[GG-TB] TotalBiscuit did a nice summary on the movement.

[Yoinkerman]

She was threatened and it's her fault she didn't speak anyway? Really?

Really?

Am I the the only one that sees the issue with that?

[BallGum]

 

 Oh dear, it looks like I'm going to have to hold your hand through this. It has not been demonstrated that including retweets accounts for the difference. I'll tell you why now, try not to get lost. As for victim blaming, I'll have to take you by the hand again. 

 

Firstly, I don't appreciate a condescending attitude. It adds nothing to a discussion.

 

 

 

It has not been demonstrated that including retweets accounts for the difference. I'll tell you why now, try not to get lost. Let's assume 75% of the tweets are retweets. There are still 14 times more original tweets to the female game dev than to the male journalist, because (.25*x) / (.25*y) is still the same as x/y. 

I am a maths student. Your maths is sound but what you are trying to infer from it is not. The fact is that the issue is more complex. There is a variance in the number of followers, as well as their "importance" regarding the gamergate movement. If we take a look at the followers, we see that Briana Wu has a following of 28K, while Nathan Grayson has a following of just 6K.

 

Having more followers increases the likelihood of getting tweets retweeted. We have to include how "involved" they are with gamergate in addition to how much they tweet themselves. More tweets = more retweets. Anita, Zoe, and Briana are rather active on twitter and tend to speak out more against gamergate and criticise them, making it more likely for their followers to retweet.

 

 

However, let's even assume that you have done that, what does it show? Aren't retweets a reflection of the population's feelings as much as original tweets? I hope you see that point, and I don't have to go on.

 

 

If you are attempting to infer that the popularity of an opinion increases its veracity, that's a fallacy.

 

 

Obviously a supportive one. If you were to say, "Well yeah that makes sense, you were wearing that top," that would be blaming the victim.

 

 

Absolutely. He has already asserted that she was raped, and is then blaming her.

 

 

 

"Yeah that sounds awful and you're clearly in a lot of pain, but can you just quickly show me where and how s/he touched you?" that would be incredibly inappropriate and insensitive

 

Agree somewhat here also. I don't think it's that insensitive. (Personally I'd make sure that person was first ok and safe before prying into the issue a little more). Also, questions must be asked at some point. That's one of the issues I have. When can I start asking questions and looking into this? 

 

Now, let's spin that analogy. What if you were accused for something you didn't do? You are immediately shunned, you aren't allowed to ask for proof, and, if there is proof, you aren't allowed to ask questions? It's an unfair system.

 

My main point is that if someone says they are a victim of something, the burden of proof is on them. Then the accused has to refute that evidence. And then the jury makes up its mind if the accuser was actually a victim of something.

 

That's the thing with Anita. At the moment I'm not blaming her for being harassed. I'm questioning the harassment itself. It has to be questioned and analysed at some point, right? I hope you at least see the point I'm making here.

 

 

 

Consider, even if s/he were lying or exaggerating, what horrible thing this person must be going through to make something like that up

 

This point is something I utterly disagree with. Even if someone is lying we must take their side? If they're lying then they're not the victim in this case, the person they're accusing is. Imagine how screwed up that person's life must get because someone lied. 

 

Again, there are also other factors to consider; if the person would gain something from lying, and so on.

 

 

 

We might disagree on what percentage of the gamergate hashtag displays sexist tendencies, but obviously that's not something that either of us can get an exact figure on.

 

I don't know. The numbers are there. 10% of tweets were aimed at these individuals. Of that 10%, 95% was either positive or neutral.

0.1 * 0.05 = 0.005. 0.5% of all gamergate tweets were negative to these individuals.

[ComradeHX]

I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Yes, men are often portrayed as useless; I've had shits that were more interesting than Kaidan.

But women are portrayed as useless because they're women. This is not the case with male characters. If you only try to understand one thing I've said, please make it that point.

No, women are portrayed as weak/useless sometimes because the story requires it(to make other character seem stronger in comparison...etc.).  Not because they are females.

Obviously, this happens with males.

 

Maybe it's a reflection of the times we live in, where pictures of naked people are so easy to get, but she doesn't have to be nude to be sexually objectified.

WTF are you trying to post this time?

She is only sex object in your mind.

 

Lots of men have lovely bouncy butts, and you're really missing out on life if you haven't seen a man do a "helicopter" (or done it yourself), if you catch my meaning.

See, this is the crux of our misunderstanding; Bayonetta and Duke Nukem are the ideals of body and behavior for men. The cheeky girl with the huge tits and obliging smile, and the ripped powerful muscle man are the standards as dictated by a male-dominated culture.

Eh...no.

Bayonetta has huge tits? That looks pretty average to me.

Hey, if being beautiful, confident, and powerful isn't ideal for females...I don't think you live on the same planet.

Deny it all you want, people want better appearances(that's why plastic surgery exists).

 

I don't think I could be misquoted as saying she's weak. What I do say is that she has the personality of a hot pocket.

If I can't convince you of this, that's fine I suppose; but take a look at how Yahtzee Croshaw puts it in the last half of his review of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw-MjVvFjwc.

Again, irrelevant.

wtf is a hot pocket?

 

You are completely free to make games with no women, or poorly written women, or hypersexualized women. But it will be on your conscience that you are doing something harmful to society. And your freedom to do so doesn't put you above criticism. That's all Anita and co are doing. Criticizing things that are problematic in our culture. People can obviously feel free to make more games like that, but they'll have to live with themselves for having done that, and there is only so much of it that society will take before they stop supporting it.

No. Something harmful to society would be to conform to feminist ideals. Not sure which world you live in but FEMALES ARE NOT THE ONLY SEX OPPRESSED/OBJECTIFIED.

It's okay for females to make shitty "game" about nothing(Zoe Quinn) which they like, yet MEN must feel SHAME for making game THEY LIKE.

 

Well I can't exactly prove to you that I did watch it, so excellent point made on your part. I didn't see any hypocrisy of Anita Sarkeesian mentioned; unless you're referring to the bits where the speaker just disagrees with her?

I don't doubt that a writer might need that sometimes, and I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy to oppress women. I do, however, think that it's lazy, thoughtless writing, and an unconscious internalized view of women which causes people to not even question whether they are representing women properly.

It referred to how she does not understand the gaming culture, her ideas conflict with eachother...etc.

You can't argue the case for thoughtless writing; since it's written for a game, it's probably thought about and selectively omitted certain parts that does not fit in a game(such as a long representation of complicated inner thoughts of female characters).

They are representing women properly, some are weak...some are strong...some are mostly irrelevant.

 

I'll just have to make the point again that these are characters of the male fantasy.

I totally understand the desire to escape into a fictional world, but it seems odd that even the most realistic ones contain a fair amount of sexist representations.

Again, not MALE fantasy. Just FANTASY.

