The gaming enthusiast known as seanmalstrom seems to be on a personal crusade to challenge the stereotype of men as the “logical sex.” He does this mostly by 1) being a dude and 2) writing things that make no sense at all.
In a recent post on his blog Malstrom’s Articles News – no, that’s really what it’s called – Mr. Malstrom attempts to rebut a piece by John Walker of the gaming site Rock Paper Shotgun that challenged misogyny in the gaming world.
It’s not much of a rebuttal, but Mr. Malstrom makes a couple of, er, “arguments” that grabbed my attention. At one point he suggests that if game developers stop populating their games with sexy lady characters with giant boobs and long legs, American men will have no way to exercise their God-given right to ogle sexy ladies with giant boobs and long legs.
There is a great question I have yet to hear anyone in the Game Industry answer. If women cannot be depicted fantastical (big boobs, long legs, slaughters armies single-handedly) in fantasy entertainment, where can men go to see fantasy women? Women have their fantasy men from endless soap-operas, romance novels, chick flicks, and such. Are men not allowed to have fantasies in entertainment?
True, that is a question I’ve yet to see anyone in the game industry answer, largely because most of the people in the game industry, whatever their flaws, live in the real world, and in the real world images of sexy ladies with big boobs are not exactly difficult to come by.
Mr. Malstrom goes on to argue that men in the English-speaking world have the greatest need for sexy lady video game characters, because the women they run into on a regular basis in the real world are all fatties. In the Cold War era, politicians warned about a “Missile Gap” with the Russians. Today, apparently, we and the Russians have a Fatty Gap.
In Russia, it is stunning to see alcoholic bums of Russian men with model quality looks Russian women. In the same way, in the United States it is stunning to see wealthy, hardworking, handsome American men with an American woman who looks like a Troglodyte. Of course, this is just a generalization. The point is that the typical American male has a better worldwide value if they stop thinking the local obese women around them are ‘the normal’. They aren’t the normal worldwide.
If anyone needs fantasy depictions, it would be English speaking men who don’t have access to the worldwide standard.
Mr. Malstrom is also bothered by the suggestion that video game makers should try to make female characters more interesting. You know, with personalities and motivations of their own, and stuff like that. To Mr. Malstrom, there’s nothing more interesting about a women than her body.
What makes a woman interesting to men?
The truth is that interesting women needs youth, big boobs, long legs, long hair, and an hourglass figure to be interesting to men. The more women go away from this, the less interesting they become to men. This is why women when inevitably age, they become more and more invisible to men. It is just Nature at work. Ironically, for men the older they get, the more interesting they can become to women as their earning potential goes up. This balances out how most young men are invisible to women when they are younger. After the age of 25, men tend to become the more interesting ones compared to a woman of equal age. This is why mothers always advised their daughters to ‘snag him when he and she are both young’.
Indeed, Mr. Malstrom argues, men who insist that women be depicted as sex objects are doing women a giant favor.
And we should only hope that women wish to be depicted as sex objects for that is how they become love objects as well. No man wants to marry a women they aren’t attracted to. Last I checked, marriage rates were plummeting in the West. Perhaps journalists should strive for ‘positive change’ by suggesting to women to be depicted more as sex objects so they can attract a man for marriage before they get too old. That would truly help women and make men happier as well.
Mr. Malstrom concludes with a stirring call for women to stop being such fat fatties.
It IS tasteless for using women as sex objects to sell games. Why? It is because real life women should be sex objects to begin with. If that were the case, putting them on a game cover wouldn’t be selling the game. This used to be the case decades ago. Since obesity in women have skyrocketed and attractive women have diminished, putting attractive women on game covers definitely attracts men more than it should.
It IS sad that women can’t find themselves sensibly portrayed in the games they play. It is not because the women in the games are ‘too attractive’, it is because the women playing them tend to be ‘too fat’. It is sad for women that they are fat. It is also sad for men. What John Walker should do is to advise women to get in shape and try to look like the depictions of women that men are attracted to. This would be ‘positive change’ we could all get behind.
I hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Malstrom, but I don’t think there was any era of history in which women looked like this.
It’s probably just as well, as Lara here doesn’t seem to have eyelids and her head isn’t properly connected to her neck.
Note: Thanks to Tatjna for pointing me to Mr. Malstrom’s post!
I’m not too sure, mate. You’d have to define a principle first – one that was being broken. Then we could talk about in groups, loyalties, hell, you could even bring out Oxycontin bonding, white knights, the enemy conundrum and the victimhood complex.
So which principle is being broken?
And which bus should we throw her under?
The “Don’t be a bigot” bus?
Wouldn’t being bigoted against bigots be bigotry of a slightly different kind? Formality in approach to deconstructing expressions only works within an established frame-work for conflict resolution, else you get in-groups and out-groups trying to impose their views on each other as principles crack, oh, sorry, was that your point?
So it’s all twisty then. 🙂
Joe hates MU5LIMS and confuses that with being critical of a religion.
Fibinachi – newsflash for you Hatred of Islam = Islamophobia.
And you just said:
“I personally bear great hatred for Islam.”
You just outed yourself as an Islamophobe. Well done.
The purpose of my post was to out the rank hypocrisy among Manboobzers: when someone not-of-the-Manboobz clan brings up any kind of issue related to Islam, they are ALWAYS roundly condemned by the flock as an “Islamophobe”.
But when Manboobzers OPENLY ADMIT TO HATING ISLAM.
That’s A-OK with the other Manboobzers!
Hypocrisy demonstrated!
Wow. That was staggeringly easy. I actually thought there’d be some sort of equivocation or hand-wringing, but nope – just absolute bare-faced in-group loyalty and rank hypocrisy…
…They explicitly stated that they don’t have a problem with me criticizing Islam because I’m actually familiar with it. It’s not a matter of who is or is not someone who is a part of Manboobz.
It’s more than I genuinely don’t understand. What is it I’m not supposed to be able to parse, here? What is it that will crack my feeble, feminist, manboobed slush-hive-mind-brain?
Feminist, half-naked, protest oppression of women and one woman in particular. This is done by Muslims. And in the comments, people point out, that by assuming they can speak for everyone, everywhere, they might be engaging in racism.
And… what? Is it meant to blow my mind? That someone assuming they speak for everyone can be in the wrong? That someone is protesting a course they find laudable? Are we supposed to choose, like, we only get one? We can either be upset about racism, or we can be upset about oppression, or we can be upset about sexism, and that’s it, full stop, only one victim at a time?
—
Or is it, and this an ad hominem attack – sorry Joe, I will try to avoid being personally snarky. But seriously: Do you think that the labels of racist, sexist, oppressor, classist – the typical ones, are only ever used to attack middle class / rich white men? So that… if it is used on someone else, it’s proof, somehow, that it’s all bulk? Because weapons can only have one target, and they’re clearly weapons of shame, not agents of social change?
Because through that lens, I could understand the “Hah! A conumdrum for THEE; MANBOOBSIANS!”. That at least makes… internal sense?
But Sir, I am just confused now. Like, genuinely confused.
“WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!”
Joe, learn to read. You didn’t out jack shit.
Aaliyah – I will check that link, thanks!
I think cloudiah said it well: Joe doesn’t get the difference between disliking/hating a religion, its tenets, its practices (whether they chime with its tenets or not) and hating the people who follow that religion – never mind the sweeping prejudice that one sees, the assumption that anyone Muslim or potentially Muslim is taken to be pretty much the equivalent of Bin Laden.
Wait, shit, what? THAT?
… that’s not even what Islamophobia *means*. Taking offense at specificed notions in scripture, qoutable by verse, and being able to go “This, this here is what I find questionable, based on this and this of my thoughts” is not an irrational basis bordering on the pathological with only one target, namely the assumption that Islam is the root of all evil.
I’ve read the Qu’ran. It’s beautiful. I still find it questionable, and I still hate some precepts as they’re actively practiced. Are you just slinging terms around trying to play “Got’cha?”
