Law Against "Sexist" Video Games Rejected in France, DualShockers Reports

An outlatet called DualShockers.com reports that a law amendment proposing to discourage the production of video games that are considered 'sexist' by making them ineligible for tax credits has failed to pass.

The site mentions that even though the sentiments are shared by the government, represented by Axelle Lemaire, Secretary of State of the Economy Ministry for the Industry and Digital, the decision not to pass the vote was grounded in the idea that it would ultimately hurt the growth of the French gaming industry, and do little to prevent the overseas development of games that are degrading to women.

While I think this is great news for the industry and its French branch, I'm personally disappointed that the decision was grounded in pragmatism and the idea that 'it won't do much' rather than a position that the government shouldn't decide what art is proper.

I'm also not a fan of the idea that brutal, sexist, demeaning and exploitative treatment in games is fine as long as men are the victims, and only once a woman is put in their place the game becomes outrageous and prompting a legislative solution.

Well, making them ineligible for tax credits is a much stronger solution in my mind than straight up censoring them.

My only problem is how this could be determined. Would mechanical elements be involved, like having to provide the choice between a male and female player character? Would the developers be able to defend their choices in a back and forth with the judges, or would their decision be final? It just strikes me as a very difficult thing to determine as all media and all people are at least a little sexist, and could open the door to allow the judges to hurt the developer for other reasons.

@donutfever: I see it as a form of censorship. It's basically saying 'limit your art and don't include what we don't like or we'll fine you'. Artistic freedom has to include both the lack of punishment for 'improper art' and the lack of reward for 'proper art', because ultimately they are two sides of the same coin imo.

Interesting. Obviously terribly difficult to enforce if it had passed and doesn't really address the main issue: that a lot of the time, game devs WANT to cater toward more balanced or even female-centric stories and gameplay elements, but are ultimately not in control of large changes in gameplay. When a game costs 100 million dollars, the money does not come from the developers, it comes from the publishers, much like film. It's an investment for a product and with that investment comes an inherent amount of pressure to get the money back. In general, the publishers feel more inclined to invest big money in safe, status quo products which has statistically been male driven and action oriented.

That's not to say that's really correct anymore, but it has a history of success and that's all that the companies that invest in such things really care about. To that end, pulling tax incentives for products that don't support a large demographic that the companies don't particularly trust to get a return of investment from yet doesn't work because the companies are multinational. Sure, it keeps sexist games out of France, because it keep all games with large budgets out of France, which is not what the bill was intending, I suspect. We see this in the VFX industry. When the tax incentives dry up, the HQ's move. First LA, now Vancouver. With the housing crisis in Canada, Montreal is probably out as the new hub, but it could be Singapore in a few years or back to LA depending on the economy. Its crazy how much trouble companies are willing to go to just for tax breaks. Leaving out an entire nation because of limitations on how they make their money is not a shock to me.

I do hope developers eventually gain the ability to have more control of their large scale projects, but most devs don't even have control over how many hours they work a week. I'm sure it's very frustrating not being able to make the game you want to make because the publisher says it would cost to much to integrate a female lead or record VO. But, sadly, it probably comes a close second to the fact that many devs don't get paid overtime or maternity leave or get to see their kids on the weekends because it's crunch and they've been working 126 hour weeks for the past four months.

What a stupid notion, that's all I really have to say about this.

This is the definition censorship. The government would have been given the right to damage a company financially because the game didn't fit their version of what "sexism" is.

French politicians have better things to do than bicker about sexism in video games. After all, their support is collapsing, and people are increasingly turning to extremist parties. Maybe it's because your average French politician is complacent, lazy and could care less about acting on behalf of the French people - as evidenced by this stupid amendment that was never going to get passed in the first place.

There's a lot of good that a European politician could do by talking about sexual violence towards women. After all, it's happening a lot in real life and the danger of sexual harassment and violence is increasing every day. Maybe concentrate on the 3D women before you start worrying about the 2D women.

What you just said is that France must abolish all tax credits because they do currently restrict what art they will subsidise and you consider this censorship. The artist must be free from any interaction with the state to avoid your definition of censorship. So being given money or preferential tax rates if they fit certain conditions (such as making work that is aligned culturally with the state, being a citizen, or any other conditions linked to why one business can get a reduced rate while another can't [maybe a firm that's a PHP farm making sites for cake businesses - they're building code that others "play" with, they're making art(work) for the sites; you have to start drawing lines around how you define these special interest groups]).

