Jump to content

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)


Unofficial Who
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, geekette said:

See, I've got a problem with a default position of scepticism. Domestic violence is a massive problem in the UK and around the world. Just within the UK, a million women experience domestic violence and 3/4million kids witness it. 3/4 of domestic violence is a repeat offence, part of a pattern of violence within a relationship. Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police, and only 75,000 cases are prosecuted out of those million offences - not even one percent. Two women per week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Although there is violence across all genders, family/relationship configurations and sexualities, the rate of violence to men is approximately one tenth of that towards women. The incidence of false allegations is absolutely tiny, and a narrative primarily propagated by perpetrators blaming victims and trying to wriggle out of the consequences of their actions by shaming women and making it harder to speak up.

 

But once they've been charged and not prosecuted, not charged or actually found innocent it's right to be sceptical.  But that list puts all 3 of those categories on the same level as the ones who actually ARE scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geekette said:

See, I've got a problem with a default position of scepticism. Domestic violence is a massive problem in the UK and around the world. Just within the UK, a million women experience domestic violence and 3/4million kids witness it. 3/4 of domestic violence is a repeat offence, part of a pattern of violence within a relationship. Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police, and only 75,000 cases are prosecuted out of those million offences - not even one percent. Two women per week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Although there is violence across all genders, family/relationship configurations and sexualities, the rate of violence to men is approximately one tenth of that towards women. The incidence of false allegations is absolutely tiny, and a narrative primarily propagated by perpetrators blaming victims and trying to wriggle out of the consequences of their actions by shaming women and making it harder to speak up.

Also, 75,000 out of 1,000,000 is 7.5%.

 

Obviously I don't condone dosmetic violence but I also can't abide poor maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, geekette said:

As I said, not my list. Just a list on the internet showing how prevalent this theme is.

 

And no, its not okay to be sceptical even if charges are not pressed. I've explained this over and over. There are many reasons that charges are not brought by the CPS or are withdrawn by the victim, but not reaching the bar for "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "didn't happen". My position could be summarised as believe the person who says they are a victim unless you have good reason not to.

I don't think anyone's suggesting it means "didn't happen". They're just saying it means "we have nothing to say about this", which should include calling the accused "scum".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, geekette seems to be quite happy to call people scum based purely on one person's word with no concession to legal process at all and I just can't condone that.  It's not "Victim blaming", it's just a case with no winners at all.

 

And, whatever reason a lot don't get prosecuted I can't condone that at all. It's not "A list showing how prevalent this is", it's a list of mostly innocent people who SHOULDN'T have their careers ruined.

 

Again I have literally been part of a jury deciding one of these cases and I don't think the woman was making a false accusation as such but it was very obvious to us (a jury incidentally consisting of 6 women if you think that matters) that there's no way he was guilty.

 

And it's very sad to me that due to this attitude that I'm sure there are still whispers behind the guy wherever he goes, there were 2 victims in that case and if he were famous he could easily be on that list with people pointing and yelling "Scum" and "No smoke without fire!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, geekette said:

As I said, not my list. Just a list on the internet showing how prevalent this theme is.

 

And no, its not okay to be sceptical even if charges are not pressed. I've explained this over and over. There are many reasons that charges are not brought by the CPS or are withdrawn by the victim, but not reaching the bar for "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "didn't happen". My position could be summarised as believe the person who says they are a victim unless you have good reason not to.

Out of interest, what would constitute "good reason not to," in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dudley said:

Ultimately the bottom line is you appear to reject innocent until proven guilty and I just can't sign up to that.

 

Innocent until proven guilty of course also applies to the accuser.

 

 

So Jimmy Saville is innocent in your eyes?

 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal Law principle that means you can't be sentenced until, after due process, the prosecutio has proven (the burden of proof lies in the accusation) that you were guilty (meaning you don't have to prove your innocence).

 

it doesn't mean that everyone that hasn't been sentenced is innocent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Toblerone said:

So Jimmy Saville is innocent in your eyes?

 

It's difficult isn't it? Technically pretty much yes, but there WAS at least a full investigation, which is all you can do with a dead person.  With Saville I'm far more interested in anything we can do to stop it happening again.

 

10 hours ago, geekette said:

You are going to need to show where I said what you say I "appear" to say. I've said no such thing.

 

"It isn't my list, and I'd call anyone who beats their partner, regardless of gender or sexuality scum. The point being that for the men mentioned in the first article it has done very little (if any) harm to their careers."

 

Virtually everyone on the list hadn't been convicted, a bunch were never even charged. As the site says, one of the men was initially listed as "charged" which they equate to guilty as you do.  It turns out not only were they not charged but their very famous partner admitted to fabricating it.  Incidentally her career doesn't seem to have been affected by that either so it's that people don't care not that there's any innate sexism here.

 

Nonetheless, you're very clearly calling for careers to be ruined for being charged or in some cases even just spoken to. i.e - Saying they're guilty.

 

"However, I think there are a lot of false negatives where the threshold for proof beyond reasonable doubt is not met, but the person still did the crime"

 

Literally saying you don't actually believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

" My position could be summarised as believe the person who says they are a victim unless you have good reason not to."

 

Again literally saying "They're guilty until I have a good reason to believe they're not".

