Support NeoGAF

[HiredN00bs]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

So the women who are sexually assaulted aren't killed?

Also, do you have any evidence to support the assertions you make? You assert:

-men and women assess risk differently for biological reasons, not learned ones

-men are more likely to be victims of murder than women

 

[Blues1990]

I've honestly been a bit out of the loop, but who is this person we are talking about?

 

[Maastricht]

Your argument comes across as 'shit is hard, so please dont criticize it'. I hope you see why that is not really a solid argument.

It is a much more solid argument still than cherry picking a sentence and saying "how something comes across". There's no argument in there whatsoever, just denial.

I argued that making a female version of PacMan was probably a bad idea, but once you take that misguided path, what options did they have? And who do you do it for? People that like putting things in their hair and wearing makeup I presume, because the rest was probably fine with the original PacMan avatar? They could have argued that PacMan was female in the first place, though they'd chosen a rather unfortunate name in that case (I still tend to use s/he rather than the default he for a person whose sex is unknown, to keep people aware). They couldn't retrofit anything to the original - I like how a certain Dutch cartoon has Disney style ducks but with tail feathers suggesting a flaccid penis to show they're male rather than anything else. As PacMan is a symbolic representation of a mouth/eating, how do you make that recogniseably female? Make the lips different? Add lipstick? Just making the mouth smaller doesn't really help and remember you have a handful of pixels.

You can say that the technical aspects play no role, but I just have to think of a literary criticism class I attended in university where it was pointed out that white sheets were sometimes used as a symbol of homosexuality, but we also shouldn't forget that about 95% of the worlds bed-sheets are in fact white.

And you are disappointed the discussion isnt further along when even the question whether that discussion should be had is being fought tooth and nail by reactionary groups like gamergate? Really?

Yes, really. There are people fighting tooth and nail against the theory of evolution too, and they are much larger and influential. I don't think that lowering standards on the quality of discussion for those people is worth it, nor do I think that 'simplifying' the message has any kind of positive effect on that group that is worthwhile. Death-threats in any shape or form should be illegal and punished as such (as they are over here at least), and that's about as much attention I feel that group deserves at this point. I kind of feel also that some of this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-to-keep-terrorists-from-ruining-world/ applies here too.

But in the end, it's always easy to be negative and pick things apart. I suppose that if I want things to be better, then I should contribute positively. I will work on getting true/false graphs working on my www.techingames.net site, and then add some of the proposed social tests like the Bechdel, Russo, Finkbeiner and Mako Mori tests to be able to record and show if any progress is being made in these areas.

 

[Orayn]

I've honestly been a bit out of the loop, but who is this person we are talking about?

Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist media critic and the creator of a Kickstarter-funded web series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games that explores the role of commonly used storytelling conventions (tropes) in games. She's been subject to massive amounts of stalking and threats since starting the campaign, all because some incredibly shitty and immature people erroneously believe that evil feminists want to take away their video games.

 

[pokeystaples]

Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence.

 

[User 73706]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

wat

 

[foltzie1]

I've honestly been a bit out of the loop, but who is this person we are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

 

[Freshmaker]

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

I'd opt for neither. I didn't especially enjoy the times I was beaten up. I don't think making it into a sex crime would've somehow enhanced the experience.

 

[stupei]

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

Actually, this depends on what kind of men and women you're talking about. Black women are about as likely to be murdered as white men, for example.

Of course, Sarkeesian is a white woman, and so much less likely to be murdered statistically, but that doesn't take into account celebrity. Are well known men more likely to be attacked and killed than women? Do you have any statistics that suggest obsessions with known male figures are more likely to result in murder?

Either way, women in general are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are likely to be murdered, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here to begin with.

 

[Stet]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

Men are much more likely to be members of gangs than women. Gang violence is responsible for 48% of violent crimes in the U.S. I bet gang members don't feel that safe walking around at night.

 

[freethought]

Men are much more likely to be members of gangs than women. Gang violence is responsible for 48% of violent crimes in the U.S. I bet gang members don't feel that safe walking around at night.

They do when they're with their gang. That's why they're in a gang. That and selling drugs.

