surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
really?....its sad that we live in a world where developers have to be scared of what they put into their VIDEO GAMES....
...It's a bit late to pretend that Kratos has any sense of chivalry, isn't it?
Maybe they should have thought of this earlier, like before that whole Poseiden's Princess segment in God of War 3.
Maybe they should have thought of this earlier, like before that whole Poseiden's Princess segment in God of War 3.
@EdgyDude
You live under a rock or something? This has been an issue since the NES era. They were scared of putting blood in their games, now it's sex, which has gone unresolved for decades, and now it's anything that endangers women.
This is just the newest flavor of the same old crap.
You live under a rock or something? This has been an issue since the NES era. They were scared of putting blood in their games, now it's sex, which has gone unresolved for decades, and now it's anything that endangers women.
This is just the newest flavor of the same old crap.
Makes you wonder if women even know what equality is, even. If anything they should complain about the LACK OF killing women in games. It seems the men get all the deaths in games, what about women, hmm?
Overall it's pretty stupid at how far this has gotten.
Overall it's pretty stupid at how far this has gotten.
@enteringoblivion: "If you are valuing the life of one person over another because of something they have no control over (in this case, their sex) than how is that equal when looked at as a whole?"
The "complimentary, but equal when looked at as a whole" is a generalization to try to define the relationship between traditionalist relationships. Men were traditionally viewed as the caretaker, protector, provider, with social status that went along with that. In exchange, that came with several obligations and duties, including self-sacrifice. The argument is that this was not some diabolical plan, but more the inevitable result of adapting to all the challenges of living and surviving in pre-industrial/hunter-gatherer societies given the realities of physical differences between the sexes, and the difficulty involved in childbirth. It's a loose equality obviously at best, but that's the roles that most societies seemed to fall into, as well as many animals. You mentioned that we don't mate like animals, and that's true. If you watched the video, it discusses the primate transition from tournament species into monogamy. We still have genetic history driving behavior, but clearly it's now more complex and driven just as much by social constructs and culture.
Women were not truly able to branch out into the workforce before the industrial revolution, because most work was back-breaking, extremely dangerous and extremely physically demanding. The advancements in technology, medicine, safety, government, and automation have bridged the gap that held many women back in the workplace. No longer do couples need to have 10 kids so 5 survive, so they have enough people to work a farm, so they can all survive.
My point is, if people want to advocate for perfect equality, they can't just tear down the status of men now that technological and societal advancements have rendered them completely unnecessary. They have to also tear down the special privileges that women still enjoy, or else it's hypocritical to simply advocate for gender equality.
Most people have a hybrid, contradictory gender worldview that's half traditionalist and half feminist/egalitarian (myself included). Almost no one in western society truly thinks women are inferior (except for a few troglodytes), that they shouldn't be free to choose to work, or raise a family, or pursue whatever they want to do in any field. But at the same time, most people still feel a man should propose for marriage, open doors for women on a date, pay for the meal, not serve in front line combat roles in war, not be drafted into the military, and that in general violence against women is much more stigmatized and condemned than violence against men.
At some point they need to either take a strictly egalitarian worldview like timtheterrible, or admit that there are some aspects of traditional gender roles that society wants to keep. Now, no one is admitting that at all - so feminism enjoys the enviable double standard of pushing for equality where it benefits women, while simultaneously pushing for traditionalist inequality where it benefits women.
Now as far as "deciding who lives and dies," no one is. I'm just trying to analyze how our social construction of gender impacts behavior with both sexes. If you're on the lifeboat and don't want to let your wife go first, you have the right - but because of how that social construct works, other people might even step in and force you off, or heavily shame you or ridicule you when you got back.
My personal position is a mix of equality and traditionalism (full equality for everyone, but I think I would always be socially conditioned for gender-based self-sacrifice and protection also). I would never tell anyone else that they have to sacrifice themselves if they don't want to. That's not what this conversation is about. It's about discussing how society views gender, and if the idea of a strictly male self-serving social construct - "The Patriarchy" - is even logically possible when you view gender roles on both sides, including male disposability.
