Why are we afraid of criticism?

[QuietlyListening]

I think it could help the discussion here, and elswhere, to argue the point that acknowledging a game, or any other work of art, as misogynistic does NOT make it suddenly unworthy of consumption. For example, I listen to quite a bit of rock music, as I expect a lot of us do. And rock music is full of sexist, misogynist content. I can acknowledge it and still listen and enjoy the music without falling into a guilt trip (unless of course it is overtly hateful). Furthermore, I can accept criticism of that art, even as it may no offend me personally.

Admitting a work of art is problematic doesn't suddenly mean that work should be banned or discarded. It just means it's worthy of criticism, like all good, compelling art. In the wise words of Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Straight Outta Compton is a great album. It's also misogynist."

So yeah, GTA V can be GREAT and MISOGYNIST. A fighting gamer with overly sexualized female characters in skimpy clothing can be offensive AND a kickass game. A work of art can be two things. Most works of art are. And yes, I consider games to be art.

I agree with you, mostly, except about GTA V being great. The whole thing falls into the nebulous realm of "artistic merit." It's entirely possible for something to have cultural value in spite of its flaws. For instance, I respect Eminem's ability as a lyricist as well as his ability to spit mad rhymes, but I deplore his gratuitous use of bigoted language. It's pretty immature.

And as time passes, things that once had merit may see that merit crushed under the weight of their flaws. I feel pretty strongly this way about the book Zorba the Greek. One of the problems of videogames, unfortunately, is that they largely have little artistic merit to begin with. But hopefully that will change as the medium matures.

 

[Erttheking]

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/wildstar-to-reduce-character-breast-size/

what do you call that?

Oh did someone FORCE Carbine to do that, then? Did they break in and point guns at heads? Because I recall them doing that in response to community feedback.

Because if someone DID force them to do it, maybe they should have forced them to make a less shitty MMO in the process. That would've been a better use of everyone's time.

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

Ok I need to butt in here. I write fanfiction. I've built up a rather healthy fanbase of a thousand people give or take. From the Ashes, a Fallout/Mass Effect crossover, it's pretty popular. Got on the TV Tropes fanfic recommendation page.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8126014/1/From-the-Ashes

I have been criticized while writing this story. For many things. One of them was a person criticizing me for bringing religion into the story in that one of my main characters was a Catholic priest. Not only is he the only one who is openly religious, he is highly against forcing his views on other people, rarely brings his own views up, and is generally all about peace and love. I decided this person could go fuck himself.

Another person criticized me for writing all of my female characters far too masculine. She said that it wasn't an inherently bad thing, she even said I did quite a few of them very well, but that a story could get stale if every single character had the same general attitude. I thought about it for awhile, and I added some development to two of my female characters. One an adrenaline junkie tomboy (Who to be honest had been sorta girly in the first place) who was revealed to be the type of person who loves just kicking back and being girly, and the other a woman who had lived an isolated life in brutal condition for twenty years. I decided to explore the idea of her hesitantly experimenting with being more feminine, confused and a little embarrassed about it, before eventually become comfortable with it. She still mostly dresses and acts masculine, but she indulges in more feminine hobbies on special occasions. (Work in progress) I honestly feel like my characters have been improved by this change. Like it breathed some fresh life into them. You see, artistic vision seems great while you're writing, but it suffers from tunnel vision sometimes. I've lost track of the number of times I wrote something I thought was great and then looking back a year latter and saying "What the FUCK was I thinking?"

Moral of the story, if you want to be a writer, you need to strike a compromise. You need to look through criticism and be able to decide what criticism is garbage, and consider the criticism that could help improve the work. In fact, I've learned getting too attached to your artistic vision is a bad thing. You need to be flexible as you write, because what popped up in your head doesn't always make it into the paper. The sheer number of things I had to leave on the cutting room floor of my mind...you would not believe.

i get that, but its a different thing when you are publicly shamed, when your name gets attached to things like "sexist" and "racism" becuase of the interpretation people have of your work, not because of your own views or the quality of your work, because those things can affect your relationships with people, those things can affect your opportunities of employment

im all in for someone expressing their opinion, even if i dont consider it valid cricism, ive said time and time again to the people in this thread wanting more diverse characters in agming to send respectful letters to the developers so that maybe they could consider other posibilities in the future

i am only agaisnt harassment, insults and public shaming

I can't help but wonder if public shamming is really the argument of the majority here. If there's anything I've noticed, its that extreme hateful arguments come down to vocal minorities. I don't even think there was that much public shamming with Dragon's Crown. People mainly criticized the game itself, I barely remember the developer being mentioned at all outside of the original controversy, and that was more because he had been a twat and said "You don't like my girls, oh you must be gay"

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

People have been insulted for their artistic choices since people began making artistic choices. If they choose to self-censor in response to criticism the responsibility for that lies entirely with them. It's called having volition.

