I'm not sure it is an argument being used but... well that is typically how markets work. People want the products they want, and they rarely have cause for concern about someone elses wants assuming their demand is being met favorably. If all I wanted was dudebro shooters why wouldnt I want the maximum amount available to me?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My crisis of faith with socially aware games criticism
- Thread starter Lowlander2
- Start date
I'm not sure it is an argument being used but... well that is typically how markets work. People want the products they want, and they rarely have cause for concern about someone elses wants assuming their demand is being met favorably. If all I wanted was dudebro shooters why wouldnt I want the maximum amount available to me?
castlemadeofsand
Banned
eh people have different tastes. i could see that making someone worried i guess...
i don't see how the market diversity will really effect big productions though. theres room for everything. That's why the indie game scene is taking off. and if there is a market for it we will see more diversity in gender roles/portrayals and everything else. Things like this don't happen overnight. The industry is still fairly new and is always growing.
disastermouse
Banned
But if they respond idiotically, you aren't necessarily a bigot for pointing that out. Disqualifying someone who disagrees with you based on their straight-white-maleness alone is ineffective and it fuels the fire on the other side of the debate while turning it into a shouting match of stupidity one-upsmanship. You don't have to have the exact same situation to recognize a bad argument or questionable actions.
It's the same with most revolutionary issues (LGBT rights is a revolutionary movement, in the good sense. Tolerance of LGBT people has at times been higher than it has been in recent history, but I think we're actually moving beyond tolerance - which always seems under threat of revocation - towards actual acceptance - where the denial of rights for something like sexual preference or gender identity will seem unthinkably absurd). All the juice and energy for the forward movement is held by those who are angriest at being denied a rightful place in our culture, but sometimes that carries over into a self-righteousness that denies any righteousness at all to anyone outside of the group and makes all disagreements, both those about fundamental position and those about methods, equal. Someone who disagrees with you primarily on method may have come to those disagreements based on an inability to see cultural biases, but that actually has to be argued, it can't just be asserted based only on a person's non-LGBT status. Further, when it is asserted that a critic is a bigot in order to divert attention from a bad argument or bad ethics, it seriously gives the real bigots a lot of firepower and a lot of cover.
IMHO.
What is the point of defending these? Why do they need more of a voice when they are already clearly overrepresented? More than that, what is so wrong about giving more of a voice to minorities?
You're not going to get less dudebro shooters ever, as long as they keep on selling. Defending them as not being horrible and abrasive is going to actively hurt the people who are being hurt by them though. It will also continue that cycle, as attempting to make them defensible is just adding fuel to the fire.
JordanN
Banned
Is there actually proof of this?
I believe games don't do this because no one has actually tried.
Edit: Dead Rising has those half naked male costumes. How many [male] people stopped buying it as a result?
I was pretty happy to read this article. It reflects something I've been feeling quite a bit over this past year or two. I'm worried about where things are going. It's not that I want to be able to same sexist/racist/evil things, or that I dislike the general progress and awareness that's happening. But like you, I worry about HOW it's happening.
I have a history or wording my thoughts improperly or just not thinking out my replies well enough. I know that sooner or later this is going to get me in trouble regarding sexism, homosexuality, or transgender-related stuff. It could be a good learning experience for me if the result was just somebody telling me, "Hey, you messed up here buddy." But I always fear it's going to be something worse. The stakes of misspeaking are too high now. It only takes examples like Adria Richards and that Brony at the UK Xbox One event to show just how ugly things can get. Internet mob mentality messes up lives and has collateral damage.
Again, let me reiterate that I'm not against people working to increase acceptance of women, homosexuals, or trans-people in the video game industry. I just wish they would do it with fewer uninformed witchhunts or the intent to harm.
I like to think you can still get good results from having a good, civil dialogue, rather than, "Hey, let's get this journalist fired." I've seen both in ample amount here at NeoGAF. But I'd rather just see a good dialogue.
