Page 92 of 153 FirstFirst ... 42829091929394102142 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,840 of 3044
  1. #1821
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Sketch View Post
    I struggled a bit with the point she was making about Spelunky and the interchangable person to rescue. Not saying there wasn't a point to make...I'm just not sure I totally picked up on it. What exactly was wrong with the solution they had put in? If that became the norm, wouldn't that be ok?
    Her argument was that it reduced the woman to an object because she became entirely interchangeable with a man or a dog. It's a weak argument from a sexist perspective, though it's a strong one for how useless the trope is. Like I said, it could be anything and it doesn't make a difference, because the entire trope is just a flimsy plot mechanic. It's an overused and outdated trope, and she has a point there, but there's nothing to demonstrate how it's inherently harmful. It really just demonstrates a lack of storytelling capability by video game story writers... except that it's been a mainstay of writing since... well, probably forever, because love and attachment are pretty easily understood (as is violence from an adversarial gameplay mechanic perspective).
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  2. #1822
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus The JG Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,447
    Sketch, I'll answer that because it's one of Soldant's points which I want to address.

    Soldant, I want to have an Internet Discussion about what you've said! I hope that's okay. Points I label with a number are where you've indented with a -.

    2. I don't know if Buffy had as far a reaching effect as Anita suggests, but I can certainly see her argument. You have a show with an ensemble cast led by a female, shown from her perspective and whilst giving her feminine traits not defining her character of off those. Instead, her traits are based off the fact that she is The Chosen One and how she contends with that. You have the fact that she fights monsters and ghoulies using her own applied skill (she was a cheerleader early on, right?). Then you have other characters like Willow and so on and so forth. You then also had shows like Alias, Dark Angel etc. etc.

    As for the Spice Girls, it can get very contrived if you see them as a marketed attempt at brandishing 'girl power', buuuut, they did believe it, channel it and sometimes something good done for the wrong reason can still be good. A lot of the lyrics were about the women having control; "If you wanna get with me you gotta get with my friends" (I don't know how Cara is with the Spice Girls, but I could do with her help here!). There was definitely a trend of female empowerment for a few years there.

    3. (Sketch, tune in here!) So the argument with it changing an object was...well, just that. The damsel is simply interchangeable with an item at this point. You're saying their value is just that. It's a throwback I suppose to that cut in the first video where Bowser and Mario are playing football (?) and then it cuts to Bowser taking Peach or something like that. You're inferring that the woman is basically a disposable item that can just as easily be replaced as a dog, or indeed a beloved blender.

    You could certainly say that the fact they put it in was good, but the fact that they also 'boobicised' (I'm making that a word now) her character certainly didn't help matters because even if you're saying "Look, choice!" you're just making her overtly sexualised for no reason other than because that's a trait of a female. In regards to re-enforcing the stereotype, you're drawing attention to it by purposefully not drawing attention to it, but including something else that still draws attention to it. Think of it like in crime procedural shows when someone asks a fake question about something that's true, the perpetrator answers and reveals they were in on it/they dunnit because they gave away that slip of information. You're getting to the same conclusion just a different way.

    I think the way to have minimised it would be to have kept the damsel's avatar roughly the same, not sexualised, included a male option, and had done. To remove it? Just don't have any people to rescue and get a schmooch from. Simply have the beloved blender! If it became the norm though, yes you go some way to neutralising the issue. That requires a big push though, from everywhere and everything.

    4. She does say why it's harmful. It's harmful explicitly because it's so pervasive. Tropes, clichés, stereotypes - whatever you want to use, they exist or are born from a mass number of something to have a true base to work from. When people use them as a go-to reason, you're simply increasing the number of the thing, making it seep into the cultural consciousness of consumers. I saw on a NeoGaf thread on this vid that the dev for Gunman Clive jokingly said "I'm a sexist now!" or along those lines. He used the reason (excuse) that "In a five second cut-scene, it's hard to get that much exposition in." A few posts below, someone pointed out you could just easily have the evil-doer twirl their beard, or shoot their guns in the air. You get the same point across - bad person, must be stopped - without relying on using this cliché.

