Misogyny from IG to OOC

Mishgul

The longest journey.

Mathonwy

Fitz said:

Especialy when you, as many rad fems I have encountered do, come into the conversation with a starting bias and then seek evidence to prove your bias instead of standing outside the topic, and examining it objectively and then making your decision based on all available information.

That's impossible to do any way. There is no God's-eye perspective and we're never objectively, dispassionately divorced from the subject at hand-- any subject at hand. From day one, we're always already entrenched in a myopic morass of subjective biases.

That's part of the reason why people talk about how cisgender white heterosexual males like us can't understand where people who have faced systemic discrimination simply for being born a certain way. They don't mean it offensively, but there really are some areas in which monadic faculties like intellect/imagination/etc simply aren't useful. We can't recreate, subjectively, for ourselves, scenarios that determine what it's like to have to live regularly with that kind of deficit of power-- and admitting that isn't akin to admitting a personal failing or weakness of character. Admitting that is the first step to removing oneself from the oppressive power structure... or, if that's not possible (which it probably isn't), minimizing the influence and impact the oppressive power structure exerts on those around us.

Direv

Again, sorry if this is overly long. But Fitz: certainly it's important to recognize that women are more than victims, and that women obviously have considerable agency to respond to the conditions they encounter. Nevertheless, that women experience gender-based oppression is important to name, as is naming is what that oppression looks like. That is the only way the culture can begin to shed patriarchy and misogyny. However, to say that feminism reduces women to victims, or only sees women as capable of being victimized, is to create a straw-man. Nobody is saying that right now in this conversation that I've seen.

As far as your demand that "radfems" (I'm not a radfem - see below) stand outside the topic and examine it objectively - therein lies for me one of the most dangerous consequences of privilege: its abstraction and depersonalization of oppression and suffering. Some people do not have the privilege of stepping away from this conversation and abstracting it the way you can, because for some people this is very personal. For most women, patriarchy and misogyny are felt every day - from ubiquitous unsolicited conversation and staring, to overt denigration, often coming from a trusted loved one. This is not to even mention the enormous sexual violence that women are subjected to, and that *overwhelmingly* targets women. As a white male you lack that experience: you don't have to contend with that persistent, panoptic gaze when you're just trying to go down the street to get a cup of coffee or get some shit from the store. So it's not personal for you. I have the unique experience of being a white male and having experienced those things myself, but in settings and situations where I could simply leave or change my gender expression at any time. But women generally do not have that luxury to opt out. 

Incidentally, I'm definitely not a radfem and I'm reticent to identify myself as a feminist. Enough of the radfems I have encountered are transphobic and unwilling to think critically about gendered intersections with racism that I don't want much to do with them. I've felt the same about mainstream feminism, but I've also noticed that this tendency is changing.

Also, as far as "judging a person by solely one aspect" - sure. Oppression and trauma are complicated, and there's lots of nuance. Some people I know who are male presenting and white or white passing have experienced unbelievable violence and trauma and have little class privilege, whereas I have friends who are people of color who have had pretty comfortable lives on the whole to my knowledge, and enjoy substantial class privilege. But ultimately it comes down to culture, and culture is best understood by keeping up with tendencies and proclivities measured by statistics, and then listening to the stories of people in your life, and believing people when they tell you  what they are experiencing. And when the calculus of those proclivities of culture affords you some degree of privilege in the end, it is useful to own up to that - and then your own story can be told without overshadowing someone else's. 

Xith

The Expanded Universe is not the face of Star Wars, unfortunately. And it was released in the same decade that Anchorman takes place in. So yeah, Leia came out as sort of a damsel figure. The movie literally starts with her getting captured.

and then we meet the young hero and eventually he learns that she's trapped, and they go rescue her.

But at the same time, the movie gave her a blaster and everything. She was never a "weak" archetype, but she did play the brazen, overconfident, independent female lead that worked so well opposite Harrison Ford in those days, where you just knew she'd melt in his arms at that rascally charm by the end of the story.

However, the original trilogy had like one black guy and two women that weren't backdrops. I think that was the real point being made.

Nakari

Fitz said:

Sarkeesian cherry picks her data to prove a point she decided prior to committing to her research. This has been proven. There is video evidence that she went into her research with a bias, and sought to prove it. This is no different than a racist citing The Bell Curve. 

If you want to destroy the patriarchy, as you put it. Stop allowing others to define you as a victim. I will agree with you that people aren't equal in standing, but everyone has an equal opportunity, at least in Western Culture, to be equal. My judgement on feminism isn't a judgement on the movement as a whole, as I specifically stated that it was against modern, radical feminists. Like Sarkeesian.