If you call it male fantasy, find me proof that it's only male fantasy.

Oh wait, you can't. Many females even want to BE Bayonetta. https://www.google.com/search?q=bayonetta+cosplay&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FmxaVKOgBcGaNrCdg9AO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

The Video talked about this.

 

I'm glad to hear you say that, and you say it so adamantly. It's a shame you didn't seem to care in that thread.

I don't, because it does not matter how many people play casual games...them playing casual games does not affect what games I play.

 

There are two points I can make about this. Firstly, I'd encourage you to consider that possibility that the male-dominated aspect of these games (and consequently, the way they disrespect women) is preventative to the enjoyment of the games for some women.

Secondly, I'll echo what I said somewhere above in this post. People are free to make games to appeal to whoever they want, but that doesn't make it right. It shouldn't take a feminist movement to stop people making sexist products; one would think that they would do so because it's the right thing to do (especially if these content creators are claiming the moral high ground).

But I'll say again, society will only support this for so long. Whether we like it or not, bigotry and misogyny should be phased out of the industry regardless of the size of the female playerbase.

If a game is male-dominated and disrepect women...maybe it's SUPPOSED to be preventing enjoyment of the game for some women?

"People are free to make games to appeals to whoever they want, yet it's not right if you don't appeal to females" is what I read from your post.

Feminist claim moral high ground yet they shame content creators for making what they want to make. That is not right, it's horrible.

There are products you would consider "sexist" to females just like there are products I would consider "sexist" to males; the difference here is that male simply manned up and didn't give a f**k about sexist games...they know it's not for them(unless gay) and they avoid it.

This is why Video game is different from real life, and all that real life feminist talk does not work here. Each game's world is different and separated. You don't have to play the game if you don't want to... This is not real life where if society is heavily sexist, you have to deal with it every day.

There will continue to be "sexist" games against both sexes, to appeal to the other sex.

If you are going to complain about Misogyny...complain about Misandry too, that is also an issue. (all the men you killed in video games...are men, they might have a family but the game does not mention that...they usually have the character of a cardboard cutout, yet they supposedly used to be an adventurer like you, but they took arrows to the knee...).

Oh wait, then that would not simply be feminist anymore. How sexist of me.

 

On this point, I can only politely disagree. Although there may be some confusion about what "autonomous" means.

Autonomous - "adjective

(of a country or region) having self-government, at least to a significant degree.

"the federation included sixteen autonomous republics"

acting independently or having the freedom to do so.

"an autonomous committee of the school board"

synonyms: self-governing, self-ruling, self-determining, independent, sovereign, free, unmonitored

"an autonomous republic"

(in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires."

[Osmium]

Oh my god the ad hominems are real in this thread. 

 

For god's sake if you are going to try to argue your point don't insult the person you are arguing with, it just undermines your argument and makes you look like an idiot. I've seen people arguing both sides being unnecessarily rude to each other with basically no provocation other than the fact they disagree with you.

[kingkickolas]

The threat of mass murder was not credible. Security was increased. She chose to silence that event, just like she chose to use the threat of mass murder to mask her irrational and prejudiced fear of concealed carry permit holders. In the name of freeze peach, she had a choice; she silenced herself. That silence was not without purpose or incentive, look what it bought her - an invitation to the Colbert Report, and more notoriety than she would have received if she'd chosen to speak at some college in Utah.

And I don't know how to make it more clear that the idea of safety is not safety. I'll spare the Ben Franklin quote. It wasn't just guns (police were there, yes?), it was concealed carry permit holders with guns. They did not have to cancel, they chose to.

I'm tired of repeating this, but it was the fact that there could be people there with guns, who wanted to kill her that stopped her from attending.

I can't imagine I have much more to say on this topic. Honestly, the way you talk about death threats and people's lives is starting to get revolting.

 

Build them strawmen. :lol: That tumblr certainly is full of evidence that people on both sides of the discussion will dance to the tune of attention-seeking trolls. I offer them the same advice. What would calling them professional victims change? I'll just let their actions speak for them.

Cited: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180

I still don't really know how to respond to this. You seem to be under the impression that people who are threatened with murder and rape love every second of it because they can get pity points later.

All I can say is that I hope you'll look back on those comments with humility and shame for the complete lack of respect for human life that you exhibit.

Sorry if this sounds ad hominem, it's not part of my argument, just a hopeful comment on the side for you to consider about yourself.

 

She was threatened and it's her fault she didn't speak anyway? Really?

Really?

Am I the the only one that sees the issue with that?

Thank you.

Listen to this.

[kingkickolas]

Firstly, I don't appreciate a condescending attitude. It adds nothing to a discussion.

Okay, I apologize for that, I just feel like I am repeating myself a lot in this discussion.

 

I am a maths student. Your maths is sound but what you are trying to infer from it is not. The fact is that the issue is more complex. There is a variance in the number of followers, as well as their "importance" regarding the gamergate movement. If we take a look at the followers, we see that Briana Wu has a following of 28K, while Nathan Grayson has a following of just 6K.

 

Having more followers increases the likelihood of getting tweets retweeted. We have to include how "involved" they are with gamergate in addition to how much they tweet themselves. More tweets = more retweets. Anita, Zoe, and Briana are rather active on twitter and tend to speak out more against gamergate and criticise them, making it more likely for their followers to retweet.

Yes that's true, but like I said, the quantity of interest is not the raw number of retweets or followers, but rather the proportion to the whole.

However, like I said in my previous response, even if it could be shown that retweets account for the difference, it still shows that a much larger percentage of the population support the position with the most retweets. (As I will say again in the response immediately below.)

  

If you are attempting to infer that the popularity of an opinion increases its veracity, that's a fallacy.

I don't think I could be misquoted for having said something like that.

To be clear, what I was saying is that if a large number of people retweet something, it shows their support for the tweet. So retweets can be considered similar to original tweets.

 

 

Absolutely. He has already asserted that she was raped, and is then blaming her.

Glad to hear it. But keep in mind that at this time all you have is his/her word for it, s/he could (as unlikely as it is) be fibbing. Does this change your initial reaction?

 

Agree somewhat here also. I don't think it's that insensitive. (Personally I'd make sure that person was first ok and safe before prying into the issue a little more). Also, questions must be asked at some point. That's one of the issues I have. When can I start asking questions and looking into this? 

 

Now, let's spin that analogy. What if you were accused for something you didn't do? You are immediately shunned, you aren't allowed to ask for proof, and, if there is proof, you aren't allowed to ask questions? It's an unfair system.

 

My main point is that if someone says they are a victim of something, the burden of proof is on them. Then the accused has to refute that evidence. And then the jury makes up its mind if the accuser was actually a victim of something.

 

That's the thing with Anita. At the moment I'm not blaming her for being harassed. I'm questioning the harassment itself. It has to be questioned and analysed at some point, right? I hope you at least see the point I'm making here.

