|
The Droid posted:Its not "all the point" which is why I included the disclaimer that the Hitman games do do a lot of the other things she mentioned in her example. but no one is saying "women can be hurt, ergo sexist." They are saying sexualized female bodies can only be interacted with meaningfully via violence, which is sexist.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:
And if all the NPCs can only be "meaningfully interacted with" via violence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:I'm still confused how most of the stuff being discussed and the focus on various people by the GamerGate organizational hubs have anything to do with improving the ethical standards of games journalism as it was originally stated by the "movement." Can someone help answer this question? If the "ethics in games journalism" angle is supposedly what GamerGate was spawned to be about, why is it that the main organizational hubs focus on non-game journalism ethical issues (eg. disclosure of financial ties to a subject, which many academics would say is a conflict of interest on behalf of the journalist)? For example, right now KotakuInAction has 25 threads on its front page. Only 4 of them are about journalistic ethics, the rest are complaining about "SJWs" or talking about what someone else said or did with no relation to games journalistic ethical practices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
The Droid posted:And if all the NPCs can only be "meaningfully interacted with" via violence? Then maybe you should focus on the word 'sexualized'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:but no one is saying "women can be hurt, ergo sexist." If you were capable in these games of interacting with these sexualized female bodies in a meaningful way without violence, what manner should that be which is not in fact sexist? Would it be better for the artists responsible to remove all sexualized female bodies from the game?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
The Droid posted:And if all the NPCs can only be "meaningfully interacted with" via violence? The NPCs do not exist in a sociological vacuum. A fully clothed male NPC and a sexualized female NPC do not exist in the same sociological state. Its why a game with a woman saving a male prisoner and a man saving a female prisoner are not contextual similar despite having near identical content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The Droid posted:Ben Kuchera was one of the people who actively pressured Journopros members to silence discussion of the matter. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Firing someone for their behavior is like economic jail time. Sometimes people are jailed for the wrong things, but it is still okay to jail people for the right things. The concept of jail is not bad, even if jail can be used in a bad way. If this isn't inflammatory enough for this thread, please replace the word "jail" with "gun".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Firing someone for their behavior is like economic jail time. Sometimes people are jailed for the wrong things, but it is still okay to jail people for the right things. The concept of jail is not bad, even if jail can be used in a bad way. I replaced it with 'Jeremy Clarkson' and now I'm triggered, you fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
The Snark posted:If you were capable in these games of interacting with these sexualized female bodies in a meaningful way without violence, what manner should that be which is not in fact sexist? Frankly it would be very difficult in the current environment to present a sexualized female body in a way that would not have problematic undertones. The entire narrative significance of the act would have to be shifted which cannot be done immediately. Although, as I have said before, I think a good step would be to present realistic/diverse bodies if we are going to necessitate a sexual environment. Go to a strip club in GTAV or a brothel in Witcher 3 and notice how its all the same body model with a different heads. Some attempt to create realistic/diverse bodies would go a long way to at least creating an environment in which sexualized bodies can be seen as authentic and not deliberately erotic. I do not think removal is necessary. The context in which they appear should be given more consideration however. The issue is not the potential presence of a sexualized female body as it is the redundant trope of how the sexualized body is used. EDIT: to repeat, critique is not censorship. Saying sexualized female bodies are nearly universally sexist in their presentation is not a call to end all presentation of sexualized bodies. Its a call to consider the implications of the usage. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I replaced it with 'Jeremy Clarkson' and now I'm triggered, you fucker. *Jeremy clarkson voice* Firing someone for their behavior is like economic gun time
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
hwordhan posted:You need to post conclusive evidence to prove this. http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/09/19/gamejournopros-zoe-quinn-email-dump/ tl;dr: Ben kept saying people were using the Escapist forums as a harassment base and Tito disagreed. Supposedly once Gamejournopros was leaked he sent a bunch of angry emails to Tito insinuating that Tito was the one who leaked the mailing list. Mel Mudkiper posted:The NPCs do not exist in a sociological vacuum. This is moving the goalpost, I'm not disputing the sexism of gratuitous "sexy lady" npcs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
The Droid posted:
That is what the article is about, and how violence is different because of their sexualization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
The person who didn't get hired for the job is unknown to me, and not only that, are fully able to seek work elsewhere, as they've not been warned against or blacklisted "I'm sure they'll be fine" (a sanity saving measure for HR people everywhere). Though, for an added dose of depressing world, we are right now every day benefiting from the lovely conditions for poor folks in the third world. We justify it to ourselves that there's nothing we can really do so we can sleep at night. We just don't think about it much, so we can stay sane. One is responding honestly to a friend about a person he asked about in a professional situation. The other is something you actively sought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Frankly it would be very difficult in the current environment to present a sexualized female body in a way that would not have problematic undertones. The entire narrative significance of the act would have to be shifted which cannot be done immediately. Although, as I have said before, I think a good step would be to present realistic/diverse bodies if we are going to necessitate a sexual environment. Go to a strip club in GTAV or a brothel in Witcher 3 and notice how its all the same body model with a different heads. Some attempt to create realistic/diverse bodies would go a long way to at least creating an environment in which sexualized bodies can be seen as authentic and not deliberately erotic. I again agree. I think perhaps the problem here is that the ideal improvement runs into time/money limitations in regards to development. People have to code in and make all the art for all of those body alternatives. Eventually, as development methods are refined and technology advances I believe you can hope to see a game that one day provides more realistic depictions just for the sake of providing more realistic depictions. Games have come a long way, but that's a longer way off still. In the meantime, when you are only allotted so much time and thus must choose one or two body types- it's not hard to see why they might focus on those that make the game world at least superficially prettier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
