As a PS to that last post, I also wanna say that as someone who signed up for the Avaaz newsletter and follow other slacktivist media, A LOT of what they complain about is treatment of Muslim woman, and is pretty much the only place I hear about the latest fucked up thing in relation to women there, so I wouldn't say feminists don't care at all. It's just that they can do precisely nothing about it besides invade with their of Feminist paramilitary organization.

>>65951

>>65952
By far the most attractive female in this thread.

>>65951

The fact that shit like that still happens in many cultures does lend credence to many of their claims.

>>65937
>it's a stupid argument, because Barbie Dolls and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition or whatever they're mad about aren't government products
>government products
...wh-what?

Can't we all agree that a core tenet of feminism is topless protests, and that's a positive thing?

My sister's barbies always ended up smelling really weird.

On a semi-related note, we had this fake kitchen set and one time my friend Ryan and I pissed in the plastic sink and from then on the whole thing smelled like piss.

I also remember both of us pissing in my toy box for some ungodly reason.

Another time we pissed off the monkey bars at the park on this kid named Homer.

One time I pissed off the deck into the wind and it blew back into my face and I fell down. I don't remember what happened after but I must have gone back in the house soaked in piss.

#pisslife

>>65979
The only way for you to atone for all the wickedness you have perpetrated is to take your own life, and then hopefully the healing will begin.

>(video games and movies) haven't even tried to move to the same place children's cartoons have been at for 20 years
Fuck off, they're fine. Men are in more games because most games are about conflict and the most definitive/finalizing form of conflict is combat (which is pretty much entirely men). Combine that with the fact that women just plain don't apply to jobs that make games and you end up with mostly men making them from their point of view which is, surprise, masculine.
To put a woman in the same roles and doing the same things as most men would break suspension of disbelief and make it seem strange. Some women COULD certainly live up to the rigors of combat, but they're generally homely, and no one wants to play a homely woman. The only time it has a chance to work is in cartoony or otherwise completely unrealistic games.

There isn't a fair amount of rage, it just seems that way because you are in a feedback loop of hate. You're swimming in it and you need to come up for air so you can see that people don't actually care about their character's gender. This whole thing is just the overreaction of a very vocal minority.

>>65977
They do often have very nice breasteses.

>>65983
That's all true and fairly hard to dispute, except for the "suspension of disbelief" part which is sorta dumb. Games are the way they are because a bunch of stuffed shirt assholes decided that we need 10 brown military shooters a year with 60 million dollar budgets and 10 hours of gameplay. Putting a woman in those situations might break belief in cases, but most games are completely unrealistic from the start, anyway. But it's true that if women want better representation they'll have to actually get into the industry itself.

I was just pointing out that was where a lot of the hate/derision comes from. When the best representations of female characters come in children's cartoons, you can see how that might come off as sorta shitty by a lot of people, regardless of the cause.

>>65983
I don't see how females engaging in combat breaks suspension of disbelief. It sounds like the only type of game you play are war themed shooters on the xbox.

I, for one, would love to see a war game about cute lolis.

First off, I should apologize for my tone. I have recently been hearing nothing but how evil media is because of evil penises and it gets old (the new ass creed comes to mind). I intended to respond to the point but shit spilled in. Sorry.
My point was basically that games are typically combat which is extremely male-dominated for multiple reasons. Thus, women are almost never in the kind of situations that you see in games. When they do put a woman in, she's usually a bland "toughgal" in there for either fanservice or to meet a diversity quota. There's nothing wrong with diversity until if feels condescending. Then it's just as bad as before it was there.

> a real forceful attempt to ingrain societal roles
I think this is what got me. They were never an attempt to ingrain anything except money into the pockets of those stuffed-shirt assholes. That's it, really.

> the "suspension of disbelief" part which is sorta dumb
Not when you have 90lb women that are just as strong as a hulking 250lb hulkman. The extra muscle which should lend itself to heavier armor, weapons and hits instead is basically a series of fleshballoons for him. A musclesuit that means he's actually only as strong as someone with half his mass.

>most games are completely unrealistic from the start, anyway
Yes, but unless they're extreme with their unrealism, they still generally follow normal rules.

