Disgusting net event of the Month: Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator - Polidicks

I get the feeling this thread is just buttmad people flaming butthurt people and vice versa

[QUOTE=Scar;36678504]I get the feeling this thread is just buttmad people flaming butthurt people and vice versa[/QUOTE] They never really go anywhere good, these threads.

Oh this game must've had sooo good graphics to make everyone shit their fucking pants.

[QUOTE=froztshock;36678512]They never really go anywhere good, these threads.[/QUOTE] the description of the mass debate forum sums up internet debates pretty well

Here is something, [B]stay the fuck out of someone elses project if they dont want your advice and/or criticism[/B]

[QUOTE=Scar;36678504]I get the feeling this thread is just buttmad people flaming butthurt people and vice versa[/QUOTE] It always goes "Women are perfect Anita is absolutely correct they can do no wrong they're always objectified we are oppressed by men down with men new world order" But then "I don't really agree with what she's saying." And then they go "MISOGYNIST! FILTHY MISOGYNIST!"

[QUOTE=thisispain;36678486]caricature is caricature, regardless of if the character displays good qualities. just because the straw feminist isn't murdering men doesn't mean that it's not a veiled criticism of feminism. not to mention a TV show doesn't have linear character development at all. one writer can write Betty as a straw-feminist while the next writer can write her as a compassionate person with the only thing staying the same being her appearance.[/QUOTE] excuse me but uh I have to point this out it's a cartoon for children if you're expecting them to write a non-caricatured episode about feminism ([I]or anything else for that matter[/I]) and expect kids to understand then I really think you ought to reexamine your entire worldview also I like how you're implying that giving any criticism of feminism is a cardinal sin. it's not an axiom

[QUOTE=Pennywise;36678474]No, that was the entire turning point. The girls realized that she was full of it when a bunch of women who really held those beliefs showed up at their doorstep, and showed them the wounds they suffered while trying to do the right thing when that loon was out and about.[/QUOTE] okay and you could take that at face value, or assume that the writers were trying to say that feminism hurts women. at this point you would just be assuming left and right, so that's a pretty valid criticism of her videos.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36678486]caricature is caricature, regardless of if the character displays good qualities. just because the straw feminist isn't murdering men doesn't mean that it's not a veiled criticism of feminism. not to mention a TV show doesn't have linear character development at all. one writer can write Betty as a straw-feminist while the next writer can write her as a compassionate person with the only thing staying the same being her appearance.[/QUOTE] But Betty was never shown to be the big bad feminist, she was always the one on top of things. She knew not to worry about the kids eating dirt while also being the first to step up and try to organise shit when there was actually trouble. She only rarely butted heads with people on gender related issues and that was when Stu gave the boys preferential treatment, which she called out and tried to right. I'm not saying she's the greatest feminist character, female character or character in general, but when her basic role in the show was "level headed adult who has their shit in order" AND she's a feminist who's usually in the right it seems odd to call her a straw feminist.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36678550] if you're expecting them to write a non-caricatured episode about feminism ([I]or anything else for that matter[/I]) and expect kids to understand then I really think you ought to reexamine your entire worldview[/QUOTE] well [i]excuse me[/i] but i didn't say i was expecting anything. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36678550]also I like how you're implying that giving any criticism of feminism is a cardinal sin. it's not an axiom[/QUOTE] i'm not implying that at all, obviously as someone who supports feminism i wouldn't like unfair criticism of it based on stereotypes.

[QUOTE=Scar;36678504]I get the feeling this thread is just buttmad people flaming butthurt people and vice versa[/QUOTE] Excellent, mark that down in the historical archive of facepunch

Where's Lankist? He's the only one left and my popcorn is getting cold.

Should we ban male characters with perfect muscles and absolutely no fat too, then?

[QUOTE=Constructor;36679033]Should we ban male characters with perfect muscles and absolutely no fat too, then?[/QUOTE] Not that i personally care about the arguement but one could say that those are male power fantasies and not one of women.

[QUOTE=Constructor;36679033]Should we ban male characters with perfect muscles and absolutely no fat too, then?[/QUOTE] you realise those are male power fantasies right

[QUOTE=Dori;36679059]you realise those are male power fantasies right[/QUOTE] You realize that it's not just video games where there are "perfect muscles and no body fat" male characters? Go watch a romantic film targeted towards women and tell me how many of the male love interests are fat and well developed.

[QUOTE=Dori;36679059]you realise those are male power fantasies right[/QUOTE] how would you falsify this

[QUOTE=redshift2234;36676989]Game devs is extremely leaned towards males. At the college we have a 2 to 25 ratio of women to men.[/QUOTE] More men in a college class doesn't mean the entire field leans towards that particular, it just means more men are attending a college class for the field then women. Not a favouritism battle or preferential treatment on the part of the college, just more men are enrolled in the class.

I'll hold back my judgements on the documentary, wait for it to be released. However, from watching her youtube channel, I must say I won't hold my breath. It would be more productive and a better use of money to help educate Game Developers in the issues and problems women face on a daily basis. It would honestly be more productive and a much better way of handling things then pointing a big evil finger at them. However, I do not know if she will do this and I'm not going to stand here and guess. I'll wait and watch it myself.

Do game developers really need to be education on this kind of stuff though? I figured they put sexualized women in games because that is what sells, Not because they never talk to women.

