Support NeoGAF

[cirrhosis]

That's not what I mean. I was agreeing with kcp that dismissing this stuff as the actions of children with no life is disingenuous. Thunderf00t isn't some stupid kid, he's an accomplished scientist. It's really disappointing but it's the truth.

I know, it was more of a sarcastic jab on my part at him. I should have added an /s spoiler. I hear you regarding the disappointment.

 

[ken_matthews]

I've been reading this thread and various articles on the Web in order to catch up on the issue. I found this article that I thought had an interesting point:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/11/28/the-one-sided-problem-of-oversexualization-in-video-games/

Here is an excerpt that highlights the main point:

Here’s Soul Calibur, a game often critiqued for its oversexualized women. We have Misturugi, the shirtless Samurai warrior that would likely make many women swoon if he was a flesh and blood man. Then there’s Ivy, the pirate’s daughter whose chest seems to get larger with each new installment of the game while her clothing shrinks.

But what makes Ivy’s chest ridiculous while no one bats an eyelash and Misturugi’s head-sized biceps?

You may say that the costumes of the women reveal far more than the men most times. That their poses are more suggestive. This is, of course, true. But let’s try to imagine the reverse scenario. Is there a way to give men similarly revealing costumes and alluring poses without it automatically skipping straight over sexuality to comedy? I would argue no. Give Ryu a thong like Cammy, and it’s immediately hilarious, not sexy. Start accentuating the “package” on men, and it’s just going to be goofy, not hot.

I don't think he made the argument eloquently, but I think the point that sexual awareness is skewed more towards women is true. If you were to remove the picture from the Soul Caliber comparison and write a gender neutral description of the characters with an attention to sexuality, I think they would come out somewhat comparable. Of course they wouldn't be equal, but I think that has more to do with how sexuality is perceived.
A few years back an interesting study was published on the objectification of women and how the brain processes visual information:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725150215.htm

A few excerpts:

A new study suggests that these two distinct cognitive processes also are in play with our basic physical perceptions of men and women -- and, importantly, provides clues as to why women are often the targets of sexual objectification.

The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts.

Also notable is that the gender of participants doing the observing had no effect on the outcome. The participant pool was evenly divided between men and women, who processed each gender's bodies similarly: Regardless of their gender, perceivers saw men more "globally" and women more "locally.

I think this makes sense. Both men and women identify women—especially sexually idealized women—by their body parts. The problem is men find this sexually arousing, yet women find objectification demeaning. And it’s completely understandable; nobody wants to be reduced to portions of flesh. It also explains why hyper sexualized men in media never attract much criticism. Our brains process male images differently and that might explain why male sexually can quickly approach comedy (both from a male and female perspective).

I certainly don’t have a remedy to this issue, nor am I troubled by it (for better or worse, I do not take media that seriously). What I do find appalling is the utter lack of empathy and belligerence this issue seems to attract. I think a lack of empathy is a real issue with no obvious solution, but somebody a few pages back mentioned internet anonymity as a driving force behind a lot of the vitriol towards Anita. I think anonymity plays a role, but I also think distance is a contributor. It is one thing to say something hateful on the internet, but it’s entirely different to say the same thing to somebody face to face

 

[ibyea]

Okay, kids and individuals with mental problems harassing her.

With all due respect, there is a lot of fanaticism involving her.

People using the "controversy" to prop up their own channels... opportunists riding her coattails.

I don't buy into the whole idea that there is an organized hate campaign out there.

There are fucked up people in this World.

She is more than able to continue doing what she's doing but what is the expected outcome? For three years she's put up with this! It makes me question her motives.

If there was no money in it would she continue? Unlikely (reality of life).

Is she making a difference? Hopefully.

Would an example of something done right be better than continuing to highlight what is wrong (as if it was isolated to videogames)? I think so. It would be a more positive approach.

Well, it is organized. That's what gamergate is. Although it's not specifically against her as it is against women who speak out. And don't put this on people with mental problems because they are more likely victims than perpetrators.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Damn I didn't mean to piss anyone off. Ya'll some passionate folks. Originally I just wanted to see what people's views and shit but everyone is just mad at other. But this is the Internet. Since you ain't face to face you're just words on a screen.

