Support NeoGAF

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I respect most of your opinion here, but the bolded is unfortunately not that much of a leap. This is, depressingly enough, one area that we do have some data on, at least data that shows that if you present various forms of rape and assault and don't call them "rape" a significant percentage of men will either admit to committing them or admit that they don't see a problem with them. So where do they get their definition of rape from? Well the culture naturally, the same place all definitions arise from, which includes the media, which predominantly defines rape as a "stranger in an alley" or a "exploitative cackling villain" or whatever.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have data for the first part. You don't have data for the second. We don't know if changing the presentation of rapists in popular culture would be an effective way of reducing the occurrence of rape in the real world, and we certainly don't know how exactly we should portray them for maximum effect.

For example: if rapists in popular culture were portrayed as guys who just didn't realize they were raping, couldn't someone like Anita come along and make the exact same argument in reverse? That popular culture presents an overly sympathetic portrayal of rapists and that this is causing people to rape in the real world? The problem with a lot of these theories is that they're totally unfalsifiable.

 

[Shinta]

I'm going to take that evasion as another "yes." So the point is we know the media we consume has some effect on us; that's largely it's purpose. The point of art is to express or to provoke--and this influences our own thought, our own ideas and beliefs. A lot--not all--art, advertising, even argumentation plays on the way in which we interpret the information we're processing, and can end up having effects that seem irrational or counter-intuitive. Sometimes it's explicit, sometimes it's implicit. And yes, we do see this in research into media, advertising, etc (see eg the appropriately-named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_Irrational). Games are a part of our cultural landscape. As such they both help create and help reflect cultural norms and ideas. If a game can create an experience that has the effect of better reflecting upon those cultural norms or ideas, then it's no logical leap to suggest that games which reinforce long-held ideas can help reinforce those norms.

I don't contest the influence of advertising, or culture on people. But psychology, and the process of converting thought into action is so much more complicated than that in my opinion. We have concrete moral and identity-based foundations that we form in early development based on society, our families, and what we see and hear, and what we learn in school. This helps us consume media and make up our own minds about how we think about this. I'm perfectly fine with age-based restrictions, because I think children would be at risk for the kind of influence you are talking about, and that's perfectly legitimate.

However, I'm not a trained psychologist, and I really do prefer to let professionals hash these things out with a wide range of several studies, and the ability to put those studies in a larger context in the field.

I can instinctively rely on my own life experiences, and all the people I know well in my personal life. I've consumed a lot of games and movies with all kinds of objectionable content. But I've never been in a fight in my life. I like to think I'm a pretty nice person generally, and I don't see the effect you are describing in my personal life, or the people around me.

I think it's possible that there are "at risk" people with a very low level of parental interaction in their chlidhood, or some other disabilities inhibiting their mental health or social interaction that might be at greater risk. You see this in cases like school shooters latching on to things like Doom, or Marilyn Manson, or Call of Duty, and using it as an unhealthy influence in their lives. But the overwhelming amount of normal people in the world that are not at risk for these issues seem to be just fine.

As a kid, my parents enrolled me a Tae Kwon Do class for years with a traditional Korean instructor, and he heavily emphasized the morality of the martial arts code, and how fighting is wrong and how martial arts are only used to help people. I didn't realize until later that good parenting and moral engagement as a child really does set a pretty solid foundation. Throughout that whole time, I was able to view violent media and play violent games like Mortal Kombat without ever losing sight of the fact that these are just games for entertainment.

People have tried to prove the link between violent games and violent behavior directly for decades, in congress, in science, and they can't prove anything approaching a consensus that it is a big risk. I tend to just listen to the professional consensus on this one.

My training is partly in sociology, and I tend to look at a broader view of society. And one stat that always tends to move me is the steadily declining rates of violent crime, moving almost in exact inverse relationship with the steady rise of violent games.

 

[Gestault]

It's actually the definition of "reinforce."

You seem to be falling into a slippery slope fallacy in the way you're applying this. I'd like to think it goes without saying that videogames are a creative work, and that the intent of creative works is to bring about a response in others. Recognizing that people are subject to cultural influences is different from believing that exposing people to an act will necessarily cause them to take that behavior themselves.

Having negative aspects of individuals and society present in media allows people to formulate criticisms of those real-world behaviors. Even in cases where a creator didn't intend to provoke criticism. This is why assuming a causative relationship, and presuming the mere presence of these unsavory elements is inherently dangerous (rather than emblematic of wider cultural attitudes) is itself a misunderstanding of the challenge of representation in videogames.

 

[The Technomancer]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have data for the first part. You don't have data for the second. We don't know if changing the presentation of rapists in popular culture would be an effective way of reducing the occurrence of rape in the real world, and we certainly don't know how exactly we should portray them for maximum effect.

For example: if rapists in popular culture were portrayed as guys who just didn't realize they were raping, couldn't someone like Anita come along and make the exact same argument in reverse? That popular culture presents an overly sympathetic portrayal of rapists and that this is causing people to rape in the real world? The problem with a lot of these theories is that they're totally unfalsifiable.

Perhaps the way to finding how we should portray them for maximum effect is first recognizing that there might be an issue to begin with? By, I don't know, bringing attention to the trend of similar portrayals across a wide spectrum of examples? Just a thought

I'm sympathetic to a data driven perspective. When it comes to anything regarding public policy I'm 100% in the same boat. But I just don't think that you can require that all cultural criticism be founded in scientific analysis to have worth. That seems like an honestly dangerous tack, since if you can suppress the research than you can invalidate the voices of criticism.

 

[atr0cious]

We don't know if changing the presentation of rapists in popular culture would be an effective way of reducing the occurrence of rape in the real world, and we certainly don't know how exactly we should portray them for maximum effect

It worked for the Klu Klux Klan. Show how terrible or ridiculous something is so that the general population can comprehend and get behind your idea, and the social norm changes.

What are you even trying to say here? How does it not affect it?

 

[Lime]

Why are only women subject to historical accuracy?

Since when is Magic White Haired Monster Hunting Sword Man historically accurate?

Because anything goes when it comes to protecting the precious video games and the self-affiliated identity to them.

 

[Shinta]

Because anything goes when it comes to protecting the precious video games and the self-affiliated identity to them.

If anyone said that "anything goes" when protecting film or literature, it would probably be seen as a romantic and noble concept. Artistic integrity does have merit, even if you try to deny that.

Obviously not "anything" goes. But people can stand up for art because they think it matters, and they have throughout history. Hell, I just watched The Monuments Men not too long ago about a small division in WWII dedicated to trying to protect art in the middle of a warzone. A lot of it was religious art too, which has all kinds of unprogressive ideas in it. A lot of it is sculpture of completely nude, objectified, and idealized people. Or what about The Bonfire of the Vanities?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

It worked for the Klu Klux Klan. Show how terrible or ridiculous something is so that the general population can comprehend and get behind your idea, and the social norm changes.

