-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is IGN objectifying women?
- Thread starter Cantona222
- Start date
- Status
No!
She can pose how she wants as long as it is really what she wants and so can any woman. I just find it suspicious how often men in the thumbnails are simply acting goofy and don't care about how attractive they look and on the other hand the girls even when goofing off seem to always take flattering photos. I'm just not sure that's entirely their choice.
BREAKING NEWS: ATTRACTIVE GIRLS LOOK ATTRACTIVE EVEN WHEN GOOFING OFF
IN OTHER NEWS: WATER IS WET, FIRE IS HOT
A> Yes, I agree that many of the examples of dudes in this thread are sourcing from a bunch of neckbeards who don't dress well.
B> That still isn't a mark against women
C> Just cause a woman makes a goofy pose doesn't mean that it's sexual just because she has breasts.
Yeah, like, if they are being objectified by their bosses or whoever would make those decisions, we're all here to support them if that's the case and the situation should be rectified, but the answer isn't taking away their agency based on a assumption. Of course people want pictures up where they look their best, that's not even a woman thing, it's a human thing, but especially for women who can't apparently win either way. If they look good, it's a problem, it must not be their choice. If they look bad they have to deal with the other spectrum of sexist people who will criticize every single thing they consider unattractive.
"the avatar of red is in a provocative pose emphasizing his hips and curvature."
i think i finally understand. she should do something like this. thumbnail vs video:
B> None of this is a mark against women. It is against corporations using the pretty woman in the thumbnail as the selling point it's why its called objectification, is IMO placing the woman in the thumbnail as the object of desire and the reason for men to click on the thumbnail.
C> You're right and in no way did I mean to Imply that. I instead get the feeling that she is not allowed to be completely goofy because IGN wants her to still look attractive to guys.
I feel that they are not allowed to do something like what Iliza shlesinger does which is completely disregard her appearance and act as goofy as she wants.
But don't misunderstand I am not trying to blame or shame any woman for how they dress or act.
Atractive girls Can have unflattering photos tho
that's going to the extreme but she should be allowed to pose like that if she WANTS to,i think i finally understand. she should do something like this. thumbnail vs video:
The thing is, do you honestly believe that IGN would allow that on their thumbnails? from a girl? Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.
Last edited:
I'm not a woman but if I had to venture a guess, I don't think women want to have to reaffirm their agency at the behest of complete strangers. Ideally, people could just not be shit and not look at them as objects and the problem is solved, that goes equally for the people who make the decisions on those pictures and the people viewing them, both in a positive or a critical light.
While I couldn't be less attracted about a product because someone is using sex to sell it, I don't really see the problem here. Girl is willing to use sex to sell a product or brand and people are willing to buy. Just take a look a few years ago at how rampant those "sexy" streamers on Twitch showing cleavage were, there was even one using the PornHub font for her logo, so as long as they're not actually being exploited, I'm fine with this shit. It doesn't appeal to me even though I love sex.
Edit: I'm actually more saddened by the people who buy a product or service because of this shit, the only sadder thing than this are Japanese idol fans believing in the purity of their idol lol, now that's really sad and pathetic.
Edit: I'm actually more saddened by the people who buy a product or service because of this shit, the only sadder thing than this are Japanese idol fans believing in the purity of their idol lol, now that's really sad and pathetic.
Yeah, the lengths that people are going to go pretend that crop tops and unbuttoning one's blouse are "normal, everyday office wear" is pretty laughable. Sex appeal sells. She clearly understands this. Personally, that's fine. I don't have any problem with titty streamers either.
I work at an animation studio. Nothing she is wearing would be considered out-of-place, nor would it look out of place if anyone was wearing a bulky sweater and some ratty pants.
Difference is, most of us aren't having photos of ourselves taken daily to be plastered on the internet.
Last edited:
If only it was that easy.
I see this more of as a male issue than a woman issue, when sites or film or books or whatever make woman appear to be and exists to be something to be desired or used the world is just a worse place for everybody. Machismo and Incels are both in some way a product of female objectification and those are just some of the issues that come with it.
IGN using atractive woman as the THING that will attract men to their video to me seems to promote the Idea that a sexy female is an object of desire. I could be wrong here and those photos could be 100% a decision taken by the girls, I find it suspicious however how often guy look unappealing and girls do not. Also like somebody else posted here it is weird that men of all body types can host the show the same does not happen with girls.
I grew up surrounded by toxic Male figures and while many things have changed and girls are not treated the way they used to I'm just hoping objectification is really disappearing and not just hiding in plain sight. And if it is hiding I hope enough people can see it, call it out and stop it as soon as possible.
"From home" but I have an office in ATL, Montreal, Dallas, and San Francisco.
I wonder tho, How would girls react if the outfits on the video were their uniforms and they had to wear them?
Sheesh, the stuff women put up with must be infuriating. I don't know how they do it.
On the one hand you have obnoxious horn dogs making lewd, unwarranted comments.
On the other, you have those concerned fellows implying they don't dress themselves and whatnot.
I wonder which is more annoying?
On the one hand you have obnoxious horn dogs making lewd, unwarranted comments.
On the other, you have those concerned fellows implying they don't dress themselves and whatnot.
I wonder which is more annoying?
You have a really hard time believing that a woman would have autonomy over her own body.
I wonder what kind of clothes she wears in her daily life.
https://www.instagram.com/sydsogood/?hl=en
Look at how she's FORCED to wear that outfit! They're even making her talk about it on Instagram!
So do you think people WANT to take unflattering photos of themselves for millions of people on the internet to view? I don't want to take an unflattering photo for 15 people on facebook to see.
