djpretzel

Labeling things as "self-evident" is always convenient, because then... you don't need evidence. You said that game developers were a "major part" of the "feedback loop" you were describing. I was specifically questioning the use of "major," since it suggested you had a system for quantifying which components were more important than others. Since it appears that you do not, and would rather argue the "self-evidence" of things in response, I guess we can drop that thread entirely... I appreciate your informing me that your logic is "extremely sound," but I do not believe your assessment in this matter to be without bias. As a personal aside, it's also one of those things that shouldn't need to be said, the very saying of which calls the veracity into immediate question. "Gamer culture is mostly male" - you linked a stat very early on that gamers are now 50% female, and have leaned on this stat in some of your statements. Are you now questioning it, or did you mean something else here? What do you mean by "mostly"? "...and hostile to women, women don't want to be in it" - first off, I thought you backed off from "hostile" and were going with "unwelcoming," but whatevs. This isn't a logical premise, it's a guess. Nothing about it is "sound" - extremely or even mildly. And it bypasses any analysis or even conjecture as to OTHER reasons women might not want to participate. Even though half of gamers are female, as you said... "If we are influenced by our environment, and if game developers are made up of people participating in gamer culture, then game developers will be mostly male and influenced by a female-hostile environment." - since we're fond of the logical fallacies, this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation - you can't track the "influence" of gamer culture relative to culture at large, AND you're ignoring the fact that these individuals are the ones CREATING gamer culture in the first place; you're treating culture like an abstraction as opposed to a direct product of humanity, AND you're failing to explain the myriad exception cases, AND you're assuming that people take all of their hobby culture into the workplace... list goes on. None of this is extremely sound logic, or even logic. It's a series of "if... then" statements that might otherwise be confused for logic, save that all of the words between "if" and "then" aren't specific or defined enough to remotely resemble logical premises, and are woefully incomplete. Did I EVER suggest that you, or anyone else, should NOT encourage "game developers to create games with more appeal to both genders"? Where did I write that? What are you responding to? Unless you're responding to someone else, this is completely non-sequitir. I've repeatedly pointed out that what it MEANS to "appeal to both genders" isn't universally understood and agreed on, but the majority of my statements have surrounded your rationale/justification, NOT the conclusion you draw from it. You JUST got done saying "by encouraging game developers to create games with more appeal to both genders" - now you're characterizing the gamer demographic not by the actual PLAYING/BUYING of video games, but by... everything else. If 50% of the people PLAYING games are female, doesn't that speak more to the "appeal" of the games themselves? Could it not be that gamer culture - not the games themselves - is primarily what needs to be "worked on"? Could it not be that gamer culture is not defined or even particularly influenced by individual games, but rather characterized by the types of people who choose to dedicate THAT MUCH of their free time to the hobby? You're all over the place. If quoting the 50% female gamer stat was worthwhile in the first place, where is the analogous stat to back up claims that gamer culture is lopsided? I'm not saying it's not, but you're saying decisively that it is. Since I would have assumed that the gamer demographic was lopsided - and it apparently is not - why should I assume that gamer culture, as you've defined it, is? I suspect that it is, mind you, but I'm not going to treat my suspicion as particularly logical, nor am I going to derive further conclusions from it, nor am I going to assume - in the guise of "deductive logic" - that the reasons behind any inequality can be linked in any way, shape, or form to sexual objectification in games. Those are leaps of faith, not logic.