>When the best representations of female characters come in children's cartoons
I don't quite agree, but I can chalk it up to the world moving to the beat of more than one drum. Your call.

>>65988
I'll let your ad strawman slide for the above's sake. But when you've got a small woman that is tougher and stronger than a krogan, then yes: It makes me see behind the curtain. Analyze more, ad homonym less.

Don't get me wrong with these points. A ballza/bad character is ballza/bad on its own merits and gender usually doesn't have much to do with it. As I said above, one part set me off, then the second made me think of games. Games that I believe are just fine. No one is being hurt, and if someone wants more ballza female characters (the lack of whom is because, again, games are mostly combat), then by all means make them. I can only help to have more ballza characters regardless of attributes.

>>65989
Fair enough. I would not, myself.

>>65990
I read somewhere that there tend to be more male protagonists in games and TV shows because both males and females can relate to them. When the hero is female, men tend not to buy as much merchandise for fear of being called sissies.

>>65993
I thought it was interesting and worth pointing out that in the ``otaku´´ subculture it's basically the opposite. Look at the shows and series that are the most popular and move the most merchandise and it's nearly always the ones with a primarily female cast. K-On and Madoka Magica are among the highest grossing anime of all time, and games like Touhou and Kantai Collection that feature entirely or near-entirely female casts in combat roles continue to be hugely popular. Though to be fair, from my understanding, in kancole you actually play the role of a male admiral who's commanding a fleet of shipgirls and not as the girls themselves.

>>65979
Maybe your sister's barbies smelled weird because you and your friend kept pissing on them?

>>65990
I get it, I really do. I don't even want to mention what has been going on recently, that's how much I don't want to mention it.

Anyway, when I said forcefully ingrained I wasn't talking about right now or even the 80s, things like GI Joe and Barbie were created and popularized in the post-war era. It wasn't some shadowy conspiracy, but there did appear to be some sort of coordinated effort to push the idea of the nuclear family living in the sleepy suburb.

In my experience in gaming, however, there's not a lot of games I play that would necessitate a male protagonist. It's been quite some time since I've played military shooters or other games where "musclebound" can apply to the protagonist. Especially when it comes to shooty games. Even if we take the most recent 'bigger' games, I don't see why hat guy in Watch Dogs needs to be a guy, but furthermore the only women in it are used as crying posts. It's not only about making female protagonists, just make the women surrounding the protagonist something other than plot devices and "emotional anchors."

I just don't think suggesting that females are capable of the same range of emotions and motivations as males is such a hard thing for a male to pull off, and I don't think that advocating that where it is appropriate makes me some kind of radfem SJW.

>>65993
>>65994
It's an interesting divide that can be easily dismissed as cultural, but I don't so much believe that. It's cultural to some degree, in Japanese culture, entertainment and musings have always been something that women participated in. A man sitting down and watching a woman perform or watch a female-oriented play was never considered shameful. However, I'm not sure what if any effect that has on their current culture. It could be jack shit.

But I would say that the recent popularity of a certain equine television can at least provide evidence that it has less to do with what boys/men actually like and more to do with what they are TOLD to like, and what they might be shamed for enjoying. Meanwhile in Japan, anime has long been female-focused, the 'stigma' if there ever was one was shed long ago. I think it provides further evidence, as well, that men can create female characters that can't be nitpicked no matter how much people try.

That's not even getting into the debate as to whether a character like Kekko Kamen is a feminist icon or not.

>>65977
Those protesters, and all the hot naked female protesters you've ever seen are fake. They're paid to pretend-protest by the government to make the protest itself look cartoonish and take attention away from whatever the actual cause is. It's the burning of the Reichstag, but sexy.

>>66006
I wholeheartedly support the government in this endeavor, then.

>>66005
>that men can create female characters that can't be nitpicked no matter how much people try.
People can and do complain though. The saving grace of it though is that Japs don't speak English or give a shit what whiny western dykes want.

>>66015
They complain mostly about the easy targets, though. You'll always have some people who will find something wrong with anything, but you're not trying to convince them.

>some kind of radfem SJW
I did not mean to imply anything like that (after the first post, to be honest). Sorry again if it seems that way. And the less said about all that stuff, the better. That being said, I don't completely agree with you.

