I appreciate the forum system since when I'm going to write a reply sometimes I see someone already did it better and then I can be just like "mhm, mhm, agree."
I actually read that article earlier this year and it made me realize some disturbing things about my own behavior in the past. So yeah, it's a good read .
Well, I was initially asking how it was sexist as that seemed to be the one thing that didn't make sense to me. I'm aware that people might find it gross, that is just obvious. However when I am met by insults, I tend to find the conversation isn't so much about discussing the points anymore. And for clarification I have not said anyone is wrong. Although clearly people are more than willing to tell me I am.
I don't think I did much insulting of you in that post - instead, I directed you to my argument about how it is sexist and asked you which parts you disagreed with. I'm heading off to work now so if you point out your issues maybe other people can step in, but as of right now I think I've done exactly what you asked. I haven't waded into this thread much before this, so I don't think I'm one of the people you feel aggrieved about, so hopefully you can examine the argument I gave without throwing up the smokescreen of "but the mean feminists keep insulting me" that people are very quick to run to when they get called out for defending misogynistic stuff.
Incidentally, Magic Pink, or anyone else, I apologise sincerely if I've come off as offensive or even mysoginistic with my replies.
I just fail to find this a big deal, hence it's probably more ignorance on my behalf than anything else.
Don't apologize for feeling the way you do. They certainly aren't apologizing for their take on it to those of us with the minority view (not that I expect them to or think they should).
Actually Grinch is being alright and making an effort to understand both sides, but expressing where his personal impression comes from and explaining why. That's far less objectionable than willfully ignoring any and all attempts to explain to you exactly how this thing is misogynistic and how it paints a very poor picture of the games industry. Stop looking for allies.
And stop trying to make me look like I'm a bad guy. I went ASKING for why people thought it was misogynistic. I got ONE reply that was representative of someone's own feelings on it which was a very well written explanation. Everyone else either shouted me down, played the "I call it is and I call you can't argue!" card (Magic Pink) or linked to outside articles explaining it for them. I don't disagree that it paints a poor picture of the games industry. My disagreement lies elsewhere.
You really are not worth replying to anymore. You drum up new reasosn every time someone proves the bullshit you spout that that reason doesn't work anymore because you change the nature of your INCREDIBLY POOR argument. First it was give me proof, then it was give me proof in your own words, then it was you ignoring it anyway, they it was you were only arguing that point because no one else was.
You're the worst sort of elementary school NUH UH NO IT ISN'T and you should fucking know better.
And yet here you are replying to me. I've been pretty consistent with my reasoning, and you are specifically the reason I was calling for it to be explained. You CONSTANTLY wave your hand and claim "this is how things are and you CANNOT argue against it, so when you do, I will attempt and succeed to disbelieve it!" CONSTANTLY. So yes, I wanted YOU to respond to it without resorting to that childish word shield you so effortlessly hide behind in every other argument on this forum.
Also? You're the worst sort of elementary school "I CALL THIS, YOU CAN'T CALL AGAINST IT" and YOU should fucking know better! Two people can play that game, dude. And I am DONE responding to you, ever. Congratulations, we can both not worry about the other ones opinion ever again.
@ENC Well if we aren't allowed to market based on those ideas, then it's just one more step to marketing under specific regulations and that takes freedom of expression out of the window. The thing about art (which is what this is, even if it is for profit) is that it has to be allowed to be dynamic at every angle, otherwise you're imbibing rules against the ability to freely create and or market.
And if implied violence and sex are a problem with video games all of a sudden (which isn't the argument when people are defending them against gun violence, suddenly they are untouchable works of art that never influence anyone) then we need to re-take a look at the vast majority of games and wonder if we should produce anything outside of Bubble Bobble ever again because once you start down that road, you end up with very bad results.
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
@HallowedFaith I've made some big-ass posts about sex and gender in gaming culture (and culture at large) before and I'm willing to do that shit again, though it takes up a lot of time, but I want you to keep an open mind, all right?
I just
I just want some kind of confirmation before I spend forty-five minutes talking about why titties aren't bad but a lot of the culture around titties is bad
Fawst. Seriously... there is no constructive end to what you are doing. You will not convince anyone that the statue isn't misogynistic on any terms, which you may genuinely believe, in the manner by which you are pursuing this. Can you please, for your own sake really, just... stop?
We can all agree that the statue is dumb and poorly thought out. Find that middle ground, accept it and move on.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
ENC Well if we aren't allowed to market based on those ideas, then it's just one more step to marketing under specific regulations and that takes freedom of expression out of the window.
Do you use this same defense against racist art? I don't mean "hate it but defend their right," because no one is talking about forcibly preventing anyone from making anything, even if it's stupid trash. But if "criticize noxious marketing" is a slippery slope down to "no freedom of expression," then I'd expect you to be consistent about it and disagree with people criticizing racist marketing.
And if implied violence and sex are a problem with video games all of a sudden (which isn't the argument when people are defending them against gun violence, suddenly they are untouchable works of art that never influence anyone) then we need to re-take a look at the vast majority of games and wonder if we should produce anything outside of Bubble Bobble ever again because once you start down that road, you end up with very bad results.
We should probably look at everything we make, because that's what thoughtful people do. There's a lot to be said about violence in culture, American especially, and unless you'd like to call someone out specifically your hypocrisy argument is empty. I don't want to delve into it too much since it'll derail given recent politics, but you're free to make a thread about it.
I can understand that point. I disagree, but I understand.
Men are attracted to breasts and they are marketed as such.
Women use breasts to attract men and they are also marketed as such. (Victoria secret, push-up bras, low cut shirts, etc)
It goes both ways. Not every instance is going to be 100% equal across the board. It's the same as being upset because a TV show doesn't have enough black people in it and saying it is racism. It's just the way it fell out.
Now when the video game industry stops putting females in strong leads and only places them in the kitchen making my dinners, then I will agree there is a problem. Until then, perhaps some people might be just a bit too sensitive about issues that may or may not actually issues until someone makes them an issue.
