What is the significance of her shutting down discussion within youtube comments? Like, why even bring it up at all? Do you think there are a lot of important voices who only have access to youtube, and have been silenced? Do you think she is effectively oppressing any meaningful dissent? It strikes me as a strawman argument.
I don't see, for a moment, how refusing to submit to the careful scrutiny of the youtube-comment-only intellectual community undermines her arguments. Anyone who has anything to say on youtube can just as easily say it somewhere else. It's an aesthetic choice, it's the same as making a blog post with no comments. What if she'd hosted the video on her own site, and the site had no comment system? Would that, also, be squashing discussion?
Again -- if she was attacking the press or the public, that'd be different, but she's blocked discussion in potentially the most widely understood to be irrelevant platform possible for careful debate. The comment/reply system isn't even searchable or empowered to hold a discussion -- what, really, are we missing out on?
Again -- if she was attacking the press or the public, that'd be different, but she's blocked discussion in potentially the most widely understood to be irrelevant platform possible for careful debate. The comment/reply system isn't even searchable or empowered to hold a discussion -- what, really, are we missing out on?
my guess is, people who dont like her or like feminists in general are furious over the fact that they cant see the negative/hate/rape comments posted on her youtube page.
people who hate her want to see more people who hate her and possibly debunk her in some way. disabling comments take away a good anonymous platform for hate mongering and that makes the haters mad.
bringing up the point of her disabling youtube comments is merely a distraction strategy used by people who want to make her look bad.
if your email address was compromised and you received 100+ junk main every day you would probably disable that email address too.
Turing into the Joe and Dylan Show (Edit: mash you too :P) but hopefully this will clarify and be pretty easy to swallow, not trying to get hyperbolic over here.
shes not freaking Hitler, its really NOT that big of a deal if she does it. youtube has the feature so people can use it for christ sake, so the significance? not all the much.
it just also doesn't do much for her credibility that shes deflecting ideas that could potentially conflict or confuse her ideas too spaces outside of her area of concern. yeah shes not stopping anyone from expressing their opinions whole cloth. just from doing around her.
it just also doesn't do much for her credibility that shes deflecting ideas that could potentially conflict or confuse her ideas too spaces outside of her area of concern. yeah shes not stopping anyone from expressing their opinions whole cloth. just from doing around her.
I agree to a very limited point with what you said here -- but seeing as she's got a masters in the field and was pledged 160,000 dollars in public support, I'm not sure she's on particularly shaky ground credibility-wise right now. She should have plenty of credibility. I don't see that as undermining her significantly unless you're HUNTING for places to find fault with her.
@Joseph
Maybe she wants discussion on her site, she might share your opinion that Youtube isn't a great platform for discussion. Nope, comments on there are moderator approved, and in the three days since the video went up nothing has been approved.
Of the two places you'd most likely go to talk about the videos, you can't. She's posting videos that are intended to generate discussion but apparently doesn't want you to discuss it with her.
@Joseph
Maybe she wants discussion on her site, she might share your opinion that Youtube isn't a great platform for discussion. Nope, comments on there are moderator approved, and in the three days since the video went up nothing has been approved.
Of the two places you'd most likely go to talk about the videos, you can't. She's posting videos that are intended to generate discussion but apparently doesn't want you to discuss it with her.
100% might be a disagreement between you and me on what the phrase means, but when she says "generate discussion" I expect her trying to instigate research, theses, editorials, and other video series, not drum up youtube/site comments.
It would certainly be more elegant and helpful if she had a great platform for discussion (maybe just a bigger, more capable, ethical moderator staff who could approve comment from all viewpoints on her own site?), and she certainly could've afforded that with her kickstarter money, so that's a valid criticism, but... Is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? Especially with like, what is it, 7% of her videos complete?
I'm not trying to be an apologist here, just, seriously, do we NEED to have a flood of 200 character comments yet? Is anything of value lost because she's not delivering a great commenting experience to her viewers?
Dylan: Okay, I hear you, but why are you skeptical of the woman who at least as of this point is making a very boring, sterile overview of slightly problematic stuff in games? She hasn't really given us any cause for skepticism. No wild claims. She's boring and not really saying anything particularly insightful yet imo, but it's not like 'damsels in distress aren't good role models' is rocking the boat too hard. It's not as if she's presented some potentially dangerous manifesto that we all need to be skeptical about.
Is anything of value lost because she's not delivering a great commenting experience to her viewers?
Some. The Amazing Atheist video had a discussion about the differing views of people who consider themselves feminists, it would certainly have been better if it wasn't done with short comments, but it still had merit.
We probably do disagree about what sort of discussion she's attempting to start, but I still believe that youtube and website comments are an equally valid place for discourse as any other, even if they are often polluted by trolls and fuckwits.
Though I might be projecting here, I like to think that, in addition to what Joseph Silverman has already mentioned (edit: for so far as I'm not repeating him), Anita Sarkeesian decided to close the YouTube comments so that the discussion would not be from her audience to her and about her video, but that the discussion would have to be spread across the Internet and between everyone, and moreover that since criticising the formatting and exact contents would be pointless if not addressed directly to Sarkeesian herself, the responses would focus on its themes instead; she doesn't want to us to give her our opinion on her video, but that she wants us to give each other our opinions on damsels in distress.
The Amazing Atheist's response is less than helpful in this regard, even in this very thread (this very post, I'm afraid).
Not ignoring you, I appreciate the really well thought out response, I just want to ruminate for a bit so I can make an equally well thought out response.
Eagerly awaiting .
Disclaimer: this post was written in between modeling a naked lady.