I think the main issue I have with this is that you are assuming the role of the judge in your friend's affair. If it were my friend, I would support them and listen to whatever they had to say. It's really not my role to force the truth out of them. Maybe that's just me, but it seems really heartless to do that to a friend. There are other ways that the truth will come out without putting the person that you call your friend into a sort of interrogation.

 

But with regard to Anita, I do see the point you're making. But in the end, all death threats have to be treated with seriousness. When a bomb threat is called on a campus, it is standard and safe procedure to evacuate the students and bring the police in.

Only after it's been proven that there was no bomb, can we relax and analyze.

I know it's harder to do an investigation like that with a death threat, but the reality is that we have to assume the worst when human lives are in danger.

 

 

This point is something I utterly disagree with. Even if someone is lying we must take their side? If they're lying then they're not the victim in this case, the person they're accusing is. Imagine how screwed up that person's life must get because someone lied. 

 

Again, there are also other factors to consider; if the person would gain something from lying, and so on.

I do agree with you here. I'm not saying you should take their side if they're lying. I'm just saying that it might be informative as to why this person would lie, and what you could do to help your friend if that should be the case.

Either way, I don't think it's constructive to discuss this case anyway since it is so utterly rare, but it is my fault for bringing it up.

 

 

I don't know. The numbers are there. 10% of tweets were aimed at these individuals. Of that 10%, 95% was either positive or neutral.

0.1 * 0.05 = 0.005. 0.5% of all gamergate tweets were negative to these individuals.

I don't think we're looking at the right metric.

Yes I can see how you would say 0.5% of gamergate tweets are negative.

But the vast majority of these 0.5% of negative tweets are directed at the female game devs not the journalists.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to establish that the majority of gamergate is negative. But rather that the majority of the negativity from gamergate is disproportionately address to women who aren't even in the journalism industry.

 

Oh my god the ad hominems are real in this thread. 

 

For god's sake if you are going to try to argue your point don't insult the person you are arguing with, it just undermines your argument and makes you look like an idiot. I've seen people arguing both sides being unnecessarily rude to each other with basically no provocation other than the fact they disagree with you.

I don't know if this was in part directed at me, but I don't want to be accused of dodging this point if it is.

If I've employed an ad hominem, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point it out to me so I can restate my argument to exclude it.

Thanks.

[kingkickolas]

No, women are portrayed as weak/useless sometimes because the story requires it(to make other character seem stronger in comparison...etc.).  Not because they are females.

Obviously, this happens with males.

I have two points to make on this. Firstly, if this is the case, why does the number of weak and useless women massively outnumber the men? There are any number of tropes like this. See, for example, the "damsel in distress". That is an entire genre dedicated to the idea that women are prizes to be rescued and incapable of doing so themselves.

Secondly, actually it doesn't happen with males. I'd like an example please.

 

WTF are you trying to post this time?

She is only sex object in your mind.

Okay, I'm gathering that I'll have to be extremely explicit to get this point across.

You know the scenes in Bayonetta that zoom in on her ass? The parts where her boobs bounce up and down like jelly? The parts where she does some massive splits and shows her crotch right to the camera? That's what I'm talking about. That's what sexualizing is.

This doesn't happen to male characters. There is no close up shot of a man's crotch or ass.

 

Eh...no.

Bayonetta has huge tits? That looks pretty average to me.

Hey, if being beautiful, confident, and powerful isn't ideal for females...I don't think you live on the same planet.

Deny it all you want, people want better appearances(that's why plastic surgery exists).

If you think Bayonetta's tits are average, you really need to look at women in the real world more.

Beautiful, confident, and powerful is perfectly fine, I think I've said this a number of times now. The part that is problematic is that she's hypersexualized. It's possible to be beautiful and not zoom in on your tits for every cut scene.

How much clearer can I make this?

 

Again, irrelevant.

wtf is a hot pocket?

I don't see how that's irrelevant. In fact, you brought up the point. Lara Croft in the new series is completely devoid of character. That's the point, if you missed it.

 

No. Something harmful to society would be to conform to feminist ideals. Not sure which world you live in but FEMALES ARE NOT THE ONLY SEX OPPRESSED/OBJECTIFIED.

It's okay for females to make shitty "game" about nothing(Zoe Quinn) which they like, yet MEN must feel SHAME for making game THEY LIKE.

Okay this is something I actually didn't expect. I'm frankly stunned.

Women are the sex that is being oppressed and objectified in our culture. If you can't grasp this, I can't imagine you know the meaning of oppression.

Please give some idea of how men are oppressed and objectified in our society.

 

As to this bizarre point, of course Zoe is free to make her game. It wasn't offensive to anyone. It didn't objectify men, it didn't do anything negative.

If the games that you like are sexist and offensive, of course you should feel shame for it. I'd love to see anyone argue otherwise.

 

It referred to how she does not understand the gaming culture, her ideas conflict with eachother...etc.

You can't argue the case for thoughtless writing; since it's written for a game, it's probably thought about and selectively omitted certain parts that does not fit in a game(such as a long representation of complicated inner thoughts of female characters).

They are representing women properly, some are weak...some are strong...some are mostly irrelevant.

I didn't see examples of either her misunderstanding of gaming culture, or conflicting ideas. What I did see were pictures of cosplays, with the sound of the narrator denying objectification. Please point out to me these points that I missed, I have to plead stupidity here.

 

 

Again, not MALE fantasy. Just FANTASY.

If you call it male fantasy, find me proof that it's only male fantasy.

Oh wait, you can't. Many females even want to BE Bayonetta. https://www.google.com/search?q=bayonetta+cosplay&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FmxaVKOgBcGaNrCdg9AO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

The Video talked about this.

Of course some people want to be Bayonetta. There's nothing wrong with that. They're making the choice to dress and behave how the they want. That's fantastic. What's the issue?

 

The male fantasy is pretty simple. Power, control, and pussy on tap. This should be obvious from our culture that this is what men are told they should want.

Women aren't told this. They're generally portrayed as submissive, weak, and obedient.

 

I don't, because it does not matter how many people play casual games...them playing casual games does not affect what games I play.

I was just saying that it would have been nice of you to stick up for your fellow gamers in that thread.

 

If a game is male-dominated and disrepect women...maybe it's SUPPOSED to be preventing enjoyment of the game for some women?

"People are free to make games to appeals to whoever they want, yet it's not right if you don't appeal to females" is what I read from your post.

Feminist claim moral high ground yet they shame content creators for making what they want to make. That is not right, it's horrible.

I can't help fight the feeling that I'm arguing with a true-to-life misogynist.

Yes, sexism and bigotry are BAD THINGS. I'm shocked that I have to explain this to you. If you are a bigot and do bigoted things, you should feel shame for your discrimination and intolerance.