What are you even trying to say here? How does it not affect it?

I've reread this post a few times and I am not sure what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate on your point?

 

[APF]

I also believe there is a danger if all you do is inundate yourself with games that sexualizing women(just like porn addicts, alcoholics, and ect). There is a possibility of it actually making you more ok with sexual objectification or violence or drug use or anything else.

I do think this is a possibility, especially in cases where the player's main exposure to eg the opposite sex is via such experiences. With little counter-exposure, there is no real reason for the player to challenge the depiction they're more used to. This would be basically the opposite of the contact hypothesis (or the negative flip side of it, depending on your perspective).

So I think you could argue, if the majority of the games you play sexually objectify women, and all other media you consume sexually objectifies women, and you are in an environment able to sexually objectify women, you may be more willing to, in real life, sexually objectify women. However it is a far cry of a singular(or even multiple) game or piece of media that can actually do this(I dont think this is specifically what she is saying though).

Exactly, the argument is less about a single game (although a single game or other piece of media can be outrageous and offensive in its own right), but more about the balance of portrayal and how it meshes with contemporary ideas and norms / with progressive ideas about how people should be treated and depicted, etc.

However, I dont think this is an issue with media, specifically, this is an issue of environment and what environment are you in, when you consume knowledge(video games, books, movies, TV, external stimuli and ect).

As I said, games are part of this cultural landscape which can both react against social norms or reinforce those norms.

Recognizing that people are subject to cultural influences is different from believing that exposing people to an act will necessarily cause them to take that behavior themselves.

Of course. Now point to the person who said otherwise.

People have tried to prove the link between violent games and violent behavior directly for decades, in congress, in science, and they can't prove anything approaching a consensus that it is a big risk. I tend to just listen to the professional consensus on this one.

Well actually there have been studies showing a correlation between violent games and aggression--but that does not mean playing a game will turn someone into a killer.

 

[Gestault]

If anyone said that "anything goes" when protecting film, it would probably be seen as a romantic and noble concept. Artistic integrity does have merit, even if you try to deny that.

Obviously not "anything" goes. But people can stand up for art because they think it matters, and they have throughout history.

I think the implied criticism is that if lazy/uninteresting/flawed writing is used in the pursuit of male-centric game construction, the resulting product is a worse game for a narrow audience. If that's the lion's share of what's available, that's a problem for the creative and market concerns for gaming.

Of course. Now point to the person who said otherwise.

I just want to be clear, I was responding to your ideas that you were putting forth. Here, I got the impression that you objected to the premise that media wouldn't necessarily dictate behavior. Here, you re-asserted that someone was off-base for rejecting the idea that media was a direct cause of individual behavior. It's tricky, because I've seen you also recognize that it's a cultural influence (we agree there), but then you go on to again disagree with someone merely saying it's not a causal influence. I've gone out of my way to explain why I think the terms used by some, including yourself, can themselves a problematic approach to criticism.

The original post by Shinta that you were responding to was this one, where they were pointing out the circular logic in the video about people's likelihood to have their behavior directed by media. As stated in the video, people are directed by media, and if they believe they won't be, they're even more likely to be directed by it. This isn't what the paper she was citing actually said. The paper was stating that cultural influences we aren't aware of are the ones most likely to influence us. I think this was a case of Sarkeesian misstating a point that had underlying merit, but you seemed to take issue with that being highlighted.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Science cannot prove a unanimous 1:1 relationship linking consumption of specific media with being the absolute cause of certain behavior. It's like asking scientists to prove that global warming caused a specific storm or a specific drought. That's not how it works and it's not a slight to admit it can't be done. Associations, correlation, probability, etc, sure. The level of proof required should be proportionate to what's possible.

 

[APF]

I just want to be clear, I was responding to your ideas that you were putting forth.

Great! Now quote where I said "exposing people to an act will necessarily cause them to take that behavior themselves."

 

[Shinta]

I think the implied criticism is that if lazy/uninteresting/flawed writing is used in the pursuit of male-centric game construction, the resulting product is a worse game for a narrow audience. If that's the lion's share of what's available, that's a problem for the creative and market concerns for gaming.

I don't think that "the realism excuse" is a valid criticism of historical fantasy, at all. Writing a fictitious story with slavery in it is not endorsing white supremacy. Writing historical fantasy with misogyny in it is the same as Game of Thrones. It doesn't mean it's lazy/uninteresting or flawed. It's a bad argument. It's basically saying that all fiction must be utopian or else the creator is a racist/misogynist. It's just not true. Worse, it heavily limits the kind of dark fiction and exploration of dark themes that often are actually the best stuff out there (in my opinion at least).

If people just argued the "ratio" problem, I'd be agreeing. If you argue there's too much of certain kinds of games and not enough of others, then I'd agree. Honestly, everyone would agree. Everyone criticizes AAA game homogenization every E3, even FPS fans.

But just because there are too many FPS games doesn't mean FPS games are actually bad, lazy, flawed, or uninteresting.

If we skip the part where we try and demonize games that many people love, we can instead move straight to the actual problem, the ratio problem. Tackling that requires no negativity at all. It actually requires the exact opposite. Motivating people to get interested in diverse and interesting games so they buy them. Then the creative and artistic people who make games can try and push more through because they're financially viable. Motivate people to join the game industry by talking about how it can be a great place to work and it's fun to be able to carry your unique vision to the screen, and then people might be motivated to invest their lives in it instead of thinking it's all a cesspool.

I'd love games with more Arab leads. But that's a ratio problem. It doesn't mean games with a white male lead are actually objectively bad just because there's a lot of them. The ratio is bad, not the actual product. Those are two distinct criticisms and they get blurred together completely.

Ironically, even 4chan is fully in support of addressing the ratio problem. They tried to donate to a charity designed to help fund female game designers. Funding female game designers and helping people add more games to the market does not require any demonization of games that other people enjoy. Instead of a battlefield, everyone could be allies.

 

[atr0cious]

I've reread this post a few times and I am not sure what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate on your point?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have data for the first part. You don't have data for the second. We don't know if changing the presentation of rapists in popular culture would be an effective way of reducing the occurrence of rape in the real world, and we certainly don't know how exactly we should portray them for maximum effect.

You're trying to hide behind the fact that we don't have exact charted data over the affects of art on people, and trying to say that's proof enough that things should stay the same.

When the Klu Klux Klan was a big and normal thing back in the day, an "SJW" snuck into the klan and recorded all their secrets. He then fed it to the writers of Superman the radio show. Over 16 episodes, Superman showed America how dumb the KKK was, which ultimately led to them losing all popularity and their members.

