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.
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
Whenever I see 'white knight', it's usually code for 'person is willing to stand up to general shittiness even if it's not affecting them personally and it makes me feel bad about myself'.
What you're doing here? You're telling a marginalized group (women) that 'pfft, why are you offended, some other women aren't offended'. You are literally trying to tell people how they should feel. You are minimalizing their experience and substituting your own anecdotal experience in order to paint this whole situation as people making a big deal out of nothing.
How you don't understand that this is offensive is beyond me.
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.
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
This is basic fucking stuff. You know who men at the 'misogynist' end of the spectrum tend to listen to? Other men. You are in a pretty unique position where you can help effect change and you're saying 'nope, not my problem'. No, you're not actively pushing the agenda, but you're refusing to stand against it.
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.
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
No joke, thought experiment. Lets take the following for granted:
Society says it's cool to run down orphans in your car for sport.
Advertisers latch onto the fact that mowing down orphans is awesome, so they use it to sell their products.
You find running down orphans kind of upsetting and morally problematic.
There are groups of orphans and allies that say hey, maybe stop running us down in cars and glamorizing it through media.
You decide no, those people are silly and can be ignored. Even though they shouldn't be mowed down, you will not help them.
Finally, millions of people do the same analysis as you do, deciding they don't give enough of a shit about the issue except to argue with orphans online and tell them they're wrong about something.
This is the difficulty faced by any attempt to correct a wide scale societal failing.
So. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're part of the orphan murder problem.
Whenever I see 'white knight', it's usually code for 'person is willing to stand up to general shittiness even if it's not affecting them personally and it makes me feel bad about myself'.
What you're doing here? You're telling a marginalized group (women) that 'pfft, why are you offended, some other women aren't offended'. You are literally trying to tell people how they should feel. You are minimalizing their experience and substituting your own anecdotal experience in order to paint this whole situation as people making a big deal out of nothing.
How you don't understand that this is offensive is beyond me.
Ugh, it's a dumb term. And yea people use it to throw that disenginuity to defending something or someone. I think it's a stupid term though and I'm not sure how we got to the point of tossing it around...
I care more about the witch hunt aspect to it than I do about the stupid statue, to be honest. And to continue being honest, I wanted someone crusading just as hard in the opposite direction to discuss it with, but they were too busy acting like they had a mandate from god to cast aside any attacks on their opinion.
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
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.
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
Well, if someone thinks that a particular feature of society is a problem, and that to fix the problem people need to repudiate that feature of society, then why would they think anything other than that to fail to repudiate that feature is to be part of the problem?
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The orphan analogy is a bit hyperbolic but accurate essentially. But refusing the reality before you, even if you take no active participation you are still propagating a negative system.
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.
lol, not going to lie either... while I would never buy the collectors edition of this (and that sort of thing wouldn't even be considered for release in the states), if I did see this game for sale used, it would be a maybe. :P
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Whenever I see 'white knight', it's usually code for 'person is willing to stand up to general shittiness even if it's not affecting them personally and it makes me feel bad about myself'.
What you're doing here? You're telling a marginalized group (women) that 'pfft, why are you offended, some other women aren't offended'. You are literally trying to tell people how they should feel. You are minimalizing their experience and substituting your own anecdotal experience in order to paint this whole situation as people making a big deal out of nothing.
How you don't understand that this is offensive is beyond me.
Ugh, it's a dumb term. But it carries with it a certain disenginuity to defending something or someone. I think it's a stupid term though and I'm not sure how we got to the point of tossing it around...
I care more about the witch hunt aspect to it than I do about the stupid statue, to be honest. And to continue being honest, I wanted someone crusading just as hard in the opposite direction to discuss it with, but they were too busy acting like they had a mandate from god to cast aside any attacks on their opinion.
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
Whatever usefulness the term might've once had disappeared when it was appropriated by the great unwashed masses of internet tough guys to mean 'someone who stands up to my bullshit'. Now it's just a red flag.
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.
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
Maybe I wasn't being clear: I agree with Tycho. You are either a part of the problem or you are a part of the solution. The oblivious masses that cling to the status quo just because it is the status quo far outnumber the group of active, malicious misogynists, but it doesn't mean you don't help propagate the same beliefs an sustain a cultural disease. As far as I'm concerned, your posts in this thread are doing exactly that. I consider you part of the problem.
As to your qualm with "that's on you," I don't know what you expect people to say to "I'm offended." I'm certainly not sorry that you decided to take offense to something I think you are guilty of.
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
If you understand what people mean when they talk about the problem in the first place, how can you fail to see how an opinion dismissing or excusing it doesn't make you part of it? You seem dead set on rumbling with personal umbrage yet I'm still not even sure what you're arguing. Do you think it's sexist or not? You've said both.
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Fawst, you're throwing aside every fact given to you that proves you wrong, not because it's an ineffectual or false argument, but simply because it's not what you want to hear. Then you change the argument. Now it's us beating you up because we all think the statue is stupid so why aren't we all friends.
I'd need a map, two hands and a wily Spanish guide to follow all the twists in your ridiculous tirade at this point but I'll give it a try.
Us: The statue is mysoginistic.
You: No it isn't.
HAY THAT WASN'T HARD AT ALL
The fact is it IS and until you recognize that and deal with that irrefutable fact there will just be this ridiculous back and forth which should have ended easily 5 pages ago.
I care more about the witch hunt aspect to it than I do about the stupid statue, to be honest. And to continue being honest, I wanted someone crusading just as hard in the opposite direction to discuss it with, but they were too busy acting like they had a mandate from god to cast aside any attacks on their opinion.
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
You're right, and for that I AM sorry. I've been pulled so far away from my original point that it's getting cloudy. I'm trying to defend myself on a number of fronts for things that I am absolutely not guilty of and it's hard to keep focus in a situation like that.
Taking it back to that core argument of the witch hunt, I feel like the word "misogyny" is the new "pornography." It's an ugly word that gets tossed around far too freely. The whole concept of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" comes to mind. And this idea that people need to change the way things are, it's noble. It truly is. I don't disagree with it. I roll my eyes when I see things like a fantasy game where the woman is wearing a metal bikini that exposes her vital organs. I rolled my eyes at the large breasts on this statue. What I don't like is the derogatory nature of being called a misogynist because I don't think it IS misogyny. Again, words have definitions for a reason. I've been accused of arguing semantics, but if we abuse words without any regard for what they mean, why bother defining anything? Australia's major dictionary publisher recently just changed the definition to mean a "prejudice" against women instead of "hatred." I don't think even THAT definition applies here. Moreover, I think changing a definition that has been in existence for as long as that one has is asinine.
