Question, If Anita Sarkeesian is Right, why is Jack Thompson Wrong?

[Shodanbot]

It's like the opposite of the Omar Problem in The Wire. If you've not watched the show, Omar was the best character on that show. He was a gay gangster who robbed drug dealers and there was nothing stereotypically gay about him. He's still a bit of an oddity. But him being gay is only a small part of why he was so damn cool.

And The Wire kept him around long past there being a point to his presence... but that was kind of cool because Omar. Sometimes you just keep those type of characters around because they make your show more enjoyable.

McNulty was my favourite character. He just lucks his way through life...

If it's bad writing then Shakespeare was terrible, I mean killing off an innocent character merely to push along the plot. How dare her kill Mercutio which in turn triggers Romeo to kill Tybalt in revenge and leads to him being banished. It sets in motion the main story elements off the back of this one event. Mercutio wasn't that fleshed out as a character.

Hamlet: Act 4 Scene 7.

Can't help myself.

 

[Netrigan]

Except Saints Row for the most part is a deliberate parody of crime games. It's totally over the top and knows it in pretty much every aspect. This is a game series with some damn strong female characters of it's own such as Kenzie and even Shaundi however both would probably face plenty of flak because they are characters who are seen as sex positive. I mean the whole thing with Shaundi initially is her approach of "So I've slept with people, does it matter who and how many unless they're trying to kill us ?"

It's not really a parody. It's not saying "look how silly these tropes are!" (Well, the fourth one does that a lot actually, but 2 does not). It's an indulgence factory. It's saying "We know you play these games so you can indulge in your wildest fantasies and do all sorts of silly crazy things, so we're gonna let you do that!" And so they fill the game with all the crazy ridiculous fun things they can. Hot dog suit! Throw poop on buildings! Surf on cars! Throw yourself into traffic and bounce around wildly! Ninjas! And... human sex trafficking?

See the difference? It's a real-world problem that causes untold horrors and misery to happen to thousands of people, the vast majority of them women. And the game treats it like just another silly fun thing to do. That's the issue.

(And yes, I realize that all of those things are Bad. The difference is that there isn't a plague of people spraying poop onto buildings. That's not a systemic problem. Sex trafficking is. Also, I can imagine that spraying poop onto a building could be fun, especially in a no-consequences setting. Anyone who thinks selling women into sex slavery, and treating them like property, is "fun" is seriously screwed up.

I'm not saying that the SR2 developers are screwed up. I think they just made a minigame about driving to one place, picking up a group of people, and driving them somewhere else, and they didn't think of the implications of their story.)

If only those people knew how to quickly enter a car *shakes fist at passing cloud*.

 

[Netrigan]

It's like the opposite of the Omar Problem in The Wire. If you've not watched the show, Omar was the best character on that show. He was a gay gangster who robbed drug dealers and there was nothing stereotypically gay about him. He's still a bit of an oddity. But him being gay is only a small part of why he was so damn cool.

And The Wire kept him around long past there being a point to his presence... but that was kind of cool because Omar. Sometimes you just keep those type of characters around because they make your show more enjoyable.

McNulty was my favourite character. He just lucks his way through life...

McNulty is pretty damn awesome.

I really need to sit down with The Wire again soon. They're all sitting there for free on my Amazon Prime account. So very tempting.

 

[Shodanbot]

See the difference? It's a real-world problem that causes untold horrors and misery to happen to thousands of people, the vast majority of them women. And the game treats it like just another silly fun thing to do. That's the issue.

Haven't played the SR games, so don't know how they handled human trafficking. I know it's a comedy game and I do think you can make anything funny.

Ever watch Brass Eye? The special is on the subject of pedophilia. One scene is especially memorable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyNHmskN-vo

McNulty is pretty damn awesome.

I really need to sit down with The Wire again soon. They're all sitting there for free on my Amazon Prime account. So very tempting.

You don't have the DVDs yet? Shame on you!

The Wire is a show I love and hate. Love it because it's brilliant, hate it because I wish I wrote it...

 

[Netrigan]

See the difference? It's a real-world problem that causes untold horrors and misery to happen to thousands of people, the vast majority of them women. And the game treats it like just another silly fun thing to do. That's the issue.

Haven't played the SR games, so don't know how they handled human trafficking. I know it's a comedy game and I do think you can make anything funny.

It's all over the place.

Escort is a generally funny mission type where you have to drive around a prostitute and her John. The prostitutes are always female, but the Johns are of either sex and they're both submissive and dominant. It's funny hearing what they get up to.

