Support NeoGAF

[zeldablue]

The problem isn't gaming being free/full of social agendas, its the fact that for the last year or two, the *only* social agenda being pushed is women in gaming. Where's the articles about racial and ethnic discrimination in games and the games industry? That's a problem that affects *all sexes* yet, it has received little to no coverage.

That's beyond ridiculous and I have a big problem with it. I have no issue with women in games being brought up, but I do take issue when its brought up over and over by every publication in an orchestrated manner all the while ignoring the other issues we face in the industry. It shows someone has an agenda they are trying to push. I don't like organizations using mine, or other's social plights, to further whatever their ulterior motive may be.

The conversation should be *diversity in games* not *women in games*

Yeah. I understand. But I'm a minority too. I can see when something is racist. And a lot of people of all backgrounds can see when something is racist because we learn about it when we're young. If we see blackface, we know whats up. However, a lot of us don't even know what sexism is. It's everywhere, and we never bat an eye to it, nor do we feel guilt when we see it. When something is racist...people know they are in the wrong and they feel terrible and are often shamed. When something is sexist, everyone goes "so what?"

That's a bit of an issue. I've worked in with game design teams for years, and my race has never been an issue. People never look at me and treat me different by saying "Hello black person! Your black! Did you notice you're different and have darker skin? Just pointing it out!" (Pointing at someone for being different isn't that racist...but it certainly makes me uncomfortable) My gender however, has...been an issue. People do treat me very differently because I'm a girl, and they're blind to how that affects others in the workplace and in the sub-culture.

It's something that could use a look or two...I'd say.

 

[SpacedCadette]

...I think it's fair, and really funny, to use it against "gamers" as a way of saying they are extremely sexist and boy's club-y. Because it's true. It's really really true. In order for me to feel accepted I have to pretend I'm a boy...basically.

I really like your last sentence here in your post and I think it really hits the nail on the head for my opinions on the label as well. Especially since I'm also a girl. It always feels weird having to state my gender on a forum like this as it kind of feels like I'm outing myself in a weird way even though I've made it clear before on NG what my gender is, but I feel it's important to state as my experience playing fighting games as a girl is what put me off ever idenitifying as a "gamer". Being a girl and playing fighting games meant I was automatically labeled as playing them for attention. Not by everyone, but by a large enough chunk of the community that it actually got to the point where I no longer bothered with tournaments. When I think of "gamer", I think of the boy's club. Something I can't ever truly be a part of.

So thanks again for your response. It helped me get my thoughts together a bit and sort out my own feelings about the term.

 

[alstein]

I really like your last sentence here in your post and I think it really hits the nail on the head for my opinions on the label as well. Especially since I'm also a girl. It always feels weird having to state my gender on a forum like this as it kind of feels like I'm outing myself in a weird way even though I've made it clear before on NG what my gender is, but I feel it's important to state as my experience playing fighting games as a girl is what put me off ever idenitifying as a "gamer". Being a girl and playing fighting games meant I was automatically labeled as playing them for attention. Not by everyone, but by a large enough chunk of the community that it actually got to the point where I no longer bothered with tournaments. When I think of "gamer", I think of the boy's club. Something I can't ever truly be a part of.

So thanks again for your response. It helped me get my thoughts together a bit and sort out my own feelings about the term.

That really sucks. As someone who plays fighting games a ton, I want more girls in the genre, playing the games, as I want it to grow. (even as I'm aging out of it). All I can say is not everyone has that attitude, and I don't accept that attitude when I see it.

This is the battle that needs to be fought.

The local FGC here is organized by a woman. That's a good start.

 

[zeldablue]

I really like your last sentence here in your post and I think it really hits the nail on the head for my opinions on the label as well. Especially since I'm also a girl. It always feels weird having to state my gender on a forum like this as it kind of feels like I'm outing myself in a weird way even though I've made it clear before on NG what my gender is, but I feel it's important to state as my experience playing fighting games as a girl is what put me off ever idenitifying as a "gamer". Being a girl and playing fighting games meant I was automatically labeled as playing them for attention. Not by everyone, but by a large enough chunk of the community that it actually got to the point where I no longer bothered with tournaments. When I think of "gamer", I think of the boy's club. Something I can't ever truly be a part of.

So thanks again for your response. It helped me get my thoughts together a bit and sort out my own feelings about the term.

Yes...

That's projection. They're projecting unwanted feelings onto you. Basically in their minds they're saying "I like girls. I love girls. and I would like a girl's attention." And then when they project it turns into "That girl just wants our attention." It's unfortunate that the entire culture can do that to an entire gender. Lol. It's so prevalent that when I walk into that scenario, I have to accept the fact that they think I'm an attention seeking whore. I then have to bend over backwards to show myself in a humanizing light.

It's just very very unfortunate. Other girls in gaming basically have to adopt this belief and then they further perpetuate and normalize it. And those girls attack other girls in a way that says "See! I'm not like them!" I don't know how to fix it. And I can't say I've done anything besides help it carry on.

 

[SpacedCadette]

That really sucks. As someone who plays fighting games a ton, I want more girls in the genre, playing the games, as I want it to grow. (even as I'm aging out of it). All I can say is not everyone has that attitude, and I don't accept that attitude when I see it.

This is the battle that needs to be fought.

The local FGC here is organized by a woman. That's a good start.

Things are definitely improving and I'm still a part of the FG community. Just no longer in a competitive compactly. And don't get me wrong, I still love the community and the energy, respect, and overall comradery that is usually found there (especially once you've become a part of your local scene). So my feelings are still mostly positive!

Yes...

That's projection. They're projecting unwanted feelings onto you. Basically in their minds they're saying "I like girls. I love girls. and I would like a girl's attention." And then when they project it turns into "That girl just wants our attention." It's unfortunate that the entire culture can do that to an entire gender. Lol. It's so prevalent that when I walk into that scenario, I have to accept the fact that they think I'm an attention seeking whore. I then have to bend over backwards to show myself in a humanizing light.

It's just very very unfortunate. Other girls in gaming adopt and believe this stereotype and further perpetuate and normalize it. Don't know how to fix it.

It's a sucky situation overall. I hope it resolves itself over time, but it's so deeply rooted at this point that it does get depressing at times because the end of it feels so far away.

 

[k3rn3ll]

Yeah. I understand. But I'm a minority too. I can see when something is racist. And a lot of people of all backgrounds can see when something is racist because we learn about it when we're young. If we see blackface, we know whats up. However, a lot of us don't even know what sexism is. It's everywhere, and we never bat an eye to it, nor do we feel guilt when we see it. When something is racist...people know they are in the wrong and they feel terrible and are often shamed. When something is sexist, everyone goes "so what?"

That's a bit of an issue. I've worked in with game design teams for years, and my race has never been an issue. People never look at me and treat me different by saying "Hello black person! Your black! Did you notice you're different and have darker skin? Just pointing it out!" (Pointing at someone for being different isn't that racist...but it certainly makes me uncomfortable) My gender however, has...been an issue. People do treat me very differently because I'm a girl, and they're blind to how that affects others in the workplace and in the sub-culture.

It's something that could use a look or two...I'd say.

The problem is that gaming is part of the entertainment industry. So all discrimination that goes on is part of a bigger picture and is accepted because it's the entertainment industry. Alot of it can be boiled down to artistic freedom. If an artist has specific vision of something it isn't questioned. So alot of this will never change because there will always be ways to hide it behind that.

As far as workplace environments go that is different. But then we are talking about society as a whole. It isn't segregated to one industry.

 

[zeldablue]

The problem is that gaming is part of the entertainment industry. So all discrimination that goes on is part of a bigger picture and is accepted because it's the entertainment industry. Alot of it can be boiled down to artistic freedom. If an artist has specific vision of something it isn't questioned. So alot of this will never change because there will always be ways to hide it behind that.

As far as workplace environments go that is different. But then we are talking about society as a whole. It isn't segregated to one industry.

Art isn't freed from social critique. Ever. Art has so many crazy forms of critique it's never ending. Those critiques are important. People study art. It is so crucial to study and analyze everything. You can be ignorant to everything, but at least give others the chance to learn. Don't be that parent who doesn't let their kid learn about evolution and brings the whole school down. Don't be the lady who comes into an art school and says live models are pornographic. Don't be the person who says "You can't take about this."