I have a history or wording my thoughts improperly or just not thinking out my replies well enough. I know that sooner or later this is going to get me in trouble regarding sexism, homosexuality, or transgender-related stuff. It could be a good learning experience for me if the result was just somebody telling me, "Hey, you messed up here buddy." But I always fear it's going to be something worse. The stakes of misspeaking are too high now. It only takes examples like Adria Richards and that Brony at the UK Xbox One event to show just how ugly things can get. Internet mob mentality messes up lives and has collateral damage.
Again, let me reiterate that I'm not against people working to increase acceptance of women, homosexuals, or trans-people in the video game industry. I just wish they would do it with fewer uninformed witchhunts or the intent to harm.
I like to think you can still get good results from having a good, civil dialogue, rather than, "Hey, let's get this journalist fired." I've seen both in ample amount here at NeoGAF. But I'd rather just see a good dialogue.
Your post is great. You say what I tried to say but failed due to my garbled half-speak.
Well there's absolutely no need for mindreading if people make a habit of stating their desired end goals along with their criticism. That's my whole point, and it's pretty easy advice to follow. Next time Leigh Alexander writes a long criticism of something, ask yourself, what is the desired end goal of this line of criticism? If you can't really answer that question clearly, then that is where you should be most skeptical.
Or with commenters who post criticism, if they absolutely refuse to state it clearly, even when directly asked (something I've encountered time and time again and another commenter basically echoed that he had a similar experience in these debates), I have to assume they're hiding something. And everyone should assume that.
There is one thing inherent to the nature of criticism that both sides here seem to be overlooking - it is not the same as condemnation. Critics who describe prejudice in games can perform a useful public service because of the long-term effect the knowledge of that prejudice might have both on the people who make games and the people who play them.
However, using the fact that a game is non-maliciously prejudiced to try to get someone fired is a terrible and irresponsible thing to do. Conversely, denying that games like Dragon's Crown, or, yes, Ms. Pac-Man, are sexist is irrational.
Personally, I can tolerate a fair bit of sexism and racism in games as long as it doesn't feel malicious or deliberately hurtful- and there are very few examples of that in games, I think. The people who make games, like most people, were raised to think those things are normal, and like most people, it is difficult or impossible for them to change their minds. Shutting them out or ignoring won't do a damn thing to change anything. However,
However, using the fact that a game is non-maliciously prejudiced to try to get someone fired is a terrible and irresponsible thing to do. Conversely, denying that games like Dragon's Crown, or, yes, Ms. Pac-Man, are sexist is irrational.
Personally, I can tolerate a fair bit of sexism and racism in games as long as it doesn't feel malicious or deliberately hurtful- and there are very few examples of that in games, I think. The people who make games, like most people, were raised to think those things are normal, and like most people, it is difficult or impossible for them to change their minds. Shutting them out or ignoring won't do a damn thing to change anything. However,
No one is materially injured by "dudebro games". If you don't like a game, don't buy it. Stop trying to backseat drive the market and work on getting games made that appeal more to your own tastes. That's the honorable approach.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
technically it is
"technically" means that since females are not actually genetically programmed to wear lipstick or bows, if you choose to make it clear that your female character is, in fact, female by giving her those things you are doing it because those are the accepted things to give a female character... not because that specific character has any individual interest in those things. Technically, you are defining her by her sex, i.e., sexism.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
sure, see the edit
castlemadeofsand
Banned
i see. it could be argued that she is defined as female by the ms. behind her name. and a bow is used easily differentiate the two pac man models you see on the screen which are but small pixelated models, and not as the defining thing to make her a "female". plus she's not even human lol. maybe the pacman race is born with a bow and lipstick. as silly as that last comment i made was, it actually does have merit. they could be aliens or something
jim-jam bongs
Member
They should have called it Pacmyn
I suppose, but the point is that sexism means dividing people according to their sex and assigning them roles, including jobs, clothes, hobbies, etc, accordingly. Isn't that going on?