Nope, you were talking about at least two things - reduction of sexual objectification in games themselves, and modification of "booth babe" & related practices at conventions. That's two by my count, exactly one more than one. I didn't realize we were using the "I've seen it firsthand" standard of proof. What I wrote was a DIRECT counter to what you wrote. You're arguing from firsthand experience that women are "treated worse" than men in gamer culture. This assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless it is a contextual comparison to NON-gamer culture, because otherwise you can't establish any causality that is UNIQUE to (i.e. directly caused by) gamer culture specifically. It could all just be cultural, or an aspect of behavior that is more common amongst adolescent males, etc. I'm trying to point out that your so-called "deductive logic" is really just leaping from vague observation to vague observation. Define "worse"... define "women"... define "treated"... no aspect of any of this can be "deductive logic" of any kind, since the words/phrases you're using are all cloudy with a chance of meatballs... I don't mean to pull a Bill Clinton "that depends on what your definition of "is" is...," but seriously, you're just throwing words out and hoping they stick. Worse how? Treated by whom? I know what you think you mean, and my answer is probably yes, but the lack of specificity in your language only widens the gaping holes in your causal reasoning. Of course not, I'm just not comfortable saying that any part of that is conclusively linked to gamer culture, specifically. It mostly reflects what I see elsewhere, using your "firsthand experience" barometer. I'm confused how you think this line of questioning addresses my point at all. I wasn't arguing that women are treated the same, I was arguing that the underlying causes of unequal treatment may not be unique to "gamer culture"... your rattling off questions like this doesn't speak to my point in the slightest; it's almost as if you didn't read my post... If you were actually interested in convincing me, you'd read what I was writing. At no point have I made claims that female game characters, game programmers, OR gamers are treated equally. You're the one putting up an insanely weak straw man in suggesting that you've been trying to persuade me of that. That's not what we've been talking about, and if you were reading what I've been writing, you'd clearly see that NONE of my arguments surround the non-existence of sexual objectification, discrimination, or differences in gender roles and gender bias in the gaming community. I just don't know what you're doing anymore... are you reading what I'm writing? I'm very confused because I keep saying more or less the same things, and - even when quoting my statements verbatim and responding directly beneath them - you're not actually speaking to the content of my posts, but rather what you seem to wish and/or misinterpret them to be. We don't fundamentally disagree on this point, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or suggests you haven't been reading my posts. I see you're busting out the list of logical fallacies, but you're misusing them. Never did I directly state that you were advocating censorship. Go back, read it. I'm asking you to read my posts, and I'll keep asking you to read my posts until your responses suggest that you've read my posts. What I'm saying - what I've been saying this whole time - is that your so-called reasoning, your flawed methodology, and your suspect conclusions all SUPPORT the advocacy of censorship. You're using the same rhetorical toolset that censors do, but you're stopping short of advocating censorship yourself. If you're expecting a gold star & an A+ for your restraint, I suppose it's admirable, but it's the same exact framework - a series of specious assumptions & causalities leading to a supposed correlation between "art X" and "behavior Y" - that plagued and continues to plague the thought processes of censors and second-wave feminists alike. That you employ it - but find censorship an unacceptable implication of its outcome - does not excuse its usage!!!! Seriously. Aren't you already encouraging game developers to do X? By simply posting on these forums? What form of "encouragement" did you have in mind? I think the burden on "showing Y" here belongs to you, not me, as what you're proposing is thus far rather pie-in-the-sky and quite nebulous. My "slippery slope" argument is in NO WAY specific to video games - it speaks to all forms of art. It observes that once you become overly comfortable with the idea that "X" type of art directly causes "Y" type of behavior or opinions, bad things tend to happen. This supposed causality is completely unscientific, for one, although you'll usually see people TRY and quote statistics or any sort of quantitative data they can find, AS IF they were making a scientific argument. You want to argue that games should have a wider variety of female characters, and better role models? I've already said I agree with that at least a dozen times. Go back and read my posts. You want to argue that harassment and equal pay issues for women in all industries, including the games industry, are problems that need to be addressed? I completely agree. You want to argue that sexual objectification and booth babes directly & inevitably lead to the disrespect of women? No dice on that one, for all the many reasons I've stated. But as far as encouraging game developers to do ANYTHING at all, how can I object to free speech? And as I've repeated ad infinitum, I think encouraging them to write more interesting female characters is a fantastic idea. I just don't think the reasoning behind this encouragement needs to employ the same deeply-flawed, unsupported causal arguments that are usually employed by censors. In fact, I think the request is far more persuasive when it does NOT employ these arguments. Firstly, you're the one claiming certitude and "deductive logic," not I. No aspect of my arguments requires such proof, whereas you've been arguing as if the proof already exists. Secondly... we haven't "even" been able to link video game violence to violent behavior? The "even" suggests you think the link is likely? And what if it is? Surely violent behavior is worth trying to reduce just as much as sexism - perhaps moreso, right? Let's say they DO establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that video game violence leads to violent behavior. What then? What happens when you follow your arguments through to their natural conclusions? Jeepers, we could establish correlations between all SORTS of content and all SORTS of behavior we view as negative. You're arguing as if such proof already exists, and I'm arguing that not only does it not exist YET, but that if/when it DOES, that it shouldn't necessarily change how we weigh ARTISTIC EXPRESSION vs. the potential SOCIETAL IMPACT of art. Slippery slope? You're god damn right, and you haven't even bothered to think through the implications, and are citing video game violence just to make a point about general lack of evidence... shame on you!! Seriously. But also JK. But seriously. Uh, given that you haven't suggested anything more specific than "encouraging game developers" to think differently, of COURSE there's minimal to zero risk. You haven't been specific at all with your "proposal," you've just employed a lot of flawed reasoning to support it instead. My objection hasn't been to the idea of suggesting to game developers that they consider tropes, objectification, workplace conditions, etc. more carefully, my objection has been to your justification for MAKING this suggestion in the first place. I think such a suggestion is compelling on an aesthetic level regarding games themselves, and on an ethical level regarding actual workplace issues. I think the argument quickly becomes preposterous and nearly offensive when you start including assertions that hinge on armchair psychology and causality, and that furthermore, even if such causality could be said to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, employing such data is STILL problematic. I'm saying your argument would be much stronger if you did not couple them. You can respond by saying "No, I'm not"... I suppose. It seems non-sequitir. Can I just reply with "Yes"? At any rate, you're coupling pragmatic civil rights issues with aspects of art and marketing. If you think that's such a fantastic idea, that's certainly your prerogative. I can only inform you that the coupling has been tried by second-wave feminism, resulted in a schism (the so-called "sex wars"), and has subsequently been decoupled by third-wave feminism. If you choose to ignore this, or side with second-wave feminists, that's your call. Regarding "explain to me how that is not true" - you've just asserted that sexual objectification in games is a "verifiable negative aspect" - but just a couple paragraphs above, you've indicated that "Almost anything involving social psychology on this scale is very hard to prove" So which is it? A "verifiable negative aspect," or "very hard to prove"? Do you not see a problem with this?