The "complimentary, but equal when looked at as a whole" is a generalization to try to define the relationship between traditionalist relationships. Men were traditionally viewed as the caretaker, protector, provider, with social status that went along with that. In exchange, that came with several obligations and duties, including self-sacrifice. The argument is that this was not some diabolical plan, but more the inevitable result of adapting to all the challenges of living and surviving in pre-industrial/hunter-gatherer societies given the realities of physical differences between the sexes, and the difficulty involved in childbirth. It's a loose equality obviously at best, but that's the roles that most societies seemed to fall into, as well as many animals. You mentioned that we don't mate like animals, and that's true. If you watched the video, it discusses the primate transition from tournament species into monogamy. We still have genetic history driving behavior, but clearly it's now more complex and driven just as much by social constructs and culture.
Women were not truly able to branch out into the workforce before the industrial revolution, because most work was back-breaking, extremely dangerous and extremely physically demanding. The advancements in technology, medicine, safety, government, and automation have bridged the gap that held many women back in the workplace. No longer do couples need to have 10 kids so 5 survive, so they have enough people to work a farm, so they can all survive.
My point is, if people want to advocate for perfect equality, they can't just tear down the status of men now that technological and societal advancements have rendered them completely unnecessary. They have to also tear down the special privileges that women still enjoy, or else it's hypocritical to simply advocate for gender equality.
Most people have a hybrid, contradictory gender worldview that's half traditionalist and half feminist/egalitarian (myself included). Almost no one in western society truly thinks women are inferior (except for a few troglodytes), that they shouldn't be free to choose to work, or raise a family, or pursue whatever they want to do in any field. But at the same time, most people still feel a man should propose for marriage, open doors for women on a date, pay for the meal, not serve in front line combat roles in war, not be drafted into the military, and that in general violence against women is much more stigmatized and condemned than violence against men.
At some point they need to either take a strictly egalitarian worldview like timtheterrible, or admit that there are some aspects of traditional gender roles that society wants to keep. Now, no one is admitting that at all - so feminism enjoys the enviable double standard of pushing for equality where it benefits women, while simultaneously pushing for traditionalist inequality where it benefits women.
Now as far as "deciding who lives and dies," no one is. I'm just trying to analyze how our social construction of gender impacts behavior with both sexes. If you're on the lifeboat and don't want to let your wife go first, you have the right - but because of how that social construct works, other people might even step in and force you off, or heavily shame you or ridicule you when you got back.
My personal position is a mix of equality and traditionalism (full equality for everyone, but I think I would always be socially conditioned for gender-based self-sacrifice and protection also). I would never tell anyone else that they have to sacrifice themselves if they don't want to. That's not what this conversation is about. It's about discussing how society views gender, and if the idea of a strictly male self-serving social construct - "The Patriarchy" - is even logically possible when you view gender roles on both sides, including male disposability.
Typo, left out some words.
[EDIT] But at the same time, most people still feel a man should propose for marriage, open doors for women on a date, pay for the meal. And that women should not serve in front line combat roles in war, not be drafted into the military, and that in general violence against women is much more stigmatized and condemned than violence against men.
[EDIT] But at the same time, most people still feel a man should propose for marriage, open doors for women on a date, pay for the meal. And that women should not serve in front line combat roles in war, not be drafted into the military, and that in general violence against women is much more stigmatized and condemned than violence against men.