Honestly whining about feeling "forced" into self-censorship has to be one of the leading candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics in the history of the world, up with the woman who called 911 because Burger King wouldn't prepare her hamburger the way she wanted it. It's called "self" censorship because it was voluntary.

If you're this concerned about the concept, you should cease to criticize those who are criticizing media. What if they felt shamed by your criticism, and self-censored themselves into silence? Oh the vicious cycle you'd have birthed! Oh the humanity!

isnt criticism something simply because its not made the way you wanted it also a candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics?

also i wouldnt really call these arguments art

finally "people get insulted all the time, its ok" then WHY are you complaining about sexism in the first place?

That's really all you think artistic criticism is? Just whining about how the artist didn't make the art the way the critic wanted it? Jeez, it's no wonder you're ticked off....

I guess that point is moot since it sounds like you don't consider games to be art.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/wildstar-to-reduce-character-breast-size/

what do you call that?

Oh did someone FORCE Carbine to do that, then? Did they break in and point guns at heads? Because I recall them doing that in response to community feedback.

Because if someone DID force them to do it, maybe they should have forced them to make a less shitty MMO in the process. That would've been a better use of everyone's time.

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

Ok I need to butt in here. I write fanfiction. I've built up a rather healthy fanbase of a thousand people give or take. From the Ashes, a Fallout/Mass Effect crossover, it's pretty popular. Got on the TV Tropes fanfic recommendation page.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8126014/1/From-the-Ashes

I have been criticized while writing this story. For many things. One of them was a person criticizing me for bringing religion into the story in that one of my main characters was a Catholic priest. Not only is he the only one who is openly religious, he is highly against forcing his views on other people, rarely brings his own views up, and is generally all about peace and love. I decided this person could go fuck himself.

Another person criticized me for writing all of my female characters far too masculine. She said that it wasn't an inherently bad thing, she even said I did quite a few of them very well, but that a story could get stale if every single character had the same general attitude. I thought about it for awhile, and I added some development to two of my female characters. One an adrenaline junkie tomboy (Who to be honest had been sorta girly in the first place) who was revealed to be the type of person who loves just kicking back and being girly, and the other a woman who had lived an isolated life in brutal condition for twenty years. I decided to explore the idea of her hesitantly experimenting with being more feminine, confused and a little embarrassed about it, before eventually become comfortable with it. She still mostly dresses and acts masculine, but she indulges in more feminine hobbies on special occasions. (Work in progress) I honestly feel like my characters have been improved by this change. Like it breathed some fresh life into them. You see, artistic vision seems great while you're writing, but it suffers from tunnel vision sometimes. I've lost track of the number of times I wrote something I thought was great and then looking back a year latter and saying "What the FUCK was I thinking?"

Moral of the story, if you want to be a writer, you need to strike a compromise. You need to look through criticism and be able to decide what criticism is garbage, and consider the criticism that could help improve the work. In fact, I've learned getting too attached to your artistic vision is a bad thing. You need to be flexible as you write, because what popped up in your head doesn't always make it into the paper. The sheer number of things I had to leave on the cutting room floor of my mind...you would not believe.

i get that, but its a different thing when you are publicly shamed, when your name gets attached to things like "sexist" and "racism" becuase of the interpretation people have of your work, not because of your own views or the quality of your work, because those things can affect your relationships with people, those things can affect your opportunities of employment

im all in for someone expressing their opinion, even if i dont consider it valid cricism, ive said time and time again to the people in this thread wanting more diverse characters in agming to send respectful letters to the developers so that maybe they could consider other posibilities in the future

i am only agaisnt harassment, insults and public shaming

I can't help but wonder if public shamming is really the argument of the majority here. If there's anything I've noticed, its that extreme hateful arguments come down to vocal minorities. I don't even think there was that much public shamming with Dragon's Crown. People mainly criticized the game itself, I barely remember the developer being mentioned at all outside of the original controversy, and that was more because he had been a twat and said "You don't like my girls, oh you must be gay"

well if thats their argument im all for it, you can say when something doesnt appeal to you, and its perfectly fine when an artist alters his vission on his own accord and not out of fear, i can get behind that, good stuff

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

yes it is, shaming and insulting someone and ruining its reputation to make him/her change their artistic choices IS censorship

Look, there is no point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't understand the difference between censorship and criticism, or who thinks that calling something racist or homophobic or sexist or hell, anything I guess isn't criticism.

