Blarghagh

Take your time, I won't be able to get back to internet until next thursday. Only 18%? I'd say a fifth is a significant segment consider we've well established that AAA Gaming is still very much male dominated. I don't know how accurate it is to declare all female players are playing women, and all male players are playing men. I've played Mass Effect with Femshep before because she's simply more interesting than another grizzled space marine. On the other hand, I also know a lot of women play manshep for "roleplaying purposes", in the same way almost all yaoi fanfiction is written by women.

Yes this is true, but is acting in accordance to society's ideals inherently misogynist? Is reaching those ideals in a power fantasy "internalized misogyny"? Also, is it misogynist for games to offer mostly sexy character options when the overwhelming majority of their female fanbase wants that option? Is it misogynist to not offer a less idealized version if it's economically pointless to do so because nobody or next to nobody will even use it? Also, male video game characters are overwhelmingly attractive - in fact, a common criticism is that many games have male characters that win the affections of many women as a power fantasy, showing that being attractive to women is a power fantasy for men. Is that internalized misandry, the fact that to be powerful means being able to attract women? Because supposedly that's the same thing, that being sexy is a internalized misogyny based power fantasy because it's only meant to attract men, that being attractive to men is to be powerful in this society? And with manorexia being an almost literal epidemic, is the perceived need to have an attractive body to be worthy of attention a solely feminist issue? Are video games responsible for pumping money into options that aren't viable because video games are somehow responsible for changing society? Is the assumption that female beauty is an ideal to attract men even true, considering the fact that women overwhelmingly answer criticism over make-up by men with "I'm wearing it to impress other women with my taste, not to attract men"? Is sexualisation inherently linked to objectification? Is it inherently linked to tight clothing (i.e. would it be better if western women wore Burkas)? Side question: I am nervous even asking some of these things, even though as you have pointed out that this is an echo chamber or at least a safe space to say it, simply because of how unacceptable it is to the modern internet crowd (twitter, tumblr, reddit) to even ask these questions. Do you think that's caused by a healthy attitude regarding women, sex and beauty standards? I mean, okay, if you think this thread is a huge circle jerk, come debate these things with us and prove us wrong. I'd love to see you add more than accusing this of being an echo-chamber and then going off to leave it that way. I mean, after every post I sorta see you saluting, saying "my job here is done" and flying off into the sunset.

No, the argument is that sexy women in games are created to be attractive to males, so attractive male characters are empowerment fantasies for men (which is fine) but attractive female characters are objectified and discriminatory. Get it? Not entirely untrue in all cases but most of the time it's bogus.

I've made some fallacious arguments about that myself before which I regret. Someone made the argument to me that well, women characters are idealized but so are most male characters. Like, not all (like Blizzard has a lot of fat dwarves and such) but most. And I had heard an argument before that made sense to me about that female characters are sexualized to pander to male gaze but male characters are solely a male empowerment fantasy so I repeated that, and I got slaughtered in that argument because it simply doesn't hold water. Being attractive is, by default, an empowerment fantasy so being an idealized, sexy woman is also an empowerment fantasy, but beyond that it's scientifically proven that toned, muscled male forms are attractive to women and the reason it's empowering is because it's attractive. I mean, if you do a google image search on "romance novel covers", which is almost entirely geared towards women, marvel at all the "male power fantasies" that are meant to be attractive to women. Not to say there aren't problems and differences in the approaches, for example I thought the controversy about Dragon's Dogma was completely misaimed because it focused on the lead characters. I had no problems with the leads, even with how overly sexualized some of them are (female and male) because they were all capable, strong characters who weren't made inferior to anyone else but that game that did have some issues considering the maidens and such you rescue being also overly sexualized, always in positions of weakness and practically orgasming to see you rescue them. It very clearly shows that idealisation and sexualisation are not inherently bad things but can just be used wrong, yet people are too dumb to see the difference and attack it just for being there.

Listening to this now and it's really interesting. I'd like to see some numbers but if that's true, it pretty much comes down to "a female player, when given the option, will most often play the most idealized, 'sexy' babe". Anyone have any sources for this? I would really love to see some hard data on what female players pick. Of course, people will just point out "internalized misogyny" or something but still.

Neat.

Packing up the last things to move into my new apartment, gonna move on sunday but tomorrow I'll be at a friends' place celebrating her birthday with a horror movie marathon. Then I'm going to be internet-less until next thursday! Boo!

Oh, you can listen to them afterwards? I thought the co-optional podcasts were live only since they don't show up on TB's channel. Anyway, let's stop acknowledging that Tait character. He's a lunatic and he's also not adressing any of us since we're not about keeping women out of the industry, and I've made a point in these threads before how his attitude does that much more easily than any of us could.