In real life, if you approached a group of strangers discussing something and said "I don't know what you're talking about but it's stupid, can't we just play videogames?", I'm pretty sure they might become angry.

 

[pakkit]

For example, I should be able to support GG (for the sake of keeping all this drama out of gaming) without being called a misogynist or accused of doxing.

Here's the loop:

Why do you support GG? To keep this drama out of gaming.

Why do you feel like femenist critique shouldn't be heard, or valued? Because I like videogames the way they are, and they shouldn't change.

But games aren't going to change! Games are growing! There will be more inclusive experiences for everyone, doesn't that sound great? No, because...

And then we find out that the person is misogynist, or anti-feminist (because they hate men!), or just thinks these critics should keep their mouths shut.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Source request to sane and well-adjusted people abusing her on the internet.

Abelist, oh man... your delfection is toxic to the truth and I find that gross.

Making these attacks about mental illness stigmatizes people with mental illnesses. Please do not for even a moment imply that your behaviour is acceptable. The only deflection going on is you, making the people performing these threats less responsible for their actions by claiming - without any evidence beyond your prejudice against the mentally ill, by the way - that it's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're ill.

So no, I'll ask you - the person who made the original assertion that all of these people are mentally ill or children - to prove it. That's how the burden of proof works, bucko.

 

[Opto]

Okay, kids and individuals with mental problems harassing her.

With all due respect, there is a lot of fanaticism involving her.

People using the "controversy" to prop up their own channels... opportunists riding her coattails.

I don't buy into the whole idea that there is an organized hate campaign out there.

There are fucked up people in this World.

She is more than able to continue doing what she's doing but what is the expected outcome? For three years she's put up with this! It makes me question her motives.

If there was no money in it would she continue? Unlikely (reality of life).

Is she making a difference? Hopefully.

Would an example of something done right be better than continuing to highlight what is wrong (as if it was isolated to videogames)? I think so. It would be a more positive approach.

I can't think of one person using her harrassment to promote their own channels. Are you talking about people that have chosen to publicly support her? GG has forums across the internet filled with coordination. NotYourShield was a literally organized. Zoe Quinn has documented pages of posts about "culture jams" and hashtag "operations."

Anita actually has an upcoming video about the positive portrayals of women in games, and has talked about them in tweets and videos. But the bad heavily outweighs the good.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Gamergate is literally a fucking hate-movement against women and those who would want to discuss anything involving representation. No, you don't just support GG and act as if that there isn't this giant poisonous element of it.

The whole "ethics in games journalism" debate is completely drowned out by everything else surrounding it, and anyone who thinks that there's still a discussion to be had while associating with said-movement (GG) is just fucking naive.

Couldn't have said so better myself.

 

[SuperOrez]

In real life, if you approached a group of strangers discussing something and said "I don't know what you're talking about but it's stupid, can't we just play videogames?", I'm pretty sure they might become angry.

See that's the kinda guy I am though. I wound want to diffuse the situation. If the argument is going nowhere then at done point you need to agree to disagree.

 

[DerpKnight7]

uh, the point of the video series isn't that men are bad because of the content in the games

the point is to point out the content in these games, and how it can be harmful for our culture's perspective of women

I'm glad we cleared things up,

True, and I'm all for it, I was mainly talking about the intro to her speech in the OP, my bad.

 

[Dusk Soldier]

I'm genuinely baffled as to why she inspires such blatant hate and vile comments. Nothing she says is that "radical", it's just a basic calling for equality and decent representation.

I really don't understand what there is to hate about that, especially to the point of death threats. Awful that she has to make a habit out of reporting comments now.



Agreed. It needs to be seen to be believed I think.

I really don't know who these people are, because anyone I know that games is a lovely person (no sarcasm), and accepting of any new ideas introduced into the medium, by any person.

I think it's because she's trying so hard to reform the video game industry, when she doesn't actually even play video games.

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

 

[A Link to the Past]

See that's the kinda guy I am though. I wound want to diffuse the situation. If the argument is going nowhere then at done point you need to agree to disagree.

It's more than an argument though, there are people actually threatening others. Ignoring it isn't making it go away.

I think it's because she's trying so hard to reform the video game industry, when she doesn't actually even play video games.

