djpretzel

Dude... if you're gonna call an article "offensively stupid," don't misquote: That's clearly not the same as saying that it's "false"...only making a claim of categorization... How can you hope to understand something, and by understanding it attempt to control and reduce it, if you have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone even trying to categorize it?California's "Yes Means Yes" law is a NEW thing... intended to address this delineation. It will be interesting to see how that goes. As a side note, no one seems to have good statistics on this topic, so perhaps her using the word "majority" was somehow misleading... but part of the reason none of the stats are good is that the entire subject is politicized & FILLED with knee-jerk reactions, and any reported number that seems "too low" is seen as an attack on women. The way they ask the questions in these surveys is often very problematic. As we saw with "patriarchy," getting people to agree on the definition of a word is difficult, and when there are multiple valid definitions, good luck... I think campus police are ill-suited to handling this problem because of conflict of interest, but I think the underlying trouble is that when there's no evidence, both parties were drunk, and it's a question of one person's word over another, ALL police and the overall legal system are incapable or at least severely challenged. This is not questioning the veracity of the claims one way or another, but rather questioning the ability of any system to resolve them in the absence of additional information. I don't see that problem being solved by anything that doesn't involve giving up some personal freedoms... on the extreme end, the freedom to have consensual intercourse without signing a contract first and filming the entirety of the act should any grievances emerge. I already said I don't think I agree with the article in its entirety, but before you call something stupid, you should read it more closely. She wasn't saying the definition of rape being diluted made women more vulnerable, but rather that "The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil" - that's the title of the article. She was arguing that campuses are essentially coddling students into a fall sense of security; she also suggested that: I'll say this, as an opinion piece, it's all over the place. But that's Paglia, for you.

Paglia (referenced many pages back as a critic of second-wave feminism's past attempts at censorship) just wrote an article for Time: http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/ The subject matter is obviously different, but there are some good quotes: Relevant portions in bold; not sure I fully agree entirely with how she's tackling the issue in the actual article, but I certainly agree with the above critique of leftist/progressive naivete about "fixing" people and about human nature being 110% malleable. That's precisely why I view the entire question of women in games as an aesthetic issue, first and foremost. We should be interested in making games better, but instead too many individuals are actually interested in making ourselves better through games. What's so wrong with that, you ask? Well, it corrupts an otherwise agreeable agenda - the diversification and maturation of the medium - with a bunch of ideological name-calling, comical oversimplification, and arguments about the psychological effects of media consumption that are not only specious but bare a marked similarity to censorship arguments made surrounding violence, etc. Given that: We don't really know if improving the variety and presence of female characters in games will have any sort of net real world effect on changing cultural attitudes, and... We want to pursue it regardless, for the betterment and evolution of the art form... therefore... It is best to pursue a line of reasoning/persuasion that maximizes acceptance of the premise & enthusiasm to explore alternatives. In summation... Ideology is NOT necessary to make this argument, and will only alienate and polarize.

FINAL FLOOD IS OUT!!! A really impressive noobflood - love every mix, had a blast listening. So that's four floods total, plus additional mixes... 30 mixes total for the month, averaging a mix a day. Thoughts on overall concept/execution, now that we're done?

Aight, I s'pose.... happy birthday.

Saw that this morning. Hired by whom, though? It's unclear from reading where the money came from... At any rate, it kinda proves my previous point about trust-but-verify... which apparently no one was able to do, including all major news outlets, prior to running this story...

Possibly BOTH? How DARE you suggest that a complex topic could have more than one explanation!! I joke, but seriously... of course both. For so many of these topics, both... Or all three. Or MORE. For any given debate of this nature, look to the people making single-explanation arguments and drawing tenuous lines of causation that they themselves think are undeniably sound. Those are your extremists. We've got a problem right now, and it's that extremists on one side of a topic are being validated by the behavior of extremists on the other. So long as 4CHAN et al. harass, torment, and threaten to release nudie pics of those making ANY feminist arguments, to some NO feminist argument will seem unreasonable... at least, that's my concern. As a related note, I thought Emma Watson's speech to the UN was really well done; it just shows that even a reasonable, almost inarguable approach to feminism will STILL draw the ire of a certain community on 4Chan. I don't think they even care what's being said, or read what's being written... At any rate, contrast the calculated, inclusive approach that Emma took with her speech to the nitpicking, dogmatic shtick that Anita does... that speech was from someone who cares about the issue more she cares about what SHE thinks about the issue...