 

[Brakke]

Nothing is "just biology".

 

[Stet]

They do when they're with their gang. That's why they're in a gang. That and selling drugs.

Sorry, walking alone at night. That's the criteria for the original women/men question anyway.

Regardless, the context of why women are afraid for their safety at night is important, as is the context of why men are murdered more often than women.

 

[Thorakai]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

the fuck is up with you

 

[jimi_dini]

-men are more likely to be victims of murder than women

That's widely known.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Victims and offenders, by demographic group 1980-2008

76.8% of all victims were male, despite being only 48% of the population

It's also common that people generally assess risks badly.

As soon as there are a few news reports about for example Ebola or a terrorist attack, the masses are going into panic mode, despite their own risk of getting killed by that being insanely small. If people wouldn't assert risks so badly and act logically, noone would for example smoke. Noone would give a fuck about a terrorist attack. It's way more likely to die because of mistreament in a hospital than dying because of a terrorist attack. Strangely people don't go into panic mode when going to a hospital.

Terrorist attacks are effectively just killings. Nothing more. Sometimes noone is even killed. Only media coverage makes actual terrorist attacks out of it. If there wouldn't be coverage, terrorist attacks simply would not work as intended.

There are also plenty of people that like the TSA security theater because it makes them feel safe. Please note: it's feel safe. It has nothing to do with actual safety.

 

[freethought]

Sorry, walking alone at night. That's the criteria for the original women/men question anyway.

Regardless, the context of why women are afraid for their safety at night is important, as is the context of why men are murdered more often than women.

Oh yeah it was implied, you'd just left it slightly open and I couldn't resist. I get where you were coming from and I completely agree. I almost went and looked up some drug related murder stats myself when that guy posted but I'm far more comfortable making bad jokes about silly crap than being constructive or doing research.

I do apologise, it's a compulsion.

 

[sasliquid]

So people are basically debating about the 'White Male Effect'? Are there people who genuinely don't think its a thing? (I may just be confuzed)

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

Every single fucking sentence here is laughably amazing.

 

[joe2187]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

[Maastricht]

Oh yeah it was implied, you'd just left it slightly open and I couldn't resist. I get where you were coming from and I completely agree. I almost went and looked up some drug related murder stats myself when that guy posted but I'm far more comfortable making bad jokes about silly crap than being constructive or doing research.

I do apologise, it's a compulsion.

In Uncharted games, 99% of the population are male, and they have a 100% of being dead by the end of the game. Conversely, 1% is female and has a 100% chance of surviving (or 50% in UC3 iirc. I think in general, men are far more likely to die violently in videogames than in reality, and the chance of dying to old age or cancer is rather small or frequently, just plain 0.

 

[freethought]

In Uncharted games, 99% of the population are male, and they have a 100% of being dead by the end of the game. Conversely, 1% is female and has a 100% chance of surviving (or 50% in UC3 iirc. I think in general, men are far more likely to die violently in videogames than in reality, and the chance of dying to old age or cancer is rather small or frequently, just plain 0.

I don't think you meant to quote me. Also, my GTA stats will likely skew that figure back the other way. Murdering digital sex workers count right?

 

[Toxi]

Whether a man or women 'feels safe' to walk around at night has little to do with whether they are in fact safe or not. Men and women access risk differently it's just biology.

Men are much more likely to be victims of murder or attempted murder than women are. Given the choice, personally I would rather be sexually assaulted than killed.

This thread took an odd, sad turn.

Why is it that people who don't know jackshit about biology like to cite biology to support their views?

 

[BlitzKeeg]

Oh wow. I didn't expect her/FF to provide a breakdown like this. I wonder what the reaction on the interwebs is going to be like..

Overblown and ignorant (as usual) is my guess

 

[Roran Stehl]

This thread took an odd, sad turn.

Why is it that people who don't know jackshit about biology like to cite biology to support their views?

Wasn't it a thread about AS KS? I'm confused by these late readings!

 

[Corpekata]

Can't have a thread about a feminist without biotruthers eventually appearing.

 

[KojiKnight]

This thread took an odd, sad turn.

Why is it that people who don't know jackshit about biology like to cite biology to support their views?