It's interesting to me that you don't draw a parallel between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the broader culture tends to prioritize male desire and cast women as objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own desires? Does that strike you as a problem? Why or why not?
It's also interesting that you would mention the black characters in TV shows thing. For me, a single show without black characters wouldn't be a problem. But if the majority of shows don't include (enough) black characters, then that is a problem and each show that doesn't include black characters is part of the problem.
+13
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
@ENC Well if we aren't allowed to market based on those ideas, then it's just one more step to marketing under specific regulations and that takes freedom of expression out of the window. The thing about art (which is what this is, even if it is for profit) is that it has to be allowed to be dynamic at every angle, otherwise you're inhibiting rules against the ability to freely create and or market.
And if implied violence and sex are a problem with video games all of a sudden (which isn't the argument when people are defending them against gun violence, suddenly they are untouchable works of art that never influence anyone) then we need to re-take a look at the vast majority of games and wonder if we should produce anything outside of Bubble Bobble ever again because once you start down that road, you end up with very bad results.
I haven't read every page of this discussion, but I can say that I did not once bring legality or legislation into the discussion nor do I feel that any is particularly necessary in this instance. I see no legal reason why someone could not make this object, however I do see plenty of reasons for it to be both tasteless and extremely unhealthy (especially as it is marketing to a predominantly adolescent male population). Any act that reduces agency, and the perspectives that remove a woman's agency from her sexuality, are terrible oppressive things. That said, the first amendment allows such speech to be protected, even if it is socially and morally reprehensible.
Or, in short, don't bring in artist's freedoms as a protection against social disgust. While something can often be legal, that doesn't make it right, healthy, or worth doing.
Implied Violence is a good discussion point, but this is also a red herring concerning the discussion of agency inherant in the current situation. The implied violence here isn't a struggle or fight for symbolic triumph, as most game violence is at the core. While there is plenty of room to discuss how far is too far for videogame violence, ultimately the root of violence in games is as conflict and triumph, a way to measure personal growth against adversity and, to a lesser or greater degree, there is plenty of room for that in all forms of art and media.
But the violence inherent here is not a struggle. It is mutilation of female agency for the purpose of objectification. There was no inherent conflict or triumph, only the surgical removal, both literally and physically, of a woman's ability to think, fight, resist, or accommodate.
You are essentially pulling in arguments against mostly unrelated things to try and defend a position that is specifically about robbing femininity of self agency, which is both shallow and moderately deplorable if that is your intention. If you are simply missing the entire point of why so many here find this sort of objectification deplorable than you are simply obtuse. Plenty here have spelled it out, including several women I would assume. You need to start thinking of folks as people who happen to have genders rather than genders who just happen to be people. I seriously am under the impression you are stuck in the latter from your position and it isn't health for you or those you end up in relationships with.
I can understand that point. I disagree, but I understand.
Men are attracted to breasts and they are marketed as such.
Women use breasts to attract men and they are also marketed as such. (Victoria secret, push-up bras, low cut shirts, etc)
It goes both ways. Not every instance is going to be 100% equal across the board. It's the same as being upset because a TV show doesn't have enough black people in it and saying it is racism. It's just the way it fell out.
Now when the video game industry stops putting females in strong leads and only places them in the kitchen making my dinners, then I will agree there is a problem. Until then, perhaps some people might be just a bit too sensitive about issues that may or may not actually issues until someone makes them an issue.
It's interesting to me that you don't draw a parallel between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the broader culture tends to prioritize male desire and cast women as objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own desires? Does that strike you as a problem? Why or why not?
It's also interesting that you would mention the black characters in TV shows thing. For me, a single show without black characters wouldn't be a problem. But if the majority of shows don't include (enough) black characters, then that is a problem and each show that doesn't include black characters is part of the problem.
See: Twilight. The very model of the modern female desire, absolutely loathed by men because of its 'gay vampires'.
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
Yeah sure a person points out that a misogynistic item is misogynistic in her view and the view of her friends, she's the real misogynist. . . but totes jokes. . .
Your replies are not sad, not disappointing. Your replies and world view are abhorrent.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Wyborn you honestly shouldn't waste your time. I have access to the Internet and I've read possibly every angle on this issue and that isn't to say that your opinions might not be lacking any merit and I am automatically dismissing it, I just have yet to see any discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur. I need more than substance than just opinions of situations that may or may not be responsible to sway my opinions.
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
You poor, hard-done-by tortured soul, however do you deal with these attitudes day in, day out? I can imagine that gets quite tiring and you probably reach a point where you just want to snap and put people in their place, but the only way you can do it is by being a bit sarcastic someone expressing narrow-minded views on the internet. I sympathise with your plight, I really do.
+1
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
I can understand that point. I disagree, but I understand.
Men are attracted to breasts and they are marketed as such.
Women use breasts to attract men and they are also marketed as such. (Victoria secret, push-up bras, low cut shirts, etc)
It goes both ways. Not every instance is going to be 100% equal across the board. It's the same as being upset because a TV show doesn't have enough black people in it and saying it is racism. It's just the way it fell out.
Now when the video game industry stops putting females in strong leads and only places them in the kitchen making my dinners, then I will agree there is a problem. Until then, perhaps some people might be just a bit too sensitive about issues that may or may not actually issues until someone makes them an issue.
It's interesting to me that you don't draw a parallel between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the broader culture tends to prioritize male desire and cast women as objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own desires? Does that strike you as a problem? Why or why not?
It's also interesting that you would mention the black characters in TV shows thing. For me, a single show without black characters wouldn't be a problem. But if the majority of shows don't include (enough) black characters, then that is a problem and each show that doesn't include black characters is part of the problem.
See: Twilight. The very model of the modern female desire, absolutely loathed by men because of its 'gay vampires'.
I loathe Twilight because of its bizarre pro-stalkerish-men and womans-only-purpose-is-to-have-a-boyfriend messages. Gay vampires are a-okay with me.
I've been thinking about this, and have shown it to my wife, and in the end I think this is in very bad taste and really disgusting. However, I don't think it's the most appalling PR move ever, I think the Sony party with goat killing and maybe the Acclaim gravestone things are worse and immediately sprung to mind.