I think it's a nice sentiment but there would be some issues those that proposed the law may not have intended. One big and immediate issue is how to you operationalize 'sexist' such that it can be agreed upon by the majority. The other is that the law doesn't seem to get at intentions. If this law were applied to film/TV and used in the US government Mad Men would have been one those projects that didn't qualify for a tax credit because its depiction of women is largely sexist. But it's that way in the show because they are showing a time and place in America. This law could have hindered the types of experiences creators could craft and, to me, there's a lot of value in art that makes an audience feel negative emotions. When I was disgusted in the treatment of women in Mad Men there was value in that.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the attempt, it's the type of thing which is better off not passing. Sexism is a very real issue in games, but it is a very broad and at times very vague topic; it would be a nightmare to draw any sort of concrete legal line or to even decide what would be on either side of said line. For example, the law apparently would include games which have "violences against women", but where would just about any given fighting game or any combat-focused game with a female protagonist fall in that? Your girlfriend gets punched and kidnapped by the main villain in Double Dragon and you certainly fight some female enemies along the way so would something like that count even though the violence is framed as being 'bad' or enacted against 'the villains'? It would just end in a mess where games which probably shouldn't be affected by the law would be and vice versa because it is horribly vague and relies far too heavily upon personal opinion.

Laws which strictly enforce or encourage censorship aren't necessarily bad, but they need to be handled with a whole lot of care and need to be designed to target very specific things rather than something as vague and subjective as a concept.

Now lets see people arguing that this isn't advocating censorship.

Censorship is not when the Governor decides to buy some art for the town hall. They are not censoring every artist whose work they did not buy to hang in the space.

If you don't like who they picked to buy art from to decorate then you can use that to decide who you vote for next time but it's not censorship.

This is the French state potentially deciding what art to promote by offering preferential rates (ie paying) to certain art they don't see as being commercially viable without their assistance. The politicians can narrowly focus such funding to only pick out the work they don't think the market will already be creating. They can pick, just as the person buying new art of the town hall, whatever they want for that infusion of cash. They are executing the will of the people and so will have any bad moves in this regard reflected back at the ballot box.

But this is normal (for arts funding). This is how tax breaks are written. If you are desperate for your computer game sexism then you can buy it like everyone else rather than demanding that the French people subsidise its creation for you. The market decides. Not subsidising the thing you want to be made is not censorship under capitalism.

"Pay for your porn or you get no porn" is not censorship (which is real easy to see considering how much censorship there is). Welcome to global capitalism. Enjoy your outrage.

Who would in this case would be responsible for establishing the guidelines for what is and what isn't sexist? And who would ultimately have to make the call whether any given product is or isn't going over the line?

If videogames are in fact art, as many people seem to be really concerned with proving, then what a horrible idea to have a committee that would be tasked with fitting said art into arbitrary boundaries. I know some people thought the original Tomb Raider was very sexist, that Lars was "too pretty" or what have you - if I was a French citizen I wouldn't want those people speaking for me. As a matter of fact I wouldn't want anyone to speak on my behalf in these matters - I rather play the game and judge for myself whether it's sexist or not.

I would actually pick the opposite end of the spectrum, namely the idea that all artists should have their taxes reduced by the amount that's currently considered a tax break. The government not taking an artists money is not a subsidy.

A tax break isn't a subsidy. The government saying 'we will now take less of your money' isn't the government saying 'we will now give you money'.

Let's say that in a year the French government will decide to tax all game development at 30%. Then, a year later, they will set the tax at 15% for games that 'promote French values' or whatever. Did the government then give those developers money for creating said games?

No. They just ceased to take as much tax money as before. They are still taking the money in the form of taxes, just less than previously.

@imsh_pl: Think of this like this:

There is general taxation on profits. All companies pay it. It's for everyone to pay. Unless the government wants to spend money on making your rate lower, you get the universal rate. This is your company paying for all the things the government does for you (roads, enforcing copyright, negotiation international agreements that allow you to sell things overseas, maintaining an army). It's not your money - it's the cost of doing business.

Then there are tax breaks for special things the government wants to promote. As I've already linked to existing video game tax break legislation, you can see exactly how it is written; you realise this isn't just "we have a nebulous definition of a game company who get a different rate" but rather a specific, targeted move to promote specific art. This is the government paying that company by giving them a tax break. It's subsidising their use of roads by getting the money from general taxation rather than charging the company appropriately for it.

