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

Did you read the rest of what I said or did you see that it was me and go on the defensive? I'm trying to be nice. I don't want to be rude to anyone, but you're going out of your way to do so. Please don't. I explicitly said personal attacks were getting this thread nowhere, and what you've just posted contributes nothing to the conversation except to be rude to me. This is the first and last time I'm going to respond to you so that you can continue the conversation at hand about women in Smite or stop posting. I don't want to see this thread locked.

edit::



I'm interested as well. :) Take your time, it's alright.

you dont see saying sub is wrong as a claim?


you claimed they that video game characters have no thing to do with sexism IRL.

for as far as i can tell you thinking those are biased lie with a personal problem, this means you can only dispute them on a personal level.

face it currently sub has more evidence that smite does have an impact then you have to disprove it, your argument is that because you think they are biased, we should all believe you.

you see to have a personal problem with the feminazi's and as much as i hate those poeple as well.

you know the actual feminists focus on more direct sexism that possible sexism right? that doesnt mean that they possible sexism doesn't exist, it just means they rather take down all direct sexism first before diving into studies that would end up getting them hated for saying games cause sexism... the reason gamers would hate them is because the feminists currently dont have the best rep because of the feminazi's.


their priority currently isn't fully on possible sexims, rather making sure man and woman whoa are beaten by there spouse on a daily bases can get away from those people. they can't fully afford an entire culture to hate them.


that is why there aren't as many studies on it as let's say terrorism or psycholigical problems people can develop.

the studies shown are the ones that do can done and there is nothing wrong with that.

---

you seem to have a personal problem with the places those articles came from.

if you can discredit them on a personal level but not as an argument just because you have those problems with them. for now, those are proof unless you can show things that disproof them.

untill then you are simply saying "no i don't believe in them, that is why no one should listen to them." no arguments or anything to show why, just your opinion.
the feminists would not look to make games sexist, they would look if they could possibly be sexist. feminazi's would look make them sexist, dont confuse those 2.

news sites, i don't know much about the news outlets in the US spesificly, if the site that it was taken from is a site that lies 90% of the time you can use that percentage as "evidence" (not proof) against sub. if that is not the case you can't argue with the news outlets.

its important to not that those articles were made by people who studied could be hired to do the research and maybe even write the articel. so unless you can proof that those people who did the testing are full of ****, subs proof still goes.

I don't know how much of this is directed at me, to preface this.

But singular women and how they feel - whilst their feelings are of course valid - is anecdotal evidence at best. In History, as an example, we absolutely use contemporary sources. But only within a much wider context, with the understanding that this is an individual and not representative of much other than themselves. Actual studies need to be provided to make leaps between pixels in video-games and real world sexism. A single woman, even a million women, thinking there's a link isn't proof.

Agreed entirely on the point about getting personal. I'm certainly guilty of it, which I've been trying to self-moderate. By all means, if anything I've said is offensive please point it out and I'll amend it.

snark night i choose you...WAIT NO I DON'T! come back snark night! not your time yet!.

these little jabs need to stop, they either add fuel to a fire or are just toxic. i'll put this in the "fual+fire"part for the sake of not asuming you did it to be toxic.

It's was uncalled for, I apologize.

Still, it's insulting to Sub and Zane to claim that you're tired after they've been arguing for 10 pages about it.

im tired of their argument as well because i'd like to talk less about the mysoganie parts of the porno that is smite but more about the illogical parts of it and why in from no possible corner makes sense, not from logic or lore (that thing that i care a lot about) and not from anyother point.

the insults that they have already said to eachother are a lot harsher then possibly implying they are boring IMO.

No. Because I've provided reasons why. There is no study conducted that says "we've verified that Sub is wrong." What exactly do you think is appropriate to cite, when giving reasoned arguments as to why the opponent is wrong? My argument is that Sub lacks evidence for their claims. What exactly do you think it is appropriate to cite to support that argument, beyond their own posts showing they lack evidence and/or the evidence they have provided is fundamentally flawed?

Also no. Academic conventions are a separate entity from myself, I just have to adhere to them like every other academic. The problem is the source does not meet academic conventions in numerous ways. I do not have a personal issue with the author of the source, I assure you.



Sub is the one making claims, yet they have provided no valid evidence at all. That is simply a fact. Look up academic conventions, and then look up the source Sub cited critically. You'll come to the exact same conclusions as me. I don't have a problem with any type of Feminist, I have a problem with people telling others what to do, how to dress or what they're allowed to draw without a justification. As far as I'm concerned Feminists are just as useful as other focused groups like MRA's, although personally I'm an Egalitarian / Mill Liberal, but that's not really relevant.



Your right, not all sexism is obvious or direct. And certain elements within Feminism do mis-represent the movement as man-hating and woman-centric. But I have not been provided with, no can I find, any valid studies linking even in-direct sexist attitudes to video-games. It's linked to the fact that video-games also don't cause violent behaviors, so it's questionable how much the medium actually effects us, if at all.



I agree entirely. I've witnessed domestic abuse, it's horrific. But I've never met anyone who hates people who were abused. I dread to think that they might exist. But how is this related?


Because it's a less prominent issue atm? Agreed. But that also means - as there's a lack of data - we can't jump to conclusions. That's my entire point. The study that was provided was debunked - because it doesn't fit academic standards, so it isn't a valid source. That's all there is to it.



Feminists are ideologically driven, so I don't trust them on matters of gender anymore than I'd trust an MRA. They have reasons to say what they say beyond the pursuit of truth. That is my issue with Feminist sources, but it is by no means exclusive to feminism, please don't think it is.



