Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Blarghagh]

Oh, I totally agree with that. I absolutely hated it and I would never play it. I cannot understand the motivations in making this game nor the motivations for wanting to play it.    As for another topic, I'm not sure how many of those experiences I can share - I seriously skirted the edge already considering I want to keep myself and my previous employers anonymous for both legal (NDA) and personal reason. While I'm also sure I will be hilariously judged because most of my shipped titles are awful IP based shovelware for mobiles (hired hand, not design) so I really would rather not on that basis alone, the more important factor is my involvement in #GamerGate could have serious consequences for my future despite the fact I have never harassed nor advocated the harassment of anyone in its context.* If you have specific questions I'm sure I could try to answer them as well as I can (and keep in mind, my experience is very much ground level as a hired hand for small developers on corporate contracts) but I'd like to stay cautious here. I think I've already posted more than enough information on this board to get identified as it is.

 

EDIT: *Actually, this sounds really bad. I've never harassed nor advocated the harassment of anyone outisde of the context of #GamerGate either.

 

EDIT EDIT: I feel this sounds cowardly, so I'd like to point out that I've met and talked with the IGDA founder who recently supported #GamerGate blacklisting several times and know he is involved with several prospective employers. Not a good situation for me.

Edited December 14, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm not one for censorship (letting the scum of the earth freely speak their minds offers an easier opportunity to keep an eye on them, after all), but I wouldn't really think anything of value would be lost by taking it down.

 

(Then again, why take it down when it can be left to fail on its own merits - or rather, lack thereof?)

 

 

Is the slippery slope argument, if they are not allowed to speak because it bothers us then will be allowed to speak when it bothers someone?

 

 

I don't know how you managed to take away "it bothers me, therefore they shouldn't speak" from "I'm not one for censorship" and "given that it's pure garbage that would fail on its merits, banning it isn't even necessary".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I thought Hatred looked really stupid. I'm probably not going to touch it because I have better things to do with my time than play a snoozefest murder-simulator featuring an Xtreme! Tumblrtard. I find it more funny that someone would waste their time developing such a bland piece of **** than offensive. Then again, when people are gunned down here it's usually just an officer "acting in the line of duty", so what it takes to offend me is probably different from you folks across the pond.

 

As to AAA publishers and the lack of creativity, that's the reason I typically ignore those games. I'm clearly not the target audience and will gladly accept that, especially if I can help crowdfund titles like PoE or Torment that I am the target audience for. As it is, I'm more than content to play Postal 2 or Expeditions than worry about the creatively bankrupt crap that is most AAA releases.

[Volourn]

"You right of course, she shouldn't play any game unless Volo endorses it !!!

 

But isn't this fundamentally sexist ...... "
 

Your logic doesn't make sense. You are the one manspalining on why she shouldn't be allowed to play a game she likes. Why do you want to enslave and control women and tell them what they can and cannot do? That is sexist.

 

 

"Well, duh, when most of you hold the same utterly ridiculous views, it's hard not to generalize."
 

You are the one defending nazis who want to control and enslave women. Why should you be telling women what games they can and cannot play? That's evil.

[Volourn]

Patriarchy at work: http://rebelpundit.com/man-charged-30k-in-support-for-child-thats-not-his/

[Oerwinde]

Patriarchy at work: http://rebelpundit.com/man-charged-30k-in-support-for-child-thats-not-his/

 

Men being on the hook for child support for kids that aren't theirs isn't uncommon either. A friend of my parents lived with his girlfriend for 8 months, left, and was ordered to pay child support for the kid she had before they met because he had "acted in a fatherly manner" or some crap.

[Fighter]

Patriarchy at work: http://rebelpundit.com/man-charged-30k-in-support-for-child-thats-not-his/

 

Male privilege...

[Blarghagh]

While that's terrible, it's not really much to do with journalism and sexism in the games industry.

 

 

This may be too small, so here's a larger version:

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4nXIxpIAAMcXhT.jpg:large

 

Supposedly written by a 3D artist who worked on Bayonetta. Could not find a source to confirm that and nobody could provide it, so I'm doubting it right now. Either way, it shows at the very least that I'm not the only one who thinks the media outrage machine is detrimental and destructive to its own goals and needs to work more productively.