Also a lot of the game developers admitted they didn't they were being misogynistic. A lot of it was unintentional. A lot of art from centuries past were exceptionally racist. They didn't know they were being racist. That's just how it works. A lot of artists show unintentional "bigotry" that they've grabbed up from their culture. Art and literature has often been there to point out that bigotry. Critiques have also done the same thing.

Nobody is taking you're games away from you. There's just an increase on sexist debates. You really think the way girls are treated in the industry and the way people make their games aren't directly connected? You think the rape and death threats coming from social critique is unrelated? They are related. Art and dreams usually display feelings and beliefs you didn't even know we had. In this case...misogyny is something people display while being extremely ignorant to it. Analyzing and critiquing those feelings, not only helps designers know more about themselves and their culture...it also helps them see what kind of messages they hand out when they're making games.

Imagine if every villain ever was a black guy. What if no one ever saw that as wrong? What kind of unintentional message would that be throwing around?

 

[Noaloha]

It's the exact same word. I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to know the difference between some gamers and other gamers considering there's no useful way of differentiating them when using that kind of terminology. When referring to the more insufferable types, I thought "dudebro" did the job just fine.

I disagree. It is not the same word. Whether the onus is on the deliverer or receiver to ensure clarity of understanding is largely situationally specific. My personal break down of it would be as follows -

Gamers is a useful english word specifically referring to people who play games, basically, in a nutshell. You, myself, the vast majority of GAF, etc. are all included in this.

"Gamers" is different. It has these magical things around it, which usefully indicates that it's no longer a universal term and can, also usefully though seemingly confusingly, actually be used for any number of purposes!

Worth bearing in mind that this phenomenon doesn't even need to use the magical symbols and the word can still be separated from its strict and all-inclusive definition, using an equally magical tool: context. It's now a social descriptor, something that is not necessarily all-inclusive compared to the dictionary definition. Still useful (or at least common) in language though.

Now the word can, for example, actually mean 'the most marketable demographic' (we here at PlayBox have developed this console specifically for gamers), or it could mean 'lazy smelly shut-in' (No mum, I swear, I am never dating another gamer), or it could mean 'Kickstarter backers of our product' (Thank you for this award but, really, we couldn't have made this without the gamers *applause*', or it could mean 'Those with enough time on their hands to pollute a comment box with vicious bile' (What is it with gamers always bragging about raping each other?) It can mean any number of things. More often than not, you as the reader/listener now just have to apply context to the word. This can help to avoid misunderstandings.

Point being, as an example, Leigh Alexander - a person who plays video games - said "gamers" are dead. She was alive when she wrote that. That's something to mull over if you think both words mean the same thing.

(Did she use " or '...? I don't know. Point still stands.)

 

[Hari Seldon]

EDIT: Oops wrong thread.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Point being, as an example, Leigh Alexander - a person who plays video games - said "gamers" are dead. She was alive when she wrote that. That's something to mull over if you think both words mean the same thing.

(Did she use " or '...? I don't know. Point still stands.)

This is a huge part of why Leigh Alexander's article was so objectionable: the definition of "gamer" that she was denouncing in that article was clearly much wider than "people engaged in harassing women on the internet." Anyone self-identifying as a gamer could reasonably read the article as an attack on them.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

Also a lot of the game developers admitted they didn't they were being misogynistic. A lot of it was unintentional. A lot of art from centuries past were exceptionally racist. They didn't know they were being racist. That's just how it works. A lot of artists show unintentional "bigotry" that they've grabbed up from their culture. Art and literature has often been there to point out that bigotry. Critiques have also done the same thing.

I like your whole post but this part especially. It's important to note that there is a middle ground between stifling artistic freedom and never criticizing anything ever. I think a mature artist is one who absorbs and learns from criticism, rather than packing his toys and going home when someone says something he doesn't like.

 

[aeolist]

Point being, as an example, Leigh Alexander - a person who plays video games - said "gamers" are dead. She was alive when she wrote that. That's something to mull over if you think both words mean the same thing.

personally speaking i've played games for 25 years and i've never once felt comfortable describing myself as a gamer because everyone i've ever met IRL who uses that label for themselves has been the worst kind of person and i don't want to associate with them

so i can see where leigh is coming from in that article

 

[Riposte]

I like your whole post but this part especially. It's important to note that there is a middle ground between stifling artistic freedom and never criticizing anything ever. I think a mature artist is one who absorbs and learns from criticism, rather than packing his toys and going home when someone says something he doesn't like.

Absorb is one thing, but "learn" sort of implies it's a foregone conclusion someone agrees with the criticism. (What do you do about the ones who don't?)

 

[zeldablue]

I like your whole post but this part especially. It's important to note that there is a middle ground between stifling artistic freedom and never criticizing anything ever. I think a mature artist is one who absorbs and learns from criticism, rather than packing his toys and going home when someone says something he doesn't like.

Yes. An egotistical artist is always a problem.

The first lesson learned when becoming an artist is to have that natural defensive wall torn open so you don't get defensive around your work. When you go in for a critique, you're "baby" is going in to be slaughtered and scrutinized, and you have to be emotionally prepared to watch and accept that. People who run out of the room crying or getting angry...those people don't last. You can cry when you go back home...and then you have to consider why they said what they did.

It's the hardest part of being a creator. But it's necessary for critique. e______e

Absorb is one thing, but "learn" sort of implies it's a foregone conclusion someone agrees with the criticism. (What do you do about the ones who don't?)

You need to have a good list of reasons why, you as an artist, did what you did. When you go in for critique, you have to explain every stroke. When you listen to artists, they articulate the symbolism or meaning behind everything. Same for designers. This is why. If you can't defend why you made a certain choice...you get lambasted. If someone says "why is this here?" and you say "Well...I DUNNO!" Then you made a terrible mistake and deserve to be called out on it. This also applies to good game design as well. You can't just put crap in stupid places for no reason.

Another thing to note is...you have to "learn" all the rules. And THEN you can break them. This means, that you can never break the rules out of ignorance, but you can do it as much as you'd like if you know what you're doing.

 

[Cybit]

Yeah. I understand. But I'm a minority too. I can see when something is racist. And a lot of people of all backgrounds can see when something is racist because we learn about it when we're young. If we see blackface, we know whats up. However, a lot of us don't even know what sexism is. It's everywhere, and we never bat an eye to it, nor do we feel guilt when we see it. When something is racist...people know they are in the wrong and they feel terrible and are often shamed. When something is sexist, everyone goes "so what?"

That's a bit of an issue. I've worked in with game design teams for years, and my race has never been an issue. People never look at me and treat me different by saying "Hello black person! Your black! Did you notice you're different and have darker skin? Just pointing it out!" (Pointing at someone for being different isn't that racist...but it certainly makes me uncomfortable) My gender however, has...been an issue. People do treat me very differently because I'm a girl, and they're blind to how that affects others in the workplace and in the sub-culture.

It's something that could use a look or two...I'd say.

The crazier thing is that, statistically speaking (check out 538), you are far more likely to be discriminated against (mostly subconsciously) for being black rather than being a woman; yet the part that most of us will notice is the gender aspect.

My greatest fear is that the current feminism movement is going to end up replicating the civil rights movement in the USA. Which, while doing a great deal of good initially, and doing good overall, did not create nearly as much long-term change as we believed it would. It seems to have merely reduced outward / blatant racism, and just pushed it under the surface. People don't say as many racist things overtly; but as I think we are all sort of finding out, not that many people are actually less racist. If all we accomplish is pushing sexism underneath the surface, dealing with it will become much, much harder.

Also, young white women are going to most likely be the next large demographic with the most money in the next 5-10 years (see: who is earning college degrees). It's already started happening (once again, check out 538 for work in that field); which is probably why the representation of women in society has become a big issue. Follow the dollars, always seems to correlate the best.

Don't get me started on Leigh. Unlike most GAFers (I think), I actually like Ben Kuchera and Mattie Rice and Jenn Frank, but Leigh is a different story.

 

[Noaloha]

This is a huge part of why Leigh Alexander's article was so objectionable: the definition of "gamer" that she was denouncing in that article was clearly much wider than "people engaged in harassing women on the internet." Anyone self-identifying as a gamer could reasonably read the article as an attack on them.

