Regardless of whatever comic artist the comic was initially made to reply to, the dumpy nerdman there represents actual arguments from a lot of people, including contemporary arguments about how the Dwarf and the Sorceress are equivalents (they aren't). Its point about male sexual fantasies and male power fantasies dominating character design is perfectly valid.
You know, I went with this for awhile, but I don't think I can really anymore. I've never known anyone that wanted to be Dwarf, even kind of.
The artist posted a lengthy reply about why he made the characters like this. It's in at least two threads on these forums, but I don't think this is one of them; I think in the actual DC thread and in the PA Comic thread in the Hub. Anyway, the artist said he was specifically exaggerating male and female characteristics. That, for example, is why Dwarf has a Megabeard -- not because it's attractive, but because it's male. Dwarf and Amazon both have exaggerated muscles, but Dwarf's are even bigger because male exaggeration.
This gets complicated because of where our society is right now, though. Exaggerating the female winds up being a reduction to a lot of people. Exaggerating the male creates an image of power or strength instead. Is this because we already have ingrained into us that what is physically male is strong and powerful and what is physically female is weak and only for appeal to men? Is it because exaggerating the physical differences create discomfort because the physical differences already create discomfort in terms of giving men physical power over women? Is it because we see that which is distinctly female as being sexually appealing, but we don't see the same in that which is distinctly male?
A note: I acknowledge that the poses throw a wrench into some of this, but I'm interested in discussing the aspects of this unrelated to the suggestive poses in the promo pieces.
I brought up something along these lines earlier that went ignored likely due to Sisyphus' post. Exaggerating female traits is sexualized, but exaggerating male traits isn't, and I'm betting the reason is due entirely to socialization.
I personally don't enjoy drawing things I find ugly, although I also think my idea of what is aesthetically appealing is more diverse than most. For example, one of my male Saints Row 2 characters had both the muscle and fat sliders at 50%, which resulted in a chunky yet somewhat defined physique and stable-looking, boxy overall form that looked powerful to me. One of my biggest problems with Saints Row the Third is that I couldn't replicate that form.
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience. Some people are ugly. Some people will not appear attractive to you. While I agree that games with a customizable player avatar should run the full gamut of aesthetics, games with a set protagonist shouldn't have to carry a "sexy" option because people want to eye-fuck their player character.
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience.
That's usually the point of games, though. It's true that it doesn't have to be that way all the time: both games and comics usually focus on escapism, and it would help the artistic credibility of both mediums if we had more works like Maus.
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience.
That's usually the point of games, though. It's true that it doesn't have to be that way all the time: both games and comics usually focus on escapism, and it would help the artistic credibility of both mediums if we had more works like Maus.
You're conflating gameplay with character art.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
And no, I never told you how to argue towards me. I was sharing my personal thought process on how these images don't affect me.
Except that they actually do affect you, because they affect everyone, and we have reams of studies that show that they effect everyone.
I mean, I don't really treat women badly because I look at this stuff. I do have the better perspective for me than anybody else.
Sure, and if interpersonal sexism was the only one that had any affect on anyone, and was the only one that made problems for women in the world, that would be great and that would be the end of it.
I'm going to requote from the other thread about the other kinds of sexism which affect how women are percieved and negatively impact their lives:
Interpersonal (or individual) sexism is not the only kind of sexism that interests many feminists. Instead, they also talk about Institutional sexism and Unconscious sexism.
- Institutional Sexism: explicit and implicit rules or norms that structure social institutions that function to exclude women, or place men above women. At some points in history these rules have been explicit, for example when women were explicitly denied the vote or prohibited from owning property. Other norms are implicit, rather than explicit. For example, while women are expected to do the majority of the work raising children and most people blame mothers rather than fathers for many child-related expectations, this rule is implicit because it is not written down anywhere as an explicit law (Cudd and Jones 109)
- Unconscious Sexism: psychological processes, tacit beliefs, emotions and attitudes that create, sustain or exploit sexual inequalities (Cudd and Jones 110-112). Cudd and Jones give a number of examples of unconscious sexism, if one is interested, one can also try the Implicit Association Test developed by Harvard psychologists to test for the presence of some of these mechanisms.
When we criticize a game for portraying something, it's not because we think that you or anyone else is going to watch that character and then go out and beat his girlfriend, ie interpersonal sexism. We're often more concerned with institutional and unconscious sexism.