    No one example will ever be sexist, racist, or anything else. You need a base measure so as to provide background context and then measure against them. If you put Spelunky in a vacuum in which no other game existed, would it be sexist? No. Put it back into the large catalogue of games we have and it just adds to the mounting number of titles that do the same thing and have the same portrayal. When these become the normal in culture, expectations are built on them. You can see it with things such as 'The Lad Bible', which is so incredibly thinly veiled misogyny covered up by it 'being banter'. Just as comedy can be used as a subversion to make a parody or satirical comment, it can be subverted to make any meaning you want so long as you apply it fine.

    Where 'rape' becomes a word you use when you lose badly in a game, instead of meaning the forced sexual assault on a woman that leaves them with physical and severe, long lasting mental damage. All these things add up and become a force of their own. They become accepted into the norm and to argue against that would be 'stupid' and 'unnecessary' (much like some of the more vitriolic criticism of Anita).

    [At this point, I feel obliged to point out my degree is in cultural studies, so all of these type of things I'm hyper-aware of because that's just where I find my interest. I apologise for the essaying!]

    6. I think I covered it in that previous point, but a reinforcement of an attitude, or anything in culture, is through repetition. Or, like a snowball rolling downhill actually, that's a far better metaphor. It enters the mind, sticks around and rises back to the top when see it again. I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy here...okay, well, take reviews, for instance (this is going to back-fire horribly, I can already tell). 1 review of 4/5 makes you think "Hey, that's probably pretty good." 2 reviews of 4/5 makes you think "Okay, that's probably pretty good." 6 reviews at 1/5 makes you think "Oh, but they said 4/5. What's right here then?" Then you have a further 10 people who give it 1/5. Suddenly the 4/5 sticks out and you're left wondering what on earth they thought. (Again, I appreciate that this isn't perfect, especially considering reviews are subjective, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from as it's more the application.)

    7. Again, you're saying the damsel is replaceable with anything and that they have no merit on their own. This is definitely comedy as a subversion though and I think it can work both ways in this case.

    I think the important thing to do with this series is to acknowledge that you can't just think on a game-by-game basis. When she brought up Sonic CD before I was like "Hey, that's a good game though!" and again with SMB here, but then I took a step back and thought "No, wait, put in context she's right." You can argue back and forth on most of the examples she gives if you really wanted to find a way (and many people desperately have because they seem to live for proving her wrong rather than accepting she may have a point) but the fact is mounted as they are, there's a large quantity all providing this one message.

    I think that's what a lot of people are missing. They're getting too bogged down on single games and not looking at the big picture, which is the entire point of the thing. She's not saying "Mario is bad because it's sexist." She's saying that Mario is part of a systematic problem because it too fell on the usual tropes that have been carried for centuries. Too many people are attacking Anita as a person, which in itself validates a lot of her points, rather than looking at the deeper context it's buried within, which is the point she's making. It's all very meta, come to think of it!

    EDIT: I sincerely apologise for the essay. I welcome you inflicting the same on me.
    Powered by Steam. And biscuits. I'm also a twit and dabble in creative writing.

  3. #1823
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sketch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,618
    Ok I get what you're saying and definitely agree with the boob thing. That does look silly. And yeah if they had been interchangeable from the start I think that would probably be OK, but it sort of insinuated that the girls original role was paper thin and meaningless as it was so easily fixed. Hmm, food for thought definitely. It's tough though because I did laugh at Earthworm Jim and Fat Princess and I suppose by themselves they are probably ok, but it's the sum of it all like she said. You can see why people have such a hard time recognising the issue at all.
    steam: sketch

  4. #1824
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    Soldant, I want to have an Internet Discussion about what you've said! I hope that's okay. Points I label with a number are where you've indented with a -.
    A discussion? I'll accept no less than pistols at dawn!

