Sexism

[Princess Artemis]

I've never gotten over this advert to be honest.

I need something to get the "teeheehee" out of my head. That was awful.

[TikindiDragon]

There would be less problems if actors and models weren't so selfish that they'd degrade and devalue their gender for some money. I'd like to know if at any point were those actors thinking, "This is really sexist and wrong, why am I supporting this?". The people who created that commercial are complete idiots, but the actors don't need to be as well.

To be fair acting is a pretty risky business all round. I'm not sure if it's greedy when that's the only work you're being offered and you don't know where the next paycheck is coming from *shrugs*

 

But, yeah. I think adverts are actually getting *more* sexist, towards both gender, then they have been in the past. At least in the 50's it was just then-cultural norms they were playing on. I'm not sure what the excuse for it is now.

[Kelkelen]

I've never gotten over this advert to be honest.

Ugh, what!?? That's horrid. It manages to portray women as homemakers who do all the cleaning and are still somehow horrible overbearing harpies for expecting a man to do a portion of the housework, and men as idiotic apes who will look for a shortcut wherever possible and are clueless about doing anything useful in the kitchen -- all in 30 seconds!

 

Blech. If there was a joke in there somewhere, I missed it.

[Syaoransbear]

They also call it 'a woman's dream', suggesting that a woman's dream in life and highest priority is having efficient cleaning supplies. That ad is just sexist to everyone. I feel sorry for the male actor though, I bet he felt ridiculous.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Syaoransbear

[Zovesta]

I've never gotten over this advert to be honest.

I probably found this much funnier than I should have, just for their beautiful expressions. So amazingly cartoonish and over-the-top. So, yes, while it's sexist, I've seen a ton more cleaning product ads that pretty much do the same thing, only without the exaggerated characters that actually make it entertaining.

 

Seriously. Sexist as it was, I couldn't stop from giggling at the silent wife with the bulging eyes and folded arms in the background.

[Wookieinmashoo]

Seriously. Sexist as it was, I couldn't stop from giggling at the silent wife with the bulging eyes and folded arms in the background.

The commercial was stupid, but I also liked the expressions of both the man and woman. Also, at least no one looked like a model in the commercial.

 

Still stupid though, especially the laugh.

 

I tend to check out a website my roommate found that allows people to post up videos that won't get edited. Some of them are graphic, but others are just odd. We came across one video that was a bit odd, yet the man who was interviewed wasn't making any sense and didn't like that the reporter was female.

 

 

ttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50e_1339345847

 

Since I can't get it to not be a link, I removed the "h" from the begging so it shouldn't work.

 

Sexism in action. The comments are not G rated and neither is the majority of the site, but I didn't link it so it's okay?

Edited July 9, 2012 by Wookieinmashoo

[KageSora]

Halo 4 to introduce lifetime ban for sexism (As of this time, there are no inappropriate comments, however beware of following links in the article.)

 

There's not a lot of information on it--what will qualify as "sexist"? how will they (dis)prove claims of sexism? how will they enforce it?--but it's interesting, all the same.

 

I'm rather skeptical myself, simply because I don't see how it could be effective, but it's a nice attempt. (Though I think it needs to be broadened to include all manner of obscenely offensive trash talk, there's plenty of racism and sexual slurs and such...)

 

I'll be interested to see how this pans out, myself, even if I don't have terribly high hopes for it.

[Slaskia]

The offensive 'trash talk' is one of the reasons I don't even bother with MP on console games to begin with (that and the fact PvP games seem to bring in the worse kind of people). And the rare times I do, I just mute everyone.

 

Whether or not this 'works' will be seen, but I can predict a lot of crying on the boards when people start getting banned for this.

[TikindiDragon]

For me that kind of ban raises some akward questions - such as "Is freedom of speech only freedom to say what the moderators do not deem offensive?". True freedom of speech does include the right to say things other people might not like, or might disagree with, IMO.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a reduction in that kind of language. One of the reasons I don't go into 'random' multiplayer games is because of the idiots that one finds there. I'm just not sure that bans is the way to go about it. Smacks too much of censorship for my liking.

[KageSora]

There's a difference between "freedom to say things that others might disagree with" and "HEY UR A GURL [insert vulgar demands for the revelation of body parts and/or performance of sexual acts here], U NO U WANNA [insert expletives that are derogatory and aimed at females here]"

 

Your freedom of speech ends where the right of others to feel safe and comfortable in the game begins. I've seen some of the nasty stuff female gamers get. The reason I don't do online MP games is because I do not feel safe nor comfortable in them, and I don't want sexual harassment coming my way because I was cursed with boobs and lady bits by fate.

 

 

But that's why I'm wary of it--how will they enforce it? Will it just be certain keywords that will trigger a ban? Or will intent count, too? I mean, I let my friend call me some nasty stuff, because I know he doesn't mean it--just like how he gives me permission to use words that are normally considered slurs in teasing reference to him, since he knows I don't mean it negatively.

 

But if a random stranger used that kind of language with me, I would feel very uncomfortable and insulted.

 

So intent is key. I mean, are they just making a kitchen joke to be idiots, or are they continually harassing the female player simply because she's a girl and they think they're better than her because they have penises?

 

 

And what about females who will attack male games simply because they're male? Will they do anything about females being sexist against males, or is it a one-way thing?

 

 

I'm interested to see how it plays out, but I'm wary because there's a lot of potential for abuse depending on how they handle it.

 

And if they try to bring intent into it... Well, that's really hard to prove. The "victim" could claim that the intent was malicious while the "offender" could claim that the intent was teasing and all in good fun.

 

Would they automatically side with the "victim"? Because then that leaves it wide open for abuse. X beats Y in a game, so Y claims X made a lot of sexist comments. Do they have a way to prove that?

 

But if they automatically sided with the "offender", then it would be useless because everybody would just claim it was made-up and avoid trouble.

 

 

So it seems like a rather hollow promise to me. Very nice intent, trying to make it a better environment for girl gamers and all... But I don't see how they can back it up with proper action.

[Fuzzbucket]

There are games where this sort of stuff happens ?

 

MAN (sexist... ) I am naive and sheltered.

[TikindiDragon]

There's a difference between "freedom to say things that others might disagree with" and "HEY UR A GURL [insert vulgar demands for the revelation of body parts and/or performance of sexual acts here], U NO U WANNA [insert expletives that are derogatory and aimed at females here]"

 

Your freedom of speech ends where the right of others to feel safe and comfortable in the game begins. I've seen some of the nasty stuff female gamers get. The reason I don't do online MP games is because I do not feel safe nor comfortable in them, and I don't want sexual harassment coming my way because I was cursed with boobs and lady bits by fate.

Does it, though? See, that's where my issues come in (and you know me, you know who I am, and you'll know the kind of stuff I get to put up with being directed my way). Almost everyone can take exception at something. Almost everything can upset someone. And how far down that line do you take it? If everything that anyone could potentially be upset by was banned then you'd end up with some very, very heavy censorship. Is that a good thing? Should one persons 'right' not to feel upset trump another persons 'right' to express themselves the way they want? Can you protect one groups 'rights' without treading on another group in some way? Where do you draw the line - surely banning speech that might upset one segment of society isn't fair to the people upset by speech it doesn't ban? And if you say well, no, that's not fair - how much speech do you ban in order to *make* it fair? And once a large amount of speech is banned.... hasn't that given up on the idea of freedom of speech?

 

I sympathise with the people that have been hurt by derogatory language. God knows I've had enough of the stuff directed at me over the years (I mean - I have red hair, and I'm physically female. You have no idea how many times I've been asked if my "collar and cuffs match", and then been asked to prove it). But I also simply can't support restricting people's rights to say what they want to say - simply because of that 'where do you draw the line?' question. Once you've banned speech that upsets certain people it becomes only right to ban speech that upsets anyone - and that's censorship plain and simple.

[Fuzzbucket]

I'd say it ceases to be "free speech" when it is directed at an individual.

 

If you must, go around saying gays are filthy, and girls are s. Ick, but...

 

But saying "YOU are a * and a who needs a good rogering" is something else. That is personal and actually I THINK might be actionable in court.

Edited November 3, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[KageSora]

I agree with Fuzz here.

 

I mean, otherwise we might as well give up on trying to stop bullying because the "bullies" then have a "right" to say whatever terrible, offensive, harmful, and cruel stuff they want.

 

If verbal sexual harassment was a "right" covered by free speech, people would never get in trouble for it. But they do--I had a classmate who very nearly got suspended for verbal sexual harassment of me, an the only reason he didn't was because he was told "If you keep this up, you're going to be suspended" and he shut up right quick after that.

 

People ARE abusing "free speech" to make sexually harassing commentary.

 

WHY should that be allowed? WHY should that be protected?

[Charmiepoo]

When I tell people "I feel like a madman" they always ask me... "man..?"

 

Yes, mad man! I FEEL like a mad man, not like I'm saying I'm a man lol.

It just doesn't sound right in my head if I was saying "I feel like a mad woman".. That just. Bleh.

 

Still, to not offend someone else, I might "correct" myself here and there. But personally, I wouldn't change my wording. I do feel like a mad man

[Fuzzbucket]

When I tell people "I feel like a madman" they always ask me... "man..?"

 

Yes, mad man! I FEEL like a mad man, not like I'm saying I'm a man lol.

It just doesn't sound right in my head if I was saying "I feel like a mad woman".. That just. Bleh.

 

Still, to not offend someone else, I might "correct" myself here and there. But personally, I wouldn't change my wording. I do feel like a mad man

WELL -

 

...there has been some wonderful stuff written about that kind of extremism.

 

No History (or Herstory) (or perSONstory)

 

Or PerSONally actually !

 

No MANipulate.

 

No SHErlock Holmes.

 

No MENTAL.

 

The list is HUGE !!!!

 

I must say - "I feel like a madman" doesn't resonate with me. "I feel MAD", or "I feel wildly insane" might.

[CrossingStar]

Charmiepoo, fuzzbucket, you bring up valid points.

 

Myself, I don't give a crap what you say unless it's an offensive swearword. Even my friends don't usually cuss unless they're in some darn severe pain. We will use joking substitutes though, like 'bloody hell' (an offensive term in the UK, but not in the US) or something along those lines.

 

Not totally related, but I thought I'd put in my two cents.

[Syaoransbear]

Does it, though? See, that's where my issues come in (and you know me, you know who I am, and you'll know the kind of stuff I get to put up with being directed my way). Almost everyone can take exception at something. Almost everything can upset someone. And how far down that line do you take it? If everything that anyone could potentially be upset by was banned then you'd end up with some very, very heavy censorship. Is that a good thing? Should one persons 'right' not to feel upset trump another persons 'right' to express themselves the way they want? Can you protect one groups 'rights' without treading on another group in some way? Where do you draw the line -  surely banning speech that might upset one segment of society isn't fair to the people upset by speech it doesn't ban? And if you say well, no, that's not fair - how much speech do you ban in order to *make* it fair? And once a large amount of speech is banned.... hasn't that given up on the idea of freedom of speech?

 

I sympathise with the people that have been hurt by derogatory language. God knows I've had enough of the stuff directed at me over the years (I mean - I have red hair, and I'm physically female. You have no idea how many times I've been asked if my "collar and cuffs match", and then been asked to prove it). But I also simply can't support restricting people's rights to say what they want to say - simply because of that 'where do you draw the line?' question. Once you've banned speech that upsets certain people it becomes only right to ban speech that upsets anyone - and that's censorship plain and simple.

The line seems pretty obvious to me. If it's said with the intention of being hurtful to another person, that's where the line is. It's all about motive. Kind of like accidentally ramming your car into someone vs purposefully mowing them down.

 

When I tell people "I feel like a madman" they always ask me... "man..?"

 

Yes, mad man! I FEEL like a mad man, not like I'm saying I'm a man lol.

It just doesn't sound right in my head if I was saying "I feel like a mad woman".. That just. Bleh.

 

Still, to not offend someone else, I might "correct" myself here and there. But personally, I wouldn't change my wording. I do feel like a mad man

 

All conversations that involve policemen, firemen, mailmen, etc, pretty much make my mind explode in conflict. I'll be like "Oh slow down there's a police............ uhhh.... person.... over there. " On one hand out of habit I want to say policeman, but on the other hand it just doesn't sound right, especially since there's the possibility of it being a woman. I end up trying to think of all these gender neutral words and phrases that sound pretty stupid most of the time.

[CrossingStar]

The line seems pretty obvious to me. If it's said with the intention of being hurtful to another person, that's where the line is. It's all about motive. Kind of like accidentally ramming your car into someone vs purposefully mowing them down.

 

But do you warn/punish someone who accidentally wrecks? Yes. What should be done about those who use nasty language without the intention of upsetting others? It's well nigh impossible to tell sarcasm and anger - let alone joking - over the internet.

[Rosedamai]

But do you warn/punish someone who accidentally wrecks? Yes. What should be done about those who use nasty language without the intention of upsetting others? It's well nigh impossible to tell sarcasm and anger - let alone joking - over the internet.

Yes, because it still hurts. I don't care who you are, unless you're a very close friend of mine, you do not call me gendered slurs. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, it still hurts.

[Fuzzbucket]

But do you warn/punish someone who accidentally wrecks? Yes. What should be done about those who use nasty language without the intention of upsetting others? It's well nigh impossible to tell sarcasm and anger - let alone joking - over the internet.

If you can't say it out loud to your mother (or some other person in real life) you shouldn't say it to a stranger on line. So imagine yourself doing that. And bear in mind that sarcasm in speech hurts too.

 

I did call a mate of mine a * recently. But that was in context. I would NEVER do it to her on line as she wouldn't have been able to see my face. And she is someone who knows that I love her to bits. I certainly wouldn't do it to a stranger in real life or on line.

