Is IGN objectifying women?

Dice said:

It sets a bad precedent in an industry and even more largely in a world that values women largely on appearance.
I'm just gonna quote myself quick (sorry):



Problem with getting men to be "less thirsty" is that...well, they fight really hard when you try to take that away from them. :/ (There's still a lot of uproar that surrounds banning 'booth babes' from whatever venue)
Then we get torn between women "allowed to dress how they feel" and men, in the creepiest way possible, supporting those notions to see more tits . Problem is, by and large, women are still the victim's of sexual harassment. Women WANT to be free, but it's incredibly difficult to do so without being yanked into being modest or apparently harassed the cause of our faults for being good-looking or some shit.

Generally, appearance-wise, people ask significantly less of men.

IGN Men:

Like your average geek :P

I don't even mean to target IGN here (TV shows love pairing average men with incredibly attractive women). Really this is a problem in a number of circles. Problem too is we have trouble disengaging from media (at worst we don't think it affects us at ALL); we take these "standards" set very seriously, we put attractiveness on such a pedestal that (1) your average person cannot achieve, (2) targets women more frequently, and (3) has not changed women's standing in society to still be frequent victims of sexual assault/harassment which comes a lot with this sort of idolization of beauty and women's appearances.

We buy it, and therefore perpetuate and reify these standards significantly more than we realize. This isn't to "bash" good looking people, but rather an insight to a problem that exists in a web of media and representation of codes and images we like — and that it can play a very harmful role in what our society normalizes.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

good post.

Here's Polygon's podcast, The Polygon Show, which has an all female cast.

Orb said:

I don't know why you keep saying this when your profile says you're a man too. It kinda waters down your entire point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

oh my god I didn't even realize what the fuck

Orb said:

I don't know why you keep saying this when your profile says you're a man too. It kinda waters down your entire point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

He kept telling us to listen to women so I muted his posts. It was good advice.

Einchy said:

It's interesting that I brought this very thing happening on Twitch to you earlier and your GF had to go through it.

Like I said and Audioboxer expended upon, it's a very odd thread and I honestly would've never expected people to be arguing that this woman needs to be conscious of her body as to not add to the objectification of women. Telling a women that she needs to change what she is doing, and what she is doing is nothing even remotely sexual, because guys will see her as an object is so, I dunno, backwards to me.

Like I said, I see these type of things on sexist subreddits and think, "holy shit, these guys are sexist as fuuuck" but apperantly it's actually being woke?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The irony of the outcome might be the same "this woman better cover up/crop if she wears something tight!", but obviously the speaker or intent is often different. If you're on r/incels or somewhere, they obviously hate women. It's pretty fucking obvious those being argued with, in this topic, do not hate women. Even if we have got that weird overlap of "this women better cover her upper body". There's a desire sometimes to appear to be "soo progressive" you actually end up eating your own tail with your scorched earth approach to not allowing breathing space for people and not allow situations to be looked at with integrity and honesty. Because the OP frames this topic the way they have, immediately many people are on the attack, or defensive and feel if they even appear to show weakness, it's a failing of their progressivism. Hence why you get soo many fallacies flying around that anyone not in agreement in this sole topic, is also somehow potentially saying sexism or objectification don't exist. It spirals into complete and utter noise and people not actually listening to each other.

All while, if everyone just took a breather, looked at this situation once more evidence and data came in and considered things, they'd hopefully accept while their progressive intent is laudable and necessary, in this one example they're actually throwing someone under the bus who hasn't done anything wrong. Purposefully, or even part of any systematic or internalized/sexist cultural issues. There's no evidence for any of that. These clothes are as normal as they come. This is not Anne Summers lingerie, bikinis or even over the top sexualized poses. Lying down on a bed of clouds is the best argument this topic has for "sexual pose". Cmon. Hence why I have now said twice, can we please just leave people the fuck alone who genuinely aren't the problem or even subconsciously behaving in ways that are contributing negatively?

A better example may have kicked off the OP in a better direction. Because there are a million actual examples that could be brought up.

SaltyGeneralTso said:

No she actually just stopped doing it because she started a business and didn't have time any more but it was literally every stream atleast one rando popping in and saying some bullshit. I just don't think women should have to consider whether what they wear is perpetuating sexism when it's just how they dress and/or their body.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I meant to apologize for a flippant remark in my last response, sorry for that. For what it's worth, I agree that your girlfriend should be able to stream in peace without scrutiny over what she's wearing.

What I'm calling disingenuous (and this is not solely on you) is trying to make this thread about a criticism of a woman or what she's wearing or how she's posing. The actual subject of criticism here is about IGN as a company and how they use objectified women as a marketing tactic. Not just now, but for years. That's the sexism part.

