For what it's worth, I've always wanted to crit the Blazing Aces logo, but never felt like anything I said about it would be considered fairly or even listened to because "historical accuracy".
On a related note: Why are so many men in this community hell bent on telling the women active here how and what they should perceive as sexist representations of women?
Aye. Inb4, discussions about specific cases in the past and whether or not they are sexist doesn't mean that everything must be immediately banned. We're not trying to go around burning books here. it just means that these are things that are eventually going to get criticized, and how you choose to respond to that criticism in the future reflects on your responsibility, growth and morality as a creator.
But it's true that on this specific subject, it often gets fairly difficult to convince some guys that being called a sex doll as if it's ever a compliment or being repeatedly characterized primarily and often SOLELY by our genitalia and reproductive organs eventually gets pretty intolerable after, you know, our whole lives.
If you haven't heard this coming from a woman before, there you go. It sucks, it's degrading. If you weren't aware that it's degrading, it's only because you've never been subject to similar treatment before. This is understandable. But now that you have been made aware, I hope you will genuinely think about it :)
If your main interpretation of those character that you listed is that they are "sex dolls", then we have a very fundamental difference either in our definitions or our interpretations.
I didn't say that was my main definition. Tropes are not a purely binary thing, true or false. Rather think of them as points on a map, where characters are close to some points and further from other points.
I didn't say that was my main definition. Tropes are not a purely binary thing, true or false. Rather think of them as points on a map, where characters are close to some points and further from other points.
Characters often encompass multiple tropes.
Okay, so which tropes would have to be added to @Pierre's previously posted character in order to truly remove the implications of her appearance? I'm sure that knowing this would help developers in similar situations in the long run.
Okay, so which tropes would have to be added to @Pierre's previously posted character in order to truly remove the implications of her appearance? I'm sure that knowing this would help developers in similar situations in the long run.
I fear this conversation has steered off the map regarding the thread topic. I appreciate the discussion and the points being made (as I'm sure we all do) but the continuous reference to my name under this topic is becoming increasingly offensive, especially now that you're not even talking about bigotry any more.
If your main interpretation of those character that you listed is that they are "sex dolls", then we have a very fundamental difference either in our definitions or our interpretations.
I didn't say that was my main definition. Tropes are not a purely binary thing, true or false. Rather think of them as points on a map, where characters are close to some points and further from other points.
This trope isn't about incidentally attractive women who otherwise have agency, character, and personality, it's about female characters designed in a way that serves no valid purpose other than to be sexually attractive, primarily to men. And both men and women, and even myself, have been guilty of making these design choices. But becoming more aware of these things allows us to make better decisions in the future. If female misrepresentation didn't influence how people perceive women in real life, this wouldn't even be a problem, but the fact is that it does influence real people and it does reinforce disrespect and the alienation of real people. This is why it needs to be managed. It's not because there's anything inherently wrong about sexiness.
I fear this conversation has steered off the map regarding the thread topic. I appreciate the discussion and the points being made (as I'm sure we all do) but the continuous reference to my name under this topic is becoming increasingly offensive, especially now that you're not even talking about bigotry any more.
Sorry, not trying to be offensive. What sort of offense am I giving here?
As for being off topic, I don't see that: We're discussing how the community can discourage bigotry in the games it produces and what to do if it does crop up. Self-regulation is always difficult and there are going to be lots and lots of edge cases and disagreements. @garethf has pointed out that all characters are more than just single tropes, seemingly to steer the evaluation of a character away from hinging on a lone sexist trope. I'm curious as to which tropes can be added to a character with existing sexist tropes in order to fully deflect from the sexism completely, it seems a valid question that's germane to the thread topic: If we could do this it would basically turn all "Hey, that's a bit sexist" discussions into "Hey, that's a bit sexist, but add this and it won't be!" which would presumably be more fun for everyone, right?
The character you designed seems a pretty good place to ground the question, I know I'd like to know how to make her representation less sexist by laying on more tropes. Maybe you do too?
@garethf Glancing over these things, I'm still not sure how you are interpreting this metaphor that makes you think it deserves any justification :/ The very "sex doll" trope is itself pretty disrespectful.
But ok, let's disregard the literal meaning of "sex doll" because the comparison is somehow metaphorically valid. Supposing that generically attractive women with more character than a bed warmer also represents the sex doll trope, as is evident by your inclusion of Buffy and Motoko. It's STILL guilty of misrepresentation. You will find fat men, thin men, lanky men, stocky men, old men and ugly men, smart, stupid, kind and cruel, feature in almost every movie or game with varying levels of authority and respectability. Yet you're lucky if you find more than two women with speaking parts that are a different dress size. There's nothing at all wrong with generically attractive women, but at the point where it's become possible to include almost every fictional female character from nuns to superheroes and doctors to cheerleaders within a single trope, it's pretty evident that there is an imbalance that still needs to be seriously addressed. The exception becomes the rule, and vice versa. Huge groups of people marginalized because of, what, personal preference.
I don't think you guys realize how exasperating it gets to continuously witness and tolerate a society that repeatedly misrepresents and poorly portrays at least half its population (more, if you include all the other horrible stereotypes people seem to believe). Should bigotry be allowed in games on the forums? To some extent, it's pretty much unavoidable because this goes so much deeper than rocket boobs. So while I agree that constructive criticism is important when faced with bigotry in games. I also believe that constructive reception of criticism is equally important. When valid criticism is continuously denied, ignored or the point of critique repeatedly defended by people on the unaffected side of a bigoted opinion, without consequence, it becomes a pretty hostile place for someone who is constantly on the receiving end of a bad trope.
Having a process for dealing with these things may be a good thing, as long as it acknowledges that it can often be a drawn out process, and banning or censorship should absolutely only be the last resort.
When valid criticism is continuously denied, ignored or the point of critique repeatedly defended by people on the unaffected side of a bigoted opinion, without consequence, it becomes a pretty hostile place for someone who is constantly on the receiving end of a bad trope.
So this is something which I feel is incredibly valid, from the place I believe needs to be taken the most seriously. If you can give an argument that Women are not a good authority on the experiences of women, then I'm not sure this forum will sustain anything close to a diverse population.
we must not 'allow bigotry' we should implement a warning, gone about in an orderly and empathetic fashion in order to introduce someone to this subject without attacking them. But if they don't react sufficiently then do what is best for the forum and community and not what is best for said individual. Define in the rules that this is the course of action, and there isn't really any trouble to be had.
The two major things to attain through our behaviour is an environment where we will attempt to fight ignorance and bigotry, argued in the best manner we can. But then also provide an environment that is supportive and safe for those already in it. The point is that the soft treatment to a bigot hurts those they are a bigot towards as their previously safe environment is now warped and broken, that's counter-intuitive towards those we are attempting to actually protect and respect in this.
@dislekcia I take offense because it feels like my name is constantly being associated with the topic of Bigotry. This description has been attached to my work simply because a user claimed it so based on my opinions, and nobody considered the source or validity of the accusation, leaving me to try and defend my name against unjustified criticism.
Though I was relieved to see that some people recognized the hypocrisy of the accusation.
I'm confident that we can agree that Bigotry falls more on the negative side of morality , describing a person that does not tolerate or allow the different opinion of another. This is where claims of bigotry in my thread fails to be valid... I say this because I've encouraged and expressed (on numerous occasion) appreciation for the other people to express their opinion. I even asked people to further elaborate and express their opinion despite the fact that it was not my own.
"Thanks everybody for your insights on the matter." " i am convinced now that my work won't be appreciated by everybody and the feedback does not fall on deaf ears, and i would likely make some changes to the end result to some degree" "@Steamhat i apologize for seeming to reject your comment about the sword." "I will take your recommendations to heart and adjust my mindset in this regard. " My demeanor was clearly inclusive, and did not actively seek to disallow or exclude anybody from the conversation. Despite this, my name keeps being referenced in this topic.
Now (In my perception of events) let us consider the person that gave rise to this topic in the first place. Dammit said : "Because I would rather just not have this kind of awful shit on our forums" "This is making me want to leave the forums completely, if the attitude is simply to let this slide." "If we continue to allow this thread to exist on the forums we're saying that MGSA is okay with this kind of content. " This demeanor seeks to exclude, silence and restrict me because my opinion was different from Dammit's. It is intolerance and is much closer to the definition of Bigotry than any of my words.
I request politely that you consider using alternative sources for your reference, but of course welcome to continue doing what you are doing now. And do you know why I say that? Because I'm not a bigot.
The point is that the soft treatment to a bigot hurts those they are a bigot towards as their previously safe environment is now warped and broken, that's counter-intuitive towards those we are attempting to actually protect and respect in this.
I agree with this statement.
However, before we can establish the process, I feel that we should first determine the clear and concrete criteria that would determine something as bigotry. We cannot unilaterally qualify every mere difference of opinion as bigotry because that would be a logical fallacy of negative exaggeration.
It would also be counter productive to having an all inclusive forum.
To me. bigotry has additional qualities that makes it a negative element compared to the neutrality in a simple difference of opinion. To me bigotry requires the additional element of somebody taking, or insisting on action to be taken against the victim. A father of a certain race, that doesn't allow his daughter to date a person from a different race is a bigot.
