What about the menz? »« Hey, I thought an atheist was just someone who didn’t believe in gods

“make a striking conversation piece on any discerning zombie gamer’s mantel.”

OK, gaming community, could you please grow up a little bit? There’s some new game about fighting zombies called “Dead Island Riptide” which has come out with a promotional boxed copy that includes a statuette.

A statuette of a bikini-clad woman’s torso, bloodily decapitated and dismembered.

Ugh. Ugly, tasteless, useless crap. Even if it weren’t vilely misogynist, why would anyone want such a hideous and pointless thing? I can only imagine that it’s fuel for fantasies about treating women as dead meat.

Comments

  1. Blueaussi says

    “Dead Island’s grotesque take on an iconic Roman marble torso sculpture.”

    \

    Yes, iconic Roman marble torso sculptures often had massive breasts shaped just like implants.

    Sheesh!

  2. says

    I played Dead Island for a little while… and then quickly got out of it when the Catholic Nun explained the reason the Raskols (the only non-zombie enemies you fight in the game) were so bad was because they didn’t believe in God.

    YUP! The immoral atheist trope, alive and well.

  3. says

    This is one thing that drives me mad to no end. Being an avid gamer, I’ve all but given up in participating in multiplayer games where there is any communication between parties. It saddens me that the community is so incredibly rife with sexism. You can make the jokes about gamers being awkward and are just angry that they can’t “get a girl”, but that’s a)not an excuse, b)a symptom of the overall issue, c)Isn’t really the case.

    I know plenty of gamers who are just your average guy on the street, but get their headset on and they dive right into the sexism. It’s like they aren’t sexist, but their alter-ego handle is (but they are).

  4. says

    And the head of the marketing department is actually happy and excited about this thinking its a good idea. If it wasn’t for EA games marketing fiascoes over the years I’d be surprised this monstrosity got this far. Unfortunately this kind of awful marketing seems endemic in gaming (and I speak as someone who enjoys games).

  5. Barklikeadog says

    I’m not even going to look at it. That kind of thing disturbs me too much. Can’t do it. won’t do it

  6. jaranath says

    What jj831 said. I’ve been having endless discussions with friends and colleagues about the poor link between game violence and real violence post-Newtown, and generally beating my head against the “oh, come on, it’s obvious!” wall. But what makes it worse is that there’s so much of “gamer culture” that I don’t want to defend at all, and that may well influence non-gaming behavior–or at least causes problems for some gamers, women in particular.

    I’ll bet they were clueless about the implications of this thing to start with (both the superficial and deeper ones), and will now retreat into “we meant to do that…you just don’t understand art!” Not that I really care what they say. I was vaguely interested in this series when I first heard of it, decided it wasn’t quite “there” upon some reviews, but now…? No way in hell.

  7. williamsnedden says

    Well, it *is* a “striking conversation piece”. At least, in the sense that it makes me want to strike any person who thinks that it might be an opener for pleasant conversation…

  8. flek says

    Looking at that, the tacky cat-bull-humanoid heavily armored warrior statuette that came with my Guild Wars 2 game seems downright tame. I’ve gotten the, “WTF is THAT?” about the cat-bull-thing, I can’t imagine what the response would be if I had a statuette of a dismembered torso, let alone a dismembered woman’s torso. Stop making me sad, gamer culture.

  9. Moggie says

    I suppose they’re right, in a way: it would make a striking conversation piece. It’s just that the conversation would be loud, angry, and extremely short.

    How the fuck does something like this reach market? How many stages did this have to go through where someone had an opportunity to say “seriously, no”? Or is this a “no publicity is bad publicity” deal? After all, there was a storm of publicity over the promotion of Hitman: Absolution, but that doesn’t appear to have hurt reviews or sales – and it meant I remembered the name of the game.

  10. dmgregory says

    As a game developer, may I point out that you’re saying “OK, gaming community, could you please grow up a little bit?” while linking to an article from that very same community that’s just as appalled as you are?

    This is kind of like me responding to some new drama from Thunderf00t by saying, “grow up, atheist community” – as though he speaks for everybody.

    Seriously – we didn’t ask for this. We’re finding out the same time you are, and every article in the gaming press I can find is saying, “ew, this is disgusting and stupid.” We’re on the same page here.

    It’s not like we’re a market unanimously demanding grisly torso statuettes that this studio is merely catering to – they’re knowingly doing this for shock value and media coverage, not because it’s reflective of what gamers want.

    Give us some credit and blame the idiots who are actually making the thing, not everyone who’s vaguely associated with them by a shared interest in playing games. ;)

  11. absolute says

    The game is great btw.
    So what’s your point, you’d like it to be a male torso? Without muscles? No torso? Covered torso? No blood? More limbs? A male flat full covered bloodless zombie torso?
    You can write to the developers, perhaps they’ll make a special special edition for FTB.

  12. slothrop1905 says

    ‘ You can make the jokes about gamers being awkward and are just angry that they can’t “get a girl”, but that’s a)not an excuse, b)a symptom of the overall issue, c)Isn’t really the case.’

    And you know this ‘isn’t the case’ how, exactly? And just what is the ‘overall issue’?

  13. jehk says

    @dmgregory

    I have to agree. I’m active in certain parts of the gaming community as a gamer and a developer. It’s a pretty unanimous WTF.

  14. Ogvorbis says

    As a game developer, may I point out that you’re saying “OK, gaming community, could you please grow up a little bit?” while linking to an article from that very same community that’s just as appalled as you are?

    But it is a game developer which thinks that this approach would sell.

    To take your Thunderf00t analogy, this would be as if Thunderf00t produced something that atheists need to actually be atheists (gamers need games to be gamers, right?) and thought that marketing sexism would sell more atheist widgets than a non-sexist approach. And if the thing still sold, then hell yes! I would want that community to grow up! And I would say so. But my saying so does not mean that I speak for all atheists, just as the enlightened person who objected to this sexist objectification gore-porn does not speak for all gamers.

  15. brucegorton says

    Dead Island is also known as being the game that described a perk for a female survivor as “Feminist whore”. The devs claimed it was down to one guy, and Deep Silver, the game’s publisher, was claiming to be evaluating options for dealing with the issue. It appears the option they picked was “more please.”

  16. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    dmgregory,
    I sympathize. I really do. However, as the atheist community has found out–Tfoot DOES reflect on the entire atheist community. There will be women who shy away from gaming now, just as there are women who would be intimidated to attend a conference of atheists.

  17. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Sally @ #5 – WANT!!!!!!!

    And it definitely would be a conversation piece. Here’s a transcript:

    Misogynstic Shitstain: Isn’t this AWESOME! Look at the size of the bitch’s tits!

    Other person: Never contact me in any way, shape or form again.

    aaaaaan scene!

  18. flek says

    The game is great btw.
    So what’s your point, you’d like it to be a male torso? Without muscles? No torso? Covered torso? No blood? More limbs? A male flat full covered bloodless zombie torso?
    You can write to the developers, perhaps they’ll make a special special edition for FTB.

    Maybe a statue of an in-game zombie mob and not a severed torso statue with a creepy serial killer trophy vibe to it. Roman marbles never had a creepy vibe because it’s not sculpture of dismembered bodies- it’s busts and sometimes full body sculpture that unfortunately got damaged and lost body parts. Trying to tie it to Roman art just makes the WTF even stronger. It’s not a take on classical sculpture, it’s just a grotesque trophy.

  19. microraptor says

    And I believe, I’ve just found out which game company won’t be getting any of my money ever.

  20. brucegorton says

    @dmgregory

    I am a game reviewer.

    While those of us in the gaming press are appalled, we speak to the gaming community not for it.

    There is a lot of spilt ink on this sort of issue, but if we still buy the games when they pull this shit, then hell yes we should be judged on it. Money speaks louder than the printed page, and if games that market like this are still making money that will trump a thousand editorials.

  21. Scott McKinley says

    The trailer for the original game really pulled me in. It was a scene showing forward and backward in time of a family’s ordeal dealing with zombies. It was very beautiful and well done. I heard that Lionsgate is talking of making a movie based on this trailer.

    The “Feminist Whore” was removed before it went out and renamed “Gender Wars.” You can find a reference to it in debug code, so at least they knew this achievement name was in bad taste.

    The game is pretty fun, but it doesn’t live up to its trailer. I see that “The Last of Us” is a pretty good trailer and I hope it can live up to it.

    The statue is horrible on may levels. I think a tough, boss-level zombie as a statue would have been much more appreciated and in much better taste.

  22. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    The “Feminist Whore” was removed before it went out and renamed “Gender Wars.” You can find a reference to it in debug code, so at least they knew this achievement name was in bad taste.

    And replaced it with less blatantly offensive bad taste, so they really didn’t “know” anything.

  23. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    My! Phew, phew, phew. For a moment I thought this was tabletop role-playing gamers. I’ve had enough struggles with this sexist crap in the mini-painting/sculpting community. I know that it’s probably worse with a video game as it will get more exposure, but I like to think that the fights we had in the late 90s and early Naughties had a lasting effect and the fact that I can mentally categorize this as outside my community allows me to preserve my fragile sense of power-to-create-a-world-that-gives-a-F*. Since I didn’t do this work with video game communities, obviously it has no implications for my effectiveness.

    Yeah, yeah, but we have to hold on to something.

  24. slothrop1905 says

    ‘But thanks for the obvious attempt to make it all about the poor awkward menz who aren’t being given the pussy they deserve’

    I’ve been puzzled about this for a while now…I’m going to guess I’ve talked to a lot more guys who can’t find sex than most people, and I don’t know a one of them who feel they’re entitled in any way to it, that somehow they ‘deserve’ it. They just aren’t wanted by women, for various reasons. Do they resent their lot in life? Yes. Do they think they deserve it? I’m not sure where this idea comes from, aside from maybe some crazy MRA site or something. What makes you think unwanted guys believe they ‘deserve’ someone who wants them sexually?

  25. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    What makes you think unwanted guys believe they ‘deserve’ someone who wants them sexually?

    *facepalm* *headdesk*

    dear gawd, why do they always think mommy has to do their homework for them?

  26. Spencer Cohen says

    As others have pointed out, chastising the gaming community for this is pretty silly. What we have here is something I like to call “advertrolling”. I seriously doubt Deep Silver created this because they thought a bikini’d zombie torso would be a strong incentive to buy their special edition box.

    Rather, this is a plausibly sincere offensive stunt. They can whip up a bunch of outrage from well-meaning bloggers and journalists, which is basically free advertising. Then, if the situation gets too embarrassing, they can simply issue an “apology” and everybody will forget about it. If anything, Deep Silver will walk away from this with a reputation for “listening to the fans”.

    So if you want to accuse the gaming community of anything, it should be of not caring enough about this sort of thing to make firm commitments of protest like long-term boycotts. Even so, that would be unfairly singling out one small group for a society-wide problem.

  27. Gregory Greenwood says

    From the linked article quoting Deep Silver;

    “Dead Island’s grotesque take on an iconic Roman marble torso sculpture.”

    They clearly have zero understanding of Roman period sculpture if they think there is any parallel here, let alone that it amounts to some kind of excuse for this grotesque abomination.

    “make a striking conversation piece on any discerning zombie gamer’s mantel.”

    What conversation would that be?

    “Hi. I am a disgustingly misogynistic sociopath who harbours fantasies of dismembering women and reducing them to a set of dead breasts. What are your hobbies?”

    Quickly followed by;

    “What do you mean ‘never speak to me again, creep’?”

    This is another day when I despair for gaming culture. How anyone can see this as anything other than horrifyingly sexist and offensive is beyond me, and yet the comments over on Rock, Paper Shotgun quckly degenerate into the sadly inevitable anti-feminist ranting.

  28. slothrop1905 says

    ‘*facepalm* *headdesk*

    dear gawd, why do they always think mommy has to do their homework for them?’

    I’ve followed this blog for a while, read the assertions a lot, as well as dealt with various people IRL. I haven’t seen justification yet. Just strawmen. But thanks for responding.

  29. chadwickjones says

    Dang, I’ve just been a fan of the Zombie genre for a long time. I never thought much about it being some overwhelming cry of misogyny and bad taste. Human Centipede perhaps, though I guess it’s not a game– but if it was!!!!

    On another note, I saw this movie last night and thought PZ and others might enjoy it…
    “A Sound of Thunder” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

  30. says

    @slothrop1905 You might want to read up on the Nice Guy phenomenon. Just like our misogynistic culture socialises women to believe that they deserve to have no one who wants them sexually (all women are either too ugly or too fat or too bitchy or too greedy or too stupid, so they should be grateful for any male attention), it socialises men* to believe that if they aren’t violent girlfriend beaters, they deserve to have women falling over each other to jump in their pants http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2013/01/09/i-was-a-nice-guy/

    *Of course these are not the only messages women and men get indoctrinated with, so not every woman or man buys into these particular tropes.

  31. says

    I should point out that some of the other misogynist messages we’re indoctrinated with are in conflict with those mentioned. Like the one about women being lucky to get any male attention sits right beside the one where every woman needs to be silent and dress in a burqa because their very presence causes men to lose control and turn into rape monsters.

  32. =8)-DX says

    Headless zombie torsos are always horrible. They should have made a matching male lower torso..

  33. blitzgal says

    Recent troll on Manboobz actually argued that the government should provide women to incels (because women aren’t people, clearly), and that incels should murder their parents if they can’t provide these guys with girlfriends.

    Also see the constant references to being “friend-zoned” on any social media site that you can name. If you don’t think that we operate under a cultural narrative that men are entitled to sex, then you’re purposely ignoring the constant reminders.

  34. slothrop1905 says

    @Ibis3, Blighter and Trampler since 1971

    Yes, I’ve read that before. And again, having had this discussion with my women friends as well as a lot of guys who are frustrated, I haven’t heard a large consensus of guys saying that they think they deserve sex because they’re not violent people. They only bring that fact up in the context of women’s seeming (SEEMING) inconsistent in saying what they want, it’s not an observation that comes with a simple asking of the question ‘why is no-one sexually attracted to me?’.

    I’m not going to derail by changing the exact topic, I was only responding to an assertion made above. ISTM people seem to think that the number of men who no women will ever sleep with is miniscule, and that the resentment of those men who happen to be gamers who look for escapism are all raging misogynists. Being one of those men and knowing a lot of them I just don’t think it’s true.

  35. guyver1 says

    permanent death is a GOOD thing in DayZ.

    DayZ is a sort of ‘anti’ game.

    The standalone release should fix alot of KoS deaths and ‘loot your own body’ upon dying syndrome.

  36. jaranath says

    dmgregory:

    I’m glad you’re appalled. Good on you. Now go try being an active, online gamer girl for a year.

    The problem is not merely developers. Indeed I would argue the worst aspects of misogyny and similar behavior is in the player community. But I’m not going to withhold chewing the hell out of a culture I’m frequently ashamed to identify with just because some of its members are laudable. And while I am genuinely not upset with you (yet), I would like to point out that “what about me?” is probably NOT the best response to an observation that a given community has a problem.

    What would you rather be a part of? A joint press conference by dozens of industry peers denouncing this promotion in clear and harsh terms and endorsing efforts to curtail misogyny in gaming; or a joint press conference complaining about how unfair it is so many studios get lumped in with the assholes of gaming culture?

  37. Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuff says

    slothrop, since you’re not screaming abuse here (a common enough occurrence with MRA trolls who visit this site) I’ll make a few points for you.

    . . . having had this discussion with my women friends as well as a lot of guys who are frustrated, I haven’t heard a large consensus of guys saying that they think they deserve sex because they’re not violent people.

    There are a lot of ways to say, “Why won’t you sleep with me?” other than “Why won’t you sleep with me?” There is 1) I took you out to dinner/movie/any other thing, or, 2) We’ve had three dates now, right? Right!? or 3) I’m gonna sit around and pout, and verbally snipe at you until you put out. Very few guys actually say, in words, “I deserve sex!” But a lot of them think it, and show it in body language, tone of voice, and overall attitude.

    I was only responding to an assertion made above. ISTM people seem to think that the number of men who no women will ever sleep with is miniscule.”

    That’s a derail, right there. Nobody’s talking about concrete numbers of sexually frustrated men, or, as you seem to imply, virgins (” . . men who no women will ever sleep with . . .”

    . . . and that the resentment of those men who happen to be gamers who look for escapism are all raging misogynists . . .

    What’s being noted is that the gaming community includes a certain vocal and dedicated subset of “raging misogynists”, and the toleration and frequent pandering to this subset enables the continuation of their extreme misogyny, presents the gaming world as a bunch of entitled, virginal, raging assholes, discourages women from gaming, or from gaming as women (i.e. their avatars and presentation are male or neutral), and plays a part in perpetuation the dysfunctional misogyny which permeates present-day culture.

    Being one of those men and knowing a lot of them I just don’t think it’s true.

    You are being unhelpfully vague. When you say, “Being one of these men”, which men are you speaking of? Gamers? Virginal gamers? Gamers who can’t get laid? Misogynist gamers? Frustrated male gamers? Please be clear, so we know what your knowledge/experience base is.

    Your second-last posted sentence also demonstrates your lack of knowledge and standing to comment usefully on the subject. If I want to know about the existence and effects of racism on black people, do I ask a white man who mixes mostly with other white men? And how much credence should I give his opinion and experience?

    Your last sentence, “I just don’t think it’s true.” points out your blinkered overreliance on your limited personal experience. Your belonging to the class of men currently being examined gives you only one small perspective. You need to listen and to read the experiences and analyses of the many other people, mostly women, but men, too, who have been and are affected by misogyny, particularly misogyny amongst gamers.

    Replace your “thinking” with a lot more “facts and evidence other than anecdote” and you will be able to appreciate and participate in this discussion more productively.

  38. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    Don’t get me wrong, I love a good Roguelike.

    Any recommendations? I love The Binding of Isaac (and have played some Faster Than Light), and have found that I really enjoy these roguelike-like games.

    ***
    sloth,
    Do you think there is a problem of raging misogyny in gaming culture?

  39. Gnumann+, Radfem shotgunner of inhuman concepts says

    Yuck! That looked even worse than I had imagined when I clicked the link.

  40. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    @Katherine
    Yay, thank you!

    Last time I checked on Steam, I’ve logged over 100 hours on Binding of Isaac. I just can’t get enough of it, and I can’t wait to play it co-op with my girlfriend when it comes to consoles.

  41. slothrop1905 says

    ‘If I want to know about the existence and effects of racism on black people, do I ask a white man who mixes mostly with other white men? And how much credence should I give his opinion and experience?’

    If you want to know how black people are affected, yes, you talk to them. If you want to learn about the intentions behind the actions you talk to the white people. Yes, I know intent is not magic. That’s not the point. The question is what is going on inside the head of the racist/misogynist/whatever. What’s going on inside their heads, what are they telling themselves. I’ve been talking to guy gamers for thirty years (yes, personal experience), and in the last twenty have talked to them about the relationship between sexual frustration and gaming escapism, as I felt I was in the same boat as them. I have many women friends, a few who game, who have expressed frustration at what they see as the misogynistic attitudes they encounter. In those same conversations, they tell me they believe men who can’t ‘get laid’ are in that condition due to things they can control. It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

  42. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    slothrop

    Yes, I’ve read that before. And again, having had this discussion with my women friends as well as a lot of guys who are frustrated, I haven’t heard a large consensus of guys saying that they think they deserve sex because they’re not violent people.

    If they do think that they, being Nice Guys, deserve sex, do you think they would come out and admit that? Just because they haven’t explicitly stated that they deserve sex, that doesn’t mean they don’t think it. It is a Nice Guys actions which reveal him to be an entitled, sexist, douche.

    They only bring that fact up in the context of women’s seeming (SEEMING) inconsistent in saying what they want, it’s not an observation that comes with a simple asking of the question ‘why is no-one sexually attracted to me?’.

    Oooh, so those mysterious and devious women are leading these Nice Guys on, only to trap them in the friend zone, huh? Or maybe, these women were, for a time, interested in your Nice Guy friends, but then changed their mind. Are they not allowed to do that? If one intimates to a man that they are interested, they must put out, otherwise bitches be cruel liars?

    I’m not going to derail by changing the exact topic..,

    Too late, but then again, you did mean to derail and make this all about you and your Nice Guy friends.

    I was only responding to an assertion made above. ISTM people seem to think that the number of men who no women will ever sleep with is miniscule[sic], and that the resentment of those men who happen to be gamers who look for escapism are all raging misogynists

    Lose the dishonesty. No one said that *all* sexually frustrated gamers are raging misogynists, nor did anyone assert that the number of such men is “minuscule”. So, well done for knocking down that strawman, do you have anything to add to the actual topic of conversation, the problem of sexism in gaming culture, specifically advertising?

    Being one of those men and knowing a lot of them I just don’t think it’s true.

    Good for you. Want a cookie for not being a raging misogynist?

  43. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    So…what?

    We let the angry menchildren have a space where they can froth at the mouth about dem bitches? And when no women dare tiptoe into the Inner Sanctum, they will be rewarded by not being subjected to misogyny?

    How exactly does this solve anything?

  44. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    I have many women friends, a few who game, who have expressed frustration at what they see as the misogynistic attitudes they encounter

    Try listening to them.

    In those same conversations, they tell me they believe men who can’t ‘get laid’ are in that condition due to things they can control.

    There. Right there is that entitlement attitude that Nice Guy Syndrome gets at. Nice Guys think that “getting laid” is something that is both 1) something outside of their control, and 2) something to get frustrated about if it doesn’t happen (even though they aren’t going to improve themselves, or their social abilities; because remember, they have no control over whether the women dispenses sex)

    It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

    Maybe if they didn’t experience so much hatred when they go online to game, then it wouldn’t occur to them that their presence causes hatred?

  45. says

    Esteleth:

    So…what?

    We let the angry menchildren have a space where they can froth at the mouth about dem bitches? And when no women dare tiptoe into the Inner Sanctum, they will be rewarded by not being subjected to misogyny?

    How exactly does this solve anything?

    :puts on sexist assclam hat: It teaches women their proper place and how it’s super easy to avoid nassssty sexism and be treated right when you act like a lady and don’t go where you aren’t wanted and don’t be acting like you’re a human being man, fer chrissakes. :removes and burns sexist assclam hat:

  46. zmidponk says

    dmgregory #17:

    As a game developer, may I point out that you’re saying “OK, gaming community, could you please grow up a little bit?” while linking to an article from that very same community that’s just as appalled as you are?

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but, as a gamer, I look at that statuette and basically go, ‘why?’ If I were to buy that special edition, I’d use the weapon pack DLC code, keep my game disc in the nice steel case, when it wasn’t being used, and probably have a look through the artwork book, as I find it interesting to have a look at concept art for games, and see how it evolved from that to the final product. The only use I could see for the statuette, through, would be to keep it so that if and when I traded the game in again, I would perhaps get more for it. It would certainly not ‘adorn my mantlepiece’, and it probably would never even be removed from the box. That would probably be the reaction of most of the other gamers I know. If it were, say, a statuette of one of the playable characters from Riptide (John Morgan would be a good choice, as he’s the new guy that wasn’t in the original Dead Island), then maybe the reaction would be different. Personally, though, I’m planning on getting the Rigor Mortis Edition.

    As to the wider issue of misogyny in gaming culture generally, my experience is that the people who are openly and gratuitously sexist and misogynist are the minority, but it’s actually quite seldom that anyone actually calls them out on it. However, how many people do what I do, and simply mute or block them, so I don’t have to hear or see the crap they’re speaking/typing, I don’t know. It would not surprise me to find that, on many occasions, they end up essentially spouting their crap only at themselves.

  47. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Right, I forgot about that Caine. When bigoted prejudiced asshats have something neat and subject everyone who doesn’t meet their standards to abuse when they ask for access to the neat thing, the solution is for people to just get over it and accept that they’ll never have access to said neat thing.

    And maybe, eventually, the people with the neat thing will be ashamed and realize they were wrong, right?

    That’s totally the lesson of Jim Crow, right?

  48. slothrop1905 says

    Esteleth
    ‘So…what?

    We let the angry menchildren have a space where they can froth at the mouth about dem bitches? And when no women dare tiptoe into the Inner Sanctum, they will be rewarded by not being subjected to misogyny?

    How exactly does this solve anything?’

    Well said. I’m not exactly saying there’s a solution. I don’t see the problem going away in any forseeable future. You can cleanse gaming culture, and the menchildren will just go someplace else, their frustrations still intact.

  49. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    zmidponk:
    So, you said this:

    the people who are openly and gratuitously sexist and misogynist are the minority, but it’s actually quite seldom that anyone actually calls them out on it

    And, by and large, I think you are correct.

    Now, what is the problem with this?

    Here’s a few:
    (1) Those who are targeted by the gratuitously sexist and misogynistic get little to no support, and are thus frequently driven away,
    (2) The quietly sexist and misogynistic are emboldened,
    (this is the important one)
    (3) The gratuitously sexist and misogynists think that “everyone else” agrees with them, but just isn’t saying so.

    Studies have consistently shown that bigots (racists, sexists, homophobes, etc) have a marked tendency to overestimate the share of the population that agrees with them. Because they fervently believe that they are average, and that those who disagree with them are just a whiny minority.

    The way to challenge the bigots is to inform them, bluntly, loudly, and frequently, that they are a minority.

  50. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Slothrop, learn to blockquote.

    It will make your comments easier to read (the content will remain your problem). There’s a handy guide to blockquoting right above the button labeled “submit comment.”

  51. lesofa says

    This is their apology:

    A statement on the Zombie Bait Edition:

    We deeply apologize for any offense caused by the Dead Island Riptide “Zombie Bait Edition”, the collector’s edition announced for Europe and Australia. Like many gaming companies, Deep Silver has many offices in different countries, which is why sometimes different versions of Collector’s Editions come into being for North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia.

    For the limited run of the Zombie Bait Edition for Europe and Australia, a decision was made to include a gruesome statue of a zombie torso, which was cut up like many of our fans had done to the undead enemies in the original Dead Island.

    We sincerely regret this choice. We are collecting feedback continuously from the Dead Island community, as well as the international gaming community at large, for ongoing internal meetings with Deep Silver’s entire international team today. For now, we want to reiterate to the community, fans and industry how deeply sorry we are, and that we are committed to making sure this will never happen again.

    Source: http://kotaku.com/5976203/deep-silver-we-deeply-apologize-for-statue-of-severed-womans-torso

  52. slothrop1905 says

    Woomonster

    ‘There. Right there is that entitlement attitude that Nice Guy Syndrome gets at. Nice Guys think that “getting laid” is something that is both 1) something outside of their control, and 2) something to get frustrated about if it doesn’t happen (even though they aren’t going to improve themselves, or their social abilities; because remember, they have no control over whether the women dispenses sex)’

    Wow. The idea that a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons never occurs to you? That there’s gotta be some bullshit MRA male supremacist reason why a lot of guys aren’t attractive to women? And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?
    Fuck you.

  53. says

    Somehow, I now feel justified in being completely dismissive of Dead Island from day one. Also, not buying a Techland game until the development team is replaced.

    It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

    In the context of resentment of women’s presence in gaming, why should the cause for resentment even matter? If they resent a woman’s presence, they should either tolerate it, or be driven out of the community. I’ve been a gamer (and at times, even one of those sexually frustrated men) my entire life, and there’s absolutely nothing that can justify the fiery resentment many will put on display.

  54. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    We deeply apologize for any offense caused

    *sigh*

    *pulls out Notpology Bingo Card*

  55. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Right. Because the trick to getting “a woman” is to “improve oneself” (probably “knowing how to cook” and “taking conversational Mandarin”) and being “well-groomed.”

    Rather than, say, starting out by seeing women as people and seeking one out with that as the base assumption, rather than “if I check these boxes, a bodacious babe will be delivered by FedEx.”

  56. Nepenthe says

    You can cleanse gaming culture, and the menchildren will just go someplace else, their frustrations still intact.

    And then lady-people can play video games in peace. Sounds like a solution to me.

    Number of shits I give about the manchildren* who are elsewhere and not interacting with wider society = 0.

