Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[aluminiumtrioxid]

^ you can also read her article if you don't want to listen to a 30 min video.

 

http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-1

 

 

It's... not a particularly great article, I think. But it does have some valid points. I'm not sure there's interest for a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph recitation of my thoughts about it, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

(minimum-effort recitation of trite feminist dogma with some appropriately cherrypicked/faked gaming examples; completely unsuitable for gaining scientific insight but very suitable for reinforcing feminist identity-building confirmation biases).

 

 

 

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Meshugger]

 

Yes but why are they idiotic...its not enough to say " they are idiots " ...why are they idiots ?

 

 

How about you just listen & believe me for once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find it more worrisome that people believe in Anita and that the media treats her like a serious critic.

 

Which they shouldn't, according to you, because...?

 

 

I find worrisome that there exists so many idiots in this society. 

 

 

You're dodging the question.

 

Unlike what our experience in first grade has taught us, calling people who don't agree with us names does not count as a coherent argument about why they're wrong.

 

 

Nice try, because i never implied that they shouldn't say anything. People can say whatever they want, but if it is idiotic, it simply just is, as i pointed out.

 

 

And I never implied you implied they shouldn't say anything. I was pointing out that calling people names without expounding on the reasons why you're doing so is generally not seen as the road to constructive debate.

 

 

There is no debate to be had. I am lecturing you guys. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

There is no debate to be had. I am lecturing you guys. 

 

 

Well that's refreshingly honest, I'll give you that 

[Meshugger]

*sigh*

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

...Seriously, the more I read from Lianna K., the more credibility she loses with me 

[Calax]

 

^ you can also read her article if you don't want to listen to a 30 min video.

 

http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-1

 

 

It's... not a particularly great article, I think. But it does have some valid points. I'm not sure there's interest for a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph recitation of my thoughts about it, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You realize that's part 1 of five right?

 

(minimum-effort recitation of trite feminist dogma with some appropriately cherrypicked/faked gaming examples; completely unsuitable for gaining scientific insight but very suitable for reinforcing feminist identity-building confirmation biases).

 

 

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

Except that it's true. Her examples are cherry picked out of context, and usually wildly unsupported by the actual game.

 

For example she declares that players are encouraged to participate in the objectification of women, simply because you can control where your character looks, while saying that it's not as bad in other media because you're seeing what somebody else wants you to see. The best example of this is the discussion on Hitman Absolution where... well just watch the 22 minutes on "Women as background decoration" at about 20 minutes to see people doing things that are not exactly what most gamers do (to say the least).

 

She also gets upset that the punishments are 'trivial' for killing hookers... Even though it's the exact same response to killing any other person within the game world.

 

I think that sums up the disconnect between her and reality quite well.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Calax

[Nonek]

 

many years of demonisation consumers have been subject to

 

[citation needed]

 

Now with Ms Sarkeesian's work statistically and scientifically disproven

 

[citation needed]

 

themselves shown to be the (...) misogynists 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

First citation, twenty years of undeniable demonisation by almost every form of media. The cherry on the top of course being the twelve articles attacking gamers as being dead late last year.

 

Second citation, numerous studies showing that games have no effect on real world behaviour, thus her series is bereft of its main purpose.

 

Third citation, Evicting the Honey Badgers for asking a question and the following demonisation of them, the gamergate women whom are derided as being indoctrinated and the women whom were exposed to a bomb threat for the crime of partying and not swallowing their hateful agenda, numerous other examples easy to find.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Nonek

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

*sigh*

 

Is that old? Last I heard they said it was fine.

[Meshugger]

 

*sigh*

 

Is that old? Last I heard they said it was fine.

 

 

It was just posted on the chan, maybe i am missing something?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

Is that old? Last I heard they said it was fine.

 

It was just posted on the chan, maybe i am missing something?

A while back DCC said they were not allowing GG shirts, a bunch of people complained, and then they said it was fine as long. IIRC of course.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You realize that's part 1 of five right?

 

 

You do realize that part 1 of five being not-great isn't exactly filling me with confidence for the other 4 (actually, 2; I've skimmed through 2 more in the meantime) being great, right? 

 

 

 

 

 

(minimum-effort recitation of trite feminist dogma with some appropriately cherrypicked/faked gaming examples; completely unsuitable for gaining scientific insight but very suitable for reinforcing feminist identity-building confirmation biases).