 

 

There are products you would consider "sexist" to females just like there are products I would consider "sexist" to males; the difference here is that male simply manned up and didn't give a f**k about sexist games...they know it's not for them(unless gay) and they avoid it.

This is why Video game is different from real life, and all that real life feminist talk does not work here. Each game's world is different and separated. You don't have to play the game if you don't want to... This is not real life where if society is heavily sexist, you have to deal with it every day.

There will continue to be "sexist" games against both sexes, to appeal to the other sex.

If you are going to complain about Misogyny...complain about Misandry too, that is also an issue. (all the men you killed in video games...are men, they might have a family but the game does not mention that...they usually have the character of a cardboard cutout, yet they supposedly used to be an adventurer like you, but they took arrows to the knee...).

Oh wait, then that would not simply be feminist anymore. How sexist of me.

I really challenge you to find one game that is sexist towards men.

It simply does not exist. Just like misandry. Men are the ones in power, we have a culture that values men more than women.

To say that men are oppressed by women is to not understand what oppression is.

 

 

Autonomous - "adjective

(of a country or region) having self-government, at least to a significant degree.

"the federation included sixteen autonomous republics"

acting independently or having the freedom to do so.

"an autonomous committee of the school board"

synonyms: self-governing, self-ruling, self-determining, independent, sovereign, free, unmonitored

"an autonomous republic"

(in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires."

I don't even care about this anymore. I'm just shocked to have found someone as open about his misogyny as you.

[ComradeHX]

I don't even care about this anymore. I'm just shocked to have found someone as open about his misogyny as you.

I'm talking to a wall here.

The number of weak/useless women outnumbers men to you because YOU DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE MEN.

And you admitted you never played RE games...so YOU DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE WOMEN EITHER.

The placement of camera isn't part of the Character design. You are grasping at straws here.

Not to mention, it's not a sin to show off "assets." Games show off men's 6 packs very often too, but I guess that's just not sexual enough for you.

Let me clarify, Bayonetta's tits are average for size after padding.

Maybe males do not get crotch shots because females kept looking at their half-naked body.

http://widgetau.org/male-sexualization-in-video-games/

You moved the goalpost there. I put in example of female character not misrepresented, you claim she has no character...

You are being sexist to males(actually females also made those games, Bayonetta was designed by female) for making games that males(and not exclusively males) would like; I don't see you complaining about those games that cater to females.

I already gave you example, you just conveniently ignored it.

Men are the ones in power yet around 50% of gamers are FEMALE. This is why feminists in gaming are jokes.

The culture is that men are good for certain things while women are good for certain other things. If you think culture(I'm talking about video games here) values men over women outright, then you need to learn more about gaming...video games as a whole is not just those games in biased Anita Sarkeesian videos.

To say oppression exists in gaming is to be ignorant of what gaming is.

I have no misogyny.

When I hate people, gender does not matter.

[kingkickolas]

I'm talking to a wall here.

I have no misogyny.

When I hate people, gender does not matter.

To be clear, I was referring to the last point about the definition of "autonomous".

Do not mistake me, I will fight your misogyny till the day I die. Don't think this excuses you from addressing my responses.

[ComradeHX]

To be clear, I was referring to the last point about the definition of "autonomous".

Do not mistake me, I will fight your misogyny till the day I die. Don't think this excuses you from addressing my responses.

You lost by default when you accused me of having misogyny.

I am equal opportunity hater, gender does not matter.

I was editing.

Acting on moral duty over desires?

I don't think you should complain about it when there are plenty of female characters thay do that.

[cae]

I'm tired of repeating this, but it was the fact that there could be people there with guns, who wanted to kill her that stopped her from attending.

I can't imagine I have much more to say on this topic. Honestly, the way you talk about death threats and people's lives is starting to get revolting.

 

No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't change the fact that she's spoken before under threat of violence. Most controversial speakers do. Why do they choose to speak, then? Why is a police officer free from suspect? They have guns. Some media outlets imply that police can be racist, or are quick to abuse their authority. They're humans just like us, so why assume that they're incapable of harboring violent intentions toward a speaker they've been called on to protect? I only mean to point out the prejudiced attitude and actions shown towards concealed carry permit holders.

 

Take that Houston restroom thread for another example. Is it not prejudiced to assume that someone walking into a restroom has the intentions to commit a crime because they have certain genitals? It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but is that the reality of the situation? Or think about the female concealed carry permit holders that may have wanted to attend the event. Does a feminist then wish to remove the ability of female students to empower and defend themselves from assault?

 

I still don't really know how to respond to this. You seem to be under the impression that people who are threatened with murder and rape love every second of it because they can get pity points later.

All I can say is that I hope you'll look back on those comments with humility and shame for the complete lack of respect for human life that you exhibit.

Sorry if this sounds ad hominem, it's not part of my argument, just a hopeful comment on the side for you to consider about yourself.

 

I don't care if you strawman, that's your bed to lie in.

[BallGum]

Glad to hear it. But keep in mind that at this time all you have is his/her word for it, s/he could (as unlikely as it is) be fibbing. Does this change your initial reaction?

 

It's more about the frame of mind from the guy doing (or not) the victim blaming. If he has acknowledged that event x happened and this person is a victim, and is then blaming the victim for what had happened to her, then that is definitely victim blaming.

 

 

 

I don't think I could be misquoted for having said something like that.

To be clear, what I was saying is that if a large number of people retweet something, it shows their support for the tweet. So retweets can be considered similar to original tweets.

 

I may have not made it clear / misunderstood. I'm saying people who retweet Anita's tweets with the hashtag of gamergate would contribute toward the tweet count. I thought you tried to argue against that by saying "However, let's even assume that you have done that, what does it show? Aren't retweets a reflection of the population's feelings as much as original tweets? I hope you see that point, and I don't have to go on."

 

 

 

I don't think we're looking at the right metric.

Yes I can see how you would say 0.5% of gamergate tweets are negative.

But the vast majority of these 0.5% of negative tweets are directed at the female game devs not the journalists.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to establish that the majority of gamergate is negative. But rather that the majority of the negativity from gamergate is disproportionately address to women who aren't even in the journalism industry.

 

I can see where you're coming from when saying it's not the right metric, but I think it is the right metric for judging whether the movement as a whole is about ethics or if it's purely a sexist movement.

 

I, personally, would just dismiss that 0.5% as trolls / people out to cause trouble who may happen to be sexist or so on. Maybe that's irresponsible of me.

 

 

I really challenge you to find one game that is sexist towards men.

It simply does not exist. Just like misandry. Men are the ones in power, we have a culture that values men more than women.

To say that men are oppressed by women is to not understand what oppression is.

 

Oxford Dictionary: Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority. 

 

It's possible for anyone to hate and oppress any other group.