If an artist changes their work because of something someone else said, that is NOT censorship. That is responding to criticism, whatever it may be.

I have a published novelist in my family. Her agent, her editor, her publisher... they are not censoring her.

then fine, i wont accept those as criticism, i believe a work and its message, or perceived message, can be analized separatedly

and you shame someone publicly, and assotiate their name with racism or sexism, something that can end up affecting his personal life and job opportunities, and force him to change something out of FEAR, then yes it is censorship

 

[Vault101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

yes it is, shaming and insulting someone and ruining its reputation to make him/her change their artistic choices IS censorship

unless your self publishing we don't live in a magical world of infinite artistic freedom EG:

I have a published novelist in my family. Her agent, her editor, her publisher... they are not censoring her.

this is called [b/]compromise[/b]

the editor and agent make suggestions for author and she decided weather or not to take it on...she may not actually have the luxery of sticking to her "vision" its a negation....she wants what she wants the editor wants it to be sellable AND sometimes good as well

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

People have been insulted for their artistic choices since people began making artistic choices. If they choose to self-censor in response to criticism the responsibility for that lies entirely with them. It's called having volition.

Honestly whining about feeling "forced" into self-censorship has to be one of the leading candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics in the history of the world, up with the woman who called 911 because Burger King wouldn't prepare her hamburger the way she wanted it. It's called "self" censorship because it was voluntary.

If you're this concerned about the concept, you should cease to criticize those who are criticizing media. What if they felt shamed by your criticism, and self-censored themselves into silence? Oh the vicious cycle you'd have birthed! Oh the humanity!

isnt criticism something simply because its not made the way you wanted it also a candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics?

also i wouldnt really call these arguments art

finally "people get insulted all the time, its ok" then WHY are you complaining about sexism in the first place?

That's really all you think artistic criticism is? Just whining about how the artist didn't make the art the way the critic wanted it? Jeez, it's no wonder you're ticked off....

I guess that point is moot since it sounds like you don't consider games to be art.

i wonder how this can be considered art, let alone one of the greatest films in american history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

i guess that kind of contradicts your argument doesnt it?

im not agaisnt criticism, im simply arguing that criticism that isnt aimed at improving the subject as a piece of art, is not valid in my opinion, it just shows what appeals or doesnt appeal to you

that being said im not agaisnt people expressing what appeals to them either, the one thing ive condemned time and time again here is, harassment, insulting and public shaming

 

[TheRookie8]

Moderation in all things.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

i wonder how this can be considered art, let alone one of the greatest films in american history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

i guess that kind of contradicts your argument doesnt it?

Out of curiosity, what argument did he make that you feel this "contradicts"? Unless it was your intention to evoke Godwin's Law, I honestly have no idea what referencing Birth of a Nation has to do with media criticism.

im not agaisnt criticism, im simply arguing that criticism that isnt aimed at improving the subject as a piece of art, is not valid in my opinion, it just shows what appeals or doesnt appeal to you

What improves or does not improve the subject as a piece of art is subjective. In other words, it is "what appeals or doesn't appeal to you".

the one thing ive condemned time and time again here is, harassment, insulting and public shaming

If someone conveys their criticism like an asshole, by attacking or demeaning the creator, it means that person is behaving like an asshole. It doesn't invalidate the criticism. You address the way they present their criticism, you don't deny their ability to make it.

I mean, we have stuff like this: http://www.angelfire.com/nc/grungefairy/satan.html

...and I'm quite sure we all just find it faintly amusing, including the subject of the piece. If you're going to present works and put them in a public space for public consumption, you're going to face criticism. Sometimes that criticism will be rude, sometimes it will be accusatory. The creator needs to decide for themselves which criticisms to take to heart, and which to disregard.

And I'm not championing being a prick in personal discourse, either. Show me a game with sexist overtones, and I'll say "That game has sexist overtones". Show me someone saying "THIS GAME IS SEXIST AND THAT MEANS THE PERSON WHO MADE IT IS A SEXIST" and I will tell that person they are leaping to unfounded conclusions.

This isn't hard, really.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

People have been insulted for their artistic choices since people began making artistic choices. If they choose to self-censor in response to criticism the responsibility for that lies entirely with them. It's called having volition.

Honestly whining about feeling "forced" into self-censorship has to be one of the leading candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics in the history of the world, up with the woman who called 911 because Burger King wouldn't prepare her hamburger the way she wanted it. It's called "self" censorship because it was voluntary.

