• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Misogyny, sexism & why RPS isn't shutting up

In what manner is Bioshock Infinite any better than a Saturday morning cartoon (in addition, in what ways is not worse)?

Time to bring out the trope lens again, eh?

I don't suppose execution or all important fact it is an interactive experience with an entirely different set of rules for aesthetics (not to mention what mechanics can do for one's mood) will play into this comparison. It rarely ever does.
 
When I've said "I'm not sure" in a consent situation it has meant literally that.

To clarify: meaning "I do not know", usually followed by additional consideration on my part, followed by a decision.

Seeking to redefine the English language with rules for everyone is militant. Let's try and keep some perspective.
No one is redefining anything. Most people would put that closer to No on the spectrum than Yes.
 
Which is exactly why inappropriate behaviour needs to be dealt with by a rigidly followed set of clear guidelines at conventions and stuff. Creepiness can be subjective. It's got to be possible to come up with a set of rules that makes everyone feel safe and welcome without making them also making people feel like they could be ejected or publicly humiliated at any time for arbitrary creepiness or offense that they never meant to impart in the first place.



But your "I'm not sure" was a no until it was replaced with "yes," right? "I'm not sure," in the absence of any further consideration feels like a pretty clear red light.


Clarified above. My "I'm not sure" simply infers the classic definition; "I do not know", which may lead to a yes or no following further consideration.

I can see however alternate interpretations in the case of someone who wasn't clear or assertive enough in context, or someone who didn't consider the need for further informed thinking.
 
Pasco_ said:
Every other media industry being shit towards women doesn't give gaming a free pass. Our culture in general treats women like crap, this is not an excuse to continue to treat women like crap, but an opportunity to stop treating women like crap wherever and whenever we can.

Its not about giving gaming a "free pass" its about engaging with the larger issue of sexism in pop-culture and the media in general. Because inevitably the general trends and mores of that will be reflected in the games.

Attacking the games industry specifically for a general social and cultural issue just seems misplaced to me. You aren't going to "fix" gaming until you deal with the general state-of-play in the media.

It seems like scapegoating to me. And given the way that Walker has been shamelessly courting controversy and attention over the last few months, somewhat opportunistic.
 
Which is exactly why inappropriate behaviour needs to be dealt with by a rigidly followed set of clear guidelines at conventions and stuff. Creepiness can be subjective. It's got to be possible to come up with a set of rules that makes everyone feel safe and welcome without making them also making people feel like they could be ejected or publicly humiliated at any time for arbitrary creepiness or offense that they never meant to impart in the first place.



But your "I'm not sure" was a no until it was replaced with "yes," right? "I'm not sure," in the absence of any further consideration feels like a pretty clear red light.

There's my proof. I feel like a lot of people are simply told "don't rape, don't sexually assault" and girls are told do x, y and z but no one is specifically explained what rape/sexual assault is unless you go out of your way to learn. As a result people assume rape is just the simplest definition of a violent monstrous man attacking some virginal conservatively dressed princess from the bushes. It's much more complicated and insidious but without real world situations to learn about and go on many people don't understand the issue.

For instance you and I know through being taught that women have a right to say no, to not be raped in any situation, to not be groped, etc. But to say rape is bad and all rapists are bad doesn't get to the heart of why rape is so prevalent (insert groping and creeps here). So you have to figure out the nuances and driving factors. Just as we are taught women deserve their autonomy, someone is being taught the opposite or not being taught the intricacies of what that statement really means. We have to figure out if we're living in a society that is actually defining this properly or overlooking the details. And we have to figure out if various things imposed, encouraged or tacitly approved by society actually feed into the problem.
 
I could not have asked for a finer teaching moment.

TONIGHT! On a very special episode of "NeoGAF"

"I'm not sure" means NO?

Really?

Vibri learns an important lesson about sex.

When I've said "I'm not sure" in a consent situation it has meant literally that.

To clarify: meaning "I do not know", usually followed by additional consideration on my part, followed by a decision.

Seeking to redefine the English language with rules for everyone is militant. Let's try and keep some perspective.

'I'm not sure', in all cases, should be interpreted as an explicit no. It's a very clear barrier to you having sex with someone as they haven't actually consented to sex with you.

Should you, if put in that situation, continue to pressure for sex?
 

Thanks I was def looking at Elizabeth as a sex object the whole game, yep that is what I was doing becuase I am a male and that is what I do. That lady needs to get off her high horse and stop insinuating that all men are lust creatures and only want to have sex with every single woman. I am sick of that crap. I understand that women are looked down upon and treated as objects by some, but do not lump me in that group because I am a male. The other side applies as well, if you want respect from me, do not insult me.