This IS on me, however. I get that. But I'm so vehemently opposed to words being used incorrectly that it drives me crazy when I see stuff like this. Thus, the "witch hunt" comment. I feel like the anger that has been generated is justified but it's being miscategorized. People object to my objection, tempers flare, wit gets bandied about and then we reach this point.
I'll say this much: I find it terribly curious that people here are so ready to stamp out misogyny that they want to boycott this game entirely, but violence in any form (which games CLEARLY glorify) are A-OK to purchase in general. But I shouldn't really make that point because as others have already pointed out "that's different."
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Oh, come on. Ignoring a problem is completely different then being unaware of it or unable to do anything about it. Simply disapproving of a known problem is better, LEAGUES better, then knowing it's happening and brusing it off. Quit taking thing so literally.
Oh, come on. Ignoring a problem is completely different then being unaware of it or unable to do anything about it. Simply disapproving of a known problem is better, LEAGUES better, then knowing it's happening and brusing it off. Quit taking thing so literally.
OneAngryPossum used an example on this page to state that disapproval isn't enough to free you from being complicit. Do you disagree with him on that point?
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Not all topics are equal, and THIS topic regards an issue that stems from a diseased cultural mindset.
The point is that that cultural mindset is fed and fostered by our individual mindsets, because what with think informs what we say and do.
So, when you have a bunch of people offering logical arguments on why something like a statue of a disembodied pair of tits is bad and a bunch of other people dismissing that with nothing but trivializations and allusions to the status quo, then yes, those people aren't just complicit, they are outright stating that they are happy being a part of the problem, because they are happy with the status quo.
The issue here is that the status quo is bad.
I can't do much of anything direct about, I dunno, female circumcision in some third world countries. I don't think liking a Facebook page will do much to reverse that particular atrocity. But this? Discussion and awareness absolutely fight against this problem - the cultural, sexist mindset. The problem is obliviousness, callousness, trivialization, marginalization, and so on. The solution, maybe the ONLY solution, is what we are currently engaged in - debate and discussion.
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Think about where the criticisms regarding complicity come up. They generally aren't directed at people who are just minding their business and staying out of the conversations. This thread is not spilling over into other threads, that I know of. That probably wouldn't be fair, if it were happening. By the same token, it seems totally fair to level the complicity criticism against someone who comes into this thread and denies that there is a problem at all. Anyone can feel free to express their opinion regarding this topic, but they're not free to do so without response or criticism.
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I care more about the witch hunt aspect to it than I do about the stupid statue, to be honest. And to continue being honest, I wanted someone crusading just as hard in the opposite direction to discuss it with, but they were too busy acting like they had a mandate from god to cast aside any attacks on their opinion.
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
You're right, and for that I AM sorry. I've been pulled so far away from my original point that it's getting cloudy. I'm trying to defend myself on a number of fronts for things that I am absolutely not guilty of and it's hard to keep focus in a situation like that.
Taking it back to that core argument of the witch hunt, I feel like the word "misogyny" is the new "pornography." It's an ugly word that gets tossed around far too freely. The whole concept of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" comes to mind. And this idea that people need to change the way things are, it's noble. It truly is. I don't disagree with it. I roll my eyes when I see things like a fantasy game where the woman is wearing a metal bikini that exposes her vital organs. I rolled my eyes at the large breasts on this statue. What I don't like is the derogatory nature of being called a misogynist because I don't think it IS misogyny. Again, words have definitions for a reason. I've been accused of arguing semantics, but if we abuse words without any regard for what they mean, why bother defining anything? Australia's major dictionary publisher recently just changed the definition to mean a "prejudice" against women instead of "hatred." I don't think even THAT definition applies here. Moreover, I think changing a definition that has been in existence for as long as that one has is asinine.
This IS on me, however. I get that. But I'm so vehemently opposed to words being used incorrectly that it drives me crazy when I see stuff like this. Thus, the "witch hunt" comment. I feel like the anger that has been generated is justified but it's being miscategorized. People object to my objection, tempers flare, wit gets bandied about and then we reach this point.
I'll say this much: I find it terribly curious that people here are so ready to stamp out misogyny that they want to boycott this game entirely, but violence in any form (which games CLEARLY glorify) are A-OK to purchase in general. But I shouldn't really make that point because as others have already pointed out "that's different."
Well first:
Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1] The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry, the hatred or dislike of men; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, the love or fondness of women.
Second, as previously mentioned violence in and of itself can serve many purposes. Violence against any population for the sheer purpose of violence is dumb. However, in most video games the concept of violence is the concept of conflict, of being faced with a challenge and overcoming it (often) with some sort of measured character growth for having done so (by statistics, points, plot, etc). The purpose of violence in video games is to present an essential challege and address it. This can be done well or horribly over the top depending upon context.
The context of this statue is mutilating the corpse of a woman and then draping it's sexual organs in an objectifying. There is no conflict, purpose, progression or growth.
I can understand your frustration, and in response to @UncleSporky I can understand the concept of being passive as not necessarily being complicit with crime. But context is also key here. If I am sitting in my home in the US I likely have little to no power to effectively take action to stop a warlord in Rawanda. However, pretty much anywhere there are women I have power to not treat them like a piece of meat to be oggled and to take action to ensure I and those around me also respect women.
You do have power to change perceptions of gender here, so it's a false equivalency.
Oh, come on. Ignoring a problem is completely different then being unaware of it or unable to do anything about it. Simply disapproving of a known problem is better, LEAGUES better, then knowing it's happening and brusing it off. Quit taking thing so literally.
OneAngryPossum used an example on this page to state that disapproval isn't enough to free you from being complicit. Do you disagree with him on that point?
Just to be clear, that wasn't the point I meant to make. The idea I was addressing was that you can personally disapprove of a thing, yet if you do literally nothing to combat the issue when give the opportunity, you are a part of the problem. 'Doing something' is as simple as telling somebody to stop when they're engaging in a behavior you find offensive, educating yourself, and not playing into the problem just because its easier for you. I took a lot of shit in the military for speaking up sometimes, and other times I was too exhausted to fight. In the latter, I was absolutely a part of the problem.
You can't fix everything, but nobody is expecting that. Take the chances you can to do the right thing. That's about it. More is better, but I won't call somebody who does their active best to understand and help a cause part of the problem.