People only do that for comedy purposes, and it takes a supremely self confident person to go that far for comedy.
while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Where are you getting this information she is forced into that wardrobe against her will? Like it is very well possible she changes her outfit before a shoot and wears sweats with her hair tied back the rest of the day. Hell If i know.
But I'm not going to be so condescending to say she's incapable of making her own damn choices.
Did you read the thread? People were arguing hella hard that the thumbnails were her objectifying herself and thus adding to the problem of objectification.
Yeah, her Instagram is awesome after reading this thread.while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Well that is clearly just ingrained misogyny, she wouldn't dress in a way that flatters her if it wasn't for the male gaze you see, because she only does it for other people, because she is a woman and that is clearly the only way woman do things. /s
The thumbnail discussion is pretty ridiculous, it has pretty much became a discussion of "yes but she is a good looking woman, we can't have good looking woman look good in thumbnails", if someone wants to make the argument that IGN hires woman hosts on the basis of looks, the thumbnails are really the wrong place to make that argument given that obviously good looking people tend to look good in things, it would be like me saying CNN is exploiting Anderson Cooper because CNN publishes photos of him looking good.
If one wishes to make the argument that looks are part of (and I do mean part as in not the whole) the reason why IGN hires hosts, then yeah duhh their history kind of proves that, but ofc that is also a so what argument, since outside of Chobot all the woman they have hired (that I know of) are clearly qualified for their positions, and if you are going against other people for a public presenter position your looks will always play a part of the hiring process, how you present yourself is a part of your job as a presenter, so looking better than the rest will give you a competitive edge, much like having a good voice will give you a competitive edge for a radio/podcast show host position, it is literally part of your job.
Ya'll seem to just jump at the extremes for everything. It is a real possibility and you know it is. Her choices can be nudged specially by someone who hold financial power over her and again I cannot know if that is the case but she is not the only person working therere. A better question would be are all of the females that work in IGN that physically attractive? or are they picking a female with a specific look for those videos and if they do why don't they do the same for the guys.
Also I don't remember what video exactly but I remember that this you tuber in one of her AMA videos explained how she does not dress like that in normal life, her make up, hair and outfits are picked by the youtube channel she works for.
Of course. They have been doing it for years and will continue to do so as long as the market/viewership reinforces it - which it clearly continues to do. Welcome to business and marketing.
This is such a weird thread.
Does the fashion industry not objectify women because the models may post pictures of themselves on social media in bikinis? I guess the argument is that there's no such thing as objectification of women if women are willing participants to the activity, so only forceful coercion or unapproved use of media counts.
Does the fashion industry not objectify women because the models may post pictures of themselves on social media in bikinis? I guess the argument is that there's no such thing as objectification of women if women are willing participants to the activity, so only forceful coercion or unapproved use of media counts.
No one said this.
No one argued this.
Yeah, because of post like yours.
You have a real time understanding that the argument is not about her in specific but about IGN the company.
Or is filled with people who use WOMAN and her agency as a example on why apparently IGN does not objectify WOMEN.
No one argued this? Then please explain the rationale behind the post made on this very page about the Instagram post.
Can you please also explain your position on the matter?
The original Instagram post was to show that she was not being forced to wear clothes that she was uncomfortable with as she was wearing the same outfit in the post as she was in one of the daily fix videos.
You keep saying they she's being forced to wear those clothes, she's not. So what about IGN am I supposed to criticize? Because so far you've done nothing to show us what IGN is doing. Your argument that IGN was forcing women to make provocative thumbnails was beyond ridiculous. THen you tried to argue she's being forced to wear specific clothes, well, she's not.
I'm sorry, so is her agency not in question anymore? Because you were talking about it earlier when you told us she had none and the fact that IGN was taking her agency was an issue.
Where in that post is it saying objectification doesn't exist? It's saying if it's possible for a person to objectify themselves, and if it is, is it valid to criticism them for it. For that question to even be pose, you have to also believe objectification is real. So, no, no one argued what you said.while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Read the thread.
I can accept that. But what about the second bikini picture? The point being made I took is that she's comfortable with her body and is not afraid to show it publicly. However that doesn't really disprove that IGN doesn't objectify women. Unless one holds the position that as it's a matter of choice from her then it can't be objectification.
Let's not change the definition of concepts here. Objectification is objectification regardless of whether the "object" in question is willing or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
I think the more compelling question is whether objectification is inherently wrong by itself given the participant's agency - it's unquestionably wrong if against the participant's will or knowledge (I doubt anyone here would argue against that), but is it morally acceptable given the participant's willing submission? Some here are arguing yes, I would argue the contrary, given its generally regressive influence on the current social climate.
If that's where the conversation has moved towards, then I hold the same position as you do.
Can you point me to the specific part where I said she had no agency?
Did you forget when you kept trying to argue that she was forced to wear the things she wore in the video?
did you forget I said Specific example?
Or are you going to ignore this with a question as well?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make with that first passage but as for the second, if you're not interested in summarising your opinion on the matter then I can't I care about your opinion to the extent of trawling through 20 pages of a thread to learn about your position on it.
while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Of course someone can objectify themselves. You can call that an observation or a critique, whatever you want, but it is something that happens constantly on social media.
Bro, I'm not gonna go back and read all the times you argued that IGN was forcing her to wear specific outfits or not allowing her to not be 'sexy' or making her be 'provocative'. Like, this whole thread is people arguing with you about these points.
Like, did you forget why you're in here?
Yeah, you didn't seem to understand it the first time so why would you the second?
I don't even know what you want me to summarized, there's been multiple discussions in this thread. If you're not willing to actually understand what people are talking about, then I'm not willing to try and figured out what exactly it is you want me to summarize. I'm not here to do the leg work for you.
- Status