Sexism, Gaming, Pax and Fear

I've lived 30 years, the number of times I've received unsolicited social contact is ~5.

Welcome to the land of straight, white, male privilege. I'm assuming you're white, true, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Or had you not considered the fact that you're not a woman might be a factor in this?

Just because you're thinking it doesn't mean it's ok to say it. That's what filters are for.

Double post for humanitarian purposes.

Tanglebones wrote:

Not sure that clarification decreases the creepiness. Do you have female friends? Family members? Are you only interested in speech when it leads to mating?

Yes just one currently, I'm a out of sight out of mind kinda guy and the others were women I asked out but stayed friends with though I might get a response if I posted to their facebook.
Yes.
No, but I do want it to have utility. I generally don't speak unless I have something to say.
Also, since I want to start a family, there are a lot of things to go with that. Socializing with co-workers, for example.
And yes, enjoyment has utility, so if I'm in a good conversation, I like it.

Talking Heads wrote:

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?

NSMike wrote:
I've lived 30 years, the number of times I've received unsolicited social contact is ~5.

Welcome to the land of straight, white, male privilege. I'm assuming you're white, true, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Or had you not considered the fact that you're not a woman might be a factor in this?

Thank you for making my point, given this response, one shouldn't consider it odd that I assume that a woman will assume I have an interest in her if I make any kind of unsolicited contact. Yes?

RolandofGilead wrote:
NSMike wrote:
I've lived 30 years, the number of times I've received unsolicited social contact is ~5.

Welcome to the land of straight, white, male privilege. I'm assuming you're white, true, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Or had you not considered the fact that you're not a woman might be a factor in this?

Thank you for making my point, given this response, one shouldn't consider it odd that I assume that a woman will assume I have an interest in her if I make any kind of unsolicited contact. Yes?

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/UcwPjVb.jpg)

NSMike wrote:
RolandofGilead wrote:
NSMike wrote:
I've lived 30 years, the number of times I've received unsolicited social contact is ~5.

Welcome to the land of straight, white, male privilege. I'm assuming you're white, true, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Or had you not considered the fact that you're not a woman might be a factor in this?

Thank you for making my point, given this response, one shouldn't consider it odd that I assume that a woman will assume I have an interest in her if I make any kind of unsolicited contact. Yes?

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/UcwPjVb.jpg)

I get it! That's hilarious.
You should have been more specific about which thing not being a woman was a factor of (not enjoying spontaneous social contact or my viewpoints as a whole). I assumed you were quoting my post to respond to that post, not the totality of my arguments.

Roland?

I'm going to level with you, since I want to think that fundamentally you're an ok guy.

The stuff you're posting... as a woman, I find it creepy as f*ck. Like, terrifying-level creepy. If you're serious about wanting to meet a girl and start a family someday, I would really think about your philosophy on the whole thing and let your outlook evolve. The search-and-destroy-missile approach is really unsettling on platonic and romantic levels. At this point if I met you randomly w/o knowing anything about you, I would definitely be avoiding the sh*t out of you. Certainly not making any unsolicited contact. You know when people talk about vibes? At the moment this comes off as a "warning warning stay the f*ck away if you have any self-respect" vibe.

And sure, there might be a few women out there who find that attractive, but it is not ok for every other woman you run into before that to be collateral damage. It's repugnant.

This isn't about giving you dating advice or whatever, it's about wanting to share a planet with you and maybe hang out at an S&T eventually. I don't want to make you defensive, I just think that people may be choosing to avoid interacting with you rather than telling you what they actually think.

KaterinLHC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

As a non con goer and one unfamiliar with the rules surrounding the context, I, honestly, would not see anything offensive in someone saying to an attractive woman "wow, you're really pretty" -- especially if the woman put a huge amount of effort to construct a costume.

In the case of saying "wow you're really pretty", you aren't commenting on the costume she worked so hard to make. You're commenting on her attractiveness, again making her hard work all about YOUR sexual interest in HER.

Incorrect, there's a fallacy there, you would need to assume that a woman has the same attractiveness at all times throughout her entire life.

And what's offensive about you, unsolicited, informing an attractive woman that she is pretty? Everything -- starting with why the hell do you believe she ought to care what you think of her?

No one has to "ought to care" but unless a person has extreme autism maybe, everyone cares at least a little about what others think of them. I don't see how you can advocate a healthy social dynamic and simultaneously deny this facet of human psyche.

Complimenting a woman you don't know in a polite, respectful manner is not hard. In fact, it's as easy as not framing your compliment in terms of how much you do or do not want to f*ck her. When you do that, it's scary and rude and offensive, and that's the opposite effect of what you wanted to achieve, right?

Honestly, the amount of male entitlement in this thread is startling. Not everything in this world is about your dong.

Compliments have subtext is all I'm saying. So unless I'm complimenting the boss's wife, she's foolish to believe my compliment is not inherently framed in terms of how much I want to do her.
Thus my original objection that if I follow that constraint, I could (almost) never talk to a woman.

duckideva wrote:

I'm going back a bit to the conversation about women *in* games, and wanted to leave this here: IMAGE(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18iwyj5ycdtmljpg/original.jpg)

This was my reaction to GW2 when I first made a character. My first character, an engineer, in the "create a character" thingy had a pretty awesome outfit; but when I finished the character creation, and launched the game; it was a sexy-maid outfit.

All of the outfits (after lvl 20 or so) for the races that are not Asura, are eye-candy for male players. (Tis why Cruella is an Asura, Asura females are allowed to wear clothes.)

This sort of thing goes to the very core of women in gaming. I'm aware that most of the people playing games are men; but perhaps part of that is that younger women aren't hardened by years of playing games, and are offended by the fact that 90% of their gaming experience is *as* a sex object.

Duckilama got annoyed with GW2 because of the way his female warrior ended up dressed at lvl 80 in top of the line gear. There is no reason why men can have full armor, but women have boobs and bellybuttons. I realize that bringing "reality" into a game is a silly thing; but seriously; what woman who had the ability to wield a sword as big as she is would also think: "Ok, bra, undies, scrap of loin wrap...yeah, I'm ready to fight orcs!"

The reason it is problematic is because it further entrenches the idea that women are "for looking at". It makes females an "other". Women, in games, in tech, and in life, have had enough of being the "other".

Outside of one set (the Arah one), the top tier heavy armor for females is nearly identical (in terms of skin exposure) to that for the males. Medium armor has two sets that show more skin on females than on males. The real difference is with light armor (female, male).

Well, sh*t, I'm gay, and thus have no interest in boning women at all. Guess I gotta stop talking to women. Almost.

RolandofGilead wrote:

Compliments have subtext is all I'm saying. So unless I'm complimenting the boss's wife, she's foolish to believe my compliment is not inherently framed in terms of how much I want to do her.

Please read clover's post.

Preferably more than once.

I've mostly been staying out of this thread, but in the hopes that maybe you'll lend a message from a guy more weight - a strictly utilitarian approach to human relationships like you're advocating here is profoundly dysfunctional. Please consider that people, regardless of gender (or your interest in sleeping with them), have value, completely independent of what they may be able to offer you, personally.

clover wrote:

Roland?
I don't want to make you defensive, I just think that people may be choosing to avoid interacting with you rather than telling you what they actually think.

They've done both, I prefer the latter, far more useful and respectful.
Whenever I compare myself statistically, I'm nearly always average or normal. Ironically, I react and am reacted to differently. In a psych experiment in college (I love signing up for those), the experiment was designed to show how women's crimes were viewed based on whether that woman was the "ideal" of good mother and wife, etc. The normal reaction is that those who fit the ideal are dealt with less harshly. I went the opposite way. In high school, the girl who became Salutatorian told everyone in class when we handed our quizzes how she got an A on her quiz and people were congratulatory. Two days later, we had another quiz and I also received an A, and I replicated what she did and people immediately derided me for being a show-off. This is why that SNL sexual harassment vid hits home, I know for a fact that the same words from two different people can be interpreted differently.
How men and women interact is possibly deeply rooted in most people's minds and therefore a subconscious, primal idea may exist without most of you realizing it which posits that a man is looking for a wife to subjugate.
But you see, I'm the opposite, I don't wish for a wife to subjugate, I wish for a goddess to serve.
(Naturally hyperbole, I'm not a doormat after all & in most affairs I expect a partnership)

Ok, I dig. This totally isn't the thread to have that conversation in, but a conversation about that would be cool.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I've mostly been staying out of this thread, but in the hopes that maybe you'll lend a message from a guy more weight - a strictly utilitarian approach to human relationships like you're advocating here is profoundly dysfunctional. Please consider that people, regardless of gender (or your interest in sleeping with them), have value, completely independent of what they may be able to offer you, personally.

Who said I'm strictly a Utilitarian? I'm actually Epicurean (and Stoic). Also, their value is invisible unless I make the effort to see it and in a lot of cases it's not worth the risk because I'm afraid they'll injure me in some fashion.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Seth wrote:

Roland I have to believe you're not trying to say this, but - because I still need more clarification, and please forgive what I can only say is my own incredulity at what I hope is a miscommunication- but are you saying your penis and your mouth are so inextricably tied that you verbalize literally every sexual thought you have?

NO

Men are not animals, and should not act as such.

Actually both women and men are animals, why do people always forget this? Also, "animals" often have complex mating rituals and some mate for life. The only rapists I know of are dophins and humans, so it seems we should act like animals.

Baboons are horrible rapist. Its common for them to kidnap young females and abuse physically until their wills are broken.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
RolandofGilead wrote:
Seth wrote:

Roland I have to believe you're not trying to say this, but - because I still need more clarification, and please forgive what I can only say is my own incredulity at what I hope is a miscommunication- but are you saying your penis and your mouth are so inextricably tied that you verbalize literally every sexual thought you have?

NO

Men are not animals, and should not act as such.

Actually both women and men are animals, why do people always forget this? Also, "animals" often have complex mating rituals and some mate for life. The only rapists I know of are dophins and humans, so it seems we should act like animals.

Baboons are horrible rapist. Its common for them to kidnap young females and abuse physically until their wills are broken.

Ducks as well.

Just want to acknowledge that a "let's randomly list lots of rapey animals" tangent in a thread about sexism and women's fear is... icky.

clover wrote:

Just want to acknowledge that a "let's randomly list lots of rapey animals" tangent in a thread about sexism and women's fear is... icky.

Yeah. That's not cool.

Also, Roland; I get that you're trying to be honest about how you view people only in light of their utility to you, but I think your point has been made. You are not going to convince those of us who believe that philosophical framework has inherent ethical and moral problems. But, even if you could, this is not the thread for that. However, I believe that you should consider starting a thread about utilitarian human interactions, it could prove interesting.

Back to women and gaming; another interesting women in gaming news item: Publishers don't want games with a female protagonist. Gamespot comments not horrible.

clover wrote:

Just want to acknowledge that a "let's randomly list lots of rapey animals" tangent in a thread about sexism and women's fear is... icky.

Yes, shame on you all *swiftly lowers his head*

edit: darn ducki'housed, I wrote the following before she posted btw.

Also, duckideva's advice on how to compliment people is good. Or at least I know what she says about the wrong things to do are indeed incorrect.

I wish I could find where I read it, but I swear the Remember Me guy said they toned down her attractiveness so she would be a non-exploitive female protagonist, which was immediately followed up in my own mind with, "Well, that memo did not reach the guy doing her walk animation-or the facial modeler-or the slender hourglass modeler".

duckideva wrote:

Back to women and gaming; another interesting women in gaming news item: Publishers don't want games with a female protagonist. Gamespot comments not horrible.

Oh, wow, talk about prejudice and generalizing, first time I read this I thought you said "Gamespot comments are horrible" because I just filled in the words without reading them.

Stengah wrote:
duckideva wrote:

I'm going back a bit to the conversation about women *in* games, and wanted to leave this here: IMAGE(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18iwyj5ycdtmljpg/original.jpg)

This was my reaction to GW2 when I first made a character. My first character, an engineer, in the "create a character" thingy had a pretty awesome outfit; but when I finished the character creation, and launched the game; it was a sexy-maid outfit.

All of the outfits (after lvl 20 or so) for the races that are not Asura, are eye-candy for male players. (Tis why Cruella is an Asura, Asura females are allowed to wear clothes.)

This sort of thing goes to the very core of women in gaming. I'm aware that most of the people playing games are men; but perhaps part of that is that younger women aren't hardened by years of playing games, and are offended by the fact that 90% of their gaming experience is *as* a sex object.

Duckilama got annoyed with GW2 because of the way his female warrior ended up dressed at lvl 80 in top of the line gear. There is no reason why men can have full armor, but women have boobs and bellybuttons. I realize that bringing "reality" into a game is a silly thing; but seriously; what woman who had the ability to wield a sword as big as she is would also think: "Ok, bra, undies, scrap of loin wrap...yeah, I'm ready to fight orcs!"

The reason it is problematic is because it further entrenches the idea that women are "for looking at". It makes females an "other". Women, in games, in tech, and in life, have had enough of being the "other".

Outside of one set (the Arah one), the top tier heavy armor for females is nearly identical (in terms of skin exposure) to that for the males. Medium armor has two sets that show more skin on females than on males. The real difference is with light armor (female, male).

As a Guild Wars 2 fan, it's definitely interesting to hear thoughts from other players about whether something is uncomfortably sexist or not. I can see Stengah's point that there are plenty of armors/robes that aren't super revealing. But there are enough skimpy armors (I'm especially thinking about some of the elementalist, thief and Norn cultural) that I can see where Duckideva would feel uncomforatble. As much as I want to say that it's empowering to women or good to have choices, they may have gone overboard.

For the record though, I think some of it is meant to play well in the Asian market. I think both the boy and girl human models look way too airbrushed. It's the one reason I play non-humans.

I appreciate the personal stories the ladies have shared in this thread (as well as the linked articles). Something that keeps jumping out at me is that the antagonists in this experiences are criminals or (in corporate environments) guilty of sexual harassment. Is the culture of fear that strong that you don't want to press charges or contact HR?

Nevin73 wrote:

I appreciate the personal stories the ladies have shared in this thread (as well as the linked articles). Something that keeps jumping out at me is that the antagonists in this experiences are criminals or (in corporate environments) guilty of sexual harassment. Is the culture of fear that strong that you don't want to press charges or contact HR?

Most women have been trained through life experience that saying something will just make life even worse. And if you do, people are not likely to listen anyway.

I have a long depressing story about my personal experience with the futility of attempting charges, and I know I'm not the only one here who has one. It's not impossible, of course, but if you're not willing to allow life to become living hell for a while the legal route is probably not for you. Even an informal HR complaint can make a work environment even more intolerable.

Edit: part of the "empowerment" stuff you see bandied about is about retraining those responses, and actually saying something when you see or experience unfair treatment... like the OP.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

That kind of sounds like you want every one to wear a burka including men in your ideal world. A world where everyone is the same. Reminds me of a twilight zone episode.

Well, yes and no. Firstly this is not my actual ideal world; it is, instead, an exercise in hypothesizing about how the design of software systems compares/contrasts with the design of social systems. Secondly I think it reminds me more of a Philip K Dick novel.

Defensive programming operates on a need to know basis. You are writing code that other systems (and the people who build them) might have to look and use; the idea is that by affording only that small set of actions that is absolutely necessary for the desired interaction to work properly you A) Lower the cognitive load of your fellow developers by minimizing the amount of stuff they have to learn and worry about, and B) Protect yourself from malicious and/or stupid developers by making it hard for them to access/misuse/abuse parts of the software that are irrelevant to the interaction at hand.

Thus, in the hypothetical way of modelling society I describe, interactions between people operate on a need to know basis as well. Everyone is different, but the nature of those differences are revealed to us only as we need to know about them. Where gender is not relevant, it is not exposed. You may reasonably assume that the person with whom you're interacting has a gender (and is human), but you don't know for sure and, for the purposes of this interaction, it isn't really your concern. It could be an AI, or a genderless worm-person from Omikron-Persei 8, assuming both are capable of operating the cash register and talking about the weather.

jdzappa wrote:

As a Guild Wars 2 fan, it's definitely interesting to hear thoughts from other players about whether something is uncomfortably sexist or not. I can see Stengah's point that there are plenty of armors/robes that aren't super revealing. But there are enough skimpy armors (I'm especially thinking about some of the elementalist, thief and Norn cultural) that I can see where Duckideva would feel uncomforatble. As much as I want to say that it's empowering to women or good to have choices, they may have gone overboard.

Yeah, it's there in spades for the light armor wearers. My poor mesmer went from having a neat looking set to super skimpy at level 80 because I either have to spend a lot of time, materials, or money to get a new look, or pay real money for the ability to make my new armor look like my old armor (but keep the stats). There certainly is skimpy armor for medium and heavy armor, but it's more gender neutral (the male and female versions are equally revealing) and not nearly as prevalent.

Regarding GW2, there are plenty of decent alternative in heavy and medium armor, the problem definitely resides in the light armor options, though. That's why my Mesmer is an Asura, and my Elementalist a Sylvari. (The light armor for a sylvari is extremely revealing, but for some reason, it doesn't bother me as much on a "plant creature", go figure). Anyone harboring doubts about this should go to www.gw2armor.comand check out the options for a human female wearing light armor. Now try a human male, same armor set.
No one will convince me that there's nothing wrong with the vast difference between the two.

This reminds me of a night I was playing WoW with hubby while he was overseas. We were both Death Knights trying to get to max level by completing quests. We had just finished a difficult task and went back to the quest giver for a reward. He had spoken to the guy first, received his chestplate and equipped it. He nearly flipped because it looked so cool. Since I was also a Death Knight and the only useful reward was plate mail, I accepted the exact same item and put it on my character.

It was a bikini top. Plate mail bikini top for my Death Knight. I just remember yelling "OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!" and hubby was laughing hysterically over Skype because he couldn't believe it. My avatar looked so damn stupid. When the jokes were all said and done, I was angry about it. I didn't want my Death Knight to look like a complete idiot but it was good armor and I didn't have the gold to waste in the auction house buying something that looked like actual armor.

I hate when my video game characters are forced to prance around in underwear. If it's suppose to be armor, whether it be metal/leather/cloth, just make it look like armor. Bikinis don't protect anything. Bikinis are notes that read "Oops! I thought the Lich King was holding a beach party. LOL I'm a moron! Stab here! ♥♥♥"

duckideva wrote:
clover wrote:

Just want to acknowledge that a "let's randomly list lots of rapey animals" tangent in a thread about sexism and women's fear is... icky.

Yeah. That's not cool.

Whoop, my bad.