Demographics of these forums.

[Amentep]

Are you people seriously going to get so riled up over an article on a gaming site,  places otherwise famed for valuable social commentary and critique? Frequented by educated, thorough and studious thinkers?

 

Seriously?

 

Who is getting riled up?

 

And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

[Drowsy Emperor]

The only stands I like are of the Last variety.

 

This has no real drama and far too little suffering.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

Are you people seriously going to get so riled up over an article on a gaming site,  places otherwise famed for valuable social commentary and critique? Frequented by educated, thorough and studious thinkers?

 

Seriously?

 

Once again its not the article, its the principle that applies on forums and real life. And I don't believe people are getting riled up but expressing important opinions about a subject that does matter, equality and discrimination

[alanschu]

As I mentioned on another post I did email John in support of the article and he told me out of the 900 emails received so far  only 30 were negative about the article. So many people like me support his unequivocal stance on this subject

 

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum).

 

On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up.

 

 

I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people.  And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat).  Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space.  It just wasn't as much "fun" then.  Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers.  In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion (I have been guilty of this on numerous times).

Edited April 8, 2013 by alanschu

[Drowsy Emperor]

Who is getting riled up?

 

And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

Its not a valid question. Games are a business and practically irrelevant from a social stand point. If games are the front where women's rights need to be fought for then that ideology is either lacking in real problems to solve or just gone wayward to the point of ending up in a neighboring galaxy.

 

Wake up, gaming isn't the real world. Not in any truly relevant way.

 

The article reeks of journalistic desperation at worst, misguided activism by basement dwelling individuals at best.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[mkreku]

God I'm so tired of this myth.

 

So sure, 48% of game players are women. And sure, some of them may have heard of Baldur's Gate. Or Wasteland. Or Gothic. Ok, I seriously ****ing doubt that anyone with double x chromosomes has ever heard of Gothic, but whatever.

 

But why does it always sound like this: "We are here! We are many!! We are.. just hiding. Behind the furniture. That's uh.. why you can't see us!"

 

Then you go to ToonVille: Bieber Edition XVII and check out the usernames: Tinkieeewinkiieezz13, PinkFluffyFunnyBunny, I<3Bieebz times 40 million. Noone's hiding.

 

I've been playing computer games since 1983. I've worked as a games journalist for a decade. And if there is one thing I am certain of it's this: They're not hiding, they're not "afraid to show themselves" because of the evilness of men, they're just not here.

[Amentep]

 

As I mentioned on another post I did email John in support of the article and he told me out of the 900 emails received so far  only 30 were negative about the article. So many people like me support his unequivocal stance on this subject

 

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum).

 

On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up.

 

I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people. And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat). Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space. It just wasn't as much "fun" then. Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers. In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion.

 

There are certain people who flock to being contrarian.  And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic.  True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him.

 

 

Who is getting riled up?

 

And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

Its not a valid question.

 

Really? Which arbiter of validity said so?

 

Games are a business and practically irrelevant from a social stand point. If games are the front where women's rights need to be fought for then that ideology is either lacking in real problems to solve or just gone wayward to the point of ending up in a neighboring galaxy.

 

What people do is always interesting from a social standpoint. How they do it is important from a social standpoint. Once you've satisfied the basic needs of your society (food, water, shelter) then things are going to turn to the luxuries of life and how those are used (or how they're available).

 

Wake up, gaming isn't the real world. Not in any truly relevant way.

 

Neither is what's posted on message boards on the internet. So we're already pissing in the wind, contextually, as it were. But I'm not sure that just because this message board isn't the real world doesn't mean it isn't worth it to think about broader topics. 

 

"Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living — that you are still less likely to believe."

[Drowsy Emperor]

In one of our more popular computer forums in Serbia the atmosphere was generally welcoming, spamming and rudeness were minimal so female users usually didn't bother to hide their identity.

Which just proves mkreku right, because there were very very few of them.

 

They mostly stuck to the adventure games sub forum and even there I doubt they were 50% of the regular users. And it was one of the least popular forums.