I believe the colloquial term is "my soggy knee".

Saw this on DeviantArt.

I've been finding the last couple of days really fascinating. Apologies to Brad Wardell being issued, two GamerGate charity campaigns being very succesful (Unicef and a charity that gives Thanksgiving meals to the homeless) and... Time Magazine Poll on "what annoying word should be banned in 2014" landing squarely on... feminist: http://time.com/3576870/worst-words-poll-2014/ I'd say #GamerGate is still winning, even though I personally don't think such focus should be placed on feminism, it's journalists who are my issue. Addendum: It also has to do with non-gaming controversies, such as scientist that landed probe on comet gets slammed for wearing t-shirt with pinups on it: http://www.peeep.us/328748bd First world problems! Hilariously, the shirt he was wearing was a custom-made birthday gift that a woman made for him. Reminds me a lot of Bayonetta 2. Also, Erik Kain, pillar of neutrality at all times, wrote another article regarding video game journalism that I thought was fascinating: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/11/13/the-catch-22-of-video-game-journalism/

That is a fantastic read. EDIT: I had no idea about the Alistair Pinsof situation. That's thoroughly despicable.

Bruce, I'm breaking my own rule here about not engaging you in the context of this thread to tell you something very simple: Do your research before just repeating something you heard. Seriously. This "controversy" was entirely made up for clickbait and absolutely none of it holds water. Since people seem to be confused about this, I'll explain this supposed controversy: Precisely because Daniel Vavra and his team wanted to add an inclusivity option for women, the Kingdom Come Kickstarter included a stretch goal for a smaller female character based mini-campaign because the basic campaign dealt with facets of historical medievel society that only applied to males. The controversy was not that they did not want to give fans the ability to play a female character, the controversy was that they asked for extra money to do so. The arguments were that an inclusivty option should be "a given" (despite the fact an extra campaign would cost a significant amount of money that the company did not have) and should not be a seperate campaign but included in the main campaign as a character customization option (regardless of the fact that this made no sense whatsoever). All in all, it's the most non-controversy horse**** that gender politics in games has come up with and if anything is the clearest argument that gender politics in the context of games needs to be reigned in because it is out of control, damaging to developers reputations (such as by the fact that you think they refused to give players the option when that is simply a lie) and artistic freedom via entitlement, misinformation and basically just making **** up and this is exactly why Daniel Vavra is one of the developers at the forefront of #GamerGate. It should be pointed out that the stretch goal was achieved and the female character campaign will be in the game. Here's an interview where he discusses it back in Febuary of this year, far before either that controversy or #GamerGate (emphasis mine): Source: http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/19/kingdom-come-deliverance-promises-the-world-and-looks-set-to-deliver/ Does this seem like a man who refuses to add female characters? Or is this a man who worked hard to add an extra section to his game for women even though it made no sense in the context of his base game because adding this option was important to him when he could have just as easily have decided to just say "screw it" and left it a sausage fest like so many other games, and was then dogpiled, hounded and suffered irreversible reputation damage for his efforts? This is exactly what I mean when I say the internet outrage machine fed by these gender politics is consistently harming inclusivity in games by showing developers that it's not worth the effort to add them. The reason why this developer is "steeped in controversy" is because games journalists made a controversy up and now the developer is a major face of a movement that calls for journalistic ethics because it's already been on the receiving end. It's as simple as that. EDIT: Removed giant quote tunnel.

The lawsuits weren't dropped. They were thrown out with extreme prejudice and the accuser was forced to publicly apologize because the case was a ridiculous sham to the point that even those who reported on it have now started to issue apologies for jumping the gun. I understand disagreeing with GamerGate, I can even understand hating it but that does not excuse flat out lying. The only reason he's a perfect fit for GamerGate is because he's one of the people who has been on the receiving end of gaming media's ridiculous double standards. Even if that weren't true, it's not relevant. If Zoe's sex life or Samantha Allen's self-proclaimed misandry aren't relevant, then neither is this. It actually is about ethics in gaming journalism.

That is so cool. We live in an exciting time.

KaineParker hits the nail on the head. Honestly, on both sides the devs that have gotten involved have been mostly, to be blunt, giant nobodies. The biggest name involved is probably Brad Wardell, whose company does make games but is mostly a tech company. I've mentioned the poll before and I had a link at the time though I can't find it currently, there's no scientific evidence for anything regarding gender, age, orientation etc. but a vast majority, somewhere between 80 to 90% was left libertarian. The link should be in one of my posts in one of the earlier threads, but these threads and some of my posts in it are massive so I'm not going to look for it.