I've proven that the source doesn't fit Academic conventions. Feminist sources are naturally bias towards one POV, so cannot be trusted as a source. Wikipedia is Wikipedia. It is renowned in Academic circles - and I mean this - for being the single most unreliable source in the modern day. If we cited wikipedia in our papers, we'd get a fail on the essay, more than likely. Or it would be disregarded entirely. That's because it doesn't fit academic conventions.



It's not my place to tell others how to think, so I don't. But the sources provided are not good sources. They have an immediately obvious ideological bias and don't fit academic conventions. Therefore, as an academic who requested academic sources, they are of no use.



I've had numerous issues with the Huffington post over the years. That aside, there is not a single news source that I'm aware of that can be trusted, as they all deviate from journalistic integrity at one point or another. Academics hold them to the same regard as myself, for that reason. There's specific instances when using a news site is acceptable [I.E for an insight into contemporary thought on a particular historical event,] this isn't one of them.

The only academic article that has been provided does not meet academic standards in multiple ways. The other sources aren't academic by their nature, so naturally don't meet academic standards. They aren't to be used as academic evidence because they were not crafted under vigorous academic code of conduct.

I have to agree with Zane about Wikipedia. My professors always pit on the assignment's instructions that I cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Even in the rare occasion that they do, I always have to have 2 reliable sources to back it up, and by that point it's not even worth it. Heck, I've started saving money so I could buy the complete updated editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

ugh i have a headache and its 0 in the morning.

im making this quick.

you seem to be confused with feminazi's and feminists. actuall feminists are people who did studies spesificly to be able to be trusted in their speach over the subject of genders on a social stand point, the exect reason why you should trust actual feminists is because their feminists and they do that with an ideologie yes that also focuses on genders. in sort, actual feminists reasons are only for the pursuit of trueth.

them following their ideologie is what drives them to do research. actual feminists are very unbiased people who studied spesificly for the reason to make valid claim and arguments about genders on a social level.
feminazi's see all forms of sex that involves a ***** and a vagina as rape and argue out of biasism, emmotion and assumptions and more often then not have not studied to or done any research, those people's articles should be disregarded. the trueth has nothing to do with their reasons, as long as they can stroke there imaginary ****s and feel superior they are happy even if its because of lies.

---

untill you can outright proof those articels them selves were written by biased people who had ultirior motives sub has more proof and evidence then you that it is an issue.


if those articels were all written by different people then lets take a look at best for sub and worst or worst for you and best for you scenario's.

best for sub but worst for you. one of those people did not adhear to the code or standerds, this means you only have one occasion in which you are right and a ton against you.

worst for sub and best for you. all but one of those people did not adhear to the acadamic code or standerds... you would have more evidence then but sub could chok those up to simply misfortune when picking those because he might not to that academic standerd you talked about and could go look for more articels.

the part of could look for more is something he could theoraticly endlessly do because you have nothing to prove the statement he made its self was wrong while he can keep coming up with evidence that it is because you haven't showed any hard or direct proof of your own.

---

feminists should be trusted, feminazi's should not.

for now its your word against subs and subs articels... effectively the only reason i can kind of look at it like a stale mate is because say no against his articles but from a spectator perspective it is subs word and articels against your word thus you have less objective proof.

---

lets see if we can make some progression, first: zanestorm could you post what those academic standerds and codes are? for now those are just a few words to me because i don't know the US's standerds and codes in that aspect.

second: both of you stop insulting eachother. it doesn't add anything to this and is only sligtly comical but not enough to afford the mindnuming boringness of useless words it adds to a comment. i dont care who started or who did it more or who did it worse or what ever you have to say to that other then "okay i wont make insults".

third, i give the both of you page 22 to 24 of this thread to settle this, if you go over that the argument stops and we move on, if you to want to continue you have to do it through a pm not speak of it again intill you either both have a final conclusion and nothing else to add or just never bring it up again if you dont. it becomes that wound we just left open and we will move on to another part of this discussion.

You know what, ****ers? I'm a transnucleotide dragonkin PoC (1/32nd Native American) so stop oppressing me you white cishet scum ****lords. You're all perpetuating the patriarchy and oppressing the womyns. Check your damn privilege, ableist fat shamers. Yes, I do identify as a radical feminist, and yes, I do have bright blue neon colored hair, and yes, Misandry-Mermaid is definitely my favorite tumblr blog, AND YES, you are triggering my self-diagnosed PTSD that I got after I was criticized over the internet.

You cishet ****lords have NO IDEA what it's like to be a Femme-presenting, genderqueer, non-binary, tucute, two spirit, atheist, Muslim-ally, differently-abled, neurodivergent, genetically-factioned, aberrant ginger phenotype, fruitarian, festively plump, fat-positive, PoC (1/32nd Native American), pecankin, transformer. People NEVER get my pronouns right.
pronouns: fi/fi/fo/fum
I have Chronic biscuit toxicity (self-diagnosed), Aspergers (self-diagnosed), autism (self-diagnosed), *****y resting face (self-diagnosed), and PTSD (self-diagnosed).

I'll have you ****ers know, I came first place in the Oppression Olympics, so don't even try mansplaining your way out of this. And if you misgender me, I'll have you doxxed, ****lords.

Tag your damn posts with a trigger warning, your ****lord pissbaby mansplaining is triggering my feelings.

Can I have a safe place? No truscum please.