For the most part I agree with you, in so much as I think there's validity to your use of 'reasonable'. I think the Alexander article's delivery was extremely unfortunate simply by virtue of its subsequent reach. (I would say the piece itself is entirely consistent with her established voice, sadly a context entirely denied to anyone unfamiliar with her writing style.) The question of "should she have toned down the acid" probably rests on whether she knew beforehand how, um, 'popular' the article would become. She seems willing to self-regulate her typically abrasive-ish tone when appropriate, as evidenced by the Times article.

I do like the original Alexander article as a whole, I think it touches on valid, interesting and timely issues (it helped obviously that I inferred enough about the usage of "gamer" to never be anywhere near taking any part of it personally). To the people that did take offence, I think they have a valid case in believing it to be shittily worded, as is their opinion's prerogative, but I kinda wish they'd take a revised look at it with a view to understanding the intended opinion, separate from its delivery. I feel like a number of people are angry at a perceived slight as opposed to an intended one. That's rocky ground for a resulting discussion.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Yeah, it's weird how that "term" has been transformed into something negative when ultimately it was nothing more than a way to refer to people that love games not unlike terms such as book-worms, movie buffs, and the like. I don't really consider myself any of those things but I wouldn't find the use of them insulting.

I love all of those things but things related to gaming is my favorite of the bunch. Though, I genuinely dislike playing online games with anyone but good friends due to my distaste for typical online behavior. Thinking about it like that perhaps that IS part of the problem then. Too many people act terrible towards others when playing online. It's not just the sexism issues being discussed here either; these people are cruel towards anyone and everyone. Look at stuff like swatting. Those people target whomever they want for reasons that are unclear.

So, thinking about the whole thing, I do believe the problem goes FAR deeper than the treatment of women. It's the treatment of human beings in general that's the problem. It's a growing issue with the way communication and interaction on the internet works. People that insult women using sexist words likely select those words simply because they are insulting. If they were acting like an asshole towards a black guy they'd probably use racial slurs and, hell, people throw the same types of slurs and insults are white guys too.

Women definitely seem to get MORE hate, though, but it does seem like those same people would act similarly vile against anyone.

They've certainly kept me from ever really being able to enjoy online games and many of the other internet related gaming activities. I'm not even sure what can be done about this type of behavior as nobody is held accountable.

Some great points, and you elucidated what I was trying to convey in my ramblings quite nicely.

For me personally, when I was back playing online the amount of homophobic slurs dwarfed anything else, and I really didn't see anything done to address it, in the end I just couldn't be bothered with it and went back to single player games.

It's the exact same word. I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to know the difference between some gamers and other gamers considering there's no useful way of differentiating them when using that kind of terminology. When referring to the more insufferable types, I thought "dudebro" did the job just fine.

I'd like to agree, but I'd also observe that since the Wii changed the gaming landscape (and possibly before), I've seen the term 'casuals' used more and more describe people who only play games infrequently, and the exclusion of the word gamer from the full term 'casual gamer' is a thinly veiled mechanism to imply that they are NOT 'gamers' by exclusion - it may not have been the original intention (i'm sure I have used the term myself back in some NPD threads ), but more and more it has had derogatory and divisive connotations IMO.

So I think there has been a lot of divisive nature as to what some nebulous body determines is a 'gamer' and it reeks to me of cliques - all hobbies and activities have them of course, but I suppose one could argue that for a long time, videogames has been predominantly a male dominated past time, but much due to it's maturity, and mass-market penetration (especially with the Wii which brought in much more diverse set of people to the industry as consumers), there is very likely a set of 'old guard' that resent this kind of thing, and I'd surmise that there will be plenty of journalists in this boat as well.

I think that elitism is only natural in any walk of life - e.g. like how Mac users tend to look down their nose at PC guys in the Audio/Music world, but not so much in gaming circles!, especially as that thing matures, but there is a very big difference between elitism and outright hostility / bullying.

 

[zeldablue]

The crazier thing is that, statistically speaking (check out 538), you are far more likely to be discriminated against (mostly subconsciously) for being black rather than being a woman; yet the part that most of us will notice is the gender aspect.

My greatest fear is that the current feminism movement is going to end up replicating the civil rights movement in the USA. Which, while doing a great deal of good initially, and doing good overall, did not create nearly as much long-term change as we believed it would. It seems to have merely reduced outward / blatant racism, and just pushed it under the surface. People don't say as many racist things overtly; but as I think we are all sort of finding out, not that many people are actually less racist. If all we accomplish is pushing sexism underneath the surface, dealing with it will become much, much harder.

Also, young white women are going to most likely be the next large demographic with the most money in the next 5-10 years (see: who is earning college degrees). It's already started happening (once again, check out 538 for work in that field); which is probably why the representation of women in society has become a big issue. Follow the dollars, always seems to correlate the best.

Don't get me started on Leigh. Unlike most GAFers (I think), I actually like Ben Kuchera and Mattie Rice and Jenn Frank, but Leigh is a different story.

Sexism is already completely under the surface. (Except under certain situations when guys are openly and happily sexist.) Same with racism. The only way to fix that, is by making people aware of their subconscious gender/racial bias. Make them aware. And then don't censor them.

We all have natural urges that are "undesirable." Labeling something as evil or wrong makes those urges seep down outside of our conscious feelings. That doesn't get rid of the undesirable urge...it just makes them hidden.

So yeah...I don't know.

 

[The Technomancer]

The Alexander article was definitely misunderstood, although I do agree with most of its textual content. But...I'm not sure how much I can blame readers for misunderstanding it. It just feels needlessly abrasive and generalizing in enough places that it undermines the specificity of her genuine criticisms

 

[Cybit]

So, something kind of ironic my g/f pointed out

She was a gamer growing up until the end of HS (developed epilepsy and thus stopped playing video games), and is a giant nerd/geek (she is the one who turned me from a gamer into a full blown nerd & geek). She pointed out that growing up (as kids), men were almost universal in their support of her joining in them in their nerdy activities, but it was the women who shamed her for being nerdy / geeky / gamers.

Now, it appears? to be the men who are shaming women as adults for gaming (as a whole), while specifically, her female compatriots shame her for being a nerd / geek.

Note, we're both 30 or so, so this is 15-20 years ago. Not sure if it is still as uncool as a female teenager to be a geek / nerd / gamer in modern times.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

So, something kind of ironic my g/f pointed out

She was a gamer growing up until the end of HS (developed epilepsy and thus stopped playing video games), and is a giant nerd/geek (she is the one who turned me from a gamer into a full blown nerd & geek). She pointed out that growing up (as kids), men were almost universal in their support of her joining in them in their nerdy activities, but it was the women who shamed her for being nerdy / geeky / gamers.

Now, it appears? to be the men who are shaming women as adults for gaming (as a whole), while specifically, her female compatriots shame her for being a nerd / geek.

Note, we're both 30 or so, so this is 15-20 years ago. Not sure if it is still as uncool as a female teenager to be a geek / nerd / gamer in modern times.

Seeing as PewdiPew is a thing, I think more women than ever have found it socially acceptable to call themselves a "gamer".

 

[Cybit]

Sexism is already completely under the surface. (Except under certain situations when guys are openly and happily sexist.) Same with racism. The only way to fix that, is by making people aware of their subconscious gender/racial bias. Make them aware. And then don't censor them.

We all have natural urges that are "undesirable." Labeling something as evil or wrong makes those urges seep down outside of our conscious feelings. That doesn't get rid of the undesirable urge...it just makes them hidden.

So yeah...I don't know.

The part about not censoring them is spot on. If you merely shame folks hard for having those beliefs; you do NOT get rid of them. In fact, data has shown that tends to crystallize and harden those beliefs more than anything (especially in the modern era where you can self-select much, much easier in terms of environment). What shaming does is give one a sense of self-righteous satisfaction, and makes you feel much better about yourself.

I think that's why I have so many issues with how this is all going down. It feels like many of the people doing the "shaming" are claiming they are doing it "for the betterment of society", but I think they're really doing it (consciously or subconsciously) because they want to feel better about themselves by looking down on a whole group of other people.

<hugs Zelda> been trying to figure out how to say that for a while now.