Even smoking is now a social no-no, because people took steps to perceive it as bad. First there were no more cartoon ads, then no more ads on tv. Then they took smoking almost completely out of visual media, and now you can't even do it socially unless you want to stand outside. Imagine if we had stayed back at the, "no wait, we don't have proof this will affect how people perceive smoking."

For example: if rapists in popular culture were portrayed as guys who just didn't realize they were raping,

This happens all the time already, but in media, the guy doesn't even get called out for it half the time. Last year a whole town slut shamed a couple of girls for getting raped and ruining future football stars lives.

couldn't someone like Anita come along and make the exact same argument in reverse? That popular culture presents an overly sympathetic portrayal of rapists and that this is causing people to rape in the real world? The problem with a lot of these theories is that they're totally unfalsifiable.

Again this is already happening. If you expand the definition of the word rape outside of the legal definition of penetration, the rates rise for both women and men.

 

[Brakke]

I've reread this post a few times and I am not sure what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate on your point?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CVE1IWC/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ad...io)#.E2.80.9CClan_of_the_Fiery_Cross.E2.80.9D

 

[jordisok]

If we skip the part where we try and demonize games that many people love, we can instead move straight to the actual problem, the ratio problem. Tackling that requires no negativity at all. It actually requires the exact opposite. Motivating people to get interested in diverse and interesting games so they buy them. Then the creative and artistic people who make games can try and push more through because they're financially viable. Motivate people to join the game industry by talking about how it can be a great place to work and it's fun to be able to carry your unique vision to the screen, and then people might be motivated to invest their lives in it instead of thinking it's all a cesspool.

Are these games really being demonized? It looks to me that they're just being critiqued, and even then as part of a broad trend.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You're trying to hide behind the fact that we don't have exact charted data over the affects of art on people, and trying to say that's proof enough that things should stay the same.

When the Klu Klux Klan was a big and normal thing back in the day, an "SJW" snuck into the klan and recorded all their secrets. He then fed it to the writers of Superman the radio show. Over 16 episodes, Superman showed America how dumb the KKK was, which ultimately led to them losing all popularity and their members.

This isn't anything close to the mechanism that we're currently debating. What you describe is media portrayals of a specific, easily-identifiable political group influencing people's opinion of that political group. It would be relevant if, say, media portrayals of the Klan had a noticeable effect on racism, which I doubt anyone has ever even tried to demonstrate.

Even smoking is now a social no-no, because people took steps to perceive it as bad. First there were no more cartoon ads, then no more ads on tv. Then they took smoking almost completely out of visual media, and now you can't even do it socially unless you want to stand outside. Imagine if we had stayed back at the, "no wait, we don't have proof this will affect how people perceive smoking."

Rates of smoking have been dropping throughout the developed world, including in countries that never implemented these sorts of campaigns. This is the problem with media portrayals influence beliefs arguments: it's just as likely that the reverse is true, and that beliefs influence media portrayals. E.g., in a society where more and more people are abandoning smoking it stands to reason that politicians will be more likely to pass laws banning positive depictions of smoking.

In any event, the same argument I made above also applies here: it is unlikely that our brains understand smoking in the same way that they understand racism or sexism.

This happens all the time already, but in media, the guy doesn't even get called out for it half the time. Last year a whole town slut shamed a couple of girls for getting raped and ruining future football stars lives.


Again this is already happening. If you expand the definition of the word rape outside of the legal definition of penetration, the rates rise for both women and men.

I don't think this is really relevant to what my point was.

 

[MikeXXIeaf]

I feel like most games still target a male audience, more so a pro-alpha male audience. If they're the ones buying the majority of these games (unsubstantiated claim, I don't know for sure) then it sort of makes sense to fall in line with depictions they'd enjoy seeing ON A CORPORATE LEVEL. On an art level, (which I don't view most of the games mentioned in the video as) I think creators should be above it.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The ratio problem can be more than an aesthetic problem if disproportionate ratios themselves cause harm. Most of the discussion assumes that diversity in of itself is not valuable or beneficial, and that the status quo is equally good. But that is not always the case and a lack of diversity can in fact be negative.

A report on the economic imperative of managing diversity, that includes more than 70 pages of analysis, concluded simply: "Organizations which excel at leveraging diversity (including the hiring and advancement of women and nonwhite men into senior management jobs, and providing a climate conducive to contributions from people of diverse backgrounds) will experience better financial performance in the long run than organizations which are not effective in managing diversity."

One of the many statistics used to bolster this finding was a study, by Covenant Investment Management, which rated the performance of the Standard and Poors 500 on a series of factors relating to the hiring and advancement of women and nonwhites.

The study found, the annualized return for the 100 companies which rated lowest in equal employment opportunities issues, average 7.9 percent, compared to 18.3 percent for the 100 companies that rated highest in their equal employment opportunities. "Thus, the stock market performance of the firms that were high performers on the glass ceiling-related goals was 2.5 times higher than that of the firms that invested little in glass ceiling-related issues."

Wading Through the Stereotypes: Positive and Negative Associations Between Media Use and Black Adolescents’ Conceptions of Self

The findings indicated significant associations between students’ level of identification with popular TV characters and their self-esteem, with the nature of these connections varying by the race of the portrayal. Strong identification with popular Black male characters such as Darrell on The Hughleys predicted higher performance self-esteem, appearance self-esteem, and total self-esteem. Strong identification with popular White characters such as Chandler on Friends predicted lower total self-esteem and approached significance as such a predictor for each subdimension of self-esteem. This contrast is striking, demonstrating the role of frame of reference. These findings are also consistent with those reported by McDermott and Greenberg (1984) concerning the benefits of the use of Black-oriented media, and with the premises of Crocker and Major (1989) concerning the protective aspects of stigma. As noted earlier, Crocker and Major argued that one protective strategy used by members of stigmatized groups is the making of mostly in-group comparisons. Accordingly, my data suggest that Black students who connect with and compare them-selves more strongly to fictional Black characters appear to be using this strategy and also report higher self-esteem, either as a precursor or a result. Those who connect more strongly with White characters, and who appear not to be using this protective strategy, seem to be placing their own self-esteem at risk.

The data also indicated that media use was not associated with all Black students feeling that they are incompetent or unintelligent. Instead, the nature and strength of these associations depended heavily on the foundation of the individual and on the specific content of her or his media diet. It is hoped that the findings obtained here will provide ample fuel for further research in this area and for further study of factors that put some Black youths at risk.

