[onemic]

The term "loli" comes from a book called "Lolita", which is about an older man who develops a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita "Lolita" was shortened to "loli" via internet dark magic, and now the word refers to any girl who is underdeveloped so as to have a child-like appearance while being of legal age of consent. A "lolicon" is a fan of lolis. Morrigan's "sister", Lilith, is a loli: [img]http://www.fightersgeneration.com/np6/char2/ds/ds3/lilith-ds3-art.png[img]

Well, damn.

[Karsticles]

So does someone need to call out "the girl in the video is hot" or do we all understand that that poster's being inappropriate? Edit: Oh, and Oblivion just above. Seriously, people. I get that you're trolling, but cut it out.

Why not just ignore him? If it's really that inappropriate, I'm sure a moderator will give the poster his/her due.

Does that even really count as being "sexist"?

These days, being "sexist" generally just means that you say anything about a gender that offends someone. I was at school a month ago and said "Yeah, my wife keeps our schedule together. She just tells me where to go, and I'm there." A girl next to me said she was going to go somewhere "less sexist", and left. I still don't know what she was talking about, because last I checked, my wife controlling my schedule sounds like a rather empowering thing. It's not like she's my secretary or I force it upon her.

Well, damn.

Erm, you are welcome? :-/

[AAK]

This is definitely going to take here at least 2 years to plow through a bunch of major games released this generation alone to complete her research... How broad to she plan on delving into the topic of women in games?

[onemic]

Back to the game in question, why exactly is the gears female character in that list? There's nothing about her that's sexualized at all. Unless I'm not seeing something I should.

[cj_iwakura]

Back to the game in question, why exactly is the gears female character in that list? There's nothing about her that's sexualized at all. Unless I'm not seeing something I should.

I'm assuming that's a different trope. It doesn't have to be sexual, i.e. damsel in distress.

[onemic]

I'm assuming that's a different trope. It doesn't have to be sexual, i.e. damsel in distress.

What trope can it be? I've never really seen something like that in gaming or in general. The closest I can think of to that is Brienne in Game of Thrones and she definitely is not a trope.

[Karsticles]

I'm assuming that's a different trope. It doesn't have to be sexual, i.e. damsel in distress.

I've never played a Gears game, but she looks more like the damsel that creates distress to me, haha.

Since this thread is sensitive, just to be clear, I mean that it looks like she blows shit up and makes the bad guys have a bad day.

[cj_iwakura]

What trope can it be? I've never really seen something like that in gaming or in general. The closest I can think of to that is Brienne in Game of Thrones and she definitely is not a trope.

I assume

$13,500- Man with Boobs (Video #10)

[Hero]

What? No. Metroid Metroid II: Return of Samus Supe Metroid

This is bullshit. Every aspect of the gameplay has Samus as being a strong-willed individual who relies on no one other than herself to get things done. She's not a damsel in distress, she's not a princess or any of that other garbage tropes you want to talk about women in gaming. Do you consider this fanservice? In case people have never seen Alien during the last portion of the movie Ripley takes off her clothes to go down in her underwear to prepare for space sleep. Just because she happens to take off her clothes, which both men and women do, that's somehow fanservice? What kind of underwear would you prefer them to wear so that it's no longer sexual? Granny panties would be better maybe? If that's the lowest common denominator then you have to point at men in gaming too. The original Contra had you running around jungles and fortesses as topless beefcakes shooting everything in sight.

There's tons of awful tropes of women in gaming that you can point to but Samus is probably the last one I would point to at perpetuating crap.

[onemic]

I assume

Oh ffs

[Miizy F Baby]

Back to the game in question, why exactly is the gears female character in that list? There's nothing about her that's sexualized at all. Unless I'm not seeing something I should.

Honestly, I don't see how Anya would fit any negative cliche either.

Nor do I see why these opinion pieces need any money to get started. Get a camera, an opinion, and a YT channel.

[Korigama]

I really would've liked to hear her justification for singling out Shanoa of all choices as embodying negative tropes, but whatever.

[Femmeworth]

This is bullshit. Every aspect of the gameplay has Samus as being a strong-willed individual who relies on no one other than herself to get things done. She's not a damsel in distress, she's not a princess or any of that other garbage tropes you want to talk about women in gaming. Do you consider this fanservice? In case people have never seen Alien during the last portion of the movie Ripley takes off her clothes to go down in her underwear to prepare for space sleep. Just because she happens to take off her clothes, which both men and women do, that's somehow fanservice? What kind of underwear would you prefer them to wear so that it's no longer sexual? Granny panties would be better maybe? If that's the lowest common denominator then you have to point at men in gaming too. The original Contra had you running around jungles and fortesses as topless beefcakes shooting everything in sight. There's tons of awful tropes of women in gaming that you can point to but Samus is probably the last one I would point to at perpetuating crap.

