[OPINION] French Government Considering “Sexist” Game Label

Thursday, June 2nd, 2016

Share this page

We are proudly a Play-Asia Partner

SUPPORT OPRAINFALL BY TURNING OFF ADBLOCK

Ads support the website by covering server and domain costs. We're just a group of gamers here, like you, doing what we love to do: playing video games and bringing y'all niche goodness. So, if you like what we do and want to help us out, make an exception by turning off AdBlock for our website. In return, we promise to keep intrusive ads, such as pop-ups, off oprainfall. Thanks, everyone!

By


Senran Kagura Estival Versus PS4 | 4

Disclaimer: The opinions presented in this piece are those of the author and do not reflect those of Operation Rainfall as a whole.

Mon dieu! The French government is thinking about labeling games it thinks are sexist, which would affect how those games are advertised and who would be allowed to play them. Putting such a “discrimination” label on these games would drive the rating up to 18+ and stop advertisements from being shown for them on primetime TV. The way the government sees it, they want to promote games that depict women in a positive light, and denounce those that don’t. Those that fit the bill (pun intended) will be getting some monetary assistance from the government. Some cited examples of positive female depictions are games such as Beyond Good and Evil, Life is Strange, and Dishonored 2. This proposed legislation would be an amendment to a previously passed bill which recognized e-sports and enforced net neutrality.

Dead-or-Alive-Xtreme-3 Screenshot 6

What makes a game “sexist”? That question needs to be answered before such haphazard legislation gets enacted.

This idea comes from Axelle Lemaire, France’s Socialist Secretary of State of Digital Affairs, who may have been influenced by feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian. Ms. Sarkeesian, as you know, is the face behind Feminist Frequency’s series of YouTube videos which puts a critical eye on games she deems to have sexist traits. Lemaire had previously attempted to take away the tax credit for “games which are degrading to women”, but was shut down, so this is her alternative solution.

SOURCE, 2

My take: A dangerous proposition indeed. The problem with proposals like these is that the definitions are intentionally made nebulous. Who is to say what is “sexist” and what isn’t? These days, the definition of sexism has been warped to fit certain political agendas. Is Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 sexist for depicting young beautiful women having a good time on the beach? Is Senran Kagura sexist for featuring all-girl clothes-ripping ninja action? Where do we draw the line, and why does France’s government feel the need to meddle in the affairs of fictional women in video games? What if I told you that I know women who actually enjoy these games and aren’t bothered by the content? Doesn’t this hurt them?

About Joe Sigadel

Joe is the reporting manager for oprainfall, he is also a broadcaster on Twitch and loves showing off many of the games we report about on his channel. He has also been known to defended Senran Kagura from those who only want to accept it at face value.




  • Firion Hope

    I feel like the joke is too easy to make here

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      There already is a joke. It’s called France. It depresses me seeing France fall so far like this.

    • Kev Lew

      how long until the traditional French mademoiselle archetype (stern but stylish woman) or pretty much every perfume advert in existence get attacked by the same crowd.

  • Mir Teiwaz

    inb4 they try to label a big AAA title as sexist.

    • Kazkari

      Well if our stuff is gonna be stuck with their the mainstream stuff should be. They don’t even advertise our games so I dunno what they are on about lol.

  • Panpopo

    Unless this is codified into law it’s just politician talk.

    However, if this does go into law all I think this will do is allow less game releases in France. Statutes are meant to be open to interpretation. Would companies bother to translate games into French, or will they make additional changes to meet the statute? What burecatric body will rubber stamp this? It will be interesting to see.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      Frenchmen are going to have to import.

    • j0eeyy_p

      Which if you live in Europe and play for PS Vita, you have to do this anyway for half of your games. It’s no big deal.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      I just sucks that you’ll have to import even MORE shit.

    • j0eeyy_p

      It’s the PAL region. Being shafted by publishers is the norm here, especially if their names are NIS America and Aksys Games. There are exceptions though like Bamco if you’re into Vita physicals, likewise Asian Engish releases of ecchi titles like Moe Chronicle and DOAX3.

    • Smug

      I dont think a lot of people have the money to import all the stuff. (which can be crazy expensive for some franchises unless you try your luck with the market of used games)

    • j0eeyy_p

      I didn’t think of that. In some respects for poor people outside of developed economies, piracy is often the best option, especially as many games get official digital only releases there anyway.

  • Michieie

    Right now the socialist party is trying to fuck people with the reform to laboral laws and that stuff and they’re less than popular, so don’t worry no one will listen to feminist leftist talk there, at least for now.

  • Mr0303

    I expected this from Sweden (I believe it’s already implemented there), but France? Weren’t they supposed to be sexually liberated?

    A body deciding which games to hit with this label will just be a step closer to agenda pushing. Given that feminism has declared everything from history to air conditioning sexist they can brand any game they wish. The funny thing is that games can’t be sexist – the women featured inside them are not real. They are data that doesn’t have human rights. Same for the men NPCs that die in the millions.

    • Aerokii

      Sexual Liberation has nothing to do with whether or not is something’s sexist.

    • Mr0303

      The lack of sexual liberation has everything to do with the prudeness of labelling a bunch of pixels sexist because they depict a woman in bikini.

    • Aerokii

      I’m not entirely sure you understand what sexism actually is.

    • Mr0303

      Oh, I do – discrimination based on gender. This is impossible in videogames and only the moral busy bodies, who want to control what people enjoy or find sexy, want the power to label games sexist.

    • Aerokii

      Congratulations- you got one point of the overall idea in a multifaceted issue.

      Then you fucked it all up by being entirely wrong about everything else you’re saying. Sexism goes beyond the dictionary.com definition, and you’d do well to read up on the rest of what sexism is.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Objectification

    • Mr0303

      Go on, then. What is your imaginary definition of sexism?

    • Aerokii

      Wow, you’re really not a bright one, are you?

    • Mr0303

      Ad hominem attacks – didn’t see that one coming from a guy with no facts to support his claims…

    • Aerokii

      Says the man who hasn’t posted a single source or fact, and who may or may not be able to understand what a “link” is.

    • Mr0303

      I think you agreed on my definition of sexism. You even provided the relevant links for me.

    • Aerokii

      I agreed that you got part of the definition, certainly not all of it- and the link I provided goes into far more detail on what sexism is, and particularly how it’s possible for there to be sexism in media (pixels or otherwise.)

    • Mr0303

      Ohh, it’s the feminist bullshit about objectification. Yeah, that’s all crap from a hate group. Games do not discriminate against men or women. They are products that everybody can purchase and enjoy.

    • Aerokii

      2016 “missing the point champion”- Mr0303.

    • Mr0303

      The point is that games can’t be sexist, but do try and make your case for the opposite position, preferably with examples.

      Feminism is the hate group I’m referring to.

    • Aerokii
    • Nathan Wallace

      Look at all that confirmation bias! That must give you a good hit of dopamine straight to your ventral striatum! Don’t worry though, it’s not your fault. Your radical beliefs are a scientifically defined illness, we really can’t blame you.

    • Aerokii

      Aww, it tried to shout about bias instead of actually saying why anyone of what I posted was wrong!

      It thinks it’s people.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Well if you cared about empirical evidence that determines it’s wrong (Just a google away if you really cared about intellectual diversity at all) I would, but you and I both know that 1) You’d rather strengthen you confirmation bias and 2) Even if I supplied you information you’d make the same argument to me about confirmation bias despite that actual empiracal evidence exists. There’s really no winning with a radical as you are actually hard wired to to seek that dopamine hit. Do yourself a favor and seek evidence to contradict your beliefs. I do. It really helps understand the situation from all angles.

      You know the door is there, if you really cared, you’d open it already.

    • BurgerUnit

      Not sure why you’re bothering. You’re dealing with someone that believes in something so strongly they lose the ability to think rationally and completely buy into what they are being sold.

      If you’ve ever seen those videos where a televangelist causes a person to fall over, go into convulsions, etc, the person on the recieving end would be our friend charizard here.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Haha! Nice comparison! Never thought if that way but I agree entirely!

      Also, You get bonus points for the pic! Deadwing I presume?

    • BurgerUnit

      You got it 🙂

    • Aerokii

      Please, by all means, show me how I’m wrong with links and evidence. I’ve posted plenty, but almost no one else has posted a goddamn shred of it.

      So by all means, go ahead and post the information you’ve got.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Literally if you google “Video Games Cause Sexism” the first article you get is “New study Finds No Link Between Gaming and Sexist Attitude.”

      But if your lazy ass really wants to explore the opposite view point you can start here:

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=video+games+don%27t+cause+sexism

      Otherwise sexism is a social convention that can only be applies to those capable of socializing AKA humans, and video games are not humans. They are in-animate (Hell, they’re even BINARY!) They do not qualify as sexist.

    • Aerokii

      I’d be impressed, if that was the argument I was trying to make. I posted one link that included a link between sexism and sexist behavior, and tons discussing sexism within video games- which is the actual topic at hand. The question is not “can video games CAUSE sexism”, it’s “can video games be sexist/have sexism within them”.

      So, really, the only argument you’ve got is “it’s only pixels, jeez”? C’mon, I know you can do better.

    • Nathan Wallace

      You assume there’s a need to do better because you assume I conform to your belief of what constitutes being capable of sexism and what doesn’t, but I do not. In-animate creations are not vessels of sexism and cannot be. Sexism is a social convention and requires sentience to take place. Video games are not capable of socializing and they do not have sentience, therefore they are not capable of having sexist ideologies. They may depict many things that if it were a human they would be downright abhorrent, but they are not human. The debate really ends there.

    • Aerokii

      Right, we can at least agree that you and I have wildly different ideas of what it takes to be sexist.

      Granted, yours is incredibly narrow and requires something to be sentient- I imagine you take the same stance towards racism, at which point you’d say “Birth of a Nation” isn’t racist because movies aren’t sentient.

      Am I correct in this?

    • Nathan Wallace

      Well I’ve never witnessed a VHS tape come to life and call anybody a nigger or insist we commit hate crimes. That said anything can be created with the use of racism or can display blatant racism, but that does not make it racist as again racism just like sexism is something that can only be committed, observed, inferred and implied between an exchange of 2 (or more) different vessels of sentience.

      This is why to me this point is really pointless to actually argue with you. I know we have different core sets of beliefs. I’ve observed enough of you to know where you stand to know this, and whether you agree with my point or not (I know you don’t) I hope it’s been educational/eye opening to you. We’ll never agree with one another, but I’m fine to let you continue on believing in what you do, though I will never concede that your stance has real merit, just as you will never concede that mine does.

      Though I am generally fine to let you go on existing in your own corner and I’d like to keep on existing in mine un-bothered. I just wish you could say the same.

    • Aerokii

      It seems our fundamental disagreement comes from whether or not sentience is required for something to be sexist/racist. I disagree with you entirely on this matter. Video games can be an act of sexism in the same way that a slur can be- doubly so if you consider things like video games to be free speech or art the same way one does with movies or paintings. The nitpicking over whether something has sentience or not is an entirely moot point, but you won’t seem to let it go. Such is your choice, albeit one that I find limiting, short-sighted, and potentially harmful.

      No, I won’t agree with you, you’re right on that. I’d say this has been educational, but you haven’t really provided me with anything I haven’t seen before. (I mean, truthfully, you haven’t provided me with anything but your personal opinion, one hotly contested article and one “Let me google that for you” for a search I’ve already done.)

      If you let me know what your corner of the internet is, I’ll happily leave you alone in it- but when it comes to public forums, I still happily plan to call out bullshit and sexism where I see it.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Actions require sentience to take. Video games can display acts of sexism, they can’t actually perform them. They are in-animate.

      A slur can be used to push a sexist remark, but that is dependent on it’s use, implications and inference between the two bodies of sentience. A slur is nothing more than a collection of letters and is not sexist by default.

      I won’t let go the relevance of sentience because it’s cornerstone. A video game cannot oppress or willfully degrade any-one based on any sort of definition. A video game can only exist, it has no power. You find this notion narrow minded and damaging, and I say to who? The only people who feel video games have any power at all are the insanely weak willed and they are the only ones responsible when they get hurt for allowing an in-animate object to effect them. Can we press charges against a video game for oppressing somebody? No. We can’t. Because video games are not people and cannot commit crimes that require sentience.

    • Aerokii

      So really what it comes down to is arguing semantics. Media can contain all the awful things it wants, but because it can’t crawl out of the TV screen and start shouting slurs, it doesn’t matter and we should do nothing about it?

      Let me guess, you’re the type who thinks that one cannot give offense, one can only take offense- and as a result no one has to be responsible for their speech.

      Did I hit the mark?

    • Nathan Wallace

      “So really what it comes down to is arguing semantics. Media can contain all the awful things it wants, but because it can’t crawl out of the TV screen and start shouting slurs, it doesn’t matter and we should do nothing about it?”

      Correct. It has no power and doesn’t need mediating.

      “Let me guess, you’re the type who thinks that one cannot give offense, one can only take offense- and as a result no one has to be responsible for their speech.”

      Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to say what you want without consequence. I’ll always believe that, but we are free to say anything and everything within our lawful boundaries (And the laws are good enough as is.)

      As far as offense giving/taking goes it can definitely be implied or even be the outright intention of the speaker to give offense, however just because it’s the intent does not mean the listener will infer or take offense. It goes the opposite way as well. A speaker can speak without intent or implication to give offense, this does not mean the listener however will not infer and take offense. This is why these things are only capable of occurring between 2 sentient beings.

    • Aerokii

      “It has no power and doesn’t need mediating.”

      And that’s TOTALLY why “Birth of a Nation” isn’t at all responsible for the resurgence of the Klan within the US.
      http://www.historynet.com/the-birth-of-a-nation-when-hollywood-glorified-the-kkk.htm

      I suppose you’ve never heard of the study of Media Influence/Media Effects, if you truly think media is powerless.

      http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/45690_Chapter_2.pdf

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792691/

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/2016-election-social-media-ruining-politics-213104

      http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/oconnog/media/download/the%20influence%20and%20effects%20o.pdf

      http://www.englishtopics.net/topicsmenu/4-topicshigh/100-the-power-of-the-media

      http://www.passia.org/seminars/99/media_and_communication/rami2.html

      or the other 968 million google results could shed some light on it for you.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Birth of a nation does not control anybodies actions, in fact, no media does. If you believe that it does than you do not believe it’s okay to blame individuals for their actions. Is this 1993 again? Do we need to start blaming violence on video games and rap music?

      “Birth of a nation is responsible for racism!” Is probably one of the most ludacrus accusations I’ve ever heard. Cool. Let’s punish the movie then. That makes sense right?

      968 million google results? That just means 968 million websites used the words you searched for connected or otherwise. You’d be a fool to think there isn’t an equal amount of opposing articles to this narrative.

    • Aerokii

      Ah, I see.

      So you’re in outright denial about the what possible effects media can have. Got it.

    • Nathan Wallace

      I wouldn’t say that it’s denial anymore than I would say your belief is denial that it doesn’t have side effects. Fact of the matter is I’ve chosen to put my belief in different studies than you have.

    • Aerokii

      My belief is that it DOES have side effects, but that was a weird double negative so I’m not going to argue it.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      “And that’s TOTALLY why “Birth of a Nation” isn’t at all responsible for the resurgence of the Klan within the US.”

      The klan can resurge all they want. As long as they just stick to protesting and doing nothing illegal they can say whatever the fuck they want.

    • Aerokii

      Birth of a Nation came out in 1915, back in the days of lynching and cross burning… so, no, the resurgence wasn’t related to them protesting and “doing nothing illegal.”

      It lead to destruction and murder.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      And the quran leads to millions dying every year. Should we ban that too? Let’s ban everything I disagree with because bad people exist.

    • Aerokii

      Funnily enough, no where in here have I called for banning a goddamn thing.

      Don’t let that get in the way of your strawmanning, though.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      You said media needs “mediation.” Nice false claim for strawmanning because you refuse to eat your own words.

    • Aerokii

      Feel free to quote where I say it needs mediation.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      This entire fucking argument today is why you think something needs to be done about sexism in media. You’re for mediation in media. Is your attention span that fucking short? Am I arguing with a goldfish?

    • Aerokii

      Actually the argument’s from yesterday, and my entire argument is that there is sexism in media. If you read my posts, you’ll also know that I don’t think the idea presented by this article is a good one or that it’ll help.

      I haven’t actually said what to do or that we SHOULD do something- I’m just recognizing it as a problem.

      You’re the one talking about banning things.

    • Here, let me teach you…

      The goldfish actually has a good memory span for a fish, the worst among the animals in terms of memory are hamsters.

    • Wolfe

      It clearly does. “It” should realize that the sham is up when “It” sources the likes of Feminist Frequency and Salon.com as credible sources.

      “It” isn’t very bright, are ya?

    • Aerokii

      Sure helps when the sources are backed up by everything else I’ve posted, but then your whole garmes jarnalizm movement has always been about invaliding any source that doesn’t cater exclusively to your viewpoint, and just outright making shit up when there’s no evidence left to support you.

      Don’t you have some death threats to send out?

    • Wolfe

      Your sources are as ass as you.

    • Aerokii

      Wow, such an insult. Thanks for reminding me to lower my expectation for gaters.

      Shouldn’t you be harassing journalists into silence about now?

    • Wolfe

      Nah, I think you’ve pretty well got that covered for this entire thread.

    • Aerokii

      “No, u!”

      Lol.

    • PanurgeJr

      Letting Operation Rainfall readers say stupid shit and then congratulate themselves for it is just so much fun, isn’t it?

    • Aerokii

      Lord knows it’s been fun here!

    • PanurgeJr

      I’m disappointed, Wolfe. Normally your delusional, conspiracy-theory-filled mind would have insisted by now that Aerokii is just one of my alternate accounts that I created so I can pretend that someone agrees with me. Have you forgotten about me already?

    • Wolfe

      Nah, I just decided to stop acknowledging you. Have a good one.

    • Mr0303

      So rather than posting opinion pieces from feminist

      sources, why don’t you defend your position and explain what makes a video game sexist? Not one of the links you provided explained how games discriminate against the people who play them based on gender, which will constitute a “sexist” video game.

      When you provide a link it actually should contain data relevant to the discussion. Like so:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/04/10/new-study-finds-no-link-between-gaming-and-sexist-attitudes/#476803f21ade

      “And just because I know it’ll leave you frothing like the rabid pomeranian that you are,

      https://feministfrequency.com/

      Au contraire – by sourcing Anita “I don’t like videogames” Sarkeesian – a known con artist who complains about butt coverings and things that everything is sexist – is just discrediting yourself.

      Yep. There are known racists like Susan B. Anthony (“Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.”), fear mongers like Andrea Dworkin (“Feminism is hated because women are hated.”), violent terrorists like
      Valerie Solanas (SCUM MANIFESTO – all of it), man haters like Jessica Valenti from the Guardian that you sourced (“I drink male tears”) and idealogues like Anita (“Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out”).

    • Aerokii

      Well, if you’d actually read the sources you’d see a great many compelling arguments, but if you’d really like I can indeed spell it out for you more clearly.

      First, let’s discuss how we’re defining sexism in video gaming- namely, the prejudiced behavior or discrimination based on sex or gender that creators and consumers of video games experience, potentially through the constant harassment of female/feminist game developers and gamers, including but certainly not limited to:

      Brianna Wu:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/brianna-wu-harassed-twitter-2014-10

      Zoe Quinn, Elizabeth Sampat, Neha Nair, and Donna Prior:

      http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/04/zoe-quinn-and-other-female-game-developers-speak-out-against-harassment/

      Anita Sarkeesian:

      http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/anita-sarkeesian-threats/

      And then we’ll move on to discuss portrayals of women within gaming.

      Let’s start with the harassment. Did you know women on Xbox Live were the most frequent targets of harassment?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=0

      Or that men playing games will actually treat a woman worse than a man, doubly so if the harasser is losing?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/20/men-who-harass-women-online-are-quite-literally-losers-new-study-finds/

      And let’s not forget all the harassment/death/rape threats that women get just for daring to talk about games:

      http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-harms-women/

      http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/20/rape-and-death-threats-are-terrorizing-female-gamers-why-havent-men-in-tech-spoken-out/

      http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/26/9618086/sxsw-gamergate-harassment-panels-cancellation

      http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/10/gamergate-explained

      http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/meanwhile-gamergate-activists-are-still-sending-women-death-threats–l1Mu7ebU2l

      Given that harassment of women within gaming is kind of a known thing by this point, let’s move on to the sexist depiction of women within games.

      Woman are tremendously underrepresented within gaming, despite over half of the population who plays games being women now:

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/52-percent-people-playing-games-women-industry-doesnt-know

      Yet despite that, only 4% of games from an EEDAR study had exclusively female protagonists, and less than half of the games even provided the option of playing as a woman.

      If you’d like to discuss how many of those women gamers are into mobile games, let’s discuss one of the most popular genres within it- endless runners. 98% of those featured male protagonists, and less than half offered the ability to play as women, where only 15% offered to play as a woman for free. If you want to be a woman in these games, you have to pay an average of $7.53.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/04/im-a-12-year-old-girl-why-dont-the-characters-in-my-apps-look-like-me/

      Now that we’ve discussed the lack of representation (women are very, very underrepresented in gaming despite how many women gamers there are), let’s talk about objectification and sexualization of women in gaming. Female characters are more likely to be sexualized (60% vs 1%), scantily clad (39% vs 8%), and mixing sexuality and aggression (39% vs 8%). They’re also sexist against men, given that games portray men as overwhelmingly aggressive (82%) within the games studied here.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-007-9278-1

      Using an older study that applies to a lot of us who grew up gaming on Nintendo/Sega consoles, 41% of games studied had no female game characters, and 28% of them had women as pure sex objects.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018709905920

      Because I can indeed be equal, let’s talk about sexism against men in gaming! Men are typically overtly aggressive and violent within games (earlier source goes over that), men are highly stereotyped (http://www.gamesradar.com/are-video-games-really-sexist/?page=2), and the power fantasies that these characters often represent can indee cause body image issues in young men. Much as the same can happen with women.