You're getting tied up on what you think is a stark difference where no difference exists. Tax breaks are a subsidy.

@shivoa:

How does taking less money from someone means that you are spending money?

By the definition you've linked: "This requires the assumption that a person's or an entity's money belongs to the government."

Is this your assumption?

So if I make $1000 with a 10% tax, the government isn't taking $100, it's actually giving me $900, correct?

"Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment."

This is a selective tax break. Ergo it is equivalent to a cash payment. The link explains very clearly how this is equivalent.

Also your money has no value outside of the state. It is not gold-linked. It is a guarantee by the state. That's what that line means. Money is the system by which taxation happens and capitalism is greased.

If you don't believe in state controlled money (which it sounds like you don't) then why on earth would you exchange your good or services with another person if all they're giving you is a piece of paper that is nothing more than a promissory note guaranteed by the government? If you do not think they control money then that guarantee has no meaning to you. You've been giving away your valuable product for worthless paper!

The government will collect in money for use of the roads etc via general taxation. This money pays to make sure the roads are maintained etc. If it does not take in this taxation from Company X then the roads still need to be maintained so it must get the money from somewhere else. This is what we mean when we say that the government is spending money when giving a tax break. It has to find that money to pay for the tax break. It is spending money on the tax break.

@shivoa: So do you agree with the assumption in the link behind the 'tax break as a subsidy' idea:

"Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. This requires the assumption that a person's or an entity's money belongs to the government."

You need to read what I've written (where I explain what that line means - I agree with what I wrote above). And possibly take an economics course.

On that course you will be exposed to lots of exciting ideas, including how to define money.

One popular definition of money is "anything accepted by the government as payment of tax". There are lots of definitions of money but this one definitely encapsulates this very tight link between government guaranteed promissory notes and taxation. Money (which is state guaranteed rather than linked to a real item of value, like the gold standard) exists because it can be used to pay taxes.

Edit: also this is going a long way off-topic (and past gaming, even the business of gaming and selective subsidies in the industry).

I'm glad that law didn't pass. It seems like they were using the wrong tool to combat a potential cultural problem.

Also please remember to keep this discussion civil. Disagreeing is fine, but being condescending or aggressive is not.

@shivoa: I would label pretty much everything you've said as incorrect but I think we've derailed this discussion kinda far enough, if you want hit me up with a PM.

What a silly idea.

No, it requires the assumption that all of your money (and indeed all money) always belongs to the government, not just that it's ascribed its value by governments. It's a matter of ownership, not purpose, so that particular definition of "money" in your other post is also besides the point. Now, whether or not you actually own your "own" money, that'd be relevant. Also complicated. Interesting, but ultimately disproportionate an exercise to the question of whether or not this proposal would've been censorship.

This wouldn't have been censorship, strictly speaking. I know that's a word a lot of people seem to selectively strive to protect, despite no other word for some entities' efforts to directly or indirectly supress ideas quite coming to the fore, but nonetheless, not censorship. It's a noble sentiment--and a pretty dumb idea--but the best way to deal with sexism remains the same way as dealing with any other idiotic perspective: counter with a decidedly less idiotic perspective.

The only reason we're even arguing over something as blatently silly as sexism (and other silly things) is because of perspectives that broaden out what constitutes being sexist. That's also why the implementation of this proposed amendment would've been such a mess.

Hell, this situation is why government panels that qualitatively judge projects in order to determine whether or not they should even get funding at all can seem off the mark. There's a bunch of plates spinning in this whole shit show.

I agree with the GB crew that games like DOAX are utterly stupid and even if I am looking for titillation, games like those are not where I'd go.

At the same, the government has no business whatsoever delving into this stuff. It's something an individual should decide for themselves. And this may be an exaggeration, but bullshit like this is how nanny states are born.

Let the market decide. They seem to be doing a solid job of not wanting to put up with games that "objectify" women.

@atwa said:

This is actually one of the few times I actually WOULDN'T argue this point, since it's a government making decisions here rather than a company or similar. At the same time, though, if the issue isn't making something "illegal" or otherwise inaccessible to an extreme degree, I still think it's completely inappropriate to call it "censorship" rather than whatever terms we use for limiting pornographic content distribution or similar.