The biggest part of the unconscious one is that you and I won't even realize all the times that we're espousing it, that's what makes it unconscious. What studies we have about trans individuals does not paint a pretty picture of our gender biases, though.
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Since it was overlooked last time, here is a list of items from an essay by Peggy McIntosh that elucidates and gives concrete examples to the type of Institutional Sexism that @cambiata is describing above: http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf
IAT is really, really should not be discussed without a sound understanding of what it is, what it does, what it claims to do, and the mechanisms behind it.
@The Big Levinsky I'm not sure how wanting to never see or think about my child as an adult in the nude is sexist. I wouldn't want that of a hypothetical son either. That just seems normal to me, and an opinion.
@REG Rysk: You totally just moved the goalposts on me. Your original statement was that you didn't want your daughter's loving, committed partner to see her naked. You, as the father, were never mentioned as having anything to do with that scenario. Parents picturing their grown children naked is gross. That's not what you were talking about in your original post - and if it was, then you failed to convey that in my opinion.
I have 6 year old daughter. That gives some perspective, I hope, because no dad wants to raise a Playmate (I don't want my kid to be seen naked by anybody...probably not even the guy/gal that she'll marry someday).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Here is the statement where I got that impression from with bolded parts so you can see what specific elements of your posted prompted my line of thinking:
I've had some weird experiences in my mental development lately because, for anybody who's known me for a fair while can tell you, I'm actually an asshole. Well, more likely I was. Some behaviors were presented back to me with a "hey, you're being an asshole. don't do that" and it was not effective at all. When I made these discoveries on my own however, I immediately changed my behavior and people are having a hard time trusting that this "new me" is legit.
I want the assholes of the world to operate like this. Put them in a scenario where they can see the effects for themselves and come to the conclusion that "this is not an OK way to act". I don't want that to stop the art we see, just the attitudes. I would assume the art would become more tame as a byproduct over time though.
The problem is people, in my experience, don't like being presented with their faults and tend to resist change. So basically what we're doing here is making it worse. OH GOD EVERYBODY STOP.
Am I the only one who interpreted that to mean "if you want people like me to listen, this is how you need to talk to them..."? I interpreted that as the classic "let me explain to you how to talk to me..."
I was sharing my personal thought process on how these images don't affect me. I can't speak to other people's thought process or functionality.
But you are speaking to the thought processes of others. Most of your posts have been along the lines of "Because I can appreciate women as sexy and not be sexist (which you kind of are, actually) then obviously this is how most other men operate. Hence any talk of how objectification in media affects men (NOTE: male-centric approach in a topic about feminism) is probably false."
I explained, in those specific bolded parts two things:
1) How situations where people tried to tell me something I was doing was wrong and how it was ineffective; When I am lead to/discover the problem on my own I immediately make a change and is effective.
2) MASSIVE DISCLAIMER OF IN MY EXPERIENCE (see: my opinion) people being told they are wrong is usually met with resistance or defensiveness. Follow up with sarcastic comment about this conversation being negative.
I have never related what I do to anything other than myself. You are drawing connections that I never made.
Stop calling me sexist, please.
In regards to your last question, I parry and riposte:
Would the world be a better place for all mankind if people were less vigilant about punching babies in the face? Or would it be better to err on the side of caution?
The answer to your and my questions has only one reasonable answer. Please do not attempt to paint me into a corner with something where I must obviously agree with you because it is the only logical conclusion you can draw, lest I paint myself as sexist or punching-babies-in-the-face-ist.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
IAT is really, really should not be discussed without a sound understanding of what it is, what it does, what it claims to do, and the mechanisms behind it.
Just by clicking on one of the links to the different tests, the website itself describes what it does, what it claims to do, and the mechanisms behind it.
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
The argument isn't worth pursuing at this point because no matter what tits make you sexist. At least that's what I'm getting from your statements.
I am becoming very skeptical of that superior perspective you were boasting about.
I understand that statement, and concur with it, but I feel Cambiata is proposing something to the opposite of the other thread of dialogue that was concluded. That statement was more out of frustration than a legitimate conclusion.
I don't see any way to approach those ideas without simply putting any form of sexual imagery as having an impact. Maybe I'm taking it out of context or something, but to put those studies and concepts into consideration of this dialogue feels restrictive. Help me understand better!
