CALL OF DUTY. Misogynistic censorship Benevolent sexism

“Benevolent sexism is, in the short term, seemingly positive attitudes that put women up on pedestals. These attitudes suggest that women are warmer, more moral, more ethical, more refined, and more cultured, but also fragile and in need of protection from men, often by men. This type of sexism is seen as good and socially acceptable, including in many feminist spaces. This is what separates me from a lot of feminists, including gender-critical feminists like JK Rowling. There is this belief that men are just different from women and that men are dangerous, so women need to be protected from men. This often means being protected out of public spaces, including business and civics.

Benevolent sexism is a big reason we don’t have gender parity in politics. Studies have shown that benevolent sexism actually boosts male entrepreneurs’ chances with startup funding. It doesn’t necessarily hurt women, but it does give men an advantage. I don’t know what the difference is there; the data is very clear that there’s no detrimental impact on women, but men get a boost. I don’t know how, comparatively, it’s any different, but anyway, that’s not the point here. We don’t need to know that; we just need to know it’s not good. Putting women up on pedestals is not good, and whether the language is, “women are better than men” or “men are inferior to women,” it isn’t good. It is not good for men; it is not good for women; it is not good for anybody because it’s sexist.” — Liana K

Benevolent sexism also polices depictions of women in media in a way that claims to stop “objectification” or “sexualization,” but those who do this are hypocrites on their best days and self-appointed protectors of people who didn’t ask for protection. They enforce a narrative that any depiction of female sexuality is inherently negative, thereby stripping away the agency and empowerment of women who choose to express their sexuality. This approach is not about respecting women but about controlling them and perpetuating the idea that women need to be protected from themselves and others. This form of censorship doesn’t challenge sexism; it reinforces the notion that women are delicate and must be shielded, which is a patronizing and ultimately sexist stance.

This is benevolent sexism. Explain to anyone to see. Activision Blizzard has a history of treating their employees especially their female employees like crap. And now they go ahead and do THIS.

same dang thing

The idea that the original was objectification in any way is a sexist idea. Two tone it down is sexism. Censorship tells women that they are at fault for how they look and that's their responsibility to cover up or shame themselves in order to be more appealing and look less "slutty".

Activision Blizzard and the like are trying to pretend that they're good people when nothing has changed and they have been caught red-handed doing the worst crap. And nobody is buying it.

I have quoted people who said exactly this and have articles on such things. Please check them out. But I'll put something here from those other articles.

We’ve got that corporate push to make everything like milquetoast, safe, and then we have, on the other side, the extreme culture warriors from the right and the left saying it’s bad because it’s too far. When you’ve got both extremes saying the same thing about a product, chances are that product is probably somewhere in the middle.

That’s the thing about gaming, and that’s why I wanted to talk about the Saints Row reboot. This sort of wraps up the stuff I was talking about yesterday, so I guess this is part two of that. The things I just don’t like about the Saints Row reboot — my biggest thing is not necessarily the content, it’s that they took the soul of what the Saints Row games were and made them generic.

That’s what a lot of corporate overlords in gaming are trying to sell us: that modern young people want boring. They don’t. I don’t know a single modern young person that thinks, “Oh, I don’t want anything that’s funny or spicy or larger than life. I want everything to be as bland and safe and homogenized as possible.” Nobody thinks that way. They want interesting characters, they want interesting stories, they want stuff that pushes boundaries. Maybe it’s a little bit weird and not their thing, but they can go find something that is their thing. The idea that we’re going to limit what creators can do because we’re so worried about a small number of people getting offended is ridiculous.

Then you look at stuff like the Saints Row reboot, and it just makes you sad. It makes you sad because you look at what it was and what it is now, and you just think, “Who is this for? Who is this made for?” It’s certainly not for the fans of the original games. It’s not even for new fans, because new fans aren’t going to look at that and think, “Oh wow, that looks really cool and edgy and interesting.” They’re going to look at it and think, “Oh, that looks like everything else. That looks like every other game out there. Why would I play that?”

And that’s the problem. We’re just making everything the same, making everything safe and boring and uninteresting, and we’re losing what made games special. We’re losing what made games an art form.

This is where I want to tie in something that has been bugging me about what’s been happening with the Lollipop Chainsaw remake. Now, if you’re not familiar with Lollipop Chainsaw, it was this really weird, really funny, really edgy game that came out a while back. It was kind of a cult classic, right? It was made by Suda 51 and James Gunn, two guys who are known for their really unique, really out-there sense of humor and style.

And now they’re doing a remake, and there’s all this talk about how they’re going to tone it down, how they’re going to make it more appropriate for modern audiences. And it’s just depressing, because Lollipop Chainsaw was one of those games that was unapologetically itself. It was weird, it was funny, it was edgy, it was controversial, and it didn’t care. That’s what made it special.

Now they’re talking about making it more appropriate, and it’s like, no, don’t do that. Don’t take what made it special and unique and water it down for the sake of modern sensibilities. Modern sensibilities are killing creativity. They’re killing what makes things interesting and unique and special.

So, in conclusion, let’s stop trying to sanitize and homogenize everything. Let’s stop trying to make everything safe and boring and uninteresting. Let’s embrace what makes games special, what makes them unique, what makes them an art form. Let’s embrace the weird, the funny, the edgy, the controversial. Let’s embrace the creativity and the innovation and the uniqueness, because that’s what makes games great. That’s what makes games worth playing.

• LIANA K