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

She plays video games. The only thing that suggests she doesn't is a video of her talking about how she's not a fan of modern video games, which was then taken out of context.

 

[DerpKnight7]

Here's the loop:

Why do you support GG? To keep this drama out of gaming.

Why do you feel like femenist critique shouldn't be heard, or valued? Because I like videogames the way they are, and they shouldn't change.

But games aren't going to change! Games are growing! There will be more inclusive experiences for everyone, doesn't that sound great? No, because...

And then we find out that the person is misogynist, or anti-feminist (because they hate men!), or just thinks these critics should keep their mouths shut.

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

 

[A Link to the Past]

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

The audience is the most responsible party in bringing change to an industry, because they need to be able to voice what things they want improved, added, or removed to the products that they pay for.

 

[Oersted]

The whole antagonized men thing was more from the beginning of her video in the OP, should have mentioned that. And the people threatening Anita are no worse than the people threatening GG supporters. I saw one guy have himself and his parents doxed because he openly supported GG. What I was pointing out is that had that happened to a anti GG tumble user for example, it would have been a huge fucking problem, but since it was a GG supporter, no one cared. For example, I should be able to support GG (for the sake of keeping all this drama out of gaming) without being called a misogynist or accused of doxing. It's not like every GG supporter sends her rape threats etc., but she makes it out like they do. And some feminists mhave done the same thing as these GG doxers, and are just called bad feminists. All I'm saying is that it should be the same for both sides

Feminism is a centuries old movement, fighting for equal chances, oppurtunities and rights for women, based on the reality that women are discriminated.

Gamergate is a 1 year old online campaign, which is based on the lie that one indie game developer slept with a journalist in sake of good reviews.

For more informations, especially regarding feminism, I can recommend some good history books to you.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I think it's because she's trying so hard to reform the video game industry, when she doesn't actually even play video games.

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

Oh jesus fucking christ.... two sentences and I'm already close to a bingo!

 

[The Shogun]

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the genuine allies here. But as has been referenced to, there's a reason why many women don't get involved in conversations like this. Many times their voices get drowned out in favor of, using an example from this thread, strange asides about hetero porn and Marvel movies.

I probably stand in the flames more than I have to (I've paid for it, I have a decent NeoGAF rapsheet) but I'm not going to be submissive, sugarcoat my feelings or pretend to respect vacuous arguments.

You are still harping on about that my goodness.

I didn't even know what the heck Gamer Gate or Anita or any of this is about. That's why I was talking about sexualization. I literally thought this whole thing was about sex in games.

I mean look at the bingo card. None of my debate had anything to do with any of that. It's my fault for not understanding what exactly GG and all of this stuff with feminism in gaming is, but I wasn't intending on purposeful taking the thread off course. I thought that was what this entire thing is about

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

Games are not developed in a vacuum. Devs take inspiration from outside sources, fix things that were criticized in reviews, listen to the community for suggestions... What is the problem with discussing women's depiction in games? How is that any different?

 

[Dryk]

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

It was a kickstarter to fund a video-game focused sequel to her existing Tropes vs Women series for viewers of her site. Any fame, money, and controversy stemming from that is the fault of the people stirring shit. If they had just ignored her or left her alone in the first place she wouldn't have any of the money, fame and power they criticise her for having.

 

[danm999]

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

How should they change then? Developers actively try to solicit feedback from consumers and cultural critics from a whole range of technical and artistic aspects of the games they make.

 

[pakkit]

I've been reading this thread and various articles on the Web in order to catch up on the issue. I found this article that I thought had an interesting point:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/11/28/the-one-sided-problem-of-oversexualization-in-video-games/

Here is an excerpt that highlights the main point:



I don't think he made the argument eloquently, but I think the point that sexual awareness is skewed more towards women is true. If you were to remove the picture from the Soul Caliber comparison and write a gender neutral description of the characters with an attention to sexuality, I think they would come out somewhat comparable. Of course they wouldn't be equal, but I think that has more to do with how sexuality is perceived.
A few years back an interesting study was published on the objectification of women and how the brain processes visual information:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725150215.htm

A few excerpts:





I think this makes sense. Both men and women identify women—especially sexually idealized women—by their body parts. The problem is men find this sexually arousing, yet women find objectification demeaning. And it’s completely understandable; nobody wants to be reduced to portions of flesh. It also explains why hyper sexualized men in media never attract much criticism. Our brains process male images differently and that might explain why male sexually can quickly approach comedy (both from a male and female perspective).

