That's a pretty unfair straw man, Soren. I meant the middle ground between the "we hate Anita Sarkeesian" dross and the Weeping Graysons. What makes you think I don't want to make gaming inclusive?
Right now, in terms of how women are portrayed and how games are made, I think it's a pretty darn inclusive form of entertainment, arguably more so than comic books ever were. It can certainly be better. But overall, I think it's pretty good, and that there's a lot to be celebrated. That was the point of this piece.
But it's a shame the conversation about making it better has to be so charged by such angry people on either side. And I'm disappointed you'd stoop to the accusation that I'm somehow defending a "smelly boys' club". Do you not read the stuff I write on this site?
Can't we agree to hate Anita Sarkeesian AND be supportive of genuine efforts to promote gender equality and positive roles for female characters in games?
Yeah, I am a huge advocate for Tom's regular game writing, but every time he's tried to engage feminism in games, he comes off as myopic and reactionary. I really don't get the point of a piece satirizing another writer who is, at his absolute worst, a little pearl-clutching in how he reacts to the tacit dismissal of sexism in games by the richest developer on the planet.
What on Earth is the point of painting caricatures of well-intentioned people with whom, by your own admission, you mostly agree, just to say, "Come on, things aren't really that bad"? Isn't that missing the forest for the trees?
I think, and you're welcome to disagree with me, that the increased possibility of developers like Dustin Browder being asked uncomfortable questions by journalists like Nathan Grayson does prompt them at least to think about the answers, so I'd guess there's more effect than "zero," which seems to be what you're implying.
Browder's a bad example, of course, because he clearly has never thought about the answers and appears quite hostile to the questions themselves.
Simply the progressive agenda tends to avoid reality in the first place, it tends to interfere with their thinly veiled desire for authoritarian absolute control in the guise of equality when actual equality is the furthest thing on their minds to begin with.
1. Yes, I do. 2. When a the only option a woman has for playing a female character in a game is to play a half-dressed caricature designed to look sexy to boys who don't seem to know what real women look like, that's very much part of the bullshit women have to deal with if they want to be gamers. And that's what the RPS article that everyone assumes you're responding to here was calling out.
She may have left an impression but she is not a strong female character. She's hardly a character at all really. She was never anything but a tool in the conflict between Booker and Comstock.
Tom, the question to Blizzard was why can't there be a diversity of female characters in HotS, so women aren't just seen as sex pots (though I know that's a major reason you value them, and that's fine.)
On asking wither diverse female characters, the RPS interviewer was shot down and called "political." The room turned hostile and he was mocked. It appears you think that action was appropriate because video games have come a long way in representing women? This is so odd. The article was about an attitude we encounter where people won't consider sexism. Do you think because the situation MAY be improving, that we should stop talking about it?
I for one appreciate it when Tom takes other game outlets to task. Whether it's Polygon's 'living' rating system or RPS's self righteous preening, Tom always frames his criticism in interesting ways.
I'd like to think that you don't want to defend the smelly boys club, but you also say there’s comfortable middle ground between the Anita Sarkesian Rape Threat Brigade that wants to Get Rid Of Slimy girlS, and the Weeping Grayson that wants everyone to be let in, or maybe just consider how the people who aren’t dudes parse their character designs.
I don’t see how you can equivocate between those things.
Where it comes to sentiment, I’m squarely in camp grow the fuck up and let other people in, but even if we’re just talking about how they express that sentiment? If I’m going to pick a place in the middle where I’ll feel good standing between harassment and rape threats and Grayson’s weeping, I’m going to wind up so close I’ll be able to reach over and give the fellow a comforting pat on the back.
That Film Crit Hulk article posted elsewhere in the thread has a pretty relevant paragraph:
"Think about it for a second. Think about every single argument you see in real life or on facebook or twitter or some shit. Think about all the popular conversations happening around us in regards to this issue. Isn't it weird how they always, always seem to get derailed? Sometimes it gets stonewalled by someone who disagrees fervently and defensively. Sometimes it's someone who diverts the argument to another seemingly irrelevant part of the situation. But more often than not, the conversation just get brought to this weird place of mitigation. A place where someone discussing it is trying to find the gray area of the situation no matter what. It seems to be a natural inclination with this conversation. To be fair, hulk sees this in kind of argumentation pop up in a lot of places. It's the earlier "devil's advocate" thinking, made devastatingly real. But hulk wants you to think about the effect of this mitigation. By doing nothing but poking holes in the thing that you supposedly agree with, are you really even helping it? You may think you are, but are you actually helping change people's minds on the issue? Are you helping fix the obvious problem at hand? Or you just allowing others to keep thinking it's not as much of a problem?"
I'll never understand this recent social justice fad in gaming journalism. Does RPS think women are going to flock to competitive strategy games if they make the girls ugly? Do they think women are getting raped in real life because of how "sexy" (OH DAYUM DEM ROLLERBLADES UNFH UNFH) some of these characters are? Do they think every single female finds these designs disgusting, and not a single one finds them cool or interesting?
Or are they just another struggling video game journalism site trying to get by on clickbait articles?
Well, hopefully they'll run out of interviewees to piss off soon.
1. So why haven't you turned yourself in for playing video games? You're a serial killer in the making. 2. Part of the bullshit YOU have to deal with. You are not the official Ambassador of Women. There are lots of girls who enjoy the designs - check out Tumblr or any cosplay convention.