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    There was definitely a trend of female empowerment for a few years there.
    I'll take your word for it, I mean I do remember Girl Power being a kind of "thing" in the late 90s but I don't really remember it having the kind of impact Anita is suggesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    You're inferring that the woman is basically a disposable item that can just as easily be replaced as a dog, or indeed a beloved blender.
    I'll agree to a point that the overly sexualised update was a bit ridiculous, but again I don't necessarily agree that the fact that the "objective" can be easily replaced is perpetuating misogyny. Again, I see it as lazy story-telling. I think the tone of the work is just as important as what the work actually displays, and boobs aside, there's really nothing there. If it was the blatant objectification of women from a Duke Nukem perspective then that'd be a different story. In Spelunky it's a bare-bones plot device which could be anything. I think it's a long bow to draw to claim that because a plot mechanic is so easily replaced that it perpetuates misogyny.

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    4. She does say why it's harmful. It's harmful explicitly because it's so pervasive.
    The thing is though that assumes that because it's pervasive it might be harmful, which may not be the case. An overused trope isn't necessarily harmful simply because it's overused. What's lacking is any sort of analysis of whether that attitude actually prevails in the gaming sector - and you're not going to get a straight answer because sexism in gaming shies away from the "knight in shining armour" attitude to "bitch make me a sandwich LOL" infantile "humour".

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    Where 'rape' becomes a word you use when you lose badly in a game, instead of meaning the forced sexual assault on a woman that leaves them with physical and severe, long lasting mental damage.
    Again, that has little to do with the trope she's discussed so far. Furthermore while the term 'rape' is definitely overused in gaming, it's worth noting that it doesn't singularly refer to sexual assault, so while it may be way overused in gaming, it does have a meaning outside of sexual assault. This doesn't have much relevance to the trope at hand though - if anything it's the polar opposite, considering that the trope is the male hero facing peril to rescue the female character.

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    She's not saying "Mario is bad because it's sexist." She's saying that Mario is part of a systematic problem because it too fell on the usual tropes that have been carried for centuries.
    But that's my point - the trope is overused and that's been demonstrated very well here, but her argument seems to be that it's harmful because it's overused, and because video games are a part of culture they clearly must be perpetuating sexism, because writers are apparently lazy. But again there are problems with that line of thought. To use another example, let's look at video game violence as a cultural phenomenon. Violence as a means of ending conflict is a mainstay in the gaming sector, yet I don't know if anyone here wants to argue that we're internalising violence as a means to end conflict because it's so popular in games. I think a similar sort of argument applies here with what Anita is attempting to say - she's not doing much to really link in the trope with sexist attitudes except to claim that that exists because it exists. It isn't self-evident.

    Antia is very much right that it is a trope, that it is overused, and that in some cases it could be considered sexist (though unintentional - again, I think intent or tone play an important part in assessing the impact). She's also right that there's a major sexist attitude in gaming culture. But I don't see the correlation, particularly when the sexist attitude is quite negative and violent (e.g. overuse of 'rape', 'girls cant game lol' etc) while this 'white knight' trope (which is effectively what we're discussing) has an entirely different kind of implication. If I wanted to make a ridiculous comparison, I might argue that people like John Walker exemplify the trope by rushing to the defence of these sorts of videos or statements. But again, I'm just drawing a long bow, much like Anita occasionally does, and I'm not seriously making this an actual point.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  5. #1825
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,037
    There's more nuance to the whole trope thing than "it's harmful because it's prevalent". It's late, but let me see if I can scrape enough words together in a straight line.

    We look at art, entertainment, and all sorts of media as holding a mirror up to culture, right? These things reflect the culture we live in, since they come only from within it, and they also shape that culture, to a greatly varying extent individually but powerfully as a whole. I think that shouldn't be terribly controversial.