I certainly don’t have a remedy to this issue, nor am I troubled by it (for better or worse, I do not take media that seriously). What I do find appalling is the utter lack of empathy and belligerence this issue seems to attract. I think a lack of empathy is a real issue with no obvious solution, but somebody a few pages back mentioned internet anonymity as a driving force behind a lot of the vitriol towards Anita. I think anonymity plays a role, but I also think distance is a contributor. It is one thing to say something hateful on the internet, but it’s entirely different to say the same thing to somebody face to face

This is the type of post I like to see in these threads. Posts that argue with Sarkeesian's actual points, which, I agree, tend to draw lines a little broadly, and consequentially miss out on the nuance that some of these games have.

As you briefly touched upon, the common argument that sexualization of women is purely for men is a heteronormative one. As Bioware games have shown, sexualization does not need to follow heteronormative lines, and often doesn't (the amount of fanfic and art Bioware's games inspire suggest that its fanbase isn't strictly the "hardcore gamer").

What Sarkeesian has done is start a discussion (a heated one, for sure) about videogames and their audiences. Already, the past few years have been incredible on the indie front, and we've seen a lot of game experiences that speak to different types of people (especially on the open PC platform).

 

[SuperOrez]

Based on how little I know of gamergate or Anita in general and this video on the op, these threats and people shit talking her is ridiculous. If you don't like what she's saying don't listen.

 

[besada]

Thanks for the snark and oversimplification. I keep asking folks what the desired end game is here as these debates always go on forever but no one seem to be able to answer me. Can you do that instead of trying to belittle me?

The desired end game is for people to be able to discuss and criticize video games and the culture surrounding it without having to worry that someone is going to kill them.

 

[Corronchilejano]

These threads always devolve into junior mass graves. The only frustrating thing for me is learning that part of the gaming comunity still believes that opinions are harmful to their hobby.

 

[Wensih]

I just wanna play games. Is that wrong?

But why are you on NeoGaf if you just wanna play games? Obviously you want to discuss content in games and the industry.

 

[Partial Gamification]

Making these attacks about mental illness stigmatizes people with mental illnesses. Please do not for even a moment imply that your behaviour is acceptable. The only deflection going on is you, making the people performing these threats less responsible for their actions by claiming - without any evidence beyond your prejudice against the mentally ill, by the way - that it's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're ill.

So no, I'll ask you - the person who made the original assertion that all of these people are mentally ill or children - to prove it. That's how the burden of proof works, bucko.

Can we agree its not something a nice person would do?
Its not something a person that was empathic would do?
Its not something a person that could comprehend how horrible it is (would do)?

Sorry to offend the mentally ill but I don't know how to describe it. Its obviously (hopefully obviously) not depression mental illness, but a mental illness that causes a person to not care about abusing people on the internet.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

Because offer will exist to fulfill a demand and, in part thanks to Anita's videos, I've clme to realize that as an audience member I've grown tired of tired old lazy tropes games to this day continue to use to move a story forward.

Shit like the damsel in distress were okay back in the 80s where you had to keep things simple in a time where every word meant less space for additional levels but I swear I'll groan if Link's main motivation in 2015's Zelda U is Zelda being kidnapped again.

Im demanding more original and diverse stories with, yes, more interesting female characters. I'd love to see Zelda having an actual helpful role and not get kidnapped once (unlike WW and OoT where she was perfectly capable but seconds into revealing she's Zelda she was captured).

Audiences can demand change and devs will supply.

 

[SuperOrez]

But why are you on NeoGaf if you just wanna play games? Obviously you want to discuss content in games and the industry.

Yeah this was dumb to say. Read my other responses cause I've already addressed this.

 

[ibyea]

Can we agree its not something a nice person would do?
Its not something a person that was empathic would do?
Its not something a person that could comprehend how horrible it is?

Sorry to offend the mentally ill but I don't know how to describe it. Its obviously (hopefully obviously) not depression mental illness, but a mental illness that causes a person to not care about abusing people on the internet.