Racial and Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Children’s Television Use and Self-Esteem: A Longitudinal Panel Study

A longitudinal panel survey of 396 White and Black preadolescent boys and girls was conducted to assess the long-term effects of television consumption on global self-esteem. The results revealed television exposure, after controlling for age, body satisfaction, and baseline self-esteem, was significantly related to children’s self-esteem. Specifically, television exposure predicted a decrease in self-esteem for White and Black girls and Black boys, and an increase in self-esteem among White boys. The findings are discussed in terms of cultivation theory and social identity theory

Racial Priming Revived

This comment addresses the growing controversy over the effects of implicit racial messages in politics. Many scholars find evidence that these implicit messages work and that they have racializing effects. However, the biggest study to date finds that racial messages—implicit or explicit—have no effects. In this paper I conduct a thorough review of several relevant literatures in order to adjudicate between these competing claims. I find that the large study’s null findings conflict with 17 public opinion experiments involving over 5,000 subjects, 2 aggregate studies, and a large social psychology literature. Using different methods, samples, and settings, these studies show that racial cues do in fact racialize opinion. I explain the large study’s null results by noting that its participants perceived only small differences across messages, that racial predispositions were measured just before exposure to the ad, thereby neutralizing the effect of the ad’s racial cue, and that WebTV studies such as this one have failed to provide many subjects with their assigned ad. Thus, the weight of the evidence heavily favors the racial effect of racial cues and messages. I offer several directions for future research on racial communication and politics

M. BARTELS Princeton University Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure

Analyses of the persuasive effects of media exposure outside the laboratory have generally produced negative results. I attribute such nonfindings in part to carelessness regarding the inferential consequences of measurement error and in part to limitations of research design. In an analysis of opinion change during the 1980 presidential campaign, adjusting for measurement error produces several strong media exposure effects, especially for network television news. Adjusting for measurement error also makes preexisting opinions look much more stable, suggesting that the new information absorbed via media exposure must be about three times as distinctive as generally has been supposed in order to account for observed patterns of opinion change.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The ratio problem can be more than an aesthetic problem if disproportionate ratios themselves cause harm. Most of the discussion assumes that diversity in of itself is not valuable or beneficial, and that the status quo is equally good. But that is not always the case and a lack of diversity can in fact be negative.

Who exactly in this thread doesn't believe that diversity is in itself valuable or beneficial?

 

[Shinta]

The ratio problem can be more than an aesthetic problem if disproportionate ratios themselves cause harm. Most of the discussion assumes that diversity in of itself is not valuable or beneficial, and that the status quo is equally good. But that is not always the case and a lack of diversity can in fact be negative.

I can agree with that. But it's still a criticism of the actual ratio. It does say that trying to get a better ratio is a good thing, with benefits. I can agree with that.

But that still doesn't really justify excessively focusing on content criticism and what I feel is demonization in many cases. There's a place for critique, always. But these two things are completely blurred together now and it hurts both.

My suggestions:

1) Encourage progress on the ratio through positivity. (Examples, charities to promote female developers or minority racial developers, articles discussing why games coming out with unique content are interesting. Women buy animal crossing because it looks fun, not because they hate Dead or Alive).
2) Respect artistic integrity
3) Stop demonization as it creates a divide and hinders everything. Everyone is in favor of addressing the ratio problem. Everyone, even 4chan.

 

[MikeXXIeaf]

Who exactly in this thread doesn't believe that diversity is in itself valuable or beneficial?

In what sense? Not every piece of work calls for it.

As a creator I don't want to be told or pressured to represent any group of people that I don't feel like representing, period.

 

[ab.aeterno]

She doesn't present both sides of the same coin and that is bothering me because i like gaming as much as anybody here.

What both sides? Her stated and only purpose with this series is to prove the existence of something, in this case, a pattern of use of sexist tropes in the medium. Expecting her to show that it doesn't exist in other games is ludicrously oblivious. Not only because that's self evident, and not only because she makes it clear that she is not condemning these games or the people who play them, but because that's not the point of what she's doing.

It would be like expecting a scientist arguing about climate change to also cover "the other side." It's natural that one touches on other views, if only to address they exist or to prove them wrong, but expecting it to be argued? That doesn't make sense.

She's creating a thesis and arguing it with examples and analysis. You don't argue against your point, particularly when it's to prove the existence of something, because it only undermines your argument.

It's funny how this sentiment can vary from 'emphatically true' to 'absolutely ridiculous' depending on what 'products' or 'media' are being discussed.

I think you're unfairly conflating two separate but seemingly similar ideas. One assertion, the one you're likely alluding to that most people reject, is that there is a causal link between media and someone's actions; that is, the violent media directly causes changes in behavior, making someone do something. The other, that is being argued here, is that media unconsciously affects or shapes our perception of the world. The key difference here is about causality. I'm not seeing it argued that playing a game with some misogynist content is going to turn you into a misogynist, certainly not the way people proposed playing violent games made you violent. What is being argued is that seeing a totality of media that have common elements of sexist ideas or views can reinforce some of those views.

I mean, otherwise you're seemingly arguing that media does not have an impact on how you view or perceive the world.

Edit:

Who exactly in this thread doesn't believe that diversity is in itself valuable or beneficial?

This thread? I'd have to look. In other threads where diversity and representation come up? A number of people.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

In what sense? Not every piece of work calls for it.

As a creator I don't want to be told or pressured to represent any group of people that I don't feel like representing, period.

Of course. I meant in the context of "ratios," not in the context of individual works.

 

[APF]

I posted this in one of these threads earlier, but recall that Thompson's key argument was that violent games were literally murder simulators that were actively training kids in the use of weapons and indiscriminate violence, not simply (solely) that playing violent games could normalize cultural ideas of violence.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I posted this in one of these threads earlier, but recall that Thompson's key argument was that violent games were literally murder simulators that were actively training kids in the use of weapons and indiscriminate violence, not simply (solely) that playing violent games could normalize cultural ideas of violence.

A bad argument is not made better by the fact that the person making it also makes worse arguments.

 

[Gestault]

If the accusation is that game media contributes to real-world mistreatment of women as an actively negative influence, we need to think about the parallel example we have with violence in gaming. Violence (in both narrative and mechanical terms) has permeated videogames throughout its growth to mainstream status. The odd correlation is that the rates of violent crime (at least in the US) has dropped sharply over that same period.

Some of the assumptions about games guiding behavior would necessitate evidence that rates of identifiable acts like sexual assault or harassment have increased in response to its prevalence in game media. The point being that for an accusation of causation, there would need to be evidence of at least a correlative increase in the behavior in question. If you look at the FBI's data for violent crimes (in this case, for forcible rape), we see the reported cases from 2012 to be a 7% drop from 2008, and a 10% drop from 2003. This covers both male and female victims. It's just one aspect of how people (women) are treated in society, but at the very least, we can say that the data is showing that the more extreme end of the previous status quo is changing for the better, even in light of the elements Sarkeesian highlights in her work. This said, just because a culture isn't in a state of decay in terms of how it treats women doesn't mean their representation in a medium is necessarily helping that effort. The last thing I'd want to suggest in this is that work like Sarkeesian's isn't important.