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

Well, I think these CAN be two separate ideas... If Ab wants to defend affirmative action across the board, because white men don't need to be "pacified" - well, I strongly disagree, it's a little off-topic (but still worth talking about), etc. But NJ's idea to found a game studio and start hiring only women, or favoring women - that's not exactly the same thing as affirmative action, really, because it's not as institutionalized. The results could be fantastic - sometimes a single "poster child" CAN actually make a huge difference. Of course, it could also backfire... if the games were in any way lackluster, the level of scrutiny would be a tad higher, and it could end up sending a very different message. Color me ignorant, but - has this been done? Do we know that it hasn't? At any rate, trying to shape the form & image of a studio I think CAN be a positive thing that isn't synonymous with institutionalized affirmative action. Once you reach a certain scale, though, it becomes much harder... Help me out, here - she's quoting from http://www.amazon.com/The-Difference-Diversity-Creates-Societies/dp/0691138540/ as it pertains to racial diversity, but that book seems to be about diversity of skills, NOT of race: Her example about hiring Steve and Jane because COMBINED they get all the answers right doesn't speak to race, gender, or anything other than innate cognitive merit, and if wrong answers were tracked and matrixed and cross-referenced in a way that would allow this sort of ideal pairing - which would be terribly complex when you think about it - you might still end up with inequality.I suppose one argument could go something like this: 1. Diversity of skills provides better solutions & creates more effective teams than favoring only the highest scores 2. Tracking who gets what wrong and right and pairing up individuals based on complimentary skills is currently prohibitively complex, and may remain so 3. Therefore, we should have race-based and/or sex-based affirmative action to try and compensate for the optimization we know is possible, and maybe it'll all work out? I lose you on #3 - I think it kinda makes sense on a socioeconomic basis, because that cuts across race & sex. Anything else feels quite odd.

Neither am I, but it sounded good ; in the abstract, though, I suppose it means "thinking about people less categorically" or perhaps "being cognizant of the human brain's tendency to force people into categories that greatly oversimplify their identity" - pigeonholing, more or less. I've always felt that most forms of affirmative action and assertions of white male privilege rely on it. We're fairly off-topic, but while we're here, I'll mention that I'm in favor of affirmative action, but on socioeconomic grounds only - not based on race, sex, religion, or anything else.

Quite frank, and quite general Just going to quickly point out - straight white men... or you COULD just say white men, since what you're getting at is race and sex privilege, which can still function to the benefit of anyone in the same groups, regardless of whether they're ALSO in an additional minority that is less physically obvious. Otherwise, you have to modify it to, let's see... straight white religious conformist men, with "conformist" doing a lot of heavy lifting. Also, "historically" - really? Last I checked, the definition of "white" was actually a more modern grouping. Last I checked, Italian & Irish Americans were discriminated against quite violently before eventually being considered part of an amorphous "white" blob of enfranchised peoples. The problem with the concept of "white male privilege" is that it is rather temporal, rather subjective, rather incomplete (i.e. straight white male, young/middle-aged white male, religious white male), and is often claimed to have persisted for far longer than it meaningfully could be said to. I'm not saying that as a phenomena it can not and does not exist, presently, but to embrace the concept fully requires drawing the same types of hard lines around demographics that we should instead be trying to tear down. Right?