>there did appear to be some sort of coordinated effort to push the idea of the nuclear family living in the sleepy suburb
I don't see that, though. I just think that, rather than trying to cause the nuclear family, cartooneers were just trying to reach it. I think it was just "what do boys like? Toy soldiers, sir. What do girls like? Ponies and dolls, sir!" That's it really. Captain Planet was definitely pushing for certain things, but it was pretty harmless vis a vis what and how.

> there's not a lot of games I play that would necessitate a male protagonist
Sure, they might not be necessary, but men are proven to work and putting women in a fair number of games would usually take more effort (read: money). I think that a female story lead for GTA would not sit right with a lot of people unless she was very well-made. Or they can just make him a standard gangbanger/criminal/psycho and go swimming in their money like McDuck. Since companies are almost always run by people that are clueless, they go with what they know: (not male characters, but) lower risk and lower cost.

Do I think a lot of games could work with a female lead? Certainly, there's easily plenty of evidence to the yes. But it's a risk for the company and it will have unique problems to overcome. On the other hand, they already know where to start to make a ballza male character (or a cheap, gruff male antihero). Do I think that a lot more games need a female lead? Not really. More perspectives is almost always interesting and enriching, but forcing it won't do ballza for anyone.

>females are capable of the same range of emotions and motivations as males
Sure. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I just think that we don't see more women rescuing the prince because "Knight rescues princess" is an old trope that works, the above "it's easier to make man protagonists", and even if it is done, you wind up with the same problem just with reversed genders.
From what I've heard of it, "Rainbow Chainsaw Look At My Tits: The Game" had this happen. I would strongly bet that few to no people cared about the boyfriend as a character. He was literally an ornament for her. Yeah, it's probably a stupid story, but so was Super Mario Brothers.

As for the Japanese/American main female character divide: I just figured that guys wanted to ogle chicks and combat offers lots of camera shifts and poses. It's more OK in Japan or they dun givafuck or what, I have no idea. I also can't clam any knowledge of the culture outside of Kurosawa movies.

>>66032
I wasn't really accusing you of accusing me of being an SJW, but in my experience it doesn't seem to take much to get that label.

I guess "coordinated" might be a wrong word... it just seemed like a lot of stuff happened at once during the war and after the war, when the government propaganda machine was going full throttle and we were trying to rebuild the economy. Suddenly we had TV, movies, and other forms of media pushing a very specific view of what the American family should be like. There seemed to be an attempt to define the American family in contrast to the Soviet family and culture, and that included pushing the idea of a wide-skirt mommy standing in front of an oven.

Were toys and cartoons and other things specifically designed around this new definition? It could have been just a reflection of what was already being pushed, sure. Most dolls prior to Barbie were baby dolls- and the messages there are rather direct. But Barbie wasn't designed to be something for young girls to take care of, but rather to aspire to be. That's where many feminists take issue. Even a cartoon character can be taken in a variety of ways, just because they're on television doesn't mean they are to be aspired to.

But I don't think it's a matter of "girls like x and boys like y and that's what they're pandering to", young children typically do not choose their toys, they're given to them. Very young children will be drawn to toys of all kinds and colors, it's ultimately us that tells them what they should and should not play with. And young kids aren't known for thinking for themselves.

The other points you made were accurate, though I was talking about that when I pointed out "cynical business reasons." Really it says more about the absurd development costs when creating feminine animations for player characters is so incredibly cost-prohibitive. There's a debate as to whether that is a cop-out or a legitimate factor.

But I don't think the point here is to get rid of male-dominated games. GTA in some ways is above feminist reproach, you can claim it's misogynist but it's also a game where you play mostly horrible human beings that kill people rather routinely. But even in that situation, recognizing that women are also capable of such atrocities and aren't just bimbos/drug users on the sidelines would be refreshing if nothing else. But I understand if the "culture" isn't quite ready to accept the idea of a ruthless female murderer.