I really do enjoy this discussion, so much delicious information to absorb!
The argument isn't worth pursuing at this point because no matter what tits make you sexist. At least that's what I'm getting from your statements.
@REG Rysk: Then I have failed to be articulate, or you have failed to understand. Could you quote/bold the statements that led you to this conclusion?* I don't want to drive you from the thread. I just want you to maybe ask yourself if you aren't being swayed by some very subtle, unconscious sexism.
I know what it's like to have the thread go all hostile on you. I once disagreed with TychoCelchuuu that we shouldn't ban all sexy characters from games and that maybe Isabella from DA2 was a step in the right direction in terms of depicting a character who is sexy without being sexist and most of the thread just went apeshit on me. It was not my intent to shut you out of the conversation.
I, myself am not even comfortable saying that I am not sexist, even as I constantly argue in favor of feminism. In order to avoid being sexist, I try to constantly ask myself "am I sexist?" When you stop asking, and proudly declare that you are not, that is when you are most vulnerable to acting in a sexist manner.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
This stuff from Cambiata (don't want to quote because it's been reposted a couple of times), which I had seen earlier in the thread as well regarding unconscious and institutional affects. I understand it, but I was trying to make a point that in an honest assessment of myself I don't feel a negative impact. I probably missed the point of it somewhere in there because I honestly just feel confused.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The argument isn't worth pursuing at this point because no matter what tits make you sexist. At least that's what I'm getting from your statements.
I am becoming very skeptical of that superior perspective you were boasting about.
I understand that statement, and concur with it, but I feel Cambiata is proposing something to the opposite of the other thread of dialogue that was concluded. That statement was more out of frustration than a legitimate conclusion.
I don't see any way to approach those ideas without simply putting any form of sexual imagery as having an impact. Maybe I'm taking it out of context or something, but to put those studies and concepts into consideration of this dialogue feels restrictive. Help me understand better!
I really do enjoy this discussion, so much delicious information to absorb!
Well, I feel like these thread keep covering this information and if you actually read them with the intent to learn and not the intent to reject and argue, then you'll see what we're getting at, but Ok, sure, I'll give you more information.
It's not that a sexy image in a vacuum is bad. The problem is that we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world where every image of a woman must be attractive, and most of those images must be sexy. Then when a woman who is decidedly not sexy shows up in national media, like a female politician, then one of the subjects of discussion is about how ugly she is, about what a fat cow she is, about how she only believes certain things because she needs to get laid. Yet old, ugly, wrinkly male politicians rarely get this treatment. The message perpetuated by our society is that women must at all times be sexy, must be an object of desire for men, or they are not really women.
So how do we fight that, then, you're asking. Well one way that a lot of us are asking for is that women could be presented more often as people with skills instead of people for the audience to oogle. Maybe a female warrior could be in full battle dress that doesn't include boob armor. Maybe a celebate 1,000 year old battle monk could be dressed in monks robes instead of of leather bondage gear. Basically maybe designers could think about the woman they're creating as a character first, and what makes sense for that character, and then try to make that look cool with their amazing creative minds, instead of just saying "yawn, low cut top, giant boobs, no pants, perfect ass, we're done here." If nothing else that gets incredibly boring. Surely I can't be the only one who finds a woman in full armor attractive to look at, can I?
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Just by clicking on one of the links to the different tests, the website itself describes what it does, what it claims to do, and the mechanisms behind it.
I have clicked on the link, I have read it, and I am quite familiar with IAT. The IAT website (understandably) promotes the measure, without discussing the ongoing debate behind the interpretation of IAT results. The layperson who is not fully informed should not use IAT results as conclusive evidence of anything.
I'm actually still floored by this, because it really does mean that all of us are at least a little sexist. Most bizarrely, it also means that not all sexist behavior is even necessarily bad (depending on how broadly the stereotypes are permitted to be defined and which tradition one uses for "traditional").
As an example, I'm currently exploring my own gender definition. I've realized I'm not precisely cisgendered but am instead somewhere in the middle. However, most of what I'm sifting through to determine this is based at least in part on -- traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Meaning I'm engaging in sexism in my own exploration of myself!