These two articles completely obliterates the majority of game reviews in terms of quality and display of thought.

No it doesnt, the superopinionated article is pure tripe and can be lumped with ign as such. Its a feminist going off on a rant about how OOPS ELIZABETH WASNT A SEX OBJECT, TO BAD 20 YEAR OLDS.
 
Cater to it all you want. I have no problem with that at all. Broaden diversity of games offered, with more types of games, more variety in leads, whatever you want. But none of that means that people have to demonize games they don't like.

Broadening diversity is putting out games like Beyond: Two Souls so people have the option of buying it (I'll be buying it). Broadening diversity is not insulting and marginalizing games with sexual content because it doesn't fit someone's personal taste. If there's a game you don't want, skip it. If there's a game you want, buy it.

Nobody has any problem with any of that.

It's when people pick apart specific games they don't like (or often times, games that haven't even released yet) and try and lead a crusade for them to change because of some misguided morality that I get upset. It would be like me trying to demand more action scenes and explosions on Oprah to broaden her demographic appeal. It would be like me demanding that Lady Gaga sing all her songs as duets with men, and have none of her videos with topless males in bondage gear.

In a free society, artists shouldn't have to endure shaming like that, especially from anti-sex conservatives.

Yeah, this whole "issue" seems incredibly forced to me, just like the recent uproar over violence. If you want to claim that video games are misogynistic, then I want to claim that the makeup and fashion industries are misandrist.

Markets cater to customers, it's nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
'I'm not sure', in all cases, should be interpreted as an explicit no. It's a very clear barrier to you having sex with someone as they haven't actually consented to sex with you.

Should you, if put in that situation, continue to pressure for sex?

It's why many feminists will stress the enthusiastic consent model for all parties involved.
 
There's my proof. I feel like a lot of people are simply told "don't rape, don't sexually assault" and girls are told do x, y and z but no one is specifically explained what rape/sexual assault is unless you go out of your way to learn. As a result people assume rape is just the simplest definition of a violent monstrous man attacking some virginal conservatively dressed princess from the bushes. It's much more complicated and insidious but without real world situations to learn about and go on many people don't understand the issue.

I think that is also a simplification.
 
Which is exactly why inappropriate behaviour needs to be dealt with by a rigidly followed set of clear guidelines at conventions and stuff. Creepiness can be subjective. It's got to be possible to come up with a set of rules that makes everyone feel safe and welcome without making them also making people feel like they could be ejected or publicly humiliated at any time for arbitrary creepiness or offense that they never meant to impart in the first place.

That's fine by me.
 

Neither of these are really interesting nor show a deeper understanding of videogames. They are examples of the kind of videogame criticism I would consider surface level, if not truly uninterested with whole games that lie beyond that surface and instead exist to create a meaning which is hardly supported or hardly worthwhile. In the case of the first one (the second isn't really worth discussing, it just has no real point), it falls into treating it as a piece of non-interactive media (she literally didn't play it and watched someone else do it) and then makes the particular mistake of thinking the game is "about" race politics (and with that I see a pretty false description of the game to support the idea it is). I didn't bother finish reading it, because you are giving exactly what I didn't ask for. I'm once again left with the conclusion that you, Cyrano, don't really see games as anything more than an extension of film or what have you (and possibly mainly for their tropes).
 
Honestly, Bioshock Infinite's portrayal of Elizabeth made me uncomfortable, in particular after she dons her push-up bra and corset. She looks like a sexualized moe child, an 8 year old with tits. Don't know what they were thinking with that character design.
 

The superopinionated article made me mad. I don't think that Bioshock Infinite was some complex and cerebral masterpiece (although as video game story telling goes it's pretty up there I guess) but I feel like somehow she misconstrued a lot of what was there.
 
But your "I'm not sure" was a no until it was replaced with "yes," right? "I'm not sure," in the absence of any further consideration feels like a pretty clear red light.
There's more to communication than just the words being used, though. Paul Watzlawick has something to say about that.

When my buddy tells me that he's not sure if he has to throw up then I'm probably already on my way to grab a bucket. When my girlfriend tells me she's not sure if she's hungry then I'll definitely order additional fries. The content “I'm not sure” doesn't say anything, really. It doesn't say “yes” and it doesn't say “no”. If you're not sure how to interpret the sentence, ask again. As a rule of thumb, anything that isn't “yes” is most likely meant as a “no”.

