Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite

Chiulin, it's our turn now. In regards to this: https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Mou&Peng_gender%20and%20racial%20stereotype.pdf

I'm not going to dissect every page for now - that isn't necessary to prove its bias and flaws, as they're repeated throughout. I'll be focusing on P. 923 as its the first problematic page.

P. 923 is where the issues begin.

' In mass media, compared to female characters, male characters appear more frequently, talk significantly more, and engage in noted behaviors more, such as achieving and showing leadership (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995")' The source: Thompson, T. L., & Zerbinos, E. (1995). Gender
roles in animated cartoons: Has the picture changed in 20 years? Sex Roles, 32, 651-673.

The Sex roles journal can be located here: http://www.springer.com/psychology/personality+%26+social+psychology/journal/11199

Look at the Recently published top mentioned articles for Sex Roles. they are filled with feminist rhetoric. This is NOT a neutral journal on sexual representation.
'Boys Can Be Anything”: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career Cognitions'
'A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants'
'My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women'

This is also a citation from 1995. We're in 2014. Society and culture can rapidly change in just one year, let alone 19. You cannot use an old study to claim the current state of the world. Even IF the study was valid - which it is impossible to prove as there is no way the authors went across every culture and assessed every mass-media through a neutral lens, it STILL wouldn't be valid today. This is a repeated error this journal has made. They haven't provided a direct citation, which is an IMMEDIATE warning sign. You normally direct the reader to 1-2 pages of relevant material linked to a quote. This author has not done that for their citations.

Next citation - 'Omi, M. (1989). In living color: Race and American culture. In I. Angus & S. Jhally (Eds.), Cultural politics in contemporary America (pp. 111-122). London: Routledge.
Sadly this work is not on the Routledge website - Nor does it come up on our extensive university search system. It's a chapter within a physical book [http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Contemporary-America-Angus/dp/0415900107]

But there's still the same to be said. There was no direct citation provided. This was written in 1988. But what I can read, as can you, is the intro on Amazon. Lets go through it's problems.

'violence against women intensifies - feminist theory - citation needed.
and response by right-wing fundamentalists
and left-wing feminists is to unite to remove the images of
pornography from the iconography of our culture.' citation needed - Page 1.


'In contemporary culture the media have become central to the
constitution of social identity - Feminist theory - citation needed. - Page 2
'We also identify and construct ourselves as social beings
through the mediation of images' Feminist theory - citation needed. - Page 2

Are we beginning to see a trend?

Feminist theory - no citations - the book was written in 1988 not 1989 which is dated - no direct citations in either your source or theirs.

Lets continue. ' For instance, women are usually perceived as subordinate and passive dependent to men, with sexual relationships as central in life.' Source: Cantor, M. G. (1987). Popular culture and the
portrayal of women: Content and control. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science research (pp. 190-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

I again can't locate the source. But a quick google search is incredibly telling - it's been cited in 'Theory on Gender: Feminism On Theory', 'Quality and Quantity, reconstructing feminist methodology', [That one is on springer, the source for the Sex roles E-journal.] 'Dilemmas of Femininity: Gender and the Social Construction of Sexual Imagery.'

The list literally goes on. It's quite clearly either Feminist itself or fits the Feminist narrative. Again, also written years ago. Again, I can guarantee they did not assess every media outlet from 1987 and prior, nor have they assessed any modern media.

I'm leaving it there, purely because it's the exact same problems cropping up repeatedly; I don't need to repeat them ad nauseum. If you have any specific parts you want me to dissect, give me a bell. Overall your study cites sources from years ago in a discussion on modern culture and society, Does not cite correctly or use direct quotes, has a VERY clear Feminist bias through it's citations which themselves do not cite correctly and have a clear Feminist bias.

And I'm just an undergraduate History student, so I'm barely scratching the surface by highlighting the flaws in academic conventions. If I can highlight the volume of bias, anybody can.

So you are saying that Feminist opinions and research don't matter because they are bias?

I guess a person of any race can't make anything that has anything to do with racism then because they are clearly bias!

I guess gay people and straight people can't argue why gay couples should/should not be allowed to get married because they are clearly bias!

I am a feminist so guess I should just stop posting on any forum ever because clearly I'm bias!

I have to bring this up because I see this way to often:

People don't know the meaning of being a "Feminist".

It means:
Somebody who publicly supports the social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.


I see people all the time confuse feminists with "somebody who hates men" or "somebody who things that woman are superior to men" (for the lack of a better word, a so called "Feme-nazi"). All feminists want is for woman to be treated equal to men. Not better, not worse.

Sorry, this might be a bit of topic.
But I really hade to let this out because it drives me insane whenever I say that I'm a feminist and people respond with "OMG! How could you betray your own gender!".

Third-wave Feminists are absolutely ideologically driven. Are you contesting that point? Feminism is completely different to race or sexuality - You choose to be a feminist. It is an ideology. You do not choose to be an ethnic or sexual minority. They are not ideologies.