I would like to say I understand those who see some of the people here as placing the onus on this content creator to modify the way she does things, when we should be targeting the people WITH the issues (ie: the sexists, mysogynists, etc...).

That's not what I'm doing, and I don't think many (if any) of those on my side of the debate are doing it either.

We're talking about the way this industry uses marketing, it's exploitative and helps perpetuate the issues. And as these videos exist within this industry, they need to be a part of the conversation too.

Body and sex positivity are very important things to champion, as is individual agency of women and support of them in the face of oppression. Their content is still part of this industry, though, so again it needs to be part of the conversation.

The real issue here are the men who expect this, they're the ones who require educating, their mindsets changing.

I believe one way we can do this is to give them less of what they expect while at the same time attempting to educate them via conversation and criticism. Hopefully, given time, the combination of the two will result in a much fairer environment as their expectations will shift in line with what's being given. The reason they expect this now is because it happens often enough to keep that expectation alive.

And this is just one example, but the issues in the industry surrounding sexism and objectification of women are not going to be solved in a single blow.

stump sock said:

He kept telling us to listen to women so I muted his posts. It was good advice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I got a good laugh from this.

Raptomex said:

No you haven't. Hence the questions. The topic title is "Is IGN objectifying Women?". Nobody denies there's a worldwide issue.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Stop saying this. It is patently false.

astro said:

I would like to say I understand those who see some of the people here as placing the onus on this content creator to modify the way she does things, when we should be targeting the people WITH the issues (ie: the sexists, mysogynists, etc...).

That's not what I'm doing, and I don't think many (if any) of those on my side of the debate are doing it either.

We're talking about the way this industry uses marketing, it's exploitative and helps perpetuate the issues. And as these videos exist within this industry, they need to be a part of the conversation too.

Body and sex positivity are very important things to champion, as is individual agency of women and support of them in the face of oppression. Their content is still part of this industry, though, so again it needs to be part of the conversation.

The real issue here are the men who expect this, they're the ones who require educating, their mindsets changing.

I believe one way we can do this is to give them less of what they expect while at the same time attempting to educate them via conversation. Hopefully, given time, the combination of the two will result in a much fairer environment.

And this is just one example, but the issues in the industry surrounding sexism and objectification of women are not going to be solved in a single blow.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

All of this is true, and Dice's last post about the double standard of the image men and women in this industry get to project is also very good.

When it comes to promoting body positivity and agency for women while at the same time realizing that objectification is used in this industry, I don't know that there is one single solution that will make sense. I think you have to find a balance. Answering the particular question posed in the OP (is this particular instance, with the two examples of Sydnee in thumbnails), my answer is that my balance lies on the side of "this is probably more good than bad."

Rover said:

The actual subject of criticism here is about IGN as a company and how they use objectified women as a marketing tactic.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is a fair comment to bring up.

That said, it seems like 90% of the thread took OP to mean "this woman specifically" and "with these photos specifically" and have been circling around that for quite some time.

Dice brought up the meta argument but it kinda petered out since I don't think anyone will disagree with "is the video games industry sexist".

SugarNoodles said:

Stop saying this. It is patently false.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In this thread?

Honestly, I was literally thinking about this a few minutes back when I saw the thumbnail. I think there needs to be an honest discussion women being objectified as clickbait because parts of YT are utterly deplorable. That said, as a guy, my queries would be:

1. Was this part of IGN's agenda to drive more traffic?
2. Was the host comfortable with the motivations and consent without any implied duress?

A woman should wear whatever she wants to wear regardless of the amount of thirst that surrounds her. Whatever her motivations, the choice is her's alone. This means that she ought not get shit from either men or other women.

There will always be "thirsty" people. As a heterosexual guy, my eyes are naturally drawn to parts of human anatomy that have evolved to trigger sexual arousal. However, many of us have the ability to go beyond simple "thirst" and ponder about the context. The phrase, "sex sells" is not without merit but in an ever evolving market where more women are becoming equal participants and the men are having to relearn social etiquette and boundaries for the better, these kinds of thumbs stick out like sore thumbs.

Trojita said:

In this thread?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In this thread, on Era in general, in the world.

Dice said:

It sets a bad precedent in an industry and even more largely in a world that values women largely on appearance.
I'm just gonna quote myself quick (sorry):



Problem with getting men to be "less thirsty" is that...well, they fight really hard when you try to take that away from them. :/ (There's still a lot of uproar that surrounds banning 'booth babes' from whatever venue)
Then we get torn between women "allowed to dress how they feel" and men being supportive of those notions to see more tits (or just as bad is men fighting for women NOT to dress modestly... I get it, tits are fantastic). We're yanked between being free (and harassed) and being modest (which we don't necessarily want either).