If they're only involvement is to go online and disagree with people about the basic issues at play because they're stuck in their own bullshit, I will continue to view them as part of the problem, and I will request politely that they go perform sexual acts upon themselves.
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
One of my main annoyances with this line of thinking is that it implies that men/women enjoying the female/male form is a bad thing. I'm not sorry to say that I do indeed enjoy the female form. A lot. There is a chemical reaction in my brain that triggers when I see something that appeals to me. And I'm supposed to feel bad about it? (Now, before it gets weird, let me clarify that I do NOT have that reaction to the statue.)
What is the endgame? OK, let's get rid of overemphasizing the female and male form (I refuse to accept that this is a one-sided problem, but I'm also not using it as a defense of bad behavior -- before anyone goes off on a tangent) and hypersexualization. Is emphasizing the female and male form OK? Is a little titillation OK? I don't think I understand where the goal line is in this struggle. Someone earlier said "females wearing normal clothes would be a start." It would be. What's the finish?
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
One of my main annoyances with this line of thinking is that it implies that men/women enjoying the female/male form is a bad thing. I'm not sorry to say that I do indeed enjoy the female form. A lot. There is a chemical reaction in my brain that triggers when I see something that appeals to me. And I'm supposed to feel bad about it? (Now, before it gets weird, let me clarify that I do NOT have that reaction to the statue.)
What is the endgame? OK, let's get rid of overemphasizing the female and male form (I refuse to accept that this is a one-sided problem, but I'm also not using it as a defense of bad behavior -- before anyone goes off on a tangent) and hypersexualization. Is emphasizing the female and male form OK? Is a little titillation OK? I don't think I understand where the goal line is in this struggle. Someone earlier said "females wearing normal clothes would be a start." It would be. What's the finish?
I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but absolutely nobody is saying what you're suggesting. This line of thought is completely irrelevant and ignoring the issue at hand, which relates to filtering a woman out to the bits that men want to focus on, and then painting those bits up to look like they were violently assaulted.
Also, that chemical reaction is largely defined by the society you grow up in, so hey, culture and self-shaping continue to matter. Fun.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
You're blowing it out of proportion. Cultural problems rely on inertia and indifference to perpetuate and require critical mass awareness to be overcome; contributing requires at least little more than speaking in opposition, whereas defending or dismissing cultural problems in spite of reason preserves them.
If you disagree with the problem or a premise someone will happily take you up on that point, but if you want to throw up your hands because you think Vsove's response to a specific topic at hand actually meant that everyone is morally obligated to devote their entire waking lives to charity or whatever, okay, but that game only works until they come back and tell you no, and they're sorry for not including the laundry list of caveats taken for granted as participating in a focused conversation.
A lot of excellent points being made, especially by @TychoCelchuuu whose argument I would say most cleanly expresses the larger concerns while avoiding being judgmental about a topic many people feel strongly about.
This is a little off topic, though it seems relevant in the context of discussing this as a feminist problem, but a large part of the problem in this conversation, and larger conversations of gender inequality or bias, is the concept of feminism. While feminism is not intentionally limiting, there is a strong implication that the issue is only about how women are perceived in society. So, it is an ideology that only applies to women, and therefore, women are the experts in this field and it becomes unapproachable by a large audience. This is why you get a lot of, "but the women I know are fine with it so..." and to be fair, this response is completely logical. Just like an issue that specifically effects any particular audience, for example, the No Child Left Behind discussion, which specifically effects teachers, it is logical to look to teachers to get a gauge on whether or not there is an actual problem.
The actual problem is not about women, but about gender and how we as a society perceive it. Gender is not an anatomical distinction, that is something else entirely. Gender is the combination of social norms we put under the category of "man" and "woman". These categories are wholly arbitrary and determined by society and the opinions of individuals within it (which is why what we say and convey in this conversation does have impact). When we talk about the objectification of women as a feminist problem, we are missing half the problem which is what makes up cultural norms for men. It's no wonder the conversation fails to penetrate such a large audience when the discourse continually reiterates that it is only about woman and not about men.
The first step is to understand gender as something we construct. Men don't oggle breasts because it is "natural," it is because society has fetishized this aspect of the female body. In another time or place, it was/is ankles or hips or feet. Teeth are another good example in that, they do not naturally line up in tight little rows, but that is how most of us perceive an attractive smile. So these are things people construct and influence on a daily basis, but are often treated as if they are natural, integral things that we have no say in. This answers the biggest question, the "so what?", put out there by the audience that does not feel this statue has an impact. Whether a person realizes it or not, they are contributing to what is made acceptable in society.
Objects like this statue give the discourse a focused, clear element to discuss and embody the larger argument that is an integral part of everyone's daily life. It is not so much that the statue directly causes a problem, only that it reflects what is perceived to be an existing problem in society. That problem is a long history of physical and social domination of men over women within western society. Just as racialist thinking was an acceptable norm in the past, so is the perception as woman as a subject of the the man. This has obviously changed drastically in modern society, but the norms that were historically created still influence how society interprets what is acceptable in a given gender. These norms have only recently been challenged on a large scale (50-100 years is a short time for a culture to undergo large ideological shifts) and so it is important to be aware that the social ideology as the woman as a subject of the man still influences what is seen as acceptable by both men and women.
By focusing the argument only on the problems in gender norms for women, the discussion misses the point that there is just as many socially constructed elements of being a man that also need addressing (and not just in how men relate to women). This isn't intentional, but it explains why such a large part of the population just "doesn't get it." Of course, a person can simply be flippant and pass this off as others being being ignorant or stupid, but that does not move the discussion forward and, from my experience, I find that creating relevance often circumvents what was originally thought to be obstinance.
So, to wrap this up and give a TL:DR, considering this a feminist issue is part of the problem if your goal is to communicate the impact this statue has on society to an audience who does not already agree with you. I'm doing my best not to insert my opinion on the statue and how it reflects on gender norms in society because I am trying to show where the disconnect is for the large part of the population who says, "it is not a big deal."
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Not all topics are equal, and THIS topic regards an issue that stems from a diseased cultural mindset.
The point is that that cultural mindset is fed and fostered by our individual mindsets, because what with think informs what we say and do.
So, when you have a bunch of people offering logical arguments on why something like a statue of a disembodied pair of tits is bad and a bunch of other people dismissing that with nothing but trivializations and allusions to the status quo, then yes, those people aren't just complicit, they are outright stating that they are happy being a part of the problem, because they are happy with the status quo.
The issue here is that the status quo is bad.
