next »

[eyeliner]

I'm not sure if anyone has posited this yet but ironically my feeling is that this heralds the maturity of games as a medium that we're even talking about it in these ways.

Mature enough to be considered polarizing art, from which moronic petty wars brew?

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

working theory: The only woman Boreal has personal experience with is his mom, and she frequently took videogames away from his as punishment for bad behavior.

Taken in that light, it's perfectly rational to fear that anita and all female games journalists are outsiders looking to stop his fun.

also wrt gamers vs jounralists/devs -- if you seriously think there's an OUTSIDER VS INSIDER situation going on, what forces do you think are gatekeeping you from becoming an insider? It takes, like, a hello. And not being a hateful person.

ps

He pointed to a few recent examples of small ways he has tried to portray women in a more positive light. "It's very minor but it means something to me. We never call a woman a 'ho' in Saints Row 4, we call them sex workers. We respect that that's their position and we don't take a cheap shot at them for that. It's a minor thing, but it's something ... It's the right thing to do."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137124-Saints-Row-Writer-Supports-Change-for-the-Representation-of-Women-in-Games

[HimTyers]

Personally I believe that general sexism is an issue in the games industry,and the portrayal of women in some games is really fucked up. There were many cases of this that were presented in the episode, but I have some problems with her presentation...

1. She insinuated that the rape scenes in the game were there for the entertainment of the player, and that you could just stand by and watch, which you could, but if you watch it for the entertainment then its an entirely different problem of you being an insane person.

2. She used the same argument that much of the mainstream media and legislative organization use against violent video games. In which they believe that by being exposed to violent video games that children will become violent themselves, to which there is no clear evidence that this belief is true. In Her video, Anita Sarkeesian, uses the same argument, but with the treatment of women instead.

[gimymblert]

her argument is that it perpetuated sexism behavior not that it turn people into copycat of the character.

[SirNiko]

working theory: The only woman Boreal has personal experience with is his mom, and she frequently took videogames away from his as punishment for bad behavior.

You only support the arguments of opposition when you resort to grade-school level insults such as implying people are virgins. Your post would have been no weaker if you left out the pointless mockery.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

working theory: The only woman Boreal has personal experience with is his mom, and she frequently took videogames away from his as punishment for bad behavior.

You only support the arguments of opposition when you resort to grade-school level insults such as implying people are virgins. Your post would have been no weaker if you left out the pointless mockery.

neither of those statements are true.

I'm nut supporting anybody's argument, and if you think me making fun of a cruel man on the internet lends credence to claims that women don't deserve equal rights you're a lunatic.

[gimymblert]

working theory: The only woman Boreal has personal experience with is his mom, and she frequently took videogames away from his as punishment for bad behavior.

You only support the arguments of opposition when you resort to grade-school level insults such as implying people are virgins. Your post would have been no weaker if you left out the pointless mockery.

neither of those statements are true.

I'm nut supporting anybody's argument, and if you think me making fun of a cruel man on the internet lends credence to claims that women don't deserve equal rights you're a lunatic.

You kinda prove his point, there is a difference between attacking someone and attacking his argument, generally the latter is what is seen as civil not the former.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

That concept is logically bankrupt. For someone who compiled an 80 page thread of social justice resources you seem unaware of even the most basic systems of oppression. It's a goofball bully rhetoric that belongs on the schoolyard.

My manner of speech is not justification for another person's abuse -- you could imagine this same logic applied to something more tactile and direct, like theft or violence.

"You insulted me while we were arguing about pizza hut, so that's just more ammunition for my case to burn down the one around the corner"

"You just called me a jerk for beating that guy up? that PROVES i should've beaten him up"

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Just in anticipation of the accusation: Ad Hominem is when you use a criticism of the speaker in an effort to discredit their claims.

Let's look at some examples.

"Boreal is a big baby, and so he doesn't know what he's talking about" -ad hominem. A weak argument

"Boreal is a big baby" -not ad hominem. just an insult. Not an argument at all, let alone one that could lead to a side being discredited. (also, coincidentally the truth)

(interestingly: "you're childish and resorting to insults, so your side of the argument is less credible" does, actually, constitute ad hominem.)

[TheLastBanana]

For what it's worth, I think you've made the argument no less credible, but the discussion itself more unpleasant than it needs to be.

[gimymblert]

@catguy

I didn't justify someone else bullying, using this speech pattern is a problem, the tone argument is not about insult it's about speaking up, just speak up don't need to resort to abuse. Notice he say

working theory: The only woman Boreal has personal experience with is his mom, and she frequently took videogames away from his as punishment for bad behavior.

You only support the arguments of opposition when you resort to grade-school level insults such as implying people are virgins. Your post would have been no weaker if you left out the pointless mockery.

BTW you aren't the current target here, you are the one who target.
It's better to win by overwhelming with logic and pointing contradiction (especially internal contradiction) rather than attacking the person, you must better that them if you disagree. That's why I put up 80p of resource, to have a shortcut to facts and arguments instead of resorting of shouting contest. I keep adjusting my reaction based on that instead of falling on old trap and learn from previous shortcoming.

For example in the previous thread on anita's video part 1, I failed to fully convey why beads was problematic beyond a 'i don't agree' @teegee missing that they have a gay character they didn't felt like to add gay features (like wearing women clothes and jewelery or having make up) like they felt characterize each of their obvious character's ethnicity by stupid stereotype. The reason being that being a team of 3 they have a gay male writing the game, hence he is represented as normally as possible without pushing it further. Did not stop me from searching a better argument in case I have a new similar situation.

