Ross's Game Dungeon: CarnEvil

[urcousinvinnie5]

honestly violence against women is not something I should go into since I have feelings about both sides of the conversation and if I say my mind I would be judged either way. so should I be violent against women or not

 

if I was violent against a woman it would purely be self defense like it would be with any dangerous person. because what am I supposed to do if a woman comes up to me with a shotgun and says "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY MOTHERFUCKER" what am I supposed to do, just let her blow my brains out on the pavement. No I don't believe that would be good, plus to add to the fact women are weaker than men...well, I call bullshit I say it depends if the woman is LIKE a man and likes to work out and exercise, pretty soon we will see a girl who will beat your brains out with one punch. but of course that leaves what? if the men are always protecting the women. then what are women for? Just for nothing but to procreate the human race... if that is what god wanted for women than that is total bullshit. and of course it is quite ironic If you look at it THIS way: scientists have proven that before an egg is fertilized it is genetically a girl before the baby is developed in which it will either stay a girl or turn out a boy so everyone here who is a boy think that we were girls once and today men treat women wrong and don't even know the genetics. SCIENCE FTW

[RandomGuy]

2-3: fair enough I suppose.

 

1. I ended up having this discussion with someone else. Basically it's instinctual reaction on my part more than anything, though I have some thoughts on it regardless. While it may be technically sexism, I don't carry the same attitudes people normally think of as sexist, for example I don't think women should be denied rights or held back in any way they're capable in. I'm NOT implying what you said about them always being incapable and weak.

 

All that this tells me is that something is very, very wrong if only negative stereotypes against women are considered "sexist". It's not "technically sexist", it's just sexist, in every definition of the word.

 

Well, you can see where the confusion would come from when you outright said that a main reason you don't like violence against women is that they're on average weaker than men.

 

I probably would imply that are on average more deserving of sympathy than men however.

 

Wait, the wording here confuses me: are you saying that this is what was implied in your video, or that you genuinely believe this? In which case, that is extreme sexism. Women are not inherently more deserving of sympathy than men, they're not automatically more sympathetic or morally superior. An evil man and an evil woman should be held in equal regard.

 

As for the double standard on violence, look at prison statistics. Men are approximately 9-10 times more likely to commit violent crime than women. Women are on average, far less violent than men.

 

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. This commonly cited statistic is basically bullcrap. It looks like that because many, MANY cases of woman committed violence, particularly woman on man, tend to go unreported, or the woman tends to be found innocent due to attitudes like this. Here's another commonly found statistic: when it comes to crimes like murder between spouses, women are nine times more likely to be acquitted than men. Ten times more likely to be given a slap on the wrist for the same crime as a man. Again, attitudes like this ("women are inherently less violent than men", "women deserve more sympathy than men") are exactly why this happens.

 

It's the same reason blacks seem to be "inherently violent and criminal": there are other factors, such as economic condition and social stigma (same thing applies for the violent women vs men crime rate), but by and large its because they're found guilty of minor crimes far more often than whites. That's actually a good thing to bring up: if you're honestly saying that you believe women are less violent than men based on this, and use that as evidence that all women in general are more deserving of sympathy, do you also say that blacks are on average more violent than whites, and that whites should be held in higher regards than blacks?

 

If the game was handling this topic in a mature manner my attitude might be different, but in my opinion most games that portray violence against women aren't especially mature

 

Why must it handle it in a mature manner? You were just praising it for being silly and happy-go-lucky about its black comedy and violence. Why do women get special treatment here? Why do they have to treat violence against women maturely, but not violence against men? That makes no sense to me. Remember, you said that Tokkentakker's death was awesome, and he had quite a gory death in an immature game.

 

But as far games that do portray violence against women "maturely": what exactly do you mean?

 

In regards to female enemies in video games, I think the Mass Effect series does it the best. Due to a variety of factors, women are much less likely to become soldiers and mercs than men, so whenever you encounter human enemies, almost all of them are men. There are still female human enemies though. They're not much different than the male ones aside from slightly lower health and usually a different weapon, and you kill them by the dozens just like the male enemies. Though in Mass Effect 2 and 3, you'll only find them in the sniper and combat engineer roles unlike the first game, where they were also normal assault rifle wielding grunts.