I can't do much of anything direct about, I dunno, female circumcision in some third world countries. I don't think liking a Facebook page will do much to reverse that particular atrocity. But this? Discussion and awareness absolutely fight against this problem - the cultural, sexist mindset. The problem is obliviousness, callousness, trivialization, marginalization, and so on. The solution, maybe the ONLY solution, is what we are currently engaged in - debate and discussion.
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
So more correctly, the statement should be "ignoring a problem endemic to your own culture makes you complicit in it?" I can deal with that.
The trouble is that for this game in particular, I already wasn't planning on buying it, so I have to go out of my way to perform an action to speak out against it, rather than simply being able to reverse my decision to buy it which would be substantially easier. :P
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
One of my main annoyances with this line of thinking is that it implies that men/women enjoying the female/male form is a bad thing. I'm not sorry to say that I do indeed enjoy the female form. A lot. There is a chemical reaction in my brain that triggers when I see something that appeals to me. And I'm supposed to feel bad about it? (Now, before it gets weird, let me clarify that I do NOT have that reaction to the statue.)
What is the endgame? OK, let's get rid of overemphasizing the female and male form (I refuse to accept that this is a one-sided problem, but I'm also not using it as a defense of bad behavior -- before anyone goes off on a tangent) and hypersexualization. Is emphasizing the female and male form OK? Is a little titillation OK? I don't think I understand where the goal line is in this struggle. Someone earlier said "females wearing normal clothes would be a start." It would be. What's the finish?
I enjoy the female form a great deal. You can enjoy the female form without approving of dismembered titty statues as video game swag.
Attraction and appreciation does not automatically equal obectification.
Maybe there is no endgame, no finish. Maybe this is a perpetual struggle against pervasive, simplistic and reductive notions about difficult subjects such as sex and gender.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
This discussion has nothing at all to do with restricting sexuality, only ensuring that both parties in said sexuality are being treated with respect and personal agency. Treating women as people is totally different than saying "no sex no instincts no nuthin" which is what you are claiming.
Also: when exactly do you see the male form objectified? When exactly do you see a man stropped of agency in sexual situations?
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
Not all topics are equal, and THIS topic regards an issue that stems from a diseased cultural mindset.
The point is that that cultural mindset is fed and fostered by our individual mindsets, because what with think informs what we say and do.
So, when you have a bunch of people offering logical arguments on why something like a statue of a disembodied pair of tits is bad and a bunch of other people dismissing that with nothing but trivializations and allusions to the status quo, then yes, those people aren't just complicit, they are outright stating that they are happy being a part of the problem, because they are happy with the status quo.
The issue here is that the status quo is bad.
I can't do much of anything direct about, I dunno, female circumcision in some third world countries. I don't think liking a Facebook page will do much to reverse that particular atrocity. But this? Discussion and awareness absolutely fight against this problem - the cultural, sexist mindset. The problem is obliviousness, callousness, trivialization, marginalization, and so on. The solution, maybe the ONLY solution, is what we are currently engaged in - debate and discussion.
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
So more correctly, the statement should be "ignoring a problem endemic to your own culture makes you complicit in it?" I can deal with that.
The trouble is that for this game in particular, I already wasn't planning on buying it, so I have to go out of my way to perform an action to speak out against it, rather than simply being able to reverse my decision to buy it which would be substantially easier. :P
Not really. I'm quite disgusted with this, but I will be buying the game. I think it's more important to (a) cause a stink and let Deep Silver and their marketing staff/PR firm know that this isn't cool, (b) expand the awareness of those who attempt to trivialize this kind of thing. I want no part of the torso but I honestly believe that a lot of public discourse on this matter is more appropriate and more effective than a boycott.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+1
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.
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.
Oh, I sorta cringe at calling it "art" however I do understand what you're saying, and it's basically the same thing that I am saying. You can't take something and divorce it from its environment and THEN start to analyze it. This is why sociology, psychology, and other mind-sciences are considered so "soft" there's no way to take something, analyze it thoroughly and arrive at the conclusion "this thing is evil!" The object itself is innocent enough oftentimes, I mean, boobies are just a way of feeding kids, right? Therefore men who appreciate boobies are actually being very selfless in worrying about the children!, right?
Maybe a monstrous hyperbole here, but I'm using it to prove the point. The object in a vacuum where only it exists is meaningless, the Mona Lisa, after all, is just a regular portrait of some lady, you absolutely have to take the whole context if you hope to come to an understanding of the varying forms of viewpoints.
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
I don't think that the mere existence of this item is terrible. A lot of porn is absolutely viceful. I do think that what should at best be a sex shop fetish piece being shipped as a collector's edition bonus in a (mainstream!) game as if it was normal speaks of an incredibly sick culture. When your conception of normalcy is so twisted that it becomes acceptable to ship such sexualized items in non-pornographic products (because hey, that's just how reality is) you know you have an incredibly big problem on your hands.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?
To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.
Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.
That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.
Oh good, it's been a while since someone jumped in without reading anything other than 'People are angry!' and completely failed to grasp any of the points while dismissing everything that's been said as hypocritical because 'HEH PORN EXISTS CHECKMATE'.
[W]hat should at best be a sex shop fetish piece being shipped as a collector's edition bonus in a (mainstream!) game as if it was normal speaks of an incredibly sick culture.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?
To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.
Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.
That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.
Most women creating pornography are taking personal agency to perform in a sexual fashion. They are choosing to do so and embrace their sexuality, which is acceptable. Stripping a person from the sexual organs is not healthy. Creating a disembodied torso void of head and limb as a sexual fetishized object and marketing tool is also not healthy.
Liking "boobs" over liking attractive women is also somewhat endemic to the problem. You like the part, not the person by this logic. I don't know if that's the case of it is just the rhetoric, but both aren't exactly respectful to women as people.
I care more about the witch hunt aspect to it than I do about the stupid statue, to be honest. And to continue being honest, I wanted someone crusading just as hard in the opposite direction to discuss it with, but they were too busy acting like they had a mandate from god to cast aside any attacks on their opinion.
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
You're right, and for that I AM sorry. I've been pulled so far away from my original point that it's getting cloudy. I'm trying to defend myself on a number of fronts for things that I am absolutely not guilty of and it's hard to keep focus in a situation like that.
Taking it back to that core argument of the witch hunt, I feel like the word "misogyny" is the new "pornography." It's an ugly word that gets tossed around far too freely. The whole concept of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" comes to mind. And this idea that people need to change the way things are, it's noble. It truly is. I don't disagree with it. I roll my eyes when I see things like a fantasy game where the woman is wearing a metal bikini that exposes her vital organs. I rolled my eyes at the large breasts on this statue. What I don't like is the derogatory nature of being called a misogynist because I don't think it IS misogyny. Again, words have definitions for a reason. I've been accused of arguing semantics, but if we abuse words without any regard for what they mean, why bother defining anything? Australia's major dictionary publisher recently just changed the definition to mean a "prejudice" against women instead of "hatred." I don't think even THAT definition applies here. Moreover, I think changing a definition that has been in existence for as long as that one has is asinine.
This IS on me, however. I get that. But I'm so vehemently opposed to words being used incorrectly that it drives me crazy when I see stuff like this. Thus, the "witch hunt" comment. I feel like the anger that has been generated is justified but it's being miscategorized. People object to my objection, tempers flare, wit gets bandied about and then we reach this point.
I'll say this much: I find it terribly curious that people here are so ready to stamp out misogyny that they want to boycott this game entirely, but violence in any form (which games CLEARLY glorify) are A-OK to purchase in general. But I shouldn't really make that point because as others have already pointed out "that's different."
Well first:
Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1] The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry, the hatred or dislike of men; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, the love or fondness of women.
I really don't want to go down this path again, but I'm a sucker. I've already explained that I don't believe that the existence of one proves the existence of the other. Meaning, in this case, with that above definition in mind, (taking the two items from that list that are the most applicable in this instance) violence against and sexual objectification of women does not mean that it is inherently hateful. Again, I'm going back to the semantics argument and the etymology of the word, "hatred of women." Taken in context, my defense is as follows:
- The violence is (presumably) caused by zombies. Zombies do not hate. They just want to eat.
- The sexuality is childish as can be, as I've pointed out MANY times. But contextually, it's a woman's body from a beach resort where every female has the same bust size (THAT is ridiculous, and yes, I see how it's "part of the problem") and she's wearing a bikini because beach. No hatred again.
Now, the reasoning behind MAKING the statue? I can't prove that those idiots do or do not hate women but I'd guess that they don't.
Hopefully this is not seen as idiotic, trolling, hateful or misogynistic (by anyone, not pointing fingers at you). It's an argument.
Second, as previously mentioned violence in and of itself can serve many purposes. Violence against any population for the sheer purpose of violence is dumb. However, in most video games the concept of violence is the concept of conflict, of being faced with a challenge and overcoming it (often) with some sort of measured character growth for having done so (by statistics, points, plot, etc). The purpose of violence in video games is to present an essential challege and address it. This can be done well or horribly over the top depending upon context.
The context of this statue is mutilating the corpse of a woman and then draping it's sexual organs in an objectifying. There is no conflict, purpose, progression or growth.
I can understand your frustration, and in response to @UncleSporky I can understand the concept of being passive as not necessarily being complicit with crime. But context is also key here. If I am sitting in my home in the US I likely have little to no power to effectively take action to stop a warlord in Rawanda. However, pretty much anywhere there are women I have power to not treat them like a piece of meat to be oggled and to take action to ensure I and those around me also respect women.
You do have power to change perceptions of gender here, so it's a false equivalency.
I'd argue that you don't have the power to change either thing. You can stand up against those things and voice your dissent, and you can try to promote understanding about it but in the end conflict and sexual attraction are natural instincts in humans. It's hard to fight nature. I'm not saying you can't try because that would be defeatist and stupid. I'm also not saying that it's in man's nature to sexually objectify women, but it IS in their nature to be aroused visually. My point really was, by way of example, along the lines of "Black Ops 2 is one of the best selling games of the past year and no one really seems to care that it's a sad commentary on our nature as humans." And I was being snide about it, I'll admit that.
Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?
To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.
Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.
That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.
Here's the thing. There are very few physical objects that have anything "inherently wrong" with them. It is perhaps literally impossible for an inert substance to have any inherent moral properties, given that objects have no agency, and much of moral philosophy is about doing, not being.
@Kias has a good post about the nature of the problem.
What bothers me isn't that this statue was a deliberate act of malice perpetrated by cackling game developers who twirled their moustaches and rubbed their hands together in glee at the idea of women being brutally oppressed.
It's the utter oblivious thoughtlessness towards the fact that people other than 16 year old boys might want to play their game. I've been playing games since I was four years old. I've sunk a few dozen hours into the first Left 4 Dead and I'm a huge Borderlands 2 fan. If they played their cards right, then this is a game that I might check out. But the idea of there being women (or men who are interested in sharing their interests with women) interested in the game doesn't even factor into the radar, because when figuring out the goodies for their collectible edition for fans, they throw in a pair of tits in a box.
It's an utter disregard for the fact that women play games and might be quite interested in this. It'd be like if for an Avengers game the preorder bonus was a statue of Captain America's torso, pecs, and abs and junk and his clothes ripped away by alien forces because 'that's what the fans want'. Except, it's this Dead Island shit, over and over and over again, that reminds us women that we're not really a factor in the whole making games thing. It's a thousand little things like that - some of them way worse than others. Sarah Kerrigan has biological heels to make sure her ass looks just right. League of Legends characters are spilling out of their clothes. Soul Calibur ads are just Ivy's tits and ass, because that's what the fans want.
Women are invisible to developers, and we're contending with a culture where I choose gender neutral names for my characters so I don't get rape threats and hit on. I can't use voice chat with random people because I'm opening myself up for harassment, I gotta get a feel for their character first. People I've been having a grand old time with turn around and send me pictures of their dick as soon as they find out I'm a woman. Anita Sarkseesian gets death threats and photoshopped pictures of her beaten and bruised.
It'd be nice if, out of this entire culture where we're continually invisible at best and shit on at worst, the developers could give us the barest of considerations.
Posts
"That's on you" is one of the worst arguments in the history of forever. What Tycho said to me implied that I was an active participant in helping to create "a society where women are systematically ignored, demeaned, abused, and raped with a shocking degree of frequency." It also implies that I'm not disgusted by those things, because after all, I'm complicit in it, aren't I?
It shocks me how hard it is for people here to understand that you can have an opinion without being part of "the problem." But then again, I'm not out there trying to stop this kind of thing from happening, so I must BE "the problem." Christ.
What you're doing here? You're telling a marginalized group (women) that 'pfft, why are you offended, some other women aren't offended'. You are literally trying to tell people how they should feel. You are minimalizing their experience and substituting your own anecdotal experience in order to paint this whole situation as people making a big deal out of nothing.