Because it's easier to rationalize that something is "just different" then to try and find the root behind it.

 

[Biker19]

I'll never understand the hate she gets. You can disagree with someone without hating them. That's how you debate and make progress on things.

She's far far more open than the vast majority of the Kickstarters out there.

I agree. People need to calm down.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Because it's easier to rationalize that something is "just different" then to try and find the root behind it.

We all say we take things for granted; but if we actually ever stopped to think about what we take for granted (not simply having malls but things like race, gender, etc.), then our heads would fucking explode.

Men, of course me included, like to think we understand women's issues. But we really don't.

 

[TunaMarshmallow]

Looks like a reasonable use and reasonable distribution of funds that other people freely gave her. And while she hasn't (quantitatively) done as much as she'd originally planned, it's pretty clear that the quality and scope of her work has been massively improved by the funding.

Seems like a win for everyone!

 

[jimmypop]

Oh, man. This stuff is ruining online gaming discussion for me.

Or has ruined it, really. A generation of self-important kids of means who grew up to be dicks. Imagine that.

 

[Cyrano]

I'm at a point now where I am through with any people whining about Sarkeesian. Her stuff is so bare-bones, so milquetoast, so 101, yet some people are still throwing a hissy-fit because they can't deal with a woman even questioning the status quo in the most mild and non-controversial manner. Because of their video games.

It's embarassing to watch people fall over each other to make misogynist fools out of themselves with almost no self-awareness and complete lack of empathy.

This is more a general comment on the reactions towards her, some of which are in this thread (and countless other instances).

Seems to be the most worrisome part of these threads. Never had I imagined that introducing videogames to decades old feminist critique would cause such an uproar.

 

[SMZC]

We all say we take things for granted; but if we actually ever stopped to think about what we take for granted (not simply having malls but things like race, gender, etc.), then our heads would fucking explode.

Men, of course me included, like to think we understand women's issues. But we really don't.

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but that line of thinking ("men can't understand women's issues") sets a dangerous precedent. It leads to the perception that men's opinions on any gender issues debate are irrelevant. Which leads to the perception that only women should be the ones to decide what needs to be changed in society, and how it should be changed.

Gender issues is a conversation that has to include everyone, because it affects society as a whole. Categorically invalidating one collective is not the right way to go about it, even if said invalidation is a self-imposed one.

 

[Hackworth]

This thread took an odd, sad turn.

Why is it that people who don't know jackshit about biology like to cite biology to support their views?

Probably because they don't know jackshit about biology. If they knew what they were talking about, they'd have different arguments.

 

[Corronchilejano]

When we can finally critically discuss these videos, they will definetly not be representative of the status of the industry.

 

[Messofanego]

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but that line of thinking ("men can't understand women's issues") sets a dangerous precedent. It leads to the perception that men's opinions on any gender issues debate are irrelevant. Which leads to the perception that only women should be the ones to decide what needs to be changed in society, and how it should be changed.

Gender issues is a conversation that has to include everyone, because it affects society as a whole. Categorically invalidating one collective is not the right way to go about it, even if said invalidation is a self-imposed one.

Women should be at the forefront of gender issues that concerns them such as here, and that's not the case right now. So yeah, we should stop and listen rather than make it about ourselves at each step.

 

[zeldablue]

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but that line of thinking ("men can't understand women's issues") sets a dangerous precedent. It leads to the perception that men's opinions on any gender issues debate are irrelevant. Which leads to the perception that only women should be the ones to decide what needs to be changed in society, and how it should be changed.

Gender issues is a conversation that has to include everyone, because it affects society as a whole. Categorically invalidating one collective is not the right way to go about it, even if said invalidation is a self-imposed one.

A large percentage of men are allergic to all topics that are labeled as feminine. It's hard to talk about empathy and progress when gynophobia is basically ingrained in how we teach our kids.

With that said, I don't think anyone's opinion on anything is invalid. But a lot of opinions aren't really based on anything besides stereotypes and prejudice.

 

[SMZC]

Women should be at the forefront of gender issues that concerns them such as here, and that's not the case right now. So yeah, we should stop and listen rather than make it about ourselves at each step.