Srsly, guise. Bigotry and its subcategories are not as symmetrical in their definition as the dictionary might suggest. They describe relationships of oppression between privileged groups (white people, rich people, straight people, cis people, men, etc) and marginalised groups (people of colour, poor people, queer people, trans/non-binary people, women, etc). If, for example, a straight person fires a gay employee because of their sexuality, we would refer to that as homophobia (a type of bigotry). However, if a gay person fires a straight employee because of their sexuality, we aren't talking about bigotry. It's discrimination, sure, and it's still wrong and shouldn't happen, but it's not heterophobia or whatever other dumb made up word you want to throw at the situation, because it's not an interaction that hinges on the privilege that queer people hold over straight people (because they hold no such privilege). I don't like quoting comedians on anything, but Aamer Rahman did a great bit about "reverse racism," which is in line with a lot of current academic thinking, so it's not just like, one guy's opinion, man.
This demeanor seeks to exclude, silence and restrict me because my opinion was different from Dammit's. It is intolerance and is much closer to the definition of Bigotry than any of my words.
No, it's not. The reason we're having a discussion about bigotry which effectively revolves around you, is because you posted content which a lot of forum members found misogynistic. Misogyny, of course, is a type of bigotry. Your character design is really problematic in how it portrays women, and directly references the power imbalance between men and women in society, that is, one where women are seen as objects, and their sexuality is valued over any other quality (and of course there's the double bind wherein improperly executed sexuality is outright vilified). When we talk about bigotry in this thread, we're talking about your work or similar stuff that makes the same errors, there really isn't any room for the claim that you're the one being oppressed here.
I don't mean to say you have no defense. If you feel the community has been unhelpful or has acted inappropriately, you shouldn't be silent, you should voice your concerns. You just shouldn't be making the argument that Dammit is the true bigot in this situation, because it holds no water, and isn't going to (or at least shouldn't) fly here.
This description has been attached to my work simply because a user claimed it so based on my opinions, and nobody considered the source or validity of the accusation, leaving me to try and defend my name against unjustified criticism.
And I'm going to quote you from the previous thread, because I'm addressing more or less the same issue.
Another trend I see often (but not with all) is what I perceive to be some form of psychological projection and identification by real world individuals with fictional characters, and assuming a kind of ownership/authority for personal defense on behalf of the character; As if it was they themselves that are being forced into wearing sexy clothes or having perky breasts. It actually insults me when strangers do that with a fictional character that is actually in essence a part of myself. It insults me when women assume a kind of authority over my creation on the grounds that my creation is female like them. The choice that Emi (my character above) makes in how she dresses is thereby counter actively slut shamed. It slut shames me.
Fun fact: women know a butt-ton more about misogyny than you and I ever will. They live with that shit every single moment of every single day. So if you're concerned about the validity of Dammit's claims, or any other woman that questions how you portray women in your work, there's no need to worry, they have a lifetime of expertise on the matter. Sure, women won't always be right about matters of feminism, but if a woman approaches you about the portrayal of women or any other issue that might affect them, standard procedure is to, and I quote, "shut the fuck up, and listen." This is true of any criticism, but especially so when it's to do with how your position of privilege may have harmed someone; just consider what the person is saying, and really evaluate whether or not it's an accurate description of your work, and take it on if you feel it's worthwhile.
The thing is, of course, that your work has harmed someone. Dammit has outright said that your game and the response to it has her considering whether or not she wants to be part of this community. Maybe that's something you're fine with, but if you are interested in learning more about feminism and the portrayal of women (and there's clearly no shortage of people here willing to teach you), that's definitely something you should be concerned about.
For what it's worth, I am sorry that this has blown up to this extent. I can't imagine it's easy having this much attention and debate going on around you, I'd certainly be 24-hour-foetal-position stressed about it if I was in your shoes; so thanks for sticking around and not shutting down engagement. It's a discussion the community really needs to have, and I guess your work ended up being the catalyst for that.
"Supposing that generically attractive women with more character than a bed warmer also represents the sex doll trope, as is evident by your inclusion of Buffy and Motoko. It's STILL guilty of misrepresentation. You will find fat men, thin men, lanky men, stocky men, old men and ugly men, smart, stupid, kind and cruel, feature in almost every movie or game with varying levels of authority and respectability. Yet you're lucky if you find more than two women with speaking parts that are a different dress size. There's nothing at all wrong with generically attractive women, but at the point where it's become possible to include almost every fictional female character from nuns to superheroes and doctors to cheerleaders within a single trope, it's pretty evident that there is an imbalance that still needs to be seriously addressed. The exception becomes the rule, and vice versa. Huge groups of people marginalized because of, what, personal preference."
You have perhaps misunderstood me here. I agree with much of that, and have never argued otherwise.
The gist of my argument seems to be getting lost in arguing over what constitutes a Fighting Sex Doll trope. Shall we just agree to disagree on that, as it's derailing the conversation a bit, and bring it back to the central point?
Let me boil what I'm saying down to the essentials here.
Can I ask you, Jelligeth, which of these 3 things you believe should result in someone getting a warning/first strike toward banning on these forums?
A) Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments.
B) Posting sexist media on the forum when there are clear guidelines already in place indicating what type of media is acceptable OR failing to remove said media that community administrators have asked the poster to remove because it's problematic.
C) Acting in a bigoted way toward other members of the forum, denigrating them with sandwich jokes or derogatory remarks etc.
A, B and C. Which of the 3 do you feel merits a warning?
My entire point, really, is that I don't think A warrants a warning. Polite disagreement needs to be tolerated in order to educate. We aren't owed satisfaction in debate. That DOESN'T mean tolerating B & C, although every effort should be made to reason politely with the offender, first, in any case.
Do you disagree? Do you believe I am in some way defending sexism by saying that?
"Okay, so which tropes would have to be added to @Pierre's previously posted character in order to truly remove the implications of her appearance? I'm sure that knowing this would help developers in similar situations in the long run."
You seem to have misunderstood. I'm not saying that the negative implications of the character design can be removed by adding other traits. I'm saying that adding backstory and personality can fix Jelligreth's complaints that the Sex Doll character doesn't have a backstory or personality.
And while the cheesecake characters will ALWAYS be problematic, you CAN improve these characters (to a degree) by giving them background and personality. For example:
"When a lot of female characters were still mostly wet blankets, hostages and love interests, Red Sonja was commanding armies and cutting off demon heads. She is lusty, a bit of a drunkard, she does what she wants, says what she wants, and if you give her any shit, it’s entirely possible she’ll slay you and your best friend and your best friend’s cat.
She kind of defines badass. The same things I love about, say, Black Canary, I find all over Red Sonja. She’s got a bit of a dry edge to her, when we first see her, she’s passed out blind drunk."
I'm not saying Red Sonja will ever NOT be problematic. But I am saying that there are things you can do to improve the Fighting Sex Doll trope character.
It's not by definition part of the trope that the character HAS to have no personality or background, although that is, of course, a danger. You have to be careful not to let just "she's sexy, and hits stuff" be the sum of her character. Good writing helps.
Can I ask you, Jelligeth, which of these 3 things you believe should result in someone getting a warning/first strike toward banning on these forums?
A) Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments.
B) Posting sexist media on the forum when there are clear guidelines already in place indicating what type of media is acceptable OR failing to remove said media that community administrators have asked the poster to remove because it's problematic.
C) Acting in a bigoted way toward other members of the forum, denigrating them with sandwich jokes or derogatory remarks etc.
A, B and C. Which of the 3 do you feel merits a warning?
My entire point, really, is that I don't think A warrants a warning. Polite disagreement needs to be tolerated in order to educate. We aren't owed satisfaction in debate. That DOESN'T mean tolerating B & C, although every effort should be made to reason politely with the offender, first, in any case.
I'm requoting this for two reasons: 1. because I agree wholeheartedly with @garethf's sentiments here, and 2. I think it's incredibly important that they're considered and not lost in the wall of text above. If condition A is bannable, we may as well all pre-emptively ban ourselves for when we inevitably butt heads. Condition B is a violation of codified forum guidelines that all users agree to when using the forums, and the mods are fully within their rights to issue warnings and/or bans. C is not acceptable conduct in the least.
This is the Internet, and people are quick to make blanket assumptions based on a single datum point or statement. I'd rather people have the opportunity to learn or defend themselves, instead of being banhammered into the stratosphere without recourse. "Bigotry" needs to be properly codified and added to forum rules to prevent this.
Banning should absolutely only be the last resort and a set of rules will help determine when it's appropriate, and it is indeed very rarely appropriate because this is still a difficult topic. But this is now people trying to identify these rules.
We don't take issue with hypersexual characters because of personal taste or conflict in opinions. We take issue because the sheer persistence of designs like that, screws with our whole, real lives. Being criticized for contributing to the screwing with someone elses life doesn't make you a victim. Defending the screwing with someone elses life purely because of personal taste or the previous existence of tropes is self entitled bigotry.
This isn't just about being nice at each other, though I am grateful that we attempt to be, this is about discouraging and filtering content that systematically hurts real people.
@garethf I do believe you are unintentionally defending sexism by suggesting that bigotry is justified by politeness or is defined as a mere difference in opinion. Being unconvinced by something that large numbers of people have, across two threads and much of the educated internet, tried to explain with links, articles, studies and videos, is not a flaw in OUR arguments. It's a flaw in willful ignorance. Immediate banning? No! But bigotry, yes.
If you struggle to determine what is or is not sexist, then you kind of need to trust when people who have experienced sexual discrimination tell you that it is. In genuinely grey areas, discussion is important, I'm not contesting you here. But if you're actually disagreeing with all the women on this forum who are saying that Pierre's initial design was sexist and offensive, then you're not listening. This isn't about forcing him to change his design, this is about making sure that people understand that personal taste or opinion doesn't trump real harmful consequences and actual experience.