I realize that one thousand people have already commented on this, but I really can't help but chime in to say that this is incredibly disappointing to read. Good lord.
Good discussion in the rest of the thread, though.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
So we see ms. packman wears a bow. That can be seen as a division, the "point" as you state. But is not that present then in every characterization of both men and women in not just video games but all of media? Peach wears a pink dress and earrings. Mario isn't wearing a dress. etc. etc. etc.
my point is, where the hell does it end? if we call a yellow ball person who eats dots sexist because "she" wears a bow, there's a whole lot more that can be said about everything. i just find it a funny line to draw.
faceless007
Member
There's absolutely no need for mindreading in any case. It's narcissistic and dishonest. If someone doesn't specify a viewpoint, it is disingenuous in the extreme to assume one for them absent concrete evidence, especially if you take the liberty of assuming the most extremist and unjustifiable one.
Seems to me what you're saying (and what you've previously demonstrated doing) is if someone doesn't give you what you want in a way that satisfies you, you're going to deliberately project whatever you want into the gaps in order to most easily dismiss them. I generally don't like trying to have discussions with people who start off assuming the worst about me. I mean, it's easy to do that. I can go around assuming everyone who even slightly disagrees with me on sexism in gaming is a misogynist MRA who just wants to keep gaming a strictly boys-only club until they prove their credentials otherwise. And I admit, it's often tempting to just mentally write off my opponents in exactly that way. But that would be dumb.
In any case, I just provided an answer for you and you didn't even acknowledge it so what am I to make of that?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Bingo
Which is not to say that all media needs to be excised of all gendered imagery. But "traditional gender roles" and all that entails stylistically are still pretty pervasive.
Steve Youngblood
Member
My concern is that you're assuming the worst about a large number of people when the specific thing you fear is only applicable to a small, vocal bunch. I'm sure that there are some people out there that absolutely want to take the games you love away from you. However, I think many more just want better representations of women/minorities in gaming. And that's it. There's nothing specific about that to articulate. I suppose censoring games that you enjoy might be one path to that end that you can be fearful of. However, I think many reasonable people are simply trying to encourage game creators to move outside of their comfort zone a bit and embrace that this could be a big tent hobby.
And to that end, it's necessary to elucidate what "the problem" is by citing examples. However, I've always tried to caution that singling out a specific title should mainly be seen as a learning exercise. "This game I think demonstrates something that I find egregious, but mainly because it is part of a much bigger problem." That shouldn't automatically evoke a reaction of "oh my God, by citing that title they're saying it shouldn't exist!" The broad problem that many care about is actually better suited not getting bogged down in specifics because I think it often derails the conversation. However, if you can't highlight specific examples of what you're talking about so that people can get a feel for where you're coming from, then it becomes an issue where it seems like you are manufacturing criticism in regards to a phantom problem.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Tomb Raider was offensive to me in terms of gameplay, message, writing, and performances. I can't bring myself to champion the talented female lead writer, the incredibly talented and diverse development team, the fact that the game has a tough female protagonist, or the fact that an effort was made to rebrand an exploitative cheesecakey female lead as a tough every-woman, when the resulting package was the kind of cynical, committee designed, equally exploitative pablum we've come to expect both from big budget me-too AAA gaming and low budget Hollywood me-too PG-13 slasher-of-the-week films.
It's understandable to be turned off by a message not out of principle but by those who deliver it, or by how they deliver it. But, one must always maintain perspective in these matters. How often in history has the wrong side claimed that those who struggle against marginalization should slow down and stop trying to change things so fast, should be less controversial and extreme, should let change happen in its own time and stop rocking the boat? When has change ever happened without those who challenge the status-quo in ways that seem extreme, bizarre, even distasteful?
I suspect when you feel marginalized, you don't have the luxury of choosing your battles well, you have to agitate wherever you suspect it could be effective. Not being marginalized in any way, shape, or form, I wouldn't know. It's also worth remembering that everyone is a fallible human being. Sometimes people say stupid things out of frustration, ignorance, anger, even if they mean well. Sometimes people who don't remotely mean well sound the most reasonable and wise. But, hindsight is always 20/20.