I mean, I could go out and find threads where commenters have vehemently disagreed with one another on various topics, but on the other hand, screw that? We don’t have anything to prove to a blatantly bigoted “libertarian” asswipe who will just turn around and call us argumentative, dogmatic shrews.
Also, I want to leave this entry here.
Fibinachi: That’s exactly what Joe’s playing–drunk “gotcha!”
Oh, he’s drunk posting again?
@Cloudiah – Nope. Wrong. You’re confused aaaand making shit up (again).
@Aaliyah – what you should bear in mind when posting here on Manboobz, is that:
The correctness or incorrectness of your position on issue X is not determined by your argument, or the issue at hand, but by WHO the Manboobzers think you are and what GROUPS the Manboobzers believe you belong to.
So, Aaliyah – you could in fact be a white, 50 year old bloke called Jeff who believes in the Easter Bunny – but because the Manboobzers believe you to be:
a) a woman
b) of a non-Western ethnicity
c) of a non-Christian background
You can say the EXACT same things about any issue and be praised and supported for them as Aaliyah, but if you came on here and said the exact same things as Jeff – you would be roundly condemned.
There is no such thing as truth in Manboobz land – only in-group adherence.
And in-group memebership may be revoked by the herd at any point.
You know what, getting drunk sounds just about perfect for this late night sunday binge. Where’s my G&T…
/Fibi meanders off to poison self.
Maybe if I see double, the lines will overlap, and this will all make sense somehow?
@Fibinachi:
If he does, that would explain an awful lot. Thank you for laying that out so clearly.
Great entry, Aaliyah!
I love my sister to bits. I am really proud of her animal activism. I hate her politics and her racism.
Has Joe’s head exploded yet? Mine hasn’t.
Joe–you are so wrong. If you did anything but come here randomly and shit all over, you’d know just how wrong you are.
Why don’t you go sleep it off?
I think Joe’s just pissy that he’s never gonna be in this alleged in-group.
… okay, what do people think I am? So far my opinions haven’t been discarded, and everyone’s been really friendly, and I’ve been given, like, a gazillion internets.
Everyone here is trying to understand your theories (While snarking).
Doesn’t that lend credence to the notion that people mock, but attempt to understand? If that’s the case, then in group loyalties only start being reinforced after a certain point. Like, if you don’t start your argument by barging in and calling us all deluded, for one.
We do seem to have quite a few trolls who’re really upset about the fact that the group doesn’t want them. It must be because they’re straight white men (even though our host is also a straight white man).
Fibinachi, we KNOW you’re one of the lizard people.
These people know me more than you do. I have, on many occasions, alluded to the fact that I’m a trans* woman who used to be a Muslim. They already know. They knew that before I even made my screen name “Aaliyah.”
Oh, and the reason Manboobzers tend to not engage with most anti-feminists and MRAs who visit this page is that many of them are not, at least in their view, worth engaging with. When the intention is not to argue, insults and mocking are fair game.
Oh well, old drunk Joe told me I’m confused and making shit up, so I guess that means he wins. (In his head.)
Talking to him is a lot like being ranted at by the old dude who sits on his porch with a shotgun yelling at anyone who walks past.
@Fibinachi – you don’t get to take it back.
You said:
“I personally bear great hatred for Islam.”
You can’t now water that down to – “oh, I dislike this verse here”
Besides, if you went on any discussion forum with any presence of Manboobzer type lefties and pointed out any one of the numerous appaling verses in the Qu’ran, no matter how matter of factly, you would of course be condemned as an Islamophobe – if you were seen as a member of an out-group e.g. a man, a conservative, a Xtian.
If you were ever to get chance to participate in open, public debate outside the Manboobz sphere and took it on yourself to read out any of the problematic verse of the Qu’ran and offered even the mildest of critiques – you would not have that in-group safety blanket and would be roundly attacked as an Islamophobe.
Remember when Joe1 was shiny and new?
http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/first-joes-old-river-boat/