It is open to read in my post (e.g. "Granted that some.. portrayals are unfair or misleading...") that here I'm not primarily concerned with the right or wrong of portrayals but the relation in the assumption that one could be diminished or objectified by them. In social constructionism, for instance, it is assumed (incorrectly) that our reality would be constructed by they ways we portray it.

You omit what is said in my post, and instead misuse one of it sentences in a related but different context, libel, which concerns the right and wrong of portrayals. The shift of context makes the sentence appear ironic or irrational, which seems to be your primary concern. But your argument isn't sound, just vengeful sophistry disguised as "logic". — jkop

My primary concern is to point out that your claim is dubious. You asserted that magical thinking is a necessary condition for believing that unfair portrayals could be harmful. I countered that this claim entails the dubious conclusion that libel laws only make sense under the assumption that magical thinking is correct. Notice that libel laws are not simply concerned with the correctness of a given portrayal, but whether the portrayal itself constitutes harm. So my question is: in what sense is the claim that libel is itself harmful different from the claim that some portrayals of women also constitute harm? There must be some difference, if the latter, but not the former, entails magical thinking. But you haven't spelled it out.

Why do you rephrase what is open to read? I've said none of those things. Your argument is clearly unsound, and the above is an informal fallacy (loaded question).

Why do you rephrase what is open to read? I've said none of those things. Your argument is clearly unsound, and the above is an informal fallacy (loaded question). — jkop

I'm trying to understand your position here. I'll be direct: why do you think that the fact that libel constitutes harm does not require magical thinking, whereas you suggest that to think that some portrayals of women (the objectifying ones) also constitute harm does require magical thinking?

So my question is: in what sense is the claim that libel is itself harmful different from the claim that some portrayals of women also constitute harm? — Nagase

Some of us aren't in favor of libel laws, by the way.

Some of us aren't in favor of libel laws, by the way. — Terrapin Station

One does not need to be in favor of libel laws in order to recognize that it (libel) constitutes harm.

I'd agree with that, but I don't agree that libel is sufficient for harm, either.

On the other hand, "harm" is ambiguous, so we'd need to define it better.

Libel is a legal term, recall, not a constitution of harm. Courts of law investigate whether a case of alleged libel is unlawful. You don't get to determine that libel would constitute harm.

Libel is a legal term, recall, not a constitution of harm. Courts of law investigate whether a case of alleged libel is unlawful. You don't get to determine that libel would constitute harm. — jkop

But when they do determine that a case of alleged libel is unlawful, they presumably are not engaging in magical thinking.

I'm really enjoying your contributions in this thread Nagase. I'm still eagerly waiting to find out which of premises 1 or 2 is rejected.

I'd agree with that, but I don't agree that libel is sufficient for harm, either.

On the other hand, "harm" is ambiguous, so we'd need to define it better. — Terrapin Station

I'm not saying that (alleged) libel is sufficient for harm, either. What I am saying is that when it constitutes harm, then there's no magic involved.

As for the ambiguity of harm, I don't think there's any need for a definition, if we can agree that at least some cases of libel are harmful.

Well, I personally think (1) is clearly wrong; there need be no "magical thinking" or "social constructivism" involved in the thought that unfair portrayals can be harmful.

I wasn't saying that I don't agree that ALLEGED libel is sufficient for harm. I don't agree that libel is sufficient for harm period. It can't constitute harm. No cases of libel are harmful. (Was that clear enough that time?)

I agree.

No cases of libel are harmful. (Was that clear enough that time?) — Terrapin Station

That's clear, but I'd be surprised if that's what you intended to say. It follows from that that the Ewells' libellous accusations of rape against Tom Robinson in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' were not harmful, despite the fact that they led to trauma and finally death for Tom.

Is that your position?

No, no, no, yes.

↪Bitter Crank I realize that digital characters, for all intensive purposes, cannot actually be said to suffer. But these characters are representations of an entire sex. The developers made a choice: should we make women wear normal, modest clothing, or should we make them wear absurdly impractical and sexually arousing clothing? — darthbarracuda

This is the entire issue in a nutshell. People, especially feminists, seem to find it impossible to view women as actual individuals rather than some soulless member of a wider homogenous group. Digital, fictional renderings that have a female gender, literally cannot harm anyone (unless you perform some wild mental gymnastics).

Anyone who is legitimately offended by this (as in, it's not feigned for some political end) is borderline mentally ill. Women are actual individuals, with their own agency, desires, and thoughts! The TRUE objectification of women occurs when you only see them as nothing more than a singular representation of some wider political group ("women"). You reduce women to some homogenous mass, destroying all individuality.