Edited December 15, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[licketysplit]

I hope that's for real. An epic rant.

[Meshugger]

I find that opinion problematic and the picture reeks of toxic internalized misogyny. While i do not wish her silenced, do wish to have nothing to do with her (hopefully she ***** off to some island somewhere, kek) and advice all of you to do the same. Now, i would like to promote another game that features a genrebreaking theme, that deconstructs of the heteronormative narrative that we all now of. *The developers used to be my room-mate and is also my best friend*
 

 

 

^I think i covered the whole spectrum there.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm conflicted, If I don't hate on Bayonetta I'm enabling misogyny and terrorism, but if I do hate on her I'm criticizing a woman's work and therefore oppressing her with mah patriarchal might. Is there an ess-jay-dubya holy book I can consult?

[Amentep]

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition:

 

Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

 

Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

 

Note "in order to remove things".  To censor means that you expurgate it but deliver the final approved product to the end user.

This is not what Target did nor is it the goal of the petition. Bans keep things from the end user.

 

****

 

Wanted to comment on this from the other thread:

 

To be fair, I agree with Bruce to a point - I think it would be interesting to see how people would deal with male prostitutes in GTA and they are increasingly a larger part of the crime world so it's not outlandish to add them (and it would probably remove some of the voices shouting nonsense over "bah GTA is sexist!" because for some reason people are obsessed with things seeming "fair" to their false perceptions).

There's an inherent problem with this, which is that from studies I've heard of the vast proportion of male prostitutes work in the male-male sex trade with much fewer actually doing male-female; given the current climate, I'd imagine giving players the ability to kill them will be seen as some sort of comment against homosexuality

[Keyrock]

I'm conflicted, If I don't hate on Bayonetta I'm enabling misogyny and terrorism, but if I do hate on her I'm criticizing a woman's work and therefore oppressing her with mah patriarchal might. Is there an ess-jay-dubya holy book I can consult?

You've got it all wrong, KaineParker.  This whole thinking for yourself thing has got you all mixed up and discombobulated.  This is why our enlightened and highly superior San Francisco moral overlords have deemed fit to grace us with their magnificant wisdom and faultless judgement.  Set your mind at ease, turn off your brain, and just simply follow their lead and parrot everything they say and everything will be much better for everyone.

 

[Blarghagh]

 

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition:

 

Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

 

Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

 

Note "in order to remove things".  To censor means that you expurgate it but deliver the final approved product to the end user.

This is not what Target did nor is it the goal of the petition. Bans keep things from the end user.

 

****

 

Wanted to comment on this from the other thread:

 

To be fair, I agree with Bruce to a point - I think it would be interesting to see how people would deal with male prostitutes in GTA and they are increasingly a larger part of the crime world so it's not outlandish to add them (and it would probably remove some of the voices shouting nonsense over "bah GTA is sexist!" because for some reason people are obsessed with things seeming "fair" to their false perceptions).

There's an inherent problem with this, which is that from studies I've heard of the vast proportion of male prostitutes work in the male-male sex trade with much fewer actually doing male-female; given the current climate, I'd imagine giving players the ability to kill them will be seen as some sort of comment against homosexuality

 

 

Hm, that makes sense but would only make it a problem if you acknowledge that factor in the game. If you make it obvious they service women it would be fair... but then it would be censoring homosexuality, I guess. Uh. Carry on.

[Amentep]

This may also be of interest to any comics people or anyone concerned with censorship.

Egads, there's so many factual inaccuracies in that "article".

 

sells book after book titled “The Corruption of the Innocent”.

That'd be SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT by Dr. Frederick Wertham. It - and to a lesser degree PARADE OF PLEASURE by Geoffry Wagner - are the main literary sources for the anti-comics stance in public culture. However comics had come under fire in the 1930s, so it wasn't a new accusation and the Senate hearings were also a big player in the situation.

 

That and by the time the Comics Code Authority was in place, the genres besides ‘capes’ weren’t as popular anymore,

This isn't true, yes superheroes had "hit" again by the mid-1950s. But the best sellers were still crime and horror comics. DC was doing well with war and sci-fi. Marvel scraped by on giant monsters with weird names.