 

The Fallout series is also a pretty good example. With its wonderfully gory (though not exactly unrealistic.... except with Bloody Mess) death animations and black comedy atmosphere (especially in the first two games), it can be seen as being "immature" in the violence towards women area. But it handles violence against men the exact same way. And, you know, it's just how the weapons in the setting (and in some cases real life) work. No double standards here.

 

And it does realistically portray females as less common enemies than men, but they're still there when it makes sense. You'll find random crazed female killers (albeit they're slightly less common than males) roving the wastes. Many NCR soldiers and officers are women (the NCR is both equal opportunity and desperate for numbers, and the disadvantages of having female soldiers is explored a little in New Vegas). So are a lot of Brotherhood of Steel members. And tons of random wasteland mercenaries. When the game needs to set the mood, you can find mutilated or shot up corpses of women as well as men as well.

 

Some Enclave enemies are women, but they're very rarely/almost never front line infantry, usually instead being military police, officers, base security, pilots, (armed and hostile) researchers, etc. Kind of like the actual US military (the Enclave are partly descended from them). In a lot of circumstances, they're instantly hostile and must be slaughtered... just like the faceless male mooks you mow down all around the wasteland (or, if we're talking Fallout 2, get mowed down by).

Edited November 6, 2013 by Guest (see edit history)

[urcousinvinnie5]

Don't forget half life 2. In half life 2 you have both male and female rebels but it doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman they still fight the same. They both have the same weapon and combat proficiency. nothing is changed in half life it is to the point where you stop seeing them as weak women you just see them as fellow soldiers.

[RandomGuy]

It was more a point that violence against them wasn't glorified or demonized, just treated like a normal death, and they were reasonably, sensibly common combatants (on both the good and evil sides) within the setting. Obviously, both male and female civilians tend be slaughtered whenever there's a "we need to slaughter civilians to set a mood" scene. In both series.

 

Half-Life 2: all the Combine soldiers seem to be male though. Kind of makes sense for the Overwatch, somewhat less so for the Civil Protection officers.

[danielsangeo]

I'm probably a very terrible person, but in HL2, whenever I had a team, I barely paid any attention to them. If they died, they died.

[RandomGuy]

I did the same thing. Sometimes I'd make them run onto mines and laugh when they died. I blame the ragdoll physics. But either way, due to their... interesting AI, you'll still get a lot of funny ragdolls when you see Combine soldiers blow them up with grenades or one-shot them with sniper rifles. I actually cared about the Antlions a bit more.

[Ross Scott]

No I don't believe that would be good, plus to add to the fact women are weaker than men...well, I call bullshit I say it depends if the woman is LIKE a man and likes to work out and exercise

Guys, Testosterone leads to more muscle development, men naturally have more. It's really as simple as this. In a lot of traditional farming communities, you have men and women working equally hard, but the men are on average still stronger because of their biology. I'm not debating this point further, if you don't believe me, fine.

 

 

All that this tells me is that something is very, very wrong if only negative stereotypes against women are considered "sexist". It's not "technically sexist", it's just sexist, in every definition of the word.

My problem with this is it doesn't distinguish between the sexism like I'm being accused of (giving women more benefit of the doubt, me personally not wanting to see violence against them) v. I guess traditional sexism (thinking women belong in the kitchen, they shouldn't vote, that they can't handle higher education, etc.) which I don't ascribe to. I think you're lumping these all together equally, but the latter causes much more harm to women, whereas I'm not sure what the harm my view causes to women is. What is the harm that comes from my way of thinking, especially since society itself is sexist (glass ceiliing for women, average less pay for them, men have to register for the draft, women do not, women only just recently have been permitted to enter combat roles in military, etc.)?