    The Damsel trope is a reflection of a toxic meme that exists in our culture- that women are weak, passive, and require protection from strong, active men. The trope springs from this meme, with which we are all infected, whether it informs our core conscious beliefs or no. What the Damsel trope in games and other media does that is harmful is to feed this meme. It gives a sense of familiarity, and thus increases our comfort with, a portrayal of women that ought to be more disturbing as it repeats, rather than less.

    To come at it a slightly different way, we ought to be bothered when we see a negative portrayal of women repeated over and over again, because it suggests a toxic cultural meme is at work, and we should stop and figure out what that is. Awareness of the meme makes it far less harmful, serving as a sort of immunisation. When we see an endlessly repeated negative portrayal, and, when pointed out, most people react with indifference or downplay, we ought to be really bothered, because that's a very clear sign of the soothing, normalising effect of a toxic meme very well embedded in the culture. We should look to remove the reinforcing repetition that makes the whole thing seem normal.

    Anyone get any sense out of that?

  6. #1826
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by arathain View Post
    The Damsel trope is a reflection of a toxic meme that exists in our culture- that women are weak, passive, and require protection from strong, active men.
    That's because women are comparatively weak, and are comparatively passive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_physiology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_psychology

    Toxic facts! Wikipedia is sexist! Huuuurr!

  7. #1827
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,501
    Most people die in one bullet. Appeals to general human trends aren't relevant in 99% of videogames in how we depict men (weak, overweight guys who can't stand up to their boss) so why should they apply to women?

    Not to mention standard rebuttal: http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...rent-different

  8. #1828
    Lesser Hivemind Node Kaira-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oulu, Finland
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    That's because women are comparatively weak, and are comparatively passive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_physiology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_psychology

    Toxic facts! Wikipedia is sexist! Huuuurr!
    Comparatively passive... as said where? Neither Wikipedia article claims such thing. F- see me after class.

  9. #1829
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Most people die in one bullet. Appeals to general human trends aren't relevant in 99% of videogames in how we depict men (weak, overweight guys who can't stand up to their boss) so why should they apply to women?
    You do realize that this argument a) is retarded and b) works both ways, right?

    So if women are equal to men in real life, because people die to bullets IRL and don't in the games, why not make the women all helpless blobs in videogames?

    Not to mention standard rebuttal: http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...rent-different
    "The "Big Five" personality traits of psychology -- openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism -- do not categorically vary between men and women."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...sonality_tests

    "Cross-cultural research has shown gender differences on the domains and facets of the Big Five personality traits. For example, women consistently report higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R.[119] Gender differences in personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities that are equal to those of men."

    My proxy has sources. I win.

  10. #1830
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,501
    your source is wikipedia, you lose.

    And yes, of course it works both way, if you're a fucking tool. But why don't we make it work the FUN way for EVERYONE and not just the fun way for teenage boys. Christ.

  11. #1831
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    That's because women are comparatively weak, and are comparatively passive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_physiology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...man_psychology

    Toxic facts! Wikipedia is sexist! Huuuurr!
    1) Wikipedia is, like the general print encyclopedias before it, a bit crap. It's incredibly practical, expansive, and useful--and it's less crap than certain print encyclopedias that came before by certain measures. Using Wikipedia as a point of reference in conversation or as a place to build understanding before delving into a topic? Good. Efficient. Using Wikipedia in an argument about cultural bias in particular? Not so good.

    2) Individual variation will always, always trump gender distinctions for any category other than primary/secondary characteristics. Even that secondary is a bit fuzzy, becasue stuff got thrown in there ages ago that newer research has revealed to be a bit daft.

    3) A common argument is that modern science is more interested in the progressive, liberal ideas of equality than in dealing with real gender differences and as such it's only political correctness that makes us say gender, ethnicity, what-have-you isn't of particular biological note for any but the more obvious purposes. Then come in the anecdotes on both sides, and it usually settles down with proof at the extreme end--the best Xers of group Y are consistently better than the best Xers of group Z! Biology! Bam!

