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

Zanestorm has said repeatedly that he has never made a claim. I've proven otherwise, and he has over thirty claims so far, with me skipping over many.

However, I'm going to show a claim that has been overlooked, a claim which no one has questioned him for. A claim which he has used and abused countless times, a claim that is so absurd, it should have been brought to light before.

Claim #0!: I have the right to pass judgement over any body of work, regardless of the author, his or her credentials, or his/her peers who reviewed his work, for I can see flaws where no one else can, because he is a student of history and religion, etc and is just that special. And everything I say is so obvious, it needs no proof.

Zanestorm has said over and over and over that this source is flawed, that this source is flawed, but how do you even know he's not making it up as you speak? You don't!

Unless you've read the sources like I have. Unless you've done your homework, like I have.

And I can tell you that Zanestorm is a liar.

[size=5Final Counterclaim: Zanestorm does not have a right to pass judgement over anything, because he, like the rest of us, is unqualified to do anything, and should not be acting as if he knows better than anyone else, especially when talking about sources, which he has yet to present. He is also a liar, who has lied in the past about his and our sources, as well as about the "academic principles" he supposedly holds dear.[/size]

In addition, he tries to intimidate the audience with massive text walls and so much bluster, instead of arguing like a rational person, in addition to these lies. Instead of presenting sources of his own to verify his claims, he constantly says that he doesn't need to, because either what he's saying is so obvious, or that everything we say is so ludicrous.

Proof: This entire report. Which is why I put this part here first.

Let's start with the beginning. With my original post.

Listen. My thread is really simple. It claims a few crucial points. I will list them.

1: Women are oversexualized more than men in Smite and other media.

2: Women are subject to double standards in Smite and other media.

3: Women are stereotyped in Smite and other media.

4: Other MOBAs don't do as badly as Smite in these points.

5: Nothing justifies this hypocritical oversexualization.

6: There is a link between culture and video games.

7: People internalize these bad ideas, linking this video game to real-life sexism. Or in other words, the link goes both ways.

8: Acceptance of these points only perpetuates the problem.

My thread is really, again, quite simple.

First point? I don't think I need to prove it. Isn't it self-evident?

Second point? I proved this with how I explained it's hypocritical to dress women skimpy for whatever reason, without doing it to men for the exact same reason. Aka, I showed the presence of a double-standard, which really should be self-evident.

Third point? Did I not make a list?

Fourth point? I gave multiple examples from League of Legends. I can give examples from Dawngate, Heroes of the Storm, etc.

Fifth point? This is divided into multiple sub-points, and this is where I fear I may not have thoroughly proved my point. But I did, for the most part, at least. From talking about how male gods were nude in lore, to how beauty doesn't have to mean nudity, to how no matter who you are, no one has to be a stripper, to comparing levels of sexualization, to finding fault with the attitude of Sex Sells being unacceptable. I think I proved my point enough here.

Sixth point. Remember the examples I gave about Superman? And Blizzard? And Disney movies? I think I proved it enough.

Seventh point is the most controversial. I can prove that culture affects video games, but does it affect culture back?

I gave multiple links relating to Internalization. Nex the Slayer and Chiulin also gave their own links, I think. There were even links to studies done by actual doctors. There are MORE links, that haven't yet been posted, in this report. See section 1E for more.

My Eighth and final point, I admit, has no true evidence. But it's a simple leap of logic, that I think is understandable, if not agreeable.

A video game developer, for whatever reason, creates a game where women aren't being fairly represented. Most often, it's because doing so increases sales, and that's indisputable.

The people who play these games, for the most part, do not complain or address the issue. They are apathetic to it. I already proved that these issues exist, and I think everyone agrees that most people aren't doing much about it. They certainly CAN raise it as an issue - game reviews do exist, and some gamers like I do raise a fuss about it. But most people don't.

The developer sees this, and thinks all is well. He may also not like how sexist the game is, but it doesn't matter - it will continue because it has no negative consequence and it brings in money.

Other developers see this and follow the examples set. They don't have to be sexist themselves, they just have to think that everyone else is, since they buy more of these sexist games without complaint - sex sells is a fact of life, sadly. And the cycle continues.

And that is the logic behind my eight point. My support is how sexist games exist and do well, how game reviews exist without a mention of said sexism, how it keeps on happening with no end in sight, and how reluctant people are to mention it, and how any mention of it usually triggers a massive backlash a la Gamergate.

Overall, I think people can agree that I've supported my points well with valid evidence, especially after you see this report, and especially compared to Zanestorm.

This, as some of you may know, is Zanestorm's first post in months. And it was to my thread. He edited the post after writing it, but I have preserved it to show you the truth of the matter.



Minus the snark, Zanestorm insulted me in the first section of his post. He also said he was a "Genuine Eclectic Pagan" and how he was an Undergraduate History Student that studied Modern and Ancient History, as well as some Archaeological topics, specifically Religion and Ritual.

Firstly, does anyone realize how implausible this is? He just happened to be hyper-specialized in everything relating to Smite AND the thread.

He also is talking about his background to lend his arguments credibility, instead of, you know, actually providing proof or sources or whatever.

You do not boast about yourself to bolster your arguments, when you should be actually proving them with supporting evidence. Like I have.

He also said later in his post that he was gay, and other statements which I doubt. He has also called me homophobic and anti-religious and other...desecrations.

When I was reading this, I thought this was a load of ********. You never talk about how great you are on the internet, unless you can prove it. We talk about personal rankings on Smitefire because we CAN prove it with our IGNs.

I did not go into this with a positive mindset, but at the same time, I was hoping for some, I don't know, some competition. Someone who actually argued like a champion.

I was disappointed.

Edit: One note: Zanestorm repeatedly claims on how academic and well-read and how smart and clever, etc etc, he is. I disprove him in ways that cast a LOT of doubt on his claims. Specifically, I disprove him on matters that question his "authority," or rather, his supposed competence.



I began to despair almost immediately.

Firstly, this entire point of his can be summed up as him criticizing me for my bias. I point out that everyone is biased, he is also biased, and accusing people of bias does nothing but create a pointless bias war. If we all accused each other of bias to try to discredit their words, then this forum is doomed.

Second, how much of this point states the obvious? "You think women are unfairly represented. You think there's a real world implication of this." This is all a bunch of baloney. He's stating the obvious in an intelligent-sounding manner to sound, well, intelligent. Because he's acting like "Subzero thinks women are unfairly represented in Smite" is some kind of dramatic revelation.

Seriously, look at the amount of unnecessary words he uses. "you implicitly believe..." Yes, I believe what I believe. "Linked to this, you must naturally believe..." Yes, I believe what was implied out of what I said, because I said it. "a strong underlying idealogical bias..." IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND OF BIAS? IDEOLOGY MEANS "A SYSTEM OF IDEAS!"

I made a comment about how I dreaded facing the other psuedo-intellectual, pretentious statements in his posts. I was not disappointed here.

Edit: Looking back, this is another one of those things that seriously makes me sick. He uses the word "ideology" again, in section 8. Also in this post.

Seriously, ideology means a system of ideas, everyone has one, and it's disgusting how he lugs around big words to make himself sound smart.



Claim #1!: Oversexualization happens to both men and women.

I'm not interested in disputing this fact. My point was that women are oversexualized more than men, not that men weren't oversexualized. So I'm letting this one slide - but I'm still noting it for an important tally.



Claim #2!: "Video games are their own culture, in which it is most often explicitly made clear that X video game does not represent reality in any way, even when parallels are drawn." They are, in short, completely unrelated to reality in any way.

Note that he has given no evidence or anything like the sort. When I talked about the link between video games and reality, I explicitly said that Intenalization was a thing, and that you can simply google it to find out if it was.

Right now, Zanestorm is saying that Internalization - a link between video games and reality - does not exist. With no evidence or anything. He later justifies this by...saying that we have to prove it because it's unfounded and crazy, and apparently that's justification enough. Despite us having sources to back us up.

What is more far-fetched: Video games having literally zero connection to reality in any way, or video games planting subtle influences and reinforcing stereotypes as you play them?

Oh, and one more thing. A parallel is a correlation, which indicates a relationship between the two. These parallels between our culture and reality indicate a relationship between subcultures and reality, because that is the definition of a parallel. How is this not obvious?

Counterclaim: There is, in fact, a connection between our media and our culture, including video games.



I repeat myself: I gave multiple examples as evidence, and am prepared to give more, even now. Zanestorm has not. For more on this, see section (1E).



"Reality is obviously different by its nature." This is exactly the kind of psuedo-smarts that I despise. You say obvious statements with flowery language to make yourself sound savvy and sophisticated, when it makes you look like a tool. OMG, reality is different from reality, obviously, that's such a wise statement!


Anyway, Zanestorm keeps on asserting his (unsubstantiated) claim that video games have no link to the real world, again, in contradiction of the evidence I presented. Which is his basis for saying that my real-world examples are "irrelevant."

I proved myself with sources. Zane rants with no proof. Furthermore, he has the gall to say that my examples were a poor place to start, when he has nothing.



What I find interesting is that Zanestorm again repeats himself, saying that men do get some sexism. However, that is not the point of the thread or my argument, and Zanestorm even admits that this spiel is off-topic.

And he blames it on me.

Also, women face oversexualization in Smite, not men. Stop being so self-centered.




You're here because of (1E). The proof is here.


He repeats Claim $2, with no evidence, AGAIN. "Just as video games do not make us violent, they do not make us sexist. They do not affect our reality at all, beyond our own time." In short, video games have literally no connection to real life.

Claim #3!: "There has not been a single statistically valid study that has linked video games to any real-world changes in worldview or perceptions. Unless you have Academic evidence to the contrary, which I can bluntly tell you does not exist, then you cannot implicitly conclude that if X game is sexist, it will perpetuate or lead to sexism in reality."

Actually, this is two claims.

Claim #3.5!: Studies connecting video games to reality do not exist.

So, in short Zanestorm is saying that Video Games have no link to internalization, that video games do not affect reality in any way, and that there are ZERO valid studies on the subject.

Hmm, let's see...

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3007&context=etd
http://videogames.procon.org/sourcefiles/an-examination-of-violence-and-gender-role-portrayals-in-video-games.pdf
http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=mcnair
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/93881

These four links are unique, and have not been posted on the thread before.

It took me ten seconds to find them by googling, "internalization video games study."

https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Mou%20Peng.pdf

That is Chiulin's link.

All of these are from a PHD-credited people, and all of these were published in scientific journals - both sociology and psychology, among others. Which means that all of them were peer-reviewed.

If you're wondering, peer-reviewed means that they were reviewed by their peers. Or in other words, other people with PHDs in the same field. A journal for psychology lets psychologists review it. A journal for sociologists lets sociologists review it. And so on, and so forth. Don't forget that a paper can be, and has in my sources, been published in multiple journals.

The point of peer-reviewed papers, is to validate it. To check over it, see that it is free of mistakes and bias and whatnot, and approve it for publishing. This happens repeatedly, and this system has existed for decades.

More source exist. As we can see from the other links that I and Chiulin presented, Internalization is an established concept supported by decades of research. All of these sources specifically say that humans absorb prejudices through video games - or in other words, the exact opposite of what Zanestorm is saying, which is that there is NO LINK between video games and reality.

I, once again, have proof. Zanestorm, once again, only has his claim that Internalization does not exist, that no valid studies on the subject exist, that ALL of our sources are biased and invalid, and that Smite and other video games cannot lead to real-life sexism. With no proof, again.