Another thing to be mindful of is that a lot of the nature, quality, and content of these sorts of discussions occurs because this is no longer a hobby with a narrow demographic, if indeed it ever truly was. This industry is thriving because it is more culturally relevant than ever, and you don't get the luxury and benefits that broad appeal carries without the more narrow perspective of older purists becoming marginalized itself. I think with an influx of many different types of people, it only stands to reason that broader and more politically informed or motivated opinions will flood the media that cover that industry, and also that the types of personalities covering that industry will be of a broader spectrum. I think this is a good thing ultimately, but whether I liked it or not, it's something I simply have to deal with. The kind of controversies, "circlejerks", "witchhunts", etc. we see arise in social media and journalism covering this industry nowadays are pretty normal growing pains of an industry that has farther reach and is more powerful than it ever has been and yet is 20 to 30 years behind in the maturity of how it is analyzed and covered.
It's understandable to be turned off by a message not out of principle but by those who deliver it, or by how they deliver it. But, one must always maintain perspective in these matters. How often in history has the wrong side claimed that those who struggle against marginalization should slow down and stop trying to change things so fast, should be less controversial and extreme, should let change happen in its own time and stop rocking the boat? When has change ever happened without those who challenge the status-quo in ways that seem extreme, bizarre, even distasteful?
I suspect when you feel marginalized, you don't have the luxury of choosing your battles well, you have to agitate wherever you suspect it could be effective. Not being marginalized in any way, shape, or form, I wouldn't know. It's also worth remembering that everyone is a fallible human being. Sometimes people say stupid things out of frustration, ignorance, anger, even if they mean well. Sometimes people who don't remotely mean well sound the most reasonable and wise. But, hindsight is always 20/20.
Another thing to be mindful of is that a lot of the nature, quality, and content of these sorts of discussions occurs because this is no longer a hobby with a narrow demographic, if indeed it ever truly was. This industry is thriving because it is more culturally relevant than ever, and you don't get the luxury and benefits that broad appeal carries without the more narrow perspective of older purists becoming marginalized itself. I think with an influx of many different types of people, it only stands to reason that broader and more politically informed or motivated opinions will flood the media that cover that industry, and also that the types of personalities covering that industry will be of a broader spectrum. I think this is a good thing ultimately, but whether I liked it or not, it's something I simply have to deal with. The kind of controversies, "circlejerks", "witchhunts", etc. we see arise in social media and journalism covering this industry nowadays are pretty normal growing pains of an industry that has farther reach and is more powerful than it ever has been and yet is 20 to 30 years behind in the maturity of how it is analyzed and covered.
I'm a little scared to post my thoughts since I'm still a junior and this seems like a topic that gets people in trouble. Even though I'm not really expressing a negative opinion, just trying my hand at analysis. If I overstep somewhere let me know. I feel that concern implies a sort of scary place the gaming feminism conversation has gone to, GAF is actually really good about asking first before shooting, so lets deep breath a bit and hope I haven't inadvertently made myself a heel.
For your fatigue, I suspect it is because this whole thing is being run almost entirely on emotional appeals, 'common sense' and feminism movements in other media which aren't particularly analogous. Which leads to endless circles around the same ground.
Much of the commentary is "X is awful and horrible" and there's only so much of that people can take before feeling they have to stop listening to it because even if the argument has a good goal, or even if they agree totally, the emotional impact is registered as a big censure bomb on a hobby you love, much less the people who don't agree completely or have other concerns.
So with no real easily applied empirical data, most of the pieces that the press has magnified to their audience is similarly emotionally based and contains as much censure if not more for where games are in terms of lining up with progressive ideals. I suspect they're all the louder because they know at the moment that the audience is still mostly male in the 'hardcore' and they want to change that (and yes I know women can and are just as hardcore as men in gaming, they're just not present in the same numbers yet, League of Legends numbers are a good example.)