 

 

That's actually a good thing to bring up: if you're honestly saying that you believe women are less violent than men based on this, and use that as evidence that all women in general are more deserving of sympathy, do you also say that blacks are on average more violent than whites, and that whites should be held in higher regards than blacks?

I think most of the black crime statistics are a result of poverty areas, institutional racism, and by how much gangland activity (which is culturally driven in some areas) can skew averages. That's not a topic I want to get into here though.

 

If you don't like the statistics however, I can say from my own personal experience, I've known FAR more violent and overly aggressive males than females in my own life however. That's not really a quantifiable thing however, so that's why I was using the statistics.

[urcousinvinnie5]

well let's discuss violence against women in half-life 2 being the perfect game when it comes to dealing out violence against women

 

like I said in half life 2 we have both male and female rebels. The females are no different from the males, they fight until there freedom is rewarded back to them. They fight exactly the same as the males no matter the weapon, and are not discriminated against in any way in the game. This game deals with it so much that you stop seeing them as just some weak little women but you just see them as fellow soldiers. There is even a consoling couple that you see both at the beginning of the game "point insertion" and later on in "anti-citizen one" this symbolizes the common husband and wife keeping each other close to their hearts as the other rebels fight to get there freedom back

 

Half-Life 2: all the Combine soldiers seem to be male though. Kind of makes sense for the Overwatch, somewhat less so for the Civil Protection officers.

 

That's not entirely true. Since valve is wonderful they originally thought to bring the female assassins back into half life 2 still being elite soldiers so then the female and male soldiers of the combine were equal to the rebels, but sadly the enemies were cut, but reused in the half life 2 campaign mod "SMOD". (awesome game I recommend it to you guys)

[Vapymid]

A lot of people tend to fall into a logical fallacy that, if one extreme might be very bad then the opposite extreme would, by necessity, be very good.

 

This is totally wrong but it leads to the absolutist attitudes, which are totally counterproductive and do more harm than good. For example, recently, a junior minister in the UK government (herself being heavily pregnant at the time) said that offering one's seat to a pregnant woman is unacceptably sexist.

 

This kind of denial and false equality are simply creating a double morality where, on the surface, everyone complies with the politically correct norm while, underneath, practicing even greater discrimination.

 

Regards

[scott155]

Ok, offering your seat to a pregnant woman is just common fucking courtesey. They're growing a damn human being that's going to explode out of their genitals at some point, the least you can do is offer a seat.

 

Also, because of how I was raised my brain is hard-wired to think of women as more deserving of sympathy by default (within reason, of course. Evil ladies are still evil people.) and generally treat them with more respect. It is technically a double standard and it is sexism, but I don't really see the harm in it. I certainly know women aren't defenseless. I've helped teach some women's self-defense classes and I can tell you first-hand some women can be downright vicious. [/my2cents]

[HLPrincess]

It's funny how MEN get offended of what Ross said about violence aginst women in video games. I'm not offended. If anyone should get into a big argument, women should be doing this.

 

I just wanted to say that I'm totally okay with what he said and I won't get into any discusion of how wrong it was because it wasn't.

 

That is all.

[RandomGuy]

My problem with this is it doesn't distinguish between the sexism like I'm being accused of (giving women more benefit of the doubt, me personally not wanting to see violence against them) v. I guess traditional sexism (thinking women belong in the kitchen, they shouldn't vote, that they can't handle higher education, etc.) which I don't ascribe to. I think you're lumping these all together equally, but the latter causes much more harm to women, whereas I'm not sure what the harm my view causes to women is.

 

I was not talking about potential negatives AGAINST women. "Positive" sexism is still sexism.

 

Saying that women are inherently morally superior or more sympathetic than men, and treating them different accordingly based solely on gender, is sexism. It's an attitude that has done a lot of harm in our society as well. For example, women are over twice as likely as men to commit non-reciprocal violence.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

 

And you didn't answer my questions on "maturity": why must we be more mature about woman violence than man violence, when men are much more likely to actually be victims of violence in the first place in the real world? Shouldn't it be the other way around in that case? Why can't a game be happy and comical about violence to both genders equally without you having a distaste for that element? Are those examples I mentioned what you would consider a game handling it maturely?