Whether or not he changes his design is the practical result of this sort of conversation, whether or not he deserves being banned, no I don't think so. But whether or not something is sexist against women is pretty much determined as soon as women agree it is, it's not this grand blurry haze. If one woman says it's sexist, and another woman says it's not, then discussion is certainly required. But if women are unanimously agreeing that your female character is a sexist misrepresentation of women, then there's really no defense whatsoever. There isn't a neat list of past sexist transgressions that we can cross reference to prove to you that we know what we're talking about. But Man is not being oppressed when he's told by women to stop exploiting female sexuality for his personal pleasure or gain.
I do believe you are unintentionally defending sexism by suggesting that bigotry is justified by politeness or is defined as a mere difference in opinion.
...
But if you're actually disagreeing with all the women on this forum who are saying that Pierre's initial design was sexist and offensive, then you're not listening.
But that is not what I have said. I have not suggested that bigotry is justified by politeness, nor that it is defined as a mere difference of opinion. I have also not disagreed with the women on the forum that Pierre's initial design was sexist and offensive.
I can only guess that either you have misread my posts or I have explained something poorly. It happens.
If there is something I have wrote that you'd like clarified, please, feel free to ask me what exactly I meant by such and such. I am happy to try to clear up any misunderstanding.
I think we all agree that cases of sexism need to be dealt with in *some* manner, in order to make people comfortable on the forums and set minimum enforcement criteria for what would be considered inappropriate content. May I suggest that we steer the conversation towards how we would define these? That way we can stick 'em in the forum policy, and use them as a solid basis for current and future enforcement from here on out.
Okay, so this thread is getting a little frustrating right now... Mostly because I'm watching dudes re-phrase sexism (and hey, yeah, bigotry) in terms of opinion - as though it's merely this matter of two differing opinions that different people hold for different reasons. That cheapens EVERYTHING. That's a huge part of the PROBLEM!
A) Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments.
B) Posting sexist media on the forum when there are clear guidelines already in place indicating what type of media is acceptable OR failing to remove said media that community administrators have asked the poster to remove because it's problematic.
C) Acting in a bigoted way toward other members of the forum, denigrating them with sandwich jokes or derogatory remarks etc.
A, B and C. Which of the 3 do you feel merits a warning?
This is not opinion vs opinion, as things keep being cast as. A, as such, is not a real situation, at least not real in terms of this actual discussion right now, nor in terms of what happened in the other thread... The experience of sexism that is being used to point out how a piece of art or media is sexist is not an opinion. It's is someone's lived experience, every damn day. Belittling that and treating is as only an opinion just to be able to argue with it and defend your own opinion about what is or is not acceptable when that doesn't touch you daily lived experience is a HUGE indicator of gender privilege. Please just stop it.
We don't take issue with hypersexual characters because of personal taste or conflict in opinions. We take issue because the sheer persistence of designs like that, screws with our whole, real lives. Being criticized for contributing to the screwing with someone elses life doesn't make you a victim. Defending the screwing with someone elses life purely because of personal taste or the previous existence of tropes is self entitled bigotry.
This isn't just about being nice at each other, though I am grateful that we attempt to be, this is about discouraging and filtering content that systematically hurts real people.
@garethf I do believe you are unintentionally defending sexism by suggesting that bigotry is justified by politeness or is defined as a mere difference in opinion.
If you struggle to determine what is or is not sexist, then you kind of need to trust when people who have experienced sexual discrimination tell you that it is. In genuinely grey areas, discussion is important, I'm not contesting you here. But if you're actually disagreeing with all the women on this forum who are saying that Pierre's initial design was sexist and offensive, then you're not listening. This isn't about forcing him to change his design, this is about making sure that people understand that personal taste or opinion doesn't trump real harmful consequences and actual experience.
Belittling that and treating is as only an opinion just to be able to argue with it and defend your own opinion about what is or is not acceptable when that doesn't touch you daily lived experience is a HUGE indicator of gender privilege.
The gist of my argument seems to be getting lost in arguing over what constitutes a Fighting Sex Doll trope. Shall we just agree to disagree on that
Well no, because the fighting sex doll trope is the very reason why his character was so offensive and why it is due to negative cultural conditioning that you guys seem to think it's up for debate at all, no matter how polite we are being. If we have a different understanding about what constitutes as a fighting sex doll trope, then i think this is a point of rather vital importance. And applying other tropes to it does not make it less offensive. Metaphorically comparing someone to a toilet doesn't make it better if you continue to say that they are also a brave and attractive toilet.
My entire point, really, is that I don't think [politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments] warrants a warning. Polite disagreement needs to be tolerated in order to educate. We aren't owed satisfaction in debate.
Agreed on the last two points, however, the immorality of sexual discrimination of women due to hypersexual misrepresentation in the media is simply not an issue that you, or Pierre, or men, have any authority to disagree with, nor is it up for debate.
Morality isn't determined by a higher being that decides whether or not someone's offense is valid. It's determined by our reaction as a society to a behavior that is evidently hurting another person, and when they actually go ahead and tell you to stop, ignoring them and continuing to defend the offense is bigotry. For example, owning a slave is not bigoted because of universal morality, it's bigoted because people who were slaves were very sure that they didn't like it. Participating in the reinforcement of the sex doll trope is immoral, because women are regularly affected by the persistence of this trope, and are in fact telling you to stop. Saying that this is merely a conflict of opinion or that this is debatable is itself deeply disrespectful of our authority as a women who experience being on other end of content that men have created because of "personal preference".
Whether or not that character, or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate. Not acknowledging this is pretty much ignoring everything that every woman has patiently explained to you via links, articles, vids, etc. It may not warrant a warning now, because it's just too fricken common. But, yes. Blatantly ignoring when someone, especially a woman, is telling you to remove sexist material, because you're politely defending your personal taste that harms us every day, does warrant repercussion. This is no longer about Pierre, I'm glad he has agreed to change his character. But for future reference, politeness does not equal lack of bigotry or intolerance. This isn't about comfort, or holding hands. This is about people somehow believing that the validity of offense is only applicable if it's been communally agreed upon by men. If black people are offended by being represented a specific way by white people, then continuing to do so would be racist. If women say that a female character is portrayed in a sexist manner. Then that shit is sexist.
@dislekcia I take offense because it feels like my name is constantly being associated with the topic of Bigotry. This description has been attached to my work simply because a user claimed it so based on my opinions, and nobody considered the source or validity of the accusation, leaving me to try and defend my name against unjustified criticism.
The criticism is justified. You created sexist art, being critiqued about that is valid. Please choose to be the dude that once made sexist art but learned from it and moved on instead of the dude that kept arguing that his sexist art wasn't sexist.
I'm confident that we can agree that Bigotry falls more on the negative side of morality , describing a person that does not tolerate or allow the different opinion of another. This is where claims of bigotry in my thread fails to be valid... I say this because I've encouraged and expressed (on numerous occasion) appreciation for the other people to express their opinion. I even asked people to further elaborate and express their opinion despite the fact that it was not my own.
Please don't cast this as opinion vs opinion. Sexism is about the lived, constant experiences of people marginalised by systems of oppression much, much larger than us individuals. Calling that opinion IS LITERALLY CONFORMING TO THE SYSTEM THAT OPPRESSES. Stop.
"Thanks everybody for your insights on the matter." " i am convinced now that my work won't be appreciated by everybody and the feedback does not fall on deaf ears, and i would likely make some changes to the end result to some degree" "@Steamhat i apologize for seeming to reject your comment about the sword." "I will take your recommendations to heart and adjust my mindset in this regard. " My demeanor was clearly inclusive, and did not actively seek to disallow or exclude anybody from the conversation. Despite this, my name keeps being referenced in this topic.
Now (In my perception of events) let us consider the person that gave rise to this topic in the first place. Dammit said : "Because I would rather just not have this kind of awful shit on our forums" "This is making me want to leave the forums completely, if the attitude is simply to let this slide." "If we continue to allow this thread to exist on the forums we're saying that MGSA is okay with this kind of content. " This demeanor seeks to exclude, silence and restrict me because my opinion was different from Dammit's. It is intolerance and is much closer to the definition of Bigotry than any of my words.
This is called a tone argument. It is bullshit. Please don't make it.
I request politely that you consider using alternative sources for your reference, but of course welcome to continue doing what you are doing now. And do you know why I say that? Because I'm not a bigot.
Your art is what started this discussion. I feel that you can gain a lot by owning that instead of fighting against it. I understand that you feel set-upon and targeted, but you're merely only feeling slight discomfort at the notion that your assumptions aren't inherently, automatically right. That discomfort, while not awesome for you (and I totally understand that) is honestly not comparable to the continued discomfort that you're causing by denying the experiences of others, marginalising sexism and trying to deflect away from your own bruised sense of self. You're not being dehumanised here - you're still being referred to as a player with power in this dicussion, not someone that's constantly ignored no matter how good their points are, just because they happen to be a woman. Your feeling are being pandered to, instead of dismissed because you're not a woman. The discussion is taking the shape of your opinion vs differing opinions, instead of the actual reality of the situation. You are privileged here, I'm afraid I'm not going to stop pushing against that a little bit, just to assuage your bad feelings around having the bigotry inherent in something you made pointed out to you.
Bigotry and abusive behaviour in games WILL be challenged in the comments and can result in its deletion .
I just want to chip in on this conversation and say that although i do not endorse or like offensive games... there is also the question of what is considered bigotry in games.
On a related note: Why are so many men in this community hell bent on telling the women active here how and what they should perceive as sexist representations of women?
Which is why i don't go to the meetups. Some dude here once said my gf is brainwashed to the point where she would be one of the women selling her self... because she did not agree to the entire lets all go crazy because women are used as sex objects in games thing. Then again... i would like to see them say it to my face.