 

But besides appearing to be responsible companies guarding the youth of the day, another part of the reason why the CCA was formed by the companies it was formed by was the CCA was a timely piece of industry ballyhoop that allowed EC and Lev Gleason's competitors a free license to put them out of business in the middle of a "scare". The main companies behind the CCA - DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell - essentially wrote the rules so EC and Lev Gleason couldn't continue to make and sell their books.

 

Note DC had been self-censoring since about 1940 with their "no-kill" policy.

 

I think the reason why Comics only sell THOUSANDS instead of MILLIONS is because of Diamond Distrbutions, inc. They own the monopoly of comics distribution in North America, and they control how much is sold through their company.

Diamond is a monopoly (one that the government has declined to pursue) but the real reason is the loss of comic distribution outside of the comic shop, meaning their market penetration when compared with other things is miniscule.

 

(it’s why Marvel sold the licenses to their franchises to movie companies in the early thousands). I think they also set the price for the books, too.

Marvel was in bankruptcy when it gave Sony and Fox their sweetheart deals. They were in bankruptcy due to management at the time and a debacle with Marvel distributing their own comics (which is part of why Diamond is now a monopoly).

 

Diamond does not set the price of books.

 

In regards to those ****ing events? Started when Marvel Comics was owned by Mattel.

Mattel never owned Marvel. Marvel bought a company called Toy Biz which then got control of Marvel, then the toy market collapsed and Toy Biz was reorgnized and sold off (to Mattel) while Marvel remained in the hands of its private owners.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Amentep

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm conflicted, If I don't hate on Bayonetta I'm enabling misogyny and terrorism, but if I do hate on her I'm criticizing a woman's work and therefore oppressing her with mah patriarchal might. Is there an ess-jay-dubya holy book I can consult?

 

You've got it all wrong, KaineParker.  This whole thinking for yourself thing has got you all mixed up and discombobulated.  This is why our enlightened and highly superior San Francisco moral overlords have deemed fit to grace us with their magnificant wisdom and faultless judgement.  Set your mind at ease, turn off your brain, and just simply follow their lead and parrot everything they say and everything will be much better for everyone.

 

I see now. Bayonetta has always been sexist. We've always been at war with EastAsia. BigMcIntosh is watching you.

[Volourn]

"While that's terrible, it's not really much to do with journalism and sexism in the games industry."
 

Not directly, but it does go along with the convo  in these threads that a mythical 'patrirachy' exists and that men 9white or otherwise) have it super easy. Society craps over men.  Man slaps woman he catches cheating on him he is labeled evil scumbag piece of  crap sexist misogynist deserves to be murdered. Woman cuts off man's **** when she catches cheatuing on her you go girl the misogynist sexist piece of crap deserves it. etc., et.c (I don't approve of hitting anyone for cheating simply break up with them duh!).

 

 

As for that rant, 100% correct.

 

I still haven't gotten an answer from Bryce explaining why it is okay to mansplain to my neice and order her she is not allowed to play a game she enjoys and what did she ever do to him that make him feel he can control and enslave her like that?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well I got my first death threat, is there an achievement or something?

[Fighter]

There's an inherent problem with this, which is that from studies I've heard of the vast proportion of male prostitutes work in the male-male sex trade with much fewer actually doing male-female; given the current climate, I'd imagine giving players the ability to kill them will be seen as some sort of comment against homosexuality

 

Oh my... If there were homosexual prostitutes you could actually kill them. I haven't thought of that. The outrage would be cosmic.

[Blarghagh]

Well I got my first death threat, is there an achievement or something?

 

No, but welcome to the club.

[Meshugger]

Well I got my first death threat, is there an achievement or something?

 

Tell them to become good christians and forgive you.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Well I got my first death threat, is there an achievement or something?

 

 

Tell them to become good christians and forgive you.

That's bigoted ****lord, why not a good Hindu?

[Meshugger]

I am sorry for my eurocentric tendencies. I hope that you do not think of me as an unperson now.

[Ganrich]

That "forgive me" comment made me think of bill hicks.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I am sorry for my eurocentric tendencies. I hope that you do not think of me as an unperson now.

Well you're a male, which automatically makes you a sub-human so.....what's worse than unperson?