 

 

 

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

 

Except that it's true. 

 

 

 

The stupidity stems more from a complete lack of self-awareness ("very suitable for reinforcing feminist identity-building confirmation biases" in a topic that literally only exists to reinforce the participants' anti-feminist confirmation bias caused me to laugh out loud in disbelief) than lack of truthfulness.

 

It sounds like, well, someone trying to imitate how he imagines people much smarter than him talk like, and failing miserably.

 

 

 

Except that it's true. Her examples are cherry picked out of context...

 

 

 

Some of them.

 

Incidentally, I think focusing on the Hitman: Absolution video to the exclusion of all else is really great at reaffirming one's confirmation bias(es) (wink wink), but less great at initiating actual dialogue about the points raised throughout the entire series.

 

 

 

She also gets upset that the punishments are 'trivial' for killing hookers... Even though it's the exact same response to killing any other person within the game world.

 

 

 

In all fairness, that's not inherently self-contradictory. One can have a problem with punishment for killing other people than the target being trivial, including the punishment for killing prostitutes.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

Is that old? Last I heard they said it was fine.

 

It was just posted on the chan, maybe i am missing something?

A while back DCC said they were not allowing GG shirts, a bunch of people complained, and then they said it was fine as long. IIRC of course.

 

 

I hope that you're right. 

 

As for Liana, i have no idea what she is talking about. I am sucker for boobs and red hair, and when i think of those delicious double D's i am utterly incapable to process whatever she says or writes.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

As for Liana, i have no idea what she is talking about. I am sucker for boobs and red hair, and when i think of those delicious double D's i am utterly incapable to process whatever she says or writes.

 

 

...Could we refrain from making the obvious (and therefore, boring) jokes, and instead try to focus on what she's saying? Pretty please, with cherry on the top?

[Nonek]

If Ms Sarkeesian can successfully con those whom kickstarted her videos out of their money, without producing the content she promised, then good luck to her and shame on the people whom fell for it. However I have to point out that I want Kickstarter to have a good reputation so that it remains a viable method of funding games, obviously we have the good examples that folks like Obsidian have set but when we have people like Ms Sarkeesian and Tim Schaefer whom take the money and run, well that is bound to be talked about and effect Kickstarter in the long run. Then we may not have good games made, for the sake of poor arguments from Mr McIntosh's sock puppet.

 

Edit: Though i've never really seen the fuss raised about Mr McIntosh and Ms Sarkeesian as being warranted, they're a pair of idiots spouting inane tripe: One saying that games should not have any interactivity, the other actually thinking that, "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus" was about infidelity. Such people shouldn't be allowed to ruin Kickstarter for everybody else, still I defend their right to con the naive out of their money.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Nonek

[Meshugger]

 

 

As for Liana, i have no idea what she is talking about. I am sucker for boobs and red hair, and when i think of those delicious double D's i am utterly incapable to process whatever she says or writes.

 

 

...Could we refrain from making the obvious (and therefore, boring) jokes, and instead try to focus on what she's saying? Pretty please, with cherry on the top?

 

 

Jokes? I was dead serious. Red hair and big round boobs is my cryptonite. Combine them and all cognitive functions cease to work and only the mere instinct of pro-creation remains. But since you asked so nicely, carry on.

[Malcador]

Sarkeesian's GTA commentary was pretty bad, that entire episode was fairly weak too with confusing permitting to encouraging.

[Calax]

 

Except that it's true. Her examples are cherry picked out of context...

Some of them.

 

Incidentally, I think focusing on the Hitman: Absolution video to the exclusion of all else is really great at reaffirming one's confirmation bias(es) (wink wink), but less great at initiating actual dialogue about the points raised throughout the entire series.

 

I focused on that because I haven't watched the things in a long long time and that was the major one I remember from when I did hear about it last year. The entire bit she's talking about things you CAN do as if the developers are directly encouraging you to do everything you can in a game, and acting as if things like killing hookers are incentiveized to a large degree. In her first videos (where she talks about damsels in distress) she creates a narrative that is pure "plug and play" where her model is so generalized that it strips out the larger context of ANY relationship.  If your partner performs oral sex upon you or vis versa, the recipient has become the object because they've been acted upon, and therefore oral sex is inherently bad!

 

She also gets upset that the punishments are 'trivial' for killing hookers... Even though it's the exact same response to killing any other person within the game world.