Being bias isn't always bad - if you're aware of your own limitations. From my experience, most bias people aren't aware of their bias. No-one is saying Feminists can't discuss things. I'm just stating they have a clear motivator to say what they've said - and no neutral or valid sources to back it up. That's the problem.

Feminism isn't as simple - there's many different sub-sections [gender, equity, radical, WRA, the list goes on.] For example - that definition certainly wouldn't fit Feminist authors of the SCUM manifesto.

I have no personal issue with Feminists who work towards genuine equality and do so with neutral sources. That isn't the point of contention. There's alot of hate out there for MRA's AND WRA'S [feminists ect,] so I get why you'd take my post as a direct attack on Feminism or w/e. It isn't, so I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Actually the word is written feminazi and the "official word" is misogynist.

Is feminism is about gender equality, then why does it have a gender specific name?

dacoqrs im going to asume you know general history.

it's called feminism because originally it was made by woman, woman had been severly underapreciated for most of history, man had always had a more dominating role and feminism was ment to equal that.

very few man were obviously happy to make their role less prominant thus there were only woman there.

if you want us to use a different term that means the same, we can but that term is not as well known as feminism.

that is why it's called feminism, and why there was a new term made spesificly to identify the woman who want DOMINANCE over man. because it would be insulting to the original feminist who made great progress for gender equality to call people who don't want gender equality but female dominance by the same name.

This is just...

Guys, when I said to ignore Zanestorm, I MEANT IT.

See his words on this thread. I see no reason to treat anything he says even remotely seriously, because he just said that actual, official studies by people with ****ing PHDs, aren't good enough. In fact, having a PHD is an irrelevant appeal to authority.

So, AFTER he said REPEATEDLY that there were no "official" or "scientifically valid" studies on everything I said, now that we've showed him actual studies, he says that they're invalid. because reasons, guys!

Seriously, just ignore his ***.

I repeat: He calls our actual studies and stuff written by actual doctors irrelevant, because they were written by doctors. So, what, we need a blog written by an anonymous person for it to be relevant?


So in short, his entire essay was, "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY YOUR SOURCES ARENT GOOD ENOUGH WAAA WAAA!"

Seriously, he's repeating the exact same garbage as last time, with a different tune: You don't have any sources! Your sources aren't good enough!

Plz ignore him.

IGNORE ZANESTORM PLEASE NO MATTER HOW SMART HE TRIES TO SOUND

Yes, even ignore his psuedo-intellectual diatribe on Chuilin's sources, because I know Zanestorm's game, and it's once again a bunch of pretentious baloney. Literally his entire argument can be summed up as "BIASED AND NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" Even worse, he says some ******** like "The Feminist Narrative," as if Feminism is some kind of brainwashing alternative history ********.

It's incredibly obvious that he's one of those Men's Rights people. Again, plz ignore, move on.

Historically the only men - and women - who were treated well were the nobility and/or the monarch, and even then they were hardly immune to tribulation, death or horrific maltreatment.

Generally, both men and women historically were treated poorly - especially the poorer folk. Men would be sent off to fight in wars - refusal to fight would lead to you being killed anyway - and women were forced to look after the children and the home, without any hope at improving their situation either. Obviously that's an over-simplification, as there's many different cultures and we're talking across atleast a few millenia, so there's notable exceptions I'm sure. Sadly both men and women were treated as means to an end, and arguably still are. Plato's world of ends is a fantastic iteration of what I mean.

First-wave Feminism had its faults, as did second-wave, but both made undeniably fantastic progress towards evening the gender playing field economically and politically. You'll find that men and women were both for and against primordial feminism. You'll also find that there's no way to quantify it as "few men" without a valid statistic.

There's lots of different types of Feminist, most of them are at odds [gender vs equity, radical vs WRA, Gender/Radical Vs Egalitarian/Humanitarian/MRA's ect.] It's more nuanced than a singular definition.

But how is any of this related to an analysis of Smite causing real-world sexism?

The content of the article is what matters, not the author. The content can be flawed or brilliant regardless of the author. But as I posted at the top of this page, the particular author we're discussing has failed academic convention in numerous ways and is demonstrably bias towards one POV.



Wikipedia and Feminist websites + news sites are NOT official or academically valid. The source that was created by an academic I have refuted further up.



I never said that. I said that the fact they're written by people with PHD's does not make them infallible or automatically correct. Wikipedia, Feminist websites and News souces are NOT actual studies or written by doctors, you only had one source that fits that criteria and I've already debunked it.



That was not what I said at all. You're treating me INCREDIBLY unfairly and flat out lying. Asking users to ignore me is not a call you can make. You're being ridiculous - ignoring what I say because it doesn't fit your narrative. If you aren't willing to have fair discussion, you shouldn't have made a topic like this in the first place.

I wouldn't be talking Sub. His "game" is EXTREMELY similar to yours, except yours has more insults.