    This is annoying. Anyone with an ear to the development of scientific culture is going to see that the main pull is in precisely the other direction. Political correctness be damned, science is determined to match up with social politics wheresoever possible. See social Darwinism, significant swaths of evolutionary psychology, significant swaths of animal research, and on and on. The big secret that no one in science wants to tell you is just how hard the science most relevant to these sorts of social discussions is. A ridiculous proportion of well performed, well studied, statistically valid, peer-reviewed medical and biological studies are never successfully repeated. Good scientists, good sciences, good results ... no ability to repeat them. It's a very common problem in the studies of chaotic systems using small sample sizes. When we study a block of granite for it's chemical and physical structure, we're working with true large number statistics. Stuff you can rely on to behave properly under certain forms of analysis. Too many medical, (non-molecular/biochemical) biological, psychological and sociological studies have sample sizes that we can't really rely on to approximate randomness. It's frequently joked that Psychology is the study of Intro to Psychology students. Sad but frighteningly true.

    Anyway, there's a point buried in here. And it's that even well conducted science runs into the same problem that makes anecdotes such shitty evidence. When dealing with sufficiently little data in sufficiently complex systems ... you cannot trust your data to be representative of the system as a whole and cannot make accurate predictions about future lab experiments let alone the real system you are studying. So with many studies that deal with sexual characteristics.

    4) Self-fulfilling cultural tropes. If women never do manual labor because women are weaker, women are never expected to do manual labor. Examples of women capable of or interested in manual labor become hard to find as culturally enforced facts fulfill themselves. Women, perceiving themselves as weaker, are less likely to have any interest in bucking the trend and are more likely to accept defeat when facing difficulty or when upstaged physically by men--this is normal and to be expected; it's not humiliating for a female soccer player of similar experience to be bested by a male soccer player, because men are naturally better at soccer. And so on.

    This is not to suggest there are no reliable, biologically reinforced differences between the two sexes. But it's very, very, very difficult to isolate sexual characteristics from gender characteristics even in scientific contexts. And we need to be aware of that when we promote "facts" about sexual distinctions.

    5) Number 2 was really important. It is essential that we remember the sense of scale. Let's say we can show that all men develop muscle at the exact same rate, and so do all women. The one for men is slightly higher. This means fuck all for the ability of women to protect themselves in dangerous situations, and their ability to perform athletic feats. As any male sportsman could tell you, it's not what you have but how you use it that really matters so long as you don't have too much less than the competition.

    Showing innate biological tendencies for people of different sexes under comparable lifestyles tells you nothing about the general population unless coupled both with information about the relative scale of individual variation innately and information about how common various lifestyles are among different groups of people and information about the interaction of those lifestyles with innate tendencies.

    6) In other words your response is bullshit. Especially the thing about self-reported characteristics traits. Women think they're more neurotic. Really? However could they get that idea other than being more neurotic? Nothing comes to mind. Science accomplished. I would love to drag up a lit review or at least the article sourced in your snippet, but as of two months ago I've temporarily lost access to JSTOR and other databases while I'm between programs. :( I miss the OED more though. -sigh-

    Edit: But I did pull up the abstract. First of all, it's very clear to be about gender. As in the social not the biological phenomenon. Second this :
    "Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality inventory data from 26 cultures (N =23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders [..]"
    is the first sentence of the abstract. Then there's this next part, emphasis mine:
    Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.
    Clearly, media portrays women the way it does because ... women just are that way. It's not caused by cultural stuff like media.
    Last edited by gwathdring; 02-08-2013 at 07:24 AM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context that’s cheating -bull0

  12. #1832
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,488
    I would also like to add that 23,000 sounds like a big number. For this kind of research? It's fucking huge. But ... in terms of how trustworthy you can make the math on a number like that for anything more complicated than rough correlation of data? 23,000 isn't very big. Psychologists know this. The good ones are terrified by it, but the keep on trucking anyway. But we should always remember it.