That's why I did the 80p long thread about it, to not fall onto this kind of basic strategy that have little impact.


Warning - while you were typing 2 replies has been posted. You may wish to review your post.


I haven't even thought of ad hominem 

[MeshGearFox]

[gimymblert]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/224595/This_Week_in_Video_Game_Criticism_Tropes_vs_Anita_Sarkeesian_and_the_Demise_of_Gamers.php

[SirNiko]

As a side note, I've never played any of the Saints Row games. I got the impression they're basically grand theft auto with less dark humor and slightly more 'good' protagonists, is that so? At first I was under the impression that they were basically toilet humor and innuendo but now I'm seeing articles about how the fourth game has strong female characters and the devs want it to be inclusive and maybe it isn't that bad?

[gimymblert]

Most people says it's gta but fun, I think 2 and 3 redeem teh series after 1

[TheLastBanana]

They're basically GTA if it took itself way less seriously, which is actually refreshing. I've only played SR3, but the game admits from the get-go that it's a stupid action game and just rolls with it, which is a lot of fun. I enjoy it a lot more than the GTA "look we're so edgy this guy is sniffing COCAINE out of a STRIPPER's ASS" thing.

[Tuba]

Saints Row is GTA but with a bigger focus on fun and causing mayhem. It never take itself seriously and encourages the player to play with the world. SRIV just gives you super powers so you can freely roam the city doing anything you want, it's pretty fun and nonsense and the best one IMO.

It has a lot of toilet humor and innuendo but I find it to be genuinely funny. It gives you a lot of freedom to make your character with any color and any body type you want. But sure, SR4 has some pretty strong female characters, though most of them are already on SR3.

[oodavid]

@catguy, @gimym JIMBERT, I think it's called a "fallacy fallacy"; just because someone has (accidentally or otherwise) used a fallacy in their argument it doesn't mean their argument is wrong.

[TeeGee]

For example in the previous thread on anita's video part 1, I failed to fully convey why beads was problematic beyond a 'i don't agree'

Uhh, just to clarify. I got your argument. I see how that's a problem. I however don't think it was big enough to warrant changes at this point. It's something we'll be more careful about in future games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I was waiting for you answer paul, hence way I name drop you. I was more curious about to why you didn't believe in it. However let's discuss the premise you pose. You don't believe in patriarchy as a modern system of oppression. You say anthropological are merely descriptive, and what they describe is a system of power, in past western society patriarchy has been about owning women and disposing of them (to keep it short), this is almost the same definition as slavery, you pay, you own. I'm sure you would say that slavery is from an anthropological perspective is mere description of a power structure, hence not an oppression. However given than past western patriarchy operate on similar rules than slavery and slavery is a definitely an oppression that patriarchy is an oppression too? The thing is that the concept of feminism didn't appear in a non patriarchal society, it did appear in a traditional patriarchal society, the perceived non patriarchy on modern society is the result of feminist fight against the old patriarchal society, and most of that are actually fairly recent so we still have the last generation who fight alive among us. Given that it's unlikely that all the old structure to disappearrd but would have rather go sneaky, enforce by loose rules, like traditional role of individual by gender. Given that power was associated by gender, and power define the social status of individual, therefore permission and taboo, it is safe to say that patriarchy impose on individual based on their gender, roles, effectively defining what women and man are, aka one hold power on the other and have legal authority. Given that those traditional roles persist in modern society (bread winner vs house keeper) and those where define during patriarchal time, it is safe to say that patriarchy persist and underline social structure. However a parallel could be made between slavery, also "abolished" but more clearly. You seems to say that patriarchy is irrelevant in modern society, pretty much like we won't say slavery continue to exist, ie as the institutions, however similar mechanism did persist such as segregation (officially) and then more perniciously racism, those mecanism are there to keep the power dynamics that used to exist between black and white, we call this today racism, it is safe to say that racism has its root in slavery and use slavery as a lens to understand modern racism. Similarly modern feminist in general discussion don't invoke as much patriarchy that are invoking sexism, but sexism cannot be, just like racism for slavery, understood outside of the lens of patriarchy. That's why patriarchy is an important context, saying you don't believe in it is saying you don't believe in sexism and feminism, because precisely those two concepts won't make sense without the concept of patriarchy as they are a reaction to it.

damn it need to sleep, tomorrow everyone

what a wall of text

but okay, this is how i think of it: i believe that a modern system of oppressing people exists. however, i believe that this system oppresses "the weak" in general, not particular to women. e.g. it also oppresses the poor, racial minorities, homosexuals, and so on. i would group all of those systems of oppression together as one thing. i don't see why we need a special term for the oppression of women when the oppression of the poor and the oppression of blacks works pretty much very similarly to the oppression of women, to the point where all of those can be considered "one system" rather than distinct systems. that "one system" of oppression should have a name reflecting what it is, and not singling out any one group that is oppressed. you can use whatever name you want for that system, but i think calling it a "patriarchy" minimizes the harm that system does to other oppressed groups, and creates a division between those groups, who should work together rather than separately

i mean, simply calling it 'patriarchy' implies that the primary role of it is to oppress women, when it also oppresses so much more than women. it's not some different thing oppressing women that oppresses blacks or gays, it's the same exact system oppressing all of those. my own personal term for that system is "blaggenthorg" but you can use whatever you like for it