Generally, appearance-wise, people ask significantly less of men.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure I disagree with you here. We ask less of men's appearance in this industry for obvious reasons, many of which are tied to the unfair beauty standards we expect women to adhere to. I agree.
I (like many people) also agree that the objectification of women (naming in the gaming industry) is rampant.

I'm just curious as to why this woman is being used as an example of it.

astro said:

I would like to say I understand those who see some of the people here as placing the onus on this content creator to modify the way she does things, when we should be targeting the people WITH the issues (ie: the sexists, mysogynists, etc...).

That's not what I'm doing, and I don't think many (if any) of those on my side of the debate are doing it either.

We're talking about the way this industry uses marketing, it's exploitative and helps perpetuate the issues. And as these videos exist within this industry, they need to be a part of the conversation too.

Body and sex positivity are very important things to champion, as is individual agency of women and support of them in the face of oppression. Their content is still part of this industry, though, so again it needs to be part of the conversation.

The real issue here are the men who expect this, they're the ones who require educating, their mindsets changing.

I believe one way we can do this is to give them less of what they expect while at the same time attempting to educate them via conversation and criticism. Hopefully, given time, the combination of the two will result in a much fairer environment as their expectations will shift in line with what's being given. The reason they expect this now is because it happens often enough to keep that expectation alive.

And this is just one example, but the issues in the industry surrounding sexism and objectification of women are not going to be solved in a single blow.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What you say is true, and I think most people who are arguing with you would agree, but the issue is that you took it upon yourself to use his women as an example of this. If this was just a general discussion about this issue, then I don't think anyone would be disagreeing with you right now. You say you're not placing the onus on her to modify what she's doing but if you're not doing that, then I don't understand you're actually saying.

For example, you say this:

"I believe one way we can do this is to give them less of what they expect while at the same time attempting to educate them via conversation and criticism."

By giving them less, which is what you've been arguing, you're saying she needs to modify what she's doing because she's currently giving them objectification. Again, I don't think people disagree with you in general but using this women as an example of this issue did not help your case.

Einchy said:

What you say is true, and I think most people who are arguing with you would agree, but the issue is that you took it upon yourself to use his women as an example of this. If this was just a general discussion about this issue, then I don't think anyone would be disagreeing with you right now. You say you're not placing the onus on her to modify what she's doing but if you're not doing that, then I don't understand you're actually saying.

For example, you say this:

"I believe one way we can do this is to give them less of what they expect while at the same time attempting to educate them via conversation and criticism."

By giving them less, which is what you've been arguing, you're saying she needs to modify what she's doing because she's currently giving them objectification. Again, I don't think people disagree with you in general but using this women as an example of this issue did not help your case.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I didn't take it upon myself, I didn't choose her as an example, I came into the thread and joined the conversation and commented on the issue.

I don't know what the solution is... I do think we need to consider all of the content and how it's presented, though, because it all has an effect.

BlackJace said:

I'm not sure I disagree with you here. We ask less of men's appearance in this industry for obvious reasons, many of which are tied to the unfair beauty standards we expect women to adhere to. I agree.
I (like many people) also agree that the objectification of women (naming in the gaming industry) is rampant.

I'm just curious as to why this woman is being used as an example of it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/13/a-statement-from-the-ign-team The images need to be viewed within the context of IGNs history of sexual harassment.

astro said:

I didn't take it upon myself, I didn't choose her as an example, I came into the thread and joined the conversation and commented on the issue.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No you didn't, the OP did, but the OP was added to by uncovering she is the producer and a larger selection of thumbnails was provided. Even then one of your responses was to suggest what she was wearing was potentially too tight for a thumbnail and it might be better if she cropped to her face.

So while the OP kicked things off, some of your comments are what fueled a fair few pages of debate.

astro said:

I didn't take it upon myself, I didn't choose her as an example, I came into the thread and joined the conversation and commented on the issue.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yes, I understand you're not the OP of the thread but by agreeing to what the OP said and continuing to argue just about this woman, you're using her as an example.

I don't understand why that's the only thing you took from my post.

Audioboxer said:

No you didn't, the OP did, but the OP was added to by uncovering she is the producer and a larger selection of thumbnails was provided. Even then one of your responses was to suggest what she was wearing was potentially too tight for a thumbnail and it might be better if she cropped to her face.