Shit just got complicated.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I did the IAT test on Gender, and came out of it associating men more with science and women with liberal arts. Thinking about it, I attribute that mostly to the fact that I'm studying mathematics at university and 75% of the people in lectures, classes etc. are guys. Still very interesting though.
It's not so much that the definition of sexism has changed, but rather that we've realized a wider spectrum of behavior than thought is harmful to disadvantaged classes, in this case women.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
It's not so much that the definition of sexism has changed, but rather that we've realized a wider spectrum of behavior than thought is harmful to disadvantaged classes, in this case women.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
I understand, but as someone who's actually included a whole lot more in this "new" term (in the sense of being "protected" by it), I still don't think I'm comfortable with it.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that (so long as it doesn't lead to "so we should ignore women who enjoy it" or "we should prevent women from participating in it" or "and that's why men are better" or what have you).
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience.
That's usually the point of games, though. It's true that it doesn't have to be that way all the time: both games and comics usually focus on escapism, and it would help the artistic credibility of both mediums if we had more works like Maus.
You're conflating gameplay with character art.
Character art is partially determined by the type of feel a game is going for. The more realistic a game is trying to be the more realistic character art should be.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
It's not so much that the definition of sexism has changed, but rather that we've realized a wider spectrum of behavior than thought is harmful to disadvantaged classes, in this case women.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
I understand, but as someone who's actually included a whole lot more in this "new" term (in the sense of being "protected" by it), I still don't think I'm comfortable with it.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that.
Well I do understand where you're coming from, but the ultimate goal here should be that when someone meets someone for the first time, they don't think "This is a woman, so they like ___", anymore than you should think "This is a black person, so they like ____" or "This is a homosexual, so they like ____." It seems more innocuous than, "I hate this person because they have [physical characteristic]" But the point is that we as human beings need to learn to look at others as people first, people who just happen to have [physical or mental characteristic]. And that is admittedly a really, really hard thing to do.
Maybe more women would love hunting, if they weren't constantly given the social message that that activity isn't for them. Just as an anecdotal example, Kari Byron of Mythbusters loves high powered firearms. And she's talked on camera before about how shocked she was to like them, because she's a vegetarian, anti-gun liberal.
It's hard to know what men and women might like if they aren't pressured socially in what they are "supposed" to enjoy.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
It's not so much that the definition of sexism has changed, but rather that we've realized a wider spectrum of behavior than thought is harmful to disadvantaged classes, in this case women.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
I understand, but as someone who's actually included a whole lot more in this "new" term (in the sense of being "protected" by it), I still don't think I'm comfortable with it.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that.
Well I do understand where you're coming from, but the ultimate goal here should be that when someone meets someone for the first time, they don't think "This is a woman, so they like ___", anymore than you should think "This is a black person, so they like ____" or "This is a homosexual, so they like ____." It seems more innocuous than, "I hate this person because they have [physical characteristic]" But the point is that we as human beings need to learn to look at others as people first, people who just happen to have [physical or mental characteristic]. And that is admittedly a really, really hard thing to do.
Maybe more women would love hunting, if they weren't constantly given the social message that that activity isn't for them. Just as an anecdotal example, Kari Byron of Mythbusters loves high powered firearms. And she's talked on camera before about how shocked she was to like them, because she's a vegetarian, anti-gun liberal.
It's hard to know what men and women might like if they aren't pressured socially in what they are "supposed" to enjoy.
I completely agree with the point, but it is useful to have a word for the more outspokenly prejudiced individuals.
I'm not saying that anyone is doing it right now, but playing the semantics game is a type of derailing that happens way too often in discussions about feminism. You are not going to change the definition of the word. I am not going to change the definition of the word. Let's all move on instead of debating the meaning of a term that has an established meaning. Sorry that some of you don't like it, but I don't want the "that's not what sexism is/does/should mean" discussion derailing us away from talking about sexism.
Then go with "bigot". "Sexist bigot" if you have to be specific.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
I think "mysogynist" does nicely if you need an insult.
Sexism is the word we have, I don't think making new words for it will help, since people are just going to latch on to that new word as a negative thing that they are absolutely not and how dare you suggest it.
Heck from my standpoint I make an effort not to call people sexist. The things they say can be sexist, the thing they created can be sexist, the attitudes they express can be sexist, and those are things that can be demonstrated. But I'm not going to say "you a sexist person" because that involves knowing what is deep in their heart, which no one can actually know and is irrelevant anyway.