>Suddenly we had TV, movies, and other forms of media pushing a very specific view of what the American family should be like.
You mentioned the 80's last time, so I'm not sure what time period you're focusing on. The cartoons in the 80's were all pretty simple and had little to no social commentary beyond a PSA at the end (TMNT, Transformers, My Little Pony, Inspector Gadget, He-Man, Heathcliff, Gummi Bears).
In order to have intent, they had to have a reason, and I don't think there was one in their minds. If families were shown a certain way, it's because that is how a family was understood and to show otherwise would just lead to confusion. Putting aside the "coordinated" aspect, I still really don't see where the intent is coming from.

>young children typically do not choose their toys, they're given to them
Yes, toys are typically given, but boys are naturally predisposed towards more physical play before social influences even come into the question. Even monkeys have noticeable toy-choosing patterns based on gender. So while I agree that society plays an enormous part, there is definitely a natural default for each gender. In this case toy manufacturers weren't looking to revolutionize gender roles, they just wanted money. So they went with what was already there socially and naturally: army toys for boys and ponies/less-violent toys for girls.

>recognizing that women are also capable of such atrocities and aren't just bimbos/drug users on the sidelines would be refreshing
In GTA3, the final boss was a woman. Threw Claude to the cops to escape cops more easily. Kendl Johnson in GTA San Andreas was a strong woman and was the only character that really had any morality to them. They're not all amazing female characters, but most of the men aren't either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Theft_Auto_III_characters#Catalina
Regarding the ass creed thing, I think they could have put women in and it would have been fine. That said, I don't think it's so mandatory to have women that they need to be burnt at the stake for having only men. No, they need to be burnt for Uplay and their DRM bullshit.

I think it's obvious that women can be just as interesting/engaging as men, more viewpoints mean more stories and more varied stories, and ballza characters generally don't make you think of their gender first (excepting certain contexts). But I also think that things are fine. People are not opposed to more women in media, but if someone wants to make it happen, they can. Women just aren't jumping into game dev like men.
Finally, I think that if we try to force people to make characters and stories they don't want to make, then everyone suffers for it. Men/women will never be perfectly equal in every way, and that's a ballza thing on both sides.

Vive la différence!

>>66045
I was talking specifically about the post war era, late 40s/50s/early 60s. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough before. By the time the 80s sprang along it was all about the dollars and cents and merchandising. My original comparison of Barbie and GI Joe was comparing two things that came out at around the same time.

I did forget about GTA3 specifically, I remember not only having Catalina but also the Yakuza bitch who were at least decently characterized. VC didn't have much, but SA at least had the sister if nothing else. 4 did at least make attempts, but none of them had any real personality in my opinion, and simply acted as plot devices later in the game. I haven't played 5 because it's not out on PC but my understanding from reviews is that it's not better/even worse.

With AC it was particularly disappointing though since we know they are capable of making decent female characters as they had a really ballza one in Black Flag. Women did take a rather big role in the French Revolution and for them to be pushed out because the animations are too expensive/time consuming... yeah. So there's at least a perception in the AAA industry that they appear to be getting worse with this stuff, not better, as time goes on. It's not because people are sexist, it's because of the stagnation of creativity in general we see due to executives trying to meddle too much to appeal to "proven" audiences.

As a whole, though, I do think it's getting better. Indies (the real ones) seem to be getting it right on a tonal level at least, and unsurprisingly indie games are getting more popular. So it's hard for me to say it's getting worse across every sector.

>post war era, late 40s/50s/early 60s
Ok, thought so because of skirtmom. I'm just curious, but what specifically makes you think there was intent rather than just "things are how they are". At most I would have figured they would have been saying "Make ye more bebbes"

>It's not because people are sexist, it's because of the stagnation of creativity in general
Pretty much.

>GTAV
Pretty much everyone is shit. They should have made it early 19xx New York and just gone full noir. No heroes indeed.

>>66045
>People are not opposed to more women in media,

Sorry, but that is simply not true.

>>66075
Then explain the backlash any time someone offers a feminist critique of portrayals of women or calls for more nuanced, robust portrayals of female characters in video games?

>>66079
Or the well documented backlash against female content creators, not even for offering critiques but just for being female and creating a video game or working in the industry.