For example, using stereotypes and applying it to all members of a certain group could be considered sexist: i.e. women being manipulative, or mean being violent and loud.

 

Another way of sexism is hypersexualising things. This can also be applied to both genders.

[DigitalHermit]

For the statistics I mentioned, that would be the Newsweek article I linked to earlier, and here it is again.

Otherwise, I think I've just discussed common knowledge of tropes in gaming and the way that they undermine women in gaming and in the world. I guess if you wanted links to those topics, you could watch Anita's videos, or any of the similar articles written on the subject (perhaps even from feministing.com, if you're willing to go that far out of your comfort zone).

 

Please cite something other than Anita's "academic research". I have viewed her material and I have seen better written content on the subject from students at my university (I cannot cite as they are unpublished works and unavailable to the public, citing them would be a breach in the agreement that I signed upon enrolling in the university). If anything there is a major problem with her methodology. I'm going to view this as a sociological research due to the nature of the subject and the availability of multiple valid methodologies for research. She makes use of observation and material analysis, however, the observations that she makes has a lot of cherry picking (acceptable up to a certain point), and the materials that she analyzes are also cherry picked, with suspicions on the artificial creation of 'evidence'. Aside from this, she almost completely disregards the concept of "freedom of expression", and has problems factoring in the "creator's intent and circumstance", which would the biggest role in the creation of the material. If anything, the thing that is needed most to have her material viewed with more validity would be creator interviews. For her topic, I believe that the best suited research method that must be included, is immersion (in the material and community), however that may prove to be impossible now as she has openly attacked (multiple statements of generalizing the gaming community as misogynists) the culture that she wishes (?) to study.

 

We, at my university, have been taught how to write polarizing pieces that do not fail to represent most (if not all) aspects of the subject. It's all in how you frame a certain concept.

 

Edit:

Another thing on the methodology. I don't think tweet counts with a certain hashtag can be an accurate metric. There are bots and fake accounts that can increse tweet counts. As an example, someone can go say "I like trains! #GamerGate" which can be unrelated to the subject, but still counted in the metric.

 

To be clear, I was referring to the last point about the definition of "autonomous".

Do not mistake me, I will fight your misogyny till the day I die. Don't think this excuses you from addressing my responses.

 

Please define 'autonomous' for this concept... I'm getting something like The Sims with free will turned to max...

Also to fight someone's misoginy till your death... Especially someone on a backwater forum, over the web... I think you have some priority issues... just saying...

[kingkickolas]

You lost by default when you accused me of having misogyny.

I am equal opportunity hater, gender does not matter.

I was editing.

Acting on moral duty over desires?

I don't think you should complain about it when there are plenty of female characters thay do that.

You can say that all you want, but it won't make it true. By any definition of sexism, your comments are some of the most sexist I've ever had the privilege of reading first

 

I'm talking to a wall here.

The number of weak/useless women outnumbers men to you because YOU DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE MEN.

And you admitted you never played RE games...so YOU DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE WOMEN EITHER.

I'll have to ask you again to name a single game in which a male character is marginalized on the basis of his gender.

 

You're quite right that I haven't played literally every game that exists. Although I don't know why anyone would waste energy arguing a point like that, for obvious reasons.

Further, I've been explicit in saying that even if there are a handful (or more) of games that do represent women well, it doesn't change the fact that sexism is prevalent in the industry. I can't make this point any clearer than that.

 

 

The placement of camera isn't part of the Character design. You are grasping at straws here.

Not to mention, it's not a sin to show off "assets." Games show off men's 6 packs very often too, but I guess that's just not sexual enough for you.

Well, I don't think I ever criticized the character design did I? I've said it before in this thread, and I guess I'll have to say it yet again; Bayonetta is a fine example of a character, however, it's the way that she's displayed (which is quite the right term to use here) that is problematic.

 

Back again to the "male sexism". I've stated this before in this thread too. Six packs and bulging biceps are still other examples of male power fantasies. They are ideals of the strong, dominant male. They don't represent sexualization. You don't see men striking sexy poses and flaunting their genitals.

 

 

Let me clarify, Bayonetta's tits are average for size after padding.

You'll have to backtrack quite a bit farther than that I'm afraid.

 

 

Maybe males do not get crotch shots because females kept looking at their half-naked body.

http://widgetau.org/male-sexualization-in-video-games/

See two comments above in this post please.

 

 

You moved the goalpost there. I put in example of female character not misrepresented, you claim she has no character...

My argument with Lara Croft has been the same from the beginning. Go back and read it if you like.

Especially in the new version, she's not hypersexualized (like Bayonetta), but she lacks the simple things like personality and character arc that make her a character in the first place. Her role in the game is essentially to be a punching bag.

 

 

You are being sexist to males(actually females also made those games, Bayonetta was designed by female) for making games that males(and not exclusively males) would like; I don't see you complaining about those games that cater to females.

I've said it before, and in this post as well, that Bayonetta's character design is actually pretty good. I've never taken issue with that.

It's interesting how you associate "catering to males" with "objectifying and marginalizing women". You seem to suggest that the only games men would like are games which dehumanize women. In any case, there are no games that represent men as poorly as the games that represent women. If you even want to try that argument, provide at least one example of such a game.

 

 

I already gave you example, you just conveniently ignored it.

I can't find it in any of your posts.

 

Men are the ones in power yet around 50% of gamers are FEMALE. This is why feminists in gaming are jokes.

I fail to see the connection here. This looks like a non-sequitur to me. Please elaborate?

 

The culture is that men are good for certain things while women are good for certain other things. If you think culture(I'm talking about video games here) values men over women outright, then you need to learn more about gaming...video games as a whole is not just those games in biased Anita Sarkeesian videos.

See this is exactly what I mean when I say you're saying sexist things. "Men are good for certain things while women are good for certain other things."

I again have to ask you to name a game in which men are subjugated and dehumanized based on their gender.

 

 

 

To say oppression exists in gaming is to be ignorant of what gaming is.

I don't see how that follows. Gaming is simply the playing of games, by definition. Oppression of women does exist in this space.

Please elaborate.

 

I have no misogyny.

When I hate people, gender does not matter.

Again, you can say it all you want, but it won't erase your bigotry.

 

[kingkickolas]

No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't change the fact that she's spoken before under threat of violence. Most controversial speakers do. Why do they choose to speak, then? Why is a police officer free from suspect? They have guns. Some media outlets imply that police can be racist, or are quick to abuse their authority. They're humans just like us, so why assume that they're incapable of harboring violent intentions toward a speaker they've been called on to protect? I only mean to point out the prejudiced attitude and actions shown towards concealed carry permit holders.

 

Take that Houston restroom thread for another example. Is it not prejudiced to assume that someone walking into a restroom has the intentions to commit a crime because they have certain genitals? It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but is that the reality of the situation? Or think about the female concealed carry permit holders that may have wanted to attend the event. Does a feminist then wish to remove the ability of female students to empower and defend themselves from assault?