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience.
That's usually the point of games, though. It's true that it doesn't have to be that way all the time: both games and comics usually focus on escapism, and it would help the artistic credibility of both mediums if we had more works like Maus.
You're conflating gameplay with character art.
Character art is partially determined by the type of feel a game is going for. The more realistic a game is trying to be the more realistic character art should be.
Art Design is pretty important ffor how a game looks, this is true.
Also, the most important thing that IAT showed me is that I am an uncoordinated goober.
The point of art isn't to be a constant roller coaster ride of things that please the audience. Some people are ugly. Some people will not appear attractive to you. While I agree that games with a customizable player avatar should run the full gamut of aesthetics, games with a set protagonist shouldn't have to carry a "sexy" option because people want to eye-fuck their player character.
For fine arts, that true, but commercial art is absolutely designed to appeal to an audience as much as possible. As I've mentioned in the past, I wouldn't have a problem with the ridiculous sexy options being DLC so long as the base game wasn't exclusionary. I'm not saying that there must be ridiculous, sexy-times DLC, I'm saying that I wouldn't have a problem with it if developers choose to make it available in a totally optional capacity.
I was also thinking that in the MMO world, selling cosmetic items is the lifeblood for many FTP games. Why not sell the chain mail bikinis and combat high-heels (for male and female avatars, the bigger the market, the better!) as paid extras. Then create a button - much like a language filter - that enables players to either enable, or disable cosmetic armors worn by other players.
So like in WoW, instead of robes becoming swimwear on female avatars, the armor looks basically the same by default. But if you pay a buck in the Blizzard store, you can switch that armor back to sexy times (or sexy storm troopers in TOR). Other players, however, if they don't want to see it, can turn it off.
Companies make money by selling sexy armors. Guys who like to eye-fuck their characters (a term I don't like because it seems to vilify guys who like boobs when they play and there ain't nothing wrong with that) can still do so. Maybe more women sign up for the MMO because the aesthetics aren't so hostile, which expands the MMOs market.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Just as racism is about more than the KKK, sexism is about more than boors.
Talking about sexism is more useful than talking about sexists, though.
Posts
I brought up something along these lines earlier that went ignored likely due to Sisyphus' post. Exaggerating female traits is sexualized, but exaggerating male traits isn't, and I'm betting the reason is due entirely to socialization.
I mean, I don't really treat women badly because I look at this stuff. I do have the better perspective for me than anybody else.
That's usually the point of games, though. It's true that it doesn't have to be that way all the time: both games and comics usually focus on escapism, and it would help the artistic credibility of both mediums if we had more works like Maus.
You're conflating gameplay with character art.
Sure, and if interpersonal sexism was the only one that had any affect on anyone, and was the only one that made problems for women in the world, that would be great and that would be the end of it.
I'm going to requote from the other thread about the other kinds of sexism which affect how women are percieved and negatively impact their lives:
When we criticize a game for portraying something, it's not because we think that you or anyone else is going to watch that character and then go out and beat his girlfriend, ie interpersonal sexism. We're often more concerned with institutional and unconscious sexism.
The biggest part of the unconscious one is that you and I won't even realize all the times that we're espousing it, that's what makes it unconscious. What studies we have about trans individuals does not paint a pretty picture of our gender biases, though.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
@REG Rysk: You totally just moved the goalposts on me. Your original statement was that you didn't want your daughter's loving, committed partner to see her naked. You, as the father, were never mentioned as having anything to do with that scenario. Parents picturing their grown children naked is gross. That's not what you were talking about in your original post - and if it was, then you failed to convey that in my opinion.
Here is the original statement:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Here is the statement where I got that impression from with bolded parts so you can see what specific elements of your posted prompted my line of thinking:
Am I the only one who interpreted that to mean "if you want people like me to listen, this is how you need to talk to them..."? I interpreted that as the classic "let me explain to you how to talk to me..."
But you are speaking to the thought processes of others. Most of your posts have been along the lines of "Because I can appreciate women as sexy and not be sexist (which you kind of are, actually) then obviously this is how most other men operate. Hence any talk of how objectification in media affects men (NOTE: male-centric approach in a topic about feminism) is probably false."
Straw man! I specifically said that all this is based purely on what you posted. I don't claim to be an expert on you at all.
Would the world be a better place for your daughter if people were less vigilant about sexism? Or would it be better to err on the side of caution?
This is pretty cool and eye opening.
Are there any more of these out there?
RE: my kid
I didn't state it clearly, oh well.
RE: arguing
I explained, in those specific bolded parts two things:
1) How situations where people tried to tell me something I was doing was wrong and how it was ineffective; When I am lead to/discover the problem on my own I immediately make a change and is effective.
2) MASSIVE DISCLAIMER OF IN MY EXPERIENCE (see: my opinion) people being told they are wrong is usually met with resistance or defensiveness. Follow up with sarcastic comment about this conversation being negative.
I have never related what I do to anything other than myself. You are drawing connections that I never made.
Stop calling me sexist, please.
In regards to your last question, I parry and riposte:
Would the world be a better place for all mankind if people were less vigilant about punching babies in the face? Or would it be better to err on the side of caution?
The answer to your and my questions has only one reasonable answer. Please do not attempt to paint me into a corner with something where I must obviously agree with you because it is the only logical conclusion you can draw, lest I paint myself as sexist or punching-babies-in-the-face-ist.
Just by clicking on one of the links to the different tests, the website itself describes what it does, what it claims to do, and the mechanisms behind it.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I understand that statement, and concur with it, but I feel Cambiata is proposing something to the opposite of the other thread of dialogue that was concluded. That statement was more out of frustration than a legitimate conclusion.
I don't see any way to approach those ideas without simply putting any form of sexual imagery as having an impact. Maybe I'm taking it out of context or something, but to put those studies and concepts into consideration of this dialogue feels restrictive. Help me understand better!
I really do enjoy this discussion, so much delicious information to absorb!
@REG Rysk: Then I have failed to be articulate, or you have failed to understand. Could you quote/bold the statements that led you to this conclusion?* I don't want to drive you from the thread. I just want you to maybe ask yourself if you aren't being swayed by some very subtle, unconscious sexism.
I know what it's like to have the thread go all hostile on you. I once disagreed with TychoCelchuuu that we shouldn't ban all sexy characters from games and that maybe Isabella from DA2 was a step in the right direction in terms of depicting a character who is sexy without being sexist and most of the thread just went apeshit on me. It was not my intent to shut you out of the conversation.
I, myself am not even comfortable saying that I am not sexist, even as I constantly argue in favor of feminism. In order to avoid being sexist, I try to constantly ask myself "am I sexist?" When you stop asking, and proudly declare that you are not, that is when you are most vulnerable to acting in a sexist manner.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
I did. And that was incorrect of me. I should have said, that his posts indicate some unconscious, sexist attitudes.
*You already did and I think you are misrepresenting my arguments. I will have to respond more later.
What does it mean to you to be called "sexist"? How does that make you feel?
Well, I feel like these thread keep covering this information and if you actually read them with the intent to learn and not the intent to reject and argue, then you'll see what we're getting at, but Ok, sure, I'll give you more information.
It's not that a sexy image in a vacuum is bad. The problem is that we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world where every image of a woman must be attractive, and most of those images must be sexy. Then when a woman who is decidedly not sexy shows up in national media, like a female politician, then one of the subjects of discussion is about how ugly she is, about what a fat cow she is, about how she only believes certain things because she needs to get laid. Yet old, ugly, wrinkly male politicians rarely get this treatment. The message perpetuated by our society is that women must at all times be sexy, must be an object of desire for men, or they are not really women.
So how do we fight that, then, you're asking. Well one way that a lot of us are asking for is that women could be presented more often as people with skills instead of people for the audience to oogle. Maybe a female warrior could be in full battle dress that doesn't include boob armor. Maybe a celebate 1,000 year old battle monk could be dressed in monks robes instead of of leather bondage gear. Basically maybe designers could think about the woman they're creating as a character first, and what makes sense for that character, and then try to make that look cool with their amazing creative minds, instead of just saying "yawn, low cut top, giant boobs, no pants, perfect ass, we're done here." If nothing else that gets incredibly boring. Surely I can't be the only one who finds a woman in full armor attractive to look at, can I?
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Like you just called me a something-that-is-not-me. Like a poster (see: paper image affixed to a wall by tacks or some tape).
I have clicked on the link, I have read it, and I am quite familiar with IAT. The IAT website (understandably) promotes the measure, without discussing the ongoing debate behind the interpretation of IAT results. The layperson who is not fully informed should not use IAT results as conclusive evidence of anything.
What I'm trying to get at is what qualities you feel you lack that the term "sexist" picks out.
Including me, actually. Like, I just went and looked it up because I was confused by the current leg of discussion.
What I thought it meant: Attitudes or behavior based on the assumption that one sex is superior to the other
What it actually means: Attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles
Seriously. See for yourself:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t
I'm actually still floored by this, because it really does mean that all of us are at least a little sexist. Most bizarrely, it also means that not all sexist behavior is even necessarily bad (depending on how broadly the stereotypes are permitted to be defined and which tradition one uses for "traditional").
As an example, I'm currently exploring my own gender definition. I've realized I'm not precisely cisgendered but am instead somewhere in the middle. However, most of what I'm sifting through to determine this is based at least in part on -- traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Meaning I'm engaging in sexism in my own exploration of myself!
Shit just got complicated.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that (so long as it doesn't lead to "so we should ignore women who enjoy it" or "we should prevent women from participating in it" or "and that's why men are better" or what have you).
Character art is partially determined by the type of feel a game is going for. The more realistic a game is trying to be the more realistic character art should be.
Well I do understand where you're coming from, but the ultimate goal here should be that when someone meets someone for the first time, they don't think "This is a woman, so they like ___", anymore than you should think "This is a black person, so they like ____" or "This is a homosexual, so they like ____." It seems more innocuous than, "I hate this person because they have [physical characteristic]" But the point is that we as human beings need to learn to look at others as people first, people who just happen to have [physical or mental characteristic]. And that is admittedly a really, really hard thing to do.
Maybe more women would love hunting, if they weren't constantly given the social message that that activity isn't for them. Just as an anecdotal example, Kari Byron of Mythbusters loves high powered firearms. And she's talked on camera before about how shocked she was to like them, because she's a vegetarian, anti-gun liberal.
It's hard to know what men and women might like if they aren't pressured socially in what they are "supposed" to enjoy.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I completely agree with the point, but it is useful to have a word for the more outspokenly prejudiced individuals.
"people who engage in sexual discrimination"
Bit wordy isn't it?
Sexism is the word we have, I don't think making new words for it will help, since people are just going to latch on to that new word as a negative thing that they are absolutely not and how dare you suggest it.
Heck from my standpoint I make an effort not to call people sexist. The things they say can be sexist, the thing they created can be sexist, the attitudes they express can be sexist, and those are things that can be demonstrated. But I'm not going to say "you a sexist person" because that involves knowing what is deep in their heart, which no one can actually know and is irrelevant anyway.
This gentelman says it best:
I don't care about what you are. I care about that thing you did (or said, or created).
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Art Design is pretty important ffor how a game looks, this is true.
Also, the most important thing that IAT showed me is that I am an uncoordinated goober.
For fine arts, that true, but commercial art is absolutely designed to appeal to an audience as much as possible. As I've mentioned in the past, I wouldn't have a problem with the ridiculous sexy options being DLC so long as the base game wasn't exclusionary. I'm not saying that there must be ridiculous, sexy-times DLC, I'm saying that I wouldn't have a problem with it if developers choose to make it available in a totally optional capacity.
I was also thinking that in the MMO world, selling cosmetic items is the lifeblood for many FTP games. Why not sell the chain mail bikinis and combat high-heels (for male and female avatars, the bigger the market, the better!) as paid extras. Then create a button - much like a language filter - that enables players to either enable, or disable cosmetic armors worn by other players.
So like in WoW, instead of robes becoming swimwear on female avatars, the armor looks basically the same by default. But if you pay a buck in the Blizzard store, you can switch that armor back to sexy times (or sexy storm troopers in TOR). Other players, however, if they don't want to see it, can turn it off.
Companies make money by selling sexy armors. Guys who like to eye-fuck their characters (a term I don't like because it seems to vilify guys who like boobs when they play and there ain't nothing wrong with that) can still do so. Maybe more women sign up for the MMO because the aesthetics aren't so hostile, which expands the MMOs market.
Everybody wins.
Just as racism is about more than the KKK, sexism is about more than boors.
Talking about sexism is more useful than talking about sexists, though.