Snatch is about stealing prostitutes from another pimp. It's the kind of meh mission you'd expect from GTA and isn't really funny at all... not even when they bring in the auto-tuned pimp, who, incidentally, is kidnapped and sexually assaulted prior to his appearance in SR3. At one point he's got a tail attached and is pulling a cart you use in a chase.

Then there's a prostitution mini-game in SR2 where you prostitute yourself in a rhythm mini-game. Like Escort, there's weird kinky shit going on and it's kind of funny to listen to.

I think that's about the extent of the sex worker interaction. I might be forgetting something or other.

You don't have the DVDs yet? Shame on you!

The Wire is a show I love and hate. Love it because it's brilliant, hate it because I wish I wrote it...

Had them, gave them to my dad when I got rid of all my DVDs.

 

[Lightknight]

And drunk consent... seriously. If you are sober enough to decide should you steal or start a fight you are sober enough to consensually take part in sexual activity. Getting someone under intoxicating influence, especially with goal of abuse of that person, is already covered in law.

So now we're comparing a woman's consent to sex with crimes?

It's fairly obvious that carnex is stating that if you can be held accountable in a court of law for decisions you make while drunk then it is legally true that you can make decisions in general that don't constitute temporary insanity. Carnex also seemed to be differentiating between pass-out drunk and active drunk which is an important distinction. The former being impossible to make decisions based on the passed out condition but the latter being able to make decisions (albeit poor ones) readily. The difference being consciousness rather than soberness.

The threat of making poor decisions is a risk you accept when you go well above your limits in a bar. I mean, you're a few choices away from terrible crimes and are at your worst mentally. Getting roofied is not a risk you accept when drinking at a bar. That is a crime committed against you and should be pursued to the fullest extent in a court of law. As long as you're in charge of your inhibited thought process then it is YOUR responsibility when you make a choice.

The issue here is that being forgetful is part of being drunk. "I was drunk so it was rape even though I don't really remember" isn't a logical statement. "I clearly remember refusing but he kept at it" is. Yet people make the former claim a lot.

What's more is that just admitting that women do falsely accuse men makes people think you're pro-rape or some such nonsense but the fact is that if you give ANY human power they're going to abuse it and filing rape charges against a boyfriend that dumped you is exercising power over a situation you may feel out of control of. I knew a compulsive liar who made this lie regularly. One time though, she made the claim about a time frame that my wife and one other person could see them for the entire time they were just talking. But no, apparently him dumping her meant that he raped her. Right there. Without touching her once in full public view. I've heard of men who dumped their girlfriend after consensual sex (dick move, these are not my friends) and got accused. Save for having a two witnesses of consent they would have gone to prison (just consent into the bedroom, not watching the act). Also seen people with hidden cams (again, dicks) that got them off the hook.

Does that diminish actual rape victims and the severity of the crime committed against them? No. But it should place a higher burden on facts and also bring up a concern that a woman who is mad at you can ruin your life and largely interrupt it for something you didn't do. If you did do it though, good, hope it gets ruined. But laws like making the accused prove innocence is actually becoming a thing (guilty until proven innocent, anyone). [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979] We have a long history of humans false accusing others. And things that led to those peoples deaths. Like little girls accusing others of being witches in Salem which only took the desire of authority to pursue the claims beyond all doubt. We are prone to taking advantage of these situations.

We have a knife's edge to balance on here. On the one hand we have false accusers who want to hurt the men they falsely accuse. These should be fully pursued in a court of law for attempting to ruin a person's life. Then on the other hand we have real victims who are scared to come forward and we need to make sure that they know that there is nothing wrong with a real victim stepping forward. In fact, it is more wrong to not come forward. But giving women in general more power to easily ruin a person's life is wrong. It needs to remain innocent until proven guilty. That or every sex act ever committed will need to require a notary and video camera with a post-act survey.

As is, there is a significant number of false accusations against men. In the US, 3% is the low end and the most recent (US Lisak (2010)) study had it around 6% and that was specifically published in a "Violence against Women" magazine. That's just the cases that were justifiably proven to be false claims where there was actual evidence proving the claims were false. That doesn't include claims with too little evidence that may have been false either. It's pretty bad. That's one of the lowest percentages too (not surprising considering the magazine it was published in), so if it's already at unacceptable levels even when put out by groups specifically dedicated to anti-women violence (as opposed to anti-human violence) then the real numbers like the other studies have indicate that much worse of an incidence (if we assume bias on both sides then a number in between can be more likely). Even 1% would be a problem.