The Droid posted:This is moving the goalpost, I'm not disputing the sexism of gratuitous "sexy lady" npcs. My original point was that Anita never said the ability to harm women is inherently sexist. She said the fact you can only meaningfully interact with sexualized female bodies through violence is the problem. Its not moving the goalpost, its telling you that your original goalpost doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That is what the article is about, and how violence is different because of their sexualization. I am specifically disputing the point about the violence, which I feel is often divorced from the context of the game itself. Once again Obdicut, I am talking about the video. I also do not see an inherent difference to the violence purely because the NPC is sexualized, if the NPC was depicted as "a stupid whore" or had some other sexist negative trait tacked onto them it'd be one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
I disagree that the violence is somehow different due to the sexualization, unless the user adds that meaning themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Games have come a long way, but that's a longer way off still. In the meantime, when you are only allotted so much time and thus must choose one or two body types- it's not hard to see why they might focus on those that make the game world at least superficially prettier. I would agree if there were not considerable difference given to the variety of male bodies in most of these games. For example, the famous "Fallout 3 Sexy Grandma" is ridiculous but not nearly as problematic as the brothel girls in Witcher 3 because Fallout has a single male body model and female body model but Witcher clearly has a diverse variety of male body types but literally two female body types, the second of which is a "wrinkle" filter put over the primary body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The person who didn't get hired for the job is unknown to me, and not only that, are fully able to seek work elsewhere, as they've not been warned against or blacklisted "I'm sure they'll be fine" (a sanity saving measure for HR people everywhere). What does being unknown to you matter? You say that as though it's significant in your moral calculus: it's not. You have to assert why it is. The guy that I recommended against is also welcome to seek worse elsewhere, because remember, I don't control all employment. So why, by your logic, is the destitution of the other job seeker not on me. I don't know their name, but I know they exist. Why am I only allowed to consider the plight of the guy I know to be a fucker, and not the person that I don't know to be a fucker? quote:Though, for an added dose of depressing world, we are right now every day benefiting from the lovely conditions for poor folks in the third world. We justify it to ourselves that there's nothing we can really do so we can sleep at night. We just don't think about it much, so we can stay sane. For gently caress's sake, try to stay on topic and don't make this random appeals to emotion. You're accusing me of having done a lovely thing. have the balls to stick to that. quote:One is responding honestly to a friend about a person he asked about in a professional situation. The other is something you actively sought. Again: why is that different? You are describing how it is literally different, I'm asking why it's ethically different. In both cases, I warned a friend about unprofessional behavior. Why is him calling me different than me calling him? Please note, just saying "It's different because you called him" does not answer this question. Why is it ethically or morally different? If you are responsible for the penury of the man if you call, why are you not responsible if you're called?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
The Droid posted:I am specifically disputing the point about the violence, which I feel is often divorced from the context of the game itself. Once again Obdicut, I am talking about the video. I also do not see an inherent difference to the violence purely because the NPC is sexualized Then you are charging headfirst against a century of critical theory
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
The Droid posted:http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/09/19/gamejournopros-zoe-quinn-email-dump/
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
The Droid posted:I am specifically disputing the point about the violence, which I feel is often divorced from the context of the game itself. Once again Obdicut, I am talking about the video. I also do not see an inherent difference to the violence purely because the NPC is sexualized, if the NPC was depicted as "a stupid whore" or had some other sexist negative trait tacked onto them it'd be one thing. The 'article' i'm talking about is a transcript of the video. I'm not sure you listened to the video, because the video does indeed address the depiction of the women as often stupid and/or whoreish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
I am genuinely not sure how to reply to "I think violence as content is separate from the recipient as context" in any other way than "you are rejecting modern critical theory wholly"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I would agree if there were not considerable difference given to the variety of male bodies in most of these games. I have yet to play Witcher 3, news to me. Well, I could certainly support the call for greater diversity of female body representation in games, at least insofar as parity. I suspect many people could, nomatter what hash tag they used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The 'article' i'm talking about is a transcript of the video. And I am not disputing those points, I am specifically, referring to this point https://youtu.be/4ZPSrwedvsg?t=22m22s
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am genuinely not sure how to reply to "I think violence as content is separate from the recipient as context" in any other way than "you are rejecting modern critical theory wholly" I am genuinely not sure how to reply to this post, other than "stop being willfully dense"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
The Droid posted:I am genuinely not sure how to reply to this post, other than "stop being willfully dense" Even the relatively archaic principles of Structuralism are still built around the inseparability of sign and signifier so perhaps you could tell me what academic position you are basing your perspective on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