    Edit: Also you see a lot of psychology studies pulling stuff like "Group X was more passive." When what they asked was "On a scale of 1 to 5 how upset are you by the stimulus?" or even worse sometimes you get "Group X was more passive" and what they did was have volunteers rate the apparent passivity of the test subject and cite a study about how precieved responses correlate well enough to actual responses under these sorts of lab tests to give significant enough data for the purposes of the study.

    More commonly, the article is careful and honest and the secondary source takes everything up to 11. "Tomatoes decrease cancer risk by 80%! [down from .001% in healthy populations already not predisposed to cancer]"
    Last edited by gwathdring; 02-08-2013 at 07:29 AM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context that’s cheating -bull0

  13. #1833
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    But why don't we make it work the FUN way for EVERYONE and not just the fun way for teenage boys. Christ.
    Because women don't play fucking videogames.

    That's like complaining there are car posters with sexy women on them, and not sexy men. Yes! Because there is no fucking target audience for car posters with sexy men on them! (not a notable one, anyway, and most of it it would be men anyway)

    This is the core of the issue - and all the self-proclaimed feminists have got it ass-backwards. "Women don't play videogames because videogames are sexist." Sure, and women don't work designing Formula 1 engines either because high performance combustion engines are sexist.

    Women don't play videogames because they don't care about games. That's why you never see a woman interested in a soccer match. You never see a woman thinking poker or table tennis is a great way to spend an evening. They just don't care about this kind of activity. You can argue why they don't care, but that's ultimately irrelevant. The point is, videogames are "sexist" because women don't play games, not the other way around.

    And when women do exhibit interest in a game, it's usually for factors other than the game itself. Like for the story. Or for the social aspect. Or character customization. Or because their boyfriend plays it. Or because it's some facebook integrated bullshit where you just click three icons once per day - and you visit it seven times per day anyway, so might as well. Or to get fat bucks on YouTube.


    I mean let's step back and think about it in economical terms. Do you really think most of videogame publishers, megacompanies with billions of dollars, deliberately ignore 51% of potential customers because patriarchy? Do you think the people who designed Bioshock: Infinite put Elizabeth as damsel in distress in the game instead of Edward as gentleman in distress just to spit in the eye of a modern feminist movement? Do you think these people care about anything at all except for how much money they're making? Or maybe do you think they're so incompetent they don't regularly spend millions of dollars on market research and they simply don't know where the profits lie? Or maybe you think they're just brainwashed into their social role, despite there existing thousands of major companies, ran by men, who cater to female needs first and foremost?

    Just how many facets of reality will you people deny to keep your stupid misguided crusade going?

    Quote Originally Posted by gwathdring
    Let's say we can show that all men develop muscle at the exact same rate, and so do all women. The one for men is slightly higher. This means fuck all for the ability of women to protect themselves in dangerous situations, and their ability to perform athletic feats.
    Oh. That many.

    Yes, at this point I am linking to wikipedia just to spite people who don't know how it works.
    Last edited by Mohorovicic; 02-08-2013 at 07:52 AM.

  14. #1834
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,488
    Women don't play videogames because they don't care about games. That's why you never see a woman interested in a soccer match. You never see a woman thinking poker or table tennis is a great way to spend an evening. They just don't care about this kind of activity. You can argue why they don't care, but that's ultimately irrelevant. The point is, videogames are "sexist" because women don't play games, not the other way around.
    ... er. Women don't play table tennis, poker, or soccer in significant numbers? I think this thread is a window into another universe. We do not live in the same universe.