 

[zeldablue]

So, something kind of ironic my g/f pointed out

She was a gamer growing up until the end of HS (developed epilepsy and thus stopped playing video games), and is a giant nerd/geek (she is the one who turned me from a gamer into a full blown nerd & geek). She pointed out that growing up (as kids), men were almost universal in their support of her joining in them in their nerdy activities, but it was the women who shamed her for being nerdy / geeky / gamers.

Now, it appears? to be the men who are shaming women as adults for gaming (as a whole), while specifically, her female compatriots shame her for being a nerd / geek.

Note, we're both 30 or so, so this is 15-20 years ago. Not sure if it is still as uncool as a female teenager to be a geek / nerd / gamer in modern times.

I guess there's a stigma. But I never really cared. I had 3 great friends, so I didn't need any social attention from other girls or guys.

 

[zeldablue]

Whoops...double. >___>

The part about not censoring them is spot on. If you merely shame folks hard for having those beliefs; you do NOT get rid of them. In fact, data has shown that tends to crystallize and harden those beliefs more than anything (especially in the modern era where you can self-select much, much easier in terms of environment). What shaming does is give one a sense of self-righteous satisfaction, and makes you feel much better about yourself.

I think that's why I have so many issues with how this is all going down. It feels like many of the people doing the "shaming" are claiming they are doing it "for the betterment of society", but I think they're really doing it (consciously or subconsciously) because they want to feel better about themselves by looking down on a whole group of other people.

<hugs Zelda> been trying to figure out how to say that for a while now.

Alright, yeah.

I don't condone the idea of shaming and censoring racist and sexist people down into a tiny tiny minority. That just punishes people who have those feelings, without actually giving them a real reason besides social pressure to stop.

The only way to stop a racist, homophobe or sexist is to give them the stories to humanize the race, sexual orientation or gender that they "hate." I think that's the only way to make them realize the prejudice was harmful.

 

[ThePlayerofGames]

This reverse American exceptionalism thing always gets me. Many European countries are, if anything, much more overtly political than the US.

I'm not from Europe.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

personally speaking i've played games for 25 years and i've never once felt comfortable describing myself as a gamer because everyone i've ever met IRL who uses that label for themselves has been the worst kind of person and i don't want to associate with them

so i can see where leigh is coming from in that article

Very much this for me too.

 

[SturokBGD]

personally speaking i've played games for 25 years and i've never once felt comfortable describing myself as a gamer because everyone i've ever met IRL who uses that label for themselves has been the worst kind of person and i don't want to associate with them

so i can see where leigh is coming from in that article

...and I can see where everyone else is coming from thanks to posts like this.

You don't get to say "this is what this is and if you say you are this and disagree with my definition then you are a bug on a dustbin lid and need to be squashed" and declare that to be the end of the story. Which is exactly what the gaming press did and in some cases continue to do. Which is exactly what a lot of good people are angry about. You honestly think this all just because enthusiast gamers are scared en-masse because games like Gone Home are being made (for the record, an experience I personally LOVED, it brought tears to my eyes)? Then you're picking the dirtiest crap from the bottom of an already filthy shoe to make your point. It's not that simple. If I just so happen to not like the kind of experience that Gone Home offers, that does not make me a scumbag. If I happen to enjoy the latest shootbang and choose not find the fact that the hero is a generic young white dude noteworthy, that does not make me a scumbag. Correlation does not imply causation. It didn't when our parents were freaking out because they didn't understand. It didn't when Jack Thompson was taking potshots at everything from GTA to the Sims. It doesn't now.

But what do we have here?

"‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet. It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there. "

Come on now. That's no way to introduce a very public dissertation on how gaming culture is growing and changing (something which really should be celebrated). How about we aim the vitriol where the vitriol is due. If you go to a bar and someone is being an abusive ass, they get removed from the premises. You don't burn down the whole damn building and kill everyone in it.

I identify myself as a "gamer". I have done for nearly 4 decades. There's a good chance that the lion's share of gaming enthusiasts on NeoGAF do the same (not to mention that this hot-button issue somehow has only generated a mere 32 page thread so far). It probably wouldn't be practical for you to come to my home and maybe share a beer or enjoy some gaming time with my family to see how much that actually means in the grand scheme of things. But if you've already made up your mind about what kind of person I am simply because I said I'm a "gamer"? Well... that's really a shame, because I think that's the kind of bigotry that should be easy to discuss. I know my door is open.

 

[The Technomancer]

Whoops...double. >___>



Alright, yeah.

I don't condone the idea of shaming and censoring racist and sexist people down into a tiny tiny minority. That just punishes people who have those feelings, without actually giving them a real reason besides social pressure to stop.

The only way to stop a racist, homophobe or sexist is to give them the stories to humanize the race, sexual orientation or gender that they "hate." I think that's the only way to make them realize the prejudice was harmful.

See and here's where I'm going to disagree slightly, although I think this gets right to the heart of the conflation problem at the center of this whole thing: there are some people who, if not theoretically beyond education, have demonstrated with their hostility and opinions that they're beyond what I would consider our responsibility. The guys making rape and death threats? I think it exhibits too much respect to be saying "we just need to inform and persuade them". Much like how GAF is effectively moderated its sometimes healthier for the community to just try and ostracize them rather than continue to let them poison the environment while we engage in the arduous and maybe futile task of trying to help them change their behavior.

But then if course as I said a page or two ago we have the opposite problem where people are writing off everyone who doesn't already agree with them as lost causes who should just be shamed out of the dialogue so that only the already enlightened are left

 

[Riposte]

You need to have a good list of reasons why, you as an artist, did what you did. When you go in for critique, you have to explain every stroke. When you listen to artists, they articulate the symbolism or meaning behind everything. Same for designers. This is why. If you can't defend why you made a certain choice...you get lambasted. If someone says "why is this here?" and you say "Well...I DUNNO!" Then you made a terrible mistake and deserve to be called out on it. This also applies to good game design as well. You can't just put crap in stupid places for no reason.

Another thing to note is...you have to "learn" all the rules. And THEN you can break them. This means, that you can never break the rules out of ignorance, but you can do it as much as you'd like if you know what you're doing.

The idea of making someone think more about their decisions is very constructive, but I figure the reasons given will also be lambasted if they run against what the criticizer desires, especially if a factor of harm is introduced (how the work is harming people). Someone like Kamitani likely has deliberate reasons people won't like on why Dragon's Crown features voluptuous women characters of exaggerated sexuality. What then?

I think on matter of aesthetics, especially when you break things down on a piece by piece basis, there's a lot of vagueness that cannot easily be put to words (thus is not easily defensible), and more so from the artist versus the person who studies art. Indeed, taste is one of the hardest things to quantify.

EDIT: This discussion reminds me of Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation.

 

[Noaloha]

The problem isn't gaming being free/full of social agendas, its the fact that for the last year or two, the *only* social agenda being pushed is women in gaming. Where's the articles about racial and ethnic discrimination in games and the games industry? That's a problem that affects *all sexes* yet, it has received little to no coverage.

That's beyond ridiculous and I have a big problem with it. I have no issue with women in games being brought up, but I do take issue when its brought up over and over by every publication in an orchestrated manner all the while ignoring the other issues we face in the industry. It shows someone has an agenda they are trying to push. I don't like organizations using mine, or other's social plights, to further whatever their ulterior motive may be.

The conversation should be *diversity in games* not just *women in games*

Diversity means variety of sex, race, culture and sexual orientation. Why is media hyper focusing on sex? Because sex sells better than the other ones. Clicks. Profit. Yeah.

Thanks for offering a follow up opinion on why #notmyshield is something you're supporting. I didn't want to ask you directly since I had no intention of putting you on the spot in the discussion.

So for some people that hashtag is used as means of decrying a LACK of discussion for minorities outside of the gender issue? That's something I admit I never really considered. Not as part of #notmyshield anyway. I still think I'm missing a part of your argument here sorry. I just don't see how those two hashtags serve your complaint. I can't link to it right now - on my phone in a dark room! - but did you read the 'olive branch' article mentioned in the recent Rock Paper Shotgun article/statement/whatever. I know that touched on non-gender minority issues and their importance. You should read it if you get the time.