I'm requoting this for two reasons: 1. because I agree wholeheartedly with @garethf's sentiments here, and 2. I think it's incredibly important that they're considered and not lost in the wall of text above. If condition A is bannable, we may as well all pre-emptively ban ourselves for when we inevitably butt heads. Condition B is a violation of codified forum guidelines that all users agree to when using the forums, and the mods are fully within their rights to issue warnings and/or bans. C is not acceptable conduct in the least.
This is the Internet, and people are quick to make blanket assumptions based on a single datum point or statement. I'd rather people have the opportunity to learn or defend themselves, instead of being banhammered into the stratosphere without recourse. "Bigotry" needs to be properly codified and added to forum rules to prevent this.
Please don't fall into the equivalence fallacy inherent in A.
This is not about politely discussing opinions, it's about recognising that people's experiences of bigotry and systemic oppression ARE NOT OPINIONS and the effects they have are real. A is what happens when you or I have a disagreement about sexism, but as soon as someone who lives under sexist systems says "This is sexist, it's what happens to me" then the whole situation changes.
Whether or not that character, or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate. Not acknowledging this is pretty much ignoring everything that every woman has patiently explained to you via links, articles, vids, etc. It may not warrant a warning now, because it's just too fricken common. But, yes. Blatantly ignoring when someone, especially a woman, is telling you to remove sexist material, because you're politely defending your personal taste that harms us every day, does warrant repercussion. This is no longer about Pierre, I'm glad he has agreed to change his character. But for future reference, politeness does not equal lack of bigotry or intolerance. This isn't about comfort, or holding hands. This is about people somehow believing that the validity of offense is only applicable if it's been communally agreed upon by men. If black people are offended by being represented a specific way by white people, then continuing to do so would be racist. If women say that a female character is portrayed in a sexist manner. Then that shit is sexist.
Just... Just read everything @Jelligeth writes a million times. Okay?
@Jelligeth - you're arguing against points I never made, things I never said.
I'm not going to defend points I never made.
That's awesome!
Perhaps that's what your points look like? Maybe, instead of arguing or defending or focusing on winning, if you agreed on those things instead (which should be easy if they're not attacking points you made) would lead to a healthier discussion?
You're not being argued AGAINST, people are arguing FOR the points they're making. That's a pretty big difference.
Firstly: I am not denying any points the ladies make. I've been hearing @Jelligeth's points from my own mother and sister all my life. I am not defending institutional sexism. I am not condoning it. I am not saying that it doesn't affect and hurt and disenfranchise people, and I am not saying that we need to brush aside the statements of the very people who're affected. Obviously not. That's ridiculous.
I am trying to look into how we can integrate anti-sexism into the forums fairly and, more importantly, effectively. Laws guide behaviour. They force people to question. They provide a basis for punishment.
Let the ladies of the forum (who else?) codify what they would consider offensive content or behaviour. That way:
a) People watch their behaviour and the content of their games. What is and is not acceptable is clear. The lines are drawn. It is no longer a question of opinion, it is the law. Ignorance is no excuse. b) If people don't like the rules, they don't join, or they leave. Violaters are warned, then ejected if necessary. c) People monitor and modify their behaviour and the content of their games. They THINK about it. They QUESTION. They LEARN.
@garethf Ok, it doesn't matter, I'm sorry if they don't apply to you specifically and I misinterpreted something you said, but those points are still relevant to the topic of discussion so pretend I wasn't addressing you specifically, but just the points that are currently contestable and problematic when dealing with sexism in gaming.
@Gazza_N Great, now we're talking. Well, some of these are from other websites and broadcasting guidelines. It'll be great if other women add to this, if they are still hanging around. :)
1: Avoid exploiting gratuitous or one sided female sexuality for personal gain or pleasure. 2: Avoid enforcing behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. 3: Don't emphasize the sexuality of a characters clothes, genitalia, or appearance if you wouldn't devote the exact same amount of attention and exposure to a character of any other gender. 4: Avoid negative or degrading comments on the role and nature of women, men or children. Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body, and similar modes of portrayal should not be degrading to either sex. Degrading being: causing a loss of self-respect or status. 5: Use empathy in the design of characters and stories. Would you like to be portrayed, or viewed this way by a stranger? 6: Achieve a realistic balance in the use of women and men as experts and authorities. 7: Create a realistic diversity in the representation of women, in terms of personality, appearance, size or dress sense. (Especially in the event that there are multiple characters). 8: Don't fund sexism. In other words, don't contribute to sexist culture by creating sexist content. 9: Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is about topics that influences a demographic to which you don't belong. 10: Discourage sexist content by being vocal about it, don't ignore problematic content just to be polite.
What if a character in the game is a sexist character? For example a chauvinistic male character? Will then the entire game be questioned because one of the characters in the story is bad?
What if a character in the game is a sexist character? For example a chauvinistic male character? Will then the entire game be questioned because one of the characters in the story is bad?
Good question. I think this comes down to what sort of role the chauvinistic character is meant to have. Is he a hero or villain? If he is a villain, is his chauvinism depicted in a way that appears to glorify him, or criminalize him? If he is a hero, is his chauvinism contributing to stereotypes that endorse the mistreatment of women, or is it something that is, within the narrative of the story itself, an active criticism of this otherwise good character? If the character and his treatment of women is meant to be admired and idealized, then yeah it would be great if he wasn't a chauvinist.
I guess it kinda falls under 8: Don't fund sexism. In other words, don't contribute to sexist culture by creating sexist content, perhaps we can add here: unless you are criticizing it.
Or we can be even more clear on this point and add: 11: Avoid the endorsement of the mistreatment of women. If these rules get extended to cover all forms of bigotry, then include: children, minority, marginalized, or otherwise disadvantaged or oppressed demographics.
I'm going to look over that list I posted tonight and see if it can be further refined or improved, as it is, it's literally something I made up on the spot or copy pasted from and a handful of pages on the other end of google :P If other women, and even men who have a firm grasp on what constitutes as sexism, has some more suggestions, please do.
@Steamhat - That's a cute little ploy you're pulling, amusing hotdog gif and all.
If I offer an opinion on forum policy (should we ban people for X) and am willing to explain and discuss my view with people who may disagree, including women, I'm "smothering women with my male opinions".
If I don't defend my position, or am unwilling to discuss it with people who would challenge it, then I'm clearly in the wrong for offering an opinion I can't justify, or for not being open to considering different view points.
That's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The only safe option is to not have a dissenting opinion. Or rather, since everyone has opinions, not to express a dissenting opinion.
Sorry, no.
This is not my first rodeo, champ, those tricks won't work on me.
What if a character in the game is a sexist character? For example a chauvinistic male character? Will then the entire game be questioned because one of the characters in the story is bad?
Good question. I think this comes down to what sort of role the chauvinistic character is meant to have.
I don't think it matters much how they are portrayed. Even if a hero. Because even if you do so... it is still up to the individual experiencing the game how they will perceive it. They still have the capacity to decide for themselves if this person really is a hero or not.
Which brings me to my point. The only thing that will come of this is restricting freedom and creativity. When sexual exploitation is suppressed what then? Do we go to violence? What about language? Religion? Where does it end?
I fear a precedent is going to be set that will alienate legitimate game developers because they are too scared to raise their concerns... or share their games.
Sure there are limits... but to shave everything under the same comb... this could do much more harm than good.
@garethf The fault in this scenario is we have, to some levels, already damned ourselves in literally chasing forum members away... because the environment is not safe and supportive because of the practices therein. That in itself is a massive problem.
The problem is that it took 4 days to form a lynch mob.
Four days between a new person posting on this forum asking for feedback and this thread to start calling for him to be banished.
It's pretty aggravating, as an SJW, having to concede that the dudes on the Other Side clamouring on about the "SJW Inquisition" aren't just whiny right-wing manbabies, that they actually have a legitimate gripe against "my" team.
Four days. And now, because I've stood up and said "no, I don't think we should ban him just for disagreeing hey", and because I'm not changing that opinion in the face of hotdog gifs and LISTEN typed in caps lock, I'm some sort of giant sexist myself.
It's ridiculous.
I know who you're talking about, btw, and that person chose to leave because people only agreed with them 80%, not 100%. Not because they were "chased away". If someone can't handle an opinion as mild as "don't ban someone just for disagreeing on what is or is not sexist, but sure, warn/ban them for posting sexist media or behaving in a sexist way", well, I'm sorry...
That's unlike Pierre who, let me add, has stuck around and stayed polite in the face of being called some very ugly things and being on the receiving end of some very heated criticism. He's even said he'll change his model because of how people reacted to it, even if he doesn't personally agree with that reaction.
That's a big thing, and should be celebrated! The needle moves slowly, but it does move!
He's actually been exactly as you would wish for, in a person who doesn't really agree with you. Consider what it must take to stay calm and polite while reading these kinds of threads about you in a forum you're new to. I think that character model is ludicrous and problematic, but I can't fault his behavior in response to criticism.
I'm sorry, but this lynch mob behavior is not ok. If you want to pay anything more than lip service to the idea of educating people, you have to give them more than 4 fucking days to radically change their worldview.
I fear a precedent is going to be set that will alienate legitimate game developers because they are too scared to raise their concerns... or share their games.
I don't think the slippery slope argument is valid, but we need not even worry about it because it's about the unsure future. We have a situation right now where legitimate game developers are being alienated because they are too scared (perhaps not quite scared?) to raise their concerns. The problematic content is scaring people away right now and that is what we want to change. (And if by some miracle we land on the opposite side of oppression it's a fight we can fight then, now we have to deal with the immediate casualties.)
There are limits, and as you can see @Jelligeth started to make those more concrete for us.