One of your better posts, enjoyed reading. The troubling thing to me is how similar some of the tenuous causality claims sound between the two topics - it's one thing to complain about violence or objectification, but when you start drawing causal lines to real-world behaviors (usually in the absence of evidence), it gets ugly fast. But I still think I can field this one and provide what I imagine a best-case response would be. If there's even a half-meaningful differentiation to be made, it's that violence is more necessary, from a narrative perspective, to many types of games than is sexual objectification. Violence is inevitable in games about war, fighting games, strategy games... it's diegetic, and intrinsically linked to the subject matter. Sexual objectification, on the other hand, is usually an afterthought... window dressing, icing on the cake, something added to cater to a certain audience. It could usually be cut without significantly altering the gameplay, and while violence could certainly be toned DOWN a bit while also maintaining fidelity to game mechanics, there's a diminishing return there and a threshold at which the game quite clearly suffers a dramatic neutering. Secondly, violence in the abstract is an equal opportunity employer and seems relatively well distributed among the demographics represented in games, so there's not the same sense that one group (females) is being singled out, unfairly. That's how I'd differentiate the two topics, ***if*** I actually thought both were deeply problematic and I specifically wanted to justify objecting to sexualization while giving violence a free pass. How'd I do?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430_4 http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare?page=2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004563 http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Rupp_HB_2007.pdf Now, if you take the time to read most of those, you'll notice that it's of course an oversimplification to say "Men are more easily persuaded/manipulated by sexual imagery.." - they also speak more to arousal than "persuasion" per se. Here's a bit more on that: http://www.bm.ust.hk/~mark/staff/Jaideep/Jaideep%20JCP-1%202008.pdf http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/57153_Chapter_7.pdf You're of course right to point out what is essentially a claim and ask for evidence; of course, contradicting the claim is also a claim in and of itself, unless you're simply stating that we don't know, one way or another?? If the claims strike you as specious, I'd inquire as to whether that's because you inherently think they are unfounded, or untrue, or because you simply know that they are difficult to prove due to the squishiness of words? I'm loathe to rely on anecdotal evidence, but for these specific claims I do also feel like I've seen quite a bit to suggest that men's heads are more easily swayed... haven't you? I put a lot of stock in the ability of society and culture to shape attitudes, but in this case they would really have to be working overtime, if there's absolutely no biological underpinning for them to start with... for example, if there's one thing I have utmost faith in, it's for American culture (and Capitalism in general) to figure out what SELLS, and to sell it in vast quantities. Can you explain the relative dearth of visual pornography targeting heterosexual females by culture/society alone? Or the discrepancies in ads, games, etc.? Is the argument here that there's an untapped audience that, in 2014, society is still holding the mighty markets back from mining? And again, the links above are at least a little more scientific and this is just... well, me talking... but from an evolutionary psychology perspective, as pertains to sexual selection, it makes sense that females would inherently be "choosier," and about qualities/characteristics that go beyond the visual... a greater investment/risk requires a greater consideration, no?? The question would be whether that dynamic makes it all the way down to the level of sexual arousal as result of visual stimuli, but if it didn't, it seems like evolution would have "missed" an obvious opportunity... As for #2... I was operating in the realm of biology. If you agree that homosexuality is genetic, or at least primarily genetic, you'd also be agreeing that it is a mutation. Absolutely nothing wrong with that - mutations are how species evolve, after all!! But any mutation that actively selects against reproduction would by definition be mathematically constrained. You're absolutely right that it's a huge can of worms to try and go inside people's minds, and of course it's under-reported and a larger minority than is statistically captured at this point in time. And of course, in reality, I think we can agree it's a false dichotomy and that sexuality runs along a spectrum. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be hugely scandalous to suggest that genes that favor attraction to the opposite sex have better odds of dominating the gene pool of any species that reproduces sexually than those that do not. This isn't about what's natural being right, or better, but it certainly CAN be about plain old biology and statistics, can it not?

Very good & thoughtful post - appreciated. I'm singling this specific quote out because I feel like I've covered it elsewhere: Men are more easily persuaded/manipulated by sexual imagery... Most men are heterosexual... Therefore, catering to aficionados of large, bouncing breasts falls into the same category as politicians professing their religious devotion - it's often a good idea because it makes a lot of people happy whether it's genuine or not, and doesn't draw enough offense to actually lose votes (or sales) Finally, look to culture at large, and see a reflection - women are more sexualized than men. Why should games vary? If anything, we should expect things to be amplified, given a long history of target marketing to adolescent males. And we see what we expect. And even if things "grow up" a bit - and I happen to think that they have, and are continuing to - 50/50 is still a completely silly and ridiculous goal that ignores human biology, common sense, and either meets an imaginary demand or ignores an actual one. Realistic & refreshing compared to Tolkein or pretty much all OTHER examples of fantasy, i.e. realistic in its genre... Also, last I checked, sex is a pretty big characteristic of human existence - what strikes you as "salacious" is to me simply a plausible depiction of society before Victorian propriety, Freudian anxiety, and Puritan shame entered the picture. In eras where heirs and bloodlines dictated the rise and fall of kingdoms, who you boinked was a MUCH bigger deal... This was probably at least partially in jest/sarcastic, but I have to say, I've been using the like button on individual posts A LOT on IPB's own customer forums - it has a lot of utility and I think it'll be a great addition! Also, as a side note this seems like relevant reading - it's not just the games industry/culture that's having this issue: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/16/the-offense-industry-on-the-offense/

This point wasn't as general as simply criticizing overall rigidity. It was specifically pointing out the inherent conflict in simultaneously arguing for equal treatment of women in games while insisting on special consideration of violence against women in games as being disproportionately problematic. I think a counterargument can be made... I just think it would usually be a weak/crappy one. But shit, let ME try - in earnest: There you go; if this thread didn't jump the shark dozens of pages ago, this has gotta do it, because I just argued against myself...