 

[carnex]

So now we're comparing a woman's consent to sex with crimes?

I faced same conclusion several times. No, I compare capability of judgment in legal terms. If one is capable of making a legal decision, one is capable of giving consent. If I give you my watch while drunk you have no obligation to return it to me. It's not your problem that I did something stupid.

And as I already mentioned, forcing or cheating people into taking intoxicating substances with goal of abusing their reduced capability of judgment is covered under the law.

For starters, that's really just your theory, not an established fact.

Second, let's actually look through the "Dear Colleague letter" [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf] that I'd imagine is the one in question:

For starters, we have this quote:

The report also found that 6.1 percent of males were victims of completed or attempted sexual assault during college.

(That's from page 2)

In other words, it very clearly states that women aren't the only victims of sexual assault. Furthermore, it doesn't actually specify a gender for the offender. In fact, Page 16 clearly states that the perpetrator may be a man or a woman. Simply put, it isn't targeting men specifically as offenders, nor is it targeting women specifically as victims.

So no, it does not seem like this is some incident of feminists who believe women can't rape trying to influence policy. If anything, this goes against your assertion that the feminists saying women can't rape are the ones in power.

I never said that Dear Collaegue letter talks about who is capable of preforming a rape. I said that it's used to erode due process and make decision that are not in one's jurisdiction.

And, oh boy, has it been used several times.

Actually, it isn't hard to find many [http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/statistics/] other [http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html] studies [http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4984] that have shown women are the victims in over 75% of cases, many times over 80%. I'm not sure what it is like in Canada, but given that these are from the United States, your assertion of "all surveys done in the western world" still doesn't hold up. Sorry, but if you're going to incorrectly assert that "all" other surveys are nowhere near the same levels, you need to back it up or at least not dismiss one set of statistics as "lies" just because they're inconvenient.

Furthermore, has anyone actually been able to show that predominant aggressor policy is significantly affecting these outcomes? Yeah, I understand that we have surveys that go to a 60/40 split, but is this due to any changes in accounting for predominant aggressor policy, or is it due to other factors, such as surveying different countries? Even then, we're still sort of getting into the territory that the gender stereotype of women being the weak, helpless ones while men are the strong, assertive ones is problematic to both genders. This is, believe it or not, a feminist position. I believe links I've given already have gone into how these issues affect people of all genders, and I'm pretty sure even I've said enough in this thread that this isn't just about women. It just happens that women are disproportionately more negatively affected, so the discussion will be much more centered around how it affects them, but gender stereotypes do, in many ways, harm everyone.

Surveys you presented contain numbers I stated, not numbers you stated. Did you even read them?

You again state what is a misinformation. Women are at most 2 to 1 affected, with some 3 to 1 at most when it comes to physical injury. Men on the other hand suffer more mental abuse for example. Not by that much disparity but slightly more never the less.

However, domestic abuse help is turned, in most countries, almost exclusively to totally exclusively to women. I already presented some evidence on that and frankly I want to end this discussion so I will not return to that.

It's OK. I mean, there is a case to be made that it was just a coincidence that both came to approximately 1.2 million, but the way in which the guy has addressed people that brought this up to him sort of shows that he was misreading the table.

I'm still waiting on official answer how that table works. Unofficially, third number is first two numbers subtracted by number of persons that are in both of first two groups. In other words third number is, if unofficial source is to be believed, total number of victims of abuse in given survey. So they both misread it?

I really don't think this is an issue about children. I'm also not saying that, in some way, men will suddenly become misogynists from playing the game. It's not even about potentially sending a message that it is OK to beat a woman to death simply because she isn't dressed properly. It's the idea that every woman in the world exists for the man. They simply exist as eye candy, cannon fodder, and any other means to an end for the likely male protagonist and likely male player. Now, having NPCs for which this is the case isn't necessarily the problem in itself, but when there's nothing else in the game, such as female characters who actually exist outside of these norms, then the game begins to show signs of (likely unintentionally) conveying that message.

And before there's any confusion, yes, this lazy writing can affect more than just female characters, but that isn't the discussion being had here.

Well, this really requires a lot of thinking over much, MUCH more research than there is available. Games are in unique spot. On one hand their interactivity is a good case for their ability to affect people, on the other hand their clearest removal from reality of all mediums is a good case for their inability to affect for example. This is really only worthy discussion but it will remain in realm of pure theoretical BS until someone figures out how to reliably test it. And that person will get my nomination for a Nobel prize in single breath.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Snip

So now we're comparing a woman's consent to sex with crimes?