My problem with this stuff isn't the message. I'm all for that stuff, more equality, more strong female characters, all that stuff. But what irks me is that I'm starting to feel a bit judged.
It just so happens to be that this stuff is my favorite genre to work in when making personal art. Almost exactly as Crazyfool said, perfect T&A fantasy babes, huge Orks, and burly barbarians. It's just my favorite style to work with, and I seriously doubt I'll change it just because it's stereotypical.
Now, I don't know that anyone is actually calling for people like me to stop. I remember seeing one negative post in one of Hazardous's 3d-girl threads, but that's it. And that's fine. It's just that the whole thing is starting to feel a little too judgmental. At the end, even the "worst" of those games are simply guys making games that they think other guys will want to play.
Tangent:
I feel really sad reading this dude.
Any artist out there who feels this kind of pressure and decides to start thinking about changing what they are making or change what they enjoy making, because of it:
STOP IT. Block out this noise and carry right on ahead, don't be derailed.
Separate yourself from this argument because its dealing with Tropes in videogames - NOT YOUR ART.
Consider this for a moment BigJohn - Go check out Zbrush Centrals front row archives - see how many (out of the hundreds of front page awards) are female characters, then, of those females, see how many are 'sexy'. Do this on every 3d art website you know - the results are the same. If anything there are probably more classy / well executed piece of art (nudes / studies / poses) than sexy ones.
If anything, in character artist circles, serious, sensual, sexy, feminine, female characters have by far and away taken a back seat to super-heroes, hulking soldiers, aliens and muscly monsters. Just go and look at all your favorite artists folios right now - check out the ratio of female models to everything else. Remarkably similar % to the front page / editors choice sections of your favorite art websites.
Making 3d sexy women is most certainly NOT overdone.
It is however, clear that the 'sexy' trait is all too often cherry picked out, and high on the list of importance when creating females for big budget videogames.
I don't think people here have any problem agreeing with that point.
And I dont think anyone here is suggesting that it shouldnt be broadened to include a wider variety.
But hearing someone write that they are feeling uneasy about creating sexy females art on their own time due to these kinds of arguments, is really disheartening - don't be bullied!
I'm even willing to start a support group, Ill call it: "Sexy Girl Art - Decadent Sculpting for the Connoisseur" :thumbup:
I already know of quite a few female character artists that would happily join.
Any artist out there who feels this kind of pressure and decides to start thinking about changing what they are making or change what they enjoy making, because of it:
STOP IT. Block out this noise and carry right on ahead, don't be derailed.
Separate yourself from this argument because its dealing with Tropes in videogames - NOT YOUR ART.
Consider this for a moment BigJohn - Go check out Zbrush Centrals front row archives - see how many (out of the hundreds of front page awards) are female characters, then, of those females, see how many are 'sexy'. Do this on every 3d art website you know - the results are the same. If anything there are probably more classy / well executed piece of art (nudes / studies / poses) than sexy ones.
If anything, in character artist circles, serious, sensual, sexy, feminine, female characters have by far and away taken a back seat to super-heroes, hulking soldiers, aliens and muscly monsters. Just go and look at all your favorite artists folios right now - check out the ratio of female models to everything else. Remarkably similar % to the front page / editors choice sections of your favorite art websites.
Making 3d sexy women is most certainly NOT overdone.
It is however, clear that the 'sexy' trait is all too often cherry picked out, and high on the list of importance when creating females for videogames.
I don't think people here have any problem with agreeing with that point.
And I dont think anyone here is suggesting that it shouldnt be broadened to include a wider variety.
But hearing someone write that they are feeling uneasy about creating sexy females art on their own time due to these kinds of arguments, is really disheartening - don't be bullied!
I'm even willing to start a support group, Ill call it: "Sexy Girl Art - Decadent Sculpting for the Connoisseur" :thumbup:
I already know of quite a few female character artists that would happily join.
^^
Haz is right.
This is why I ignore all this noise and useless arguments and just do whatever the fuck I want.
But hearing someone write that they are feeling uneasy about creating sexy females art on their own time due to these kinds of arguments, is really disheartening - don't be bullied!
Ah yes, straight guys making sexualized females. Truly the maligned, underrepresented and bullied group of 2013.
As an analogy, plenty of men felt bullied when women´s suffrage was happening, and rather than being bullied, it was simply the feeling that comes from recognizing an unfair situation from which one was unaware, and having to come to grips with a new reality. Straight men making games for other straight men is coming to an end. Mix it up with some new representations of race, gender, orientation, etc. Games are getting better about this, but as someone in the art pit, it feels like many artists are having to be dragged kicking and screaming into this new reality of thinking about more than their pet preferences.
As for the point about making what you want, Haz and Skanker, I am all about pursuing personal preferences to push your art to new levels, but do we really want to advocate completely thought free art creation? There is definitely power within the subconscious, but there is also something to be gained by study and deliberate thought (anatomy, as an argument free example).
As for the point about making what you want, Haz and Skanker, I am all about pursuing personal preferences to push your art to new levels, but do we really want to advocate completely thought free art creation? There is definitely power within the subconscious, but there is also something to be gained by study and deliberate thought (anatomy, as an argument free example).
of course this is making the asumption that making sexy female models is 'thought free'.
On one end I'm sick of seeing bland looking female models with pointy chins, pouty lips, upturned noses, I'm sick of people spending more time working on boobs than faces, I'm sick of seeing overly naked characters with perfect bods, I'm sick of seeing fake boobs everywhere, I'm sick of people obviously not using ref haha. This doesn't mean I look down on people who make these models but I just don't find them interesting anymore. There is 100% a market for this so I know it has a purpose and again am not discrediting it but its just a bit tedious to me now, I can appreciate it but it doesn't stick anymore. I say this as a man who just made a cat-woman with massive bazongas haha, in my defence I was following Adam Hughes' concept which I feel Ive toned down a fair bit haha, but I still look at it as meh!!!
