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.