The problem is that it took 4 days to form a lynch mob.
Four days between a new person posting on this forum asking for feedback and this thread to start calling for him to be banished.
Oh my word stop freaking out that everyone is demanding a lynching. Nobody is. Reallly. Like, nobody. The ONE person who asked for Pierres content to be removed has already conceded that her reaction was out of frustration. NOBODY ELSE wants Pierre to be banned! Your opinion and views questioning whether or not someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry was addressed thusly:
Whether or not that character, or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate. Not acknowledging this is pretty much ignoring everything that every woman has patiently explained to you via links, articles, vids, etc. It may not warrant a warning now, because it's just too fricken common. But, yes. Blatantly ignoring when someone, especially a woman, is telling you to remove sexist material, because you're politely defending your personal taste that harms us every day, does warrant repercussion. This is no longer about Pierre, I'm glad he has agreed to change his character. But for future reference, politeness does not equal lack of bigotry or intolerance
By "you" i mean the collective "you" that is men who do not acknowledge that they have no authority on a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Again, calm down, nobody wants to start going trigger happy banning people. If you think this is the case then you are the one who has misinterpreted.
I was simply reminding those who are reading this forum that that as women, our experience of institutionalized sexism is not a fanciful opinion, and the fact that Pierre believed that it is, was itself the bigotry in question. When I talk about male entitlement, I am taking about men who take it upon themselves to reprimand women for misinterpreting whether or not a female character is portrayed in a sexist way. Unless you were trying to tell me why that character was not sexist, that needn't even apply to you.
This isn't about you or me, this is about people who are going to create sexist material in the future, and who believe that the harmful effects of sexism in gaming is a debatable opinion, and when people try to tell them that it's not, we get responses like "sjw's are oppressing me". No, being reprimanded for encouraging the harm and discrimination against others is not being oppressed. Accept the criticism, do some easy research, and learn from it.
Should we punish them? Not immediately, no. But at some point it really becomes very impractical to have discussions like this every single time someone posts something sexist, especially because this research exists everywhere. That's why it's great that we're potentially creating some guidelines for future reference due to what has happened in the past four days.
Firstly: I am not denying any points the ladies make. I've been hearing @Jelligeth's points from my own mother and sister all my life. I am not defending institutional sexism. I am not condoning it. I am not saying that it doesn't affect and hurt and disenfranchise people, and I am not saying that we need to brush aside the statements of the very people who're affected. Obviously not. That's ridiculous.
I know. I was just pointing out that those A, B and C situations weren't useful constructs and that engaging with situation A in a concrete way is a bad idea because it does that whole "marginalising the input of the most effected" thing.
I am trying to look into how we can integrate anti-sexism into the forums fairly and, more importantly, effectively. Laws guide behaviour. They force people to question. They provide a basis for punishment.
Yes. Win. I'd like to focus on this too. I'm not sure about laws yet, but I think that the discussion needs to be around this rather than "OMW we can't debate anything because we'll instaban ourselves". We know the answer to that: It's not a debate, don't debate stuff like that, react to being given new knowledge accordingly and accept criticism, no opinion as a creator is a shield.
Let the ladies of the forum (who else?) codify what they would consider offensive content or behaviour.
Great! That's a really good idea. I would sort of point out that that's what they've been trying to do and that the reason it hasn't taken off is the lack of support they've been getting (and the arguing, that too) - so this sort of support is always going to be good. We need more of it!
That said, I don't think that there are going to be hard and fast rules for content to be evaluated against that you or I (or any random dude) is going to be able to apply to something and just like, KNOW it's sexism status. So how about the rule is this: If someone tells you something is sexist, especially if that person understands sexism better than you do, listen and accept that it is. That's really it - so I hope that explains my misgivings about the whole "situation A" thing.
That said, I don't think that there are going to be hard and fast rules for content to be evaluated against that you or I (or any random dude) is going to be able to apply to something and just like, KNOW it's sexism status. So how about the rule is this: If someone tells you something is sexist, especially if that person understands sexism better than you do, listen and accept that it is. That's really it - so I hope that explains my misgivings about the whole "situation A" thing.
Ideally, a single rule like that would be perfect. If something like that could stand application, then there would be no need for exceedingly long lists or four day forum debates. Dono if a random dude that can't even apply hard and fast rules that discourages sexism would have no problem with being told anything by a woman though. Maybe a bit of both. I agree that the rules shouldn't be hard and fast with no room for interpretation, but if everyone with experience and authority on this issue is being contested on their evaluation, then step 2, point them at the rules. On the one hand, this devalues the authority of the women themselves, but perhaps establishing that there is a culture of female relevance in this community to a person that is disinclined to listen to a woman in person may remind him that we exist in the rules too.
Your opinion and views questioning whether or not someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry was addressed thusly:
I never asked whether someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry.
Since there is clearly still a misunderstanding, I would once again urge you to reread what I've posted and, if there is some confusion, ask me what I meant.
By "you" i mean the collective "you" that is men who do not acknowledge that they have no authority on a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Not sure who exactly you're addressing here, because I've not seen anyone on this forum claim they have authority over a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Another misunderstanding, perhaps. There seem to be many in this thread.
I don't think the slippery slope argument is valid, but we need not even worry about it because it's about the unsure future. We have a situation right now where legitimate game developers are being alienated because they are too scared (perhaps not quite scared?) to raise their concerns.
Perhaps i am missing something but i thought the issue was about objectifying a specific sex... or disrespecting a certain ethnic group... stuff like that.
My argument is not about being on a slippery slope. You cannot eradicate the problem. Its human nature. All you can do is be the change you want to see... not force it down peoples throats.
Your opinion and views questioning whether or not someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry was addressed thusly:
I never asked whether someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry.
Since there is clearly still a misunderstanding, I would once again urge you to reread what I've posted and, if there is some confusion, ask me what I meant.
Can I ask you, Jelligeth, which of these 3 things you believe should result in someone getting a warning/first strike toward banning on these forums?
A) Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments.
...
My entire point, really, is that I don't think A warrants a warning. Polite disagreement needs to be tolerated in order to educate. We aren't owed satisfaction in debate. That DOESN'T mean tolerating B & C, although every effort should be made to reason politely with the offender, first, in any case.
My response: "Whether or not that character," ie piece of media, "or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate," ie politely disagree or not be convinced by our arguments".
You also ask whether someone (in this context a guy) politely disagreeing with you (in this context a woman) about whether media (ie his character) is sexist warrants a warning.
My response: Yes it does. I did not say immediately. I did not say ban him. I said politeness does not excuse bigotry if feedback regarding sexism is blatantly ignored. Pierre did not blatantly ignore feedback. But in the future, no matter how polite they are being, if someone does, then we need so consider repercussions.
By "you" i mean the collective "you" that is men who do not acknowledge that they have no authority on a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Not sure who exactly you're addressing here, because I've not seen anyone on this forum claim they have authority over a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
This is why it is a "collective "you"'. And Pierre did do this because he believed that our (women/sjws) claim that hypersexualised characters (like his) contributes to harmful and sexist culture is just an opinion, nope it's actual fact, also he has no authority on this.
Which brings me to my point. The only thing that will come of this is restricting freedom and creativity. When sexual exploitation is suppressed what then? Do we go to violence? What about language? Religion? Where does it end?
^slippery slope argument. It's the name of a logical fallacy. Suppressing sexual exploitation does not = suppressing violence, language or religion.
But yeah, if were proven that gratuitous language or violence in games genuinely hurts people in real life, then they do need to be suppressed. But so far it has been proven that it doesn't, so they don't.
So... Rule number 1: Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is from and about a demographic to which you don't belong, or situation that you have not experienced.
Then if that and all else fails, - Avoid exploiting gratuitous female sexuality for personal gain or pleasure. - Avoid enforcing behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex or gender. - Don't emphasize the sexuality of a characters clothes, genitalia, or appearance if you wouldn't devote the exact same amount of attention and exposure to a character of any other gender. - Avoid negative or degrading comments on the role and nature of women (can be extended to men, minority or disadvantaged groups, and children). Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body, and similar modes of portrayal should not be degrading. Degrading being: causing a loss of self-respect or status. - Use empathy in the design of characters and stories. Would you like to be portrayed, or viewed this way by a stranger? - Create a realistic diversity in the representation of women, in terms of personality, ability, appearance, size or dress sense. (Especially in the event that there are multiple characters). - Don't deliberately champion the mistreatment of women.
And as for repercussions, 1. Alert someone (ideally a woman, otherwise someone you trust will be fair in their assessment) who has authority on the subject to evaluate the situation and supply initial feedback. 2. Don't deliberately ignore or avoid potentially problematic content if you are unsure, or just to be polite. 3. Accept that someone's personal taste is unlikely to change, even if they agree to change their content. As long as they understand why or how it was harmful, and why personal taste does not trump actual damage. Note, this is where we would have stopped with Pierre. 4. If the person in question refuses to accept valid criticism, or struggles to understand why the criticism is valid, supply them with the above (or further refined) guidelines. 5. If they continue to insist that their opinion or personal preference is more important than changing or removing content that is harmful to women, or in any case marginalized, disadvantaged or oppressed groups, then proceed to hang the basturd. No I'm joking I promise.
If a fellow really won't listen despite all 4 steps, and days of discussion, what do you guys propose should be done?