[Hurlshort]

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Obsidian's games attract a mostly male audience.  They certainly don't aim to alienate females, but I'd say it is simply a trend of the genre.  

 

There also isn't anything wrong with being a casual gamer.  There are a lot more of them than there are of the hardcore RPG crowd, that's for sure.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

As I mentioned on another post I did email John in support of the article and he told me out of the 900 emails received so far  only 30 were negative about the article. So many people like me support his unequivocal stance on this subject

 

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum).

 

On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up.

 

I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people. And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat). Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space. It just wasn't as much "fun" then. Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers. In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion.

 

There are certain people who flock to being contrarian.  And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic.  True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him.

 

>>> 

Who is getting riled up?

 

And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

Its not a valid question.

 

Really? Which arbiter of validity said so?

 

Games are a business and practically irrelevant from a social stand point. If games are the front where women's rights need to be fought for then that ideology is either lacking in real problems to solve or just gone wayward to the point of ending up in a neighboring galaxy.

 

What people do is always interesting from a social standpoint. How they do it is important from a social standpoint. Once you've satisfied the basic needs of your society (food, water, shelter) then things are going to turn to the luxuries of life and how those are used (or how they're available).

 

Wake up, gaming isn't the real world. Not in any truly relevant way.

 

Neither is what's posted on message boards on the internet. So we're already pissing in the wind, contextually, as it were. But I'm not sure that just because this message board isn't the real world doesn't mean it isn't worth it to think about broader topics. 

 

"Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living — that you are still less likely to believe."

 

 

And are these broader topics worth considering.

 

Feminism, which lies at the core of this discussion is a spent ideology. It achieved its political goals and subsequently its membership and their enthusiasm dwindled. As it usually happens in these issues not everything was achieved. But apparently enough was achieved for the general public to lose interest and fighting spirit.

 

Why do these men then (because they generally are men) feel the need to fight a war on behalf of other parties - that are generally uninterested in it? Really, even at the height of feminism many women remained completely uninterested in it, being satisfied with their place in society. We've long since left that height behind, but these type of people remain - taking a stance for someone supposedly weaker.They're not weaker because this isn't a fight to be fought with bayonets. What's stopping all the female gamers in the world from petitioning every available company and website for a change?

 

Nothing. Except:

 

They. Don't. Care. Enough.

 

The only tale that I can see there is middle class boredom in search of a cause to fight for. They're adopting a crusading mentality to satisfy their own need for a crusade, actual women be damned. Its extremely childish and immature.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[alanschu]

 

There are certain people who flock to being contrarian.  And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic.  True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him.

 

There is that, but I was more just looking at the numbers.  I would never estimate a 30:1 ratio of Supporter:Opposer based on looking at comments or forum discussions about it.  Of course, at a place like this there's no where near the numbers of people involved in this discussion to even allow a ratio like that.

 

Are opposers particularly vigilant (there's little need for them to send John several emails, but they may feel compelled to make several replies) in responding, so a few people end up being overrepresented when examining post count?  Is there something about the way John did this that would facilitate responses from people that otherwise would not (it did go viral)?

[BruceVC]

 

As I mentioned on another post I did email John in support of the article and he told me out of the 900 emails received so far  only 30 were negative about the article. So many people like me support his unequivocal stance on this subject

 

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum).

 

On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up.

 

 

I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people.  And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat).  Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space.  It just wasn't as much "fun" then.  Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers.  In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion (I have been guilty of this on numerous times).

 

Okay I hear you but you have to email  John to comment about this topic and I think this would  reduce the bravado and anonymity a little so people would be less vituperative? So I would expect more supportive views.

 

I have to be honest I would be a little annoyed if people are just debating for the sake of argument

 

I think this topic is very relevant and I assume people who agree or disagree actually are serious about it, but I may be naive.

Edited April 8, 2013 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

As I mentioned on another post I did email John in support of the article and he told me out of the 900 emails received so far  only 30 were negative about the article. So many people like me support his unequivocal stance on this subject

 

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum).

 

On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up.

 

I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people. And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat). Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space. It just wasn't as much "fun" then. Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers. In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion.

