Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

No, whenever they're calling something "problematic" they generally mean a very specific thing that doesn't reflect on anyone or anything but the actual thing in question. Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

No... When they call a thing problematic they mean it spreads negative ideas and shapes minds. Thus people are too stupid to as rational adults not draw the wrong conclusion. That you need your chosen entertainment environment to moralize at you as if you are not mature enough to not require guidance.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

Edit: I mean, I'll hazard the guess that maybe, just maybe, I - being a person who regularly talks with feminists and doesn't dismiss their every idea right out of the gate - might know more about what they mean when they're saying certain things.

 

Edit edit: I mean, you're technically right - the first two sentences of your post, at least -, but missing vital context. Small things, like every significant advance in the field of cognitive sciences in the last five decades or so.

Edited December 18, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

[citation needed]

 

Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

As you so kindly told me.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

[citation needed]

 

Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

As you so kindly told me.

 

 

In the words of Chrys Ingraham:

 

"As Althusser has argued, 'A word or concept cannot be considered in isolation; it only exists in the theoretical or ideological framework in which it is used: its problematic' (1982:253). To determine a text's problematic is to reveal another logic circulating beneath the surface. It appears as the answer to questions left unasked. It is not that which is left unsaid or unaccounted for, but that which the text assumes and does not speak. What is required, then, is a process of analysis capable of inquiring into the power relations organizing the allowed as well as the disallowed meanings in an effort to expose the artificiality of the theories and ideologies organizing the use of particular concepts."

 

Well, that wasn't very helpful, was it? (The fact that it used "problematic" as a noun probably didn't help matters much.) Truth be told, "problematic" isn't a word that gets defined very often in feminist discussions. Thankfully, we're not here to define it; we're here to determine how feminists approach problematic media. Here's how. It's full of horrible, intolerant stuff worthy of book-burning anti-intellectuals like "think critically about it",  "consider the history and context of the media" and the worst of all, "you’re not a bad person for liking something that is problematic".

 

 

 

(Brought to you by about 5 minutes of googling, just so you know that this isn't some extra-special Secret Feminist Teaching they only share with those deemed most worthy.)

 

 

Edit: oh wait, I've mentally switched the two quotes. You weren't asking what feminists mean by it, you were stating that "they mean it must be scoured from the face of the earth is evident by listening to any feminist". Sadly, if this is what you take away from it, you're not stopping and listening as I've said, you're just taking the words and twist them according to your own bias. Have you tried, you know, just asking them what they mean by "problematic", instead of trying to infer from stuff they say (and which you probably don't understand)?

Edited December 19, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My last encounter with a feminist was when a charming woman who drove a car worth several years of my salary lectured me on privilege. Because apparently having a pen1s is more influential in determining GPA than actual scores. Of course I suppose that feminist is going to mean different things to different people and we could have a "no true feminist" criteria but until then I'll take someone at their word when they refer to themselves as feminist.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

My last encounter with a feminist was when a charming woman who drove a car worth several years of my salary lectured me on privilege. Because apparently having a pen1s is more influential in determining GPA than actual scores. Of course I suppose that feminist is going to mean different things to different people and we could have a "no true feminist" criteria but until then I'll take someone at their word when they refer to themselves as feminist.

 

That's a commendable attitude. Everybody's a feminist who says they are. (Consequently, 90% of feminism is utter rubbish, because people in general are pretty dumb, and the sole criterion (is this the singular of criteria?) of "apply label to yourself" doesn't exactly ensure that the intelligence distribution will be skewed towards the higher echelons in the subpopulation.)

 

But unless you can tell us how exactly she lectured you on privilege, this anecdote remains quite useless.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

My last encounter with a feminist was when a charming woman who drove a car worth several years of my salary lectured me on privilege. Because apparently having a pen1s is more influential in determining GPA than actual scores. Of course I suppose that feminist is going to mean different things to different people and we could have a "no true feminist" criteria but until then I'll take someone at their word when they refer to themselves as feminist.

 

 

That's a commendable attitude. Everybody's a feminist who says they are. (Consequently, 90% of feminism is utter rubbish, because people in general are pretty dumb, and the sole criterion (is this the singular of criteria?) of "apply label to yourself" doesn't exactly ensure that the intelligence distribution will be skewed towards the higher echelons in the subpopulation.)

