Sign in to follow this  
Jake

Idle Thumbs 71: Nothing's as Good as Ya Eat 'Em

Recommended Posts

oh man.. more idle thumbs... this regular podcasting needs some getting used to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Girlfriend Mode conversation was superb. Like you guys mentioned, so much of the time a freak instance gets outsized attention while the larger context gets ignored completely. (To make a shitty analogy to this week's controversy, it's similar to the incredible attention paid to Akin's quote compared to examination of the actual RNC 2012 platform.)

It must be so strange for that developer because I'm sure he's said many things beforehand that are equally worrying, but he didn't get a reaction those times so it became implicitly safe. And then people start freaking out about it randomly and thus the surprise. We really need to do a better job of critiquing some of the same tendencies when they show up in a less overt or sound-byte form. Would that a fraction of that backlash have been levied at Duke Nukem Forever, which deserved it infinitely more for its misogyny.

Jake's The Thing analogy is totally awesome. Essentially, a big statement like this really highlights who finds it a big deal and people who find it no big deal. That allows you to really find out who is operating under the same assumptions as the speaker, especially when they're pretty tied to a lot of the culture.

Fun fact from The Thing: If you watch, they actually used the puppet for the last AND the next-to-last test, so that you wouldn't recognize it as a prosthetic because you'd already seen it during a normal test. Also the John Carpenter / Kurt Russell commentary is awesome because they just drink and reminisce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tutti Consumee. Or however it might have been spelled. The South African runner. Or whatever country he was from. But that was weird, because that bit was stuck in my head for an unknown reason this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel like we now have something to aim for in DayZ?

Flight of the Thumbs. A helicopter will be ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel like we now have something to aim for in DayZ?

Flight of the Thumbs. A helicopter will be ours.

2015

Year of the PS3

Countdown to tears finally ends

Sean finally gets his helicopter in DayZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Girlfriend mode discussion was interesting and thought provoking (I loved the The Thing analogy), but also frustrating since I really think that some of the criticisms I hear are misguided. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this point further than I have elsewhere, so let me start by quoting a (humorous) tweet I twatted a couple of days ago:

"I find your denouncement of 'girlfriend mode' as offensively sexist to be offensively heteronormative. WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER!?"

And then my (less humorous) explanation of this stance to my mother, who was helping me review a related short essay before I posted it on my blog:

"Regarding 'girlfriend mode', it's only gender-linked if one presumes a male-female pairing, if one were conversely to assume a female-female pairing then 'girlfriend mode' would be just about sharing the game with your significant other who isn't as into video games as you. If there was a not-incredibly-clumsy gender neutral equivalent (like 'spouse' but for the unmarried) then I suspect that would have been what the developer thus-interviewed used, but there isn't."

I feel like people are going on gut instinct here, assuming that because you can't spell 'girlfriend' without girl and because it was a discussion of a less traditional-gaming-skill-oriented play style that it implied that female gamers were less competent at their hobby than male gamers– but it wasn't about female gamers, it was about non-gamer partners brought into gaming. And, yeah, I can see why people would perceive that implication, but I think it says as much about their own biases (as noted above) as those of the unfortunate developer who was interviewed.

Also, and perhaps this merely speaks to my naivete, but I'm not particularly seeing where this consensus on Borderlands as misogynist is coming from. The only playable female character is cut from the exact same generic hilarious sociopath cloth as the male characters, and the supporting female cast (Tannis, Steele, Pierce, Moxxi) are all varied, interesting (well, except for Steele, though I did like her character design), and self-determinant. Just because Moxxi has her tits sticking out does not, I believe, a misogynist game make. Of course, it contains many of the casual sexisms that seem to be accepted as good game design- a single female playable character whose primary unique characteristic is that she is female (though she is the most fun to play), hordes of disposable male enemies with no female enemies and women only dying in cut-scenes, etc. I don't see any particular reason, though, aside from the girlfriend mode discussion, why Borderlands would be particularly singled out for this.

Anyway. Sorry to brain dump. I'd love it if this started a discussion, but if people would rather dismiss me as sexist and move on then that is their prerogative. Obviously. I just found it super frustrating to be listening into a conversation so directly related to things I've been talking/thinking about and not be represented. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're giving credit where little or none is due. People jumped on "girlfriend mode" because of specifically what it meant when coming out of a specific person's mouth. The phrase "Girlfriend Mode" on its own could mean a thousand things, but only one was implied when it was said. You can abstract that away and discuss the words on their own devoid of the context, but the reason people flipped out was entirely, specifically contextual, and that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of an academic argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're giving credit where little or none is due. People jumped on "girlfriend mode" because of specifically what it meant when coming out of a specific person's mouth. The phrase "Girlfriend Mode" on its own could mean a thousand things, but only one was implied when it was said. You can abstract that away and discuss the words on their own devoid of the context, but the reason people flipped out was entirely, specifically contextual, and that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of an academic argument.

This is an argument entirely predicated on presupposing the developer as sexist. He didn't call it girl mode, which would definitely have been sexist, he called it girlfriend mode– would there have been an uproar if he had called it 'spouse mode'? I suspect not! But people are reacting as though he did call it girl mode, which I don't think is justified based on what he actually said. I can't state too strongly that, particularly in communicating with strangers, it's incredibly dangerous to process all communication as though it were coming from the sort of person you conceive them to be rather than simply take it at face value. I don't think it's fair to, for instance, lambaste someone for saying they believe in natural selection because you're concerned about the rise of eugenics.

And, to clarify, I don't think people can control when they are or aren't offended, and thus I would never claim it's wrong for them to be thus affected– however, I would urge anyone who is offended by anything to do their best to actually think through, critically, why they feel that way, before they proceed on the presumption that someone definitely said something wrong. And, no, I'm not brushing aside people's feelings for the purpose of forwarding my own argument, I'm saying that their feelings, as important as they are, still come in second to the vital importance of reasoned debate, the true basis of the actual long-term progress we claim to be fighting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an argument entirely predicated on presupposing the developer as sexist. He didn't call it girl mode, which would definitely have been sexist, he called it girlfriend mode– would there have been an uproar if he had called it 'spouse mode'? I suspect not! But people are reacting as though he did call it girl mode, which I don't think is justified based on what he actually said. I can't state too strongly that, particularly in communicating with strangers, it's incredibly dangerous to process all communication as though it were coming from the sort of person you conceive them to be rather than simply take it at face value. I don't think it's fair to, for instance, lambaste someone for saying they believe in natural selection because you're concerned about the rise of eugenics.

And, to clarify, I don't think people can control when they are or aren't offended, and thus I would never claim it's wrong for them to be thus affected– however, I would urge anyone who is offended by anything to do their best to actually think through, critically, why they feel that way, before they proceed on the presumption that someone definitely said something wrong. And, no, I'm not brushing aside people's feelings for the purpose of forwarding my own argument, I'm saying that their feelings, as important as they are, still come in second to the vital importance of reasoned debate, the true basis of the actual long-term progress we claim to be fighting for.

I agree on the need for moderation in the face of the Internet Hate Machine, but at the end of the day people are responsible for how their words make others feel. If what someone says is at best innocuous and at worst offensive, then they need to own up to the full spectrum of meaning their words can have and apologize. Whether they mean it or not, it's part of being a decent human being, just like letting people feel their feelings and not subliminating them to vague notions of "reason" or "progress".

Believe it or not, there is a culture of sexism in gaming and, annoying as they are, these incidents keep it in the public mindshare, where it can be better discussed and processed. I personally found the mass calls to "chill out" much more disturbing, like a dysfunctional family that won't admit to any problems. A lead developer on a major game called a skill tree "girlfriend mode" for people "who suck at first-person shooters". He didn't talk about his girlfriend or his lesbian friend's girlfriend or any other sophistry like that. He talked about "girlfriend... who suck" and then poor Randy Pitchford went to work finessing it into nothing.

What I really wonder in all this is why can't Gearbox admit that, intentions aside, one of their devs said something sexist? We don't have to pillory him as a bigot or anything, just hear him admit that his anecdote was sexist as it was presented and then apologize. No one spins a shaggy dog story about how their black friend actually makes this one racist joke okay, instead everyone gets to feel nice and grown-up for doing the right thing. Would that seriously be a bigger PR disaster than Pitchford squawking all over Twitter about "sensationalism" like he once did "shoddy journalism"? Not that we really have a culture that encourages people owning up to their actions, anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the need for moderation in the face of the Internet Hate Machine, but at the end of the day people are responsible for how their words make others feel. If what someone says is at best innocuous and at worst offensive, then they need to own up to the full spectrum of meaning their words can have and apologize. Whether they mean it or not, it's part of being a decent human being, just like letting people feel their feelings and not subliminating them to vague notions of "reason" or "progress".

I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that people are entirely and solely responsible for how their words make others feel, nor do I subscribe to the belief in 'good' feelings or 'bad' feelings. Feelings of discomfort can lead to introspection, self discovery, debate... This is beside the point though– we cannot take full responsibility for how our words make others feel, because particularly in open forums it's something we have extremely limited control over. I know that many of these discussions of sexism have lead me to feel depressed, confused, angry, etcetera, and these feelings have lead me to explore the problem in more depth. I entirely encourage people to feel however they feel, but if they don't feel happy that isn't necessarily a good enough reason for someone to apologize. Now, in this case I think he probably should apologize or at least clarify, but I doubt Gearbox will let the guy in front of a microphone ever again. So it goes.

Believe it or not, there is a culture of sexism in gaming and, annoying as they are, these incidents keep it in the public mindshare, where it can be better discussed and processed. I personally found the mass calls to "chill out" much more disturbing, like a dysfunctional family that won't admit to any problems. A lead developer on a major game called a skill tree "girlfriend mode" for people "who suck at first-person shooters". He didn't talk about his girlfriend or his lesbian friend's girlfriend or any other sophistry like that. He talked about "girlfriend... who suck" and then poor Randy Pitchford went to work finessing it into nothing.

What I really wonder in all this is why can't Gearbox admit that, intentions aside, one of their devs said something sexist? We don't have to pillory him as a bigot or anything, just hear him admit that his anecdote was sexist as it was presented and then apologize. No one spins a shaggy dog story about how their black friend actually makes this one racist joke okay, instead everyone gets to feel nice and grown-up for doing the right thing. Would that seriously be a bigger PR disaster than Pitchford squawking all over Twitter about "sensationalism" like he once did "shoddy journalism"? Not that we really have a culture that encourages people owning up to their actions, anyway...

I absolutely believe it, and the fact that you seem to believe that I don't I think reinforces my point about how our preconceptions about the character of others colors how we hear their words, no matter how carefully they may be phrased. And, yes, I agree that any debate on the topic is good, which is exactly why I feel the need to point out when, in an industry rampant with actual sexism, I think it's ludicrous that people have jumped on something so incredibly borderline instead of looking at the actual problems (I think this issue came up a bit on the podcast as well). I fail to see how inferring "girlfriends... who suck at video games" is intrinsically more justified than inferring "my girlfriend... who sucks at video games."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an argument entirely predicated on presupposing the developer as sexist. He didn't call it girl mode, which would definitely have been sexist, he called it girlfriend mode– would there have been an uproar if he had called it 'spouse mode'? I suspect not! But people are reacting as though he did call it girl mode, which I don't think is justified based on what he actually said. I can't state too strongly that, particularly in communicating with strangers, it's incredibly dangerous to process all communication as though it were coming from the sort of person you conceive them to be rather than simply take it at face value. I don't think it's fair to, for instance, lambaste someone for saying they believe in natural selection because you're concerned about the rise of eugenics.

And, to clarify, I don't think people can control when they are or aren't offended, and thus I would never claim it's wrong for them to be thus affected– however, I would urge anyone who is offended by anything to do their best to actually think through, critically, why they feel that way, before they proceed on the presumption that someone definitely said something wrong. And, no, I'm not brushing aside people's feelings for the purpose of forwarding my own argument, I'm saying that their feelings, as important as they are, still come in second to the vital importance of reasoned debate, the true basis of the actual long-term progress we claim to be fighting for.

Just as it's important not to jump to conclusions, it's also important not to ever avoid coming to any conclusion because you're willing to go out on the thinnest limb to imagine a circumstance in which a particular statement is actually harmless. In the specific context in which the statement was made, I find it overwhelmingly difficult to believe that the guy meant absolutely anything other than what the most straightforward interpretation of the statement implies. I think this is a clear case of Occam's Razor. It seems pretty obvious he called it "girlfriend" and not "girl" mode because it's a mode for companions specifically, with the implication obviously being that the female half of a male/female relationship will be the one that needs the help. If you truly don't think that's what was being said, then I admire your charitable nature but I think you're being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as it's important not to jump to conclusions, it's also important not to ever avoid coming to any conclusion because you're willing to go out on the thinnest limb to imagine a circumstance in which a particular statement is actually harmless. In the specific context in which the statement was made, I find it overwhelmingly difficult to believe that the guy meant absolutely anything other than what the most straightforward interpretation of the statement implies. I think this is a clear case of Occam's Razor.