Compounding that video games JUST had this conversation of 'cultural influence' with violence during the Jack Thompson years and it seems like the gaming feminism movement isn't doing enough to address or distance itself from that type of argument. I guess the idea is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" but I think gaming feminism is doing far more damage to itself by approaching this less as a conversation that might result in compromise, but demands that all good folk will accept without question. Also it appears to be more second wave then third wave (Judging by how often the content being complained about is sexual in nature.) which is a far harder sell. We say "Don't bet against Nintendo" in games, but the same could be said for "Don't bet against sexual appeal" in commercial media. Just look at what was on Cinimax in 1990 and is on our prime time now.
I dunno, I think people are a very "Show, not Tell" species. and there's a fair amount of the tolerance crowd that shouts "tolerance!" in very intolerant ways, and that's off-putting to many. I think that's harmful to a good cause, and that the ends don't justify the means. Not even because of some moral imperative, but because if a good cause is propped up by bad argument, that will tarnish it in the eyes of more then it will gain in reputability for being boosted.
I count myself as double thumbs up for feminism but I feel I've spent the last 3 months of this conversation arguing more against overreach of content bashing then supporting getting more women involved in games. These days when I think about the situation everyone's painted ourselves into I am the most depressed I am in a day.
(PS: do you have a good link or thought on why Dragon's Crown is something that should be considered awful? It has a character design for everyone pretty much, and at it's worst it still wouldn't belong in a 'red light district' of video gaming, a district that should still legitimately exist. I'd love to read a very defined and cited analysis of why it was supposed to be so awful, because I never really saw it))
spandexmonkey
Banned
Great post, I agree the focus on sexual content isn't helping things. In the US at least, sexual repression is still an issue and it's difficult to differentiate if the voices who are moralizing over game content are being progressive or religious. There are better battlefields, female soldiers in shooters (imo), that ask for inclusion rather than exclusions.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
The thing is some people prefer those traditions. I know women who have said to me that they prefer that 50's style, men go to work, mom stays with kids etc....
So while it may be pervasive, does that make it bad? I don't believe so. At least not wholly. If there is diversity in it all from people with different preferences there's nothing bad about it. Although it can be argued that any such role orientation isn't good aka boys blue, girls pink. But it's so ingrained into our culture, and perhaps for a reason? I don't know, simply thinking about these things is interesting of course.
Seems like these articles have been coming at the end of the year
2014: A Year for More Positivity in Social Justice.
This is from the former lead editor of the Border House, not exactly an MRA haven.
A more peaceful 2014
Not a Monolith
Raph Koster's year in review
2014: A Year for More Positivity in Social Justice.
This is from the former lead editor of the Border House, not exactly an MRA haven.
A more peaceful 2014
Not a Monolith
Raph Koster's year in review
A lot of women love the 1800s as well. I think it's mostly because of the fashion though. I'd imagine it'd be a nightmare for men and women if we had to go back to that era now, though.
What does a girl do if she's raped and forced to marry her rapist? What do you do when your husband is extremely abusive? What happens when your divorced? Or can't get married because of your looks/ status? What do you do about an unwanted pregnancy? What happens when you realize you can't get a job? You'd be completely defenseless and without rights in this era. You'd be dumb as balls and unable to be self sufficient. That sucks!
I'd actually like to see a game about a uneducated divorced wife with 3 kids set in the 50s or 1800s. What would the gameplay be like and what would the goal be? Just by switching the perspective from male to female...you'd have an interesting game to play...hmmmmm.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
uhh she's the one who said she liked the traditional gender roles like the 50's, the ones i stated, not me. And she didn't mention fashion, she was talking about the stay at home mom, man works deal. I personally have no preference. I can respect either choice. Yes I'm fairly certain it would suck to go back to that era. When I was talking tradition, I wasn't referring to the lack of equality. Gender roles doesn't equal all the stuff you are talking about. They are separate, or at least now they are.
petran79
Banned
I meant a book like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution
authorwas proficient both in positive sciences and social sciences.such a book would be impossible for someone inexperienced with science. something similar should occur for video games.