Yes, she gets death threats all the time. But this is the first time that there has been a threat made against a specific institution at which she was going to speak. Remember, not only was there a bomb threat, but there was a threat to enact the "greatest mass shooting that the country had ever seen on the campus" (if I paraphrased that correctly) if she was allowed to speak. This isn't your run of the mill threat.

The bottom line is that she would have spoken if there had been a safe environment to do so. I don't feel like gambling with other people's lives, and I'm sure they don't want to gamble with their own.

 

On the point of the transgender restroom inclusivity, of course it's prejudiced to assume someone will assault you because of their genitals. But on that point, it's just as prejudiced to assume what genitals a person has just by looking at them.

Certainly the role of security is to prevent people from being assaulted. This is easiest when people are not allowed a weapon that instantly takes someone's life. So I do think it would have been safer if no guns were allowed.

 

I don't care if you strawman, that's your bed to lie in.

I'd actually love to hear which of those points you would dispute. It doesn't seem like a strawman to to me, it just genuinely seems to be what you believe.

[kingkickolas]

It's more about the frame of mind from the guy doing (or not) the victim blaming. If he has acknowledged that event x happened and this person is a victim, and is then blaming the victim for what had happened to her, then that is definitely victim blaming.

I see what you're saying, and I definitely agree.

It's difficult to know what to do if you don't have, or can't get, all of the information on the incident to make a reasonable judgement. This is usually the case people are concerned with. In these cases, I'd argue that it is usually best to side with (or at least provide support for) the victim, since things like this are so rarely fabricated.

But I understand how it can be frustrating to provide support if you don't know with 100% certainty that this person is being honest about being assaulted. However, we should be careful not to let our own feelings of uncertainty (which are frustrating, yes) overshadow what is likely a much more serious and traumatic event for the possible victim that it is for you.

 

I may have not made it clear / misunderstood. I'm saying people who retweet Anita's tweets with the hashtag of gamergate would contribute toward the tweet count. I thought you tried to argue against that by saying "However, let's even assume that you have done that, what does it show? Aren't retweets a reflection of the population's feelings as much as original tweets? I hope you see that point, and I don't have to go on."

Right, and I'd think that it's perfectly reasonable to count these in the overall tweets. This is because a retweet shows support, so the retweeter is expressing their opinion via a tweet -- which is precisely what the study was measuring.

Of course, the cause with the most retweets doesn't make it the right or ethical cause by any means. In fact, my argument is that the opposite is true.

 

 

I can see where you're coming from when saying it's not the right metric, but I think it is the right metric for judging whether the movement as a whole is about ethics or if it's purely a sexist movement.

 

I, personally, would just dismiss that 0.5% as trolls / people out to cause trouble who may happen to be sexist or so on. Maybe that's irresponsible of me.

I'd agree that we can't judge a movement by its minority.

But I still think that the Newsweek article puts it best when they say the following:

 

"Twitter users have tweeted at Quinn using the #GamerGate hashtag 10,400 times since September 1. Grayson has received 732 tweets with the same hashtag during the same period. If GamerGate is about ethics among journalists, why is the female developer receiving 14 times as many outraged tweets as the male journalist?

 

Totilo has received 1,708 tweets since September 1—more than Grayson but fewer than Leigh Alexander. Alexander got 13,296 tweets, nearly eight times as many as Totilo. And Alexander’s only crime was writing an op-ed critical of so-called gaming culture—GamerGate hasn’t even accused her of any malfeasance.

 

The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women."

 

Oxford Dictionary: Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority. 

 

It's possible for anyone to hate and oppress any other group.

For example, using stereotypes and applying it to all members of a certain group could be considered sexist: i.e. women being manipulative, or mean being violent and loud.

 

Another way of sexism is hypersexualising things. This can also be applied to both genders.

I'd agree with this. I just don't think our society oppresses or hypersexualizes men in any meaningful form.

 

I do have one qualification for that assertion though. At least on the western side of the Atlantic, it has become compulsory for little boys to have their genitals mutilated shortly after birth. It is considered off-putting and disgusting by the general public to not have this done. If there is any form of blanket injustice towards men, it is this practice of circumcision.

[kingkickolas]

Please cite something other than Anita's "academic research". I have viewed her material and I have seen better written content on the subject from students at my university (I cannot cite as they are unpublished works and unavailable to the public, citing them would be a breach in the agreement that I signed upon enrolling in the university). If anything there is a major problem with her methodology. I'm going to view this as a sociological research due to the nature of the subject and the availability of multiple valid methodologies for research. She makes use of observation and material analysis, however, the observations that she makes has a lot of cherry picking (acceptable up to a certain point), and the materials that she analyzes are also cherry picked, with suspicions on the artificial creation of 'evidence'. Aside from this, she almost completely disregards the concept of "freedom of expression", and has problems factoring in the "creator's intent and circumstance", which would the biggest role in the creation of the material. If anything, the thing that is needed most to have her material viewed with more validity would be creator interviews. For her topic, I believe that the best suited research method that must be included, is immersion (in the material and community), however that may prove to be impossible now as she has openly attacked (multiple statements of generalizing the gaming community as misogynists) the culture that she wishes (?) to study.

We, at my university, have been taught how to write polarizing pieces that do not fail to represent most (if not all) aspects of the subject. It's all in how you frame a certain concept.

If you don't want to accept Anita's analysis, I guess you could just consider the majority of my posts to be my own analysis. I certainly don't rely on Anita's point of view to make my points, but her videos are a great supplement to what I've been saying.

 

Edit:

Another thing on the methodology. I don't think tweet counts with a certain hashtag can be an accurate metric. There are bots and fake accounts that can increse tweet counts. As an example, someone can go say "I like trains! #GamerGate" which can be unrelated to the subject, but still counted in the metric.

Again, one would have to demonstrate that these "fake" or "irrelevant" tweets are made disproportionately by one side than the other.

I personally don't think this behavior has been shown to exist at all, but if it did, it is probably equally distributed in proportion on both sides.

 

 

Please define 'autonomous' for this concept... I'm getting something like The Sims with free will turned to max...

Also to fight someone's misoginy till your death... Especially someone on a backwater forum, over the web... I think you have some priority issues... just saying...

I think I understand what he was trying to say, that an autonomous character would be boring to play. Let me elaborate. I don't mean it is better to have autonomous characters in the way that the Sims with free will turned to max is autonomous.