The Droid posted:And I am not disputing those points, I am specifically, referring to this point So are we. A sexualized body exists only to be ignored or acted upon. The only possible action is violence. The inseparability of sexual arousal from the violence inflicted upon it speaks to problematic narratives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am genuinely not sure how to reply to "I think violence as content is separate from the recipient as context" in any other way than "you are rejecting modern critical theory wholly" You do know that not everyone is into or educated in modern feminist critical theory? Or further, that not everyone agrees with the conclusions in the first place? In this case we're talking a game with a specific set of mechanics. Sneaking, killing, looting, etc. The level of interaction is set for all of that class of NPC standardly (In the hitman case). Unless you're actively thinking about theory, and aren't 14 or rediciulous, you're not likely to treat the strippers as anything more than the NPC obstacles that they are. Granted, they may well pull someone out of the moment, and should probably be justifed in their inclusion in some actual, meaningful way, but disabling and passing through their area the same as any other NPC, male or female, seems like the most likely case to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You do know that not everyone is into or educated in modern feminist critical theory? Or further, that not everyone agrees with the conclusions in the first place? I never said feminist critical theory. I said all modern critical theory. You are literally arguing that the sign and signifier can be isolated from each other. And further, if someone wants to wholly reject the entirety of critical theory for the last century on a whim they have no place inserting themselves into a discussion about critical theory in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I have yet to play Witcher 3, news to me. I am glad. It would not end the issue of sexist representation of female bodies, but it would help. The issue of problematic tropes in fiction cannot be simply turned off. They also most likely can never be wholly eliminated. The purpose of criticism is to challenge the contemporary culture to be more thoughtful about its usage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
The Droid posted:And I am not disputing those points, I am specifically, referring to this point And I don't see any point in debating fine particular points from individual arguments. To save time, I'll completely concede whatever point that is. It doesn't change the overall point. You could remove any individual example and he point would still stand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I personally feel no different towards the nude strippers compared to other npcs. I personally think that your analysis that I'd do so flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The Droid posted:And I am not disputing those points, I am specifically, referring to this point This is an indicator of where Anita either goes wrong or else can be easily taken as such. Such as the statement that the women characters are 'objects in the game world to be acted upon' which again to any casual viewer sounds absurd because that is true of every character in a game. Yes, this fact does not exist in a sociological vacuum, but even so functionally and practically this is still the case. Context always changes everything. Almost anything can be viewed in a light or through a lense that makes it look bad, so there really needs to be an argument as to why it is better to view something through your given lense or in your preferred light. This is not an argument I think Anita has put enough effort into. I often wonder for whom Anita makes her videos when she seems to reach out only to people who agree with them already. Her videos on Legos were vastly better. The Snark fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So are we. I'm not really certain where sexual arousal comes into play here. Then again, I could just be an autist who doesn't much care about a sexualized body in a video game, unless its something related to the goal of the game. And even then, sexuality never enters my mind when I'm acting on it. This concept is strange to me.. And I totally accept the possibility that I'm weird in this and that everyone feels this or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So are we. This had me looking real weird and grossed out at my screen until I figured out that "upon it" referred to "sexual arousal" and not "a sexualized body", anyways I think this is a good example of why "it" is not a very good pronoun Control Volume fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Yes, this fact does not exist in a sociological vacuum, but even so functionally and practically this is still the case. Context always changes everything. Almost anything can be viewed in a light or through a lense that makes it look bad, so there really needs to be an argument as to why it is better to view something through your given lense or in your preferred light. This is not an argument I think Anita has put enough effort into. I can see your point, but it is not really a question of "better" viewing of a context. There is no singular "true" viewing of an event. You cannot argue that it would be better to view an event in a certain light when it can be viewed in that other light regardless. For example, you could read Jane Eyre from a feminist perspective where it might be overall positive, or from a post-colonial perspective where it is very problematic. It does not make the feminist reading "better" because it is positive, nor is either interpretation necessarily more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:I'm not really certain where sexual arousal comes into play here. Then again, I could just be an autist who doesn't much care about a sexualized body in a video game, unless its something related to the goal of the game. And even then, sexuality never enters my mind when I'm acting on it. This concept is strange to me.. And I totally accept the possibility that I'm weird in this and that everyone feels this or something. One of the dangers of all of this is thinking you are in conscious control of the context in which you experience the event or that you will even be consciously aware of the contextual symbolism of the event. We are under a near constant assault from signifiers that we only consciously perceive and interpret a handful of. EDIT: Sorry for double-posting. I keep assuming someone else will have posted something by the time I am done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:That we should tread on eggshells to get around the idea that something may be a problem because telling people it is a problem may be slightly upsetting?  What you're doing right now is not working. What gamergaters are doing is working even less, of course. But is the goal to make as much noise as possible, or decrease sexism? Cause right now, you're making noise, but not effectively combating sexism. You're just screaming at sexism. I should say, if something as mild-mannered as Anita Sarkeesian isn't coming through, the alternative may just not be worth it. But I'm not that far yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:39
|
|