Yes, it is gross. Yes, it is sexist. But in the end, it's their business and either it will do well, or do poorly and they will make future decisions accordingly. It's their choice to stamp their collective names on the box and while I think it's terrible and would be horrified if a company I worked for released it, there is no way I can see standing in their way to release it either. The only real action I might like to see if it were in my region (which it isn't) is that maybe I'd like Gamestop to keep it out of sight of kids with maybe a sign that it's available - they wouldn't have to, of course, but it seems like it wouldn't be a bad policy given how graphic it is.
So, are we just not allowed to put boobs in anything anymore? Is that where this is? Should all women in video games be dressed like Eskimos or in a Burqa?
I'm putting this in the dictionary under "straw man".
+10
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Wyborn you honestly shouldn't waste your time. I have access to the Internet and I've read possibly every angle on this issue and that isn't to say that your opinions might not be lacking any merit and I am automatically dismissing it, I just have yet to see any discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur. I need more than substance than just opinions of situations that may or may not be responsible to sway my opinions.
But thank you though.
This is, literally, all of human history.
All culture, as a collective, leads to the actions and ends championed and tolerated by that culture. While you may be trying to isolate this down to "Gamer Culture", all female objectification is tied together, from things like this statue to pro-rape legislation going before congress. The actions are all endemic of a belief that women do not have right or control over their own agency and, as a matter of course, only men have ability to exercise and maintain such control.
This is one drop in a lake of evidence that is right there before you. Women in western culture may not be as repressed as in other places in the world, but they still are objectified and that is not an ok perspective or position.
I can understand that point. I disagree, but I understand.
Men are attracted to breasts and they are marketed as such.
Women use breasts to attract men and they are also marketed as such. (Victoria secret, push-up bras, low cut shirts, etc)
It goes both ways. Not every instance is going to be 100% equal across the board. It's the same as being upset because a TV show doesn't have enough black people in it and saying it is racism. It's just the way it fell out.
Now when the video game industry stops putting females in strong leads and only places them in the kitchen making my dinners, then I will agree there is a problem. Until then, perhaps some people might be just a bit too sensitive about issues that may or may not actually issues until someone makes them an issue.
It's interesting to me that you don't draw a parallel between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the broader culture tends to prioritize male desire and cast women as objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own desires? Does that strike you as a problem? Why or why not?
It's also interesting that you would mention the black characters in TV shows thing. For me, a single show without black characters wouldn't be a problem. But if the majority of shows don't include (enough) black characters, then that is a problem and each show that doesn't include black characters is part of the problem.
See: Twilight. The very model of the modern female desire, absolutely loathed by men because of its 'gay vampires'.
I loathe Twilight because of its bizarre pro-stalkerish-men and womans-only-purpose-is-to-have-a-boyfriend messages. Gay vampires are a-okay with me.
But would you agree that the way it became such a massive hit amongst female readers and filmgoers must be due, at least in part, to being a work of fiction that actually presents idealised male characters that appeal to this audience? And that while you are personally okay with this, a large proportion of the outrage over it were because these male characters were not 'masculine' enough? In short, it actually gave a lot of women what they wanted to see, and it made a lot of men uncomfortable?
It is what it is.
I tried to get a reasonable gauge of where people stand and what should be done in regards to fixing the problems they claim exist by using an extreme so that I have a measuring point to direct my needle, and save a voice or two most people just want insult or divert from the original question by telling me how incorrect I am for the way I asked.
I will leave the thread to people who want to hang around people that agree with them.
Wyborn you honestly shouldn't waste your time. I have access to the Internet and I've read possibly every angle on this issue and that isn't to say that your opinions might not be lacking any merit and I am automatically dismissing it, I just have yet to see any discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur. I need more than substance than just opinions of situations that may or may not be responsible to sway my opinions.
But thank you though.
So that makes me curious what kinds of things you would consider "discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur". Presumably, being interested enough to have read "possibly every angle on this issue", you'd have some sense of what evidence is out there, and some sense of what it would take to convince you.
Oh I do to. It sucks that hard working people who legitmately made a game I really really love have to get lumped in with some complete chowder heads who make terrible decisions but not giving them any more of my money, at all, for anything, is literally the only effective way to protest this. There are many other ways, true, but none of them have the oomph of cash behind it.
And if they pull this thing, I'll slap them with fat stacks of cash again, happily.
So you'll reward them for caving to outside pressure to pull an item that a vocal groups deems offensive? Just because they make a marketing decision (and that's exactly what it will be) to save face doesn't negate what they were going to do in the first place, does it? I'm surprised you'd give them the second chance.
If they pull it, it means they learned and learning is a good thing because it implies that they are capable of change and change, much like learning is a good thing.
...
Italics.
Well that's not true. If they pulled it that doesn't necessarily mean they learned anything from it.
Hypothetical: If they pull the product, realize there was a giant backlash because of it, and stop making products like that because they do not want that kind of backlash anymore, what would you call it.
It's not learning it's "oh shit people are pissed off at this... Unplug it!". I mean look at Dead Island 1's story... If they somehow don't make an offensive story in the second one then they might have learned. But I'm doubting it.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent. So their next step is to not use a female for anything... Which, again, aint happening.
0
Options
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Personally, I never seek to sway someone's opinion. An opinion is a cherished and personal possession and nobody should ever dare to try to take it away from you. You are the one who would change the opinion, or choose not to. The point of this thread and a lot of others is just to have a discussion, to see if someone can bring a viewpoint up that would make you analyze your opinion and just spend some time thinking about it.