The only thing fictional graphic characters represent is themselves. You can't represent (and therefore offend) EVERY SINGLE WOMAN with a singular drawing. And the females that see an image of a female character and can't avoid taking that character to be a representation of every single female on the planet (including herself) AND gets offended by it because she's so absorbed within this homogenous mass called "women" that she can't see herself as a separate individual (an Individual wouldn't find it offensive because she refuses to believe she's being represented by the image) - she can only see herself as a absorbed within this singular group which therefore CAN be represented by a single image (an image which she takes exception to because it doesn't represent her, as a female, the way she wants - it's borderline mental illness. An inability to see yourself as an individual, nor see images which you share some feature with (sex) as LITERALLY being a representation of yourself.

It's madness. It's like a male getting offended by a muscled action figure toy because if doesn't represent himself accurately (or really, represent himself in a way that he specifically wants to be represented). The action figure doesn't represent anything but itself. It's madness to constantly see yourself being represented everywhere - and getting constantly offended because you don't like how you're being portrayed.

Even if all women WERE magically being represented by this fictional character in a computer (?) game, you still need to explain why it is a bad thing. 'Objectification' (whatever that means.. ) is not automatically a bad thing.

I mean seriously if you can't look at pornographic pictures of a woman who choose under her own agency to have those images produced, without quite literally seeing yourself being represented by her, you might want to consider therapy! The only thing women who work in porn represent in the images/video they produce is THEMSELVES.

"Should objectification be banned?"

Only if you want to live under an oppressive police state! Even if you don't like it, you shouldn't just force others through threat of police/judicial punishment to not do it, that's North Korea tier madness.

Maybe some women enjoy being objectified? Maybe some women enjoy viewing sexualised images of other females (or female game characters). Females comprise a not insignificant percentage of the gaming community, maybe developers are catering to their female customers when they make sexy images of medieval women. Maybe women like playing as them? Tonnes of women love being seen as sexy and attractive, and enjoy the power that comes from being an object of sexual desire, or being prettier than other women. Either way the idea that sexy female fictional females harms actual individual women (for some vague unexpressed reason) and therefore specifically men (it's said to be empowering when women do it ...) need to be stopped from producing and enjoying these images is thoroughly suspect - laughable really.

Here's an easy solution: stop being so self centred that you literally think every depiction of a female, across all forms of media, is a representation of yourself! And stop being offended by EVERY SINGLE THING EVER. And grow a thicker skin anyway - you don't like how the females in a video game look, don't buy and play the stupid game. They complain about the 'patriarchy' and then screech for basically men to fix it for them and cater to them, like they're children who need looking after. It's crazy, we live in this culture of offence. I DONT LIKE IT WAA BAN IT BAN IT ILLEGAL WAA STOP COMMITTING THOUGHT CRIMES BAN IT I AM SO OFFENDED LIKE WOW I JUST CANT EVEN WAA.

/rant

The TRUE objectification of women occurs when you only see them as nothing more than a singular representation of some wider political group ("women"). . . . — dukkha

That's a good point.

One might add that when you see a woman you see the woman, not a portrait. Unless she's acting in a theatre she represents neither a portrayal of herself, nor of other women.

Yet some people seem to think that all they see would be representational, or a social construction, and thus engage in political campaigns to re-construct it their way. Hence the rhetoric about objectification.

That's clear, but I'd be surprised if that's what you intended to say. It follows from that that the Ewells' libellous accusations of rape against Tom Robinson in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' were not harmful, despite the fact that they led to trauma and finally death for Tom.

Is that your position? — andrewk

Be surprised--that's my position. Libel isn't the problem in that case. Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to.

Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to. — Terrapin Station

Who cares about 'directly' - this new word that you have tried to smuggle into the discussion? Fortunately, the answer is - almost nobody, including the law in most countries. 'Directly' is a meaningless notion.

Who cares about 'directly' - — andrewk

Probably I do, which is why I'd bring it up.

Meaning is subjective, by the way.

Tough to say, I think it depends on the context; something which is pure "pornography' with no meaningful context is different than tasteful depictions of sex.

Blaming it on "patriarchy" or conspiracies is rather silly, on some level, good or bad, it is a part of human nature, as evolutionary psychology more or less affirms, much as this does not mean we need or have to "reduce" human motivations to the purely sexual; in practice though, as most people get married or have a relationship, it does play a significant part in many if not most people's lives.

