Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by lindsay40k, Sep 8, 2013.
Well shucks, guys
I agree with the sentiment.
I don't want to name products but as someone in IT I deal with some people who insist their overpriced brand is strictly superior and it's like they think it makes them a better person for owning it.
I said it was biological because it's a quick thought about being wanted/desired/admired. I never said we actually put much thought into it beyond that point.
lol I thought you were just making a joke. On other forums I just go by LC and I have a surprisingly extensive text file of all the things people have made up that it stands for.
The ad I just saw was for Prostate products. Think I prefer the sexy game.
Don't mistake this for "creepy internet guys harassing the woman," this is two progressives eager for a feminist voice and perspective in our discussions.
The thing about blocking the ads is not just about blocking something that takes up a little of my screen. If it was just that, I could live with the ads. But the advertisers do several things which are much worse than that.
They use scripts that make the ads actually a obstacle to viewing the site, by bouncing around and popping up.
They use flash and scripts that have to run on my comp.
They do not secure their own servers, so their ads are the number one way of spreading viruses and trojans to infect user computers.
Now because of this, they have forfeited any right they might otherwise have had to be considered anything other than malicious, in and of themselves. And because they have chosen to be malicious in and of themselves, blocking them is the only responsible thing to do.
Didn't doubt anyone's sincerity, though increasing my forumgoing is going to wait until I've got a proper computer again
You don't consider yourself a feminist??
It's a way of thinking not limited to X chromosomes, you know.
Besides, I thought that all Reds were de facto feminists? Perhaps there's a thread for that sort of question?
I've got to say I agree with the OP. I play less games than I used to and one of the reasons I like Civ and CFC is that it's a little more 'grown up' than other games communities, and it always disappoints me to see these kinds of ads on the forum.
To those saying "yeah well this kind of thing is everywhere": it doesn't have to be if we decide together that we want something better. This forum/site is for players, and if we don't want this stuff on here it can be removed - if it's not people will just vote with their feet and go elsewhere or make a site elsewhere.
If this can be blocked through AdSense at no cost to CFC I can't see why it shouldn't happen. It would certainly incentivise me to visit CFC more often!
I wish sites would take my money so I could be smug about having paid for not having ads.
Well it will be more of an achievement soon, it's only a matter of time before Google boots it from the Chrome app store like they did from the Android app store.
Chrome also is doing stuff to try and counter annoying ads, they added a "where sound is playing from" thing to their tabs. It isn't perfect but it really helps.
I dislike ads because they're all manipulative. I don't like anyone else telling me what I want, and trying to force me into it through cheap psychological tactics. I haven't seen ads on the internet in years because adblock is free and legal. I prefer to subscribe or donate to sites I support.
That said, there's always been a disturbingly high amount of visible sexism in the gaming industry, particularly in marketing. I do what I can to prevent that as a game developer.
And I applaud you for it. Thank you.
That being said, I think one has to approach the subject with a sense of humor. Some of the sexist video game adverts make me laugh. They're so ridiculous, and solely designed to give adolescents a cheap thrill so that they will play the game and waste money on micro transactions or subscriptions. So what? If mummy wants to give them the Visa card, then so be it. It will never stop as long as there is a target audience and we might just as well get used to it.
The adverts used to bug me, but once I learned to accept the fact that they are here to stay, I actually get a chuckle out of some of them.
If you really want to talk about offensive sexism in advertising, how about the household products commercials where its always the woman doing the cleaning/laundry/cooking? Sexism at it's finest. Now those are offensive.
Civ is probably pretty good for not sexism, it would be easy enough to add no female leaders to the game. The advertising included both genders as well when it would have been easy to write the game off as something only men would be interested in, it being hardcore(ish) strategy.
I would say that they did a pretty good job of being inclusive to women. Strategy is not something that usually interests women as a rule. There are those of us that do enjoy it, though. I also think that they did a pretty good job of including female leaders into the game. Historically, there were very few compared to the male leaders available, but the fact that they included any at all is saying something about the thinking at Firaxis. As a woman, I would like to have seen a few more female leaders, such as Dido or Theodora be included, but I'm happy with what was included. One could use the same logic of "Why wasn't this civ included in the game?" and it would be just as pointless as lamenting why Dido isn't a playable leader. There is only so much room for leaders, and (historically) only so many qualified women to lead a civ.