I don't necessarily think it should matter you gender. We as a nation send men and women to war, and our enemies, when we do have enemies, do the exact same thing. The Greco-Roman culture didn't care. Hell even the spartans taught their females to fight, and play sports with the males, they just couldn't join the army. As way to avoid controversial issues, I think Sony shouldn't have brought it up, at all. I mean, you Kill your wife and daughter, Persephone, Athen, and Hera, bang Aphrodite, rip the heads off of all three Gorgon sisters, kill the sisters of fate, rip out Gaea's heart, and bang hookers, and by comparison slaughter countless male minions, kill Thanos, fight your brother, beat the living hell out of Atlas, feed a ship captain to a Hydra, kill said Hydra stab Aries to death, burned Prometheus alive, bash in the skull of a Barbarian General, slam the head of a demi-god in a door, multiple times, beat Posiden to death with your bare hands, rip off Helios' head and use it as a torch, saw off the legs of Hermes, crush Hercules' skull with his own weapons, and finally beat the soul out of Zeus, and the literally killed his soul. That's God of War, and that's what I paid $60 a pop to do... Sony would be best served not caving in to such a retarded fad. I didn't even mention the animal cruelty, but that's just the point... it's a fantasy... Get over it...
"Talking to IGN, Sony's David Hewitt has revealed that God of War: Ascension will scale back the violence perpetuated against women."
That's 'perpetrate' Jim. Your ongoing stint as zealous crusader for women in games is mixing and confusing your vocabulary with feminist language.
That's 'perpetrate' Jim. Your ongoing stint as zealous crusader for women in games is mixing and confusing your vocabulary with feminist language.
The videogame industry is such a joke, games will never move forward with any signifcant manner with crap like this.
Plus it was monsters for christsakes, you have any idea the savage beatings he gave me through out the series? Go watch the poisedon beatdown, that shit made me cringe, especially when the game makes YOU gouge the dudes eyes out.
Plus it was monsters for christsakes, you have any idea the savage beatings he gave me through out the series? Go watch the poisedon beatdown, that shit made me cringe, especially when the game makes YOU gouge the dudes eyes out.
So.. what? Because of all these sexist debates lately they're going to change mythology? Fuck that man..
Harpies, Gorgon, Mermaids.. All females.. And all for good reason.. Deal with it, or find a time machine that'll take you back so you can fight with the people who started these myths
Have fun being killed for being a demon of some sort yourself though... Hope they call you a Gorgon or something
Harpies, Gorgon, Mermaids.. All females.. And all for good reason.. Deal with it, or find a time machine that'll take you back so you can fight with the people who started these myths
Have fun being killed for being a demon of some sort yourself though... Hope they call you a Gorgon or something
@Shinta
I agree with you more than I previously thought but it seems the only logical stance is an egalitarian one. If you, and others, do indeed see women as equals than it is illigical (as well as immoral) to see them as deserving of any special treatment. However, I understand that social conditioning affects others differentely.
Even if you would not intentionally force a life or death situation on an individual, that is what the prevelance of this mindset will do. For example, if there was a military draft, men would have that decision removed from them in large numbers. In other words, as long as people continue to think in this manner personal decisions are essentially irrelevent, as you demonstrated further with the example of me refusing my wife a life boat. (If I had a wife, I would hope we would offer it to each other, otherwise I wouldn't be with her.)
To make a long post longer, I agree that some feminists are only for equality when it suits them. People will say women are equal but then list the privileges you described. However, we should not use its prevelence as an indication of its validity. Even if we were hunter-gathers I would still not like it because the customs of the group are still forcing roles and assigning worth whether the individual chooses otherwise.
Overall, I respect your honesty but I still believe your own feelings are illogical and harmful (at least when they are put into action by others). I am normally not so absolute in my thinking but absolute equality is the only logical view in my opinion. Anything else, even under different circumstances, seems wrong.
I agree with you more than I previously thought but it seems the only logical stance is an egalitarian one. If you, and others, do indeed see women as equals than it is illigical (as well as immoral) to see them as deserving of any special treatment. However, I understand that social conditioning affects others differentely.
Even if you would not intentionally force a life or death situation on an individual, that is what the prevelance of this mindset will do. For example, if there was a military draft, men would have that decision removed from them in large numbers. In other words, as long as people continue to think in this manner personal decisions are essentially irrelevent, as you demonstrated further with the example of me refusing my wife a life boat. (If I had a wife, I would hope we would offer it to each other, otherwise I wouldn't be with her.)
