Ms. Sarkeesian/Ms. Feminist Frequency: "My feeling is that these kinds of reactions only underscore the need for serious considerations of feminism in games; if the idea of a project like this generates this kind of misogynistic outrage, clearly there are serious problems with women's portrayals in games and their place in gaming culture that need to be addressed."
My feeling is that it underscores the need for serious considerations of feminism in games and feminism in general; if the idea of a project like this generates this kind of outrage, clearly there are serious problems with feminism in games and with feminism in general and their respective places in gaming culture and culture in general that need to be addressed.
@Earmites Well, pretty soon there will be lots of women in firefighting. The majority of them will be in leading positions (thanks quotas!) and the rest of them will have been hired based on revised criteria which don't any longer make it necessary to be able to effectively fight fire, or in other words to do the job comparatively well (it seems the military has made such changes, mostly unrelated to fire, though). Of course it is already horrible to speak of "firemen" as soon as there's at least one female firefighter - retired or active - in the country/world.
@Mabrry "Ok, i can understand girls complaining about games like Dead or Alive and a lot of those Japan anime girl big boob games... but Mario?"
Well, Mario is totally subversive. In the end, the only thing permissible is when a homosexual character rescues another homosexual character and they get married. That happens to sound like "ironic sexism", or "ironic anti-feminism", or some such; whatever it may be, it is really bad, because it opposes notions of extreme - alternatively, depending on your view point: moderate - feminism. Essentially, every one is (potentially) everything - there's a whole population of extreme Schrödinger cat-people - and "gender" is only a myth. Hell, biological sex would be declared a myth, but I doubt feminists can trick people into overlooking certain parts of anatomy. In reality, biological sex and, subsequently, (social) gender are true; predictable, fairly constant neurological differences exist, stereotypes tend to be accurate, profound and relevant -- and they should be relevant. "Gender mainstreaming" - which comes in variations - is a questionable undertaking. Its totalitarian nature is hilarious, though, when considered in conjunction with the alleged moral righteousness of feminists.
(Please note that "feminists" never includes all feminists, unless explicitly stated otherwise.)
Feminists (the word is never meant to include all of them, unless explicitly stated) ask for equal treatment, equal opportunity, not for equal outcome. Then they look at the outcome. And when the outcome isn't equal that means - as they claim - that the opportunities weren't equal. That's the logic behind all that talk of "glass ceilings". Instead of doing that, they should have to prove that opportunities/treatment were/was not equal. But they prefer asking for special treatment, including massive quotas. Again, what's happening here is that they ask for affirmative action in order to get more women into developing games and in leading positions.
What right do they have to such affirmative action(s)? Unless proven otherwise, the men who hold these positions earned them.
And what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with entertainment created by men for men. Women are of course free to play these games. But they are not free to dictate what men create and what men enjoy. If men like looking at fictional constructs, images of sexy fictional women, then that is their good right. If men like to play and watch football then that is their good right. What entitles women to deny men that? (There are conflicting interests; but this matter rarely is sufficiently analyzed; instead feminists pretend - perhaps even believe - that they are right a priori.) This isn't just about equality. It's about dictating a culture that is then to be adhered to by all. Feminists here are attempting to dictate how men should be, in every conceivable area of life: politics, work and private life. This is highly questionable. And they are doing that under the disguise of equality, while playing victims, and without considering the entire system and all of its facets. They indentify things they want, ignore balance, and rely on procedures that can aptly be referred to as of indoctrinating nature. Or, as the interviewee put it:
"That said, [feministic] media stories do have a profound effect on us, especially when messages, myths, and images are repeated over and over again."
By the way, evolutionary psychology explains why beauty and sex appeal are even more important in women than in men, and why status is more important in men than in women. Current culture - media - is not what caused this. Culture merely acts on it. And no, these are not incorrect stereotypes. These stereotypes are accurate as to what they state and predict. (As a side note, denying the accuracy of stereotypes is another standard tool of feminism -- of that branch of social science.) As for harassment, feminists (I repeat: not all of them) are harassing men (and a number of women). Their thorough campaign to reshape society and install their own world view is remarkable, omnipresent and unrelenting. It needs to be carefully considered and confronted. I should address the ominous concept of "objectification" next, but this posts length prohibits that.
Backlash, harassment, oppression, boys club, and all sorts of glass stuff (ceilings mostly). Yeah, this is the classic feminist "raising of awareness". They are of course free to try and raise whatever, verbally, and may it be hell. But it's about time they faced critical, objective, steadfast and earnest opposition. Their application of the aforementioned terms tends to be overbroad and many of the concepts and the ideology/-ies behind them are inherently questionable. Many feminist tend to be exceedingly quick to call everything they dislike "sexist", everything good they do not get as due to "patriarchy" and "oppression" and, ironically, they think they have the to right to dictate how things should be. And when they face opposition it is - to them - almost inevitably "backlash" and "harassment". They have a remarkable sense of entitlement.
The design of the new Dante is fairly ridiculous -- might as well rename him. Personally, I would've preferred a character more akin to DMC 1 and 2's Dante. But even then, several improvements would've been in order. Capcom's character's aren't exactly complex or sophisticated.
l777l's comments