I mostly agree with this post, but I'm still a bit nervous about creativity being stifled by overzealous application of something (necessarily) quite broadly defined. To understand that this wouldn't happen, I'd like to know what would happen in the following cases before getting behind it:
WARNING: LINKED IMAGES MAY OFFEND SOME READERS
1) If Blazin' Aces was introduced for the first time under this regime, with it's current logo (http://goo.gl/BpneYC), which was critiqued as sexist, and the creator still decided to keep the logo. What would the consequences be for the creator, and would they be able to continue posting about the game. 2) If the original Mortal Kombat (http://goo.gl/rDxGUA) was introduced here (unlikely but useful as a thought exercise) with it's incredible level of gore and arguable masogyny. Once again despite critique from the forum, the creator decided to stay the course. What happens to them and posting on this forum? 3) Same as a above, but for Mortal Kombat X. (http://goo.gl/tLfRP8) 4) Moving away from purely sexist content, what about a game akin to The Spear (http://goo.gl/nLmzOg) which is arguably offensive to many people, but also has an important message. What are the consequences for the creator and will they be able to continue posting about their game.
Difference of opinion over what is or is not bigotry is not automatically "polite bigotry".
This is why it is a "collective "you"'.
Collective "you" would include me in your grouping. I am not part of that group, as I have never claimed authority over a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist, so rather use the collective "them" or "men who believe X" to avoid confusion.
@mattbenic, I want to address something related to point 4, that I feel has also showed up in other posts in this thread as well.
I don't think the issue we are trying to mitigate here is people being offended. I mean, I don't think we are trying to create a "nice" place where no one get's mad or upset or dissatisfied with things that they see. There are certainly things that have been on here that I have found offensive, but I realized it was my problem alone. So even though I felt offended it wasn't a problem of the content, it was my own problem. Things can(and sometimes should) be offensive. What we should try to "manage" is content that is harmful. Whatever the rules are or how we enforce them, it should keep this goal in mind. That's what I feel about it anyway. I have no idea how we agree on what is actually harmful and what is not though, but I assume we'll handle it on a case per case basis with the committee having the last say.
I'm sorry that I didn't actually address the questions you asked, but hopefully the post wasn't completely useless. :)
For what it's worth, I've always wanted to crit the Blazing Aces logo, but never felt like anything I said about it would be considered fairly or even listened to because "historical accuracy".
Just for reference here, the Blazing Aces logo was done by a woman. A woman with many many years of experience as an artist in the game industry. So if one woman says that she feels that this sort of thing is fine, and another says that it creates objectification / is sexist, where do we go from there?
Comments
On a related note: Why are so many men in this community hell bent on telling the women active here how and what they should perceive as sexist representations of women?
But it's true that on this specific subject, it often gets fairly difficult to convince some guys that being called a sex doll as if it's ever a compliment or being repeatedly characterized primarily and often SOLELY by our genitalia and reproductive organs eventually gets pretty intolerable after, you know, our whole lives.
If you haven't heard this coming from a woman before, there you go. It sucks, it's degrading. If you weren't aware that it's degrading, it's only because you've never been subject to similar treatment before. This is understandable. But now that you have been made aware, I hope you will genuinely think about it :)
Characters often encompass multiple tropes.
I appreciate the discussion and the points being made (as I'm sure we all do) but the continuous reference to my name under this topic is becoming increasingly offensive, especially now that you're not even talking about bigotry any more.
As for being off topic, I don't see that: We're discussing how the community can discourage bigotry in the games it produces and what to do if it does crop up. Self-regulation is always difficult and there are going to be lots and lots of edge cases and disagreements. @garethf has pointed out that all characters are more than just single tropes, seemingly to steer the evaluation of a character away from hinging on a lone sexist trope. I'm curious as to which tropes can be added to a character with existing sexist tropes in order to fully deflect from the sexism completely, it seems a valid question that's germane to the thread topic: If we could do this it would basically turn all "Hey, that's a bit sexist" discussions into "Hey, that's a bit sexist, but add this and it won't be!" which would presumably be more fun for everyone, right?
The character you designed seems a pretty good place to ground the question, I know I'd like to know how to make her representation less sexist by laying on more tropes. Maybe you do too?
But ok, let's disregard the literal meaning of "sex doll" because the comparison is somehow metaphorically valid. Supposing that generically attractive women with more character than a bed warmer also represents the sex doll trope, as is evident by your inclusion of Buffy and Motoko. It's STILL guilty of misrepresentation. You will find fat men, thin men, lanky men, stocky men, old men and ugly men, smart, stupid, kind and cruel, feature in almost every movie or game with varying levels of authority and respectability. Yet you're lucky if you find more than two women with speaking parts that are a different dress size. There's nothing at all wrong with generically attractive women, but at the point where it's become possible to include almost every fictional female character from nuns to superheroes and doctors to cheerleaders within a single trope, it's pretty evident that there is an imbalance that still needs to be seriously addressed. The exception becomes the rule, and vice versa. Huge groups of people marginalized because of, what, personal preference.
I don't think you guys realize how exasperating it gets to continuously witness and tolerate a society that repeatedly misrepresents and poorly portrays at least half its population (more, if you include all the other horrible stereotypes people seem to believe). Should bigotry be allowed in games on the forums? To some extent, it's pretty much unavoidable because this goes so much deeper than rocket boobs. So while I agree that constructive criticism is important when faced with bigotry in games. I also believe that constructive reception of criticism is equally important. When valid criticism is continuously denied, ignored or the point of critique repeatedly defended by people on the unaffected side of a bigoted opinion, without consequence, it becomes a pretty hostile place for someone who is constantly on the receiving end of a bad trope.
Having a process for dealing with these things may be a good thing, as long as it acknowledges that it can often be a drawn out process, and banning or censorship should absolutely only be the last resort.
we must not 'allow bigotry' we should implement a warning, gone about in an orderly and empathetic fashion in order to introduce someone to this subject without attacking them. But if they don't react sufficiently then do what is best for the forum and community and not what is best for said individual. Define in the rules that this is the course of action, and there isn't really any trouble to be had.
The two major things to attain through our behaviour is an environment where we will attempt to fight ignorance and bigotry, argued in the best manner we can. But then also provide an environment that is supportive and safe for those already in it.
The point is that the soft treatment to a bigot hurts those they are a bigot towards as their previously safe environment is now warped and broken, that's counter-intuitive towards those we are attempting to actually protect and respect in this.
I take offense because it feels like my name is constantly being associated with the topic of Bigotry.
This description has been attached to my work simply because a user claimed it so based on my opinions, and nobody considered the source or validity of the accusation, leaving me to try and defend my name against unjustified criticism.
Though I was relieved to see that some people recognized the hypocrisy of the accusation.
I'm confident that we can agree that Bigotry falls more on the negative side of morality , describing a person that does not tolerate or allow the different opinion of another.
This is where claims of bigotry in my thread fails to be valid... I say this because I've encouraged and expressed (on numerous occasion) appreciation for the other people to express their opinion.
I even asked people to further elaborate and express their opinion despite the fact that it was not my own.
"Thanks everybody for your insights on the matter."
" i am convinced now that my work won't be appreciated by everybody and the feedback does not fall on deaf ears, and i would likely make some changes to the end result to some degree"
"@Steamhat i apologize for seeming to reject your comment about the sword."
"I will take your recommendations to heart and adjust my mindset in this regard. "
My demeanor was clearly inclusive, and did not actively seek to disallow or exclude anybody from the conversation.
Despite this, my name keeps being referenced in this topic.
Now (In my perception of events) let us consider the person that gave rise to this topic in the first place.
Dammit said :
"Because I would rather just not have this kind of awful shit on our forums"
"This is making me want to leave the forums completely, if the attitude is simply to let this slide."
"If we continue to allow this thread to exist on the forums we're saying that MGSA is okay with this kind of content. "
This demeanor seeks to exclude, silence and restrict me because my opinion was different from Dammit's. It is intolerance and is much closer to the definition of Bigotry than any of my words.
I request politely that you consider using alternative sources for your reference, but of course welcome to continue doing what you are doing now. And do you know why I say that? Because I'm not a bigot.
However, before we can establish the process, I feel that we should first determine the clear and concrete criteria that would determine something as bigotry. We cannot unilaterally qualify every mere difference of opinion as bigotry because that would be a logical fallacy of negative exaggeration.
It would also be counter productive to having an all inclusive forum.
To me. bigotry has additional qualities that makes it a negative element compared to the neutrality in a simple difference of opinion. To me bigotry requires the additional element of somebody taking, or insisting on action to be taken against the victim. A father of a certain race, that doesn't allow his daughter to date a person from a different race is a bigot.
I don't mean to say you have no defense. If you feel the community has been unhelpful or has acted inappropriately, you shouldn't be silent, you should voice your concerns. You just shouldn't be making the argument that Dammit is the true bigot in this situation, because it holds no water, and isn't going to (or at least shouldn't) fly here. And I'm going to quote you from the previous thread, because I'm addressing more or less the same issue. Fun fact: women know a butt-ton more about misogyny than you and I ever will. They live with that shit every single moment of every single day. So if you're concerned about the validity of Dammit's claims, or any other woman that questions how you portray women in your work, there's no need to worry, they have a lifetime of expertise on the matter. Sure, women won't always be right about matters of feminism, but if a woman approaches you about the portrayal of women or any other issue that might affect them, standard procedure is to, and I quote, "shut the fuck up, and listen." This is true of any criticism, but especially so when it's to do with how your position of privilege may have harmed someone; just consider what the person is saying, and really evaluate whether or not it's an accurate description of your work, and take it on if you feel it's worthwhile.
The thing is, of course, that your work has harmed someone. Dammit has outright said that your game and the response to it has her considering whether or not she wants to be part of this community. Maybe that's something you're fine with, but if you are interested in learning more about feminism and the portrayal of women (and there's clearly no shortage of people here willing to teach you), that's definitely something you should be concerned about.