I feel like a lot of people are simply told "don't rape, don't sexually assault" and girls are told do x, y and z but no one is specifically explained what rape/sexual assault is unless you go out of your way to learn.
I would prefer we taught "Whatever you do, if it involves another person, get their permission". That's a better approach, in my opinion, as it can be used as a basic rule for various things in life and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
 
Street Photography is a legitimate art form. Have to keep in mind, though, that people will very frequently become uncomfortable if they know you're taking or have taken candid photos of them. Some photographers will ask permission after the fact and delete the photos if they get a negative response, so that they have both candid shots and consent.

Yes, expect to be considered creepy if you're taking random candid photos of people, especially of attractive women.

I'm not even arguing about art here. I'm arguing the freedom to record information, whatever that is, in public spaces. I concede if you're just walking around taking photos of only attractive people, you probably look strange. However, if it only ever goes that far, being viewed as odd or strange, then I sleep easy. If people are ever going to argue that the right to record information in a public space needs to be censored or jump through hoops to get permission, then I have a serious issue.

I'm talking about documentaries, trying to record instances of abuse, crime, etc, or serving the public good. When you have to go and ask somebody permission, it makes it that much harder. Plus, sometimes the point is to capture the moment without making people aware of it to record their natural state rather than tainting it. This is the larger picture I'm getting at.

I guess I'm seeing the hard question as this (maybe I'm just being close minded):

Is one's freedom to capture public events worth more than the peace of mind that you're not being photographed/recorded "against your will"?

Not that I need to say it, but when I do feel the need to take a photo at a convention, I always ask for permission and explain why I'm taking the photo (because the costume you're wearing is awesome) AND make sure the person didn't look like they were in a hurry or busy with something else.

Maybe I'm overlooking something here? Or confusing two different things?
 
I do wonder about the context of this entire discussion when two of the most popular pop-culture phenomena in other media are:

- The Twilight series: young passive girl needs constant validation from who she dates. Hundreds of million of teenage female fans. Mostly despised by men.

- Fifty Shades of Grey: virginal woman becomes sex slave for rich businessman in vivid detail. Hundreds of millions of adult female fans. Utterly bemuses men.
 
No it doesnt, the superopinionated article is pure tripe and can be lumped with ign as such. Its a feminist going off on a rant about how OOPS ELIZABETH WASNT A SEX OBJECT, TO BAD 20 YEAR OLDS.

It points out a very specific critical flaw of the game's depiction of oppressed group, i.e.

Centering a story about people of color fighting against racist oppression on a white person and making that white person the agent of the fight’s success is racist. Showing people of color as needing a white person on their side in order to win is racist. Transforming a group of people of color into a group of white people halfway through the game is racist. Yes I understand that in the game’s setting of 1912, Irish people were not understood to be white yet. But it’s 2013, Irish people have been white for all of living memory, and the game is set in a giant flying city where people can shoot flocks of birds out of their hands. I didn’t realize that the glue holding this fantasy together had to be racism.

Incredibly few if any review of B:I has mentioned this.

But we are getting off-topic, if you still disagree, let's just agree to disagree.
 
I would prefer we taught "Whatever you do, if it involves another person, get their permission". That's a better approach, in my opinion, as it can be used as a basic rule for various things in life and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

This is definitely a great point. Consent to do whatever shouldn't really be assumed by anyone on behalf of someone else.
 
I don't follow?

I somehow doubt that type of thinking (is bad because they tell me) happens everywhere or as simplified as you think it is.

Incredibly few if any review of B:I has mentioned this.

But we are getting off-topic, if you still disagree, let's just agree to disagree.

Because is a pretty flawed way of analyze BI because
because Booker is Comstock and regular No Baptised Booker is kind of an ass. Not mention that there is a implication that Columbia is beyond saving.
 
TONIGHT! On a very special episode of "NeoGAF"



Vibri learns an important lesson about sex.



'I'm not sure', in all cases, should be interpreted as an explicit no. It's a very clear barrier to you having sex with someone as they haven't actually consented to sex with you.

Should you, if put in that situation, continue to pressure for sex?


Who said I was being pressured?

I've been asked by men, and "I'm not sure" has been an effective response to consider my decision further. /shrug

Perhaps these days we're all expected to run out the door screaming?
 
To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure most people didn't read (either of) the articles. Riposte even stated as much, arguing about being above it, for some reason.

I read the part Lime quoted. I didn't read that far beyond it and I started why. I read the entire second article, which just amounted to very little (unless I missed a second page or something).
 