The Current on CBC Radio here in Canada did a segment on women who have experienced workplace sexism in the video game industry and at the end of the week when they read letters/tweets/etc from listeners in response to the week's stories, amid the letters from yet more women in the video game industry with stories of workplace harassment, were several letters from people who called the segment "the worst The Current has ever produced" or other similar things, which seemed like a weirdly panicked reaction.

>>66075
>>66080
Gamers in general are a fickle bunch. Certain women put themselves out there as developers or symbols of feminine forces in a big developer, and then when gamers tell them that their game sucks, suddenly it becomes about sexism and harassment.

There are plenty of women who work in the industry and have for many years, and haven't found it the same hive of sexism. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, but it exists to some capacity in every workplace, and the anger should be directed at those who are committing the sexism, not trying to paint all otherwise reasonable gamers as some kind of intolerable sexist horde. If someone believes there has been employment discrimination or criminal harassment/credible threats, they are free to ask the police to investigate. And yet, we don't see these same women who run to the media about sexism and harassment actually getting anyone arrested the vast majority of the time.

>>66079
>the backlash any time someone offers a feminist critique of portrayals of women or calls for more nuanced, robust portrayals of female characters in video games?
Two things.
1. The problem is not a lack of ballza female characters, the problem is a lack of ballza characters across the board. For the reasons I have given above, most game characters are men. Thus, there are fewer women, thus there are fewer examples of ballza lady characters. That's it.
2. There is no backlash. It's a few dozen or so (out of the entire internet) of 13 year olds/equivalents trying to piss someone off. If she were saying the same thing about race or gays, the kids would just switch out "bitch, whore, etc." with appropriate slurs.
So how about this: you declare that there is backlash against these feminists? Then show me backlash coming from someone other than standard internet trolls?

Besides, if you're referring to "her" (one of the reasons why I was rude in >>65983), she is completely full of shit. I tried watching some of her videos, and even for youtube shit, it's shit. Stealing others' shit, old info, monotone, boring, no analysis to speak of, just plain bad. Nothing new, nothing ballza, just not worth the few minutes (13 or so videos of which got her something like $150,000). To compound that, she manipulated people into giving her what money she did get. Fuck her in her lying, manipulative, talentless face. I don't think she quite warrants rape/death threats, but she sure earned plenty of justified vitriol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw
There's another "her" that's even worse, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

One of the things regarding feminists that DOES generate antipathy in everyone I speak to is: if feminists want equality, why not call themselves equalists or humanists or something? Women really aren't the underdogs they once were.

>>66092
>if feminists want equality, why not call themselves equalists or humanists or something? Women really aren't the underdogs they once were.
This is a tired argument and isn't even worth getting into.

> if you're referring to "her"
I wasn't talking about Anita Sarkeesian (I assume that's the "her") and your points are entirely subjective. I think her Tropes vs Women series is excellent, and she also articulated some very ballza arguments against SlutWalk on her site, among other things, which I have found both interesting and helpful in refining and articulating my own views.

>For the reasons I have given above, most game characters are men
"Men like war and most games are war games" is not a valid argument. In the episode of The Current I mentioned above, there was some discussion of the internal politics that many developers (male and female) have encountered with how development companies regard games for women and girls. Particularly, companies operating on the misconception that adult women don't make up half of all gamers and that they don't buy video games, so games with broader or more female-oriented content don't get the same funding or level of support as games that are stereotypically male-oriented.

>Then show me backlash coming from someone other than standard internet trolls?
Again, I refer you to the above radio show, where male and female developers shared stories of workplace harassment from coworkers, executives, adults at conventions, and all other manner of physical, verbal, and more subtle harassment.

All of your arguments are lazy dismissals based on misconceptions and assumptions, or are subjective opinion dressed up as fact.

>>66090
>Certain women put themselves out there as developers or symbols of feminine forces in a big developer, and then when gamers tell them that their game sucks, suddenly it becomes about sexism and harassment.
No, there are numerous cases of independent or small-scale female developers (not necessarily operating within "big developers") who quietly release a game with no mention of feminism, gender, etc. However, they are then met with harassment and abuse because people find out it was a woman who made the game. The abuse and subsequent media circus, in all the cases I can recall, has been after-the-fact, not as a reaction to pre-stated intentions to act as a "feminime force."