If you're this concerned about the concept, you should cease to criticize those who are criticizing media. What if they felt shamed by your criticism, and self-censored themselves into silence? Oh the vicious cycle you'd have birthed! Oh the humanity!

isnt criticism something simply because its not made the way you wanted it also a candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics?

also i wouldnt really call these arguments art

finally "people get insulted all the time, its ok" then WHY are you complaining about sexism in the first place?

That's really all you think artistic criticism is? Just whining about how the artist didn't make the art the way the critic wanted it? Jeez, it's no wonder you're ticked off....

I guess that point is moot since it sounds like you don't consider games to be art.

i wonder how this can be considered art, let alone one of the greatest films in american history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

i guess that kind of contradicts your argument doesnt it?

im not agaisnt criticism, im simply arguing that criticism that isnt aimed at improving the subject as a piece of art, is not valid in my opinion, it just shows what appeals or doesnt appeal to you

that being said im not agaisnt people expressing what appeals to them either, the one thing ive condemned time and time again here is, harassment, insulting and public shaming

Yeah, it really doesn't contradict my argument. It actually emboldens it. Birth of a Nation was the product of its time. A racist time. It's still considered -- and rightfully so -- a hallmark of cinema. A work of art can be more than one thing, like I said in my first post.

Again, the quote Ta-Nehisi Coates: ""Birth Of A Nation" is a revolutionary film which anyone aspiring to the genre must see. It's also fucking racist."

https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/508350539386851328

And second, to your point about criticism....is that what Sarkeesian, as an example, is doing? Arguing that games can be better, and that developers can improve how women are protrayed? Do you really see that as public shaming and -- gulp -- harassment?!?!

 

[Netrigan]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? You're talking about people whom, when they are challenged, respond by calling people misogynists and terrorists and lump them in with trolls, even when those people are clearly coming from an equalist perspective.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

 

[Anyana]

Nobody wants to be criticized. As a social being we want to blend in with others by conforming to the social standards; and if we fail to conform with their expectations, if we are doing something different then people criticize us. So it?s only natural to feel the fear inside you when you think that somebody is going to criticize you. We don?t want to face that awkward moment of listening to our own faults/shortcomings or in some cases uniqueness from somebody else?s mouth.

 

[FriendlyFyre]

I think it's not so much people are afraid of criticism, as people are so obsessed with concepts of of "justice" and right and wrong, that for something to be criticized on grounds they consider false or "unjust," is to incite a slight attack on the individual themselves.

This explains why people take ALL criticism personally, because they are more likely to believe someone else is "unjust," rather then themselves. Because how many of us will readily agree that we are mistaken about something we really like?

In essence, criticizing something we like "unfairly" may make us feel a similar way to if someone insulted us "unfairly."

It's all about the ego.

 

[Guerilla]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? You're talking about people whom, when they are challenged, respond by calling people misogynists and terrorists and lump them in with trolls, even when those people are clearly coming from an equalist perspective.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

He wants equality not obsessively counting how many of each race or gender are in each profession like a crazy person. I swear not even fucking fascists put so much focus on the race and gender of people as much as SJWs do. EVERYTHING is about these two traits with them and every decision and word from their mouths is based on what a person is instead of who.

 

[Six Ways]

So do you find heterosexual men to often be sexually attracted to half-naked men with bulging muscles? I tend to find they're not too turned on by that sexually. They tend to be attracted to, say, the three women who were in bed with him.

Wow. What a ridiculous strawman.

No-one said he was designed so straight men would be sexually attracted to him.

In fact, when polled about features women like in men, women named shoulders, penis, the neck, hair, height, leg length, eyes, a flats tomach, slimness, and good buttocks. (http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-popular/the-10-male-features-women-like-best , http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/6-Things-women-notice-about-men-right-away/articleshow/11804689.cms)

Women are not above craving physical traits in men. Saying anything otherwise is, as you put it so respectfully, naive.

So, you're using:
A) a poll which puts muscular torso as number 10 in attractiveness, and slimness at 3, and explicitly states that muscular arms didn't even make the top 10
B) an article which never mentions musculature once
to show that muscle-bound Kratos may have been designed with women in mind?

And please stop using strawmen. I never said women don't 'crave' physical traits in men. Just that Kratos was not designed for them.

You guys should actually read Dworkin sometime.

I'd just like to point out that you quoted my quote of cainejw, that wasn't me.

All criticism is not equal. Games are about fun, therefor the criticism should be aimed at whether or not it is fun. Not at what social agenda it (doesn't) push(es). We're not discussing government messages of public interest here, it's video games.

I take it you don't think games are art then?