I don't think anyone is inherently evil if they enjoy seeing boobs, I mean, I'm a guy, boobs are my favorite sexy part of a woman, and I don't feel bad about it because it is what it is. If it were my only opinion, and if I were to view my wife as a walking set of tits...well I wouldn't be married for long or at all, but I doubt anyone out there is that extremely sociopathic. HallowedFaith and Fawst are not inherently wrong as I see it, they have opinions, they voiced them, and are now spending pages upon pages defending themselves from various forms of insults and dishing out their own...that's kind of the way of the interwebs. I'm quite a one-love hippie, but I see the point of this thread is to have people just LOOK at things closely. Sometimse a statue with boobs is just a statue with boobs, sometimes it carries more weight with it. These discussions often come with bruised egos, an inappropriate comment here or there, and some offenses, but their point remains.
Another example of why this particular statue is worth discussion: something like blackface is currently considered a racist stereotype and unacceptable. Not because it specifically identified a particular action to be taken against particular people, but because of the undertones that it carries with it. You can dig through history and I'm sure you'd be able to find uses of blackface that were not meant to insult the black population, however, nothing exists in a vacuum and you have to take the whole picture into account. Therefore, by association all forms of that makeup were deemed inappropriate. Hell, one of my favorite movies from childhood had blackface in it, I recognize it as wrong, but I still enjoy the movie. There's no action for me to take because I bet Stalin purged the individuals who made the movie anyway, but I at least recognize that there is something wrong there. No reason for guilt, as I see it, just a reason to be aware.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
This is one drop in a lake of evidence that is right there before you. Women in western culture may not be as repressed as in other places in the world, but they still are objectified and that is not an ok perspective or position.
I talk about Western honor culture every now and then. I get the same stares of disbelief I see here in this thread.
Sure, we may not murder women for "tainting the honor of the family", but we sure as hell have our own unwritten culturally enforced rules about how people of various criteria are supposed to act, and how to punish them if they're not.
Wyborn you honestly shouldn't waste your time. I have access to the Internet and I've read possibly every angle on this issue and that isn't to say that your opinions might not be lacking any merit and I am automatically dismissing it, I just have yet to see any discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur. I need more than substance than just opinions of situations that may or may not be responsible to sway my opinions.
But thank you though.
Abandoning snark here for a second, if you've done your research, and I mean really, really done your research, yet don't see what's wrong I don't know what to tell you. There are studies tying culture and media to human action. Numerous, numerous studies. If that kind of evidence doesn't convince you, then you're being incredibly stubborn, and accusing others of being mean and closed minded doesn't even come across as defensive, but willingly stupid.
I'm sorry, but the weight of the general argument being made here leans incredibly in one direction, and while ignorance can be corrected, refusing to acknowledge reality after taking a serious, well-considered look at it is beyond help. This is in the realm of denying climate change. There is a right, and there is a wrong when it comes to whether or not culture affects people's ideas and actions. They do. Straight up.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent.
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
It is what it is.
I tried to get a reasonable gauge of where people stand and what should be done in regards to fixing the problems they claim exist by using an extreme so that I have a measuring point to direct my needle, and save a voice or two most people just want insult or divert from the original question by telling me how incorrect I am for the way I asked.
I will leave the thread to people who want to hang around people that agree with them.
The reason we aren't apologizing is because our feelings don't create and sustain a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency.
You and I? We're just observers. We didn't create any of this. Don't imply that I did or that my reaction does. And suggesting that my take on this sustains any of what you said is foolish and insulting.
The callous obliviousness so many people both in this thread and in society at large portray with regard to this topic absolutely sustains and propagates the issues Tycho and others have been discussing. You taking offense to that reality is your own problem.
Personally, I never seek to sway someone's opinion. An opinion is a cherished and personal possession and nobody should ever dare to try to take it away from you. You are the one who would change the opinion, or choose not to. The point of this thread and a lot of others is just to have a discussion, to see if someone can bring a viewpoint up that would make you analyze your opinion and just spend some time thinking about it.
I don't think anyone is inherently evil if they enjoy seeing boobs, I mean, I'm a guy, boobs are my favorite sexy part of a woman, and I don't feel bad about it because it is what it is. If it were my only opinion, and if I were to view my wife as a walking set of tits...well I wouldn't be married for long or at all, but I doubt anyone out there is that extremely sociopathic. HallowedFaith and Fawst are not inherently wrong as I see it, they have opinions, they voiced them, and are now spending pages upon pages defending themselves from various forms of insults and dishing out their own...that's kind of the way of the interwebs. I'm quite a one-love hippie, but I see the point of this thread is to have people just LOOK at things closely. Sometimse a statue with boobs is just a statue with boobs, sometimes it carries more weight with it. These discussions often come with bruised egos, an inappropriate comment here or there, and some offenses, but their point remains.
Another example of why this particular statue is worth discussion: something like blackface is currently considered a racist stereotype and unacceptable. Not because it specifically identified a particular action to be taken against particular people, but because of the undertones that it carries with it. You can dig through history and I'm sure you'd be able to find uses of blackface that were not meant to insult the black population, however, nothing exists in a vacuum and you have to take the whole picture into account. Therefore, by association all forms of that makeup were deemed inappropriate. Hell, one of my favorite movies from childhood had blackface in it, I recognize it as wrong, but I still enjoy the movie. There's no action for me to take because I bet Stalin purged the individuals who made the movie anyway, but I at least recognize that there is something wrong there. No reason for guilt, as I see it, just a reason to be aware.
Nobody can hope to arrive at a more complete and thorough understanding of a work of art by only engaging the object itself. Art is never entirely self-contained.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent.
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
No I get it. But I'm doubting that this will be the end of it. They probably don't even see anything wrong with it and something stupid will come out again and we'll be in this thread again.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
It is what it is.
I tried to get a reasonable gauge of where people stand and what should be done in regards to fixing the problems they claim exist by using an extreme so that I have a measuring point to direct my needle, and save a voice or two most people just want insult or divert from the original question by telling me how incorrect I am for the way I asked.
I will leave the thread to people who want to hang around people that agree with them.
This is not what has happened in at least the last two pages. When I came in here, this was where you were at:
To me you still have not shown me a problem except that people are sexually attracted to each other and that is used as a way to market in different directions. That really isn't a problem, it's just being made one by people who want it to stop but can't explain exactly why it is bad except that they think it is.