I faced same conclusion several times. No, I compare capability of judgment in legal terms. If one is capable of making a legal decision, one is capable of giving consent. If I give you my watch while drunk you have no obligation to return it to me. It's not your problem that I did something stupid.

And as I already mentioned, forcing or cheating people into taking intoxicating substances with goal of abusing their reduced capability of judgment is covered under the law.

I'll admit I wasn't giving a full explanation, but I'm starting to get tired of this thread and am being brief where I hope I can.

Anyways, the problem with comparing the two is that outside of the intoxication aspect, they are incredibly different scenarios. Stealing or killing while intoxicated requires making a bad decision that harms others. Consenting to sex while intoxicated is a situation of someone (intentionally or unintentionally) exploiting your lowered mental state. In other words, you're comparing an offender to a victim, which, regardless of how fallacious you actually find it, is entirely calloused.

And while it is hard to actually write laws regarding "consent" while intoxicated while remaining fair to everyone involved, there's no reason to treat it as any less awful of an experience at the expense of those who have had it happen to them.

Surveys you presented contain numbers I stated, not numbers you stated. Did you even read them?

From each source in order of how it appeared:

From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.

84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.

Females (76%) experienced more domestic violence victimizations than males (24%)

Now, I'm not sure if you were talking about the percentages or not, but they are similar to the first source.

I'm still waiting on official answer how that table works. Unofficially, third number is first two numbers subtracted by number of persons that are in both of first two groups. In other words third number is, if unofficial source is to be believed, total number of victims of abuse in given survey. So they both misread it?

Like I've already said, if you look at Table 1.2 from the source [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf] that he was referencing in the video, then there's the categories "Current relationship", "Previous relationship", and "Current and previous relationship". For each response "Yes" under "Female" we see the numbers 267, 339, and 601. 267 + 339 equals 606, not 601. In other words, the 601 needs to be counted on its own, not as a total of the other two. Together, all three come to 1, 207, or just a little over 1.2 million when you consider that it is all in thousands.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is a legit question, not trying to troll the fans, not trying to say, "She is the devil and needs to be shut down" this is a serious question. According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

Jack Thompson went on many tirades against video games claiming that if we played violent video games we will want to enact violence in real life.


Now then, answer me this, why is it that Anita is right but Jack Thompson is wrong, its basically the same thing, video games will influence us to do something wrong.

It is a fair question, and I'm glad it was asked. First of all, however, I've never seen Sarkeesian say or imply that. (Second of all, I haven't read though the rest of the thread; I just found it, and don't feel like reading 300+ posts before sharing my thoughts).

Thomson argues for single-sourced causality (that is, Doom will turn well-behaved people into rampaging killers), and seeks to ban/censor violent games. His argument is not supported by studies, basic human psychology, or my personal experience: while there is a correlation between increased aggressive behavior in children (not necessarily violent, mind) and exposure to violent video games, this is more "caused" by negligent parenting and a lack of adequate exposure to alternatives. I played Doom and Mortal Kombat as a child alongside Mario and Sonic, and was adequately taught that these behaviors are not to be emulated. I love Doom, but I hate guns. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Sarkeesian argues general reinforcement (that is, wide-spread prevalence/use of certain tropes will reinforce previously-existent attitudes/behaviors), and seeks to improve the medium, not censor or ban certain types of content. That is to say, someone who previously did not exhibit sexist attitudes will likely not develop any after playing through one or two games that employ sexist representation. However, someone who already exhibits such attitudes and lacks adequate exposure to alternative depictions will have them reinforced, making them more conceptually acceptable. Someone who did not exhibit them previously might also develop less severe versions of them if games that employ them to great degrees suddenly become the sole type of game played for extended periods of time, without any alternatives, and other activities involve similar gender depictions. These hypothetical people need not necessarily be men, either, and these attitudes need not necessarily be male-power-fantasies.