I've seen no good rebottles of the evidence that she sites. People are usually like you and misconstrue her points (generally arguing that individual narratives aren't bad and characters aren't problematic, all of which misses the point). Unless you want to argue that there isn't a trend of male-focused stories in games? Because that's a hard one to sell. And please, it's getting annoying to just argue with claims. If you want to make a point, provide some reasoning behind it. For instance, arguing that someone is biased is a meaningless claim, because everyone has biases. If her biases cause her points to be incorrect, that's one thing, but you'll need to actually make arguments or quote people that actually address the claims she makes before that debate can even get started.

And I'm not 'allowing others to define me as a victim.' I believe that everyone, male or female, is the victim of a system that only allows us certain methods of normalized gender expression, which also places females as culturally inferior to males. Any system of binary oppression like this, while benefiting one side more then the other, oppresses everyone that is within it. Additionally, you can't have equal opportunity without equal standing. Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false. 

Lastly, your judgement is against feminism as a whole. Your attempts to divide feminism into 'modern, radical feminism' and some sort of better feminism denotes almost only judgement on your part as to what you perceive as being all right for feminists to believe. Further, your statement claiming that patriarchy can cat fixed once people 'stop allowing others to define you as a victim' is pretty much as against feminism as you can get, as it is literally victim blaming and claiming that the problem is only in the minds of those who see it. And claiming that Sarkeesian is a radical is laughable. Feminist theory, especially the more modern stuff but also going back quite a ways goes far, far, further then Sarkeesian. Heck, the real developments in modern (third-wave) feminism are that it attempts to be less white and heteronormativily oriented. If you exclude 'modern feminism' from 'feminism as a whole' then you're defending a feminism that is often racist and generally ignores women of alternate sexes and sexual orientations, which is incredibly problematic on it's own. I expect your division is more along the lines of what you agree with and what you don't, though. 

Teg

Fitz said:

Sarkeesian cherry picks her data to prove a point she decided prior to committing to her research. This has been proven. There is video evidence that she went into her research with a bias, and sought to prove it. This is no different than a racist citing The Bell Curve. 

If you want to destroy the patriarchy, as you put it. Stop allowing others to define you as a victim. I will agree with you that people aren't equal in standing, but everyone has an equal opportunity, at least in Western Culture, to be equal. My judgement on feminism isn't a judgement on the movement as a whole, as I specifically stated that it was against modern, radical feminists. Like Sarkeesian.

You can't seriously admit to the existence of discrimination against women (call it the patriarchy or w/e) and then claim that everyone has equal opportunity in western society at the same time.

Teg

Fitz said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

I don't really want to get into this debate, but I think this is a good response to anything Sarkeesian ever does. The young woman in this video examines Anita's stance and uses her examples to offer her own opinion.

Further, my major issue with the current state of feminism, is that it reduces women to victims, and continues the stereotype of a woman as a victim. As an individual who judges people on an individual basis, I find this problematic, because defining a person by a single trait is wrong, and is tantamount to the sexism and racism you claim to fight against. You cannot, in my opinion, judge a person by solely one aspect. Especialy when you, as many rad fems I have encountered do, come into the conversation with a starting bias and then seek evidence to prove your bias instead of standing outside the topic, and examining it objectively and then making your decision based on all available information.

Further I think that you have to recognize that individuals are ever changing and evolving, and therefore your judgement you make today in regards to someone may be invalid a year later.

But then, people don't change, and I'm sure someone will say my opinion isn't valid, being what is termed a 'white cis hetero male' and therefore being a part of the oppressive power structure, I can never understand your plight. Which as a statement I think complete disregards my intellectual ability and agency as an individual, and makes anyone who states it just as bad as they demon they attempt to make me out to be, no?

I think the problem people have with you is mainly that you do what half the 20 something internet male crowd does when engaging with feminism or gender politics: which is to say either engage with a strawman version of it or just handwave it away.

Fitz

I'm not arguing that there isn't a trend of male focused games. But then, that's the demographic that the people that make them are selling to. There are many ways to change this, the easiest of which is to develop those games that you want. Start a company, promote the product you want to buy. It is my opinion that it is pointless to excoriate those that -don't- want to buy your product though. If you don't like playing Legend of Zelda, don't play it. I hate racing games, so I don't play them. Does this mean that the racing game industry oppresses my culture of not liking racing games? No.

Moving onto gender expression, I don't give a flying whatever to what you identify as. I don't care who you do or don't wish to have a sexual relationship with. It doesn't matter. These things are the choice of the individual, and if your choices of sexuality or gender identity are so weak as to be harmed by other people disagreeing with you, perhaps the fault lies in you.

Nakari said:

And I'm not 'allowing others to define me as a victim.' I believe that everyone, male or female, is the victim of a system that only allows us certain methods of normalized gender expression, which also places females as culturally inferior to males. Any system of binary oppression like this, while benefiting one side more then the other, oppresses everyone that is within it. Additionally, you can't have equal opportunity without equal standing. Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false. 