 

I think most of the black crime statistics are a result of poverty areas, institutional racism, and by how much gangland activity (which is culturally driven in some areas) can skew averages. That's not a topic I want to get into here though.

 

Another reason why you shouldn't take a lot of statistics like that as the bible: whites commit more crimes than blacks. They're arrested and charged more often. Yet blacks make up the majority of INCARCERATIONS.

 

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=6384

 

If you don't like the statistics however,

 

It's not a matter of not liking statistics, it's that they're skewed, since women are acquitted and unreported far more often.

 

Another fun statistic: because women are usually seen as more sympathetic than men, they almost always get more lenient prison sentences than men for the exact same crime.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

 

This study also states that women arrested "are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." Now, I wonder whether or not that's at all connected with the same attitude that gets women more lenient sentences...

 

I can say from my own personal experience, I've known FAR more violent and overly aggressive males than females in my own life however

 

I've had the opposite personal experience. Mostly because the women know that they can usually get away with it.

 

Also, because of how I was raised my brain is hard-wired to think of women as more deserving of sympathy by default (within reason, of course. Evil ladies are still evil people.) and generally treat them with more respect. It is technically a double standard and it is sexism, but I don't really see the harm in it.

 

Because of how I was raised, my brain is hard-wired to see whites as more deserving of sympathy than blacks, and to consider whites morally superior when all other things are equal. I don't see the harm in this.

 

No, but seriously? This attitude actually causes a lot of harm. I know this from both looking at statistics and observing it personally within certain families.

 

It's funny how MEN get offended of what Ross said about violence aginst women in video games. I'm not offended. If anyone should get into a big argument, women should be doing this.

 

So you're saying a male doesn't have the right to get offended when Ross outright says "I give females the benefit of the doubt more" or "I think the average woman is more deserving of sympathy than the average man"? If that was gender flipped, would you take any issue to it? "I think men are more deserving of sympathy than women" / "I'll give a man more benefit of the doubt than I'll give a woman"?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Women and men are biologically different. We have Y-chromosome, they have an extra X-chromosome instead. We are biologically programmed to treat women differently than men. They - the other way round. Just learn to deal with it.

 

 

Regards

[RandomGuy]

No, I will not "deal with it". In matters where physical strength etc. is actually important, and the different treatment is practical, it's understandable. Otherwise (e.g. "I will treat one gender better than I treat the other" in a blatant display of discrimination, or the aforementioned problems in the court), it's not. People should be treated like people.

 

And it just bugs me severely that Ross says that games need to be "mature" with violence against women while praising games for being immature about violence against men (this still makes no sense to me), or get bothered when a game features even one female enemy. Disliking a section over such a thing just seems silly to me.

[danielsangeo]

I just finished the first installment of the FEAR series where the main antagonist (or at least catalyst for the antagonism) was a little girl and it felt weird that she'd be the final boss fight. I do see Ross's point in a way.

 

There's a scene in a movie that really sticks out for me on this subject. In "Me, Myself and Irene", Renee Zellweger's character kicks Jim Carrey's character in the face with such force that he falls over a fence and down a hill. This is played for comedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=85&v=1KrJamObalY Now imagine if the roles were reversed only for gender and Jim Carrey's character kicks Renee Zellweger's character in the face and she falls over the fence and down the hill. Would that be seen as comedic?

[Ross Scott]

This is the last reply I'm giving on the topic on treatment of / equality of women, because I think I've made my position pretty clear and have tried to explain it pretty well. I'll try and address what you brought up:

 

I was not talking about potential negatives AGAINST women. The fact that you think I was is fairly disturbing in and of itself.