^^
this.
i am tired to seeing female models both from pros and students alike where they pay the most attentions to boobs and butts and dont bother to model the hands or feet properly. the feet either looks like a frog feet, or the hand looks like a skeleton hand or the face looks like a young boy's face, or the breats looks like implants or the ears look like flowers, or the list goes on.....
of course the same can be said for modeling muscle guys.
once you nail the anatomy properly it actually helps make the character more sexy/pretty etc.
It is very telling that the people who wave this away as a non-problem that they do not think about are straight dudes.
Wow man. Haha. :thumbup:
The strange thing here is, I know quite a few female character artist (aparently rare in this business) who couldnt possibly agree with you less. I hope some of them start expressing that more and stop letting other women, and gay men do the talking for them.
Yeah honestly, this whole dismissing contrary opinions on the basis that the one who states it is a straight white male thing, I don't see how that is progressive in any way, to me it seems quite ignorant and counter productive towards any sort of equality.
Surely we can all state our opinions with talking down to entire groups of people.
The strange thing here is, I know quite a few female character artist (aparently rare in this business) who couldnt agree with you less Poop. I hope some of them start expressing that more and stop letting other women, and gay men do the talking for them.
I gather it's not what you're implying, but it sounds like you're saying only the right people can speak about these kind of problems - only the women and men that might agree that it's not really a big deal. There are women that work alongside awesome people, have no troubles and make fantastic art. They get the highest of fives. Then there are ladies that have to deal with some harrowing, appalling stuff - some of it that would turn me off of making games forever - both should have a chance to talk about their concerns.
female here. i competently and utterly agree with Haz and Skanker on the matter of making what you love in your spare time. create what you want to create and always make what you love and not what others tell you to do on your personal time.
i love modeling females. i love the female form. does that make me a bad person? because i feel like this thread is telling me i am. and that's just not right. art is about expression. be it muscled men, grotesque monsters, or super stunning ladies, do what you want and what you love
Exactly. It is very telling that the people who wave this away as a non-problem that they do not think about are straight dudes.
Come on ben, while I understand the temptation, that's not productive.
I THINK ben is trying to say that because you aren't personally harmed by it, it's kinda callous to talk like it's a non-issue?
I agree with the sentiment, although I can't say I agree with his point -- objectifying women is bad, yeah, but I cannot for a second see how sexualizing a woman is inherently the same as objectifying one. Half naked girl drawings might be problematic in certain contexts, but they don't seem harmful to me, as a straight white male.
Should I, as a feminist dude, stop hanging out with the girls I do just because certain pro-modesty women would say they dress too slutty? Are they 'gender traitors' or whatever? I'm pretty sure they don't do it to please the patriarchy, some of them are pretty hardline feminist.
I don't think anyone in this entire thread, actually has any legs to stand on against the argument that there should be more varied roles for females in videogames- I think everyone agrees about that!! If they didnt in the beginning, they probably do now. Fantastic - Genuine progression!
Go forth; make it happen, I don't think there will be any objections from anyone!
I moved on from that, because it's spilled over into something else, that I think is really fucking important: Censoring artist's sucks. (I know this is not happening and noone is saying it should) But, making artists feel like they need to Censor themselves is just ridiculous.
There are artists, and even more that can't be bothered saying anything in this thread (whom typically have little to no control over these decisions in videogames) saying they feel bad about being judged for doing what they enjoy in their SPARE TIME! (thats time outside of their game dev jobs where this 'tropes versus women in videogames problem can be solved)
Just because we all agree that we should have more roles etc., is not equal to having artists dedicate their lives to being part of the solution. It doesn't mean they have dismissed the problem either - It sure as hell doesn't mean their sexual orientation needs to be called into question if they choose not to 'take up the banner'.
I want to be in this thread, to tell those artists like Bigjohn, that its okay to make whatever you want on your spare time. No matter how prominent of an artist you are, or where you work, it's okay to open up zbrush and just sculpt whatever you want without having to think about hurting someones feelings, or championing a cause.
So when is the next episode out?
Also I thought feminism was about being equally treated to men in society, not attacking art/entertainment for pandering or people for having a "vice". Seems like it's just a few steps away from censorship imo.
Then again I'm a terrible straight man and I won't understand till I sleep with men or get srs.
^^ lame Skam... u are of course... free to be lame *sigh* being facetious won't elevate the conversation :P
I know, sorry. It's interesting to read what everyone has to say though, and I am genuinely looking forward to the next episode. I guess my stance on all of this is from the perspective of creativity within storytelling in videogames/movies/books. To me tropes are not offensive per se but boring and clich
Feels like there's a number of different conversations going on now in this thread, and only a couple are discussing feminism and the Tropes project. Censorship is a different issue, and revisiting what you can and can't model is something that's been talked about a fair bit already. I'm going to hop out of this thread, but I'm always around in PM form if you're cool and want to talk about this stuff in a way that doesn't go down defensive roads.
Yeah honestly, this whole dismissing contrary opinions on the basis that the one who states it is a straight white male thing, I don't see how that is progressive in any way, to me it seems quite ignorant and counter productive towards any sort of equality.
Surely we can all state our opinions with talking down to entire groups of people.
It's a fundamental aspect of the postmodernist philosophy their arguments are built upon. From their perspective, straight white males making those statements inherently have no credibility - and their opinions have no validity - because straight white males have privilege and are an oppressive group. And when people from oppressive groups do say such things, their speech is oppression and has to be pushed back against to fight unfair privilege. Guilt is the weapon of choice.