So many problems... Look, it's clear to me that you're so entrenched in your position that you're loathe to cede any individual point because you fear it would be construed as a holistic failure of your overall argument. That's exactly how many feminists, whose overall stance I overall agree with, end up defending positions that are so very untenable. Your entire argument boils down to "It's a feedback loop!!," providing carte blanche justification for interfering at any point in said loop. I don't know how to break this to you without coming off a little snarky, but - culturally speaking - almost everything is a feedback loop. Simply observing that it's "all connected," while a perfectly respectable epiphany in and of itself in late high school and early college years, does not really provide insight, analysis, quantification, or rationalization of any given action, inaction, etc. It's just an innate characteristic of culture. "It's a feedback loop!!" can be used to justify all sorts of positions, legislation, etc. because it conveniently dodges key aspects of both evidence & analysis, and generally assumes that whatever "feedback loop" is being discussed exists in a vacuum (or near-vacuum) condition, such that mucking with it will have no unintended consequences. In this case, you've buttressed the "it's a feedback loop" mantra with evidence from online comments. From YouTube. If you feel that animosity towards women in online comments is truly unique to gamer culture, or especially heightened within it - as opposed to being endemic to online comments coming from adolescent males in general, which make up a large share of gamers - I'd ask that you support that claim. Why is this not instead consistent with a Venn diagram that has a certain type of male being responsible for such hostility, and a certain type of male likely to play games, and significant overlap between them, such that the behavior is not directly correlated with gaming? Do you know? I don't. I don't think you do either. However, I'm not the one brandishing a perfectly-conceived feedback loop of causality... Culture is a feedback loop, containing many feedback loops. The characteristics of each are complex and difficult to ascertain. This observation does not, in and of itself, support or counter any particular argument. The best we can usually do, in advocating change and public policy, is to start with the quantifiable & pragmatic - in this case, with regards to sexual harassment in the workplace, also the criminal - and avoid temptations to start "further downstream" in a loop, where freedom of speech starts getting trampled on & things generally get all wishy-washy... (I put the above in a very large font because I want people to think about it a lot) There is a critical difference between saying that an effect is likely to exist versus stating authoritatively not only that it exists, but that it is significant, and furthermore that it can and should be manipulated. Do I think that culture affects people? Why of course. Do I think that gaming culture affects gamers? To some extent, obviously, although I'm not sure how much it counteracts or truly differentiates gamers from the populous at large. Do you? No, again you don't. What's the difference? I'm not the one claiming that I know... I'm not the one invoking the intellectually bankrupt "It's a feedback loop!!" position to support my arguments. Harassment and equal pay are huge issues, arguably the primary focus of third-wave feminism. On some level, I actually find it very offensive that you're lumping them in with booth babes and sexual objectification in games; I suppose it helps support your "It's a feedback loop!!" argument, i.e. "It's all one BIG GIANT problem and we have to solve EVERY aspect of it!!" I'm going to again put it out there that you're unnecessarily coupling these issues, AND oversimplifying them. This is a trap that plenty fall into, so I don't think you should feel too bad, but given that feminism itself has (largely) moved on, and that I've pointed the trap out to you in several consecutive posts, I'm wondering if I'm failing in some regard. "Developers are a major part of that feedback loop"... Okay, what are the minor parts? What criteria are you using in your assessment? What are the point values you're assigning to each of the components - are there just minor and major parts, or are there many levels? Do the levels vary based on game genre? Country? Language? How have the levels changed over time? You seem intimately familiar with this feedback loop, and very confident & comfortable in making factual statements about it, so I'm assuming you're drawing that knowledge from somewhere, and I'm interested in hearing more. "With fewer intensively male-targeted games (or fewer things like DDD boobs with jiggle physics), gamer culture will seem a little less like a male clubhouse, and more women will want to be a part of it".... How many fewer? What ratio are you comfortable with? My bad... you couldn't possibly be suggesting that the number of jiggle physics games be calibrated to your own PERSONAL sense of what's appropriate - you MUST be thinking of a universally agreed on "consensus ratio" that, like pi and the golden rectangle and what not, emanates from the natural world and thus cannot be questioned? And are you talking about "gamer culture" - where by your own quoted statistics, gamers are already 50% female - or game development specifically? It all just falls apart... You're confusing "logical connection" with "personally intuitive theory"... it seems to me that you've built a mental model of how you envision all of this being connected, and with scant evidence other than personal observation, you're now completely comfortable not only in treating this model as factual, but in advocating its employment to alter aspects of an art form we both love. I believe the intentions are good, but that using personal mental models of this nature to advocate for modifications to any art form is almost always a bad idea.