    Oh wait, that isn’t a solution that focuses on the men so it doesn’t count. Shit.

    *As much as I dislike children generally, this seems a bit cruel. Children can, on occasion, be lovely. Raging misogynists, not so much.

  57. Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuff says

    slothrop (and MRA fuckwits and misogynists who are lurking) (BTW slothrop, I’m not including you in those two groups, because you’re actually engaging and thinking):

    I’m not exactly saying there’s a solution. I don’t see the problem going away in any forseeable future.

    Well, there is/are solutions. After all, it was less than a century ago that white communities believed it was natural and inevitable that they got to terrorize, torture, mutilate, and murder in public (that’s lynching, for those of you in countries other than America) blacks. Bringing down to almost nothing violent misogyny is well within this society’s grasp.

    You can cleanse gaming culture, and the menchildren will just go someplace else, their frustrations still intact.

    Now that last phrase is very perceptive. “Their frustrations intact.”

    Okay, now that you have identified a problem — and note please I am listening to you describe the problems in the community you are a member of — we can posit, suggest, enact societal solutions.

    For instance, as someone who graduated both high school and university completely socially feral, I would have benefited greatly from a “normal human being relations” class. In fact, as lack of religion becomes more prominent, and as full societal participation by women and minorities becomes more important, “human relations” in modern, internet-dominated society are far more complicated than they used to be. Complicated enough that such courses should be standard within the public school system.

    There! One part, one piece of a solution suggested.

    Let’s be optimistic here!

  58. says

    As others have pointed out, chastising the gaming community for this is pretty silly.

    So if you want to accuse the gaming community of anything, it should be of not caring enough about this sort of thing to make firm commitments of protest like long-term boycotts.

    Internal contradictions much? We should NOT criticize gamers for being misogynist, but we SHOULD criticize them for insufficient actions to combat misogyny? What?

    Even so, that would be unfairly singling out one small group for a society-wide problem.

    You’re so right. Until EVERYONE fixes misogyny, we should have zero expectations that [gamers/tech geeks/comics nerds/web designers/engineers/insert group of your choice here] take ANY action within their own community to solve the problem.

    /sarcasm

  59. says

    Wow. The idea that a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons never occurs to you?

    Whenever you want to establish a biological reason for something, you’d best have a mountain of evidence to back that up.

    And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?

    To being frustrated? Nothing wrong with that. I’d daresay all men have been frustrated sexually at some point. But to overtly express this frustration as resentment (if not outright hatred) against women? Nope, no entitlement to that sort of behavior (as opposed to feeling) at all.

  60. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Even so, that would be unfairly singling out one small group for a society-wide problem.

    Ah, the “Everyone does it, so you have to fix ALL OF IT AT ONCE, else you would have accomplished nothing! And no, I won’t help, because why should I bother?” school of shutting down criticism.

    I cannot decide if this is better or worse than the “People in [not-here place] have it worse, why are you complaining?!” school of shutting down criticism.

  61. says

    Wow. The idea that a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons never occurs to you?

    Speaking for myself only, no, it never occurred to me. Now that you suggest it, I’m thinking about it. Now that I’m thinking about it, it sounds like complete bullshit. “Biological reasons”? That’s a not-even-wrong level of incoherence. It could be applied to anything from a fat stomachs on men to hysterectomies in women. It means nothing. It’s just avoidance of responsibility. “Oh it’s just biology, it’s not MY fault all the ladies think I’m an asshole!”

    That there’s gotta be some bullshit MRA male supremacist reason why a lot of guys aren’t attractive to women?

    No, I think it’s pretty clear that being an entitled douche who thinks that non-assholery should be rewarded with sex from a compliant woman fembot is enough of a turnoff in and of itself.

    And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?

    You can feel however the fuck you want about it. Your frustration means nothing except that you are emotionally illiterate and immature. Ugly people fuck, too. I see it all the time. The problem is not appearance. The problem is the attitude.

    Fuck you.

    Exactly.

  62. zmidponk says

    Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism:

    Now, what is the problem with this?

    Here’s a few:
    (1) Those who are targeted by the gratuitously sexist and misogynistic get little to no support, and are thus frequently driven away,
    (2) The quietly sexist and misogynistic are emboldened,
    (this is the important one)
    (3) The gratuitously sexist and misogynists think that “everyone else” agrees with them, but just isn’t saying so.

    Studies have consistently shown that bigots (racists, sexists, homophobes, etc) have a marked tendency to overestimate the share of the population that agrees with them. Because they fervently believe that they are average, and that those who disagree with them are just a whiny minority.

    The way to challenge the bigots is to inform them, bluntly, loudly, and frequently, that they are a minority.

    I very much see your point, but, unfortunately, people don’t generally play games to argue with sexist pieces of shit, so it’s the tendency of games developers to simply give you the tools to ignore such people, which allows them to simply use those tools and continue playing, thus, in essence, ignoring the problem, rather than actually doing something about it. The only thing I can maybe think of to use this is that, quite often, people only get notified they’re blocked when they try to send a private message to the person who blocked them. If, instead, a public message gets displayed whenever they’re blocked, this would maybe get the point across that their views are not very popular.

  63. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Shockna, what a lot of men – especially the entitled ones – think is that they aren’t just entitled to “a woman,” they’re entitled to a “10.” Y’know, mid-twenties (because old women are fugly), intelligent-without-being-smarter-than-him, sexy-in-the-way-he-likes, and “effortlessly beautiful.”

  64. Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuff says

    slothrop:

    The idea that a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons never occurs to you?

    Um, slothrop, the whole POINT of being human is that we can recognize and lay aside our biological imperatives for longer-term benefits, you know, frontal-lobe inhibition and all that shit? I’ve been a nerd (that stands for Nearly Everything Radical, Dude!) my whole life, and I have seen the spotty, fat, hairy, and the disabled find satisfying relationships — including me. The spottiest and greasiest of nerds can have relationships if they can treat their potential partners as full, equal human beings — and, slothrop, I’ll admit from personal experience that that can be really hard, especially if one’s self-esteem is ineluctably tangled up with nerdish accomplishments.

    And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?

    slothrop, please don’t misquote or strawman. No-one said that the male gamers being discussed aren’t entitled to their frustrations; they’re just not entitled to act out their frustrations in bigoted, abusive, and exclusionary ways.

    That there’s gotta be some bullshit MRA male supremacist reason why a lot of guys aren’t attractive to women? And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?

  65. Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuff says

    Argh! Ignore the last paragraph of my last post. Blockquote/edit fail!

  66. Gregory Greenwood says

    lesofa @ 67;

    I was looking through the notpology by Deep Silver you linked to and quoted, and it really is a masterpice in missing the point. They seem to be under the impression that people are concerned solely about the gory character of the simulated injuries on the statuette, and they make no mention whatsoever of the raging misogyny inherent in the imagery.

    It leads me to wonder whether they have somehow failed to understand the criticism leveled at this statuette and so don’t grasp that it is horribly sexist (which would require a spectacular level of oblivious idiocy on their part), or are so mired in misogyny that they simply refuse to acknowledge the issue of sexism because they really don’t care about women at all.

    Neither option paints them in a very good light.

  67. rrhain says

    As a question:

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK? That is, I can easily see the context of a zombie “society” where all the icons of culture are replaced with “zombie apocalypse” versions and that would include substitutions of works of art with zombie versions. Thus, it would make sense to have statues that were “carved” out of actual bodies like what is in this figurine.

    I’m not saying that this instance leads up to that. I am simply asking about there being a context in which this is not, in and of itself, problematic. The context may be so specific and appreciated by so few that it would be silly for a company to attempt to mass-market it, but I don’t see a problem with the figure in and of itself. It’s the context surrounding it that causes the trouble.

  68. says

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK?

    What? WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is there always someone who wants to know if might be okay, in some special circumstances, to be a teeny-tiny bit misogynist? Just a bit? WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY is it important to you to have imagery of dismembered women around? Seriously, what is WRONG with you?

    *bangs head against wall repeatedly*

  69. lesofa says

    Gregory Greenwood,
    Yes, their notpology is focused on how it’s not really their fault (“it was this other office!”, “you can do this in the game!”) and not on why it’s so bad. Also, as the author of the post I linked said, it’s not clear if they gave up selling it.

  70. says

    rrhain:

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK?

    Jesus fucking godsdamn…

    NO, NOT EVER. NOT FUCKING EVER, YOU GET THAT? NO.

    Take your shit and your what ifs and other assorted apologism and get the fuck out. Now.

  71. WharGarbl says

    Ugh… Dead Island, mundane zombies “survival” simulations.
    Maybe that’s why they got tasteless boobied and mutilated torso, they don’t exactly have memorable zombies (all humanoid… all running, maybe got a few minor changes).
    Now, L4D2, that game got some unique looking zombie (and got some pretty wicked statues for it).
    Valve seems to be very good with dealing with female characters (strong, normal looking female. No bikini clad female on battlefield).

    If I want “realistic” FPS survival, I do DayZ.
    If I want “realistic” RPG survival, I do Project Zomboid.
    If I want arcade FPS survival, I do L4D or L4D2.

  72. says

    Shockna, what a lot of men – especially the entitled ones – think is that they aren’t just entitled to “a woman,” they’re entitled to a “10.” Y’know, mid-twenties (because old women are fugly), intelligent-without-being-smarter-than-him, sexy-in-the-way-he-likes, and “effortlessly beautiful.”

    This is, of course, true; I’ll have to be more specific in the future. I suppose my comment was more addressed to those outside that subset (Those who believe they’re entitled to perfection for “niceness” seem beyond hope; I want to see them driven out of the gaming community on a railroad spike), those who are honestly feeling like “nobody”, regardless of said non-persons attractiveness (I can’t seem to find a more precise way to articulate that right now; my apologies), wants them.

    Also, I think there’s one correction to the description of a “ten”. Most of the real creeps who call themselves Nice Guys™ (another distinguishing trait; the frustrated men who aren’t complete assholes tend not to directly refer to themselves as “nice guys”) tend to look younger than mid-twenties. Sometimes a lot younger. -shudder-

  73. says

    WharGarbl:

    Maybe that’s why they got tasteless boobied and mutilated torso, they don’t exactly have memorable zombies (all humanoid… all running, maybe got a few minor changes).

    Oh, of course that’s the reason! Why it doesn’t have anything at all to do with systemic, toxic sexism. Nope.

    Idiot.

  74. WharGarbl says

    @rrhain
    #84

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK?

    I have a hard time imagining ANY context where this statue might be considered okay.
    Unless you’re talking about a zombie apocalypse that didn’t destroy the world and everyone learned to live with it (like Shaun of the Dead kind of things). Then maybe, just maybe.
    From what it looks like, the Dead Island company (I’m not going to say developers, it may have well been the marketing department) just went for the “Hey! Look! Titties!” route of statue design.

    Hell, if you want female zombie statues, I got a few suggestiong from L4D2.
    1. Witch
    2. Spitter
    3. Female Boomer (it got something for tits lovers too!)

    I can only imagine that it’s fuel for fantasies about treating women as dead meat.

    Or necrophiliac.

  75. epiblast says

    As a game developer, may I point out that you’re saying “OK, gaming community, could you please grow up a little bit?” while linking to an article from that very same community that’s just as appalled as you are?

    This is kind of like me responding to some new drama from Thunderf00t by saying, “grow up, atheist community” – as though he speaks for everybody.

    In case you haven’t noticed, the atheist community itself is a regular target for criticism here. We can and do call out our own, and acknowledging a problem within a given community is very much compatible with being part of it. Of course Thunderf00t doesn’t speak for everyone in his community; no one does for any community. Of course the problem something like this figure represents isn’t reflective of the views or tastes of every single member of the gaming crowd, and nobody’s saying it reflects the views or tastes of those behind the article referenced. I’m an atheist and a gamer and I think both groups of people have endemic issues that require criticism. I don’t take criticisms of those groups personally, and I wish you wouldn’t either.

  76. says

    “Deep Silver, the game’s publisher, was claiming to be evaluating options for dealing with the issue.”

    I guess they didn’t see “don’t fucking publish this garbage” as an option.

  77. jefrir says

    It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

    You’re really suggesting that resentment of women’s existence is not a sign of hatred of women? Seriously!?

  78. epiblast says

    As for why someone would want this on their mantel, based on my own experience with people who I think would love this kind of thing I think it’s less often “fuel for fantasies” and more often a simple desire to shock anyone who sees it. There is a definite market for pure shock value.

  79. WharGarbl says

    @Jafafa Hots
    #93

    I guess they didn’t see “don’t fucking publish this garbage” as an option.

    I think its more along the line of “Oh crap! Shit just hit the fan! What can we do for damage control?” considering that they already published this garbage.
    “Don’t publish any more of this garbage” would be good for future damage mitigation.

  80. Gregory Greenwood says

    rrhain @ 84;

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK?

    No. Misogyny is never ‘OK’, because it is never, at any time or in any place, ‘OK’ to treat women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people.

    This may seem shocking to you, but there is an upside – the principle is easy to remember because it is so consistent; misogyny is never OK.

    There are no circumstances, however exteme the silly hypothetical scenario quoted may be, that make misogyny OK.

    There are no excuses for misogyny that make it no big deal.

    There is nothing that anyone can be or can do that makes it acceptable to ignore or denigrate their humanity, and the fact that the person in question has a vagina does not alter this.

    There are no brighter moral lines out there, this is as clear and unambiguous as it gets. People are always people; never objects, never subhuman, never toys for anyone elses’s enjoyment – always people.

    And before you say it; yes – this statuette is misogynistic and does denigrate women. It is no coincidence that a slim, bikini-clad, dismembered female torso with what appear to be breast implants was chosen for the statuette. They could just as easily have included a statuette of one of the in game characters, or a group of zombies, but they didn’t. They chose this specific image in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of sexist arseholes in the gaming community who would find it titillating, and the fact that it is a woman’s body that is depicted so mutilated is also not a coincidence. Not only does it play into misogynist fantasies of violence against women, it quite literally eliminates the idea of any identity or humanity in the figure depicted, and reduces it to a pair of (oddly untouched given the state of the rest of the torso) breasts. The parallels to the misogynist tendency to view women as sex despensors valuable only for their sexual attributes is brazenly obvious.

  81. says

    I think its more along the line of “Oh crap! Shit just hit the fan! What can we do for damage control?” considering that they already published this garbage.

    When something has been published, that doesn’t mean you can’t suspend publication.
    And games regularly get patches to add new content, fix bugs, and sometimes delete older content.

    They could actually have just – you know… removed the bad stuff with a patch.

    They were full of shit. They didn’t care, they didn’t WANT to do anything to fix the problem, they just figured they needed to respond with some words. They also probably saw any publicity as a bonus.

    It probably helped sales.

  82. Gregory Greenwood says

    lesofa @ 86;

    Yes, their notpology is focused on how it’s not really their fault (“it was this other office!”, “you can do this in the game!”) and not on why it’s so bad. Also, as the author of the post I linked said, it’s not clear if they gave up selling it.

    Yup – they are in damage limitation mode now; anything to avoid taking responsibility and accepting that what they have produced is a grotesquely offensive piece of misogynist trash. I imagine they will ‘um’ and ‘ah’ and say how very sorry they are a bit more, while continuing to sell it all the while, and once the demand begins to dry up they will then, in what they will spin as a grand magnanimous gesture, pull the statuette from the market to show how progressive they supposedly are and thereby seek to defang criticism.

    If things get hot enough for them, they may pull the promotion early having decided that the cost of continuing outweighs the benefit to their bottom line, but you can bet that any actual consideration of the social impact of their actions or ethical concerns about how they are contributing to the sexualisation of depictions of women in society will never enter their calculus.

  83. WharGarbl says

    @Jafafa Hots
    #98

    When something has been published, that doesn’t mean you can’t suspend publication.

    It’s a promotion. You can suspend promotion (as in no longer have the statue with the game). But you can’t exactly take back the fact that you promoted it in the first place.

    They could actually have just – you know… removed the bad stuff with a patch.

    It’s about the statue, not in-game content.

    They were full of shit. They didn’t care, they didn’t WANT to do anything to fix the problem, they just figured they needed to respond with some words. They also probably saw any publicity as a bonus.

    It probably helped sales.

    … and you just nailed it on the head. They’re a company, if something make money, they don’t care if it’s in bad taste. Misogynist? Sexist? Who cares! I’ve got money!

  84. epiblast says

    @84: What’s the point of a speculation this hypothetical, this removed from reality? We aren’t talking about some alternate universe; we’re talking about the here and now, where this statuette happens to exist.

    FWIW I agree with Spencer Cohen: This stands a good chance of being a calculated troll to get the game additional publicity.

  85. WharGarbl says

    @Gregory Greenwood
    #100

    but you can bet that any actual consideration of the social impact of their actions or ethical concerns about how they are contributing to the sexualisation of depictions of women in society will never enter their calculus.

    Or they would consider that sexualization of women is a good thing for them. It makes game easier to develop, just throw more titties in it. Kind of like Duke Nuken Forever*.

    *Although judging by how… blatant it is, I think that may fall under parody.

  86. WharGarbl says

    @Jafafa Hots
    #102

    I was referring to the earlier controversial content, not the statue.

    Do you mean the Gender Wars/Feminist Whore fiasco?
    I think they did patch that. They released the unfinished code (which included debug log or debug code, which included the program symbol associated with FeministWhore). They patched it and removed the debug symbols.

    More than likely, they probably didn’t change anything, just made sure that they set the build option to not include debug symbols.

  87. says

    It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

    it doesn’t occur to them because it’s a nonsensical proposition, to claim resentment of mere presence, and the feeling of entitlement to such resentment in a space these d00dz don’t privately own, can be explained in any way that excludes misogyny.

    a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons

    for the life of me, I can’t figure out what biological reasons could make a dude unattractive to “women”. Fugly troll-lookalikes get laid; severely handicapped men get laid; obese men get laid.

  88. samihawkins says

    As long as we’re discussing the gaming community’s embarrassing attitude towards women does anyone remember the ****storm when Halo 4 was supposedly gonna ban people for misogyny?

    What happened is that the female head developer was asked in an interview what she thought about the rampant misogyny on Xbox Live and like any developer to ever be asked that question she said she totally disapproved of it. That should have been the end of the story, but she apparently struck a whiny and defensive chord as within days every crappy little gaming blog on the net was running a story which stated as a fact that she was planning to ban anyone who was rude to women. The message boards followed with weeks of enormous topics where all-male groups would gather to whine about how those stupid girls are gonna ruin the series, how they only got the job because they’re women and how they’re manhating feminazis who want us to bow at women’s feet.

    I spent weeks trying to get one of these whiners to post an actual documented case of someone being banned without a single person replying to me. Meanwhile every time someone came in and posted a story with no evidence about how they’d totally gotten banned just for beating a girl in a match or some other BS they’d get dozens of replies rallying around them.

    The ComplainTrain eventually ran out of steam, what with having nothing to actually complain about, but I’m sure all it’d take is anopther female developer acknowledging the reality of misogyny to send it rocketing down the tracks again.

  89. Gregory Greenwood says

    WharGarbl @ 104;

    Or they would consider that sexualization of women is a good thing for them. It makes game easier to develop, just throw more titties in it.

    Sadly, you are absolutely correct here – no one ever lost money appealing to the base misogyny of horny idiots.

    Kind of like Duke Nuken Forever*.

    *Although judging by how… blatant it is, I think that may fall under parody.

    The industry is so toxic these days it is hard to tell what is supposed to be overblown parody and what is straight forward misogyny-for-profit. The Saints trailer for Hitman: Absolution was not intended as parody, and it was so horrifyingly misogynist I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

  90. WharGarbl says

    @Gregory Greenwood
    #108

    Sadly, you are absolutely correct here – no one ever lost money appealing to the base misogyny of horny idiots.

    One way to fix that. Vote with your money.

    The industry is so toxic these days it is hard to tell what is supposed to be overblown parody and what is straight forward misogyny-for-profit.

    I’m pretty sure they’re both identical for all intent and purpose. Both serve to make money, whether it be trying to appeal to the more “high-n-mighty” people or people with most baser instincts.

    The Saints trailer for Hitman: Absolution was not intended as parody, and it was so horrifyingly misogynist I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

    AND… it got you talking about it! Free advertisement! I say the trailer is a success.

  91. Craja says

    This reminds me of those anime figurines of partially naked or actually naked women that some friends I know put on their shelves.

    And you know what? Those aren’t conversational pieces. Like the bloody stump of a bikini clad torso, those are awkward objects you avert your eyes to and pretend they don’t exist when you visit.

  92. epiblast says

    On the subject of roguelikes: I can wholeheartedly endorse The Binding of Isaac and Spelunky.

  93. Gregory Greenwood says

    WharGarbl @ 109;

    One way to fix that. Vote with your money.

    Trust me, I do. Unfortunately, legions of the oblivious or bigoted vote the other way with their cash, and all the industry cares about is its profit margins.

    I’m pretty sure they’re both identical for all intent and purpose. Both serve to make money, whether it be trying to appeal to the more “high-n-mighty” people or people with most baser instincts.

    Which is why I don’t even try to separate them – anyone who uses open misogyny to sell their product gets no place on my shelf, whether it is supposedly ‘ironic’ and ‘satirical’ or not.

    AND… it got you talking about it! Free advertisement! I say the trailer is a success.

    Only if one buys into the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I don’t think that saying ‘don’t touch this game; it is misogynistic to its core’ is really what one might call good press.

    Saying that talking about something that is misogynistic – in order to highlight the problem – amounts to promoting that very thing runs dangerously close to a silencing tactic. The idea that talking about a problem only makes it worse, so just sit there in silence and pretend it isn’t happening is very problematic. If we cannot cite examples of bad practice, how are we to oppose it?

  94. Moggie says

    Craja:

    This reminds me of those anime figurines of partially naked or actually naked women that some friends I know put on their shelves.

    You know people who buy those? I’ve seen them advertised, and always found it hard to believe that there’s a market. I think I’d find it less creepy and embarrassing if someone introduced me to their RealDoll.

  95. WharGarbl says

    @Gregory Greenwood
    #114

    Only if one buys into the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I don’t think that saying ‘don’t touch this game; it is misogynistic to its core’ is really what one might call good press.
    I think it’s that it’s a calculated misogyny. The bad publicity does not outweight the potential that it gets more gamers, who likely either think it’s fine or don’t care about it, talking about the game.

  96. GodotIsWaiting4U says

    Why is this game even coming out? Dead Island 1 sucked, a buggy too-serious Borderlands zombie ripoff. How did they make enough money to be able to afford to do this shit?

  97. rrhain says

    @85 (SallyStrange) and @87 (Caine):

    Then I guess we’re going to have to disagree on this because we seem to have a fundamental conception disjoin.

    From @85:

    “WHY is there always someone who wants to know if might be okay, in some special circumstances, to be a teeny-tiny bit misogynist?”

    See, I didn’t say that. I’ll pause for a moment to let you re-read my post and see if you can figure out why your restatement bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

    From @87:

    “Take your shit and your what ifs and other assorted apologism and get the fuck out. Now.”

    Why? We can’t discuss context and how it informs interpretations of symbols? What a pathetically narrow world you must live in if you cannot understand why you are having the reaction you are having. I know, I know…it destroys the magic of it. But just as understanding why the prism makes a rainbow doesn’t destroy the beauty of the rainbow, understanding why something is misogynist doesn’t change the brutality of it.

    See, I wasn’t apologizing for it. In fact, I went out of my way to specifically state I wasn’t. You did read that part, didn’t you? Here it is again since you seem to have missed it:

    “I’m not saying that this instance leads up to that.”

    Now, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to complain that this is just me trying to cover my ass. But that would only make sense if I didn’t actually bring up an example…and then immediately shoot it down as a bad idea.

    You did read my post before responding, didn’t you? You caught that part where I said it was silly to try and mass-market it, right?

    And now we get back to @85, because it ties in:

    See, I didn’t say it was OK to be misogynistic. What I asked was whether or not there were a context in which this particular symbol would not be misogynistic. You do understand the difference, yes?

    Here’s a trivial example: The swastika. To most people here in the west, its primary meaning as a symbol is of the Holocaust (yeah, yeah…I know…Godwin’s law. Get over it.) However, there are other contexts out there where it doesn’t mean that. Thus, we cannot call the swastika, in and of itself, anti-Semitic because there are contextual frames of reference that have nothing to do with Germany in the 1930s. It would be disingenuous at best to pretend that a Neolithic-age sample of proto-writing is an example of the Final Solution.

    Don’t like the Nazi references? Fine. How’s this one: Is there ever a context in which stabbing someone with a knife is OK?

    Let’s take the attitude of these two and apply it here:

    “Why is there always someone who wants to know if it might be okay, in some special circumstancs, to be a teeny-tiny bit homicidal?”

    Wait just a second. Homicidal? Who said anything about being homicidal? I was talking about using a knife to cut somebody with which any surgeon will tell you is an extremely important part of certain medical treatments.

    So to take the rage that was directed at me, let me try to put it this way:

    What? WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is there always someone who seems to be incapable of looking past their emotions? WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY is it important to you to subsitute your thoughts for mine rather than paying attention and actually responding to what was said rather than what the phantom voices in your head said? Seriously, what is WRONG with you?

    Take your shit and your “WHYYYYs” and other assorted dipshittery and get the fuck out. Now.

    The grownups are talking.

    Remember, you have to read the post first. Remember what I said:

    “The context may be so specific and appreciated by so few that it would be silly for a company to attempt to mass-market it.”

    Does that sound like I agree with what Deep Silver is doing? Think carefully on it.

    Hint: The answer is no.

    But, I can easily see why a statue of a dismembered body done up as a mimic of ancient statuary (as it appears today) might not be misogyny. And I can even see it in the specifics of this case:

    It’s a zombie video game that takes place on a tropical island.

    (gee…I wonder what sort of people would get turned into a zombie given that it’s an island full of people wearing only bathing costumes….)

    Now, if you are of the opinion that the context that allows this symbol to be more an homage to the zombie (albeit in a dark homage sort of way) is so specific and rarefied that there is no way to mass-market such a symbol and not have it be misconstrued, I’ll probably agree with you.

    But that means the problem isn’t the statue. It’s the context in which the statue is presented.

    And unless and until you can understand the context that lets you conclude that this particular instance is an example of misogyny, then you really don’t understand the depravity of misogyny. Just as understanding how a prism makes a rainbow actually makes the rainbow more beautiful and amazing, understanding the cultural contexts that allows us to glean meaning makes us more capable of understanding the world around us and interacting with it appropriately.

    Simply jerking your knee because “OMG! It’s a dismembered female!” means you don’t actually understand what you’re so pissed off about.

    So the short version. Try to remember all these points before you respond. If you want to join the adult discussion, you need to pay attention:

    1) I don’t think this statue was a good idea.
    2) I don’t think this statue was a good idea. Yes, I’m repeating it because I don’t think you’re capable of remembering it.
    3) Even though there is a context in which this statue could have been a good idea, this particular instance of it isn’t it.
    4) I don’t think this statue was a good idea. Yes, I’m repeating it because I don’t think you’re capable of remembering it.
    5) Part of that is that the company already has issues with the way it treats women (note the “Feminist Whore” problem mentioned above).
    6) I don’t think this statue was a good idea. Yes, I’m repeating it because I don’t think you’re capable of remembering it.
    7) While the gamer culture could conceivably accept this figure in the “spirit in which it was intended,” there are too many other aspects that overwhelm it.
    8) I don’t think this statue was a good idea. Yes, I’m repeating it because I don’t think you’re capable of remembering it.

    Oh, and just in case I forgot:

    I don’t think this statue was a good idea.

    Hint: I *do* think it was misogynistic, but not because of the specific symbol in and of itself. Not because of the gamer context, either. Not even because of the “potential for abuse” that might come from it. I’m sorry you are seemingly incapable of examining anything except in either/or terms, but that isn’t my problem.