 

[Gestault]

personally speaking i've played games for 25 years and i've never once felt comfortable describing myself as a gamer because everyone i've ever met IRL who uses that label for themselves has been the worst kind of person and i don't want to associate with them

so i can see where leigh is coming from in that article

If this is about the harassment (and not normal distaste for people you can't relate to), I find the Alexander article troubling because almost any identifiable group has a similar spectrum of extreme individuals that, if this response is acceptable, others can dismiss the interests and concerns of that group through. Both your post and some of what I'd call peripheral contempt in the Alexander piece give the sense that the moral outrage is partly fueled by existing disgust for the community completely unrelated to the issues raised through recent events. Contempt for things that simply don't make sense as a de facto criticism like, "people being excited for things I don't like." This layer, which you mimicked in this post, wasn't rooted in criticism of people being mistreated. This should have been seen as an embarrassing introduction to an editorial dismissing the interests of others:

It&#8217;s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don&#8217;t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don&#8217;t quite know why they themselves are standing there.

 

[zeldablue]

The idea of making someone think more about their decisions is very constructive, but I figure the reasons given will also be lambasted if they run against what the criticizer desires, especially if a factor of harm is introduced (how the work is harming people). Someone like Kamitani likely has deliberate reasons people won't like on why Dragon's Crown features voluptuous women characters of exaggerated sexuality. What then?

I think on matter of aesthetics, especially when you break things down on a piece by piece basis, there's a lot of vagueness that cannot easily be put to words (thus is not easily defensible), and more so from the artist versus the person who studies art. Indeed, taste is one of the hardest things to quantify.

EDIT: This discussion reminds me of Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation.

Artist: The lady has boob plate armor because our target demographic is male and around the age of 18-34.

or

Artist: The lady has boob plate armor to show her elegance, grace and femininity.

That's how you justify it. That's literally all you have to do. Is it still objectifying? Yes, probably. But you at least defended it in a rational way without deflecting the criticism completely. The critic should then sit down and shut up. And then you as an artist should ponder that criticism for your further works, now that you realize it's something to ponder.

You might also ask...why do the ancient statues have such tiny weiners? Why do the women not have pubic hair in these paintings? Those are good questions that no one from that era would have even asked. They didn't draw/sculpt pubs because they thought it was vulgar and gross. Likewise they thought big penises were both hilarious and distracting...so they made them small. Those are cultural things. Why did Archiac Greek statues always have smiles? The smiles were there to show that the person was alive. Is it necessary to put a smile on someone who is alive? No...so why'd you do it? I dunno. Those are things that that culture didn't think about because it was outside of their awareness. They just did it because everyone else did it without reaaaallly thinking about it.

That's why Anita is a Culture Critic. Specifically there to point out weird culture norms that are outside of our awareness.

Same with most sexist things in games. We did it just because...well, we didn't really think about it. Everyone else did it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Artist: The lady has boob plate armor because our target demographic is male and around the age of 18-34.

or

Artist: The lady has boob plate armor to show her elegance, grace and femininity.

That's how you justify it. That's literally all you have to do. Is it still objectifying? Yes, probably. But you at least defended it in a rational way without deflecting the criticism completely. The critique should then sit down and be quiet. And then you as an artist should ponder that criticism for your further works.

You might also ask...why do the ancient statues have tiny weiners? Why do the women not have pubic hair in these paintings? Those are good questions that no one from that era would have even asked. They didn't draw/sculpt pubs because they thought it was vulgar and gross. Likewise they thought big penises were bother hilarious and distracting...so they made them small. Those are cultural things. Those are things that that culture didn't think about because it was outside of their awareness. They just did it because everyone else did it without reaaaallly thinking about it.

Same with most sexist things in games. We did it just because...well, we didn't really think about it. Everyone else did it.

Well put.

I'm all for a constructive dialog when it comes to the portrayal of minorities in games, but like Totalbiscuit has said - they should do so in a manner that is constructive, and not behave like pundits.

 

[zeldablue]

Well put.

I'm all for a constructive dialog when it comes to the portrayal of minorities in games, but like Totalbiscuit has said - they should do so in a manner that is constructive, and not behave like pundits.

Yes. I'd like the discussion to feel less accusatory. I just can't help but notice...Anita never really "judged" anyone. People felt judged all on their own. There's this heavy feeling of guilt regardless of how it's presented. And the "SJWs" yelling "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!" isn't helping.

It's not really anyone's fault besides our culture. And the only way to "fix" our culture is to learn and accept more things about it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Yes. I'd like the discussion to feel less accusatory. I just can't help but notice...Anita never really "judged" anyone. People felt judged all on their own. There's this heavy feeling of guilt regardless of how it's presented. And the "SJWs" yelling "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!" isn't helping.

It's not really anyone's fault besides our culture. And the only way to "fix" our culture is to learn and accept more things about it.

I do think that Anita has done no wrong, she presented her arguments in a very level headed manner with the usage of established feminist methods of analysis. Everything coming her way is pure, unfounded vitriol.

With that said, not all have been as exemplary as Anita.

 

[Gestault]

Yes. I'd like the discussion to feel less accusatory. I just can't help but notice...Anita never really "judged" anyone. People felt judged all on their own. There's this heavy feeling of guilt regardless of how it's presented.

I don't think this is ANY reason to dismiss the criticism wholesale (and you're right about the general pattern of what should happen), but there were many presumptions peppered throughout the Tropes vs Women videos, things like where Sarkeesian is describing the reactions audiences have to certain behaviors (which she deliberately acts out independent of what the game is directing her to do), that to me at least, just sounded insane.

I feel justified calling that out as judgmental because she's constructing the intent of the makers and audiences with contrived and overly specific assumptions about what players would be feeling (or should be doing) that I didn't feel were substantiated. For the sake of the Tropes videos, it wasn't even a contribution to showing the frequency of the trope itself, it was an aside specifically against those would be playing. She didn't put corresponding effort going into the specific semiotics that justified what she was saying, and having played most of the games where I saw these extra assertions, it simply felt like a snipe based on a negative outlook on audiences, rather than a highlight of content in the works themselves.

 

[aeolist]

If this is about the harassment (and not normal distaste for people you can't relate to), I find the Alexander article troubling because almost any identifiable group has a similar spectrum of extreme individuals that, if this response is acceptable, others can dismiss the interests and concerns of that group through. Both your post and some of what I'd call peripheral contempt in the Alexander piece give the sense that the moral outrage is partly fueled by existing disgust for the community completely unrelated to the issues raised through recent events. Contempt for things that simply don't make sense as a de facto criticism like, "people being excited for things I don't like." This layer, which you mimicked in this post, wasn't rooted in criticism of people being mistreated. This should have been seen as an embarrassing introduction to an editorial dismissing the interests of others:

you're reading too much into what i said. people are talking about their personal attachment to the label and i wanted to present my perspective, and my experience is that those who call themselves gamers are not people i have much in common with and i don't want to associate myself with them.

what leigh was trying to present in that section was a criticism of the consumer culture which is almost entirely what "gamers" are all about. buying commercial products is about all there is to being part of this group. i think the connection to current events is that these are the people who push back hardest against games that try to be something more, and game writing that isn't just product reviews and press releases. she's criticizing these people because they are the ones who feel threatened by "non-games" and thus attempt to define "game" and "gamer" as narrow things that they feel they can control and exclude others from.

 

[zeldablue]

I don't think this is ANY reason to dismiss the criticism wholesale (and you're right about the general pattern of what should happen), but there were many presumptions peppered throughout the Tropes vs Women videos, things like where Sarkeesian is describing the reactions audiences have to certain behaviors (which she deliberately acts out independent of what the game is directing her to do), that to me at least, just sounded insane.

I feel justified calling that out as judgmental because she's constructing the intent of the makers and audiences with contrived and overly specific assumptions about what players would be feeling (or should be doing) that I didn't feel were substantiated. For the sake of the Tropes videos, it wasn't even a contribution to showing the frequency of the trope itself, it was an aside specifically against those would be playing. She didn't put corresponding effort going into the specific semiotics that justified what she was saying, and having played most of the games where I saw these extra assertions, it simply felt like a snipe based on a negative outlook on audiences, rather than a highlight of content in the works themselves.