You are wrong, it's not mental illness. It is extremely easy for people to care for the in group, but believe the people in the out group to be lesser than animals. Many famous atrocities in history has been made with the complicity of ordinary people.

 

[Oersted]

I never said the games shouldn't change. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think if there is anyone to address about this, it should be the devs, what would the audience change?

Anita Sarkeesian hold a speech at the Game Developers Conference, where she won a prize. A few weeks ago, she hold a speech at the NYU Game Center Lecture Series, where she spoke in front of videogame journalists and developers. Furthermore she visited several developers and other game developer conferences and created a videoseries, which everyone can watch.

Any other suggestions?

You are still harping on about that my goodness.

I didn't even know what the heck Gamer Gate or Anita or any of this is about. That's why I was talking about sexualization. I literally thought this whole thing was about sex in games.

I mean look at the bingo card. None of my debate had anything to do with any of that. It's my fault for not understanding what exactly GG and all of this stuff with feminism in gaming is, but I wasn't intending on purposeful taking the thread off course. I thought that was what this entire thing is about

Trough talking about porn, you purposefully talked about porn, in a thread about a woman and a topic where you, I quote, didn't have any heck what it is about. But thank you for no further derailment.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I think it's because she's trying so hard to reform the video game industry, when she doesn't actually even play video games.

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

You're factually wrong.

Her company is a non-profit from which, yes, she draws a salary. $40k a year is hardly what I'd call "living the dream".

And what do you care if it was kickstarted? It isn't your money! People who donated did so willingly and happily. Who are you to say the made a wrong choice?

 

[Roto13]

I just wanna play games. Is that wrong?

This is the worst kind of shitpost whenever this topic comes up.

"Bwah bwah bwah, I just want to play games, not talk about them like I signed up on a fucking video game forum to do."

Translation: "I don't want people criticizing video games and I don't want people talking about specific subjects relating to video games." Well, tough shit.

 

[Opto]

She asked for 6k. 6k!

 

[Dryk]

This is the type of post I like to see in these threads. Posts that argue with Sarkeesian's actual points, which, I agree, tend to draw lines a little broadly, and consequentially miss out on the nuance that some of these games have.

I think a lot of people would agree with you there and that's fine. Personally I don't even think it should matter. I mean in the grand scheme Anita is a trailblazer, her purpose is to get the conversation started and clearing the way for others. You don't need a lot of nuance for that and she's done a good job of it. The problem is that now that the ball is rolling nobody wants to pick it up because it's covered in spikes and acid.

 

[Wensih]

Yeah this was dumb to say. Read my other responses cause I've already addressed this.

Sorry the thread moved quickly. I will go back and read them.

 

[SuperOrez]

Can we agree its not something a nice person would do?
Its not something a person that was empathic would do?
Its not something a person that could comprehend how horrible it is (would do)?

Sorry to offend the mentally ill but I don't know how to describe it. Its obviously (hopefully obviously) not depression mental illness, but a mental illness that causes a person to not care about abusing people on the internet.

I really don't even think it's mental illness. I think people don't recognize each other as people online. Or they forget. Not that it's right.

 

[More_Badass]

I think it's because she's trying so hard to reform the video game industry, when she doesn't actually even play video games.

She also funded her whole video campaign with a kickstarter, rather than out of pocket, which makes it look like she's just stirring up controversy to make a quick buck.

Every single thread, without fail...

These points have been getting tiring since six months ago

 

[Partial Gamification]

You are wrong, it's not mental illness. It is extremely easy for people to care for the in group, but believe the people in the out group to be lesser than animals. Many famous atrocities in history has been made with the complicity of ordinary people.

They still knew it was wrong. I'll agree there though, it plays into the mimicry on both "sides" of the issue: not wanting to be ostracized by the group.

It takes a mean uncaring person to harass someone on the internet, can we agree on that?

 

[SuperOrez]

This is the worst kind of shitpost whenever this topic comes up.

"Bwah bwah bwah, I just want to play games, not talk about them like I signed up on a fucking video game forum to do."

Translation: "I don't want people criticizing video games and I don't want people talking about specific subjects relating to video games." Well, tough shit.