[Karsticles]

I really would've liked to hear her justification for singling out Shanoa of all choices as embodying negative tropes, but whatever.

Another good point. Shanoa isn't sexualized at all. She's definitely stylish and beautiful, but that's just expected in videogames. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as an ugly protagonist.

The nurse from Skullgirls is kind of annoying, too. It's a cartoony game with an all-female cast. Some of those females are derranged, some are sexy. Does she not want any sexualization of women in games at all? That is not a world I want to live in. Give me games filled with sexy men and women all day long. Give me this:

[Nert]

Nor do I see why these opinion pieces need any money to get started. Get a camera, an opinion, and a YT channel.

The entire point of asking for the Kickstarter money was so that she would have the resources to develop the project into something more interesting and substantial than someone simply spouting off opinions into a webcam.

[ClassyPenguin]

Male dominated industry, inspiration from mostly horrible Sci-Fi.


Yeah...good luck on changing.

[UrbanRats]

GTA games always make me feel like a chauvinistic bastard. Always makes women seem dumb and whorish.

R* is probably one of the least sexist.
Red Dead Redemption has completely serious female characters and GTA has dumb characters on all fronts but if anything, in GTA4 the only positive characters are women (Mallorie, Michelle, Faustine's wife) yet without being too ridiculous.. also Johnny's girlfriend is a very interesting and progressive characters.
Max Payne 3 also doesn't have silly female characters.

Really it's probably one of the least offenders in this.
Yes you can fuck and kill prostitutes, but you can kill anyone, really.

They did have a terrible gay character (Florian) but it fitted in their stereotype style and they redeemed themselves with Tony, later on.

EDIT: Oh, there's also the irish girl in GTA4 but she is a shitty marysue kind of character, ugh.

[RELAYER]

In case people have never seen Alien during the last portion of the movie Ripley takes off her clothes to go down in her underwear to prepare for space sleep. Just because she happens to take off her clothes, which both men and women do, that's somehow fanservice? .

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

[DragonGirl]

Does that even really count as being "sexist"?

It is an aspect of sexism to watch a female presenter, ignore whatever she was talking about, and just comment on how she looks. This rarely happens to men. Your comment could certainly be innocent, but it is such a frustratingly common occurrence both in and out of professional settings that it will be pointed out as problematic, regardless of your intentions.

[onemic]

Another good point. Shanoa isn't sexualized at all. She's definitely stylish and beautiful, but that's just expected in videogames. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as an ugly protagonist. The nurse from Skullgirls is kind of annoying, too. It's a cartoony game with an all-female cast. Some of those females are derranged, some are sexy. Does she not want any sexualization of women in games at all? That is not a world I want to live in. Give me games filled with sexy men and women all day long. Give me this:

Ya I really, really want to see how she explains Anya, Shanoa, and the Skullgirls character.

[a Master Ninja]

Can't say I disagree with the LEGO video.

[Femmeworth]

Another good point. Shanoa isn't sexualized at all. She's definitely stylish and beautiful, but that's just expected in videogames. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as an ugly protagonist. The nurse from Skullgirls is kind of annoying, too. It's a cartoony game with an all-female cast. Some of those females are derranged, some are sexy. Does she not want any sexualization of women in games at all? That is not a world I want to live in. Give me games filled with sexy men and women all day long. Give me this:

Sexualizing everyone isn't the solution, though I figure you are joking.

Ya I really, really want to see how she explains Anya, Shanoa, and the Skullgirls character.

If anything, she'll take issue with her portrayal in the first two games. I thought the women were handled fairly well in Gears of War 3.

[Karsticles]

It is an aspect of sexism to watch a female presenter, ignore whatever she was talking about, and just comment on how she looks. This rarely happens to men. Your comment could certainly be innocent, but it is such a frustratingly common occurrence both in and out of professional settings that it will be pointed out as problematic, regardless of your intentions.

No, this isn't sexist at all. It's not sexist to look at an attractive person and be so enthralled by his or her looks that you aren't paying attention to what is being said. It wasn't sexist when I stared off in space at my attractive teachers in high school, and it wasn't sexist when my female classmates did it to professors in college. This is simply not what sexism is.