See what I mean, now that you've seen it in action for this whole thread?
Statement These video games use women as tools for male fulfillment. This reinforces a cultural problem.
The problem is in the writing, not the art. Why does the response always circle around?:
DON'T CENSOR MY ART!
I CAN MAKE SEXY MODELS IF I WANT TO!
I KNOW GIRLS THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT MY SEXY MODELS!
EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T FAP MATERIAL OR ORIENTED AROUND MY PERSONAL INTERESTS IS HARDCORE FEMINIST BS!
I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY, BUT I WANT TO ARGUE ANYWAY!
Because the discussion has covered many different facets, not just the writing. Which I agree with you on. The writing is the main issue. I only posted because someone mentioned that they felt like they should censor their personal art because of all this. That in and of itself is crap.
Statement These video games use women as tools for male fulfillment. This reinforces a cultural problem.
The problem is in the writing, not the art. Why does the response always circle around?:
DON'T CENSOR MY ART!
I CAN MAKE SEXY MODELS IF I WANT TO!
I KNOW GIRLS THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT MY SEXY MODELS!
EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T FAP MATERIAL OR ORIENTED AROUND MY PERSONAL INTERESTS IS HARDCORE FEMINIST BS!
I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY, BUT I WANT TO ARGUE ANYWAY!
The principle issue for a lot of more conservative feminists DOES heavily involve sexualization of female characters. Female costumes is easily the most commonly attacked aspect of video games and entertainment in general and in Anita Sarkeesian's videos it is sometimes the defining feature of her criticisms about games.
She described Bayonetta as a "make your own patriarchal porno adventure" because of the overt sexualization of her character at the expense of all other aspects of the game (pretty much all of her complaints were exclusively about the art in the game, not the writing)
I agree that it is very disappointing that substantive issues get pushed to the wayside in favor of arguing about costumes, but that doesn't make it an entirely irrelevant tangent.
It's a fundamental aspect of the postmodernist philosophy their arguments are built upon. From their perspective, straight white males making those statements inherently have no credibility - and their opinions have no validity - because straight white males have privilege and are an oppressive group. And when people from oppressive groups do say such things, their speech is oppression and has to be pushed back against to fight unfair privilege. Guilt is the weapon of choice.
See what I mean, now that you've seen it in action for this whole thread?
I think you might be spending too much time on r/srsdiscussion or other strange places.
It's a fundamental aspect of the postmodernist philosophy their arguments are built upon. From their perspective, straight white males making those statements inherently have no credibility - and their opinions have no validity - because straight white males have privilege and are an oppressive group. And when people from oppressive groups do say such things, their speech is oppression and has to be pushed back against to fight unfair privilege. Guilt is the weapon of choice.
It is important to reflect your own position in a discussion/other form of social interaction. There is no such thing as objectivity in human interactions, since your viewpoint will always be shaped by previous experiences, your current situation, upbringing, cultural framework and so on and so forth. And since our current western societies were/are built and formed predominantly by straight white men, I don't think denial of a white man's privileged position makes sense. Of course it'd be great if we could move beyond such black-white characterizations, but outright dismissal of the notion that you perceive the world around you somewhat differently than a lesbian immigrant woman from Iran (yay for stereotypes) can't be right.
It is important to reflect your own position in a discussion/other form of social interaction. There is no such thing as objectivity in human interactions, since your viewpoint will always be shaped by previous experiences, your current situation, upbringing, cultural framework and so on and so forth. And since our current western societies were/are built and formed predominantly by straight white men, I don't think denial of a white man's privileged position makes sense. Of course it'd be great if we could move beyond such black-white characterizations, but outright dismissal of the notion that you perceive the world around you somewhat differently than a lesbian immigrant woman from Iran (yay for stereotypes) can't be right.
Meh, need more coffee.
Sure, I don't think any of the straight white men here are saying there is no difference or they have the same life experience as women or anything like that, simply that its ridiculous when someone tells you your opinion carries no weight on the matter because you are a straight white man, its as bigoted as anything else the same people rail against. If the goal is equality, wouldn't it be more productive to treat everyone with the same amount respect and give them an opportunity to share their opinions? I don't think you can start any conversation on equality by stating that huge demographics of people are not allowed to discuss/their opinions are worthless.
Sure, I don't think any of the straight white men here are saying there is no difference or they have the same life experience as women or anything like that, simply that its ridiculous when someone tells you your opinion carries no weight on the matter because you are a straight white man, its as bigoted as anything else the same people rail against. If the goal is equality, wouldn't it be more productive to treat everyone with the same amount respect and give them an opportunity to share their opinions? I don't think you can start any conversation on equality by stating that huge demographics of people are not allowed to discuss/their opinions are worthless.
I must have missed someone in this thread having their opinions outright dismissed just because they're a straight white guy, but poop made the excellent point that the people actually dismissing the opinions and experiences and concerns of another group in this conversation do tend to be straight white privileged guys. Privilege makes that easy, so I'm not pointing fingers or condemning anyone, but I do think that privileged people need to listen more and pontificate less.
It's one thing to say that your words shouldn't be dismissed, it's apparently quite another to listen to the words and experience of the people who are most affected by the actual topic at hand.
I must have missed someone in this thread having their opinions outright dismissed just because they're a straight white guy, but poop made the excellent point that the people actually dismissing the opinions and experiences and concerns of another group in this conversation do tend to be straight white privileged guys. Privilege makes that easy, so I'm not pointing fingers or condemning anyone, but I do think that privileged people need to listen more and pontificate less.