 

But unless you can tell us how exactly she lectured you on privilege, this anecdote remains quite useless.

"Gender is a bigger influence on GPA than test scores" was her argument, her method of doing so was lecturing me verbally after I made an off-hand remark that perhaps if she did better on tests her GPA would be higher than 2.63.

[Orogun01]

 

 

My last encounter with a feminist was when a charming woman who drove a car worth several years of my salary lectured me on privilege. Because apparently having a pen1s is more influential in determining GPA than actual scores. Of course I suppose that feminist is going to mean different things to different people and we could have a "no true feminist" criteria but until then I'll take someone at their word when they refer to themselves as feminist.

 

That's a commendable attitude. Everybody's a feminist who says they are. (Consequently, 90% of feminism is utter rubbish, because people in general are pretty dumb, and the sole criterion (is this the singular of criteria?) of "apply label to yourself" doesn't exactly ensure that the intelligence distribution will be skewed towards the higher echelons in the subpopulation.)

 

But unless you can tell us how exactly she lectured you on privilege, this anecdote remains quite useless.

"Gender is a bigger influence on GPA than test scores" was her argument, her method of doing so was lecturing me verbally after I made an off-hand remark that perhaps if she did better on tests her GPA would be higher than 2.63.

 

Considering that the scandals that I've heard about the influence of feminism in education i'm inclined to agree with her. Gender is a bigger influence on GPA; if you are male then teachers have to grade you lower to account for your privilege.

[Fighter]

@aluminiumtrioxid

 

You're convoluting everything and taking it in unnecessary directions. It is pretty damn straightforward what people mean when they call a collection of polygons with big **** "problematic" and so on.

 

 

Edit edit: I mean, you're technically right - the first two sentences of your post, at least -, but missing vital context. Small things, like every significant advance in the field of cognitive sciences in the last five decades or so.

 

Right... The scary negative cognitive effects of your escapist fantasy.

 

No, I ignore that as I have enough respect for people to be balanced well adjusted individuals.

 

EDIT:

 

"you’re not a bad person for liking something that is problematic".

 

LMAO!

 

"You're not a bad person."

"Are you defending your right to kill virtual prostitutes? You're a horrible person."

Edited December 19, 2014 by Fighter

[Orogun01]

I'm I the only one that thinks that this moralist frenzy is due to people thinking that games that run opposite their belief systems are fun? You know, just like every moralist turns out to be a big hypocrite?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-gawker-overhauls-privacy-policy-ahead-of-new-ftc-updates/

 

[Meshugger]

 

Whenever someone calls the availability of a thing "problematic" or decides which opinions are not ok to be heard they are treating people with contempt. Because what they are really saying is you're too stupid to make sense of things on your own, you still need mommy to teach you right and wrong.

 

No, whenever they're calling something "problematic" they generally mean a very specific thing that doesn't reflect on anyone or anything but the actual thing in question. Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

As for the "deciding which opinions are ok to be heard" part, I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else. Let's assume you're a subscriber of a news source: would you prefer to hear about [insert big-profile game that interests you and a lot of other people], or some dude whose ideas might or might not be completely inane (but based on the fact that he was blacklisted, I'm leaning towards the latter)? People generally don't get successfully blacklisted solely for being obnoxious jerkwads, they also have to be obnoxious jerkwads without anything useful to offer in order for it to stick. For a tabletop example, see the difference between Zak Smith (a dude who's generally seen as the devil in socially conscious geeky circles - undeservedly so, in my opinion -, but has consistently delivered imaginative, powerful and great content) and James Desborough (whose biggest contribution to tabletop gaming - discounting "being a misogynist jerk" - is a tentacle porn card game).

 

 

 

 

Herein lies the core of our disagreement, doesn't it? I think a store deciding to not sell a game only reflects on what said store wants to do with it and how they feel about it. I don't think my viewpoint is an especially illogical one.

 

 

As I said earlier, Steam is not your friendly neighbourhood mom & pop-store, it is THE store.

 

 

Therefore they're not allowed to have an opinion on a game because...?