What would make this sexist is if the person gazing upon the presenter judged her presentation or worth as an employee based on those looks. This is very different from simply neglecting to pay attention to the presentation in favor of oogling.

Sexualizing everyone isn't the solution, though I figure you are joking.

None of this is a problem for me, so I don't need a solution. If people want to make Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball games, I don't care. If people want to make games filled with fully clothed women detectives searching for clues to solve a murder mystery, I don't care. The closest thing to a problem for me is the need some people have to "shame" the aesthetic choices others make in their character designs. I don't have a problem with games that have all sexy people in them, and I don't have a problem with games that have no sexy characters in them.

Why do people counter sexist tropes against women with what basically is "what about the men?!?" Countering a problem with another problem is not a solution, it's just a diversion for BOTH problems.

I think the people who say this aren't using it as a defense against the claims, but more of an attack upon the person. I take it more as a "Why do you only talk about women, why aren't you complaining about ripped men in games?", and not a "We have ripped men, so toothpicks with boobs are okay."

[DragonGirl]

I think I'll wait to actually watch the finished videos before I start judging their content.

[Hellcrow]

Why do people counter sexist tropes against women with what basically is "what about the men?!?" Countering a problem with another problem is not a solution, it's just a diversion for BOTH problems.

[zkylon]

Watched some of her videos from the rape culture thread and she really has a way of getting her point across simply and plainly. Good for her for getting backed, I'll sure watch what she produces out of this.

[Femmeworth]

No, this isn't sexist at all. It's not sexist to look at an attractive person and be so enthralled by his or her looks that you aren't paying attention to what is being said. It wasn't sexist when I stared off in space at my attractive teachers in high school, and it wasn't sexist when my female classmates did it to professors in college. This is simply not what sexism is. What would make this sexist is if the person gazing upon the presenter judged her presentation or worth as an employee based on those looks. This is very different from simply neglecting to pay attention to the presentation in favor of oogling.

It's called objectification, and women are guilty of it too.

None of this is a problem for me, so I don't need a solution. If people want to make Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball games, I don't care. If people want to make games filled with fully clothed women detectives searching for clues to solve a murder mystery, I don't care. The closest thing to a problem for me is the need some people have to "shame" the aesthetic choices others make in their character designs. I don't have a problem with games that have all sexy people in them, and I don't have a problem with games that have no sexy characters in them.

Congratulations.

[DragonGirl]

No, this isn't sexist at all. It's not sexist to look at an attractive person and be so enthralled by his or her looks that you aren't paying attention to what is being said. It wasn't sexist when I stared off in space at my attractive teachers in high school, and it wasn't sexist when my female classmates did it to professors in college. This is simply not what sexism is. What would make this sexist is if the person gazing upon the presenter judged her presentation or worth as an employee based on those looks. This is very different from simply neglecting to pay attention to the presentation in favor of oogling.

Except that your second paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about.

Edit: Also this

Being distracted and thinking naughty thoughts weren't what DragonGirl pointed to as sexism. It's the commenting. The ignoring of the presentation is performative - the objectionable comments didn't make any reference to what the girl was saying. The posters didn't merely think about the presenter sexually, they felt the need to let us all in on that (and, given that she's looking at tropes in video games and this is a major gaming forum, potentially letting her in on that too).

But I need to bow out for the evening as I'm no longer thinking too clearly.

[Gotchaye]

No, this isn't sexist at all. It's not sexist to look at an attractive person and be so enthralled by his or her looks that you aren't paying attention to what is being said. It wasn't sexist when I stared off in space at my attractive teachers in high school, and it wasn't sexist when my female classmates did it to professors in college. This is simply not what sexism is. What would make this sexist is if the person gazing upon the presenter judged her presentation or worth as an employee based on those looks. This is very different from simply neglecting to pay attention to the presentation in favor of oogling.

Being distracted and thinking naughty thoughts weren't what DragonGirl pointed to as sexism. It's the commenting. The ignoring of the presentation is performative - the objectionable comments didn't make any reference to what the girl was saying. The posters didn't merely think about the presenter sexually, they felt the need to let us all in on that (and, given that she's looking at tropes in video games and this is a major gaming forum, potentially letting her in on that too). Their entire judgment of the presentation was "she's hot", which is clearly "judging her presentation based on her looks".

[Karsticles]

It's called objectification.