I mean that an autonomous character has agency and is in control of his or her life and path. Mass Effect had a great element of agency, you could choose any number of ways to deal with problems, all of which had different consequences. I'm going to quote Yahtzee Croshaw from his Tomb Raider youtube review, just because I think he puts it really well:

"But the essence of the issue for me is that Lara is entirely reactionary. The universe just declares her chew toy of the day, and she's either given no other option that to proceed, or the ground simply collapses under her big fat ass. Captain Walker decides to use the white phosphorous, Jason Brody decides to stay on the island. That's what makes their characters develop. Lara just alternates between breathy whimpers and bland resignation. So you can kill a man and take a machete like a champ; a concrete block can do that. But you can't kick one out of the back of a moving truck and call that a character arc."

 

And sure, maybe I was being a little bit dramatic. But I was mostly saying that I would fight misogyny of that kind until my dying day.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, can I just say how happy I am that we all seem to be on a first name basis with Anita Sarkeesian. I know it's just easier to call her Anita, but I still find it pretty adorable/hilarious.

[Osmium]

I don't know if this was in part directed at me, but I don't want to be accused of dodging this point if it is.

If I've employed an ad hominem, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point it out to me so I can restate my argument to exclude it.

Thanks.

 

Well yes that was directed at you.I don't need to point out anything to you because if anyone really cares other than you or I (who both know well what you wrote in this thread) they can sift through the walls of text themselves because I see post after post of you condescending literally everyone else on this thread who has a different opinion then you. 

 

My personal view on the issue is women are not helpless entities who need young white knights on the internet to save them from the vile hands of the gaming industry.

 

Do not mistake me, I will fight your misogyny till the day I die.

 

This quote in particular shocks me. What are you really doing here? I know plenty of people who firmly stand for or against gamergate but you are just assuming the people you are arguing against are all ignorant, bigoted, hateful people. However as an outsider with literally no opinion on gamergate itself, all I see are people offering you legitimate opinions with evidence to back it up but you just sit there and call them bigots without fully addressing their arguments. Even in the page before this one where @DigitalHermit asked people to present sources you presented a single sensationalist source and then said the rest was "common knowledge".

 

To be honest I have absolutely no opinion on gamergate but I am just calling bullshit as I see it.

[DigitalHermit]

If you don't want to accept Anita's analysis, I guess you could just consider the majority of my posts to be my own analysis. I certainly don't rely on Anita's point of view to make my points, but her videos are a great supplement to what I've been saying.

 

Again, one would have to demonstrate that these "fake" or "irrelevant" tweets are made disproportionately by one side than the other.

I personally don't think this behavior has been shown to exist at all, but if it did, it is probably equally distributed in proportion on both sides.

 

 

I think I understand what he was trying to say, that an autonomous character would be boring to play. Let me elaborate. I don't mean it is better to have autonomous characters in the way that the Sims with free will turned to max is autonomous.

I mean that an autonomous character has agency and is in control of his or her life and path. Mass Effect had a great element of agency, you could choose any number of ways to deal with problems, all of which had different consequences. I'm going to quote Yahtzee Croshaw from his Tomb Raider youtube review, just because I think he puts it really well:

"But the essence of the issue for me is that Lara is entirely reactionary. The universe just declares her chew toy of the day, and she's either given no other option that to proceed, or the ground simply collapses under her big fat ass. Captain Walker decides to use the white phosphorous, Jason Brody decides to stay on the island. That's what makes their characters develop. Lara just alternates between breathy whimpers and bland resignation. So you can kill a man and take a machete like a champ; a concrete block can do that. But you can't kick one out of the back of a moving truck and call that a character arc."

 

And sure, maybe I was being a little bit dramatic. But I was mostly saying that I would fight misogyny of that kind until my dying day.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, can I just say how happy I am that we all seem to be on a first name basis with Anita Sarkeesian. I know it's just easier to call her Anita, but I still find it pretty adorable/hilarious.

 

Paragraph 1: Ok, then... It's not that I don't want to accept them, but by the methods taught to us in Sociological Research, her methods would be rejected upon proposal...

 

Paragraph 2: This argument just makes the Tweet count metric even more invalid. Contextual content analysis would be better than a rough metric like tweet count...

 

Paragraph 3: Isn't that the pattern for most games (regardless of the sexual orientation and gender of the main character)? Take Suikoden II for example... The main characters are just reacting to events that happen around them...

 

Edit: Another problem that I see is that arguments about these tend to ignore the genre and the storytelling elements...

 

Edit 2: On the first name basis, I can call her Sharkeesian but that puts some legitimacy to her (refer to citation standards), which I personally do not acknowledge at this point in time...

[cae]

Yes, she gets death threats all the time. But this is the first time that there has been a threat made against a specific institution at which she was going to speak. Remember, not only was there a bomb threat, but there was a threat to enact the "greatest mass shooting that the country had ever seen on the campus" (if I paraphrased that correctly) if she was allowed to speak. This isn't your run of the mill threat.

The bottom line is that she would have spoken if there had been a safe environment to do so. I don't feel like gambling with other people's lives, and I'm sure they don't want to gamble with their own.

 

It was a run of the mill threat, sadly. It's unfortunate that's the case.

 

Utah State University police is coordinating the threat information with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat it has been determined it is similar to other threats that Sarkeesian has received in the past, and all university business will be conducted as scheduled tomorrow.

Cited: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178

 

 

On the point of the transgender restroom inclusivity, of course it's prejudiced to assume someone will assault you because of their genitals. But on that point, it's just as prejudiced to assume what genitals a person has just by looking at them.

Certainly the role of security is to prevent people from being assaulted. This is easiest when people are not allowed a weapon that instantly takes someone's life. So I do think it would have been safer if no guns were allowed.

 

It's a level of doublethink here, or contradiction. Security should protect people from being assaulted, it's easiest when people aren't allowed weapons, but security has weapons that help them protect people from being assaulted. You think it'd be safer if no guns were allowed, but police have guns. So only the general public, specifically armed concealed carry permit holders, are considered threats, and not police? Or the presence of guns is a threat? The former is prejudiced against those permit holders; they're being held to a much lower standard than given to police and security for exercising a right. The latter destroys itself with the presence of armed police and security personnel.

 

I'd actually love to hear which of those points you would dispute. It doesn't seem like a strawman to to me, it just genuinely seems to be what you believe.

 

If you'd love to hear, ask.

 

You seem to be under the impression that people who are threatened with murder and rape love every second of it because they can get pity points later.

All I can say is that I hope you'll look back on those comments with humility and shame for the complete lack of respect for human life that you exhibit.

 

I don't claim to know how others threatened with murder and rape feel. I'd denounce all threats; love me some NAP. All I can do is monitor their actions if it's on twitter or tumblr or what have you. So if I view their actions and see that they're feeding anonymous trolls with publicity after those trolls threaten them, or comparing threats, what else can I say? I feel there are dangers associated with that kind of behavior - seen in that video regarding professional victims. So it's because I respect human life that I want to see these threats go away. It's a really easy fix, too.