  98. WharGarbl says

    @Gregory
    #114

    Saying that talking about something that is misogynistic – in order to highlight the problem – amounts to promoting that very thing runs dangerously close to a silencing tactic. The idea that talking about a problem only makes it worse, so just sit there in silence and pretend it isn’t happening is very problematic. If we cannot cite examples of bad practice, how are we to oppose it?

    I have no idea. One shouldn’t stay silent about it, but it may help to understand the mindset behind these… promotions.

    One suggestion that might counteract it is that instead of just citing bad practices, cite good practices that go against bad practices. For example, instead of just giving Dead Island free publicity with the bad practices, cite some games that did it better (or cite something else less bad, something that move the Overton window). For example, Left 4 Dead 2, it’s fun, introduces a strong, witty, and black woman, and doesn’t go with lame gimmick such as giant titties.

  99. says

    Spencer Cohen:

    Even so, that would be unfairly singling out one small group for a society-wide problem.

    Too goddamn bad. Gamers are responsible for cleaning up misogyny in their subculture, just like atheists are in ours.

    Slothrop:

    I haven’t heard a large consensus of guys saying that they think they deserve sex because they’re not violent people.

    Like Hairhead said, a person needn’t be saying something literally and point blank to be agreeing with it.

    They only bring that fact up in the context of women’s seeming (SEEMING) inconsistent in saying what they want

    Regarding women as a monolith is tooooooottally not misogynist, is it? Neither is the stereotype of women as deceptive and fickle.

    Also, have these guys ever considered changing things about themselves, rather than whining about how women won’t fuck them? Because, trust me, when women can’t find dates (and, yes, many women can’t), that’s the first thing we hear: Dress nicer, put on more makeup, diet, exercise, smile more, don’t talk about anything such as sexism that makes men feel uncomfortable.

    Maybe your women “friends” (I’m sure they’re your friends, but I question whether you’re theirs) think these guys should try… oh, I dunno. Wearing cleaner clothes. Showering more often. Not chewing with their mouths open. Not talking to women’s tits during games. Not making sexist jokes and getting pissy when women don’t laugh along with them. Not assuming that pussy should fall right onto their dicks if they’re not out raping and beating women. As applicable to your particular group of Sad Unfuckable Menz.

    The question is what is going on inside the head of the racist/misogynist/whatever.

    No, the question is the effect they have on others. I live in a society where too much ink and too many pixels are devoted to recording their every thought, and I really don’t give a fuck anymore.

    It never occurs to them that resentment of a woman’s presence in an escapist fantasy can have any other cause than hatred of women, conscious or not.

    Oh, LET ME CRY A BIG OL’ RIVER FOR THEM. As if, as Esteleth says, the opinions voiced in those spaces don’t influence how men deal with women outside of them. And as if geek culture were meant to be some kind of virtual man cave in which women have no inherent right to play.

    You can cleanse gaming culture, and the menchildren will just go someplace else, their frustrations still intact.

    Here’s an idea: Challenge the “menchildren” on their attitudes and stop enabling them, the way you do.

    The idea that a lot of men aren’t attractive to women for biological reasons never occurs to you?

    LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, we’re all just looking for “alpha” males with chiseled jaws and Maseratis. Steven Pinker/Satoshi Kanazawa said so!

    And spending your life without anyone ever being attracted to you, no matter how well-groomed you are or how much you continue to improve yourself, doesn’t entitle anyone to being frustrated?

    Again, there are women that this describes, but society doesn’t go out of their way to shower them with pity.

    Sally:

    Ugly people fuck, too. I see it all the time. The problem is not appearance. The problem is the attitude.

    This. Don’t these guys ever go out in public, even just to the supermarket? It would provide them with ample evidence that sex and love don’t work the way they think, if only they’d pay attention.

    Sami, you can say “shit” here, you know.

    rrhain:

    We can’t discuss context and how it informs interpretations of symbols?

    Excuse me, precisely what fucking “context” makes a headless, legless, armless, bloody woman with giant surgically enhanced, non-bloody tits in a skimpy bikini top not misogynist?

    You could have headless, limbless, bloody torsos of both sexes in the aftermath of certain catastrophes, I imagine. Just a woman’s torso, with massive, unblemished cleavage on display among her wounds? Please, do tell me what sort of scenario that might appear in without speaking to serious hostility toward women as anything but silent fucktoys on the developer’s part?

    then you really don’t understand the depravity of misogyny.

    I think you have forgotten whose comment you answered there.

  100. rrhain says

    @91 (WharGarbl):

    “I have a hard time imagining ANY context where this statue might be considered okay.”

    Why? Do you just not enjoy dark humor? Forget the female aspect of it for right now. Focus just on the zombie part: Is there no way in which a figurine of a dismembered body is not a cause for concern but is actually something humorous?

    I can easily see some sort of spoof of zombie culture where a zombie Michelangelo is trying to carve his next statue and has his zombie model get into a pose and just as he’s about to start chipping away at the marble, a group of humans bursts in. Zombie Michelangelo hides while the humans attack the model, chop off its limbs, and blow its head away. Woo-hoo! They leave and ZM comes out, sees the torso behind, shrugs his shoulders, and mounts it as his latest piece.

    Now, you might say that that’s a bit too far-fetched, but I don’t think so. This is gamer culture we’re talking about. This sort of dark humor runs deep. And depending upon the game play of Dead Island, this vision of replacing standard icons of our current world with “zombie” versions of them makes perfect sense.

    Thus, in that context, a figurine of a dismembered torso done up as a classical statue has no nefarious undertones at all. Even if it is of a woman. After all, this game takes place on a tropical vacation island where everybody’s running around half-naked to begin with.

    But, as I said, I’m not saying this is that example. It appears that Deep Silver has other problems such that any redeeming context is overshadowed by the bad stuff.

    You see, it’s not enough to get the right answer. You have to show your work. Too many of the people (and to some extent, that includes you) are just having an emotional reaction: “OMG! Dismembered woman!”

    There’s more to it than that.

  101. says

    Forget the female aspect of it for right now.

    How nice for you that you can.

    Too many of the people (and to some extent, that includes you) are just having an emotional reaction.

    How nice for you that you can just turn that off. I mean, it’s not a body that looks like yours being hacked up and displayed like that. As is the usually the case.

    Got anything else you’d like to mansplain to us?

  102. Rip Steakface says

    But it is a game developer which thinks that this approach would sell

    Unlikely. Developers aren’t associated with how the game is marketed or what’s included in promotional packages. That’s the marketing department.

    Either way, I can say two things: one, gaming is still rife with misogyny in a number of ways, ranging from the portrayal of female characters to the way the average idiot on Xbox Live acts. Two, there *are* gamers denouncing it. That very site linked to in the OP used the words “vile misogynist crap” (or something about “vile misogynist” at least) to describe the statuette.

    Oh, and the name of the game is just “Dead Island” – Riptide is an expansion (PZ, we know you do or at least did play WoW – compare it to Wrath of the Lich King or Cataclysm). The most notable thing about it was its trailer that gave it massive hype (it was a brilliantly well-made trailer, namely because of its brief, yet heart-wrenching story and interesting anachronistic delivery), but it came out and was just average at best. If you want to kill zombies, play DayZ or Left 4 Dead. DayZ is basically just like a tabletop game with zombies thanks to its completely freeform style (and mostly avoids misogyny, though you still can’t play as a female – that may be more due to the game engine it’s based on being made for a military shooter), and L4D is by this point an old standby of zombie gaming that contains fairly minimal if any misogyny that I can immediately recall.

  103. rrhain says

    @97 (Gregory):

    “Misogyny is never ‘OK’, because it is never, at any time or in any place, ‘OK’ to treat women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people.”

    Agreed.

    Now, where was it agreed that this was an example of misogyny in general or of “treating women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people”?

    You did read my post, didn’t you? Don’t respond to what you wish I would have said. Pay attention to what I actually did.

    Are you saying that there is no way in which a mutilated corpse is an appropriate symbol? If so, then the entire point of a zombie video game must be discarded. After all, the point of that game is to kill the zombies. They were once people.

    So if it’s OK in the context of a zombie video game to have a mutilated corpse, then it necessarily must be the case that it is OK if, perhaps, that corpse is of a woman.

    “This may seem shocking to you”

    Not at all. I’m not shocked by people’s stupidity. It’s saddening, yes, but not shocking. Your inability to examine context and understand why something might be misogynistic has led you to failure. You have seen a symbol, applied a singular emotional reaction to it, and come up with an answer without any intervening logic.

    That’s not shocking. It’s called a “snap decision” and we make them all the time.

    That doesn’t make them right.

    “the principle is easy to remember because it is so consistent; misogyny is never OK.

    “There are no circumstances, however exteme the silly hypothetical scenario quoted may be, that make misogyny OK.

    “There are no excuses for misogyny that make it no big deal.”

    Indeed.

    When was it agreed to that this was misogynistic?

    See, there’s the flaw in your black-and-white thinking: It only works on things that have already been examined and categorized. You have yet to explain why this is an example of misogyny. Just because you think so doesn’t make it so.

    Hint: I do think this is an example of misogyny, but it isn’t for the same reason you do. As should be clear, I think that difference of opinion is important because just because you have the right answer doesn’t mean you’re doing the right thing. Eventually, there will be another scenario that requires you to examine a situation where the reason why is important. If you can’t understand why you came to your conclusion but simply rely upon your snap judgement, you may come to the wrong conclusion and there will be a problem.

    “People are always people”

    Even zombies?

    Then I guess you’re saying the entire concept of a video game where the idea is to kill the zombies before they kill you is a bad thing.

    Is that what you’re saying? Because if it isn’t, then your reaction to this is not justified. The fact that it is a female torso is thus immaterial in and of itself.

    “this statuette is misogynistic and does denigrate women.”

    Why?

    “It is no coincidence that a slim, bikini-clad, dismembered female torso with what appear to be breast implants was chosen for the statuette.”

    So? Remember the context of the game. It’s on a tropical vacation island. Are you trying to tell me that such places don’t have such people? I live in San Diego. It’s the dead of winter and I can still go to the beach and see them.

    “They could just as easily have included a statuette of one of the in game characters, or a group of zombies, but they didn’t.”

    So? Just because they didn’t appeal to your tastes means they’re misogynistic? You’re going to have to do better than that.

    Remember, I agree that this statue is misogynistic. I just disagree with you as to why.

    “They chose this specific image in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of sexist arseholes in the gaming community who would find it titillating, and the fact that it is a woman’s body that is depicted so mutilated is also not a coincidence.”

    Really? When you read other people’s minds, do you have to filter other people out as if you were in a crowded room or is it like tuning in a radio station where you only hear one person at a time?

    Cuz from where I’m sitting, the idea of a zombie version of a statue from the antiquities is kinda cool. There may be other reasons for me not to want a particular version due to aspects of misogyny, but the concept in and of itself is no big deal. A mutilated, female corpse is not, in and of itself, misogynistic. If you disagree with that, then we are at an impasse.

    “The parallels to the misogynist tendency to view women as sex despensors valuable only for their sexual attributes is brazenly obvious.”

    Why?

  104. John Morales says

    rrhain,

    There’s more to it than that.

    No shit.

    The specimen that wants to calmly discuss semiotics has a point; I quote:

    A text book example of the most extreme ends of misogynist fantasy, a woman reduced to nothing but her tits, her wounds hideously depicted in gore, jutting bones, and of course barely a mark covering her globular breasts.

  105. says

    Not at all. I’m not shocked by people’s stupidity. It’s saddening, yes, but not shocking. Your inability to examine context and understand why something might be misogynistic has led you to failure. You have seen a symbol, applied a singular emotional reaction to it, and come up with an answer without any intervening logic.

    Rrhain, I hope you don’t mind my asking, but do you have to work hard at being a condescending taint pustule with an ill-earned sense of intellectual superiority and a Guinness Book–level lack of self-awareness, or did you inherit a gene for it?

  106. Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven says

    Well said. I’m not exactly saying there’s a solution. I don’t see the problem going away in any forseeable future. You can cleanse gaming culture, and the menchildren will just go someplace else, their frustrations still intact.

    1) there are a finite number of “somewhere else’s.”
    2) if even 0.5% of them stop and realize there’s a REASON they’re not welcome in this space and relates to their behavior, and make some effort to change it, this is an improvement.
    3) even if they go somewhere else, one space has now been freed for everyone else, and sooner or later, they will run out of spaces in which they are entrenched and accepted.

  107. rrhain says

    @122 (Ms. Daisy Cutter)

    “How nice for you that you can.”

    Yep, it’s called “analysis.” It’s one of the skills that comes with critical thinking. You still have to synthesize at the end, but it is essential. In order to understand the whole, you have to understand the parts.

    Are you saying that all images of a mutilated, female corpse are examples of misogyny? Absolutely no exceptions? Every single one?

    Because if you are, then we are at an impasse.

    See, this is how the analysis works. We have to examine why this is a problem. Well, let’s look at the scenario: It’s from a video game. A zombie video game. A zombie video game that is set on a tropical vacation island.

    OK, so a mutilated corpse of a scantily clad tourist is right up there in the dark humour category.

    So then we get to the fact that it’s a woman. See, we can’t just notic, “OMG! Mutilated female corpse!” and let it go at that. The fact that it’s female may or may not be important.

    Now, a mutilated corpse, in most situations, isn’t a pleasant thing. It requires a specific context to make it be acceptable. And applying the zombie video game to it goes a long way in making that OK. If you think that it is never appropriate to find a mutilated corpse a good thing, regardless of gender, then we are at an even bigger impasse because that means the game, in and of itself, is a problem.

    So the corpse, in and of itself, is not a problem. So the fact that it’s female may be the source of the problem.

    See, and this is where I can tell you didn’t actually read the post. This makes it very difficult to have a discussion since your statements will make no sense as they are non sequiturs, having no connection to the post to which you are responding.

    “How nice for you that you can just turn that off. I mean, it’s not a body that looks like yours being hacked up and displayed like that.”

    Why do you think it isn’t? And why does that matter? Are you seriously claiming that I am incapable of comprehending what it means to be objectified? You really know so much about me and my life that you are absolutely certain of how society looks upon people like me?

    When you read other people’s minds, do you have to focus on one as if you were in the middle of a crowded room or does it work like a radio station where you only hear one person at a time?

    “Got anything else you’d like to mansplain to us?”

    If you aren’t going to read the post before responding, then this discussion won’t be very productive.

    Question to you: Without looking back at my posts, going just off what you can recall of what I said, do I or do I not think that this statue is misogynistic?

    Think carefully, now. It’s not a trick question, but take the time to be certain of your response. I have stated directly and without ambiguity my feelings on this subject, so your answer should be quite simple to recall.

    Shall I make a gender-based remark about you, now? Is that how this goes? Nah…let’s just point it out: You’re behaving like a fool and I’m calling you out on it. This has nothing to do with my gender (and let’s be honest, you don’t know what it is.) It has everything to do with you not liking what I said and rather than responding to my actual words, you are responding to your emotional reaction. That, too, has nothing to do with your gender (see Thunderf00t). It has to do with your argument being unable to withstand scrutiny.

  108. rrhain says

    @126 (Jadehawk)

    “forget the most relevant part for a moment, so it looks like I might have a point”

    Nope! Try again.

    Hint: Think about why that is the part I wanted to ignore.
    Hint: Did I want to ignore it completely?
    Hint: Do I think the statue is misogynistic? Be careful. This is the important one.

  109. rrhain says

    @127 (Ms. Daisy)

    Yeah…this coming from the superior intellect that came up with “Got anything else you’d like to mansplain to us?”

    Because *that* is the epitome of Serious Debate.

    If you can’t handle your opinions being examined, perhaps you should consider not expressing them in a place that encourages such.

  110. rrhain says

    @125 (John Morales):

    “The specimen that wants to calmly discuss semiotics has a point; I quote:”

    Oh? Why? Why does that interpretation of what this figurine represents get to be the one that we accept as valid?

    Hint: Not all interpretations are valid or correct. Some answers are wrong.

    Now before you respond, pause for a moment: Do I think this figurine is misogynist?

  111. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gee, three posts in a row. Sets of PZ’s troll alarm rrhain….For good reason….

  112. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Rrhain: I guess you missed the part where dark humour is supposed to be funny. Like you keep reaching for these examples outside of the actual context, and outside of any human context, where if you sorta squint right, it’s not about sexualized violence against women.

    The thing is that NONE OF THOSE CONTEXTS YOU’RE MAKING UP ARE REAL.

    We don’t give a fuck, hell, we don’t give a half-hearted handjob what you personally think about the statue. What we care about is that you’re really, really invested in defending misogyny. And you’re really angry that women (you know, the people who know misogyny best) might be better authorities on the subject than you. You’re fucking explaining water to fish. You utter ignoramus.

    Get some fucking self awareness, or at least the shame to stop dropping trou and Dunning your Kruger in public.

    What matters is that they chose a sexualized female body to decapitate, to render into a LITERAL sexualized object. And no, dude, you don’t know shit about female objectification, as you happily demonstreate. Over and over. At length.

  113. says

    The grownups are talking.

    Indeed. Sadly, you aren’t among them.

    Remember, you have to read the post first.

    Mmm, no, although it’s usually advisable, there’s no actual RULE that says that I have to read a person’s entire post before responding to it. In your case, I read the first couple of lines and said to myself, “This is probably some condesplaining shitstain come to JAQ off all over our nice discussion parlor.” Turns out I was right. Turns out, for most people it’s best to read their entire post. In your case, it’s a fucking waste of time.

    Is there a possible context in which an image of a dismembered woman’s body with titillating breasts intact used in a marketing context is NOT misogynist? Theoretically, yes. It’s possible. It’s also possible that I am a highly trained elephant with excellent typing skills.

    We’re not here discussing hypotheticals. You want to play games with semiotics? You’re derailing. Take it to the Thunderdome (linky found in left column towards the top of the page) or just shut up. I don’t care which.

  114. WharGarbl says

    @rrhain
    #121

    Why? Do you just not enjoy dark humor?

    I enjoy dark humor. But even dark humor has lines it doesn’t cross depending on the situation. For example, if you want to make dark humors about the Holocaust and 9/11 (or racism), tread very, very carefully.

    Forget the female aspect of it for right now.

    So, Rapelay is a fine game if you ignore the rape part?

    Focus just on the zombie part: Is there no way in which a figurine of a dismembered body is not a cause for concern but is actually something humorous?

    Depending on context and environment. In a condition where female bodies are extensively objectified, having a figurine that have everything BUT the objectified part (the boobs) removed just reinforce something we don’t want reinforcing.
    Dark humor would be something like L4D2’s female boomer, just… look at it.

  115. says

    Forget the female aspect of it for right now.

    Since rrhain is actually in the midst of performing misogyny himself, his judgment as to what is or isn’t misogyny is suspect. If he’s unable to admit that this is an inherently misogynist suggestion, in the context in which it was offered, his judgment should be called further into question.

  116. rrhain says

    @134 (Happiestsadist):

    “I guess you missed the part where dark humour is supposed to be funny.”

    And who are you to say it isn’t? Why is your opinion the only valid one? Indeed, not all answers are correct and not all interpretations are valid, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be multiple, valid interpretations.

    “The thing is that NONE OF THOSE CONTEXTS YOU’RE MAKING UP ARE REAL.”

    Really? Because I have female friends (and it’s sad that I have to emphasize their gender) who would love this figurine and I know this because they already have some like it. And I, too, asked them what on earth would possess them to have such a thing, and they explained it to me. They’re comic geeks and gamers and while I don’t get into that world very deep, I can certainly understand where they are coming from.

    Every year, half my friends disappear into the Convention Center here in San Diego in the middle of the summer and they come back with stuff just like this. And divorced from that context, it’d make your skin crawl. But once you understand where they’re coming from, it makes perfect sense. Maybe not to my taste, but who the hell am I to judge?

    “We don’t give a fuck, hell, we don’t give a half-hearted handjob what you personally think about the statue.”

    And that’s why you keep failing. You keep coming at this as someone trying to convince me that it’s misogynistic. And that’s why your arguments don’t work. I already agree that it is. The problem is not the what. It’s the why. In the context of a zombie video game that takes place on a tropical vacation island, a figurine of a dismembered, female tourist, in and of itself, is of no concern.

    And yet this specific instance is still misogynistic. Stop trying to convince me that it is and start trying to explain why you think it is.

    “What we care about is that you’re really, really invested in defending misogyny.”

    (*chuckle*)

    What part of, “I think this statue is misogynistic” can be interpreted as a defense of misogyny?

    “And you’re really angry that women (you know, the people who know misogyny best) might be better authorities on the subject than you.”

    You say that as if you know my gender. Are you sure?

    Talk about “you utter ignoramous.” In your demand to “get some fucking self-awareness,” did you bother to include yourself?

    “What matters is that they chose a sexualized female body to decapitate, to render into a LITERAL sexualized object.”

    So? So those women who already have these images, they’re self-hating? You’re really gonna tell that to them? You know, the people who know misogyny best, you and your “kruger-dunning” self are going to tell them that they actually loathe themselves because they get into the comic/gamer/zombie aesthetic and have no problem with it?

    Wow.

  117. says

    Hint: Think about why that is the part I wanted to ignore.

    because it’s the relevant part that destroys your argument. I know you are unaware of this fact, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.

    Hint: Did I want to ignore it completely?

    irrelevant to my point.

    Hint: Do I think the statue is misogynistic? Be careful. This is the important one.

    cute. as if it were just about this one particular statue. as if, were misogyny not rampant, such statues could exist the way they do. as if this were a world in which, say, a “sexy mutilated male torso” were as likely as this statue is.

    IOW, a statue of a part of a women’s corpse could only be non-mysogynist in a parallel universe that wasn’t patriarchal, and in which, say, there was a weird-ass religion involving female zombies; but in such a world, such a statue would never look like this one. And such a world is not this one, thus the hypothetical is worthless.

  118. rrhain says

    @135: (SallyStrange)

    “Mmm, no, although it’s usually advisable, there’s no actual RULE that says that I have to read a person’s entire post before responding to it.”

    Indeed, and look where it got you. It’s nice to see you recognizing that you’ve wandered off and wrote about something completely immaterial to anything I said. What are you going to do about it?

    “Is there a possible context in which an image of a dismembered woman’s body with titillating breasts intact used in a marketing context is NOT misogynist? Theoretically, yes. It’s possible.”

    And a zombie-gamer context isn’t one of them?

    Why not?

    “We’re not here discussing hypotheticals.”

    But it’s the only way to understand what’s going on. Otherwise, you’re just reacting to emotion and not paying any attention to the context in which something takes place. For example, if it were a male torso, would that change your opinion? If so, then why does the female version cause a different reaction? Suppose this weren’t a zombie-gamer context but were, say, a right-wing surivalist shooting range. Would that change your opinion? If so, then why does the zombie-gamer version cause a different reaction?

    You have to examine the hypothetical in order to understand the actual. It’s the same problem as confusing personal experience for a generalizable effect: By not comparing what happened to other examples in order to see how they are different and the same, you have no way to truly understand the data you have. You have to be able to place the specific within a larger context in order to understand what is going on. Otherwise, you end up extrapolating beyond your data.

    And there’s a simple way for you to stop having to participate: Stop posting responses. I have no control over you or your keyboard. Nobody is forcing you to read (are they?) If you don’t like what I have to say, then just stop.

  119. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Rrhain: “Butbut I have female friends! Really! And they’d like it!”

    Aww, it’s like you’ve never heard of internalized misogyny. Well, to be fair, you don’t seem to know what misogyny means, so that may be the case. And yeah, I judge that shit too.

    No, the why it’s totes clever to have some torture porn lying around actually does not matter. Like, you’re acting like it’s a fucking documentary on the Lesser Beach Going Zombie. No, it’s fucking torture porn. Someone wanted to make a game with sexualized violence. That’s the bottom line.

    You’re being a misogynist right now, explaining to women that their silly ladybrainz just don’t get why it’s like totally clever because your totally real female friends also love misogyny. We heard you. You’re full of shit, though.

    “You say that as if you know my gender. Are you sure?”
    If you were a woman, you wouldn’t be relying on your totally real female friends as tokens to back your sexism up.

    And cupcake, take a minute to look up “Dunning-Kruger effect”, you’re embarrassing yourself. I am a gamer, I have more comics than you, and I’ve seen more zombie and splatter movies than you. Stop waving your geek cred, I ain’t impressed.

  120. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And that’s why you keep failing.

    No, you’re the one failing. No EVIDENCE to support your OPINION. And your OPINION is bullshit without EVIDENCE. Funny how MRA fuckwits have trouble with that concept. No evidence, we believe you lie and bullshit…

  121. Barklikeadog says

    rrhain do you fucking know how to blockquote? And Jesus wept you are one stupid long winded fuck.

  122. says

    The fact that it’s female may or may not be important

    because of course we live in a universe in which this statue could have been male as likely as female. of course. the world is littered with statues of bleeding, mutilated, headless corpse-statues with huge dicks straining against ridiculously tiny speedos.

    lol.

  123. says

    If you were a woman, you wouldn’t be relying on your totally real female friends as tokens to back your sexism up.

    This is undeniably true.

    I’m taking bets: who wants to bet on rrhain denying it anyway, and who wants to bet on him ignoring it completely?

  124. says

    feh. considering the existence of FeMRAs, I see no reason for assuming rrhain has to be male.

    c’mon folks: misandrist pants anyone?

  125. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    Now before you respond, pause for a moment: Do I think this figurine is misogynist?

    Duh. Obviously not, since you are disputing that it is:

    “Is there a possible context in which an image of a dismembered woman’s body with titillating breasts intact used in a marketing context is NOT misogynist? Theoretically, yes. It’s possible.”

    And a zombie-gamer context isn’t one of them?

    There you go.

  126. rrhain says

    @136 (WharGarbl):

    “But even dark humor has lines it doesn’t cross depending on the situation.”

    Indeed. What I’m asking is what is the situation that makes this thing bad? It isn’t the figure in and of itself because I know too many people, a lot of them women, who would love to have such a thing. They already do. It’s a certain aesthetic and I don’t get into it, but it isn’t misogyny in any way, shape, or form. That I don’t go for it doesn’t mean nobody else can or should.

    “For example, if you want to make dark humors about the Holocaust and 9/11 (or racism), tread very, very carefully.”

    Indeed. Many people don’t seem to think that _Inglorious Basterds_ was that good of a movie. _The Producers_ was a wonderful movie. “Springtime for Hitler” is one of the funniest songs out there.

    But if you had no idea the context in which it was presented, you’d be exactly like the audience as depicted: Shocked into silence.

    When _Assassins_ first came out, a friend of mine commented about the final number, “Everybody’s Got the Right”: If you didn’t know what the song was about, you’d think this was a song Carol Burnett would sing at the end of one of her TV specials.

    And amazingly enough, about 10 years later, Burnett did just that: At the end of one of her specials, as a way of expressing the message of hope and perseverance, not a trace of sarcasm or double-meaning, she used a song about killing the President. But hey, nobody saw _Assassins_ and only us theatre geeks know of it, so why not? The lyrics are so positive! “Everybody’s got the right to be happy. Don’t be mad, life’s not as bad as it seems! If you keep your goal in sight, you can climb to any height. Everybody’s got the right to their dreams!”

    “So, Rapelay is a fine game if you ignore the rape part?”

    Who said it was rape? See, that’s the part you’re overlooking. Rape is always bad. But just because it looks like it to you doesn’t mean it really is. There are plenty of people into SM who engage in acts that those not into the scene would declare to be torture and rape. And yet, it isn’t. Why? Because the act, in and of itself, is neither torture nor rape. It is the context in which it takes place that makes it so.

    And it is that lack of comprehension of context that results in various acts of misogyny. Should a female sex worker be raped, she’s going to have the devil of a time getting it taken seriously let alone securing a conviction because, after all, she’s a prostitute. But just because you get paid for having sex doesn’t mean you want to have sex every time it happens.

    Same thing here: It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem. We need a context in which to place it in order to make that determination and a zombie-gamer context actually helps it not be misogyny. That doesn’t mean this particular instance is such (as I have said, the figurine is problematic), but it does mean that the case is not so clear as it may seem at first glance.