For what it's worth, I am sorry that this has blown up to this extent. I can't imagine it's easy having this much attention and debate going on around you, I'd certainly be 24-hour-foetal-position stressed about it if I was in your shoes; so thanks for sticking around and not shutting down engagement. It's a discussion the community really needs to have, and I guess your work ended up being the catalyst for that.
The gist of my argument seems to be getting lost in arguing over what constitutes a Fighting Sex Doll trope. Shall we just agree to disagree on that, as it's derailing the conversation a bit, and bring it back to the central point?
Let me boil what I'm saying down to the essentials here.
Can I ask you, Jelligeth, which of these 3 things you believe should result in someone getting a warning/first strike toward banning on these forums?
A) Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not. Not being convinced by your arguments.
B) Posting sexist media on the forum when there are clear guidelines already in place indicating what type of media is acceptable OR failing to remove said media that community administrators have asked the poster to remove because it's problematic.
C) Acting in a bigoted way toward other members of the forum, denigrating them with sandwich jokes or derogatory remarks etc.
A, B and C. Which of the 3 do you feel merits a warning?
My entire point, really, is that I don't think A warrants a warning. Polite disagreement needs to be tolerated in order to educate. We aren't owed satisfaction in debate. That DOESN'T mean tolerating B & C, although every effort should be made to reason politely with the offender, first, in any case.
Do you disagree? Do you believe I am in some way defending sexism by saying that?
*****************************************************************************************************
@dislekcia You seem to have misunderstood. I'm not saying that the negative implications of the character design can be removed by adding other traits. I'm saying that adding backstory and personality can fix Jelligreth's complaints that the Sex Doll character doesn't have a backstory or personality.
And while the cheesecake characters will ALWAYS be problematic, you CAN improve these characters (to a degree) by giving them background and personality. For example:
Gail Simone, popular feminist comic book writer, on what she finds to like in the character of Red Sonja. I'm not saying Red Sonja will ever NOT be problematic. But I am saying that there are things you can do to improve the Fighting Sex Doll trope character.
It's not by definition part of the trope that the character HAS to have no personality or background, although that is, of course, a danger. You have to be careful not to let just "she's sexy, and hits stuff" be the sum of her character. Good writing helps.
1. because I agree wholeheartedly with @garethf's sentiments here, and
2. I think it's incredibly important that they're considered and not lost in the wall of text above. If condition A is bannable, we may as well all pre-emptively ban ourselves for when we inevitably butt heads. Condition B is a violation of codified forum guidelines that all users agree to when using the forums, and the mods are fully within their rights to issue warnings and/or bans. C is not acceptable conduct in the least.
This is the Internet, and people are quick to make blanket assumptions based on a single datum point or statement. I'd rather people have the opportunity to learn or defend themselves, instead of being banhammered into the stratosphere without recourse. "Bigotry" needs to be properly codified and added to forum rules to prevent this.
We don't take issue with hypersexual characters because of personal taste or conflict in opinions. We take issue because the sheer persistence of designs like that, screws with our whole, real lives.
Being criticized for contributing to the screwing with someone elses life doesn't make you a victim.
Defending the screwing with someone elses life purely because of personal taste or the previous existence of tropes is self entitled bigotry.
This isn't just about being nice at each other, though I am grateful that we attempt to be, this is about discouraging and filtering content that systematically hurts real people.
@garethf I do believe you are unintentionally defending sexism by suggesting that bigotry is justified by politeness or is defined as a mere difference in opinion. Being unconvinced by something that large numbers of people have, across two threads and much of the educated internet, tried to explain with links, articles, studies and videos, is not a flaw in OUR arguments. It's a flaw in willful ignorance. Immediate banning? No! But bigotry, yes.
If you struggle to determine what is or is not sexist, then you kind of need to trust when people who have experienced sexual discrimination tell you that it is. In genuinely grey areas, discussion is important, I'm not contesting you here. But if you're actually disagreeing with all the women on this forum who are saying that Pierre's initial design was sexist and offensive, then you're not listening. This isn't about forcing him to change his design, this is about making sure that people understand that personal taste or opinion doesn't trump real harmful consequences and actual experience.
Whether or not he changes his design is the practical result of this sort of conversation, whether or not he deserves being banned, no I don't think so. But whether or not something is sexist against women is pretty much determined as soon as women agree it is, it's not this grand blurry haze. If one woman says it's sexist, and another woman says it's not, then discussion is certainly required. But if women are unanimously agreeing that your female character is a sexist misrepresentation of women, then there's really no defense whatsoever. There isn't a neat list of past sexist transgressions that we can cross reference to prove to you that we know what we're talking about. But Man is not being oppressed when he's told by women to stop exploiting female sexuality for his personal pleasure or gain.
I can only guess that either you have misread my posts or I have explained something poorly. It happens.
If there is something I have wrote that you'd like clarified, please, feel free to ask me what exactly I meant by such and such. I am happy to try to clear up any misunderstanding.
Did you misunderstand what I wrote? Please quote where I belittled someone.
Morality isn't determined by a higher being that decides whether or not someone's offense is valid. It's determined by our reaction as a society to a behavior that is evidently hurting another person, and when they actually go ahead and tell you to stop, ignoring them and continuing to defend the offense is bigotry. For example, owning a slave is not bigoted because of universal morality, it's bigoted because people who were slaves were very sure that they didn't like it. Participating in the reinforcement of the sex doll trope is immoral, because women are regularly affected by the persistence of this trope, and are in fact telling you to stop. Saying that this is merely a conflict of opinion or that this is debatable is itself deeply disrespectful of our authority as a women who experience being on other end of content that men have created because of "personal preference".
Whether or not that character, or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate. Not acknowledging this is pretty much ignoring everything that every woman has patiently explained to you via links, articles, vids, etc. It may not warrant a warning now, because it's just too fricken common. But, yes. Blatantly ignoring when someone, especially a woman, is telling you to remove sexist material, because you're politely defending your personal taste that harms us every day, does warrant repercussion. This is no longer about Pierre, I'm glad he has agreed to change his character. But for future reference, politeness does not equal lack of bigotry or intolerance. This isn't about comfort, or holding hands. This is about people somehow believing that the validity of offense is only applicable if it's been communally agreed upon by men. If black people are offended by being represented a specific way by white people, then continuing to do so would be racist. If women say that a female character is portrayed in a sexist manner. Then that shit is sexist.
Politely disagreeing is not an option here.
I'm not going to defend points I never made.
This is not about politely discussing opinions, it's about recognising that people's experiences of bigotry and systemic oppression ARE NOT OPINIONS and the effects they have are real. A is what happens when you or I have a disagreement about sexism, but as soon as someone who lives under sexist systems says "This is sexist, it's what happens to me" then the whole situation changes. Just... Just read everything @Jelligeth writes a million times. Okay?
Perhaps that's what your points look like? Maybe, instead of arguing or defending or focusing on winning, if you agreed on those things instead (which should be easy if they're not attacking points you made) would lead to a healthier discussion?
You're not being argued AGAINST, people are arguing FOR the points they're making. That's a pretty big difference.
I am trying to look into how we can integrate anti-sexism into the forums fairly and, more importantly, effectively. Laws guide behaviour. They force people to question. They provide a basis for punishment.
Let the ladies of the forum (who else?) codify what they would consider offensive content or behaviour. That way:
a) People watch their behaviour and the content of their games. What is and is not acceptable is clear. The lines are drawn. It is no longer a question of opinion, it is the law. Ignorance is no excuse.
b) If people don't like the rules, they don't join, or they leave. Violaters are warned, then ejected if necessary.
c) People monitor and modify their behaviour and the content of their games. They THINK about it. They QUESTION. They LEARN.
And that's my piece. Use it as you will.
@Gazza_N
Great, now we're talking.
Well, some of these are from other websites and broadcasting guidelines.
It'll be great if other women add to this, if they are still hanging around. :)
1: Avoid exploiting gratuitous or one sided female sexuality for personal gain or pleasure.
2: Avoid enforcing behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.
3: Don't emphasize the sexuality of a characters clothes, genitalia, or appearance if you wouldn't devote the exact same amount of attention and exposure to a character of any other gender.
4: Avoid negative or degrading comments on the role and nature of women, men or children. Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body, and similar modes of portrayal should not be degrading to either sex. Degrading being: causing a loss of self-respect or status.
5: Use empathy in the design of characters and stories. Would you like to be portrayed, or viewed this way by a stranger?
6: Achieve a realistic balance in the use of women and men as experts and authorities.
7: Create a realistic diversity in the representation of women, in terms of personality, appearance, size or dress sense. (Especially in the event that there are multiple characters).
8: Don't fund sexism. In other words, don't contribute to sexist culture by creating sexist content.
9: Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is about topics that influences a demographic to which you don't belong.
10: Discourage sexist content by being vocal about it, don't ignore problematic content just to be polite.
That's some for now.
Will then the entire game be questioned because one of the characters in the story is bad?
I'm so glad we have all this male opinion overbearing prettimuch everything else.
I guess it kinda falls under 8: Don't fund sexism. In other words, don't contribute to sexist culture by creating sexist content, perhaps we can add here: unless you are criticizing it.
Or we can be even more clear on this point and add:
11: Avoid the endorsement of the mistreatment of women.
If these rules get extended to cover all forms of bigotry, then include: children, minority, marginalized, or otherwise disadvantaged or oppressed demographics.
I'm going to look over that list I posted tonight and see if it can be further refined or improved, as it is, it's literally something I made up on the spot or copy pasted from and a handful of pages on the other end of google :P If other women, and even men who have a firm grasp on what constitutes as sexism, has some more suggestions, please do.