Dude, that's a huge part of sexism, I would say that's the first part of most people think of when sexism is brought up. It's a very loaded word. If I hear someone called sexist, my first thought is of someone acting like he belongs on the cast of Mad Men. This is why I'm making trying to distinguish between the two mentalities. While it may be technically accurate to call me sexist, there's a very large difference between someone who holds a door for a woman v. someone who won't hire a woman or thinks they should only cook and look after children and shouldn't vote. I feel like nothing you've said here shows that you acknowledge any difference between the two categories that can still fall under "sexist." This colors the whole conversation when you talk as though they're one in the same and makes more rational discourse difficult. And yes, you can argue sexism against men, but I feel like men have a large number of advantages already, so when sexism against them does occur, it's nowhere near on the scale that it occurs regularly against women. I treat that similarly as racism against white people, it's hard to take seriously most of the time except under really select scenarios.

 

Saying that women are inherently morally superior

I never said this, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

And you didn't answer my questions on "maturity"

Because I feel like videogames are one area where women by and large don't have especially mature treatment as a whole (I'm talking averages, not all games). Games and movies that glorify violence almost by definition appeal much more to a male audience in general. To bring women into the violence fantasy and include them as targets of it feels kind of misogynistic to me. I think in order for violence against women to be okay in a NON-mature way, it has to be in a context that either appeals more to women, or to both sexes about equally. This is kind of a conundrum, since I think that most overly violent forms of media do NOT appeal to primarily female audiences. In fact I can't think of any movie / game offhand that's over-the-top violent, but has women as its primary targeted audience. But for example, one woman getting into a slapfight and hair pulling with another over sabotaging wedding plans in Pride and Prejudice (or Sense and Sensibility, I get those mixed up), yeah, I don't have much of a problem with that, because the context is meant more for a female audience anyway and it's not excessively brutal. CarnEvil is not that, it's 100% shooting things in a very violent way, which by definition means it's going to appeal more to a male audience.

 

why must we be more mature about woman violence than man violence, when men are much more likely to actually be victims of violence in the first place in the real world?

Because the repercussions of the average man being violent against a woman v. the average woman being violent against a man are night and day. Why are battered women shelters much more common than help for men in abusive relationships? Why are rapes of men by women extremely rare? Who kills more people, men killing women, or women killing men? I just can't take a slap in the face as seriously as a body in the morgue. By that definition, I consider women as a whole bigger victims and more at risk than men to violence by the opposite sex. From wikipedia on domestic violence:

 

-Women are subjected to domestic violence more often and more severely than are men. A large study, compiled by Martin S. Fiebert, shows that women are as likely to be abusive to men, but that men are less likely to be hurt

 

-According to a report by the United States Department of Justice in 2000, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime

 

-1 in 33 men and 1 in 6 women have experienced an attempted or completed rape against a partner. More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes.

 

-Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner, about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[38] and 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.

 

Mostly because the women know that they can usually get away with it.

For someone trying to champion non-bias, this blanket statement sounds colored AGAINST women. I think both men and women try to get away with things they shouldn't do equally.

 

 

My bottom line is this. Women have plenty of disadvantages in society:

-Long history of discrimination against them (this affects the present as well)

-Glass ceiling effect

-less pay on average for male equivalent

-Physically weaker on average than men

-More vulnerable to violence from the opposite sex

-Many other factors I'm probably forgetting

 

Like Vapymid was implying, I don't see 100% equal treatment to a group that's at a disadvantage versus one that's not as being equality.

 

EDIT:

 

I just finished the first installment of the FEAR series where the main antagonist (or at least catalyst for the antagonism) was a little girl and it felt weird that she'd be the final boss fight. I do see Ross's point in a way.

I'm sure this nuance will drive some crazy, but I didn't have an issue with violence against Alma in FEAR because they completely dehumanized her in that game so that the only emotions are expressions or feral ferocity. I didn't feel like I was attacking a girl / woman but rather an other-worldly entity that just happens to be in female form. For me, it didn't feel like "her" so much as "it."

 

Also while this is my last post on the topic (unless it pops up in another episode way later). I wanted to clarify that I'm not against violence portrayed against women in a mature manner. For example, if the PURPOSE of showing violence against women in a scene is to shock or horrify the viewer as part of the story, then I think that's legitimate. I may not like those scenes, but I can recognize the artistic merit to them then.