  127. says

    Because I have female friends (and it’s sad that I have to emphasize their gender) who would love this figurine and I know this because they already have some like it.

    Is anyone keeping score on a bingo card? Just curious.

    (*chuckle*)

    Add that one, too. If it’s not on a card already, it should be. It’s always, inevitably, the spoor of a patronizing JAQoff, patiently indulging the silly vulva-things.

    FeMRAs exist, but I’d bet money on Rrhain being male.

  128. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    It isn’t the figure in and of itself because I know too many people, a lot of them women, who would love to have such a thing.

    How many is “too many” and “a lot”?

    (Me, I can’t think of anyone I know who’d want that on their mantelpiece)

  129. rrhain says

    @150 (John Morales):

    Now before you respond, pause for a moment: Do I think this figurine is misogynist?

    Duh. Obviously not, since you are disputing that it is

    BZZZT!

    Awww…I’m so sorry. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts we have!

    There you go.

    Close, but keep going. Get to the part where I actually state directly what I think of the figurine. Look at 118 and 124. I gave my opinion directly.

    So since your conclusion is directly controverted by simple inspection, what does that do to your argument?

  130. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Same thing here: It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem. We need a context in which to place it in order to make that determination and a zombie-gamer context actually helps it not be misogyn

    Nope fuckwit. Get rid of the “we”. YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DELIBEATIONS. Your OPINION is bullshit. We don’t care what an MRA or MRA apologist thinks (or rather pretends not to think). WHERE IS YOUR THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE? NOT ONE LINK TO ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING YOU ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LIAR AND BULLSHITTER.

    Reality check time. What can you prove, as your OPINION is not, and never will be, EVIDENCE?

  131. says

    I know too many people, a lot of them women, who would love to have such a thing

    and this would make it non-misogyny… how…? because you have some odd idea that women don’t buy into our sexist culture…?

    It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem

    incorrect. it is both the context and the statue, because “sexy dead woman’s body-parts” is inherently misogynist as well as misogynist-by-context. a non-misogynist statue, like from that parallel universe without the sexism, would have looked differently.

    zombie-gamer context actually helps it not be misogyny

    no, it actually doesn’t. because even if such a thing were possible (because, somehow, miraculously, the zombie gamer culture would not be full of toxic sexism; you know, a parallel universe zombie gamer culture), the statue would look completely different.

  132. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Same thing here: It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem. We need a context in which to place it in order to make that determination and a zombie-gamer context actually helps it not be misogyn

    You are the one parting, as a troll should when confronted with its trolling….

  133. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    rrhain:
    (1) Learn to html. Seriously. It is not hard, there is a handy guide right above the “Submit Comment” button. Your posts, as of right now, are all but unreadable.
    (2) You ask,

    What I’m asking is what is the situation that makes this thing bad?

    What is the situation? Worldwide oppression of women. Situations and attitudes that are predicated on the belief that women are lesser, than violence against women ain’t no thing, that a woman exists to serve her man.
    The idea that a woman, and her body, is a thing. Not a person, a thing. To be used, to be consumed.

    To be mutilated, chopped up, and displayed as “art.”

  134. says

    To sum up:

    Is there a possible context in which using this figurine as a marketing tool is not misogynist?

    Yes, inasmuch as all things are possible and we can’t rule out the existence of intelligent life on alien planets who may someday come across this figurine and decide to advertise trips to Exotic Earth as a tourist destination with it.

    Is this one of those non-misogynist contexts?

    No.

    Is rrhain doing misogyny right now?

    Yes.

    Should we care about his opinion regarding misogyny, given that he doesn’t seem to understand the concept?

    No.

    That’s it, rrhain. You can go home now.

  135. says

    Who said it was rape? See, that’s the part you’re overlooking. Rape is always bad. But just because it looks like it to you doesn’t mean it really is. There are plenty of people into SM who engage in acts that those not into the scene would declare to be torture and rape. And yet, it isn’t. Why? Because the act, in and of itself, is neither torture nor rape. It is the context in which it takes place that makes it so.

    I cannot wrap my head around the epic fuckedness of someone who doesn’t think rapelay is not glorification of rape. FFS, that’s the plot of the goddamn game: raping women.

  136. Snoof says

    @Woo Monster

    Aside from the ones already mentioned, I love Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup to pieces. It’s a classic roguelike that’s somewhere between Nethack and Angband in complexity, but it has a number of modern interface tweaks (contextual item usage! auto explore!) which mean it’s spoiled me for a lot of other roguelikes. I play it ASCII, having grown up with Moria and Nethack, but there’s decent tilesets available for it.

    Speaking of zombies, Cataclysm looks like a lot of fun. I haven’t played much yet, though. It’s a zombie survival roguelike (with a lot of inspirations from L4D) with an emphasis on crafting and scrounging. No tilesets though.

    If you like survival games, there’s also UnReal World, which is about surviving in Iron Age Finland via hunting, gathering and farming. It has a huge amount of detail, and is fairly slow-paced. It’s surprisingly entertaining to stalk a reindeer, bring it down with a well-placed arrow, and haul its carcass back to your lodge to preserve so you have meat for the winter. The sprite graphics are simple but fairly readable.

  137. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    @150 (John Morales):

    Now before you respond, pause for a moment: Do I think this figurine is misogynist?

    Duh. Obviously not, since you are disputing that it is

    BZZZT!
    Awww…I’m so sorry. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts we have!

    So, you claim you are not disputing that it is misogynist, since I am wrong to think it evident that you do so.

    (What is it you do dispute?)

  138. rrhain says

    @143 (HappiestSadist):

    Aww, it’s like you’ve never heard of internalized misogyny.

    Impressive mind-reading skills. How confident you are that you know the inner workings of every single woman out there. That there can’t possibly be a woman who likes this sort of thing unless she’s fucked up.

    And how ironic that your nick is “HappiestSadist.” Tell us, are all female subs fucked up with internalized misogyny?

    No, it’s fucking torture porn.

    When did we agree it was torture porn? Just because you think it is doesn’t mean you’re right.

    Someone wanted to make a game with sexualized violence. That’s the bottom line.

    So? There are plenty of examples of sexualized violence that aren’t misogyny (and let’s not be disingenuous and pretend I’m talking about gay men.)

    @146 (Jadehawk):

    the world is littered with statues of bleeding, mutilated, headless corpse-statues with huge dicks straining against ridiculously tiny speedos.

    You clearly aren’t looking in the right places. What makes you think the world is only heterosexual in nature?

    @148 (SallyStrange):

    I’m taking bets: who wants to bet on rrhain denying it anyway, and who wants to bet on him ignoring it completely?

    And why do you think it matters?

    Ooh? Do I win? I didn’t ignore it and I didn’t deny it, either. I’ll be happy to let you in on the secret just as soon as you explain why it changes anything about what I have said.

    @153 (John Morales):

    How many is “too many” and “a lot”?

    It’s the colloquial idea that just a few can be understood as anomalies but eventually you start to realize there is a real demographic there.

  139. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    SallyStrange: I don’t think any of us do, but rrhain sure thinks we all need to know. Because how else is he going to show off his amazing objectivity and totally not fictional chill girl friends?

  140. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Just because you think it is doesn’t mean you’re right.

    That is the totality of your post. Your OPINION is irrelevant, and you present no EVIDENCE. Ergo, nothing but lies and bullshit, like every other MRA to date….

  141. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    So? There are plenty of examples of sexualized violence that aren’t misogyny (and let’s not be disingenuous and pretend I’m talking about gay men.)

    Care to attempt to cite but one?

  142. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You clearly aren’t looking in the right places.

    Nor are you. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE????

  143. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    rrhain: It really makes you upset to be told that the fact that women are susceptible to internalizing misogyny, doesn’t it? I mean, I’m taking away your tokenized totally not fictional female friends who LOVE dismembered, sexualized torsos!

    Most of the female subs I’ve known known/played with know the difference between private funtime games and general-audience popular misogyny. But again, you’re the one bringing up BDSM to defend a game about rape, so I don’t think you’re really getting what consent is either.

    LOL, sure, there’s a lot of sexualized violence that isn’t misogyny in video games. Or popular culture in general. Pull the other one. Actually, don’t fucking touch me. You’re just going to keep cheerfully denying the fact that rape culture, and misogyny exist. Measurably. To women who fucking know better.

  144. says

    Fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

    I’m sorry, did someone say something?

  145. says

    Impressive mind-reading skills. How confident you are that you know the inner workings of every single woman out there. That there can’t possibly be a woman who likes this sort of thing unless she’s fucked up.

    impressive ignorance of the world. as if there was a single person in this world somehow immune from internalized sexism.

    You clearly aren’t looking in the right places. What makes you think the world is only heterosexual in nature?

    thank you for confirming my point. this torso=don’t need to go looking for it, because it’s just one more example of ubiquitous misogyny. the equivalent? requires niche searches. ergo, the world is obviously not littered with such things as it is with the female equivalents.

    but hey, since you’re so hip with the gore-kink, show me how easy it is to find the equivalent of this.

  146. rrhain says

    @162 (Jadehawk):

    I cannot wrap my head around the epic fuckedness of someone who doesn’t think rapelay is not glorification of rape.

    Well, since I said rape is always bad, it can’t be from anything I said.

    Oh, I see! It’s the part where I didn’t just blithely accept that what was happening was rape! It’s the part where I wanted to find out what the parties involved were thinking before I made any decision.

    Rape requires a violation of will. In most contexts, we can determine the violation of the will just by observing. The people involved don’t have to say anything directly.

    But there are other times where you can’t. To an extent, there is validity to the cliche: You can’t rape the willing. That’s the whole point behind SM: Power exchange. It may look like rape but it isn’t because the participants want it to happen. It requires a specific context and it certainly isn’t the most common one out there, but it does mean that we need to pay attention to our reactions and make sure we are reacting to what is actually happening and not our assumptions of what is happening.

    That still doesn’t mean we have to like it. But it does mean we have to understand that the reason we don’t like it is because of internal dislike, not because of some determination of rape.

    Why do you think this figurine is misogynistic? After all, I think it is, too.

    However, I don’t think it is simply because it’s a figurine of a mutilated woman with large breasts. If that’s the primary reason you think it is, then we are at an impasse.

  147. says

    It’s the part where I wanted to find out what the parties involved were thinking before I made any decision.

    what “parties”?! rapelay is not a multiplayer game.

    do you even know what the fuck you’re talking about?

  148. says

    It’s the part where I didn’t just blithely accept that what was happening was rape!

    In a game called “Rapelay,” which is all about raping women and girls, and was marketed as such?

    I’m bookmarking this thread for the next time someone asks me what I mean when I say “hyperskepticism”.

  149. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    [1] Why do you think this figurine is misogynistic? After all, I think it is, too.

    [2] However, I don’t think it is simply because it’s a figurine of a mutilated woman with large breasts. If that’s the primary reason you think it is, then we are at an impasse.

    1. You agree it’s misogynistic.

    2. Not a figurine of a mutilated woman with large breasts, but a sexualised figurine of a mutilated woman; that is the primary reason.

  150. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Where the fuck do you think you get off explaining how kink works to people who likely have a damn lot more experience than you, and who understand things like consent and rape culture a lot better than you’ve been demonstrating?

    Also, you’re continuing to call a video game about raping women and girls somehow not about rape. WTF.

    Here’s the thing: if it weren’t about Teh Sexxxay Mutilated Torso, it wouldn’t be just a disembodied torso without a scratch on the breasts. Just to start. We live in a culture where that is deemed okay. Being a part of that makes you a shitty person who needs to sit in the corner and think about where they went wrong.

  151. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    However, I don’t think it is simply because it’s a figurine of a mutilated woman with large breasts. If that’s the primary reason you think it is, then we are at an impasse.

    We don’t give a shit what a fuckwitted idjit like you thinks. Only what it can provide third party EVIDENCE for., And your provide nothing but your OPINION, which is typical of MRA fuckwits and their apologists. ERGO, NOTHING YOU SAY IS CONSIDERED RELEVENT WITHOUT A CITATION TO BACK IT UP….

  152. rrhain says

    @164 (John Morales):

    So, you claim you are not disputing that it is misogynist, since I am wrong to think it evident that you do so.

    (What is it you do dispute?)

    Correct. I agree that the figurine is misogynist.

    What I dispute are the reasons why. It isn’t because of the surface visuals. It isn’t because of the zombie-gamer context of it (since the gamer culture has a lot of sexist fools in it.)

    It’s that the game isn’t really about that, the company has a history of not exactly treating women well, and their reaction to this shows they didn’t have much of an idea about what this figurine was supposed to be. This figurine could have been completely legit: If part of the game was the creativity with which you dispatched zombies, where you could take in-game pictures of your trophies, then something like this is right there. But Deep Silver failed in understanding why they were doing what they were doing. The fact that it’s just this one figure rather than a line of such is an example of that failure.

    Instead, everybody’s shrieking about a “mutilated woman!” as if that were the end-all, be-all of it.

    @162 (Jadehawk):

    I cannot wrap my head around the epic fuckedness of someone who doesn’t think rapelay is not glorification of rape.

    Well, since I said rape is always bad, it can’t be from anything I said.

    Oh, I see! It’s the part where I didn’t just blithely accept that what was happening was rape! It’s the part where I wanted to find out what the parties involved were thinking before I made any decision.

    Rape requires a violation of will. In most contexts, we can determine the violation of the will just by observing. The people involved don’t have to say anything directly.

    But there are other times where you can’t. To an extent, there is validity to the cliche: You can’t rape the willing. That’s the whole point behind SM: Power exchange. It may look like rape but it isn’t because the participants want it to happen. It requires a specific context and it certainly isn’t the most common one out there, but it does mean that we need to pay attention to our reactions and make sure we are reacting to what is actually happening and not our assumptions of what is happening.

    @169 (SallyStrange):

    Oh damn. He went there. This will end shortly, and not well.

    Yep, I did. Are you going to be the one to make to explode?

    @172 (John Morales):

    Care to attempt to cite but one?

    I already did. So the entire BDSM world is all about misogyny? It is impossible for a female to be submissive without invoking internalized sexism?

    This isn’t about somehow “surviving” the sexism of the world. Just because we live in a sexist culture doesn’t mean everything has a tinge of sexism to it. Clearly male submissives aren’t doing it out of internalized sexism. Why the assumption that women aren’t doing it for the same reasons? Part of being a dominant is understanding why the sub is submitting and “because I’m a woman and deserve it” is not a reason. You’ll end up breaking your toy.

    @173 (Nerd of Redhead):

    I see…people complain about me not doing my homework and then I’m supposed to do yours, too.

    In this case, I am talking about gay men. Tom of Finland, the Hun, Fillion, Logan, there are plenty of images of male torture. And that doesn’t even get into the Japanese manga. That you only look for the women doesn’t mean everybody else does.

    @174 (Happiestsadist):

    It really makes you upset to be told that the fact that women are susceptible to internalizing misogyny, doesn’t it?

    Not at all. But it sure seems to upset you to be told that not all women have the hangups you want to impose upon them. Is there a reason you want to infantalize women by telling them what they feel?

    Most of the female subs I’ve known known/played with know the difference between private funtime games and general-audience popular misogyny.

    Precisely. To use a tactic others seem to have used, “Some of my best friends are subs!” If you really had, you’d know that without having to justify it.

    But again, you’re the one bringing up BDSM to defend a game about rape, so I don’t think you’re really getting what consent is either.

    You really have a hard time reading before responding, don’t you? Let’s try this again:

    If the two parties agree to it, it isn’t rape. It may look like it. The person may be yelling out, “NO! STOP!” But it isn’t rape. Why? Because they consented to it. If they’re typical about it, it’s because they defined a safeword to be the actual sign of a limit being crossed.

    But you knew that, right? You’ve played with subs, so clearly you know about that.

    Or, perhaps, you just didn’t read my post before you responded. Perhaps you responded to what you wanted me to have said rather than what I actually did.

    You’re just going to keep cheerfully denying the fact that rape culture, and misogyny exist.

    Not at all.

    What I’m going to deny is that a figurine of a mutilated female corpse is ipso facto misogyny.

    @177 (Jadehawk):

    as if there was a single person in this world somehow immune from internalized sexism.

    Impressive ignorance of the world. As if every person has the same hangups as you. The fact there our culture is drenched in sexism does not mean every act has sexism as part of it.

    requires niche searches

    (*chuckle*)

    That’s why Folsom and Southern Decadence and Dore Alley are so small. That’s why you never see the leather folk at Pride.

    Is this the point where I get to call you a homophobe?

  153. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What I dispute are the reasons why.

    Unless you provide something other than your OPINION, we don’t give a shit why. You are lying, bullshitting, and trolling….

  154. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I see…people complain about me not doing my homework and then I’m supposed to do yours, too.

    You haven’t done yours. Your OPINION is bullshit. Cite the literature, or shut the fuck up like a person on honesty and integrity would do. Your inability to do so tells us all we need to know about your lack of morals….

  155. rrhain says

    @182 (Happiestsadist):

    Where the fuck do you think you get off explaining how kink works

    From simple inspection: You said something that was incorrect. It doesn’t matter what sort of “NO CITATION TO BACK IT UP,” to use a complaint made here, credentialing you want to throw out. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

    Also, you’re continuing to call a video game about raping women and girls somehow not about rape. WTF.

    Indeed. WTF?

    When did Dead Island include rape as a game tactic? There is an implied rape in it (Jin), though it is only in the most oblique manner, but it’s not like you go around raping people in the game.

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  156. rrhain says

    @185, @186 (Nerd of Redhead):

    Unless you provide something other than your OPINION, we don’t give a shit why.

    Oh, I see…you can give your opinion about something without “citations from the literature,” but nobody else can.

    So you start: What are the literature references that show that this figurine is an example of misogyny?

    Journal, article, publication date, and page numbers, please.

  157. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Why are you still condesplaining BDSM to me, bro? and you’re still defending a game about raping strangers. They’re not depicted as consenting partners, you fucking simpleton. Why are you continually making up alternate universes where none of the current facts of reality apply?

    Also, why the fuck are you acting like queer kink is anything remotely like a part of mainstream sexualized violence? You’re saying it’s so widespread, but are referring to a few specific fetish artists. It’s always a fucking niche. Jesus christ, stop explaining like nobody here is queer. We fucking know better.

    And yes, all women do to some extent suffer from internalized misogyny. That is how it fucking works. Yes, all. So stop acting like the fact that some of them have a bit more than others is a surprising claim.

  158. John Morales says

    [meta]

    rrhain @187:

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    What you were talking about, not too long ago.

    Here, I emphasise part of your #151:

    “So, →Rapelay← is a fine game if you ignore the rape part?”

    Who said it was rape?

    (You’re funny)

  159. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    We are talking about the RapeLay game. Jesus wept, do you even read a single word anyone here says?

    (For the rest of y’all: I know the answer. His inane arguments are being repeated enough that we can all tell be just really loves hearing himself type.)

  160. says

    It may look like rape but it isn’t because the participants want it to happen. It requires a specific context and it certainly isn’t the most common one out there, but it does mean that we need to pay attention to our reactions and make sure we are reacting to what is actually happening and not our assumptions of what is happening.

    When something is taken to the public sphere, it becomes part of the public context. Just as a pair of friends might be okay with doing impressions of one another and joking around, when this is done publicly and those impressions involve a white woman doing a parody of a black woman’s racially charged physical characteristics, their private feelings no longer matter.

    Just because there might be a private context in which two people are consenting to something does not mean we turn a blind eye to it in a public context.

  161. says

    I don’t think he has even clued into the fact that we referred to, and have been talking about, an entirely different game from the one in the original post, one which is called “Rapelay,” whose plot involves nothing BUT the gameplayer raping digital representations of women and girls.

    Remarkable level of cluelessness.

    Wasn’t someone saying something about actually reading posts? Hmm. Guess I couldn’t hear it over all the fapping.

  162. says

    What I dispute are the reasons why. [...]It isn’t because of the zombie-gamer context of it.

    you’re dumber than a rotten avocado. who the fuck do you think said it was sexist because it was part of zombie-gaming?!

    It’s the part where I didn’t just blithely accept that what was happening was rape! It’s the part where I wanted to find out what the parties involved were thinking before I made any decision.

    copypastaing yourself isn’t actually going to make this blithely stupid comment any less stupid. it’s a game that calls itself rapelay and that’s about raping girls and women, but you think it might not be about rape? also, there are no “parties” involved, ffs.

    Impressive ignorance of the world. As if every person has the same hangups as you. The fact there our culture is drenched in sexism does not mean every act has sexism as part of it.

    1)your ignorance of the basics of psychology and sociology do not actually constitute any ignorance on my part.
    2)this is not about my “hangups”, it’s a simple fact that people absorb their environments as a baseline for “normal”, and this does not exclude the toxic parts of it. consequently, no one in a sexist culture is free of it, and it takes active effort to rid oneself of this shit.
    3)if you have to pretend I said something that I didn’t (that every act is sexist) in order to try to refute me, you’re really grasping at straws.

  163. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So you start: What are the literature references that show that this figurine is an example of misogyny?

    Why can’t you back up your claim, since ours falls under the null hypothesis? OH, THATS RIGHT, YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION, WHICH IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE. Get real fuckwit. You maka da claim, you privida the evidence, or you shuta dah fucka upa….

  164. omnicrom says

    rrhain, I’m so happy you’re so pleased with your own cleverness. Leave.

    You are doing yourself no favors with how you’re really honestly trying to convince us that maybe maybe in this particular context you’ve invented out of whole cloth a blatant piece of Misogyny is somehow not misogynistic because you say so. You’re being a condescending douchebag and your every post is dripping with self-congratulatory pride over how much smarter you are because you can pretend something blatantly hateful is somehow not hateful.

    Fuck off.

  165. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    Rrhain, it has been more than 4 hours since you started fapping posting, time to see a doctor.
    ***
    @110, Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort, & @163 Snoof,

    Thank you. I tried netback and angband, but could not/ didn’t want to take the time to get past the UI and presentation. I think I shall start my explorations with Spelunky, because I already have it and have been meaning to try it.

  166. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    Why is it that these threads are invariably eventually tainted by clueless self-absorbed assholes like Rrhain?

    Well, if you forget the female aspect of it… then… um… I have no fucking clue.

  167. says

    “It is cut off, so who knows. S(he) might have a cock down there.” Bless you @TheToiletDuck

    So…that makes it okay then.

    Fuckin’ A, I want these people off my planet. I want them out of my solar system.

  168. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Xanthe @ #201: I am now feeling the urge to retreat to the Angry Dome.

  169. Raziel WasAlone says

    P.Z., you fuckwit, the gaming community is not responsible for the stupidity of Deep Silver’s Marketing Department.

    Jesus Christ, you could at least research the drivel you blog about.

  170. says

    P.Z., you fuckwit, the gaming community is not responsible for the stupidity of Deep Silver’s Marketing Department.

    Well, the widespread misogyny found among gamers is certainly responsible for the marketing of such stupid tokens – after all, there’s a market, right?

  171. says

    P.Z., you fuckwit, the gaming community is not responsible for the stupidity of Deep Silver’s Marketing Department.

    Well obviously Deep Silver thought they could make money by appealing the closeted woman-hating serial killers amongst you. And since they are “amongst you” rather than “kicked out and excluded and made to feel very unwelcome on account of their disturbing misogyny,” then yeah, you ARE fucking responsible.

    And, by coming here to complain about how it’s NOT MY FAULT, WAAAAAHHHH, you are revealing that you are more interested in maintaining a position of comfortable apathy than you are in lifting a single finger to make woman-haters in your community feel less welcome. And that is exactly why Deep Silver thought they could make money marketing to misogynists: because you and many like you think that it is not your problem and it’s unfair that someone might hold you responsible for the way your community is perceived.

    YOU do some fucking research.

  172. omnicrom says

    P.Z., you fuckwit, the gaming community is not responsible for the stupidity of Deep Silver’s Marketing Department.

    Jesus Christ, you could at least research the drivel you blog about.

    Why did Deep Silver market it then? Does a Business market things if it thinks they won’t get some benefit out of doing so? Would Deep Silver have created the disgusting thing if they thought that the gaming culture wasn’t toxic and ugly enough that there’d be assholes who would be motivated to buy the special edition for the misogynistic statuette?

  173. Raziel WasAlone says

    You fucking idiots. You don’t obviously don’t realise how far out of touch video game publishers are with their markets. If you look on The Escapist website you’ll find the majority of the gamers are opposed to this kind of marketing by Deep Silver.

    For those not in on gamer culture, The Escapist is home to the great Yahtzee Croshaw:

  174. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Jesus Christ, you could at least research the drivel you blog about.

    You could reference what the fuck you are talking about. YOU KNOW, CITATIONS TO SHOW YOU ARE RIGHT? Or, are you just another tag-team OPINION which is worthless lying and bullshing with attitude?

  175. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, videos are for misogynists abject losers, not those with serious facts to debate with evidence….

  176. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Now fuckwit, explain why those are real evidence and not OPINION from various sources. OPINION is not evidence. It is one fuckwit declaiming to another fuckwit…

  177. Raziel WasAlone says

    Whatever.

    The point is that the actions of Deep Silver’s PR department does not represent the varied and many opinions and views of the gaming community.

  178. says

    @218 Raziel

    And that really doesn’t matter. There’s plenty of juvenile sexist stupidity in gaming and it keeps propagating despite people speaking out against it. If the gaming community doesn’t want to get called on its problems it needs to step up and do a better job fixing them. Just like a bunch of vocal american’s that oppose policy A, B, or C doesn’t mean American’s need to fix this shit isn’t a legitimate point.

  179. omnicrom says

    That’s nice Raziel. No seriously, I’m glad that there are a good number of gamers who reject the sexist bullcrap. Unfortunately there’s still a lot of toxic sexism in gaming. Go ask some of the women here who game, they can hit you up with some experiences. Or consider Anita Sarkeesian. Here: an Escapist link of my own:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

    Jim Sterling is full of shit about 70% of the time, but here he’s on the nose. The reason that Anita Sarkeesian became the center of such a firestorm is because her proposed project to examine sexism in gaming was hit with immediate backlash because there’s a lot of sexists IN gaming. How else do you explain the ugly number of people sending her vicious hateful messages? It’s the same shit atheist women get, it’s the same vile misogyny.

    Or how about Jennifer Hepler? She’s a truly dreadful writer for Bioware and one of the ones who lead the charge in filling Dragon Age 2 with utterly inane dialogue and who once suggested maybe an option to skip gameplay the same way people skip cutscenes. That’s an attitude that a game maker should not have. Hepler is also an awful writer, just read the dreadful comic book she wrote. However she became a Martyr for the post-EA Bioware because of an endless parade of dreadful people who attacked her for being a woman and not for being a bad writer. People mock people like Peter Molyneux and Jon Romero entirely on their own (lack of) merits, why is only Jennifer Hepler mocked and derided for her gender and physical appearance?

    Have another Escapist link:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5436-Not-Okay

    That’s Bob Chipman taking aim at sexism in gaming. He highlights a really dreadful incident in which a female player in a big televised tournament received sexual abuse from her OWN TEAM. He points out that Sexism in gaming is a real and disgusting thing and his simple thesis is that it is NOT OKAY to be sexist. He also highlights that the attitude of a lot of people is that they’re unhappy that gaming which they always saw as a boys club is being opened to the other gender so they can’t be vile and sexist anymore. Those people haven’t left, and they’re fighting back.

    So that’s the Editor and one of the biggest contributors to the Escapist saying that Sexism is a real and serious issue in gaming culture. I can also provide the guys at Extra Credits if you like, they had a couple episodes on Sexism as well. Basically if you’re going to go and appeal to authority double check to make sure the authority agrees with you.

  180. rrhain says

    @189 (Happiestadist):

    Why are you still condesplaining BDSM to me, bro?

    Because you keep making incorrect statements about it.

    and you’re still defending a game about raping strangers.

    When did Dead Island include raping people as something you could do?

    Also, why the fuck are you acting like queer kink is anything remotely like a part of mainstream sexualized violence?