It's not about making anything about men, it's simply about not invalidating categorically someone's opinions on the mere grounds that they are male. Granted, many men do indeed seem to be incapable of putting themselves in the skin of women, and end up engaging in the debate in less than constructive ways.

 

[zeldablue]

It's not about making anything about men, it's simply about not invalidating categorically someone's opinions on the mere grounds that they are male. Granted, many men do indeed seem to be incapable of putting themselves in the skin of women, and end up engaging in the debate in less than constructive ways.

The reason I am skeptical is because I've watched and read a lot of media in my day. And I feel like I can clearly empathize and identify with a white male even though I am neither. They have specifics problems and struggles that I won't experience but still care about, because I've seen it so often.

I however, feel as though the average white male hasn't read or watched or even interacted with enough black women to know that perspective...let alone a "normal" woman. I don't believe there is enough genuine exposure for men to know that perspective the way women will know theirs. I think their is fear that prevents guys from hearing the opposite sex say something.

See, I oscillate a lot on how I feel about Sarkeesian's work. Most of the time, I find myself thinking that much of it is fairly simplistic, bordering on shoddy, but at the same time, I'm glad she's doing it because it sparks vital conversations that need to happen.

I don't, however, think that the shortcomings of Tropes vs. Women is a reflection on her ability to create these sorts of discourses though. Her enterprise is really tricky because it has to bridge two things that the GamerGate fuckery has shown us are very much incompatible: scholarship and gamers. Academics don't take gamers seriously, and I think there is a shared belief amongst people who most loudly identify as "gamers" that games shouldn't be examined through a critical lens. Which not only puts Sarkeesian in a really shitty no-win position, but it also means that whatever she produces under this umbrella has to be dumbed down in order to reach skeptical audiences on both sides.

So I think you're right--whoever jumps into discussions of gender in gaming is automatically so handicapped that it makes it almost impossible to break any critical ground. That's the real problem to me.

Yeah, I'm also disappointed by Sarkeesian's work being very shallow. Before she showed up, I had dreamed of a sociologist, psychologist or famous art critic taking on an outsider lense analysis on gaming. When she showed up I was really, really curious. But then I kind of pretended not to like her after seeing the reaction from my peers. They were furious with her. (Before she even started making the videos, btw)

After a few months, and finally seeing her work...I couldn't understand the outrage. It was very flat and self explanatory. And people were still attacking her. :\

I think talking about gender stereotypes in general will help her a lot. She needs to show the contrast between men and women more in her work. And explain why those stereotypes severely damage both sides. Sexism, just like all forms of prejudice/xenophobia, is just a side effect of measuring self-worth.

 

[PseudoKirby]

I like the first two bullet points, thats a move in the right direction.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

When we can finally critically discuss these videos, they will definetly not be representative of the status of the industry.

Not sure if joke post or real.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Not sure if joke post or real.

Very real. The industry has already changed from the very moment the first video was uploaded. Even moreso than the contents of the video themselves, the industry is moving forward just due to their existence and the discussion following their backlash from a less than ideal movement.

So yes, they already did what they had to do. Incredibly, by merely existing.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Very real. The industry has already changed from the very moment the first video was uploaded. Even moreso than the contents of the video themselves, the industry is moving forward just due to their existence and the discussion following their backlash from a less than ideal movement.

So yes, they already did what they had to do. Ironically, by merely existing.

It doesn't look like we'll have those types of discussions until Gamergate dies as a popular movement.

 

[HK-47]

It doesn't look like we'll have those types of discussions until Gamergate dies as a popular movement.

How popular is GG though, really? I feel its more loud than popular.

 

[Corronchilejano]

It doesn't look like we'll have those types of discussions until Gamergate dies as a popular movement.

Yep, and I think it'll be a while. A few years. By then the discussion will have evolved and we'll be talking about an entirely different subject. That's what I meant.

How popular is GG though, really? I feel its more loud than popular.

True, and that's the problem. See all those sealions banned in this thread? That's what happens when you try to talk about it, critically.