There's something important to be said here. I am not a mean person, but sometimes I can be mean. I am not a sad person, but sometimes I can be sad. I am not an angry person, but sometimes I can be angry. I am not racist, but sometimes I can be racist. I am not sexist, but sometimes I can be sexist. I am not a selfish person, but sometimes I am selfish. I am not an insecure person, but sometimes I am insecure. I am a strong person, but sometimes I am not strong. I am an empathetic person, but sometimes I am not empathetic. I am not judgmental, but sometimes I can be judgmental. I don't condone violence, but sometimes I condone violence. I don't condone harassment, but sometimes I condone harassment. I am not a pervert, but sometimes I can be perverted. I am innocent, but sometimes I am not innocent. Throughout my life I say I am the former while denying I am ever the latter.

Repeat these words. This is what humans are. They are not _____, but sometimes they are _____. As humans, it is a good idea to look at the later in a more compassionate and understanding way. If we don't, we'll look at other people, see our negative traits in them...and then act like belligerent monsters towards them.

That's just how life works. Accepting it will make you muuuch more self-aware. Gamers aren't misogynists...but sometimes they can be misogynistic. That trait does not define us. At all. But it is still there nonetheless. I love violence in games. I like shooting heads off. I like the rewarding sound of killing things. I like punching hookers in the face. I like humiliating fictional characters. I like overpowering my foes. It makes me happy. I like all of those things. That is an aspect of myself that I don't want to define me. I don't do these things in real life, obviously...but that doesn't mean there isn't a violent bone in my body.

I still am capable of doing bad things...sometimes.

For some reason I couldn't grasp this until I played Majora's Mask...yeah! That game!

Understand my words...and I swear you'll be more open to the possibility that sometimes gamers are sexist. Really really reaaaally sexist.

 

[Gestault]

I think the connection to current events is that these are the people who push back hardest against games that try to be something more, and game writing that isn't just product reviews and press releases. she's criticizing these people because they are the ones who feel threatened by "non-games" and thus attempt to define "game" and "gamer" as narrow things that they feel they can control and exclude others from.

I'm someone who thinks that's a contrived, simplistic narrative that doesn't seem substantiated in the editorial. Based on the people I've encountered, this comes across more as a strawman to direct a variety of frustrations at. I don't think this is a case where the issues of industry harrassment, sexism, "hardcore" vs "casual," commercialization and editorial integrity are all caused by one "type" of person all neatly wrapped up for us to criticize. This characterization of "gamers" rings insincere. Even recognizing that this is the range of concerns active within this community, dismissing that range of interactions as being caused by a kind of person completely misses the nature of community (and conflict) in the first place. Worse still, the tone of that article gives the impression that they're insurmountable. That is why I believe we're seeing the reaction to that stance; It doesn't make sense to the people taking part in this community.

Any community works to define itself; and any effort to do that necessarily excludes. Most communities wrestle with commercialization; particularly when it's a hobby centered on products. Many also have to deal with the issue of harassment; this comes from the nature of people who feel otherwise powerless, or from people looking for a pretense to lash out. Piggybacking existing annoyances on the issue of harassment isn't a formulation I've seen produce accurate or useful insights on any group of people with this scope. If we dismissed communities or causes because of conceptually tangential extremism, we'd have no causes left to care about.

 

[zeldablue]

I'm someone who thinks that's a contrived, simplistic narrative that doesn't seem substantiated in the editorial. Based on the people I've encountered, this comes across more as a strawman to direct a variety of frustrations at. I don't think this is a case where the issues of industry harrassment, sexism, "hardcore" vs "casual," commercialization and editorial integrity are all caused by one "type" of person all neatly wrapped up for us to criticize. This characterization of "gamers" rings insincere. Even recognizing that this is the range of concerns active within this community, dismissing that range of interactions as being caused by a kind of person completely misses the nature of community (and conflict) in the first place. Worse still, the tone of that article gives the impression that they're insurmountable. That is why I believe we're seeing the reaction to that stance; It doesn't make sense to the people taking part in this community.

Any community works to define itself; and any effort to do that necessarily excludes. Most communities wrestle with commercialization; particularly when it's a hobby centered on products. Many also have to deal with the issue of harassment; this comes from the nature of people who feel otherwise powerless, or from people looking for a pretense to lash out. Piggybacking existing annoyances on the issue of harassment isn't a formulation I've seen produce accurate or useful insights on any group of people with this scope. If we dismissed communities or causes because of conceptually tangential extremism, we'd have no causes left to care about.

I think it's more like the dark side of gaming culture that we really don't want to talk about. The elephant in the room has been there for many many years. A couple of ladies pointed it out and now they're being tortured by harassment. Killing the messenger...basically.

 

[Gestault]

There's something important to be said here. I am not a mean person, but sometimes I can be mean. I am not a sad person, but sometimes I can be sad. I am not an angry person, but sometimes I can be angry. I am not racist, but sometimes I can be racist. I am not sexist, but sometimes I can be sexist. I am not a selfish person, but sometimes I am selfish. I am not an insecure person, but sometimes I am insecure. I am a strong person, but sometimes I am not strong. I am an empathetic person, but sometimes I am not empathetic. I am not judgmental, but sometimes I can be judgmental. I don't condone violence, but sometimes I condone violence. I don't condone harassment, but sometimes I condone harassment. I am not a pervert, but sometimes I can be perverted. I am innocent, but sometimes I am not innocent. Throughout my life I say I am the former while denying I am ever the latter.

Repeat these words. This is what humans are. They are not _____, but sometimes they are _____. As humans, it is a good idea to look at the later in a more compassionate and understanding way. If we don't, we'll look at other people, see our negative traits in them...and then act like belligerent monsters towards them.

That's just how life works. Accepting it will make you muuuch more self-aware. Gamers aren't misogynists...but sometimes they can be misogynistic. That trait does not define us. At all. But it is still there nonetheless. I love violence in games. I like shooting heads off. I like the rewarding sound of killing things. I like punching hookers in the face. I like humiliating fictional characters. I like overpowering my foes. It makes me happy. I like all of those things. That is an aspect of myself that I don't want to define me. I don't do these things in real life, obviously...but that doesn't mean there isn't a violent bone in my body.

I still am capable of doing bad things...sometimes.

For some reason I couldn't grasp this until I played Majora's Mask...yeah! That game!

Understand my words...and I swear you'll be more open to the possibility that sometimes gamers are sexist. Really really reaaaally sexist.

If I gave the impression that I was saying people aren't capable of enjoying entertainment at odds with their overarching intents and values, it was a misstatement on my part. I do understand you, and it's something I wish was accepted more often, but I'll say this: The asides I'm talking about are situations where Sarkeesian, for examples, kills exotic dancers who are simply putting on their make-up, and drags their bodies in a grotesque pantomime, asserting that this misogynistic brutality is what the scene is about, and that gamers are enjoying this as an intrinsic part of the entertainment factor. That is an unsound judgement. A criticism of books based on what a reader might imagine within the context of what's written is absurd, particularly when extended to a judgement of the audience. This is unless that critic can show the semiotics leading into that specific subtext. I reject the premise that "since it exists in the game, any and all behaviors and reactions to it are valid for criticism against the core work." I think moments like this in Tropes vs Women say as much about Sarkeesian's outlook on broader culture than the specifics of any given work. I still find it fascinating (and valid as a social criticism) in its own way.

When criticism remains about the works, as "written," that criticism is more likely to be accepted culturally. My issue is that a criticism is weakened when it targets what the critic thinks an audience thinks while they imagine what could be performed in a creative work.

[Topic change]

I think it's more like the dark side of gaming culture that we really don't want to talk about. The elephant in the room has been there for many many years. A couple of ladies pointed it out and now they're being tortured by harassment. Killing the messenger...basically.

This I can completely agree with. The only caveat being that this isn't the conclusion the editorial arrived at.

 

[zeldablue]

If I gave the impression that I was saying people aren't capable of enjoying entertainment at odds with their overarching intents and values, it was a misstatement on my part. I do understand you, and it's something I wish was accepted more often, but I'll say this: The asides I'm talking about are situations where Sarkeesian, for examples, kills exotic dancers who are simply putting on their make-up, and drags their bodies is a grotesque pantomime, asserting that this misogynistic brutality is what the scene is about, and that gamers are enjoying this as an innate to the entertainment factor. That is an unsound judgement. A criticism of books based on what a reader might imagine within the context of what's written is absurd, particularly when extended to a judgement of the audience. This is unless that critic can show the semiotics leading into that specific subtext. I reject the premise that "since it exists in the game, any and all behaviors and reactions to it are valid for criticism against the core work." I think moments like this in Tropes vs Women say as much about Sarkeesian's outlook on broader culture than the specifics of any given work. I still find it fascinating (and valid as a social criticism) in its own way.