I don't dismiss ANY of it outright, although situations like not getting swag in the right sizes - surely that CAN be a pragmatic/logistical failure/oversight and not sexism or "#1reasonwhy"? Also, as you've pointed out, game developers - programmers in particular - are overwhelmingly male at this point in time. So assumptions CAN be just that - predictions based on observation and trend analysis. Making an isolated incorrect assumption can certainly offend someone, but I think the follow-through on the part of the assumer & assumee is FAR more important. Honest mistakes deserve polite but very direct & uncompromising corrections, while assumptions of bad faith just breed more of the same. Surely the fact that, as a female game developer, you are so rare that many people make incorrect assumptions about your role - often just based on their own life experience - should be a motivating force to KEEP AT IT, and not a "#1reasonwhy" you want to leave, or even that the environment is unwelcoming? If you're in a job where people are making a lot of bad assumptions about your role, you're probably doing something RIGHT. Turning a tide is difficult, but I'd agree in principle that raising awareness of these types of incidents is a really good thing. However... These quotes almost all have to do with one-on-one interactions, most of which are taking place in the workplace. Most of it is the same bullshit women face day-in, day-out in almost ANY workplace, though it's probably exacerbated because of the demographic inequality. Nowhere do I extrapolate from these comments that the end result - the games themselves - are a real & significant part of the puzzle. I think you're making my argument for me - it's preferable to focus on the real stuff, the day-to-day stuff, the pragmatic stuff. Don't try to tone down the sexuality in the end product or reign in the testosterone used for marketing purposes in conventions. Nothing about either is inherently evil, trying to contain or reduce either will only spur resentment, and both will probably decline (a bit) if more women are involved in the game development process. I still see the same logical disconnect, and nothing you've put forth has addressed it - you're trying to put the cart before the horse, and that approach has been & probably always will be the methodology of censors, puritans, and those who feel they can fix society by eradicating what they perceive as symptoms, without anything close to resembling a clear diagnosis.

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

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

Andy, you're just stringing together ideas & observations without really analyzing the linkage/causality that you're claiming. First of all, you're vaguely mentioning "other tech industries" when what we're really talking about here is programmers - that's your 96% stat, and if you scope the analysis to programming specifically, you'll find that the phenomena doesn't begin or end with game programming: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/programming-and-development/it-gender-gap-where-are-the-female-programmers/2386 You're assuming that there is a significant population of women who are already programmers themselves and would otherwise be game programmers, who are being turned away by sexual objectification & booth babes, without much evidence, and without consideration that there are probably several underlying factors and that this issue may be tertiary at best in explaining the numbers. You are characterizing the game industry as "hostile" towards women, but then later on in your same post suggest amelioration by reducing Ivy's bust size. I argue that sexual objectification is pervasive, that video games may in fact employ it more often - due to the current makeup of game devs - that there is nothing inherently wrong with it as it is a manifestation of human nature, and that the best way to "address" or balance things out is through the involvement of more women in the game development process. Where you and I differ, however, is that you think the game industry needs to change and tone down the boobs, etc. so that women don't feel excluded and uncomfortable, after which all of the many female game programmers waiting in the wings will suddenly sign up en masse, I suppose? I don't think that's the way the world works, and I don't think that's the way the world SHOULD work, either, and that type of attitude stems from a second-wave feminism perspective on sexuality in the media. I'm just going to briefly point out that you're making a LOT of assumptions about sex, gender, and sexuality all being the same. It's not hard to understand why women might not want to work at Axxe - you're producing body wash primarily for men. Any art medium should be allowed the flexibility to cater to any demographic - I thought we already covered that? If I'm a woman who chooses to write for Playboy or a man who chooses to write for Cosmo, I'm consciously making a decision to participate & contribute to media that has an explicit or implicit target audience. Nothing wrong with that, but it's odd to describe those magazines as "hostile" towards one demographic simply because they cater to another. I feel like you're recycling these points after I've made counterarguments - that I'm now more or less repeating - that should really call them into question... I'm not aware of any art form, in the history of our species, that has successfully been censored (or "self-censored" as you mention) so as to diversify the demographics of its artists. I'm surprised this sounds like a good idea to you. I'm also surprised you think that female programmers are so skittish and impressionable that if they see 50 games and 10 have exaggerated bust sizes, they're going to avoid the games industry entirely and instead focus on enterprise business software. What's that over there? A BOOTH BABE?? That's it, I'm going back to business middleware!! This doesn't strike me as particularly plausible. It rings rather false. Historically, it's people who change industries, not the other way around, and you seem to think that a conscious industry shift towards making everything a bit more PG - or PC - would make a meaningful difference. Hardly anything in the WORLD appeals exclusively to men. I'm going to again remind you that you're oversimplifying things with your language, left and right. It's rather sexist to assume that sexual objectification of women appeals ONLY to men, or that any of these tropes appeal ONLY to men. What you're suggesting is an across-the-board neutering... it's not a question of whether games as an art form can "withstand" X or Y, it's the motivation behind making the change. You're making dozens of unfounded assumptions about potential female programmers, what they want and don't want, what they MIGHT react positively to... I'd argue such energies would be better focused at the relative scarcity & declining numbers of female programmers to begin with, although in that case as well, you should avoid making assumptions that social causes explain 100% of the statistical inequalities. At any rate, once you start tailoring your art to match someone's idea of what might be more inclusive, using motivational evidence as scant and reasoning as tenuous as yours, I think you've lost the game. Your entire argument revolves around assumptions that these tropes and instances of objectification EXCLUSIVELY appeal to men, that female programmers aren't considering the game industry because they find their usage (and the presence of booth babes) "hostile," and that the direct causal linkage between these two phenomena can and should be manipulated. I find no ounce of it persuasive. I'd like to see more women in game development because I think we'd see more interesting & diverse games, but I avoid falling into the second-wave feminist trap (shared by other liberal and conservative movements alike) of thinking that if we could JUST fix the art, if we could JUST tweak the media, it would all work out... better. I'd like to quote the great Capt. Malcolm Reynolds:

The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2 The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3 The Sexy Villainess - Video #4 Assuming she sticks to this order, we're in for a triple-dose of objectification theory. Yay! This is a fantastic issue because it cuts across party lines in interesting ways - you've got (primarily "second-wave" minded) liberal feminists suddenly siding with the Jesse Helms of the world that are staunchly conservative. It's damn near impossible to keep censorship out of this discussion. If anyone wants to read up in advance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Against_Pornography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification#Objectification_theory Relatively few serious academics want to come down hard against sexual objectification. It is a thankless topic to question, mired both in politics and uncertainty. It is difficult to avoid being seen as advocating "for" sexual objectification, as opposed to simply downplaying its significance, or exploring the negative effects of trying to curtail it, or analyzing its potential innateness. This will thus be an arena where there's few folks I can cite that really summarize my views, although there's data. I'm going to go stream-of-consciousness for a bit on this, as I think that's the best way of summing things up, for me: Does sexual objectification occur? Yes. Is it measurable/quantifiable in a meaningful sense? Yes. Does it have negative effects on the perception of women by men, and women by other women, compared to an absence? Well... untestable. Almost certainly there are some. There are experiments that indicate "when you show a man a picture of a scantily clad woman, he is less likely to consider her intelligent" - that one gets a big, fat "DUH" from me, because you're triggering a drive that compromises rational evaluation. Also, this is moment-in-time, and it is nearly impossible to conduct larger-scale experiments that measure long-term exposure while controlling for cultural variables. There are studies that indicate "when men look at men, they see bodies/people, when they look at women, they see parts" - this is focused on the ocular, and is not surprising to me, but if anything this speaks to innateness. I don't believe this "male gaze" is socially constructed, nor do I believe it carries with it the luggage claimed. "Hyper-sexualized" - Uh, relative to what? You'll see this a lot... certainly with all the talk of social construction, wouldn't it be quite obvious that the baseline itself is cultural? Can sexual objectification be meaningfully curtailed to an extent that would produce measurable "improvement"? Ah... here's where you lose me. Sorry, but hell no. Also, trying either involves censorship or making people feel very uncomfortable about their... urges. Puritans tried this. Also, side effects of treatment are worse than the symptoms! Related: Can taking steps to reduce the amount of sexual objectification in the media produce measurable "improvement"? A subset of the above, more specific. Same answer. Thought: We have more access to information than ever before. We are bombarded with more sexualized of images of women than ever before. Women have more equality & rights than... ever before? Uh-oh? I'm reluctant to argue that women's rights have improved in Western civilization BECAUSE of sexual objectification, but I also don't think it's "in spite of" it either; I'd say it's simply compatible, i.e. that the human brain is impressive enough an organ to counter/adapt to sexual objectification, and that the free society of open information and plurality of perspectives that comes along with sexually explicit and/or objectifying content is the key to much of what we consider "freedom". Is it innate? C'mon. Of course it is. Ask yourself, in your heart of hearts (okay, your brain of brains), whether men ogling women is really primarily a socially constructed phenomena. Ask yourself whether recorded human history supports the position that sexually explicit (or objectifying) content is a CATALYST for the mistreatment of women, or the position that sexually explicit (or objectifying) content is an OUTLET/CATHARSIS for surplus sexual desire. Look at who we are, look at who we've been. Look at WHAT we are. This isn't an excuse or justification for sexism; we've PROVEN that we know better, and are better, and can do better as a species. But that same improvement has actually coincided with MORE sexualization, not less. Talking about most of the rest of what Anita will likely have to say pretty much means talking about objectification; I've gotten the ball rolling, interested in what people have to say!

