Something went wrong. Try again later

Jumbs

This user has not updated recently.

307 323 17 14
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Jumbs's forum posts

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By Jumbs

@imsh_pl: well now you do. There's no room in a conversation about sexism in video games for men claiming they are discriminated against because it's simply not true

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@evikull said:

I'd probably be more sympathetic if indie developers would stop going to the Phil Fish School of Public Relations.

What, calling out gamers for being the winy, insufferable, entitled children that they are?

The comments of this (fantastic) article are evidence as to why they shouldn't be treated with respect - like the medium, it's fans are still in a juvenile stage and it'll be some time before the medium and it's fans can be considered "Adult".

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

No Caption Provided

Here is my idea for the ubisoft press conference banner.
It's not very clear, because I got my inspiration from the diversity of ubisoft's games (White on white)

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

I'll sum up this thread, so people can stop replying

GamerDude posts : "Look! Flimsy "evidence" that games don't cause sexism!"
Reasonable people: "Uh. Cool?"
Internet Male: "Anita Sarkeesian blahblahblah what about the men, feminism sucks, brb just reading reddit"

Mods: "Seeya later thread!"

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@marokai said:

@teaoverlord said:

@rongalaxy said:

I wasnt even aware this is what everyone was arguing about. I thought the issue was poor female representation in games is an unfair standard for a large portion of the gaming audience, not that this poor representation leads to people becoming sexist. So is this missing the larger point or am I?

"Video games don't make you sexist!" is used as a rebuttal to people criticizing games even though that wasn't really what they were arguing in the first place.

Why then does Anita, for instance, include statistics about rape and violence against women in her Tropes vs. Women series? An accidental non-sequitur? If she's not making the argument that video games are a contributing factor to those very real, violent social ills there is no reason why it would be included in the conversation to begin with.

You may not be arguing anything but the idea that there should be more female characters, and female-centric stories in games (which I agree with entirely), but there are very big voices out there implying much more serious things.

I haven't actually seen all the Tropes vs Women videos but most of the arguments I see are that sexism in video games in the result of sexism in society in general and not the other way around. Is she using the statistics to suggest that gamers are more likely to be rapists or to show that violence against women is a problem in society and that's why it shows up a lot in video games too?

Fun fact: The people most likely to complain about Anita's videos are people who haven't bothered to watch them and just parrot bullshit thunderf00t or totalbiscuit says

Avatar image for jumbs
Jumbs

307

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@marokai said:

@teaoverlord said:

@rongalaxy said:

I wasnt even aware this is what everyone was arguing about. I thought the issue was poor female representation in games is an unfair standard for a large portion of the gaming audience, not that this poor representation leads to people becoming sexist. So is this missing the larger point or am I?

"Video games don't make you sexist!" is used as a rebuttal to people criticizing games even though that wasn't really what they were arguing in the first place.

Why then does Anita, for instance, include statistics about rape and violence against women in her Tropes vs. Women series? An accidental non-sequitur? If she's not making the argument that video games are a contributing factor to those very real, violent social ills there is no reason why it would be included in the conversation to begin with.

You may not be arguing anything but the idea that there should be more female characters, and female-centric stories in games (which I agree with entirely), but there are very big voices out there implying much more serious things.

Wow, someone misrepresenting Anita. What a huge fucking shock:

"Sexual and domestic violence is at epidemic levels in the real world; one out of every five women in the United States will be raped in their lifetimes. One in four will be sexually assaulted. And women involved in prostitution are at a much higher risk of violence because they are seen as vessels to be used by others rather than as fully human.

So when games casually use sexualized violence as a ham-fisted form of character development for the “bad guys” it reinforces a popular misconception about gendered violence by framing it as something abnormal, as a cruelty only committed by the most transparently evil strangers. In reality, however, violence against women, and sexual violence in particular, is a common everyday occurrence often perpetrated by “normal men” known and trusted by those targeted."