Hitchens.

Watch the debate on Catholicism with Hitchens and Fry on one side and a bishop and an idiot politicians on the other. The pro-catholic side are so unbelievably outclassed it's not even a contest.

To everyone else... Gay Byrne deserves a lot of credit.

He was host of the Late Late Show in Ireland for decades and during that time he presided over some incredibly contentious debates on a number of issues in Irish society (contraception, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, child abuse, the north, political corruption, etc.). Looking back it was a slightly bizarre mix of Letterman, Bill Maher and Questions and Answers on the BBC. Despite the fact that Byrne himself would be a reasonably mainstream guy, he IMO hosted the debates fairly (and frankly, considerably better than most modern debate shows).

It's less a story about a house of cats and more about a man and his two gay wives. I have no ill feelings towards homosexuals but polygamy my goodness.

Cats are all sluts though. Can't hate on that. Sluts are so cute when their furry and dumb. I feel like I'm becoming a gay furry watching this video. I want to move in with two men and have 100 cats roam free over my naked bodies.

Sorry to say, but I have to wait too to see what this video really is. It is "homophobic" in it's own way, just by using the entire notion of "dressed like a homosexual". This reeks of someone trying to do the same thing as the women, as mentioned in posts above. But, was it a real attempt to show something or was it a parody. To me, it seemed to be a mixture of the two.

But, when they use the caption that they did at the start and the statistics at the end, they tried to make it real...so I'm really in the mood to just downvote this outright.

I take strong objection to the caption "dressed as a homosexual".

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Three-Hours-Of-Walking-In-NYC-As-A-Homosexual-Man

Three Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Homosexual Man has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Three-Hours-Of-Walking-In-NYC-As-A-Homosexual-Man

Three Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Homosexual Man has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Three-Hours-Of-Walking-In-NYC-As-A-Homosexual-Man

Three Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Homosexual Man has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Three Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Homosexual Man has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Three-Hours-Of-Walking-In-NYC-As-A-Homosexual-Man

@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

I thought the solution was rather obvious, actually.

You fix things by making games where people are portrayed as... people. Not trophies to be acquired, not sexual objects to be drooled over, and not stereotypes.

You couple that with continued criticism of games that continue to rely on sexist, racist, or homophobic tropes.

And guess what? That's already happening. People have been saying that games need to change for a while before Sarkeesian showed up. Bioware acknowledged the issues and started trying to include more realistic characters in its RPGs years ago--and caught flak for it even back then.

To address your other... points?

My daughter asked me the other day why she can't play as the princess in Super Mario Galaxy 2 (or any of the other Mario games we own). And I had to tell her it's because the Princess got kidnapped. Her response was to ask if she could play as the Princess once we freed her from Bowser. And I had to tell her no.

There is something wrong with that!

After having that conversation with my daughter I fired up Torchlight, where I'm currently playing as a Vanquisher. Vanquisher's are rogue-like ranged characters and can only be female. If you want to be a warrior ("Destroyer" in game terms) or magic user ("Alchemist" in game terms), sorry--it's a men's only club. And not only that, but Vanquisher's--regardless of the armor they wear, must bare their midriff and wearing a mini-skirt showing lots of leg and cleavage (do a google image search for Torchlight Vanquisher to see what I'm talking about). Apparently you can't be a Vanquisher without being a sex pot too.

There is something wrong with that! (To be fair, they got better with Torchlight II and allowed any class to be any gender and allowed the women to cover up with armor OR choose to be sexy).

Society doesn't just change by itself. You're right, society is becoming more accepting of diversity--because people are fighting very hard for it.

Take America's attitude towards homosexuality. Look at the strides made in the last 20 years. That didn't just magically happen. There were TV shows that portrayed homosexuals as human beings worthy of respect. There were lawsuits. There were marches and protests. There were speeches. There were YouTube campaigns like "It gets better." A lot of people worked fucking hard to get the message out that bigotry is not okay.

Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter.

The solution to these problems is not to lambast the people pointing them out. Nor is the solution to sit back and do nothing and hope it all works out for the best. One solution, as I've already stated, is to be openly critical of the messages contained in ALL media (including games). Another solution is to be vocal about the need for more realistic and diverse portrayals of people in ALL media (including games).

You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying.

Hmmm, if you watch the beginning carefully the guy he attacked was filming him without his permission. The angry guy asks him to stop, and the man tells him, "I'm not going to stop." The angry man calls the man a homosexual because he's filming him without his consent, and then attacks him. But he does not attack the man simply because he thinks he's homosexual.