 

 

What i said was that they have to have a clear set of guidelines on what is allowed or not and clearly state them and follow them. The whole point of greenlight is to allow consumers themselves to decide what should be sold under the rules that Valve themselves decide. Which is not what happened.

 

Again, look again on Welles vs. Hearst and see what happens when THE media decides not liking a person because...reasons.

[kirottu]

 

Gotta admire woman who can hold her vodka and make good points. Especially the take down that starts around 11 minutes in was epic.

Edited December 19, 2014 by kirottu

[Longknife]

 

Gotta admire woman who can hold her vodka and make good points. Especially the take down that starts around 11 minutes in was epic.

 

 

Lawl I've seen her before. Nothing more to say, I'm just a youtube addict that clicks EVERYTHING I get in my recommended and I find it funny I'm familiar with her.

 

But yeah she dun like Feminism. Not so much an issue with their ideals but rather with their tactics. (the again, that's feminism's opposition in a nutshell)

Edited December 19, 2014 by Longknife

[Keyrock]

 

Gotta admire woman who can hold her vodka and make good points. Especially the take down that starts around 11 minutes in was epic.

That's a pretty glorious takedown.  So, is this a sock puppet...  No, couldn't be, we can clearly see it's a woman.  She must be a house n****r.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

What a nice post.

 

 

 

So what we have is a small cadre of cultural and artistic critics who write quite unlike the status quo, and a subset of gamers who give a **** what they say.  It’s hard to say how unique a problem this is to the games industry.  There are many film critics who have focused on progressing film as a medium artistically and culturally.  Most of them have total disdain for Michael Bay-type mass market pap, and to the people who buy tickets for them.  But there isn’t a whole lot of people going around arguing that the Pauline Kaels and Roger Eberts of the world are going to somehow destroy the medium.  And I’m assuming that Michael Bay is still cashing some pretty big checks.

 

In the real world, most people stick to media sources that they, you know, actually like. If you don’t like film critique, you’ll probably never care who Pauline Kael is.  However, games has a culture where the criticism is cross-pollinated by outrage.  People who are far outside of Polygon and Kotaku’s normal readerbase are directed to go there because OMFG BURN THE HERETIC!  And the sites have learned that having some disparate opinions and unique worldviews on games people are passionate about are effectively clickbait.  People like Erik make the mistake of thinking that, no, all gamers think alike, and therefore all gamer writers are talking down to them.   Despite the fact that numerous sites, including IGN & Gamespot (the market leaders) keep giving us triple helpings of exactly the ‘old’ style of journalism we’ve grown accustomed to.

[Nonek]

Non interactive, single mechanic game preaching about feelings are now progressive, Oby have you taken everybody to Soviet Russia?

 

Edit: Nice to see Gamespot proclaim Divinity: Original Sin as its game of the year, a definite incline.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Nonek

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://pastebin.com/apiSWssL

 

Looks like they're making a list of reddit users on various boards, might want to check if you're on there.

[Meshugger]

Reddit? Hah!

[Amentep]

I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else.

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories.

 

They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be.

 

 

In the words of Chrys Ingraham:

 

"As Althusser has argued, 'A word or concept cannot be considered in isolation; it only exists in the theoretical or ideological framework in which it is used: its problematic' (1982:253). To determine a text's problematic is to reveal another logic circulating beneath the surface. It appears as the answer to questions left unasked. It is not that which is left unsaid or unaccounted for, but that which the text assumes and does not speak. What is required, then, is a process of analysis capable of inquiring into the power relations organizing the allowed as well as the disallowed meanings in an effort to expose the artificiality of the theories and ideologies organizing the use of particular concepts."

There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak. One of the things that I have with criticism in general is that often times what crictis see as a tacit intentional omision is often only a projection of their own assumption that it should exist there in the first place (or a projection of their own feeling about the work on actors in the work for that type of media).

 

This may just be me that feels that way; I think in terms of criticism we always have to take it for what it ultimately is - one person's opinion.

 

 

 

What a nice post.