      Now that this is out of the way, let’s discuss the rest of your response.

      Sexism isn’t a game “discriminating” against someone playing it- though I suppose tha’ts possible. Games are created by people (shocking, I know), and those people can put in things that reinforce damaging stereotypes, negative body images, or be outright demeaning to the men/women within them. Your forbes article is also pretty much irrelevant, because “games cause people to be sexist” isn’t what I’m arguing- it’s just the easiest/quickest strawman for you to jump to. Games can contain sexist content, just like movies can contain racist content. Just because the media isn’t shouting slurs doesn’t mean it’s not potentially harmful to the people viewing/playing it.

      And y’know, I don’t blame Anita if she says she doesn’t like video games- just take a look at what all those lovely, lovely gamers have been doing to her for the past couple of years now. She actually DOES talk about how she played games as a kid, she doesn’t think “everything is sexist” (a quote taken out of context, but I already discussed that in this thread and I don’t imagine you’ll listen anyways), and ooo, the butt covering one- is that reall your best go-to for insulting her? In the wide range of work she’s done discussing many topics, that’s the best you could come up with? Nevermind that male and female butts within gaming ARE often portrayed very differently and for different reasons, but again, I don’t expect you to actually understand the difference between sexualization/objectification and power fantasies, certainly not as they relate to the male gaze.

      http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2011/11/nerds-and-male-privilege/all/1/

      http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/nerds-and-male-privilege-part-2/all/1/ (definitely give this one a look, if you’re actually interested in learning.)

      As for your “Feminism as a hate group”, Susan B. Anthony’s an odd choice, considering that feminism within the states wasn’t a movement until the 1960’s.

      https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women

      I am a feminist who actually has some problems with things Dworkin’s said- did you know feminism is not one giant homogeneous movement, but is instead a massive mix of different groups with different ideas? We don’t all like Dworkin. That being said, I’d hardly see how that quote proves feminism is a hate group.

      If you want to bring out “man haters”, let’s talk about some egregiously awful women haters, such as Roosh “I’m a literal rapist” V

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439840/Return-Kings-founder-Daryush-Roosh-Valizadeh-admits-considered-rape-deleted-post.html

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/02/08/roosh-v-is-not-pro-rape-roosh-v-is-a-rapist/

      Milo “I turned gay so I wouldn’t have to deal with women” Yiannopolous

      http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/16/breitbart-columnist-milo-yiannopoulos-i-went-gay-so-i-didnt-have-to-deal-with-nutty-broads/

      The heroes of reddit.com/r/TruCel, who had a picture of Elliot Rodger as their icon before their subreddit was banned for rampant hatred, or hell, while we’re at it, let’s go with Elliot “I killed people because women wouldn’t sleep with me” Rodger himself.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/24/elliot-rodgers-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny

      But no, Feminism is the hate group. Sure thing, buddy.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      This is easily solved if women made games. Guess what? They don’t want to make games. If they did, they’d use many of the dozens of FREE tools to make a game and get it out there.

    • Mr0303

      Harassment is not exclusive to women, so that 5 paragraphs of your drivel out of the way.

      The lack of representation garbage – if men can play as Lara Croft, women should have no problem playing as Nathan Drake or Mario.

      What’s next? “Games can contain sexist content” – I agree, but that doesn’t make the games sexist. Having a racist character in a book doesn’t make the book racist.

      “Just because the media isn’t shouting slurs doesn’t mean it’s not potentially harmful to the people viewing/playing it.” – prove it. Who was harmed by a video game? If someone’s that mentally fragile they belong in an asylum and can’t function in society.

      Anita doesn’t like video games because, she’s not a gamer and doesn’t know anything about them as proven multiple times. She failed to meet her Kickstarter goals, she stole artwork and gameplay footage to use in her videos and the content she produces is an asinine stuff like the butt covers. “I can’t get a shot of Batman’s butt, because they strategically placed the cape to cover his ass.” – no, they placed the cape there, so that he could fly. Her videos are the lowest form of pandering.

      “I am a feminist who actually has some problems with things Dworkin’s said” – don’t care. She a bit more prominent than you and I gave you plenty of other examples of feminist man-haters, including modern ones.

    • Aerokii

      “Harassment is not exclusive to women” So that makes it ok? Even though women are disproportionally the targets of harassments? Ok, buddy.

      “The lack of representation garbage – if men can play as Lara Croft, women should have no problem playing as Nathan Drake or Mario.” Right, because no one cares about representation and it’s not important at all.

      http://katywatkins.com/2014/01/gender-representation-in-stories/

      https://www.searchhigher.com/news-insights/the-importance-of-equal-gender-representation-in-higher-education

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598139?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

      http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/nov/12/media-representation-matters

      Oh, wait.

      “What’s next? “Games can contain sexist content” – I agree, but that doesn’t make the games sexist. Having a racist character in a book doesn’t make the book racist.”

      That actually depends largely on context of the characters/portrayals, since it certainly CAN make the book racist, and a damaging form of media.

      “Just because the media isn’t shouting slurs doesn’t mean it’s not potentially harmful to the people viewing/playing it.” – prove it. Who was harmed by a video game? If someone’s that mentally fragile they belong in an asylum and can’t function in society.

      As it turns out, there’s plenty of experts and articles on how media portrayals can do harm.

      http://antisocialbehavioringirls.blogspot.com/

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/6516537/Airbrushed-images-harming-girls-and-boys-experts-say.html

      “Anita doesn’t like video games because, she’s not a gamer and doesn’t know anything about them as proven multiple times. She failed to meet her Kickstarter goals, she stole artwork and gameplay footage to use in her videos and the content she produces is an asinine stuff like the butt covers. “I can’t get a shot of Batman’s butt, because they strategically placed the cape to cover his ass.” – no, they placed the cape there, so that he could fly. Her videos are the lowest form of pandering.”

      Funny, despite her “not knowing anything about games”, she’s made a lot of videos talking about them and been right about the majority of it. Oh, or am I not a gamer now because I actually agree with her on a lot (not necessarily all) of her points? Actually, ick, forget that- I’m trying to get rid of the “gamer” label, I’m loathe to be lumped in with people like you.

      And yes, you gave me some examples- yet you seem to be refusing to talk about any of the ones I provided, hm?

    • Mr0303

      I never said it makes it OK. If the harassment is not exclusive to women, there is not sexism there.

      Gender representation in any sphere is not necessary. The only diversity that is needed is diversity of ideas. Women are not a monolith thinking the same things.

      “That actually depends largely on context of the characters/portrayals,
      since it certainly CAN make the book racist, and a damaging form of
      media.” – examples please. What book is racist and how has it damaged anyone?

      I don’t consider hurt feelings as being harmed. People have agency and it’s their decision on what to do with their lives. If seeing a skinny person actually mentally scars you, then you are the one with the problem.

      I don’t particularly want to associate with cultists like you who don’t accept any criticisms of their sacred cows like Anita, so we’re in agreement here.

      The examples you’ve provided are not of prominent feminist denouncing Dworkin and the other man haters and thus are not in any way relevant to the discussion.

    • Aerokii

      You seem to be implying that it’s ok, since you’re sure as shit not suggesting we do anything about it. It’s ridiculous to think that even though harassment that happens to women is WAY MORE SEVERE that it doesn’t count because men are being called names, or something. (It’d help if you included an actual argument or any sources, but you’ve already proven allergic to that.)

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/28/yes-men-can-be-victims-of-online-harassment-but-in-reality-women-have-it-much-worse/

      http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/

      “Gender representation in any sphere is not necessary.” Then I suppose you wouldn’t mind at all if from here on out, we had primarily female characters, that the supreme court had nothing but women on it, and we had a woman president.

      We don’t need representation, right? So that should be fine!

      It’s also a far cry from “hurt feelings”, but I’m not going to expect you to actually have empathy.

      Hehe, “cultists”, how cute. Tell me, which cult am I a part of? I’ll take anything but Scientology and gamergate.

      The examples provided were of men that people within the Manosphere haven’t taken much time to denounce… so, I’ll provide you my examples when you provide me yours. Maybe this time you’ll actually include a real link/source.

    • Mr0303

      The platform holders already have systems in place to deal with harassment. The fact that it happens to men makes the issue non-sexist, not matter how many opinion pieces written by women saying that women have it much worse, despite being treated exactly like the men, you link.

      No, I wouldn’t mind any of the things you mentioned. The market knows its audience and people who want to play with male or female characters can purchase the games they want, the supreme court should hire the most competent people and the president is elected by the majority for her politics and her gender.

      You yourself stated that you are a feminist – thus a cultist thinking that women are oppressed and that there is an invisible unprovable force called the Patriarchy.

      I don’t care about the Manosphere. My initial statement was that feminism is a hate group and I provided plenty of examples of prominent hateful feminists.

    • Aerokii

      Funnily enough, social media is actually trying to get better with Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter all banning hate speech.

      http://www.vocativ.com/324058/facebook-youtube-and-twitter-pledge-to-ban-hate-speech/

      The response to this, of course, has been the #IStandWithHatespeech movement. So while the people in charge can try to help, it seems others aren’t so fond of these attempts to end hate speech and harassment.

      And I’m glad to hear you wouldn’t mind the changes being made. At least that we can agree on.

      Right, I keep forgetting you’re the one who says Feminism is a hate movement. Your delusions were good for a laugh.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      “Funnily enough, social media is actually trying to get better with Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter all banning hate speech.”

      Define “hate speech.”

    • Aerokii

      Not my job, I believe that falls to Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in this case. Do your own research.

    • Mr0303

      “Right, I keep forgetting you’re the one who says Feminism is a hate movement. Your delusions were good for a laugh.” – just pointing out the prominent figures in Feminism, like Dworkin, Solanas, Valenti and Sarkeesian that do hate men. Laugh if you will but this is how your group is viewed by many people and this is why being a feminist is not a very popular thing.

      http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/

    • Aerokii

      None of what you pointed out actually showed misandry, but ok. Keep telling yourself that.

      “My group” is advocating for equality for women, which hey, 85% of people believe in that. I also like how you keep lumping all feminists in together, despite there being at least 18 different types of feminism. Which one am I, can you tell?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies

    • Mr0303

      I don’t care which type you are. You are all delusional thinking that women are not equal in any way.

    • Aerokii

      And you’re delusional if you think we’re living in a post-sexism society.

    • Mr0303

      Name one right that men have and women don’t.

    • Aerokii

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html

      As it turns out, the constitution still doesn’t include equality for women.

    • Mr0303

      That idiot is choosing to ignore the Equality Act of 2010 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010. Her problem, not the law’s.

    • Aerokii

      The UK’s laws haven’t applied to the US for a couple hundred years now.

    • Mr0303

      Yeah, you had this long before that:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

      Plus she is complaining that there is no explicit mention of gender for equal treatment, but that is covered by the 14th Amendment.

    • Aerokii

      Not only did the equal pay act not work, “equal pay” doesn’t mean total fucking equality.

      Also, let’s take a look at section 1 of the 14th amendment…

      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      It prevents us from making sexist laws, but doesn’t actually offer much in the way of protection from anything but the state. The only useful bit is the “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, but, well, here’s some actual history of women trying to enjoy that equal protection.

      http://eraeducationproject.com/doesnt-the-14th-amendment-already-guarantee-women-equal-rights-under-the-law/

    • Mr0303

      Equality in front of the state is all that matters. This is what the laws are for.

    • Aerokii

      Except that they’re not actually receiving that equality, and Justice Scalia directly said that the 14th amendment doesn’t protect women from discrimination. You’d know that if you actually read what I posted.

    • Mr0303

      Private companies have the right to do that and that’s perfectly OK.

    • Aerokii

      So… it’s not equal. Gotcha.

    • Mr0303

      Yes, equal – companies have the legal right to choose their employees, be that men or women.

    • Aerokii

      Companies absolutely have the legal right to choose their employees.

      That doesn’t mean that should should choose NOT to hire someone because they’re a woman, or an atheist, or black, or a Muslim, etc.

      There are federal laws that prevent employers from discrimination, but the constitution isn’t one of them (and it really should be.)

      https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

    • Mr0303

      Ok, so there are no legal rights that men have an women don’t. No point in the fearmongering feminists then.

    • Aerokii

      “The U.S. Supreme Court began to apply the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to sex discrimination cases. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th Amendment men and women could be treated differently by the law only if it served an “important governmental objective.””

      Yes, sooooooo equal. Beyond that, it goes beyond legal rights when we’ve still got discrimination in schools, the workplace, on the internet, in games… equality isn’t just rights, and it’s disingenuous to say otherwise.

    • Mr0303

      Men and women are treated differently under the law. Men are subject to the draft in order to be full citizens and women are not.

      90% of primary school teachers are women, so if someone is discriminating against girls in schools it’s them. There is not discrimination on the internet – everyone can use it last I checked. There is no discrimination at the workplace – men and women are paid the same for the same work. Games are a meritocracy – the best players win.

      There will never be the equality you suggest, because people are not equal. Simple as that. It’s not men and women – it’s people.

    • Aerokii

      Nevermind that part of the ERA that feminists pushed for was women being included in the draft/able to serve in the military…

      Nevermind that it’s not just teachers discriminating against girls in schools, but other children (plus, hey, women can discriminate against other women, it’s still sexism.)

      “There is not discrimination on the internet.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      “No discrimination in the workplace” which is why there are more CEOs named John than there are female CEOs, which is why women get paid 78 cents on the dollar if they’re white- worse if they’re not. I’m also not sure who’s talking about game results being sexist- I’m certainly not…?

      “people are not equal.” People certainly are not treated equally, and that’s the problem.

    • Mr0303

      It seems feminists aren’t really effective and there were some that were opposed to it.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-feminist-objection-to-women-in-combat/272505/

      So women are the ones who are sexist towards women? Women hate themselves is what you’re saying? Plus children will always use insults like ” you throw like a girl” and “boys are stupid” – that’s not sexism, that’s just child behaviour.

      How are women discriminated on the Internet? If they are they can simply pretend to be male or use a gender neutral profile.

      Well women should be more ambitious then. Nothing is stopping them from becoming a CEO other than their own personal choices. Same with the 78 cents crap – they should be more hard working and earn more if they want to.

      “I’m also not sure who’s talking about game results being sexist- I’m certainly not…?” – so you agree that games are not discriminating against women then.

      Equality under the law is all you can hope for and women have that and more.

    • Aerokii

      Gee, it’s almost like feminism isn’t one mass homogeneous group that thinks and acts in the same way.

      Also, women and men can both be sexist towards women, much as both can be sexist towards men. And hey, where do you think children learn sexist behavior? (psst- it’s from their parents and society. It’s a societal problem.)

      Also, is your solution really “if women are discriminated against, they can just pretend to be men!”? Seriously? So they have to hide who they are in order to not discriminated against, but you’re also claiming that they’re not getting discriminated against anyway…

      Despite the studies I’ve already linked to which say more women are stalked, sexually harassed and generally long-term harassed than men on the internet, but hey, think what you will.

      Oh, I see what you mean now- you’re telling me you don’t actually understand what discrimination is. Just as, at the beginning of all this you didn’t (and don’t) understand what sexism is.

      “women have that and more” ahahahaha, your reality sounds nice, wish I could live there instead.

    • Mr0303

      Children are not sexist and their comments are completely harmless.

      You have failed to show in what way women are discriminated against on the internet where everyone can hide their identity if they wish to.

      Here’s a different one, which shows that it is in fact men that are harassed more online:

      http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-03/

      I understand perfectly well what discrimination and sexism are and video games are neither. Perhaps a fellow feminist can explain it better than myself:

      “your reality sounds nice, wish I could live there instead.” – you can. You just have to stop treating women like victims and acknowledge their agency.

    • Aerokii

      “Children are not sexist and their comments are completely harmless.”

      http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html

      If you can’t read my other links on how women are discriminated against online (more stalked/sexually harassed) then that’s certainly your problem, not mine.

      In fact, that IS the research I showed. The research and the researchers themselves say that women experience far more severe harassment at higher rates. You’d know that if you actually read the source instead of just looking at numbers and making assumptions.

      OH LORD YES.

      I’VE WAITED SO LONG TO USE THIS.

      Her argument is destroyed, IN SONG. Good times.

      Also, I’m afraid your reality doesn’t -exist- anywhere outside your head… women absolutely have agency, and there are also women who are victims. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but you can keep pretending if you’d like. It’s gotten you this far.

    • Mr0303

      Now all you have to do is prove that somebody committed suicide because they were told they throw like a girl. Oh and suicide is committed 80% by males by the way.

      The numbers in the pew research clearly show that men are harassed equally or in some cases more. In the same study you will notice that they even state that most people find gaming and the Internet equally welcoming to both genders.

      Horrible music aside he didn’t refute anything and you know it. The default state is that video games are not sexist and don’t cause sexism. You’ll forgive me if I don’t trust Ms Sarkeesian, who thinks that everything is sexist on the matter. You’ll also notice the dislike bar on the video you linked.

      Feminism asserts that all women are victims. Simple as that.

      Let me quote a great woman that reached the highest position of power available.

      “The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.” – Margaret Thatcher

    • Aerokii

      Hey, your point was that children harassing people is harmless… I’ve already shown that’s not the case. Beyond that, sexism can happen to men too. I’ve never claimed otherwise, and in fact I’ve made the same claim several times in this thread already.

      You’re still willfully misreading the pew data to support your point. There are varying degrees of harassment. And hey, I’m glad most people have got it good- that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to make things better for the people who are getting the shit harassed out of them.

      “The default state is that video games are not sexist” Oh please tell me how the hell this is the default state, haha. And I’m not particularly interested in your non-critique of the video, especially when the original has been torn to shit plenty of times already.

      Oh, dislike bars, the true barometer of whether or not something’s right. Fucking lol, dude.

      “Feminism asserts that all women are victims” Are you talking about liberal feminism? Radical feminism? Multicultural feminism? Which version? Because that’s not a common belief among feminists…

      “Let me quote a great woman that reached the highest position of power available.”

      The woman who destroyed British industry and laid to waste communities that have never recovered?

      The woman who sold the country’s fortunes and encouraged a speculative culture that nearly destroyed Britain?

      The one who’s premiership was defined by the pitched battle of a miner’s strike, inner city riots and social unrest caused by her poll tax that led to her losing the power she had?

      The one who dismissed apartheid fighting in Africa?

      The one who drank tea with the ruthless former Chilean military ruler Augusto Pinochet, while he was under house arrest during investigation for human rights abuses?

      The one who caused mass unemployment?

      Sorry, not interested in what she has to say about Feminism.

    • Mr0303

      You stated that women are harassed much more on the internet and the numbers in the study clearly go against that. I’m not misreading anything.

      “Oh please tell me how the hell this is the default state” – gladly. Any product or piece of art is neutral and is not considered sexist until evidence to the contrary, so the burden of proof is on the people who claim that it is. They need to show how it’s sexist.

      If women are not victims and are not oppressed in any way then there is no need for Feminism. You are trying to weasel out with a no true Scotsman fallacy.

      She was the prime minister of Britain for 3 terms and the only woman to do so. Agree with her politics or not she was very successful and one of the most well known women in the world. Maybe you should consider that she didn’t need feminism to achieve that and after all you were the one bitching about wanting more women in positions of power.

    • Aerokii

      Once more, you’ve proven you’re not actually good at reading what I wrote, understanding context, or… well, anything.

      “Any product or piece of art is neutral and is not considered sexist until evidence to the contrary.” So artist’s intent doesn’t matter until someone else looks at it… suuuuuuure. There’s plenty of evidence of sexism in gaming, but you didn’t actually pay attention to anything else I’ve posted, so why would I believe you’re going to start paying attention now?

      “If women are not victims and are not oppressed in any way then there is no need for feminism.” Didn’t say women aren’t victims, didn’t say all women ARE victims. Some women are victims, some aren’t. If you truly believe there’s no oppression of women, I empathize for the women in your life.

      And indeed, The Iron Lady was successful… at destroying Britain’s industry, causing massive unemployment problems, and nearly ruining her country, eventually killing her political career. Without people working hard for equality between men and women, she’d never have been able to get there in the first place. This is especially important, considering that women in the UK couldn’t even VOTE until 1918, and feminists/suffragettes were the ones pushing the hardest for this.

      So, my ass Thatcher didn’t need feminism. Without feminism, there’d have been no Iron Lady in the first place.

    • Mr0303

      “So artist’s intent doesn’t matter until someone else looks at it…” – you have no way of knowing the authors intent, so yes – you do have to provide objective facts as to why a game is sexist. Unless you are saying that all people who create games are sexists and their intent is to create a product that will specifically discriminate against a gender.

      You are yet to post anything that proves sexism in gaming.

      “If you truly believe there’s no oppression of women, I empathize for the women in your life.” – the women in my life are self sufficient and face their challenges head on. They don’t need a movement telling them how oppressed they are. They realise that both men and women have problems and this is called life. Women are not oppressed. If there are women who are better off than men, then there is no universal oppression of women.