When criticism remains about the works, as "written," that criticism is more likely to be accepted culturally. My issue is that a criticism is weakened when it targets what the critic thinks an audience thinks while they imagine what could be performed in a creative work.

[Topic change]



This I can completely agree with. The only caveat being that this isn't the conclusion the editorial arrived at.

Yeah...

But I see games more like playgrounds. If you design the playground and allow for a kid to climb up a particularly high section and jump off...they could die or break their legs. You didn't design the park for kids to climb up that high section...but you still kind of let that happen. Maybe you left ridges that made it easier for a kid to access that dangerous section. :/ If you were a smart designer you'd make sure every ridge and detail was there for a good reason to prevent being sued.

Likewise...you didn't purposefully design for those ladies to get killed and dragged around, but you definitely left it in the game anyways for them to be interactive. Also...it doesn't look like they can defend themselves very well.

In the Legend of Zelda, they do this...but a bit better. You can beat the shit out of Princess Zelda in Wind Waker and in Spirit Tracks. They don't make her invincible. She'll yelp and react to your violence. She'll even tell you to stop. And then if you do it too much, she'll turn around and kill you or cause significant harm to you. Either with an arrow or a sword. That has a better message in my eyes...That's a different "agenda." They left in the violent interaction, but ALSO programed some detail in there that tells us something about Zelda's character and women in general.

If you beat at a woman, or dog or chicken. You deserve more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[RicoTheMad]

Sexism is already completely under the surface. (Except under certain situations when guys are openly and happily sexist.) Same with racism. The only way to fix that, is by making people aware of their subconscious gender/racial bias. Make them aware. And then don't censor them.

We all have natural urges that are "undesirable." Labeling something as evil or wrong makes those urges seep down outside of our conscious feelings. That doesn't get rid of the undesirable urge...it just makes them hidden.

So yeah...I don't know.

Honestly as a guy who came from a country where racism wasn't a thing (because we're a mix of all kinds of races pretty much, I had half of Europe, Africa and America in my bloodline) I think only real way to deal with race and civil rights issues is to stop trying to shove them down people's throats.

Sadly there *are* people in this world who no matter what argument you use, or motivation, will be complete pieces of crap to people. Some of them were raised that way, others may do it to garner support from people they may sadly look up to. Whatever the case, some of them *are* sadly "lost forever" so to speak.

The way to make society less shitty culturally is through the people who *can* be swayed through logic and actions, and those people can be driven away by anger and harsh words directed at them making them defensive. You could talk to the most open minded person in the world, but if the first word out of your mouth is an insult, they are unlikely to want to engage you and take you seriously. I feel like this is the approach games media and people in games have been taking. The blunt instrument approach. No finesse, little thought behind it other than "you are bad and you should feel bad".

The only way to get through to them is to engage them. Find out why they may think how they do, correct them, encourage them to question what is likely the result of years of brainwashing by ignorant family members or the local community. People aren't just born sexist assholes, they are turned into them. Our job is to undo their wonderful training by being great human beings who they look up to. Essentially, to really get someone to come over to your side, they need to respect you. they need to want to change themselves!

Do not forget what you require of them. You require they give up what may be a tenet of their upbringing. In Latin cultures, sexism is not only rampant, but even encouraged by some women (who openly talk about and seek a "man to pay her bills"). So sexism isn't just something men are guilty of, some women, through their upbringing or local culture, embrace it and abuse it too, thus perpetuating it as well.

Its a truly sickening belief in a world full of unfairness. But remember that in order to beat them, you must be better than them. All the people I see flinging insults (not you, you seem very rational ) do not improve the situation. I just wish we had some level headed people speaking out rather than a lot of the immature people flinging mud on each other thinking it helps things somehow.

"They started it" isn't a valid reason to continue a behavior. That's what children do.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

Absorb is one thing, but "learn" sort of implies it's a foregone conclusion someone agrees with the criticism. (What do you do about the ones who don't?)

I like zeldablue's answer...it's not so much about always following your critics (which would be its own kind of intellectual weakness) as it is about justifying your choices intelligently. So like, to use a non-video games example, when I read a recent interview with Woody Allen where he brushes off the idea that there are no black people in his movies with "well I just want to cast who's right for the part," with no kind of self reflection or serious consideration, it just makes me think "dude, this is why you haven't been relevant for 20+ years."

 

[zeldablue]

Honestly as a guy who came from a country where racism wasn't a thing (because we're a mix of all kinds of races pretty much, I had half of Europe, Africa and America in my bloodline) I think only real way to deal with race and civil rights issues is to stop trying to shove them down people's throats.

Sadly there *are* people in this world who no matter what argument you use, or motivation, will be complete pieces of crap to people. Some of them were raised that way, others may do it to garner support from people they may sadly look up to. Whatever the case, some of them *are* sadly "lost forever" so to speak.

The way to make society less shitty culturally is through the people who *can* be swayed through logic and actions, and those people can be driven away by anger and harsh words directed at them making them defensive. You could talk to the most open minded person in the world, but if the first word out of your mouth is an insult, they are unlikely to want to engage you and take you seriously. I feel like this is the approach games media and people in games have been taking. The blunt instrument approach. No finesse, little thought behind it other than "you are bad and you should feel bad".

The only way to get through to them is to engage them. Find out why they may think how they do, correct them, encourage them to question what is likely the result of years of brainwashing by ignorant family members or the local community. People aren't just born sexist assholes, they are turned into them. Our job is to undo their wonderful training by being great human beings who they look up to. Essentially, to really get someone to come over to your side, they need to respect you. they need to want to change themselves!

Do not forget what you require of them. You require they give up what may be a tenet of their upbringing. In Latin cultures, sexism is not only rampant, but even encouraged by some women (who openly talk about and seek a "man to pay her bills"). So sexism isn't just something men are guilty of, some women, through their upbringing or local culture, embrace it and abuse it too, thus perpetuating it as well.

Its a truly sickening belief in a world full of unfairness. But remember that in order to beat them, you must be better than them. All the people I see flinging insults (not you, you seem very rational ) do not improve the situation. I just wish we had some level headed people speaking out rather than a lot of the immature people flinging mud on each other thinking it helps things somehow.

"They started it" isn't a valid reason to continue a behavior. That's what children do.

I agree wholeheartedly. At the end of the day, it's all about respect and understanding. I haven't really looked at any "click-bait" articles...but if they are as demanding as you say, then it is important to make them stop and then try it in a more humanizing way.

If these journalists are being harassed, I could easily see how the articles could be more and more angry, desperate and patronizing. Since I might be categorized as a SJW...I'll just say the people on "my side" are just as frustrated and helpless feeling as the side who wants the social commentary to go away.

There are also men and women who enjoy specific gender roles and pass it on and enforce it onto their children. I know because I was in love with being a purdy princess growing up. That's okay, I don't see that as a problem. But enforcing it in all of our media too? Why not have more variety in the roles you give men and women?

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

I'm not from Europe.

Didn't say you were, just saying I don't think the idea of politics being endemic to all public life is a uniquely American idea. The specifics of these particular political debates are necessarily American, though, since that's the contest in which all of these events have been unfolding.

 

[zeldablue]

See and here's where I'm going to disagree slightly, although I think this gets right to the heart of the conflation problem at the center of this whole thing: there are some people who, if not theoretically beyond education, have demonstrated with their hostility and opinions that they're beyond what I would consider our responsibility. The guys making rape and death threats? I think it exhibits too much respect to be saying "we just need to inform and persuade them". Much like how GAF is effectively moderated its sometimes healthier for the community to just try and ostracize them rather than continue to let them poison the environment while we engage in the arduous and maybe futile task of trying to help them change their behavior.