I definitely think games should be better than this, though. We shouldn't have some hardline regulation for "sexist" content at a government level, but the industry should be designing better characters and stories in the first place such that there wouldn't even be a major case for concern of this nature. Even the best games of 2015 like MGSV had some GLARING issues in this field for some really shallow and stupid reasons. I hope the industry (and society, too, given that this is by no means limited to video games) can get over this juvenile fixation on titillation, often at the expense of women.

Good. Those laws are dumb.

How do you even define what is sexist or not?

Good. Anything that limits the freedom of the artist shouldn't get a pass.

@imsh_pl:

France seems kind of weird when it comes to gender issues. Imagine a husband divorcing his wife, and then her being forced to pay him money because she refused to have sex with him for a long while during their marriage. Sounds kind of shitty, right? That very thing happened in France, only the genders were reversed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

American Civil Liberties Union

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

The English language--and even the ACLU--disagrees with your redefinition of that word.

"Sexist"

This is a morality tax, pure and simple. And yes, this is also censorship.

I don't care whether you call it censorship or not -- I'm glad it failed. Governments exist for the purpose of protecting personal liberty, not suppressing it.

@spaceinsomniac: I could make any number of frustrated/unhelpful comments to this, but I think the best thing I can do now is just link to Austin's Storify on the topic of "censorship" and its usage in contexts like these: https://storify.com/austin_walker/some-more-thoughts-on-censorship

I agree that the case outlined in the OP is "3. Distribution is allowed, but handcuffed by harsh legal regulations (prohibitive fees/taxes, laws around distribution and exhibition, etc.)," but question whether or not the fees/taxes in this case would be genuinely "prohibitive" any moreso than, as I stated, laws/fees/regulations around pornography and other "adult" entertainment. There are shades of gray between "limiting access" and "censoring" in which things like the ESRB are allowed to function. Crying wolf at things within that space only harms efforts to fight against those events that exist as obvious censorship. I think this is well-evidenced by the conclusion of the article, which highlights the obvious problems in the proposed motion and suggests constructive alternatives to encourage better content rather than "censor" or otherwise disincentivize existing content:

"On the other hand, according to Mrs. Lemaire, the amendment would disempower a growing industry in France, that the government is instead trying to empower. On this, their action is three-fold: firstly, they try to make careers in media attractive for women, so that they can promote their objectives and contribute to create contents that match their expectations.

Secondly, they encourage the creation of games that promote a positive image of women, and have reached an agreement with industry professionals on this topic.

Thirdly, they encourage the creation of communities on the internet in which women can feel safe and free to express themselves.

According to Mrs. Lemaire, the dialogue with the industry on this topic has already produced results, with French studios that have recently produced games like Life is Strange and Beyond: Two Souls, featuring main characters who are strong and deeply human women. This is the signal of a French industry that wants to be more responsible than its European or international counterparts.

That’s why, while Mrs. Lemaire shares the general goals of the amendment, she felt that she had to provide a warning on the fact that its effects would be counterproductive, and demanded its withdrawal.

During the following vote, the amendment was rejected."

People arguing over a words meaning instead of the actual subject to me is asinine.

That was a good read, so thanks for linking to it. For me "is it censorship?" comes down to "is it bigotry?" Is it an action of intolerance designed to suppress various beliefs or opinions?

Here's a small section of a Wikipedia article on the TV program Soap, which featured one of television's first major gay characters:

In June 1977, a Newsweek preview of the fall season written by Harry F. Waters panned the show while mischaracterizing some of its basic plot elements and offering exaggerated reports of its sexual content. Despite having not seen the pilot, Waters called the show a "sex farce" and claimed (erroneously) that the show included a scene of a Catholic priest being seduced in a confessional.

...

Within days of the Newsweek report, a number of local and national religious organizations began to quickly mobilize against Soap, despite the fact that they also had not seen the pilot. Among these were the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,[7] the latter of which went so far as to divest itself of 2,500 shares of ABC stock "because the board does not approve of programming related to the abuse of human sexuality, violence and perversion."[8]

The Roman Catholic Church, led by its Los Angeles Diocese, also condemned the show and asked all American families to boycott it saying "ABC should be told that American Catholics and all Americans are not going to sit by and watch the networks have open season on Catholicism and morality. [Soap] is probably one of the most effective arguments for government censorship of TV that has yet come along."[9] In August, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California representing three branches of Judaism, joined the Catholic protest saying that the as-yet unaired show "reached a new low."

...