      She herself stated that she didn’t need it. A self realised woman in a position of power. What you are doing is choosing to ignore her words, but I do realise that she goes against the feminist narrative. She achieved the highest position of power without the help of feminism. The only thing more powerful would be some kind of a monarch. Wait…

    • Aerokii

      “you have no way of knowing the authors intent, so yes – you do have to provide objective facts as to why a game is sexist. Unless you are saying that all people who create games are sexists and their intent is to create a product that will specifically discriminate against a gender.”

      A: So, Birth of a Nation wasn’t racist until other people saw it, heh. Ok, sure thing. Even though it was always intended as propaganda for the Klan. The rest of this sentence is, in this order, putting words in my mouth, strawmanning me, and still having no idea what constitutes discrimination. Drink Coke, play again.

      “You are yet to post anything that proves sexism in gaming.”

      And you have yet to prove you can read more than one or two links per day, as I’ve already provided ample evidence. Sources with numbers, sources without numbers, discussions, conversations, experiences, studies… I’ve given you plenty and you choose to ignore it. So, repeat that as you will, but it won’t make it true.

      “- the women in my life are self sufficient and face their challenges head on. They don’t need a movement telling them how oppressed they are. They realise that both men and women have problems and this is called life. Women are not oppressed. If there are women who are better off than men, then there is no universal oppression of women.”

      So what you’re saying is that if a single woman is better off than some men, there is no oppression… except not only have I -never- claimed universal oppression (neither have many Feminist groups, but you refuse to see it as anything but a monolith), but just because not literally everyone is being oppressed doesn’t mean that women experience more oppression than men. We’ve got a black president, and that sure as shit doesn’t mean racism is over.

      “She herself stated that she didn’t need it. A self realised woman in a position of power. What you are doing is choosing to ignore her words, but I do realise that she goes against the feminist narrative. She achieved the highest position of power without the help of feminism. The only thing more powerful would be some kind of a monarch. Wait…”

      I’m not ignoring her words at all- I’m saying she never would have been able to get into power if women weren’t allowed to vote- and women being allowed to vote is the result of feminists. So, sure, she can say what she will, but without feminism you’d never have heard the name “Margaret Thatcher.”

    • Mr0303

      So you are comparing a piece of propaganda to games? You have to actually tackle a piece of media before judging it, no matter the author. Walt Disney was a racist, but that doesn’t mean his movies are.

      I’ve read all your links and none of them actually explained how games are sexist. It was just opinion pieces and Top 10 lists from feminist organisations. The only relevant studies were the ones that showed that harassment happens to both genders and thus it is not sexist and the one that proves that there is no link between games and sexism. I could post you 100 pictures of dragons, but that doesn’t prove their existence.

      So your saying that only some women are oppressed? Well then the courts should deal with that on a case to case basis. And yes, having a black president means that there is not system in place to prevent black people from achieving the highest positions of power. Same with women. Individual cases of racism and sexism should be tackled by the justice system.

      “she never would have been able to get into power if women weren’t allowed to vote” – that’s pure speculation on your part. She won the majority vote and that means the majority of men and women voted for her. Even without the women vote she’d likely still be in power. She said she owed nothing to feminism for her personal achievements and she is quite correct.

      Also women were voting long before the suffrage movement when voting rights were based on property ownership.

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IA6BaxdF1zgC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=women+property+owners+voting&source=bl&ots=LK7c9b_DCz&sig=qUGHNwol9v-D3rQsTT_5du2xHxk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXouH8qY7NAhWnL8AKHSaQCbAQ6AEIUjAM#v=onepage&q=women%20property%20owners%20voting&f=false

    • Aerokii

      “So are you comparing a piece of propaganda to games?”

      Sure am, considering that games are just like any other form of media and are just as capable of being propaganda- or have you never heard of shit like America’s Army?

      “Walt Disney was a racist, but that doesn’t mean his movies are”

      Song of the South.

      “I’ve read all your links and none of them actually explained how games are sexist. It was just opinion pieces and Top 10 lists from feminist organisations. The only relevant studies were the ones that showed that harassment happens to both genders and thus it is not sexist and the one that proves that there is no link between games and sexism. I could post you 100 pictures of dragons, but that doesn’t prove their existence.

      This shows that you clearly did not read all of my links, but hey, ok. At least you’re being consistent in your utter failure.

      “So your saying that only some women are oppressed? Well then the courts should deal with that on a case to case basis. And yes, having a black president means that there is not system in place to prevent black people from achieving the highest positions of power. Same with women. Individual cases of racism and sexism should be tackled by the justice system.”

      And some men, but that’s neither here nor there. Also lol, ok, sure, racism is over. There aren’t black people being disproportionally killed by cops, there aren’t fewer black people getting hired for STEM jobs, there aren’t any more Neo Nazis or Klansmen any more. You’re fucking hilarious you know that?

      “”she never would have been able to get into power if women weren’t allowed to vote” – that’s pure speculation on your part. She won the majority vote and that means the majority of men and women voted for her. Even without the women vote she’d likely still be in power. She said she owed nothing to feminism for her personal achievements and she is quite correct.”

      I don’t think you have any idea how suffrage works. Getting the vote includes the ability to run for office, which she couldn’t have done without suffrage. Learn some goddamn history.

      “Also women were voting long before the suffrage movement when voting rights were based on property ownership.”

      The link you provided isn’t working for the page you want me to read, and beyond that not only was it incredibly rare for women pre-suffrage TO vote, but that still didn’t let them run for office.

    • Mr0303

      That’s not the main goal of most games – it is to entertain and make money. That’s the nature of the free market. I’m sure “America’s Army” is a best seller.

      “Song of the South.” – so how do you know that it is racist and not Snowwhite or Fantasia? Oh, right – by watching it and judging it by its content rather than the author.

      “This shows that you clearly did not read all of my links, but hey, ok. At least you’re being consistent in your utter failure.” – feel free to post the link that shows that games are sexist. I’ll wait.

      “There aren’t black people being disproportionally killed by cops, there
      aren’t fewer black people getting hired for STEM jobs, there aren’t any
      more Neo Nazis or Klansmen any more. You’re fucking hilarious you know
      that?” – black people commit disproportionate amount of crimes, they are a minority in the US, which explains why fewer of them are hired in STEM jobs and I think there are 5000 active Klansmen with no political power, which isn’t too bad out of 366 million people in the US. So yeah – no systematic racism and no systematic sexism.

      There were women leaders long before suffrage. Eventually women would’ve run for office with or without the terrorist attacks by the suffragettes, who got women all the rights of men with none of the responsibilities.

    • Aerokii

      “That’s not the main goal of most games – it is to entertain and make money. That’s the nature of the free market. I’m sure “America’s Army” is a best seller.”

      It doesn’t fit your narrative, so it’s ok to ignore it- gotcha. Surely, games can’t be made for reasons other than money/entertainment.

      http://www.thatdragoncancer.com/

      http://papersplea.se/

      https://doublezeroonezero.itch.io/st-orchints-orphanage

      “so how do you know that it is racist and not Snowwhite or Fantasia? Oh, right – by watching it and judging it by its content rather than the author.”

      Media isn’t made in a vaccuum. The biases of the person/people making it will influence the final product. Speaking of which, let’s take a look at Fantasia.

      https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/03/07/racism-in-disneys-fantasia/

      “feel free to post the link that shows that games are sexist. I’ll wait.”

      I did that yesterday and the day before, just go read my old posts again.

      “- black people commit disproportionate amount of crimes, they are a minority in the US, which explains why fewer of them are hired in STEM jobs and I think there are 5000 active Klansmen with no political power, which isn’t too bad out of 366 million people in the US. So yeah – no systematic racism and no systematic sexism.”

      Because you don’t actually understand the problem with black people being murdered disproportionately by cops, I’ll let this explain why what you’re saying is a load of horseshit.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

      While I’m at it, the STEM jobs has less to do with “there are less blacks in the US”, and everything to do with “even when one is qualified, a white man will more likely get the job.” I’m also very particular with using white MAN there, as women are often barred from STEM fields as well. Despite more black people having STEM degrees, their representation within the field has basically stayed the same.

      http://nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2013/data/tab20.pdf

      Klansmen are less common now, yes, but white supremecy in general, along with other hate groups, is on the rise.

      https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism

      “There were women leaders long before suffrage. Eventually women would’ve run for office with or without the terrorist attacks by the suffragettes, who got women all the rights of men with none of the responsibilities.”

      Ahahaha [Citation Required]. Please, oh please, show me how women would have run for office without getting suffrage. I’d love to see you make shit up about alternate history.

    • Mr0303

      Where did I say that games can’t be made for other reasons? I said that “That’s not the main goal of most games”. You should learn to read one of these days.

      That thing you just did with Fantasia – that’s what I’m talking about – examples from the actual piece of media. That being said the movie is not racist.

      “I did that yesterday and the day before, just go read my old posts again.” – so you don’t have any – got it.

      So you are saying that despite them committing more crimes we have to magically ignore it and blame the police. Yeah, no. I’m sticking to what the statistics show. Read them for yourself:

      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

      It is their decision not to go for these jobs. Nothing is preventing them from doing so, be that black men, white women or anyone else. Representation is not necessary in any industry. The industry is there to make money and not to create a “gotta catch them all” companies.

      The link that you provided said also that black separatist groups are on the rise, so everything seems proportional.

      I don’t need alternate history. That’s what you were trying to pull by saying that Thatcher wouldn’t have been in power if not for suffrage. Both are speculation. All I’m saying is that one of the most powerful and successful women in the world was an anti feminist. Just some food for thought.

    • Aerokii

      What you’re saying is that games are, by default, not sexist until observed. You’re trying to use “Schrodinger’s game”, except that it’s both sexist and not sexist until observed, rather than “whatever best serves my argument right now.”

      Games do not HAVE a default state. Games can be made for any number of reasons with any number of intents, and to pretend everything is fine without any real thought of the context the game is being made in is foolish.

      “So you don’t have any – got it.”

      I think your record’s broken. Flip to side B.

      “So you are saying that despite them committing more crimes we have to magically ignore it and blame the police. Yeah, no. I’m sticking to what the statistics show. Read them for yourself:”

      You clearly didn’t read the link I posted if you think that’s my position- doubly so when a black person is often given a harsher sentence than a white man who did the same crime.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

      And hey, did you know that despite making up only 6% of the population, over 40% of unarmed police shootings are black men? Hmm. No racism indeed.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/

      “It is their decision not to go for these jobs. Nothing is preventing them from doing so, be that black men, white women or anyone else. Representation is not necessary in any industry. The industry is there to make money and not to create a “gotta catch them all” companies.”

      Wow, I love the way you speak for all black people with bachelors in STEM fields. I imagine you can go out and get any job you want too, because clearly it’s the decision only of the applicant and not the people hiring them, with their own bias and prejudice.

      “The link that you provided said also that black separatist groups are on the rise, so everything seems proportional.”

      Not only are the numbers not even comparable, but there’s a big difference from a group that wants to separate and a group that wants all black people dead.

      “I don’t need alternate history. That’s what you were trying to pull by saying that Thatcher wouldn’t have been in power if not for suffrage. Both are speculation. All I’m saying is that one of the most powerful and successful women in the world was an anti feminist. Just some food for thought.”

      Clearly you do, because you have absolutely shit-fucking-all reason to believe that women would have gotten the ability to hold office in time for Thatcher to have any importance, considering how long it took for women to get the votes stateside.

      Besides that, what were women supposed to do- just ask nicely and hope the men gave them what they want? You do know what they say about the thin line between terrorist and freedom fighter. Those of us in the US tried asking nicely, and hey, that didn’t work. Perhaps it would have- I mean, it did for Canada- but that only took an extra fucking 200 years. And yeah, still not putting much trust in the words of someone who nearly destroyed the country she ran.

    • Mr0303

      “thought of the context the game is being made in is foolish.” – the context is entertainment and making profit. Those are the games that are most successful and most well known.

      “over 40% of unarmed police shootings are black men? Hmm. No racism indeed.” – correlation doesn’t imply causation especially, when you make up the cause.

      “Wow, I love the way you speak for all black people with bachelors in STEM fields.” – I don’t speak for anybody. I’m just looking at the numbers. Employers don’t care about the colour of your skin. They care about profit. If you are good they’ll hire you. Simple as that. Incidentally Asian people are “overrepresented”, as you’d put it, in STEM – if the employers were racists this wouldn’t be the case.

      “Besides that, what were women supposed to do- just ask nicely and hope the men gave them what they want?” – you tend to forget that men did give them the vote. There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a violent thug and the suffragettes were the latter, by starting fires and throwing hatchets at people. Women were not slaves. They wanted a privilege that most men, including black people in the US, had to go to war to deserve.

      “considering how long it took for women to get the votes stateside.” – it took men thousands of years to get the voting rights as well, so women waiting 100 or so more years to get them with none of the drawbacks isn’t all that bad all things considering.

      “And yeah, still not putting much trust in the words of someone who nearly destroyed the country she ran.” – nope, she made Britain one of the strongest economies in Europe. Don’t care if you trust her. Just pointing out that women don’t need feminism to succeed.

    • >salon
      >theguardian
      >wikipedia
      >Femfreq

      So basically, no sources at all since they’re biased as shit.

      Do you know why games cannot be sexist? Because you’re objectifying objects.

      That’s what “pixels” technically are.

      You can’t objectify “women” (or what you perceive as a woman) or “men” (or what you perceive as a man) in any type of art form, and this is objective by the definition of “objectification” itself. To “objectify”, you need to “objectify” someone, not something.

      If you want to present a case, you should come up with the idea that it (the game) either reinforces these ideas (thus, you have to provide evidence that not only are they correlated, but also that there’s real sexism/objectification/etc going on) or you have to provide evidence that games make you commit such actions (like objectification, sexism, etc).

      Since both of them are formidable claims, you’d have to provide evidence, but don’t bother with the second one, if games do not incite to violence, surely:

      http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2014.0492

      …They do not incite sexism either.

    • Aerokii

      Sciencedaily

      Cracked

      IBtimes

      TheRichest

      Mic

      MotherJOnes

      Along with sciencedaily, cracked, ibtimes, thericehst, mic, and motherjones… and truthfully, I did toss in FemFreq just to piss him off there. Looks like it did the trick for both of you. So are you actually going to talk about how any of the sources are wrong, or are you just going to cry about “liberals” and “bias”?

      I’mma just copy and paste the argument I already made for why everything you said is total horseshit.

      Well, if you’d actually read the sources you’d see a great many compelling arguments, but if you’d really like I can indeed spell it out for you more clearly.

      First, let’s discuss how we’re defining sexism in video gaming- namely, the prejudiced behavior or discrimination based on sex or gender that creators and consumers of video games experience, potentially through the constant harassment of female/feminist game developers and gamers, including but certainly not limited to:

      Brianna Wu:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/brianna-wu-harassed-twitter-2014-10

      Zoe Quinn, Elizabeth Sampat, Neha Nair, and Donna Prior:

      http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/04/zoe-quinn-and-other-female-game-developers-speak-out-against-harassment/

      Anita Sarkeesian:

      http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/anita-sarkeesian-threats/

      And then we’ll move on to discuss portrayals of women within gaming.

      Let’s start with the harassment. Did you know women on Xbox Live were the most frequent targets of harassment?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=0

      Or that men playing games will actually treat a woman worse than a man, doubly so if the harasser is losing?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/20/men-who-harass-women-online-are-quite-literally-losers-new-study-finds/

      And let’s not forget all the harassment/death/rape threats that women get just for daring to talk about games:

      http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-harms-women/

      http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/20/rape-and-death-threats-are-terrorizing-female-gamers-why-havent-men-in-tech-spoken-out/

      http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/26/9618086/sxsw-gamergate-harassment-panels-cancellation

      http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/10/gamergate-explained

      http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/meanwhile-gamergate-activists-are-still-sending-women-death-threats–l1Mu7ebU2l

      Given that harassment of women within gaming is kind of a known thing by this point, let’s move on to the sexist depiction of women within games.

      Woman are tremendously underrepresented within gaming, despite over half of the population who plays games being women now:

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/52-percent-people-playing-games-women-industry-doesnt-know

      Yet despite that, only 4% of games from an EEDAR study had exclusively female protagonists, and less than half of the games even provided the option of playing as a woman.

      If you’d like to discuss how many of those women gamers are into mobile games, let’s discuss one of the most popular genres within it- endless runners. 98% of those featured male protagonists, and less than half offered the ability to play as women, where only 15% offered to play as a woman for free. If you want to be a woman in these games, you have to pay an average of $7.53.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/04/im-a-12-year-old-girl-why-dont-the-characters-in-my-apps-look-like-me/

      Now that we’ve discussed the lack of representation (women are very, very underrepresented in gaming despite how many women gamers there are), let’s talk about objectification and sexualization of women in gaming. Female characters are more likely to be sexualized (60% vs 1%), scantily clad (39% vs 8%), and mixing sexuality and aggression (39% vs 8%). They’re also sexist against men, given that games portray men as overwhelmingly aggressive (82%) within the games studied here.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-007-9278-1

      Using an older study that applies to a lot of us who grew up gaming on Nintendo/Sega consoles, 41% of games studied had no female game characters, and 28% of them had women as pure sex objects.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018709905920

      Because I can indeed be equal, let’s talk about sexism against men in gaming! Men are typically overtly aggressive and violent within games (earlier source goes over that), men are highly stereotyped (http://www.gamesradar.com/are-video-games-really-sexist/?page=2), and the power fantasies that these characters often represent can indee cause body image issues in young men. Much as the same can happen with women.

      Now that this is out of the way, let’s discuss the rest of your response.

      Sexism isn’t a game “discriminating” against someone playing it- though I suppose tha’ts possible. Games are created by people (shocking, I know), and those people can put in things that reinforce damaging stereotypes, negative body images, or be outright demeaning to the men/women within them. Your forbes article is also pretty much irrelevant, because “games cause people to be sexist” isn’t what I’m arguing- it’s just the easiest/quickest strawman for you to jump to. Games can contain sexist content, just like movies can contain racist content. Just because the media isn’t shouting slurs doesn’t mean it’s not potentially harmful to the people viewing/playing it.

      And y’know, I don’t blame Anita if she says she doesn’t like video games- just take a look at what all those lovely, lovely gamers have been doing to her for the past couple of years now. She actually DOES talk about how she played games as a kid, she doesn’t think “everything is sexist” (a quote taken out of context, but I already discussed that in this thread and I don’t imagine you’ll listen anyways), and ooo, the butt covering one- is that reall your best go-to for insulting her? In the wide range of work she’s done discussing many topics, that’s the best you could come up with? Nevermind that male and female butts within gaming ARE often portrayed very differently and for different reasons, but again, I don’t expect you to actually understand the difference between sexualization/objectification and power fantasies, certainly not as they relate to the male gaze.

      http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2011/11/nerds-and-male-privilege/all/1/

      http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/nerds-and-male-privilege-part-2/all/1/ (definitely give this one a look, if you’re actually interested in learning.)

      As for your “Feminism as a hate group”, Susan B. Anthony’s an odd choice, considering that feminism within the states wasn’t a movement until the 1960’s.

      https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women

      I am a feminist who actually has some problems with things Dworkin’s said- did you know feminism is not one giant homogeneous movement, but is instead a massive mix of different groups with different ideas? We don’t all like Dworkin. That being said, I’d hardly see how that quote proves feminism is a hate group.

      If you want to bring out “man haters”, let’s talk about some egregiously awful women haters, such as Roosh “I’m a literal rapist” V

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439840/Return-Kings-founder-Daryush-Roosh-Valizadeh-admits-considered-rape-deleted-post.html

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/02/08/roosh-v-is-not-pro-rape-roosh-v-is-a-rapist/

      Milo “I turned gay so I wouldn’t have to deal with women” Yiannopolous

      http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/16/breitbart-columnist-milo-yiannopoulos-i-went-gay-so-i-didnt-have-to-deal-with-nutty-broads/

      The heroes of reddit.com/r/TruCel, who had a picture of Elliot Rodger as their icon before their subreddit was banned for rampant hatred, or hell, while we’re at it, let’s go with Elliot “I killed people because women wouldn’t sleep with me” Rodger himself.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/24/elliot-rodgers-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny

      But no, Feminism is the hate group. Sure thing, buddy.

    • “piss him off”

      I think the last thing I care about is if some random on the Internet believes fairy tales to be real or some shit, if this is how you engage in these debates, you’re going rather low, really low.

      It shows you have no skill whatsoever in that art.

      Anyway, you start by “proving sexism” by giving me examples of single individuals supposedly getting harassment.

      That’s not how you prove harassment in gaming, just saying.

      Also, all of the examples you gave, were people being criticized for shitty actions or shitty products, why should I take you seriously at this point?

      “Did you know women on Xbox Live were the most frequent targets of harassment?”

      >nytimes

      Sure, bruv. Let me see that source.

      Yes, it shows no numbers… Huh, weird.

      “Or that men playing games will actually treat a woman worse than a man, doubly so if the harasser is losing?”

      Starts by begging the question immediately:

      “Gender inequality and sexist behaviour is prevalent in almost all workplaces and rampant in online environments.”

      And other stupid unproved cases…

      But oh well.

      Let’s see, their sample is already pretty shit. They don’t know the age of these individuals, nor do they know their situation in any way. They also start the whole thing by saying that those that do poorly will attack other players, which is usually what tends to happen in games all the time, while those that are good at the game, tend to be submissive.

      Which is basically, water is wet.