So while the OP kicked things off, some of your comments are what fueled a fair few pages of debate.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I personally think those videos look designed to focus on the girl and what she's wearing, which was my point. And as this is a common way in which women are objectified in the industry, I don't think just because the creator made the videos and chose the thumbs that they (the videos) should be immune to critique.

Einchy said:

Yes, I understand you're not the OP of the thread but by agreeing to what the OP said and continuing to argue just about this woman, you're using her as an example.

I don't understand why that's the only thing you took from my post.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What?

I'm only using her as an example... because we all are, because it's in the OP... and that's what we're talking about...

I'm so confused.

RustyNails said:

Morgan Webb! That's a name I haven't heard in a while. Is she still around?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

She works at Bonfire, and does a lot of Twitch D&D and other Table-Top RPGs

Dice said:

It sets a bad precedent in an industry and even more largely in a world that values women largely on appearance.
I'm just gonna quote myself quick (sorry):


Problem with getting men to be "less thirsty" is that...well, they fight really hard when you try to take that away from them. :/ (There's still a lot of uproar that surrounds banning 'booth babes' from whatever venue)
Then we get torn between women "allowed to dress how they feel" and men being supportive of those notions to see more tits (or just as bad is men fighting for women NOT to dress modestly... I get it, tits are fantastic). We're yanked between being free (and harassed) and being modest (which we don't necessarily want either).

Generally, appearance-wise, people ask significantly less of men.

IGN Men:

Like your average geek :P

I don't even mean to target IGN here (TV shows love pairing average men with incredibly attractive women). Really this is a problem in a number of circles. Problem too is we have trouble disengaging from media (at worst we don't think it affects us at ALL); we take these "standards" set very seriously, we put attractiveness on such a pedestal that (1) your average person cannot achieve, (2) targets women more frequently, and (3) has not changed women's standing in society to still be frequent victims of sexual assault/harassment which comes a lot with this sort of idolization of beauty and women's appearances.

We buy it, and therefore perpetuate and reify these standards significantly more than we realize. This isn't to "bash" good looking people, but rather an insight to a problem that exists in a web of media and representation of codes and images we like — and that it can play a very harmful role in what our society normalizes.

There is an unchecked power dynamic between talking about men and women this way; I think OP is talking more in regards to that; these more "unseen" aspects of sexualization that are just...so ingrained it's normal. Yet it's a standard we've unfortunately set forth. ;/

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I was going to say maybe you had a point, but then you go and show a picture of Nick Scarpino and I just don't know anymore. Seriously though, they tend to have attractive people do hosting, especially for a general audience. All the men pictured are also on niche podcasts where make-up isn't needed.

Dice said:

It sets a bad precedent in an industry and even more largely in a world that values women largely on appearance.
I'm just gonna quote myself quick (sorry):



Problem with getting men to be "less thirsty" is that...well, they fight really hard when you try to take that away from them. :/ (There's still a lot of uproar that surrounds banning 'booth babes' from whatever venue)
Then we get torn between women "allowed to dress how they feel" and men being supportive of those notions to see more tits (or just as bad is men fighting for women NOT to dress modestly... I get it, tits are fantastic). We're yanked between being free (and harassed) and being modest (which we don't necessarily want either).

Generally, appearance-wise, people ask significantly less of men.

IGN Men:

Like your average geek :P

I don't even mean to target IGN here (TV shows love pairing average men with incredibly attractive women). Really this is a problem in a number of circles. Problem too is we have trouble disengaging from media (at worst we don't think it affects us at ALL); we take these "standards" set very seriously, we put attractiveness on such a pedestal that (1) your average person cannot achieve, (2) targets women more frequently, and (3) has not changed women's standing in society to still be frequent victims of sexual assault/harassment which comes a lot with this sort of idolization of beauty and women's appearances.

We buy it, and therefore perpetuate and reify these standards significantly more than we realize. This isn't to "bash" good looking people, but rather an insight to a problem that exists in a web of media and representation of codes and images we like — and that it can play a very harmful role in what our society normalizes.

There is an unchecked power dynamic between talking about men and women this way; I think OP is talking more in regards to that; these more "unseen" aspects of sexualization that are just...so ingrained it's normal. Yet it's a standard we've unfortunately set forth. ;/

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Good post.

One of these images is not like the other.. Hmm..

astro said:

I personally think those videos look designed to focus on the girl and what she's wearing, which was my point. And as this is a common way in which women are objectified in the industry, I don't think just because the creator made the videos and chose the thumbs that they (the videos) should be immune to critique.




What?

I'm only using her as an example... because we all are, because it's in the OP... and that's what we're talking about...

