And you know what are your odds to be robbed? Pretty fucking high.

So yes, if you value your money, you should require from yourself to stay at least that sober to be able to know where your wallet is.

When I was talking about being sloppy drunk I meant all people. Because when you get too drunk, your chance of falling under a car on street passage is pretty damn high.

It doesn't mean that when you get attacked while being drunk that should be any sort of excuse for the criminal. No. He or she should be treated just like when attacking anyone else.

I don't know how about you, but I wouldn't want to get beaten up, mugged or killed, so I do some things to minimize my chances. But I guess advising any woman do to the same would be sexist, right?

And maybe, just maybe, if the chance of being raped while being sloppy drunk is so high, it's better to avoid such situations? It's a sad world we live in, but you gotta protect yourself.

No, it's you who don't understand that noone is blaming a victim, well, at least not me. I am talking about victimization factors and especially the ones that you have some control about.

But I guess we should change public annoucements to "Stay Safe" *

* Unless you are female, then do whatever the hell you want.

PS. I advised one of my female friendfs once to not listen to the music on her earphones at night while walking, because then she would be more easily attacked from surprise. How fucking sexist of me.

I explained it in my last post. I do not actually claim that it's true for the whole industry and said that the "fact" was indeed a "fact" (not fact). I do only believe that it's true for a certain younger part of the industry and I believe in a tendency. And what I described is the reason why I believe this.

I didn't read through the articles in detail but from what I caught the first article only mentions the general number of women in the industry, not the roles. Now let me ask you this, if you take into account that women are more common in art departments than in the management, game design, programming or audio departments and then assume that women are most dominant among 2D artists and then take into account that there's fewer concept artists than others - is it then still *impossible*?

Plausible example: team consisting of twenty people, art department of seven people, two concept artists, one of them responsible for characters - is a woman (not that unlikely taking the amount of women at art schools into account). Makes 5% of the crowd and is responsible for the character designs. Tadaa!

And as far as I can tell the ratio of character concept artists and other artists generally gets smaller as the studio/project gets bigger making it perfectly possible that women are largely responsible for character designs in the industry despite only 6% of people in the industry being women. Just in theory, of course. Still not saying that it's a fact but no, those numbers you provided did not in any way make it impossible.

The second article does actually mention ratios. I'm mobile at the moment, so please forgive me for not going back to cite, but I believe the percentage of concept artists was 16% female. In other words, while I suppose it is possible that all 16% of those women work in senior positions at big studios and work on games with sexualized women characters. It is possible. And its possible that's enough to make a majority of the sexualized designs we see came from those women uin those companies. But it isn't very freaking likely.

You called the comment a strawman then proceeded to type exactly that. Putting extra words in it doesn't make it different.

How do you know these women aren't the one's "peddling sexism"? We can look at the manufactured controversy about the God of War 'bros before hoes' trophy. Wasn't that created by a woman? People like you are so quick to run and protect women. Have you ever stopped to ask if they want or need your protection?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse here. When I get robbed, how likely is my last history of wandring around with a big wallet in my pants going to be an issue? Are 80% of robbery victims female? Does wearing sexually provocative clothing increase the likelihood of me getting robbed? No? So these aren't exactly areas where risky behavior is excused by male dominated "robbery culture."

I don't know why you are distorting everything.

This line of conduct is not fueled by fear or obligation. I just see this like something to keep in mind while being in a potentially hostile environment where rape, theft, violence or another risk in life could happen. And this works for both men and women... well, for everyone, actually.
In order to try to reduce the risk that [risk in life] happens, there are certain factors you can control and modulate to do so. Of course this is not a cast iron moral code you'd have to follow, and you can do whatever you want if you feel like it. And an actual motivated murderer, thief, thug or rapist will do his/her deed whatever you are doing in any situation. But modulating the factors you control can certainly help in other situations.

You only talk about extremes and try to ridiculize other people who have a different opinion (thanks for the fratboy style "Dude and Bro" by the way...). Opinions may be altered, nuanced or changed and I don't find your behavior very constructive.

Well, I didn't say anyhere that a woman who acted like that deserved her faith. I was just saying that she could have reduced the risk of being abused by taking cautious measures beforehand. And I extend that logic to every human being. Closing my door will lower my chance of being robbed/raped/murdered by a maniac. Regulating my alcohol consumption in a bar will lower my chance of being robbed/raped/abused.
If that terrible thing happens, did I deserve it? Of course not, blame the agressor, not the victim. But that tragedy could have been avoided if I had been more careful. That's just the way of things.

And speaking of the defense attorney. This guy job is to get his client out of trouble, whatever it takes. Some tactics are shameful and immoral, but that's just how the justice system works. Furthermore, the accused one could be the rapist or could be falsely accused. If there are no factual evidences each attorney will do the best to aid their client.

You still don't understand. "Don't get piss drunk in public" is not an advise directed to women. It's directed to ALL people for different reasons.

don't get piss drunk in public because something bad may happen is an advise coming from common sense.