      Thank god you gave me this article, you opened my mind with this. Who knew people focusing on the game instead of the arguments going on in-game would act submissive and tend to not insult other people?

      Then they go on and correlate this data (Which they do not show in any way) to then say the good players are doing it to find girlfriends and the bad players are just being outright abusive and sexist…

      Throwing links at me without reading them tells me how much of an argument you can make, anyway, here’s an article that debunks this bullshit:

      http://nichegamer.com/2015/07/31/re-used-halo-3-study-completely-skews-results-to-frame-sexist-agenda/

      “And let’s not forget all the harassment/death/rape threats that women get just for daring to talk about games:”

      >TheMaryFuckingSue

      https://archive.is/20160304234436/http://www.themarysue.com/remake-final-fantasy-vii-without-the-sexism/

      >Motherjones
      >washingtonpost
      >theverge
      >theindependent

      You’re the epitome, dude. The epitome.

      Anyway, do you have any statistics? Because I do, and they’re all against you. You just gave a few examples of shit talkers that happen to be female, or simply incompetent or generally controversial individuals that have some grade of fame getting destroyed verbally on the Internet, like everyone with a bit of fame, regardless of sex.

      It’s almost as if human beings tend to react this way towards one another, and it’s not always pink roses out there.

      Anyway:

      https://archive.is/FJk3Y

      Male celebrities get more harassment online ^

      http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

      Males in general get more harassment online, just slightly less sexual in nature, more shit talking ^

      Recently, they found out this:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36380247

      The sample seems big, but there are a ton of tweets going on on Twitter, so whatever.

      “Woman are tremendously underrepresented within gaming, despite over half of the population who plays games being women now:”

      https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/2xa9a5/gender_and_computer_game_players_who_seems_to/

      Nope, mostly mobile or games that have to do a lot with social aspects, e.g. dancing and caring for family (Sims) and shit that does not need a lot of time (everything I said, basically, casual games).

      Now, while it’s fine and dandy to claim that there’s “little representation” (while I don’t agree, since there are a lot of games that let you pick a female and even customize them) you have yet to provide evidence if women actually care about this.

      That customers care about this actually.

      Why do you think they make you pay for a female model? Because they’re sexist? Are you saying males do not want to play females? What about games like Tomb Raider or Metroid?

      I think they’re making you pay for it because they want your money, that just makes them capitalists, they don’t care who buys it.

      I also don’t see any evidence suggesting men do not play women.

      “Female characters are more likely to be sexualized”

      Your study is behind a paywall, I don’t see how they got to this conclusion. I hope they didn’t use the same methodology for both sexes because that would be awkward.

      “scantily clad”

      Female sexuality =/= male sexuality. See above.

      “and mixing sexuality and aggression”

      You also seem to have missed the part where they claim men are also represented to be more aggressive. Suddenly, you’re cherry picking from your own already biased sources.

      “It is proposed that video games, like other media forms, impact the identity ofchildren. ”

      “impact the identity ofchildren. ”

      No.

      “In 28% of these, womenwere portrayed as sex objects”

      What is a “sex object”? Why are all your shitty sources behind paywalls?

      “and the power fantasies that these characters often represent can indee cause body image issues in young men. ”

      Based on what again? Also, your article is dead. I said “sexism” goes both ways, but my point is that there’s actually such little sexism that matters towards both sexes that discussing it as a problem is rather idiotic.

      I don’t give a shit if they throw a ton of men at me in shooting games, it’s not like I wouldn’t shoot a woman or some shit, but that’s not why I play the game, nor is it a representation of sexism, men outnumber women as soldiers anyway.

      I don’t care if the hero is male and he sacrifices himself for the woman, that’s not sexism either, it’s usually what happens, and even if the opposite happens, I still don’t give a shit, like most other people, it doesn’t matter anyway.

      “Games are created by people (shocking, I know), and those people can put in things that reinforce damaging stereotypes”

      Again, these “stereotypes” cannot be damaging unless games push you to action, which as seen by the link I gave you, it does not happen.

      No one will play Postal and start thinking that pissing on people is a good idea.

      Well, mostly no one.

      “negative body images”

      If this were true (and again, you didn’t provide evidence), it would go both ways. Do you think men can be that muscular? Do you think women can always be that curvy?

      Anyway, no, EDs are not taught to people by the media, the media does not influence EDs. Those that do get influenced have genetic issues.

      “or be outright demeaning to the men/women within them.”

      So they hurt your feelings? Who gives a shit…? So what?

      “Games can contain sexist content, just like movies can contain racist content.”

      Again, so what?

      ” Just because the media isn’t shouting slurs doesn’t mean it’s not potentially harmful to the people viewing/playing it.”

      How? By influencing your actions? By how you just said isn’t the point but now is?

      By how much it hurts your feelings, maybe?

      “but again, I don’t expect you to actually understand the difference between sexualization/objectification and power fantasies, certainly not as they relate to the male gaze.”

      No, I fully understand what that shit is about. It’s an easy subject.

      It’s something really easy to abuse whenever the fuck you want since it’s in no way practical or accurate, that’s one aspect of it that denies it as a valid theory in sociology.

    • Aerokii

      Bug: sm_0005 (no longer necessary?)

      cgsl_0302: We need to change the config again

      sm_0001 the boolean bug again. TheMaryFuckingSue

      https://archive.is/20160304234…”

      So… are you saying they’re not trustworthy because they remove personal accounts/opinions when they realize they were lied to? Sounds like a pretty bog-standard news organization, but alright. Also lol if you think there’s no sexism in FFVII. I love the game, but the first disc has more than its fair share within Midgar alone. Let’s also not forget the transphobia.

      “Anyway, do you have any statistics? Because I do, and they’re all against you. You just gave a few examples of shit talkers that happen to be female, or simply incompetent or generally controversial individuals that have some grade of fame getting destroyed verbally on the Internet, like everyone with a bit of fame, regardless of sex.

      It’s almost as if human beings tend to react this way towards one another, and it’s not always pink roses out there.”

      This should be fun. Ok, lay it on me.

      “Anyway:

      https://archive.is/FJk3Y

      Male celebrities get more harassment online ^”

      Debunked study that was already debunked in an article I posted. Tiny sample limited only to the UK and only to celebrities? Clearly, this means that more men in general are harassed than women!

      http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svus_rev.pdf

      Ok, what else do you have?

      “http://www.pewinternet.org/201…

      Males in general get more harassment online, just slightly less sexual in nature, more shit talking ^”

      I posted that study as well, but if you’d like to equate stalking, sexual harassment, death and rape threats with being called names and pretend that’s equal, that’s your problem, not mine.

      “Recently, they found out this:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/techno

      The sample seems big, but there are a ton of tweets going on on Twitter, so whatever.”

      Women can also be misogynists, so thanks for providing more examples of sexism to strengthen my case.

      “”Woman are tremendously underrepresented within gaming, despite over half of the population who plays games being women now:”

      https://www.reddit.com/r/trueg

      Nope, mostly mobile or games that have to do a lot with social aspects, e.g. dancing and caring for family (Sims) and shit that does not need a lot of time (everything I said, basically, casual games).”

      So those games don’t count as games? Gatekeeping, elitist bullshit, right there.

      “Now, while it’s fine and dandy to claim that there’s “little representation” (while I don’t agree, since there are a lot of games that let you pick a female and even customize them) you have yet to provide evidence if women actually care about this.

      That customers care about this actually.”

      Surprisingly enough, even the boys care about this one.

      http://www.techtimes.com/articles/67902/20150710/study-shows-that-boys-want-better-female-representation-in-video-games-too.htm

      “Why do you think they make you pay for a female model? Because they’re sexist? Are you saying males do not want to play females? What about games like Tomb Raider or Metroid?”

      I think they make me pay more for the female model because they make me pay more for ALL the models, the problem of course being that almost always the default model is male. And clearly if people are willing to pay for it, then they DO care about representation in gaming, which further reinforces my above point.

      “I also don’t see any evidence suggesting men do not play women.”

      I would hope not, since I never made that claim and neither did the studies.

      “Your study is behind a paywall, I don’t see how they got to this conclusion. I hope they didn’t use the same methodology for both sexes because that would be awkward.”

      Not my problem.

      “”scantily clad”

      Female sexuality =/= male sexuality. See above.”

      Which is exactly why I brought in the links that discuss objectification versus power fantasies, but you’ll ignore that as usual.

      “You also seem to have missed the part where they claim men are also represented to be more aggressive. Suddenly, you’re cherry picking from your own already biased sources.”

      No, I actually listed that explicitly as an example of sexism towards males within games.

      “No.”

      [Citation Required]

      “What is a “sex object”? Why are all your shitty sources behind paywalls?”

      “sex ob·ject

      noun

      a person regarded by another only in terms of their sexual attractiveness or availability.”

      That was easy- as for the pay walls, I’ve posted plenty that aren’t.

      “Based on what again? Also, your article is dead. I said “sexism” goes both ways, but my point is that there’s actually such little sexism that matters towards both sexes that discussing it as a problem is rather idiotic.”

      I dunno, the article looks pretty alive and well to me. So, tell me, how do you define “sexism that matters”? And yes, I agree that sexism goes both ways as you should have already read from me a few times now. If you don’t see sexism as a problem, I can only hope you keep your interactions with other human beings to a minimum.

      “I don’t give a shit if they throw a ton of men at me in shooting games, it’s not like I wouldn’t shoot a woman or some shit, but that’s not why I play the game, nor is it a representation of sexism, men outnumber women as soldiers anyway.”

      y’know, better representation would fix this sexism, but hey you don’t think it’s important anyways.

      “I don’t care if the hero is male and he sacrifices himself for the woman, that’s not sexism either, it’s usually what happens, and even if the opposite happens, I still don’t give a shit, like most other people, it doesn’t matter anyway.”

      It’s a boring, shitty trope that plays on old sexist stereotypes of women needing saving. Clearly given how much time you’ve put into this… you give a shit.

      “Again, these “stereotypes” cannot be damaging unless games push you to action, which as seen by the link I gave you, it does not happen.”

      Which link was that again? They were all so thoroughly forgettable and debunked.

      “Again, so what?”

      So we talk about it, and media effect/influence. Like you and I are doing now.

      “How? By influencing your actions? By how you just said isn’t the point but now is?

      By how much it hurts your feelings, maybe?”

      Media can absolutely influence actions- my claim is not “games make people sexist”, no matter how badly you want that to be it. When media is able to influence people to join the Klan of all things (y’know, the violent murderers/rapists/cross burners), it becomes about more than hurt feelings.

      “No, I fully understand what that shit is about. It’s an easy subject.

      It’s something really easy to abuse whenever the fuck you want since it’s in no way practical or accurate, that’s one aspect of it that denies it as a valid theory in sociology.”

      [Citation Required]

    • “If you really consider this a “debate” at this point, your standards are dangerously low.”

      You’re right, this is too easy to be a debate.

      “And following that up with studies about the numbers of people getting harassed, the types of harassment… but go ahead and cherry pick, that’s what you accuse Anita of doing, right?”

      No one talked about Anita in this conversation besides you, you dimwit.

      Anyway, none of your sources provide any type of research on the matter, I’ve shown you two links with good sample sizes that prove that men get more harassment online.

      Actual numbers, imagine that.

      “That source would be Stephen Toulouse, the man who was in charge of enforcement for Xbox live during that time. As far as numbers, you’re welcome to provide any you’d like, but you haven’t so far.”

      You’re the one that needs to provide numbers though. Or do you think an appeal to authority will save your ass?

      Stephen Toulouse could as well be Obama, for me, if he has no numbers and you link some biased source that also does not give numbers, you are both nil.

      “Starts by not talking about the content and instead talking about the formatting…”

      What are you, fucking stupid?

      You provide a supposedly scientific source that suddenly feeds in the “EVERYTHING’S SEXIST” and you want me to take you seriously when they don’t even provide numbers?

      “Neither their age nor their situation mean that sexism doesn’t matter, but alright.”

      Of course they matter, you need to know this shit so you can know why they say shit, “sexism” is not “He said X.” sexism is “He said X because you’re a man/woman.” you dingus.

      “And the entire point is that those who do poorly attack women far more often than men.”

      There’s nothing on that source proving this or actually making a correct correlation.

      “The pulled a muscle trying to do the mental gymnastisc you performed to think that’s what they said (especially the bit about “good players trying to find girlfriends”. As someone who DID read through the article, that’s how I know you 100% made that shit up.”

      Pffttt, you’re right, they only say it because they want female attention.

      “we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention. ”

      This is exactly what the “good players” do in games when they meet female players, they want female attention.

      “Didn’t read the original writer’s response, did you?”

      Do you think it matters? His points invalidate yours.

      “Unproven. Sure.”

      Gender wage gap as first issue, you’re already at the level of a moist cucumber, most of what is written there is done by choice, no one forces a woman to work part time, nor are they forced to enter an industry that is not paid well.

      No valid sources for the supposed “discrimination” point either.

      Less women in leadership? Sorry, choice again.

      Women doing family work? Choice again.

      Still unproven (debunked actually), try again.

      “Debunked study that was already debunked in an article I posted. Tiny sample limited only to the UK and only to celebrities? Clearly, this means that more men in general are harassed than women!”

      Your sources can’t debunk shit, they have no numbers, none of them provided any that do not agree with me. (e.g. your second link proves my point, thanks)

      “So… are you saying they’re not trustworthy because they remove personal accounts/opinions when they realize they were lied to?”

      The article had merit until the author suddenly isn’t Sandy Beaches (Sandy Bitches, haha, Mary Sue alright), when it was proven to be a “he”, then the article and what was written inside lost merit.

      The Mary Sue is a joke.

      “Let’s also not forget the transphobia.”

      Holy fuck, I can’t stop laughing at this retardation, I’m sorry, I just can’t take this anymore.

      What transphobia, you retarded walrus? Get over yourself.

      “I posted that study as well, but if you’d like to equate stalking, sexual harassment, death and rape threats with being called names and pretend that’s equal, that’s your problem, not mine.”

      I think you missed the part where males get more of those, as written there.

      “Women can also be misogynists, so thanks for providing more examples of sexism to strengthen my case.”

      If 50% of women are misogynists, that means that 50% of them are men.

      I’d say that’s equality.

      And I’d say that’s good, we need a bit of diversity, right? :^)

      “So those games don’t count as games? Gatekeeping, elitist bullshit, right there.”

      They do count as games, but hardcore games are getting attacked, not casual games. I see nothing about Candy Crush not representing women for example.

      “Surprisingly enough, even the boys care about this one.”

      No sources, more biased bullshit.

      “the problem of course being that almost always the default model is male.”

      That isn’t a problem, you didn’t provide any reason for that or evidence supporting any reason.

      “Not my problem.”

      True, it’s your argument that dies off, not you.

      “Which is exactly why I brought in the links that discuss objectification versus power fantasies, but you’ll ignore that as usual.”

      Of course I’ll ignore bullshit, so for you, women don’t want to be seen as sexy but men want to be seen as strong necessarily?

      Where’s your evidence?

      Oh wait, you said you provided some? Where?

      “No, I actually listed that explicitly as an example of sexism towards males within games.”

      And I find that to be bullshit, that’s not sexism, you can’t be sexist towards objects, since pixels are not human beings.

      “That was easy- as for the pay walls, I’ve posted plenty that aren’t.”

      Which I debunked a post ago. And your sources do not prove the correlations, none of them do.

      That’s the issue, you always beg the question.

      “I dunno, the article looks pretty alive and well to me. So, tell me, how do you define “sexism that matters”?”

      That actually proves to be a problem? How women or men are represented in gaming do not create problems of any kind.

      “y’know, better representation would fix this sexism, but hey you don’t think it’s important anyways.”

      No, it wouldn’t. Sexism will always exist, and it will always be a marginal problem that really no one gives a shit about, since it’s small and insignificant in most developed countries.

      “It’s a boring, shitty trope that plays on old sexist stereotypes of women needing saving. Clearly given how much time you’ve put into this… you give a shit.”

      About this argument? Sure. About the trope? No. Maybe you need to learn what context is.

      Anyway, no, I can throw that back at you. It’s saying that the man always needs to break his back to save a woman while the woman does nothing to save herself. Why is she so sexist? Why do I have to save her all the time?

      Why must she use my love for her against me? She knows I’d put myself through fire and hell and even kill myself for her safety, why won’t she fucking do something sometimes?

      Of course, no hero would have this monologue, that would be too realistic.

      “Which link was that again? They were all so thoroughly forgettable and debunked.”

      How can you debunk something without valid evidence?

      “So we talk about it, and media effect/influence. Like you and I are doing now.”

      The media does not have such influence though. You said so yourself, games do not make you sexist, nor do they make you violent.

      Of course, you contradicted yourself right after.

      “Media can absolutely influence actions- my claim is not “games make people sexist”, no matter how badly you want that to be it.”

      Where’s your evidence? Mine says your claim is stupid, and I provided it a post ago and two posts ago.

      “When media is able to influence people to join the Klan of all things (y’know, the violent murderers/rapists/cross burners), it becomes about more than hurt feelings.”

      A staggering ~750k members WORLDWIDE.

      http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

      WE ARE DOOMED, THE KLAN IS TAKING OVER.

      http://i.imgur.com/Cck4SOL.gif

      “[Citation Required]”

      You have yet to provide evidence that the “male gaze” actually exists or matters in any way.

      You can’t make an argument without actually proving the base statements that support these arguments, you dullard.

    • Aerokii

      “You’re right, this is too easy to be a debate.”

      On this, we agree.

      “No one talked about Anita in this conversation besides you, you dimwit.”

      More than a few people have brought her up aside from me. Perhaps you did not, but frankly I don’t care.

      “Anyway, none of your sources provide any type of research on the matter, I’ve shown you two links with good sample sizes that prove that men get more harassment online.

      Actual numbers, imagine that.”

      One of which was debunked, and the other which is one of my links that supports my argument.

      “You’re the one that needs to provide numbers though. Or do you think an appeal to authority will save your ass?

      Stephen Toulouse could as well be Obama, for me, if he has no numbers and you link some biased source that also does not give numbers, you are both nil.”

      I don’t NEED to provide shit. You can choose to believe Mr. Toulouse or not. No skin off my nose.

      “What are you, fucking stupid?”

      I’m not fucking you, so no.

      “You provide a supposedly scientific source that suddenly feeds in the “EVERYTHING’S SEXIST” and you want me to take you seriously when they don’t even provide numbers?”

      I provide sources- some scientific, some not. Some with numbers, some not. I make no claims towards everything’s sexist, but you’re welcome to strawman the position of me and my sources if you’d like. It’ll avail you not.

      “Of course they matter, you need to know this shit so you can know why they say shit, “sexism” is not “He said X.” sexism is “He said X because you’re a man/woman.” you dingus.”

      Their age and situation have no bearing on sexism. That’s ageism and, potentially, classism. An old person or a young person saying sexist shit is just that- saying sexist shit. The reason they’re saying sexist shit, while interesting, isn’t the determination of whether or not it’s sexist. It’s the content of what’s being said.

      “There’s nothing on that source proving this or actually making a correct correlation.”

      The post you supplied trying to debunk the supposedly debunked study has itself, been, debunked.

      “Pffttt, you’re right, they only say it because they want female attention.”

      See? There. If you’re going to quote a source, at least fucking quote it right. None of this makes it any less sexist, of course.

      “Do you think it matters? His points invalidate yours.”

      Reheading comprehension- do you have it?

      “Gender wage gap as first issue, you’re already at the level of a moist cucumber, most of what is written there is done by choice, no one forces a woman to work part time, nor are they forced to enter an industry that is not paid well.

      No valid sources for the supposed “discrimination” point either.

      Less women in leadership? Sorry, choice again.

      Women doing family work? Choice again.

      Still unproven (debunked actually), try again.”

      No understanding of what the age gap actually is- check.

      “Your sources can’t debunk shit, they have no numbers, none of them provided any that do not agree with me. (e.g. your second link proves my point, thanks)”

      Still lacking in that reading comprehension, and actually UNDERSTANDING what the studies are saying regarding the levels and types of harassment.

      “The article had merit until the author suddenly isn’t Sandy Beaches (Sandy Bitches, haha, Mary Sue alright), when it was proven to be a “he”, then the article and what was written inside lost merit.

      The Mary Sue is a joke.”

      And yet you’re the one being laughed at, here. Fancy that.

      “Holy fuck, I can’t stop laughing at this retardation, I’m sorry, I just can’t take this anymore.

      What transphobia, you retarded walrus? Get over yourself.”

      Ooo, ableism again! Good times, good times. If you don’t want to see the ol’ “man dresses as a woman, situation used for humor, rape threats included” as transphobic, then the problem’s with you. Alternatively, try talking to a trans person who’s played the game, see what they think. Granted, some of it could actually be read as an interesting analysis of what it feels like to live with the pressures of society as a trans person, but that’s neither here nor there.

      “I think you missed the part where males get more of those, as written there.”

      The study says the exact opposite. Women stalked: 26%. Men, 8%. Women sexually harassed: 25%, men 13%.

      Men physically threated- 26% to women’s 23%, so that one’s close. But overall, sustained harassment goes to women, 18% to men’s 16%. The Pew Research numbers and analysis are pretty clear on that.

      “If 50% of women are misogynists, that means that 50% of them are men.

      I’d say that’s equality.

      And I’d say that’s good, we need a bit of diversity, right? :^)”

      So your stance is “Everyone is sexist, so let’s do nothing about it.” How… delightfully regressive.