What I am trying to say is that we need to use the data we have to challenge assumptions about the topic we rest on from anecdotal situations. The growth in NIBRS reporting in law enforcement allows complete victim/perpetrator profile reporting to go along with crime statistics compiled by the FBI. To pick up a point I raised earlier:

Having negative aspects of individuals and society present in media allows people to formulate criticisms of those real-world behaviors. Even in cases where a creator didn't intend to provoke criticism. This is why assuming a causative relationship, and presuming the mere presence of these unsavory elements is inherently dangerous (rather than emblematic of wider cultural attitudes) is itself a misunderstanding of the challenge of representation in videogames.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I can agree with that. But it's still a criticism of the actual ratio. It does say that trying to get a better ratio is a good thing, with benefits. I can agree with that.

But that still doesn't really justify excessively focusing on content criticism and what I feel is demonization in many cases. There's a place for critique, always. But these two things are completely blurred together now and it hurts both.

My suggestions:

1) Encourage progress on the ratio through positivity. (Examples, charities to promote female developers or minority racial developers, articles discussing why games coming out with unique content are interesting. Women buy animal crossing because it looks fun, not because they hate Dead or Alive).
2) Respect artistic integrity
3) Stop demonization as it creates a divide and hinders everything. Everyone is in favor of addressing the ratio problem. Everyone, even 4chan.

My concern is that we're leveling a different level of responsibility and duty onto commentators and developers. We can say that it's not any individual developer's responsibility or duty to even out the ratio, but the same should then apply to Anita and others in the media; that it's not her individual responsibility to make sure the field of commentary includes both critique and positive highlighting. And I would be very reluctant to categorize development decisions as primarily artistic and not capitalistic. Developers are not creating a disproportionate number of character leads because of some exclusive artistic merit surrounding white males. I'd argue that economic motivations are much more likely to be driving development decisions than any other factor.

I'd also disagree and say that many do not support addressing the ratio problem, or if you prefer, depending on how you frame or describe it, their opposition or allowance for solutions may itself bar practical solutions to resolving it. I'd also take issue with your use of demonization but that's been talked about already.

I'd also hesitate to ascribe any particular motivation to 4chan as a whole. Do some there want more equal representation, sure. But others have contributed purely out of a sense of creating cover or annoying those who have a negative opinion of them.

 

[zeldablue]

Personally, I don't believe that, and I don't think science proves that with anything approaching a broad consensus.

But more importantly, that would be confirming that she is indirectly stating that fans of the things she is criticizing are not normal, good people. You can use "misogynist" as short-hand if you want, but she is implying something, and you're agreeing with it. That was my point.

...Our entire society has gender bias. If you have gender bias then that makes you the most normal person in our society. Gender bias is very problematic for girls and women, and it is something that feminists try to point out when they see it. That's why they critique this stuff, because nobody points it out without them looking at things critically.

The movie Jaws was a smash hit. It definitely changed people's perception. Sharks are now terribly demonized and endangered in real life because of that movie. It did an awful job showing sharks in a positive light. It played with our natural fears and instincts and used it against. Now we fear sharks and think they are all evil.

I'm afraid of elevators and airplanes because I saw Final Destination when I was young.

A lot of people hated Jews because they read and saw bad things about them and believed those words and pictures to be 100% true.

Stereotypes are based off of truthful information most of the time. Sharks kill, Jews and different, women are smaller etc. However, they can give the masses misinformation or bad representations of different groups. That bad representation is actually adopted as true, and harms disadvantaged groups that can hardly speak or represent themselves.

This is not brain science. This is obvious stuff. We also have natural familial bias, political bias, religious bais, age bias, racial bias, class bias, occupational bias, region bias etc. That all comes from very natural instinctual crap past down to us from the days of tribalism. People study this in human psychology, in advertising and media studies. It's veeeery common knowledge.

Just because you think this makes you "bad" doesn't mean it is. It's just a criticism of heavy misrepresentation of the gender with the extra chromosome. You can continue to be blind or you can try being self-reflective and try to study how natural biases affect society in subconscious ways. You're not under attack. And you're not being censored. You're being asked to think critically of something you very naturally don't want to think about.

 

[Brakke]

Violence (in both narrative and mechanical terms) has permeated videogames throughout its growth to mainstream status. The odd correlation is that the rates of violent crime (at least in the US) has dropped sharply over that same period.

I don't know if this is the most useful instrument. First, there could be a zillion baffling variables. Media effects could be dominated by other, more powerful risk factors. Second, the claim doesn't have to be "causes acts of violence" to be important. If we claim "pervasive violence in media contributes to people being more permissive of certain kinds of violence--see militarized police forces, rise in SWAT activity, etc", then that's still something that matters.

Likewise misogyny. It's super bad if media makes people more likely to commit rape, but it's still pretty damn bad if games--by normalizing misogyny--make people less likely to report or discourage rape. Plus, there's much softer misogyny than rape. If media encourage people to think of women as more helpless / less capable, that could manifest in higher practices, wage determinations, patronizing attitudes, etc, which have real effects on people even if they don't warrant response from the criminal justice system.

 

[Shinta]

but the same should then apply to Anita and others in the media; that it's not her individual responsibility to make sure the field of commentary includes both critique and positive highlighting.

I don't think Anita has to change anything in her videos, and she can do whatever she wants. But I think it's problematic that the media at large is highlighting only that side of the debate, shutting out any critical analysis of her videos to their much larger audience, and lumping anyone presenting a different counter-opinion in with harassing trolls. Anita is an individual content creator, and can do whatever she wants. But I do think the press actually does have a responsibility to steward a positive and helpful and fair and balanced discourse.

And I would be very reluctant to categorize development decisions as primarily artistic and not capitalistic. Developers are not creating a disproportionate number of character leads because of some exclusive artistic merit surrounding white males. I'd argue that economic motivations are much more likely to be driving development decisions than any other factor.

Economics are a huge part of it and have to be discussed. That's why I mentioned charity in my first point, because economics matter. For example, if games of a certain type really do sell better, than we really can't expect for profit companies to shift overnight for a vocal minority. That's why we should first identify the ratio problem as being what is actually important, because it needs work to change. That means trying to help create an audience for unique games, because they have to sell or they won't get made. I'm a huge fan of JRPGs, but at no point do corporations owe me JRPGs for any reason, equality or otherwise. It's on us to try and help create a VIABLE audience that will pay for content in large numbers. You do this through positive action, not by alienating and insulting everyone. You would ideally want the gamers to also purchase those games AS WELL.

