So why comment about it?
Horrendous analogy. Having bad controls impacts the game's quality, and thus would be a problem. You've yet to provide an answer as to why 'sexism' in videogames translates into an issue in real life.
It's not unreasonable to dissociate yourself from these types of games if you personally find it affronting, which I think most of your arguments stem from. It is unreasonable to bemoan, libel and 'boycott' (as you put it later on) towards games that you intrinsically find uncomfortable.
1) I meant contemporary objectification2) Enslaving an entire race and objectifying someone are two colossally different things3) You're a retard of the highest calibre by trying to conflate the two.
I agree, but again, please provide a viable dilemma this poses to women in the real world that isn't something you just find personally icky.
Good luck trying to stop sexual beings from sexualizing other sexual beings.
Several people on this first page ignoring the transcript because of Anita Sarkeesian.
Here, Verby.SpoilerFF7 outfitAdvent Children/Kingdom Hearts and afterwardsNaturally there is gonna be excessive porn art of her because she's Tifa, but yeah. Not as oversexualized as Japan has done with countless games in the past.
Yeah. Why would I attempt to mention some alternate perspectives for the sake of discussion? How silly of me.
dumb cunt
Poor portrayals of women affects the game's quality, because it subjugates women.
That's my argument.
It doesn't matter that no one is actually hurt. No other type of bad game design hurts anyone. I can still complain about it.
Try using your brain this time around. Okay?
Not if you can't demonstrate why sexism is okay.
1. You're a retard of the highest "calibre" by THINKING I was conflating the two.I wasn't.It was a counterexample.
I really don't think I need to teach you about the ethical repercussions of treating people as objects. I really don't.
Do you know what that is?
No. Explain to me why I shouldn't find it "personally icky" and why you don't find it "personally icky".
Because you should find it "personally icky".
"hurr durr I don't know so I'll commentate on it anyway."
Genuine question
can you actually engage in a discussion without regressing into ad hominem? Is it really that difficult?
Because fantasy and reality are, funnily enough, vastly different things.
I asked you what the repurcussions of objectification were and you give me a wikipedia link to the Atlantic Slave trade.
Because a personal fucking problem YOU hold, not me, and not everyone else.
And yet I don't, because I'm not an over-sensitive manchild.
Jill Valentine is another example of a female character not over sexualized (with Sheva too I guess, but she sucks). It's a shame she's part of a series that sunk faster than Titanic.
Quote from: Luciana on August 31, 2015, 05:11:23 PMJill Valentine is another example of a female character not over sexualized (with Sheva too I guess, but she sucks). It's a shame she's part of a series that sunk faster than Titanic.Jill in Resident Evil 5 was sexualized quite a bit.
Quote from: Vien on August 31, 2015, 05:23:19 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 31, 2015, 05:11:23 PMJill Valentine is another example of a female character not over sexualized (with Sheva too I guess, but she sucks). It's a shame she's part of a series that sunk faster than Titanic.Jill in Resident Evil 5 was sexualized quite a bit.I was thinking that too as I typed it, but then they made her fine again in Revelations.
Here's a lesson on logical fallacies:An ad hominem, contrary to popular belief, is not your generic, vanilla insult. By calling you a dumb cunt, I did not commit an ad hominem--I just insulted you.
It may have been in poor taste, but I felt like you deserved it because of your extremely obtuse and condescending nature.
You're very slow to understand things
and you're aggressively stupid, so it was more of a statement of fact more than anything else.
It wasn't an attempt to refute your argument--that's what an ad hominem is. If I said, "you are a dumb cunt; therefore, you are wrong," that would have been an ad hominem. If I said, "you're just a dumbass conservative, so who gives a fuck what you think," that would have been an ad hominem. Because I'd have discredited your argument based on irrelevant facts about you.
Just saying. So, try not to sound too intelligent here, using words you don't know the meaning of, and shit.Lest you embarrass yourself.
Sorry--did I ever deny that?No, I don't think I did.So... you wanna say something relevant, or?...