 

There are certain people who flock to being contrarian.  And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic.  True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him.

 

> 

Who is getting riled up?

 

And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

Its not a valid question.

 

Really? Which arbiter of validity said so?

 

Games are a business and practically irrelevant from a social stand point. If games are the front where women's rights need to be fought for then that ideology is either lacking in real problems to solve or just gone wayward to the point of ending up in a neighboring galaxy.

 

What people do is always interesting from a social standpoint. How they do it is important from a social standpoint. Once you've satisfied the basic needs of your society (food, water, shelter) then things are going to turn to the luxuries of life and how those are used (or how they're available).

 

Wake up, gaming isn't the real world. Not in any truly relevant way.

 

Neither is what's posted on message boards on the internet. So we're already pissing in the wind, contextually, as it were. But I'm not sure that just because this message board isn't the real world doesn't mean it isn't worth it to think about broader topics. 

 

"Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living — that you are still less likely to believe."

 

 

Another really interesting and insightful post on this topic, these forums never cease to amaze me when people apply themselves to these types of debates. Good points

[Amentep]

And are these broader topics worth considering.

 

I'd assume - perhaps wrongly - that would be up to the individual. Don't get me wrong I think your standpoint is understandable and your point well made; but I can also understand those who don't agree with you feeling this is important to bring up.

 

Perhaps it is crusading for the sake of having a windmill to tilt at.  I don't know the answer to that.  But I don't think its wrong to ask the question, even if in answering it you find that the question didn't need asking.

 

Mayhap there are invisible barriers being put into place by individuals who don't intend to do so that - if those barriers were removed more women would care?  Without pondering the question, without examining the system, without thinking about ones actions these unintended consequences can't necessarily be measured.

[babaganoosh13]

And are these broader topics worth considering.

 

 

Feminism, which lies at the core of this discussion is a spent ideology. It achieved its political goals and subsequently its membership and their enthusiasm dwindled. As it usually happens in these issues not everything was achieved. But apparently enough was achieved for the general public to lose interest and fighting spirit.

 

Why do these men then (because they generally are men) feel the need to fight a war on behalf of other parties - that are generally uninterested in it? Really, even at the height of feminism many women remained completely uninterested in it, being satisfied with their place in society. We've long since left that height behind, but these type of people remain - taking a stance for someone supposedly weaker.They're not weaker, this isn't a fight to be fought with bayonets. What's stopping all the female gamers in the world from petitioning every available company and website for a change?

 

Nothing. Except:

 

They. Don't. Care. Enough.

 

The only tale that I can see there is middle class boredom in search of a cause to fight for. They're adopting a crusading mentality to satisfy their own need for a crusade, actual women be damned.

From a personal stand point: Why would I care about my daughter's future?

 

From a non-personal stand point: Perhaps some people were raised to care about other people as well, and to want the best for everybody, regardless of race, gender ect, and not just themselves. That may make them feel better as well. Call it selfishness through selflessness if you may.

[Amentep]

 

There are certain people who flock to being contrarian.  And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic.  True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him.

 

There is that, but I was more just looking at the numbers.  I would never estimate a 30:1 ratio of Supporter:Opposer based on looking at comments or forum discussions about it.  Of course, at a place like this there's no where near the numbers of people involved in this discussion to even allow a ratio like that.

 

Are opposers particularly vigilant (there's little need for them to send John several emails, but they may feel compelled to make several replies) in responding, so a few people end up being overrepresented when examining post count?  Is there something about the way John did this that would facilitate responses from people that otherwise would not (it did go viral)?

 

From a stastical point of view, internet commentary is self-selecting so invalidates itself as being extrapolation to the population (at least without significant margin of error).  I'd also say that because its near impossible to eliminate sock puppeting you'll never know on the internet whether 500 people think alike or if one person posted under 500 aliases.

 

However to be fair to the opposers, Walker makes it fairly clear that his opinion is set, ergo it doesn't invite debate from those who disagree with his stance.  Why email him you disagree with his position when you know you can't change his mind.  I can't help but feel that there may be an "unmeasurable" group that feels there's just no point in registering a disagreement (that's on top of the fact that you typically have to feel passionate to write a letter of comment anyhow; ambivilance doesn't drive writing campaigns).