    Because there isn’t anything gay people do that straight people don’t do just as often if not more so simply because there are more of them.

    You’re saying it’s so widespread, but are referring to a few specific fetish artists.

    Those are just off the top of my head. Are you seriously claiming that the work of Tom of Finland is marginalized? They have their own clothing line, for crying out loud.

    But if you want heterosexual versions, I don’t know if you recall, but there was this (poorly written) novel that’s all the rage right now. You may have heard of it: _Fifty Shades of Grey._ They’re thinking of turning it into a movie.

    The meme is “Two Girls, One Cup,” but nobody pretends that that’s a lesbian piece.

    It’s always a fucking niche.

    Except it isn’t. Don’t confuse your tastes with a universal trait.

    And yes, all women do to some extent suffer from internalized misogyny. That is how it fucking works. Yes, all.

    Never denied that. Try to pay attention to what I actually wrote and not what you wish I would have.

    The question isn’t whether or not all women have to deal with the pervasive sexism in our culture. The question is whether or not every single action done by a woman is done in reference to that pervasive sexism. Because it isn’t. Sexism is everywhere, but not everything is sexism. For example, your infantalization of women is a perfect example of the pervasive sexism: That you seem to think you can tell a woman why she is doing what she’s doing, that you know better than she does. And you don’t even realize that you’re doing it.

    @190 (John Morales):

    So, →Rapelay← is a fine game if you ignore the rape part?

    I take it that you’re talking about a video game? See, I took it as a misspelling on your part. You will note that in all of my responses, I spell it as “rape play.” You will note that in all of my responses, I am talking as if we were dealing with two actual people (not virtual ones) engaging in honest-to-goodness sexual activity with each other where the idea of “rape play” is a sexual game they play, no different from any other consensual role-playing. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I do recall hearing about it, but that was nearly seven years ago (regarding a game that was never released outside of Japan) so I hope you can understand why the video game didn’t immediately spring to mind.

    @191 (Happiestsadist):

    We are talking about the RapeLay game. Jesus wept, do you even read a single word anyone here says?

    Indeed. That doesn’t mean I have perfect accuracy. As I just pointed out, I took it as a misspelling on John Morales’ part.

    Now, can we expect the same level of self-awareness from you or do we have to spin the merry-go-round again where you respond to a voice in your head rather than what I have actually written?

    @194 (Jadehawk):

    who the fuck do you think said it was sexist because it was part of zombie-gaming?!

    Well, let’s go to the original article, shall we?

    While there are a very small group who like to endorse their own unpleasant prejudices by angrily denouncing RPS for its coverage of gaming’s representation of women

    So it would seem the original author was referring to gaming culture.

    Then there was JJ831 at post 8:

    Being an avid gamer, I’ve all but given up in participating in multiplayer games where there is any communication between parties. It saddens me that the community is so incredibly rife with sexism.

    michaeld at post 10:

    Unfortunately this kind of awful marketing seems endemic in gaming

    jaranath at post 12:

    But what makes it worse is that there’s so much of “gamer culture” that I don’t want to defend at all, and that may well influence non-gaming behavior–or at least causes problems for some gamers, women in particular.

    flek at post 15:

    Stop making me sad, gamer culture.

    Woo_Monster at 53:

    sloth,

    Do you think there is a problem of raging misogyny in gaming culture?

    So it would seem that a lot of people were talking about gaming culture.

    You did read the posts before responding, didn’t you? You read the originating article, right?

    @197 (Nerd of Redhead):

    I’m still waiting for your literature references

    @200 (PZ Myers)

    [realizing that I'm invoking the wrath of god]

    Perhaps you can do what nobody else here has done: What, specifically, do you think I am saying about this figurine? Remember, I have directly stated on multiple occasions that I think it is misogynist, so do try to remember that before responding.

    However, my reasoning for that is not based upon the superficial visual of the piece. There are plenty of scenarios in which a female torso are not misogynist in any way. Sally from _The Nightmare Before Christmas_ is routinely torn apart. She even does it herself. It becomes a plot point that she is capable of unsewing her limbs.

    Note, we had a huge bunch of people call me an “MRA” (despite the fact that I didn’t say a single word about mutilated males) and make snide comments about my gender (which I never mentioned and never reciprocated) and sexuality (again, which I never mentioned and never reciprocated), and somehow I’m the one who is tainting the discussion? I just wanted to get into the specifics of why it’s a misogynist piece and everybody else started hyperventilating over the idea that maybe, just maybe, there is more to discuss than just going “EWWWWW!”

    After all, “misogyny” is a culturally-constructed concept. It does not exist outside of societal concepts of gender roles. That doesn’t make it any less real, but it does mean that objects and actions, in and of themselves, cannot possibly be “misogynist.” I would hope that you would understand this as an atheist: “Good” and “bad” do not exist outside of our minds. The only way to determine if something is good or bad is to examine our cultural values and place the action within that context. All morality comes from our examination of the world. There is no external yardstick to measure it against.

    Thus, a figurine of a mutilated female torso, in and of itself, cannot be declared misogynistic. I’ve given plenty of examples, none of which are that bizarre or far-fetched, where such a figurine would be of no issue. Thus, if we are going to come to the conclusion that it is misogynistic, it has to be for something other than the superficial image of a mutilated torso.

    After all, there’s a continuing art show called “Altered Barbie” that is all about taking a Barbie doll and doing something odd to it. You can see the images here:

    http://alteredbarbie.com/artwork/all_art

    I’m reminded of the furor surrounding Serrano’s _Piss Christ._ So many people tearing their hair out over how Serrano was insulting religion, blasphemy to put a crucifix in urine, and on and on. And sure enough, all those people couldn’t come up with any specifics as to how the piece was made and what the author was trying to say with it. All they could see was the title and they were absolutely certain it was Serrano being antagonistic toward religion.

    And they were all wrong. Serrano is a Catholic and the point of the piece was not to disparage religion but rather to disparage the practitioners. They have taken the message of Jesus and pissed all over it, dressing it up as something beautiful as if that changed anything.

    So let me state it again, since it seems you haven’t paid attention: I think the piece is misogynistic.

    Where I disagree is in the why. It isn’t simply because it’s a mutilated female torso. It’s because it is out of place compared to the action of the game, the fact that it is a solo piece rather than part of a set that would point to a broader concept, the inability of Deep Silver to come up with any real justification for why they did it, those are all reasons to conclude that its misogynistic.

  181. says

    Omnicrom, thanks for the links. One doesn’t even need to leave this thread to confirm the incredibly toxic sexism in the gaming community – someone* could simply read the thread, rrhain’s posts in particular – a fine example of the density and toxicity of sexism in gaming.

    *I don’t mean you, Omnicrom.

  182. vaiyt says

    Where I disagree is in the why. It isn’t simply because it’s a mutilated female torso. It’s because it is out of place compared to the action of the game, the fact that it is a solo piece rather than part of a set that would point to a broader concept, the inability of Deep Silver to come up with any real justification for why they did it, those are all reasons to conclude that its misogynistic.

    You’re still implying that there’s some point where misogyny magically becomes not-misogyny if we add enough “context” to it. You’re just like the legion of semi-literate idiots who defend all the sexism and rape in fantasy literature because it’s “realistic”, and just as stupid.

  183. rrhain says

    @198: (omnicrom)

    I’m a bit disappointed at your reading comprehenshion skills.

    You are doing yourself no favors with how you’re really honestly trying to convince us that maybe maybe in this particular context you’ve invented out of whole cloth a blatant piece of Misogyny is somehow not misogynistic because you say so.

    Where did I say it wasn’t misogynistic?

    That’s a serious question. I am challenging you to find anywhere in any of my posts where I said anything that could even be remotely construed as me saying that this piece is not misogynistic.

    That’s a bit of a trick question because I actually said the exact opposite.

    In multiple posts.

    But you would have seen those if you had read them, right?

    So perhaps you can do what nobody else has: Please explain why this piece is misogynistic. Is it simply because it is a figurine of a mutilated female corpse? Is that it? All images of mutilated female corpses are necessarily misogynistic, in and of themselves? There is absolutely no way to have an image of a mutilated female corpse and not have it by misogynistic?

    If that isn’t true, if it isn’t the image itself but rather the context in which it is being presented, then let’s discuss that context. Because as you already know from having read my posts, I think the figurine is misogynistic. You *did* read my posts, right? However, it isn’t because of the superficial image it presents. That means nothing. It’s the rest of the context surrounding it that does it.

    I’ve given multiple reasons for why. What are your reasons?

    I’m reminded of an American Studies class from long ago. The professor showed a documentary video regarding the way women are presented in music videos. After it was done, she asked us what we thought and when it came to me, I pointed out that it was sad that the author had to muddy his thesis with imagery that didn’t support his point. Everyone immediately took this to mean that I didn’t think there was misogyny in music videos. Instead, I had said the exact opposite: There was plenty of misogyny in music videos but by using specific sequences that didn’t support his point, he weakened it.

    Part of the problem was that he had to remove the context of the videos. When he first made the documentary (and god, I wish I could remember the name of the piece), he included all the words and music of the clip. But none of his students agreed with his claims. According to him, they got caught up in the music and couldn’t see the imagery for what it was. And thus, for his second attempt, he cut out all the words and music and only showed the images. The students then “got it.”

    The problem is that you can’t do that and still maintain you are legitimately analyzing the piece. You removed part of it, so what makes you think that your reaction to an incomplete part is going to be legitimate? As one of the specific examples I gave of this removal of context leading to the complete opposite conclusion of what the image is supposed to be conveying, I pointed to the clip that was pulled from “One Night in Bangkok.” There’s a scene where Murray Head is being shot from the waist up at the bottom of the frame. At the top of the frame, you only see the legs of two women. They are spread apart with Head in between them. One woman turns to the left, the other to the right, and they walk off. The author claimed this was an example of objectification by reducing a woman to body parts. You can see the scene here:

    http://youtu.be/ZD0Z0CwRDJw?t=1m50s

    And if you didn’t have any lyrics to listen to, you can understand why someone might think that. But the problem is that the lyrics directly contradict that intepretation:

    “I get my kicks *above* the waistline, sunshine.”

    So yes, the image is one of turning a woman into a sexual object…so much so that she’s only a pair of legs. But the only rational way to interpret this image is one of *rejection* of same. The song is recognizing that Bangkok has a big reputation for the sex trade, but the protagonist of the song is not interested in the slightest. Instead, he’s there for a chess tournament (the song being from the musical, _Chess,_ of course).

    And thus, my sadness at the author: He had an accurate conclusion. The portrayal of women in music videos as nothing more than visual sex candy is atrocious. But if that’s the point you’re trying to make, you shouldn’t use examples that don’t support that thesis. To do so means that your ability to analyze is called into question. Why should we trust the author to have made a valid point when one-third of his examples actually say the opposite of what he claims they are saying?

    And so it is here: I agree the figurine is misogynist. But it’s important to understand why. If we cannot give clear, substantiated reasons as to why this item is problematic, nobody is going to trust us when we point out the next example.

    It’s precisely the same error that Thunderf00t is making: By focusing on the superficial visuals rather than the context in which it is happening, he cannot understand why anti-harrassment policies actually foster communication rather than hinder it. The problem is not simply the physical act of what anybody does but rather than context in which it takes place. Take the infamous “elevator-gate.” The problem is not, in and of itself, that a man expressed his interest in a woman. No, the problem is all the surrounding context: She had just given a lecture about how she doesn’t like that, she then went to a bar where she spent a few more hours talking about that very subject, and then said that she needed to get to bed because it was late and she had a full day the next day. And yet, this fool seemed to think that somehow he was special and cornered her in an elevator.

    Thunderf00t seems to think that our complaint is about the physical act of a man expressing interest in a woman. And I certainly hope we all agree that he’s mistaken. It’s that there are contexts in which such activity is completely inappropriate.

    Same thing here. The problem is not the image in and of itself. It’s the context in which it is being presented that makes it problematic.

    So what do you think is the justification for why this figurine is misogynistic? Because I agree that it is. What I want to know is why you think it is. I’ve explained why I do. Do you disagree? If so, why?

    Or should you just fuck off and think you’ve said something substantial?

  184. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    I take it that you’re talking about a video game?

    Your disingenousness doesn’t fool anyone.

    It was you who quoted it, back @151.

    (bah)

  185. says

    And also, simple carelessness does not explain your mistaking “Rapelay” for “rape lay.” Not after, what, five or six repetitions of the name of the game and an explanation that it is a game, different from the game in the OP, and that the plot of the game revolved entirely around raping people.

    Your inability to admit that you were careless and wrong is noted.

  186. rrhain says

    @223 (vaiyt):

    You’re still implying that there’s some point where misogyny magically becomes not-misogyny if we add enough “context” to it.

    Incorrect. What I am directly saying is that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context. An object, in and of itself, cannot be delcared as misogynist. How can it? It’s just an object. We have to interpret it just to even figure out what it is. It’s only because we recognize the shape as being congruent to a torso and what a torso is “supposed” to look like that we can come to the conclusion that it is a mutilated one.

    Thus, the very same object can have two very different interpretations dependent upon the context in which it is presented. Here’s a good example:

    The deep red rose I see
    Its thorn I just ignore
    The scent that borne to me
    It’s nothing I deplore
    Those scratches that I got
    Before I just complain
    About the pain a lot
    I think of beauty’s gain

    Or perhaps there’s this:

    The deep red rose
    I see its thorn
    I just ignore
    The scent that’s borne
    To me it’s nothing
    I deplore
    Those scratches that
    I got before
    I just complain
    About the pain
    A lot I think
    Of beauty’s gain

    The exact same words in the exact same order, but by presenting them in a different context, the message is completely different.

    And thus it is with this figurine. We cannot possibly understand what it means unless we understand the context by which it came to be and was presented. That doesn’t mean that “enough context will turn misogyny into neutrality.” It means that the only way to determine misogyny is through context. The figurine is just an object. How can it possibly mean anything all on its own?

    You’re just like the legion of semi-literate idiots who defend all the sexism and rape in fantasy literature because it’s “realistic”

    And you have an example of that? Where have I said anything of the kind? I don’t recall saying anything about such. Perhaps you can refresh my memory where I have.

    What were you saying about it being stupid?

  187. says

    The point is that the actions of Deep Silver’s PR department does not represent the varied and many opinions and views of the gaming community.

    The fact that opinions within the community are varied does not absolve YOU of the responsibility for dealing with it.

    People in the atheist community are sexist. Do I throw a tantrum when someone points out this simple fact and scream and yell about how Not All Atheists Are Like That? No, because I realize that putting more energy into defending atheists against charges of sexism than I do into actually combating sexism only contributes to the problem.

    Which is what you are doing, Raziel. Nothing will change until you and your friends and everyone like you, who don’t actually HATE women but who would really rather not be bothered with trivial (to you) things like sexist abuse of your fellow gamers who happen to be women, decide that it IS your problem.

    Stop complaining. Or, if you must complain, complain about something that’s actually worth complaining about, for instance, Deep Silver marketing to misogynists within your community. Do NOT complain about people NOTICING that Deep Silver is marketing to misogynists within your community.

  188. says

    It means that the only way to determine misogyny is through context. The figurine is just an object. How can it possibly mean anything all on its own?

    I… OMG, dude, that is SO DEEP.

    I mean, like, wow.

    I am so high.

    DUDE HAVE YOU LOOKED AT YOUR HANDS??!? So amazing, right??

  189. vaiyt says

    What I am directly saying is that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context. An object, in and of itself, cannot be delcared as misogynist. How can it? It’s just an object. We have to interpret it just to even figure out what it is.

    Here comes the rub, semi-literate bullshit grasshopper. The context is already there. The context is the culture we live in. The context is the misogyny in the public and the media that caters to it. The context is a situation where sexist bullshit is vomited nonstop by gaming companies, swallowed whole by a legion of dudebros, and defended by ANOTHER legion of dudebros who want to be recognized as “enlightened” while not doing anything to enlighten their subculture.

  190. says

    Sally Strange:

    Nothing will change until you and your friends and everyone like you, who don’t actually HATE women but who would really rather not be bothered with trivial (to you) things like sexist abuse of your fellow gamers who happen to be women, decide that it IS your problem.

    I am bone deep weary of every asshole who declares “I’m not like that and neither are my friends!” as if that magicks away the problem.

  191. omnicrom says

    rrhain what exactly are you trying to prove? What are you trying to convince us of?

    No seriously, slow down. You say the statue is Misogynistic yes? Then what is the incredibly long sophomoric bullshit you’ve been spouting? As far as I can tell you’re saying that it’s not that the statue is horribly misogynistic (though it is), but that it’s presented in a horribly misogynistic way and therefore it’s misogynistic. The way you’re writing sounds like you’re intellectually masturbating to your own philosophies, if I’m getting you right (and please, if I’m wrong correct me CONCISELY) then we should recognize that the misogyny of the object is because we see and understand misogyny as a force in society?

    If so then what the hell are you trying to say? That Misogynistic things are misogynistic because they’re in a misogynistic context? No shit. You seem to be smugly masturbating over your lofty knowledge that horrible sexism makes things horribly sexist. Am I close? Because if I’m getting you right that is definitely intellectual masturbation because you seem so PROUD of your epistemologic understanding of sexism.

    If I’m not reading you correctly then let me ask again: What the fuck are you trying to argue? And please refrain from posting entire pages of non-blockquoted responses full of snide self-congratulation and bloated solipsisms. You have posted over a dozen pages worth of text and I still haven’t got a fucking clue what you are on about rrhain, if you have something worthwhile then share it with the class in a way that will benefit everyone and not just let you stroke your ego.

  192. says

    Okay, I am high now, and although rrhain’s posts still seem stupid, I have a bit more patience.

    What I am directly saying is that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context.

    Wow. I think this is the first thing you have DIRECTLY said in this whole thread. See, that is the problem: you are apparently allergic to directness. Rather than just stating your opinion, you put on this little act of quizzing other people with questions you’ve already determined the answers to.

    Anyway, the statement that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context is trivially true. You seem to think that this is some great revelation. I don’t know why. Are you in college or something? Taking your first philosophy class, or semiotics, or whatever it is? Charmed, I’m sure.

    Yeah, misogyny is a cultural phenomenon. It’s a thing that we make up in our brains. It exists only in relationships between people, in how we think about each other when we’re not around, about large groups, commonalities, and suchlike things. As such, it exists only in context. This is 101 level stuff. It’s great you’re figuring it out, but you’re attempting to take over our graduate course with your exploration, and that’s not polite. It’s rather entitled, actually. And you know who else is entitled? Misogynists. Hmm. From where I’m standing, your behavior has just substantially elevated the risk that you are not just a casual misogynist, but an enthusiastic and deliberate one. Those do exists, you know.

    So please. For your own sake and for everyone else’s, stop pretending like you have a right to our attention and conversation. You’re welcome to enter, but if you can add nothing of value then we just ask that you move on to venues more suited to your particular flavor of discourse.

    You’re adding nothing of value.

    An object, in and of itself, cannot be delcared as misogynist. How can it? It’s just an object. We have to interpret it just to even figure out what it is. It’s only because we recognize the shape as being congruent to a torso and what a torso is “supposed” to look like that we can come to the conclusion that it is a mutilated one.

    That all sounds pretty trippy, man. Yeah, the meaning we assign to things exists only because we assign it. So? This is the meaning in this case. It’s a mutilated, sexualized female torso in a world in which women are violently sexually assaulted in epidemic numbers – somewhere between 20% and 95% of women experience sexual assault, depending on where you are and how you define it. Do you remember the case of the murdered and dismembered maquiladora workers, woman after woman found in pieces in ditches, around when they were trying to unionize? No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. But I did.

    So, that is the meaning of this particular physical object. Are there contexts in which it’s not misogynist? Sure. Like I said, if an intelligent alien race found one and took it home as a souvenir, then it would no longer be perceived as misogynist on account of the concept of “misogyny” not existing in that alien species’ language.

    You keep nattering on about how do we determine if things are misogynist. Well, son, we look at it and ask if it promotes restrictive gender roles or not, and if it dehumanizes women or not, and if it denigrates men for acting too much like women, and a number of other characteristics. It’s really quite fascinating, once you get past the whole relevation that words can mean things, how you can use words and their definitions to understand the world around you, as tools for learning and for analysis, and so on. Once you’re at that point, you should return to visit Pharyngula. It should be interesting to hear how you made the transition.

  193. rrhain says

    @225 (John Morales):

    It was you who quoted it, back @151.

    Indeed, I quoted you. I’m supposed to correct your spelling? But what is it that I said in my response to you? That’s right, I started talking about SM and how actions taken in a scene might look like rape but really aren’t because the people involved are consenting.

    Does that sound like I’m talking about the game?

    You really have fooled yourself, haven’t you? Talk about disingenuous. So quick to assume the worst in others, ascribing thoughts and actions to them without a second thought. For most of this, you were actually responding to things I had said, but then you lost it. I misunderstood what you said. But that misunderstanding doesn’t change the validity of anything I said other than to render it irrelevant.

    Like I said, rape is always bad. Therefore, it should be clear to you, I am of the opinion that a video game that is nought but a manifestation of rape is hardly a good thing. So if you cannot understand that without me saying it directly, fine: RapeLay is a horrific concept and to call it “misogynist” is to be much too generous with it.

    Now, how does that alter anything I said about “rape play”? Do you not agree that two people can consent to engage in activity that, outside of that context of consent, would be rape and that what makes it different is precisely that context of consent?

    If so, then wouldn’t you agree that the only way to look at this figurine in order to determine its place as “misogynistic” is through context? After all, the mere image of a mutilated torso, female or otherwise, cannot possibly have any moral position since it’s just an object and there is no meaning outside of context.

    Or do you disagree? Can there be morality outside of the human mind?

    @227 (SallyStrange):

    Not after, what, five or six repetitions of the name of the game

    So? If I think it’s a misspelling, why does that necessarily indicate that I have misread it?

    and an explanation that it is a game, different from the game in the OP, and that the plot of the game revolved entirely around raping people.

    I’m sorry, but where did anybody call it a video game? In 162, Jadehawk simply called it a “game.” And since I was looking at “game” in terms of sexual games that actual people engage with each other (after all, they call it “playing”), why would that indicate I had misread it?

    At 179, Jadehawk says, “rapelay is not a multiplayer game.” And still no mention that we’re talking about a video game. Notice that Jadehawk indicates she doesn’t understand what I’m talking about (“what ‘parties’?!”) I’m refering to the “parties involved.” That makes perfect sense if the context is of two actual (not virtual) people are engaging in a sex game.

    But did she bother to indicate she was referring to a video game? Nope. Instead, she just goes for the ad hominem.

    At 190, John Morales seemed to think that just repeating what he said would actually result in a different interpretation. Still no mention that he’s talking about a video game.

    It was only at 191 when Happiestsadist bothered to give any significant indication that y’all were referring to a video game but even then, he didn’t actually say, “video game.”

    Instead, you actually said it directly at 193…more than 40 posts after the original misunderstanding.

    Now, I’m sorry I misunderstood what John Morales was trying to say. But I think you already know that I don’t give a fuck about your opinion of me or whether or not you think I’m lying or being disingenuous or whatever. I’m continuing this discussion because I’m actually interested in why people think this figurine is problematic.

    Your inability to admit that you were careless and wrong is noted.

    (*chuckle*)

    Physician, heal thyself! Did I or did I not say the following:

    My apologies for the misunderstanding.

    You keep whining about me not reading the posts and yet you have misrepresented me every single time.

    Indeed, your inability to admit that you were careless and wrong is noted.

    Perhaps you can explain why you think this figure is misogynistic. Because I agree that it is. I’d like to hear your reasoning as to why. Is it just because of the physical image? How can a physical image by “misogynistic” in and of itself when there is no meaning in objects in and of themselves?

  194. sunny12 says

    2 cents from a lurker reading this conversation:

    However, my reasoning for that is not based upon the superficial visual of the piece. There are plenty of scenarios in which a female torso are not misogynist in any way. Sally from _The Nightmare Before Christmas_ is routinely torn apart. She even does it herself. It becomes a plot point that she is capable of unsewing her limbs.

    Well yeah, no kidding, there are some instances in which a female torso is not sexist. I don’t think anyone here has even remotely denied that. But here’s the kicker: they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject of this article, which was explicitly about a mutilated figure with injuries everywhere *except* the breasts (which are practically bursting out of the bikini top) from an industry that is renowned for its frequently juvenile and sexist attitude towards women (not to mention the fact that we are, in fact, living not in a vacuum but in a society in which sexualised violence is aimed frequently at women). Violence and sexualisation combined – this is the context that makes it misogynistic. Not just the fact that it’s a female torso, for god’s sake. It really ought to go without saying that this is patently not the same thing as Sally from “A Nightmare Before Christmas”. That’s just…bloody absurd, lol. Your first post in this thread, 84:

    Is there a context in which this might be considered OK? That is, I can easily see the context of a zombie “society” where all the icons of culture are replaced with “zombie apocalypse” versions and that would include substitutions of works of art with zombie versions. Thus, it would make sense to have statues that were “carved” out of actual bodies like what is in this figurine.
    I’m not saying that this instance leads up to that. I am simply asking about there being a context in which this is not, in and of itself, problematic. The context may be so specific and appreciated by so few that it would be silly for a company to attempt to mass-market it, but I don’t see a problem with the figure in and of itself. It’s the context surrounding it that causes the trouble.

    comes across as a shifting of the goalposts, an attempt to minimise the blatantly misogynistic overtone of this product (and yes, I know you’ve asserted several times that you do believe this statue is, in fact, sexist – however, it begs the question of why you feel the need to direct the conversation in this way if you’ve been in agreement with the regulars all along.) The regulars were rebuking you because they were talking about THIS statue, not any old random female figure in a hypothetical universe.

    I have to second epiblast’s post early in the thread:

    @84: What’s the point of a speculation this hypothetical, this removed from reality? We aren’t talking about some alternate universe; we’re talking about the here and now, where this statuette happens to exist.

    What I am directly saying is that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context.

    Again, no kidding – I doubt you’ll find one person who actually disagrees with that. Unfortunately though, we *don’t* live in some other universe, completely removed from a society that is steeped in sexism, in which the statue is no longer misogynistic. So your arguments are completely irrelevant.

    PS.

    I take it that you’re talking about a video game? See, I took it as a misspelling on your part. You will note that in all of my responses, I spell it as “rape play.” You will note that in all of my responses, I am talking as if we were dealing with two actual people (not virtual ones) engaging in honest-to-goodness sexual activity with each other where the idea of “rape play” is a sexual game they play, no different from any other consensual role-playing. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I do recall hearing about it, but that was nearly seven years ago (regarding a game that was never released outside of Japan) so I hope you can understand why the video game didn’t immediately spring to mind.

    You’re in no position to rebuke someone else for their poor reading comprehension – it was made extremely clear throughout the discussion that a specific game was being discussed. I hadn’t even heard of Rapelay before this thread, but I could figure out what people were talking about from context. See, for instance, post 180:

    In a game called “Rapelay,” which is all about raping women and girls, and was marketed as such?

  195. says

    It’s very nice that you took pains to explain how you missed noticing the very obvious. I’m sorry if this seems judgmental. No, I’m not, I really don’t care, on account of your massive sense of entitlement: you just don’t seem very bright to me. I don’t say that lightly. Most people are reasonably able to discern. You… just don’t seem to have that. It’s sort of plausible that someone could read the thread and miss ALL of those cues. The thing is, in order for this to be a plausible explanation, the person in question has to be remarkably oblivious, seemingly deliberate in his ignorance of what is being said to him.

    And in fact, that is exactly how I described you earlier. So thanks for confirming that my pattern extrapolation is on target, more or less.

  196. says

    I hadn’t even heard of Rapelay before this thread, but I could figure out what people were talking about from context.

    Ah, my dear Sunny. Therein lies the rub. rrhain is having trouble with the basic concept of context, you see. But, not content to work out this beginner concept on his own, he brought his troubles to us, and pretended he was the teacher in order to draw on our insight without ever having to humble himself enough to ask for help.