It's one thing to say that your words shouldn't be dismissed, it's apparently quite another to listen to the words and experience of the people who are most affected by the actual topic at hand.
Its a tactic that Ben uses whenever any remotely controversial thread pops up, "Oh you're a straight white man, you have no right to comment on the subject". Paraphrasing of course. Its something I've seen from him time and time again, and to me its very counterproductive to any discussion on equality. I understand he didn't use those words exactly, however, if you're familiar with his posting history/body of work, its not an extreme conclusion to come to.
If the goal is equality, shouldn't discussion from various points of view be embraced? Why would you need to lessen or discredit viewpoints from others, even if the people sharing contrary views are not as directly affected by the issue as you may be? (and I do agree in general terms, straight white men are obviously less affected by this issue than women are, and gay men as well to an extent)
Just for clarity, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter here, I just don't like to see people being dismissed from the conversation, be it straight white men or anyone else. Is it impossible to simply discuss the matter as humans/individuals, and not get so bent out of shape about the gender or sexuality of the poster? That is all I am asking for.
Its a tactic that Ben uses whenever any remotely controversial thread pops up, "Oh you're a straight white man, you have no right to comment on the subject". Paraphrasing of course. Its something I've seen from him time and time again, and to me its very counterproductive to any discussion on equality. I understand he didn't use those words exactly, however, if you're familiar with his posting history/body of work, its not an extreme conclusion to come to.
If the goal is equality, shouldn't discussion from various points of view be embraced? Why would you need to lessen or discredit viewpoints from others, even if the people sharing contrary views are not as directly affected by the issue as you may be? (and I do agree in general terms, straight white men are obviously less affected by this issue than women are, and gay men as well to an extent)
Just for clarity, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter here, I just don't like to see people being dismissed from the conversation, be it straight white men or anyone else. Is it impossible to simply discuss the matter as humans/individuals, and not get so bent out of shape about the gender or sexuality of the poster? That is all I am asking for.
to be fair, it is expected for someone with such passion for this subject such as Ben to get slightly bent out of shape when someone else totally dismisses all points in this thread and calls it noise and useless argument.
calling all of it noise and useless argument is not discussion, it is dismissal and i don't see you getting bothered by that. you just get bothered by what poop said in reaction to that which makes me wonder.
"Oh you're a straight white man, you have no right to comment on the subject". Paraphrasing of course.
That's a pretty bad paraphrase, unless I totally missed a post where he literally said that. I assume you're talking about this?
It is very telling that the people who wave this away as a non-problem that they do not think about are straight dudes.
This quote doesn't dismiss anyone, only highlights the fact that most of the people claiming that what we're talking about isn't actually a problem are people who are not directly impacted by that problem.
No person's comments are being dismissed out of hand, but surely you can understand that certain people by virtue of their life experiences can be more qualified to say things like 'X is/is not an issue' when X is something that directly affects them?
I mean, would you be defending the opinions of white people who said 'oh racism isn't actually a problem like those black activists want you to think', or of rich people claiming that endemic poverty is just in the eye of the beholder?
When we're talking about social issues that affect certain parts of society more than others, then the gender/race/sexuality/etc of the person posting an opinion is certainly something to take into account when weighing up the veracity or usefulness of that input. I am not saying that guys cannot comment on this, at all. But I am saying that apparently some guys need to think for just a minute why they don't seem to be as concerned about this 'non-issue' as so many other people are.
to be fair, it is expected for someone with such passion for this subject such as Ben to get slightly bent out of shape when someone else totally dismisses all points in this thread and calls it noise and useless argument.
calling all of it noise and useless argument is not discussion, it is dismissal and i dont see you getting bother by that. you just get bothered by what poop said in reaction to that which makes me wonder your bias.
And you get bothered by much of what I say so your bias is pretty clear as well.
I don't agree with anyone dismissing the subject matter without reason, nor do I agree with dismissing someone's well thought out opinions (see: haz' posts) simply on the basis of gender/sexuality.
I don't think its a productive card to pull:
ie:
Straight white male/troll: Girls are dumb, this stuff is stupid
Femenist: Straight white males are not entitled to an opinion
If equality is the goal, we should be above the drivel and ignore the blatantly ignorant comments, not feed the trolls and show equal bias.
That's a pretty bad paraphrase, unless I totally missed a post where he literally said that. I assume you're talking about this?
This quote doesn't dismiss anyone, only highlights the fact that most of the people claiming that what we're talking about isn't actually a problem are people who are not directly impacted by that problem.
Yeah, as I said Ben's previous posting history comes into play here, I agree it is probably a bit dramatic(my paraphrasing).
No person's comments are being dismissed out of hand, but surely you can understand that certain people by virtue of their life experiences can be more qualified to say things like 'X is/is not an issue' when X is something that directly affects them?
I mean, would you be defending the opinions of white people who said 'oh racism isn't actually a problem like those black activists want you to think', or of rich people claiming that endemic poverty is just in the eye of the beholder?
When we're talking about social issues that affect certain parts of society more than others, then the gender/race/sexuality/etc of the person posting an opinion is certainly something to take into account when weighing up the veracity or usefulness of that input. I am not saying that guys cannot comment on this, at all. But I am saying that apparently some guys need to think for just a minute why they don't seem to be as concerned about this 'non-issue' as so many other people are.
None of what you say here is particularly unreasonable. However I will have to disagree to a minor extent, I don't think we need to assign weights to the opinions of others based on race/gender/sexuality, that is blatant discrimination to me, and, again, quite hypocritical.