[alanschu]

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Obsidian's games attract a mostly male audience.  They certainly don't aim to alienate females, but I'd say it is simply a trend of the genre.

 

I think that there is a lot of inertia, though I think things are changing somewhat.  I remember a poster coming here during Alpha Protocol's development asking if there'd be a female character option.  She just mentioned that she struggles with games where she cannot play a female.  So in this sense it was "alienating" to her, but I agree it's not an attempt to alienate females as sometimes it's just a design decision.  It's more a systemic issue based upon past metrics.  If women are starting to increasingly become gamers at an appreciable rate, then there's going to be some level of push back on some of the standard conventions.

[Meshugger]

 

1) I didn't talk about shame or accused him of instilling it. I was talking about backbone, character, integrity.

 

So explicit admission that your response was actually irrelevant to what you quoted?  You're right that you didn't talk about shame or instilling it, I did.  I brought it up because you addressed a point about how he is not proud of the fact that most of his readers are male.  Should he be?

 

You did a poor job of addressing backbone, character, and integrity, given that with this post he displays that he is willing to stand up against those that try to intimidate and bully him into submission, feels it is important to him, and does it all while not hiding behind any sort of anonymity.  Artistic integrity?  Selling Out?  Honestly, selling out would be him keeping silent and not speaking his mind because it gives him a paycheque (you can critique him about other aspects of this if you like.  Ask Zoraptor for more information).  This is Walker taking a stand, and whether you do or do not agree with it I fail to see how you can accuse him of not having a backbone nor character for doing so.  I could reason some level of a lack of integrity, if RPS hadn't been taking steps towards something like this for some time.

 

Are we really talking about the same thing here? English is not my first language, but it seems like you have vent a bit on a tangent here. The point that I am making is how stupid it is for him to try take pride in the gender of the potential reader of the site, since before it was any reader visiting site, now suddenly the reader is categorised by the gender, thus creating two different types of reader when there's shouldn't be difference to begin with. 

 

And how on earth isn't selling out and lack an artistic integrity when you try change a subject, gaming, that should have no connection to gender in itself, into something that has nothing to do with it? It's like a thrash metal magazine trying to accomodate a new user base by trying to add power ballad-listeners. This is sellout to me. 

 

His opinion is no way daring at all with the current consensus. Does TV, the news, and all other newspapers talk about the virtues of not having women in gaming and how they should be degraded? No, what would be revolutionary or against the grain in the current climate would be that he feels that women are worthless and should be out of gaming completely. I can wager that he would be pretty much silenced in any major publication, lose his job and be ostracised from the industry for the rest of his life. Does he risk the same by only drumming the same beat as everyone else? Of course not. The only fear is some internet trolls, that might make some one feel sad or even offended if they don't have a skin thick enough. So no, he is not brave at all for voicing a completely harmless opinion in the current social norms. He has absolutely nothing at stake and nothing to lose. 

 

So yeah, shutting down the comments is cowardice.  

 

 

 

2) He said himself that he closed comments because of the possible hateful response. No need for him to try to circumvent the issue, nor is there any shame in admitting cowardice.

 

He closed the comments because because he doesn't want that particular article to be a stage used by those that wish to silent the debate with their irrelevant discourse.  It's a lot like what you're doing, which is focusing on the comment issue rather than the article.  Dwelling on him not allowing comments is a tactic in obfuscation and misdirection, by shifting the discussion away from the content itself to something else altogether.  It's an attempt to discredit an author through the use of red herring fallacy.  Furthermore, Walker also came straight up and said it and why he is doing it, all while dealing with mountains of responses (apparently both supportive and against his position) on places like Twitter, a very public forum.  It was actually quite entertaining to see people accuse him of refusing to publicly address criticisms while using Twitter.