It seems a far bigger problem to me to see a focus on sexual appeal as a problem--and that's what tends to happen. Any focus on sex/sex appeal/sexual attactiveness/etc. is seen as "objectification" (and usually as "misogyny" etc.) It's disheartening how people let rhetoric like that take hold so that it winds up more or less becomes unquestioned and simply accepted as a norm for an entire generation, to an extent where it even starts influencing the opinions of other generations. — Terrapin Station

This sounds a lot like speech affecting things. IOW if libel cannot cause harm, how can abstract disccusions and writing about objectification be problematic or influencing the opinions of other generations. Or if you allow that presentation of certain ideas can influence opinions of other generations, how would this be a problem, since it cannot be responsible for any behavior. so, some ideas are floating around in some minds, that's not a problem. It certainly doesn't affect you in a problematic way and it cannot be blamed for any behavior since behavior is caused by other things. Just as any harm caused by someone saying that so and so was a rapist in the south of that time was not causal, so ideas about objectification or how women are presented in pornography cannot be causal in any way that causes harm.

Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to. — Terrapin Station

And presumably writing doesn't either. So, what is problematic about these coming generations having a certain attitude. I suppose you could argue that you dislike these people having wrong attitudes in their minds, but since these wrong attitudes cannot cause harm or behavior, I don't see the problem. (I just realized it almost reads like a kind of dualism - thoughts in a transcendent realm where they cannot be causal (along with words and speech) and matter where harm can take place. Or at least matter where direct causes can happen and verbal communication which cannot be causal.) But perhaps you are feeling empathy for these coming generations, that their minds will have false ideas. But then this cannot be harm. If it were harmful, then saying wrong ideas would be harming people. It would be a kind of weapon, directly causing people to suffer having the wrong ideas in their heads.

If like an accusation of rape, it is actually those who believe it who are the only ones causing harm, then there is no problem with bad ideas, like objectification of women. The problem would be that these future generations DECIDE to believe them. That's where the problem lies. So the actual creation of bad ideas and the spreading of bad ideas is not problematic, in the least.

Anyone who is legitimately offended by this (as in, it's not feigned for some political end) is borderline mentally ill. Women are actual individuals, with their own agency, desires, and thoughts! The TRUE objectification of women occurs when you only see them as nothing more than a singular representation of some wider political group ("women"). You reduce women to some homogenous mass, destroying all individuality. — dukkha

Recognizing that women are being treated as a homogenous group is not the same as treating them as a homogenous group.

A logic to which you yourself must adhere, or else you would not be able to recognize the supposed homogenous treatment by either pornographers OR political activists.

by buying the video game, I am indirectly supporting a media establishment that obviously objectifies women in some way to garner a profit. — darthbarracuda

By participating in the capitalist economy, you--we--are supporting an establishment that ruthlessly objectifies and exploits men, women, children, animals--the very earth itself. Media is but a part od the grand scheme.

Sex sells, and humans enhance their market value by whatever tricks in the book are available to them. Back in the day before proper trousers became common, men wore leggings that did not join at the waist. The genitals were not covered, so other arrangements were made. One of the other arrangements was the 'cod piece' -- initially a mere piece of cloth which was developed into a showy cup that made it appear the man had a huge and erect penis. Sexual advertisement and objectification in action--by men.

Women--and men--both engage in sexual advertisement as a form of self-advancement self-enhancement. Given instances might not be quite as obvious as the cod piece or the artfully bared breast. And why would we NOT engage in self-enhancing, self-advancing deployment of clothing or tattoos or bared skin?

BTW, I got a little rush seeing some old names on the first page of the posts, then I noticed that the thread was 3 years old. How time flies!

I agree with this, I don't see video games as an industry any 'different' in that regard than other forms of media and entertainment (e.x. 1990s Madonna music videos, 1970s comic books, etc), some trends of which have always been around, perhaps in varying degrees.

Most likely, since video games are a "newer" phenomenon they are standing out more than older forms of media.

As far as sexism or 'exploitation', I think there is a fine line between strict puritanism, and exploitation (apparently even back in Shakespeare time's, there were some "puritanish" thoughts in regards to his writings.

To me, I think it has a lot to do with how it fits into the overall context, such as a difference between "containing" sex and violence, or sex and violence for the pure sake of it, and there is of course no 'scientific' way of defining it.

My advice would be to either boycott the entire mediums, if one has a problem with it (not just 'video games', but TV, film, comics, etc), or to at least attempt to come up with something akin to a consistent 'formula' for vetting it, or otherwise then it's just 'he said'', 'she said'.

And as far as sensationalist media goes, it seems like a lot of it is predicated on stirring up controversy using loaded words (e.x. sexist, violence) not proportionate to the subject matter or context, simply because it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic.

it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic — IvoryBlackBishop

Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.

I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."

Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.

"People" don't like talking about how capitalism degrades life. They would rather talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, blah blah blah, rather than talking about the herd of elephants in the room. Back in the day when there were 3 networks and nothing else, people spent a lot of time criticizing television. most people didn't realize that the IMPORTANT parts of television programming were the commercials; the programs were just bait.

The relationship of users to media is basically the same. The POINT of Facebook, Google, Yahoo, et al is to put advertising in front of eyeballs; that's how they make money. I use Google Search all the time and value it highly -- but search is the bait. Sharing pictures of your cat with the world is the bait for Facebook. At least with pornography, the product and the bait are one and the same thing.

Our use of the internet (what we look at, when, for how long, whether we click or not, all that stuff) is the product that is sold to advertisers. Everything we do socially and economically that can be tracked and valued is tracked and valued. That's why your cell phone keeps track of where you are at every moment of the day (assuming you have not disabled location functions): Where you go and when is very useful information to companies that want to sell you stuff. Of course it's also useful for governments which might have an unsavory interest in what you do with your time--when, where, and with whom.

it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic
— IvoryBlackBishop

Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.

I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."

Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.
[/quote]
How do you define capitalism? Are you talking about a specific definition or theory of capitalism, or human behavior?

In basic sense of private property, I believe that, on some level that is a part of human nature, and I disagree with "utopian" theories, such as that "civilization" invented private property or exploitation. (As an example, ant colonies have social "roles", ranks, division of labor, so I believe on some level, merely owning personal or private property is inevitable, and not necessarily "bad).

Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.

I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."

Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.

"People" don't like talking about how capitalism degrades life. They would rather talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, blah blah blah, rather than talking about the herd of elephants in the room. Back in the day when there were 3 networks and nothing else, people spent a lot of time criticizing television. most people didn't realize that the IMPORTANT parts of television programming were the commercials; the programs were just bait.

The relationship of users to media is basically the same. The POINT of Facebook, Google, Yahoo, et al is to put advertising in front of eyeballs; that's how they make money. I use Google Search all the time and value it highly -- but search is the bait. Sharing pictures of your cat with the world is the bait for Facebook. At least with pornography, the product and the bait are one and the same thing.

Our use of the internet (what we look at, when, for how long, whether we click or not, all that stuff) is the product that is sold to advertisers. Everything we do socially and economically that can be tracked and valued is tracked and valued. That's why your cell phone keeps track of where you are at every moment of the day (assuming you have not disabled location functions): Where you go and when is very useful information to companies that want to sell you stuff. Of course it's also useful for governments which might have an unsavory interest in what you do with your time--when, where, and with whom.

If you mean consumerism, or people indulging in fatuities such as "googling for cat pictures" instead of doing more productive things, I believe on some level that is a part of human nature, and that people can take action to boycott or remove those things from their lives, so I'm not sure I can blame "capitalism", especially a modern incarnation or notion of it.

As far as Google's business model or mission statement, I'm unsure, but you said yourself you don't 'have' to use if for purely mindless things like cat pictures and can use it for more productive or 'serious' things as well.

You have an obvious option. You can choose not to watch it. Media is about attracting eyeballs to make money. Find fault with the men who like that stuff if you must. I like it. Find fault with capitalism maybe, but what other system would best suit us? Got any alternatives?

I have nothing against cat pictures. My preference is for dog pictures. Wasting time is, indeed, a natural human behavior; I have nothing against that either. I have nothing against "private property" as long as we mean "personal property" -- a home, a car, clothing, books, china, etc. Capitalism is about "capital property -- factories, newspapers, rental properties, land rents, railroads--all that stuff from which capital (wealth) is accumulated. That's the source of hard core exploitation (today: in the past other systems carried out exploitation).

One can object to "consumerism" and that becomes a problem for people when it gets out of hand and no longer serves the interests of the person doing the consuming. Buying stuff that doesn't make one particularly happy on credit (with high interest rates) is consumerism against the consumer. Getting people to buy stuff that doesn't and can't make their life better is just exploitation.

True enough: We can use media for our own purposes, but we do well to remember that the owners of media also have purposes, and quite often our welfare isn't one of them.

At least with pornography, the product and the bait are one and the same thing.

This never stops to amaze me. They show naked women available in all possible variety of attractiveness, in actions that are diverse to satisfy anyone's interest. Then they put an ad there: "YOU can watch this very same thing right now, if you pay some money pronto." This is not marketing. This is not adding. This is not Zen.