@lordkim in the interest of not further derailing the thread, I will concede that yes, there are black kettles out there somewhere even if I have not physically encountered them myself.
Explain, then, how sexist voice sets or commentary, and gender role stereotyping, is a means to any end except to marginalize women (or men, for that matter).
This is a total irellevant point. Killing isn't a means to an end, it is immoral and for the most time illegal, besides you are very cynically saying it's a means to an end, you should know very well that irl it is very illegal just to go on a vigilante rampage and kill all those people you dislike and hate, then it is you who probaly goes down by a SWAT team or something else from the goverment.
Again, it's a different issue. In video games, violence is a convention. It's a means to an end because it's one of the core mechanics of the game.
Sexism is not one of the core mechanics of the game, so you have to look at it differently. Sexism is more closely related to story, character, and plot.
EDIT: Also, the video game convention of "murder is okay" extends primarily to "things that are trying to kill you". Most video games are pretty cavalier about which things they decide to make monsters that are after your brains, but at its core, the violence in a video game is targeted toward something inhuman, something that is an immediate threat to the player's life. In the real world, killing is excused solely in cases of self-defense (and even there it's kind of a gray area).
But, as I said, that's a separate issue with problems of its own.
Again, it's a different issue. In video games, violence is a convention. It's a means to an end because it's one of the core mechanics of the game.
Sexism is not one of the core mechanics of the game, so you have to look at it differently. Sexism is more closely related to story, character, and plot.
EDIT: Also, the video game convention of "murder is okay" extends primarily to "things that are trying to kill you". Most video games are pretty cavalier about which things they decide to make monsters that are after your brains, but at its core, the violence in a video game is targeted toward something inhuman, something that is an immediate threat to the player's life. In the real world, killing is excused solely in cases of self-defense (and even there it's kind of a gray area).
But, as I said, that's a separate issue with problems of its own.
Killing is not offensive in a video game, but sexism is, you are a good fairytale teller giving arbitary values to things.
When you kill an orc, you're defending yourself against a threat. When you kill a bear, you're defending yourself against a bear.
When you murder an innocent, your reputation drops because it's murder. If someone sees you, they might call the guards.
When a writer indulges in gender stereotypes, that writer is telling the player of the game, "gender stereotypes are okay". Not, "gender stereotypes are necessary to tell this story"; not "gender stereotypes are something we wish we didn't have to include but unfortunately that's just how it is".
This tells a female gamer that the writer views women as marginal. The same would be true if the game had all black characters portrayed as low-income gangbangers who are after the farmer's daughter. The same would be true if the game had character making Polish jokes with impunity.
The degree to which these things are offensive might vary depending on the particular gamer and on the issue in question, but that's how it works. Sometimes a writer can skirt this line, or temporarily cross it for the sake of making a point (Anomen is a womanizer because he's a tool, not because womanizing is "fun"). But if the writer unabashedly crosses this line for no other reason than "because it's amusing", you have to look at what the content is and how severely it offends you.
Not everyone has to look at it that way. But for those of us who do look at it that way, it stands out.
When you kill an orc, you're defending yourself against a threat. When you kill a bear, you're defending yourself against a bear.
When you murder an innocent, your reputation drops because it's murder. If someone sees you, they might call the guards.
No, you miss the point. Killing is always very bad and should be avoided, you should run away instead of taking up the fight, else it will just inspire people to be vigilanties or worse adventures who prowls the land for selfish gain, to kill and murder for the sole aim of profit.
We are rewarded heavily for killing and murdering, we don't get any reward for passifying the enemy and run away.
I think you might be getting caught up in this other separate issue, which I acknowledge is also an issue. If your point was that sexism is okay in video games because violence is okay in video games, I disagree.
There are also plenty of video games that do allow nonviolent conflict resolution, and I applaud those games.
I think you might be getting caught up in this other separate issue, which I acknowledge is also an issue. If your point was that sexism is okay in video games because violence is okay in video games, I disagree.