 

Hell you've constantly said that you believe cases that don't make the bar of reasonable doubt happened anyway.  That might even be a reasonable position but what it clearly also is, would be you saying that you believe people guilty who weren't found guilty. You can't possibly be debating that and if you are maybe we just need to drop this before we fall out because we're misunderstanding each other so completely as to be incomprehensible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dudley said:

 

It's difficult isn't it? Technically pretty much yes, but there WAS at least a full investigation, which is all you can do with a dead person.  With Saville I'm far more interested in anything we can do to stop it happening again.

 

 

Like making it less hard for victime to get their aggressors sentenced? And no, that does not mean abandonning the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. 

 

Like stopping thinking that the only real victimes are those who see their aggressors sentenced.

 

Like stopping to think that false accusations are as much a problem as sexual agressions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Toblerone said:

Like making it less hard for victime to get their aggressors sentenced? And no, that does not mean abandonning the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. 

 

Like stopping thinking that the only real victimes are those who see their aggressors sentenced.

 

Like stopping to think that false accusations are as much a problem as sexual agressions.

 

 

 

Absolutely.  But we should concentrate on making sure the guilty are found guilty rather than making an assumption that charged = guilty, which both article and list brazenly do.  And yes, not ultimately finding guilty does not mean "accuser lied", there's a whole spectrum.  But no-one should be affected for life by something they were not found guilty of, which is being promoted by those articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I believe in innocent until proven guilty? It depends what you mean. I agree that someone shouldn't be sentenced unless they're found guilty. But I still believe OJ Simpson did it, he's obviously guilty as hell. The verdict doesn't really change that. Whether I think something is true, or very likely to be true, doesn't correspond precisely to the outcome of the criminal justice system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, geekette said:

Basically, you need to read all of that again, without your mind being so clouded by your preconception that you don't actually read what is written but what you think is written. For example, I referred to the first article I linked, the one about Heard/Depp, not the second article that you cite which I have said a number of times is over-inclusive. The rest is just you not understanding the terminology and putting words in my mouth that were never there.

 

Do you think the lives of people who were not found guilty should be affected by the case? It's a perpetrator question.

 

You might want to read the first article again, it has the stance charged = guilty. I was exclusively referring to that article in my last response.

 

EDIT : Changed careers for lives in the first line and clarified I WAS reading just the first article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone would dispute that women experience vastly more domestic violence at the hands of men than vice versa. I think the pushback you're getting stems from the idea the the burden of proof should shift from a jury of your peers to geekette believes the victim.

 

Now, we all make judgements like that individually all the time, of course. But presumably we'reall agreed it would be a crappy basis to build a society from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's where she's coming from, I think it's more along the lines of "don't immediately gang up on the alleged victim". Which is exactly what's happened here. The amatuer forensic work involving moving bruises, heresay and gossip might put her off from going through with the AVO.

 

The bigger issue is that a lot of victims (of both genders) will look at the shitstorm around this and think "fuck me, if she's going to be treated like this and she's fairly privleged then I'll be fucked if I raise a complaint."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, geekette said:

The first article is clear about which are allegations and which are convictions. It refers to Chris Brown - convicted, Charlie Sheen - convicted, Tommy Lee - convicted, Ozzy Osbourne - accepts he attempted to murder Sharon, Christian Slater - convicted, Columbus Short - convicted. None of them negatively affected in their careers by their despicable actions. It mentions in passing allegations against Nicholas Cage (multiple witnesses, though charges were dropped by his wife), James Caan (multiple incidents reported by multiple people, went to rehab so it never went to court, has pastiched his own past violence in family guy), Josh Brolin (multiple incidents reported by multiple people, went to rehab so it never went to court, charges were dropped by his wife), Terrence Howard (multiple incidents, admitted hitting his wife in interviews). It is hardly jumping to defamatory conclusions.

 

It's a side-effect of being able to separate the art from the artist, surely? Preventing someone in the entertainment industry from having a career because they've done something illegal doesn't really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, geekette said:

I guess it depends how much you believe you can do that. In sport people lose their contracts and their advertising deals based on criminal behaviour. In the creative industries it doesn't really seem to have any impact.

 

That's in no way comparable though, is it? People aren't going to stop listening to or wanting to see Black Sabbath because Ozzy Osbourne is a dick. No-one ever thought Ozzy Osbourne was anything but a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, geekette said:

Again, not something I have said. In fact I've said several times that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and think we have the right balance in our legal system. That isn't mutually exclusive with the starting point of believing a personal account from someone who has had an abusive experience, and not automatically assuming a person is a liar or has ulterior motivation if their disclosure does not have sufficient substantiating evidence to reach the bar of a criminal conviction.

 

Why isn't it comparable? People don't stop wanting the most talented players on their team, or their team to win either. But in one industry there is enough of a brand association that a team wouldn't want to be seen to endorse certain behaviours, whilst nobody really has much awareness of the publishers who are profiting from actors or musicians. The only exception perhaps is repeats of telly content that has very vilified figures in it, like the beeb wouldn't show anything hosted by Savile again.

 

Everton fire player: Everton replace and carry on as normal.

Black Sabbath fire a singer: Black Sabbath are never the same again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, geekette said:

I'm not sure that's so dichotomous either. Many bands have had changing line-ups and survived, and that wouldn't apply to casting for actors.

 

Other bands did, yes. But Black Sabbath didn't carry on with the same success when Ozzy Osbourne left, did they? Their albums went from being in the top 10 to being in the top 80 whilst he had a successful solo career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.