Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite :: Page 19

Forum » General Discussion » Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite 305 posts - page 19 of 31

wrote:

Look past the ********, man, to see what he really means.

How would a sane person respond to our sources? "Oh, they have PHDs, that's as good as it can get." Or something along those lines.

Here is what Zanestorm is really saying: "PHDs aren't automatically correct, so I'm going to try to discredit your source as much as I can by emphasizing this fact."

Like it or not, PHDs are as good as most people can get. The only reason why he even mentions it is to try to weaken us.

Do you know why I keep saying to ignore him? Because he's trying to destroy this very discussion.

What he just said about PHDs applies to EVERYONE. Do you get the implications of this?

If Zanestorm brings a source, I can say that PHDs don't mean it's correct.

If someone else brings a source, I can say PHDs don't mean it's correct.

Zanestorm, inadvertently or not, is in the process of creating a thread where argument is impossible since you could just say the other guy's source is invalid. After all, if a PHD isn't good enough, what is?

He isn't destroying the discussion, he is furthering his argument by pointing out weaknesses in your sources, which is a PERFECTLY normal, healthy, and strong debating tactic.

Not that a source written by a PHD is a weak source, but he is simply trying to point out that doesn't make your source the word of god. He's not entirely invalidating it, he's just saying he can still critique your source, even though it was written by someone with a PHD.

As for the misquoting thing, you still did it. You can't quote what somebody implied.

Thanks to Ferrum for making the sig pic! He's beast af people.
IGN: BestJanusNA
What I'm listening to right now: Derp -Bassjackers

Prominent (40)
Posts: 807
View My Blog

The entire reason why internet discussions work is because we're all shielded under anonymity. We can all claim things, and for the sake of discussion, we either assume they're true, take it as an assertion, or question it.

How do we question assertions? We go deeper, find sources, present evidence, pictures, etc. In a discussion of social issues, assertions, and proper discussion of assertions, are everything.

The problem is when the metadiscussions are impossible. Without them, there can be no progress. The thread will stagnate into a constant back and forth of: I don't believe you! Your source is invalid! You're making it up! You're biased! You're wrong! No, you're wrong! Shut up! You're an idiot! You're a simpleton! My source is less biased than yours!

Zanestorm, instead of backing up his words with his own sources, is criticizing OUR sources. If people take his accusations at face value, the thread will end up in the dismal state presented above.

Here are the facts. We've presented our sources, and you can take them as you wish.

Zanestorm has yet to provide any sources for his own arguments, and his only real "source" is trying to establish that appeals to authority exist - to try to discredit our own sources. Oh, and we know that appeal to authority is a thing.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

I don't believe you! Your source is invalid! You're making it up! You're biased! You're wrong! No, you're wrong! Shut up! You're an idiot! You're a simpleton! My source is less biased than yours!

Sub, listen. When you're arguing about something that is PURELY AN OPINION, discussions can't really get more than that.

Thanks to Ferrum for making the sig pic! He's beast af people.
IGN: BestJanusNA
What I'm listening to right now: Derp -Bassjackers

Prominent (40)
Posts: 807
View My Blog

I have to leave soon for a bit, and I won't be back in a while, so I'll leave with this.

Zanestorm is repeatedly trying to discredit me, instead of crediting himself. This is his main form of argument, now that I demolished his original post.

The past five pages of the thread have been about Zanestorm and his stupid comment, and how he keeps criticizing our sources instead of finding his own. It's an established fact that he can't back up his claims - claims like how Internalization isn't a thing, how there isn't a link between culture and video games, etc. The mere fact that there are studies saying otherwise, is proof that they exist.

We, for the sake of the thread and healthy discussion, should just assume, like a reasonable person, that we've proved our arguments well enough. With ****ing PHD-credited sources.

And, for the sake of not being stuck in a hellish loop of stupidity, we should ignore Zanestorm's insults and insistence that whatever we do isn't good enough.

So, let's either analyze Nurisea's comment, my analysis and reply to it, or wait for Levask or someone else to butt in.

And for the love of God, let's move on from this.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

If your sources are invalid then your argument is also invalid. By extension, nothing you've said would be anything other than pure rhetoric. You're absolutely correct - I'm not taking your claims as true - I'm questioning them by "going deeper." That is to say, by reading what you've cited, and reading the citations of the single academic author you cited, to gauge whether or not what THEY have said is valid. That is what academics do when arguing with each other. Someone makes an unfounded claim > Request a source > The source is provided > Analyse the source. If the source is valid, discuss it further. If it isn't, point out why [which is what I did pretty darn extensively.]

In any discussion in which you make claims with vast and severe implications, your sources are everything. Your sources thus far have been Wikipedia, Various feminist and news sites, and a single academic work that I read, took issue with on an academic level and debunked. Most of your sources weren't even related to proving video-games cause real-world sexism, either.

My accusation is that alot of what you've said has no factual basis. You lack sources proving what you've claimed, so that accusation is fair. Either provide academic sources that support your argument that sexualisation of pixels in Smite cause real-world sexism and meet general academic convention, or edit your post and conclusion accordingly and stipulate that the entire thing is an opinion piece with no necessity to take any action. Those are the rational choices you have - back up your claims or retract them entirely.

For the record, when assessing a source one does not focus on the academic qualifications of the author. It is not important. You can have no academic qualifications and make an astounding point, or you can be the most qualified person on Earth and make an awful article. You actually read the source - and most importantly - the authors citations - to assess whether the article is valid or invalid.

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

wrote:

Sub, listen. When you're arguing about something that is PURELY AN OPINION, discussions can't really get more than that.

Then how do internet discussions work at all? How did this thread work at all, until Zanestorm came? Was my OP invalid, too? Was it "just opinion?"

Opinion can be rooted into facts, and that's how assertions become established: we back them up. That's the core of a healthy discussion: we turn opinions into not-opinions with support, and then we move on. That is progress.

If you want to give up, whatever. Your decision.

I'm not going to let this thread die.

Zane says that Internalization isn't a thing - I point out, not a Wikipedia article saying it exists, but the actual wikipedia article on Internalization.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

I never said internalization isn't a thing - I SAID IT WAS! You're doing the thing where you lie again. I already said culture and video games have crossover - again you've lied.

Edit: Proof that you're lying: (Page 16 of the thread, second post down.)

wrote:

Can culture affect us severely in some sub-conscious way? Maybe. It would be incredibly difficult to measure or find evidence for. Propaganda is a pretty extreme example, comparative to a video game with no political message. Is gaming culture entire separate from other culture(s) - no. They have their cross-overs. But they also have their key differences. One being that games don't reflect actions to be taken in reality.

Internalized sexism is possible. Is it widespread? I doubt it. Similar to internalized homophobia. Is it related to whether or not Smite causes real-world sexism? I don't think it is, but you may disagree.

The fact that studies exist mean nothing - it's whether or not the study is valid, meets academic standards and has a strong argument that holds to scrutiny that actually matters.

I'm not trying to credit myself. You've made an argument and asserted it as the truth, demanding action. I've undermined it, because you have no right to demand action on what boils down to an opinion. You have not proved that there is ANY link between sexualisation and sexism, let alone sexualisation in video-games causing real-world sexism.

Just because the sources were crafted by people with PHD'S that does not mean they are valid, as I aptly proved in my analysis of your source. You're STILL appealing to the authority of the author, rather than the content of the source.

I'm the one being offensive and insulting? And we should just ignore very valid critiques of what you've said, just because you cannot find anyway to contest my points validly?

I already analysized Nurisea's comment, but very little - if any of it - was about Smite or video-game sexualisation causing real-world sexism, which is what the OP suggests is true.

I'd love to move on. Provide valid sources for your claims, or retract your claims, and we can then have a discussion on either the sources you've provided or your opinion piece if that's what you decide to call it after retracting your un-sourced claims.

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

As Genocide says, let's get back on track and talk about a REAL comment(s).

wrote:

Damn, I've got a lot to say. Give me some black coffee and an hour.

edit::

First of all -

This problem is bigger than Smite. It is ingrained into society - the sexualization of women and the fact that that sexuality specifically has to be for heterosexual men. By combating the little problems in the grander picture (i.e. Smite), we're moving forward. By ignoring them we're ignoring the issue as a whole and

The sexualization of men - i.e. Magic Mike, etc, is a moot point. Men aren't overtly sexualized for women. Men are overtly sexualized for men. And when I say this, it's not in a 'omg totally gay' way. It's in a 'due to the patriarchial views of society supported by men and upheld by men, men generally sexualize themselves in a way that makes them feel more powerful, more muscular.'

The first magazine is targeted at men. Hypersexualized, right? Abs, shirtless, the whole kablooey. The second is targeted more generally, though mostly at women. Regular guy in a regular t shirt that will cook you food. The biggest sexualizers of men are men. Is that to say women don't do it? No. But women don't view men the same way men view men.

And I want to take this time to veer away from the topic of Smite exlusively because I know I'm going to get angry messages about 'I've never done that! You're stereotyping me because I'm a man!' I never said you did. I said the male dominated and driven society does. This isn't personal - it's much bigger than you.

Missrepresentation is a great documentary on Netflix on the representation of women in media. I think it would do you a lot of good to watch it and I urge you to do so.

By disregarding Smite's problematic character designs, you're disregarding the opportunity to make a change.

I'm super cold and also super sleepy, so I'll add more tomorrow. But I urge you all to do more research into how rampant oversexualization of women is - and how our own sexuality is taken away from us to be used as a bargaining chip for capitalistic gains. But more than anything, I want you to look at what I've said and either say a) I'm going to disagree with her and bring up valid points I have researched and lived or b) totally agree with her and be happy someone is describing what I feel. This isn't a personal attack and if you take it as one as a man it's because you've completely missed my entire point.

If the blatant double standards of Smite is on your mind less than Ao Kuang's build, you should probably ask yourself why the bombardment of unrealistic standards set on women aren't very important to you.

wrote:

What the hell is this Sarkeesian ********?

Really? Patriarchy? Capitalistic gains?

I'll ****ing tell you why the "blatant double standards of Smite" aren't on our mind as much as what to build Ao Kuang, because some of us JUST WANT TO PLAY THE ******** GAME.

Your post is condescending, pretentious, and filled with fourth wave Feminist Theory, and if you actually think you're going to persuade anyone you're right with your "patriarchy" ********, you're absolutely wrong.

I apologize up front for the harshness, but I have a very strong opinion about feminists in video games.

Dacoqrs, no offense, but nurisea is right.

Firstly, she has a point about the whole paying attention to the game vs message thing. I mean, it's easy to just glance over it, isn't it? Raising awareness and making people confront, rather than avoid, the messages in this game was part of the reason why I made this, after all. (And I repeat: I wrote my first argument with TT about this way, way, way back when I was a die hard Smite fan trying to get into Platinum while writing tons of guides. If I can notice it, so can you.)

Like, I get that you're trying to speak for the people who don't notice it, but really, reexamine those you're trying to defend. Is it really...good (not talking about accountability) that they ignore it? I said myself that the general apathy is part of the problem.

Second, your knee-jerk reaction to her post should be toned down. Insulting someone because you were angry at the contents of their post is like the inverse of ad hominem. You seem to think that there's no real basis to her words, so I'll go over them.

wrote:

The biggest sexualizers of men are men. Is that to say women don't do it? No. But women don't view men the same way men view men.

This is frankly true.

When we see men sexualized (over or not), we usually see them doing something badass or cool or awesome. We see this all the time in shows like Supernatural, shirtless scenes in movies, etc. Yeah, they're sexualized, but they're sexualized in a way that emphasizes their power, their strength, their badassery, etc.

When we see women sexualized, well...ironically, this is the exact opposite problem as the overseuxalization in Smite: The diversity is a problem. (Actually, inverse would be better than opposite.)

Some sexualized women are shown as intimidating. Some are shown as weak, some are shown as homely, some are shown as artificial, some are shown as disgusting, some are shown as beautiful. Blah blah blah, yeah. Men are just shown as dominant or powerful, most of the time.

Now, let's me ask you a question: Why aren't men's sexualization equally diverse? My theory is based on the fact that men, sadly, compose the majority of producers and directors of Hollywood and other media. And so, I say, when we see women, it's usually to fulfill one specific fetish, or rarely (getting more common, true), shown to be just as awesome as men are. And for the other part, frankly, men want to be seen as powerful and cool and all that jazz, so since they're the majority, they get to pick and choose most of the time.

When have you last seen a man doing some kind of sexual act to debase himself or otherwise show how weak he is? When men make advances, they'll usually thawing the Ice Queen (Avatar) or doing it in the name of good (James Bond) or just, you know, "being men." (Iron Man)

When you usually see a women in relation to sex, she's seducing someone as an antagonist (Sin City), being seduced (Witcher), being seduced for her own good (Mass Effect) (oh, and being seduced is the only way, naturally), or frankly, being seen as unfaithful or wrong (Assassin's Creed), or DEAD (The Disposable Prostitute/Death by Sex Trope). There are a lot of tropes about this.

wrote:

By disregarding Smite's problematic character designs, you're disregarding the opportunity to make a change.

Especially when it's the only opportunity to change.

I'll say this as support: Culture, and by extension Video Game Culture, only changes when people actively go for it. Not just in feminism, like the tons of examples I showed in my reply to Zanestorm, but for things like racism (Just look up Punch-Out!!), music (ELECTRONIC and weird choruses versus the good old fashioned poppy beats), etc etc.

The more serious the issue, generally speaking, the more active-ness is needed to change. Things like music or art direction (like that weird cel-shading movement, or that weird fascination with retro everything) can usually happen by itself (or a groundbreaking game being followed). But for bigger issues, you need a bigger push to break the cycle, to recycle a metaphor.

Sexism in gaming is a big enough issue where multiple Feminist movements STILL haven't stopped the oversexualization or double standards in gaming. It's a big issue. Maybe not the biggest, but not the smallest, and I pray to god, Dacoqrs, that you won't be like Zanestorm and say it's a small issue that isn't a problem.

wrote:

our own sexuality is taken away from us to be used as a bargaining chip for capitalistic gains

How are you disputing this?

It's as simple as "sex sells" and "women don't have much control over many artistic industries."

Yeah, sometimes "sex sells" is used with men, but it's done with women way more often, and there's a difference between men's and women's sexualization, as explained above.

wrote:

I want you to look at what I've said and either say a) I'm going to disagree with her and bring up valid points I have researched and lived or b) totally agree with her and be happy someone is describing what I feel. This isn't a personal attack and if you take it as one as a man it's because you've completely missed my entire point.

I don't see any valid points. The only point was accusing her of being a pretentious arrogant condescending femnazi. I don't care if the last term wasn't exactly what you said, it was clearly what you meant, or something close to it.

You scoff at the idea of a "patriarchy." You know that the definition of an anything-archy is what rules something? Frankly, there are more men in any form of media-dispensing thing than women in pretty much everything, which means, yes, men are mostly in control of our media. But the problem is is that "mostly-patriarchy" doesn't sound good, and "patriarchy" isn't 100% accurate.

Maybe even the word "control" isn't accurate. Maybe it is. Whatever.

The POINT is that yes, there is a patriarchy. Just look past the dramatic-sounding title to see what the word fundamentally means.

If you don't believe me, just google how many writers/scriptwriters/artists/directors/etc are women, percent-wise. The numbers don't lie. And please, don't say something like "women get more influence over men, so the actual balance is more even than you think."

Oh, and: In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy is fluid and loosely defined. It's also known to be called sexism or misogyny.

wrote:

If the blatant double standards of Smite is on your mind less than Ao Kuang's build, you should probably ask yourself why the bombardment of unrealistic standards set on women aren't very important to you.

That is a good question.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

Sub, you already posted that.

Thanks to Ferrum for making the sig pic! He's beast af people.
IGN: BestJanusNA
What I'm listening to right now: Derp -Bassjackers

Prominent (40)
Posts: 807
View My Blog

I am utterly pissed off at this guy. Do you know what he just said to me? Am I the only one on this entire forum who can see through his ********?

wrote:

The fact that studies exist mean nothing - it's whether or not the study is valid, meets academic standards and has a strong argument that holds to scrutiny that actually matters.

So, in other words, you're calling studies from PHDs to be worthless.

wrote:

I'm not trying to credit myself.

Remember this?

wrote:

I'm a genuine Eclectic Pagan, so I know one hell of a lot more than most people about Ancient Gods and Goddesses. I'm also an undergraduate History student that studies Modern and Ancient History, as well as some Archaeology topics [specifically Religion and Ritual.]

Shut. Your. Mouth.

wrote:

You've made an argument and asserted it as the truth, demanding action. I've undermined it, because you have no right to demand action on what boils down to an opinion. You have not proved that there is ANY link between sexualisation and sexism, let alone sexualisation in video-games causing real-world sexism.

So in other words, my sources aren't good enough. PHDs aren't good enough.

wrote:

Just because the sources were crafted by people with PHD'S that does not mean they are valid, as I aptly proved in my analysis of your source. You're STILL appealing to the authority of the author, rather than the content of the source.

Here's the funny part.

According to Zanestorm, I DIDN'T prove my point with studies from PHDs.

According to Zanestorm, Zanestorm DISPROVED my studies because he's that special and his analysis is so good.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

After all of his comments about bias, Zanestorm says that his opinion, with no sources, is more valid than my own actual sources.

wrote:

I'm the one being offensive and insulting? And we should just ignore very valid critiques of what you've said, just because you cannot find anyway to contest my points validly?

I already analysized Nurisea's comment, but very little - if any of it - was about Smite or video-game sexualisation causing real-world sexism, which is what the OP suggests is true.

I'd love to move on. Provide valid sources for your claims, or retract your claims, and we can then have a discussion on either the sources you've provided or your opinion piece if that's what you decide to call it after retracting your un-sourced claims.

So, in other words, sources with PHDs are useless.

Guys. I hate having to analyze his ******** point by point, so I'll make it real simple.

Zanestorm said my entire post was worthless because my source isn't good enough. Because PHDs aren't good enough, said the supposed student of religion and rituals.

Zanestorm called my entire post worthless, because my sources aren't valid, because PHDs aren't good enough.

I'll point this out again. If PHDs aren't good enough, what is? And who the **** are you to question PHDs? Are you God?

The thing Zanestorm wants to avoid, is that I ALREADY PROVED MY POINT. ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN SEE THAT.

And that Zanestorm CAN'T DISPROVE IT. So instead of supporting his own point, he just keeps screaming, "YOUR SOURCE IS INVALID! YOUR SOURCE IS INVALID! BIAS! BIAS!"

Why are you people even supporting him? I repeat: He says that my sources, and Nex's, and Chuilin's, are all worthless. Because even PHDs aren't good enough.

Meanwhile, he sits back and says that he doesn't have to prove anything, because he already proved that my sources are worthless. Because he's so smart and gay and talented and a genuine pagan.

Dacoqrs. Be honest, here. Be honest and ****ing say that I'm better than him. I want you to ****ing say it.

I'm tired of this guy's ********, I'm tired of all the HATE SUB YOU TOXIC **** YOU ********, I'm tired of how none of my haters complained about Zanestorm's insults or said it was out of line like they do to me, I'm tired of how Dacoqrs ****ing said I was just like him only with more insults, and I'm ****ing tired of Zanestorm being on this ****ing thread and repeating the same ******** over and over and how no one else can see through it, or even tries.

I'm am so ****ing tired of this site. You know that? I'm just so tired of how I can't say one "idiot" before people call me a toxic homophobic bastard (TT got your report, *******). I'm tired of being mobbed every ****ing time I make my point. I'm tired of how any point against me gives the guy five ****ing rep! I'm tired of how no matter how calm I am, how polite I am, how thorough I am, how much I'm patient, how much I do things one step at a time, piece by piece, collecting my arguments, dissecting Zanestorm's argument...

People like Zanestorm and HolyPudding and _angrytoast and all those ****s just judge me without even reading it. I spend hours on this ****ing thread, and in the end, one idiot blathers on with pure ********, judging me, and all of my haters instantly snap on and say, GIVE THIS GUY A REP! AHAHAHAHA HE COUNTERED AND DESTROYED AND RUINED YOUR ARGUMENT! YOU SUCK SUB! **** YOU SUB! GO DIE IN A FIRE SUB!

AND THE WORST PART IS, THEY DON'T EVEN READ ZANESTORM'S POST! They either hate me so much that they say he destroyed my argument without even ****ing reading it, or they honestly think his mound of **** destroyed by argument.

I'm ****ing tired! **** you! I have the right to say it, too! **** you all! **** you all who just blindly hate me, or are too intimidated to prideful to say how Zane's spewing ****!

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite

Thread Locked

SmiteFire & Smite

Smite 2 Gods

Smite 1 Gods