 

Spineless cowards are the ones that go and spread their hate over comments and internet forums under the veil of anonymity because they know they won't be held accountable for their actions.  It's easy for someone to **** all over something when he knows that the likelihood of ever being taken to task on the things he said is virtually nil.

 

EDIT: It should be clear that I'm not insinuating that you're a spineless coward.  I'm saying that the accusation of a public person that can can be easily reached as being spineless holds less water with me than the private, anonymous individuals that gravitate towards these things.  Although even then, the anonymity still exists on some level simply because I will likely never meet any of these people, so I can see where you are coming from, even if I disagree with the conclusion you reached.

 

I already said that the article fails completely since there's little to no research at all. What is left is how petty he handles it by narrowing the channels of communication. 

 

But i actually agree that men and women should be treated equally and completely based on their character. But i haven't read a good article yet on the causes, the symptons and how it should be handled in any sensitive matter. This article isn't even scraping the surface.

[BruceVC]

 

And are these broader topics worth considering.

 

I'd assume - perhaps wrongly - that would be up to the individual. Don't get me wrong I think your standpoint is understandable and your point well made; but I can also understand those who don't agree with you feeling this is important to bring up.

 

Perhaps it is crusading for the sake of having a windmill to tilt at.  I don't know the answer to that.  But I don't think its wrong to ask the question, even if in answering it you find that the question didn't need asking.

 

Mayhap there are invisible barriers being put into place by individuals who don't intend to do so that - if those barriers were removed more women would care?  Without pondering the question, without examining the system, without thinking about ones actions these unintended consequences can't necessarily be measured.

 

The one thing I don't get is this view  by some, and its common, that sexism doesn't really exist or isn't relevant  on the Internet and forums

 

We have already had one female member clearly explain it is an issue and I guarantee you there thousands more who would agree with her. So why are we even asking the question "why raise the issue of sexism" when it is a problem?

 

The question we need to ask is not "is it an issue"  but rather "how do we address it". Its a no-brainer for me

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm doubtful that even the supposed goal is well defined.

 

If Lara Croft is a an example of the undesirable objectification of women, what's the alternative? Would a flat chested, slightly uglier Lara Croft really prove anything? After all, when the real world comes knocking any man may fantasize about a woman with large breasts and great curves - but is really likely to settle for something more realistic. Doesn't mean he'll love or respect the realistic option any less either. If so, what is the harm done exactly in that little fantasy?

 

And are women really against that? I suppose there are quite a number of them who'd kill to look like Lara Croft or Angelina Jolie. So what if they ooze sex appeal, most people male or female want to ooze sex appeal and to be found attractive and desirable. That's a perfectly natural thing in itself.

 

The point is that there are a lot of very flimsy conceptions driving the discussion. Its not a one way street paved with inequality and discrimination.

 

Especially in gaming where everything plays out on the level of fantasy and no real, physical harm is done.

 

As for the rampant insults and trolling - they're present on every topic that has ever shown up on the internet. There is always a new insult waiting for an available target. If you need proof, scroll down under any Youtube video. No one is spared, so in a way, a sort of equality is achieved.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Fighter]

The one thing I don't get is this view  by some, and its common, that sexism doesn't really exist or isn't relevant  on the Internet and forums

 

We have already had one female member clearly explain it is an issue and I guarantee you there thousands more who would agree with her. So why are we even asking the question "why raise the issue of sexism" when it is a problem?

 

The question we need to ask is not "is it an issue"  but rather "how do we address it". Its a no-brainer for me

 

 

Someone complaining on the internet doesn't make it representative nor guarantee that their taking offence is justified.

[alanschu]

 

From a stastical point of view, internet commentary is self-selecting so invalidates itself as being extrapolation to the population (at least without significant margin of error).  I'd also say that because its near impossible to eliminate sock puppeting you'll never know on the internet whether 500 people think alike or if one person posted under 500 aliases.

 

I agree that the numbers aren't really accurate from a representative standpoint.  More just noticing that the numbers seem quite different.