I'm so confused.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Can she exist in a thumbnail of her video without you focusing on what she's wearing? Is that even possible? Because as many argued in this topic what she is wearing is some pretty damn common current day clothing. Pretty much none of it is all that risqué or for "after dark hours". Stereotypically speaking.

I mean, I'll just ask outright, what does a woman have to wear for you not to focus on what she's wearing? Or maybe the question is what is she not to wear? You seemed to focus on a mildly tight top. So is any tight clothing out, even if it's not revealing in terms of fabric coverage?

I don't think anyone falls out with the realms of critique either, but I'm questioning whether at this moment in time the woman the OP picked and the one you give your opinion on, is really the best target to have for whatever points you want to make?

Yeh Dice, very good post.

SaltyGeneralTso said:

Women are not inherently sexual for having boobs, this is slut shaming 101. I honestly can't believe how this thread is going on this forum of all places.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Of course they aren't inherently sexual. No one is arguing that. People are arguing that It's society that creates the context and you can't ignore context and act like ignoring it makes the superior moral argument. Saying that there's nothing sexual about breasts is a dishonest statement in a society that sexualizes them. Again, it's like saying you don't see race in a racist society.

Most people want to be perceived as attractive and that isn't an indictment on anyone. A woman can wear as much or as little as they want for all I care and I don't care at all. However, there are stark differences in how men and women are sexualized and it has a very heteronormal and patriarchal slant. We should be able to call out and critique patterns of objectification without accusations of sexism, puritanism, and patriarchy.

What happened to your gf sucks and it's upto everyone to call that shit out. I can't imagine anyone in this thread supporting women being harassed.

Audioboxer said:

Can she exist in a thumbnail of her video without you focusing on what she's wearing? Is that even possible? Because as many argued in this topic what she is wearing is some pretty damn common current day clothing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

For me, absolutely she always has.

Audioboxer said:

I mean, I'll just ask outright, what does a women have to wear for you not to focus on what she's wearing? You seemed to focus on a mildly tight top. So is any tight clothing out, even if it's not revealing in terms of fabric coverage?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't have a problem with it.

Audioboxer said:

I don't think anyone falls out with the realms of critique either, but I'm questioning whether at this moment in time the woman the OP picked and the one you give your opinion, is really the best target to have?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Read Dice's post quoted a few posts up, it was articulated much better than my own.

astro said:

No I literally gave specific examples of this that others have even used to solidify their own position by directly quoting numerous times, lol.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Then what is it? Cause the only thing I've seen is a direct quote from you saying That they need to crop out a woman's entire body and only show the head to avoid being objectified. You've also said maybe different poses would fix the issue.

Both these statements are sexist bullshit and completely take the agency away from the woman. I once again state: why do women need to be punished for sexism they don't contribute to?

Dead Guy said:

Then what is it? Cause the only thing I've seen is a direct quote from you saying That they need to crop out a woman's entire body and only show the head to avoid being objectified. You've also said maybe different poses would fix the issue.

Both these statements are sexist bullshit and completely take the agency away from the woman. I once again state: why do women need to be punished for sexism they don't contribute to?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They're not sexist bullshit given the context.

Read my post at the top of this page.

Read Dice's post quoted above as it articulates what I'm trying to much more clearly and just better. :)

I don't see any way these would be considered objectifying.

Objectification is taking away the agency and personality of a person and focusing on them solely as an object (sexual or otherwise). These are pictures of the host of a show posing (normally humorously in a way that relates to the subject) in front of a green screen for the show she's about to host.

I think it's a stretch to even consider them sexualized but I can see an argument for a couple of them, however sexualization is not the same as objectification.

Also seeing people trying to now claim that the thread isn't necessarily about IGN specifically objectifying a certain person but about sexism, rape culture, etc, when... yeah the thread is literally about IGN objectifying their daily fix hosts. If you want a thread to discuss that other stuff, why don't you make it yourself? People are trying throw out evidence like these are the same clothes she wears in her instagram posts, and that as a producer she probably has some say in what the thumbnail for the DF is as irrelevant when no, it's completely relevant to the subject that the thread is literally about.

astro said:

What?

I'm only using her as an example... because we all are, because it's in the OP... and that's what we're talking about...

I'm so confused.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You didn't have to? You could have easily talked about this in a general sense without telling us specifically how this person is adding to the issues of objectification and how this specific person should be conscious of that and how this specific person could crop her whole body and just show her face.

astro said:

For me, absolutely she always has.

I don't have a problem with it.

Read Dice's post quoted a few posts up, it was articulated much better than my own.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Dice might have made a good post, and I've seen it and you can see others agree with it as well. You did make the claim she should consider cropping her thumbnails to her face and were speaking about tight clothing so I'm just trying to figure out if you still stand by that and why?