No! You need to read more carefully.
My point is that I find it baffeling that someone gets aaaalllll riled up by some silly taunts, when there are MUCH worse things that overshadow the sexism things, like the senseless killinng left and right.
It may seem like silly taunts to you, but to someone who cares about gender equality, it's sexism at its worst. It's the same reason why you don't post blonde jokes on web forums (or tell them in mixed company)--it's not just a funny joke, but a joke that marginalizes a group of individuals based on their appearance.
So if you're going to make sexist remarks or propose sexist ideas, even (and maybe even especially) in jest, you should expect to get some heavy push-back to the people it offends.
It may seem like silly taunts to you, but to someone who cares about gender equality, it's sexism at its worst. It's the same reason why you don't post blonde jokes on web forums (or tell them in mixed company)--it's not just a funny joke, but a joke that marginalizes a group of individuals based on their appearance.
So if you're going to make sexist remarks or propose sexist ideas, even (and maybe even especially) in jest, you should expect to get some heavy push-back to the people it offends.
Eeeeehhhh, ye ye, I'll cry a river when the angry mobs waves their torches and pitchforks at me under the tree which I have crawled up.
Now sounds like the typical case, where the offender assumes the role of the victim.
You are not the one up the tree. You are the one with the torch and the pitchfork, hunting down people for their mere appearance, because this makes you feel joy.
And in the moment where the victims do not longer tolerate your actions, you say everything was just "fun" and you pretend to be the victim.
You may consider closing this thread or moderating (i.e. watching it closely) it.
I believe that I was merely pointing out that in their selfrighteous crusade against my taunts, that they had double standards, as they would have no qualms killing and murdering which is far worse than these taunts.
What about Safana, overly sexxy and in scantly clad leather? Isn't that sexism on a larger scale?
What this is really about is navel gazing and selfpity, not seeing the greater picture.
Comments
Sexism is not one of the core mechanics of the game, so you have to look at it differently. Sexism is more closely related to story, character, and plot.
EDIT: Also, the video game convention of "murder is okay" extends primarily to "things that are trying to kill you". Most video games are pretty cavalier about which things they decide to make monsters that are after your brains, but at its core, the violence in a video game is targeted toward something inhuman, something that is an immediate threat to the player's life. In the real world, killing is excused solely in cases of self-defense (and even there it's kind of a gray area).
But, as I said, that's a separate issue with problems of its own.
When you kill an orc, you're defending yourself against a threat. When you kill a bear, you're defending yourself against a bear.
When you murder an innocent, your reputation drops because it's murder. If someone sees you, they might call the guards.
When a writer indulges in gender stereotypes, that writer is telling the player of the game, "gender stereotypes are okay". Not, "gender stereotypes are necessary to tell this story"; not "gender stereotypes are something we wish we didn't have to include but unfortunately that's just how it is".
This tells a female gamer that the writer views women as marginal. The same would be true if the game had all black characters portrayed as low-income gangbangers who are after the farmer's daughter. The same would be true if the game had character making Polish jokes with impunity.
The degree to which these things are offensive might vary depending on the particular gamer and on the issue in question, but that's how it works. Sometimes a writer can skirt this line, or temporarily cross it for the sake of making a point (Anomen is a womanizer because he's a tool, not because womanizing is "fun"). But if the writer unabashedly crosses this line for no other reason than "because it's amusing", you have to look at what the content is and how severely it offends you.
Not everyone has to look at it that way. But for those of us who do look at it that way, it stands out.
We are rewarded heavily for killing and murdering, we don't get any reward for passifying the enemy and run away.
There are also plenty of video games that do allow nonviolent conflict resolution, and I applaud those games.
My point is that I find it baffeling that someone gets aaaalllll riled up by some silly taunts, when there are MUCH worse things that overshadow the sexism things, like the senseless killinng left and right.
So if you're going to make sexist remarks or propose sexist ideas, even (and maybe even especially) in jest, you should expect to get some heavy push-back to the people it offends.