 

 

 

However to be fair to the opposers, Walker makes it fairly clear that his opinion is set, ergo it doesn't invite debate from those who disagree with his stance.  Why email him you disagree with his position when you know you can't change his mind.  I can't help but feel that there may be an "unmeasurable" group that feels there's just no point in registering a disagreement (that's on top of the fact that you typically have to feel passionate to write a letter of comment anyhow; ambivilance doesn't drive writing campaigns).

 

Agreed, there could be some level of futility perceived.  Which I think might go back to the comments are a stage.  By commenting on his blog, they likely wouldn't be trying to convince John, but anyone else that read it.  The problem of course, is that John feels that attempts to undermine the point through angles of intimidation that he feels are not valid critiques (but rather, attempts to bludgeon things into silence) is what motivates him to not allow comments at all for this article.

[Amentep]

 

The one thing I don't get is this view  by some, and its common, that sexism doesn't really exist or isn't relevant  on the Internet and forums

 

We have already had one female member clearly explain it is an issue and I guarantee you there thousands more who would agree with her. So why are we even asking the question "why raise the issue of sexism" when it is a problem?

 

The question we need to ask is not "is it an issue"  but rather "how do we address it". Its a no-brainer for me

 

 

Someone complaining on the internet doesn't make it representative nor guarantee that their taking offence is justified.

 

And of course there's the issue that I could tell you anything within reason and you wouldn't doubt me.  Now this is a bit of a dangerous line of thought, but in reality unless I give you information that you could independently verify, you really have no way of know who I am beside me.  I could tell you I'm a 30 year old man, or a 20 year old woman, or a 50 year old Scandinavian and you really only have my word that any of that is true.  So I think that the inherent "you are the image you create" nature of the internet makes many people take them less seriously in regards to anything "serious".

 

As a side note, this is why I've thought boards that insisted on you using your "real" name to be a bit silly.  Just because I posted that my name is Roy McCarry or Marianne Hill or Sven Larsson and that sounds like a real name that matches who I say I am, it doesn't make it my real name.

 

I'm doubtful that even the supposed goal is well defined.

 

If Lara Croft is a an example of the undesirable objectification of women, what's the alternative? Would a flat chested, slightly uglier Lara Croft really prove anything? After all, when the real world comes knocking any man may fantasize about a woman with large breasts and great curves - but is really likely to settle for something more realistic. Doesn't mean he'll love or respect the realistic option any less either. If so, what is the harm done exactly in that little fantasy?

 

And are women really against that? I suppose there are quite a number of them who'd kill to look like Lara Croft or Angelina Jolie. So what if they ooze sex appeal, most people male or female want to ooze sex appeal and to be found attractive and desirable. That's a perfectly natural thing in itself.

 

The point is that there are a lot of very flimsy conceptions driving the discussion. Its not a one way street paved with inequality and discrimination.

 

Especially in gaming where everything plays out on the level of fantasy. 

 

The argument usually goes that while everything is playing out on the level of fantasy as you say, the fantasy is defined by the male gaze.  While there are women who want to be sexy, their definition of *why* Lara Croft is sexy might vary wildly from men, and thus when Lara is presented in ways that might support the male fantasy but not the female fantasy there is a disconnect created within the viewer.

 

i know a few fans of the character who felt the swimwear / skimpy sexy clothing poster images of Lara really deflated the things that they liked about the character being strong and independent and - yes sexy - but clearly in control of those things.  But then she's parading about like an SI model and she's not owning those aspects anymore, they're serving non-character related interests.

 

If its true that we identify with characters either because we want to be them or because we want to be with them, it'd be very easy to take a character whose initial appearance creates a wide appeal and then through poorly thought out choices weed out male, female or all players from remaining interested in the character.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Amentep

[Fighter]

Dunno about the old Lara Croft but pretty sure every girl in my gym would want to look like the new Lara Croft.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

The one thing I don't get is this view  by some, and its common, that sexism doesn't really exist or isn't relevant  on the Internet and forums

 

We have already had one female member clearly explain it is an issue and I guarantee you there thousands more who would agree with her. So why are we even asking the question "why raise the issue of sexism" when it is a problem?