We have since pointed out that this is not appropriate for several reasons, mostly due to the removal of female agency (and implied retention of male agency), which is where the ultimate problem lies. This isn't about sex, it's about sexual objectivity. My wife is not simply a hottie with tits and a vagina that I hang around with on weekends. She is a person, with opinions, hopes, dreams and sexual desires of her own that she wants to act upon and does.
The biggest issue here is inherent especially in this post:
I can understand that point. I disagree, but I understand.
Men are attracted to breasts and they are marketed as such.
Women use breasts to attract men and they are also marketed as such. (Victoria secret, push-up bras, low cut shirts, etc)
It goes both ways. Not every instance is going to be 100% equal across the board. It's the same as being upset because a TV show doesn't have enough black people in it and saying it is racism. It's just the way it fell out.
Now when the video game industry stops putting females in strong leads and only places them in the kitchen making my dinners, then I will agree there is a problem. Until then, perhaps some people might be just a bit too sensitive about issues that may or may not actually issues until someone makes them an issue.
First, how does this go both ways? If this were to be healthy or accurate, men would be attracted to breasts and women would be attracted to strong pectorals. Instead you say that Men are attracted to breasts, and breasts are essentially used to attract men. Where is the woman's perspective? What about what she wants? What she is attracted to? This example is the perfect perspective for robbing a woman of agency, all she can do is hope to attract men. That's her purpose.
Second, where are these strong female leads? There are plenty of physically strong female characters, and female leads that happen to be significant, but where exactly is a strong female lead character that isn't just a dating option for a male character? Outside of a very, very small pool of games where the gender is neutral and up to the player to decide as protagonist (essentially allowing agency o remain by keeping the option of gender secondary), there are almost no female characters out there that are, in and of themselves, in a position of strength in their relative worlds. Almost all serve as prizes to male characters to achieve in some fashion- or, as in the case of characters like Lara Croft, simply an appealing object to look at while you move through the gameplay. Few have choices that are at all like their male characters (especially the choice to make no sexual action).
@ENC Well if we aren't allowed to market based on those ideas, then it's just one more step to marketing under specific regulations and that takes freedom of expression out of the window. The thing about art (which is what this is, even if it is for profit) is that it has to be allowed to be dynamic at every angle, otherwise you're imbibing rules against the ability to freely create and or market.
And if implied violence and sex are a problem with video games all of a sudden (which isn't the argument when people are defending them against gun violence, suddenly they are untouchable works of art that never influence anyone) then we need to re-take a look at the vast majority of games and wonder if we should produce anything outside of Bubble Bobble ever again because once you start down that road, you end up with very bad results.
Define "allowed".
Because the only sensible definition of "allowed" here is "legally allowed" - which I agree with.
But "allowed" does not mean "accepted by society without backlash."
"Artists" (for argument's sake I will lump these marketing cretins in with that general group) have the legal freedom from the GOVERNMENT to do whatever they want (within some extremely broad boundaries). No artist is free from society's wrath.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent.
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
No I get it. But I'm doubting that this will be the end of it. They probably don't even see anything wrong with it and something stupid will come out again and we'll be in this thread again.
Here's the thing: say you get someone on these forums who is only capable of functioning like an odious, despicable douche. Their every post is riddled with vile hatred and spittle. So they get banned, and come back as an alt. They continue to post in the same way, espousing the same horrible opinions and bile in every direction. That account gets banned. This continues until either a) they leave permanently because they get bored of this cycle, or b) they come back one final time and post normally enough as to fly under the radar. They may have had a change of heart, or they may just be thinking "hah, I'll show you, you don't know I'm here!" and count it as some kind of victory. Net result for us as a community? Things are improved. If Deep Silver keep doing stuff like this, we should keep rejecting it. Eventually they will either stop it because they realise it is a mistake, or they'll think "fine! we'll just take the sexism out since that's what you gamers want", and either way, society benefits.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent.
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
No I get it. But I'm doubting that this will be the end of it. They probably don't even see anything wrong with it and something stupid will come out again and we'll be in this thread again.
That's part of the problem with this company, like wider society: femnistwhorepurna, torso tits, and "hey every one calm down it could be a tranny." Are all symptomatic of deeper issue/s.
This is underscored by comments defending the conduct by referring to the horror reaction as "pussification" of society or "would it be offensive if it were male."
It won't stop at one incidence because surprise surprise a misogynistic culture and world view engenders misogynistic conduct.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
Yeah sure a person points out that a misogynistic item is misogynistic in her view and the view of her friends, she's the real misogynist. . . but totes jokes. . .
Your replies are not sad, not disappointing. Your replies and world view are abhorrent.
You make zero sense, you know that? I never implied she is "the real misogynist." You blamed me for being condescending. I pointed out that she was in the first place. You chose to ignore that so it could bolster your white knight behavior. Good job, you've defended the girl against the mean internet poster with the abhorrent world view. Meanwhile, you don't have clue one what my world view is, don't pretend you can glean it from a few posts about a stupid fucking statue that everyone agrees is stupid, including me.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent.
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
No I get it. But I'm doubting that this will be the end of it. They probably don't even see anything wrong with it and something stupid will come out again and we'll be in this thread again.
Here's the thing: say you get someone on these forums who is only capable of functioning like an odious, despicable douche. Their every post is riddled with vile hatred and spittle. So they get banned, and come back as an alt. They continue to post in the same way, espousing the same horrible opinions and bile in every direction. That account gets banned. This continues until either a) they leave permanently because they get bored of this cycle, or b) they come back one final time and post normally enough as to fly under the radar. They may have had a change of heart, or they may just be thinking "hah, I'll show you, you don't know I'm here!" and count it as some kind of victory. Net result for us as a community? Things are improved. If Deep Silver keep doing stuff like this, we should keep rejecting it. Eventually they will either stop it because they realise it is a mistake, or they'll think "fine! we'll just take the sexism out since that's what you gamers want", and either way, society benefits.
Unfortunately for everyone here: if the game is fun I'm going to buy it. I don't really feel like I have some moral obligation to not purchase anything from them ever again... I just want to play video games and leave the PR and stuff to everyone else.