To make a long post longer, I agree that some feminists are only for equality when it suits them. People will say women are equal but then list the privileges you described. However, we should not use its prevelence as an indication of its validity. Even if we were hunter-gathers I would still not like it because the customs of the group are still forcing roles and assigning worth whether the individual chooses otherwise.
Overall, I respect your honesty but I still believe your own feelings are illogical and harmful (at least when they are put into action by others). I am normally not so absolute in my thinking but absolute equality is the only logical view in my opinion. Anything else, even under different circumstances, seems wrong.
I love how Jim ends with an insult against people who rightfully see this as sexist, against men. Because, the problem is that "Oh, but violence against MEN is okay?" is the valid and normal response of non-indoctrinated, thinking person. I used to disagree with but respect Jim, but lately I can't help but think of him as a pseudo-intellectual, with the 'atheist angst' and zealous activist leanings. I just can't see how else he can hold these sort of contradictory views.
Those looking at this and saying "Oh, so women are too dainty to be killed en masse?" really irk me. This female-centric view of issues, even when it is non-sensical, is really distressing. One group being chosen as more normal and accepted for mass slaughter isn't "oppression" of the group deemed unacceptable to kill virtually. By this kind of logic, slavery was racist because it made it seem like whites couldn't work just as hard in the fields (and no, I'm not saying men being cannon fodder in video games is bad as slavery. It's the logic behind these complaints I'm pointing out, analogously, and not comparing the severity whatsoever). When one group is being acted upon negatively, looking at it from their point of view is probably the right thing to do, rather than acting like a victim when you're given special privileges.
Really though, I think violence against men in video games is perfectly fine. Women too. I never thought twice about who I was killing when I played the GoW games. They're games. You kill enemies and get the orbs. There's nothing deeper to it. It's a game, not a mind altering device. I find it funny Jim is so fast to ridicule those that talk about violence in video games, but is the Jack Thompson equivalent when it comes to women in games.
Those looking at this and saying "Oh, so women are too dainty to be killed en masse?" really irk me. This female-centric view of issues, even when it is non-sensical, is really distressing. One group being chosen as more normal and accepted for mass slaughter isn't "oppression" of the group deemed unacceptable to kill virtually. By this kind of logic, slavery was racist because it made it seem like whites couldn't work just as hard in the fields (and no, I'm not saying men being cannon fodder in video games is bad as slavery. It's the logic behind these complaints I'm pointing out, analogously, and not comparing the severity whatsoever). When one group is being acted upon negatively, looking at it from their point of view is probably the right thing to do, rather than acting like a victim when you're given special privileges.
Really though, I think violence against men in video games is perfectly fine. Women too. I never thought twice about who I was killing when I played the GoW games. They're games. You kill enemies and get the orbs. There's nothing deeper to it. It's a game, not a mind altering device. I find it funny Jim is so fast to ridicule those that talk about violence in video games, but is the Jack Thompson equivalent when it comes to women in games.
Let me see if I can do the exact opposite of what Jim exists:
Is it not possible that, if the level of violence in the game is troubling when directed at women, maybe it's because it's troubling by itself and the real world implications of violence against women only make that clearer?
Is it not possible that, if the level of violence in the game is troubling when directed at women, maybe it's because it's troubling by itself and the real world implications of violence against women only make that clearer?
Weird that people took what I said as an insult when I was just predicting what people would say. I never expressed anything outside of the fact that I knew it was an opinion people would share.
"Fleshing out the character"?
Of Kratos?
..... Kratos.
Kratos? We're trying to flesh him out now?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Of Kratos?
..... Kratos.
Kratos? We're trying to flesh him out now?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
@Jim Sterling
They may have read the last paragraph as being a passive aggressive attempt to trivialize the opposing viewpoint without actually addressing why it is wrong. That may not have been your intention.