How you don't understand that this is offensive is beyond me.
Guess what - ignoring a problem makes you complicit in it. It doesn't make you an active participant but it shows you implicitly endorse it.
This is basic fucking stuff. You know who men at the 'misogynist' end of the spectrum tend to listen to? Other men. You are in a pretty unique position where you can help effect change and you're saying 'nope, not my problem'. No, you're not actively pushing the agenda, but you're refusing to stand against it.
No joke, thought experiment. Lets take the following for granted:
Society says it's cool to run down orphans in your car for sport.
Advertisers latch onto the fact that mowing down orphans is awesome, so they use it to sell their products.
You find running down orphans kind of upsetting and morally problematic.
There are groups of orphans and allies that say hey, maybe stop running us down in cars and glamorizing it through media.
You decide no, those people are silly and can be ignored. Even though they shouldn't be mowed down, you will not help them.
Finally, millions of people do the same analysis as you do, deciding they don't give enough of a shit about the issue except to argue with orphans online and tell them they're wrong about something.
This is the difficulty faced by any attempt to correct a wide scale societal failing.
So. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're part of the orphan murder problem.
Ugh, it's a dumb term. And yea people use it to throw that disenginuity to defending something or someone. I think it's a stupid term though and I'm not sure how we got to the point of tossing it around...
PS:
These are your words. You're starting to come across as less you being passionate about this and more just trolling at this point.
Well, if someone thinks that a particular feature of society is a problem, and that to fix the problem people need to repudiate that feature of society, then why would they think anything other than that to fail to repudiate that feature is to be part of the problem?
lol, not going to lie either... while I would never buy the collectors edition of this (and that sort of thing wouldn't even be considered for release in the states), if I did see this game for sale used, it would be a maybe. :P
Whatever usefulness the term might've once had disappeared when it was appropriated by the great unwashed masses of internet tough guys to mean 'someone who stands up to my bullshit'. Now it's just a red flag.
Maybe I wasn't being clear: I agree with Tycho. You are either a part of the problem or you are a part of the solution. The oblivious masses that cling to the status quo just because it is the status quo far outnumber the group of active, malicious misogynists, but it doesn't mean you don't help propagate the same beliefs an sustain a cultural disease. As far as I'm concerned, your posts in this thread are doing exactly that. I consider you part of the problem.
As to your qualm with "that's on you," I don't know what you expect people to say to "I'm offended." I'm certainly not sorry that you decided to take offense to something I think you are guilty of.
If you understand what people mean when they talk about the problem in the first place, how can you fail to see how an opinion dismissing or excusing it doesn't make you part of it? You seem dead set on rumbling with personal umbrage yet I'm still not even sure what you're arguing. Do you think it's sexist or not? You've said both.
Y'know maybe this isn't quite on topic here but good god. I guess I'll just sit here and gladly be complicit in every atrocity going on worldwide, implicitly endorsing it all, because I don't have time to invest myself properly in curing the world's ills.
I mean how can you successfully not ignore the majority of these problems? How can I satisfy that requirement? Token shows of support, clicking "like," dropping a dollar in a bucket is useless and almost as bad as doing nothing.
What if they just don't know about it, can they keep from being complicit then? Except then you'd probably say they're being willfully ignorant and it's their responsibility to elevate themselves from that position so they can properly feel guilty about the problems they can't solve.
I'm not going to feel guilty every time I play video games instead of working a bake sale for charity. I can't. I guess complicit it is, then.
I'd need a map, two hands and a wily Spanish guide to follow all the twists in your ridiculous tirade at this point but I'll give it a try.
Us: The statue is mysoginistic.
You: No it isn't.
HAY THAT WASN'T HARD AT ALL
The fact is it IS and until you recognize that and deal with that irrefutable fact there will just be this ridiculous back and forth which should have ended easily 5 pages ago.
You're right, and for that I AM sorry. I've been pulled so far away from my original point that it's getting cloudy. I'm trying to defend myself on a number of fronts for things that I am absolutely not guilty of and it's hard to keep focus in a situation like that.
Taking it back to that core argument of the witch hunt, I feel like the word "misogyny" is the new "pornography." It's an ugly word that gets tossed around far too freely. The whole concept of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" comes to mind. And this idea that people need to change the way things are, it's noble. It truly is. I don't disagree with it. I roll my eyes when I see things like a fantasy game where the woman is wearing a metal bikini that exposes her vital organs. I rolled my eyes at the large breasts on this statue. What I don't like is the derogatory nature of being called a misogynist because I don't think it IS misogyny. Again, words have definitions for a reason. I've been accused of arguing semantics, but if we abuse words without any regard for what they mean, why bother defining anything? Australia's major dictionary publisher recently just changed the definition to mean a "prejudice" against women instead of "hatred." I don't think even THAT definition applies here. Moreover, I think changing a definition that has been in existence for as long as that one has is asinine.
This IS on me, however. I get that. But I'm so vehemently opposed to words being used incorrectly that it drives me crazy when I see stuff like this. Thus, the "witch hunt" comment. I feel like the anger that has been generated is justified but it's being miscategorized. People object to my objection, tempers flare, wit gets bandied about and then we reach this point.
I'll say this much: I find it terribly curious that people here are so ready to stamp out misogyny that they want to boycott this game entirely, but violence in any form (which games CLEARLY glorify) are A-OK to purchase in general. But I shouldn't really make that point because as others have already pointed out "that's different."
Oh, come on. Ignoring a problem is completely different then being unaware of it or unable to do anything about it. Simply disapproving of a known problem is better, LEAGUES better, then knowing it's happening and brusing it off. Quit taking thing so literally.
OneAngryPossum used an example on this page to state that disapproval isn't enough to free you from being complicit. Do you disagree with him on that point?
Not all topics are equal, and THIS topic regards an issue that stems from a diseased cultural mindset.
The point is that that cultural mindset is fed and fostered by our individual mindsets, because what with think informs what we say and do.
So, when you have a bunch of people offering logical arguments on why something like a statue of a disembodied pair of tits is bad and a bunch of other people dismissing that with nothing but trivializations and allusions to the status quo, then yes, those people aren't just complicit, they are outright stating that they are happy being a part of the problem, because they are happy with the status quo.
The issue here is that the status quo is bad.
I can't do much of anything direct about, I dunno, female circumcision in some third world countries. I don't think liking a Facebook page will do much to reverse that particular atrocity. But this? Discussion and awareness absolutely fight against this problem - the cultural, sexist mindset. The problem is obliviousness, callousness, trivialization, marginalization, and so on. The solution, maybe the ONLY solution, is what we are currently engaged in - debate and discussion.