Hence why applying Mathematics remained so far behind in Social Sciences. It isnt studied sufficiently and used superficially
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I fail to see why one random anonymous person's preference over being a housewife has to do with anything, but maybe I'm just dense.
Yes. They do.
If every girl had to aspire to be a stay at home mom...these are the problems that occur. You literally couldn't survive without getting married out. This was easily exploitable for men who could control everything about that women's life. Aside from the crazy commercialism that rose in the 50s, I girl could do nothing but stay at home or shop for vacuums.
Beating ones wife was perfectly fine, because hey! They're not equals, she's basically your dog. Your friend is fine to think the 50s were awesome for girls, heck I thought the same thing, but there's a lot we take for granted now about gender roles. I didn't see anything as wrong until my teacher mentioned girls using wired hangars to...eliminate their pregnancies. Ick.
In today's world you can be a stay at home mom or dad...but that's by choice. You still have the ability to seek an education, get a job and not get sexually harassed while on said job. Being equal is a lot better than having a role.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
Yes I edited my post mentioning nowadays it is more separate because of greater equality. But really its the equality thing that brought about the negatives you are speaking of not the gender roles. Like you say, today it is a choice, and that choice is because of more equal treatment. They went hand in hand in the past because women weren't allowed the same rights and didn't have the same opportunities. I think you actually agree with me here. That is to say forced anything is bad. Equality good lol. But gender roles aren't inherently bad is what I'm saying.
SolidSnakex
Member
Spoiler for GoW:A ahead.
He claimed that you get the trophy for beating up a female enemy when in reality it's because of a cutscene where Orkos helps you escape that enemy.
Ah. Asshole move then. Thanks.
I'm...kind of curious to know what gender roles are today. What is a women's role and what is a mans role, in your words? C:
castlemadeofsand
Banned
Whatever a couple choose it to be. Different for everyone. I don't believe in a set way. I'm just pointing out I don't think traditional roles are inherently bad like some people make them out to be.
edit: i will make this concession though: if a couple has a child i think it's important for the mother to be there for at least the first year as breast feeding a child is very important and has great health benefits to a baby as many studies have shown
That's fair. Though I suppose for girls, gender roles can be seen as bad, since we definitely got the shorter end of the stick. :|
Men: Assertive, Stoic/Rational, Strong, heroic, worker, leader, pants!
Women: Complacent, Emotional/whiney, dainty, damsel, mother, follower, dress and makeup...
I think that might be what our gender roles are or were. Even if they aren't totally true anymore...they're still very apparent in our media. Especially in games.
You can be a man or woman and believe in gender roles and follow then perfectly. It's hard not to because they are enforced onto us at an early age. Pretty much ingrained into our lives. But as we grow older and more mature with our society, we can break free of our social restraints.
Someday men will be able to show vulnerability without fear or shame. And someday women will actually sort of almost be equal. Lol.
I'm inclined to agree. o__o
castlemadeofsand
Banned
I suppose what I was referring to as gender roles are really just roles because I don't equate them to any sexual characteristics, other than the concession I made about breastfeeding. So perhaps I can agree with an argument against "gender' roles in general. As far as the old characteristics that were attributed to the sexes, while I do believe women in the past had the short end, I don't necessarily like having to be the provider, the do-er etc.. lol. Sometimes I think i'd like the stay at home position. That's not to say I would like to have been in a women's ''role'' in the past at any time. In a bubble though I think having to be cast in any role isn't very desirable.
As for the whole men showing vulnerability thing, I do believe most mature people today have outgrown that to some extent. It depends on how you are raised though. I do think in general it is going away. But my perception is perhaps different as I have chosen to work in a field thats 97% female, so that's telling of my experiences and outlook on the matter.