Animal Crossing sold more than 50% to women on 3DS because people were sharing fun and positive stories about how it was a great game all over twitter and were effectively promoting it. But at no point does that have to make Animal Crossing a stance against gamers, since many gamers love the series and that only helps add more support. Just one example. Or someone can create a game that is specifically for a niche, primarily female audience like Hakkuoki, and the better course of action would be to actually help promote that game instead of focusing only on the negative.

I'd also disagree and say that many do not support addressing the ratio problem, or if you prefer, depending on how you frame or describe it, their opposition or allowance for solutions may itself bar practical solutions to resolving it. I'd also take issue with your use of demonization but that's been talked about already.

It's been so thoroughly politicized now that it would take a little healing before we get there. But no, I think everyone supports it. If the problem is presented as, man all the games at E3 looked identical. That is something everyone would probably agree with, and it is the ratio problem. The problem is that it's frame in a way that excludes and attacks people.

I'd also hesitate to ascribe any particular motivation to 4chan as a whole. Do some there want more equal representation, sure. But others have contributed purely out of a sense of creating cover or annoying those who have a negative opinion of them.

I honestly think they're trying to send the message that female developers can create as many games as they want, and they'll likely even buy many of them. Just don't attack things they like. I pretty much think that's the route that film and literature go, and the route I think games have to go down as well. You don't get more Silver Linings Playbook by calling people who like Baywatch deviants. You get it by making Silver Linings Playbook.

 

[Gestault]

I don't know if this is the most useful instrument. First, there could be a zillion baffling variables. Media effects could be dominated by other, more powerful risk factors. Second, the claim doesn't have to be "causes acts of violence" to be important. If we claim "pervasive violence in media contributes to people being more permissive of certain kinds of violence--see militarized police forces, rise in SWAT activity, etc", then that's still something that matters.

Likewise misogyny. It's super bad if media makes people more likely to commit rape, but it's still pretty damn bad if games--by normalizing misogyny--make people less likely to report or discourage rape. Plus, there's much softer misogyny than rape. If media encourage people to think of women as more helpless / less capable, that could manifest in higher practices, wage determinations, patronizing attitudes, etc, which have real effects on people even if they don't warrant response from the criminal justice system.

If you read, I acknowledged those concerns in my post. My point was about using data where we have it to focus discussion, and that a social problem being prevalent in a medium can itself contribute to changing it, whether or not the creators intended it.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

If the accusation is that game media contributes to real-world mistreatment of women as an actively negative influence, we need to think about the parallel example we have with violence in gaming. Violence (in both narrative and mechanical terms) has permeated videogames throughout its growth to mainstream status. The odd correlation is that the rates of violent crime (at least in the US) has dropped sharply over that same period.

Okay, first you're conflating mistreatment of women with criminally prohibited behavior of violent nature. The spectrum of human behavior and treatment of others extends far beyond the criminal justice system. Second, you're conflating contributors with causes. That media may have an effect on behavior does not mean it is the only effect or even the predominate effect, or even that its effect will cause widespread societal change. Third you're assuming that violent crime has not dropped for other more easily discernible reasons, absence of lead in environment, improving economy, etc. Fourth, you're assuming that a decrease in violent crime as a whole negates possible smaller increases. Media could be increasing violent crime, it's just that the rate of increase is much smaller than the rate of decrease due to other factors (like the ones mentioned earlier).

Some of the assumptions about games guiding behavior would necessitate evidence that rates of identifiable acts like sexual assault or harassment have increased in response to its prevalence in game media. The point being that for an accusation of causation, there would need to be evidence of at least a correlative increase in the behavior in question. If you look at the FBI's data for violent crimes (in this case, for forcible rape), we see the reported cases from 2012 to be a 7% drop from 2008, and a 10% drop from 2003. This covers both male and female victims.

Just rapid fire here. Sexual crime is significantly under-reported, the FBI criminal statistics do not reflect the actual incidence merely those that are pursued by law enforcement, the statistics themselves are criticized by many statisticians (both in terms of definitions, data gathering, implicit bias, etc), the term 'forcible rape' was used until 2013 and is quite controversial in of itself, you've shifted from discussing how media can negatively influence behavior at large to demanding that a causal relationship between rape and media content be shown for proof, even if there was a corresponding increase of the kind you want correlation is not causation and this is a poor way to adjudicate claims, a more salient statistic might be the incidence of sexual harassment at work or public, self esteem, body image, etc, rather than violent crime stats, and so on and so forth.

If you read, I acknowledged those concerns in my post. My point was about using data where we have it to focus discussion, and that a social problem being prevalent in a medium can itself contribute to changing it, whether or not the creators intended it.

The whole point is the data you focus in on is irrelevant and useless. It can't be used in any meaningful way to sort through this discussion one way or the other. That negative things in a medium can be beneficial is true, but it doesn't really inform us whether the total presence of negative things is doing more help than harm.

 

[Gestault]

The whole point is the data you focus in on is irrelevant and useless. It can't be used in any meaningful way to sort through this discussion one way or the other. That negative things in a medium can be beneficial is true, but it doesn't really inform us whether the total presence of negative things is doing more help than harm.

The bulk of your response is overlooking things I explicitly said (or declaring that I said what I didn't) in my post. The part I've actually quoted here, we'll have to strongly disagree on. Statistics on the frequency of things connected to social commentary are utterly necessary.

If you believe it's important to convince others of the nature of a social ill, I'd say being able to substantiate it to them is an important first step. If you're denying the role of crime statistics in that effort (assuming the acts are illegal), then as I said, we must disagree.

Edit: And for clarity, I'm coming at this from the point of view of wanting to have reference points to convey these ideas to others, and to do everything in my power to react to the underlying issue, and not a symptom or inaccurate assumption. The behavior modelling Sarkeesian is highlighting (especially in the Background Decoration videos) is about the physical mistreatment of women. She's talking about how it makes it more culturally acceptable to take harmful actions against women, because it's presumed that men have that right. I tried to make the point that my examples from crime data weren't meant to be a counterpoint to her criticism, but a reference point for the broader question of how women are treated. Obviously many forms of mistreatment aren't necessarily illegal, which is frightening in itself when you have a targeted mindset through something like misogyny. That said, the concerns about harassment, sexual assault, sexism in hiring practices and other concerns in feminism are a matter of law, and are recorded through some of the agencies I noted.