Overall, I think that Firaxis did a pretty good job of not being sexist, even though they probably know that most of Civ4's fan base is decidedly male. One only has to look at the male population of CFC to realize that. There are probably a number of women here that are not identifying as female for fear of repercussions or harassment, which would be a shame, since I think we have a lot to contribute. The only sexism that I have come across regarding Civ4 and Civ5 has been here at CFC over the years, and I aggressively deal with that either by blasting the idiot myself, or having a moderator do it for me. To the credit of the moderators, I have rarely had to complain to them, since the forums are well managed. I prefer to handle it myself anyway. It's more fun.
Back to the issue at hand, I still think that the problem of sexist advertising here is a tempest in a teacup. It's really not worth getting worked up over it. Other women may disagree, and that is their right, but I just don't see the point of getting all in a lather over things like that. As I mentioned above, there are more things on the telly to get upset about than what is advertised here.
Somebody is going to have to explain this one to me. I don't see it as sexist to appeal to the group that happens to be the biggest buyer of the product. In many/most households, the female is the one who does much of the shopping and they're attempting to appeal to them. I don't really see it as some kind of "stay in the kitchen" thing. Yeah, there's guys that do the shopping/laundry etc. but they're not the majority and I think a lot of bachelors don't really pay those commercials much mind and just use what their mother used when they taught them how to do laundry when they were younger because we kinda suck at taking care of ourselves. I would see objectifying women and showing them in stripperific clothing as far more sexist.
While I agree that many/most households, the women do the shopping/laundry, etc., it seems in these adverts like it is a given that the "little woman" is always doing the housework. I know plenty of men who regularly do housework on a shared basis with their partners. Why, in a commercial, does it always have to be the woman in the kitchen with the mop? Why can't a man be shown scrubbing the toilet? Or the bathtub? Is it unmanly, or something? For that matter, why can't a woman be shown changing the oil or spark plugs on her car? I do it (because I got sick of being ripped off, and it doesn't make me any less feminine.) It's the assumed gender role that we object to. The portrayal of a woman enslaved in the house is offensive, that's all.
As for the stripperific clothing, you answered that one yourself. Yes it's sexist but:
You've made your own point, and I agree with it. The stripperific adverts are aimed at young males with (dubiously) disposable income. The household ads are the same. They're aimed at a demographic. I understand that, but if we're going to get all up in arms about the sexism here, we need to realize that other forms of sexism exist elsewhere, and they are just as offensive.
I'm not saying that I think I have the answer. I just have a different viewpoint. As a woman, the domestic adverts bother me more than the stripperific ones do. As a psychologist, the sexy ads here don't bother me. They're appealing to the natural human sexual response in young men (and gay women) and they are probably quite successful, which is why there are so many of these games about. They also may not bother me because I'm gay, I don't know, but it does bother me to think of myself enslaved in a house, expected to look after it. The cult of domesticity died with the Antebellum South, or at least the 1900's. Women are more than housekeepers and domestic workers in today's age, all I'm asking for is a little equality in the presentation.
Do you get the distinction?
That's an interesting way to phrase the point about the domestic products adverts. But let me ask this, is a woman more or less likely to pay attention to those ads if a woman is in the ads? And is a man more or less likely to pay attention to the ads if a woman is in the ads? Now personally I minimize how much I pay attention to all sorts of adverts. But if I were to pay attention to one, for just about any product, I'd probably be more likely to pay attention to one with a woman in it. But that's just me, and everyone agrees that I'm weird.
I think if you really want to get worked up about something in the realm of sexism, you're best target would be toys and advertising aimed at children. Where the girls get Barbies and the boys get Lego.
Or a large number of ads where the white male middle-class person is made to look like a clueless idiot.
IIRC, it's the gender that you prefer that you listen to, or pay attention to. It's the same concept that has male fighter pilots listening to the plane's messages given to them in a female voice. It's true, I've read that she's known as "B*tching Betty". The male responds more attentively to the female voice, and a woman to a male voice. Likewise, the male responds to a woman in advertising, which is why you often see women doing adverts for men's products, or for commercials aimed at men. Likewise, they put on a good looking man for items that would normally appeal to women (in some cases). More often, a woman will voice the advert, or be in it for a woman's product, because women innately trust another woman's voice/opinion in a position of authority or knowledge. "If she uses said item, then it must be good for me. I trust her." Advertisers know this and play on our collective weaknesses, male ans female alike. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
They make Lego for girls now, you know. Children get toys based on society's expectations of gender roles. Dolls for girls, cars and trucks for boys. I think that the child should get whatever toy it wants to play with, no matter the gender.
Or the clueless idiot housewife...
Separate names with a comma.