Sweden Considering Sexism Labels For Video Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Steve Waltz:
Not a bad idea. With games labeled as "sexist" some companies will do their best to avoid the stigma. Over time, it might lead to the final end of sexism in video games. And then some games, like Dead or Alive, can take the sexism label and wear it with pride, much like how a lot of games wear the "violence" label with pride.

Oh yeah, so a rich spectrum of portrayal gets reduced to a binary of safety-helmeted wholesomeness vs. exploitative semi-porn because a Government Board wields the ultimate interpretation authority over expression. That's just what games needs to "grow" as an "art".

This is NOT an attempt to educate the user about the content that can be expected inside a game, like the actual rating system. This is clearly meant for shaming and exclusion. So what are they thinking... a point system? 0 points as "not sexist at all" through -500 points as "too sexist for the public"?

So, let's see:

An automatic -50 points when you don't have a female protagonist.
Only -25 points if you have the option for either gender.
-100 if the protagonist is female but has to go to get help from a man at any time.
-200 if the protagonist is male and doesn't have to get help from a female at any time.
-50 if the main clothing of main female role is sexualized
-25 for any optional clothing of main female role that is sexualized
And much much more!

Oh yeah, I'm sure this'll work out great. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll only indicated which gender a game leans towards. That's as "informational" as I can imagine this getting...

So a board of people will dictate opinions and taste of a single form of entertainment on something that is often subjective? There are groups that said Elle from Last of Us wasn't strong and independent ENOUGH. These people complaining about sexism can't even agree with each other.

No other form of media is held to such a high standard. Movies have gratuitous amounts of sexism or violence for whatever reason the makers decide, so do books and comics, why are video games being singled out here?

Sweden, I used to like you. What's happening to you Sweden?

MovieBob:
or when some of the nation's movie theaters and TV channels began issuing ratings indicating whether or not films being shown passed the so-called "Bechdel Test."

Ironic, considering the Bechdel test author said its not fit to do this and the test is meant to look at all movies together and is very flawed looking at them one by one.

Nocturnus:
I wonder if that organization will also label sexist depictions of men in games...

its impossible to be sexist against males just like its impossible to be racist agianst whites. i think the latest memo on what to think got lost in the mail.

Karadalis:

Fact is they are overdoing it. The Bechdel test? Really? You could make the most sexist garbage movie and it could still pass the bechdel test... thats how bad that thing is.

thats because the test was never made to measure sexism....

As a Swede, knowing how the government controlled gender studies, institute and debate is handled, this is not surprising and it is, IMO, bullshit. Raising a son in a country as openly hostile to men and boys is no fun at all. Tragic that shit like this and other percieved gender "issues" gets focus when Sweden have so many people in dire need of help, regardless of gender.

Alleged_Alec:
Sweden, I used to like you. What's happening to you Sweden?

I've voted left my entire life. Swedish left that is. I'm done. Sweden is slowly descending into madness with our vice prime minister openly blaming EVERYTHING on men, and in a speech before the election said this in regards to men causing global warming, violence and other issues: "But most of us gathered here todayare not men. We are HUMANS".

As someone Swedish and able to read the Swedish-only Dataspelsbranschens article it only involves doing a pre-study to determine whether or nor not such a label would work and in what terms it should be defined.

That said however, they are master wordsmiths in saying very much of nothing at all.
It wouldn't surprise me to see a subjective morality label on all games within a couple of years.

If Sweden actually does this it could be a VERY good thing. If there's one thing the endless sexism/racism/whatever issues need it's an official and objective metric as to what is and is not sexism/racism/whatever and if it is to what degree. When something is subjective there isn't a debate to be had, one can go around in circles forever debating it without ever achieving anything, as the fact that we're still all debating this crap after decades and not getting anywhere shows. However, if we have something we can point to and say "this is sexist/racist/whatever and by this much" we might be able to make actual debates and thus real change. In fact, I'd say that the issues of sexism/racism/whatever NEED an objective measure to come to pass if we ever expect to actually make any real progress in them. I don't think it's impossible to take something that's subjective and create an objective metric out of it either, rating systems in general couldn't exist without the ability to do that.