My insistence on pointing out that people's reactions to media are divergent from the intent of the creators is specifically so that the effect of criticism doesn't trend into hiding a problem rather than recognizing it better.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I don't think Anita has to change anything in her videos, and she can do whatever she wants. But I think it's problematic that the media at large is highlighting only that side of the debate, shutting out any critical analysis of her videos to their much larger audience, and lumping anyone presenting a different counter-opinion in with harassing trolls. Anita is an individual content creator, and can do whatever she wants. But I do think the press actually does have a responsibility to steward a positive and helpful and fair and balanced discourse.

A fair critical analysis of her videos would have been over and done with long ago. Let me drag up a post I made back when her videos were first starting. The level of response is completely and utterly disproportionate relative to what is actually being discussed and going on.

"For a bit of perspective, the last thread about the first episode was 76 pages long (100ppp) meaning it had over 7500+ posts. Compare this to the old N'Gai Resident Evil 5 thread which only went for 14 pages, or the #1reasonwhy thread from 2012 which went for 11 pages. Or if you wanted to look at 2013 specifically, how about the Kotaku article concerning black representation in gaming which went for 7 pages, the Dragon's Crown thread which went for 14 pages, or the RPS article about sexism in the game industry clocking in at 20 pages.

Am I seriously expected to believe that there's anything remotely honest about the extreme level of attention GAF is shoveling upon this series when the original PSN hack thread only went for 68 pages? Really GAF? This is a PSN hack level catastrophe? Give me a freaking break, apparently her videos rate somewhere between the Xbox One Reveal (58 pages) and the PlayStation 4 Reveal (96 pages) in terms of importance to the GAF community. I'd love to hear someone try to rationalize the inordinate amount of attention GAF gives these videos in particular and not the other articles or videos about sexism or racism in the industry that commonly pop up. Hopefully this thread will fare better than its predecessor though."

For some reason this makes the gaming community go insane. I don't know how else you can look at those thread length stats and not think that something bigger is going on then mere discussion or critique. It's a raw nerve if I ever saw one.

Animal Crossing sold more than 50% to women on 3DS because people were sharing fun and positive stories about how it was a great game all over twitter and were effectively promoting it. But at no point does that have to make Animal Crossing a stance against gamers, since many gamers love the series and that only helps add more support. Just one example. Or someone can create a game that is specifically for a niche, primarily female audience like Hakkuoki, and the better course of action would be to actually help promote that game instead of focusing only on the negative.

Animal Crossing has always had a more balanced gender share of consumers relative to other games. It has everything to do with the content in it and nothing to do with twitter or social promotion. I think this line of argument intentionally ignores what actually draws women to certain games over others in order to try to prop up the 'why can't we all be positive' mantra. Women don't play the Sims because there's no bad press about it, I really think you're looking at this backwards, the operative question is why don't women play other games that are dominated by male consumers?

It's been so thoroughly politicized now that it would take a little healing before we get there. But no, I think everyone supports it. If the problem is presented as, man all the games at E3 looked identical. That is something everyone would probably agree with, and it is the ratio problem. The problem is that it's frame in a way that excludes and attacks people.

I think it says a lot about you if you think the discussion over equal representation in gaming has been unhealthily politicized any more than discussion over disproportionate representation in politics, entertainment (writers, producers, directors, actors), business, etc. It's such a basic square one issue that I have trouble understanding how its seen to be controversial or radical in any light regardless of how its presented. It's like saying the idea that the minimum wage should be increased with inflation is a Marxist doctrine. We're treating simple things so extreme that we're losing any sense of perspective.

And you're minimizing the importance of the specific issue of representation by trying to make it a broader issue of "all look the same". There's a reason people are talking about this and not that, because the issue of representation alone is important. Regardless of whether all games continue to have the same art style, genre, or gameplay, people consider it important that gender issues be addressed. The problem with the way you frame it is you diminish the distinction between the kinds of differences. All games playing the same is not the same kind of problem as all games having a white male lead.

The reason people get annoyed with this type of thing is that people interpret it as saying I agree with the goal you seek in theory, just not your methods of action; if you want my support you have to do it the way I say. But our conceptions of what the goal/purpose is and the ways to achieve it are miles apart. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. We are not creating conflict or tension, we are merely bringing to the surface the hidden tension that is already there. We bring it out in the open, where it cannot hide but must be seen and dealt with. That's why Anita's threads go for thousands of posts and dozens of pages every time. This is a much larger and deeper problem in the gaming community than just how we discuss things.

I honestly think they're trying to send the message that female developers can create as many games as they want, and they'll likely even buy many of them. Just don't attack things they like. I pretty much think that's the route that film and literature go, and the route I think games have to go down as well. You don't get more Silver Linings Playbook by calling people who like Baywatch deviants. You get it by making Silver Linings Playbook.

This is an overly simplistic evaluation of how society and business works. Intrinsic and extrinsic bias is rampant throughout society. Consider Justice Ginsburg's oft quoted anecdote about how symphony orchestras hired a very small number of women because the consensus was that they did not perform as well as the men. But rather than saying we shouldn't criticize and women should just get better or make their own symphony orchestra, the method of evaluation was attacked. So the companies shifted to doing blind auditions where the performer was behind a a screen and the evaluators could not tell who they were or what they looked like. And lo and behold suddenly the orchestra companies actually started hiring even more women then men.

There's a reason the following statistics happen and it's not because of value-neutral explanations.

Women make up 17% of congress. The 2010 mid-term election is the first time women have not made gains in congress since 1979.

67 countries in the world have had female presidents or prime ministers. The United States is not one of them. Cuba, China, Iraq and Afghanistan have more women in government than the US does.

Only 16% of protagonists in film are female. Only 7% of film directors and 10% of writers are female.

Between 1937 and 2005 there were only 13 female protagonists in animated movies. The female characters in G rated movies are just as likely to wear revealing clothing as in R rated movies.

More than 70% of women on TV are in their 20s and 30s.

Women and girls are the subject of less than 25% of news stories.

 

[APF]

A bad argument is not made better by the fact that the person making it also makes worse arguments.

I'm not even sure why you posted this, it just makes you come across as reactionary. The point is that they're making two different types of arguments.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I consider myself a fairly competent poster, so I'll just say the fact that myself, APF, and brakke continually misunderstand what you're trying to say may be in part due to lack of clarity in the way you are presenting yourself. I honestly don't know why you would consider the crime stats as centrally important to a discussion about the possible contributory effects of gaming media consumption. The signal to noise ratio is way, way, too high for trying to connect these two things. At the very least you would want to to restrict your crime stats to gamers alone, not the entire population of the United States, of which gamers are a small subset. The objections we were making were non-trivial, and I didn't see a substantive discussion of why they didn't matter in your posts.

As for the hiding thing, I don't think gaming, gamers, or even society is in any danger of forgetting about gender issues. Not that I think gaming has even reached a place where mainstream games are a reasonable venue for that kind of social commentary either. Gaming is still largely in its adolescence in terms of critical worth of that nature.