In all fairness, that's not inherently self-contradictory. One can have a problem with punishment for killing other people than the target being trivial, including the punishment for killing prostitutes.

 

My point was that she doesn't mention that the punishment for death/arrest/whatever is the exact same for killing a hooker as compared to some random joe on the street. She instead leaves it nebulous enough that her audience could easily infer that this arrest/player death being cheap is ONLY in the context of the sex worker, rather than the larger context that this is a game and people want to have fun, and adding in a lengthy trial process plus jail time, plus all the various other damages of performing these actions within the real world would incur, probably doesn't make for a good game. Honestly, it's a strange sort of Equality that killing sex workers etc incurs the same penalties as killing anyone else.

 

She has images from Watch_Dogs in her series, but IIRC when she discusses the game she creates a straw man of her particular point (women as objects) rather than actually talking about the SIGNIFICANT ways that Watch_Dogs is incredibly sexist and demeaning to women. The scene she talks about is of a Sex Slave auction (yeah, that's in the game, go figure) where the entire point is that these girls are objects because Sex Slavery Is Bad . She doesn't talk about how the female characters in the game are used as props to drive the story, and at one point "stuffed into the fridge".

 

Another point that I've made before (in this thread I think) and that Liana K talks about is that she trivializes the violence against men within these same games. In most games, you will mow down the male population of a small city, but barely ever kill one woman. Somehow this isn't seen as sexist, it's just the way things are but people like you Aluminum and Bruce aren't going to say "HEY! That's not fair! We want women to be killed at the same rates as men!" because you don't want Equality. Instead you want women to have all the social, economic, and political benefits of being men, while enjoying none of the drawbacks from being expected to simply smile and take it when your female partner decides to come after you with an iron because "Women can't abuse guys".

Edited May 12, 2015 by Calax

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If Ms Sarkeesian can successfully con those whom kickstarted her videos out of their money, without producing the content she promised, then good luck to her and shame on the people whom fell for it. However I have to point out that I want Kickstarter to have a good reputation so that it remains a viable method of funding games, obviously we have the good examples that folks like Obsidian have set but when we have people like Ms Sarkeesian and Tim Schaefer whom take the money and run, well that is bound to be talked about and effect Kickstarter in the long run.

 

 

I strongly doubt Kickstarter's viability as a business practice will be forever tarnished by a product its funders are largely happy with. By the same logic, Harebrained Schemes (creators of the excellent Shadowrun Returns games) should also be exposed as scammers because in the kickstarter pitch, they promised us that every class will see the world fundamentally differently, which they not only refused to deliver on, but also failed to notify the backers about in advance. So should Larian Studios, because they cut the megadungeon from Divinity: Original Sin, also without consulting with their backers. Such immoral practices clearly have no place in a funding model so fundamentally reliant on consumer trust... ahahaha no, as long as the majority of the backers is happy with the final product they received, I doubt any project will seriously harm Kickstarter's reputation.

 

 

Mr McIntosh's sock puppet.

 

 

This sounds like such a weird way to refer to Sarkeesian. Could you explain why you do so?

 

 

 

Another point that I've made before (in this thread I think) and that Liana K talks about is that she trivializes the violence against men within these same games. In most games, you will mow down the male population of a small city, but barely ever kill one woman. Somehow this isn't seen as sexist, it's just the way things are but people like you Aluminum and Bruce aren't going to say "HEY! That's not fair! We want women to be killed at the same rates as men!" because you don't want Equality. Instead you want women to have all the social, economic, and political benefits of being men, while enjoying none of the drawbacks from being expected to simply smile and take it when your female partner decides to come after you with an iron because "Women can't abuse guys".

 

 

Well the series is titled Tropes Vs. Women in video games, and while the way our society trivializes violence against men is deserving of being discussed as well, it's clearly not the focus of the project. (Actually the - around these parts, much-maligned - phrase "toxic masculinity" refers, among other things, to the underlying societal assumptions feeding these attitudes.)