Very good! I'm glad you are able to retain events from less than an hour ago.But, you're not really doing much for your cause here. How is claiming that, because I linked to an article about the slave trade to give you an example of how bad objectification of human beings can get, how does that mean that I believe it's the same thing as sexism in video games? Hmm? How?
oh yeah, it doesn't
You could've stopped at "I was talking about modern times" and that would've been good enough for me.
That is not an explanation. Of.. anything. It's not even a coherently written sentence. Bravo.
Right. You're an undersensitive manchild.
ad hominemad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/adverb & adjectiveadverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "an ad hominem response" 2. relating to or associated with a particular personNah, by attacking my character instead of addressing my arguments that pretty much was the epitome of ad hominem.But oh wait.I thought we weren't supposed to attack Anita's arguments instead of her character? Or is it only applicable whenever you like it?
Slow at understanding things or simply not recognising your points to be valid?
So I'm an unintelligible female reproductive organ? That what we're going with here?
You can continue to contort the definition of a word all day, or you can attempt to address my rebuttals to your points. Whatever floats your boat and enhances your enjoyment of this website.
You are conflating sexism in videogames with sexism in real life. Fantasy =/= reality.
You wanna say something to rebuke these points
Oh so it wasn't an answer to the question I was asking then?Care to provide a genuine answer that actually aids the discussion instead of continuing to be a sanctimonious prick? Because I think everyone here would really appreciate that.
"Heh, better highlight the typo, otherwise I might've had to address what he's saying, and god forbid I ever do that"
Is this supposed to be another insult?
QuoteIt may have been in poor taste, but I felt like you deserved it because of your extremely obtuse and condescending nature.Pot, meet kettle.
so I wasn't the only person thinking this
Well, as you (should) know, the existence of films like Magic Mike is, indeed, an insult. Sexual objectification goes both ways, and most feminists will agree with that. You can talk about how Anita doesn't ever talk about the subjugation of males in media all you want--but the fact is, she doesn't have to focus on that. That's not what her series is about. It's about women.You can also try to argue that her focus on women is disingenuous, because it could make it seem as though the same couldn't said about male portrayal in media. And you might have something going for you. But I would maintain that the objectification of women is still the bigger issue. It just is. And it's due to a number of factors--how our society is run and has been running for the past few centuries, how much easier it is to sexualize women due to their having a greater amount of exploitable assets, and, of course, the fact that the gaming sector is, indeed, dominated by young horny heterosexual males. These are facts.And because of these facts, you're going to see women sexualized a lot more often than you are with men. So, while it's true that males are sexualized all the time in media, they simply are not sexualized as often as women are. And that's why it's smarter to focus on women. You can disagree, but... I'm sorry, you don't have any legs to stand on.
Fair enough. This wasn't really the crux of the video anyway.
I don't see anything wrong with pushing an agenda. Can you tell me? I feel like that's a buzzword a lot of people use to easily shut down someone's viewpoint with no effort. Right now, you are pushing an agenda. Should I use that fact to debase all of your claims? That wouldn't seem fair.Maybe I'M biased, I didn't detect an excessive amount of bias in her video--you're gonna need to provide more examples.
The topic of her series is my issue. If you're going to topic the problems in media, don't half-ass it for the sake of pushing a narrative. Sexual objectification isn't an unreasonable topic to discuss, but boiling your argument down to "this is the fault of white hetreosexual men" will not get us anywhere. You require discourse to solve issues, and she clearly disallows that from occuring. She promotes an issue (half an issue) and then refuses to cooperate in discussing how you can fix it.
I was really chosing an example of her supports generally being cherry picked and completely changing the context.
When I say agenda, I don't mean in the standard definition of the word; I'm referring to leaving out facts or issues that don't conform to her world-view to pus a narrative she's formed. The example about gays that I referenced was an example from this specific video.
However, her larger topics are filled with misinformation and irrelevance that are simply there to beef up the word-count and make her claims seem more substantial.
I'm not anti-Anita; I'm anti-half truth, and anti-misinformation. I would be thrilled if she released an informative and logically completed thesis. But so far, I haven't seen that.
I understand that. I don't like that she blocks comments and ratings, either, even though you and I both know what that comment section is going to look like. You said it yourself earlier--only a small fraction of people are going to be like you and give her arguments a chance. So it wouldn't make a difference whether she enables comments or not.I think the fact that we can have the discourse you want here (and anywhere else on the Internet) is good enough.The only thing I don't like about Anita in this regard is that she rarely responds directly to criticism, leaving people like me to defend her arguments for her. And some of the things she says ARE indefensibly stupid--the HItman thing comes to mind. So that's a frustration I've had with her for awhile, but only time will tell if she actually decides to make a video responding to criticism in the future. I don't think she's incapable.Regarding her covering the "other half", however, I really don't care if she does or not. If she does, great. But I don't think it's unreasonable to focus on the larger of the two evils. Or at least, the more prevalent of them. Besides, she IS female--she has every right to be offended by how her gender is portrayed in the media, more so than guys are. Because guys aren't sexualized as much!
See, I don't really know what you mean by "cherrypicking", either. If there's an instance of sexism in a game, is it cherrypicking to call it out? What constitutes a cherrypick in your eyes? It just seems like another buzzword to me.
I know--hence "more". That's not quite enough for me. Not all videos are going to be 100% perfect. You could say that you cherrypicked that example from the video. This is why I don't like to fuck with these buzzwords, because they can be reapplied to you so easily.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I don't know which of her videos you've seen, but if you haven't seen her new series out called "positive female characters in video games", I'd suggest checking those out. With each of her videos, I tend to agree with 80-90% of what she's saying, but with these new videos, I agree 95-100%.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ The Scythian (Sword & Sworcery)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCsu3YPOw50 Jade (Beyond Good & Evil)
If you're asking for a video/essay where she covers every facet of her philosophy, I don't think you'll find one--it's something you're just meant to pick up on after watching all her videos, I guess. But just because she's made a few flubs here and there, to me, isn't a viable enough justification to completely discredit her as a feminist.
I understand not having comments enabled on youtube; but she has done many live appearances to speak on the subject, and roughly zero times has she allowed or participated in a public discourse. This really irritates me, because proper discourse is vital to forming and altering your perspective to prevent or limit your biases; to refuse so is detrimental to academic understandings of issues.
Fair enough. By cherrypicking out-of-context examples, I mean examples just like her referencing backlash against gay characters from the gaming community; yes, there have been backlash against characters. But it wasn't because they were gay, it's because being gay was the sum of their persons. I try to limit my uses of words like this to where they are directly applicable. Likewise, you mentioned Hitman; it is true that you can kill women in violent ways. But you aren't supposed to, and there are actually more men that you can kill than women. You could posit that this unfairly represents a female population in police and security related fields, but that would negate the serious tone I'm trying to convey.
I only chose the one against gays because it was the easiest to respond to concisely and quickly; I'm flattered that you believe I could write my doctoral thesis on the instances of context-removed examples, but I'm not trying to turn this discussion into one of those half-page spanning posts. It'd be fair to compromise and just use that instance to highlight other areas where she may or may not have mis-supported her argument.
Unless she was honestly misinformed on why there were backlashes against characters like Cortez and Anders, she took an irrelevant situation and reworded it to provide more support for her argument. She could have entirely left it out, and her video would have been more accurate (not perfectly, mind you); but instead, it's there, and that's another x amount of seconds that the video runs. This gives the impression that her argument is more credible because she can link more instances of childish temper tantrums from the gaming community. Maybe it stood out to me since it was the same argument Taneem used for why people didn't like DmC: Devil May Cry, but that's a separate discussion.
And if these videos are being used to provide informational analysis on what can constitute instances of female characters done right, that's great. I hope more of her future videos are along the lines of this.
I'm not going to tune her out, especially since that's my problem with refusing discourse; I intend to continue listening to her in the hopes that one day she does so.
irrelevancies
Sure.
Literally the only person who doesn't know what a fucking ad hominem is here is you. It's not an insult--get over it. It's an insult intended to discredit an argument. Calling someone a "dumb cunt" doesn't make any attempt at discrediting an argument. If I said, "you're wrong, based on the fact that you're likely fat and ugly," that would've been an ad hominem. This isn't difficult.