If I offer an opinion on forum policy (should we ban people for X) and am willing to explain and discuss my view with people who may disagree, including women, I'm "smothering women with my male opinions".
If I don't defend my position, or am unwilling to discuss it with people who would challenge it, then I'm clearly in the wrong for offering an opinion I can't justify, or for not being open to considering different view points.
That's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The only safe option is to not have a dissenting opinion. Or rather, since everyone has opinions, not to express a dissenting opinion.
Sorry, no.
This is not my first rodeo, champ, those tricks won't work on me.
Which brings me to my point. The only thing that will come of this is restricting freedom and creativity.
When sexual exploitation is suppressed what then? Do we go to violence? What about language? Religion? Where does it end?
I fear a precedent is going to be set that will alienate legitimate game developers because they are too scared to raise their concerns... or share their games.
Sure there are limits... but to shave everything under the same comb... this could do much more harm than good.
Four days between a new person posting on this forum asking for feedback and this thread to start calling for him to be banished.
It's pretty aggravating, as an SJW, having to concede that the dudes on the Other Side clamouring on about the "SJW Inquisition" aren't just whiny right-wing manbabies, that they actually have a legitimate gripe against "my" team.
Four days. And now, because I've stood up and said "no, I don't think we should ban him just for disagreeing hey", and because I'm not changing that opinion in the face of hotdog gifs and LISTEN typed in caps lock, I'm some sort of giant sexist myself.
It's ridiculous.
I know who you're talking about, btw, and that person chose to leave because people only agreed with them 80%, not 100%. Not because they were "chased away". If someone can't handle an opinion as mild as "don't ban someone just for disagreeing on what is or is not sexist, but sure, warn/ban them for posting sexist media or behaving in a sexist way", well, I'm sorry...
That's unlike Pierre who, let me add, has stuck around and stayed polite in the face of being called some very ugly things and being on the receiving end of some very heated criticism. He's even said he'll change his model because of how people reacted to it, even if he doesn't personally agree with that reaction.
That's a big thing, and should be celebrated! The needle moves slowly, but it does move!
He's actually been exactly as you would wish for, in a person who doesn't really agree with you. Consider what it must take to stay calm and polite while reading these kinds of threads about you in a forum you're new to. I think that character model is ludicrous and problematic, but I can't fault his behavior in response to criticism.
I'm sorry, but this lynch mob behavior is not ok. If you want to pay anything more than lip service to the idea of educating people, you have to give them more than 4 fucking days to radically change their worldview.
There are limits, and as you can see @Jelligeth started to make those more concrete for us.
Your opinion and views questioning whether or not someone deserves to be punished for polite bigotry was addressed thusly: By "you" i mean the collective "you" that is men who do not acknowledge that they have no authority on a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Again, calm down, nobody wants to start going trigger happy banning people. If you think this is the case then you are the one who has misinterpreted.
I was simply reminding those who are reading this forum that that as women, our experience of institutionalized sexism is not a fanciful opinion, and the fact that Pierre believed that it is, was itself the bigotry in question. When I talk about male entitlement, I am taking about men who take it upon themselves to reprimand women for misinterpreting whether or not a female character is portrayed in a sexist way. Unless you were trying to tell me why that character was not sexist, that needn't even apply to you.
This isn't about you or me, this is about people who are going to create sexist material in the future, and who believe that the harmful effects of sexism in gaming is a debatable opinion, and when people try to tell them that it's not, we get responses like "sjw's are oppressing me". No, being reprimanded for encouraging the harm and discrimination against others is not being oppressed. Accept the criticism, do some easy research, and learn from it.
Should we punish them? Not immediately, no. But at some point it really becomes very impractical to have discussions like this every single time someone posts something sexist, especially because this research exists everywhere. That's why it's great that we're potentially creating some guidelines for future reference due to what has happened in the past four days.
So can we do this now?
That said, I don't think that there are going to be hard and fast rules for content to be evaluated against that you or I (or any random dude) is going to be able to apply to something and just like, KNOW it's sexism status. So how about the rule is this: If someone tells you something is sexist, especially if that person understands sexism better than you do, listen and accept that it is. That's really it - so I hope that explains my misgivings about the whole "situation A" thing.
Dono if a random dude that can't even apply hard and fast rules that discourages sexism would have no problem with being told anything by a woman though.
Maybe a bit of both.
I agree that the rules shouldn't be hard and fast with no room for interpretation, but if everyone with experience and authority on this issue is being contested on their evaluation, then step 2, point them at the rules. On the one hand, this devalues the authority of the women themselves, but perhaps establishing that there is a culture of female relevance in this community to a person that is disinclined to listen to a woman in person may remind him that we exist in the rules too.
Since there is clearly still a misunderstanding, I would once again urge you to reread what I've posted and, if there is some confusion, ask me what I meant. Not sure who exactly you're addressing here, because I've not seen anyone on this forum claim they have authority over a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist.
Another misunderstanding, perhaps. There seem to be many in this thread.
My argument is not about being on a slippery slope.
You cannot eradicate the problem. Its human nature. All you can do is be the change you want to see... not force it down peoples throats.
My response: "Whether or not that character," ie piece of media, "or any specifically female character created by men, is sexist, is not up to men to debate," ie politely disagree or not be convinced by our arguments".
You also ask whether someone (in this context a guy) politely disagreeing with you (in this context a woman) about whether media (ie his character) is sexist warrants a warning.
My response: Yes it does. I did not say immediately. I did not say ban him. I said politeness does not excuse bigotry if feedback regarding sexism is blatantly ignored.
Pierre did not blatantly ignore feedback.
But in the future, no matter how polite they are being, if someone does, then we need so consider repercussions.
This is why it is a "collective "you"'. And Pierre did do this because he believed that our (women/sjws) claim that hypersexualised characters (like his) contributes to harmful and sexist culture is just an opinion, nope it's actual fact, also he has no authority on this.
Where do you think I have misinterpreted?
Suppressing sexual exploitation does not = suppressing violence, language or religion.
But yeah, if were proven that gratuitous language or violence in games genuinely hurts people in real life, then they do need to be suppressed. But so far it has been proven that it doesn't, so they don't.
However, sexual exploitation does, so it does.
Rule number 1:
Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is from and about a demographic to which you don't belong, or situation that you have not experienced.
Then if that and all else fails,
- Avoid exploiting gratuitous female sexuality for personal gain or pleasure.
- Avoid enforcing behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex or gender.
- Don't emphasize the sexuality of a characters clothes, genitalia, or appearance if you wouldn't devote the exact same amount of attention and exposure to a character of any other gender.
- Avoid negative or degrading comments on the role and nature of women (can be extended to men, minority or disadvantaged groups, and children). Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body, and similar modes of portrayal should not be degrading. Degrading being: causing a loss of self-respect or status.
- Use empathy in the design of characters and stories. Would you like to be portrayed, or viewed this way by a stranger?
- Create a realistic diversity in the representation of women, in terms of personality, ability, appearance, size or dress sense. (Especially in the event that there are multiple characters).
- Don't deliberately champion the mistreatment of women.
And as for repercussions,
1. Alert someone (ideally a woman, otherwise someone you trust will be fair in their assessment) who has authority on the subject to evaluate the situation and supply initial feedback.
2. Don't deliberately ignore or avoid potentially problematic content if you are unsure, or just to be polite.
3. Accept that someone's personal taste is unlikely to change, even if they agree to change their content. As long as they understand why or how it was harmful, and why personal taste does not trump actual damage. Note, this is where we would have stopped with Pierre.
4. If the person in question refuses to accept valid criticism, or struggles to understand why the criticism is valid, supply them with the above (or further refined) guidelines.
5. If they continue to insist that their opinion or personal preference is more important than changing or removing content that is harmful to women, or in any case marginalized, disadvantaged or oppressed groups, then proceed to hang the basturd. No I'm joking I promise.
If a fellow really won't listen despite all 4 steps, and days of discussion, what do you guys propose should be done?
WARNING: LINKED IMAGES MAY OFFEND SOME READERS
1) If Blazin' Aces was introduced for the first time under this regime, with it's current logo (http://goo.gl/BpneYC), which was critiqued as sexist, and the creator still decided to keep the logo. What would the consequences be for the creator, and would they be able to continue posting about the game.
2) If the original Mortal Kombat (http://goo.gl/rDxGUA) was introduced here (unlikely but useful as a thought exercise) with it's incredible level of gore and arguable masogyny. Once again despite critique from the forum, the creator decided to stay the course. What happens to them and posting on this forum?
3) Same as a above, but for Mortal Kombat X. (http://goo.gl/tLfRP8)
4) Moving away from purely sexist content, what about a game akin to The Spear (http://goo.gl/nLmzOg) which is arguably offensive to many people, but also has an important message. What are the consequences for the creator and will they be able to continue posting about their game.
I don't think the issue we are trying to mitigate here is people being offended. I mean, I don't think we are trying to create a "nice" place where no one get's mad or upset or dissatisfied with things that they see. There are certainly things that have been on here that I have found offensive, but I realized it was my problem alone. So even though I felt offended it wasn't a problem of the content, it was my own problem. Things can(and sometimes should) be offensive. What we should try to "manage" is content that is harmful. Whatever the rules are or how we enforce them, it should keep this goal in mind. That's what I feel about it anyway. I have no idea how we agree on what is actually harmful and what is not though, but I assume we'll handle it on a case per case basis with the committee having the last say.
I'm sorry that I didn't actually address the questions you asked, but hopefully the post wasn't completely useless. :)
Paper / rock / scissors?
***EDIT*** Nevermind, I found the answer! :)