When the bulk of exposure to a visually-distinguishable group of people is limited to one image and/or concept, that's all a person will associate with real-life representatives of that group when opposing reinforcement is lacking. I've been re-watching Dragon Ball lately, and have noticed that Mr. Popo isn't the only character with black-face; tons of background characters have that design, as well. However, this isn't racism(that is, deliberate dehumanization/depersonalization or negative preferential treatment based on ethnicity), but innocence; at that time, black-face was likely the only extended exposure Akira Toriyama had to African-Americans, and so was all he knew of them. A lot of the time, sexist depictions in video games are similarly sourced: not from genuine misogyny on the part of the developers (misogyny and sexism are not the same thing[footnote]When comparing to racial issues, sexism is conceptually closer to racial insensitivity, while racism is more conceptually equivalent to misogyny/misandry. The latter are by definition deliberate, while the former can be but aren't necessarily.[/footnote]), but simple innocence. Without guidance on how to depict people outside of one's general experience, accurate representation of such people is almost impossible. [footnote]Hence why the "strong, independent woman" stereotype isn't any less sexist than the "good little housewife" stereotype; neither one accurately represents women in general, even if the former comes from more progressive intentions.[/footnote]

In short: Thomson's argument has no bearing on reality, sees violent games as having no value in themselves, and he seeks legal involvement. Sarkeesian's argument is based on well-understood psychology and behavior, recognizes that individual games that depict violence and sexism are perfectly capable of being great and having value in their own right, and she promotes artistic responsibility.

 

[Netrigan]

So now we're comparing a woman's consent to sex with crimes?

I faced same conclusion several times. No, I compare capability of judgment in legal terms. If one is capable of making a legal decision, one is capable of giving consent. If I give you my watch while drunk you have no obligation to return it to me. It's not your problem that I did something stupid.

And as I already mentioned, forcing or cheating people into taking intoxicating substances with goal of abusing their reduced capability of judgment is covered under the law.

I was looking up this stuff and there's a big legal hoopla over the laws involving women being incapacitated, as there's no legal definition of incapacitated and several rapists have gotten off after forcing themselves on semi-conscious victims.

We're not talking a little drunk where they can clearly give consent, we're dealing with women (and perhaps even men) who are barely capable of walking and talking, but because they can't say no or resist their assault, their rapists are getting off. They're being acted upon by someone taking advantage of their inability to say no.

To use the watch example used in this thread. Let's say you're really drunk and you're in a semi-conscious state on the street. Someone comes along as says, "I like your watch, you don't mind it I take it?" You can't even comprehend what he's saying but you're in no state to resist when he grabs your arm and removes the watch from your wrist.

You didn't say no, you didn't resist, is that theft? Or do you think giving your watch away requires actual consent on your part?

 

[MysticSlayer]

-snipped for space - click on the name to go to the post

The most recent analysis work suggests that it's 40:60 for violence crime with men being attacked being the 40%. However in a more recent study which also included psychological abuse it it was pushed to 50 : 50.

Actually, the third study I cited (the one with 76%) was published only a few months ago. That's about as current as you can get. Basically, all the sources we gave were in the 2000-2014 range, so none of them are any less relevant than the others.

However, my purpose was more to show that women being the victims about 75-85% of the time was more of a reproducible result even in more recent studies, as carnex was saying that the source was a "lie" for using 85% while claiming that no other study got those results. I wasn't trying to dismiss the ones that show a more even split in who's victimized. After all, even your APA source noted that there are so many factors to consider in these studies that we're bound to get very different result if anything significant changes.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

I will not drag on further beyond this, even this feels like pissing on myself.

In your examples numbers they state and percentages in conclusions don't exactly line up. later two are from justice department which is affected by Predominant Aggressor Policy. What I and Kodu posted were self reported numbers.

You say 267 + 339 equals 606, not 601. I say yes, 5 women reported to have been abused in previous and are abused in current relationship this eliminating 5 reports from total. What makes this case compelling is that same less than 1 percent difference can be seen for men and in 2004 report. It's only in 1999 report that difference raises to 2.5 percent. Also it makes me glad that there are so few people who are stuck in cycle of abuse.

-snip-

I don't know about which law system you are talking about but the fact that term usually used in wide variety of cases such is "incapacitated" is not defined is really bad and needs to be fixed.

However there always is a definition of capability to make rational decisions. In extreme example, severely mentally handicapped or distraught people are incapable of making rational decisions there for they can not conduct business or make free use of their body as capable person could.Also, usually, there is a process to determine possibility of temporary incapability (due to severe/extreme intoxication, psychotic breakdowns etc) but it only gets used as beneficial/additionally condemning circumstance not as a factor of determining guilt.

I do get what you are saying, but than, if we use that standard, people are screwed. Men and women. And the reason is that silent agreement is cultural standard and that asking direct question that can not be misinterpreted is awkward for many to both ask and answer. That would leave doors wide open for a terrible abuse. And laws, at least in theory, are made to minimize possible abuse.