Whether or not the games suck is entirely subjective. I also do not understand how a game sucking is grounds for sexualized abuse, especially when, as I said, the developer did not make a peep about feminism or gendered discrimination until after the abuse was already coming.

>>66092
>Stealing others' shit
So citing sources and linking to those sources on your website is stealing?

Damn Wikipedia stealing others' shit!

>>66138
I'm genuinely curious as to what you're referring to. I've never heard of a woman making a game, not making a big deal out of gender or herself, and then getting harassed for no reason besides having a vagina.

It's not just indie games, you'll always have people who think everything is shit and feel like they need to express that view crudely and loudly, but just because they attach "cunt" to that review doesn't mean there is real harassment.

My understanding of the Depression Quest saga was that it was initially just that: people being ds on Steam, then Zoe censoring and taking it personally, and then she was raided or whatever, then blamed Wizardchan even though there was no evidence for it... it was much more complicated than her simply being a woman. But if you have any other examples of a woman dev just existing and getting harassed for it.

>>66148
>I've never heard of a woman making a game, not making a big deal out of gender or herself,
...At this point I was increasingly feeling like all of your points are built on reading one or two articles about that woman who made the depression game.

>feel like they need to express that view crudely and loudly, but just because they attach "cunt" to that review doesn't mean there is real harassment.
That's not what happens. Again I refer you to the reports, from men and women, of the sexist structures embedded in the politics of game development, workplace harassment, elaborate threats, and even praise coming couched in sexual innuendo. It's not just a case of normal reviews that end with "cunt."

>My understanding of the Depression Quest saga
There it is. I'm not talking about this, though it does fit within this bubble. Again, I refer you to: female developers just trying to do their jobs and not have their gender be an issue encountering everything from offhand condescension to harassment to elaborate abuse both in their workplace and from video game consumers.

So to summarize your point in all this:
- Women in the video game industry only encounter gendered abuse when they make a big hoo-hah about being feminists or having a vagina to promote their game
- The abuse they encounter isn't really abuse, it's just par for the course but because it has the word "cunt" attached they get all huffy and run to the press
- it isn't a big deal and if it is it's her fault for self-identifying as a feminist in the first place

>>66150
And again, I'm just asking for a source on what you're talking about. I could Google it myself, but something tells me that will be a long and ultimately fruitless endeavor, as I'll probably get conflicting and biased information from all sides of the argument. So I'm asking for your sources that have informed your particular argument.

I ask because this is not my experience. I know people who work in small dev companies, and I go to fan events such as cons where they talk about these types of issues openly. While there is some difficulty for women in the industry, most don't seem to report anything too awful. I don't doubt that serious harassment has happened in workplaces before, mind you, as there is everywhere else, but I don't believe it's pandemic or representative of the industry as a whole.

I am perfectly willing to accept that it is a bigger problem than I think it is, but I'm not just going to take your word for it based on unspecified "reports."

>tired argument
Meh, whatever. I think it is exemplary of the mindset of feminists, but we'll let that go for now. Instead, I'll focus on that lying sack of crap that bilked 150 g's out of a bunch of marks: Anita Sarkeesian.

Before continuing, I want to point out that Sarkeesian claimed to want $6000 to make 5 of these 10-20 minute youtube videos (now that she has $150,000 dollars, she graciously extended that to 13). She said she needed the money for production and research. The problem is that she already had equipment (as shown in the very kickstarter video asking for money) and didn't even mention upgrading equipment until she had $20,000. Also, she claims to be a lover of video games, so she should already have much of the research done just from knowing games and being a gamer for some 20-odd years or so.
Since she got her tidy sum 2 years ago, she has made 2.5 hours of video, all of it at minimal effort.

Quotes:
"I'm not just looking at a handful of games or just the worst offenders . . . This is an incredibly ambitious project because of the scope and scale of the research and production involved"
There's no mention of anything but the worst offenders, and her points are frequently based on situations specific to individual games (GTAV and Hitman for example).
The scope and scale of this entire boondoggle is comparable to what many people do just for the hell of it. Plenty of people do more just for fun. Her videos are pretty much exactly what she was making before: her staring at the camera, droning at you about how evil games are towards women.