I'm not oblivious, I know tight clothing is often used in life in sexual ways or intentionally by people wanting to show off their body or feel sexy. But fitted clothing in general is worn by lots of people because typically speaking no one looks good in dad jeans and/or wearing something that hangs off them like a duvet cover.

Tight jeans, tight tops, welcome to real life. Some guys even go around and you know it's girls jeans they're wearing because they are that tight the outline of their damn ballsack is visible.... Guys tights jeans at least still tend to have a bit more fabric around the genital area. And I'm not just joking for effect. I prefer fitted clothing for myself and so do many others and while as I said there can sometimes be more blatant instances of sexualization or the guy who is wearing jeans a bit too tight, going to bat over the example of this woman in a fitted shirt just wasn't a good example.

It honestly came across like something as I said you'd read on some Catholic forums about how kids/young adults these days have no respect for the 1880s.

Dice said:

I don't think it's just coincidence a lot of these female hosts are incredibly attractive and are used much more often then the men who seem to 'dominate' the industry in wider numbers; fact is we like looking at women more. :P

I'm not gonna disagree that the IGN thumbnails are tame, but it's not like rampant sexualized visuals aren't deeply seeded in societies to be almost everywhere; tame or not, we use women's images to sell, a selling point that women have not been able to translate into an equal status with men

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok, there are 2 layers here.

On layer 1 there is IGN. It seems they are objectifying women in their selection of female hosts.

On layer 2 there is The Daily Fix. If IGN is calling any shots here (wardrobe, thumbnail etc.) then IGN is objectifying the host (specifically). But if the host is making these choices then it seems IGN is not objectifying the host.

Then, there is the uncomfortable association between these 2 layers. For if the host is doing what they want they'd be doing exactly what IGN wants. I don't know what to think about that but I do think individuals should have no responsibility to do things in a certain way to not perpetuate societal issues.

Einchy said:

You didn't have to?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The conversation was bout her videos at a certain point, and how they factor in. That's where the conversation was when I joined in.

Bronx-Man said:

"Geek media" loves doing this shit: IGN, Attack of the Show, Nerdist, etc etc. Even as a horny teenager I thought it was creepy as hell.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This was actually way more prevalent in the aughts IMO, even though it obviously still isn't gone completely.

Can one's appearance be sold or used without it being objectification?

Or is that something determined by the potential response of the viewer?

Audioboxer said:

Dice might have made a good post, and I've seen it and you can see others agree with it as well. You did make the claim she should consider cropping her thumbnails to her face and were speaking about tight clothing so I'm just trying to figure out if you still stand by that and why?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Read my initial comments ITT, at no point was I ever really invested in the thumbnails changing. I simply commented they could have been a bit better given what we know about the expectations of the problematic parts of the industry audience.

Then people asked me to give examples of how, and I gave some simple ideas.

Now, do I believe the content creator herself needs to modify her choices and behaviour? I don't know what the answer is, honestly.

She should be allowed her own agency, that's for certain. And I think she should be allowed to wear whatever she damn well wants in her videos.

My point was about the thumbnails, and the marketing, and I honestly don't know how to begin.

This is the point of the conversation, right?

Audioboxer said:

I'm not oblivious, I know tight clothing is often used in life in sexual ways or intentionally by people wanting to show off their body or feel sexy. But fitted clothing in general is worn by lots of people because typically speaking no one looks good in dad jeans and/or wearing something that hangs off them like a duvet cover.

Tight jeans, tight tops, welcome to real life. Some guys even go around and you know it's girls jeans they're wearing because they are that tight the outline of their damn ballsack is visible.... Guys tights jeans at least still tend to have a bit more fabric around the genital area. And I'm not just joking for effect. I prefer fitted clothing for myself and so do many others and while as I said there can sometimes be more blatant instances of sexualization or the guy who is wearing jeans a bit too tight, going to bat over the example of this woman in a fitted shirt just wasn't a good example.

It honestly came across like something as I said you'd read on some Catholic forums about how kids/young adults these days have no respect for the 1880s.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't know how you could read my posts ITT and get that, I really don't. Perhaps a couple of posts out of context? I doin't know, but that's not where I'm coming from in the slightest.

ItIsOkBro said:

Ok, there are 2 layers here.

On layer 1 there is IGN. It seems they are objectifying women in their selection of female hosts.

On layer 2 there is The Daily Fix. If IGN is calling any shots here (wardrobe, thumbnail etc.) then IGN is objectifying the host (specifically). But if the host is making these choices then it seems IGN is not objectifying the host.

Then, there is the uncomfortable association between these 2 layers. For if the host is doing what they want they'd be doing exactly what IGN wants. I don't know what to think about that but I do think individuals should have no responsibility to do things in a certain way to not perpetuate societal issues.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's very dangerous thinking. However, it IS upto the people that control the levers to not perpetuate shitty systems.

It's uncomfortable because there's a certain level of being complicit that's implied in that relationship. IGN is favored in that power dynamic and they're the party that controls how it wants to be marketed. That doesn't take away from the hosts' agency to choose how she wants to market herself either, but she wouldn't have the same platform or reach.

astro said:

Read my initial comments ITT, at no point was I ever really invested in the thumbnails changing. I simply commented they could have been a bit better given what we know about the expectations of the problematic parts of the industry audience.

Then people asked me to give examples of how, and I gave some simple ideas.

Now, do I believe the content creator herself needs to modify her choices and behaviour? I don't know what the answer is, honestly.

She should be allowed her own agency, that's for certain. And I think she should be allowed to wear whatever she damn well wants in her videos.

My point was about the thumbnails, and the marketing, and I honestly don't know how to begin.

This is the point of the conversation, right?

I don't know how you could read my posts ITT and get that, I really don't. Perhaps a couple of posts out of context? I doin't know, but that's not where I'm coming from in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well I do give you and others the benefit of the doubt because I don't think your intent is bad. In fact, I'd say I think every argument in this topic around this woman is coming from a progressive mind/position. I said to Einchy while he muses that if you went on the likes of r/livestreamfails or my addition was some incel forum, you'd find a lot of these kinds of comments about women needing to censor themselves, change their clothes, stop using their autonomy, consider how feeling sexy should probably always be shamed and the big one for incels "you've only got the job because of your looks", those all have malicious intent. From shitty people.

I don't think there are shitty people in this topic, even if there is the irony I satirise around men almost telling women what they're wearing isn't suitable, but in a progressive "we know best for you/the world" kind of way. So I know intent might be good, but some of you do need to think about the targets you pick and when something might actually be a case of "I should probably leave this person the fuck alone even if I wouldn't dress like that".

I know replies are incoming to remind me of benign sexism, or the influence of societal objectification or even unintended contribution towards sexism. Or whatever it is. Okay, I'm not denying any of that exists, but again, the target in the OP even if they work with IGN probably isn't the best example given objectively speaking her choice of clothing (there really isn't anything over the top about it), her being the producer, and so on, really contributes towards this is not one of these cases where this woman needs saving from an oppressive institution or her contributing unintentionally to global sexism.

I do actually think even built on progressive intent, this topic has been quite embarrassing for Resetera and if I were that host and seen this topic, I wouldn't be all that impressed or appreciative. No I can't speak for her, that would be hugely ironic for me to finish on that wouldn't it, but subjectively speaking there have been some pretty shitty things said in this topic or implied about this woman, even if you want to argue there is progressive intent.

I had nothing to do with choosing the target, I was just joining in the conversation about whether or not they are good examples. And I've already agreed multiple times in this thread these are not even close to being a prime example, but that it's a tricky situation because they exist in the same space.

astro said:

They're not sexist bullshit given the context.

Read my post at the top of this page.

Read Dice's post quoted above as it articulates what I'm trying to much more clearly and just better. :)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In what context are those sentences not policing this woman on what she can wear?

I read Dice's post and can totally see her point on how the games industry holds women to higher beauty standards than men. I just don't see how that is the fault of this one girl who wants to do some videos. Why is she responsible for trying to fix this when she can do nothing about it?

If paying attractive women to be attractive is objectification then yes

astro said:

I had nothing to do with choosing the target, I was just joining in the conversation about whether or not they are good examples. And I've already agreed multiple times in this thread these are not even close to being a prime example, but that it's a tricky situation because they exist in the same space.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But it shouldn't be a tricky situation where the jury, which I might as well call us at this point, 17 pages into a topic primarily about this woman, have more than enough information as things stand to react rationally to this one example. If more information came out, or the host spoke about something or so on, yeah revisit things. Right now, these thumbnails are nothing in comparison to far better examples and it appears the host had autonomy and isn't working under some almost enforced dance for your wages situation. Even if it is IGN.

Right now this person should probably just be left the fuck alone and not have an online forum of primarily guys arguing about the merits of her cropping her own body out of a bloody YT thumbnail, if not just excluding herself completely from the thumbnail, because apparently we're more clued up on this situation and are just looking out for her and the greater good of society.

I mean imagine almost trying to pin or use this one woman as the diving board to talk about some seriously fucked up shit in this industry and the world in general, over her pretty low key contributions to YT. I don't mean low key as in low effort, good for her in the position she is in, low key as in this is not anime bikini streaming wars or something. Its some of the most standard clothing possible combined with look at me standing/moving my arms/holding something in my video thumbnails.

I think the guys in this topic maybe need to chill the fuck out around this one. Especially before this goes viral on the internet and all the usual sources point to Resetera as having some out of proportion "attack" on this woman. Hence why I said even if many of you are coming from a progressive angle, the target in the OP and some of the shit said in this topic about the target of OP, is to me quite embarrassing and a massive overreach.

Would you enjoy going onto an internet forum and reading comments from people saying you should be cropping yourself out of your own videos and it's because you don't know what's good for you/the rest of the world? Or you're somehow just using your looks to get to where you are? Over some of the most benign thumbnails/clothing decisions ever? Yeah, I'm sure some of the comments on the IGN videos are far worse to have to wake up to or deal with, but this is supposed to be the progressive forum, not the IGN comments section. At the very least I expect this forum to do better at course correcting when more information is provided. Not doubling down.

This thread feels like an overaction and in turns asks for something that is a step in the wrong direction. Women should be able to dress as they please and be displayed in non-offensive every day outfits/poses as men.

It's a fine line.

I think it can be damaging to promote products this way as it reinforces a regressive metric of how women are valued.

On the other hand, liberal views can creep into having its own sort of piousness. Women should also be free to be as provacotive they choose. Even in promoting their work.

With IGN - I suppose it depends on their culture. Which I have zero insight into.

Dead Guy said:

In what context are those sentences not policing this woman on what she can wear?

I read Dice's post and can totally see her point on how the games industry holds women to higher beauty standards than men. I just don't see how that is the fault of this one girl who wants to do some videos. Why is she responsible for trying to fix this when she can do nothing about it?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I literally said, multiple times, that she should be able to wear what she wants in her videos, but that due to the issues with marketing being heavily objectifying in the industry, the thumbnails could have been presented better.

If you read through my own posts in this thread fully you will see this. Also here is another post from Dice that articulates the same point I was trying to make.

There is a problem with expectation in this industry as much as that expectation is exploited, and my point has always been this is a very tricky thing. The women within this system are part of the system, so their actions have consequence like the rest of us. This doesn't mean I'm saying what you're suggesting I am.

RPGam3r said:

This thread feels like an overaction and in turns asks for something that is a step in the wrong direction. Women should be able to dress as they please and be displayed in non-offensive every day outfits/poses as men.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They absolutely should, and I don't think anyone ITT is suggesting otherwise.

Was expecting the thumbnails to be more lewd.

Biggersmaller said:

It's a fine line.

I think it can be damaging to promote products this way as it reinforces a regressive metric of how women are valued.

On the other hand, liberal views can creep into having its own sort of piousness. Women should also be free to be as provacotive they choose. Even in promoting their work.

With IGN - I suppose it depends on their culture. Which I have zero insight into.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's kind of ironic that the men in this thread concern trolling over "policing what women wear" make this entirely about the woman in the thumbnail isn't it? None of them seem to want to discuss the male executives at IGN perpetuating sexism/objectification of women, or the industry standard among developers, or the audience that is deliberately catered to.

Strange, no?

astro said:

I literally said, multiple times, that she should be able to wear what she wants in her videos, but that due to the issues with marketing being heavily objectifying in the industry, the thumbnails could have been presented better.

If you read through my own posts in this thread fully you will see this. Also here is another post from Dice that articulates the same point I was trying to make.

There is a problem with expectation in this industry as much as that expectation is exploited, and my point has always been this is a very tricky thing. The women within this system are part of the system, so their actions have consequence like the rest of us. This doesn't mean I'm saying what you're suggesting I am.



They absolutely should, and I don't think anyone ITT is suggesting otherwise.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't agree that she should have to crop her image to avoid showing herself in normal cloths. I think the thumbnails are presented fine and show a woman who is wearing normal cloths in fun poses.

I'll say this: the top image in the OP made me click the video even before I saw this thread.

SugarNoodles said:

It's kind of ironic that the men in this thread concern trolling over "policing what women wear" make this entirely about the woman in the thumbnail isn't it? None of them seem to want to discuss the male executives at IGN perpetuating sexism/objectification of women, or the industry standard among developers, or the audience that is deliberately catered to.

Strange, no?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Who doesn't want to discuss those things?

We all want to discuss those things, we've literally BEEN discussing those things, they're the real issue