 

The question we need to ask is not "is it an issue"  but rather "how do we address it". Its a no-brainer for me

 

 

Someone complaining on the internet doesn't make it representative nor guarantee that their taking offence is justified.

 

And of course there's the issue that I could tell you anything within reason and you wouldn't doubt me.  Now this is a bit of a dangerous line of thought, but in reality unless I give you information that you could independently verify, you really have no way of know who I am beside me.  I could tell you I'm a 30 year old man, or a 20 year old woman, or a 50 year old Scandinavian and you really only have my word that any of that is true.  So I think that the inherent "you are the image you create" nature of the internet makes many people take them less seriously in regards to anything "serious".

 

As a side note, this is why I've thought boards that insisted on you using your "real" name to be a bit silly.  Just because I posted that my name is Roy McCarry and that sounds like a real name doesn't make it my real name.

 

>>I'm doubtful that even the supposed goal is well defined.

 

If Lara Croft is a an example of the undesirable objectification of women, what's the alternative? Would a flat chested, slightly uglier Lara Croft really prove anything? After all, when the real world comes knocking any man may fantasize about a woman with large breasts and great curves - but is really likely to settle for something more realistic. Doesn't mean he'll love or respect the realistic option any less either. If so, what is the harm done exactly in that little fantasy?

 

And are women really against that? I suppose there are quite a number of them who'd kill to look like Lara Croft or Angelina Jolie. So what if they ooze sex appeal, most people male or female want to ooze sex appeal and to be found attractive and desirable. That's a perfectly natural thing in itself.

 

The point is that there are a lot of very flimsy conceptions driving the discussion. Its not a one way street paved with inequality and discrimination.

 

Especially in gaming where everything plays out on the level of fantasy. 

 

The argument usually goes that while everything is playing out on the level of fantasy as you say, the fantasy is defined by the male gaze.  While there are women who want to be sexy, their definition of *why* Lara Croft is sexy might vary wildly from men, and thus when Lara is presented in ways that might support the male fantasy but not the female fantasy there is a disconnect created within the viewer.

 

i know a few fans of the character who felt the swimwear / skimpy sexy clothing poster images of Lara really deflated the things that they liked about the character being strong and independent and - yes sexy - but clearly in control of those things.  But then she's parading about like an SI model and she's not owning those aspects anymore, they're serving non-character related interests.

 

If its true that we identify with characters either because we won't to be them or because we want to be with them, it'd be very easy to take a character whose initial appearance creates a wide appeal and then through poorly thought out choices weed out male, female or all players from remaining interested in the character.

 

 

Yes, but there is no way to cater to everyone's fantasies, or indeed to even attempt to do so. Its naturally impossible for men to agree in what constitutes "sexy", why should it be any easier for women to define it either. The odd person might get turned off but most people don't even think so much into this. 

 

Besides videogames do not have sufficient depth by and large for clear lines to be drawn, they rely on imagination to fill the gaps. Lara Croft is so shallow a character that you can basically project whatever you want onto her.

 

I'd wager that anyone complaining of sexism in games is really complaining about their cookie cutter nature and immaturity. Every woman is a babe, every guy a space marine. That is an argument I can relate to, but that's to be expected in an industry that targets primarily teenagers and their interests, and that has no moral oversight or ethical boundaries. In this respect, its just like every other aspect of modern media, be it newspapers, tv or films.

 

Its not really about deliberate discrimination, its about selling a product to the absolute lowest common denominator so as to ensure that "everyone" buys it. 

 

And like in TV or film, even the slightly intellectual or sensitive sorts will always feel left out. If those who feel cheap playing a "babe" think I for example feel great playing some dumb **** gung-ho soldier type who can't string together a complete sentence to save his life they're sorely mistaken. Is that supposed to be my ideal? Some illiterate ass without a single meaningful thing to say? Hell, in history there are plenty of extremely educated and intelligent officers and soldiers in every army in the world. Real men, not plastic GI Joe's. Why can't I play as one of them?

 

But I don't cry discrimination!, I just stop playing. They're not catering to my tastes not because they hate me, but because I don't matter enough. Sad but true.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor