crcruz3

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

@JazGalaxy said:

@Kierkegaard said:

@JazGalaxy: It's not an offensiveness competiton. It's the evolution of a still young industry. That stuff is sexist and terrible. Over the last year and a half, game blogging and the game industry has begun to wake up to its faults and the community that was quiet has begun to speak loudly and powerfully about the need to change. You are right to point out that there is a ongoing history, here. It does not follow that the existence of something in the past somehow mitigates its hurtful quality in the present.

I don't buy for a second when people keep saying the gaming industry is "young". Cinema was "young" once because people were still figuring out how to make and produce camera equipment. Concepts l like editing were going through the renaissance period of understanding how to communicate. Books were "young" once as people began to understand how to structure stories and Gutenberg was figuring out how to mass produce text. The games industry was young once when it was figuring out to trick computers into displaying graphics and emanating sounds. "Young" does not apply to figuring out how to not marginalize and sexually exploit women. "Oh, you mean I'm NOT supposed to make a game where you run around raping women for points that you can spend on better equipment to rape women? Sorry, I'm still new at this"

The Gutenberg part is a little odd, you know books being around for thousands of years in different formats. However I see your point and I concur with you.

@Krullban said:

@crcruz3 said:

@I_am_Lono said:

I love the fact that here in the UK, where this is actually being released, we don't give a fuck! Grow up! Christ almighty, this game is aimed at adults who can understand that this game is set in a holiday (vacation) resort and thus the women are wearing bikinis. So there are boobs on this torso! Grow the fuck up! Why has Patrick got his angry mob burning their bras with their flaming torches?

This isn't misogyny! This is closed minded America trying to censor the world. I like Patricks work, but this is just a truly pointless story and frankly I think asking a bunch of women what they think is insulting to women in its self. This is a seriously embarrassing article and frankly Patrick should be bloody embarrassed! Damn poor journalism!

EDIT: Also, this is NOT sexism! Sexism would be what Patrick is saying, this can't exist because it's a girl? Why not! The game is full of scantly clad women being beaten to a bloody pulp with a variegated array of blunt and sharp weapons. I can't believe how unimaginably pathetic this all is.

Oh, not again with this common sense stuff. C'mon! Can't you see that everything is so offensive to everybody all the time?

YOU ARE A DISGUSTING MISOGYNISTIC PIG!!

And you are wrong. You don't know me.

@I_am_Lono said:

I love the fact that here in the UK, where this is actually being released, we don't give a fuck! Grow up! Christ almighty, this game is aimed at adults who can understand that this game is set in a holiday (vacation) resort and thus the women are wearing bikinis. So there are boobs on this torso! Grow the fuck up! Why has Patrick got his angry mob burning their bras with their flaming torches?

This isn't misogyny! This is closed minded America trying to censor the world. I like Patricks work, but this is just a truly pointless story and frankly I think asking a bunch of women what they think is insulting to women in its self. This is a seriously embarrassing article and frankly Patrick should be bloody embarrassed! Damn poor journalism!

EDIT: Also, this is NOT sexism! Sexism would be what Patrick is saying, this can't exist because it's a girl? Why not! The game is full of scantly clad women being beaten to a bloody pulp with a variegated array of blunt and sharp weapons. I can't believe how unimaginably pathetic this all is.

Oh, not again with this common sense stuff. C'mon! Can't you see that everything is so offensive to everybody all the time?

@BlastProcessing said:

@AMyggen said:

@BlastProcessing said:

Can we get another member of the Bomb Crew, who's preferably a voice of reason, and not an obnoxious libtard to write an article about "sexist" matters for once? Maybe if someone like Alex took a crack at it, people wouldn't be so up in arms.

Actually, I just want someone competent to tackle this.

PS: All the members of GB seem to be very, very liberal. So you probably won't find any "voice of reason".

The difference is the other duders don't flaunt it. Did you by chance see Patrick's twitter on election day? Just ridic

@BlastProcessing said:

Why do I have the feeling that if Dead Island was a respected series, like GTA, we wouldn't be having this conversation? I imagine when GTA V launches, you'll be able to shag prostitutes and kill them once again, but everyone will just laugh it off as "oh, GTA!"

And what about of beating the reporter up on Mass Effect? You can beat Al-Jilani twice in the Mass Effect series and watch her being kicked in the butt many times in the Shadow Broker's surveillance videos.

I was playing Renegade so I clicked the RT and was expecting Shepard to say something harsh, but no, he swings at the reporter.

Somebody at Bioware thinks beating women up is funny. And nobody talks about it.

@facepoppies said:

Between gaming journalism sites and Reddit, I have just about fucking had it with this shit. There is this phenomenon right now where people are getting really offended about perceived sexism in videogames, and that's fine. It's okay to be offended by shit. I'm sure there's something out there that would offend me, too.

But, at this point, it seems like people are starting to expect special treatment because they're offended. Like, being offended suddenly gives you some special power to deem what is and what is not okay for the rest of the world to be doing. I get the impression that things may have started with gaming sites clamoring to hop aboard the offended feminist train in order to garner favor from the community and generate hits, but now it's turned into this beast where you have to handle everything with kids' gloves or face a mob of shit-flinging internet drama queens (I'm using queens in this sense in reference to a kind of bratty, royal behavior rather than to imply a gender).

If for some reason you see a de-limbed torso statue, and you're immediately offended by the fact that it has tits rather than the fact that it's a horrible de-limbed torso, good for you. Fucking write a blog about it or something. But your being offended doesn't give you special privileges. It doesn't negate anybody else's right to be offensive, and it doesn't mean that you automatically have something to say that everybody needs to hear.

So, you're offended, women everywhere are having their lives destroyed because this tasteless statue has breasts, it's a huge issue that everybody needs to be informed of, etc. I'm going to say what I've wanted to say for a long time:

I don't care. Fuck you.

I hope that doesn't offend you.

Fun read.

@Atwa said:

Very good question, indeed.

@dr_mantas said:

This is not about sexism.

This is about two things. The first - people who think their right to be offended trumps other peoples rights to do as they wish.

The second - people who think that a portrayal of women (or men) that they don't agree with is inherently sexist.

I will not elaborate more on these two points, because I don't have the time or the patience.

No one is exploited by this. It's stupid, unnecessary, grotesque and obnoxious. But it's all it is. So is a lot of advertisement.

And to everyone in this thread - answering people's arguments with insults is NOT a valid way of responding.

@patrickklepek Here's a question for you, if someone disagrees with the points raised in this article, by these women, for any reason, is it appropriate to insult them? To call them neckbeards, neanderthal sexist pigs? Even if they raise reasonable points?

Great.