So yes people who just sit there not giving a shit are not only a problem, they are THE problem, and maybe they should feel bad about it.
Think about where the criticisms regarding complicity come up. They generally aren't directed at people who are just minding their business and staying out of the conversations. This thread is not spilling over into other threads, that I know of. That probably wouldn't be fair, if it were happening. By the same token, it seems totally fair to level the complicity criticism against someone who comes into this thread and denies that there is a problem at all. Anyone can feel free to express their opinion regarding this topic, but they're not free to do so without response or criticism.
Well first:
Second, as previously mentioned violence in and of itself can serve many purposes. Violence against any population for the sheer purpose of violence is dumb. However, in most video games the concept of violence is the concept of conflict, of being faced with a challenge and overcoming it (often) with some sort of measured character growth for having done so (by statistics, points, plot, etc). The purpose of violence in video games is to present an essential challege and address it. This can be done well or horribly over the top depending upon context.
The context of this statue is mutilating the corpse of a woman and then draping it's sexual organs in an objectifying. There is no conflict, purpose, progression or growth.
I can understand your frustration, and in response to @UncleSporky I can understand the concept of being passive as not necessarily being complicit with crime. But context is also key here. If I am sitting in my home in the US I likely have little to no power to effectively take action to stop a warlord in Rawanda. However, pretty much anywhere there are women I have power to not treat them like a piece of meat to be oggled and to take action to ensure I and those around me also respect women.
You do have power to change perceptions of gender here, so it's a false equivalency.
Just to be clear, that wasn't the point I meant to make. The idea I was addressing was that you can personally disapprove of a thing, yet if you do literally nothing to combat the issue when give the opportunity, you are a part of the problem. 'Doing something' is as simple as telling somebody to stop when they're engaging in a behavior you find offensive, educating yourself, and not playing into the problem just because its easier for you. I took a lot of shit in the military for speaking up sometimes, and other times I was too exhausted to fight. In the latter, I was absolutely a part of the problem.
You can't fix everything, but nobody is expecting that. Take the chances you can to do the right thing. That's about it. More is better, but I won't call somebody who does their active best to understand and help a cause part of the problem.
If they're only involvement is to go online and disagree with people about the basic issues at play because they're stuck in their own bullshit, I will continue to view them as part of the problem, and I will request politely that they go perform sexual acts upon themselves.
One of my main annoyances with this line of thinking is that it implies that men/women enjoying the female/male form is a bad thing. I'm not sorry to say that I do indeed enjoy the female form. A lot. There is a chemical reaction in my brain that triggers when I see something that appeals to me. And I'm supposed to feel bad about it? (Now, before it gets weird, let me clarify that I do NOT have that reaction to the statue.)
What is the endgame? OK, let's get rid of overemphasizing the female and male form (I refuse to accept that this is a one-sided problem, but I'm also not using it as a defense of bad behavior -- before anyone goes off on a tangent) and hypersexualization. Is emphasizing the female and male form OK? Is a little titillation OK? I don't think I understand where the goal line is in this struggle. Someone earlier said "females wearing normal clothes would be a start." It would be. What's the finish?
I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but absolutely nobody is saying what you're suggesting. This line of thought is completely irrelevant and ignoring the issue at hand, which relates to filtering a woman out to the bits that men want to focus on, and then painting those bits up to look like they were violently assaulted.
Also, that chemical reaction is largely defined by the society you grow up in, so hey, culture and self-shaping continue to matter. Fun.
You're blowing it out of proportion. Cultural problems rely on inertia and indifference to perpetuate and require critical mass awareness to be overcome; contributing requires at least little more than speaking in opposition, whereas defending or dismissing cultural problems in spite of reason preserves them.
If you disagree with the problem or a premise someone will happily take you up on that point, but if you want to throw up your hands because you think Vsove's response to a specific topic at hand actually meant that everyone is morally obligated to devote their entire waking lives to charity or whatever, okay, but that game only works until they come back and tell you no, and they're sorry for not including the laundry list of caveats taken for granted as participating in a focused conversation.
This is a little off topic, though it seems relevant in the context of discussing this as a feminist problem, but a large part of the problem in this conversation, and larger conversations of gender inequality or bias, is the concept of feminism. While feminism is not intentionally limiting, there is a strong implication that the issue is only about how women are perceived in society. So, it is an ideology that only applies to women, and therefore, women are the experts in this field and it becomes unapproachable by a large audience. This is why you get a lot of, "but the women I know are fine with it so..." and to be fair, this response is completely logical. Just like an issue that specifically effects any particular audience, for example, the No Child Left Behind discussion, which specifically effects teachers, it is logical to look to teachers to get a gauge on whether or not there is an actual problem.
The actual problem is not about women, but about gender and how we as a society perceive it. Gender is not an anatomical distinction, that is something else entirely. Gender is the combination of social norms we put under the category of "man" and "woman". These categories are wholly arbitrary and determined by society and the opinions of individuals within it (which is why what we say and convey in this conversation does have impact). When we talk about the objectification of women as a feminist problem, we are missing half the problem which is what makes up cultural norms for men. It's no wonder the conversation fails to penetrate such a large audience when the discourse continually reiterates that it is only about woman and not about men.
The first step is to understand gender as something we construct. Men don't oggle breasts because it is "natural," it is because society has fetishized this aspect of the female body. In another time or place, it was/is ankles or hips or feet. Teeth are another good example in that, they do not naturally line up in tight little rows, but that is how most of us perceive an attractive smile. So these are things people construct and influence on a daily basis, but are often treated as if they are natural, integral things that we have no say in. This answers the biggest question, the "so what?", put out there by the audience that does not feel this statue has an impact. Whether a person realizes it or not, they are contributing to what is made acceptable in society.
Objects like this statue give the discourse a focused, clear element to discuss and embody the larger argument that is an integral part of everyone's daily life. It is not so much that the statue directly causes a problem, only that it reflects what is perceived to be an existing problem in society. That problem is a long history of physical and social domination of men over women within western society. Just as racialist thinking was an acceptable norm in the past, so is the perception as woman as a subject of the the man. This has obviously changed drastically in modern society, but the norms that were historically created still influence how society interprets what is acceptable in a given gender. These norms have only recently been challenged on a large scale (50-100 years is a short time for a culture to undergo large ideological shifts) and so it is important to be aware that the social ideology as the woman as a subject of the man still influences what is seen as acceptable by both men and women.