      “They do count as games, but hardcore games are getting attacked, not casual games. I see nothing about Candy Crush not representing women for example.”

      “Attacked” fucking lol. Yes, the feminists are forming battle lines in their sable armor, spears bristling and whatnot. GAMING IS UNDER ATTACK, SOUND THE MOTHERFUCKING ALARM.

      “No sources, more biased bullshit.”

      Except the source I posted, but there you go crying about “bias” rather than discussing content. Surprise surprise.

      “That isn’t a problem, you didn’t provide any reason for that or evidence supporting any reason.”

      Once more, reading comprehension work is required.

      “True, it’s your argument that dies off, not you.”

      That’d be almost the case, if I relied only on one thing instead of the many, many different things I’ve posted, but hey, ok.

      “Of course I’ll ignore bullshit, so for you, women don’t want to be seen as sexy but men want to be seen as strong necessarily?”

      That’s not what the article says, nor is it even what I say. It’s a matter of who those portrayals are targeted for (the male gaze, of course), but I’ll just go ahead and assume you don’t think that’s real.

    • >More than a few people have brought her up aside from me. Perhaps you did not, but frankly I don’t care.

      “I don’t care that I’m talking nonsense in a debate.”

      “One of which was debunked, and the other which is one of my links that supports my argument.”

      None of them were debunked and none of them support your argument.

      “I don’t NEED to provide shit. You can choose to believe Mr. Toulouse or not. No skin off my nose.”

      Then remain with no argument, no one gives a shit.

      “I provide sources- some scientific, some not. Some with numbers, some not. I make no claims towards everything’s sexist, but you’re welcome to strawman the position of me and my sources if you’d like. It’ll avail you not.”

      So you agree that your position is complete nonsense? Good to know.

      If you won’t provide valid sources, you could as well provide none at all, it’s not doing anything.

      “Their age and situation have no bearing on sexism. That’s ageism and, potentially, classism.”

      Yeah, at this point you can off yourself. No one gives a shit if you think a demographic does not on average act in a certain manner/have some social differences/etc.

      Their age can be tied to many things, but you’re too much of an idiot to understand that.

      “An old person or a young person saying sexist shit is just that- saying sexist shit. ”

      Nice false generalization, I’m sure you can claim that a 4 year old saying random shit that can be deemed sexist has the same motivations, intent, etc as an adult saying “sexist shit”.

      “The reason they’re saying sexist shit, while interesting, isn’t the determination of whether or not it’s sexist. It’s the content of what’s being said.”

      You utter mongoloid. If you know WHY they say sexist shit that means you can also find a solution for it, that if IT IS ACTUALLY TRUE they say sexist shit AND if that matters in any way (AKA is a problem), which you have failed in both cases to prove.

      “The post you supplied trying to debunk the supposedly debunked study has itself, been, debunked.”

      The team/dude that wrote that “scientific” article did not debunk that article in any way. What Nichegamer did was simply provide an update with a response towards them, which they found to be interesting and insightful for the community.

      “See? There. If you’re going to quote a source, at least fucking quote it right. None of this makes it any less sexist, of course.”

      It must be hard to pick up sarcasm. Your mental impediments are starting to grow weary on everyone here now…

      The article itself did not prove this correlation/statement, so again, another invalid piece.

      “No understanding of what the age gap actually is- check.”

      Wage gap* I won’t change the subject because you’re a failure at providing evidence or any type of argument.

      “Still lacking in that reading comprehension, and actually UNDERSTANDING what the studies are saying regarding the levels and types of harassment.”

      Oh no, my comprehension is top notch. Nothing of what you provided there proves your point, at the contrary…

      “And yet you’re the one being laughed at, here. Fancy that.”

      So you have nothing to say that your favorite shitty site got destroyed? Oh well, that’s ok with me.

      “Ooo, ableism again! Good times, good times. If you don’t want to see the ol’ “man dresses as a woman, situation used for humor, rape threats included” as transphobic, then the problem’s with you.”

      I can hear all the drag queens in the world screaming in pain, rolling on the floor at the idea that they are now “transgenders” because they wear women’s clothing.

      Nicely done with erasing their identities to further support your snowflake status and false agenda.

      Anyway, let’s say you’re right, so what’s the issue with that? Can you provide evidence that proves that there’s an issue?

      No, of course you can’t, in the past 3 posts you couldn’t do that, you won’t be able to do it now either.

      “Alternatively, try talking to a trans person who’s played the game, see what they think. Granted, some of it could actually be read as an interesting analysis of what it feels like to live with the pressures of society as a trans person, but that’s neither here nor there.”

      I don’t give a shit what some random thinks, honestly. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

      “The study says the exact opposite. Women stalked: 26%. Men, 8%. Women sexually harassed: 25%, men 13%.

      Men physically threated- 26% to women’s 23%, so that one’s close. But overall, sustained harassment goes to women, 18% to men’s 16%. The Pew Research numbers and analysis are pretty clear on that.”

      Making up numbers is also not permitted:

      http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/part-1-experiencing-online-harassment/

      “So your stance is “Everyone is sexist, so let’s do nothing about it.” How… delightfully regressive.”

      No, that’s really not my stance, I actually believe there’s little to no sexism in developed countries.

      The little “sexism” that there is does not negatively affect anyone in any major way, except a few.

      So I have no reason to focus on it in any way.

      “”Attacked” fucking lol. Yes, the feminists are forming battle lines in their sable armor, spears bristling and whatnot. GAMING IS UNDER ATTACK, SOUND THE MOTHERFUCKING ALARM.”

      Figures of speech don’t work on idiots, noted.

      “Except the source I posted, but there you go crying about “bias” rather than discussing content. Surprise surprise.”

      I won’t discuss invalid content, there’s no point to it, either provide something valid or see the door.

      “Once more, reading comprehension work is required.”

      Valid sources are required before reading comprehension has to kick in properly.

      “That’d be almost the case, if I relied only on one thing instead of the many, many different things I’ve posted, but hey, ok.”

      Quantity does not work in debate. The only thing that does is quality.

      You can provide as much “evidence” as you want, if all the evidence is bullshit, the “quantity” no longer matters.

      “That’s not what the article says, nor is it even what I say. It’s a matter of who those portrayals are targeted for (the male gaze, of course), but I’ll just go ahead and assume you don’t think that’s real.”

      Nah, it exists alright. Just not in the form you use it.

      The “male gaze” is completely normal, unless, you know, you provide a reason for why it’s an issue and some numbers supporting the claim, but heyyyyy…

      We’ve been there already.

    • Aerokii

      “I don’t care that I’m talking nonsense in a debate.”

      I like how you keep pretending this is a debate.

      “None of them were debunked and none of them support your argument.”

      You keep telling yourself that. It won’t be true, but you keep telling yourself that.

      “Then remain with no argument, no one gives a shit.”

      I’ve posted plenty of sources and links, but ok, no argument. And sure, clearly you don’t give a shit. Which is why you’re not still here replying to my posts.

      “So you agree that your position is complete nonsense? Good to know.

      If you won’t provide valid sources, you could as well provide none at all, it’s not doing anything.

      See above about repeating your own horseshit ’til you believe it. I’ve provided plenty- some of them were even the same sources you tried using to prove your own point. Your lack of reading comprehension is a problem for your teachers, not for me.

      “Yeah, at this point you can off yourself. No one gives a shit if you think a demographic does not on average act in a certain manner/have some social differences/etc.

      Their age can be tied to many things, but you’re too much of an idiot to understand that.”

      You first. Harassment is harassment regardless of how old someone is, outside of “4 year old who doesn’t know better”. Now, I’m sure there are more than a few of those on Xbox live, but that is neither here or there. Your delusions, however, continue to amuse.

      “Nice false generalization, I’m sure you can claim that a 4 year old saying random shit that can be deemed sexist has the same motivations, intent, etc as an adult saying “sexist shit”.

      Actually I’d argue it’s a bit different for children, but you’ve also gotta remember that children learn it from somewhere. None of this happens in a vaccuum (Except your argument, you see, because it sucks.)

      “You utter mongoloid.”

      Interesting insult choice- did you learn that on Stormfront?

      ” If you know WHY they say sexist shit that means you can also find a solution for it, that if IT IS ACTUALLY TRUE they say sexist shit AND if that matters in any way (AKA is a problem), which you have failed in both cases to prove.”

      If I wanted to discuss finding solutions, I’d have brought up solutions. I’ve actually explicitly, and by choice, left out discussion of those outside of saying that I don’t agree with what the government in France is considering. The study takes some time to ponder WHY they act in the sexist way they do, but my only interest at the moment is THAT they acted in the sexist way they did. (Oh, and once more, go ahead and keep telling yourself this shit ’til you believe it.)

      “The team/dude that wrote that “scientific” article did not debunk that article in any way. What Nichegamer did was simply provide an update with a response towards them, which they found to be interesting and insightful for the community.”

      Nichegamer made the response to which the study’s writers responded to, but don’t bother letting causality get in your way.

      “It must be hard to pick up sarcasm.”

      Right back at you.

      “Your mental impediments are starting to grow weary on everyone here now…

      The article itself did not prove this correlation/statement, so again, another invalid piece.”

      You’re welcome to leave if you’d like. Until an admin asks me to stop or I feel like stopping, I’ll keep posting, and you’ll keep telling yourself the same bullshit.

      “Wage gap* I won’t change the subject because you’re a failure at providing evidence or any type of argument.”

      Repetition again, not gonna bother…

      “Oh no, my comprehension is top notch. Nothing of what you provided there proves your point, at the contrary…”

      Your posts suggest otherwise.

      “So you have nothing to say that your favorite shitty site got destroyed? Oh well, that’s ok with me.”

      Which favorite shitty site of mine are we referring to? I don’t believe we’ve discussed my favorite shitty site, or my favorite non-shitty site either.

      “I can hear all the drag queens in the world screaming in pain, rolling on the floor at the idea that they are now “transgenders” because they wear women’s clothing.

      Nicely done with erasing their identities to further support your snowflake status and false agenda.

      Anyway, let’s say you’re right, so what’s the issue with that? Can you provide evidence that proves that there’s an issue?

      No, of course you can’t, in the past 3 posts you couldn’t do that, you won’t be able to do it now either.”

      You’ve thoroughly proven that you don’t actually understand any issues with transfolk, but I’m not going to deign to speak for them the same way you seem intent on doing.

      ” don’t give a shit what some random thinks, honestly. Anecdotal evidence is useless.”

      So actual experiences of real people don’t matter.. gotcha.

      “Making up numbers is also not permitted:

      http://www.pewinternet.org/201…”

      That’s where I got the numbers, you can read them right there on the page if you just… I dunno… try?

      “No, that’s really not my stance, I actually believe there’s little to no sexism in developed countries.

      The little “sexism” that there is does not negatively affect anyone in any major way, except a few.

      So I have no reason to focus on it in any way.”

      Hehehehehehehe. Ok. Sure. Right. You’re funny. So it doesn’t happen, except when it does.

      “Figures of speech don’t work on idiots, noted.”

      Just answering your bullshit hyperbole with a bit of my own, for fun.

      “I won’t discuss invalid content, there’s no point to it, either provide something valid or see the door.”

      “Valid sources are required before reading comprehension has to kick in properly.”

      If only they hadn’t made you the decider of what content is valid and what is not… oh wait, they didn’t! Awesome.

      “Quantity does not work in debate. The only thing that does is quality.

      You can provide as much “evidence” as you want, if all the evidence is bullshit, the “quantity” no longer matters.”

      I’ve provided quantity and quality, but clearly you disagree… the only quality you’ve provided is a link I’d posted beforehand, one that thoroughly backs up my position on women suffering worse harassment.

      “Nah, it exists alright. Just not in the form you use it.

      The “male gaze” is completely normal, unless, you know, you provide a reason for why it’s an issue and some numbers supporting the claim, but heyyyyy…

      We’ve been there already.”

      You’d already know why it’s an issue if you hadn’t decided all my links were invalid, possibly because they didn’t include an almighty bar graph or whatever your current kink is. I’m not particularly interested.

    • “I like how you keep pretending this is a debate.”

      Maybe you’re right again, it can’t be a debate when only one person tries to bring valid sources to the table, AKA me.

      “I’ve posted plenty of sources and links, but ok, no argument. And sure, clearly you don’t give a shit. Which is why you’re not still here replying to my posts.”

      I don’t think you get it, “sources” must also be valid, you have yet to provide any of those.

      And you also seem to have issues in understanding what people are saying. Yes, no one gives a shit if you’re incapable to debate at all, not even I do, since that means you’d be losing it anyway.

      Since there’s nothing anyone could learn from an SJW, there’s no reason not to think that is beneficial.

      ” I’ve provided plenty- some of them were even the same sources you tried using to prove your own point. Your lack of reading comprehension is a problem for your teachers, not for me.”

      You can’t read the Pew research for shit and you think it proves your point, maybe you should not write random numbers and actually look at the graphs.

      “You first. Harassment is harassment regardless of how old someone is, outside of “4 year old who doesn’t know better”.”

      No, it’s not. Just like “murder” isn’t actually “murder” but “self-defense”.

      It’s also the case that you are simply wrong on the harassment existing at all or they conflate the harassment (more likely), since your sources are pretty bad.

      “Actually I’d argue it’s a bit different for children, but you’ve also gotta remember that children learn it from somewhere. None of this happens in a vaccuum (Except your argument, you see, because it sucks.)”

      Nicely going, you missed the point. It was to show that there are huge differences between demographics.

      One huge difference is play time.

      Do you know what play time is tied to? Aggressiveness.

      Who do you think has more time to play? Someone without a job.
      Which are the people that lack jobs most of the times? Teenagers or children.

      Who would act more aggressively more often at that point? Children and teenagers.
      It’s so simple, but yet so hard for your types to make any type of logical tie up, and this is one example.

      “Interesting insult choice- did you learn that on Stormfront?”

      Yeah, I learned it from Hitler himself.

      “but my only interest at the moment is THAT they acted in the sexist way they did.”

      Yet your source does not provide any type of numbers and explanations in ways they did act sexist.

      So why should I believe it?

      Nichegamer still makes a perfect case against them.

      “Nichegamer made the response to which the study’s writers responded to, but don’t bother letting causality get in your way.”

      For real, you must be mentally deficient. I just said that they updated the article with the study’s writers response, but why do you think that changes that Nichegamer is right? It doesn’t.

      Bringing excuses for why they omitted important information is not an argument.

      “You’re welcome to leave if you’d like. Until an admin asks me to stop or I feel like stopping, I’ll keep posting, and you’ll keep telling yourself the same bullshit.”

      Fine, let this never end then. :^)

      “Repetition again, not gonna bother…”

      I can say the same thing about you. Your tactic is to throw a ton of links that either have nothing to do with the subject at hand or are invalid. Quantity over quality, as usual, with the retarded internet SJWs.

      “Your posts suggest otherwise.”

      You can tell yourself that if you want.

      “Which favorite shitty site of mine are we referring to? I don’t believe we’ve discussed my favorite shitty site, or my favorite non-shitty site either.”

      All of your sources mostly, specifically The Mary Sue.

      “You’ve thoroughly proven that you don’t actually understand any issues with transfolk, but I’m not going to deign to speak for them the same way you seem intent on doing.”

      So you can’t defend your point in any way but you’ll throw around the buzzwords anyway like you think that matters?

      Good to know. :^)

      “So actual experiences of real people don’t matter.. gotcha.”

      No, because most of the times, they’re not actual experiences and they’re small in numbers (thus, they don’t actually show the reality of things, again).

      So why should I care?

      “That’s where I got the numbers, you can read them right there on the page if you just… I dunno… try?”

      I think you can’t read column graphs, you might be disabled.

      “Hehehehehehehe. Ok. Sure. Right. You’re funny. So it doesn’t happen, except when it does.”

      “Little to no sexism” must be hard to read and understand, then again, your lack of English comprehension has been noted throughout this whole “debate”.

      Sexism isn’t an issue until you prove otherwise.

      Even “death threats” and “harassment” can simply be non-issues. E.g. most males do not take them seriously, mostly women do, funnily enough, so they don’t bring any type of distress.

      “I’ve provided quantity and quality, but clearly you disagree… the only quality you’ve provided is a link I’d posted beforehand, one that thoroughly backs up my position on women suffering worse harassment.”

      Your issue is that you can’t read graphs, you’ve post 2 sources out of about 15 or so that were valid and useful, yet they did not support your stance.

      Also, we were talking quantity of harassment not “quality”, which you cannot prove. I’d argue that the distress is the same for all types of “internet harassment”, at least for normal individuals.

      “You’d already know why it’s an issue if you hadn’t decided all my links were invalid, possibly because they didn’t include an almighty bar graph or whatever your current kink is. I’m not particularly interested.”

      No, I don’t know what the issue with the “male gaze” is. We call it “attraction” and “attraction” tends to be a positive feeling. It usually tends to tie up to emotions that are positive, like what people like to call “love”, although that’s rather meh as a descriptor, it gets to the point.

      The “male gaze” in fiction is so pointless that I really don’t get why people waste their time on that. Whatever happens in fiction doesn’t matter in real life in any way, as proven by the links I provided.

    • Aerokii

      “Maybe you’re right again, it can’t be a debate when only one person tries to bring valid sources to the table, AKA me.”

      Funny considering we’re both using the same source, and when I dug further into NicheGamer I found some absolutely lovely ties to GamerGate. Amusing how that works out. Or is bias not a problem because you’re the one using it?

      “I don’t think you get it, “sources” must also be valid, you have yet to provide any of those.”

      I don’t think you get that you crying “invalid!” doesn’t actually invalidate anything, haha.

      “And you also seem to have issues in understanding what people are saying. Yes, no one gives a shit if you’re incapable to debate at all, not even I do, since that means you’d be losing it anyway.”

      Make up your mind, is this a debate or isn’t it? And clearly, you give a shit.

      Goddamn, your jimmies are starting to sound awfully russled.

      “Since there’s nothing anyone could learn from an SJW, there’s no reason not to think that is beneficial.”

      Tell us how you really feel about progressives, hm?

      “You can’t read the Pew research for shit and you think it proves your point, maybe you should not write random numbers and actually look at the graphs.”

      Right back at you.

      “No, it’s not. Just like “murder” isn’t actually “murder” but “self-defense”.”

      I believe that’s a matter of context, but I believe the word your looking for originally is “homicide”. Get your terminology straight and try again.

      “It’s also the case that you are simply wrong on the harassment existing at all or they conflate the harassment (more likely), since your sources are pretty bad.”

      Funny, I’ve seen harassment happen first hand, so no, I don’t think you’re going to convince me that harssment in cases like this doesn’t exist.

      “Nicely going, you missed the point. It was to show that there are huge differences between demographics.”

      None of this has anything to show that sexism isn’t still sexism.

      “Do you know what play time is tied to? Aggressiveness.

      Who do you think has more time to play? Someone without a job.

      Which are the people that lack jobs most of the times? Teenagers or children.

      Who would act more aggressively more often at that point? Children and teenagers.

      It’s so simple, but yet so hard for your types to make any type of logical tie up, and this is one example.”

      Once more, this has shit-fucking-all to do with whether or not they’re acting in a sexist manner, but I don’t really expect you to understand that.

      “Yeah, I learned it from Hitler himself.”

      2edgy4me

      “Yet your source does not provide any type of numbers and explanations in ways they did act sexist.”

      Going after women more than men when they were losing is kinda textbook sexism, bro.

      “So why should I believe it?

      Nichegamer still makes a perfect case against them.”

      Perfect case lol.

      “For real, you must be mentally deficient. I just said that they updated the article with the study’s writers response, but why do you think that changes that Nichegamer is right? It doesn’t.

      Bringing excuses for why they omitted important information is not an argument.”

      Uh huh. I’m mentally deficient, but you’re the one who reads Nichegamer. Sure.

      “Fine, let this never end then. :^)”

      Works for me.

      “I can say the same thing about you. Your tactic is to throw a ton of links that either have nothing to do with the subject at hand or are invalid. Quantity over quality, as usual, with the retarded internet SJWs”

      And your tactic seems to be tossing out two links, one of which proves my point and the other of which is debunked, then claim all mine are invalid due to your total lack of ability to use sources that don’t cozy up to your movement. A movement that’s oh so fond of just outright making shit up when it doesn’t have any evidence to support itself.

      “All of your sources mostly, specifically The Mary Sue.”

      Wrong, but feel free to guess again if you’d like.

      “So you can’t defend your point in any way but you’ll throw around the buzzwords anyway like you think that matters?

      Good to know. :^)”

      Once more, I’d suggest you talk to a trans* person, but I’m not really sure you’re going to treat them with any respect/dignity, so you likely shouldn’t.

      “No, because most of the times, they’re not actual experiences and they’re small in numbers (thus, they don’t actually show the reality of things, again).”

      The reality of things is that even if an issue isn’t happening to the majority population, it’s still an issue.

      “So why should I care?”

      I’d say “because you’re not a shit person”, but… well…

      “I think you can’t read column graphs, you might be disabled.”

      With the amount of ableist slurs you love throwing around, I can only assume you’ve got some deep seated fear or hatred disabled people. Beyond that, I actually went back to the source to make sure I got my numbers right, and hey, I did. Or did you stop reading at the first bar graph?

      “”Little to no sexism” must be hard to read and understand, then again, your lack of English comprehension has been noted throughout this whole “debate”.”

      Just pointing out when you contradict yourself, bruh.

      “Sexism isn’t an issue until you prove otherwise.”