And if some stuff happens while you're uncontrollably drunk, yes, some people will say to you "that could've been avoided".

But I guess you can tell kids "don't talk to strangers", but you can't say "don't get piss drunk" to an adult, especially female, right?

And I guess "don't eat too much, becuase then you will have a higher chance of getting a heart condition" is fat shaming.

I know, I know, you still don't understand.

Maybe I'm blind or something but all I see is a statistic about payments. But whatever, you're right, I'm wrong with a slight chance of eventually being right in the distant future. So congrats and a thousand kisses.

I agree, If I go to a bar\pub & get totally blind-stinking drunk & I get out my wallet & even show off my moneys I'd imagine it'd be easy to tempting for someone to take advantage of me in that state.

regardless of my gender

Pretty big? I'm not sure what you're sying here, unless you're agreeing with keeveek

No. Have you ever SEEN women portrayed "as nothing more than sex objects"? Literally? Approximately? ANYWHERE AT ALL?
Even porn presents women as free agents: conscious, driven, focused, acting and reacting, with a mind of their own. The alternative, being portrayed as an OBJECT, would KILL the eroticism for most of the audience. There is a reason a blow-up doll cannot replace another person, that reason being precisely the second-person narrative one can get involved in while convinced of there being another mind behind the body.
I digress, though. We were discussing computer game characters, weren't we? I don't want to get into Blizzard characters in particular, since even the RPS people were unable to point out a single unacceptable depiction among the current champion roster, even when considering all the alternative skins currently available... Either way - where HAVE you seen, exactly, women portrayed as "nothing more than sex objects"?
Be careful though, because this WILL show when you view a character explicitly as a women and not generally a person, it WILL show when you focus on the looks instead of personality, it WILL show when you reduce looks to sexuality, and it WILL show when you consider sexuality somehow unbecoming... In simpler terms - you will show us all how sexist you really are.

On a sidenote: some people drag this attitude into real life, treating, for instance, large-chested women as if they were "nothing more than sex objects". Problem is - these women aren't "depicted", they're simply shaped that way. The reasoning behind discrimination, however, seems to be similar.

Similarly - I can't attest for what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling that those who agree with you, agree with you; and ones who disagree with you are unwilling to call you out because you are, ostensibly, a woman. That's probably because "Shut up, I'm fighting for your rights here, you're wrong!" is quite a stretch, even for our devoted feMANists...

If there was a big demand for such games, then I presume The Sims Phenomenon would occur, ie. those small number of such games would sell astonishingly well.

I generally feel that if there is a big demand for something, it will become big quite fast. Companies like to make products that people want to buy a lot.

No their point is not valid, as there hasn't been a big outcry e.g. of those Dressman underwear ads (at least as far as I'm aware).

As I said, their comment has been that they want more sexy men into ads "so that men understand how women feel when there are sexy women in ads". So what do you think men are supposed to understand then? My strongest reaction to the Dressman underwear ads was:

"Hmmm... nope, I'm still hetero."

So if they merely want more sexy men into ads because they like to look at sexy men, why didn't they simply say so? What's with this "Now you know how we feel!"?

They've become increasingly bitter over the years. The site used to have a silly, light-hearted approach, for the most part. But now there's naught but bile and what is probably a sense of frustration of how increasingly apparent it is to them that they have no ability to change any of the things that irk them. Their campaigns for equality haven't just revolved around women, but this latest trend will no doubt burn out the same way and leave them even more bitter and frustrated for it.

All in all it's become the antithesis of what I used to like about the site and I can only see the situation worsening.

The Witcher games. People have complained about Triss being sexualized. Triss who have repeatedly showed dominant behaviour even towards our badass superhero, who has single-handedly saved his life several times ("But Triss was put into damsel in distress situation!" For crying out loud, I'm fairly sure the score has still not been evened out and it's in favour of Triss!) Then there's the argument about CD-Project making the ''Playboy pics" and I can actually see that holding some water - altho I find that argument weakened by the fact that real women let similar magazines to take their pics.

Lets say I like to carry around a lot of cash. Let's say I am known for it. You can see that tucking roll of money in my pocket from across the room because I like to flaunt it. It makes me feel powerful.

I get robbed. No surprise, right? I totally could have avoided that. But I know the guy who robbed me. I trusted him. So I tell the cops and, after q lot of grumbling, they pull my robber in for questioning. They find solid proof he stole my money.

At what point in his robbery trial does my behavior where I am known to carry a lot of cash become exculpatory? When do people say "well, you can't be sure he didn't want to be robbed, the way he was dressed. I doubt that robber is guilty of anything other than poor judgement."

They don't. You hear that crap during rape trials. Not during robbery, or murder, or extortion, or racketeering, or fraud, or so on and so on.

That's what I mean. The apologia for rape are many and plenty. There are very, very few crimes where you find quite so many consistently similar (and consistently bad) apologies for the perpetrator that crop up everywhere.