about.Rahkshi500 said:
If we look at Kirby Ferguson's "everything is a remix" and see just how many creative innovations from the evolution of the home computer, to scientific discoveries, to evolution of music subgenres in society always build directly off of what comes before while adjusting certain aspects. Rahter than eeryone just doing something COMPLETELY different.
Copy, transform and combine. Without these games, she'd have nothing to blame, poke a stick at or make money off of.
It also lends itself as a partial explanation of why game design has gone on this way Instead of expecting it to be natural for as many prominent studioes to eschew even a single instance of depicted violence of sexploitation of women as those who said, "who cares. Just do it. we're all adults".
We can say its lazy for devs to go the exploitation route instead of framing more complex and decent people with agency. But one game went "HAM", the next studio saw it and also wanted to go HAM but take a different mechanical approach, and then another does their take and then another the cycle continues. How do a few hit songs end up spawing entire genres of music? If not we wouldn't have cultures and groups and identify works for better or worse around common aspects.
Why they haven't considered having a safer reasonable representation of women though? I mean Going "HAM" (hard as a ************ for those who might not have heard) in a creative work is a point of no return no matter what you're creating or putting out there. Its not a decision made lightly except for artists who've already built a reputation for doing so.
I presume most devs would've chosen to explore the boundaries of exploitation to see what kinds of unthinkable props they can turn into game mechanics, what kinds of shock they can induce, rather than stay behind the lines and NOT create a lot of things or constantly wonder what they could've done that they didn't, or only do it to men, and make all women mechanically sacrosanct. If equal, then equally vulnerable and destructible I suppose.
Our popular consciousness may not agree due to how we regard women in our media discussion. Now THATS an effect of our culture, where some games, like comedy club shock humor are composed of people who notice this and are playing at our hard inculcated cultural values.
Sometimes were supposed to be put off or amazed, and the easier it is to do it, we can't be surprised if devs take the cheap route as long as they build a narrative and get a reaction at the necessary parts. Of course Anita or a scrutinizing, jaded high-taste critic wouldn't be the target audience so that's not who they're aiming to engage.
But in the game, and in fiction, a prop is a prop is a prop, and that includes characters. Especially in some cases, VALUED ones.
They're not real women but it's the portrayal of women that's the problem, coupled with the way that women are treated in society; in the street, in advertizing etc.Grampy_bone said:
Also, are you comparing women to Orcs?
And lots of people care about the number of men being murdered in video games, there's a whole campaign to regulate the age ratings etc on games, where have you been??So we let video game developers get away with sexualizing women in games, no harm in that you say, but where do we draw the line? Because lots of young people play on these games and this constitutes quite a big percentage of their experience of human relationships so it's very naive to think that this will have no effect on society.
But complaining about the developers isn't the answer, you don't like how women are portrayed in a game? Don't buy it. I think people should be able to create whatever they want, it's a slippery road when we start censoring people's art, but the only way to stop is is by removing the demand for it.
There is simply no evidence that people learn behavior or values from games. Art is a mirror that reflects life. If you don't like your reflection, the solution isn't to smash the mirror. You seem to agree with this point in your final sentence.Jack24 said:They're not real women but it's the portrayal of women that's the problem, coupled with the way that women are treated in society; in the street, in advertizing etc.Grampy_bone said:
Also, are you comparing women to Orcs?
So we let video game developers get away with sexualizing women in games, no harm in that you say, but where do we draw the line? Because lots of young people play on these games and this constitutes quite a big percentage of their experience of human relationships so it's very naive to think that this will have no effect on society.
But complaining about the developers isn't the answer, you don't like how women are portrayed in a game? Don't buy it. I think people should be able to create whatever they want, it's a slippery road when we start censoring people's art, but the only way to stop is is by removing the demand for it.
It's true that we've drawn barriers to sexuality in games. These have risen up organically, in response to customer demands, without legislation or activism by ideologues. This is another reason why I consider the matter moot. The market has decided what it considers acceptable in gaming and what it does not (consider the "hot coffee" GTA incident and the outrage over "Rapelay"). I would argue that even these incidents were overblown, but clearly the industry is listening to its customers.
But the feminists who are complaining aren't customers. They are zealots attempting to co-opt a culture to push their ideology.
My question is, in a supposedly pro-female worldview, how can the expression of female sexuality be considered bad?
People learn from every other cultural element. People have been teaching by use of stories for thousands of years, advertising and propaganda are massive industries.Grampy_bone said:
Why should games somehow be the exception to this?
Here is something that I'm planin on working once I'm done with this workload I have. Should be done in 2-3 weeks. It's just an idea, nothing morethaluikhain said:
Games can teach something but only if there isnt something else that isn't more powerful experience around to top it. Games are always defacto perceived as pure fantasy except in few cases where the persona playing the game is enough restricted in some manner that it's unable to differentiate it from the real world and real events.
---People around us are always perceived as real even when they are playing us. The closer they are to us the more power in opinion and psychological profile process they have.
---Next depends on generation. Might be books might be movies. Both are known to be fantasy but also both are known to be truthful, real, and accurate to facts and events. Not to mention that through school we have accepted that books and movies can be authority on certain things. Authors actually are, but we don't interact with them.
---Next would be music. Music has an edge as it's a background radiation to life. Most of the time we hear it with no intention. And often, at least in my case, I fall in love with certain tune only later to listen to actual words, when certain level of affection and thrust towards that work has been established.
---Now we dwell in pure fantasy, Comics and pop media. But is it pure fantasy? Comics or "digital novels" are established art medium. Works like Maus for example are much, much more than simple fantasy. Still, really low on character devopment base.
---Lastly we have what could be second powerful influence since it's only other than real people to actually interact. But at the same time games are accepted as fantasy and fantasy alone. Gamification of any real events in recent past is met with outpour of disgust. It's a medium mainstream still sees as throwing stones in the water. And we see it to subconsiously. I want games that are art, I want exploration of heart of soul. But wast majority of times I just want to blow shit up and be first in race.
Now again this is just an idea of mine. Not even a hypotheses. But that's where I see games on totem pole of character building for vast majority of mankind.
If people learned behavior from games, we'd have 700 million mass-murderers.thaluikhain said:
http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/25/more-than-1-2-billion-people-are-playing-games/
Well, if playing a game turned you into a mass murderer, mind. Which nobody here is claiming.Grampy_bone said:
ETA: Not everyone who watches an add for Coke drinks Coke. Coke spends lots of money telling people drinking Coke is cool so that more people drink Coke.