I don't have a problem with objectifying people. Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal. Most people who have a job work the same way, even if they don't like to think of it that way. Take a basic example of a store employee who helps you out when you ask. Rarely does such a person really give a damn about helping you. Rather, the person is using you as a tool to obtain praise and advancement in the work place (or avoid harassment). If he had to push the right button on a computer to do it, it would be all the same. Sexual objectification is just another type - I don't see any reason to single it out as being particularly horrendous.

Except that your second paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about.

It might be what you are thinking about, but it is certainly not what you posted about:

It is an aspect of sexism to watch a female presenter, ignore whatever she was talking about, and just comment on how she looks. This rarely happens to men. Your comment could certainly be innocent, but it is such a frustratingly common occurrence both in and out of professional settings that it will be pointed out as problematic, regardless of your intentions.

Unless your definition of "comment" is "to judge the worth of as a person".

[DragonGirl]

Why do people counter sexist tropes against women with what basically is "what about the men?!?" Countering a problem with another problem is not a solution, it's just a diversion for BOTH problems.

It also ignores the fact that the playing field of problems is not equal.

[Kodiak]

Here are my thoughts:

I just finished reading the books East of Eden and 1Q84, both of which featured wonderfully human and flawed characters. Both of them had great female characters like Aomame and Cathy Ames. The most important thing about them is that they are just human beings like every other character in the book. They deal with sexuality and relationships as best they could given the current culture they found themselves in.

I don't find many characters like this at all in games, male or female. I think its one of the ways in which video games is still majorly finding itself, as comics did back in the day, except instead of super heroes we have murder sims and war porn. I'm super pumped about The Last of Us because the characters in that look to be portrayed in a very human way. I'm not pumped about the extreme violence in that game or Tomb Raider, though but that's just personal taste.

But right now, games are pretty abysmal in the way they portray humans in general. The writing is 99% of the time B or C level and ridiculous.

[Buckethead]

+ Pandering Ass Shots

[Jotamide]

ZSS was designed for male sex appeal. You honestly think Kratos was designed for female sex appeal?

My sister loves GoW, along Heavy Rain is the only things I've ever seen her play. Maybe the lead characters did physically appeal to her, not that im gonna ask.

[Femmeworth]

I don't have a problem with objectifying people. Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal. Most people who have a job work the same way, even if they don't like to think of it that way. Take a basic example of a store employee who helps you out when you ask. Rarely does such a person really give a damn about helping you. Rather, the person is using you as a tool to obtain praise and advancement in the work place (or avoid harassment). If he had to push the right button on a computer to do it, it would be all the same. Sexual objectification is just another type - I don't see any reason to single it out as being particularly horrendous.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fe...jectification/

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object: -instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes; -denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination; -inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity; -fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects; -violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity; -ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold); -denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum's list: -reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts; -reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses; -silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak. The majority of the thinkers discussing objectification have taken it to be a morally problematic phenomenon. This is particularly the case in feminist discussions of pornography. Anti-pornography feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, influenced by Immanuel Kant's conception of objectification, have famously argued that, due to men's consumption of pornography, women as a group are reduced to the status of mere tools for men's purposes. Moreover, feminists like Bartky and Bordo have argued that women are objectified through being excessively preoccupied with their appearance. Important recent work by feminists has also been devoted to exploring the connection between objectivity and objectification. Recently, some thinkers, such as Martha Nussbaum, have challenged the idea that objectification is a necessarily negative phenomenon, arguing for the possibility of positive objectification. While treating a person as an object (in one or more of the ways mentioned above) is often problematic, Nussbaum argues that objectification can in some contexts take benign or even positive forms, and can constitute a valuable and enjoyable part of our lives.

I'm not well versed in feminist literature, so I can't really take it any farther than that.

[Karsticles]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fe...jectification/

That's all well and good, but I'm not sure why you quoted it to me, since it coincides with my general definition of objectification, and I agree with Nussbaum that it's not necessarily bad.

[Femmeworth]

That's all well and good, but I'm not sure why you quoted it to me, since it coincides with my general definition of objectification, and I agree with Nussbaum that it's not necessarily bad.

I was just providing a source explaining why it is seen as a bad thing. *shrug*

[GrandHarrier]

I've disagreed with some of her points but I like her slick style and production quality. I'll donate a few bucks.

[spk]

The race and gender threads here are really, really god damn bad oh my god

[Karsticles]

I was just providing a source explaining why it is seen as a bad thing. *shrug*

But your source doesn't explain why it's a bad thing. It just provides definitions and a history of how objectification is thought of, along with Nussbaum (who is a very bright woman) saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing. My wife has an anthropology degree, and I've been through a lot of readings as well as a few courses on feminism. I'm also surrounded by feminist theorists. I'm not ignorant, I just don't agree.