 

Btw. I don't appreciate your wild assumptions regarding my character and goals, and since I'm refraining from calling you, say, a vile misogynist scumbag who only wants to oppress and rape women, I'd be grateful if you extended the same courtesy (of not strawmanning based on lazy outgroup stereotypes) to me.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

If Ms Sarkeesian can successfully con those whom kickstarted her videos out of their money, without producing the content she promised, then good luck to her and shame on the people whom fell for it. However I have to point out that I want Kickstarter to have a good reputation so that it remains a viable method of funding games, obviously we have the good examples that folks like Obsidian have set but when we have people like Ms Sarkeesian and Tim Schaefer whom take the money and run, well that is bound to be talked about and effect Kickstarter in the long run.

 

 

I strongly doubt Kickstarter's viability as a business practice will be forever tarnished by a product its funders are largely happy with. By the same logic, Harebrained Schemes (creators of the excellent Shadowrun Returns games) should also be exposed as scammers because in the kickstarter pitch, they promised us that every class will see the world fundamentally differently, which they not only refused to deliver on, but also failed to notify the backers about in advance. So should Larian Studios, because they cut the megadungeon from Divinity: Original Sin, also without consulting with their backers. Such immoral practices clearly have no place in a funding model so fundamentally reliant on consumer trust... ahahaha no, as long as the majority of the backers is happy with the final product they received, I doubt any project will seriously seriously harm Kickstarter's reputation.

 

 

Mr McIntosh's sock puppet.

 

This sounds like such a weird way to refer to Sarkeesian. Could you explain why you do so?

 

 

There's quite a large difference between having to cancel some stretch goals and content that cannot be reached in the funding, some give and take is allowed. However to not produce content such as Ms Sarkeesian's videos, which largely use borrowed or stolen assets is entirely different, and will obviously undermine public trust in Kickstarter. Then again if the naive are fine with this then they are welcome to accept not recieving what they paid for. I certainly think I got my moneys worth from both D:OS and SRR, they gave me a full product rather than less than half of one, while Ms Sarkeesian's backers are still waiting to recieve theirs years later. Ahahaha.

 

Sock puppet is simple, she echoes what Mr McIntosh says with alarming regularity, strange to see a Feminist Frequency controlled by a spoiled fat white man whose never worked a day in his life or faced any real tribulation. Oh no it's not strange at all is it?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Sock puppet is simple, she echoes what Mr McIntosh says with alarming regularity

 

But why not assume McIntosh is Sarkeesian's sockpuppet? Based on the (rather scarce) evidence presented, it could be the other way around as well.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

Dates and times.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Nonek

[Calax]

 

Another point that I've made before (in this thread I think) and that Liana K talks about is that she trivializes the violence against men within these same games. In most games, you will mow down the male population of a small city, but barely ever kill one woman. Somehow this isn't seen as sexist, it's just the way things are but people like you Aluminum and Bruce aren't going to say "HEY! That's not fair! We want women to be killed at the same rates as men!" because you don't want Equality. Instead you want women to have all the social, economic, and political benefits of being men, while enjoying none of the drawbacks from being expected to simply smile and take it when your female partner decides to come after you with an iron because "Women can't abuse guys".

 

 

 

 

Well the series is titled Tropes Vs. Women in video games, and while the way our society trivializes violence against men is deserving of being discussed as well, it's clearly not the focus of the project. (Actually the - around these parts, much-maligned - phrase "toxic masculinity" refers, among other things, to the underlying societal assumptions feeding these attitudes.)

 

Btw. I don't appreciate your wild assumptions regarding my character and goals, and since I'm refraining from calling you, say, a vile misogynist scumbag who only wants to oppress and rape women, I'd be grateful if you extended the same courtesy of not strawmanning based on lazy outgroup stereotypes to me.

 

It's titled tropes vs women, but the producer is called "FEMINIST frequency" and as I understand it, part of feminism is attempting to gain equity with men correct?

 

As to the actual focus of the project. It makes for a very simple and easy video series for a woman to create if you're just cherry picking your examples while not providing the context of those examples, or how this particular example is worse for women over men. In GTA V you can kill hookers and get money... You can also kill any person on the street and they drop a wad of cash.

 

That was part of my argument, that her examples aren't unique or special to women in many of the cases. ESPECIALLY the cases of violence. In these situations it's probably worse for men because at least women are valued for their sexuality. Men are just obstacles to go through, usually via machine guns.

 

The other part of it was that her examples could also be entirely fictional, and/or she cherry picks the facts to suit her narrative that "Strong independant women are shoved down so male characters can do everything!"