    Pure speculation, of course, dear rrhain. I claim no special knowledge of your mental state. But, since my earlier projection of how you read the thread, that is, with little attention to anything but the fascination your own words held for you, seems to have been confirmed, I thought I’d take it a step further. No offense intended, but you are an interesting case. This is what the evidence available suggests. I’m probably wrong. It was just a lucky guess before.

  197. John Morales says

    rrhain:

    It was you who quoted it, back @151.

    Indeed, I quoted you.

    No, you quoted someone else @151, but it was indeed the game name you did quote and to which you purportedly responded.

    That’s right, I started talking about SM and how actions taken in a scene might look like rape but really aren’t because the people involved are consenting.

    Yah, you changed the context from that of a game promotion to consensual kink, because you couldn’t adduce any examples therein.

    You really have fooled yourself, haven’t you? Talk about disingenuous. So quick to assume the worst in others, ascribing thoughts and actions to them without a second thought. For most of this, you were actually responding to things I had said, but then you lost it. I misunderstood what you said. But that misunderstanding doesn’t change the validity of anything I said other than to render it irrelevant.

    So, you concede that what you said was irrelevant.

    Does that sound like I’m talking about the game?

    Who the fuck knows? You quoted the game by name and made a response, that much is factual.

    Like I said, rape is always bad. Therefore, it should be clear to you, I am of the opinion that a video game that is nought but a manifestation of rape is hardly a good thing. So if you cannot understand that without me saying it directly, fine: RapeLay is a horrific concept and to call it “misogynist” is to be much too generous with it.

    What you wrote at #151 is there for anyone to see, as I quoted @190.

    (And it wasn’t what you now write)

    Now, how does that alter anything I said about “rape play”? Do you not agree that two people can consent to engage in activity that, outside of that context of consent, would be rape and that what makes it different is precisely that context of consent?

    You are very easily distracted; the rape game was introduced to show the foolishness of your Forget the female aspect of it for right now., but it’s not the subject under discussion.

    If so, then wouldn’t you agree that the only way to look at this figurine in order to determine its place as “misogynistic” is through context?

    You really are clueless.

    (Had you paid more attention to what SallyStrange, you’d not sound so ingenuous)

  198. says

    Raziel, nobody gives a shit about the poor gaming community and how ~oppressed it is. Clean your own house already.

    Rrhain:

    Because there isn’t anything gay people do that straight people don’t do just as often if not more so simply because there are more of them.

    “Queer” encompasses a lot more than “straight,” fuckwit.

    Everyone immediately took this to mean that I didn’t think there was misogyny in music videos. Instead, I had said the exact opposite

    You know, dipshit, if “everybody is missing your point,” maybe it’s not that you’re the brilliant deconstructionist who goes over everybody’s head. Maybe you’re just full of shit and verbose.

    Sally:

    Yeah, the meaning we assign to things exists only because we assign it.

    Reminds me not a small amount of, “It’ll only bother you if you let it!”, said to victims of bullies. (Now, Rrhain, come back again and mansplain some more about how you already said it’s misogynist so I’m just not grokking your brilliance.)

  199. rrhain says

    @232 (vaiyt):

    The context is already there.

    Really? What is it?

    The context is the culture we live in.

    Which is what, precisely? By this logic, there is absolutely no way in which an image of a mutilated female torso can be anything other than misogynistic. A mutilated female torso, in and of itself, is necessarily misogynistic, even when there’s nobody around to see it. Is that what you’re saying?

    If not, if it requires humans to apply context in order to give it a moral stance, then that means that everybody everywhere has the exact same conceptions about everything at all times. Is that what you’re saying?

    If not, if not everybody has the same opinions about everything, then how can you possibly conclude that this object, simply by its mere existence, is misogynistic?

    The context is the misogyny in the public and the media that caters to it.

    And every person in the public is exactly the same? The media is monolithic with absolutely no variation? So when Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas unsews her limbs and turns herself into a torso, it isn’t because she needs a distraction. It’s actually a misogynistic portrayal of women as objects. After all, she’s just a doll that’s stuffed with leaves. She’s not even human!

    If that isn’t the case, if not all people are the same and not all media are identical, then you need to explain why this particular instance is an example of what you’re referring to. “Gamer culture” isn’t sufficient because it’s too broad. And besides, Jadehawk said that nobody was declaring this item to be misogynistic because of gamer culture. And everybody has the same opinions about context and all media are the same, right?

    Hint: Go back to my original post. All the way back to 84. What did I say about the sensibility of a company attempting to mass-market such an item? That even if there was a perfectly understandable way to present such a thing, the only people who would get it would be so specialized that it would be silly to try and do it.

    Huh…how bizarre. Me saying that even if there’s an acceptable way to approach this, it still might be a bad thing because there’s no way to presume that everybody agrees with the context that makes it work.

    As far as I can tell you’re saying that it’s not that the statue is horribly misogynistic (though it is), but that it’s presented in a horribly misogynistic way and therefore it’s misogynistic. The way you’re writing sounds like you’re intellectually masturbating to your own philosophies

    (*chuckle*)

    You got the entry but flubbed the dismount.

    Exactly how does one determine the morality of something outside of the context in which it is presented? Are you saying morality exists outside of philosophy? That an object can be “good” all on its own and if we were all to die tomorrow, it would still be “good”?

    At least I understand my philosophy. Can you articulate yours? Help me understand it: How can object, in and of itself, have a moral quality?

    If so then what the hell are you trying to say?

    Asked and answered back in 224. The very post you are responding to. Is there a reason you didn’t read it? Here it is again:

    If we cannot give clear, substantiated reasons as to why this item is problematic, nobody is going to trust us when we point out the next example.

    And I even gave an example of how your attitude of the object, itself, being granted moral status independent of context, leads to social failure (Thunderf00t).

    It’s not enough to simply get the right answer. You have to get there legitimately. As we all know from basic logic, false premises can lead to any conclusion you like. That you came to the right one in any particular instance is just dumb luck and is no way for us to actually fight sexism.

    If we are to say, for example, that Hitler can never be the subject of humour because what happened was so horrible that any attempt to make light of the situation is anti-Semitic, then _The Producers_ could not exist and it’s one of the best movies out there (the original, not that insipid remake). But even then, Mel Brooks understood the sensitive nature of the subject and when it came time for someone to give the line, “Don’t be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Nazi party,” he didn’t want to have to put that on anybody else: People might not get it. He didn’t want some poor actor to be known as “the guy who said to join the Nazis.” No questions that the line was put in by the studios. So he did it himself. The line is perfectly appropriate to the context in which it is being said, but it’s a sensitive one and he wanted to make sure there were no questions as to what he was trying to do. He put his own skin in the game.

    That Misogynistic things are misogynistic because they’re in a misogynistic context? No shit.

    Close, but no.

    Instead, that there is no such thing as a “misogynistic thing.” The only way we can come to a conclusion of misogyny is through an examination of the context.

    You have posted over a dozen pages worth of text and I still haven’t got a fucking clue what you are on about rrhain

    Then you clearly haven’t read what I’ve been writing. Because I’ve said it directly over and over again:

    There is no such thing as “misogyny” outside of the context in which it takes place. Therefore, I would like to know how you came to a conclusion of misogyny since it is impossible to conclude such simply from the physical shape of the object.

    @236 (SallyStrange):

    I think this is the first thing you have DIRECTLY said in this whole thread.

    Then clearly you haven’t read what I’ve been writing because I’ve said the exact same thing multiple times.

    My original post said it: “It’s the context surrounding it that causes the trouble.”

    I said it again in my very next post: “But that means the problem isn’t the statue. It’s the context in which the statue is presented.”

    I said it again: “The problem is not the what. It’s the why.”

    And again: “It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem. We need a context in which to place it in order to make that determination”

    And again: “After all, ‘misogyny’ is a culturally-constructed concept.”

    And again: “‘Good’ and ‘bad’ do not exist outside of our minds. The only way to determine if something is good or bad is to examine our cultural values and place the action within that context. All morality comes from our examination of the world. There is no external yardstick to measure it against.”

    And again: “However, it isn’t because of the superficial image it presents. That means nothing. It’s the rest of the context surrounding it that does it.”

    And again: “The problem is not the image in and of itself. It’s the context in which it is being presented that makes it problematic.”

    I am not responsible for your failure to pay attention.

    Yeah, misogyny is a cultural phenomenon.

    Congratulations for finally catching up. Now, I’d really like to know: What are the contextual cues that led you to the conclusion that this piece was problematic? It can’t be the mere physical shape because objects cannot be misogynistic all on their own.

    You’ve gone on and on about everything except the actual figurine. Every insult you can think of to throw at me about my sex, my sexuality, my style of writing, everything except actually responding to the subject at hand: This stupid piece of plastic.

    Talk about adding nothing of value.

    That all sounds pretty trippy, man.

    Then no wonder you’re having such a hard time comprehending it because in actuality, it isn’t trippy at all. That you seem to think there’s something revelatory about this shows you really haven’t given any thought to the subject at all. After all, you can’t even begin to explain your justification for why this piece is misogynistic. Instead, you go on and on about me as if I were the subject of this discussion.

    To borrow omnicrom’s imagery, I’m flattered you’re having fun masturbating to the thought of me, but might we actually return to the subject at hand?

    It’s a mutilated, sexualized female torso in a world in which women are violently sexually assaulted in epidemic numbers – somewhere between 20% and 95% of women experience sexual assault, depending on where you are and how you define it.

    And what does any of that have to do with this instance? Be specific.

    So, that is the meaning of this particular physical object.

    Why? I understand that it is what *you* think when you see it, but you don’t get to be the sole arbiter of symbology. Nobody else is responsible for your trigger. That you associate X with Y (no matter how appropriate such an association is in the majority of cases) does not mean that this particular instance of X has anything to do with Y. “A Little Priest” is a song about killing people and then eating them.

    And it’s fucking hilarious. Yep, revenge killing and cannibalism! It’s fun!

    You keep nattering on about how do we determine if things are misogynist.

    And you keep nattering on about me. Is that any better?

    Well, son, we look at it and ask if it promotes restrictive gender roles or not, and if it dehumanizes women or not, and if it denigrates men for acting too much like women, and a number of other characteristics.

    OK…so what are the specifics about this case that fulfill those criteria? Be specific. Let’s take the first one: Does it promote restrictive gender roles? Well, in and of itself, no. Instead, what makes it promote restrictive gender roles is the fact that the only figurine made is of a woman. Now, that might be OK if there was some sort of game significance to this image, but there isn’t. It’s completely out of the blue.

    So we’re back to the example I gave before: If part of the game was the creativity with which you dispatched zombies, where you could take in-game pictures of your trophies, then something like this might make sense. But none of that is true and so we’re just left with them singling out a woman with no justification as to why other than, “Just cuz.”

    But this means that it isn’t the mere existence of a mutilated female corpse that is at issue. No matter how much sexism we see in the world, even to the point where mutilated bodies of women are something that is depressingly too frequent (as if there were an acceptable number), we still have to examine what is going on before we conclude that this is an example of misogyny.

    Because there’s no such thing as misogyny outside of context.

    And once you realize that you have to actually show your work, you might have a future.

  200. rrhain says

    @239 (sunny12):

    I don’t think anyone here has even remotely denied that.

    Oh really? Did you read the very first few responses to me?

    @85: “What? WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is there always someone who wants to know if might be okay, in some special circumstances, to be a teeny-tiny bit misogynist? Just a bit? WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY is it important to you to have imagery of dismembered women around?”

    @87: “NO, NOT EVER. NOT FUCKING EVER, YOU GET THAT? NO.”

    @91: “I have a hard time imagining ANY context where this statue might be considered okay.”

    @97: “it is never, at any time or in any place, ‘OK’ to treat women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people.”

    So it would seem that everybody jumped specifically to that. Now, I can understand why everybody got so defensive. After all, it’s the mutilation of women. To entertain an “acceptable” context for such, no matter how legitimate, runs the risk of this particular instance somehow being considered legitimate and if you don’t think so, it’s just going to get messy.

    But since I wasn’t going there, since I agree that this particular piece is misogynistic, we’re left with a bunch of people chasing shadows. However, they’re still stuck on this idea that I’m sort of “men’s rights advocate” who is trying to “claim it isn’t misogynistic” and “mansplain” things. Nothing but ad hominem attacks upon me rather than actually discussing the issue at hand.

    an attempt to minimise the blatantly misogynistic overtone of this product

    Wait just a parboiled second. Why is it “blatantly” misogynistic? It isn’t because of the mere physical shape. Objects can’t be misogynistic. They’re just objects. Only context can let somebody conclude so. So what are the “blantant” contextual cues that are bringing you to that conclusion?

    it begs the question of why you feel the need to direct the conversation in this way if you’ve been in agreement with the regulars all along.

    Because, I have said repeatedly, you can’t understand your conclusion unless you understand why you reached it. And unless we can articulate that reasoning, nobody is going to trust our judgement the next time it happens.

    The regulars were rebuking you because they were talking about THIS statue, not any old random female figure in a hypothetical universe.

    Indeed.

    And not one of them could come up with a reason to conclude so other than, “EWWWW!” That’s not a reason. That’s an emotional knee-jerk. Why is THIS statue a problem? Since we can come up with any number of situations in which a mutilated female corpse is not an example of misogyny, then the mere existence of a mutilated female corpse cannot possibly be “blatantly misogynistic.” If this is going to be adjudicated as misogyny, we’re going to need something more.

    I doubt you’ll find one person who actually disagrees with that.

    And yet the first four posts belie that claim. They were all saying that a mutilated female corpse, in and of itself, is an example of misogyny.

    Unfortunately though, we *don’t* live in some other universe, completely removed from a society that is steeped in sexism, in which the statue is no longer misogynistic. So your arguments are completely irrelevant.

    That can only be correct if all actions are sexist, no matter what. Since that isn’t the case, it isn’t correct. Our culture may be steeped in sexism, but that doesn’t mean everything has a patina of sexism in it somewhere.

    You’re in no position to rebuke someone else for their poor reading comprehension

    Said the person who didn’t bother to read the first four responses to my original post. Said the person who didn’t bother to read my specific statements regarding why I’m even bothering to have this discussion in the first place.

    And no, I’m not going to play the false equivalency card. Yeah, I misread something, but my mistake pales in comparison to the mistakes you and others, including our benefactor, have made. After all, once I realized what was being referenced, I immediately agreed.

    What are you going to say since it’s been shown that you’ve misread the conversation?

    it was made extremely clear throughout the discussion that a specific game was being discussed.

    Really? How? In a context of sexual game playing, how does the word “game” lead one to conclude that one is talking about a video game rather than a sex game? Instead, the only action was to repeat the same misunderstood phrase with no new description.

    Again, I’m sorry I misunderstood a reference to a seven-year-old game that was never released in the US. That said, my misunderstanding changes nothing about my statements other than to realize that they were irrelevant to what was being referenced.

    Your statements are relevant, but factually incorrect. That’s different.

    I hadn’t even heard of Rapelay before this thread, but I could figure out what people were talking about from context

    Congratulations. I’ve admitted my mistake.

    Will you admit yours?

    @243 (Ms. Daisy Cutter):

    “Queer” encompasses a lot more than “straight,” fuckwit.

    Huh? The entire point behind “queer” is that it isn’t “straight.” I think you meant to say it encompasses a lot more than “gay.”

    Is this the point where I get to call you a fuckwit? Or do we just agree that you misspoke and let it go?

    And you’re absolutely right that “queer” can mean more than just “gay,” but considering that the examples that I gave were of gay people and since “queer” has a common meaning of being a synonym for “gay,” then you haven’t actually justified anything and my point still stands: There isn’t anything “queer” (no matter how you wish to define that) people do that “non-queer” people don’t do.

    Maybe you’re just full of shit and verbose.

    Maybe. But when people repeatedly make the mistake of putting words in my mouth, trying to come up with every insult they can think of to throw at me rather than respond to the actual point of contention, then there’s a good chance that it isn’t me.

    After all, when your only way to respond is to splutter, “fuckwit,” that doesn’t actually bode well for you having anything of worth to say.

  201. sunny12 says

    …is anyone else reminded all of a sudden of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin explains to Hobbes that the best way to construct an essay is to insert as much verbose language and meaningless fluff as possible in order to obscure the poor reasoning behind the argument? (By the way, is there a way to insert images in these posts?)

    Anyway, cutting all the superfluous nonsense and snideness from your posts (which is quite difficult, I must admit – I’m still not even sure there’s a point to all that waffle), what your argument seems to boil down to is “An object can’t be offensive in itself, because there needs to be someone viewing it for it to cause offense and different people can have different reactions to it anyway.”

    I’m sorry, but at best that is useless navel-gazing philosophy with little relevance to any conversation on social marginalisation, and at worst the same kind of puerile tactic used by school-aged bullies (“Hey it’s not my fault! You’re the one who’s choosing to be upset!”).

    Oh really? Did you read the very first few responses to me?
    @85: “What? WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is there always someone who wants to know if might be okay, in some special circumstances, to be a teeny-tiny bit misogynist? Just a bit? WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY is it important to you to have imagery of dismembered women around?”
    @87: “NO, NOT EVER. NOT FUCKING EVER, YOU GET THAT? NO.”
    @91: “I have a hard time imagining ANY context where this statue might be considered okay.”
    @97: “it is never, at any time or in any place, ‘OK’ to treat women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people.”

    Said the person who didn’t bother to read the first four responses to my original post. Said the person who didn’t bother to read my specific statements regarding why I’m even bothering to have this discussion in the first place.

    Yes, I did read them, thank you very much. Unlike you apparently, I actually understood what they were saying. They were talking about *this* particular statue, and whether or not it can ever be okay for a video game company to manufacture such a product for consumers to buy. Not a random female torso somewhere in outer space. Not a mutilated corpse on a battlefield. Not Sally from A Nightmare Before Christmas. Not the meaning of the swastika symbol or “Springtime for Hitler” in The Producers. Heaven forbid they actually talk about the topic at hand!

    Wait just a parboiled second. Why is it “blatantly” misogynistic? It isn’t because of the mere physical shape. Objects can’t be misogynistic. They’re just objects. Only context can let somebody conclude so. So what are the “blantant” contextual cues that are bringing you to that conclusion?

    And not one of them could come up with a reason to conclude so other than, “EWWWW!” That’s not a reason. That’s an emotional knee-jerk. Why is THIS statue a problem? Since we can come up with any number of situations in which a mutilated female corpse is not an example of misogyny, then the mere existence of a mutilated female corpse cannot possibly be “blatantly misogynistic.” If this is going to be adjudicated as misogyny, we’re going to need something more.

    You *still* need it spelled out for you even more than we already have? :S

    A torso alone isn’t necessarily sexist, true. However, since you’ve asked for more blatant context cues of misogyny, well, I’ve already given them to you, but I’ll say it again:

    – The woman is in a bikini. Yes, I know, the game is set in a resort. Still doesn’t excuse it – any bathing design could have been chosen, but the one that was selected was the one that was the most revealing.
    – Injuries are covering the woman’s entire body – *except* for the breasts, by choice of the designer
    – These breasts have also been constructed to be highly exaggerated in size, spilling out from the bikini top, thus ensuring that they are the first thing that the gaze is drawn to
    – This is indeed compounded further by it being a headless torso. Yes, a torso alone isn’t enough to be sexist, as we’ve said time and time again lol. However, the removal of someone’s head (their eyes, their personality, their expression) makes it much easier to see the figure as a body alone, reduced to their sexual parts, obviously, rather than a person – and then when you *combine* this factor with what I’ve already mentioned about the breasts and bikini, yeah, it does become pretty squicky.

    Sexual objectification is highly problematic in itself (if you want evidence of how repeated objectification of women contributes to their overall dehumanisation in the viewer’s mind, check out the links I’ve added at the bottom of this post – you can’t exactly accuse us of emotionally kneejerking when the evidence is right there in front of you). However, it becomes even more problematic when you consider that the vast majority of sexual violence in the world is inflicted on women and girls – sexual objectification being present by design in the case of a mutilated corpse is doubly horrific. I’m sorry, but you simply cannot remove that context from this conversation and pretend that it is of no relevance.

    Really? How? In a context of sexual game playing, how does the word “game” lead one to conclude that one is talking about a video game rather than a sex game? Instead, the only action was to repeat the same misunderstood phrase with no new description.

    How in the name of Merlin’s most baggy Y-fronts can you not understand from “In a game called “Rapelay,” which is all about raping women and girls, and was marketed as such“, “FFS, that’s the plot of the goddamn game: raping women” and “Rapelay isn’t a multiplayer game” that it isn’t a private sex game between couples that is being talked about (hint hint: pay attention to bolded words like “marketing”, “plot”, “multiplayer,” and the fact that it was spelled consistently as “Rapelay” rather than “rape play” several different times by several different people. Oooh, look at all that context!).

    I mean, that has to be the most astoundingly obtuse misunderstanding I’ve seen in recent times. Christ, I knew what they were talking about immediately, and I had even less information than you to go on, since you’re acknowledging you had heard of Rapelay before (even if it was seven years ago), but I hadn’t even heard about it at all!

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/329394
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1890/abstract;jsessionid=E0E4E6DD666C3978F43F1B77A68004AC.d03t01>/cite>

    Ah, my dear Sunny. Therein lies the rub. rrhain is having trouble with the basic concept of context, you see. But, not content to work out this beginner concept on his own, he brought his troubles to us, and pretended he was the teacher in order to draw on our insight without ever having to humble himself enough to ask for help.

    xD

  202. sunny12 says

    (Blah, now that I’m in a calmer frame of mind, rereading my posts above, they come across as rather snide too. >_< I hate it when that happens – I'm passionate and I have every right to be, but I don't want to sink to the same level of snark as the person I'm arguing with, even when I'm feeling extremely insulted by what they're writing. So apologies for my own condescension – I absolutely stand by my points though.)

  203. says

    @rrhain:

    Is there a context in which that statue could not be misogynistic?

    I’ll go even further than was already stated and say yes, even in a situation not like the aliens finding the statue situation, there is a context.

    Is it THIS context however?

    Given the producers’ attitudes towards women, given their behavior so far, given the fact that every single woman in the game is built from the same exact frame, NO! This is deeply misogynistic, and your prattling about trying to render a situation where it’s not is tiring and stupid.

    Deep Silver sees the women in their game as that statue. They plop on a new head every time they need a new character. Doesn’t matter how young or old. Doesn’t matter how alive or dead. Doesn’t matter if they’re black or white or Asian. They are that statue. Interchangable. Swappable.

    It’s vastly misogynistic, and I’m not ever going to play the game again.

  204. Anri says

    So, as far as I can tell, rrhain’s basic point is that if gamer culture didn’t exist, and human culture didn’t exist, and the human mind didn’t exist, we couldn’t call the apparent belief that a statuette of a sexualized mutilated woman is a desirable and admirable thing to seek and have misogynistic.

    So, rrhain, 10/10 for Survey Course Level Philosophy, but -1000 for Real World Relevance.

    But viewed in the right context, that’s really a very good grade.

  205. says

    Addressing the entire gaming community and telling us all to grow up because of something a crappy game like Dead Island puts out, is like admonishing the entire atheist community for something Michael Shermer says ; )

    Dead Island is definitely marketed to the “Bro”s and not gamers.

  206. WharGarbl says

    @Katherine
    #251
    I don’t think it’s a No True Scotsman defense. @joshelliott #250 didn’t claim that these people are not gamers (which would be a No True Scotsman defense). He’s claiming that these gamers are not representative of the gaming community.

  207. says

    The question is whether or not every single action done by a woman is done in reference to that pervasive sexism.

    no, that’s actually not the question, since no one made that claim.

    See, I took it as a misspelling on your part

    consistently? by everyone you’ve talked to? you should have fucking put that word into google the moment you saw the 2nd instance, or at least the second person, spell in as rapelay, ffs.
    so, either you’re lying, or your head is too far up your own ass to actually pay attention to what other people are saying.

    who the fuck do you think said it was sexist because it was part of zombie-gaming?!

    Well, let’s go to the original article, shall we?

    While there are a very small group who like to endorse their own unpleasant prejudices by angrily denouncing RPS for its coverage of gaming’s representation of women

    So it would seem the original author was referring to gaming culture.

    of course he was referring to gaming culture, since gaming culture is where this particular instance of misogyny came from. He does not however say that this particular instance of misogyny is caused by the gaming culture. A feature being present in a culture is not synonymous with a feature being caused by it, ffs.

    Then there was JJ831 at post 8:

    Being an avid gamer, I’ve all but given up in participating in multiplayer games where there is any communication between parties. It saddens me that the community is so incredibly rife with sexism.

    and another quote that does in no way imply that misogyny is caused by gaming culture. You suck at reading. Probably because you really don’t pay attention to what anyone else is saying.

    So it would seem that a lot of people were talking about gaming culture.

    about it? of course. claiming that the misogyny was because of it? not a one of them. you’re an idiot.

    What I am directly saying is that there is no such thing as misogyny outside of context.

    no shit. except there isn’t a context in which that particular statue could be non-mysogynist in the world we live in; and given that it looks the way it looks because of misogynist culture, it is in fact the statue itself that is a physical outcome of misogyny, and thus even in a different context in our own world, that statue couldn’t be anything other than misogynist.

    Does that sound like I’m talking about the game?

    it sounds like you’re bringing in a non sequitur to avoid answering. or like you’re talking out of your ass, not knowing what the fuck you’re talking about. as I noted, multiple times now. don’t fucking blame us that your reading is so full of assumptions, you couldn’t be bothered to stop and put a word into google, just in case you might be wrong.

    So? If I think it’s a misspelling, why does that necessarily indicate that I have misread it?

    why the everglorious fuck would you think everyone in this thread would misspell it, the same way, consistently? that’s ridiculous.

    At 179, Jadehawk says, “rapelay is not a multiplayer game.” And still no mention that we’re talking about a video game.

    because of course there are games other than videogames and sometimes board games that are ever referred to as “multiplayer”. your excuses for having your head stuck too far up your own ass to realize what everyone else is talking about are pathetic.

    Instead, she just goes for the ad hominem.

    to conclude that you’re dumber than mold is not an ad hominem. it’s an insulting conclusion.

  208. says

    @WharGarbl:

    But they ARE representative of the gaming community.

    As fond as I am of stating how many strides we are taking as a whole (look at the AGDQ marathon – over $421,000 donated to the Prevent Cancer Foundation) and how aware we’re becoming of the issues surrounding sexism and other -isms in the gaming community, it’s not changed much.

    It’s still a highly sexist, highly racist, highly trans- and homophobic environment. We’re slowly coming to grips and realizing that can’t stand if gaming is ever going to transition to the 21st century, but it’s so slow.

    And it’s not just gamers, look at how gaming companies treat women. The strong women characters are Jade from Beyond Good and Evil, FemShep from Mass Effect, and… my mind just blanks at that point. Anita Sarkeesian wanted to write a series looking at these characters and how poorly women are treated by game companies, and she got rape and death threats over it.

    The gaming community is bad, and drumming out these kinds of jerks is the only thing we can do to fix it. Hopefully more companies realize this and make better characters.

  209. WharGarbl says

    @Katherine Lorraine
    #254

    But they ARE representative of the gaming community.

    Sadly that is true.

    The strong women characters are Jade from Beyond Good and Evil, FemShep from Mass Effect, and… my mind just blanks at that point.

    Portal 2 – Chell (un-named in game).
    L4D2 – Zoey and Michelle

  210. says

    @WharGarbl:

    I’m not sure about Chell, Zoey, and Michelle cause I haven’t read the backstories of them in their non-game media. Jade and FemShep have a LOT of characterization in their media, so I can go with them as strong. (Although Valve does have a good way of handling female characters, so I wouldn’t be surprised if their non-game media depicted them with very strong backstories.)

    I used to add Samus Aran to that list, but after M:OM basically fucked over her character, I’ll never put her on the list again.

  211. WharGarbl says

    @Katherine
    #256
    A correction on my mistake. L4D2 female character is Rochelle not Michelle.