So what stops you from arguing the point from logic, instead of pulling the gender card? If said opinions from people who are simply dismissing this stuff without reason are logically flawed, simply point that out. Don't point to their gender/sexuality/etc as way means to win an argument.
Replies
I don't see, for a moment, how refusing to submit to the careful scrutiny of the youtube-comment-only intellectual community undermines her arguments. Anyone who has anything to say on youtube can just as easily say it somewhere else. It's an aesthetic choice, it's the same as making a blog post with no comments. What if she'd hosted the video on her own site, and the site had no comment system? Would that, also, be squashing discussion?
Again -- if she was attacking the press or the public, that'd be different, but she's blocked discussion in potentially the most widely understood to be irrelevant platform possible for careful debate. The comment/reply system isn't even searchable or empowered to hold a discussion -- what, really, are we missing out on?
my guess is, people who dont like her or like feminists in general are furious over the fact that they cant see the negative/hate/rape comments posted on her youtube page.
people who hate her want to see more people who hate her and possibly debunk her in some way. disabling comments take away a good anonymous platform for hate mongering and that makes the haters mad.
bringing up the point of her disabling youtube comments is merely a distraction strategy used by people who want to make her look bad.
if your email address was compromised and you received 100+ junk main every day you would probably disable that email address too.
shes not freaking Hitler, its really NOT that big of a deal if she does it. youtube has the feature so people can use it for christ sake, so the significance? not all the much.
it just also doesn't do much for her credibility that shes deflecting ideas that could potentially conflict or confuse her ideas too spaces outside of her area of concern. yeah shes not stopping anyone from expressing their opinions whole cloth. just from doing around her.
I agree to a very limited point with what you said here -- but seeing as she's got a masters in the field and was pledged 160,000 dollars in public support, I'm not sure she's on particularly shaky ground credibility-wise right now. She should have plenty of credibility. I don't see that as undermining her significantly unless you're HUNTING for places to find fault with her.
Maybe she wants discussion on her site, she might share your opinion that Youtube isn't a great platform for discussion. Nope, comments on there are moderator approved, and in the three days since the video went up nothing has been approved.
Of the two places you'd most likely go to talk about the videos, you can't. She's posting videos that are intended to generate discussion but apparently doesn't want you to discuss it with her.
100% might be a disagreement between you and me on what the phrase means, but when she says "generate discussion" I expect her trying to instigate research, theses, editorials, and other video series, not drum up youtube/site comments.
It would certainly be more elegant and helpful if she had a great platform for discussion (maybe just a bigger, more capable, ethical moderator staff who could approve comment from all viewpoints on her own site?), and she certainly could've afforded that with her kickstarter money, so that's a valid criticism, but... Is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? Especially with like, what is it, 7% of her videos complete?
I'm not trying to be an apologist here, just, seriously, do we NEED to have a flood of 200 character comments yet? Is anything of value lost because she's not delivering a great commenting experience to her viewers?
Dylan: Okay, I hear you, but why are you skeptical of the woman who at least as of this point is making a very boring, sterile overview of slightly problematic stuff in games? She hasn't really given us any cause for skepticism. No wild claims. She's boring and not really saying anything particularly insightful yet imo, but it's not like 'damsels in distress aren't good role models' is rocking the boat too hard. It's not as if she's presented some potentially dangerous manifesto that we all need to be skeptical about.
Some. The Amazing Atheist video had a discussion about the differing views of people who consider themselves feminists, it would certainly have been better if it wasn't done with short comments, but it still had merit.
We probably do disagree about what sort of discussion she's attempting to start, but I still believe that youtube and website comments are an equally valid place for discourse as any other, even if they are often polluted by trolls and fuckwits.
The Amazing Atheist's response is less than helpful in this regard, even in this very thread (this very post, I'm afraid).
Eagerly awaiting
Disclaimer: this post was written in between modeling a naked lady.
Tangent:
I feel really sad reading this dude.
Any artist out there who feels this kind of pressure and decides to start thinking about changing what they are making or change what they enjoy making, because of it:
STOP IT. Block out this noise and carry right on ahead, don't be derailed.
Separate yourself from this argument because its dealing with Tropes in videogames - NOT YOUR ART.
Consider this for a moment BigJohn - Go check out Zbrush Centrals front row archives - see how many (out of the hundreds of front page awards) are female characters, then, of those females, see how many are 'sexy'. Do this on every 3d art website you know - the results are the same. If anything there are probably more classy / well executed piece of art (nudes / studies / poses) than sexy ones.
If anything, in character artist circles, serious, sensual, sexy, feminine, female characters have by far and away taken a back seat to super-heroes, hulking soldiers, aliens and muscly monsters. Just go and look at all your favorite artists folios right now - check out the ratio of female models to everything else. Remarkably similar % to the front page / editors choice sections of your favorite art websites.
Making 3d sexy women is most certainly NOT overdone.
It is however, clear that the 'sexy' trait is all too often cherry picked out, and high on the list of importance when creating females for big budget videogames.
I don't think people here have any problem agreeing with that point.
And I dont think anyone here is suggesting that it shouldnt be broadened to include a wider variety.
But hearing someone write that they are feeling uneasy about creating sexy females art on their own time due to these kinds of arguments, is really disheartening - don't be bullied!
I'm even willing to start a support group, Ill call it: "Sexy Girl Art - Decadent Sculpting for the Connoisseur" :thumbup:
I already know of quite a few female character artists that would happily join.
^^
Haz is right.
This is why I ignore all this noise and useless arguments and just do whatever the fuck I want.
I wish I had the luxury to call it noise. : (
Ah yes, straight guys making sexualized females. Truly the maligned, underrepresented and bullied group of 2013.