[Kishing]

Just FYI on the free speech/censorship issue - free speech in the US refers only to government censorship. Web sites, forums, services, etc. have the right to ban anyone, for any reason, anytime, as long as they're not government controlled. The only exceptions cover, for instance, yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater or other blatant forms of incitement.

 

The terms of service on a site generally cover this issue, though I know how many people read those. So yeah, while there's questions over the morality of and user backlash against censorship, it's not really a free speech problem, at least not for US-based companies. Just a heads up on that count!

[KageSora]

Yes, because it still hurts. I don't care who you are, unless you're a very close friend of mine, you do not call me gendered slurs. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, it still hurts.

That's where part of my worry comes in. What about people who ARE such close friends, who happen to use those words towards each other because they have permission? Would they automatically be banned even though neither of them was offended? Or would the intent override the language because neither meant them as offensive and both were alright with it?

 

I mean, I let my friend call me all kinds of things over text and over the phone and face to face because I know he's not meaning it with malicious intent, and he lets me me use some nasty words towards him because he knows I don't have malicious intent.

 

So, if we were playing online, I'd have no problem with him using vulgar terms towards me, I'd just use vulgar terms right back at him and neither of us would care.

 

If it's handled on a report-based system that would remove the issue of getting banned for calling your friend something that your friend allows (or even is happy to be called, some women proudly refer to themselves with what is commonly thought to be derogatory language and feel empowered referring to themselves as such).

 

The problem though is how do you prove it with a report?

 

With people sending vulgar text-based messages demanding you show your breasts or perform sexual acts, you have proof of it being sent. But how do you prove that the other person was using derogatory language, or was intentionally harassing you without use of specifically sexist language simply because you're a girl (or a guy, as the case may be)?

 

And how do you prove intent?

 

And what happens when one person intended it in a joking way and the other is offended? Would a perma-ban be best then, or would it be better to warn them and tell them to be more careful because other people might not be alright with it even if the intent was not malicious? (And then perma-ban them if they continue to be sexist and claim no malicious intent and all)

 

[skauble]

This isn't actually a sexism issue as much as it's a business decision.

 

Women are a huge, yet under targeted, market in gaming. While a good game can draw male gamers, that's probably largely a moving of current players from one game to another. And while that's certainly a goal of any business, women offer the opportunity for actual mass expansion of the base.

 

But the reality is that getting women to try out gaming is only part of the matter, because they have to be able to keep them playing. Fostering an environment where they feel comfortable playing is kind of essential to that goal.

 

This is actually the way that a lot of sexism and racism begin to lessen. As people who have been disenfranchised have more access to education and opportunity, they become a larger economic force. Seeing this, businesses, advertisers, employers, etc. begin adjusting their standard strategies to things that are more inclusive. And as we see a shift in institutions, we tend to see the systemic nature of these problems begin to undergo a corresponding shift.

 

It would be nice to think that this is happening because everyone has suddenly realized how harmful these things are and are moving past them, but they're still a pretty ingrained problem and it will be a while before that happens. What's happening now is, in large part, motivated by self-interest. And that's encouraging because it definitely reflects an upgrade in women's status, but somewhat disheartening, because it demonstrates that discrimination is still an acceptable part of the social model, and though we're addressing in in regard to some groups, others still suffer because we often treat the symptoms and not the problem, itself.

 

Still, from a pragmatic standpoint, this is an excellent business decision that will probably suffer in the initial implementation - as do many programs and policies - but will most likely reap large rewards for the industry as a whole. And while some players may, at first, rebel against it, they will likely adapt to once they realize that an influx of new players, and the money they bring, will mean better games for all to play.

 

As for how it works out in situations like friends who say such things in fun, why not just say something else?

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand where people are coming from, but this tends to be an issue that's raised in regard to things like changes because of issues of racism and sexism, when people actually make these same kind of allowances every day in every other part of their lives without thinking about it and without feeling constrained.

 

For instance, I tend to swear...a lot. lol I've cursed at milk for being expired, simply because sometimes it lets off steam for me. And yet that would be inappropriate in most places I go everyday. That's not something I get upset about or worry about or really even consciously think about - I just change my behavior accordingly to what's socially appropriate.

 

For instance, even though I swear, I don't do it at he grocery store when they don't have the ice cream I want. I call my friends by their first names, but not I've never done that with my bosses unless they asked me to. I talk on my cell phone, but not in movie theaters. We are always adapting out behavior to circumstances and it's mostly second nature. This really isn't different.

 

Which isn't to say that I think that everyone who has that concern is sexist, just that I think that sometimes changes get emphasized without also acknowledging that this is a really common thing that people do hundreds of times a day.

[Nectaris]

I think my issue with this is not necessarily them trying to stop sexism, it is the severity of the punishment. A perma ban seems harsh unless you are truly harassing someone nonstop, not just saying something rude.