Conversely, from my life experience, my first assumption was simply that the guy's girlfriend didn't play many games and he viewed this as a way to share the game with her. To me this is the obvious interpretation, and the perception of sexism seems, to me, hypersensitive. I find it a little bit off-putting that the narrative here seems to be that I'm trying to get him off on a technicality. Do you think it's implausible that I actually feel this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely encourage people to feel however they feel, but if they don't feel happy that isn't necessarily a good enough reason for someone to apologize.

I've tried for a few minutes now to write something in response to your post, mostly about good intentions and all that, but I keep getting hung up on this statement. Excepting various extremes, why wouldn't you want to apologize for something that made someone unhappy? To be less general, why wouldn't you want to apologize for a statement that a large portion of the gaming community and media perceived as sexist? Why stick by your guns, especially if you want to move on? Some intangible sense of rightness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried for a few minutes now to write something in response to your post, mostly about good intentions and all that, but I keep getting hung up on this statement. Excepting various extremes, why wouldn't you want to apologize for something that made someone unhappy? To be less general, why wouldn't you want to apologize for a statement that a large portion of the gaming community and media perceived as sexist? Why stick by your guns, especially if you want to move on? Some intangible sense of rightness?

Well this jumps freely between my feelings about discourse in general and my feelings about this case in particular. Regarding general discourse, I think that if you say something that is true and relevant and upsetting, you shouldn't have to apologize. Actually, I don't think you should apologize for something unless you agree that it's something you shouldn't have said. If you're apologizing just to mollify someone it doesn't mean much. You can empathize with them, but without regret the apology is empty.

That's in general. In this specific case, I don't think he was trying to impart a truth so much as relate to people through an analogy, one which was, justifiably or not, received poorly. As I mentioned in my response, I would ideally like to see him clarify his intent, and apologize for his glib and tone-deaf phrasing. I am certain he regrets it, though perhaps not for the reasons we would choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that regardless of the developer referring to the easy-to-play companion mode of his game as "girlfriend mode," (which, seriously, in a very not-really-debatable-way is a silly way to describe your product if you purport to be selling your game to a diverse audience) Borderlands, (and its sequel) offer a litany of crass, sexist, superficial representations of women within the very text of the game so maybe we could talk about that within the context of the actual argument.

Nevertheless, (@ ProblemMachine here) I pretty much disagree with the bulk of your points you are putting forth. For the sake of argument (welcome to the forums!) I'll just pick this one.

He didn't call it girl mode, which would definitely have been sexist, he called it girlfriend mode– would there have been an uproar if he had called it 'spouse mode'? I suspect not! But people are reacting as though he did call it girl mode, which I don't think is justified based on what he actually said.

People are criticizing him for the words he chose and not the words he could've chose. See, neither of us (Chris or I) were saying that what's-his-nose from Gearbox is a bad guy. In fact, I took the road of "hey, this guy made a bone-headed mistake and is paying a disproportionate price," (A perspective, 48 hours, I actually kind of regret). But what the bulk of your arguments here fail to recognize is the difference between overt and covert prejudice. Go dig up the Jaffe quote where the guy actually looks into a camera and says "Let your girlfriend win at this game and she will suck your dick. Seriously. She will suck your dick." There's not a whole helluva lot to parse there. Jaffe is an overt sexist and we can heap him into a pile and we, as decent humans, can give him the room to try to climb out of it.

But what the game industry truly suffers from is COVERT prejudice -- which is when a good-intentioned designer at a AAA studio chooses some stupid words to describe his gameplay mode and nobody can tell what the actual problem is. The use of "girlfriend mode," is as coded as it is ultimately meaningless -- it at the same time is a flippant description for "hey, play this way with a friend who's not as good as you," as it is insidious in reinforcing the idea that video games is a medium that requires a male (or, fuck, even culturally dominant) ambassador. IE: What he meant (which, I think, you don't give us enough credit for realizing while simultaneously giving HIM too much credit for having said it in the first place) vs what he said is precisely what's at issue when it comes to the subsurface ways women are systematically marginalized in the game industry.

But seriously, no sarcasm before, welcome to the forums, and while myself, Chris, Jake or whoever might take strong issue with a stance here, we welcome all sides as long as they all sit comfortably under the umbrella of respect.