[scott155]

The bottom line is Ross is sexist. Wait, no... I spelled that wrong... sexiest, Ross is sexiest.

[RandomGuy]

This is the last reply I'm giving on the topic on treatment of / equality of women

 

Very well. I suppose it'll be mine as well.

 

There's a scene in a movie that really sticks out for me on this subject. In "Me, Myself and Irene", Renee Zellweger's character kicks Jim Carrey's character in the face with such force that he falls over a fence and down a hill. This is played for comedy. The scene in question is here. Now imagine if the roles were reversed only for gender and Jim Carrey's character kicks Renee Zellweger's character in the face and she falls over the fence and down the hill. Would that be seen as comedic?

 

Yes, it would. Slapstick revolving around women getting hurt is pretty common, and can be just as funny as the male equivalent.

 

Dude, that's a huge part of sexism, I would say that's the first part of most people think of when sexism is brought up. It's a very loaded word. If I hear someone called sexist, my first thought is of someone acting like he belongs on the cast of Mad Men. This is why I'm making trying to distinguish between the two mentalities. While it may be technically accurate to call me sexist, there's a very large difference between someone who holds a door for a woman v. someone who won't hire a woman or thinks they should only cook and look after children and shouldn't vote.

 

I'm not denying that sexism against women is what most people think of, or that it's been historically more common. I'm saying that it's not the only form of harmful sexism.

 

I feel like nothing you've said here shows that you acknowledge any difference between the two categories that can still fall under "sexist." This colors the whole conversation when you talk as though they're one in the same and makes more rational discourse difficult.

 

I said that statements like "women are more deserving of sympathy than men" and the common attitude that women are morally superior is sexist. I do consider that kind of discrimination just as harmful as "men are smarter than women", as it actively causes harm in our society, as I have observed personally.

 

And yes, you can argue sexism against men, but I feel like men have a large number of advantages already, so when sexism against them does occur, it's nowhere near on the scale that it occurs regularly against women. I treat that similarly as racism against white people, it's hard to take seriously most of the time except under really select scenarios.

 

Actually, sexism against men in the legal system is far more common than most people know. See the linked statistics on sentencing and incarceration rates.

 

The commonly referenced trend of women making less than men is actually in many cases a myth, at least today. They make less mostly because they don't work as many hours.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296

 

The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap.[...]Women, in fact, make up two-thirds of America's part-time workforce.

 

I never said this, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

So what else is "more deserving of sympathy" supposed to mean? When someone is more deserving of sympathy, that usually implies that they're morally superior to whoever they're being compared to.

 

Games and movies that glorify violence almost by definition appeal much more to a male audience in general. To bring women into the violence fantasy and include them as targets of it feels kind of misogynistic to me.

 

So any game that glorifies violence (i.e. almost every game that features shooting as a game mechanic, including the ones I mentioned, Fallout and Mass Effect) feels misogynistic to you? Simply because both females and males can be killed? Or is this not what you were trying to say? You never did specify how a game could feature violence against women in a mature way. I don't see what's immature about the way the Mass Effect games do it, for example.

 

I think in order for violence against women to be okay in a NON-mature way, it has to be in a context that either appeals more to women, or to both sexes about equally.

 

I disagree heavily. A work should not have to be geared towards women to feature them getting killed, simply because in many contexts not featuring violence against women simply wouldn't make any in-universe sense.

 

CarnEvil is not that, it's 100% shooting things in a very violent way, which by definition means it's going to appeal more to a male audience

 

And again, I don't see the problem. It's not misogynistic to show one woman getting killed next to hundreds of males, like CarnEvil and I honestly don't see the logic in the violence double standard. Violence against women simply has not repulsed me any more than violence in the same context against a man.

 

By this logic, should things targeted at females never feature violence against men?

 

Because I feel like videogames are one area where women by and large don't have especially mature treatment as a whole (I'm talking averages, not all games).

 

True.

 

Why are battered women shelters much more common than help for men in abusive relationships?