Yeah I'm not really interested in talking about her... just what she's saying/arguing. I'm sorry this didn't meet your definition of "fresh," but I'd still like to see if anyone else wants to tackle what I perceive as an extraordinarily paradoxical/hypocritical argument and see if they can lay it all out in a way that holds together...

Whether or not you apologize for being incorrect about a baseless accusation has more bearing on your being a decent human being than a good journalist Actually, assuming he did what he said he did, he took some initiative and established that everything checked out and that the claims made were valid - from purely a journalistic point of view, that's far more than most people have been doing, and while his overall attitude seems shitty and his initial line of inquiry seemed prosecutorial, at least he uncovered something that contradicted his expectations, and reported on it. Just sayin'; I'm personally glad he did take the time to prove himself wrong. It's better that this information is out there as it eliminates doubt. "Trust but verify" is a good journalistic principle, and while he didn't do the former (at all), at least he came through on the latter. There seem to be a lot of people glomping on to this brouhaha in a very public fashion, just to ride its coattails into escalated analytics... Anyone wanna pick the thread on Anita back up, or is it all #GamerGate, all the time?

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I don't think it's necessary for realism, but even with dragons, wizards, magic, and lots of other made-up elements, high fantasy is still identifiably archaic/ancient in its social structures. You still usually have kings (and queens), for example, which implies divine right to rule and lack of democracy. Unless EVERYTHING ELSE is coming along for the ride, and you're going to address all of the MYRIAD social injustices in these antiquated environments, cherry-picking just smacks of ideology run amok. Who elected these kings? This game promotes dictatorship.... Are these knights being paid? Were they drafted and are they potentially fighting against their will?? This game promotes militant nationalism and fascism... Why are dark elves always more evil? Das racist. This game promotes racism... Why does this game depict religion as factually accurate? This game promotes magical thinking... You're dealing with a fantasy world, sure, and a lot of it is completely made up, sure, but it is still a WORLD. Plausibility in world-building needs to emanate from somewhere, and usually we look to... ourselves. I'm not saying "throw random violence against women into your fantasy game so it seems more real," I'm saying "violence against everyone, including women, was more prevalent in our own barbaric past, and many games are channeling that same past". My point isn't that game developers HAVE to do things this way, or even that game developers SHOULD do things this way, but merely that when they DO choose to do things this way, it shouldn't raise knee-jerk accusations of misogyny without additional contextual analysis of the work as a whole, which Anita rarely does. That's a form of criticism that is EVERY BIT AS LAZY as that which it attempts to lambast for... lack of creativity! It also really, really, really bears mentioning that gratuitous violence is common in games, period. It is difficult to argue for any sort of equal treatment of women in games while at the same time flinching five hundred times harder when any of that violence is directed toward women. Offhand, this seems like the very same protective instinct that feminism often decries (correctly) as the root problem behind so many troublesome male behaviors, simply flipped on its head and used (rather hypocritically) for the very cause that condemns it!! Please show me how that's incorrect, because to me it seems like having your cake, eating it too, taking someone else's cake, eating THAT, and then proceeding to complain that there's no cake left. Because misogyny.

I honestly and truthfully find it ethically HELPFUL and informing to see things depicted as I suspect they really were; a palpably barbarous past should make us appreciate our present, by contrast, much more. Unless, of course... we are impressionable imbeciles... I liked The Borgias for this reason; of course Game of Thrones is fictional, but I think it actually depicts a more realistically HUMAN past than most works of historical fiction manage. There is something to be said for the power of COUNTEREXAMPLE. Unless, of course... you're Anita...