Honestly, Bioshock Infinite's portrayal of Elizabeth made me uncomfortable, in particular after she dons her push-up bra and corset. She looks like a sexualized moe child, an 8 year old with tits. Don't know what they were thinking with that character design.

Elizabeth was designed to be moe from the very start. I never saw her as an 8 year old though...that's all you boss. @.@
 
Who said I was being pressured?

I've been asked by men, and "I'm not sure" has been an effective response to consider my decision further. /shrug

Perhaps these days we're all expected to run out the door screaming?

Or it's best that it's assumed to be closer to no for the women who aren't you and do feel pressured?
 
It points out a very specific critical flaw of the game's depiction of oppressed group, i.e.



Incredibly few if any review of B:I has mentioned this.

But we are getting off-topic, if you still disagree, let's just agree to disagree.

How is that not correct though? It is a time piece game. In that time white people had the power. Their was rampant racism in the early 1900's and white people did have to save black people from harm or other such things. That is what actually happened, to act like that never happened would just be wrong. If you make a time piece game and forget major social problems during that era then you messed up. It is suppose to be racist, that is the fucking point. Also reviews didn't mention it because it is a spoiler somewhat, why mention that in a review? That whole review from super opinionated is a massive spoiler fest.
 
I'm not going to even bother with this.

You should note that I'm not condescending with you. Or that I have not insulted anyone in the thread.

How is that not correct though? It is a time piece game. In that time white people had the power. Their was rampant racism in the early 1900's and white people did have to save black people from harm or other such things. That is what actually happened, to act like that never happened would just be wrong. If you make a time piece game and forget major social problems during that era then you messed up. It is suppose to be racist, that is the fucking point. Also reviews didn't mention it because it is a spoiler somewhat, why mention that in a review? That whole review from super opinionated is a massive spoiler fest.

Well, that is also a pretty flawed way of look at things.
 
I read the part Lime quoted. I didn't read that far beyond it and I started why. I read the entire second article, which just amounted to very little (unless I missed a second page or something).
I don't see how being dismissive contributes to the discourse.
 
Not really.

"Female leads don't sell."

Is that actually supported by data? Money? Not really.

The position in of itself is pretty simple. Don't treat women like shit.

Okay, then you're implying that the industry is inept and they don't know their audience.

And that may be the case- But the reason why there aren't more capable females in games is because developers believe that their perceived target base doesn't care for them. And the position you're taking makes the assumption that most games even have characters and not caricatures. Across the medium, the stories are generally awful and the characters even more so, but it just so happens that this industry believes (whether correct or not), that we want to see scantly clad naked womenz. Nothing nefarious about it at all... They just think it will make the game more attractive to the consumer base they believe they are targeting.
 
Lot of men buy console games, yet the story are usually as vapid and thin as a Saturday cartoon. Men are able to comprehend and enjoy stories with fully realized and interesting female characters. So not only will the market trending towards more interesting characters improve the industry's outward appeal, but it will also help draw in gamers that are enthused by strong narratives (and, as The Walking Dead and Bio Infinite's success have shown, that market exists and can be catered to).
Lots of women enjoy shallow, vapid entertainment in other forms of entertainment. Should we call them out and shame them for it? Penalizing/shaming people for consuming what they enjoy and desire (within moral/ethical reason) doesn't help anything.
 
Honestly, Bioshock Infinite's portrayal of Elizabeth made me uncomfortable, in particular after she dons her push-up bra and corset. She looks like a sexualized moe child, an 8 year old with tits. Don't know what they were thinking with that character design.

Ummm she looks like Irrational just watched Tangled. The big moe eyes and the dancing scene scream it.
 
I think that is also a simplification.

It's not. College campuses that have programs that educate people about what constitutes sexual assault show (GASP!) decreases in sexual assault. There are somehow people who don't know that no means no or that someone who's completely wasted can't give consent.
 

Kotaku and Polygon missed the point on the violence in Bioshock in my opinion. Their point is that having excessive violence limits the audience needlessly. But the whole game is a critique of patriotism, tea party politics, American history, with racial and religious criticism as well. All of that limits audience massively.

The violence in Bioshock is just as "on message" as anything else in that game. American empire, racial injustice, all of these things were built on violence. Americans are always presented with a whitewashed version of war and violence, and I find it incredibly ironic to champion a game that tries to criticize that while still demanding that they whitewash it to make it more palatable.

At the end of the day, the goal should never be about maximizing audience unless you're a publisher. Difficulty, complexity, nuance, controversy all limit audience, but they also make things great. Levine's vision for the game clearly included graphic violence. One could even say it's about the violence that American empire projects coming homing to roost.
 