Now, I have to run back to the living room -- the wife and I are playing Super Mario Galaxy and this wife-mode Miyamoto was so hot on really is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really wonder in all this is why can't Gearbox admit that, intentions aside, one of their devs said something sexist? We don't have to pillory him as a bigot or anything, just hear him admit that his anecdote was sexist as it was presented and then apologize. No one spins a shaggy dog story about how their black friend actually makes this one racist joke okay, instead everyone gets to feel nice and grown-up for doing the right thing. Would that seriously be a bigger PR disaster than Pitchford squawking all over Twitter about "sensationalism" like he once did "shoddy journalism"? Not that we really have a culture that encourages people owning up to their actions, anyway...

I bet it's because it's hard to throw your own guy under the bus like that. It's definitely the right PR move but pitchford isn't probably thinking like a PR guy, he's a CEO and probably thinks he should defend one of his own and the reputation of his company. Plus like you said, they're not REALLY being held accountable to owning up to what happened so where's the incentive to not play it safe and just belittle the whole situation? It's sad that this damage control is probably going to work and everyone will forget about it when something actually sensationalist does happen.

Anyway I hopped on because I thought it was odd that Sean found borderlands egregiously misogynistic especially when I found it relatively progressive. Now I never noticed most of this stuff the first time around but I recently finished a complete play through of the game and the DLC since I was pretty hyped for BL2. It has some pretty strong authority figures like Helena Pierce, Athena, and Steele, although you could say Steele hardly counts since she was barely in the game. Also most of the women aren't sexualized and in fact one is horribly disfigured. Only exception is Moxxi but it could be argued that the first thing you learn about her is that she's between relationships and finds more satisfaction in running the underdome than in her ex husbands. that's gotta be some semblance of independence right? Is this game breaking the virtual glass ceiling for women in video games? Probably not but it's far from egregiously misogynistic. Maybe Sean is misremembering or he's conflating the crassness of the game with misogyny but it's definitely no Duke Nukem Forever.

Also funny that DNF gets a pass for being from an older time but at least gaming has generally moved beyond that level offensiveness for however much that's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I mentioned how much I love having you as a regular on the podcast, Sean? Of course I haven't, we've never spoken before. But that Progresscast where you and Jake hashed it out over themes of race and alienation in The Walking Dead was the first Idle Thumbs installment I could proudly play for my girlfriend, and that's awesome.

Wait, actually I tried to play her "Episode Forty-Five" a while ago, but the Thumbs said "rape" a ton in the course of that podcast, so that was a bust. Good job improving on that too, I guess.

I bet it's because it's hard to throw your own guy under the bus like that. It's definitely the right PR move but pitchford isn't probably thinking like a PR guy, he's a CEO and probably thinks he should defend one of his own and the reputation of his company. Plus like you said, they're not REALLY being held accountable to owning up to what happened so where's the incentive to not play it safe and just belittle the whole situation? It's sad that this damage control is probably going to work and everyone will forget about it when something actually sensationalist does happen.

I agree, though I didn't mean it quite in the sense of that developer needing to take one for the team. I just wish that the games industry (and Western culture in general) was at a place where people could differentiate between condemning the action and condemning the person. One allows the offending party to acknowledge the mistake and learn from it, the other demands they bluster like an NPC in Henry Hatsworth until the problem goes away.

P.S. I just looked up "Henry Hatsworth" on Wikipedia to make sure I wasn't missing some secret crazy spelling, and apparently he's a "quirky, light-hearted character" who "occupies the #1 position in the Pompous Adventurers' Club". Looks like I have my next guild/clan/band/committee name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, though I didn't mean it quite in the sense of that developer needing to take one for the team. I just wish that the games industry (and Western culture in general) was at a place where people could differentiate between condemning the action and condemning the person. One allows the offending party to acknowledge the mistake and learn from it, the other demands they bluster like an NPC in Henry Hatsworth until the problem goes away.

But you can't get that nuance in a soundbite and you can't get the views/hits/ratings without the conciseness of a soundbite. It's a shame but there's just so much content and so little time that the world at large can't digest very much. Plus it's probably going to be really hard to avoid the eyerolls when any company makes resolutions to learn from their past mistakes. Blowing up scandals to large proportions has probably made most people cynical and untrusting of corporations. Man, this came off pretty negative but I really just can't think of solutions to a large scale cultural problem like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that regardless of the developer referring to the easy-to-play companion mode of his game as "girlfriend mode," (which, seriously, in a very not-really-debatable-way is a silly way to describe your product if you purport to be selling your game to a diverse audience) Borderlands, (and its sequel) offer a litany of crass, sexist, superficial representations of women within the very text of the game so maybe we could talk about that within the context of the actual argument.