Here are more links.
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/internalized-sexism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/why-some-women-are-sexist_b_1342287.html
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/*****-internalized-sexism/
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=791
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism
http://www.prevention.com/mind-body/emotional-health/both-women-and-men-display-attitudes-benevolent-sexism

Yes, wikipedia has its faults. Yes, some of the sites I linked to undoubtedly have some bias. Like everyone does.

But the point is, not the text by itself, but all the sources that support it. All of these links lead to more links, which lead to more links, which link to even more studies, that Internalization exists and is a thing. Also, because despite that Zanestorm might say, he is not the only one on the planet that follows scientific principles, and other people don't just make giant studies without any support - they support their claims with evidence. Even the lowliest blogger to the paragons of science understands this.

They do that because Internalization isn't some theory with no evidence, isn't some kind of conspiracy with no proof, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY A THING IN REAL LIFE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED REPEATEDLY AND THEREFORE CONSIDERED A FACT.

I repeat myself again: Zanestorm is claiming that Internalization does not exist, with no proof or evidence or anything.

Who does he think he is, to have the right to pass judgement on people and sources and works like that? He's a random person on the internet acting like his word is God! He's acting like he's a better analyst than entire scientific journals and communities - no exaggeration, he said that he knows better than the peer review system! That the peer review system, a system that has existed for decades, isn't just flawed (which is a reasonable claim), but that he knows better! He acts he can claim that something is biased, and that everyone should take it at face value! He's even downright LIED to us!

I've conducted an analysis on Zanestorm's analysis of Chiulin's source. You can see this in Zanestorm's Other Reply to Chiulin. This meta-analysis will be quite...revealing.

The funniest part is, Zanestorm gave a link to a list of scientific principles when analyzing a study. It specifically mentions the importance of providing counter-evidence, especially when trying to disprove something.

Zanestorm's own article mentions how he should be finding counter-evidence instead of just saying that I'm wrong, that my studies are bogus, etc.

Guess the one thing he hasn't done.



Me: Backed by over half a dozen sources, wikipedia, and blogs, examples, pictures, etc.

Zanestorm: Backed by literally nothing. Not even a .net page, but literally, nothing.

Internalization is a thing. And if you're denying it, you're in denial, or lying. Funny part is, he was all smug about how there were no sources on the subject, we showed our sources, and then he frantically accuses the sources of being invalid. See section 7.

Lastly, see how many times he used "implicitly" so far. Among "obviously," "reality," "contrary," and "misguided," it is yet another word that Zanestorm repeats to make himself sound more intelligent. Because if he realized what he was saying, he'd realize that "implicit" means implied.

I did not just "imply" that Smite was sexist, or led to real-life consequences. I literally said it. Like I said, Zanestorm is just trying to make himself sound smart, when he isn't.

*pinches nose* (1A)

Firstly, my argument was that Smite oversexualizes its goddesses, period, not just compared to other games. I made an entire section explaining degrees of sexualization. I did compare them to League of Legends, but that was not my main point, and certainly not the main argument. You clearly did not read the OP at all.

Zanestorm's argument is that people can portray gods however they want, because they were portrayed sexually at some point or another, and that makes a sexual portrayal perfectly valid.

That, and that most gods were shapeshifters and can be portrayed as anything the artist wishes.

The fault in this is not just lack of evidence, but a lack of logic.

His first point is countered by how some gods were never sexualized at all, and I support this with evidence, that being how Hera and Artemis and such exist. It's also faulty logic, as anyone can write a story of how Athena has an orgy with her family, but that wouldn't justify sexualizing her, now, would it?

His second point is countered by how his logic would justify portraying them as anything. Obviously, portraying gods as anything is not acceptable.

Finally, I counter both of these by presenting proof of a proper way to portray gods. My proof is the consistent portrayal of gods - Athena is always a woman with a helmet. Ao Kuang is always a dragon-man or a full dragon, in the eastern style. Thor is always a man with a hammer. Some gods are consistently sexualized, like Aphrodite. Some are not, like Artemis.

In any case, this is proof that there is some common standard in portraying gods, and that nothing can justify portraying anyone you want sexually, or in any other manner, as you please.

In short, I countered Zanestorm's points with evidence, while he lacked evidence in the first place. Notice a trend?

Lastly, more artificial intelligence! "Artistically they could be presented as whatever the artist felt the deity represented, which is subjective in nature." Zanestorm is saying that art is subjective, yet another incredibly obvious fact. But instead of saying "art is subjective," he says "artistically they can be drawn as whatever, which is subjective in nature."

Obviously, water is wet in nature. Obviously, your computer is electronic in nature. Do you see how ridiculous his speech is? How affected, how artificial-sounding it is?

Sigh...(1B)

I mocked him here for saying he was gay, because of his repeated attempts to establish himself as an intellectual powerhouse who's entire life built him for this moment.

Notice his wordspam AGAIN?

"Sexualization is subjective in nature." In nature, in nature, in nature...

And one more thing: "TMI: I'm gay, so I don't find any of the female Goddesses to be sexual in nature at all."

One can understand when men are being sexual without being attracted to men. One can notice women being sexual when without being attracted to women.

If you don't find Aphrodite to be sexual "in nature" in at all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, there is something wrong with you. Deeply, deeply wrong with you. EVERYONE can see sexuality in the goddesses. Their almost nudity is kind of a giveaway. Nudity is literally universal sexualization, idiot.

In fact, this raises a question. If Zanestorm truly cannot find any of the women in Smite to be sexual at all, then why the hell is he making judgements in my post about female sexuality? Why is he arguing that this and that is not oversexualized?

So either he is attracted to women, and can understand female sexuality as any other person and he's lying about being gay (being consistent with his own logic), or he just literally made ALL of his posts up. Or he's simply lying about not being able to see how goddesses are sexual. In any case, he's lying about something.

Keep this in mind.



Claim #5!: "You're assuming that all straight males have the exact same preferences and will find each Goddess sexy, which simply isn't true at all. Sexuality and preference is far more diverse than you're presenting it."

He's making a claim that I'm ignoring the ways men see women, and acting like all men are the same in terms of preference. Hello, off topic, much? I'm talking about how women are oversexualized, not how their forms of sexualization cater to every specific fetish.

His claim sounds alright, because obviously, sexuality is diverse. Obvious statement is obvious. But why does he expect me to acknowledge the percentage of men who are turned on by clothes, when we're talking about oversexualized, near-naked women? Yes, sexuality is diverse, but diversity has limits. And off-topic is off-topic.

And it's really ****ing obnoxious when Zanestorm keeps strawmanning my argument to paint me as some sort of tyrannical sex-hating monster.

You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized.

Goddesses in Smite are oversexualized in every way. It's not like one is showing some leg, and one is showing some butt, or something like that. They're all generically sexualized to the point where almost EVERYONE can agree that they're sexy - because that's the entire point of sexualizing them: to cater to men's tastes to get cash.

Do you see how off-base Zanestorm's claim is?

Lastly, as usual, he has no evidence or examples. And his self-righteous arrogance and narcissism is beginning to seriously tick me off.



I'm being disrespectful to...who, exactly? I'm GIVING respect to women. I think everyone who read my post can see how I'm trying to give respect to women. Are you saying I offended someone by saying Athena shouldn't be wearing a boob plate?

Also, look at what he said. That "what "some women" want is irrelevant."

"What "some women" want is irrelevant."

Guys, take a moment to digest this. I'll do the dissecting.

"Some women" refer to the portion of women who don't want to be dressed sexy ALL THE TIME. Which is a LOT, and in fact, the MAJORITY, of women. MOST women don't want to be dressed practically naked all the time, and especially when fighting.

I used "some women" as a binary catch-all phrase, referring to the women who DON'T want to look naked all the time. Which means that the portion of women that Zanestorm thinks are "relevant" are the women who DO want to look naked all the time - after all, everyone who thinks the opposite is "irrelevant."

I repeat: The only women that Zanestorm considers relevant are the ones who want to be naked all the time.

The only women that Zanestorm considers relevant are the ones who want to be naked all the time.

The only women that Zanestorm considers relevant are the ones who want to be naked all the time.

The most generous explanation is that Zanestorm thinks that "some women" are a minority, which presents the concern of Zanestorm thinking that "most women" want to look naked all the time. The worst explanation is that Zanestorm thinks that "some women" are the majority, but only the ones who want to be naked matter anyway. Anyone else is "irrelevant."

It's also utterly repugnant to say that any sort of minority is irrelevant when they're clearly related to the topic at hand - in a discussion about female sexuality, the women who don't want to be sexualized are NOT "irrelevant," no matter how many of them there are. Apparently, Zanestorm thinks that only the majority matters - if you're being generous.

I expected someone who is supposedly in a minority himself to be less of a douchebag.

It's his words, not mine. He was the one to say that "some women" literally don't matter, and this is a logical conclusion taken from his own words.

(1G)

Claim #7!: "Female deities are female [this is debatable - Theological debates over whether deities are human or even gendered, or simply represent themselves / we represent them that way] that is literally the only link between modern women and female deities. They aren't to be interchanged - they are entirely separate."

Claim #7!: "Female deities are female...that is literally the only link between modern women and female deities."

Zanestorm is saying that women have no connection to the goddesses outside of perceived gender.

He also acts like I'm sort of ignorant, vile heathen for saying that women and goddesses are connected.

Counterclaim: Which they are.

Guys. I'll present evidence, as usual, unlike the supposed university student.

Some women fight. Some goddesses fight.

Some women stick to chastity. Some goddesses also do.

Some women embrace their sexuality. Some goddesses also do.

Some women don't fight. Some goddesses also don't.

It's called empathy. You see yourself in others, and empathize. The ability to empathize to your figure of worship is why figures are worshipped in the first place. From Jesus being human, to The Buddha once being human, to many Chinese goddesses once being human, etc etc.

Remember the "link" from earlier? Or "parallel?" It's called a "correlation," or a "relationship." Yes, goddesses and women have a relationship beyond looking female, because gods are just as human as humans.

We love gods for their benevolence. We fear gods for their malevolence. We have a relationship with our gods, also known as religion, because gods have a relationship with humans. It could be empathy, sympathy, or even representation. If they were utterly disconnected and alien from humanity, you wouldn't worship them - you would fear them.

That's not to say that gods are just like humans, or on the same level as humans. But the point is, we ARE similar, and we ARE related. Even the Christian God understands and empathizes with humanity, because according to the Bible, he became human once.

I present every single successful religion and known god as proof of this. Gods from Smite's pantheons reflected the culture of their times - that alone indicated a major connection, and the ability to empathize with them.

Zanestorm, once again, has nothing.

So yes, I can conclude, and I think most people will agree, that goddesses and women are linked in many ways. See Claim #20! for more support.

Also, there are debates on whether female debates are female? Haha, no. A google search gets you things like Androgyny in gods and Third Gender in gods and Transgender gods, but not a single anything on whether female deities are female.

Get some sources.



Great...(1D)

This is where I begin to fear that Zanestorm is an actual sociopath.

It's because he seems to have no understanding of empathy at all.

Zanestorm is avoiding and changing the topic again. I'm not talking about them as video game characters. I'm talking about the goddesses' portrayal in Smite.

This is a common topic that Zanestorm will recycle, and I should have debunked it from the start, but he misled me. I admit it, I fell for it. And apparently, so did everyone else.