 

[Netrigan]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? You're talking about people whom, when they are challenged, respond by calling people misogynists and terrorists and lump them in with trolls, even when those people are clearly coming from an equalist perspective.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

He wants equality not obsessively counting how many of each race or gender are in each profession like a crazy person. I swear not even fucking fascists put so much focus on the race and gender of people as much as SJWs do. EVERYTHING is about these two traits with them and every decision and word from their mouths is based on what a person is instead of who.

I'm not in for that egalitarian nonsense (I believe my exact quote a few days ago was "Fuck Equality"), but that's what equality would look like. That what's someone fighting for equality would be moving toward, something which looks like that. You would be extremely concerned about any group which is either over or under represented by any significant amount. You wouldn't just accept a system which produced results like we're seeing in the video game market.

If you want something else, that's not equality. That's you using some bullshit liberal word to make yourself look like you give a shit, which I don't think any of you actually do as you're fighting for a huge advantage you have inherited which you can never articulate why you deserve it.

There's no courage of your convictions here, something I could at least respect. No, it's just bullshit posturing to score namby pamby liberal political points.

The Free Market system is the only way to explain why one group has earned more than their equal share and there's no entitlement system there, baby. You only get those extras so long as you're deemed a sufficiently valuable customer worthy of extra attention. And you can't whine like a baby whenever those companies seek out new markets because it threatens your over-inflated sense of worth.

So you're not after equality, you guys can obviously give a fuck about free market systems and expanding markets (otherwise you wouldn't whine so much about them "taking away" your over-representation), so exactly how do you justify the continued over-representation of whites and males? Which doesn't boil down to a bunch of commonly repeated buzz words that you don't realize don't mean anything at all. Say SJW and Feminist all you like, but those words don't articulate what you believe in. It just tells me who you hate and that's worse than useless.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have, thanks.

Correction: You should make the effort to sound like you've read Dworkin when you talk about her.

It's about her perception that penetration of a woman is, at the core, a misogynistic action due to power differentials in society playing out in sexual intercourse.

That is a fairly good summary, but what you said is that 'male sexuality is inherently prejudicial towards women' and accused her of trying to minimize female sexuality, which is not what she does at all. Firstly, she doesn't particularly care about sexuality. Her book is titled 'intercourse' because it's about the act of intercourse. The act of penis going in vagina. Secondly:

Those who learn to eroticize powerlessness will learn to eroticize the entry itself: the pushing in, the thrusting, the fact of entry with whatever force or urgency the act requires or the man enjoys. There is virtually no protest about entry as such from women; virtually no satire from men.

As a result, she says the proper sexual behavior is vibration against the male.

No. She at the time identified as a lesbian and seems uninterested in the whole concept of "sexual behaviour" with men at all.

Secondly, again, the book is called "intercourse", not "masturbation".

Thirdly, she goes through several proposed solutions to the problems she identifies with intercourse, and while indicating her own skepticism with each of them she kind of leaves it up to the reader to decide which, if any of them, is satisfactory.

And she deserves to be dismissed as yet another radical feminist writer who attempted to assign malicious intent of all people.

Well no actually.. she really didn't, and that's kind of a straw man of sex negativity. Besides, her ultimate point, her ultimate conclusion is actually not very sex negative. Ultimately, she suggests that all the problems she identifies with the act of intercourse stem from an institutionalized self-loathing and hatred of sex and our genitals imposed upon us by the patriarchal legacy. Her argument is not that men are malicious and hate women, her argument is that men are victims and victimize women.

And for some reason, making that argument has made her one of the most hated figures in feminist history.

I'd just like to point out that you quoted my quote of cainejw, that wasn't me.

My apologies. I'm very tired and obviously made a mistake.

 

[Six Ways]

And she deserves to be dismissed as yet another radical feminist writer who attempted to assign malicious intent of all people.

Well no actually.. she really didn't, and that's kind of a straw man of sex negativity. Besides, her ultimate point, her ultimate conclusion is actually not very sex negative. Ultimately, she suggests that all the problems she identifies with the act of intercourse stem from an institutionalized self-loathing and hatred of sex and our genitals imposed upon us by the patriarchal legacy. Her argument is not that men are malicious and hate women, her argument is that men are victims and victimize women.

QFT. "Yet another feminist assigning malicious intent" is one of the major problems in these debates. The amount of feminism which actually ascribes malice to men in general, or anyone in general, is vanishingly small. Yet it's by far the most common misunderstanding of feminism I see anywhere. I genuinely don't know if people actually misunderstand this point, or are intentionally strawmanning.

I'd just like to point out that you quoted my quote of cainejw, that wasn't me.

My apologies. I'm very tired and obviously made a mistake.

No worries, just wanted to clear it up