 

[Gestault]

A bad argument is not made better by the fact that the person making it also makes worse arguments.

Thompson was literally pushing to have violent videogames regulated or censored at the government level because of their effect of society. Sarkeesian is making commentary about systemic gender issues in games.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'm not even sure why you posted this, it just makes you come across as reactionary.

Stop being obnoxious.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Thompson was literally pushing to have violent videogames regulated or censored at the government level because of their effect of society. Sarkeesian is making commentary about systemic gender issues in games.

Sure. It's not unreasonable to point out when they make similar arguments, however. The problem with Thompson wasn't that he wanted to ban games, the problem with Thompson was that his arguments were totally unsupported.

 

[Brakke]

[...a big ole post...]

There's a reason the following statistics happen and it's not because of value-neutral explanations.

Women make up 17% of congress. The 2010 mid-term election is the first time women have not made gains in congress since 1979.

67 countries in the world have had female presidents or prime ministers. The United States is not one of them. Cuba, China, Iraq and Afghanistan have more women in government than the US does.

Only 16% of protagonists in film are female. Only 7% of film directors and 10% of writers are female.

Between 1937 and 2005 there were only 13 female protagonists in animated movies. The female characters in G rated movies are just as likely to wear revealing clothing as in R rated movies.

More than 70% of women on TV are in their 20s and 30s.

Women and girls are the subject of less than 20% of news stories.

That's quite a large post. A lot to digest there, but I'm on board. I think this is particularly spot-on:

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. We are not creating conflict or tension, we are merely bringing to the surface the hidden tension that is already there. We bring it out in the open, where it cannot hide but must be seen and dealt with. That's why Anita's threads go for thousands of posts and dozens of pages every time. This is a much larger and deeper problem in the gaming community than just how we discuss things.

This attitude comes up so, so many times in threads about whatever most recent progressive Kotaku/Polygon/whoever article: that "these feminists are forcing their agenda on games where it doesn't belong" and it is the most frustrating. I suppose that's a privilege sort of thing: lots of people don't even notice the agenda that's already there in the source text because it isn't oriented against them.

As to some of those stats, especially the film representation one, I come back to this article a lot. It's fascinating, plus it's appropriately equivocated / not "polemic" AND it "offers solutions not just complaints", so it shouldn't rankle knuckleheads (though it probably does, that being the nature of knuckleheads): http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/02/games-noir-and-the-17.html

I'm curious where you got the news stories one? Do you have a citation on that?

 

[APF]

Stop being obnoxious.

Either stop addressing my posts or do so with something other than pithy nonsense that totally misses what I'm trying to say. The above is yet another reply that does not actually advance the thread of conversation, which itself is far more obnoxious than me saying how your posts come across while reclarifying my position for you, since you appear to have misinterpreted it. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'm curious where you got the news stories one? Do you have a citation on that?

The Global Media Monitoring Project: "Who makes the news?"

It's actually 24% though so I'll correct that.

 

[Gestault]

Sure. It's not unreasonable to point out when they make similar arguments, however. The problem with Thompson wasn't that he wanted to ban games, the problem with Thompson was that his arguments were totally unsupported.

Some of us would say that attempts to legally restrict or censor media was also a problem?
They're superficially similar insofar as both figures have concerns about media influences on society. The extent, merits of the specific criticisms and the end-goals are so different that I don't see value in the point you're bringing up. I don't think it's a convincing way to dismiss Sarkeesian's premise.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The issue with games is the overwhelming asymmetry between the representations of women in comparison to men. There is a high ratio of female characters who are weak or used as props, victims, prizes, and sex objects in comparison to males who are used similarly and even strong/well written females. It's a disparity.

Not to mention, the so-called "strong women" you see in games are often sexualized in ridiculous ways, with absurd skimpy outfits, just to serve as eye candy.

By historically accurate i didn't mean specific historical events, just the accuracy of the setting. During that time there was no equality, women were being hunted and abused for false accusations. Representing that in a game set during the medieval period isn't inaccurate. I think balance is the key word. The Witcher includes a fair share of strong females which most of the time end up saving the main character from certain death.

And then he sleeps with them and collects cards as trophies. Yeah, The Witcher is so damn progressive when it comes to gender... *eye roll*

In every single one of these threads, you have people trying to "explain" that the over sexual objectification/ non-playability of women is due to games being realistic/non-realistic. Its a sad meme at this point.

Yep.
"Why do you worry about that warrior chick's bikini armour? It's just fantasy, it's not realistic!"
"Well of course there are helpless hookers and brothels, it's part of the setting, it wouldn't be realistic if women were not oppressed!"

Le sigh.

Sure. It's not unreasonable to point out when they make similar arguments, however. The problem with Thompson wasn't that he wanted to ban games, the problem with Thompson was that his arguments were totally unsupported.

Uh, of course the problem with Thompson was that he wanted to ban games. His argument that games are murder simulators training people to kill was also unsupported, obviously, but he probably wouldn't have received such an immense backlash if he had just wanted to, say, put age ratings on the games. Which did receive criticism and protests back when the ESRB was established, but nowhere near the same kind of protests if, say, Joe Lieberman or whoever had been trying to ban games outright.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Uh, of course the problem with Thompson was that he wanted to ban games. His argument that games are murder simulators training people to kill was also unsupported, obviously, but he probably wouldn't have received such an immense backlash if he had just wanted to, say, put age ratings on the games. Which did receive criticism and protests back when the ESRB was established, but nowhere near the same kind of protests if, say, Joe Lieberman had been trying to ban games outright.

If his argument that games are murder simulators training people to kill had been supported it would have been reasonable to want to ban them.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Except for that 1st Amendment thing...? Anyway, that's a goalpost shifting right there.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Except for that 1st Amendment thing...? Anyway, that's a goalpost shifting right there.

No it isn't. The problem with Thompson was that his arguments were unsupported, not that he wanted to ban games, because if his arguments had been supported it would have been reasonable to want to ban games.

 

[zeldablue]

No it isn't. The problem with Thompson was that his arguments were unsupported, not that he wanted to ban games, because if his arguments had been supported it would have been reasonable to want to ban games.

You could probably prove that breathing causes violence.

Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be shunned. It should just be studied and understood more in order to prevent it from causing further harm.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

No it isn't. The problem with Thompson was that his arguments were unsupported, not that he wanted to ban games, because if his arguments had been supported it would have been reasonable to want to ban games.

I take it you are in favour of banning guns, too, since there's a clear link between gun violence and the proliferation of guns in the USA? And even if you actually are in favour, good luck trying to convince the rest of your country of that, haha.