But then if course as I said a page or two ago we have the opposite problem where people are writing off everyone who doesn't already agree with them as lost causes who should just be shamed out of the dialogue so that only the already enlightened are left

Well...I'm happy Neogaf gets the really angry people out. But, I will say we do tend to bait them into saying the wrong things sometimes. I've been studying the Gamergate Twitter Wars and notice both sides being baited and taunted into saying really mean things. I'm not sure if that's right. It keeps on justifying more angry back and forth tweets and more reasons to keep being angry. The gamergate people take snapshots and say "Look! This SJW said this awful thing! Now go spread these Zoe nudes!" Likewise, Anita and Zoe posting those awful tweets fuels my anger for how godawful these people are. I don't want that anger.

The reaaaaally sexist people, are probably carrying a lot of anger and trauma towards women already. That mixed with their "entitlement" being challenged is a really dangerous thing.

If I am to believe how our minds work...racism and sexism comes almost entirely from projection. We don't hate women, we just hate sluts and attention-seekers. We don't hate blacks, we just hate savages and freeloaders. Unfortunately for racists, every black person IS a freeloading savage. And for sexists, every female IS an attention seeking slut. (except for the really special ladies who know their place.)

Now you see the journalists cementing their own form of bigotry. I don't hate gamers, just misogynists! Unfortunately, now we're seeing misogyny in everything. (Which isn't hard to do, anyways.)

Our perceptions are our reality. Our perceptions are not easily altered at all...you're going to have to do more than a bunch of yelling to get this to stop. If you're dealing with a child, beating them and yelling at them is enough to make them learn that something they did is wrong. As soon as kids get slightly older, beating them and yelling at them doesn't work. Older children and adults need better reasons to believe something besides "IT'S WRONG!" They need to be taught in a way that reaaaally makes sense to them. They need to experience it and feel it. And we're all capable of being taught if we're open to it. Yells, threats and insults close off our minds and brings up our walls. Leaving us feeling misunderstood, oppressed, angry and hurt.

The oppressed are oppressing...

 

[Kimawolf]

So, I have been watching this entire gamergate thing since it exploded, reading the various tweets and seeing everything that's been transpiring and one thing I have to say is I’m fairly disappointed in the journalists and how they handled the entire situation for a few reasons, but i'm only going to get into the main one, something that popped up during the course of all the screaming: More diversity in gaming i.e. more females in gaming.

Reason 1: I saw many journalists say the have a right to discuss social issues, they have a right to be “culture critics” and talk about diversity because games are art, and women are under represented (which is true to anyone who doubts it) and are just doing their jobs. Alright well I have a question for you... where the hell was your righteous fury all the times black people like me, or Hispanics, or Asians, etc complained of no damn real diversity? We've complained for YEARS about this problem, and yet year after year, game after game, the same, plain characters are put into games. Why are you not writing angry editorials, confrontational and heated blog posts and tweets, all getting in unison to write a bevy of articles screaming at the EAs, Activisons, Nintendos, Sony's Microsofts, Ubisofts about how they continually seem to ignore their non-white fans with cookie cutter characters?

Where are your blog and “editorials” calling out developers who constantly decide to just not put any kind of person of color as a protagonist? Why not ask these developers and publishers when you're pimping their game why they don't try to diversify? So when you suddenly become culture reporters and get up in arms about the under-representation of females, the harassment of females, how can I take that claim seriously when for decades you've ignored minorities? Women are definitely not fairly represented in games, but guess what, black people, Hispanics are not hardly represented at all! We're not even background characters, VERY rarely are we protagonists, or love interests or anything other than stereotypes. Same with Hispanics. So where are our articles, where are our knights defending and calling out the DEVELOPERS for this behavior that's gone on? How about asking all those indie developers who are concerned about diversity in gaming now why the hell they haven't put a black guy or girl in their games as the lead?

Hell there have been more alien characters as protagonists than black and Hispanic people. ALIENS. Let that sink in. Developers and publishers would rather create a species than use a black guy or girl, or another minority for their game. So why are you not all taking to twitter and writing all these editorials about that? Why not call the developers and publishers to the carpet like you did with Ubi soft on their “no women because its too hard” comment?

I just can't feel like this is your legitimate concern when they've let this issue go on for so long without any real effort to report on it other than patronizing bones thrown our way.

And also, please journalists, next time something like this happens, remember you're the professional, you're the one paid to report. Don't step down to the level of children on twitter and "circle the wagons" as you did, leave the screaming to the forum and blog posters, raise the level of discourse to an acceptable conversation, don't keep adding fuel to a ridiculous fire.

Because although gamers came out of this damaged, it didn't look good for you all either and just left a bad taste in my mouth and many people's mouths.

 

[alstein]

The oppressed are oppressing...

That's what this has become so virulent. Both sides believe they're being oppressed and are willing to oppress themselves. Both groups aren't used to having their own tactics used against them, and both sides see themselves as the good people and the other the evil.

Zoe Quinn was just Franz Ferdinand in all of this.

 

[Palette Swap]

So, I have been watching this entire gamergate thing since it exploded, reading the various tweets and seeing everything that's been transpiring and one thing I have to say is I’m fairly disappointed in the journalists and how they handled the entire situation for a few reasons, but i'm only going to get into the main one, something that popped up during the course of all the screaming: More diversity in gaming i.e. more females in gaming.

Reason 1: I saw many journalists say the have a right to discuss social issues, they have a right to be “culture critics” and talk about diversity because games are art, and women are under represented (which is true to anyone who doubts it) and are just doing their jobs. Alright well I have a question for you... where the hell was your righteous fury all the times black people like me, or Hispanics, or Asians, etc complained of no damn real diversity? We've complained for YEARS about this problem, and yet year after year, game after game, the same, plain characters are put into games. Why are you not writing angry editorials, confrontational and heated blog posts and tweets, all getting in unison to write a bevy of articles screaming at the EAs, Activisons, Nintendos, Sony's Microsofts, Ubisofts about how they continually seem to ignore their non-white fans with cookie cutter characters?

Where are your blog and “editorials” calling out developers who constantly decide to just not put any kind of person of color as a protagonist? Why not ask these developers and publishers when you're pimping their game why they don't try to diversify? So when you suddenly become culture reporters and get up in arms about the under-representation of females, the harassment of females, how can I take that claim seriously when for decades you've ignored minorities? Women are definitely not fairly represented in games, but guess what, black people, Hispanics are not hardly represented at all! We're not even background characters, VERY rarely are we protagonists, or love interests or anything other than stereotypes. Same with Hispanics. So where are our articles, where are our knights defending and calling out the DEVELOPERS for this behavior that's gone on? How about asking all those indie developers who are concerned about diversity in gaming now why the hell they haven't put a black guy or girl in their games as the lead?

Hell there have been more alien characters as protagonists than black and Hispanic people. ALIENS. Let that sink in. Developers and publishers would rather create a species than use a black guy or girl, or another minority for their game. So why are you not all taking to twitter and writing all these editorials about that? Why not call the developers and publishers to the carpet like you did with Ubi soft on their “no women because its too hard” comment?

I just can't feel like this is your legitimate concern when they've let this issue go on for so long without any real effort to report on it other than patronizing bones thrown our way.

And also, please journalists, next time something like this happens, remember you're the professional, you're the one paid to report. Don't step down to the level of children on twitter and "circle the wagons" as you did, leave the screaming to the forum and blog posters, raise the level of discourse to an acceptable conversation, don't keep adding fuel to a ridiculous fire.

Because although gamers came out of this damaged, it didn't look good for you all either and just left a bad taste in my mouth and many people's mouths.

While I agree on the racial issue, this particular point seems a bit misguided to me in the sense that:
- the discussion about women has taken center stage in the past weeks because this whole debacle began as an attack on ZQ and then proceeded to degrade into (among other things) a war on women. Otherwise, if this specific discussion is more prevalent overall, I wouldn't be surprised if it is thanks to Sarkeesian's initiative helping raise awareness.
- these inclusion discussions aren't and should never be mutually exclusive: discussing gender representation doesn't prevent discussing race representation doesn't prevent discussing sexual orientation representation doesn't prevent discussing anything else. If anything, not discussing that particular gender issue because journalism shouldn't be socially minded is the quickest way to never discuss any of these issues (I'm not conflating your position with that).

I can't exhaustively comment on how much the gaming press addresses any issue compared to another as I don't read it much outside of what is posted here but I don't believe the approach here is "let's discuss women in video games to death and then we'll call it a day as far as social issues are concerned".