I'm actually not doing that at all. In fact, I explicitly stated that I don't believe sexism in games causes sexism in real life. I mean, I had to have said it at least three or four times by now, but you know.
I guess that's all anti-fems are capable of: Putting up strawmen and knocking them down. But that only gets you so far.
No, I generally don't have any business rebuking counterarguments to a claim pigeonholed into my philosophy by someone who doesn't actually understand what I'm trying to say.
If that was too sophisticated/intellectual for you:
I have no business refuting arguments that I agree with. That doesn't seem very smart.
You were the one who had to make a big thing about it--calling me a "retard of the highest calibre" for doing something that I wasn't actually doing. You phrased your fucking question poorer than you're likely to be in the next ten years--I apologize for responding to it exactly how you worded it.
Treating women like objects is disgusting. Women are not objects. Neither are men--they shouldn't be objectified, either. We are complex, intelligent, and nuanced.
Under no rationale could it ever be justifiable to include a character in a game that so irreverently caters to our most carnal desires
unless it was supposed to be some kind of parody--but even then, we've already fucking done that shit. We know how ridiculous our sexualities are. We don't need any more reminders. It's time to move on to bigger, better, and more mature things.
That's a basic primer, and I could go on and on.
Why SHOULDN'T sexualization offend you?
Why should I NOT be offended?
Why should I be like you? What will it bring me?
you're using this as a tactic to avoid the points I'm trying to say.
So now that you've gotten the condescension out of your system, do you actually want to discuss this like, I don't know, adults for once?
Oh it'd also be fantastic if you could address my first two initial points referring to my academic study which you have conveniently elected to ignore for the past, let's say, five posts now.
Sxc women, bad or no bad?
I don't see this in gaming. They are objectified to an extent in order to increase sale prices, sure
you are unable to understand how market forces operate.
More to the point, why would something so primordially natural be something that offends me?
I'm not ashamed of my sexuality, are you?
I knew you were an emotionally castrated buzzkill, but Christ, I can find more humanity in a fucking Amish community.
I never said you weren't, and it would be lovely for you to point out where I said that you shouldn't.
Getting a bit existential are we?
Uh, no. Why do you think I put it in a spoiler tag to begin with?...To put the focus on the meat of the discussion.
I don't know. Do you?
why do I have to address something that I already agree withI really really really really don't see the point of that
Not bad.I'm not talking about sexy women anyway.I'm talking about sexualized women in the media.
BINGOBINGOBINGOCongratulations--you have identified the problem.
If I wasn't able to understand how the market force operates, I wouldn't be so vehemently against it.
Shit is primordially natural, too. You probably wouldn't want to watch someone take a dump, would you?
Extremely.
And so should everybody else. It's primal garbage that is designed specifically to trick us into reproducing.
By making our piss organs go in and out of each other. There is no reason why, philosophically speaking, that shouldn't disgust you to the core.
You wouldn't be arguing with me right now if you didn't think that I shouldn't be offended.
Wanna answer the question?
I'm not sure what you think the discussion is but I'm not really here to debate the meaning of a word.
So I ask you again, why is this even an issue to anyone that isn't offended by a semblance of gratuity, which is in and of itself, completely fucking subjective?
And how exactly is it a problem?
Unfortunately for you, the rest of us don't hold these personal grievances
Everyone else enjoys it. Get the fuck over it.
Not sure where you got this idea that you 'should be like me' but that's not why I post here.
So don't click the spoiler tag, munchkin.
Because I don't think there's any logical reason for you NOT to be offended by sexual gratuity. None at all. Explain to me the logical reason why it's irrational to be offended by sexual gratuity. And I will shred you apart.
It's called exploitation. In case you didn't know, that's a bad thing. Axiomatically.
Because you're idiots.
Everyone else is a fucking retard, then. Get the fuck over it.
Either you think sexism is bad, like me.Or you think sexism is okay. Like you.
I choose the former position, because I'm not fucking insane.
The fact that you're arguing with me means that you're trying to dissuade me from my position. That is how arguments work.
Evolutionary impulses does not affect intelligence last I checked.
Exactly something an insane person would say.
Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: Women as Reward