 

[ComradeHX]

You can say that all you want, but it won't make it true. By any definition of sexism, your comments are some of the most sexist I've ever had the privilege of reading first

By definition of sexism, I am not sexist.

I am not against females, I am against idiots.

 

I'll have to ask you again to name a single game in which a male character is marginalized on the basis of his gender.

I gave you that game's name already. That game was where main character was marginalized because he was male(because if female does what he did, society would not care). You simply chose to ignore it.

You're quite right that I haven't played literally every game that exists. Although I don't know why anyone would waste energy arguing a point like that, for obvious reasons.

Then, for obvious reasons, your claim that "number of weak and useless women massively outnumber the men" is based on...nothing.

Further, I've been explicit in saying that even if there are a handful (or more) of games that do represent women well, it doesn't change the fact that sexism is prevalent in the industry. I can't make this point any clearer than that.

Nobody said sexism does not exist. But it's not all Misogyny like you imply.

 

Well, I don't think I ever criticized the character design did I? I've said it before in this thread, and I guess I'll have to say it yet again; Bayonetta is a fine example of a character, however, it's the way that she's displayed (which is quite the right term to use here) that is problematic.

So you agree there is nothing wrong with Bayonetta the character?

Now you realize how Anita Sarkeesian is full of shit?

 

Back again to the "male sexism". I've stated this before in this thread too. Six packs and bulging biceps are still other examples of male power fantasies. They are ideals of the strong, dominant male. They don't represent sexualization. You don't see men striking sexy poses and flaunting their genitals.

It's all male power fantasies, nothing to do with how females find male with six packs to be sexy...right?

And boobs are all because all men want to fap to them(that's false, btw), not like any female want size bigger than A-cup, right?

http://www.play-mag.co.uk/general/large-breasts-not-erotic-says-bayonetta-creator/

 

You'll have to backtrack quite a bit farther than that I'm afraid.

Bayonetta's size is B. That's actually below the average size for Americans.

 

See two comments above in this post please.

You are still blatantly ignoring the obvious here.

  

My argument with Lara Croft has been the same from the beginning. Go back and read it if you like.

Especially in the new version, she's not hypersexualized (like Bayonetta), but she lacks the simple things like personality and character arc that make her a character in the first place. Her role in the game is essentially to be a punching bag.

She's not hypersexualized, and that's the point. "she lack personality" is your opinion, not a fact.

   

I've said it before, and in this post as well, that Bayonetta's character design is actually pretty good. I've never taken issue with that.

It's interesting how you associate "catering to males" with "objectifying and marginalizing women". You seem to suggest that the only games men would like are games which dehumanize women. In any case, there are no games that represent men as poorly as the games that represent women. If you even want to try that argument, provide at least one example of such a game.

You are the one suggesting that objectifying and marginalizing women has to do with this being a "male-dominated"(your words, not mine) industry.

I didn't suggest anything. Stop attacking strawman.

I provided example, you simply ignored it.

 

I can't find it in any of your posts.

Bullshit, you even replied(with a bunch of rambling about nothing) to it.

 

I fail to see the connection here. This looks like a non-sequitur to me. Please elaborate?

It's about 50% females of all gamers yet you claimed it's a male-dominated industry. Please elaborate how you came to that conclusion.

 

See this is exactly what I mean when I say you're saying sexist things. "Men are good for certain things while women are good for certain other things."

I again have to ask you to name a game in which men are subjugated and dehumanized based on their gender.

 I guess you missed that a recurring theme in game is that male are often subjugated and dehumanized because they are male.

Typically, the cannonfodders in games are male...they were put in because they were males who feminists would not find it problematic for MALES to have no emotion in killing of main character, die horrible deaths, or be captured/tortured...etc.

  

I don't see how that follows. Gaming is simply the playing of games, by definition. Oppression of women does exist in this space.

Please elaborate.

You don't see?

You don't see how video game characters are purely fictional?

Fact is that when you play games, even if you rape/kill/whatever women in a game, it's done towards a crude(if at all) representation of female... Not actual women.

 

Again, you can say it all you want, but it won't erase your bigotry.

Keep up the ad hominem; you are totally reinforcing your "argument" here.

[IdortMasterRace]

A lot of "facts" are also made up on the spot. When you strip out all labels, it's angry consumers vs giants who are no longer getting their way and I like it. 

 

Don't like GamerGate, stay out of a GG topic, simple stuff here.

 

To be fair, he's right - most 'video game journalists' aren't actual journalists and have no education in journalism. However, that just makes GamerGate even more important. We need higher quality, more ethical journalism.

[IdortMasterRace]

Also I'd just stop giving kingkikolas attention.

• He won't stop bringing up Anita Sarkessian, despite her having nothing to do with GamerGate.
• He keeps spouting the "GAMING IS SEXIST" crap, which has been proven wrong time and time again. See below video.

• He's contradicted himself a good dozen times in this thread.
• He actually thinks Anita Sarkessians 'analysis' is worth anything and that she isn't just con-arsits that says extreme, false things for money because idiots will take her side.
• He's resorted to just throwing insults, calling people bigots and sexist. Who does that remind me of?

 

No point even dicussing it with him.

[Zulkkis]

The issue with discussing this is that well, the discussion is perverted. Perversion as in distortion / misinterpretation. It is in the best interests of some people, though.

 

Regardless, #GG is supposed to be about "journalistic integrity" so the discussion going on here is missing the point. If you don't want this to happen, then don't give these "secondary issues" any attention; it's not worthy of any attention - at least in this context.

 

Integrity in gaming journalism has always been somewhat questionable since in order for the press to get access to the much-needed early copies, pre-release events and such they have toget in contact with the publishers. Now, as it has turned out, the press will get early copies - but only if they make a deal with the publsher, and thus publishers will control the media coverage in a favorable way while the press gets their early copies and thus, hits and views. A review that comes late because you got the copy a week later than anyone else, is no good in terms of views. The publishers benefit, the press gets to keep their financials in a healthy state while compromising their journalistic integrity, and the consumers are none the wiser. Except now the can of worms has been opened once again, just like it was done a couple of years back with that table of doritos article.

 

The other factor is nepotism, which seems to be more of a case on the indie side of things - indie gaming awards have very questionable connections between the jury and those collecting the trophies, and just in general with the press and the journalists. The other worrysome factor is that some of the rather big media outlets have also had internal mailing list where they have discussed on what content they should be covering. They're supposed to be competitiors, dammit - that's going far beyond what they would need in order to maintain connections in their line of work.

 

Not that it matters _too_ much - What I do is basically watching short gameplay video and see how the game in general has fared rather than read a single review and decide on what game to buy. But making games takes hellaluva lot of time and effort to get things into an even remotely working condition, and with things like this they're dumping it on every developer who doesn't have the contacts, cash or has "unfitting ideals" while the consumers also end up worse off in this whole ordeal.