Probably not so much that specific example However, public figures HAVE been decrying "senseless violence" against women in video games, and many of these games (see my previous post) are set in the past (or a version of it), and the past was a time of... senseless violence against women. And everyone else, too, for that matter... Very much violence, very little sense. In a way, trying to inject modern understandings of gender equality into barbaric, dark ages-type environments is more or less like the exaggerated example of making Henry VIII black to promote racial diversity... the intentions are good... but I seem to recall a saying regarding the paving of roads to bad places... To be clear, I think it CAN be done, and even done well... I just also think that when developers choose not to or even fail to consider the option, it doesn't automagically equal misogyny, nor will it poison young minds, nor is it even lazy, unless some aspect of the game's fiction hinges on this manipulation. Did everyone see the Maddox on Spider-Woman's Ass?? There's a problem a' brewin', and it seems to center around the commodification of moral outrage... at the expense of informed analysis and due diligence. We need fewer Social Justice Warriors and more Social Justice Scholars

Should be at least three more, with individual mixes in between! Concerns duly noted; we're trying something out, we'll see how it goes, and if it doesn't work out, we won't repeat it.

Agreed but it DOES get tricky. Since we were talking about Joss Whedon before, in addition to his strong female leads (which I do think at times come off as a little self-consciously progressive, but which generally I like), he also had the cajones to make Jubal Early (Firefly) AND The Operative (Serenity) black male villains... GASP!! I joke, but it's NOT somewhere most writers are willing to go. Just watch television advertisements with a critical eye... whenever there's a group of people, and some people are stupid or doing the "wrong" thing, and others are smart and doing the "right" thing, and the group includes African Americans, ad producers are extremely reluctant (read: afraid) to have the black people be on the losing side of any equation. It seems like it's going to take a good, long while before everyone can just be comfortable with diversity and not be afraid of pointed fingers... Herein lies the crux of my objection: Anita is quite flagrantly pointing fingers; she's doing it in the context of bad faith assumptions, she's doing it while reciting dogma that shouldn't pass the laugh test in modern classrooms, and she's doing it without any thought to persuading those who most need persuading. I don't think that'll make game developers more comfortable with the idea that "minorities can be "regular" people too, because that's how real life is," as you quite correctly put it... although statistically women are a majority that's just historically been treated like a minority. If women are people too, a sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with as a human, son, brother, husband, and now a father, with every fiber of my being, then that means that their inclusion and depiction in fictional works should run a wide spectrum, and the widening of that spectrum is a goal I think almost everyone who's contributed to this thread actually supports... I don't think that goal is accomplished via finger pointing and an ideological Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of everyone making a game that in any way involves sex or gender. You CAN argue for more variety and fewer cliches without simultaneously arguing against perceived misogyny, sexual objectification, etc. The two are NOT mutually inclusive. I have to think you'll persuade more people, piss off fewer people, and not come nearly as close to advocating censorship and/or resting your entire argument on a psychological house of cards that involves completely unsubstantiated cause-and-effect chain reactions.

Is an anonymous threat issued over twitter really "public record," though? It's a record of something, I suppose, but I believe the author was making the point that since the identity of the tweet's author cannot be verified, much less the sincerity of his/her intentions, that's why the use of "alleged" is appropriate. It becomes speculative until someone with more information can confirm things; difficult in this day and age.

So do I; that's the tack I think Anita should have gone with - this can better games by making them more varied & interesting & by deviating from some overused tropes. But she didn't. I wish she had. But when you set the whole thing up as a "vs." to begin with, you wear your agenda on your sleeve. Her personal agenda does not seem to forward the progress of gaming, but rather to disseminate dated ideology and point out many of the same tired things second wave feminists pointed out several decades ago, as if they were something new, more in a context of demonization and extremely tenuous potential causation. Sociologists use stupid definitions. Not really disagreeing with your point that the words are loaded and take many forms, just throwing a potshot in at the sociological definition of these terms, which defies evolutionary psychology and common sense and is embarrassingly ethnocentric & politically compromised. Shame on you, sociology. I'll chime in here. We need pragmatic, results-oriented, third-wave feminism in gaming. We don't need polemical, irrational, and prosecutorial second-wave feminism in gaming, or much of anywhere else. The only reason it's even POSSIBLE is that the gaming community doesn't have enough of an academic/cultural foundation for some strong voices to emerge and point it out for what it is - a resurrection & regurgitation of sad, dead ideas. I'm unclear if you mean that the irrational rage is flying out from those doing the critiquing, those reacting to the critiquing, or both. I'm hoping both.

We're starting a new tradition this year of making September FLOOD MONTH... In addition to individual and double mixposts, on SOME days we'll be posting THEMED FLOODS of FIVE MIXES... These themes could be centered around a system, publisher, series, ReMixer, composer, letter of the alphabet, or any shared characteristic (I'd personally love to see a "BAD MIXTITLE PUN" flood one day...) In addition to being something we think will be a lot fun, this should also help us catch up with our (infamous) queue! Our first flood is up, which is actually our SECOND flood of awesome SM64 mixes from Portrait of a Plumber - if you haven't checked the album out yet, enjoy, and even if you HAVE, please consider giving these artists feedback & kudos on the comments threads! We'll be posting our NEXT FLOOD very early next week... stay tuned!!! Thoughts & feedback on this idea welcome in this announcement thread!

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.