      Ok Roosh.

      “Even “death threats” and “harassment” can simply be non-issues. E.g. most males do not take them seriously, mostly women do, funnily enough, so they don’t bring any type of distress.”

      That’s because women online are far more likely to be stalked, sexually harassed and constantly harassed than men online. Plus, those same women are more likely to be stalked, sexually assaulted, or raped than a man is.

      http://www.wgac.colostate.edu/stalking-statistics

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

      “Your issue is that you can’t read graphs, you’ve post 2 sources out of about 15 or so that were valid and useful, yet they did not support your stance.”

      Your repitition is impressive, but ultimately futile.

      “Also, we were talking quantity of harassment not “quality”, which you cannot prove. I’d argue that the distress is the same for all types of “internet harassment”, at least for normal individuals.”

      The “quality” of the harassment is important to note- or are you dismissing context when it doesn’t suit you?

      “No, I don’t know what the issue with the “male gaze” is. We call it “attraction” and “attraction” tends to be a positive feeling. It usually tends to tie up to emotions that are positive, like what people like to call “love”, although that’s rather meh as a descriptor, it gets to the point.”

      “The “male gaze” in fiction is so pointless that I really don’t get why people waste their time on that. Whatever happens in fiction doesn’t matter in real life in any way, as proven by the links I provided.”

      So, you don’t actually know what male gaze is. Got it.

    • “Funny considering we’re both using the same source, and when I dug further into NicheGamer I found some absolutely lovely ties to GamerGate. Amusing how that works out. Or is bias not a problem because you’re the one using it?”

      There is no bias when the source is valid. If your retarded source would have provided evidence for their introductory statements which are directly tied to their research, I would have had no issues.

      That’s why I said they’re begging the question.

      “I don’t think you get that you crying “invalid!” doesn’t actually invalidate anything, haha.”

      Your sources are invalid because:

      1. They do not provide anything to support their claims, no experiments, no numbers, no surveys, nothing that is subsequently valid, trustable, etc.

      2. By analyzing what and the way they’re making statements, we can see a plethora of buzzwords, agenda pushing, etc (all because of 1).

      3. They’re mostly all of them tied to sources that have been proven either unreliable (outright lies, AKA The Mary Sue) or false.

      “Make up your mind, is this a debate or isn’t it? And clearly, you give a shit.”

      I don’t need to repeat my explanation. What I don’t give a shit about is your lack of debate capabilities, not about the debate itself.

      And yes, this is an informal debate, one that is also incredibly easy, as you know (you don’t, obviously), the English language and human beings in general use figures of speech.

      E.g. when I said “This isn’t a debate.”, I mean to say “This is so easy that I would not call it a debate, since you’re an idiot that lacks the ability to debate at all.”.

      “sound awfully russled.”

      Rustled, not russled. Russled isn’t a word. I’m not even sure you can find it on the Urban Dictionary.

      “Tell us how you really feel about progressives, hm?”

      Despite disappointment, nothing much. Most of what you call “progressives” (and everyone else calls regressives) are mostly special snowflakes that focus on issues that don’t exist, create issues themselves and harass, bully, annoy, etc others for their own benefit.

      Most of the times, they’re useful idiots, nothing else.

      “Right back at you.”

      And right back at you again. The graphs clearly show that males get more overall harassment online. Re-read them.

      “I believe that’s a matter of context, but I believe the word your looking for originally is “homicide”. Get your terminology straight and try again.”

      No, “murder” works as well. “Homicide” simply involves “manslaughter” too, which is slightly different from murder.

      Murder works wonders for my point, but you’re just slightly retarded.

      “Funny, I’ve seen harassment happen first hand, so no, I don’t think you’re going to convince me that harssment in cases like this doesn’t exist.”

      Anecdotal evidence is useless.

      “None of this has anything to show that sexism isn’t still sexism.”

      It does, since it’s not necessary that it is sexism, again, you have no point, try and actually answer properly.

      “Once more, this has shit-fucking-all to do with whether or not they’re acting in a sexist manner, but I don’t really expect you to understand that.”

      Look, you ugly mongrel, being “sexist” and saying “sexist” shit for example are not the same thing.

      Saying “sexist” shit and insulting someone is also not the same thing.

      Your study conflates shit and mashes them together to make it so that it seems as if insulting a female means that it’s a case of sexism and they also never mention what the language used was in most cases, so I see no reason to believe your shitty study, nor do we have any reason to get to the conclusion that it’s about sexism.

      Demographics are important to find out if the INTENT (which is necessary for someone to be sexist) was to be sexist, reasons in general matter for them to know if it’s sexism or not, etc.

      “Going after women more than men when they were losing is kinda textbook sexism, bro.”

      No, it’s not. The correlation needs some valid evidence behind it to function.

      Otherwise there can be a plethora of reasons that could have happened.

      Their methodology blows ass overall, but hey, if it supports your shitty agenda, you’ll gobble it up immediately.

      “Perfect case lol.”

      You can’t prove otherwise, so I’ll take this as a concession.

      “Uh huh. I’m mentally deficient, but you’re the one who reads Nichegamer. Sure.”

      Nice comeback, faggot.

      “And your tactic seems to be tossing out two links, one of which proves my point ”

      No, it doesn’t. The graphs actually show a higher number of internet harassment towards men.

      “and the other of which is debunked”

      Invalid sources cannot debunk anything.

      “A movement that’s oh so fond of just outright making shit up when it doesn’t have any evidence to support itself.”

      Surely, all those links I gave you that have actual numbers are imaginary.

      Unlike yours that lack even the necessary shit to take off.

      “Wrong, but feel free to guess again if you’d like.”

      I’m not guessing, or did you not link The Mary Sue the past few posts? Maybe you’re having issues with your Alzheimer now.

      “Once more, I’d suggest you talk to a trans* person, but I’m not really sure you’re going to treat them with any respect/dignity, so you likely shouldn’t.”

      I don’t need to speak to any “trans” person, what I need to do is talk to someone that actually knows what they’re talking about, AKA not you…

      And don’t worry, I treat everyone equally shitty as long as they’re spouting bullshit.

      “The reality of things is that even if an issue isn’t happening to the majority population, it’s still an issue.”

      It would be an issue if you could prove it so, but since you can’t, it’s not really. Also, human beings tend to not focus on issues that are really insignificant.

      I’ll concede that much, that the issues you have with society are insignificant (e.g. sexism) or false (e.g. wage pay gap), at least in developer countries.

      “I’d say “because you’re not a shit person”, but… well…”

      I think you know already that you can’t shame me in any way. I’d say you’re the shitty person for intentionally ignoring actual issues when you could not, instead of focusing on insignificant problems that don’t really need solving and can be solved personally by the supposed “victims”.

      “With the amount of ableist slurs you love throwing around, I can only assume you’ve got some deep seated fear or hatred disabled people.”

      No, I find Lily really kawaii, although she’s a drunkard, I’d totes help her with her blindness, I doubt she needs my help that much though.

      My second waifu was Emi, so please, I like them even without legs, although she has some… Family issues…

      I’m also half-blind and I know a lot of disabled people too.

      So what now, nigga? You wanna know my ancestry too for the sake of the race card?

      “I actually went back to the source to make sure I got my numbers right, and hey, I did. Or did you stop reading at the first bar graph?”

      Nope, I’ve read the whole thing, and I can assure you you’re still wrong on the matter. You should check the graphs again.

      This time try to also read which graph pertains to who.

      Oh and, sometimes they compare young to old of the same sex, so maybe you shouldn’t take the numbers of YOUNG WOMEN vs OLDER WOMEN to try and claim it’s WOMEN vs MEN. Just saying…

      “Just pointing out when you contradict yourself, bruh.”

      I never did though.

      “Ok Roosh.”

      No, I’m not rich.

      “That’s because women online are far more likely to be stalked, sexually harassed and constantly harassed than men online. ”

      More likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, but not more likely to be harassed. Since when is “stalking” online or “sexually harassed” online less worse than simple harassment?

      Can you prove that it’s worse?

      Also, since one of the posts I gave you shows that 50% of women harass other women, what do you have to say against women stalking other women and women sexually harassing other women?

      Oh and, why should we actually care about the women being “harassed” if the men for example, find their situation to not be “extremely upsetting” or “very upsetting” like the women do. Why shouldn’t the women live with it like the men do, when the men also get more harassment?

      Why should we start a holy crusade to stop harassment when here is an issue of perception? Men don’t give a shit, women seem to do.

      “Your repitition is impressive, but ultimately futile.”

      I doubt my “repitition” is impressive, I’d say that’s my “repetition”. And we’ll see how futile it will be.

      Do I have to remind you that you said you will not stop? :^)

      “The “quality” of the harassment is important to note- or are you dismissing context when it doesn’t suit you?”

      What I’m saying is that you are deeming without any type of evidence, how “severe” internet stalking and internet sexual harassment is.

      It’s online, it’s not face to face, they’re only words, words that do not hurt you in any way.

      “So, you don’t actually know what male gaze is. Got it.”

      Nope, I know fully well what the “male gaze” is. I just took most of their definition out since it’s a futile attempt at making shit up.

      The “women in fiction” are indeed made for the purpose of being sexually appealing, but that to both sexes. It’s the same for the men…

      Unless the characters are simply some specific tropes (e.g. “bara”).

    • Aerokii

      “So I guess you’ll no longer talk about how supposedly the media being ‘sexist” (which you did not prove either) is an issue towards both men and women.”

      I’ll talk about whatever I feel like, since thankfully you’re not the one making the rules here.

      “Also, what is your stance on the matter? Should we resort to censorship or self-censorship?”

      I think we should be willing to talk about the issue. I’m not calling for censorship or self-censorship, but I’m also not the sort who thinks localization is the same thing as censorship, which is one of many, many reasons I know not to take you seriously.

      “There is no bias when the source is valid. If your retarded source would have provided evidence for their introductory statements which are directly tied to their research, I would have had no issues.

      That’s why I said they’re begging the question.”

      I’d hardly call Nichegamer a source… it was a rebuttal, at best, and at worst just another bullshit piece of the Gamergate propaganda machine. Let’s not forget how prone that movement is to pulling articles and reviews out of their ass- or is your movement still claiming Nathan Grayson actually wrote that review for Quinn?

      “Your sources are invalid because:

      1. They do not provide anything to support their claims, no experiments, no numbers, no surveys, nothing that is subsequently valid, trustable, etc.”

      Several do contain numbers and surveys, more than a couple experiments, plenty of valid experiences and testimonials from people that would actually know what they’re talking about- something you and them don’t have in common.

      “2. By analyzing what and the way they’re making statements, we can see a plethora of buzzwords, agenda pushing, etc (all because of 1).”

      Coming from the man who thought transfolk was a buzzword and who has a very clear agenda to push against anything that threatens the little safe space bubble he thinks he has in gaming, I’m going to assume this point is a bit of a write-off.

      “3. They’re mostly all of them tied to sources that have been proven either unreliable (outright lies, AKA The Mary Sue) or false.””

      Wow, you really hate the Mary Sue… maybe I should add in more links from them, see if I can force you into maximum over-rustle.

      “I don’t need to repeat my explanation. What I don’t give a shit about is your lack of debate capabilities, not about the debate itself.”

      Schrodinger’s debate- this is both a debate and not a debate until it is observed by someone who gives a shit. You keep trying to make this into something it’s not, clearly because you actually DO care.

      <3 I'm flattered.

      "And yes, this is an informal debate, one that is also incredibly easy, as you know (you don't, obviously), the English language and human beings in general use figures of speech."

      You can call it whatever you like- frankly I don't care, whatever makes you feel better about your life. If you want to pretend you're "debating" me, I welcome you to. But I'm not calling it that. Not when you've spent an ample amount of time screaming about invalidity, throwing around racist, ableist, (and reading ahead) homophobic slurs.

      "E.g. when I said "This isn't a debate.", I mean to say "This is so easy that I would not call it a debate, since you're an idiot that lacks the ability to debate at all."."

      I know precisely what you meant- but you've been inconsistent so many times within this discussion that I've turned it into a hobby to mention each time you flip flop between whether or not this is a debate.

      "Rustled, not russled. Russled isn't a word. I'm not even sure you can find it on the Urban Dictionary."

      Lol, ok.

      "Despite disappointment, nothing much. Most of what you call "progressives" (and everyone else calls regressives) are mostly special snowflakes that focus on issues that don't exist, create issues themselves and harass, bully, annoy, etc others for their own benefit."

      Regressives- funny, we've got the same word for you. And clearly "nothing much" isn't the case, given everything you said afterwards, heh.

      "Most of the times, they're useful idiots, nothing else."

      If that's the case, you'd have one thing in common with them. It's not the "useful" part, by the way.

      "And right back at you again. The graphs clearly show that males get more overall harassment online. Re-read them."

      You can keep trying to force this to be about solely quantity if you'd like, but it's not going to help you when women are still receiving more of the severe harassment.

      "No, "murder" works as well. "Homicide" simply involves "manslaughter" too, which is slightly different from murder."

      Ah, then you were just wrong entirely. Got it.

      "Murder works wonders for my point, but you're just slightly retarded."

      For someone who talks so much, you've got an awfully limited repertoire.

      "Anecdotal evidence is useless."

      Only when it doesn't suit the needs of your movement. I'd hate to live in a world where experiences don't matter unless it's tracked in a study verified by GamerGate approved sources.

      "It does, since it's not necessary that it is sexism, again, you have no point, try and actually answer properly."

      "not necessarily sexism" oh yes, women getting treated differently than men isn't sexism at all.

      "Look, you ugly mongrel, being "sexist" and saying "sexist" shit for example are not the same thing.

      Saying "sexist" shit and insulting someone is also not the same thing."

      Ahhh, the ol' "well, yes, I say awful things but I'm not an awful person" gambit- let's see how it plays out.

      "Your study conflates shit and mashes them together to make it so that it seems as if insulting a female means that it's a case of sexism and they also never mention what the language used was in most cases, so I see no reason to believe your shitty study, nor do we have any reason to get to the conclusion that it's about sexism.

      Demographics are important to find out if the INTENT (which is necessary for someone to be sexist) was to be sexist, reasons in general matter for them to know if it's sexism or not, etc."

      Yaaaawn… once more, you prove you don't actually understand what sexism is.

      "No, it's not. The correlation needs some valid evidence behind it to function.

      Otherwise there can be a plethora of reasons that could have happened.

      Their methodology blows ass overall, but hey, if it supports your shitty agenda, you'll gobble it up immediately."

      You've used the words valid/invalid so many times they've lost any meaning. The reason matters little in the face of the end result here, but I don't expect you to understand sexism. Or racism. Or homophobia. Or… well, anything.

      "You can't prove otherwise, so I'll take this as a concession."

      No need, you've spent hours proving my points already.

      "Nice comeback, faggot."

      Finally, the homophobia I've been waiting for. Clearly, you say ableist, homophobic and transphobic things, but I'm sure I'm just lacking context, and you're not ACTUALLY someone who hates disabled people, gay people or trans people.

      "No, it doesn't. The graphs actually show a higher number of internet harassment towards men."

      You know there's more than one graph, right?

      "Invalid sources cannot debunk anything."

      Says the man using Nichegamer.

      "Surely, all those links I gave you that have actual numbers are imaginary.

      Unlike yours that lack even the necessary shit to take off."

      Yes, the few, few links you've provided, one of which is a link I provided that you seem incapable of reading and understand.

      "I'm not guessing, or did you not link The Mary Sue the past few posts? Maybe you're having issues with your Alzheimer now."

      Sorry, out of guesses. I'm actually a big fan of Google.

      "I don't need to speak to any "trans" person, what I need to do is talk to someone that actually knows what they're talking about, AKA not you…"

      Lol, "trans". No wonder you spend so much time trying to prove that saying awful shit doesn't make you an awful person.

    • “I’ll talk about whatever I feel like, since thankfully you’re not the one making the rules here.”

      Committing red herrings make your argument irrelevant.

      ” but I’m also not the sort who thinks localization is the same thing as censorship”

      I’m sorry, it’s censorship by definition. I know you dislike facts, but that does not mean that facts stop being the truth.

      “I’d hardly call Nichegamer a source… it was a rebuttal, at best, and at worst just another bullshit piece of the Gamergate propaganda machine.”

      Nope, they talk about how the source is invalid and they bring valid points, from methodology to their overall bias in the so-called “study”.

      They’re basically talking facts, so I see no reason to listen to you.

      “Several do contain numbers and surveys, more than a couple experiments, plenty of valid experiences and testimonials from people that would actually know what they’re talking about- something you and them don’t have in common.”

      None of them have that except the governmental survey and the Pew study which you misquoted.

      The rest are retarded propaganda without any type of data, AKA your Halo 3 experiment.

      “Coming from the man who thought transfolk was a buzzword and who has a very clear agenda to push against anything that threatens the little safe space bubble he thinks he has in gaming, I’m going to assume this point is a bit of a write-off.”

      So basically, you have no rebuttal.

      No, “transphobia” is a buzzword, at least the way you use it.

      “Wow, you really hate the Mary Sue… maybe I should add in more links from them, see if I can force you into maximum over-rustle.”

      So you have nothing to say except “Lulz, im gunna mek u med”. Another concession from you, that is fine.

      “Schrodinger’s debate- this is both a debate and not a debate until it is observed by someone who gives a shit.”

      Not understanding figures of speech is your issue, you idiot, let me repeat myself:

      What I don’t give a shit about is your lack of debate capabilities, not about the debate itself

      “Not when you’ve spent an ample amount of time screaming about invalidity, throwing around racist, ableist, (and reading ahead) homophobic slurs.”

      None of that would invalidate that this is a debate.

      “I know precisely what you meant- but you’ve been inconsistent so many times within this discussion that I’ve turned it into a hobby to mention each time you flip flop between whether or not this is a debate.”

      You can’t even provide one example of my inconsistencies, since there were none. Prove your statements otherwise.

      “Regressives- funny, we’ve got the same word for you. And clearly “nothing much” isn’t the case, given everything you said afterwards, heh.”

      Do you have evidence for me feeling more than disappointment towards you regressives? You could have just been proper liberals instead of being retarded, that would have been so much better for everyone.

      But oh well, I guess I do “feel more” since most of the bullshit you guys spout doesn’t really affect me much.

      “If that’s the case, you’d have one thing in common with them. It’s not the “useful” part, by the way.”

      Nice comeback, faggot.

      “You can keep trying to force this to be about solely quantity if you’d like, but it’s not going to help you when women are still receiving more of the severe harassment.”

      You have yet to provide any evidence that they receive more severe harassment.

      “Ah, then you were just wrong entirely. Got it.”

      Nope, “murder” is a perfect word.

      “For someone who talks so much, you’ve got an awfully limited repertoire.”

      I don’t need much more to refute you.

      “Only when it doesn’t suit the needs of your movement. I’d hate to live in a world where experiences don’t matter unless it’s tracked in a study verified by GamerGate approved sources.”

      GamerGate approved sources are factual sources, so yes, you’d hate reality, if only you’d live in it…

      “”not necessarily sexism” oh yes, women getting treated differently than men isn’t sexism at all.”

      Sexism is prejudice or discrimination towards the sexes, since you can’t prove that they were treated differently because they were women AND the treatment was prejudicial and discriminatory, you have no point.

      “Ahhh, the ol’ “well, yes, I say awful things but I’m not an awful person” gambit- let’s see how it plays out.”

      No, that’s wrong, what I did was make a difference between insulting someone (E.g. calling a man a retard is not sexism, it’s merely insulting him.) and being sexist “You’re a man and you have to work for me as a woman.”, that’s prejudice and discrimination towards a sex, not insulting someone.

      “Yaaaawn… once more, you prove you don’t actually understand what sexism is.”

      So you disagree with the definition? Do you have any evidence to prove that the dictionary is wrong?

      “You’ve used the words valid/invalid so many times they’ve lost any meaning.”

      I doubt it can, since these are valid cases of the use of “invalid” and “valid”.

      “The reason matters little in the face of the end result here, but I don’t expect you to understand sexism. Or racism. Or homophobia. Or… well, anything.”

      Yet I provided reasons for why they matter and you can’t come up with anything to refute that, good to know this is another concession.

      “No need, you’ve spent hours proving my points already.”

      No, I didn’t.

      “You know there’s more than one graph, right?”

      And each one of them prove my point.

      “Says the man using Nichegamer.”

      Says the special snowflake that can’t prove Nichegamer to be an invalid source.

      “Yes, the few, few links you’ve provided, one of which is a link I provided that you seem incapable of reading and understand.”

      Interesting that you mention that, I wonder if you have any evidence to support this statement.

      “Sorry, out of guesses. I’m actually a big fan of Google.”

      Even worse, you didn’t even read your links, another concession.

      “Lol, “trans”. No wonder you spend so much time trying to prove that saying awful shit doesn’t make you an awful person.”

      Another idiotic statement. I tend to embrace the reputation of being an asshole because I am one, so whatever you say, fuck face.

    • Nathan Wallace

      I like you. You’re a good critical thinker. I think most sane minded people would have launched full on into ad hominem at this point just due to a loss of patience, but then we’re only slightly better than our opposition rather than godly in comparison.

      I like and share your point of view. Sexism cannot be performed by objects.

    • It’s great I don’t ever resort to ad hominem. I mostly resort to insulting the opposition, which I already did do…

      I also don’t have any issues with my patience because I enjoy the debate itself, the conflict.

    • Nathan Wallace

      I wouldn’t bother with this person much more man. They’re deluded enough to think games are people so I think that says enough.