As an analogy, plenty of men felt bullied when women´s suffrage was happening, and rather than being bullied, it was simply the feeling that comes from recognizing an unfair situation from which one was unaware, and having to come to grips with a new reality. Straight men making games for other straight men is coming to an end. Mix it up with some new representations of race, gender, orientation, etc. Games are getting better about this, but as someone in the art pit, it feels like many artists are having to be dragged kicking and screaming into this new reality of thinking about more than their pet preferences.
As for the point about making what you want, Haz and Skanker, I am all about pursuing personal preferences to push your art to new levels, but do we really want to advocate completely thought free art creation? There is definitely power within the subconscious, but there is also something to be gained by study and deliberate thought (anatomy, as an argument free example).
Exactly. It is very telling that the people who wave this away as a non-problem that they do not think about are straight dudes.
of course this is making the asumption that making sexy female models is 'thought free'.
^^
this.
i am tired to seeing female models both from pros and students alike where they pay the most attentions to boobs and butts and dont bother to model the hands or feet properly. the feet either looks like a frog feet, or the hand looks like a skeleton hand or the face looks like a young boy's face, or the breats looks like implants or the ears look like flowers, or the list goes on.....
of course the same can be said for modeling muscle guys.
once you nail the anatomy properly it actually helps make the character more sexy/pretty etc.
It is indeed difficult to comprehend since I'm not a complete female.
Wow man. Haha. :thumbup:
The strange thing here is, I know quite a few female character artist (aparently rare in this business) who couldnt possibly agree with you less. I hope some of them start expressing that more and stop letting other women, and gay men do the talking for them.
Surely we can all state our opinions with talking down to entire groups of people.
I gather it's not what you're implying, but it sounds like you're saying only the right people can speak about these kind of problems - only the women and men that might agree that it's not really a big deal. There are women that work alongside awesome people, have no troubles and make fantastic art. They get the highest of fives. Then there are ladies that have to deal with some harrowing, appalling stuff - some of it that would turn me off of making games forever - both should have a chance to talk about their concerns.
i love modeling females. i love the female form. does that make me a bad person? because i feel like this thread is telling me i am. and that's just not right. art is about expression. be it muscled men, grotesque monsters, or super stunning ladies, do what you want and what you love
Come on ben, while I understand the temptation, that's not productive.
I THINK ben is trying to say that because you aren't personally harmed by it, it's kinda callous to talk like it's a non-issue?
I agree with the sentiment, although I can't say I agree with his point -- objectifying women is bad, yeah, but I cannot for a second see how sexualizing a woman is inherently the same as objectifying one. Half naked girl drawings might be problematic in certain contexts, but they don't seem harmful to me, as a straight white male.
Should I, as a feminist dude, stop hanging out with the girls I do just because certain pro-modesty women would say they dress too slutty? Are they 'gender traitors' or whatever? I'm pretty sure they don't do it to please the patriarchy, some of them are pretty hardline feminist.
Youre correct, thats not what implying at all.
I don't think anyone in this entire thread, actually has any legs to stand on against the argument that there should be more varied roles for females in videogames- I think everyone agrees about that!! If they didnt in the beginning, they probably do now. Fantastic - Genuine progression!
Go forth; make it happen, I don't think there will be any objections from anyone!
I moved on from that, because it's spilled over into something else, that I think is really fucking important: Censoring artist's sucks. (I know this is not happening and noone is saying it should) But, making artists feel like they need to Censor themselves is just ridiculous.
There are artists, and even more that can't be bothered saying anything in this thread (whom typically have little to no control over these decisions in videogames) saying they feel bad about being judged for doing what they enjoy in their SPARE TIME! (thats time outside of their game dev jobs where this 'tropes versus women in videogames problem can be solved)
Just because we all agree that we should have more roles etc., is not equal to having artists dedicate their lives to being part of the solution. It doesn't mean they have dismissed the problem either - It sure as hell doesn't mean their sexual orientation needs to be called into question if they choose not to 'take up the banner'.
I want to be in this thread, to tell those artists like Bigjohn, that its okay to make whatever you want on your spare time. No matter how prominent of an artist you are, or where you work, it's okay to open up zbrush and just sculpt whatever you want without having to think about hurting someones feelings, or championing a cause.
Also I thought feminism was about being equally treated to men in society, not attacking art/entertainment for pandering or people for having a "vice". Seems like it's just a few steps away from censorship imo.
Then again I'm a terrible straight man and I won't understand till I sleep with men or get srs.
I'm also looking forward to the next episode. I *really* hope she moves on from saying "we need more roles".
I know, sorry. It's interesting to read what everyone has to say though, and I am genuinely looking forward to the next episode. I guess my stance on all of this is from the perspective of creativity within storytelling in videogames/movies/books. To me tropes are not offensive per se but boring and clich
/fistbump
It's a fundamental aspect of the postmodernist philosophy their arguments are built upon. From their perspective, straight white males making those statements inherently have no credibility - and their opinions have no validity - because straight white males have privilege and are an oppressive group. And when people from oppressive groups do say such things, their speech is oppression and has to be pushed back against to fight unfair privilege. Guilt is the weapon of choice.
See what I mean, now that you've seen it in action for this whole thread?
Statement
These video games use women as tools for male fulfillment. This reinforces a cultural problem.
The problem is in the writing, not the art. Why does the response always circle around?:
Because the discussion has covered many different facets, not just the writing. Which I agree with you on. The writing is the main issue. I only posted because someone mentioned that they felt like they should censor their personal art because of all this. That in and of itself is crap.