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

Well... to respond thoroughly is a rather tall order, and most people would (respectfully!) probably prefer I STFU and post more mixes. But I hate cop-outs, and if only ONE person reads this and follows some of my reasoning, and explores things for themselves, that's motivation enough. I'll begin by saying that my previous posts, where I rewrote many of her statements to convey what I thought was both a more topical and more reasonable meaning, offer some examples of what I'm talking about. Let's just start with a baseline - Anita's entire analysis falls pretty squarely into the second-wave feminism camp. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism Why do I say this? She operates from a position that passive female characters are inherently and unilaterally negative, and furthermore draws a straight causal line to this negativity permeating through the minds of gamers & society at large. The wiki link above mentions this briefly in terms of views on popular culture, but is unfortunately mostly a timeline of 2nd wave history, without much exposition. It's a pretty crap wiki article, really, so the more helpful partner article is perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars, as it explores some of the topics of dissenting opinion that helped form the resulting "third-wave" feminism. It's worth noting here that "waves" are like "generations" - trying to sum them up nicely & neatly is difficult. Also don't shit on me for using Wiki, the citations & references are there if you want to dig deeper, etc. So let's just take this one DiD trope example for starters, although the objectification stuff is where it's going to become a LOT clearer I'm afraid. Everyone should take some time and read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism Please endure some brief quotes: If it sounds like an improvement, I'd argue that's because it is. It's no longer hung up on dichotomous us-vs-them active/passive patriarchy theory, it's about the real world, and it's grounded in real-world issues & concerns and, in layman's terms, a greater appreciation that women are diverse, that some enjoy objectification just as much as men, that sexuality can be empowering, that passivity is not inherently feminine but also not inherently negative, etc. It's less Boolean, less prone to invective, less oversimplifying, and (generally speaking) more pragmatic. Again, by necessity we're dealing in generalizations here, but it's more in line with my own perspectives, because I think people are complex, and it seems to acknowledge that complexity a lot more. Another quick quote: So just to be clear, I'm personally NOT groovy with ALL of the above, but a lot of it resonates. Ecofeminism strikes me as very problematic and post-colonial theory strikes me as "white guilt made thesis," but I'm on board with a lot of the rest.Back to the task at hand, I think one of the "downsides" (I don't view it as such) of third-wave or more modern feminism is that it's simply not as polemical, not as inciting, and not as absolute, and so its rhetoric feels, well... more reasonable. In my opinion, because it is, and because it acknowledges complexity and plurality. So how does all of that relate back to our damsel in distress? Well, there's two ways to look at this trope - one is from a more aesthetic perspective, as an aspect of craftsmanship & storytelling - is this overused? Does it resonate? Is it being employed consciously, and if not, is that lack of awareness key to the success of the work? I don't have the answers to all of those questions, but my point is that they can generally be explored without invoking feminism of ANY kind. I'd argue that in many examples, the trope is employed SPECIFICALLY to evoke the archaic - to transport the gamer not just to another time and place in general, but one that echoes fables of the past, one that seems (for better or worse) "classic" - and not much more. I'd also argue that most video game characters are one or two-dimensional at best; if Ebert (RIP) had a point about video games not being art, I think acting, characterizations, and storytelling would be central to it. I find the "art" of video games to be largely in the aggregate, personally, but I'd suggest that characters rich & deep in profound explorations of the human condition are few and far between. It is not yet a strong point of the medium. And so - purely aesthetically - I'd also contend that whether or not the trope is employed, and whether its use is conscious or afterthought, is most often NOT integral to the success of the overall work. So that's boring. Let's get out of aesthetics and try to do what she's doing - link it up with a feminist critique/analysis, but (hopefully) using a more updated perspective. It's misguided to demonize any & all uses of the trope as deleterious to the perception of women because SOME women may naturally be rather passive (as may some men!!) Some women may WANT to be rescued by a knight in shining armor (ditto!!) People are diverse, and they want different things. It's also not wise to go characterizing the human mind as so damn impressionable that use of such a trope will inevitably & inextricably lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. I believe it is enough to do this: 1. Point out the trope, identifying both its ubiquity and variations, so that people are simply more cognizant of it, and 2. In terms of analysis/critique, I'd actually hesitate to even go any further, but if that seems disappointing or "too minimalist," I'd shoot for something like this: So it's not Shakespeare, but let me just point out what's different... we avoid demonizing the trope outright, across the board, and avoid the aesthetic trap of where it came from, how lazy it is, etc. which is secondary to our focus. We acknowledge that diversity of form should still allow the trope to be employed without instantaneous bad faith assumptions, but we also lay down some relatively specific recommendations that are additive - not subtractive - in nature. And last but certainly not least, we entirely avoid invoking the "potential cumulative subconscious impact" angle, and all its many QUITE unsavory repercussions.It's a single example, but it can probably scale. When digested along with my previous posts picking apart specific language she uses, what I hope to have shown here is how her arguments are of a second-wave, oversimplifying, restrictive, outdated, binary feminism, and how a more contemporary perspective MIGHT attempt to make a similar point. Far from perfect, but then again what is?