    • Aerokii

      You seem to be putting in a lot of practice into twisting other’s words to suit your views. Must be a hobby.

    • FrenchGuy

      “In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or thing.”
      “treating a person as an object or thing”
      “person as an object”
      “person”

      Video games are not people. Have you confused reality with what is on your computer screen?

    • Aerokii

      “In advertising[edit]

      While advertising used to portray women in obviously stereotypical roles (e.g., as a housewife), women in modern advertisements are no longer solely confined to the home. However, advertising today nonetheless still stereotypes women, albeit in more subtle ways, including by sexually objectifying them.[147][148] This is problematic because there appears to be a relationship between the manner in which women are portrayed in advertising and people’s ideas about the role of women in society.[147] Research has shown that gender role stereotyping in advertising is linked to negative attitudes towards women, as well as more acceptance of sexual aggression against women and rape myth acceptance.[147] Furthermore, gender role stereotyping in advertisements may be injurious to women, as it is linked to negative body image and the development of eating disorders.[149]

      Today, some countries (for example Norway and Denmark) have laws against sexual objectification in advertising.[150] Nudity is not banned, and nude people can be used to advertise a product if they are relevant to the product advertised. Sol Olving, head of Norway’s Kreativt Forum (an association of the country’s top advertising agencies) explained, “You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car”.[150]

      Other countries continue to ban nudity (on traditional obscenity grounds), but also make explicit reference to sexual objectification, such as Israel’s ban of billboards that “depicts sexual humiliation or abasement, or presents a human being as an object available for sexual use”.[151]”

      Some scholars believe that media portrayals of demographic groups can both maintain and disrupt attitudes and behaviors toward those groups.[173][page needed][174][175][page needed] According to Susan Douglas: “Since the early 1990s, much of the media have come to overrepresent women as having made it-completely-in the professions, as having gained sexual equality with men, and having achieved a level of financial success and comfort enjoyed primarily by Tiffany’s-encrusted doyennes of Laguna Beach.”[176] These images may be harmful, particularly to women and racial and ethnic minority groups. For example, a study of African American women found they feel that media portrayals of African American women often reinforce stereotypes of this group as overly sexual and idealize images of lighter-skinned, thinner African American women (images African American women describe as objectifying).[177] In a recent analysis of images of Haitian women in the Associated Press photo archive from 1994 to 2009, several themes emerged emphasizing the “otherness” of Haitian women and characterizing them as victims in need of rescue.[178]

      In an attempt to study the effect of media consumption on males, Samantha and Bridges found an effect on body shame, though not through self-objectification as it was found in comparable studies of women. The authors conclude that the current measures of objectification were designed for women and do not measure men accurately.[179] Another study also found a negative effect on eating attitudes and body satisfaction of consumption of beauty and fitness magazines for women and men respectively, but again with different mechanisms, namely self-objectification for women and internalization for men.[180]”

      Try harder, you cheese eating surrender monkey.

    • FrenchGuy

      You know I can say the same thing about men right?
      Car commercials, especially pickups? Men
      Lawnmower commercials or grass seed commercials? Men
      Tool commercials? Men
      Majority of food or fast food commercials? Men
      Anything having to do with fixing up your house? Men
      List goes on and on. Because in the advertising world we cater to the people who are going to buy the product. Maybe if more women started buying power tools the commercials will change. Or if more men started buying bras and perfume. I don’t know about you but I feel objectified whenever I see a burly white man using a power saw instead of a middle aged stocky, sweaty, and somewhat tan man.

      I’ll be right back, I’m about to start clicking on those hot sources with non-words like “otherness”.

      Also nice job resorting to name calling.

    • Aerokii

      “You know I can say the same thing about men right?”

      Sure you can. Has no bearing on whether or not sexism happens to women.

      “Car commercials, especially pickups? Men”

      Ok. Doesn’t refute that car commercials using completely unrelated sexy women and sexuality to sell cars is sexist. Also, you’d be hard pressed to find nearly as many sexist depictions of men in car commercials.

      Beyond that, sexism in car commercials goes far beyond just sexy pictures of people, to showing women as absolutely incompetent without men.

      http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-most-sexist-car-ads-of-all-time-510255179

      And those are just the most egregious offenders- if you’d like me to provide more, I’ll happily oblige.

      “Lawnmower commercials or grass seed commercials? Men”

      Once more, has nothing to do with whether or not there can be sexism towards women in commercials. Also… pray tell, which commercials are these you’re referring to?

      Tool commercials? Men

      You’d know all about being a complete tool, wouldn’t you? Once more, sexist tool ads have nothing to do with whether or not there’s sexism in advertising for women.

      “Majority of food or fast food commercials? Men”

      See above. Also, do you actually have any evidence, or are you just hoping I won’t ask?

      “Anything having to do with fixing up your house? Men”

      …? How? You’re really stretching on this.

      “List goes on and on. Because in the advertising world we cater to the people who are going to buy the product. Maybe if more women started buying power tools the commercials will change. Or if more men started buying bras and perfume. I don’t know about you but I feel objectified whenever I see a burly white man using a power saw instead of a middle aged stocky, sweaty, and somewhat tan man.”

      Ohhhh, NOW I know what you’re going on about! No, advertising to a particular gender has nothing to do with whether or not something is sexist. Men in tool commercials being used to sell tools to men is way, WAY different than women in car commercials being used to sell cars to men. Or selling tools/appliances to women because they’re “supposed to be in the kitchen”. Check out a few lovely examples here.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/26-sexist-ads-of-the-mad-men-era-2014-5

      In fact, let’s just dump a whole lot of fun sexist advertisements. Try to keep up.

      http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2012/9/14/5-Sexist-Car-Commercials-7710661/

      http://www.ditchthelabel.org/sexist-ads-through-the-ages/

      http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/10-most-sexist-ads-2013-154550

      http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/12/29/10-most-sexist-advertisements-2014

      Also, I’ve gotta ask… you think no women are buying power tools, so why would they use burly white guys using power tools to a market they don’t think exists (women)? Beyond that, you seem to not understand the difference between a power fantasy and sexual objectification.

      Pandering to a certain gender market is not the same as depicting them in sexualized and objectifying ways, even if absolutely no woman ever played videogames, depicting them in sexualized and degrading ways would still be an issue.

      “I’ll be right back, I’m about to start clicking on those hot sources with non-words like “otherness”.”

      You can lie to me if you’d like, but it won’t get you anywhere.

      “Also nice job resorting to name calling.”

      I’m giving you the respect I believe you deserve.

    • FrenchGuy

      I’m back from looking at those sources, I see you wrote a book in the meantime.
      I’ll go by source number to keep it quick, anyone can click the link and look for themselves:
      [142] – Article titled “Feminist Perspectives on Objectification”
      [143] – Huffington Lifestyle
      [144] – Article titled “Objectification”
      [145] – Book titled “Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification”
      [146] – Article called “OBJECTIFICATION THEORY” from Psychology of Women Quarterly
      [147] – Article from a book or magazine called “Sex Rolls”
      [148] – “Categorical Feminism: New media and the rhetorical work of assessing a sexist, humurous, misogynistic, realistic advertisement” from a book called Gender and Language
      [149] – Medical paper titled “Relation of media exposure to eating disorder symptomatically: an examination of mediating mechanics”
      [150] – Scandanavian split on sexist ads from the BBC
      [151] – Israeli Penal Law

      Looking at the majority of these (and reading several) many of them have a certain feminist agenda to them. Obviously ones like the Israeli law and Medical paper are not (even though they only surveyed a little more than 250 women). You’re first problem was using wikipedia as a source, because all sources here seem to agree with each other on this notion. Not only this, but the majority of these articles were written pre-2010 so many of these articles are well over 10 years old. I only saw two somewhat recent ones from 2009 and 2013.

      Now onto the book you just wrote.
      -Business Insider article showing ads from the early 1960s and 50s, a time when women did not have equal rights.
      -Jalopnik, a subsidiary of Gawker, this shouls speak for itself
      -ditchthelabel.com … nope nothing worth agenda pushing here
      -adweek article about most sexist ads of 2013. Shockingly this one was pretty fair in which ads it picked. Once again the issue of advertising comes into play of men liking beautiful women, in which turn women also like beautiful men.
      -takepart.com, a subsidiary of participant media, a well known, extremely liberal media company that only works with such business or entertainment it finds suitable for its own agenda

      The issue is not the agenda driving, you are allowed to do this in America because it is a free country. The issue is when you cite this as unbiased fact, because that is not what it is. I respect your right to an opinion, and I do not agree with it. I believe you to be wrong, and I believe you to be one of the main problems conflicting the social world we live in today. I try to be courteous with others who think the same way as you but i find it increasingly difficult when all you do is cite sources from articles and papers that tend to agree with your opinion and show very biased “facts” and fudged numbers (a fudged number being the wage gap number, the number is not incorrect, it just doesn’t look into the finer details of the matter). You completely ignored the point i tried to make above too. It is not only women, it is men as well in sexist ads. Caring about women then not caring about men is a double standard in itself. Sexy, Hunky, good looking men are what you see in commercials for male oriented products and for products that women would buy to either grab a males attention or possibly relate to them (perfume, underwear, etc… Buy this Victorias secret bra because its seductive and he will definitely like it, cue male models).

      The most advice I can give you, but I can only assume you will not follow it, is too look into what other rational people on the opposite side of the fence are saying. Discussion cannot be opened until both parties are willing to listen.

    • Aerokii

      So… because it’s feminist, it can’t possibly be right about sexism. Gotcha. Are you gonna take the whole “feminism is a hate group” approach your buddy took? ‘Cause I could use another laugh. Beyond that, you seem to grasp that wikipedia itself is not the source, but has other sources and is just an easy aggregate FOR them… yet you seem to throw that right out immediately as well? Not sure what you’re trying to do here, but you’re doing a pretty shit job of it. So, all the sources seem to agree- even the ones without the “feminist bias”, so it must be wrong! Oh, and the sources are pre-2010… do you think sexism has suddenly ended in the mean time? The age of the source has nothing at all to do with whether or not there’s sexism in media, especially since the argument isn’t “Is there sexism happening in media from 2011 to 2016”, but “can there be sexism in video games”.

      To respond to your novella:

      -The first article goes to the point that there has been sexism in media. Equal rights didn’t solve that, as you’d know if you looked at other posts.

      -Yes, just because it’s Gawker, the content must be wrong. You know what they say about broken clocks.

      -An agenda against bullying? Guess that invalidates everything they wrote.

      -Pray tell, then, why the number of women being used to sell things so disproportionately outweighs the sexy men being used?

      -Ok, so if it’s liberal it can’t be right, gotcha.

      -I am the problem, ok. All my sources are apparently wrong because they agree, and in order to show that my opinion is right I must start posting sources from people who disagree with me. (???)

      -Sexism against men does not mean there isn’t sexism against women. If anything, that goes double in showing that media can be sexist. I’m no longer sure what argument you’re trying to make.

      -Once more, you don’t understand the difference between power fantasies and objectification.

      The funny thing about this? I actually think the law in question for France is an awful idea because there’s no good way to implement it currently. Despite that, there’s still sexism in media, and if you don’t think that’s the case then I don’t think there’s anything left for us to discuss.

      I’ll listen to whatever you’re saying, of course- I’ll discuss it with you even. But when you’re wrong- you’re wrong.

    • Louis

      The key issue is not “because they’re feminist, they’re wrong about sexism,” but rather “because they’re feminist, they’re biased about sexism”. As a movement, feminism benefits from making claims of sexism, because it gives them credence and attention. It gives them power.

    • Aerokii

      Potential bias doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, which is almost never discussed. They just cry “BIAS” and refuse to even look at the content of the argument.

    • Louis

      It means exactly that they’re wrong; it means that because of the attention given, they’re more likely to cry wolf over imagined slights.

    • Aerokii

      So, can you actually provide examples within the sources cited of them being wrong? Or are you just saying bias makes someone automatically wrong?

    • Louis

      That depends, can you provide evidence that video games really do have sexist sentiments other than “these feminists said so, and they know what they’re talking about because they’re feminists”?

    • Aerokii

      If you’ve read my posts, you’ve seen more than a few scholarly articles and non-feminist viewpoints, so have at.

    • FrenchGuy

      I’m not entirely sure you understand what sexism actually is.

      Mr0303 is half right, you don’t need to be sexually liberated to understand if something is sexist or not, you just need a fucking brain.

    • Aerokii

      …you DO realize that I’m the one saying sexual liberation has nothing to do with whether or not something’s sexist, right? He’s the one linking them, not me.

    • Smug

      “Sexism” is an overrated and overused word, just like “racism” is.

      It has become synonym of “stop telling the truth about things” and code for “anti-white/anti-male”

    • Aerokii

      Ahahaha, oh wow, and what is this “truth” you speak of? Tell me how feminism and the words “sexist” and “racist” are oppressing poor white men like me?

    • Smug

      The fact women has the upper hand in relationships (pregnancy trap, generally the first one to ask for a divorce, alimony, child custody, etc.) and take advantage of the justice system (paternity tests banned in France, having less stigma and punishment than men for the same crime, etc.)?

      Ever found out why Europe and America/Canada are the sole ones that must be DIVERSE? The fact EU leaders and medias are defending more the immigrants/muslims than the sovereign people of the european countries? Lets not forget that France has also a law that ban any polls and researches, based on race and religion, so it’s impossible for instance to relate the amount of crime rate with the amount of immigrants in certain french zones, unless you use foreign sources.

      ‘sexism’ and ‘racism’ are used in a way to destroy what is left of the western culture.

    • j0eeyy_p

      Sexism and racism are elements of progressivism, used to try to bring complete equality between all socio-economic groups. Of course, such a thing is impossible in the literal sense, however the closest possible thing is respect and tolerance for other groups, even if you don’t want to. That would mean giving resect, so you hate black people for whatever reason, you don’t tell them that as that would offensive, likewise no name calling. If you were in a marginalised group or had a friend who was you would understand better (ie. ethnic minority, disabled) as these people would be treated like a shit stain by society and other people, in part due to divide and rule by the media. That said, the corporate media is entirely an echo chamber of what is considered acceptable by the ruling elite. None so more apparent than in the UK, the most right wing media in Europe. Which means that there is a bias against Japanese games in general, none more apparent than ecchi titles like Criminal Girls 2. Heck, eroges don’t get covered at all by most publications.

      I do agree with you about relationships though. Too much expectations from men and it’s even harder when they don’t know what to do.

    • Smug

      I used to believe in progressivism bullshit in the past, until I interacted with large amounts of ethnic groups. It also tells you about something when certain ethnic groups (such as muslims and blacks) have a deep hatred towards their own kind who act civilized/peaceful.

      You dont give respect to savages.

    • j0eeyy_p

      I wonder why that is the case if what you’re saying is true. I haven’t emigrated myself so I wouldn’t know personally, but I suppose past racial/religious tensions would play a role to an extent. I don’t think this logic would apply to other groups – such as the disabled.

      A minimum level of respect should be given to everyone, even if you don’t like them. If they do something to you that is hurtful, then not respecting them is justified. Of course if they respect you then that’s a very good thing.

    • Aerokii

      What he’s saying isn’t true- dude’s just an outright racist (considering he’s calling blacks and Muslims savages.)

    • j0eeyy_p

      Everybody has different experiences that form their beliefs. We don’t know what Smug went through to come to their conclusions about them, though you are right that dehumanising rhetoric does pose questions about his beliefs. But like I said, I was giving him minimal respect as said in my reply to him.

    • Aerokii

      And that minimal respect is absolutely fine- just wanted to point out the dehumanizing rhetoric/blatant racism.

    • Aerokii

      Let’s take this piece by piece, shall we?

      “The fact women has the upper hand in relationships (pregnancy trap, generally the first one to ask for a divorce, alimony, child custody, etc.) and take advantage of the justice system (paternity tests banned in France, having less stigma and punishment than men for the same crime, etc.)? More and more young men are abandoning relationships (and retreating to entertainment) as a result, because it’s too exhausting/risky and not worth it, and women end up being unhappy too.”

      Oh yes, women totally have the upper hand in relationships. That’s why outside of marriage, men and women actually break up with eachother equally:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-more-likely-than-men-to-initiate-divorces-but-not-breakups-study-finds_us_55d61f03e4b0ab468da049bb

      And it’s totally why when men ask for custody, they’re more likely to get it

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

      And let’s not forget how women are more likely to get beaten/abused/raped by their partners.

      http://www.ncadv.org/learn/statistics

      And surely, no feminist could ever want to change how alimony works for more equality. Oh, wait…

      http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2012/07/call-gender-neutral-alimony/

      Long story short, if you think there isn’t sexism and lack of quality within our society, if you REALLY THINK that MEN are the oppresed ones, then I’m afraid there just might not be any helping you. If a boy like you really wants to abandon a relationship and retreat to entertainment, all I have to say is: Good. So long, farewell.

      “Ever found out why Europe and America/Canada are the sole ones that must be DIVERSE? The fact EU leaders and medias are defending more the immigrants/muslims than the sovereign people of the european countries? Lets not forget that France has also a law that ban any polls and researches, based on race and religion, so it’s impossible for instance to relate the amount of crime rate with the amount of aliens in certain french zones, unless you use foreign sources.”

      You do realize that America was founded by immigrants, right? That we’ve been praised as a cultural melting pot for a great deal of our existence, and that it’s one of our strengths? Also, I’m not sure how diversity is a problem… unless you really don’t like immigrants and muslims, but that’s a tiny, tiny portion of what diversity is. If you really want to go live in a racially and culturally homogenous country, then you’d go to places like China, Iran, or North Korea. True bastions of freedom of speech, clearly- but hey, at least you won’t have to worry about the PC agenda.

      “‘sexism’ and ‘racism’ are used in a way to destroy what is left of the western culture. Feminism is nothing more than controlling and brainwashing the populace, which is proved by how they’re trying to take down videogames that dont fit the feminism narrative, and making the vidya field an “art form” (in the same bullshit that “modern art” is) for example.”

      Which games do you think Feminism is trying to take down, exactly? Which games have the feminists gotten removed from sale, or stopped from production? From what I can tell, the industry is chugging along at the same pace it always has, but now with more women in it.

      And as far as making the “vidya field an art form”, that’s not even feminism’s doing. There’ve been arguments and discussions of games as art going back to the 1980s, and even the Smithsonian has displayed games as art.

      http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/

      I’m sorry that you have no idea what modern art is (art produced from 1860 to the 1970s, and no I’m not actually sorry.) What you’re probably thinking of is “abstract art”, which is also art. Just because you don’t get it (and CLEARLY, you don’t get it) doesn’t mean it isn’t art.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      “You do realize that America was founded by immigrants, right?”

      It wasn’t, dumbfuck. Read again.

    • Aerokii

      Oh, so America was founded by the Native Americans, then?

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      The children of colonists, you fucking moron. Do you know what Immigrant means you leftist piece of trash?

    • Aerokii

      The colonists, who were people who left their homes to live in a foreign country.

      Y’know… immigrants.

      Even the right agrees on this one.

      http://www.redstate.com/diary/conrad_close/2015/09/17/nation-immigrants/

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      im·mi·grant
      a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country

      Try again.

    • Aerokii

      The founding fathers did not start out their lives in a fully formed and established nation known as “America” complete with its own history, customs, culture, and values, as modern American children are. Rather, our forefathers were born into a very different world as British subjects in a colonial empire, and they chose to seek new opportunities and lives for themselves by transforming their world into something distinctive (through the establishment of a new nation known as the United States of America), just as modern immigrants born outside America choose to transform their worlds by opting to leave their homelands for America and seek new lives through becoming U.S. citizens.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      See this is why noone respect SJWs and Feminists. They constantly try to change definitions to make themselves look correct. I really fucking pity your ignorance and insecurity.

    • Aerokii

      Right back at you, buddy.

      Nevermind how many people in this thread have tried to invent new definitions of sexism.

    • Louis

      Nobody’s been inventing new definitions, only restating old ones. The power and prejudice definition is one used by people who want to excuse their own sexism as somehow less important than others.

    • Aerokii

      I’m more referring to the people who’ve declared that only humans can be sexist in order to nitpick and say that we shouldn’t do anything about sexism within the media.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      We shouldn’t do anything about sexism in the media, because nothing needs to be done. Women can stop being insecure about pixel tits. If they’re so fucking stupid as to conflate real women with fake women then maybe we should do something about stupid people.

    • Aerokii

      Let’s start with you.

    • Smug

      >using huffingpost and other feminist biased websites as sources
      fucking lol

      “You do realize that America was founded by immigrants, right? ”
      Built by colonists, moron. And that’s completely different to our countries currently being invaded by an untruthful middle-east culture that is still stuck in the Middle Ages, with the leaders and medias protecting them (like media silence on women being raped in masses by immigrants on Europe for instance). EU asking for Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and MS to censor “hate speech” is just damage control from the leaders to censor what’s really happening.

      “If you really want to go live in a racially and culturally homogenous
      country, then you’d go to places like China, Iran, or North Korea. ”
      what is Japan

      “Which games do you think Feminism is trying to take down, exactly? ”
      What are censored japanese games and VNs

      “I’m sorry that you have no idea what modern art is. Just because you don’t get it (and CLEARLY, you don’t get it) doesn’t mean it isn’t art.”
      Yeah good job to copypaste the “definition” from Wikipedia, retard. But you seem to forget that since the 20th century there is been a push (coming from movements such as dadaism) of rejecting criterias one may use in evaluating the artistic merit of an artwork such as technical difficulty, subject matter, symmetry, innovation/ingenuity, mastery of fundamental techniques, attention to detail, and so on.