    I mean let's step back and think about it in economical terms. Do you really think most of videogame publishers, megacompanies with billions of dollars, deliberately ignore 51% of potential customers because patriarchy?
    Mankiw wrote an economics textbook used at my college. In the back section he discusses some of the up-and-coming frontiers of economics. One was a psychology study showing that people liked fairness and valued it, sometimes, to their own long-term detriment in lab-game setups. My favorite was this: that the rational actors theory [the idea that everyone in an economic system behaves primarily as a rational being, a key to certain schools of economics] might not be as true as once thought.

    People do stupid shit. In large numbers. Systemically. Over and over. Especially when economics is at work. Unless you actually believe the Rational Actors bullcrap economists have deluded themselves into believing ... your argument doesn't really hold water. Market research spending, likewise, doesn't mean squat unless your methods are sound.

    You do realize "brainwashed by their social role" describes most people, has since the dawn of social roles, and always shall? It's just rarely the only programming in their and often isn't the primary programming.

    Also, it's well known that for a very long time women were discouraged from ... a crazy number of professions women excel at today. Because patriarchy. You don't think it damaged our economy that half our workforce was kept form working in some of our more important professions for a substantial portion of western history? Let it not be said that Patriarchy is overruled by the pocketbook. It's certainly not cheaper to live on a single income instead of a double income or to buy all of those fancy, fashionable dresses the wife is expected to wear while hanging off your arm at dinner parties.
    Last edited by gwathdring; 02-08-2013 at 08:00 AM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardust’s Music Sounds Better With You. There’s lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context that’s cheating -bull0

  15. #1835
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,501
    You're really [upsettingly wrong and prone to dubious generalizations. -paraphrase]

    But hey, I didn't say that, because ladies are sweet, demure things. No, women are pushed away from games because they don't want to play with [bounders -paraphrase] like you.
    Last edited by Berzee; 02-08-2013 at 04:18 PM.

  16. #1836
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,185
    You're going to risk getting this thread locked if you can't tone it down.
    "Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

    Steam ID

  17. #1837
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,501
    I think mine is only the second most generally offensive comment this page has seen.

  18. #1838
    Lesser Hivemind Node L_No's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by gwathdring View Post
    ... er. Women don't play table tennis, poker, or soccer in significant numbers? I think this thread is a window into another universe. We do not live in the same universe.
    This. This so much. Do you even meet women on a daily basis? Gwathdring makes a good point: for quite a long time, women were not expected to work, which was "explained" by a lot of bulls--t about the "natural qualities" of women that would make them unfit for the workplace. Half a century later, almost all women work without any problems whatsoever. Who says women can never be interested in games? If there's enough games for every audience and taste, I see no reason why women wouldn't want to play games. That would require the industry to start catering to different tastes though. I mean, I'm a relatively young man and even I get tired of the Call of Dudebro: WARFACE marketing for AAA titles, which is arguably directed at me. As long as the focus of the large mainstream titles remains on 15 year old boys with matching emotional depth, a large proportion of potential customers will be put off by it - and it won't be only women.
    Last edited by L_No; 02-08-2013 at 09:18 AM.

  19. #1839
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by L_No View Post
    This. This so much. Do you even meet women on a daily basis? Gwathdring makes a good point: for quite a long time, women were not expected to work, which was "explained" by a lot of bulls--t about the "natural qualities" of women that would make them unfit for the workplace. Half a century later, almost all women work without any problems whatsoever. Who says women can never be interested in games? If there's enough games for every audience and taste, I see no reason why women wouldn't want to play games.
    Uh, no, evolution programmed us ladies millions of years ago in anticipation of videogames and we all think it's really stupid. Just like how evolution programmed men to fling shit at each other which is why it's so filthy to go outside.

    Which is why I come here to this forum to talk about videogames. Don't you see? It's because I don't care.

  20. #1840
    Lesser Hivemind Node L_No's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Which is why I come here to this forum to talk about videogames.
    And I'm glad you do. I'm afraid I do not fully understand what you meant with your post though, care to explain? (my post was directed at Mohorovicic, in case that was not clear).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •