Sorry I should have gave some context when I posted it, but at 4am I was exhausted.

Heh, fair enough--I think that one of the reasons that I haven't posted more often in this thread (and thus have ended up creating rather long posts) has been avoiding engaging with it while too tired. The thread will likely still be there in the new day, after all.

On one side you have a bunch of puritanical luddites who don't like people enjoying things they don't like or understand.

This isn't anything terribly new, either, I don't believe. Before video game TV, Rock 'n Roll and comics had their detractors. In fact--if I recall and understood correctly--I think that I've heard of this going back at least to the ancient Greeks, arguing the negative aspects of writing (as recording things might result in the memory atrophying) and poetry (because it might provoke untoward emotions in its audience--they even had the "catharsis vs. promotion" debate that we've seen with regards to video games and violence).

... according to Christianity and the Church Fathers, *all forms of art* are evil, because, when enjoying them, the viewer surrenders his mind to the creator.

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't think that aniconism is a common element of Christianity, let alone so complete a form as you're suggesting.

I do gather that there have been (and I think still are) some sub-sets of Christianity that reject images to one degree or another (with depictions of God being being, I imagine, the most commonly rejected), and I wouldn't be surprised if complete rejection of all art has been suggested by one or more Christian thinkers. Nevertheless, my impression is that it's not by any means commonly held.

For one thing, just look at how common outright Christian art is and has been.

... according to Christianity and the Church Fathers, *all forms of art* are evil, because, when enjoying them, the viewer surrenders his mind to the creator.

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't think that aniconism is a common element of Christianity, let alone so complete a form as you're suggesting.

I do gather that there have been (and I think still are) some sub-sets of Christianity that reject images to one degree or another (with depictions of God being being, I imagine, the most commonly rejected), and I wouldn't be surprised if complete rejection of all art has been suggested by one or more Christian thinkers. Nevertheless, my impression is that it's not by any means commonly held.

For one thing, just look at how common outright Christian art is and has been.

It was probably incorrect of me to say *all forms of art*. It was mostly theatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_actors_by_the_Catholic_Church#Patristic_views_on_theatre

Not to many videos make me pause and think, but these two made me think after listening to them. I'm just going to link to both so others can see what has made me pause.

[30:33]

[11:10]

I've since started muting people on Twitter that are volatile and fear mongering.

The problems with these videos, IMO, are that the engage in the same sort of ad hominem attacks and misdirection as all of the reasonable-sounding "criticisms" she attracts, but are in fact attempts at misdirection and character assassination.

Why is she *really* doing this, they ask. You're a smart internet citizen, they cheer. You can figure it out, the say. But her non-profit did take in ~400k last year, they helpfully remind. Where did the money go, they shrug. You're a smart person, you know the truth, they grin, nodding. Wouldn't an ethical person spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week working that money for all its worth, they posit. You can't trust unethical people, you're too smart for that, they conclude.

They also rely on a false equivalence between violence in games causing real-life violence and sexism in games causing real-life sexism, so that they can hitch their cart to the countless studies that have shown no causal relationship between consuming violent media and engaging in real-life violence. Firstly its a false equivalence because you can't simply extend findings about violent behavior to apply to sexist behavior any more than you can extend findings about lake bottoms to apply to the sea floor -- there may be some overlap, but they are not one and the same, and it takes real work to even say which differences and similarities are shared or not -- not just accusations, leading questions, and hand-waving. For one, real-life violence is pretty universally discouraged and could never be confused to be part of any normal interaction between people, thus when you commit violence in games or witness them on TV, it flies entirely in the face of accepted societal boundaries. But sexism is not at all universally discouraged, it is even encouraged by some, and tacitly accepted by most others, and some will say and even believe that feminism is just but will (perhaps unknowingly) still engage in sexist behavior. The societal cues that tell women they are less valued and taken less seriously than men are all over, thus when you commit sexism in games or witness it on TV, it does not fly in the face of accepted boundaries of behavior -- and simply saying sexism is bad is not enough -- because we see actual real-life sexism all around us, all day, every day.

Furthermore, Sarkeesian's point might or might not be meant to extend to saying "sexism in games encourages sexism in real life" -- I don't honestly know what her stance is on this specifically. I think for the reasons I outlined above, it very well might, or at the very least that the lack of causal link between violent media and real-life violence in studies does not readily extend to disproving a link between sexism in media having an influence on sexism in real life. Some other studies show, by the way, that there might be links between watching behaviors and then emulating it in kids, even extending to play violence -- this should not be surprising to anyone who's been around kids, or recalls being one -- certainly the first thing I would do after watching a martial arts movie as a kid was to go play flesh-and-blood street fighter with my brother. That's not to be extended to sexism among adults either, but its no further removed from what the gamer-gate crowd throws around, and says that the opposite might be true.

But none of that is needed to make a point that's worth making. Violence, although it may be an innate animal trait (including us higher primates), is by definition not a part of human society and very little to do with culture (there are/were warrior cultures, and cultures that engaged in ritual sacrifice, which might include violence but they mostly wouldn't have viewed it as violence in the way we define it today), but the way we treat and interact with one another has a lot to do with culture and is the very thing that defines what society is. And games are not society, but they are a huge part of modern culture. Its problem enough to cause concern that games, as a part of our shared, popular culture, perpetuate the kind of sexism that anyone with a brain will acknowledge to exist in real life. It doesn't have to contribute to the problem (although I think it probably does) on terms that are agreeable to you in order to be a part of the problem. Its at the very least part of the spectrum of real life sexism in culture (again, games are real-life culture), and like colors of the visible spectrum it can exist independently of others on the spectrum, or combine together to color things in a different way.

I just simply don't agree. I've been playing games since I was 5 years old with the Atari 2600 and games were my retreat from the stress of life as I got older. I would argue that sexism in real life perpetuates sexism in games. For example, in her tropes versus women videos she points out that the prostitutes and strippers are there to be objectified and aren't given any back story, but if you have ever watched the documentaries from HBO like G-String Divas they state on a few episodes that they keep their personal lives private to protect their families and some places require them to keep them separate (the whole appear available, but not be available ideal). There has even been documentaries following prostitutes around and showing they are objectified. Law and Order SVU's Intimidation Game episode (the entire Law and Order family of series) show that television, movies, and video games use real life for aspects of the stories. Ultimately, it is all just fiction and fantasy that is being scrutinized too much instead of being enjoyed as just being a work of fiction.

On a separate note, it appears Feminist Frequency is tackling both sexism and violence. It appears that Anita is covering sexism and McIntosh is covering violence. McIntosh tweeted this yesterday:

The positive reviews of Hotline Miami 2 are depressing & continue the cavalier celebration of violence that infects games writing & culture.

I would argue that sexism in real life perpetuates sexism in games.

Why need it be only one way and not the other? The idea of a "feedback loop" has been discussed in this thread already: culture affects representations, and representations reinforce cultural perceptions.

Ultimately, it is all just fiction and fantasy that is being scrutinized too much instead of being enjoyed as just being a work of fiction.

Once again, the effectiveness of propaganda seems to illustrate that fiction can very much influence perceptions.

On the other hand, for more direct examples, look at the reported effects of the movie Top Gun, and the story A Christmas Carol: On the former, Wikipedia reports that "after the film's release, the US Navy stated that the number of young men who joined wanting to be Naval Aviators went up by 500 percent"; on the latter, the section titled "Legacy" mentions a few effects, but these lines stands out in particular: "According to historian Ronald Hutton, the current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by A Christmas Carol". It goes on to say that "Dickens influenced many aspects of Christmas that are celebrated today in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games and a festive generosity of spirit". The article on Christmas seems to support this, noting that "[A Christmas Carol's] instant popularity played a major role in portraying Christmas as a holiday emphasizing family, goodwill, and compassion".

Now, in all fairness I'll note that I don't know how good are the references used in those articles, so I do stand to be corrected.

Those are, of course, somewhat extreme examples, being cases in which single works had distinct effects; for the most part the effects that we're describing in this thread seem to me to likely be aggregate effects. Nevertheless, I think that they show at least some of the power that fiction can have.

... according to Christianity and the Church Fathers, *all forms of art* are evil, because, when enjoying them, the viewer surrenders his mind to the creator.

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't think that aniconism is a common element of Christianity, let alone so complete a form as you're suggesting.

I do gather that there have been (and I think still are) some sub-sets of Christianity that reject images to one degree or another (with depictions of God being being, I imagine, the most commonly rejected), and I wouldn't be surprised if complete rejection of all art has been suggested by one or more Christian thinkers. Nevertheless, my impression is that it's not by any means commonly held.

For one thing, just look at how common outright Christian art is and has been.

It was probably incorrect of me to say *all forms of art*. It was mostly theatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_actors_by_the_Catholic_Church#Patristic_views_on_theatre

Even then, that article appears to be specific to Catholicism, not all of Christianity.

I'll confess that I gave the article a quick (and somewhat tired) look, so I may well have missed something, but--as the title indicates--the article seems overall to focus on Catholic opposition to the theatre, with only a brief mention of any approval given to it, and thus I'm not sure of how complete a picture it provides. As a comment on the "talk" page suggests, perhaps an article covering Catholic views of the theatre in general (whether for, against, or neither) would provide a better overview--and again, even then that would only tell us about Catholic views.

All I see at the linked url is a simple poll question asking if people think there is a connection between violent games and violent crimes -- a subject matter that pops up as a news story, new study, or pop-polling question at least several times every year for at least the last decade. There's nothing surprising about the question appearing, not really anything surprising about the results, and there's no apparent relation between the poll and the topic we've been discussing.

While that's technically true, it's only half the truth. Merely asking this question already in some way implies a positive answer. Though on the "several times per year" occasions that you cite, there is an even more unprofessional, demagogic tone to it.

Whenever some kid goes nuts and kills a few people, the mostly red "games are the devl" faction here doesn't ask "How could he get to his fathers (presumably locked up, as per the law) guns and ammunition in the first place?". They don't ask "Why is his father who is known to be a violent nutter allowed to have 5 guns in his home at all?". They don't ask "Why didn't the psychiatrist do anything when the boy told him he was going to shoot people?"

They ask "Are games dangerous, shouldn't we ban them?" right after stating: "This boy played video games!" in capital letters. Which wrongly inducts "those who play video games shoot people". That's of course done fully on purpose.

I would argue that sexism in real life perpetuates sexism in games.

Why need it be only one way and not the other? The idea of a "feedback loop" has been discussed in this thread already: culture affects representations, and representations reinforce cultural perceptions.

And someone already pointed out that a "sexist game" is sexism. A violent game is not violence.

If a book fails the Bechdel test in a major way -- say there's 10 majorly fleshed out male characters, but females only appear as side-characters -- then that's probably unintentionally a byproduct of the author's unconscious sexism, and arguably could be called a sexist book.

No matter how much violence is in a book, it's never actually going to attack me (not counting paper cuts).

And while we'll all likely agree that it's extremely unlikely that violent games make people violent, it's still worthwhile talking about how violence fits into our culture. TV, film and games are all saturated with violence that just a generation ago would've been illegal under obscenity laws! We can't just pretend that the way we live now is the only way humans have ever lived, and ignore history.

Our views of normality shape the culture we create, and the culture we live in shapes our views of normality.
Culture changes.
Common views change.

Show some media from today to a person from 100 years ago and they might be disgusted. And vice versa -- advertisements from a half decade ago are renowned for overt sexism and racism, although at the time most people didn't see a problem with them. People from today see them as cringe-worthy.

There's no way to know what the common person from 100 years in the future will think of today's culture... but you can be sure a damn lot of it will probably be cringe-worthy to them as well.

So why not have that discussion about how our culture shapes us?
Perhaps individually violent games do not make individuals into violent people... but perhaps a culture saturated with overt violence everywhere suffers a kind of desensitization and apathy towards violence in the real world.
Perhaps violent culture is how we cope with real-world violence.
Or ... perhaps the romanticisation of violence actually is a contributing factor in overall violent crime within society.
Perhaps both, to some degree each!

Same goes for any other ills of society, such as issues surrounding discrimination, e.g. sexism.

If you grow up watching TV and movies where in half of them, the major characters are entirely male, isn't it possible that that's going to instill some form of unconscious bias in you, where you expect (without being aware of it) that protagonists are usually men? And that if you then write a story, you'll most likely, without even thinking about it, write a male protagonist... and you'll be part of that feedback loop where culture propagates and preserves itself.
Is that really so controversial an idea, and hard to even entertain as a possibility?

Dismissing such conversations outright is akin to pretending that there was nothing wrong in the popular culture of the 50's.
Of course there's fucked up shit in our culture, we're just too close to it, living inside it, to have the perspective to see these things.
Our kids will though. And if our heads are buried in the sand, if we're shouting down those who dare to attempt any form of self-reflection, then our kids will look down on us.

I would argue that sexism in real life perpetuates sexism in games.

Why need it be only one way and not the other? The idea of a "feedback loop" has been discussed in this thread already: culture affects representations, and representations reinforce cultural perceptions.

And someone already pointed out that a "sexist game" is sexism. A violent game is not violence.

If a book fails the Bechdel test in a major way -- say there's 10 majorly fleshed out male characters, but females only appear as side-characters -- then that's probably unintentionally a byproduct of the author's unconscious sexism, and arguably could be called a sexist book.

This is a slightly off topic question, but what if the book/movie/game/whatever is just about males or some topic related to males? Is it still sexist? Like for example, a book about a squad of soldiers in Afghanistan, for example. Since women haven't been allowed to serve in combat roles until fairly recently, such a novel would probably not have very many female characters. Would that still be sexist? My point is that surely not every book that has a majority of male characters has a strong chance of being sexist?

As for games propagating sexism, many people here have already stated that it's a feedback loop. You can't say that one or the other is more responsible. It's cyclical.

This is a slightly off topic question, but what if the book/movie/game/whatever is just about males or some topic related to males? Is it still sexist?

Of course not, unless it is for other reasons.
Try not to get caught up in specifics and not see the forest for the trees...

As for games propagating sexism, many people here have already stated that it's a feedback loop. You can't say that one or the other is more responsible. It's cyclical.

As quoted, BHX is painting it as a one-way street, not a two-way loop, hence the response.