We're not talking about video game characters, or pixels, or lines of code. We're talking about what these things represent.

When we criticize a piece of art, we're not talking about the paint and canvas. We're talking about what picture the paint forms. When we criticize a book, we're not talking about the ink on a page. We're talking about the meaning behind the words. When we talk about Smite and gods, we're not talking about bytes and stories. We're talking about them as gods, and what this means.

Would Athena wear a boob plate? No, she wouldn't.

Would a line of code make a choice to wear a boob plate? No, because bytes aren't sentient. And that is the misdirection that Zanestorm is trying to pull over our eyes - by dehumanizing the subject of my argument, he can justify anything, and I can't un-justify it.

It is HiRez that made Athena's depiction wear a boob plate, it was their choice, and it is that choice that I am criticizing - on the basis that it is improper for Athena to wear a boob plate, any more than it is for Hera to commit adultery. To recycle my metaphor, Athena would not want to look like a bedroom roleplaying scenario.

Do NOT think that my argument is how I think a bunch of pixels would not want to look like a bedroom roleplaying scenario. Once again, Zanestorm is strawmanning.

As for the connection between these video game women and women in real life...






Do you know what Zanestorm said back to me, in his PM? He said I was literally mentally ill because I was confusing video game characters with real women.

He doesn't understand the concept of representation at all.



*rolls eyes* (1C)

Claim #8: Subzero is trying to dictate how women dress.

Counterclaim: When the **** did I say that? I didn't. See my entire everything for proof.

I don't think you understand what dictate means. Or choice.

HiRez CHOSE FOR THEM.

That's why a problem is the lack of DIVERSITY, because they are sexist.

I want to give them MORE DIVERSITY.

Which means MORE CHOICE.

If I wanted to dress them all in nun's habits, then yes, I would be dictating things and removing choice. I would be just as bad as HiRez. But I'm not.

I'm saying that some gods want to be sexy, some don't, and there's room for everybody, and yet, 95% of the goddesses dress like they want to be sexy. When, in fact, some goddesses would NOT want to be sexy, and we know this from the source - the lore.

Zanestorm is saying that I want to TAKE AWAY AGENCY by letting goddesses be more diverse. Or in other words, that I'm ignoring their CHOICE to dress they way they are now. That the goddesses, that any women would CHOOSE to dress this way. More strawmanning, hooray!

His exact word was "dictating." Now, compare his claim here to mine, and see for yourself who is correct. Don't forget how I have evidence, and he doesn't. Never forget that.

"Who the hell are you to do [blank]?" Zanestorm, this applies to literally everything you say.

Lastly, remember earlier in this post, where I said this?

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.



Do you see how he keeps on repeating himself, even in his own argument?

Zanestorm repeats himself. I won't. Hold down the CTRL button and press F. It will lead to the find function. Type any number-letter combination to get to the linked point. In this case, (1A).

Also, in the case of (1B), "IRL and in Smite?" What, do people live in Smite now? Is this Sword Art Online? Also, "many people?"

Claim #9!: "It's simply the case that lore and artistic representations of females from the Pantheons Hi-rez have drawn from can be done in a sexy way, because traditionally many Goddesses were represented in that way."

Claim #9!: Traditionally, many goddesses were represented in a sexy way.

Zanestorm has no idea what he is talking about. Look at the Greek pantheon alone. Hera, Artemis, Athena, Demeter, Hestia. Yes, these goddesses are drawn as beautiful, but how many have ever been sexualized? Proof: Look. Them. Up.

Hercules is dressed more than he actually looks like in Lore.

Chaac actually looks like a Mayan warrior.

Zanestorm is equating how HiRez gives Hercules clothes and Chaac an accurate representation, as long as they look cool, to how Hirez makes Athena wear a boob plate and for Nox to jiggle herself all the time, as long as they look sexy.

This hypocrisy is inexcusable, and Zane is trying to excuse it - with the lore defense I debunked in my original post. This is proof of him not even reading my thing before posting his rant.

Oh, and again, I have proof, Zanestorm does not.



Claim #10!: IM SO GAY GUYS ALL THE **** LOOK IM SO GAAAAAAY

Listen, you insufferable prick, most heterosexual people don't go off with a tangent every third paragraph about how they're attracted to women. You're probably not gay, but you're certainly self-centered.

Zanestorm once again goes off-topic.

The problem isn't the ratio of sexualized gods to non-sexualized gods. The problem is the ratio of sexualized women to sexualized men, how it represents a double standard, and how it violates the lore hypocritically, as I wrote in my OP. Not everything is about you and your tastes, you narcissist.



Claim #11!: Subzero hates sexuality, period.

Counterclaim: You literally ignored the part of the OP where I said sexualization, if in moderation, is okay.

Here, I'll get it for you.



Which is why I called the problem OVERSexualization, not SEXUALIZATION, as I showed IN THE DAMN TITLE OF THE THREAD.

The proof is right there. See for yourselves. Oh, and don't forget how Zanestorm makes yet another claim with no proof. More strawmanning!

Zanestorm seems to think that sexualization always equals stripper. That beauty equals sexualization, and godliness and divinity equals stripper - only for females, that is. That what Smite has done is natural and right. You see this in the way how even the suggestion of diversity makes him call me a tyrant. How he repeatedly says how this is natural and right and it's just them being beautiful - as you'll see in this section later on.

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.



And when did I dispute that?

Like I said, Zanestorm says the obvious with pretentious language to make himself look more important.



The same argument, repeated again.

Claim #12!: "Misogyny has **** all to do with this, because real women are not involved or impacted in any way by the female representation of DEITIES IN A VIDEO GAME that they probably don't even know exist." (1D)

Remember this?

Claim #2!: "Video games are their own culture, in which it is most often explicitly made clear that X video game does not represent reality in any way, even when parallels are drawn."

And this?

Claim #3!: "There has not been a single statistically valid study that has linked video games to any real-world changes in worldview or perceptions. Unless you have Academic evidence to the contrary, which I can bluntly tell you does not exist, then you cannot implicitly conclude that if X game is sexist, it will perpetuate or lead to sexism in reality.

(1E) Find it. It destroys the lynch-pin of his entire argument.

Also, here's my original reply to this part, if you care.





When did I say they weren't beautiful, or shouldn't be? Also, nice ergo and capitalization of Religious and Archaeological, it makes you look real smart.

Do you know what I was saying? I was talking about people, like you, who think that being beautiful or godly means that they have to be dressed the way they are now. A mindset that thinks that only way to be beautiful is sexy is a shallow mindset.

Beauty, desire, they aren't synonymous with Sex. Just like how Athena is beautiful, just like how Artemis is beautiful, you don't have to sexualize someone to make them beautiful or desirable.

This isn't a hard concept to understand, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I'll do it for you.



Monica Bellucci is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful women in the world. Does she look like a stripper? Is she sexualized here? No.

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.



It's funny how you say you complete agree, but you take the time to call me delusional, earlier. Also, it's delusional, not "disilussional."

Claim #13!: Chang'e is a Goddess of Dance.

Chang'e isn't a goddess of dance, you liar. She's a mythological figure you gained immortality, but she isn't an actual goddess. She's literally the wife of some other dude, both of which weren't gods. Some sources say they aren't gods at all, but mortals given immortality.

You don't have ANY proof. At all.

Here is my PROOF.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chinese_Stories/Houyi_and_Chang'e
http://www.chinahighlights.com/festivals/mid-autumn-festival-story.htm
http://www.china-expats.com/Holidays_Cn_MAF_Chang-e.htm
http://www.shenyun.com/learn/article/read/item/fX4pKuyhEqw/the-goddess-of-the-moon-change-and-hou-yi.html
http://www.moonfestival.org/change.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang'e

You never, ever have proof. I do, and you expect everyone to take you seriously, and for some reason, they do that.



More psuedo-intellectual bull****. "Foolhardly and bluntly wrong." If you really wanted to be blunt, you'd just say that I'm wrong.

Also, you ignore how I said there's a clear difference between making someone look sexual and someone look beautiful, your whole spiel about desirability is yet another tangent, and when the **** did I deny that?

In fact, the fact that one can feel desirability with JUST beauty, rather than between sexualization and beauty, only supports my argument. You can be both desirable and beautiful without being sexualized, and that's all goddesses have to be. And nothing still doesn't excuse oversexualizing almost every goddess.



Claim #14!: Sub is denying sexuality, and delusional for thinking so, and he doesn't think the goddesses are beautiful as-is. (See last three quotes)

Counterclaim: WRONG.

Funny how you at last decide to agknowledge this point, yet completely ignore it previously to insult me, and strawman my arguments as "YOU WANT THEM TO BE UGLY!"

It was YOU who said that I didn't want them to beautiful, that I was denying sexuality, that I was delusional for thinking they weren't beautiful. Not me.

The proof is in the text. Go read my original post. Like Zanestorm did not.



Again, he says I don't have evidence. (1E) Guess what, *******, I do.

Look at that bolded text, guys. He is saying that HiRez' portrayal of the goddesses is a good thing, suggesting "a love of women."

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.

How many times to I have to explain that Smite constantly drawing women as strippers is a form of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, NOT hate? And while Hate can be part of Misogyny, that isn't all Misogyny is? (1F)

Final point: There is no real link between 21st Century Sexual Liberty and misogyny? The entire point of every single feminism movement was to fight misogyny and sexism. And there is no real link between the two? Is this real life?



It's funny how he tries to be like me, with his outraged aggression, when it's clearly faked.

Yes, some gods are stereotyped. But not almost all of them, like the goddesses. You can **** off if you think that men are treated just like women in this game.

Guys, remember the actual list of stereotyped goddesses that I compiled? Does Zanestorm have such a list?

Also, Dawngate is proof that MOBAs can have rich storytelling and deep, three-dimensional characters. League of Legends is starting to reach similar heights with its lore revamps, too.

Don't give me a condescending lecture on how stereotypes are a part of the MOBA genre, when my original post literally says how other MOBAs DON'T stereotype their women, AND gave examples. You didn't read, as usual, and have no proof, as usual.



Claim #15!: Subzero is a misogynistic fool because I think that a women can't embody a stereotype.

Counterclaim: I think that portraying almost all the women in your game as a stereotype is offensive.

Oh, and usage of the word "fool" is also MORE gratuitously grandiose language!

Guys. This is where I lost it. He just called me a misogynist.

Everyone has a Berserk Button. Zanestorm has ignored my arguments, ignored my original posts, has been insulting me repeatedly, ********ting his way into arguments, hasn't presented a single scrap of proof, repeatedly repeated himself, strawmanned my arguments, and now, he just called me a misogynist.

I get pissy, yeah. I insult people, too. Often.

But at least I ****ing understand what I'm talking about and when I call someone an idiot, I usually do it after reading their idiocy.

For my counterclaim, aka "Zane's Claim is wrong," I have this quote.



You know when I said that Zanestorm didn't read my post? Do you still doubt?



Here's another idea: Every other MOBA with a higher percentage of women also don't oversexualize them as much! Or stereotype them!

It could be a coincidence, but looking at every other example of sexism I listed...I'd say it's more of a pattern.



Claim #16!: "HiRez is generous with giving them clothes!"

Terribly generous, he says. It's GENEROUS for HiRez to oversexualize it's goddesses. They should be even SKIMPIER, Zanestorm says.

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.

And you missed the entire point of that section, because you didn't read it. The point was that if Mercury can be dressed sensibly and not fight naked despite not being suited to wear plate armor, so can Kali, or Awilix, or Neith.

Third, don't take those pictures out of context. I used them to point out how much artistic license that HiRez took while making the gods, in comparison to the goddesses. If they could make Thor not be naked, they could do the same for Neith. Did you read at ALL?

Fourth, I'll point out that there are some gods who fought naked and some gods who did it only some of the time and some gods who always fought armored. This is called diversity. Gods have it, goddesses don't.

Claim #17: "Do you think they give a single **** about suitability?"

Remember this for the next section.

Claim #17!: "Do you think they give a single **** about suitability?"

You once again ignore logic and once again, make a claim with NO EVIDENCE.

Counterclaim: Yes, these weapons and armor are god-created. In any case, it's useful for fighting gods.

Proof: Lore. There's a link below.

Counterclaim: As for the others, every single culture in the world has some kind of weapon and some kind of protection. It could be something like a lion skin or a bola, to swords and helmets.

Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythological_objects

Remember, guys, I actually give proof. Zanestorm just makes wildly inaccurate statements as he pleases.

So, idea established: Gods do need armor. Remember this.



Claim #18!: "THEY'RE ****ING GODS. DO YOU THINK THEY GIVE A **** ABOUT HOW HEAVY SOMETHING IS? **** ME. IF THEY CAN FIGHT NAKED, I'M PRETTY SURE THEY CAN FIGHT IN ANYTHING."

If gods literally did not care about weight, they'd have literally infinite strength. Atlas wouldn't have to lift up the sky, since Mercury could have done it for him.

Since the only logical explanation is that gods DO have limited strength, that means that even the absurdly lacking "armor" Athena has on would, in fact make a difference in weight.

And being the smart wisdom goddess she is, if she did need armor, she'd put on a real breastplate - and did, as I showed in multiple pictures, and if she didn't, she's just take that stupid, useless armor that only adds dead weight, off.

So yes, they DO give a ****.

Proof: Multiple examples of gods having limited strength, as well as the importance of armor in mythology. This also supports my previous point in the previous section.

Zanestorm's proof: The closest thing he has is how some gods fought naked sometimes...but he's trying to argue that armor is useless for ALL gods ALL THE TIME, to justify the complete lack of armor on the goddesses in Smite. So, no, he has no proof.



Stop strawmanning.

Claim #19: "women should absolutely have the autonomy to represent themselves however they choose, equally so Hi-rez should have the autonomy to do so to."

You don't understand autonomy at all, do you?

Autonomy is your ability to do things independently. Not the ability to pick for someone else.

I have to repeat myself here, but HiRez picks for the goddesses. As in, they put goddesses in outfits that they would not choose to wear - like Athena would choose to wear that boob plate.

Guys. Look at that ****ing quote.

"Equality is what it should be like. Just like how some men in Smite wear heavy armor, some won't, some don't care, and yes, some embrace their sexiness, the same can and should apply to women as well."

Claim #19: "women should absolutely have the autonomy to represent themselves however they choose, equally so Hi-rez should have the autonomy to do so to."

HiRez making all the goddesses dress like strippers is NOT equality, when men are dressed more diversely. The problem is, you seem to think that most women would CHOOSE to dress like strippers. That goddesses would CHOOSE to dress like the way they are now - or even skimpier. That HiRez picks the right choice in their clothes, that HiRez is choosing what they would choose. That HiRez's autonomy, in your own words, is the goddesses' autonomy.

I can only come to the conclusion that you think that diversity is unnatural for women, or else you wouldn't criticize my statement of wanting women to be more diverse. You call me "a misogynistic fool" for wanting women to look diverse. Something is seriously, seriously wrong with you.

"You'll start to notice a trend, here, when Zanestorm repeatedly expects women to be "diverse," in the sense that they must cater to men's tastes. Keep in mind that the topic of the OP was about women being oversexualized."

I'm just pointing out a consistency.



All I have to say is: (1D)

Claim #20!: "Deities don't give a single **** about equality."

Counteclaim: They did.

Proof: Which is why Artemis was the protector of virgins, why Athena, a woman, was seen as the wisest of the gods AND was known for her benevolence toward mortals, why Hera was the queen of Olympus, why Hel gets literally her own dimension, why Chang'e did stuff in lore against her husband's wishes, etc etc. They do understand and practice concepts like equality, justice, and fairness.

Gods cared about equality. The lore is on my side. And you, again, have nothing. See claim #7! for relevant info.



I'm suggesting that HiRez draws women as more diverse, and I'm apparently trampling on their rights. I'm against freedom and artistic expression.

Claim #21!: Subzero is against freedom and artistic expression. "Your infringing on freedom of expression and artistic freedom..."

Surprise, surprise, this one's partly true. But like all of Zanestorm's partly true statements, it's roughly 1% true.

I'm pointing out that artistic freedom has limits. Nothing in excess. And that HiRez passed their limits some time ago, when goddesses all started to look like strippers while the men looked badass.

Don't strawman my arguments. I get mad.

Claim #22!: Subzero is alone in thinking that goddesses are oversexualized. "YOU take issue with sexy female deities. That's your problem, not Hi-rez's and not ours."

Mob tactics don't break me. Don't expect them to. Especially when I know I'm not alone in this.



Claim #23!: The "real world" has large, giant problems, while little problems aren't problems at all.

Counterclaim: The world's real problems are often in the little things, over the big, obvious things.

Firstly, when did I contradict myself? Are you trying to sound smart again?

Second, isn't a Happily Ever After after defeating the Giant Evil Thing a common fantasy trope?

It's ZANESTORM who's lost grip with reality. I don't strawman people's arguments or try to compartmentalize the entire world with blanket statements. I don't pretend to be some sort of genius in this specialized field who's the ultimate authority on everything,

I don't have any proof to counter his claim this time. But it's up to you, on what you believe.



I'm sorry, but it's been at least a week since Zanestorm typed this and I still get pissed off whenever I see this. So I'm just going to say:

(1E)



Claim #24: Rape Culture doesn't exist.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/18/rainn_attacks_the_phrase_rape_culture_in_its_recommendations_to_the_white.html
http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/rape-culture-in-america-slam-poem-button-poetry_n_6366620.html

Funnily enough, the top link links to the event that you were talking about.

Rape culture is a thing, you idiot. And I have a right to call you that, considering the subject matter

Oh, and here's the funny part. RAINN didn't say Rape Culture didn't exist. It criticized the term, "rape culture." Look for yourself, I posted a link.

Do you know what this means? It means I can say Zanestorm is a LIAR. Either that, or he didn't even check his sources before MAKING THINGS UP. More lies! More strawmanning!

And I am right.

Do you know who are the type of people who deny Rape Culture is a thing? We call them...well, I'm sure you know what we call them.



Most of the GamerGate ******** came from men, not women. Do I even have to give proof?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-gamergate-debate-has-made-world-worse/

Read that article, and there are a LOT of links in that article. There's even an interview with the woman herself.

Claim #25!: "But that isn't because of video games, nor is sexism, male or female, because of or made worse by video games."


(1E)


He asked for a single valid study. I provided multiple.




Claim #26!: "You making problems where they don't exist based on your bigoted idealogical viewpoints."

Now, let's see the list of insults!

Bigot
Idiot
Biased
Irrelevant
Apathetic
Misogynist
Sexist
**** - aka he called me female genitalia
Disrespectful
Delusional
Hypocrite
Talking Out of ***

So in other words, Zanestorm is saying that there is no problem, because I have no proof and that I am WRONG. About EVERYTHING.

Counterclaim: I'm right, as you can see by my proof.

(1E)



"I'll be the first person."

Guys.


Claim #26.5!: "You'd be the first person ever to prove a correlation between video-games and real-world problems. As I've already pointed out, you have no studies to prove this because they don't exist."


(1E)




Claim #27: Subzero is a:

Bigot
Idiot
Biased
Doesn't Understand Women does not equal Video Game Characters
Irrelevant
Misogynist
Sexist
**** - aka he called me female genitalia
Disrespectful
Delusional
HEATS Sexuality
Hypocrite
Talking Out of ***
Me Not Talking is a Sign of a Merciful God

Zanestorm is incorrect, for the most part. Simple as that.

Claim #28!: I doubt internalized sexism is a thing, and has nothing to do with real-world sexism.

1E!

Despite the very definition of internalization saying that it affects the real world. Again, I have proof, he doesn't.

Oh, and he hasn't learned at all.

"One being that games don't reflect actions to be taken in reality."

Nice job stating the obvious! Is it like how reality is different from fiction, too?

(1D)

Like I said, he keeps on repeating himself endlessly.



Claim #29!: "They are immortal and have magical power as you say, so they are fundamentally different from humans and not to be treated in the same way [they're pretty big differences.] This goes for your logic on armour, weapons and nudity. Deities and humans are fundamentally different, so if they were to exist I doubt our logic would apply to them."

So, you're saying that logic doesn't apply to them.

Logic. Doesn't. Apply.

I said that Athena could use armor because armor is useful for and against gods in her mythos.

I said that nudity is unfitting for some gods because some gods have nothing to do with sex.

And you are literally saying that "our logic," or "human logic," doesn't apply to them.

So, in other words, you're just saying I'm wrong. And you're right, conveniently enough. Funny how your own "logic" applies perfectly, to justify how HiRez treats them.

So basically, Zanestorm cannot counter my evidence, so he's reduced to repeating his words about how gods have no connection to humanity and saying "Our logic doesn't apply," because I proved myself logically. Since he can't counter my logic, he literally is saying that logic doesn't apply.

(1G)

He says that logic does not apply.

What do you say to that? Answer: You can't deal with a madman who clearly only hears what he wants to hear.



Hey, guys, did you know that Smite is a video game? I didn't!



What Zanestorm doesn't understand, is that one single source isn't just itself. It's also supported by dozens and dozens of OTHER sources. Which is why it's a source - it's reliable, verified, certified, and reviewed already, making it a valid, you know, source.

I'll quote myself.



Keep this in mind. These sources were reviewed by peers, qualified ones, at that. Meanwhile, Zanestorm, a random person on the internet, is claiming that these sources of mine are wrong.



Like Chiulin says, things are reviewed before publication by people who actually know what they're talking about. And Zanestorm IS A RANDOM PERSON ON THE INTERNET.

And here is what Zanestorm has to say on the subject.



It's funny how you have no examples, no proof, no sources. Nothing.

Claim #30!: "A PHD is an irrelevant appeal to authority."

Claim #31!: "An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy."

So, in other words, us presenting PHDs as proof of their validity is a logical fallacy.

YOU IDIOT, A PHD IS A RELEVANT APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, YOU DIPSTICK. IN A FORUM WHERE NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY AT ALL, QUALIFICATION IS VERIFICATION. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION A PHD, BECAUSE YOU ARE SOMEHOW PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE AN ACTUAL OWNER OF A PHD! With ZERO PROOF OR EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT? DO YOU HAVE A PHD? DO YOU? HUH?

It's funny how he keeps talking **** about the peer review system and how "plenty" of flawed papers get by, when he's listed no examples, and once again, only has his own word to support himself.

"Valid and neutral sources?" On what grounds do you call them invalid and biased? These sources were peer-reviewed, and you, a random person on the internet, calls them flawed. With, again, no proof.

(1E)

I'll like to quote myself one more time.



Go on, guess.

Oh, and Chiulin's reply is full of pure gold.



He says what we're all thinking.

You just sit back and scream that we are the only ones who have to prove anything because what we're saying is so insane and what you're saying is perfectly logical, despite the dozen sources and the decades of research behind them and the acknowledgement from 90% of the internet that yes, Internalization is a thing.

Remember the Final Claim?

It's funny how he repeats himself, and the obvious.

"You clearly have your stance on this." OH GOD REALLY?

Claim #33!: "The onus is not on me to find proof that video games do or don't cause sexism - because I am not the one claiming they do. I repeat - The burden of proof is not on me in this instance because I am not the one making unfounded links between pixels and real-world sexism."

Zanestorm is saying that we have to prove that Internalization exists. That he doesn't have to lift a finger, that we have to do all the work, because WE are the ones making "unfounded links."

Unfounded.

Unfounded.

(1E)

No, Zanestorm, the burden of proof is on YOU, because YOU are the one making unfounded accusations.

WE certainly found our founding.

YOU say that internalization isn't a thing. But we found proof.

YOU say that our sources are invalid. Where's your founding, buddy? Where is your founding for that statement? Hmm? Where's your source, your proof, your evidence?

In the end, you're just an insignificant fellow on the internet who's claiming that over twenty sources, and the literal hundreds of sources that they're connected to, are ALL bogus.

*shakes head* It's sad how Zanestorm keeps making unfounded statements, with no proof or sources.

Can you PROVE that our sources are invalid? Making such an accusation is a SERIOUS claim. The very article you listed mentioned how grave of an accusation it is, and how it requires PLENTY OF COUNTER-EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

(1E)

1E, guys.

Actually, just, here.



Go on, guess.



Funny, it's the ACTUAL PHD STUDENTS AND DOCTORS who debate each other. Not a random person on the internet who hasn't done a single study in his whole life, and certainly never had a paper published in a journal.

Also, moron, Chiulin is talking about how futile it is to try to let you listen to reason, because you're insane. You don't have a set of unrealistic expectations - you have no expectations at all. Because you expect us to think that whatever we say or show is fundamentally flawed and ignorant and biased and wrong.



This guy doesn't note the inconsistency in his own logic. Also, his only "sources" so far have been definitions of appeal to authority, which we know, and an article on scientific values, which we know. He still has yet to give a single piece of evidence that supports his actual claims.

Also, repeating again.



Let me put it this way. If a PHD isn't good enough, how is the word of a random person on the internet good enough? Hmm? You're the only one here's who says that this PHD is wrong and invalid and not good enough, and you don't have anything to prove or support that.



Go on, guess.

Agency is the right to choose for yourself, not choose for someone else.

Also, nurisea was talking about oversexualization, or lopsided sexualization, or whatever. Not "SEX IS BAD!" STOP. STRAWMANNING. ARGUMENTS.



It's a fact that men dominate most of the creative industries. That's why people ooh and aah whenever there's a woman directing something.

This dominance is what some people call the Patriarchy. It's a loosely defined term, and it's impossible to "prove," any more than you can "prove" racism or "prove" sexism. It's impossible to create an objective study for this, which is why proving it is impossible.

Because, frankly, the existence of a Patriarchy is obvious. Let me put it this way: Do you know the old name for Patriarchy, used in a Feminist contest? "Sexism."

Or let me put it another way.

When one sex is being biased against, the logical conclusion of this is that another sex is being biased for.

Think of it like a see-saw.

If one end is being pushed down, the other end is being pushed up. It's a binary system, because there are only two genders.

Misogyny refers to one end of the scale. Patriarchy refers to the other end of the scale. But both are really referring to the larger whole - Sexism.

So, no, it's not a "Radical Feminist Theory." Patriarchy is, again, a loosely defined term. It means different things to different people, obviously. So don't strawman someone's arguments like defining Patriarchy for them.



Holy****balls, are you even reading?

nurisea is talking about how ultimately, the few token male oversexualization examples are irrelevant compared to the masses of female sexualization and oversexualization.

Not about how this and that isn't attractive. God, do you just ignore other people's posts, or do you read them and then strawman them?



I see no proof, and you're the one shoving statistics in our face. Find some proof.



Also, I hope that the whole "10% of population is gay thing" is a MYTH. In real life, people aren't simply gay or not - there's a whole scale. It's called the Kinsey scale, you lying piece of ****, and I think someone who's gay would know not to stereotype himself.



Listen, what nurisea is talking about is sexual objectification, not sexual empowerment. She's saying how men usually decide how women should look, how they should act, how they should treat sex. She's talking about the very opposite of sexual empowerment.

Does sexual empowerment for women exist? It does.

But it doesn't usually exist in things like diets or magazines or makeup, because they're typically used to bring you to someone else's standard of beauty. In fact, those things are usually facades of empowerment.

On one hand, we want so badly to believe, for instance, that the Spice Girls really did represent girl power and celebrate individuality.

On the other, as grown adults, though, we also have to recognize the way that they were caricatures of types of womanhood, pushing outdated stereotypes themselves – and oh-so-conveniently doing everything in short skirts and hot pants.

And there's your problem. Because it’s not that short skirts and hot pants (as symbols of an unbridled, honest, if-you’ve-got-it-flaunt-it brand of sexuality) can’t be empowering. Because they can!

The problem is when people try to convince you that looking good for men is what you want.

True sexual empowerment is as simple as being sexual for yourself. It's a lot like the difference between murder and manslaughter.



You cannot be this obtuse.

It's not about gay versus straight versus bi, you narcissist.

It's about how, in media, the way most women are portrayed are determined by men, because the majority of producers of media are men. It's obvious and self-evident. So STFU.

And oh my ****ing god, Zanestorm makes me sick.

The Earth's crust has a few atoms in it. Citation needed.

The sun is very hot. Citation needed.

Radiation is harmful. Citation needed.

So not only do you strawman people's arguments, but you call for Citation needed on every single little factoid, when you don't give a single source despite your ludicrous claims, that you repeat over and over. Calling you a snake would be an insult to snakes.

Section 7. 1E. Section 8. Section 1.



If you're denying that men don't dominate our society/culture/whatever, you're a complete idiot - ESPECIALLY if you're using demographics as your "evidence."

"Just a theory." Listen, you hypocrite, if sexism exists, and it's mostly toward women, than a Patriarchy exists, because that's its definition.



HE REPEATS HIMSELF YET AGAIN.

(1D)



She used multiple self-evident facts, AND you misunderstood her point multiple times.

On top of that, you, who HAS NEVER PRESENTED A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS, is criticizing nurisea for lack of evidence and citations? You are such a ****ing hypocrite!

Section 7. 1E. Section 8. Section 1.



See what I mean?



More obvious ********, like "sexualization is objective DURR!"

She's not talking about sexualization on an individual level. I talked about this in my orignal post, which you still haven't read. Oversexualization can be referring to the individual case of oversexualization (that woman with the sword wearing only a jacket and leggings sitting on a window), OR it could be referring to, and is referring to, how seemingly everything is oversaturated with sexualized women.

Or in other words, she's talking about how it's unfair that men can look badass and cool and some aren't sexualized, while virtually the majority of women in modern works is sexualized.



Stop strawmanning arguments.

nurisea says that double standards are important, and people who don't about it need to reexamine themselves.

Not that not protesting the sexualization of women makes you evil.

Also, why are you so damn self-centered?

Double standards are the problem of the ratio of sexualized women to sexualized men. Fixing it is making that ratio close to 1:1. It can go either way, from making women less sexualized and objectified to making men more sexualized and objectified.

But instead of acknowledging how it's about the ratio, or how it can go either way, you instantly say how making women less sexualized is wrong, while making men more sexualized is right. Jesus.

So, in other words, you're cherrypicking, because you couldn't find anything. Nice debate tactic. Remember when I said I'd prove Zanestorm is a LIAR? It's in here.

Remember that bolded text. It's important.

The link is right there. I recommend clicking it.



This is where we can see Zanestorm's true self: A bloody, deceiving, liar.

http://link.springer.com/journal/11199

Click that link. The journal is called "Sex Roles."

You'll see "Bias-motivated aggression" as the most recent publication. And below that, "The Effect of Functionality- and Aesthetic-Focused Images on Australian Women’s Body Satisfaction." And below that, "Facebook Involvement, Objectified Body Consciousness, Body Shame, and Sexual Assertiveness in College Women and Men."

THEY are the most recent posts. ALL of them are from December 2014. Click Zanestorm's links, and you'll see that they come from dates like March. December...2013. Etc.

He. Is. A. Liar.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

"This is NOT a neutral journal on sexual representation?" The journal is literally called Sex Roles, and you're calling it biased on the basis of the titles of some of its published articles? Are you kidding me?

Why are you making judgements based on titles alone? That is NOT how you judge ANYTHING. You are literally judging a book by its cover, and you think that you could pass judgement on an entire scientific journal, and call it scientifically irrelevant?

Newsflash: Scientific Journals take great care to be scientifically relevant. No matter what the topic, no matter what the content, ALL scientific journals should be assumed to be neutral and valid - because that is how things are done. Their entire purpose is to be the most accurate, professional source of information one can get, and if they aren't, then they're shut down. Simple as that. Outside of literally making your own experiments and finding your own data, scientific journals are the best source people can get, beating textbooks, encyclopedias, internet databases, etc.

Zanestorm's claim that ANY journal can be invalid is absurd. No real academic would accuse an entire scientific journal of being invalid.

Guys. Do you have any idea how absurd this is?

Zanestorm is criticizing not Chiulin's source, but one of the HUNDRED references in that source. And not even the exact reference, but the journal that reference was published in. For being biased. Because of the TITLE. Of three of the dozens of articles THAT HE CHERRYPICKED, that aren't even related to Chiulin's source!

IT IS A SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL! IT IS NOT FILLED WITH "FEMINIST RHETORIC!" YOU ARE LITERALLY ACCUSING AN ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF BEING BIASED AND USELESS! BECAUSE OF THE TITLE OF ONE OF ITS ARTICLES, THAT ISN'T EVEN THE REFERENCE OF THE SOURCE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT!

There are NO scientific journals that deal solely with rhetoric. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a ****ing scientific journal, because rhetoric means having no proof. No scientific journal has ZERO proof in its entire run.

So even if Zanestorm's words were even remotely true, it still wouldn't excuse judging the entire journal as biased, just because of the journal itself dealing with rhetoric once or twice. No journal deals exclusively with such a narrow, focused, subject, or ANY subject! And again, if the articles you presented DID have any problems (which Zanestorm has not proven or supported in any way), that gives you NO RIGHT to judge the ENTIRE journal as BIASED from a few articles!

Also, "Feminist Rhetoric?"

Zanestorm repeatedly links the word "Feminism" to "Rhetoric." Don't take my word for it. Literally every single time he uses the word "Theory" or "Rhetoric," it has "Feminism" right next to it.

And it's equally absurd on what he calls Rhetoric. Things like historical notes or self-evident facts (like the existence of sexism), he called "Feminist Rhetoric," or "Radical Feminist Theory."

Or in short, anything relating to Feminism is only a theory, an abstract concept, with no proof and anything, and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. Or in other words, Feminism, and anything related to Feminism, and anything written by Feminists, is scientifically irrelevant.

Zanestorm thinks that being related to Feminism makes you biased, and automatically lacking in proof, because everything you say is a Feminist Theory/Rhetoric. No joke - see Section 8 for the exact quotes.

*breathes deeply* One more thing. Just because an anything is Feminist, it does not mean it's biased. Just like how because a scientist is Republican, or Democratic, or whatever, it does not mean that their articles are biased. And it is appalling for Zanestorm to dismiss something as "irrelevant" because it is Feminist.

You'll need a lot of sources to call that entire journal biased, just because it's from Feminists. Zanestorm has nothing but a massive assumption and a giant leap of anti-logic.

For more on how it's insane for Zanestorm to assume that Feminist = biased, see Section 8.



That section where Zanestorm cherrypicked his problems? One of them being dated-ness?

THAT SECTION OF THE STUDY WAS ABOUT THE EARLIEST STUDIES ON THE SUBJECT. OF COURSE ANY STUDIES LINKED TO IT WOULD BE OLD, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE POINT OF ADDING IT!

Go, see for yourself! Look at the other articles cited! 2006! 2007! 2008! The article itself was published in 2009! Zanestorm is a bloody liar!

Also, they DID provide a direct citation! As you can see in the text! The problem is your definition of "direct citation!"

You DON'T expect every quote to link to another page, YOU LIST THE PAGES THAT YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION FROM. Zanestorm is literally MAKING THESE RULES UP!

Seriously, do I even have to point out how absurd it is?

You have to link 1-2 pages of relevant material with a quote? So, instead of directing them to the actual source itself, you must either shove 1-2 pages of the source material in your paper as one giant quote, or code in some kind of mouseover text? Are you insane?

A proper scientific anything has dozens, if not over a hundred, sources. If you took 1-2 pages from each of them, you'd be literally typing more citations than report.

Let me tell you the Truth: Scientific citations are exactly what the report did. There are NEVER any quotes. Instead, you just put in Parenthesis where you got the info, next to the relevant text in the report (Gates, 1996), like that. These are not meant to be useful by themselves, but to link you to the REAL citations, AFTER the report. There, you get specific details like the exact title of the reference, date of article, page numbers, and even a small summary of the article's content.

Like this:

Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent video
games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human
Communication Research, 27, 409-431.

I have to point out that the truth is near the opposite of what Zanestorm says: You NEVER put quotes. Ever.

Proof: http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWcitations.html
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocCSE_CitationSystems.html

*repeats himself* Zanestorm is making these rules up. Again, these two articles were as easy as googling "citing in a scientific paper." See for yourself, if you wnt.



Then why mention it? Oh, right, you're cherrypicking.



Yes, the trend of a disgusting, remorseless liar.

That source is a compilation of essays. That means that any citations are at the BACK. Which they ARE. Which is a fact that you are LYING to conceal!

You guys can go to that Amazon link, and click on the free sample repeatedly. It DOES lead to a bunch of citations. Don't take my word for it, and see it. Zanestorm is a ****ing liar.

Also, the quotes you're writing are frankly ******ed, because you're calling "culture affects media" as Feminist theory. You're calling "violence against women intensifies" as Feminist theory. You're calling historical notes, "theories." Uncited theories, at that.

Let's stab Zanestorm in his face repeatedly. "Violence against Zanestorm intensifies - Zanestorm's theory, citation needed." He's literally calling historical phrases "Feminist Theory" because he can't think of anything else to criticize it on.

Also, how the **** do you know it's Feminist? These sentences are literally things like "Violence against women intensifies." How the **** is that statement Feminist? Are you seriously suggesting that anything with the word "woman" in it is Feminist?

And that's not even getting into the "theory!" Zanestorm just assumes that everything in our sources are "theories" and "feminist," because, remember, Zanestorm thinks that everything related to Feminism is invalid, biased, and only a theory. I can think of no other reason why he specifically put "Feminist theory" instead of "citation needed," especially on sentences that have literally nothing to do with Feminism.

Lastly, they DO have citations, you ****ing liar. Which I proved with your own Amazon link.

And if that's not enough...THIS THING WAS MEANT TO BE DATED AND YOU KNOW IT!



YOU CANT FIND THEM BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE DATED! WHICH YOU KNEW! YOU CHERRYPICKED THE REFERENCES IN CHIULIN'S SOURCE SO YOU CAN CLAIM THAT THE WHOLE THING IS BASED ON OUTDATED INFO! ITS NOT!

ALSO, YOU'RE CRITICIZING AN ARTICLE BECAUSE IT WAS CITED BY ANOTHER? DO YOU CRITICIZE THE MONA LISA BECAUSE PEOPLE COPY AND PARODY IT FOR THEIR OWN USES? ARE YOU INSANE?

Guys. Zanestorm is BEYOND grasping for straws, here. He's actively lying. Do you know why?

Tell me, if Zanestorm can't find the source on Google...how does he know what articles cited it?

If you're wondering, I google'd them, too.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Popular+culture+and+the+portrayal+of+women:+Content+and+control&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=fr2aVJniLpfboATdmICoCg&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Analyzing+gender:+A+handbook+of+social+science+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=pr2aVObCLczmoATMyYKgBw&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA

A quick google search, he said. As far as I can tell, these articles do not seem to exist. But we know they do, because they were cited by the reference of the source that Chiulin posed.

The links that Zanestorm presented DO exist...but they have no connection to the cited sources from Chiulin's link.

So in other words, Zanestorm is making up more ********.

I have proof, guys. Zanestorm is just claiming that he linked those sources together. I have proof they aren't connected at all. And don't forget the contradiction where Zanestorm says he couldn't find them.



No, the list does NOT go on, because you LIED about how every source in the article is dated!

Also, this:

"Feminist Theory. "Feminist Narrative." "Written years ago."

JUST BECAUSE THE ARTICLE TITLE HAS TO DO WITH WOMEN DOESN'T MAKE IT FEMINIST OR BIASED!

THERE IS NO ALTERNATE HISTORY CONSPIRACY WITH FEMINISM! STOP ACTING LIKE FEMINISM IS SOME KIND OF RADICAL MOVEMENT THAT MAKES THINGS UP AS IT PLEASES! YOU PRICK!

AND THE ****ING ARTICLE IN AN ARTICLE IN AN ARTICLE IS DATED BECAUSE YOU CHERRYPICKED IT!

OH, AND LASTLY, YOU MADE THOSE "TITLES" UP! THESE WORKS DO EXIST, BUT THEY HAVE NO CONNECTION TO CHIULIN'S SOURCE OR THE REFERENCES IN IT, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH GOOGLE SCHOLAR!

YOU SICKEN ME! YOU LITERALLY INVALIDATE THINGS BY CALLING THEM FEMINIST THEORIES! YOU REPEATEDLY TAKE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISPROVE AND CALL IT A FEMINIST THEORY! YOU ALWAYS ACT LIKE FEMINISM IS SOME SORT OF SINISTER FORCE THAT HAS SOME SECRET AGENDA TO RULE THE WORLD OR SOMETHING! **** YOU!

Bias is only possible when you're talking about a multi-sided issue. The source that Chiulin put up wasn't talking about a multi-sided issue, but it was a REVIEW. A REVIEW!

There is no room for bias! It's literally a complied report of a list of randomized video games-related experiments, and how they match stereotypes! The closest thing you have to bias is the Implications section, but that's an obvious conclusion to obvious data! See for yourself, on how much bias it has!



YOU ****ING LIAR. YOU ****ING LIAR! YOU ****ING LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR! LIAR!

It's not the same problems cropping up repeatedly. Like I said, you can see for yourself. Zanestorm is right in that the section he has is outdated, but that's because the article's author made a point of showing the earliest studies on the subject.

But he is wrong about EVERYTHING ELSE.

Lie count:

0: The source IS properly referenced. (As you can see with the sources on proper citation that I gave.)

1: The source ISN'T dated. (As you can see by comparing Zanestorm's claims with the actual article.)

2: It's references aren't dated. (As you can see by comparing Zanestorm's claims with the actual article. Zanestorm's only partly right in that some of the citations are dated, but only because they were MEANT to be dated. And he's completely WRONG about how the entire thing and all of its references are dated.)

3: It's references' sources aren't dated, either. (Pretty much an extension of the previous point.)

4: It's references' sources' JOURNAL isn't biased or dated, either. (Click the Sex Roles thing. See how biased it is for yourself. Also, I made a point that no journal is biased, or it wouldn't be a scientific journal.)

5: And the rest of Chiulin's source is NOT LIKE THAT. (As you can see by comparing Zanestorm's claims with the actual article.)

6: It's references' sources DO have citations. (See the Amazon link.)

7: The journal is NOT biased. (Because Zanestorm is just saying it's biased, and because if it was, it would not be a registered scientific journal.)

8: It's sources' reference's sources have only superficial relation to the titles you mentioned. (Click the Google Scholar links, compare them to Zanestorm's lies.)

9: And just because something has "woman" in it, does NOT make it Feminist. (Women belong in the kitchen <- seriously, this is self-evident.)

10: Feminist does NOT equal theory, biased, or invalid. (Seriously, if any one of you just sit there and don't contest how Zanestorm just links anything Feminist to Rhetoric or Biased or anything on the basis that it is Feminist, I will call you out.)

So Zanestorm's words? IS PURE ********. ITS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF MANURE EVER.

I think I have quite conclusively proved that Zanestorm is a liar. Now, with this in mind, look back onto his OTHER statements. Where he kept relying on you to simply trust his word. After all, HE was the only one to say that all of our sources were invalid. That these PHD-certified sources are invalid, biased, etc.

Who knows how much of what he said was lies? He certainly lied plenty here.

One last thing: There is NO room for misinterpretation, there is NO room for miscommunication or misunderstandings. Zanestorm has been telling blatant lies. I haven't "misunderstood" him or misread anything he wrote. Zanestorm has been meaning his words literally, and I've taken them literally, as well. Unless you're saying you can somehow misinterpret this:

"This is a repeated error this journal has made."

"I'm not going to dissect every page for now - that isn't necessary to prove its bias and flaws, as they're repeated throughout."

"I again can't locate the source."

"I'm leaving it there, purely because it's the exact same problems cropping up repeatedly."

"It's clearly part of the Feminist Narrative."

Tell me, how can one misinterpret THAT?

Readers, do you know what Ideology means? Sounds fancy, doesn't it?

An ideology is a system of ideas, meaning it refers to EVERY MOTIVATION EVER. So saying "Feminists are ideologically driven," you're saying water is wet. EVERY organization, person, or anything is ideologically driven, from greedy companies to charities to political movements, and saying fancy words doesn't hide how pretentious and repetitive you are.

But one more thing: You don't choose to be a feminist, any more than you choose to be a woman or man. If you're a woman, and you want to empower yourself, you're a feminist.

Also, I need to point out that Feminist does not equal biased. If you want women to be more empowered, by definition, you're a feminist. And no, I don't care how many times you say "Feminists can be unbiased," or any of your other token phrases - it doesn't matter what you say, what matters is how you act, and this entire time, you've been entirely dismissive of Feminism, accusing anything even remotely related as biased.

It's this simple.

Claim #34: Feminists are idealogically driven like every other kind of organization in the world, which means they're biased, because they're ideologically driven.



Obviously, people are biased, but INCORRECTLY, most people are aware of their bias. I'm sure everyone on this thread has realized that bias is a thing.

Remember this?

Claim #34!: Feminists are idealogically driven like every other kind of organization in the world, which means they're biased, because they're ideologically driven.

Because you're a Feminist, you automatically have no neutral or valid sources to back you up? So in other words, Feminists are scientifically irrelevant? **** YOU!

Seriously, look at his leap of anti-logic. It's right here, in the quotes, and I didn't leave anything out. He goes from:

A: Feminists are ideologically driven.

And in his next paragraph, he says:

B: But being biased isn't bad. Aka "Feminists are biased."

From point A to point B. Because Feminists are ideologically driven, like literally everything in the whole world.



No one is talking about a specific branch of Feminism, YOU were the one to keep accusing things of having a Feminist Agenda or some other ******** in the first place!

It doesn't change how your logic is "You're a Feminist, everything you say is automatically too biased to be relevant."

It doesn't matter what he says from this point on. Remember Claim 34. He hasn't explained himself at all. He seems to think that the point of logic - Feminists have a system of ideas = biased - is so simple, there's no need to explain.

He is literally saying that all Feminists are scientifically irrelevant, because they're biased.



Funny part on how you LIED about those "non-neutral/valid sources." Remember that section above, readers? Remember his reply to Chiulin, directly above this one? Keep that in mind.

Chiulin's article is named: "Gender and Racial Stereotypes in Popular Video Games."

It's written by Wei Peng, with an impressive list of qualifications. She has won several top paper awards from the International Communication Association and the National Communication Association. Her recent publications appear or are in press in Journal of Communication, Health Communication, Journal of Health Communication, Computers in Human Behavior, CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, Health Education & Behavior, Telemedicine and e-Health, Media Psychology, etc. She serves as a member of the editorial board of Journal of Communication, Games for Health Journal, and International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations.

Zanestorm labels her AND her work as Feminist - and therefore, her works are irrelevant, because Feminists are biased, because they're ideologically driven. He is saying that she's irrelevant, her paper is irrelevant, everything she publishes is part of the Feminist Agenda, and despite all of her awards and medals and all that ****, her paper is ultimately irrelevant because it's biased. Because it is idealogically driven.

Now...compare what Zanestorm is saying...to what he is doing.

He SAYS that he doesn't mean any sort of slight against Feminism, and Feminists CAN be scientifically relevant. "I have no personal issue with Feminists who work towards genuine equality and do so with neutral sources." But he implies that most of them AREN'T.

He's repeatedly accused Feminists sources of being biased - on the grounds that they're Feminist. Too "motivated," he calls it.

"No-one is saying Feminists can't discuss things. I'm just stating they have a clear motivator to say what they've said - and no neutral or valid sources to back it up."

Look past the ********. Past the flowery statements. Past the pretentiousness, the bigotry. Look into what he is really saying.

"No one is saying that Feminists can't discuss things. I'm just saying that they're too "motivated" (read: biased) to make valid statements - and they have no neutral or valid sources."

What he just said was the mother of all blanket statements, guys.

Remember when I said he was accusing all Feminists of being biased on the grounds of being Feminist? I wasn't joking. Remember when I said that he automatically thinks that Feminist = no sources, because you are wrong and everything you say is a theory? I wasn't joking.

He's repeatedly dismissed Feminism as a whole as too biased to be scientific - since they're ideologically driven.

As we can see by the top of this post.

Do you see the clear difference between how Zanestorm acts and what he says?

Off topic.



You are a liar.

Yes, both were treated poorly at times, I'm sure, just like how some were treated like royalty.

But what you're implying is that they've been treated similarly. They've not. Historically, women have had very few rights, and this is common to many, many cultures.

Asia? Confucius says hi.

Europe? Really? This was at a time where women couldn't fight or do anything, for the most part.

America? See Europe.

You're trying to screw with us by avoiding saying the truth: That women, historically, had way, way, way less rights than men. Yes, there have been exceptions, but we're talking about the whole thing, from a historical context, and from a historical context, you are making **** up.

And name-dropping Plato won't help you, either. Because PLATOS WORLD OF ENDS DOES NOT EXIST AND IS FICTITIOUS.



Hey, guys, do you know how to sound insightful for anything? Say the obvious!

Everything has its faults, dumbass. "[blank] had it faults," is an empty blanket statement.


Also, no one's here to discuss history, and I don't doubt that you're just spouting nonsense, as usual.

Seriously look at this: "both men and women were both for and against [blank]." Fill in the blank with ANYTHING, and it'll make you sound smart AND progressive!



Fun fact: You're a liar.

Most Feminists are NOT at odds with each other, and the words you used prove exactly how ignorant you are on the topic.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-gender-feminism-and-equity-feminism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies

Most of them overlap.

Gender Feminism? Based on societal gender roles.

Equity Feminism is about legal rights.

WRA feminism is LITERALLY WOMEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

Radical Feminism is about abolishing the Patriarchy. Patriarchy, like I mentioned earlier, is a very wide, loosely defined term, so I can't speak for everyone.

Egalitarian Feminism is literally about equality. Oh, gee, such a branch movement.

Humanitarian Feminism does not exist. In fact, humanitarianism is about the rights of humanity as a whole, meaning that Feminism is a subsection of IT, not the other way around. Liar.

MRA IS THE MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT, or Men's Rights Activism! YOU ARE LITERALLY PUTTING IN [RANDOM KEY WORDS + FEMINISM.

As you can see, all of these except the last have a HUGE degree of overlap. And Zane's statement that all of them are "at odds" is a massive lie. Yes, there is infighting, but that has to do with more of the individuals involved, and the branches of feminism themselves are not "at odds" with each other.

Democrats and Republican are "at odds." Feminism striving for equality and Feminism striving for legal rights are NOT. Jesus, stop making things up.

Check this out.



See claims #30!: and #31!:. He called it a logical fallacy.

Yeah, on the surface, he's only saying that PHDs aren't proof of them being right all the time. But that's what he's saying. His actions are completely dismissing them as scientifically relevant because they're feminist. His actions are dismissing the PHD as worthless.

Check section 7, 8, and (1E).

Before I begin.

Section 7, (1E)



UNLESS THEY'RE NOT BIASED, BECAUSE YOU, AGAIN, LIED WHEN YOU WERE ANALYZING THAT SOURCE!

ALSO, MOST SOURCES AREN'T BIASED BECAUSE THEY'RE SOURCES! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP! NO SOURCE TELLS YOU THAT THEY ARE BIASED! NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVER SAYS THAT THEY ARE BIASED, OR IT WOULDN'T GET PUBLISHED!

Bias is only possible when you're talking about a multi-sided issue. The source that Chiulin put up wasn't a multi-sided issue, but it was a REVIEW. A REVIEW!

There is no room for bias! It's literally a report a list of randomized video game related experiments, and how they match stereotypes! The closest thing you have to bias is the Implications section, but that's an obvious conclusion to obvious data! READ IT FOR YOURSELF!



YOU LIAR! SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO CITE MULTIPLE PAGES YOU LYING LIAR WHO LIES! NO ONE EXPECTS YOU TO HAVE ONE SINGLE PAGE AS YOUR REFERENCE EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU LYING SCUMBAG!

Go, and look at ANY OTHER RESEARCH PAPER. This (link) is one of Zanestorm's OWN "sources," used to talk about academic principles. Look below, at the last page, for the source. Single page, my ***.

Most of what else he says is correct, AND THE SOURCES WE LISTED CONFORMED TO THAT!



UNLESS SOMEONE ****ING LIES THAT THE WHOLE PAPER IS DATED!



UNLESS THE ISSUE DOESNT HAVE MULTIPLE SIDES AND I NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF: NO ****ING PUBLISHED SOURCE IS BIASED! OR IT WOULDN'T PASS STANDARDS AND WOULDN'T BE PUBLISHED!

"Prove they're well-read on the subject? Pull sources? Open up points for discussion?" YOU ARE STATING THE OBVIOUS! YOU BETRAY HOW YOU HAVE NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT!

"have made attempts to understand opponents POV." Here is another reason why Zanestorm is lying about having an academic background.

There are NEVER opponents. There are sides, but no opponents, BECAUSE THE AUTHOR IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT! AS SOON AS YOU WRITE ONE "OPPONENT" INTO THE PAPER, YOU CAN'T PUBLISH IT, BECAUSE PAPERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED!!!!!!!! LOOK IT UP!

If Zanestorm was really an academic, he'd have worded his statement as "both sides' POV." I'm not an "academic" and I know this.



I know wikipedia has problems, as so does everyone who's not in third grade. The thing is you're debating on whether or not the subject of an article exists.

If wikipedia has an article on something, it exists, or existed.



UNLESS THE ONE WHO SAYS THEY'RE DATED IS A ****ING LIAR!



He's lying. He is LYING.

If you don't believe, look at it yourself.

Page 929 has the Implications part, where they actually talk about what the data means. And they. Provide. Sources. And. Citations. Dozens.

YOU ARE A ****ING LIAR.

JUST SEE SECTION 7!!!!!



LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR

YOU ARE LITERALLY STATING THE OBVIOUS! SCIENTIFIC PAPERS MUST BE UNBIASED ND EQUAL, OMG SO WISE!

Also, see (1E)

The bolded text is more repeated ********. See (1E) and Section 7 for my answer to that.

But I'd like to emphasize this part.

"For my side - I haven't made any claims to be proven, I've merely been contending claims from Sub."

"For my side - I haven't made any claims to be proven."

"I haven't made any claims#0-35!: to be proven."

Zanestorm, you are a filthy, disgusting liar.

Again, who the **** are you to make an analysis and do what your betters did not?

Second, see (1E).

And again, YOU ARE A ****ING LIAR!

Guys...do you see the red part? Look at Section 7, for my response to that. If you HAVE read it, you know perfectly well what kind of person Zanestorm is by this point.



Claim #?!: No sources...debunked...not related to sexism...

Section 7. 1E.



Claim #?!: No factual basis...no sources...no academic sources...because Zanestorm says they aren't academic...

Section 7. 1E.



Claim #0!: "[I] can have no academic qualifications and make an astounding point."

Remember the Final Claim?

Go, look at the source he analyzed. Look at how he never brought one bit of evidence or proof for all of his arguments. Look at the actual source itself, and see what a liar he is.

And above all, look at how he smugly tells everyone on how all sources must fall to academic conventions, how sources are everything, and how amazing and thorough his analysis was.

Then see sections 7 and 1E.

Ever hear of pain? Or how unpleasant it is to have your organs rearranged even when you can't feel it? People get shivers from watching Ghost and Roach burn to death, and they're video game characters who are on the other side of the screen.

Apparently, you're also ignoring how deities get death screams and talk about how thing hurt.

These are deities watching their own body die. From stuff like being eaten, bashed to death, stabbed, shot, etc.

---

Internalization, for people who haven't looked it up, is the process where one absorbs certain prejudices, stereotypes, and such, as they live life. It comes from anywhere from your parents to your culture to your television, and yes, your video games.

Internalization is a thing, and therefore, pixels DO cause sexism.

See section 1E for sources and more info.

See section 1E for Zane's sources...oh, wait, he has none.

---

It's funny how he keeps saying that armor is useless "because of the lore," while I list actual examples from the lore.

Also, most true forms of deities are unknown? Thereby justifying stripper-goddesses? You'd model them using their most well-known form, dumbass. Or else you'd be able to justifying drawing them as ANYTHING. Logical fallacy, look it up.

Also, it's logical that gods who could freely shapeshift would only appear how they want to be. So it makes sense that a god's most common form is his preferred form. You should portray gods as they want to be seen, if you actually believe in them, which you don't.

---

Ahahahahahaha. It's called a death scream. If dying was inconsequential, than gods wouldn't be worried about getting hurt in mythology, which they do, because they feel pain, as we can see in examples like Prometheus again and other tortures and in the actual game, in their death noises. Hell, some pantheons can just straight up die, period. Like the Norse.

Regenerate almost instantly? Funny. There's a myth about Diyonysus, where he commands his followers to rip him apart as a party trick, before being reborn in three days. In game, respawns can take anywhere from seconds to a minute. Prometheus, again, took a whole day to regenerate just his liver. And it's not like Kronus is regenerating. Tyr lost his hand, Ne Zha actually died, Vulcan was crippled, Xbal's brother also lost his arm, etc etc.

Funny how I'm supporting my points with evidence, as usual. Notice a pattern yet?

---

Hmm, we see the trend of more armor in model = better base protections. We see how getting armor in item form gives you more protections. So, logically, getting armor, item or on you base model, should give you more protections does nothing. BLAH BLAH BASE STAT VALUES DONT EXIST I CANT HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH

---

Funny how he ignores out the actual game proves him wrong, albeit in smaller scale. Ymir and Ares DO get more base health and protections than Neith.

It's simple deduction.

---

Here's the funny part: What exactly is Zanestorm talking about?

Throughout these points, he is never consistent. He fluctuates between talking about pixels, to gods in real life, to their representation in video game form.

My point is, for all of these, is that it doesn't matter what form it is: He's wrong either way.

Actual Mythology? As we can see in the lore, death and pain were an issue for gods, as we can see in the lore.

Video Game? Death screams, talking about things hurting and dying when at how health, etc etc.

Pixels? See (1D) for my deconstruction of that.

So, I have responded, in detail, to every single one of Zanestorm's queries. I have countered his arguments with those of my own. In conclusion:

Subzero008's Claim:

- Zanestorm claims things with nothing to back them up.

- Zanestorm doesn't confront his problems, but repeats himself to drown them out.

- Zanestorm is a liar.

Proof: This entire report.

I can't force the knowledge into your brain pipes. But I can ask you see look at this, and then look at Zanestorm's Analysis. I labeled it specially for this. Read it, see how "dated" it is, see how "biased" it is, and see how Zanestorm's entire argument falls apart.

- You have not provided a single quote of a supposed claim I've made that would require a citation. Where you got the number 30 from is beyond me. [Edit: Further down you discussed 8 claims that I went over in post 3, but you didn't make these posts chronologically it would seem.]
- You absolutely have the right to critique anything, from an ideological point of view or otherwise. However you do not have the right to make claims - like claiming sexualised Goddesses in a video game cause real-world sexism - unless you have convincing academic evidence that holds to scrutiny.
- I have provided a decent guideline for how anyone should assess an academic source for its credibility and reliability and gone over how I have applied these principles to your single source. If anyone wants to verify what I've said, they need only look up common academic conventions with regards to citations and then read your source and my rebuke.
- Academics are taught the skills immediately to discern good from bad sources, any university student in a decent degree course can do so. I've made no claims - if you can find me some claims I've made that require outside evidence I would gladly supply it - but until that point I have nothing, to my knowledge, that requires a citation as again, to my knowledge, I have made no claims.
- I have not lied. I provided the exact citation showing the same academic principles I had applied to your source. There is slight variance in these principles - but as I said, that source was a pretty good guideline for them generally.
- Again, you say I've made 30 claims. Provide me with these claims and I will explain either why they don't need citations, or where they do, I will provide academic material of sufficient standard to support my case.
- Your OP is large, so my response was large. It has nothing to do with trying to intimidate people.
- Finally, You cannot cite yourself as evidence.

- Points 1-3 - are invalid for two separate reasons. Reason one: these are video game characters. Reason two: they are not "women" they are Goddesses, they aren't even human by their nature. Are the Goddesses more sexualised than the Gods in Smite? Yes. Does that have any real world implications? Not until you can prove it does.
- Point 4 - bad is a relative term. Other MOBAs don't take their source content from real world sexualised deities
- Point 5 - Nothing justifies the double standard, perhaps. But over-sexualisation does not lead to sexism [which is an implicit conclusion you have] nor is it an objective category - what you see as "over" sexualised others may not regard to be sexual at all.
- Point 6 - Video games have their own culture. What you have not done is proven how video-games, as a culture, affect real-world culture in terms of societal values placed on gender. This is a key point of contention that you would most definitely need several strong academic sources to prove. Anecdotes are insufficient to prove a link between video-game culture, real-life culture and sexism.
- Point 7 - Your sources discussed the idea that internalized sexism CAN exist which was never in contention. That does not mean it is common [you'd need academic sources to verify this] which is an implicit conclusion you have. You would also need to clarify why people can play violent games without becoming violent, yet if they played a game portraying women badly would hate women. This is another thing you'd need academic sources to support.
- Point 8 - You point out you lack valid evidence, which has been true thus far for every claim you've made. At least you've admitted it once. People are apathetic because this isn't a problem - nor have you proven it is. The discussion of video games causing X sociopathic trait has been discussed for many decades, there has been no valid academic research proving any link between playing video-games and picking up a trait within the games you play. Until you provide that evidence - which doesn't exist - nobody is going to take you or anyone making similar claims seriously.

- Historians tend to learn about Archaeology too, they're inter-related subjects
- Pagans are rare, that doesn't mean I'm not a pagan. If you wish to verify my status as a Pagan, I will happily discuss areas of paganism I'm familiar with - such as Animism and Witchcraft.
- I cannot provide an academic study proving that I'm a history undergraduate with knowledge of archaeology and paganism. I can't provide any study on that - I'm not important enough to have an academic biography written about my personal knowledge.
- I'm also gay - again, I cannot provide a source to prove that. I accused you of acting antagonistically toward my sexuality, evidence of which has been passed to a moderator for assessment. That is all I can say on that matter.
- You critique my language usage, that is not a valid argument.
- Claim 1 - men are oversexualised in media just like women - supported with a list of media content revealing men in arguably overly sexual scenarios. This one does not require an academic study - as you specifically asked me for *one* media source that had overly-sexualised men. I provided that evidence, which can be found in our initial dispute.
- Claim 2 - Video-games are distinguished from reality - this is a fact that does not require an academic source to prove. It is a form of media - like a book or movie - that can represent, but are not actually, reality. I never claimed internalization did not exist - although there are serious issues with your use of internalization which I've covered in rebuke 2.
- I stated when you requested clarification that video-game culture and real-world cultures can absolutely crossover, but that it is largely its own culture - hence the distinction "video-game culture." That still has nothing to do with proving video-games cause real world sexism. Moreover, your use of parallel is incorrect. Oxford dictionary example: "parallel lines never meet." As in, they can bare similarities, but they do not intersect. That isn't strictly true - as I did indeed confirm later on - but you make it sound like they're far more connected than the reality of the situation.
- Claim 3/3.5 - There is no academic evidence of video-games causing peoples real world-views and perceptions in the context of gender [which is what this discussion is about to change. Your first citation is not relevant to that discussion. Your second cites incredibly out-dated authors [Kuhn, 1964, Mead, 1934, Ferree, 1990, Thorne 1986, Adams and Ware, 1989] ect. Your source is also from the Feminist perspective [not a neutral source] Also - YOUR OWN SOURCE STATES:
"However, Dominick (1984) reported that, “Videogame violence is abstract and generally consists of blasting spaceships or stylized aliens into smithereens. Rarely does it involve one human being doing violence to another.” (p. 138). Therefore, he argues that correlations between video game violence and aggression in teenage rs should not be strong. In addition, Valois and his colleague s (1995) reported that there was no significant relationship between television and video exposure and violent behavior among their sample of teens." P.430.

Aka there is AT BEST a very slight correlation between television, video-game exposure and real-world actions of those interacting with these mediums. Did you actually read your own source? Not only does it not fit common academic conventions in numerous ways, it actually works against itself and against your claims too by stating the exact opposite of what you're proposing to be true.

Your third source is more up to date [yay!] The authors stated goal "The goal will be to provide
an overview to illustrate the need for further research in this area, along with the existing research studies." Would suggest that they themselves believe research is severely lacking in this particular area, indeed they actively state they only knew of 2 studies.

This source ironically falls into the exact same trappings as you - they make statements like "Stereotypes frequently repeated in today’s modern media, as well as in video games, become internalized." without any citation whatsoever, where a citation is absolutely needed to prove 1) most people are susceptible to internalizing messages from video-games and 2) A justification for why gamers aren't all rampant murderers and sociopaths, considering the amount of games depicting extreme violence [including Smite.] Because rationally - if their claim and yours is true - gamers as a group would be significantly more sexist, homophobic, violent [murder], commit far more crimes and be generally sociopathic. That is not the case - which should be obvious - so an explanation from yourself and the author is in order, which neither of you have provided. If internalization is sub-conscious and we cannot control it, it would stand to reason that gamers would be internalizing violence too - which they aren't [since games are more popular than ever yet violence in Western societies has not shot-up.]

The remainder of the source is focused on how women are treated online. I would counter-claim the Pew study, in which 13% of women and 11% of men have been harassed online. Women are not singularly targeted online due to their gender, which is a counter-point that weakens the remainder of the article [which the author would have known - had they tried to discuss men as well.]

Finally, the author out-right states that - "However, one of the limitations of the research in this
current study is that there is no current empirical study that examines
the long-term effects of video games on prejudice." p. 33 - aka, they lack any data that conclusively proves their claims. They are then put in the exact same spot as you - they lack evidence for what they are saying.

Source 4 - the first thing to state is that they are relying on a theoretical framework - that is to say, a framework that is but a theory itself as it lacks data - which they assume to exist. Onto Chapter V - the video-games section - they used 242 students and 2 fighting games of the same genre as their basis for their claims regarding an entire industry with millions of consumers. It goes without saying that there are millions of gamers and thousands of video-games, so one cannot possibly make claims on either based on such an insignificant sample size that is well within the realms of anomalous data. There's something to be said for the utter bizarreness of the data gathering - in which the aggression of the player was decided by how much of a spicy food they allocated to their partner. This seems to be based on an earlier, equally bizarre study using the same parameters.

- I never claimed internalization did not exist in any of my posts. I have actually stated the exact opposite. Your feminist / wikipedia "sources" are still flawed, for the exact same reasons as before. You then go off an a massive tangent personally attacking me, putting words in my mouth and calling me a liar based on words I never said.

- Claim 5 [you skipped a number, quite amusing] is about sexual diversity. Your entire claims are contingent on the notion that men are actively objectifying these Goddesses by finding them sexualised - which you have provided no evidence for. I merely pointed out that sexuality - even ad-midst a single sexual orientation - is incredibly diverse, because it is.

Claim 7 [where's 6?] - I pointed out that Goddesses aren't modern women. That is a fact. You claim empathy is most important - giving examples like "Some women don't fight. Some goddesses also don't."
Some dogs don't fight, some humans don't. Therefore dogs are humans! All cats eat, all humans eat, therefore cats are humans! Rocks exist, humans exist, therefore rocks are humans! ect ect. Your argument is insane.

Claim 8 - Subzero is trying to dictate the way women dress - you are actively stating that Goddesses in Smite are "over-sexualised" (bad) and must be changed. That is doing exactly as I've described. You're dictating how they dress to fit your ideological preference.

Claim 9 - Sexualisation is subjective and there are MANY representations of ancient deities - some sexual, some not. The same goes for the lore. If Hi-rez wants to pick sexualised portions, that's within their right.