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
Yeah sure a person points out that a misogynistic item is misogynistic in her view and the view of her friends, she's the real misogynist. . . but totes jokes. . .
Your replies are not sad, not disappointing. Your replies and world view are abhorrent.
You make zero sense, you know that? I never implied she is "the real misogynist." You blamed me for being condescending. I pointed out that she was in the first place. You chose to ignore that so it could bolster your white knight behavior. Good job, you've defended the girl against the mean internet poster with the abhorrent world view. Meanwhile, you don't have clue one what my world view is, don't pretend you can glean it from a few posts about a stupid fucking statue that everyone agrees is stupid, including me.
No.
Let's not say White Knight.
Could we please never say that.
Especially when it's not applicable.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
+7
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
I find it amusing that you had to explain to a woman why something was offensive toward women. I explained in pretty decent detail what the statue was to my wife and her response was "so it's mangled corpse from a game about mangled corpses? That makes sense." I'm curious how many of the people from this thread are females and are offended by this, since so far the anecdotal evidence is pointing towards men making a bigger deal out of it than women.
Oh just be quiet already. Since you're such in love with personal story's and people in your own circle, then I'll tell you mine.
I am female.
I saw the statue and I was immediately offended.
Am I a zombie/gore fan? Not at all, hate the stuff, but normally I'm not offended by zombie games and the like because, whatever, I don't care. Just not for me.
As many, many, people have told you it's an insulting example of the glorification of violence against women in media and kinda insulting to gamers in general. (Boobs and gore! WOO!)
And that's not all! My online gaming friends who are female are ALSO offended. CRAZY RIGHT? Gee, we just must be influenced by our male betters or something.
Give me a break.
I'm going to give you a double response. The first will be sane and rational, the second will be just as abrasive as yours was to me. I'll let you choose your own adventure here:
Rational:
I'm not in love with personal stories or my own circle (well I am when it comes to my circle, but that's to be expected). Thank you for telling me your take on it. I said I was curious and I truly am. When I made that statement, it was coming from a place where I have no knowledge of the gender breakdown of the posters in here and it was assumed that the majority were male. Seeing as we had a lot of male anger going on in here, the anecdotal evidence regarding females was interesting since it was contradictory. So, I wanted to see how it compared with actual opinions in here. I don't think it's crazy at all that your female online friends were also offended. It just proves that some people feel one way and others feel another.
Abrasive:
Girl, slow your role. You don't know me! If you're not a zombie or gore fan and it's not FOR YOU, then why do you even CARE? Damn! And if you were influenced by your male betters, you wouldn't be offended!
Totally written in jest. I don't know why you're so mad at me personally for being curious about the demographic breakdown of offended vs. not, especially among women since that's what we've been talking about, but OK. I will agree that the whole "Boobs, woo!!!" thing is ridiculous, but that's true of just about all marketing. Sex sells, but it doesn't make it not ridiculous.
Epically condescending, but you manage to make it worse by tamping it down with a layer of "totes jokes" and combo'ing it with "only asking questions."
Bravo for being a utterly odious goose.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
Yeah sure a person points out that a misogynistic item is misogynistic in her view and the view of her friends, she's the real misogynist. . . but totes jokes. . .
Your replies are not sad, not disappointing. Your replies and world view are abhorrent.
You make zero sense, you know that? I never implied she is "the real misogynist." You blamed me for being condescending. I pointed out that she was in the first place. You chose to ignore that so it could bolster your white knight behavior. Good job, you've defended the girl against the mean internet poster with the abhorrent world view. Meanwhile, you don't have clue one what my world view is, don't pretend you can glean it from a few posts about a stupid fucking statue that everyone agrees is stupid, including me.
Well, your use of the term white knight and concern trolling about tone reveals everything salient about your world view that we didn't know already.
Posts
Fixed, thanks!
And yet here you are replying to me. I've been pretty consistent with my reasoning, and you are specifically the reason I was calling for it to be explained. You CONSTANTLY wave your hand and claim "this is how things are and you CANNOT argue against it, so when you do, I will attempt and succeed to disbelieve it!" CONSTANTLY. So yes, I wanted YOU to respond to it without resorting to that childish word shield you so effortlessly hide behind in every other argument on this forum.
Also? You're the worst sort of elementary school "I CALL THIS, YOU CAN'T CALL AGAINST IT" and YOU should fucking know better! Two people can play that game, dude. And I am DONE responding to you, ever. Congratulations, we can both not worry about the other ones opinion ever again.
And if implied violence and sex are a problem with video games all of a sudden (which isn't the argument when people are defending them against gun violence, suddenly they are untouchable works of art that never influence anyone) then we need to re-take a look at the vast majority of games and wonder if we should produce anything outside of Bubble Bobble ever again because once you start down that road, you end up with very bad results.
The truly sad part of this is that you obviously don't consider her original condescending response to me to be a bad thing, only mine. Meanwhile, I wasn't being condescending, I was being honest.
I just
I just want some kind of confirmation before I spend forty-five minutes talking about why titties aren't bad but a lot of the culture around titties is bad
We can all agree that the statue is dumb and poorly thought out. Find that middle ground, accept it and move on.
Do you use this same defense against racist art? I don't mean "hate it but defend their right," because no one is talking about forcibly preventing anyone from making anything, even if it's stupid trash. But if "criticize noxious marketing" is a slippery slope down to "no freedom of expression," then I'd expect you to be consistent about it and disagree with people criticizing racist marketing.
We should probably look at everything we make, because that's what thoughtful people do. There's a lot to be said about violence in culture, American especially, and unless you'd like to call someone out specifically your hypocrisy argument is empty. I don't want to delve into it too much since it'll derail given recent politics, but you're free to make a thread about it.
It's interesting to me that you don't draw a parallel between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to. I wonder why that is. Could it be that the broader culture tends to prioritize male desire and cast women as objects of desire, as opposed to people with their own desires? Does that strike you as a problem? Why or why not?