>your points are entirely subjective
Au contraire, plenty of my points are anything but subjective.
She has outright lied
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw
Stolen art and work without permission (never even responding when the artists/youtubers contacted her)
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
she either has not researched the games she talks about or she is lying about them, and nothing she is saying is even new information.
(I found a crapload of videos discrediting her, here's just one for you) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI
And so on.

For a prime example from her first video (paraphrased):
"In GTAV if you kill a hooker and get caught by the cops, you'll just end up outside the police station short a few bucks as though nothing happened . . . In this way, games work to facilitate violence against women"
She fails to mention that that's exactly what happens if you shoot anyone else and basically the same as if you die. Or ding their copcars. Or bump into them. She makes a point like this and builds upon it to make points that are often outright wrong within the context of the game. At best, she's usually just misleading.
All that is putting aside the characters of GTAV themselves.

I'm back. Cont., yawl! WOOHA! (from >>66160 and >>66092)

>>66090
>it exists to some capacity in every workplace, and the anger should be directed at those who are committing the sexism
Precisely this. It is bad and should not be, but it is.

>>66142
Forgot to give your honorable mention. See above links for just some of her thievery. The people that made the videos had to call her on it before they ever even got credit for their videos. So yes, she stole them. She took them without consent and made money from it.

>>66150
>Again I refer you to the reports
No you don't. You have referred to them, but you have not referred me to them. Do you have such reports? If so, then, as a South park teacher once said: "Present them"

>the Depression Quest saga
Was about journalistic integrity, not feminism. It was a woman cheating on her boyfriend with men who just happen to either 1. be her boss, or b. give her positive reviews for her game all while lying to her boyfriend about it. This happened 4-5 times including just before meeting back up with him. Interesting as a "she's a terrible person and deserves to, at minimum, lose a few knuckles yakuza-style" way: she herself defines cheating then having sex with your partner as rape. Oh, snap))
http://www.pictureshack.us/images/82867_blue.jpg (it's maybe 40% or so down. just after one of the breaks.)

>>66173
>"Men like war and most games are war games" is not a valid argument.
Fair enough that you don't agree. So what makes my statement false? So far what you're saying is not why it's invalid, just why it is how it is. It seems more as though you agree, judging by what you've said.

>the episode of The Current
I'm providing links directly to things. If someone has something pertinent to say, perhaps you could link directly to it as well? Especially seeing as I have neither time nor inclination to dig through a Canadian radio show to prove your point for you. Thank you.

>male and female developers shared stories of workplace harassment
You said "feminists get backlash for talking about women in games" I asked you to provide proof of said backlash. This is not it. Even if it were, it is still second or third-hand hearsay at best. Again I ask: Please provide proof that feminists are experiencing backlash not attributable to trolls.

>numerous cases of independent or small-scale female developers
So it should be easy to prove this, then. I ask you to please prove your claim.

Oh yeah, one last thing: her boss was also married at the time.
Deeeeeeaaaaamn.

>>66161

>http://www.pictureshack.us/images/82867_blue.jpg

That read like a train wreck in slow-motion, goddamn.

>>66137
>>66137
>Particularly, companies operating on the misconception that adult women don't make up half of all gamers

This is at the very core of the entire feminist debate in videogaming, and I'm going to hop in and call bullshit on it.

No one is racist or sexist enough to not want to make money. I hate my fucking neighbors, but if I could become a millionaire by selling them shit they wanted, I would do so. No industry is immune to this, and I would like to see some industry studies backing your point up. Thanks.

I don't really care about Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn. The fact that they did shit has absolutely no relevance to the main discourse about video games and the industry being male-dominated. Does the fact that Anthony Weiner sent dic pics mean every tenet he stands for invalid? It's totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. People's flaws and behavior do not make their arguments or beliefs less true or invalidate the movements they're from. If you're going to debate the subject, give us something more substantial than the equivalent of tabloid headlines.

>>66176

>No one is racist or sexist enough to not want to make money.