CapNBritain
Member
Just wanted to quote this post because it is very thought-provoking. I have always tried to look at all sides of a conflict and favor measured responses. It's really hard for me to understand the extremes that some people take things, especially when it comes to social justice. It's probably my privilege showing. This post has given me a lot to think about in terms of how I view people fighting for change in ways I find irrational, but perhaps, necessary.
I hear ya. Everyone talks about how gender equality is silly and only affects women. They think its a selfish request. but that's not the case. Games put men in a creepy spot too and a lot of people noted that when Anita decided to only focus on women in games. :/
We obviously put too much stress onto men (especially young men 20s till 40s) by being the do-ers. Tell them to be stoic and unemotional while teaching women to cry and mope to get their way. I think this is why suicide is so much of a male problem. Gender roles.
If the dudes in the gaming world start crying...it's basically them losing their manhood. Showing any vulnerability is shameful and makes you either a woman or a gay. And since a lot of men hold the pride of being men...being labeled as anything less is harmful to their self image. But honestly, if they were given the chance to express their emotions, they wouldn't be so quick to self harm of even harming others.
If guys and gals were a bit more loose with their genders...they could feel feminine without a bow and lipstick. They could feel masculine even when they are in a vulnerable state. In a way, The roles we cast ourselves in make men too prideful and women too vain.
I believe in Japan, gender roles were extremely strict and the only way for the feminists to win was to make it seem as though men would be better off too. Well...Japan still has a major problem with women's rights along with an extremely high male suicide rate. I think in a lot of ways gender roles are harmful.
We obviously put too much stress onto men (especially young men 20s till 40s) by being the do-ers. Tell them to be stoic and unemotional while teaching women to cry and mope to get their way. I think this is why suicide is so much of a male problem. Gender roles.
If the dudes in the gaming world start crying...it's basically them losing their manhood. Showing any vulnerability is shameful and makes you either a woman or a gay. And since a lot of men hold the pride of being men...being labeled as anything less is harmful to their self image. But honestly, if they were given the chance to express their emotions, they wouldn't be so quick to self harm of even harming others.
If guys and gals were a bit more loose with their genders...they could feel feminine without a bow and lipstick. They could feel masculine even when they are in a vulnerable state. In a way, The roles we cast ourselves in make men too prideful and women too vain.
I believe in Japan, gender roles were extremely strict and the only way for the feminists to win was to make it seem as though men would be better off too. Well...Japan still has a major problem with women's rights along with an extremely high male suicide rate. I think in a lot of ways gender roles are harmful.
castlemadeofsand
Banned
It's definitely a good example to study about how culture/society etc. can effect mental health. I'd be very curious to see suicide rates for people in the 1800's versus now, seeing as how technology has effected life style so much, from how active people are, to diet, and how we interact as a society. In the last 50 years things have become radically different in the way people live in certain cultures, namely the most technologically advanced ones. I think it ties right in to higher depression and suicide rates, many people don't have the coping mechanisms to adjust to it
You're using even stronger qualifiers than I did. I said "many." And you say "most." How many do you converse with? I don't know what most even means. I said many to be as vague as possible.
That's great. We're on the same side on that one then. I have a feeling not everyone denounces it. A great way to quickly clear that up though is to just ask them what their goals are, and what they would like to see happen. That way everyone can just speak for themselves and there's no assuming going on.
Sure, I agree. I'm not the one pushing these debates either and I don't think they accomplish anything very useful.
So what do we say about the people who do push these debates?
If you think back faceless, can you recall all the different times I've mentioned that these types of debates were pushing towards self-censorship, and that this was the goal? Can you remember all the times, in literally almost every one of these threads you would pop in and insult me for wildly jumping to conclusions? Well in this case I am proven right, and it's literally stated word for word in the OP - probably the only time it will ever happen - and you are still trying to completely downplay the whole thing. I'm not a narcissist for assuming that people pushing these kinds of debates might be interested in "defeating" certain games, effectively censoring them. I was right.