It's also interesting that you would mention the black characters in TV shows thing. For me, a single show without black characters wouldn't be a problem. But if the majority of shows don't include (enough) black characters, then that is a problem and each show that doesn't include black characters is part of the problem.
I haven't read every page of this discussion, but I can say that I did not once bring legality or legislation into the discussion nor do I feel that any is particularly necessary in this instance. I see no legal reason why someone could not make this object, however I do see plenty of reasons for it to be both tasteless and extremely unhealthy (especially as it is marketing to a predominantly adolescent male population). Any act that reduces agency, and the perspectives that remove a woman's agency from her sexuality, are terrible oppressive things. That said, the first amendment allows such speech to be protected, even if it is socially and morally reprehensible.
Or, in short, don't bring in artist's freedoms as a protection against social disgust. While something can often be legal, that doesn't make it right, healthy, or worth doing.
Implied Violence is a good discussion point, but this is also a red herring concerning the discussion of agency inherant in the current situation. The implied violence here isn't a struggle or fight for symbolic triumph, as most game violence is at the core. While there is plenty of room to discuss how far is too far for videogame violence, ultimately the root of violence in games is as conflict and triumph, a way to measure personal growth against adversity and, to a lesser or greater degree, there is plenty of room for that in all forms of art and media.
But the violence inherent here is not a struggle. It is mutilation of female agency for the purpose of objectification. There was no inherent conflict or triumph, only the surgical removal, both literally and physically, of a woman's ability to think, fight, resist, or accommodate.
You are essentially pulling in arguments against mostly unrelated things to try and defend a position that is specifically about robbing femininity of self agency, which is both shallow and moderately deplorable if that is your intention. If you are simply missing the entire point of why so many here find this sort of objectification deplorable than you are simply obtuse. Plenty here have spelled it out, including several women I would assume. You need to start thinking of folks as people who happen to have genders rather than genders who just happen to be people. I seriously am under the impression you are stuck in the latter from your position and it isn't health for you or those you end up in relationships with.
See: Twilight. The very model of the modern female desire, absolutely loathed by men because of its 'gay vampires'.
Yeah sure a person points out that a misogynistic item is misogynistic in her view and the view of her friends, she's the real misogynist. . . but totes jokes. . .
Your replies are not sad, not disappointing. Your replies and world view are abhorrent.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
But thank you though.
You poor, hard-done-by tortured soul, however do you deal with these attitudes day in, day out? I can imagine that gets quite tiring and you probably reach a point where you just want to snap and put people in their place, but the only way you can do it is by being a bit sarcastic someone expressing narrow-minded views on the internet. I sympathise with your plight, I really do.
I loathe Twilight because of its bizarre pro-stalkerish-men and womans-only-purpose-is-to-have-a-boyfriend messages. Gay vampires are a-okay with me.
Yes, it is gross. Yes, it is sexist. But in the end, it's their business and either it will do well, or do poorly and they will make future decisions accordingly. It's their choice to stamp their collective names on the box and while I think it's terrible and would be horrified if a company I worked for released it, there is no way I can see standing in their way to release it either. The only real action I might like to see if it were in my region (which it isn't) is that maybe I'd like Gamestop to keep it out of sight of kids with maybe a sign that it's available - they wouldn't have to, of course, but it seems like it wouldn't be a bad policy given how graphic it is.
I'm putting this in the dictionary under "straw man".
This is, literally, all of human history.
All culture, as a collective, leads to the actions and ends championed and tolerated by that culture. While you may be trying to isolate this down to "Gamer Culture", all female objectification is tied together, from things like this statue to pro-rape legislation going before congress. The actions are all endemic of a belief that women do not have right or control over their own agency and, as a matter of course, only men have ability to exercise and maintain such control.
This is one drop in a lake of evidence that is right there before you. Women in western culture may not be as repressed as in other places in the world, but they still are objectified and that is not an ok perspective or position.
But would you agree that the way it became such a massive hit amongst female readers and filmgoers must be due, at least in part, to being a work of fiction that actually presents idealised male characters that appeal to this audience? And that while you are personally okay with this, a large proportion of the outrage over it were because these male characters were not 'masculine' enough? In short, it actually gave a lot of women what they wanted to see, and it made a lot of men uncomfortable?
I tried to get a reasonable gauge of where people stand and what should be done in regards to fixing the problems they claim exist by using an extreme so that I have a measuring point to direct my needle, and save a voice or two most people just want insult or divert from the original question by telling me how incorrect I am for the way I asked.
I will leave the thread to people who want to hang around people that agree with them.
So that makes me curious what kinds of things you would consider "discernible evidence that directly associates the culture as being responsible for the bad things that sometimes occur". Presumably, being interested enough to have read "possibly every angle on this issue", you'd have some sense of what evidence is out there, and some sense of what it would take to convince you.
It's not learning it's "oh shit people are pissed off at this... Unplug it!". I mean look at Dead Island 1's story... If they somehow don't make an offensive story in the second one then they might have learned. But I'm doubting it.
I honestly believe they didn't mean for this to be malicious in intent. So their next step is to not use a female for anything... Which, again, aint happening.
I don't think anyone is inherently evil if they enjoy seeing boobs, I mean, I'm a guy, boobs are my favorite sexy part of a woman, and I don't feel bad about it because it is what it is. If it were my only opinion, and if I were to view my wife as a walking set of tits...well I wouldn't be married for long or at all, but I doubt anyone out there is that extremely sociopathic. HallowedFaith and Fawst are not inherently wrong as I see it, they have opinions, they voiced them, and are now spending pages upon pages defending themselves from various forms of insults and dishing out their own...that's kind of the way of the interwebs. I'm quite a one-love hippie, but I see the point of this thread is to have people just LOOK at things closely. Sometimse a statue with boobs is just a statue with boobs, sometimes it carries more weight with it. These discussions often come with bruised egos, an inappropriate comment here or there, and some offenses, but their point remains.
Another example of why this particular statue is worth discussion: something like blackface is currently considered a racist stereotype and unacceptable. Not because it specifically identified a particular action to be taken against particular people, but because of the undertones that it carries with it. You can dig through history and I'm sure you'd be able to find uses of blackface that were not meant to insult the black population, however, nothing exists in a vacuum and you have to take the whole picture into account. Therefore, by association all forms of that makeup were deemed inappropriate. Hell, one of my favorite movies from childhood had blackface in it, I recognize it as wrong, but I still enjoy the movie. There's no action for me to take because I bet Stalin purged the individuals who made the movie anyway, but I at least recognize that there is something wrong there. No reason for guilt, as I see it, just a reason to be aware.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
I talk about Western honor culture every now and then. I get the same stares of disbelief I see here in this thread.
Sure, we may not murder women for "tainting the honor of the family", but we sure as hell have our own unwritten culturally enforced rules about how people of various criteria are supposed to act, and how to punish them if they're not.
Abandoning snark here for a second, if you've done your research, and I mean really, really done your research, yet don't see what's wrong I don't know what to tell you. There are studies tying culture and media to human action. Numerous, numerous studies. If that kind of evidence doesn't convince you, then you're being incredibly stubborn, and accusing others of being mean and closed minded doesn't even come across as defensive, but willingly stupid.
I'm sorry, but the weight of the general argument being made here leans incredibly in one direction, and while ignorance can be corrected, refusing to acknowledge reality after taking a serious, well-considered look at it is beyond help. This is in the realm of denying climate change. There is a right, and there is a wrong when it comes to whether or not culture affects people's ideas and actions. They do. Straight up.
Ain't never seen no zombies wandering around moaning, "Tiiiiits."
It usually isn't. Malice isn't the problem. As to improvement, having someone be like "hey this is kind of fucked up" next time they consider something like this and then doing something else like a zombie head or something would be swell, yeah?
The saloon doors swing.
The callous obliviousness so many people both in this thread and in society at large portray with regard to this topic absolutely sustains and propagates the issues Tycho and others have been discussing. You taking offense to that reality is your own problem.
Nobody can hope to arrive at a more complete and thorough understanding of a work of art by only engaging the object itself. Art is never entirely self-contained.
Sometimes you have to replace incompetence with "thoughtlessness".
No I get it. But I'm doubting that this will be the end of it. They probably don't even see anything wrong with it and something stupid will come out again and we'll be in this thread again.
This is not what has happened in at least the last two pages. When I came in here, this was where you were at:
We have since pointed out that this is not appropriate for several reasons, mostly due to the removal of female agency (and implied retention of male agency), which is where the ultimate problem lies. This isn't about sex, it's about sexual objectivity. My wife is not simply a hottie with tits and a vagina that I hang around with on weekends. She is a person, with opinions, hopes, dreams and sexual desires of her own that she wants to act upon and does.
The biggest issue here is inherent especially in this post:
First, how does this go both ways? If this were to be healthy or accurate, men would be attracted to breasts and women would be attracted to strong pectorals. Instead you say that Men are attracted to breasts, and breasts are essentially used to attract men. Where is the woman's perspective? What about what she wants? What she is attracted to? This example is the perfect perspective for robbing a woman of agency, all she can do is hope to attract men. That's her purpose.
Second, where are these strong female leads? There are plenty of physically strong female characters, and female leads that happen to be significant, but where exactly is a strong female lead character that isn't just a dating option for a male character? Outside of a very, very small pool of games where the gender is neutral and up to the player to decide as protagonist (essentially allowing agency o remain by keeping the option of gender secondary), there are almost no female characters out there that are, in and of themselves, in a position of strength in their relative worlds. Almost all serve as prizes to male characters to achieve in some fashion- or, as in the case of characters like Lara Croft, simply an appealing object to look at while you move through the gameplay. Few have choices that are at all like their male characters (especially the choice to make no sexual action).
Define "allowed".
Because the only sensible definition of "allowed" here is "legally allowed" - which I agree with.
But "allowed" does not mean "accepted by society without backlash."
"Artists" (for argument's sake I will lump these marketing cretins in with that general group) have the legal freedom from the GOVERNMENT to do whatever they want (within some extremely broad boundaries). No artist is free from society's wrath.
Here's the thing: say you get someone on these forums who is only capable of functioning like an odious, despicable douche. Their every post is riddled with vile hatred and spittle. So they get banned, and come back as an alt. They continue to post in the same way, espousing the same horrible opinions and bile in every direction. That account gets banned. This continues until either a) they leave permanently because they get bored of this cycle, or b) they come back one final time and post normally enough as to fly under the radar. They may have had a change of heart, or they may just be thinking "hah, I'll show you, you don't know I'm here!" and count it as some kind of victory. Net result for us as a community? Things are improved. If Deep Silver keep doing stuff like this, we should keep rejecting it. Eventually they will either stop it because they realise it is a mistake, or they'll think "fine! we'll just take the sexism out since that's what you gamers want", and either way, society benefits.
That's part of the problem with this company, like wider society: femnistwhorepurna, torso tits, and "hey every one calm down it could be a tranny." Are all symptomatic of deeper issue/s.
This is underscored by comments defending the conduct by referring to the horror reaction as "pussification" of society or "would it be offensive if it were male."
It won't stop at one incidence because surprise surprise a misogynistic culture and world view engenders misogynistic conduct.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
You make zero sense, you know that? I never implied she is "the real misogynist." You blamed me for being condescending. I pointed out that she was in the first place. You chose to ignore that so it could bolster your white knight behavior. Good job, you've defended the girl against the mean internet poster with the abhorrent world view. Meanwhile, you don't have clue one what my world view is, don't pretend you can glean it from a few posts about a stupid fucking statue that everyone agrees is stupid, including me.
Unfortunately for everyone here: if the game is fun I'm going to buy it. I don't really feel like I have some moral obligation to not purchase anything from them ever again... I just want to play video games and leave the PR and stuff to everyone else.
No.
Let's not say White Knight.
Could we please never say that.
Especially when it's not applicable.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Well, your use of the term white knight and concern trolling about tone reveals everything salient about your world view that we didn't know already.