She described Bayonetta as a "make your own patriarchal porno adventure" because of the overt sexualization of her character at the expense of all other aspects of the game (pretty much all of her complaints were exclusively about the art in the game, not the writing)
I agree that it is very disappointing that substantive issues get pushed to the wayside in favor of arguing about costumes, but that doesn't make it an entirely irrelevant tangent.
I think you might be spending too much time on r/srsdiscussion or other strange places.
It is important to reflect your own position in a discussion/other form of social interaction. There is no such thing as objectivity in human interactions, since your viewpoint will always be shaped by previous experiences, your current situation, upbringing, cultural framework and so on and so forth. And since our current western societies were/are built and formed predominantly by straight white men, I don't think denial of a white man's privileged position makes sense. Of course it'd be great if we could move beyond such black-white characterizations, but outright dismissal of the notion that you perceive the world around you somewhat differently than a lesbian immigrant woman from Iran (yay for stereotypes) can't be right.
Meh, need more coffee.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/10/4086458/father-hacks-donkey-kong-for-daughter-swaps-mario-pauline
[ame="
*headdesk*
Sure, I don't think any of the straight white men here are saying there is no difference or they have the same life experience as women or anything like that, simply that its ridiculous when someone tells you your opinion carries no weight on the matter because you are a straight white man, its as bigoted as anything else the same people rail against. If the goal is equality, wouldn't it be more productive to treat everyone with the same amount respect and give them an opportunity to share their opinions? I don't think you can start any conversation on equality by stating that huge demographics of people are not allowed to discuss/their opinions are worthless.
I must have missed someone in this thread having their opinions outright dismissed just because they're a straight white guy, but poop made the excellent point that the people actually dismissing the opinions and experiences and concerns of another group in this conversation do tend to be straight white privileged guys. Privilege makes that easy, so I'm not pointing fingers or condemning anyone, but I do think that privileged people need to listen more and pontificate less.
It's one thing to say that your words shouldn't be dismissed, it's apparently quite another to listen to the words and experience of the people who are most affected by the actual topic at hand.
Its a tactic that Ben uses whenever any remotely controversial thread pops up, "Oh you're a straight white man, you have no right to comment on the subject". Paraphrasing of course. Its something I've seen from him time and time again, and to me its very counterproductive to any discussion on equality. I understand he didn't use those words exactly, however, if you're familiar with his posting history/body of work, its not an extreme conclusion to come to.
If the goal is equality, shouldn't discussion from various points of view be embraced? Why would you need to lessen or discredit viewpoints from others, even if the people sharing contrary views are not as directly affected by the issue as you may be? (and I do agree in general terms, straight white men are obviously less affected by this issue than women are, and gay men as well to an extent)
Just for clarity, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter here, I just don't like to see people being dismissed from the conversation, be it straight white men or anyone else. Is it impossible to simply discuss the matter as humans/individuals, and not get so bent out of shape about the gender or sexuality of the poster? That is all I am asking for.
to be fair, it is expected for someone with such passion for this subject such as Ben to get slightly bent out of shape when someone else totally dismisses all points in this thread and calls it noise and useless argument.
calling all of it noise and useless argument is not discussion, it is dismissal and i don't see you getting bothered by that. you just get bothered by what poop said in reaction to that which makes me wonder.
That's a pretty bad paraphrase, unless I totally missed a post where he literally said that. I assume you're talking about this?
This quote doesn't dismiss anyone, only highlights the fact that most of the people claiming that what we're talking about isn't actually a problem are people who are not directly impacted by that problem.
No person's comments are being dismissed out of hand, but surely you can understand that certain people by virtue of their life experiences can be more qualified to say things like 'X is/is not an issue' when X is something that directly affects them?
I mean, would you be defending the opinions of white people who said 'oh racism isn't actually a problem like those black activists want you to think', or of rich people claiming that endemic poverty is just in the eye of the beholder?
When we're talking about social issues that affect certain parts of society more than others, then the gender/race/sexuality/etc of the person posting an opinion is certainly something to take into account when weighing up the veracity or usefulness of that input. I am not saying that guys cannot comment on this, at all. But I am saying that apparently some guys need to think for just a minute why they don't seem to be as concerned about this 'non-issue' as so many other people are.
And you get bothered by much of what I say so your bias is pretty clear as well.
I don't agree with anyone dismissing the subject matter without reason, nor do I agree with dismissing someone's well thought out opinions (see: haz' posts) simply on the basis of gender/sexuality.
I don't think its a productive card to pull:
ie:
Straight white male/troll: Girls are dumb, this stuff is stupid
Femenist: Straight white males are not entitled to an opinion
If equality is the goal, we should be above the drivel and ignore the blatantly ignorant comments, not feed the trolls and show equal bias.
None of what you say here is particularly unreasonable. However I will have to disagree to a minor extent, I don't think we need to assign weights to the opinions of others based on race/gender/sexuality, that is blatant discrimination to me, and, again, quite hypocritical.
So what stops you from arguing the point from logic, instead of pulling the gender card? If said opinions from people who are simply dismissing this stuff without reason are logically flawed, simply point that out. Don't point to their gender/sexuality/etc as way means to win an argument.
from what i understand, he might have meant that most dismissals to the feminist arguments are likely to come from straight guys.
now that is common sense to me. people who are less likely to be affected by this are less likely to understand it.
he is only talking about a subset of straight men, and not ALL straight men.
i am straight too, but i don't get offended by his point because i actually believe he is right.
btw, am i missing something here :
why did you type "straight white male" instead of just "straight male"
Ben just said "straight dude"
Yeah, I don't want to derail this any further so I'll bow out here. Carry on.