So gg is right-wing and anti-gg is left-wing now? That may be what Milo likes to espouse (as a scavenger who is just piggybacking on #GamerGate for publicity) but that's not accurate. The only serious polling has shown that the vast majority of pro #GamerGate participants are left-leaning, just like the vast majority of anti #GamerGate participants. The difference was mostly the axis of libertarian vs authoritarian, with the pros being libertarian and the antis being authoritarian.

I'd say that statement, if anything, is a pretty clear indication that they should change and should have changed a long time ago. Even if that were true (it's not), here's a fun quote for you: “I’m a AAA producer. … I’m the one booking your flights, [paying for] your bar tabs, and spa treatments… We’re plying you with payola. We’re not just expecting you to not be impartial, we’re ****ing banking on it.” - Alex Lifschitz It is in most of AAA corporations' best interest to stick a feather up journalists' butts. That's why the most prominent supports of GamerGate have been either indies or anonymous. It's why Blizzard puts out statements that don't actually name anything so both sides can pretend it's supporting them.

A CPAP device or somesuch, I believe. If it turns out I have it, I might get one of those, or I might get double surgery to remove some of my tongue and fix my deviated septum? Or somesuch? I dunno, I won't know until I discuss the results with a doctor. If I don't have it I'm guessing the only option left with my sleep issues is that it's psychological, which would mean more therapy. Yaaaaay.

Slept at the hospital for observation for my sleep troubles (current theory: sleep apnea) and I should finally be getting some results on it monday. I also started the process of moving to a new apartment with my girlfriend, got the keys yesterday and spent most of the day cleaning the place and moving stuff in.

I'm going to need evidence for either of those claims. I came to a very sad realization today. In the distant annuls of a few months ago, something truly despicable happened. And I hope we can all agree that's what happened. Several women were harrased and sent death threats. It was a big thing, I think we all remember it. The talk dominated much of the game discussion. There were very loud people who even sought to justify it. A few people decided that things should not really be going down that path. That being a gamer doesn't have to be about that. That we all have a responsibility to put an end to it. That developers, the tech industry, and we the consumers should not tolerate a voice of hate being the loudest in the room and allowing them to tarnish the reputation we have as a whole. And instead of trying to be better, which is what we should have all moved to do, some people double downed on that behavior. They were offended that anyone call into questions the culture or ask them to do anything. They tried to marginalize people who asked us to be better. There were accused of immorally conspiring to ask us to have better standards. It's just so disappointing. My sad realisation is that you actually believe this is what is going on. Here's an interesting fact: In 2012, Gamasutra declined to run this article: http://www.designersnotebook.com/Columns/115_A_Call_to_Arms/115_a_call_to_arms.htm Also, I'd like to point out that you said this started with "women" being harassed. Jenn Frank, Anita Sarkeesian and Samantha Allen's harassment far predates GamerGate (and also wasn't reported on), and Brianna Wu's harassment came later. The only woman I will concede to being harassed at the spark of this is Zoe Quinn. Was that terrible? Yes it was. DUH. But she was far outnumbered by men being harassed over the same thing. Here's what was different: Nobody reported on them. I wonder, where was this outrage when Phil Fish cancelled Fez 2 over harassment earlier this year? Oh wait, game journalists were making fun of him. He needed thicker skin, he needed to stop feeding the trolls and engaging them and I'm going to quote this one: He always seemed like a bit of a douche anyway. When David Vonderhaar got death threats over changes to a CoD weapon, only Polygon reported on it with any type of condemnation. You may not know this, but there are support groups for developers who get harassed. They've existed for over a year and a half. I know someone who attends one (it's a he). Anyway, a hate movement of MRAs, who never ever managed to get any kind of following, grassroots or otherwise, have started a campaign to keep women out of the gaming industry by attacking low profile developers and journalists that were so unknown that for all intents and purposes they weren't really in the gaming industry in the first place? Does that really seem likely to you? If that's what happened, it's the most ineffective campaign I've ever heard of. I find it much more likely that journalists are using harassment seen through the lens of current gender politics to deflect people away from being able to call them out on their bull. Let's not even get in to the fact that the death threats against Anita Sarkeesian after she engaged GamerGate have been confirmed to have come from a Brazilian clickbait game journalist that has ties to other games news sites. Asking us to be better my behind.

Something Greek that tastes like cinnamon. I hate cinnamon.

That post reminds me of Captain America from the Marvel movies. "They said we won the war. They didn't say what we'd lost."

And what a better way to say "hey, we DO want to talk about diversity in gaming" than actually doing it.

I've got a the meat of a rabbit filling up my almost entire freezer right now. It was one of these guys.