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's titled tropes vs women, but the producer is called "FEMINIST frequency" and as I understand it, part of feminism is attempting to gain equity with men correct?

 

 

 

 

This is such a weird argument. It's like, I'm a med student, it's obviously desirable for me to be able to connect the different subjects I am taught into a coherent whole that is more than the sum of its part, yet I'm pretty sure I'd be thrown out from the cytology exam if I started to ruminate about the finer points of intracellular signaling, despite the fact that the two are very much connected, because that's not what the focus of the subject is about. I'm not sure I can explain it more coherently than that. (I'm even less sure it makes sense for people who don't know what my cytology courses are about and how they relate to intracellular signalling.)

 

 

 

In GTA V you can kill hookers and get money... You can also kill any person on the street and they drop a wad of cash.

 

That was part of my argument, that her examples aren't unique or special to women in many of the cases. ESPECIALLY the cases of violence. In these situations it's probably worse for men because at least women are valued for their sexuality. Men are just obstacles to go through, usually via machine guns.

 

 

 

And I think nothing illustrates her point more succintly than you honestly arguing that people being used as c*ck repositories, then shot in the head in order to save the player a trivial sum of money is a more positive portrayal, because they're "valued for their sexuality", than male antagonists being killed.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Orogun01]

 

In GTA V you can kill hookers and get money... You can also kill any person on the street and they drop a wad of cash.

 

That was part of my argument, that her examples aren't unique or special to women in many of the cases. ESPECIALLY the cases of violence. In these situations it's probably worse for men because at least women are valued for their sexuality. Men are just obstacles to go through, usually via machine guns.

And I think nothing illustrates her point more succintly than you honestly arguing that people being used as c*ck repositories, then shot in the head in order to save the player a trivial sum of money is a more positive portrayal, because they're "valued for their sexuality", than male antagonists being killed.

 

The mechanics of the game are equal for every NPC, you take that away and you negate player agency. No longer will the PC be able to shoot women or survive their backlash, so for every encounter or when they're driving they should be careful not to incur the wrath of the godmode uterus.

 

I quite frankly, like my games free from ideological interference.

[Calax]

 

It's titled tropes vs women, but the producer is called "FEMINIST frequency" and as I understand it, part of feminism is attempting to gain equity with men correct?

 

 

This is such a weird argument. It's like, I'm a med student, it's obviously desirable for me to be able to connect the different subjects I am taught into a coherent whole that is more than the sum of its part, yet I'm pretty sure I'd be thrown out from the cytology exam if I started to ruminate about the finer points of intracellular signaling, despite the fact that the two are very much connected, because that's not what the focus of the subject is about. I'm not sure I can explain it more coherently than that. (I'm even less sure it makes sense for people who don't know what my cytology courses are about and how they relate to intracellular signalling.)

 

Actually It'd be more like you, as a med student, being confused by what you're supposed to do during a physical exam. It's the very core of what you're doing (checking the human body to make sure it's operating correctly) but instead you're to heavily specialized in Immuno-response diseases to tell me to "Turn your head and cough" and know wtf you're looking for.

 

In GTA V you can kill hookers and get money... You can also kill any person on the street and they drop a wad of cash.

 

That was part of my argument, that her examples aren't unique or special to women in many of the cases. ESPECIALLY the cases of violence. In these situations it's probably worse for men because at least women are valued for their sexuality. Men are just obstacles to go through, usually via machine guns.

 

 

And I think nothing illustrates her point more succintly than you honestly arguing that people being used as c*ck repositories, then shot in the head in order to save the player a trivial sum of money is a more positive portrayal, because they're "valued for their sexuality", than male antagonists being killed.

 

Really? My objectification of a series of bits and bytes that is configured into a female figure is worse because I view the female as having more value for it's sexual aspects rather than the male who I just wander around and shoot randomly? Although I value the strictly-male police force more because when I kill them I get a gun and ammo (and if there were female officers I'd value them higher than their sex-woker compatriots because the 100 bucks for a hooker in GTA V is kinda small change when a machine gun costs 10k)!

 

Being more serious, my point was that we objectify men and women in games. Women are objectified sexually in a number of them, mostly as eye candy (such as the Watch_dogs sex auction). However male characters are objectified not as objects to be lusted after, but as objects to be hated and killed. Seriously, Women get looked at, guys just get shot and killed.

 

Por Exemple

Edited May 12, 2015 by Calax