However, that only counts if it's taken seriously and treated fairly by both the ones making it and the public. The ones judging this system could easily be far too lenient or far too restricting about it, and either isn't going to make anything better. Worse, the public might treat it as all one big joke and thus it might not get the power it needs to affect anything or to inspire other countries to follow suit with their own versions.

Not that I'm optimistic at all that this will actually happen or if it did that it would be handled well, I'd say it's far more likely this won't happen and that they'd royally f*** it up if it did happen.

As if rating systems weren't subjective, debatable and useless enough already.

I'm not going to be one of those idiots that so many people here seem to be pretending exist and say it's the end of everything or this is somehow against men, but this is still dumb.

I'll hold final judgement until the actual system is presented, but I fail to see how this money is being well spent in the slightest.
The "amount of sexism" a game has is one of the most debatable issues in the history of media. Every discussion at every level from random internet forums to high level academics always ends in lengthy arguing with no end in sight. Trying to make it a scientifically quantified amount is an exercise in futility.

Also that Bechdel thing is fucking dumb. I hadn't heard about that previously, but damn. I'm glad I don't live in Sweden.

subskipper:

Alleged_Alec:
Sweden, I used to like you. What's happening to you Sweden?

I've voted left my entire life. Swedish left that is. I'm done. Sweden is slowly descending into madness with our vice prime minister openly blaming EVERYTHING on men, and in a speech before the election said this in regards to men causing global warming, violence and other issues: "But most of us gathered here todayare not men. We are HUMANS".

That's really painful....

immortalfrieza:
If Sweden actually does this it could be a VERY good thing. If there's one thing the endless sexism/racism/whatever issues need it's an official and objective metric as to what is and is not sexism/racism/whatever and if it is to what degree. When something is subjective there isn't a debate to be had, one can go around in circles forever debating it without ever achieving anything, as the fact that we're still all debating this crap after decades and not getting anywhere shows. However, if we have something we can point to and say "this is sexist/racist/whatever and by this much" we might be able to make actual debates and thus real change. In fact, I'd say that the issues of sexism/racism/whatever NEED an objective measure to come to pass if we ever expect to actually make any real progress in them. I don't think it's impossible to take something that's subjective and create an objective metric out of it either, rating systems in general couldn't exist without the ability to do that.

Ehm, what? Something doesn't become objective because we measure it to some subjective measure. If I say that everyone who can bench-press his own weight is strong, I haven't created an objective measure of strength.

EDIT:

This is stupid for many reasons, but wrong for a single one: it's singling out a single media for special treatment. Movies can still be sexist, apparently, and so can books, songs and anything else. But games? No, those need a label saying they're sexist!

First off, you better put that label on every game because apparently every game is sexist.

Second, did the sexism label really came before the racism label (in the situation that one needed such labels)?

Alleged_Alec:

Ehm, what? Something doesn't become objective because we measure it to some subjective measure. If I say that everyone who can bench-press his own weight is strong, I haven't created an objective measure of strength.

Now it's me that has to say "what?" I think you got it backwards? I said take something subjective and create an OBJECTIVE measure out of it!

For example, something that is subjective but was given an objective measure would be things like the ESRB rating system. Some people might think a certain amount of violence is too much or not over the line for say, 10 year olds to view and the ESRB rating system defines exactly what is and what isn't too much violence for 10 year olds to view. People have and will still argue how much violence it and isn't over the line, but the ESRB rating system and ones like it gives a definitive ground to work from, and the same is true with sex, drugs, and so on. Without a system like that in place there's no foundation from which to allow for rules and laws to be put in place to affect things nor anything to inform the consumer exactly what they are getting into when they purchase the product, neither is there something to base any debate on.

What is or isn't sexism/racism/whatever needs a similar system in place or there's no point in debating about any of it in the first place. It's like trying to stand on the surface of the water when it's not frozen, you are going to fall straight through before you can even stand up, but wait until it's frozen, and it's easy.

Maybe it's games that will do this, maybe not, but it needs to happen and with something somewhere before it can.

EDIT:

Alleged_Alec:

EDIT:

This is stupid for many reasons, but wrong for a single one: it's singling out a single media for special treatment. Movies can still be sexist, apparently, and so can books, songs and anything else. But games? No, those need a label saying they're sexist!

So? A label like this has to start somewhere, or it'll never happen. I'm pretty sure the ESRB rating system labels didn't just pop up on video game boxes spontaneously, somebody had to have made it and they had to have something to base it on, same with the MPAA rating system. If this happens with video games and proves effects similar systems will no doubt be born out of it for other forms of media but somebody has to be the forerunner or nobody will.

Belaam:

Vault101:
oh man...I heard a million voices cry out in indignation

I think it was the internet

I think you overestimate the number of voices. Or at least, I hope you do.

But I do expect a fresh wave of "See! The feminazis are banning our games!" from people who don't understand what a ban is.

I do think there is a tendency for people who focus heavily on "-isms" to over estimate their level of support. It's very hard to judge of course but often these people do tend to hang about places (like this) where the bias in favour of "-ism activism", for want of a better term, is very heavy.

I also don't think the people who disagree with you are actually so stupid as to not understand a ban. They might perhaps be angry that a government feels it has the right to judge them and patronising them deeply by warning them that this content might be "naughty" and then respond is a hyperbolic fashion, I guess.

Personally, I think this is an appalling idea, there is absolute no way, to my mind, the state should be the moral arbiter of culture in anyway, it's just too open to abuse and it's extremely hard to define, you only have to look at the arguments in here about is this "-ist"; even the various shades of enthusiasts can't agree.

immortalfrieza:
Worse, the public might treat it as all one big joke and thus it might not get the power it needs to affect anything or to inspire other countries to follow suit with their own versions.

I'd posit it would be a laughing stock in England, as ignored as the current age ratings, if not actively hated; the Sun, the Mail and the Express would have a field day, the Times would implode and the Guardian would have massive row about it as the various shades of left wing though fell on each other to define sexim.

The biggest flaw of Guardianista style intellectualist, top down social engineering is that it actively antagonises people, especially in countries that don't have a history of aggressive Socialist state intervention.

immortalfrieza:

Now it's me that has to say "what?" I think you got it backwards? I said take something subjective and create an OBJECTIVE measure out of it!

That's not how objective works.

For example, something that is subjective but was given an objective measure would be things like the ESRB rating system. Some people might think a certain amount of violence is too much or not over the line for say, 10 year olds to view and the ESRB rating system defines exactly what is and what isn't too much violence for 10 year olds to view.

Are you trolling? Every label like the ESRB is subjective. Just because people say: "here's a guideline, let's make it into a law" doesn't mean it suddenly transcends subjectivity.

What is or isn't sexism/racism/whatever needs a similar system in place or there's no point in debating about any of it in the first place. It's like trying to stand on the surface of the water when it's not frozen, you are going to fall straight through before you can even stand up, but wait until it's frozen, and it's easy.

Debate on something objective is useless by definition.

Maybe it's games that will do this, maybe not, but it needs to happen and with something somewhere before it can.

No, not really, see above.

EDIT:

This is stupid for many reasons, but wrong for a single one: it's singling out a single media for special treatment. Movies can still be sexist, apparently, and so can books, songs and anything else. But games? No, those need a label saying they're sexist!

So? A label like this has to start somewhere, or it'll never happen. I'm pretty sure the ESRB rating system labels didn't just pop up on video game boxes spontaneously, somebody had to have made it and they had to have something to base it on, same with the MPAA rating system. If this happens with video games and proves effects similar systems will no doubt be born out of it for other forms of media.

But there's no reason for there to be a label like this in the first case.

Vault101:
oh man...I heard a million voices cry out in indignation

I think it was the internet

I would say it wasn't from the internet as much as certain something heh.

OT: I'll wait and see what their studies turn up. Right now it sounds like it won't be amounting to much.

Xiado:
Guess Sweden's in for social engineering. "This game is socially unacceptable" speaks their bloated Orwellian government and the masses will nod their heads in agreement. Governments moralizing always turns out so well for people who don't fit the mold.

Ha this is kind of apt, due to Swedens history of eugenics.
I don't agree with this policy either, it does seem overreaching.

But to be fair there is high popular demand for ideology in Swedish politics, most grass roots organisations are usually absorbed into the political system and made into legitimate parties, case in point the Swedish feminist party, and the Pirate party.

So how do you judge when it is the government forcing humanism on people, or if it is a government that is pandering to the humanistic masses.

Speaking as a Dane, the general perception of the Swedes are that they are that 80% of them are always seeking the moral high ground. Their political debates are a lot more ideological in nature, where as in Denmark it is a lot more populist, or pragmatic depending on who you ask.
It results in Sweden always seeking the moral high ground on various issues, like being one of the first EU members to recognize Palestine as a state, or their gender and race policies.

I see Swedish politicians as being more earnest than the Danish. Currently we have a nominally red(left) coalition government, that only creates and executes blue(right) policies, up until this very day the leading coalition partner only made deals with the right, and all parties are competing in who can be more xenophobic.
In contrast the latest elections in Sweden showed how Swedish politicians stick to their values, the Red coalition there won, but the the opposition could have won the election if they had cooperated with a racist political party, but their leader refused.
A political leader actually said no to power on the basis of his principles!
Call it social engineering if you will, but I don't think I have heard of a politician with such great conviction in Denmark or anywhere else for that matter. This must be indicative that social narrative is not mere empty rhetoric.
I for one wish we had politicians like Fredrik Reinfeldt in Denmark.

TL;DR
lol social justice warriors, more like social justice vikings!

OT: despite my general admiration for Swedish politics, I don't like this idea, the label will at worst be completely skewered due to their not being an accurate and widely accepted metric to measure 'social injustice' and at best it will be money down the drain as such labels have previously proven to be useless.

as a swede all i can say is, wow are you guys are taking this seriously? i mean even if it would be passed (currently a non- goverment organisation recieved funding to investigate this) and used in sweden do you honestly belive the rest of the world would give a shit?

as for "or when some of the nation's movie theaters and TV channels began issuing ratings indicating whether or not films being shown passed the so-called "Bechdel Test."" this is the first i have heard of this. any other swedes around to point out what channels/publications actually do this?

I don't have a issue with this as long as they only label games that are actually sexists, games where the developers go out of their way to show that they consider woman inferior to men, not the sexist that people scream at anything they don't like resulting in the word losing all meaning.

Fuck this.
I'm done with video games.
We have reached the point of complete idiocy and I don't want to be caught in the aftermath.

Xiado:
Guess Sweden's in for social engineering. "This game is socially unacceptable" speaks their bloated Orwellian government and the masses will nod their heads in agreement. Governments moralizing always turns out so well for people who don't fit the mold.

This is indeed it. Hopefully it will not go that far. But I wouldn't put it past them to introduce a branding for political content as well. Obviously I'm being overly cynical, but it wouldn't shock me if they did.

I think this is a good idea, but I hope it doesn't end up with these labels becoming selling points like the gore and blood in some triplA games... okay, most tripleA games.

Alleged_Alec:

immortalfrieza:

Now it's me that has to say "what?" I think you got it backwards? I said take something subjective and create an OBJECTIVE measure out of it

That's not how objective works.

Yes it does, or do you think things that are objective just magically started out that way with everybody suddenly agreeing without exception that that's the way things work? No, they were subjective until somebody came along and decided nail down precisely what that something was and get everybody else to agree with that.

One cannot be objective about anything without facts and/or a baseline to base it on, and up until those facts and/or baseline is established EVERYTHING is subjective. A rating system like this can (not likely, but can) provide the baseline needed to make it possible for things like sexism/racism/whatever to be able to be discussed in objective manner, which is what is needed to affect change.

Debate on something objective is useless by definition.

Wrong. Objective means

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

People can still debate on whether the facts are really "facts", whether they are relevant, or whether those facts are being distorted, misrepresented, or otherwise altered to present a person's point of view. One can debate something objective, otherwise the word "debate" itself would be meaningless.

Alleged_Alec:

immortalfrieza:

For example, something that is subjective but was given an objective measure would be things like the ESRB rating system. Some people might think a certain amount of violence is too much or not over the line for say, 10 year olds to view and the ESRB rating system defines exactly what is and what isn't too much violence for 10 year olds to view.

Are you trolling? Every label like the ESRB is subjective. Just because people say: "here's a guideline, let's make it into a law" doesn't mean it suddenly transcends subjectivity.

No, I am not, and I have no idea how the thought could even enter anyone's brain that I could be trolling. I never said creating a sexism rating system would allow it to transcend subjectivity, I said it would establish a common ground, a benchmark of what is and what isn't sexism. One can still disagree whether something is sexist or to what degree, but without that benchmark there's no end to that debate and no point in having that debate at all. We need something that most if not everybody can agree on when it comes to sexism/racism/whatever or these issues will NEVER be solved

Also yes, the ESRB IS objective, that's it's entire purpose. The ESRB and systems like it are designed to be used to decide what is and what isn't too much for a person's age and decide policy around that. Now, some people may think the ESRB too lenient or too harsh and that much is subjective, but regardless it is thus far the only objective standard available for video games around here. Like all rating systems perhaps the ESRB could be better and even may ultimately change, but it is the authority on how much is too much regarding violence/sex/drugs/etc. in video games at the moment.

I hope I am explaining this well.

EDIT:

Alleged_Alec:

immortalfrieza:

So? A label like this has to start somewhere, or it'll never happen. I'm pretty sure the ESRB rating system labels didn't just pop up on video game boxes spontaneously, somebody had to have made it and they had to have something to base it on, same with the MPAA rating system. If this happens with video games and proves effects similar systems will no doubt be born out of it for other forms of media.

But there's no reason for there to be a label like this in the first case.

If there isn't a reason to have a label like this in the first place then there is no reason to have an ESRB or MPAA or whatever label on anything else either. A label that more or less says "this has a lot of sexism" is no different than a label that says "this has a lot of violence". It serves to show how much and how often.

lionsprey:
as a swede all i can say is, wow are you guys are taking this seriously? i mean even if it would be passed (currently a non- goverment organisation recieved funding to investigate this) and used in sweden do you honestly belive the rest of the world would give a shit?

as for "or when some of the nation's movie theaters and TV channels began issuing ratings indicating whether or not films being shown passed the so-called "Bechdel Test."" this is the first i have heard of this. any other swedes around to point out what channels/publications actually do this?

Regarding the Bechdel test, no, I haven't seen anything about that. Granted, I rarely go to the movies anyways. As for actually going through with this, keep in mind Sweden is a country that actually has post modernist day cares. We also have Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party), one of the larger parties, that just before the recent elections had a handbook on gender equality on their web site. Not sure if it is still up, but in it you could find advice to women, warning them against leaving men alone as they have a tendency to scheme and conspire against women. We live in weird times, and Sweden is on a very slippery slope right now.

This sounds kind of like Bath Film Festival's decision to add an 'F' rating to films that have a female director or lead. By which I mean a good idea in theory, useful for highlighting inequality, but an idea that in practice will probably create more division.

This sounds like it could get horribly misdirected. Kinda like USA's movie rating board which counts the swear words, is horrified by nudity and human intimacy but on comparison has very little problems with violence and death.

I mean how do you judge sexism in an artistic medium. Can they lower the score if there are no significant female characters? Doesn't the artist have a right for that kind of vision? And what if the setting requires for it? Must all of the female characters be empowering with no moments of weakness? Will the screentime be split 50/50 between male and female characters? This really does sound like we'd just get more token female characters filling the space.

I mean for crying out loud, sexism in video games is such a subjective thing that even something like Bayonetta is splitting opinions. The personal and cultural influences everyone has just make this kind of judging practically impossible.

Goddamn I feel sorry for you see Sweden. A country that once produced vikings is now doing this.

Hopefully the contagion doesn't spread past your borders.

We can't even figure out proper labeling for games as it is. Sometimes people can't even agree on the genre, but someone thinks that giving people power to label a product as sexist is a good idea. WOW!

Eh, can't see it mattering that much, except people will likely miss out on good games because the sexism/racism/everythingism pie chart isn't split exactly how they want it. Either that or every single game will start to feature exactly 1 male, 3 females, 2 disabled people etc. Until then my fucks will continue to not be given. Let's see how it goes sweden I'm curious.

Here's a perfect example why the Bechdel Test is kind of worthless in its formulaic, simplistic way:

http://bechdeltest.com/view/5348/noah/

Yeah, sure, the movie passes on the three 'tests', no question there. But rather unsurprisingly, considering the source material, it basically reduces women to their biological functions. Not sure if I'd call that a 'female perspective', which from my understanding is what the Bechdel Test is supposed to evaluate.

I find it rather questionable that a country would employ such a flawed system to evaluate media, and if that's something they do, I find it rather questionable that they feel confident to evaluate sexism in video games. Yeah, I know, it's not the same people. This is just commenting on what seems to be the pervading mindset in Sweden, based on my very limited knowledge of it.

Alleged_Alec:
Sweden, I used to like you. What's happening to you Sweden?

Exactly what I was thinking "You guys were leading the world in liberty and social considerations... and then you went off the deep end into that crazy territory to serve as an example to all where "too far" is.

A great shame, Sweden. You're better than this.

As long as Finland remains sane, Norway rich, and Denmark the little brother of Germany we'll continue to respect Scandinavia.

Violence, sex and nudity are objective things that can be seen and discussed in media and that are a fair warning.
In art they are tools to tell stories, appeal to escapist fantasies or focal elements of discussion.

erttheking:

Smiley Face:
Snip

As I said in that very post you replied to I KNOW THAT! I know that they don't need to be sexualized to be sexist. And I hate Marcus Fenix as a character, yet I still don't think he's sexist. Mainly because he's designed to appeal to men rather than dehumanizing him. That and by Gears 3 everyone in the cast, male and female alike, had devolved into the same neanderthal like mindset that he had. That and the thing is, if you don't want to play as a "big dumb ultraviolent musclebrained supersoldier" you don't have to look too far in gaming for something malewise there. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I consider sexualized female characters sexist, but only because there's usually a massive lack of alternatives.

Basically there has to be equal treatment of characters in games for them to not be sexist.

If somebody has a set of values that says: "Women and men are different, each tend to be better at certain things, but one is not worse than the other because of that. In fact, this makes them need each other." That would be labeled sexist because it discriminates men from women saying that they are not equal, and that would be bad, mmkay?

Which is kind of ironic when we live in an age that (suposedly) praises individualism and diferences.

And sexism is really in the eye of the beholder. Much is talked about how princess Peach is just an object of lust to be rescued by Mario (instead of, let's say, the ruler of a fucking Kingdom).

Well, how about this. Mario is prepared to die for Peach. You know, stabbed crush, burned, etc? Multiple times. He fails if he doesn't, he loses. Bowser is a male monster who throws hundreds of troops to stop Mario and he kills them. At the end is Mario vs. Bowser competing for Peach. The weakest of them dies. Put out of the way forever and forgotten. The winner gets Peach. Better, the winner is worthy for Peach.

I say that is preparing boys to risk everything for the ladies not mattering how little they know them and also not giving a fuck about unknown men.

Sleeping Beauty, the original. The prince barely knew Aurora. He has to battle an army of PIG-like men (nobody remembers them) pass through thorns and slay a freaking dragon. All of this because some female fairies passed to him the mission of saving Aurora

Well, Super Mario and Disney are White Knight makers. Who would have imagined?

Gynocentric as hell.

immortalfrieza:

Alleged_Alec:

immortalfrieza:

Now it's me that has to say "what?" I think you got it backwards? I said take something subjective and create an OBJECTIVE measure out of it

That's not how objective works.

Yes it does, or do you think things that are objective just magically started out that way with everybody suddenly agreeing without exception that that's the way things work? No, they were subjective until somebody came along and decided nail down precisely what that something was and get everybody else to agree with that.

Agreement is not the same as something being objective. Just because people agree murder is bad doesn't mean it's objectively wrong.

One cannot be objective about anything without facts and/or a baseline to base it on, and up until those facts and/or baseline is established EVERYTHING is subjective. A rating system like this can (not likely, but can) provide the baseline needed to make it possible for things like sexism/racism/whatever to be able to be discussed in objective manner, which is what is needed to affect change.

Debate on something objective is useless by definition.

Wrong. Objective means

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

And you think that a board making these guidelines on what is sexist or not is not subject to their opinions?

People can still debate on whether the facts are really "facts", whether they are relevant, or whether those facts are being distorted, misrepresented, or otherwise altered to present a person's point of view. One can debate something objective, otherwise the word "debate" itself would be meaningless.

Then you're not having a debate. That's one person going "these facts are wrong" and the other going " nu-uh!".

Also yes, the ESRB IS objective, that's it's entire purpose. The ESRB and systems like it are designed to be used to decide what is and what isn't too much for a person's age and decide policy around that. Now, some people may think the ESRB too lenient or too harsh and that much is subjective, but regardless it is thus far the only objective standard available for video games around here. Like all rating systems perhaps the ESRB could be better and even may ultimately change, but it is the authority on how much is too much regarding violence/sex/drugs/etc. in video games at the moment.

So you're saying that the ratings of the ESRB are not in any way influenced by the opinions and beliefs of the people creating the guidelines?

Alleged_Alec:

immortalfrieza:

So? A label like this has to start somewhere, or it'll never happen. I'm pretty sure the ESRB rating system labels didn't just pop up on video game boxes spontaneously, somebody had to have made it and they had to have something to base it on, same with the MPAA rating system. If this happens with video games and proves effects similar systems will no doubt be born out of it for other forms of media.

But there's no reason for there to be a label like this in the first case.

If there isn't a reason to have a label like this in the first place then there is no reason to have an ESRB or MPAA or whatever label on anything else either. A label that more or less says "this has a lot of sexism" is no different than a label that says "this has a lot of violence". It serves to show how much and how often.

[/quote]

I agree. Those labels are pretty useless as well. I'd much rather that parents used their own judgement.

Abomination:

As long as Finland remains sane, Norway rich, and Denmark the little brother of Germany we'll continue to respect Scandinavia.

Finland? Sane? I don't know man. High alcoholism, depression and whatnot. Futhermore: look at their weapon. Three retarded lions.

immortalfrieza:

No, I am not, and I have no idea how the thought could even enter anyone's brain that I could be trolling. I never said creating a sexism rating system would allow it to transcend subjectivity, I said it would establish a common ground, a benchmark of what is and what isn't sexism. One can still disagree whether something is sexist or to what degree, but without that benchmark there's no end to that debate and no point in having that debate at all. We need something that most if not everybody can agree on when it comes to sexism/racism/whatever or these issues will NEVER be solved.

I think you are missing the point of his/her posts. Who's ideology decides on that benchmark? eg. Anita Sarkesian's or Christina Hoff Sommers?

Captcha - seek beauty
(captcha is being superficial)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.