    Portal 2 – Chell’s backstory is mostly implied in the game itself. The non-game material state that she was one of the test subject in Aperture Science, but was “rejected” for testing for having a +99% in Tenacity (in short, she does not give up, ever) shortly before the… neurotoxin incidence.

    Zoey and Rochelle are just two normal women caught in a zombie apocalypse, and depending on how player plays them, can either be a one woman army (if they’re good) or damsel in distress. Their in-game voice do give them a lot of personality.
    A short background (you can find most of these on various wiki).
    Zoey: Loves horror films (zombies, aliens, etc). Firearm training came from her father’s desire for he to become a police officer.
    Rochelle: Recently promoted to a news reporter, her first “news” turned out to be covering the zombie infestation.

  212. says

    @whargarbl and Katherine

    Samus pre M:OM was a voiceless character with little character of her own beyond gets the job done. Having almost the entirety of your character being goes into a bunch of dangerous situations and beat those challenges isn’t a strong character. To me you need to be more then just someone who triumphs over adversity to be a strong character. Compare against say Shepard who in addition to succeeding has personality, character flaws (depending on how you play), makes hard decisions like leaving earth and is show to be bothered (haunted even) by those decisions. To me those are what makes her a strong character more so then that she won in the end.

    I could name some more characters (Zoe from Dreamfall the character I most identify with in any game ever ^.^ ) but I don’t think it really affects your point that gaming has been white male etc dominated too long to its own detriment.

  213. lesofa says

    @Katherine
    My list would also include April Ryan from The Longest Journey and its sequel, Dreamfall. Check them out if you like adventure games.

  214. omnicrom says

    My biggest problem with Metroid Other M is that they basically invert all the storytelling of Metroid Fusion. Fusion is the only other Metroid game with anything approaching a story and there we get some of Samus’ internal monologue to good effect. The short narrative bits in Fusion have Samus being thoughtful and philosophical about her situation. It’s also the origin of Adam, but in Fusion the relationship between the two and their history is completely different from in Other M. In Fusion it’s made very clear that the reason Samus liked the man was because he treated her as an equal even despite differences in gender and rank. Other M’s sexism hurts Adam as well by completely changing the dynamic between the two to be eye-rollingly sexist.

    Anyways in terms of good female characters I’ve always liked Virginia Maxwell from Wild Arms 3. She’s a well-rounded and well-developed character with a strong drive and motivation. Wild Arms 3 has a disappointingly small cast, and that’s quite sad because all of the characters are incredibly strong.

    I also like many of the Banpresto Originals from Super Robot Wars. The game has an unfortunate amount of cheesecake sometimes but characters like Ibis, Chris and Liana, Mai, Kusuha, and Arriere are all well written and interesting.

    It’s annoyingly simple to make a good female character because it isn’t very different from making a strong male character.

  215. says

    @236 (SallyStrange):

    I think this is the first thing you have DIRECTLY said in this whole thread.

    Then clearly you haven’t read what I’ve been writing because I’ve said the exact same thing multiple times.
    My original post said it: “It’s the context surrounding it that causes the trouble.”
    I said it again in my very next post: “But that means the problem isn’t the statue. It’s the context in which the statue is presented.”
    I said it again: “The problem is not the what. It’s the why.”
    And again: “It isn’t the figurine, in and of itself, that is the problem. We need a context in which to place it in order to make that determination”
    And again: “After all, ‘misogyny’ is a culturally-constructed concept.”
    And again: “‘Good’ and ‘bad’ do not exist outside of our minds. The only way to determine if something is good or bad is to examine our cultural values and place the action within that context. All morality comes from our examination of the world. There is no external yardstick to measure it against.”
    And again: “However, it isn’t because of the superficial image it presents. That means nothing. It’s the rest of the context surrounding it that does it.”
    And again: “The problem is not the image in and of itself. It’s the context in which it is being presented that makes it problematic.”
    I am not responsible for your failure to pay attention.

    You are, however, responsible for your failure to write anything worth paying attention to. You just found ten different ways to say something that is trivially true and profoundly irrelevant. And since, every time you posted, you buried these little nuggets of meaning with piles and piles of steaming manure-scented blather, in which you posed pointless and condescending rhetorical questions, lectured queer people about queerness, kinky people about kink, and generally failed to relate the content of your post to anything anyone else was saying, just like a chronically self-absorbed twit who is typing only for the pleasure of seeing the pixels he writes appear on a shiny screen.

    Yeah, misogyny is a cultural phenomenon.

    Congratulations for finally catching up.

    No, nobody here is “catching up” to you, because this is something we already understand, and we are impatient with you for flogging a subject which is not really related to the topic at hand. As I said before, this is 101 stuff. Everybody gets it. We’re just not interested in having the discussion you apparently want to have because we have moved past the idea that misogyny is a cultural phenomenon and have been using that concept as a foundation on which to build a more complex discussion about the nature of gaming, civic responsibility, and so on.

    Now, I’d really like to know: What are the contextual cues that led you to the conclusion that this piece was problematic? It can’t be the mere physical shape because objects cannot be misogynistic all on their own.

    You are correct. It is not the “mere physical shape.” It is the act of me looking at the physical shape. It is the process that led to the manufacture of the physical shape. Again… so what?

    You’ve gone on and on about everything except the actual figurine. Every insult you can think of to throw at me about my sex, my sexuality, my style of writing, everything except actually responding to the subject at hand: This stupid piece of plastic.

    I thought that the subject at hand was NOT “this stupid piece of plastic.” Because the piece of plastic doesn’t mean anything by itself, remember? Make up your fucking mind.

    Talk about adding nothing of value.

    Pointing out how fucking dumb you are is a useful service in case some ignorant lurker is confused by your self-contradictory wanking.

    That all sounds pretty trippy, man.

    Then no wonder you’re having such a hard time comprehending it because in actuality, it isn’t trippy at all.

    Are you kidding? Have you never gotten high? The sheer meta recursive complexity of the meanings we assign to objects in the world is precisely the sort of thing that freaks college freshman out when they’re shrooming. Hence: “trippy” is an accurate descriptor. In addition, it’s useful because it calls attention to the fact that your level of analysis is on par with a that of an 18-year-old who just ate a couple of grams of psilocybin.

    That you seem to think there’s something revelatory about this shows you really haven’t given any thought to the subject at all. After all, you can’t even begin to explain your justification for why this piece is misogynistic. Instead, you go on and on about me as if I were the subject of this discussion.

    I don’t feel like justifying my beliefs to YOU because you’ve offered precisely nothing to challenge my beliefs. “Words mean things because of context” is not a challenge to “This piece of marketing art is clearly misogynist.” You agree that it’s misogynist. If you want to explain why YOU think it’s misogynist, have at it, but if you agree, why are you so insistent that I have to explain why I think it is misogynist? I am gathering that you think my reasoning process may be faulty. That’s always a possibility, but I don’t think that’s happening in this case, and this case is the one that is the topic at hand. As far as you being the subject of the conversation, it would not be so if you were not so tragically self-absorbed that you are literally incapable of understanding things other people say that challenge your assertions. When someone is, like you, so chronically unable to engage in a genuine dialectical exchange of ideas, the inevitable result is that the conversation becomes about “Why is this person unable to understand things and say things everyone else can understand? What’s wrong with them?”

    To borrow omnicrom’s imagery, I’m flattered you’re having fun masturbating to the thought of me, but might we actually return to the subject at hand?

    Case in point: the contention is not that I or anyone else is masturbating, but that you are engaged in mental masturbation. In other words, you care nothing for interaction, you are just here to say the things you want to say and read the things you wrote. Anything anyone else says or does is irrelevant. You may as well be talking to yourself. Which is fine, but impolite when you’re not alone. Just like masturbation. Whether this was inadvertent or a deliberate misunderstanding in an attempt to sneak in a remark about MY sexuality, the point remains: only someone truly stupid could think that was a remark that would be anything but embarrassing to you.

    It’s a mutilated, sexualized female torso in a world in which women are violently sexually assaulted in epidemic numbers – somewhere between 20% and 95% of women experience sexual assault, depending on where you are and how you define it.

    And what does any of that have to do with this instance? Be specific.

    THIS INSTANCE is referring to the mutilated, sexualized female torso, which is the subject of the sentence you just quoted. What does the subject of the sentence you just quoted have to do with the sentence you just quoted? If you can’t figure that out, then you’re beyond help.

    So, that is the meaning of this particular physical object.

    Why? I understand that it is what *you* think when you see it, but you don’t get to be the sole arbiter of symbology. Nobody else is responsible for your trigger. That you associate X with Y (no matter how appropriate such an association is in the majority of cases) does not mean that this particular instance of X has anything to do with Y.

    I do indeed get to be the sole arbiter of symbology, up until the point when someone else points out some other association, which may be more direct, or reveal a closer relationship between the two things being associated, or can show that X in fact has very little to do with Y. Since you have not, and, I presume, cannot and will not offer any other associations, nor suggest another phenomenon that has a closer relationship to the topic at hand, nor show, using well-researched arguments, that there is no relationship between images of mutilated, sexualized female torsos, and the incidence of violent sexual assault against women, as far as this particular discussion goes, I remain the sole arbiter of symbology. If you want to suggest other possible meanings then fucking suggest them.

    “A Little Priest” is a song about killing people and then eating them. And it’s fucking hilarious. Yep, revenge killing and cannibalism! It’s fun!

    Ah… if only there were any discernible chain of logic that led to this nonsensical outburst.

    You keep nattering on about how do we determine if things are misogynist.

    And you keep nattering on about me. Is that any better?

    For you, no doubt it is. Clearly you love being the center of the conversation, since you apparently cannot countenance anyone continuing the conversation on terms other than the ones you set. For me, it fucking sucks. On the other hand, your extreme stupidity is an object of mild curiosity and amusement, so, you know. Trade-offs, as with all things.

    Well, son, we look at it and ask if it promotes restrictive gender roles or not, and if it dehumanizes women or not, and if it denigrates men for acting too much like women, and a number of other characteristics.

    OK…so what are the specifics about this case that fulfill those criteria?

    That’s what I’m trying to tell you. This is 101 stuff. Participating in THIS conversation, or, at least, the one we WERE having before you showed up and JAQed off* all over the place requires that you are already familiar with those characteristics. If you don’t know, then hie thee to the Feminism 101 site and plague us no more.

    Be specific. Let’s take the first one: Does it promote restrictive gender roles? Well, in and of itself, no. Instead, what makes it promote restrictive gender roles is the fact that the only figurine made is of a woman. Now, that might be OK if there was some sort of game significance to this image, but there isn’t. It’s completely out of the blue.

    There are many characteristics of “misogyny” to which this figurine conforms. To my mind, the most salient is that of dehumanizing women and encouraging men to get boners at the sight of dismembered women’s bodies, encouraging people to feel as if it’s normal to get kind of turned on at the sight of a headless, armless, legless, bloody body. If you do not see how this relates to the things I mentioned earlier—the widespread epidemic of sexualized violence against women—well, as we already noted, you are dumber than a fucking post, so no surprise there.

    So we’re back to the example I gave before: If part of the game was the creativity with which you dispatched zombies, where you could take in-game pictures of your trophies, then something like this might make sense. But none of that is true and so we’re just left with them singling out a woman with no justification as to why other than, “Just cuz.”

    See, you said you weren’t looking for contexts in which this figurine might not be misogynist, then you said you weren’t, and now here you are doing it again. You don’t even know what the fuck you want to do. Again, you’re wanking, wasting your time and ours. Whatever the justification is, the context still renders it misogynist. Whether it makes sense in relation to gameplay or not, it’s still misogynist.

    But this means that it isn’t the mere existence of a mutilated female corpse that is at issue. No matter how much sexism we see in the world, even to the point where mutilated bodies of women are something that is depressingly too frequent (as if there were an acceptable number), we still have to examine what is going on before we conclude that this is an example of misogyny.

    Yeah, but we already concluded that this is misogyny, and since you’ve offered NOTHING to suggest that our conclusion is wrong, and you’ve offered NOTHING to suggest that the analysis by which we arrived at that conclusion is wrong, you are simply doing your dumb fucking college 101 philosophy level wanking. We examined it, motherfucker. We concluded that it’s misogynist. The things you say we ought to do? We fucking did them. The fact that you are too fucking stupid to perceive that is your problem and nobody else’s.

    Because there’s no such thing as misogyny outside of context.

    And water is wet and bears shit in the woods.

    And once you realize that you have to actually show your work, you might have a future.

    You’re not my fucking professor. If you can’t follow along then ask questions. I’m always happy to show work and explain things to people who are genuinely curious. You are not coming off as genuinely curious. You sound like you have all the answers, but you’re concentrating on questions that nobody but you is asking. And you’ve offered no reasons as to why your particular set of questions is the most compelling and interesting set of questions we could be answering right now. In fact, the questions you are intent on answering, AND forcing everyone else to answer, regardless of their level of interest, are, as I noted, extremely basic, 101 level questions that nobody but you has any trouble with.
    So fuck off.

    *JAQing off is a piece of terminology that describes exactly what you have been doing. Go look it up. It has appeared several times already in this thread, but since you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you will absolutely not look up unfamiliar terms, but keep right on pretending as if you are the only person talking, I guess I have to point this term out to you and instruct you to find out what the fuck it means. Which is what you should have done the second time you saw “Rapelay.”

  216. vaiyt says

    RE: Samus.

    As I mentioned before in another thread, I think the worst depiction of Samus so far is not Other M but Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Watch as Samus turns into another character entirely when she sheds her armor! Watch as she dons a combination of skintight suit and whip, twirls around like a stripper, ditches the power strikes for glorified dancing and her original firm-footed stance for tip-toeing and T&A contortions. Or better yet, don’t.

  217. says

    You may have heard of it: _Fifty Shades of Grey._ They’re thinking of turning it into a movie.

    I’ve no idea how talking about the popularity of a book series describing an abusive relationship as something positive is helping your argument here. I mean, those books are a textbook example of mainstream misogyny (and still nothing like the queer kink you’re trying to compare it to).

  218. WharGarbl says

    @Jadehawk
    #265

    I’ve no idea how talking about the popularity of a book series describing an abusive relationship as something positive is helping your argument here. I mean, those books are a textbook example of mainstream misogyny (and still nothing like the queer kink you’re trying to compare it to).

    Yet the book is very popular among women
    For lack of other readership studies that breakdown gender purchases…
    Demographic behind 50 Shades
    I think the point here is that yes, the book is misogynistic, but its fantasy. Some women (or judging by readership number, a lot of women) probably have some form of submission or rape/ravishment fantasies (although most of them definitely don’t want to get forced on for real), and 50 Shades provide a safe outlet for that.

  219. osuushi says

    @Katherine Lorraine

    I’m not giving any benefit of the doubt to the company that made the game. I’m saying that they’re trolls, using public outcry as a way to get free publicity. I’m not sure how that came across as sympathy for them.

  220. microraptor says

    Yet the book is very popular among women
    For lack of other readership studies that breakdown gender purchases…

    Or it could be that 50 Shades was marketed to women and not men, and that it’s of a genre that’s almost exclusively aimed at a female audience.

    I think the point here is that yes, the book is misogynistic, but its fantasy. Some women (or judging by readership number, a lot of women) probably have some form of submission or rape/ravishment fantasies (although most of them definitely don’t want to get forced on for real), and 50 Shades provide a safe outlet for that.

    That claim is often made, but most frequently as a justification for rape culture. The book may be extremely popular right now, but even so the number of women who’ve read it vs the number of women who haven’t is still going to be heavily skewed in the haven’t direction, so attempting to make any sort of inference about women’s tastes in fiction or how normal it is among women to want to be a submissive in a poorly written version of bondage play just isn’t supported.

  221. WharGarbl says

    @microraptor
    #268

    so attempting to make any sort of inference about women’s tastes in fiction or how normal it is among women to want to be a submissive in a poorly written version of bondage play just isn’t supported.

    I’m not making inference about what’s normal women’s taste. I’m just saying that judging by the popularity of the book, SOME women’s taste do extend to BDSM fantasies.

  222. rrhain says

    @246 (sunny12):

    [ad hominem deleted for space]

    what your argument seems to boil down to is “An object can’t be offensive in itself, because there needs to be someone viewing it for it to cause offense and different people can have different reactions to it anyway.”

    No. Again, stated directly, my argument is that an object can’t be offensive in itself. Only the context in which it is presented leads to a conclusion of offense. While I do recognize that different people can have different reactions, not all such reactions are justified. That is, I don’t subscribe to the extreme post-modern concept of “all interpretations are equally valid.” They’re not. Some reactions are wrong.

    I’m sorry, but at best that is useless navel-gazing philosophy with little relevance to any conversation on social marginalisation

    How can it not since it is the very essence of why stuff gets marginalized? It’s the context that does it. There is no such thing as meaning outside of context because there is no meaning to mere objects. Thus, all the people who were ranting and raving about this figurine being misogynistic simply because of its physical existence were wrong. Things can’t be misogynistic. It is impossible for any group to be marginalized simply by the mere existence of something.

    and at worst the same kind of puerile tactic used by school-aged bullies (“Hey it’s not my fault! You’re the one who’s choosing to be upset!”).

    Since that isn’t my argument and nothing I have said can rationally be interpreted as such, I suggest you go back and try again.

    Remember: I agree that the figurine is misogynistic. Try to remember that. Since I agree that figurine is misogynistic, my argument can hardly be restated as, “You’re the one who’s choosing to be upset.” After all, I agree that we should be upset.

    What I disagree with is why we’re upset. And understanding that why is absolutely essential if we’re going to try and stop situations like the creation of this item from happening again. By going off on the mere physical form of the piece, we look like we are trying to deny all aspects in every context, which is clearly a failure as a justification. Thus, we end up being considered unreliable sources of judgement.

    Take a look at the issue of anti-harrassment policies at conventions. The idiots against such policies are hung up on the specifics. Take TF’s bizarre example of biting some woman’s leg. But the code isn’t about mere physical form. We can’t get into laundry listing because that only means some other clueless idiot will claim that “It wasn’t on the list of things I couldn’t do!” No, instead, the issue is intent and context and cultivating an air of respect.

    Nobody who is in favor of anti-harrassment is saying that flirting and making intimate connections with other attendees is disallowed. That’s stupid. What is said is that the conference isn’t the place to do that, you need to consider the feelings of the other person should you find yourself in such a place where it is approprite, and remember that the point of the conference isn’t about picking someone up. If it happens and the two of you are happy with it, knock yourselves out, but that’s a pleasant coincidence, not the point in the first place.

    Yes, I did read them, thank you very much.

    Then you didn’t understand them. They were specifically complaining about the physical form, despite the fact that you were saying nobody was.

    They were talking about *this* particular statue, and whether or not it can ever be okay for a video game company to manufacture such a product for consumers to buy. Not a random female torso somewhere in outer space. Not a mutilated corpse on a battlefield. Not Sally from A Nightmare Before Christmas. Not the meaning of the swastika symbol or “Springtime for Hitler” in The Producers. Heaven forbid they actually talk about the topic at hand!

    And the fact that you can’t understand how the reactions to the latter inform our understanding of our reactions to the former shows that you don’t actually understand the topic at hand let alone have any desire to talk about it.

    Instead, you want to trot out ad hominem commentary about me. Is there are reason you are so focused on your emotional reaction to what I’m saying rather than what I am actually saying?

    There is a difference in how we react to those various symbols. Thus, if we are going to say that *THIS* particular figurine is misogynistic, then we’re going to have to explain how it is different from all those other instances where something either identical or tantamount to a mutilated female corpse were of no concern.

    A torso alone isn’t necessarily sexist, true.

    So why did so many people say it was?

    And why did they get so defensive when I said it wasn’t?

    And why did they decide to insult me rather than engage over this difference of opinion?

    Still doesn’t excuse it

    Nor does it condemn it. Given the context of where the game takes place combined with the fact that this figurine was going to be mass-marketed without age restrictions, it’s not like they could have created a nude. It’s something to note, yes, but it is insufficient to base a conclusion on.

    If they had put her in a tank top or a t-shirt, then the figure becomes more complex to design since now you have to take into account the fabric exposure. They wanted to show open wounds, not just blood stains. Gore sells.

    Injuries are covering the woman’s entire body – *except* for the breasts, by choice of the designer

    Indeed. Personally, I think that if they could have done it as a nude, they would have. But since this was going to be a mass-market item, they had to clean it up. If they had put wounds on the breasts, that would have required exposing them and our culture has massive hangups about exposed breasts. Sure, take the kids to _Les Miserables_ where you have people shooting each other and literally swimming through human excrement. PG-13.

    Show one nipple for a quarter second on national television (that was covered up by jewelry, at that) and you face enormous fines.

    So no, I’m not surprised at all that there aren’t wounds upon the breasts.

    These breasts have also been constructed to be highly exaggerated in size, spilling out from the bikini top, thus ensuring that they are the first thing that the gaze is drawn to

    So? Come with me to the beach. Tell me what you see.

    This is indeed compounded further by it being a headless torso. Yes, a torso alone isn’t enough to be sexist

    Then why are you bringing it up? If it isn’t enough to be sexist, then why do we even care? Would having a head on it have made it any better? Really?

    and then when you *combine* this factor with what I’ve already mentioned about the breasts and bikini, yeah, it does become pretty squicky.

    Not in the context of a zombie shoot-em-up. Not when part of the game action allows you to dismember the zombies since that’s an actual tactic for survival in the game (cut off the legs and they can’t come after you because the game mechanics don’t allow the zombies to crawl.)

    You’re focused on the physical form as if that could ever be a justification for sexism.

    Sexual objectification is highly problematic in itself

    Indeed. But what you need to show is that this was an example of same. The mere physical form, in and of itself, is insufficient to do so because no object ever carries meaning by its mere existence.

    However, it becomes even more problematic when you consider that the vast majority of sexual violence in the world is inflicted on women and girls – sexual objectification being present by design in the case of a mutilated corpse is doubly horrific.

    And in most contexts, that’s correct.

    Where is the evidence that this is one of them?

    I’m sorry, but you simply cannot remove that context from this conversation and pretend that it is of no relevance.

    I’m not removing it. I’m challenging your assumption that it is present. It may be, but not because of your say so.

    Take, for example, my justifications:

    This company, in this very game, already has problems with how it treats women (the “Feminist Whore” character trait). So while some other game could have made the exact same figurine and have it be of no concern, this particular company has a stink around it that they’re going to have to work hard to overcome. And since they couldn’t come up with any real reason for how this particular figurine has any connection to the actual game other than “just cuz,” then we can’t really find any justification for it.

    See, the fact that it’s a scantily clad, large-breasted, beheaded torso is essentially irrelevant. There are plenty of ways to have exactly that and have nobody blink. You have to examine the context in which it is presented in order to understand just why those physical traits are present.

    How in the name of Merlin’s most baggy Y-fronts can you not understand…

    Because I got an image in my head and didn’t want to let go of it.

    You can understand what that’s like, right? Getting stuck on a conceptualization of what the other person is saying and not being able to figure out that it’s wrong?

    @248 (Katherine Lorraine):

    Is there a context in which that statue could not be misogynistic?

    Yes. I have given several specific situations where it could be. Since you seem to have missed them previously, let me describe a couple:

    You’re in a zombie shoot-em-up. It’s taking place on a tropical resort island. So far, this is the actual set up for Dead Island. But in this new scenario, the game play is such that the idea is to be creative in how you kill the zombies. You can take in-game pictures of how you got through the zombie horde. There are various boss monsters you will encounter and one of them might be the headless torso zombie (“But she doesn’t have a head! How can a zombie still be a threat when it doesn’t have a head?!”) And thus, the company is going to make a series of figurines of the boss monsters, this being only one of many.

    Here’s another one: It’s something like a bizarro world where zombies have created their own culture. They have everything that we do except that it’s a zombie version and every now and again there are humans that come along and try to kill you. We have artist zombie getting ready to work on a new statue when a band of humans comes in to destroy everything. They cut up the the model but somehow the artist manages to survive. Upon seeing the torso of the model, rather than go to all the trouble of chiseling out a statue, the artist simply mounts the torso.

    You should see what some people have done to their Sally dolls from The Nightmare Before Christmas. Her limbs come off, after all. And then there’s the Altered Barbie art exhibit. My god, what some of those artists have done to that poor doll.

    None of this is misogynistic, even though it involves a mutilated female corpse. Context will tell you what it means. Our culture may be steeped in sexism, but that doesn’t mean everything is sexist.

    Is it THIS context however?

    You’ve read my posts, right? So what do you think my answer is going to be?

    Hint: It’s yes, this is a misogynistic context.

    Now, think carefully: How does knowing that affect your argument to me?

    Given the producers’ attitudes towards women

    Hey! That’s my argument! I’d congratulate you on having read my posts, but the fact that you seem to think you’re making a revelation to me shows that you didn’t.

    It’s vastly misogynistic, and I’m not ever going to play the game again.

    You seem to be of the opinion that I am somehow trying to defend the statue and/or the game.

    Now, think carefully: How does know that I’m not affect your argument to me?

  223. Esteleth, Ultra-PC Feminist Harpy Out To Destroy Secularism says

    Rrhain, is your argument seriously that while we are correct about lambasting this for being sexist shit, we’re doing it wrong?

    You want to know what context would make this non-sexist. Here’s an answer: such a context would have to be completely divorced from our society, because our society is sexist. Your hypothetical about a different game is bogus – by enabling and glorifying the creation of boobablicious scantily clad female torsos, the game-makers are winking at the sexism endemic in our society. And – here’s the kicker as well – the sexists would recognize such a situation as a wink and be cheered up by it.

    Here’s a though exercise: do you remember the hooplah awhile back about the video game (whose name I am forgetting, and my google-fu has failed me) that featured people who due to [plot thing] were reduced to monsters and thus had to be killed by the PoV character? And the game designers decided to include a sequence set in a village somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa that also featured a certain amount of imagery that seemed to wink at racism? That was racist. Flat-out. There is, given the racism embedded in modern society – no context in which that sequence could have been done in a non-racist way, because it ultimately boiled down to saying that Africans are animalistic, savage, violent, bad, evil, and needed killing. By the (non-African) dude with a big gun. It does not matter if you can construct a hypothetical situation where that would not be racist – any such situation would have to be completely divorced from modern society. And I don’t mean “set somewhere/sometime else,” I mean “made by people not of our society, who know nothing of our society, and not intended for consumption by people of our society.”

    The statuette is sexist because our society is sexist and because it plays upon and winks at sexist tropes. Maybe, when an archeologist finds one in 5000 years, when the Earth is transformed into Pacifist Feminist Utopia Land, it will be non-sexist. But here? Now? Nope. Sexist.

  224. says

    I’ve lived in eastern Massachusetts all my life and was in college in 1996 when the Karina Holmer case freaked the fuck out of the entire city of Boston. It’s impossible for me to look at that, er, figurine and not think about that case and how horrific it was. I mean, that may as well be a Swedish flag bikini instead of the Union Jack. *shudder*

    (And even if I accept the “zombie bait” idea I’ve heard in relation to it… no. Just no. I’m pretty sure a zombie wouldn’t care what body part it was as long as it smelled like human flesh. This whole idea is utterly fucked.)

  225. says

    I think the point here is that yes, the book is misogynistic, but its fantasy. Some women (or judging by readership number, a lot of women) probably have some form of submission or rape/ravishment fantasies (although most of them definitely don’t want to get forced on for real), and 50 Shades provide a safe outlet for that.

    way to miss my point.
    1)you can have ravishment and submission fantasies that don’t express themselves as swooning for an abusive relationship. most D/s relationships aren’t abusive, ffs.
    2)shouldn’t it tell you something when an entire society full of women reads abuse as “romantic”, even though there’s plenty of romance novels that don’t accurately describe an extremely abusive relationship while still catering to ravishment and/or submissive fantasies?
    3)given how 50 Shades is being marketed, it’s not safe in the slightest: the publisher is now marketing it to men as a “what women want” manual.

    . I’m just saying that judging by the popularity of the book, SOME women’s taste do extend to BDSM fantasies.