These religious groups organized a letter-writing campaign designed to pressure the show's sponsors from advertising on the network.[11] Although some of the religious groups asked their members to watch the show first, and then inform ABC of their feelings about it,[7] others began working hard to get ABC to cancel the show before it premiered. One ABC vice president was shocked to learn that his 11-year-old child was required by a parochial school teacher to write a letter of protest to ABC to take the show off the air.[5] In the end, 32,000 people wrote letters to ABC,[7] all but nine of them against it.[12]

Personally, I have no issue whatsoever with calling actions like these an attempt at censorship. Although I'll gladly agree that government intervention is pretty much always worse, public and private groups can absolutely force their bigoted views on others. In this instance, the catholic church ITSELF used the word censorship to describe their objective.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s with the religious right telling people how they should think, and what they shouldn't say. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. It's why I take the issue so seriously when someone stands up and tells everyone that their completely subjective opinion on a given topic should be received like it was gospel.

Again, though, thanks for linking that twitter conversation. It was an interesting discussion, and I agreed with a lot of it. Lastly, please forgive the bluntness of my initial reply. This isn't twitter, and it would serve polite conversation for me to remember that.

I mean I am glad this law didn't happen because it is pretty dumb. But at the same time when games get an AO rating they are basically so far shunned into obscurity they may as well have been censored. This whole censorship in games thing recently has really become ridiculous.

The French government did the right thing, but they did it for the wrong reasons in treating it as a business that would be hurt when in reality it should be treated as a form of equality. That's all I'm going to say. It's late and I'm up because of my daughter so I can't string together a really coherent thought.

Isn't it about time we stop trying to police fiction? Not just legally but socially as well?

I'm not going to sit here and say fiction can't be offensive or demeaning to people or certain groups, but how the hell will forcing or shaming people to not create something solve anything? It anything, all I have seen it done is create more rifts between people. You aren't changing what people are thinking, you're just stopping them from expressing it, and that is helping nobody, all it does is create tension.

To me putting breaks on fiction is actively working against what makes it great; sure, you could argue that it has second-hand effects on people, but if you want to open that can of worms then I think glorified violence should be a much bigger concern. I am a strong advocate for fiction as a tool for relieving built-up stress and pressure, countries with some of the highest rape statistics in the world often have very strict views on pornography, and I think there could be a strong connection there.

Personally I don't think trying to remove sexism from fiction is the solution; in fact I think it could just make sexism in the real world worse. By telling people their fiction can't be sexist, you are basically vilifying their ideas in a sense, and giving a lot of people another reason to be more hostile towards women and feminism.

France and plenty of other European countries offer tax breaks to video games and other media for pretty much whatever reason they want. Usually a lack of extreme violence or something that promotes the culture of the country. Even Canada does this, I think. For all I know, some states in the US are doing it now too. Whether or not this is censorship is really a discussion about whether or not the government should be artificially stimulating creative industries at all, which is just a whole thing. I can think of multiple arguments from both sides of that debate.

I'd be curious to hear what their criteria would've been for what is and is not sexist.

Just for the record, while I still consider this as an attempt at censorship, I realize that free speech vs censorship is a spectrum rather than necessarily a binary, and am aware that people have varying definitions. Instead of arguing what word to describe a problem with let's instead talk about why or why not it's a problem. In this case that would mean focusing whether withholding tax breaks is a good thing or not instead of a semantic categorization of censorship.

An outlatet called DualShockers.com reports that a law amendment proposing to discourage the production of video games that are considered 'sexist' by making them ineligible for tax credits has failed to pass.

The site mentions that even though the sentiments are shared by the government, represented by Axelle Lemaire, Secretary of State of the Economy Ministry for the Industry and Digital, the decision not to pass the vote was grounded in the idea that it would ultimately hurt the growth of the French gaming industry, and do little to prevent the overseas development of games that are degrading to women.

Uhm, okay? If this is the statement they made, then they are being sexist themselves. Can we round up all people on the planet, and kindly explain to them that 'sexist' means that you judge and discriminate based solely or in part due to the person or group's gender. That goes both ways, not just one way. I swear, it is actually starting to get pretty funny. If only people wanting laws like this would know that the entire reason they can't get anything done is because they advocate female superiority instead of equality.

@spaceinsomniac: Not at all! I should apologize too - I thought some more on the topic, and re-reading things it makes sense to me that we can view this as an issue of censorship. I agree with everyone, too, that the government was correct in shutting down this attempt. Hopefully my post didn't sound too contrary for the sake of being contrary - I tend to get a little antsy with threads like these.

