Log in or sign up to comment
2527 Comments
Posted by Brodehouse

@laserbolts: You're supposed to wait 8 months to argue with me!

Online
Posted by laserbolts

@laserbolts: Finally something in this thread I agree with!

Is it possible to lock articles? Does Sweep have that power? This thing might be open forever and 8 months from now someone will pop up to argue that it's technically a bust and not a statue.

it's both duh.

Posted by Zomgfruitbunnies

Stahp.

Edited by Brodehouse

@laserbolts: Finally something in this thread I agree with!

Is it possible to lock articles? Does Sweep have that power? This thing might be open forever and 8 months from now someone will pop up to argue that it's technically a bust and not a statue.

Online
Edited by laserbolts

There is no god.

Posted by Evilsbane
Posted by believer258
Posted by afabs515

Sweet! It's back! Now I don't feel bad that I didn't post on this the first time. Can't wait to see a revival of this crucial discussion of women's representations in the games industry that is so often ignored.

Posted by joshwent

Do some people not understand the concept of time? People should be warned for necroing threads this old.

I'd almost always agree. Though seeing that after 51 pages this pointless argument over a little statue oppressing women has turned into fury over economics and Nobel prize specifics, kind of warms my heart.

Edited by GreggD
Posted by Hunter5024

Well this made me laugh out loud.

Edited by believer258

Motherfucker.

Posted by Nekroskop

Do some people not understand the concept of time? People should be warned for necroing threads this old.

Edited by HatKing

I think I might love this.

Posted by Humanity

REALLY?!

Don't take the Nobel Laureate nomination lightly you philistine.

Posted by Nonused

Ha ha ha...hahaha

HAHAHAHA!

Posted by Brodehouse

REALLY?!

Online
Edited by dsbnh

@crcruz3 said:
Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

There is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics, so he cannot possibly be a Nobel Laureate.

There's a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, but that isn't the same thing as a Nobel prize. It only exists because bankers paid a shitload of money to the Nobel prize committee. Nobel himself never established any such prize because economics is not a science. As you yourself so wonderfully illustrate, it is a largely malleable set of ideas intended to support your pet political agenda.

Edited by masterfaculty

<p>The point is they would NEVER make a perfectly sculpted male torso, you dipshits.</p>

Posted by Corvak

Write something else and get this bloody torso off the frontpage.

Edited by CptBedlam

@lazyturtle said:

So...beating people/zombies to death with clubs, axes, swords, guns, bombs, pipes, rakes, knives, bats...etc, etc. is fine, but show some unrealistic boobies..and OUTRAGE!

I honestly don't know who would actually WANT it, but its kinda a non-issue to me.

It seriously trips me out that the issue is that its a scantily clad woman's torso rather than the fact that it is a DISMEMBERED TORSO. Perspective people.

That's America for you. Maximum violence and no one cares but show a nipple and it becomes a story on all news channels.

In my opinion, sexual objectification and sexism are two different things. I'd consider it sexist if a woman was denied a job position because of her sex despite being equally or better qualified, for example. But criticising sexual objectification is just denying our innate instincts. Yes, it may be the cheapest method in the world for selling a product (if you want to complain, criticize the lazyness of the approach) and in this case it's utterly tasteless, too, but I wouldn't call this statue sexist.

Posted by lazyturtle

So...beating people/zombies to death with clubs, axes, swords, guns, bombs, pipes, rakes, knives, bats...etc, etc. is fine, but show some unrealistic boobies..and OUTRAGE!

I honestly don't know who would actually WANT it, but its kinda a non-issue to me.

It seriously trips me out that the issue is that its a scantily clad woman's torso rather than the fact that it is a DISMEMBERED TORSO. Perspective people.

Posted by 2kings

@TooWalrus said:

@2kings said:

It's a free speech thing guys. [...] You can't say that-

heh.

Way to take it Completely out of context. The spirit of my post is this. When FOX news get's all upity about our hobby we get crazy upset, how is this type of rehtoric any different? Also I still beg the question, who made any of us the gatekeepers of the morally just as it applies to this type of art? I see no one disputing that so let's proceed with the fact that this is indeed art. Regardless of our feelings on what it may or may not represent, it is somebody's creation is it not. Rap music is beloved and despised by millions. You could also say that Rap music is well known for it's deliberate sexism.

We accept it as "ART". Even though it's depiction of women has been overtly objectifying for decades. I guess what I'm saying is this, sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad and hope that the market will reflect the values we hope humanity holds. Just, if you're gonna have a "standard", you gotta hold everything else up to it. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

Posted by skunkdragon

If only there was as much debate over the the gun laws that are held so dear.

Posted by Snakepond

Where's the sexism in decapitated, arm less, legless, blood soak torso?

I agree it's nasty and distasteful, but if someone wants to buy the stupid thing let them.

Have any of you played Dead Island? I have and the entire game is about killing zombies on an island filled with bikini girls and surfer boys.

Posted by TooWalrus

@2kings said:

It's a free speech thing guys. [...] You can't say that-

heh.

Edited by Archaen

@CptBedlam said:

@FormLikeRONLOTV said:

I found the statue to be in poor taste, but not offensive.

Yup, pretty much how I see it.

So, what are the ~2500 comments about, guys?

People telling other people "I'm offended and you should be too, because it's objectively offensive." And those other people replying, naturally with "I don't think it's offensive and here's why."

Posted by GunGunW

It would have been more interesting to hear a woman's opinion on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Posted by BluescreenBandit

I wonder what would the reaction be had it been a statue gnarled male torso.

Posted by TylerDurden4321

Of course it's sexistic and stupid and lame and immature in the uncoolest sense of the word, but two things:

1. Women making a feminist-viewpoint statement in a sexism debate about the grotesqueness of fake-boobs... not a good idea... always gets turn around that they're ugly and just jealous -> not clever mentioning that. Personally I like the boobs, just getting there through surgery, that's what I don't like(I know there's no other way, if you didn't get that, don't try any further to get my point).

2. I thought the Metro 2033 trailer "ex-model turning whore, because she's stupid, has no talents, no intelligence or comepetancy in whatsoever and selling her body is the only way for her to make money(or bullets) and 'contribute' to the community/hub-market" was way more sexistic, if you ask me, but nobody outraged by THAT. I mean, as if every young and sexy girl is otherwise worthless... I'd more like to see a trailer in which a girl like that gets hardened by the fucked up sexism in that post-apocalyptic world gets tuned into "gomer pyle" mode turning into a psychoathic version of female Mad Max.

Posted by Ravenlight

I'm like 90% sure that every poster in this thread with the default avatar and >20 posts is just one guy bumping his post counts in preparation for an epic ad campaign. I look forward to the eventual reveal.

Posted by CptBedlam

@FormLikeRONLOTV said:

I found the statue to be in poor taste, but not offensive.

Yup, pretty much how I see it.

So, what are the ~2500 comments about, guys?

Posted by FormLikeRONLOTV

I found the statue to be in poor taste, but not offensive.

Posted by Hulkamaniac

I sometimes wonder how far Patrick gets into the comments section before he stops reading the same stuff over & over again.

Edited by Meowshi

@ProfessorEss said:

@Meowshi said:

I really hate this attitude that if something doesn't personally offend you, it shouldn't offend anybody. Similar to what Jeff said, I don't personally find this all that offensive, but enough people I trust do, so there's likely something there.

The thing is I've asked around a bit and I can't find any real-world women in my real-world life that find this offensive - I mean even a little bit. I find I strange that Patrick reached out to eight people and all eight were offended whereas I can't find any (except for my mom, but she's old fashioned and offended by almost all of today's entertainment).

So if I'm not offended, and I can't find anyone I love, trust and/or respect who are offended ('cept fer you mom, xoxo) am I still supposed to find it offensive because a stranger wrote an article about eight strangers (none of which I know, trust or respect) who were offended?

You don't have to find anything offensive. I personally don't find it offensive myself, either.

I'm just saying you should probably respect the fact that so many people do, instead of going "well me and my friends don't give a shit, so you're just being a big baby!" The main reason I say this is because there's always something that will offend you, and there will always be some asshole who thinks that your feelings are irrelevant and deserving of mockery. At the end of the day, I don't like being told that my thoughts don't matter, and so I try not to do that to others.

Posted by muffinmcmuffin

@2kings: Freedom of speech doesn't work the way you think it does. People, including the press, are constitutionally protected in suggesting that other people shouldn't exercise their speech rights or act in ways that offend them. What you're describing is criticism, which is firmly established as a protected category of speech.

Then again, you've just done the very thing you say Patrick can't do. So, good job.

Posted by 2kings

It's a free speech thing guys. Patrick, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that they should apologize or stop making what they want to. You can be offended all goddamn day and that's your right but you can't also say that they shouldn't make what they want. We all get pretty upset when other people attempt to infringe on our right to watch all the violent media and porn we enjoy. What makes you or anyone else the gatekeeper of the morally just when it comes to the expression of free speech?

I'll answer that for you.

It doesn't. EVER.

This bust does not infringe on the rights of any woman. just think if everyone who didn't like a thing or statement could just declare a verdict of guilty and shut it down. Is that a society you want to live in? Free expression, whether you agree with it or not, is protected by law. Hell, in your line of work it's a must.

Art has ALWAYS been a way to challenge our perceptions and ideas. It deserves to be protected no matter how much we may dislike the message.

Posted by Rmurillo82

Look I don't hate women and I can appreciate a woman's view, but we're talking about a product that is not coming to the states and then asking most likely American woman how they feel about it. Come on, if this was a bloody bust of Ryan Davis and it was coming state side, no one would care and GB would probably be tweeting about how cool it is. Also, I get that Patrick feels that woman are facing some sort of plight in the VG industry, besides equality at the workplace, Patrick need only to watch any commercial and realize that a pair of tits can just about sell anything, I'm sure some may think its gross, but we are sex driven creatures. Get over it an accept it, god knows most of Europe has. Its just tits man.

Posted by ThaKakarot

@shiggity_shwa:

Ah I get it now, you're just a silly little illiterate 9 year old.

Posted by punkxblaze

@graf1k said:

@IBeDanYo said:

I'm not a huge fan of these pro-feminism, "serious business" articles I've seen on Giant Bomb as of late. I thought Alex's latest feature on THQ was an entertaining and funny article that captured what makes Giant Bomb so great. Its fusion of gaming and humor. Not this overly dramatic stuff that every other self-important game site spews.

Although, I will admit that I found some of the hypocrisy in the statements made by the women to be a bit humorous. Crying sexism in one sentence, and then in the same breath, writing off men as hormone-fueled boys that are insatiable when faced with a woman's upper body. As a guy, I thought it more offensive that these women actually believe that men find the statue arousing.

Exactly. Painting men as sex-crazed animals and that all we want is tits and blood, or even better bloody tits, just because we don't rail fully against this, is as prejudice and assumptive as any man who would actually think or act like women are just a walking sex object for their pleasure.

Yeah. I love how people love to throw the term misogyny around, but so often forget that it has an equal opposite; misandry (in fact, it's such a forgotten term that Chrome is labeling it as a typo). Which, in some cases, such as these, is relabeled feminism and called a progressive movement. Real feminism was about the right to vote and be more than a stay at home mom, and I respect that, but people don't want equality these days, they want a pedestal to stand on and look down from.

Edited by bennyboy

i bet whoever decided on using the statue as the ad did so knowing exactly the batshit crazy amounts of publicity it would bring. looks like he/she was right.

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

By the way, do you and your rich friends realize Walter Block also thinks the income disparity between blacks and whites is due to blacks being lazy? I wouldn't put it past what seems like a cadre of exploiting compadres, but I am just wondering.

When I said that we talk about these kind of stuff a lot I was referring to productivity, human resources and the like, not to talking about Walter Block. Most of my really rich friends don't even know him.

It's your right to see entrepreneurs as a cadre of exploiting compadres.

It is a wonderful example of exactly what is wrong with Block: He, like many people, has internalized racism and sexism to such a degree that it almost seems like "nature" to him.

Block has not actually shown that his initial argument that women are less productive than men while working the same amount of hours is supported by any data. More importantly, wages are not a function of productivity anywhere else in capitalism, why would they be in a case in this case? Even basic economic textbooks discuss the problems with measuring productivity.

If Block's argument were to take into account time spent working, then it would essentially be a more erudite version of 's own argument: A woman's typical social role leads her to eventually forfeit waged productivity for non-waged productivity (and indeed, that she will WANT to do this), and this means women will, as a group, be out-competed by men. It is baffling that this situation is not seen as a sexist problem.

Edited by graf1k

@IBeDanYo said:

I'm not a huge fan of these pro-feminism, "serious business" articles I've seen on Giant Bomb as of late. I thought Alex's latest feature on THQ was an entertaining and funny article that captured what makes Giant Bomb so great. Its fusion of gaming and humor. Not this overly dramatic stuff that every other self-important game site spews.

Although, I will admit that I found some of the hypocrisy in the statements made by the women to be a bit humorous. Crying sexism in one sentence, and then in the same breath, writing off men as hormone-fueled boys that are insatiable when faced with a woman's upper body. As a guy, I thought it more offensive that these women actually believe that men find the statue arousing.

Exactly. Painting men as sex-crazed animals and that all we want is tits and blood, or even better bloody tits, just because we don't rail fully against this, is as prejudice and assumptive as any man who would actually think or act like women are just a walking sex object for their pleasure.

I'm reminded of the episode of the Bombcast where Ryan and Jeff and the crew talked about the American flag they got with AC3 that had the Assassins Creed logo on it. As they themselves said, although that was not to point of the discussion, essentially desecrating the American flag, even one made specifically as a promotional item, was kind of a dirtbag thing for Ubisoft to do to promote their game, just like this bust was a dirtbag thing for Deep Silver to do to promote their game. We can all agree on that. Nobody that I can see is on the other side of this issue. That said, I don't remember anyone called Ryan, Jeff, Patrick or anyone else in games journalism for that matter anti-America or questioned their patriotism because they didn't prattle on and on about how Ubisoft and gamers should be ashamed of themselves because of this stupid promo item. Nor should they have. And yet, with essentially the same issue on the table now, we need to have endless discussions about it and how we're all really at fault because of some stupid bullshit one marketing company pulled. It is patently ridiculous.

If Patrick or anyone else wants to write an article where they talk to John Riccitiello, Bobby Kotick or the heads of any of these gaming corporations about if they do pay female employees less and if they do, why they think that is an okay practice, I would LOVE to see that. But shit like this, about a meaningless promo item, is not hard-hitting journalism. Not even for "gaming" journalism. It's like the Fox News of gaming journalism. Sensationalize a small otherwise insignificant incident, hype it's importance, feign outrage, demonize anyone who doesn't follow your opinion in lock-step, rinse, repeat.

Posted by Ax23000

@alibson said:

Giant Bomb is my number one stop for extremist feminist propaganda.

Do you have any conception at all about what 'extremism' is? Cause this isn't it, not even close.

Posted by shiggity_shwa

@ThaKakarot: Your link proves my points exceptionally well. Anyone who has an intellect above that of a shoe will understand what I mean.

Prove you are smarter than a shoe.

Posted by jrot24

Haha, how does 8 women expressing their opinion equate to fanatical rabid feminism? About the only thing I wished they'd stop saying is: "yes, I'm a girl AND I play games." I get that. You wouldn't be writing this if you were someone without a vested interest. Ya know?

Posted by PassiveKaerenai

@patrickklepek said:

@Kill said:

When Patrick first joined Giant Bomb, he repeatedly said in his articles that he would not talk about his personal political beliefs as he did not feel they were necessary in his writing. As time went on, he started to plug his favourite political podcasts, put his liberal slant on news stories which did not require it, dropped his political opinions on the Bombcast when they wasn't asked for, and now he is actively seeking out some kind of validation for his own moral slant in the form of this article.

Look, I love Giant Bomb and I think Patrick is a great writer. However, this is nothing more than a "ha, told you so" to the community and an ego stroking by a man who believes only his political views should be noted on this site. He could at least have sought out a more balanced view of the situation. After the first three women said largely the same thing and no other viewpoint was represented, I could not help but picture that characteristic Patrick smirk behind all this.

I know this is a ramble, but I feel the other Giant Bomb guys do a great job of concealing their political ideologies. I have no idea who Brad, Jeff, Ryan or Vinny vote for. I could certainly guess, but it definitely isn't as clear as the liberal, Democrat voting, Reddit-reading klaxon of Klepek and his incessant need to spin gaming news a particular way. I find it distasteful, even if I agree with him on issues like this. It's a bit gross on a site which was founded on being impartial and fun.

Just my tl;dr opinion.

I'll say this regarding the political implications of an article like this. I don't go into writing any story thinking "great, this is an opportunity to push an agenda." It's the same reason one of the stories about #1reasonwhy included a line where I admitted to not considering myself a feminist, even if that statement may be a bit misguided. Rather, I go into every story with "what do I want to say?" if it's an opinion piece and "what story do I want to tell?" if it's a feature piece, like the ZombiU afterthoughts feature that will go up on the site tomorrow. Naturally, expressing my opinion may reveal some of my political leanings, and I'm obviously pretty transparent abou that on Twitter, but to put a muffle over my voice simply because my opinions might lead people to extrapolate a political leaning which might anger people is even crazier.

With all due respect Patrick, nobody is debating your right to hold and express an opinion. But as embarrassing as these comments have been, they represent a clear conflict between the things you want to talk about, and the way the audience wants to hear about it. Your strong moral conscience is impressive - but when you feel the need to demonstrate it so frequently and unequivocally, it makes you look egotistical, which draws attention away from the whole debate and towards one pole of it. It is better skew an issue in such a way that the author's bias, while clear, is non-essential.

Also, 'important issues' do not necessarily make interesting opinions. I am curious, if you always think: 'What do I want to say?' before writing an opinion piece, do you never then think: 'Huh, I have nothing original or iconoclastic or risky to say on this topic, let's leave it'? Do you never think: 'This one doesn't suit Giant Bomb?' All writers have filters based on their audience, except maybe bloggers. To disregard one's audience is not narcissism, but nor is it integrity.

Posted by The_Laughing_Man
@Zornack said:

Huh, thought I clicked a giantbomb link. How'd I end up on Kotaku?

Not a single opinion that it's simply a stupid statue no one gives a fuck about, just eight paragraphs about how hateful, sexist and misogynistic the video game industry is.

Quality journalism.

Love to see you do better. 
Edited by IBeDanYo

I'm not a huge fan of these pro-feminism, "serious business" articles I've seen on Giant Bomb as of late. I thought Alex's latest feature on THQ was an entertaining and funny article that captured what makes Giant Bomb so great. Its fusion of gaming and humor. Not this overly dramatic stuff that every other self-important game site spews.

Although, I will admit that I found some of the hypocrisy in the statements made by the women to be a bit humorous. Crying sexism in one sentence, and then in the same breath, writing off men as hormone-fueled boys that are insatiable when faced with a woman's upper body. As a guy, I thought it more offensive that these women actually believe that men find the statue arousing.

Posted by Sherak

Can see what the big deal is... At all! Wouldn't surprise me if a few of the eight woman hadn't even heard of the story until Giant Bomb approached them.