So, you want to make it clear that you're not one of those? Fair enough, I totally believe you. But you're not everyone, and I think it's unfair to me to wash away this point like it doesn't matter, after how much you've jumped on me for this exact issue for almost a year. At least admit I got this right, because I did.
If people wanted to spend more time talking about broader structural issues instead of gotcha witch hunts, I'd be all for it. Personally, I don't find that more difficult. That's how I naturally see cause and effect in most cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, neither of us know the size of this bunch. We don't know if it's large, or small. The best way to clear that up is for people to just speak for themselves, which is what I'm advocating. That requires zero assuming.
I am sure too.
You're using the same qualifier I did, "many." I'm not going to jump on your point and try and pick it apart because of that. I understand what you mean, and that's just how it is written grammatically. Yes, I agree with you. Many people don't want that kind of toxic, persecution-based self-censorship.
Okay, you acknowledged my fear as legitimate. Thank you. I'm listening.
To be honest with you, I can live with that, and that seems totally fine. Learning exercises, sophisticated critiques, and discussions are fine. Using examples to make a point about broader issues is fine. I might disagree with some of those criticisms, but I could live with that.
What we're seeing though, which you acknowledged does exist, is sustained campaigns of negative PR that are not learning exercises, but are designed to crush products into non-existence. That's what gets people worked up, and for good reason.
Big tent means that everything goes. It means we should be discussing how we can make more products that appeal to people who feel they don't currently get enough. It doesn't mean we should be discussing how to make less products we don't like. The word "less" should never be a part of the equation. If we look at film, we don't get more oscar caliber movies by making less porn movies. You get more oscar caliber movies by having great writers make interesting content that's carried out by great directors and actors. It doesn't hurt if those kinds of projects make enough money to be profitable, so more get made.
If we're talking about that kind of big tent strategy, I'd be willing to bet that almost all of the people that argue against social justice criticism would be on your side. If people stop trying to crush things they like, then they wouldn't be defensive. It's pretty logical. If people instead focus on creating things missing from the market currently, occasionally using things they don't like as an illustrative, learning-oriented example, then I think people would be fine.
That's not what is currently happening though. I've made this point in threads before, and been called a misogynist who wants to keep the status quo. It's frustrating, to say the least, because I think this would literally stop the arguing and allow everyone to work towards getting the games they want.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
So you admit to using meaningless weasel words. I guess it's a start.
Wow, my post must be pretty threatening if you have to call me a weasel as your only reply.
Who is focusing on the "irrelevant" part now?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
"Weasel word" is a term referring to "equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated"
If an ad says "many doctors agree that our product is good" they're deliberately avoiding specifying how many "many" is in hopes that consumers will think it is more then it most likely actually is.
faceless007
Member
....Are you really unfamiliar with the term weasel words? No, it is not the same thing as calling someone a weasel. Not by any remotely reasonable interpretation. That's an impressive act of selective interpretation.
Edit: beaten.
RockTurtle
Member
so is anyone going to start offering actual retorts to opposing viewpoints or....
this is the first time i heard the term, and thought he was being called a weasel. you learn something new every day!
this is the first time i heard the term, and thought he was being called a weasel. you learn something new every day!
I've never heard the expression weasel word before. "Many" is a pretty common word to use. I don't know the exact number of people who feel a certain way, and I never will. My whole argument is that this is the exact reason why people should make a habit of stating it themselves.
So what other word would you use to refer to these people? Even Steve said he's sure there are "some" people out there that feel the same way.
Then faceless said "most" and Steve said "many more" when describing their side. Clearly it's just how people talk normally. There's nothing "weasel" about it. I picked a vague word because it's more rational than me saying "most." "Most feminists want to destroy Dragon Crown" would be a stronger claim than many, so I went with many as a concession to the other side.
This whole argument is so stupid. And it really does show that he has no comeback, to focus on that out of that entire gigantic post ...
You don't see how someone who had never heard the term could think he was being called a weasel? Why do you always have to throw in your usual insults? It gets so old. And you wonder why I don't respond to you.