The race and gender threads here are really, really god damn bad oh my god

Gender and race discussion are terrible everywhere unless you're agreeing with someone, if you follow me. ;-)

[Hero]

So I go through and actually post something worthwhile in regards to what you posted and you reply with a gif? I expected more out of you. Guess I shouldn't.

[Femmeworth]

The race and gender threads here are really, really god damn bad oh my god

It's not all bad, Steve Youngblood made some very good posts in the rape culture thread.

So I go through and actually post something worthwhile in regards to what you posted and you reply with a gif? I expected more out of you. Guess I shouldn't.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Seriously, your example of Ripley undressing is not the same thing. Also mentioning shirtless men was just silly. Men are not usually shirtless in video games for the titillation of women.

But your source doesn't explain why it's a bad thing. It just provides definitions and a history of how objectification is thought of, along with Nussbaum (who is a very bright woman) saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing. My wife has an anthropology degree, and I've been through a lot of readings as well as a few courses on feminism. I'm also surrounded by feminist theorists. I'm not ignorant, I just don't agree.

People are more than just mere objects. We are very sophisticated biological machines. You know more than I do, so I can't really go toe-to-toe with you.

[spk]

lol what kind of person describes human beings and relationships as

"Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal."

It's not all bad, Steve Youngblood made some very good posts in the rape culture thread.

There are some good posts sure, but the bulk of it is same old posts like have you considered the men/white people? made over and over again. One of the first fucking posts was basically 'its just a video game'.

[onemic]

Here are my thoughts: I just finished reading the books East of Eden and 1Q84, both of which featured wonderfully human and flawed characters. Both of them had great female characters like Aomame and Cathy Ames. The most important thing about them is that they are just human beings like every other character in the book. They deal with sexuality and relationships as best they could given the current culture they found themselves in. I don't find many characters like this at all in games, male or female. I think its one of the ways in which video games is still majorly finding itself, as comics did back in the day, except instead of super heroes we have murder sims and war porn. I'm super pumped about The Last of Us because the characters in that look to be portrayed in a very human way. I'm not pumped about the extreme violence in that game or Tomb Raider, though but that's just personal taste. But right now, games are pretty abysmal in the way they portray humans in general. The writing is 99% of the time B or C level and ridiculous.

My thoughts exactly.

[Karsticles]

lol what kind of person describes human beings and relationships as "Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal."

An honest one. Don't pretend for a minute that when you go into a job interview, it's not about convincing the person on the other end to hire you so that you can make financial ends meet. You're not thinking of them as a person, you think of them as a thing to be figured out so that you can say the right thing and get the job. You want to push the right buttons and get the gold.

[HarryHengst]

lol what kind of person describes human beings and relationships as "Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal."

An internet tough guy. Or a real sociopath.

[spk]

An honest one. Don't pretend for a minute that when you go into a job interview, it's not about convincing the person on the other end to hire you so that you can make financial ends meet. You're not thinking of them as a person, you think of them as a thing to be figured out so that you can say the right thing and get the job. You want to push the right buttons and get the gold.

Hm yes, that is not weird at all

[zkylon]

An honest one. Don't pretend for a minute that when you go into a job interview, it's not about convincing the person on the other end to hire you so that you can make financial ends meet. You're not thinking of them as a person, you think of them as a thing to be figured out so that you can say the right thing and get the job. You want to push the right buttons and get the gold.

What's the name of this person that hurt you so bad you're dead inside?

[Bowling Pin]

lol what kind of person describes human beings and relationships as "Most of the people I know are just means to an end. Things that serve a role so that I can achieve a goal."

I'm going to operate under the assumption that he's actually a decent guy in person and that he is choosing the most unfortunate and obtuse way to describe why he prefers pragmatism as a life philosophy.

To do otherwise would be a little too frustrating at this time of night for me.

[Femmeworth]

An honest one. Don't pretend for a minute that when you go into a job interview, it's not about convincing the person on the other end to hire you so that you can make financial ends meet. You're not thinking of them as a person, you think of them as a thing to be figured out so that you can say the right thing and get the job. You want to push the right buttons and get the gold.

Those are not mutually exclusive. If you are going to be working directly under that person, I would think it best to think of them as more than just something that dispenses cash. You are oversimplifying things.