 

Because of attitudes like this. Male victims of abuse are not anywhere near as uncommon as many believe, and they often face skepticism from the police among as well as social stigma.

 

Who kills more people, men killing women, or women killing men?

 

Men killing women. But you seem to be acting like women killing men never happens, or that men killing women should be a bigger concern than men killing men even though the latter is far more common.

 

Why are rapes of men by women extremely rare?

 

That is indeed mostly because men are physically stronger.

 

I just can't take a slap in the face as seriously as a body in the morgue

 

Women commit quite a bit of murders and other horrible crimes as well. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this statement, but I'm not getting good vibes from it.

 

-Women are subjected to domestic violence more often and more severely than are men. A large study, compiled by Martin S. Fiebert, shows that women are as likely to be abusive to men, but that men are less likely to be hurt

 

From what I've read, not much less likely given women are more much likely to use weapons.

 

-According to a report by the United States Department of Justice in 2000, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime

 

And this study says "men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates".

 

http://dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/#mal

 

Another study states that men consist of 40% of victims of severe physical domestic abuse, which would somewhat contradict the idea that women are assaulted by spouses three times more often

 

http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/

 

-1 in 33 men and 1 in 6 women have experienced an attempted or completed rape against a partner. More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes.

 

Again, I'd like to note most male rapes tend to go unreported. But okay, rape of females is far more common. The reasons for that should be obvious.

 

-Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner, about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[38] and 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.

 

Yet men are much more likely to be killed in general. Which was my point relating to video games specifically; man on man violence is seen as fine, man on woman violence is seen as bad regardless of context. Please note that even though they're less common than men, that 25% still exists.

 

For someone trying to champion non-bias, this blanket statement sounds colored AGAINST women.

 

Err, no. I was talking about the few that I have personally seen. I didn't say anything about all women committing crimes and trying to get away with it, or say that men never commit a crime thinking they won't get caught.

 

I think both men and women try to get away with things they shouldn't do equally.

 

This is true. But women usually have more success when it comes to doing this in crime, as the incarceration rates would indicate.

 

Like Vapymid was implying, I don't see 100% equal treatment to a group that's at a disadvantage versus one that's not as being equality.

 

I don't see what any of the factors you listed have to do with bias in their favor in the legal system, for example. Violence in the media, maybe a couple of your points (and even some of those are in question), but if your concern is that violence against them in video games has some kind of negative effect in the real world, the same should apply to men, as they're more often victims both in real life and in the media.

 

And like I said, the attitude that women "are more deserving of sympathy" than men is toxic. Which seems to be your attitude, given that's what you said.

 

Also while this is my last post on the topic (unless it pops up in another episode way later). I wanted to clarify that I'm not against violence portrayed against women in a mature manner. For example, if the PURPOSE of showing violence against women in a scene is to shock or horrify the viewer as part of the story, then I think that's legitimate. I may not like those scenes, but I can recognize the artistic merit to them then.

 

And what if it's not meant to shock or horrify? What if a female villain or just a regular female minion is killed, and it's just meant to be cool (or at least justified) like when a hero kills a male minion? This happens a lot in many video games: Fallout, Mass Effect, etc. There should be nothing wrong in these cases. They have female minions and villains that are actively antagonistic that must be gunned down in self-defense the same way male ones are. They appear less often than men, as justified by the setting, but aren't non-existent either. Women shouldn't automatically be exempt from violence, or are you suggesting that female villains shouldn't be able to be killed? Or that female villains shouldn't exist?

[HLPrincess]

This is not a reply to anyone particular, just my overall comment on the whole big discussion that erupted here. Thinking about what I've read here brought this specially edited song to my mind.

 

Something we all need to remember about and it's pretty obvious

 

4PJ0JPLg_-8

 

[imperial1scout]

*glances nervously up at the forum discussion*

 

So, uh... yeah... I like your Game Dungeon stuff. Interesting points, interesting games, interesting rants, and interesting ...discussions... *cough*.

 

Good episode, I hope to see more.

 

As a side note: I appreciate your high bar for quality, all of your stuff is really good for the resources you have