Nevertheless, (@ ProblemMachine here) I pretty much disagree with the bulk of your points you are putting forth. For the sake of argument (welcome to the forums!) I'll just pick this one.

People are criticizing him for the words he chose and not the words he could've chose. See, neither of us (Chris or I) were saying that what's-his-nose from Gearbox is a bad guy. In fact, I took the road of "hey, this guy made a bone-headed mistake and is paying a disproportionate price," (A perspective, 48 hours, I actually kind of regret). But what the bulk of your arguments here fail to recognize is the difference between overt and covert prejudice. Go dig up the Jaffe quote where the guy actually looks into a camera and says "Let your girlfriend win at this game and she will suck your dick. Seriously. She will suck your dick." There's not a whole helluva lot to parse there. Jaffe is an overt sexist and we can heap him into a pile and we, as decent humans, can give him the room to try to climb out of it.

But what the game industry truly suffers from is COVERT prejudice -- which is when a good-intentioned designer at a AAA studio chooses some stupid words to describe his gameplay mode and nobody can tell what the actual problem is. The use of "girlfriend mode," is as coded as it is ultimately meaningless -- it at the same time is a flippant description for "hey, play this way with a friend who's not as good as you," as it is insidious in reinforcing the idea that video games is a medium that requires a male (or, fuck, even culturally dominant) ambassador. IE: What he meant (which, I think, you don't give us enough credit for realizing while simultaneously giving HIM too much credit for having said it in the first place) vs what he said is precisely what's at issue when it comes to the subsurface ways women are systematically marginalized in the game industry.

But seriously, no sarcasm before, welcome to the forums, and while myself, Chris, Jake or whoever might take strong issue with a stance here, we welcome all sides as long as they all sit comfortably under the umbrella of respect.

Now, I have to run back to the living room -- the wife and I are playing Super Mario Galaxy and this wife-mode Miyamoto was so hot on really is great.

Okay! First, I have to say this is a great, thought-provoking response. And, before I dive in to agree with what I agree with, disagree with what I disagree with, and generally, you know, talk, I'd like to point out that if this was the kind of analysis that preceded the declaration of 'girlfriend mode' to be sexist I would have never felt the need to speak up. My concern resides almost wholly in that people seem to take it as given that it definitely is sexist and base the debate on that basis, whereas I see this as reactionary and not necessarily justified. So, yeah.

Moving on.

I'd like to see the same kind of analysis as to how, exactly, Borderlands is misogynist, particularly in comparison to, you know... video games in general. Again, before I see a debate predicated on this assumption, I would like to see it justified. If you don't feel I gave you enough credit, it's because the entire conversation about sexism seemed to assume the nature of the sexism in question. Chris seemed to completely dismiss the idea of that as a valid, intuitive interpretation of what the developer said.

David Jaffe seems quite the cockbag, but I see your point re: covert vs overt prejudice. However, I'm concerned that the perception of such covert prejudices can reflect just as readily on the perceptions of the audience as the speaker. There's not really a reliable way to control for such cases aside from constant debate and inquiry about why we are offended about the things which offend us– as Jake says, it's ugly, it's uncomfortable, but we need to know it's there.

Well. I've never felt qualified to provide concrete answers except to the most trivial questions, and moreover I distrust certitude in general. All I want to do is ask the questions which I think can be revealing, even they just reveal freaky little blood monsters.

(Apparently I need to see that movie)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks for answering my question about sexism in Video games! I think all three of you are completely spot on about the entire situation, especially when talking about too much 'noise.' The whole girlfriend-mode fiasco and the recent events with Todd Akin are two really great examples of this. On the one hand, I was really happy that people were voicing their displeasure with both these situations. On the other hand, just because you make a funny joke on Twitter about a Video game that you'll probably end up buying and playing (creating 'noise') that doesn't mean that you fixed sexism.

I'd like to see the same kind of analysis as to how, exactly, Borderlands is misogynist, particularly in comparison to, you know... video games in general. Again, before I see a debate predicated on this assumption, I would like to see it justified. If you don't feel I gave you enough credit, it's because the entire conversation about sexism seemed to assume the nature of the sexism in question. Chris seemed to completely dismiss the idea of that as a valid, intuitive interpretation of what the developer said.

I think a lot of people already responded to you with really thoughtful ideas, and I'm not trying to pile on, but, what do you mean here? How Video games are sexist? What exactly sexism is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another subject, a "Silver Dinner-Revealer" as described by Jake is actually called a Cloche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this