They may have read the last paragraph as being a passive aggressive attempt to trivialize the opposing viewpoint without actually addressing why it is wrong. That may not have been your intention.
my friend's mother made $263164 so far just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here N u t t y R i c h dot cOm
Not sure I really like this. Aside from his wife and daughter who were killed in a blind fit of rage, which make the backbone for the story and why he's haunted the entire series for his sins and his evils, everyone who Kratos kills is pretty much evil, monstrous, or a combination thereof. The harpies have breasts and nipples (ZOMGZ SEX), but they're trying to kill him. Same for Sisters of Fate. They're "female" but they're essentially "the bad guys" regardless of whether or not they have tits.
I feel like this is just a response to the Tomb Raider, Hitman, and LC controversies. I feel like those games have just gone about it the wrong way with their marketing and what we've seen from their marketing. Not "sexist", but incredibly insensitive and misguided. In God of War, it's not really an issue IMO. Gender isn't something that's focused on.
Other than the whole three way thing they always manage to put in the game. I think that's kind of stupid and pandery and plays into a lot of negative stereotypes about gamers. I guess it makes sense though since it's very much part of that ancient Greek mythology aesthetic. So I guess I'm a bit conflicted.
Point is, I feel like they're playing this a bit too safe. That's all.
I feel like this is just a response to the Tomb Raider, Hitman, and LC controversies. I feel like those games have just gone about it the wrong way with their marketing and what we've seen from their marketing. Not "sexist", but incredibly insensitive and misguided. In God of War, it's not really an issue IMO. Gender isn't something that's focused on.
Other than the whole three way thing they always manage to put in the game. I think that's kind of stupid and pandery and plays into a lot of negative stereotypes about gamers. I guess it makes sense though since it's very much part of that ancient Greek mythology aesthetic. So I guess I'm a bit conflicted.
Point is, I feel like they're playing this a bit too safe. That's all.
I think this is kind of a bullshit issue, but I'll happily give me two cents. I think it's rather ridiculous they did this just because the treatment of women in video games has become a more hot button issue. The reason why I was fine with seeing Kratos kill women in God of War 1 was because he was a monster. He slaughtered innocent men, women, and children all in the name of his own glory, regardless of who his enemy was. Why be politically correct over violence when the guy lives in a world filled with debauchery and evil?
This is disappointing. Violence against women, especially innocents, was always one of the most thrilling aspects of the God of War series. I loved the puzzle dragging a naked princess to throw in a gear to hold a door open in GoW 3, and loved slaughtering all the white robed blond girls ilysium in the psp game.
I know you tried to use sarcasm to discredit the "violence against men is okay" argument at the end of your article Jim, but really, how in the hell is saying one sex is okay to kill and one isn't ANYTHING BUT SEXIST?
"It's not about making a statement, it's about fleshing out his character" LOL. Pull the other one, Sony.
A real shame God of War is now desperately trying to appeal to "a broader audience" with the politically-correct bollocks and unneeded multiplayer. Oh well, wasn't gonna buy a THIRD prequel anyhow.
A real shame God of War is now desperately trying to appeal to "a broader audience" with the politically-correct bollocks and unneeded multiplayer. Oh well, wasn't gonna buy a THIRD prequel anyhow.
I wish Santa Monica would just be honest. We want to avoid the biased, loathsome, bigoted, venomous feminist horde as much as possible, and to me it only makes sense. The last thing anyone needs is the Feminist Steamroller painting your hard working people and company with the Misogyny brush.
This is bullshit..!!! way to treat women with respect by telling them that they aren't equal to men.. because killing them is bad and killing men is okey!! STUPID FUCKING SONY SANTA MONICA!! FUCK YOU ALL!!
as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage NuttyRich.com
Yup. Scale back the violence on women in video games. It's the only way us men will stop treating them as weak, helpless and in need of protection from men. Genius!!!
How about castration by female adversaries?
Any real man would gladly do violence against a woman coming at him with a lethal weapon. Ethics have nothing to do with it, this is Sparta!!!
Any real man would gladly do violence against a woman coming at him with a lethal weapon. Ethics have nothing to do with it, this is Sparta!!!
follow