      (Post)Modern art relies on a childish assumption that art can be ‘anything’ (or is subjective) and that all art is equal in artistic merit.

      If you also need to ‘explain’ your ‘artistic’ shit, while it’s obvious you cant draw/paint anything, then it’s not art, it’s a piece of shit. There is no mere coincidence that the message in those “modern art” works is often very liberal or left-wing, because it’s usually made by feminists and people on the far left. Real art requires talent and years upon years of practice, which doesnt sit well with the “muh equality” crowd who wants everything to be available for everyone. Now suddenly, you can have a woman shoveling spaghettis in her vagina in the same category as Rembrandt or Muchas.

      This is also why vidya is being pushed to be represented as an art form, so it could be used as a tool of propaganda, but also to lowers the criterias to make games (as people have done recently with walking simulators or “cinematic experiences”)

    • Aerokii

      Sexism… check

      Islamophobia… check

      Xenophobia… check

      (psst: Japan’s actually really hates foreigners, you know that right?)

      Localization = censorship… check

      Ooo, ableist slurs! Manosphere bingo achieved!

      You said modern art, not post-modern art, so if you’re going to pretend you actually understand what art is you need to get your shit together.

      Hm, video games being used as a tool of propaganda?

      http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/5-best-video-games-used-as-propaganda-by-governments-6394344

      (Note: none of this is being done by feminists. Surprise!)

    • Smug

      “psst: Japan’s actually really hates foreigners, you know that right?”
      I love this fucking meme based on the fact that Japan doesnt want to be a multicultural mess, like Europe/North America, and prefer keep its own values in order. Of course, japanese folks hate foreigners with no manners too.

      “You said modern art, not post-modern art, so if you’re going to pretend you actually understand what art is you need to get your shit together.”
      The fact you cant tell the similarities in modern/postmodern (all based on dada, rejection of criterias, etc.) prove you know jack shit in the art field.

    • Aerokii

      Sure, we can pretend that’s the reason that Japan has a problem with racism and xenophobia.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm
      http://www.history.com/topics/nanjing-massacre
      http://www.unit731.org/Experiments.html

      The fact that you can’t even get your art terms right when you start arguing isn’t my fault. I’m also impressed that modern art is based on dada, considering that dada didn’t begin until over 50 years after the era of modern art began, but hey, ok.

    • Smug

      >le Japan is xenophobic/racist meme
      Gotta laugh at the use of bbc uk as a source on that matter

      ‘I’m also impressed that modern art is based on dada, considering that
      dada didn’t begin until over 50 years after the era of modern art began,
      but hey, ok.”

      Because dada is how “modern art” devolved into degeneracy and pure scam. You could argue the first movements like Impressionism and Art Nouveau which were successful experimentations from strict realism, as part of ‘modern art”, but it is pretentious and stupid to ever put those on the same level as the other later (post-WWI) movements of “modern art”.

    • Aerokii

      No comment about the horrible war crimes they committed on the Chinese because the Japanese thought they were the superior race?

      And we can talk art when you get your terminology straight.

  • Imphobia

    The current french government is in free fall so they multiply the shock announcements to grab any kind of support and/or attention they can get during their last and probably worse year yet. I wouldn’t take these pretenses and projects too seriously. Like Panpopo said, it’s just politician talk.

    • Kazkari

      Well the government there are acting like massive dicks, I hope this doesn’t effect peoples perception of the French people because it is not their choice.

  • Xander Gillam

    I really hope this bill gets shut down for how nebulous it is.
    With it being open to interpretation on whatever games are “sexist” it depends with people to people add that with it being bad for business as any game that someone somehow can find problematic can get the said game banned or given the AO rating if this passes.

    Sounds like too much work to be honest added with other crisis that Europe is strapped with at this point.

  • Daymon

    I know nothing of French culture or of the way the French government works, so I can only say how I feel as an American citizen. It seems rather silly, and entirely arbitrary, because one person’s interpretation of what’s sexist will vary from person to person.

    My biggest issue with laws and legislature like this is not over whether pixelated men and women can be sexist/victims of sexism, but more that it’s like putting a dirty band-aid on an infected wound. All forms of art (and video games are certainly art) are reflections of the human experience. Sexism, violence, death, drugs, bigotry – all the ugly that is in the world exists, and is going to be represented in all forms of art. To pretend otherwise is absurd. Stop trying to sweep it under the rug – let it be shown, and let people form their own feelings about it.

  • blackice85

    Laissez-faire

  • Kazkari

    In theory this could be alright provided companies and their customers accept the label but there is no alterations to the game, I’d be perfectly fine with it personally. And advertising on telly, they don’t advertise stuff like this anyway, its only mainstream stuff so it wont effect us or the audience.

    Provided we can just get on with getting the game, 18 rated or not I don’t care aslong as nothing is altered but then again it wouldn’t have the label if it was. We could call it the quality assured version.

    • FrenchGuy

      Labeling something as “sexist” could be alright? Are you that far up your own ass you can’t see the implications? That’s like labeling something Jewish back in the 1930s. “Oh you bought this Jewish item? What the fuck is wrong with you?”
      *Go to court because you accidentally a woman*
      “This seems like a frivolous case but I see all these sexist [Jewish] things you bought so it looks like you have to go to jail now”

      You are the problem

    • blackice85

      Yep, it won’t end at just labeling it, that’s only the beginning.

    • Kazkari

      I’m trying to see the situation as logical, I don’t care if its 18 rated I’m 25 I know what I want nor do I care about labels on packaging. I’m simply saying that if nothing is changed bar a silly little thing on the box why does it matter? Just aslong as the companies don’t try and alter their games to avoid the sexist thing I don’t see an issue. Plus aren’t we thought of as scum of the earth anyway? I mean we buy these awful things when we should be buying COD or watching cat videos, fuck knows, but we can;t win here.

    • FrenchGuy

      Do you really hate yourself that much? I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Do you really want everyone or others to label you as a sexist when in reality you are probably the furthest thing from a sexist?

      Look I don’t like censorship in video games as much as the next logical person, but you really think games being labeled as sexist is going to help. That is going to outright stop games from being published or worse, stop them from possibly being created. Are you a developer living in France who has this great idea for a Japanese styled game with fan service? And the protagonist is this kickass girl with huge boobs because why not? Well look at you, you sexist. Why do you make these games you sexist?

      This won’t help at all, be a little rational.

    • Aerokii

      You’d be amazed at how seldom people who rail against this sort of thing actually talk about making changes to the regulating bodies that are responsible for handing out ratings that prevent games from being sold in stores.

      This is a rare example of them ACTUALLY discussing it, instead of just crying about “artistic vision” and “censorship”. Doesn’t matter if the people who made the game WANTED to make the change or not, of course, it just matters whether or not the weabs get to see anime tits or not.

    • everybody chill

      I think for the most part the rating system is fine. The arguments that most people have is that these labels will stretch beyond just boobs. women who are depicted sexually are already considered in the rating systems. Also, there is nothing wrong with depicting any gender sexually. I would argue that any depiction of a woman that isn’t perfect will be labled sexist. like social norms or stereotypical gender roles. I am sorry, but there is nothing wrong with having a damsel in distress, just as there is nothing wrong with a strong capable woman rescuing a man. I could argue that (especially if they listen to Anita) that even games like mario would get a sexist label. thats just crazy.

    • Aerokii

      Y’know, the really funny thing in all of this is that I don’t support what they’re trying to do here- the implementation leaves a lot to be desired and it’s hard to qualify what, exactly, should be getting the “sexist” rating.

      But it’s amazing how many people bury their heads in the sand and try to pretend there’s no sexism in gaming in the first place.

    • Ubrokemygrill?

      There is huge amounts of sexism against men and women in Games, TV, Movies and books. So what is the problem with sexism again?

    • Its pronounced “Weebs” thank you very much.

    • Aerokii

      I’ve got the pronunciation down, it’s the spelling I was unsure of. Noted!

    • j0eeyy_p

      I understand your point but due to there being no clearly defined definition this is asking to be taken advantage of by various groups, and there simply aren’t enough people who care versus the passive mainstream to make a difference, as you know. They are also more stigmatised – it would ake it harder for a retailer to want to carry them if the government define said game as “sesixt.”

      The biggest positive I could see from this if this goes through is the ecchi import market booming thanks to more Moe Chronicle style releases or outright exclusivity to Japan. Many niche gamers are prepared to import than deal with this censorship nonsense.

  • FrenchGuy

    Frenchman here. The country is going to the social justice warriors.

    It all started years ago with little things and our government wanting to adopt Swedish social laws, but the massacre at the concert months ago in Paris was the beginning of the end. As of right now there is a very large anti-immigration feeling among the majority of people in the country. Ill say this again, there is a large ANTI IMMIGRATION feeling among the majority of people there. This is sparking the government into thinking the people are anti-Muslim, which is leading to the political correctness bullshit you are seeing all over Europe.

    One of the biggest issues you see in the states is already ingrained in Europe. “I AM FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, BLACKS, MUSLIMS, EVERYONE! ELECT ME”. Naturally people eat the shit up and elect the person that sounds good and looks good on paper. They are a people person and want a nice fair and equal world.

    Can you already see the issues? “Fair and equal” does not mean “freedom” and people are finally waking up to this notion. To be “Fair and Equal” you must give up some of what you have so everyone can feel included. You can’t have your way because it hurts my and this small minorities feelings. You enjoy something that everyone else finds weird or sexist? Too bad, you are not being “Fair and Equal” you are being selfish and privileged.

    America needs to wake up soon because I’m moving there, along with several other friends and family.

    • Imphobia

      You only need to read the comments in le figaro (source 2 in the article) to see nobody think it’s a good idea and a slippery slope.

      It’s even scarier a few years ago she admitted not knowing anything about video games; to her video games were just about shooting and decapitating people (her own words) and now she is ready to give us all lessons on morality. This is just priceless.

      Anyway, this minister hasn’t done anything concrete since it was created and I would be really surprised it does much more in the remaining year.

    • Terra Mikael

      The difference is that most of Europe, from what I understand, doesn’t have as strong of a free speech clause in their constitutions, which allows hate speech laws to prevent criticism.

      This prevents common sense people from arguing against the political snakes who use sexism and racism as a shield for their regressive agenda.

    • chaoguy

      On the other hand, it does offer some solution.

      In the US you have free speech laws so anyone can complain about anything. They rant and vent and feel better. So they stop, and issues aren’t solved as quickly.

      In Europe (or soon), you cannot speak freely without being prosecuted or imprisoned. This results in people’s tempers starting to fray, and a bigger build-up to actions to prevent the grievance.

      By taking away the right to complain, they have solidified people together.

    • j0eeyy_p

      America is an even more fucked up place than France, you’re better off staying where you are. Especially with far-right blowhards like Donald Trump possbly scoring the presidency.

    • TrueWiiMaster

      Europe in general is far worse than America. At least with the “far-right” (Trump’s usually considered more of a moderate, which is why he’s pulling some democrats and many independents, and partially why many republicans don’t like him), rights are more likely to be restored or left untouched. It’s the left who wants to restrict free speech, freedom of the press, and various other freedoms.

  • DariusQ

    Just another group of leftists trying to justify their pan-handling. Why the hell should the government be helping make video games in the first place?

  • RonnieRaygun

    I’m just glad the right wing is focused on the important issues – whining like babies about SJWs, shitposting Trump memes, and jerking off to video games.

    • blackice85

      Don’t forget deciding where everyone pees.

  • Nicholas Perry

    That’s fucking insane. And who knows of how arbitrary this process could end up being.
    Fuck that government and fuck the people who thought this shit up.
    Might as well find the rest of the sexist things in the world and label those too.
    Like clothing that objectifies a woman’s body in the name of “Fashion”, Movies, TV shows, books, music,anime etc.

  • Nier

    “Those that fit the bill (pun intended) will be getting some monetary
    assistance from the government. Some cited examples of positive female
    depictions are games such as Beyond Good and Evil, Life is Strange, and Dishonored 2.”

    You can tell that what is really going on is the frenchies are trying to promote french games over foreign games by creating a law that would arbitrarily discriminate non-french games by awarding the “sexist” label to non-french games and leaving french games free from it.

    Beyond Good and Evil? From Ubisoft

    Life is Strange? From Dontnod Entertainment

    Dishonored 2? From Arkane Studios

    See the pattern?

    • Imphobia

      I think it’s normal french government is trying to promote french video games or french anything really… but your example are wrong because a law simply cannot be applied retroactively in that case, so beside dishonored 2 none of them are concerned and that would be if the law was made and applied within 5 months which would really set a new record for something that isn’t even a draft yet.

      Those games are example of games that have an accurate(I hate this positive word) female depiction and i think it’s a valid point but that doesn’t mean they are going to benefit from that law. Please don’t mix the two.

    • Nier

      “I think it’s normal french government is trying to promote french video games or french anything really…”

      I don’t think so, that is prejudism toward foreign games and especially when it uses a law that would actively discriminate japanese games particulary.

      “so beside dishonored 2 none of them are concerned”

      What are you saying? It says right there:

      “Those that fit the bill (pun intended) will be getting some monetary
      assistance from the government.”

      That the french companies of Life is Strange, Dishonored 2 and Beyond Good and Evil would get monetary assistance from the french government.. This is an underhanded mafioso dealings disgused as a fight against “gender discrimination”, it’s affirmative action under the guise of a non-existent red herring.

    • Imphobia

      This law project is stupid, I will give you that much but all the governments do national promotions being commercial, historical or cultural, there is nothing wrong with that and it’s not something new either..

      Those were examples of french video games with a generally well received opinion of female depiction not some that will be receiving “assistance”. You should read the sources too.

  • Nathan Wallace

    This guy can’t be influenced by Anita too much otherwise every game will get this label. Remember folks

    “Everything is sexist, Everything is racist…”
    -Anita Sarkeesian.

    • Aerokii

      And everything’s taken out of context to suit your worldview.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Lol. I seen your comments in other threads prior to writing this and wanted to make a quip about charizard and SJW’s but I refrained. Suffice to say the least I figured you’d pop up here sooner or later with your narrow view point.

    • Aerokii

      No more narrow than your original post, which stripped out the entirety of what she said around that.

      Does it tire you out, putting in all this effort to misrepresent and make shit up about people?

    • Nathan Wallace

      What effort do you think it requires to quote one of the most heinous and well known asinine statements she ever made? At least I’m not the one sharing 20 links to debunked articles in a comment section for a video game lol. Who’s really trying to win a case here?

      Here’s a strange bit of new for you: Winning an argument against an SJW does not take effort, it does not come with reward and it is not glorious. There is nothing rewarding about it. True genius is not displayed by arguing people with flimsy and frankly stupid ideologies.

    • Aerokii

      The effort to actually write out everything she said, which is to say that she was talking about a particular approach she had when first learning about sexism/feminism in comparison to how she approaches it now. And yup, you’re not the one posting any sources or information whatsoever- certainly nothing “debunked”.

      Right, and that’s why you’re arguing with me. True genius right here, people.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Implying what you shared was information lol.

    • Mr0303

      “… and you have to point it all out” – classic.

  • PanurgeJr

    I’m curious: does anybody who has been crying wolf about the evils of localization remember how that story ends?

  • TylorW

    Will this article be updated as the story unfolds, or will it be a while for any new info to come from this?

    • azariosays

      We will update as more news is recealed

    • PanurgeJr

      I think you mean “reveived.”

    • azariosays

      I meant received* sorry watching a movie

  • Nathan Wallace

    52 Comments so far and about 35 are all from the same charizard shaped social justice warrior.

    • PanurgeJr

      That someone at Operation Rainfall chose to use the SJW label, which doesn’t actually mean anything apart from revealing the politics of the person using it, is literally the least surprising thing that has happened today. And this was a day the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

    • Paychi

      Joe didn’t use the term SJW anywhere here. Also

      Disclaimer: The opinions presented in this piece are those of the
      author and do not reflect those of Operation Rainfall as a whole.

    • azariosays

      there’s no use talking to this guy, he brags on Twitter how he “trolls” our readers.

    • Paychi

      Ah. I had my suspicions. Glad that’s confirmed. Thanks Azario. Keep up the good work my friend.

    • j0eeyy_p

      I have the transcript too.

    • PanurgeJr

      ‘Cause it’s fun! And you don’t need the quotation marks around “trolls”. Whereas I do. Use vs. mention and all that.

    • azariosays

      i’m quoting you good sir, thanks for the clicks 😉

    • PanurgeJr

      Ummmm, the comment I replied to did…

    • Aerokii

      Your knowledge of pokemon is astounding.

    • Nathan Wallace

      Charimander sorry* Not a pokemon fan, but I can admit my mistake on this.

  • Adachi

    As if niche games can afford primetime advertising and I don’t think the consumers of these sort of products give a damn.

  • Josh S.

    Everything I would say would involve a French culture stereotype, so I will behave…

  • everybody chill

    I generally don’t get games for sexy women. Something I think about though is a double standard. Sexism was initially about bias because of genders but I guess has evolved to include sterotypical depictions of genders. What I wonder, why doesn’t anyone care about men? Violence against women in GTA? what about the hundreds of dudes that you kill? Someone being dumb, if its a woman I can see that being construed as sexist i.e. dumb blonde but I am sure if there was a dumb male character nobody who is against sexism towards women would care. Stereo types exist for everyone and to me is ridiculous to have mature ratings just because a woman is represented in anything less than a perfect light. Some will make the argument that it is possible to do so but has to be done ‘right.’ that to me is empty words as I would predict that it wouldn’t matter. I don’t know what else to say.

  • Azure

    Simple solution all publishers and Dev’s team put something in their game to acquire the label thus rendering it pretty useless as every game in France would have the label. With the bonus benefit of making the french Government look like the complete worthless fools that they make themselves out to be, by proposing such a redundant thing.

  • chaoguy

    While losing prime time advertising is not a big deal (to be honest anyone using “appeal to everyone” tactics needs to fail to fix the industry); as a whole it sets a bad president for the culture.

    It will result in a slippery slope, as many SJW are pushing for puritan culture. Likewise, any politician who dresses up a proposal as “progressive” or “to stop bad people” (in this case, supposed misogynists) will get it glided through, as anyone speaking against it _must be_ sexist.

    The western world needs a proper discussion on what is and isn’t sexist. As soon as they realize how ridiculous the terms of SJW are, they won’t back it (or at least the people won’t).

    Not to mention the “free money if you have strong womyn” sets a dangerous tone as it’s basically paying people to change media and push an idea. In this case, women can never be weak and never need aid- thereby making some women who WANT to act feminine feel outcast. Ironically- shoving the same definition of “toxic masculinity” onto women.

  • lazermanx2

    Well I suppose since according to Ms. Sarkeesian, everything is sexist, then all video games will be recieving this label then?

  • MusouTensei

    So a seal of quality?

  • Infophile

    …who may have been influenced by feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian.

    I can’t find any reference to this in either of the linked sources. If this is your opinion or speculation, you could at least put it in the “opinion” section at the bottom. Really need to work on your ethics in videogame journalism there.

    • Steve Baltimore

      From source 1:
      “Unsurprisingly her inspiration for this nannying comes from Anita Sarkeesian, the American feminist critic whose YouTube series assails video games for sexist elements.”

    • Infophile

      Ah yes, I missed that – my ctrl-F must have somehow failed me on both pages… odd. Well, you have my apologies for that. It looks like there is indeed some influence, but exactly what it is is hard to state. There’s a trend of people to exaggerate the influence of advocates they know about (particularly ones they hate), which put me on guard with the way the line in this article was phrased.

      So, to make sure I’m not missing anything else, I’ve tried to dig this straight to the source to clarify what exactly the link is. Unfortunately, it looks like the original source is not on the internet (or at least not showing up in searches). The source you’ve linked as source 2 seems to be the most direct (really, how did my ctrl-F fail on both articles? This is gonna bug me). (Here’s a link to the actual article though, not the comment section as originally linked.) The mention of Sarkeesian comes up in:

      Dans sa réponse, Axelle Lemaire cite Feminist Frequency, une série de vidéos analysant la représentation des personnages féminins dans les jeux vidéo. Son auteure, la blogueuse Anita Sarkeesian, est régulièrement la cible du Gamergate, et a été plusieurs fois menacée de mort et de viol.

      Which roughly translates to, “Lemaire quoted Feminist Frequency, which was written by Anita Sarkeesian, in discussing the bill.” So, the claim by the first source that “…her inspiration for this nannying comes from Anita Sarkeesian…” does indeed seem to show a bit of Anita Sarkeesian derangement syndrome. There’s evidence that she might have indeed been influenced by Sarkeesian, but not for the specific claim that “this nannying” in particular was inspired by her. That phrasing is just going to make the derangement over her even worse.

      On that note, it’s probably a good idea to try to link to sources without such obvious bias. The goal of sources is to convince people who don’t already trust you, and if someone in that scenario clicks through to that source, they likely won’t align with the bias on display there and will distrust it, making it a poor choice to link.

  • TrueWiiMaster

    Europe… I wish this sort of thing was unbelievable, but I completely believe it could happen over there. They’re edging closer and closer to government mandated censorship.

    It’s ironic that a law that is supposed to be against sexism only attacks what it considers negative portrayals of women, and not men, thereby making the law itself sexist. That sort of hypocrisy, compounded with stupidity and censorship, could only come from neo-feminism (or whatever it’s called nowadays).