My big issue with rallying around the censorship flag on this particular issue is that I fear it will bury what I think is that ACTUAL issue at stake - women are underrepresented in the industry, and the ways in which female characters are designed and treated with games is often implicated as a reason for this. Censorship is clearly not the correct approach toward fixing this issue, but how can we as a community help foster the kind of communities and development processes to help avoid this kind of design in future releases?

In particular, to requote the article segment: "According to Mrs. Lemaire, the dialogue with the industry on this topic has already produced results, with French studios that have recently produced games like Life is Strange and Beyond: Two Souls, featuring main characters who are strong and deeply human women. This is the signal of a French industry that wants to be more responsible than its European or international counterparts." This to me is a really important point. The industry CAN produce good characters without compromising or "putting the brakes on" fiction writing. I've always viewed issues of "sexism" or whatever you want to call it (hopefully we can all at least agree on the fact that female characters - as well as male characters - can be very poorly designed more often than not) as issues of lazy design in similar ways that toys marketing kept Rey from Star Wars off the shelves because marketers assumed boys wouldn't want to play with girls. Government regulation seems like a very poor approach to this, but what are the best ways to incentivize better writing in the industry?

@peregrin38: Going out of the way to buy games with strong female leads is a good place to start. Expressing your displeasure to a company that relies on tropes or stereotypes, either via writing in to that company or reviewing the game, is another way to go. As a consumer, those are pretty much the two feedback systems you can use to influence a company's output if you take legislation off the table.

Can't escape arguments over the meaning of some of these words. That's quite literally the entire point of disagreement when you boil down "this is/isn't sexist/censorship" to its fundamentals. In many cases it is the subject.

I think the issue is getting a little conflated, at least in my reading. The issue is who the "State" is going to give tax breaks to and whether they can put restrictions on who they provide tax breaks to. In essence, does the government in France want to provide tax breaks to people making games like Postal or DOAX3, or do they want to say that they only want to provide those breaks to people making educational titles or games like Journey or Gone Home?

My issue is with interpretation and how the law would be applied. Laws can be abused and what may be intended to be a scalpel can instead end up being a battle axe. What I consider a sexist or misogynistic game, character or story may not be the authors intent. There are times when I react more strongly to something in a game than another might, based on my personal experiences as a 33 year old woman, or based on me being a college graduate, or any number of things. I would never say that my interpretation is the only right interpretation, however. That is why I write about stuff, when I feel the need, and why I spend money on games that I believe are doing a good job of handling female characters well, and why those games get my positive and vocal feedback.

Even though I would love for games to be more inclusive and more welcoming to my gender and to other marginalized groups, I can't advocate the government trying to decide what is and isn't worthy of a tax break based on their interpretation of what is in the game. People can be too quick to judge based on a few sparse screenshots or a snippet of dialogue, when the overall story may actually be much more than what those few details may let on. Also, art shouldn't be held to some standard that it can't be sexist or misogynistic, because some of the greatest art is just that. In those cases we need to be able to look critically and teach ourselves and others to look and think critically about the material. I think back to my courses on literary analysis and interpretation and how we were exposed to different modes of interpretation, whether through a feminist interpretation, social or economical criticism, or more classical modes of critique and interpretation. If we can read books like Lolita or American Psycho and find value in them, we should be able to do the same for our more boundary pushing games. Well, so long as they actually have artistic merit, but of course that is a conversation for another day. :)

I'm also of a mind that tax breaks for things that are going to be consumer goods, like games or movies or whatever, can be problematic for a whole different reason. For instance, the St. Louis Rams are moving back to Los Angeles and yet the Missouri tax payers are still on the hook to pay off the stadium until 2022 with no team there to use it. Also, recently we got to see what happened to 38 Studios and how they had to close after taking, and then being unable to pay, a loan from the state of Rhode Island. This was an agreement that was made to bring a lucrative industry to a state that wanted a piece of the pie, but then realized that games can be an expensive and can take time to become successful. Of course, I am trying to distill a huge amount of information, but the point remains. Getting involved with the government can be risky business, especially when times can get tough, government officials can get antsy, and tax payers can be left in the cold. So I would rather them just not give tax breaks, and if they do, give them to everyone who qualifies without other, more problematic, strings attached.

Mind you, I am just trying to triage my thoughts here on a complicated issue, and I may be leaving things out or not fully explaining my ideas, but this is everything that happened to come to mind when reading up on this case.