[QUOTE=Gundevil;36679218]More men in a college class doesn't mean the entire field leans towards that particular, it just means more men are attending a college class for the field then women. Not a favouritism battle or preferential treatment on the part of the college, just more men are enrolled in the class.[/QUOTE] [url]http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/06/sexism-and-misogyny-in-video-game.html[/url] [quote]Another anonymous developer, who worked at a major third party developer, which finished working on a game last year that involved a few buxom characters had a similar take: "It's annoying whenever one of the producers or designers decides to add adolescent wank in games, but while I don't like it, I get why they do it." I asked her what it's like to be a woman on such projects. "Everyone on the development team is cool with me, but I just don't make an effort to comment on such things, since they'll most likely get ignored. But when you sign on to such projects, you can't really complain."[/quote]

[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;36679275]Do game developers really need to be education on this kind of stuff though? I figured they put sexualized women in games because that is what sells, Not because they never talk to women.[/QUOTE] It does sell. Some of the people here seem to think that "Only women are being objectified!" when that is not the case. If that was true, every male character in any romantic movie or novel (erotic or not) targeted at women would have fully developed personas with deep storylines and attitudes. That's never the case. Take a look at any "chick flick" and you'll find that the male characters are incredibly strong, smart, charismatic, attractive and have very few flaws if any. Yes, it's still objectification, because it's using female "perfect man" fantasies to sell their crappy movies. How many movies have men shirtless on the posters for no reason but to appeal to horny teenage girls? Some people here need to grow up and realize that humans objectify the opposite sex in the media no matter what the gender.

Found it [url]http://swfchan.org/1193/BeatUpAnitaSarkeesian.swf[/url]

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36679334]Some of the people here seem to think that "Only women are being objectified!" when that is not the case.[/QUOTE] let's look at the term "objectified". it means to present as an object. in terms of media we'd say in terms of an object of possession. [QUOTE=Loriborn;36679334]If that was true, every male character in any romantic movie or novel (erotic or not) targeted at women would have fully developed personas with deep storylines and attitudes.[/QUOTE] no because objectifying something doesn't have anything to do with personas or story-lines, it has to do with the attitude presented in the movie. [QUOTE=Loriborn;36679334]That's never the case. Take a look at any "chick flick" and you'll find that the male characters are incredibly strong, smart, charismatic, attractive and have very few flaws if any.[/QUOTE] this is not OBJECTIFYING. you could argue it's dehumanizing because humans have to have flaws, but it's not objectifying because the male characters are not presented as objects a woman would want to own or protect or want based on physical appearance. it's just a 2 dimensional character. [QUOTE=Loriborn;36679334]Yes, it's still objectification, because it's using female "perfect man" fantasies to sell their crappy movies. How many movies have men shirtless on the posters for no reason but to appeal to horny teenage girls?[/QUOTE] every single movie with shirtless men objectifies women, not men, because in almost every single movie the woman is the object that the man wants to get. Twilight is the biggest example. part of social conditioning is the concept of internalization, and that's an example. Women as a demographic have internalized their own objectification and victimization, which in turn gets exploited by the movie industry.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36679438]let's look at the term "objectified". it means to present as an object. in terms of media we'd say in terms of an object of possession. no because objectifying something doesn't have anything to do with personas or story-lines, it has to do with the attitude presented in the movie. this is not OBJECTIFYING. you could argue it's dehumanizing because humans have to have flaws, but it's not objectifying because the male characters are not presented as objects a woman would want to own or protect or want based on physical appearance. it's just a 2 dimensional character. every single movie with shirtless men objectifies women, not men, because in almost every single movie the woman is the object that the man wants to get. Twilight is the biggest example. part of social conditioning is the concept of internalization, and that's an example. Women as a demographic have internalized their own objectification and victimization, which in turn gets exploited by the movie industry.[/QUOTE] how would you falsify this? what fucking experiment could you do to distinguish who was being objectified by whom? this is what I mean by lack of rigor

[QUOTE=thisispain;36679438]part of social conditioning is the concept of internalization, and that's an example. Women as a demographic have internalized their own objectification and victimization, which in turn gets exploited by the movie industry.[/QUOTE] Yes, because every woman in the world is exactly the same and there is totally no chance that they are actually attracted to these ideas and concepts of their own free will. Nope, women like smart, sexy, charming, good looking muscular men because the fat, hairy, balding men that run the film industry made them and it has nothing to do with instinct at all.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36679490] Nope, women like smart, sexy, charming, good looking muscular men because the fat, hairy, balding men that run the film industry made them and it has nothing to do with instinct at all.[/QUOTE] instinct? are you seriously using biotruth now?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36679488]how would you falsify this?[/QUOTE] what on earth are you saying [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36679488]what fucking experiment could you do to distinguish who was being objectified by whom? this is what I mean by lack of rigor[/QUOTE] there's no experiment, it's opinion.

[QUOTE=Dori;36679504]instinct? are you seriously using biotruth now?[/QUOTE] If you think that the only reason women like attractive and muscular men is because of the media, you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Dori;36679504]instinct? are you seriously using biotruth now?[/QUOTE] [sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]ha[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]ha[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]ha[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][sub][sub][sub]ha[/sub][/sub][/sub][sub][sub]ha[/sub][/sub][sub]ha[/sub]ha