It's not. College campuses that have programs that educate people about what constitutes sexual assault show (GASP!) decreases in sexual assault. There are somehow people who don't know that no means no or that someone who's completely wasted can't give consent.

Well, thank you for the anwser. That's actually something I did not know and kind of interesting to consider.
 
Anyone who drags Bioshock Infinite into the argument gets an auto ignore from me. Not once did I consider Elizabeth as a sexual object during the game. She was more akin to a little sister. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.
 
How is that not correct though? It is a time piece game. In that time white people had the power. Their was rampant racism in the early 1900's and white people did have to save black people from harm or other such things. That is what actually happened, to act like that never happened would just be wrong. If you make a time piece game and forget major social problems during that era then you messed up. It is suppose to be racist, that is the fucking point. Also reviews didn't mention it because it is a spoiler somewhat, why mention that in a review? That whole review from super opinionated is a massive spoiler fest.

How is history flawed?

Game with steamhelicopters and cities in the sky = needs to adhere to a historically accurate representation of racism.

Also, you're missing the point in terms of having
a white dude being the catalyst for saving the minority group, i.e. the Dances with Wolves/Avatar bullshit.

EDIT: Fuck, I'm going off-topic. Sorry about it. Make a new thread if anyone wants to discuss the article in question.
 
To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure most people didn't read (either of) the articles. Riposte even stated as much, arguing about being above it, for some reason.

Anyway, one more article: http://kotaku.com/bioshock-infinite-is-insanely-ridiculously-violent-it-470524003

I read the first, but doing much more than flatly disagreeing is probably not appropriate given that it's a pretty distant tangent to the OP.

EDIT: Fuck, I'm going off-topic. Sorry about it. Make a new thread if anyone wants to discuss the article in question.

It's an interesting tangent! I don't blame you.
 
Game with steamhelicopters and cities in the sky = needs to adhere to an historically accurate representation of racism.

Also, you're missing the point in terms of having
a white dude being the catalyst for helping the minority, i.e. the Dances with Wolves/Avatar bullshit.

AGAIN... Look at my spoiler. BI is not Dance with the Wolve or Avatar
 
Who said I was being pressured?

I've been asked by men, and "I'm not sure" has been an effective response to consider my decision further. /shrug

Perhaps these days we're all expected to run out the door screaming?
If you have to respond 'I am not sure' then there's been a question asked whether external or not. Once a question has been asked you are pressured to respond.

Also I am not at all sure what you mean by the last sentence or what prompted you to type it.
 
Game with steamhelicopters and cities in the sky = needs to adhere to an historically accurate representation of racism.

Also, you're missing the point in terms of having
a white dude being the catalyst for helping the minority, i.e. the Dances with Wolves/Avatar bullshit.

It is a big stretch to connect the examples you listed and BioShock Infinite. IIRC you didn't play it and if you are basing your argument on what she wrote, you may be on the wrong path.
 
Oh boy another thread I'm not going to read to save myself the brain damage. John Walker is awesome and I hope he keeps bringing this stuff to light. Maybe one day we won't have to see guys being big crybabies whenever it's brought up.
 
Kotaku and Polygon missed the point on the violence in Bioshock in my opinion. Their point is that having excessive violence limits the audience needlessly. But the whole game is a critique of patriotism, tea party politics, American history, with racial and religious criticism as well. All of that limits audience massively.

The violence in Bioshock is just as "on message" as anything else in that game. American empire, racial injustice, all of these things were built on violence. Americans are always presented with a whitewashed version of war and violence, and I find it incredibly ironic to champion a game that tries to criticize that while still demanding that they whitewash it to make it more palatable.

At the end of the day, the goal should never be about maximizing audience unless you're a publisher. Difficulty, complexity, nuance, controversy all limit audience, but they also make things great. Levine's vision for the game clearly included graphic violence. One could even say it's about the violence that American empire projects coming homing to roost.
As Stanton said, I very much doubt it. Also, a game about shooting people can be vapid, but it can also be complex. I think Bioshock Infinite is the roller-coaster ride that every gamer wanted, it's just not the one that anyone needed for discourse. It is inherently limited and limiting.

edit: Sorry Lime! I didn't mean to thread hijack. =(
 
If you have to respond 'I am not sure' then there's have been a question asked whether external or not. Once a question has been asked you are pressured to respond.

Also I am not at all sure what you mean by the last sentence or what prompted you to type it.

Or better yet when does "I'm not sure" ever mean YES? It can lead TO yes but it doesn't MEAN yes.
 
Top Bottom