I didn't wanna necro-bump this since it was dead for awhile after my last post, but since things have started back up again... While this is not related to video games, I find this article quite relevant: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/what-lean-in-misunderstands-about-gender-differences/274138/ Along with the corresponding large-scale study it cites, which corroborated results from a previous study: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 The relevance here is NOT "women just don't naturally like games as much" but may be tangentially related to why there are fewer women in game development. I'm citing it, however, because it criticizes "Lean In" for precisely the same reasons I take fault with Anita's videos - they are mired in an outdated, outmoded form of 1970's-era feminism that remains stuck in the dogma of that period and blind to any contradicting evidence or subsequent development. For many gamers watching Anita's videos, and on this forum, and elsewhere, this might be their first exposure to seriously dogmatic feminism. They may identify themselves as feminists because they perceive, as I do, that women have been discriminated against unfairly throughout human history. Because they revile the idea of unjust discrimination, and their hearts are in the right place, and they want to do and say whatever they can to make a difference, they assume that they must be feminists, that "mainstream feminism" must reflect their own heartfelt & earnest desire for equality, and thus that most feminist dogma is probably in line with their own thinking, and vice-versa. They also assume that Anita is espousing a modern, relevant mode of feminist critique because they probably (obviously there are exceptions!) have a limited familiarity with "what's out there" in this regard. The problem is, she isn't. Much like Sheryl Sandberg, she's using an outdated framework. I believe that most gamers with whom Anita's videos are resonating are otherwise reasonable and believe, again as I do, that 1. sexism exists and that 2. video games are not immune from it, and can regardless be improved by deeper & wider characterizations of female characters. Nothing wild there, and rather hard to argue with in my mind. The problem is that very little of what she's talking about is related to either of those two points, and almost all of the "connective tissue" hinges on how much of 1970's-era feminism you happen to buy into. I feel this situation will only worsen as she moves into topics regarding objectification. I hate to pick on Andy, because again I feel like his heart's in the right place, but he said to me a couple weeks ago that he was surprised that I came down on "the other side of the fence" when it comes to this topic. Well, I wasn't aware of any fence... I wasn't aware there are only two options. This type of us-vs-them mentality ("othering" if you prefer the academic jargon!) - you're with us or you're against us - is so strange and alien to me, especially given that it's a large part of what feminism is ostensibly trying to address in the first place. I prefer to think that there are myriad positions, and I take the position that Anita's feminist dogma & framework for analysis are stale by four or five decades, and that most well-meaning, egalitarian gamers who support her work are either missing these crucial bits, or unaware that large swaths of feminism have moved on & evolved - just as Anita is arguing that video games should! This position is not incompatible with my previously stated views that #1. sexism exists and #2. video games are not immune from it, and can regardless be improved by deeper & wider characterizations of female characters. I just feel we need to be a whole lot smarter about it, and not get sucked into swallowing down outdated ideologies without a little due diligence.

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

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

That's a good bare minimum to start with. Obviously the mascot images themselves are smaller, but it's far easier to mask at higher resolutions and then resize. I think a general guideline should be 250px minimum for either dimension. Also, personal request... I think we should add Teddy from Persona 4.

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

OH DAMN IT'S JOEL BIRD! Great to see you back around these parts! Looking forward to your track!

Actually I'm cool if I just get artwork, I can do the masking/transparency stuff no problem. Sorry in general for not being on top of things - trying to to get FF6 and V6 out the door is taking its toll on my time, but I'm psyched for new mascots. If I can get the list & characters and artwork for each as a nice bundle, I can absolutely power my way through the Photoshop side of things & get 'er done.

Fantastic news - congratulations!

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

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

FoxxDragon had some beef with our FF6 kickstarter and I really wasn't happy with how we left things, but that being said, I have to chime in because today was somehow my first day seeing the art in Kyle's sig, and it looks awesome.