I'm having a bit of trouble with this paragraph, and specifically with this highlight statement. I would think that having the equal ability to reach the same levels, would mean that there is in fact equal opportunity. The only way this would be oppression, imo, is if non-males are specifically barred from these positions. And you citation of the wage numbers has been proven patently false. Women and men in the same fields, doing the same job, generally make the same pay. Sometimes women even make more. The wage gap exists only in a disparity between pay when individuals choose jobs that pay more or less. Research has shown that the gap between female and male wages is because men often work longer hours, choose more dangerous/stressful/specialized jobs, all of which pay more. These are individual choices. Are you going to argue that a welder on a high rise should get paid less than a dentist?

And as to feminism as a whole, I've always preferred Paglia.

Edit for broken quotes

Direv

Teg said:

Fitz said:

Sarkeesian cherry picks her data to prove a point she decided prior to committing to her research. This has been proven. There is video evidence that she went into her research with a bias, and sought to prove it. This is no different than a racist citing The Bell Curve. 

If you want to destroy the patriarchy, as you put it. Stop allowing others to define you as a victim. I will agree with you that people aren't equal in standing, but everyone has an equal opportunity, at least in Western Culture, to be equal. My judgement on feminism isn't a judgement on the movement as a whole, as I specifically stated that it was against modern, radical feminists. Like Sarkeesian.

You can't seriously admit to the existence of discrimination against women (call it the patriarchy or w/e) and then claim that everyone has equal opportunity in western society at the same time.

Yeah, lmao. Funny how it's usually white males waxing poetic about how fair and just Western society is. It's like...orly now...

Jacen

I think your claims on equal opportunity are wholly false. Just because the demographic of certain wage levels and company positions aren't equally spread around isn't indication of equal opportunity. It doesn't take into consideration the representation of each demographic within the company, of those who applied for jobs within the demographic, of those who aren't willing to commit the extra hours it takes to prove to the supervisors you are sufficiently invested in your work and put the company's interests over your own. 

As a white male student, I've found myself on the wrong end of equal opportunity many times. I come from a lower-middle class family with three children total. I've been busting my butt off at an industrial, hazardous job since I was sixteen to fund things like a car, gas, and college. I was the head of my class all throughout highschool and graduated valedictorian. Guess who got need based scholarships in my grade? Two upper class, white girls, one of which was an only child who's parents were bringing home 150k+ per year. Merit and need based scholarships were given out all around my class, but guess how many scholarships I made it out with? NONE. I'm buried in student loans and I've busted my ass off every moment I could to fund my bachelor degree, but since I'm a white male, I don't qualify as someone who needs the money.

/rant

Direv

Okay - and imagine if you were black, trans, or a woman. 

Statistically white males are less likely to fall into poverty, spend less time in poverty, and experience less violence in poverty (and by that I mean, they are MUCH less likely to fall into poverty, get out of it many years earlier than everyone else, and experience much less than anyone else). Does that mean white males never experience poverty, or never experience it for their whole lives? Not at all - as I've said before, there's a lot of nuance (mental illness and disability, trauma, bad luck, et cetera) and that's important to consider too - after you acknowledge your privilege. I've had it rough too, and I also have to work multiple shit jobs to barely pay my rent - but at the same time, I get jobs easily. In virtually every social transaction when I am competing with a person of color, or even if I'm not, I enter knowing I will probably get what I want. Nobody follows me when I go into grocery stores, I've never been mugged on my street, and I can walk at night and feel safe. A white passing female friend with similar class privilege and work experience that I do has trouble getting jobs, can't walk around alone at night and feel safe - but doesn't attract the least bit of suspicion when stealing food at the grocery store. Despite everything, when it comes down to it I am privileged, and so are you, and if we don't acknowledge the ways in which we are privileged then we're stepping on people who have it worse than us. 

When we're thinking about this stuff, it's useful to think in terms of intersections of privilege - specifically those of race, gender, class, and able-body (and able-mind) privilege. All three of those are very powerful. 

Nim

Nakari said:

Any system of binary oppression like this, while benefiting one side more then the other, oppresses everyone that is within it.

I don't really like conversations like this, because they focus so much on negative things and the arguments are usually pseudo-intellectual without actually accomplishing all that much other than get people worked up, and it's all just so very silly!

However, this conversation has finally produced a sentence that got me worked up, and in such an otherwise seemingly enlightened post that it only hurts ever more! Gender is not a binary concept, but thanks to the fact that so many people adamantly believe it is, so many of my friends have to live in such horrible depression every single day of their freaking lives just because they don't happen to fall in line with society's view of what gender is. They contemplate suicide to the point where it becomes a casual thing. Thanks!

Sorry if you don't actually think that, it just really pissed me off!

Direv

Usually people referring to the gender binary understand that the full range of possible gender expression is a limitless and fluid spectrum, not a binary. Nakari seemed to be referring to oppression through the binary, in other words oppression by turning the spectrum into a binary.

Nakari

Nim said:

Nakari said:

Any system of binary oppression like this, while benefiting one side more then the other, oppresses everyone that is within it.

I don't really like conversations like this, because they focus so much on negative things and the arguments are usually pseudo-intellectual without actually accomplishing all that much other than get people worked up, and it's all just so very silly!

However, this conversation has finally produced a sentence that got me worked up, and in such an otherwise seemingly enlightened post that it only hurts ever more! Gender is not a binary concept, but thanks to the fact that so many people adamantly believe it is, so many of my friends have to live in such horrible depression every single day of their freaking lives just because they don't happen to fall in line with society's view of what gender is. They contemplate suicide to the point where it becomes a casual thing. Thanks!

Sorry if you don't actually think that, it just really pissed me off!

I completely agree with what you're saying, and I was trying to refer to the existence of a gender binary not as something that is natural or necessary, but as a false duality that is, nonetheless, generally held up in society as the basic assumption. As in, it is a system of binary oppression that first only problematically constructs a binary (which is why I said that everyone was oppressed under it), and then values one part of that binary more then the other. The binary is fake, societally constructed, and is inherently oppressive because there is actually no reason at all to limit gender expression to two poles (and heck, there are societies that recognize more then just two genders, so it's pretty definitely societally constructed)

I hope this addresses what I think you think I said (and I probably could have phrased it a bit more clearly, my bad), and definitely I think you're anger towards the attitude that it may have appeared that I was supporting is probably called for.

@Jacen While there is certainly a large degree of difficulty in accurately applying the numbers, I think that overall they paint a pretty clear picture of systemic issues (after all, I think that if our conclusions are that "obviously men are all just working harder and that's why they have better jobs" (which I'm not saying you say, but is justified by your reasoning), then our conclusion isn't a good one in all likelihood). This article has some pretty clear examples if institutional discrimination, particularly in the business world, where women are sometimes told to literally not bother competing for certain jobs. And I simply don't have the evidence to argue either way your particular situation, though I am sorry as to what happened to you.

@fitz if you honestly believe that there is only oppression when one is literally unable to reach certain positions, then you have a rather problematic mindset that basically ignores pretty much all modern oppression. And there certainly are barriers that make it more difficult for individuals in minority groups to reach certain positions, even if it is sometimes possible. Your argument seems about like arguing that the U.S. is done with racism because the president is black.

And if you also believe that social criticism is useless, or at least is only useful in terms of not buying certain games, I feel like this pretty much is just dismissing social movements in general, which ignores the strides that such moments can make oven when they utilize criticism as well. (and yeah, supporting certain games is a good way of pushing for change as well, that doesn't mean it's sufficient). And your racing games analogy seems to once again claim that oppression is made up or personal. 

As for your rant on gender expression, my point was that the feminism that you claim to like is one that is unable to include women of all types in it's movement and thus is unable to really deal with oppression. Your statement is also pretty much ignoring these other oppressed groups and then goes and blames them for their problems. Again, this is pretty much just straight victim blaming.

Aepas

yawn. And as all of these conversations tend to do, it has faded from the original topic and become a very black and white discussion where both sides are pretty much wrong.

so here are my final bits, then I'm out of this thread for good.

Beta males are treated worse than women are in movies and video games, and constantly the laughing stock. See Beauty and the beast, that's the perfect example. So while males get the higher percentage of protagonist roles, we also have the beta archetype to deal with which is a big problem for people with low self esteem. We get that stuff too.

Anita skeerzsnov or whatever that gals name is, is one of the worst people ever. Peddling specific views and making money off of it. She is worse than televangelists.

Forbes said females held 49% of total jobs but 50% of managerial positions. However they do make up a tiny amount 2.5% of CEO and board positions. (in 2009) So... calm down, this means when the old CEO guys die, the managers and bosses are going to move up the ladder. This stuff doesn't change over night. The power change is right over the curve, and really look how far it's already come. Go back, look at the statistics from the 80's and 90's, realize it's only been a few years, and see a DRAMATIC change. Now see a bunch of teenagers and early 20 year olds bitching about things they never actually had to deal with.

TL:DR
Discussion has devolved to a mess. see you on the ranting menace.

Fitz

My argument for oppression in the business world was in response to your statement:

Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false

And again, it's been shown even by research by the AAUW(American Association of University Women), and many other groups that systemic oppression in the workplace, especially in regards to wages is a myth. 

Returning to social criticism, I have no problem with it, as long as it's not cherry picking data to prove your point, to the exclusion of all other outcomes. Which several people have documented in regards to the feminist critic of games discussed previously. I do not like pop critics, because they are really only out to make money and in my opinion that lowers their credibility. Especially when they admit, on camera, that they really don't give a crap about what they're critiquing in the first place.

Now, I can see your point with victim blaming. But based on my own experience as a victim, it is my belief that the best way to handle it, is to not be affected by it. Don't let it be a burden to you. If you're physically attacked, defend yourself. You have an inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but if you're unwilling to defend it, either with force of will, or physical force you will always be a victim.

And please, when you respond, tell me that I've never been a victim, because I'm going to assume you know me well enough to say so.

Echald

I must say I am more interested in the various aspects of equality on a global scale. I can believe 50% of managerial positions are staffed by women in the US and such, but such equality is likely significantly lower on the total number, which I do believe means any local gains would have the possibility to be lost over time depending on which direction the cultural wind blows.

 

Also, I am a victim. Somenone took the last slice of pizza a few moments before I did by cutting in the line.

 

More seriously, maybe I am mixing issues here but where did the AAUW made a study showing the wage disparity is a myth? Or maybe you mean some of the data they use is showing a different conclusion? They do have a whole page about the Gender Wage Gap and such with multiple articles: http://www.aauw.org/issues/economic-justice/

Fitz

Oh, it seems they took down the article on their site that was referenced in this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

It's an older article.

There is also this: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/

Which is more recent. There were a few good articles in other publications such as Forbes, and I believe even CBS did a piece fairly recently about the wage gap myth.

Nakari

Fitz said:

My argument for oppression in the business world was in response to your statement:

Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false

And again, it's been shown even by research by the AAUW(American Association of University Women), and many other groups that systemic oppression in the workplace, especially in regards to wages is a myth. 

Returning to social criticism, I have no problem with it, as long as it's not cherry picking data to prove your point, to the exclusion of all other outcomes. Which several people have documented in regards to the feminist critic of games discussed previously. I do not like pop critics, because they are really only out to make money and in my opinion that lowers their credibility. Especially when they admit, on camera, that they really don't give a crap about what they're critiquing in the first place.

Now, I can see your point with victim blaming. But based on my own experience as a victim, it is my belief that the best way to handle it, is to not be affected by it. Don't let it be a burden to you. If you're physically attacked, defend yourself. You have an inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but if you're unwilling to defend it, either with force of will, or physical force you will always be a victim.

And please, when you respond, tell me that I've never been a victim, because I'm going to assume you know me well enough to say so.

The fact that men and women have different cultural expectations is a huge part of the problem, as the gap in jobs show. Your second article is only supporting my point, and it would be rather nice if you stopped making straw men out of arguments.

second paragraph

1) You're still claiming that she's cherry picking, which means that either you're still accusing her examples of being unimportant in the contact of the games themselves, or a new argument you haven't explained. Once again, her examples are meant to show a trend rather then to argue that individual games in their entirety are problematic. The only way that this could constitute cherry picking is if this trend doesn't exist or we should be drawing a different conclusion, which you have yet to argue or, more significantly, provide evidence for (and no one else has either, if so, please point it out).

2) This criticism of her as a 'pop critic' is first off an ad hominem, meaning that it says nothing about the actual arguments, and second off I think is largely unfounded. She isn't promoting a product, and all she did was ask for donations once after engaging in many videos before that. What is the warrant for her being just out to 'sell a viewpoint' anyways? More importantly though, this still doesn't address her actual argument.

3) If we're talking about the same 'caught on video' scene, she said that she 'doesn't like games' and specifically clarified that she didn't like shooters and games where you're being overly violent. I don't think this means that people get to accuse her of 'not being a real gamer.' Of course, exclusion based on who is a 'real gamer' is fairly common and still has no real barrier for entry. But what do you know, this still doesn't address her actual arguments, it's another ad hominem.

And you get to have whatever response you want to what happens when you're in a position of being victimized, but I don't buy that means that you get to tell other people that their response is less valuable or wrong.

As for @aepas 's arguments about beta males, I would argue that the polarization of gender expression is probably shares the cause with discrimination against females, whereas males that don't express masculinity the 'right way' are not regarded well.

Fitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

1:10ish

"I'm not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn alot about videogames."

She then states that she doesn't like violent videogames, but her initial statement is she is not a fan of videogames at all. This is where I have the problem. And yes, she is selling/promoting a product. Herself. 

Teg

Jacen said:

I think your claims on equal opportunity are wholly false. Just because the demographic of certain wage levels and company positions aren't equally spread around isn't indication of equal opportunity. It doesn't take into consideration the representation of each demographic within the company, of those who applied for jobs within the demographic, of those who aren't willing to commit the extra hours it takes to prove to the supervisors you are sufficiently invested in your work and put the company's interests over your own. 

As a white male student, I've found myself on the wrong end of equal opportunity many times. I come from a lower-middle class family with three children total. I've been busting my butt off at an industrial, hazardous job since I was sixteen to fund things like a car, gas, and college. I was the head of my class all throughout highschool and graduated valedictorian. Guess who got need based scholarships in my grade? Two upper class, white girls, one of which was an only child who's parents were bringing home 150k+ per year. Merit and need based scholarships were given out all around my class, but guess how many scholarships I made it out with? NONE. I'm buried in student loans and I've busted my ass off every moment I could to fund my bachelor degree, but since I'm a white male, I don't qualify as someone who needs the money.

/rant

To be fair lower class whites are the ones who get screwed by affirmative action the most.

But then again you are even worse off being a lower class black/hispanic

Teg

Aepas said:

Beta males are treated worse than women are in movies and video games, and constantly the laughing stock. See Beauty and the beast, that's the perfect example. So while males get the higher percentage of protagonist roles, we also have the beta archetype to deal with which is a big problem for people with low self esteem. We get that stuff too. 

Oh wow we are already at the attempt at amateur sociology by undergrads who can't get laid part of the thread

Teg

Fitz said:

My argument for oppression in the business world was in response to your statement:

Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false

And again, it's been shown even by research by the AAUW(American Association of University Women), and many other groups that systemic oppression in the workplace, especially in regards to wages is a myth. 

[citation needed]

Fitz said:

Now, I can see your point with victim blaming. But based on my own experience as a victim, it is my belief that the best way to handle it, is to not be affected by it. Don't let it be a burden to you. If you're physically attacked, defend yourself. You have an inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but if you're unwilling to defend it, either with force of will, or physical force you will always be a victim.

This is an outright delusional view of the world. If you are suffering employment or housing discrimination there is no way to not "let" it affect you other than to pretend it doesn't exist. It's outright denying anything short of physical force can constitute wrongness or injustice that needs to be corrected.

Teg

Fitz said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

1:10ish

"I'm not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn alot about videogames."

She then states that she doesn't like violent videogames, but her initial statement is she is not a fan of videogames at all. This is where I have the problem. And yes, she is selling/promoting a product. Herself. 

Your problem is that you are unable to address criticism in any other way than making ad homenins

Teg

Aepas said:

Anita skeerzsnov or whatever that gals name is, is one of the worst people ever. Peddling specific views and making money off of it. She is worse than televangelists.

Lots of people (advertisers, politicians, writers, etc) peddles specific views and make money off it, Peddling specific views and making money off it basically constitutes a large proportion of journalism and is considered to be pretty legitimate. she's "one of the worst people ever" (really? because ummm I don't think she's on par with Bin Laden or Ted Bundy or even someone like Ann Coulter) according to you because she's being mean to video games you like.

Nakari

Fitz said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

1:10ish

"I'm not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn alot about videogames."

She then states that she doesn't like violent videogames, but her initial statement is she is not a fan of videogames at all. This is where I have the problem. And yes, she is selling/promoting a product. Herself. 

So in a relatively candid environment she makes an offhanded comment and then explains it. Obviously the right way to interpret this is to hold her to the original comment, ignore the context and explanation, and then argue that this undermines all her points without addressing those points? This argument reminds me of United States elections in the worst way possible.

And the only way that she's even turning a profit is off the initial kickstarter money, which is the only time I think she's even asked for money, but I certainly hope that you aren't claiming that people voluntarily giving one more money then one asked for constitutes some desire to make points only for a profit.

but again, all of these claims are fallacious and still don't address any argument she actually makes

Fitz

Teg said:

Fitz said:

My argument for oppression in the business world was in response to your statement:

Just because males and females can reach the same levels as men does not mean that there is an equal opportunity, which wage numbers, numbers of CEO's in the fortune 500s and the like all show to be patently false

And again, it's been shown even by research by the AAUW(American Association of University Women), and many other groups that systemic oppression in the workplace, especially in regards to wages is a myth. 

[citation needed]

Fitz said:

Now, I can see your point with victim blaming. But based on my own experience as a victim, it is my belief that the best way to handle it, is to not be affected by it. Don't let it be a burden to you. If you're physically attacked, defend yourself. You have an inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but if you're unwilling to defend it, either with force of will, or physical force you will always be a victim.

This is an outright delusional view of the world. If you are suffering employment or housing discrimination there is no way to not "let" it affect you other than to pretend it doesn't exist. It's outright denying anything short of physical force can constitute wrongness or injustice that needs to be corrected.

Citations were provide in a following post to Echald.

There are ways around employment and housing discrimination, sitting around and crying oppression doesn't solve it. But, I wouldn't know anything about that, having been fired for being in the hospital and not being able to find a new job, because my previous employer falsified records to fire me, citing in the paperwork that on days I was scheduled off I was mishandling money in my office and not doing proper paperwork on shipments my assistant received on my scheduled days off. By your worldview, I should just sit around and say I'm a victim, cry oppressive system, and stop trying to find work. 

@Nakari

Watch that clip again. She states initially "I'm not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about them." and then after her too many dicks on the dance floor video, "I would love to play video games, I just don't want to shoot anyone or rip peoples heads off." This implies, to me at least, that that's all she thinks video games are at the time of this recording. And in response to her profiteering, do you honestly believe that she doesn't get paid for her seminars, speaking tours, and working as a professor, all of which she wouldn't have if not for the notoriety she has created for herself? In this, I agree with the maker of the video, that she has no real investment in her criticism, save what money she can make off it.

Returning to her arguments about the tropes in videogames, yes I can fully agree with you, and her that females are underrepresented, and there aren't many strong, female plots And there definately aren't any plots with trans people or any other sort of personal identifier. But I cannot believe that this is some sort of system of oppression against women or trans people or anyone else. It appears to be a question of demographics, and who is going to buy what. It's a for profit industry. 

Now, you can make the argument that some games serve a purpose themselves as social commentary, which I will fully agree with. But not every game is. Some games are just there, to offer an escape, or a cathartic release for the player, who chooses to buy the game. 

Mishgul

Oh dear. Has anyone considered that video games are written by people that enjoy the games they make.

Sure we can design and publish a game targetted for a demographic other than that which we can relate to but it is exceedingly difficult.

No one is wrong about there being a trend, but society is still developing from a patriarchal one to an "equal rights" one, with everyone trying to figure out what equal rights even means considering that every individual is a different human being with different desires.

And the majority of game developers have been brought up watching disney films. I am sure things will change when a generation of developers who were raised differently surface but expecting people to do something they don't necessarily want to (short of hypocrisy and murder and whatnot) is a little unfair.

Nakari

Fitz said:

Citations were provide in a following post to Echald.

There are ways around employment and housing discrimination, sitting around and crying oppression doesn't solve it. But, I wouldn't know anything about that, having been fired for being in the hospital and not being able to find a new job, because my previous employer falsified records to fire me, citing in the paperwork that on days I was scheduled off I was mishandling money in my office and not doing proper paperwork on shipments my assistant received on my scheduled days off. By your worldview, I should just sit around and say I'm a victim, cry oppressive system, and stop trying to find work. 

@Nakari

Watch that clip again. She states initially "I'm not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about them." and then after her too many dicks on the dance floor video, "I would love to play video games, I just don't want to shoot anyone or rip peoples heads off." This implies, to me at least, that that's all she thinks video games are at the time of this recording. And in response to her profiteering, do you honestly believe that she doesn't get paid for her seminars, speaking tours, and working as a professor, all of which she wouldn't have if not for the notoriety she has created for herself? In this, I agree with the maker of the video, that she has no real investment in her criticism, save what money she can make off it.

Returning to her arguments about the tropes in videogames, yes I can fully agree with you, and her that females are underrepresented, and there aren't many strong, female plots And there definately aren't any plots with trans people or any other sort of personal identifier. But I cannot believe that this is some sort of system of oppression against women or trans people or anyone else. It appears to be a question of demographics, and who is going to buy what. It's a for profit industry. 

Now, you can make the argument that some games serve a purpose themselves as social commentary, which I will fully agree with. But not every game is. Some games are just there, to offer an escape, or a cathartic release for the player, who chooses to buy the game. 

a grand total of no one has argued that only talking will fix problems. Please stop making straw man arguments. People are arguing, on the other hand, that identifying systems of oppression and groups oppressed under them is an important step towards making positive change and is certainly productive. I would also argue that people who are oppressed by the system probably can't be blamed for that fact, but this doesn't mean that I'd advocate doing nothing. It's like trying to avoid victim blaming in other scenarios-shifting blame away from the victim is necessary, but that does't mean that you don't show victims and potential victims how to better avoid the situation.

And I'm not sure why you think that an ad hominem is seriously a good point to argue. Even if everything you said was true-a rather big if-it wouldn't matter a lick, because it still doesn't address the arguments she makes.

Really though, you're drawing huge conclusions from literally two sentences taken almost completely out of context. I continue to read the statement as meaning that she doesn't like a lot of modern games and had to learn about them (and I certainly hoped she had to learn a lot about them, that's kinda the point of doing research). You (and quite a number of other people) seem to think that those two lines simply completely contradict everything else she has said ever, which really doesn't make sense. It turns out that if you had access to everything someone, anyone has said, you'll be able to pull some lines that may seem out of place, because people don't treat their every waking moment like an interview where every line has to be groomed to stand on it's own. In the end, your assumptions are just that-assumptions, with basically no actual evidence to support them other then the massive weight of inference that you place on two lines, which is especially interesting considering that you're attempting to exclude her from a fandom that has a nasty habit of being rather exclusionary.

As for money, it turns out that people who want to live doing something that they enjoy rather need to get payed for it to do so. I mean, yeah, in world without things like capitalism it might be possible for academics to not have jobs, but alas, that isn't the world we live in. Also, all intellectuals do this, are they too not dedicated to their own criticism because they have a job? What makes her unique? After all, she was getting payed for her criticism before she started it on video games. 

Your attempts at painting a picture of this person as a lying, greedy individual not fit to make criticism seems based upon very flawed standards and not much evidence. In the end though, it doesn't really matter, because these aren't even responses to her arguments, they're just fallacious attacks at her person.

On the question of why things are the way they are, no one has been arguing that it is a purposeful system of oppression. Video game creators aren't (well, in general, at least, as I can't say I really know any personally) misogynistic pigs out to demean the image of women, they're storytellers out to make a compelling story or creators of entertainment that want to just make something enjoyable. This doesn't mean that the images aren't important, though, or that marginalizing women and women's roles within those stories doesn't participate in and help create a system of oppression, though (especially because these days pretty much every game creates explicit social commentary even to the extent that the roles portrayed within it aren't implicitly social commentary. Most games at least attempt to create a compelling story, and these all involve explicit commentary in their themes). As for demographics, I believe that first off it is entirely possible to create games in a male perspective that include additional, more diverse female roles, and second off that the belief about demographics is a fairly self-sustaining one. Like, if I think that males are the most likely to buy games, so I make games that I think males will like more, I've probably just made my belief a reality even if it wasn't in the first place. I do think that all of the talk around female roles in games probably proves that there is a demographic that would like something different, though. As for being for profit, though, when has that ever stopped negative views from being sold?

Mishgul said:

Oh dear. Has anyone considered that video games are written by people that enjoy the games they make. Sure we can design and publish a game targetted for a demographic other than that which we can relate to but it is exceedingly difficult. No one is wrong about there being a trend, but society is still developing from a patriarchal one to an "equal rights" one, with everyone trying to figure out what equal rights even means considering that every individual is a different human being with different desires. And the majority of game developers have been brought up watching disney films. I am sure things will change when a generation of developers who were raised differently surface but expecting people to do something they don't necessarily want to (short of hypocrisy and murder and whatnot) is a little unfair.

I agree with almost all of this. Games are made by people who like them and want to make good ones, and then they are played by people who want to play good games. I don't think that criticism precludes enjoyment though, rather I think it's important to criticize things for how they could be better even when we are enjoying them. I guess I see it a lot like any other measure of review. No one complains because people say that x mechanic could have been better or y point in the story seems contrived, we're constantly pushing to see the best things possible, and I simply see social criticism as another facet of this. A game can have parts of it that could be better and still be a great game, and a story can be male-focused and still be a fantastic story. Heck, there are tons of games, as well as other stories, that I have experienced and loved even while looking back at them and thinking about how certain representations weren't optimal.

And part of the reason for this is certainly the perspective of the narrator. It can well be hard to write compelling stories if you don't think you understand what you're writing about. I think this is why a lot of the criticism revolves around motivations for the lead and the like, as it is probably possible to write different motivations, as well as possible to deal with female characters that aren't the lead better then they often are. On the other hand, I think that gender roles in particular probably aren't as different as people seem to think. After all, a lot of games make really awesome female characters, they just make really awesome female characters that get kidnapped and can't work to free themselves without the hero. The problem doesn't seem to be with creating good characters, just with falling into overused patterns of storytelling.

The one thing that you say that I disagree with is what people can expect as audience members. While narrators/game developers should make the games that they want to make, I don't think it's unfair to have some expectations in regards to problematic representations within them. After all, most people would agree that being critical about overt racism and sexism would be justified, this is just being critical of the implicit stuff as well. And on another level, it's just pushing for something that certain demographics want. Fans of all types of media push for more of what they want, and this is often just the same sort of thing.

So yeah, things take a while to change, that's definitely true. Things are also certainly getting better, and have gotten a lot better. I don't think that this makes criticism irrelevant, I think that criticism has helped this to get where it is and will help the standards change in the future. In the mean time though, that's no reason not to enjoy good stories and good games even while thinking about how they could be even better.

Mishgul

The biggest issue really is that no one makes games for the story anymore. It's all about the action. The characters are largely irrelevant in general.

Games with great stories (that i personally enjoyed) in the past decade I can pretty much count on my hand.

Off the top of my head, these are the games with the most memorable stories i've played in the past decade?

The Longest Journey (i've not played it's sequels yet)

Bioshock Infinite

KoTOR 2: The Sith Lords

Dragonage Origins

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

that's literally all the memorable ones for me. Every other game has been fun because of the puzzles and mechanics. Stories tend to be put on the backburner and I'm 99% sure they are added in after the game engine is developed.