By focusing the argument only on the problems in gender norms for women, the discussion misses the point that there is just as many socially constructed elements of being a man that also need addressing (and not just in how men relate to women). This isn't intentional, but it explains why such a large part of the population just "doesn't get it." Of course, a person can simply be flippant and pass this off as others being being ignorant or stupid, but that does not move the discussion forward and, from my experience, I find that creating relevance often circumvents what was originally thought to be obstinance.
So, to wrap this up and give a TL:DR, considering this a feminist issue is part of the problem if your goal is to communicate the impact this statue has on society to an audience who does not already agree with you. I'm doing my best not to insert my opinion on the statue and how it reflects on gender norms in society because I am trying to show where the disconnect is for the large part of the population who says, "it is not a big deal."
So more correctly, the statement should be "ignoring a problem endemic to your own culture makes you complicit in it?" I can deal with that.
The trouble is that for this game in particular, I already wasn't planning on buying it, so I have to go out of my way to perform an action to speak out against it, rather than simply being able to reverse my decision to buy it which would be substantially easier. :P
I enjoy the female form a great deal. You can enjoy the female form without approving of dismembered titty statues as video game swag.
Attraction and appreciation does not automatically equal obectification.
Also: when exactly do you see the male form objectified? When exactly do you see a man stropped of agency in sexual situations?
Not really. I'm quite disgusted with this, but I will be buying the game. I think it's more important to (a) cause a stink and let Deep Silver and their marketing staff/PR firm know that this isn't cool, (b) expand the awareness of those who attempt to trivialize this kind of thing. I want no part of the torso but I honestly believe that a lot of public discourse on this matter is more appropriate and more effective than a boycott.
Oh, I sorta cringe at calling it "art" however I do understand what you're saying, and it's basically the same thing that I am saying. You can't take something and divorce it from its environment and THEN start to analyze it. This is why sociology, psychology, and other mind-sciences are considered so "soft" there's no way to take something, analyze it thoroughly and arrive at the conclusion "this thing is evil!" The object itself is innocent enough oftentimes, I mean, boobies are just a way of feeding kids, right? Therefore men who appreciate boobies are actually being very selfless in worrying about the children!, right?
Maybe a monstrous hyperbole here, but I'm using it to prove the point. The object in a vacuum where only it exists is meaningless, the Mona Lisa, after all, is just a regular portrait of some lady, you absolutely have to take the whole context if you hope to come to an understanding of the varying forms of viewpoints.
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
Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?
To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.
Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.
That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.
Disrupter, the post immediately above yours outlines some absolute bare minimum reasons why this is bad:
Most women creating pornography are taking personal agency to perform in a sexual fashion. They are choosing to do so and embrace their sexuality, which is acceptable. Stripping a person from the sexual organs is not healthy. Creating a disembodied torso void of head and limb as a sexual fetishized object and marketing tool is also not healthy.
Liking "boobs" over liking attractive women is also somewhat endemic to the problem. You like the part, not the person by this logic. I don't know if that's the case of it is just the rhetoric, but both aren't exactly respectful to women as people.
I really don't want to go down this path again, but I'm a sucker. I've already explained that I don't believe that the existence of one proves the existence of the other. Meaning, in this case, with that above definition in mind, (taking the two items from that list that are the most applicable in this instance) violence against and sexual objectification of women does not mean that it is inherently hateful. Again, I'm going back to the semantics argument and the etymology of the word, "hatred of women." Taken in context, my defense is as follows:
- The violence is (presumably) caused by zombies. Zombies do not hate. They just want to eat.
- The sexuality is childish as can be, as I've pointed out MANY times. But contextually, it's a woman's body from a beach resort where every female has the same bust size (THAT is ridiculous, and yes, I see how it's "part of the problem") and she's wearing a bikini because beach. No hatred again.
Now, the reasoning behind MAKING the statue? I can't prove that those idiots do or do not hate women but I'd guess that they don't.
Hopefully this is not seen as idiotic, trolling, hateful or misogynistic (by anyone, not pointing fingers at you). It's an argument.
I'd argue that you don't have the power to change either thing. You can stand up against those things and voice your dissent, and you can try to promote understanding about it but in the end conflict and sexual attraction are natural instincts in humans. It's hard to fight nature. I'm not saying you can't try because that would be defeatist and stupid. I'm also not saying that it's in man's nature to sexually objectify women, but it IS in their nature to be aroused visually. My point really was, by way of example, along the lines of "Black Ops 2 is one of the best selling games of the past year and no one really seems to care that it's a sad commentary on our nature as humans." And I was being snide about it, I'll admit that.
Here's the thing. There are very few physical objects that have anything "inherently wrong" with them. It is perhaps literally impossible for an inert substance to have any inherent moral properties, given that objects have no agency, and much of moral philosophy is about doing, not being.
@Kias has a good post about the nature of the problem.
It's the utter oblivious thoughtlessness towards the fact that people other than 16 year old boys might want to play their game. I've been playing games since I was four years old. I've sunk a few dozen hours into the first Left 4 Dead and I'm a huge Borderlands 2 fan. If they played their cards right, then this is a game that I might check out. But the idea of there being women (or men who are interested in sharing their interests with women) interested in the game doesn't even factor into the radar, because when figuring out the goodies for their collectible edition for fans, they throw in a pair of tits in a box.
It's an utter disregard for the fact that women play games and might be quite interested in this. It'd be like if for an Avengers game the preorder bonus was a statue of Captain America's torso, pecs, and abs and junk and his clothes ripped away by alien forces because 'that's what the fans want'. Except, it's this Dead Island shit, over and over and over again, that reminds us women that we're not really a factor in the whole making games thing. It's a thousand little things like that - some of them way worse than others. Sarah Kerrigan has biological heels to make sure her ass looks just right. League of Legends characters are spilling out of their clothes. Soul Calibur ads are just Ivy's tits and ass, because that's what the fans want.
Women are invisible to developers, and we're contending with a culture where I choose gender neutral names for my characters so I don't get rape threats and hit on. I can't use voice chat with random people because I'm opening myself up for harassment, I gotta get a feel for their character first. People I've been having a grand old time with turn around and send me pictures of their dick as soon as they find out I'm a woman. Anita Sarkseesian gets death threats and photoshopped pictures of her beaten and bruised.
It'd be nice if, out of this entire culture where we're continually invisible at best and shit on at worst, the developers could give us the barest of considerations.