    50 shades != BDSM

  226. says

    By going off on the mere physical form of the piece, we look like we are trying to deny all aspects in every context

    who the fuck is “we”, asshole?
    also, no, no one is denying that this piece is misogynist in many different ways. you’re imagining things again.

    So why did so many people say it was?

    they didn’t, you just can’t read for shit. they were saying the particular design of the torso is what it is because it was created in a misogynist culture. it’s not just a torso; it’s a particularly designed one, and those design features are pretty good fucking clues to its misogyny. (and on that point, I shall note that you’ve failed to provide me with that supposedly easily findable male equivalent of this torso)

    And why did they get so defensive when I said it wasn’t?

    because you seem to be saying that this torso could have a context in our world in which it wouldn’t be misogynist, and that’s bull.

    Would having a head on it have made it any better? Really?

    you do realize that figurative “beheading” of women in media is common, and that it’s a form of de-individualization? this is simply the worst-case of this (followed closely by that one axe commercial). so yeah, de-individualization by removal of the head does make it worse.

    So while some other game could have made the exact same figurine and have it be of no concern

    no, it couldn’t have. not that figurine. a different, non-sexualized, non-de-individualized torso of a zombie, maybe. but not this particular figurine, because the sexism has been build into it.

    Yes. I have given several specific situations where it could be.

    again, none of these would make this figurine non-misogynist, because a non-misogynist figure would look different.
    and in any case, given the cultural background of glorification of abuse of women, it’s extremely unlikely that any statue of a mutilated female body used as a display piece would fail to perform cultural work in support of further such glorification of abuse of women.

  227. zmidponk says

    Rrhain, you said:

    This company, in this very game, already has problems with how it treats women (the “Feminist Whore” character trait). So while some other game could have made the exact same figurine and have it be of no concern, this particular company has a stink around it that they’re going to have to work hard to overcome.

    Actually, no. This company has taken this image and almost literally put it on a pedestal as something to gawp at. Even if it has not had problems with misogynistic attitudes being exposed before, this statuette would still be misogynistic for that reason. I can think of contexts where depictions of a headless female torso would not be misogynistic (such as, within the game itself, such a torso lying around, along with various other body parts, both male and female), but I am struggling to think of a context where a company going out of its way to produce statuettes of such a thing as a special limited edition extra in one of its products would not be misogynistic. You have tried to provide some such examples, but, frankly, they fail, for the very simple reason that, even if these things happened within the game, you would still have to ask why the company chose that particular image to commemorate in its limited edition statuette – and there, you get into the sexism that permeates society that has been mentioned by others in this thread.

  228. says

    I’m just saying that judging by the popularity of the book, SOME women’s taste do extend to BDSM fantasies.

    and another point on this:
    even if we for a moment assume that BDSM is actually what is shown in the books (instead of plain old abuse), the book is not about that. the book is about how you can “cure” a violent, abusive man if you just love him enough and pander to his narcissism enough. it’s the secular equivalent of those screwy quiverful books for women.

  229. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Oh wow, I have to believe rrhain is high as balls or just completed a first-year philosophy course. “But things only have the context we give them, maaaaan!”

    Also, I am profoundly amused he decided I’m a man. And that queer is only gay. LOL OOPS.

    And Whargarbl: you really don’t get how BDSM works, do you? Not as much point-missing as rrhain, but good try.

  230. Gregory Greenwood says

    rrhain @ 124;

    Now, where was it agreed that this was an example of misogyny in general or of “treating women as interchangeable and ultimately disposeable hunks of meat rather than people”?

    If you don’t see a clearly and crudely sexualised image of a dismembered woman’s torso as an example of misogyny, then you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for, and that is saying a lot.

    You did read my post, didn’t you? Don’t respond to what you wish I would have said. Pay attention to what I actually did.

    Yes, I read your post. It asked a transparently idiotic question about whether there was a circumstance in which gross misogyny was OK, and then went on to provide staggeringly stupid hypothetical scenarios to justify it. I wasn’t impressed, any more than I am by your utterly undeserved sense of intellectual superiority, or your feeble attempts to be patronising.

    Are you saying that there is no way in which a mutilated corpse is an appropriate symbol? If so, then the entire point of a zombie video game must be discarded. After all, the point of that game is to kill the zombies. They were once people.

    So if it’s OK in the context of a zombie video game to have a mutilated corpse, then it necessarily must be the case that it is OK if, perhaps, that corpse is of a woman.

    The general concept of a computer game zombie and a deliberate pairing of crassly sexualised imagery with images of violence are not the same thing. You can’t slip that false equivalency under the radar.

    Not at all. I’m not shocked by people’s stupidity. It’s saddening, yes, but not shocking. Your inability to examine context and understand why something might be misogynistic has led you to failure. You have seen a symbol, applied a singular emotional reaction to it, and come up with an answer without any intervening logic.

    It is misogynistic, idiot, The thread is full of women who are well versed in feminism and gender politics telling you that it is misogynistric. The only bar to your understanding this is the fact that your colossal ego is getting in the way of your inadequate understanding. I imagine you have this problem a lot.

    That’s not shocking. It’s called a “snap decision” and we make them all the time.

    That doesn’t make them right.

    Digging your heels in to mulishly defend your gender privilege doesn’t make you right either. You may be a feMRA, but my money is that you are just another male sexist arsehole, who thinks that pretending to be a woman gives your poor, misogynistic excuse for an argument more credibility. No one is falling for it.

    When was it agreed to that this was misogynistic?

    See, there’s the flaw in your black-and-white thinking: It only works on things that have already been examined and categorized. You have yet to explain why this is an example of misogyny. Just because you think so doesn’t make it so.

    Hint: I do think this is an example of misogyny, but it isn’t for the same reason you do. As should be clear, I think that difference of opinion is important because just because you have the right answer doesn’t mean you’re doing the right thing. Eventually, there will be another scenario that requires you to examine a situation where the reason why is important. If you can’t understand why you came to your conclusion but simply rely upon your snap judgement, you may come to the wrong conclusion and there will be a problem.

    The only problem here is that you are a persistant MRA who won’t shut up. My conclusion is based upon the many ways in which the statuette plays into existing misogynistic tropes. Your refusal to accept its misogynistic character is based on your inability to accept the fact that you are a bigot. Check your privilege at the door next time.

    “People are always people”

    Even zombies?

    Then I guess you’re saying the entire concept of a video game where the idea is to kill the zombies before they kill you is a bad thing.

    Is that what you’re saying? Because if it isn’t, then your reaction to this is not justified. The fact that it is a female torso is thus immaterial in and of itself.

    The sexualised character of the statuette is immaterial to its misogyny? That has to be one of the most nonsesnical claims I have ever run across.

    “this statuette is misogynistic and does denigrate women.”

    Why?

    The sexualisation of the figure paired with the fact that it is decapitated and dismembered should be clue enough for all but the most wilfully obtuse. Which is why you are having such a problem.

    “It is no coincidence that a slim, bikini-clad, dismembered female torso with what appear to be breast implants was chosen for the statuette.”

    So? Remember the context of the game. It’s on a tropical vacation island. Are you trying to tell me that such places don’t have such people? I live in San Diego. It’s the dead of winter and I can still go to the beach and see them.

    The existence of women in revealing bikinis is not the reason why this image was chosen here. This was about pairing a sexulaised depiction of womanhood with the elimination of identity and any characteristic beyond the breasts and associated torso. It literally renders a female figure down to sexual characteristics to appeal to sexist arsehats like you.

    “They could just as easily have included a statuette of one of the in game characters, or a group of zombies, but they didn’t.”

    So? Just because they didn’t appeal to your tastes means they’re misogynistic? You’re going to have to do better than that.

    The choice of a female torso in this state and presented in this context is telling when there were so many other options that would not have been problematic. It is not my fault if you are too dim to grasp my points.

    Remember, I agree that this statue is misogynistic. I just disagree with you as to why.

    I don’t believe you for a second. You reek of MRA talking points.

    “They chose this specific image in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of sexist arseholes in the gaming community who would find it titillating, and the fact that it is a woman’s body that is depicted so mutilated is also not a coincidence.”

    Really? When you read other people’s minds, do you have to filter other people out as if you were in a crowded room or is it like tuning in a radio station where you only hear one person at a time?

    Cuz from where I’m sitting, the idea of a zombie version of a statue from the antiquities is kinda cool. There may be other reasons for me not to want a particular version due to aspects of misogyny, but the concept in and of itself is no big deal. A mutilated, female corpse is not, in and of itself, misogynistic. If you disagree with that, then we are at an impasse.

    We are at an impasse because people like you see promoting imagery that propogates the idea in society that it is OK to treat women like objects as acceptable, whereas I actually see women as people.

    You are wedded to a poisonous vision of women that you are too privileged, to bigoted, and/or too stupid to see for the toxic, misogynistic garbage that it is. No one can help you get past that if you refuse to see how prejudiced you are.

    “The parallels to the misogynist tendency to view women as sex despensors valuable only for their sexual attributes is brazenly obvious.”

    Why?

    The body reduced to a torso and a pair of breasts with no identity and no life – literally just a pair of breasts shorn of all other aspects of humanity. You really can’t see how that parallels the misogynist’s view of women as not really being fully human, and only having any worth through the idea that they should function as sex dispensors? You don’t see the links to a rape culture that sees women solely through the lense of the male gaze and their notional role to satisfy the sexual urges of men?

    You should educate yourself on feminism before you hold forth on an issue you clearly don’t begin to understand. I can’t be bothered to do it for you. Until then, I’m done with you.

  231. vaiyt says

    Your inability to examine context

    Says the person who’s doing everything in their power to avoid the actual context of what we’re talking about.

  232. Gregory Greenwood says

    Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom @ 280;

    Oh wow, I have to believe rrhain is high as balls or just completed a first-year philosophy course.

    Whatever xe is on just has to be illegal. No one I met at university who had just completed a first year philosophy course was anything close to that obnoxious.

  233. says

    @251… The gaming “community” isn’t some niche market of all the same people, especially these days. I’m sure just about anyone any of us know on here owns a video game console, system, or at least an electronic game of some type.

    @251/263 No, it’s not ok to classify the entire community for what one person in it might say or do. To do so, you justify the “STALIN WAS AN ATHEIST, AMG” argument.

    Are you going to go up to a 5 year old playing his Leap Frog games on the computer and bitch him out about the Dead Island statue? The 5 year old, who like me, until it was brought up in front of him, with people screaming about it, didn’t even know the stupid thing existed?

  234. says

    288/289 Not everyone who has murdered is a murderer? Is this the logic we are following? Once doesn’t count? There’s no scale from 1-10?

    Pointlessly gendered language? Because an example person was one gender or the other? That’s worth addressing? No more math problems with John did this, or Sally did this? Just… “A lifeform had 3 apples….”?

  235. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    290

    What word could possibly be gendered in your 287?

    You’re a smart fellow, let’s see if you can figure it out.

    I’m pulling for you.

  236. Gregory Greenwood says

    joshelliott;

    Gendered language does not only refer to words that specifically denote an individual’s gender, but also to terms, phrases and in particular insults that specifically relate to one gender rather than another, that use the fact of gender of the physicality of a crtain sex as tha basis of an insult, or that refer to attributes of character that are unfairly asscoiated with one gender over another in the minds of sexists.

    Now – what term, phrase, or insult in your 287 could be considered to be gendered?

    Come on. You can do this.

  237. sunny12 says

    @rrhian

    Yeah, you reeeeeally don’t get what “ad hominem” actually means.

    An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone rejects their opponent’s argument based on a fact about the opponent that is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. It is not the same thing as a personal attack.

    See, what would be ad hominem is if I said something like “Well, I don’t have to listen to you, you’re an atheist” or “You have an IQ of 68, therefore your argument is wrong”. What I said, on the other hand, is that your posts are turgid and filled with superfluous waffle, that your arguments are weak and vaguely defined, and that you’ve been displaying a snide and patronising attitude to basically anyone who points this out, regardless of the abundant evidence that it’s you who has been unable (or unwilling) to grasp what everyone is saying and not us. That’s not ad hominem – it’s a statement of fact. Feedback, if you like (though to be honest I doubt you’re here in good faith, so such feedback isn’t going to be very helpful when you’re not displaying any kind of willingness to engage in a rational debate).
    I like the description of the “ad hominem fallacy fallacy” on plover.net – it’s rather fitting for this situation:

    “Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.”

    Speaking of avoiding engaging in a debate, I love how you completely neglected to respond to the links I provided showing how such objectification can actually be *demonstrated* to cause people to view men and women differently in a rather sexist way (the former as people, the latter as objects), but instead decided to repeat the same points that we’ve refuted over and over again, adding nothing new except for even more doses of condescension while accusing me of ad hominem.

    Then you didn’t understand them. They were specifically complaining about the physical form, despite the fact that you were saying nobody was.

    Oh my god. The very people who made those comments in the first place have been telling you repeatedly in this thread that you are the one who is misunderstanding them and not getting the point!

    Look, for god’s sake – these aren’t even the only quotes either:

    I have a hard time imagining ANY context where this statue might be considered okay.

    Is there a possible context in which an image of a dismembered woman’s body with titillating breasts intact used in a marketing context is NOT misogynist? Theoretically, yes. It’s possible. It’s also possible that I am a highly trained elephant with excellent typing skills.

    We’re not here discussing hypotheticals. You want to play games with semiotics? You’re derailing. Take it to the Thunderdome (linky found in left column towards the top of the page) or just shut up. I don’t care which.

    I don’t think that could possibly be any clearer.

    So? Come with me to the beach. Tell me what you see.

    I see people in a variety of swimming costumes and clothes. Some wear bikinis, but many wear one piece bathers, and others wear full swimsuits. Some people even wear shirts and shorts. A whole number of different types of beach clothing to pick from that don’t involve drawing the gaze straight to the figurine’s breasts.

    Nor does it condemn it. Given the context of where the game takes place combined with the fact that this figurine was going to be mass-marketed without age restrictions, it’s not like they could have created a nude. It’s something to note, yes, but it is insufficient to base a conclusion on.
    If they had put her in a tank top or a t-shirt, then the figure becomes more complex to design since now you have to take into account the fabric exposure. They wanted to show open wounds, not just blood stains. Gore sells.

    If that’s the case, why not simply opt to display a male torso with shorts and a bare chest? That’s even easier to design, and you get the full amount of gore without being as overtly sexual in the way that this figure currently is. (It’d still be completely disgusting and tasteless, mind you.)

    The rest of your post is the same nonsense that’s been rebutted time and time again. Esteleth, Jadehawk, zmidponk and Gregory have already done a good job responding to it so I’m not going to bother.

  238. says

    You folks seem to fail to realize you’re the ones applying a gender to said action. I do not limit nor associate the word as a verb to something one sex or the other is capable of doing.

    Just like stating, “Fuck you.” Is not referring to a sexual act, but being A, telling being B “I wanna fuck you.” would be.

    Words, language, and usage evolve over time. If you want to figure out and remove from usage every word that in some way may be offensive because of similar usage or by six degrees of separation from something offensive, you’ll probably find yourselves with a very drab uncolorful vocabulary.

  239. John Morales says

    joshelliott:

    Words, language, and usage evolve over time.

    Yet, in your previous comment, you employed an argument to etymology.

    If you want to figure out and remove from usage every word that in some way may be offensive because of similar usage or by six degrees of separation from something offensive, you’ll probably find yourselves with a very drab uncolorful vocabulary.

    It’s not the words per se, it’s the way they’re employed and the sentiment they convey.

    (What would I be conveying if I told you that you argue like a woman?)

  240. says

    I do not know you, nore what stereotypes you carry, so I’d honestly not have a clue as how to take that.

    Maybe I’d assume that you’re under the impression that you think I’m going to with hold sexy times from you if you don’t declare me right? I hope that’s not it, because I’d never do that!

    And yes, I did refer to etymology, because whichever extreme you want to go, the result is the same.

    Is it such a terrible thing to let words become gender neutral? To me, I have three people, in support of feminism, saying, “Psshh, silly guy, only women can bitch, har!”….”And that’s why you can’t say it!”

  241. jackiepaper says

    Jose, even when you call a man a bitch it is an insult because you are feminizing him. You are reducing him to the status of a mere woman. Yes, bitch is a gendered insult. Just like an insult based on race can be used toward anyone and it remains racist because you are saying that it is a bad thing to be like that race. I’m not developmentally delayed, but if you call me a “retard” you are being ableist. TV shows cannot be homosexual, but saying of a show, “Man, this is so gay.” is a statement loaded with bigotry. You are not living in a post sexist world. You do not need to come school us on how to do feminism right.You might want to sit down and take some notes. I’ve learned alot from the folks here and you can too.

  242. John Morales says

    joshelliott,

    I do not know you, nore what stereotypes you carry, so I’d honestly not have a clue as how to take that.

    Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

    Is it such a terrible thing to let words become gender neutral?

    You think ‘hysterical’ is gender neutral, knowing its etymology?

    To me, I have three people, in support of feminism, saying, “Psshh, silly guy, only women can bitch, har!”….”And that’s why you can’t say it!”

    No, you don’t. What you have is you perceiving people as saying that, because your weltanschauung shapes your apprehension.

  243. says

    Is it such a terrible thing to let words become gender neutral?

    As certain words are not “gender neutral”, you have no fucking point whatsoever. Seems to me you’re rather testerical. You should really have those…organs removed. For your own good.

  244. says

    @303 Sure, where do I send it? Just your average mutilated by christians genitalia.

    @304 I’m not sure whether you’re trying to be ironic, or are actually full of rage. Funny enough, I have thought of the consequences of that action, and thought it would be interesting to experience no attraction to the opposite sex, or the nagging of a sex drive, or see what role it actually plays in unnecessary competition.

  245. says

    >.< Knowing my terrible spelling I probably should have made sure I got that right. Far too late much to sleepy. Insectoid English majors away…..

  246. says

    @306 Now see, never until this thread, have I ever heard anyone reference it applying any characteristic of a woman to a person, nor, the causation of having ovaries. Nor, do modern dictionaries make any reference to women. Least not the one I pulled off the shelf, nor the quick to find online ones, unless specifically looking for the etymology of it.

    So at the end of the day, is it better to let it’s roots fall into obscurity, and have it mean what it means to the majority of people now, or.. Go bezerk and assume someone hates women because they use the word? I find the origin of words interesting, no matter how crazy, or religious, or whatnot their source may be, but their meaning to me, really ends up being what what’s implied by the statement.

    And for some reason, I want to guess Shadowrun? Just what popped into my head.

    @307 Maybe it was used by tree people!

  247. John Morales says

    joshelliott:

    So at the end of the day, is it better to let it’s roots fall into obscurity, and have it mean what it means to the majority of people now, or.. Go bezerk and assume someone hates women because they use the word?

    Hey, it was you who introduced the appeal to etymology (@293) to adjudicate whether a word is gendered!

    (Care to retract that, or are you happy to be contradictory)

  248. says

    Go bezerk and assume someone hates women because they use the word?

    Honey, men’s brains aren’t suited to thinking, that’s best left to women. You just sit there quietly and look pretty.

  249. Cyranothe2nd says

    Esteleth @ 272 is completely right–Even if we give Rrainn his “example” of a video game in which the writers wanted to create some dark humor by having zombie da Vinci mount a female torso as a piece of art, IT WOULD STILL BE MISOGYNISTIC IF IT WERE THE TORSO AS IT EXISTS IN THE OP. Because the viewers and writers would exist in our misogynistic culture, and therefore bring that baggage into the symbol. And because–as has already been deconstructed at length–the symbol isn’t just “female torso” but “large-breasted, scantily-clad, sexily mutilated female torso.” Rrainn’s attempt to move the goalposts away from THIS torso to another one (for example, the character from ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’) only proves that he fails to understand how trivial his idea that “the problem isn’t a dismembered female torso per se” is. OF FUCKING COURSE if you change the symbol in some significant way, you change the meaning. But your original post wasn’t about some random female torso. It was about THIS FEMALE TORSO (you said “this,” which any reasonable person would conclude means the subject at hand, which is this particular misogynistic symbol.)

  250. says

    @310 Neither seems to satisfy this crowd as a whole, whether it was the past or present usage of it, agreed?

    @311 I said I’d supply them if you really wanted them, just let me know where to send them.

  251. Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine" says

    To me, I have three people, in support of feminism, saying, “Psshh, silly guy, only women can bitch, har!”….”And that’s why you can’t say it!”

    Your sentences might read better if you try typing with both hands

  252. Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine" says

    Also, yes if things where different they would be different. It’s a shame because the idea of the zombie roman art homage might have actually been clever, but instead they did this trash.

  253. says

    Send? Send? When did I give you permission to ask me to provide you with an email address, you worm? Dick pics must be linked right here in this thread. You should also post it on your facebook page. If you do this, I might perhaps deign to share my email address with you, whereupon I will allow you to send me your bank account and credit card numbers.

  254. says

  255. says

    See MichaelD, is the only person thus far, that has convinced me that they actually care about civil conversation, or making anyone understand an opposing viewpoint.

    Cynicism, and converting 50s style female stereotypes(which yes, in culture does persist to this day for some people) to apply to men, really isn’t anymore convincing than right wing comedians making the post of “You might be a liberal if!”.

    While viewpoints might be different than mine, I personally think letting the usage of words go dead via usage will be more successful than censoring any word taken to stereotype one persons, trait or another..Because eventually, people will just chose different words to express their intent towards the targeted group. And then, the rational answer is?

  256. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Caine, there are perfectly good words for the likes of you.

    Termagants. Viragos!

  257. John Morales says

    joshelliott:

    Because eventually, people will just chose different words to express their intent towards the targeted group. And then, the rational answer is?

    Call out the new usage because of the sentiment expressed.

    (Why do you imagine people versed in these issues fail to note the map-territory distinction?)

    Off to bed, so long and thanks for all the sarcasm!

    (No need for your thanks, you are a more than worthy recipient)

  258. Jon Trollstein says

    Use a man’s torso instead. Last year no on bitch about it when it was a man’s.

  259. says

    Use a man’s torso instead.

    But they didn’t do that, did they? They put disembodied, untouched tits on a block. Have anything remotely relevant to say as to why they did that?

    Last year no on bitch about it when it was a man’s.

    Well, let’s see. This isn’t last year, I haven’t seen a photo of this “a man’s”, and when men are objectified at the same level of women and a glorification of violence against men is at the same level of that of women, we’ll have a chat.

  260. says

    Michaeld:

    @trollstein
    there just for you

    I’d really like to know just how these idiots think they’re vindicating the gaming community with such posts. Then again, maybe I don’t want to know.

  261. says

    @Caine

    Think is the important word. I’m not sure they’re doing that part at all. Knee jerk defensiveness and some quickly cobbled together counter arguments without really thinking or examining what people have a problem with is what we get.

  262. Jerk Off says

    This is the stupidest bullshit ever seen. There is decapitated bodies in the game. There’s also decapitated female bodies in horror movies. Why don’t you go get offended by some other bullshits then this?

  263. Gregory Greenwood says

    Jerk Off @ 334;

    This is the stupidest bullshit ever seen. There is decapitated bodies in the game. There’s also decapitated female bodies in horror movies. Why don’t you go get offended by some other bullshits then this?

    Have you read the thread? The reasons why people find this particular imagery highly problematic have been well laid out in several posts by various commenters.

    In short form – the problem is the combination of a deliberately and grossly sexualised image of a woman’s body paired with the violent imagery. It plays into many existing sexist tropes in society, particularly the fantasies of violence against women harboured by many misogynists, and the literally objectifying mentality that seeks to render women down to their sexual characteristics alone with no regard given to their humanity – expressed in this case by a bikini clad torso with prominent, almost distorted (and oddly untouched given the state of the rest of the torso) breasts shorn of all other identity and indeed limbs.

    Viewed in the context of the misogynistic, patriarchal culture we all live in, the problematic character of this statuette is evident.

  264. vaiyt says

    @Jerk Off:

    This is the stupidest bullshit ever seen. There is decapitated bodies in the game. There’s also decapitated female bodies in horror movies. Why don’t you go get offended by some other bullshits then this?

    You know what’s stupid bullshit? Drive-by idiots vomiting trivialities as if it was something novel and amazing. Your complaint is addressed in the coments. Try to bother reading them next time.

  265. Jerk Off says

    Your complaint is addressed in the coments*. Try to bother reading them next time.

    (*Comments)There are about 333 comments, you know what, if you have these fucking times to read all theses shit and bitch about some fucking torso for a video game, Why don’t you go do something productive?

  266. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why don’t you go do something productive?

    Why don’t you lose the attitude and read the thread as suggested. Then you might be able to discuss the topic without your ignorant ego getting in the way. Which is is at the moment.

  267. Jerk Off says

    Then you might be able to discuss the topic without your ignorant ego getting in the way.

    My ego? When did I show my ego in this meaningless discussion?

    In short form – the problem is the combination of a deliberately and grossly sexualised image of a woman’s body paired with the violent imagery. It plays into many existing sexist tropes in society, particularly the fantasies of violence against women harboured by many misogynists, and the literally objectifying mentality that seeks to render women down to their sexual characteristics alone with no regard given to their humanity – expressed in this case by a bikini clad torso with prominent, almost distorted (and oddly untouched given the state of the rest of the torso) breasts shorn of all other identity and indeed limbs.

    Violence against woman? Well shit. Some misandrist also fantasized of shooting man so they play shooting games that shoot man? Did anyone bitch about that? The devs for the game wasn’t even thinking about all those shits you people were talking about. They just ask hand the concept art to the factory and they made it. NO ONE WERE THINKING OF THOSE BULLSHIT.

  268. John Morales says

    Jerk Off:

    My ego? When did I show my ego in this meaningless discussion?

    Well then: without referencing your ego, why are you participating in a purportedly meaningless discussion? ;)

    NO ONE WERE THINKING OF THOSE BULLSHIT.

    So, you contend that they were merely clueless when they did the sexist, misogynistic thing?

    (Alas, that doesn’t work; unless they were sexist and misogynistic, they would have seen this for what it is)

  269. Jerk Off says

    (Alas, that doesn’t work; unless they were sexist and misogynistic, they would have seen this for what it is)

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Fuck. The level of stupidity is too much. I don’t even know how to reply anymore. But I will try my best to reply. Let’s said for the sake of the argument that you are right. How stupid do you think they are to release something so “sexist” like you said to this offended-by-everyfuckingthing public?

  270. John Morales says

    Jerk Off:

    How stupid do you think they are to release something so “sexist” like you said to this offended-by-everyfuckingthing public?

    Not even as much as you, but then it was you who claimed they didn’t even spare it a thought — and, taking your claim at face value, that’s pretty fucking stupid, no? ;)

  271. sunny12 says

    Why don’t you go do something productive?

    Says the person who waltzes into a thread to call the topic bullshit and everyone who has participated in it fucking stupid without having actually read any of the comments, then returns to it again almost 20 hours later to say exactly the same thing.

  272. Jerk Off says

    but then it was you who claimed they didn’t even spare it a thought

    Ok. That’s it. I give up, you win.

  273. Jerk Off says

    Says the person who waltzes into a thread to call the topic bullshit and everyone who has participated in it fucking stupid without having actually read any of the comments, then returns to it again almost 20 hours later to say exactly the same thing.

    You would probably said the same thing. If the title is something like “PEPSI IS NOT COLA! I AM OFFENDED!”. So I don’t bother looking at them and dismissed them (what do you think I did with the 20 hours?)

  274. sunny12 says

    You would probably said the same thing. If the title is something like “PEPSI IS NOT COLA! I AM OFFENDED!”. So I don’t bother looking at them and dismissed them (what do you think I did with the 20 hours?)

    Haha yeah, man, because a conversation about the issue of misogyny in the gaming industry is absolutely the same as a debate about Coke and Pepsi. Yep. *rolls eyes*

    In any case, no, I wouldn’t go into the article and start launching insults at people in the comments section. I wouldn’t come back after 20 hours either. I’d just shrug and move on with my life without even bothering to comment. As you should have done right from the start if you believe it’s all so trivial and such a waste of your time.