 

[Colivar]

For the most part I think Anita's only value comes from the debates that get caused around her videos/blogs. I think her work itself is shallow, often dishonest and that she falls into that same bad habit a lot of activists tend to fall into. They start jumping at shadows and see discrimination in everything. They become easily offended, and easily outraged by even the most innocent of shit because they can't get out of their own head. Because of that I don't respect her opinions of pretty much anything, but at the same time I'm grateful someone gets that ball rolling because it gets people with perhaps better heads on their shoulders talking.

 

[Lime]

They become easily offended, and easily outraged by even the most innocent of shit because they can't get out of their own head.

That sounds exactly like the people reacting negatively to Sarkeesian's videos.

 

[Gummb]

For the most part I think Anita's only value comes from the debates that get caused around her videos/blogs. I think her work itself is shallow, often dishonest and that she falls into that same bad habit a lot of activists tend to fall into. They start jumping at shadows and see discrimination in everything. They become easily offended, and easily outraged by even the most innocent of shit because they can't get out of their own head. Because of that I don't respect her opinions of pretty much anything, but at the same time I'm grateful someone gets that ball rolling because it gets people with perhaps better heads on their shoulders talking.

In what ways do you think her videos could become less shallow?

How, precisely, is she being dishonest? Does she lie in her videos?

Does she have a bad habit, or is that just the subject matter of her videos? Is she not showing systematic discrimination in the tropes of women in video games?

Are you saying that anyone has the ability to get outside of their own head? Aren't the most innocent offenses sometimes the worst because they are the ones most socially ingrained?

And how can you form so many opinions about her when you can't even respect her perspective?

-----
These types of off-hand, very casual, yet disguised as "reasonable" remarks on Anita's work are probably the most damaging. They attempt to discredit her entire platform ("I don't respect her opinions") while also trying to remain engaged in the material (I'm grateful someone gets that ball rolling because it gets people with perhaps better heads on their shoulders talking").

Christ, dude. What does this even mean? Anita's talking about relevant material but is completely, seemingly hopelessly wrong?

 

[Colivar]

That sounds exactly like the people reacting negatively to Sarkeesian's videos.

The hate that has been thrown her way is absolutely ridiculous. It's easier to roll your eyes when she makes a stupid point then it is to send her threats, but the internet is full of crazies. Part of me feels that if you intentionally put yourself into the public eye and on a controversial topic then you need to prepare yourself for what comes next.

One of the biggest reasons I don't live my life online making videos, and blogs. Only a matter of time until you piss off the wrong person.

 

[Gummb]

Women should be at the forefront of gender issues that concerns them such as here, and that's not the case right now. So yeah, we should stop and listen rather than make it about ourselves at each step.

This is completely right.

It would also be cool if we could expand the work instead of blaming it for being shallow, incomplete, inaccurate, or dishonest.

 

[SMZC]

The reason I am skeptical is because I've watched and read a lot of media in my day. And I feel like I can clearly empathize and identify with a white male even though I am neither. They have specifics problems and struggles that I won't experience but still care about, because I've seen it so often.

I however, feel as though the average white male hasn't read or watched or even interacted with enough black women to know that perspective...let alone a "normal" woman. I don't believe there is enough genuine exposure for men to know that perspective the way women will know theirs. I think their is fear that prevents guys from hearing the opposite sex say something.

Oh yeah, definitely. The little representation of genre and race beyond white male characters is problematic (especially in the videogame industry, as we well know), and I agree with the implications that this has. I agree that, partly because of this, many white males end up being quite unaware of what it is like to be something other than a white male. I think it's a disservice to everyone when we claim that people of any collective "just cannot understand", though. The implied invalidation of any opinion coming from said collective on any of these discussions is just the tip of the iceberg. When we say "you cannot understand", we're basically denying the human capacity for abstraction. This works against establishing the understanding and empathy that are very much needed in all of these matters.

Obviously many people fail at putting their own experiences aside for a minute in order to look at life from other people's lenses. Otherwise, we would not be having shitstorms every time these topics are brought up. But being at times hard doesn't make it impossible. It just means we must keep at it. Instead of giving up, saying "you/we can't understand" and leaving things at that, we should be looking for ways to help everyone understand better.