 

 

 

So what we have is a small cadre of cultural and artistic critics who write quite unlike the status quo, and a subset of gamers who give a **** what they say.  It’s hard to say how unique a problem this is to the games industry.  There are many film critics who have focused on progressing film as a medium artistically and culturally.  Most of them have total disdain for Michael Bay-type mass market pap, and to the people who buy tickets for them.  But there isn’t a whole lot of people going around arguing that the Pauline Kaels and Roger Eberts of the world are going to somehow destroy the medium.  And I’m assuming that Michael Bay is still cashing some pretty big checks.

 

In the real world, most people stick to media sources that they, you know, actually like. If you don’t like film critique, you’ll probably never care who Pauline Kael is.  However, games has a culture where the criticism is cross-pollinated by outrage.  People who are far outside of Polygon and Kotaku’s normal readerbase are directed to go there because OMFG BURN THE HERETIC!  And the sites have learned that having some disparate opinions and unique worldviews on games people are passionate about are effectively clickbait.  People like Erik make the mistake of thinking that, no, all gamers think alike, and therefore all gamer writers are talking down to them.   Despite the fact that numerous sites, including IGN & Gamespot (the market leaders) keep giving us triple helpings of exactly the ‘old’ style of journalism we’ve grown accustomed to.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.  I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.

 

Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't.  They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made.  And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are).

[Meshugger]

 

What a nice post.

 

 

 

So what we have is a small cadre of cultural and artistic critics who write quite unlike the status quo, and a subset of gamers who give a **** what they say.  It’s hard to say how unique a problem this is to the games industry.  There are many film critics who have focused on progressing film as a medium artistically and culturally.  Most of them have total disdain for Michael Bay-type mass market pap, and to the people who buy tickets for them.  But there isn’t a whole lot of people going around arguing that the Pauline Kaels and Roger Eberts of the world are going to somehow destroy the medium.  And I’m assuming that Michael Bay is still cashing some pretty big checks.

 

In the real world, most people stick to media sources that they, you know, actually like. If you don’t like film critique, you’ll probably never care who Pauline Kael is.  However, games has a culture where the criticism is cross-pollinated by outrage.  People who are far outside of Polygon and Kotaku’s normal readerbase are directed to go there because OMFG BURN THE HERETIC!  And the sites have learned that having some disparate opinions and unique worldviews on games people are passionate about are effectively clickbait.  People like Erik make the mistake of thinking that, no, all gamers think alike, and therefore all gamer writers are talking down to them.   Despite the fact that numerous sites, including IGN & Gamespot (the market leaders) keep giving us triple helpings of exactly the ‘old’ style of journalism we’ve grown accustomed to.

 

 

That article is more about how it ought to be, compared to what is at the moment.

[Longknife]

I'm always puzzled when articles criticize GamerGate for not avoiding the websites in question.....since I thought that was the entire point of GamerGate.

[Meshugger]

Amentep: Siskel & Ebert were quite open about these matters:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m3ojn325H0#t=225

[Amentep]

Amentep: Siskel & Ebert were quite open about these matters:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m3ojn325H0#t=225

 

Great link, thanks!  That was my memory of Ebert's & Siskel's position.

[Longknife]

Yknow for some reason it just hit me how stupid McIntosh's statement about how violent games should purposefully be unfun to make a statement actually is.

 

I'm sure many of you know Monopoly the Board Game originates as a criticism of private monopolies? YA ABOUT THAT.

None of us play Monopoly and think "gee bankrupting other people sure sounds like fun," though by his logic this is exactly what people do. We play it purely for entertainment. Likewise if we're later told it's meant as a criticism, we can see its merit and see the point it was making. Monopoly hooks us with fun and then later says "btw imagine if this were real life, you'd all be homeless while one of you has more cash than you could ever need or actually put to use." And it ****ing works. It gets its point across wonderfully.

 

 

In that same sense, McIntosh could suggest a book, movie, TV show or the like about violence purposefully be made boring.

 

 

Pro-tip: no one would watch and critics would say "it's awful and boring."

 

 

This is the entertainment industry. You hook them with entertainment, then make your profound statements only after they're hooked. Idiot.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

Now i have this sudden urge to listen to Megadeth.

 

//link for those who are not familiar with the reference:

 

Edited December 19, 2014 by Meshugger