That's patently untrue. For centuries many store owners and businessmen very openly discriminated against various minorities both as employees and customers, from the Irish to the Chinese to African-Americans. They went as far as to ban them from their shops entirely or refuse to hire them in any capacity. That's a matter of historical record, not debate. That's not even factoring subconscious discrimination. We're not perfectly rational creatures. We will bias ourselves towards different ideologies, genders, races, and tastes without even realizing it. Then you have simple managerial indifference. A company where the managers fail to crack down on harassment and discrimination from employees, whether out of incompetence, sympathy, or perception that the harassment isn't worth taking action about can create negative atmosphere for women in the workplace. There are many ways in which discrimination can occur, many unintentional.

>>66180
>No one is racist or sexist enough to not want to make money.
>That's patently untrue. For centuries many store owners and businessmen very openly discriminated against various minorities both as employees and customers, from the Irish to the Chinese to African-Americans. They went as far as to ban them from their shops entirely or refuse to hire them in any capacity.

The minorities in those contexts were very poor. Some money to spend, not a lot.
The part of the majority who were not store owners or businessmen discriminated against the minorities, too. To the point that they'd not want to buy from or even enter a shop where minorities worked or spent their money. By banning the minorities from their place of work, the store owners and businessmen were appealing to the majority and taking their business.

I agree with the rest of your post but there are clear and economically sound reasons why the bit I quoted was waffles.

>We will bias ourselves towards different ideologies, genders, races, and tastes without even realizing it.
Women are not in games because they specifically choose to not go into game dev. Same with most tech fields: they just don't want to do it. They do, however, make up a huge portion of soft-science graduates like psychology, education and medicine. Compare that with men who are the great majority in engineering, math and computer-related fields (that last one is important). There is nothing wrong with women choosing the fields they do, but it does mean that they are less likely to be in game dev.
Info is from 2008, but it's ballza enough for you. You have not earned more than 10 seconds of google. But then, I knew it was there because I inform myself BEFORE I make my claims. (link info from dept. of Education)
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/most-popular-college-degrees-for-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education_slide.html

Putting that aside, do you have any evidence to support your claim that women are not in game dev because of harassment? Still waiting on it.

>Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn.
I mentioned the manipulator and the whore (I mean both words literally) because they are often pointed at as examples of how women are abused for just being women ;_;. The problem with that is that both of them really did bring it on themselves through their actions, not their genders. They don't deserve rape/death threats, but I do fully support anyone that shines light on their shit.

>People's flaws and behavior do not make their arguments or beliefs less true
No, but misrepresentation of those arguments does. So does building arguments upon a foundation made of intentional falsehood.

>If you're going to debate the subject, give us something more substantial than the equivalent of tabloid headlines.
The ball is already in your court (if you are the same person). I was told the following without qualifying remarks and have yet to see any information substantiating them despite several requests:
>"Men like war and most games are war games" is not a valid argument. [for why men outnumber women in game dev]
> there are numerous cases of independent or small-scale female developers . . . they are then met with harassment and abuse because people find out it was a woman who made the game
> the well documented backlash against female content creators, not even for offering critiques but just for being female and creating a video game or working in the industry

I think that it is important to note that a "gamer" is someone whose main hobby is gaming, in much the same way that we have "sports nuts", "cinephiles" or "guys jerking off to their cars" and so on. 58% of online games played are casual/social (30%) and puzzle, board game, game show and trivia games (28%). These markets have grown hugely in the last decade or so. Coincidentally, we have seen a similar growth in the numbers of both female and elderly game players. While someone may play these games, it is unlikely that they are a primary hobby; there is just not enough engagement in nearly all of them to make a fulfilling primary hobby. They are universally meant to be a quick distraction. Combine that with the fact that women are playing much more of these games than men, and you have something worth presenting: there are fewer female gamers compared to male gamers. Just one more reason why there are more men making games.
Do as many women play games as men? Maybe roughly, sure. Do women play games as much as men? I don't think so. The numbers saying that they are half of gamers includes those mobile little games as included in the term "gamer".
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf

Fuck barbie that pretentious cunt.

Where'd you go, opposition? We have unanswered questions and I'd really like to know what you think. I won't even be mad if you prove me wrong; it will just mean that I learned something.

>>66243
I haven't been here in like a week. Or now that I look at my last post, Sunday the 14th. Sorry.

Welp, if there's no response to my walls, I declare myself victor by virtue of being the rightest dude. So right.