Alright it's a shit post I don't know how to delete it. Already addressed why I posted. Shit moves fast. I love you.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

She asked for 6k. 6k!

I've been crunching the numbers on mine and I'm looking at asking about $14k - $16k and I'm getting deathly afraid of people jumping on my shit about it.

 

[cirrhosis]

Alright it's a shit post I don't know how to delete it. Already addressed why I posted. Shit moves fast. I love you.

Just edit the offending posts with a disclaimer like "i fucked up in posting this", should be good

 

[More_Badass]

I've been crunching the numbers on mine and I'm looking at asking about $14k - $16k and I'm getting deathly afraid of people jumping on my shit about it.

For what? A game? A site/podcast/etc.? I've seen higher. Your goal sounds pretty low

 

[SuperOrez]

Just edit the offending posts with a disclaimer like "i fucked up in posting this", should be good

I'll probably leave it up so I can look back in my shame. Plus I'm on mobilE.

 

[Opto]

I've been crunching the numbers on mine and I'm looking at asking about $14k - $16k and I'm getting deathly afraid of people jumping on my shit about it.

For a video series? Or ? And why would they jump on your shit?

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I'll probably leave it up so I can look back in my shame. Plus I'm on mobilE.

You can still edit on mobile. I should know, I post 90% of the time on my phone.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Thanks for the snark and oversimplification. I keep asking folks what the desired end game is here as these debates always go on forever but no one seem to be able to answer me. Can you do that instead of trying to belittle me?

The desired end goal is that media is as diverse and representative as the people who consume it. That creators are allowed to tell whatever stories they want, rather than just stories marketers believe will resonate with a straight, white male audience. That it is no longer a pleasant surprise that a woman can head a AAA blockbuster or that the Chinese guy in your game isn't either a hacker or martial artist.

And I'm sorry, but I will continue to belittle your position that greater inclusivity would somehow make games boring or too PC, because that is a ridiculous position. Allowing creators to explore the full scope of their creativity rather than checking off boxes on a list handed by marketing would do anything but make games boring. Hell, the fucking Saints Row games have been some of the most inclusive in modern gaming and it'd be ridiculous to accuse those games of being shackled by PC concerns.

 

[The Shogun]

Trough talking about porn, you purposefully talked about porn, in a thread about a woman and a topic where you, I quote, didn't have any heck what it is about. But thank you for no further derailment.

I used it as a basic example of how to look at sex. In order to debate what's OK for sex in games we need to first understand what, as a consumer, is actually OK with depictions of sex in media in general.

Everyone is battling over Gamer Gate and harassment and such, and I actually feel like I'm one of the few who are actually on topic discussing the actual issue.

Isn't one of the arguments about feminism in gaming how they are presented sexualy?

Is this a debate about progressing the actual contents of a game or who is "right". This is my very first one of these threads but I feel like there is much more bashing and arguing over "sides" then there actually is complex analysis of the issue of how women are presented in games. In fact my debate in here was almost the only one. Everything else is pro or anti Anita vs GG.

 

[kcp12304]

They still knew it was wrong. I'll agree there though, it plays into the mimicry on both "sides" of the issue: not wanting to be ostracized by the group.

It takes a mean uncaring person to harass someone on the internet, can we agree on that?

You would be surprised how many seemingly the nice people in the real world act like monsters on the Internet. Or in harassment mobs like gamergate.

They can be extremely organized. I would be impressed if not for how scary it would be to stand in their crosshairs. Anita did not ask for this sort of harassment and she has no power to make it stop. No power at all. She can shut up or yell louder but it would not stop it.

Being motivated by the harassment to make your voice heard is not profiting from it.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Sexuality isn't bad, sexualization is bad. The former implies that it's meant to empower a character, the latter implies that it's being used to appeal to men.

 

[Wensih]

And the people threatening Anita are no worse than the people threatening GG supporters.

I guess it does little good to reply to DerpKnight seeing as he was banned, but I just wanted to openly state that I don't think anyone here on NeoGaf (at least hopefully not) are condoning death and rape threats or the doxxing of Gamergate Members. It doesn't matter what 'side of the coin' you're on, sending death and rape threats, or leaking personal information to general public is unacceptable, especially if you're taking a stand against internet harassment.