Talk:Galbrush Paradox

I think this article should be deleted. While I agree that the politicization of gaming journalism is an issue this wiki should deal with, refuting arguments made by Anita and her ilk is not within the scope of this wiki. - Rust Cohle (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, we should be documenting arguments that demonstrate how misguided and counterproductive these people are. GG'ers should become as sharp debaters as possible, and I think we need a central resource that holds various points to discuss. Capturing (and owning) the moral high ground is merely one prong in a multi front campaign. --TT (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the most recent approved revision of our articles on GamerGate, the core tenets of the movement are corruption, collusion and censorship. The subject of this article doesn't seem to really pertain to any of those issues. You might try to argue that this pertains to censorhsip a bit, as claims that a game is sexist might be used to censor it, but this not necessarily have to be the case. - Rust Cohle (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok--TT (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair I'm not an admin, maybe one of them will actually agree with you and say that this article does have a place on this wiki. I would like to have an admin chime in here and tell us his opinion. - Rust Cohle (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to say that GamerGate is only about journalistic ethics is a bit of an extreme position. It's impossible to deny that, wrapped up in the issue of ethics in journalism, are issues relating to an authoritarian left trying to bend video games to suit their extremist progressive viewpoint. However, if it weren't for unethical journalism, there would be no problem, these loonies would just be shouting to each other in their hugbox. It is through unethical journalists pushing politicized agendas that they are able to genuinely harm the game industry. Therefore this article could stand on its own, or it could be merged onto another article, like Agenda Pushing. We could also create a new article about Sexism in Video Games and describe the moral panic about sexism in video games, examples of it being overblown by the biased media, negative impacts that such media coverage has on the industry, and evidence to support that Sexism isn't as big a problem as agenda pushers would have us believe. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if an article on Sexism in Video Games is such a good idea. What constitutes sexism is somewhat subjective and is debated even among feminists themselves. Delving on this issue too much can create a wedge among GGers. For example, it's possible for someone to agree with every single thing Anita has to say about sexism in video games (just for the record, I think that Anita is full of crap) while also agreeing with GG that gaming journalists are often way too close to the gamedevs to whom they give positive coverage. At the end of the day though, whether or not this wiki should have an article on Sexism in Video Games is not my decision to make.


 * Even if we are to have an article on Sexism in Video Games, it should not look like this article. The title doesn't really give the reader an idea regarding what this article is about, and the article itself consists of little more than a copy of the YouTube comment. - Rust Cohle (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I Suggest that you take this to Point-Counterpoint and make a new subheading titled whatever you feel is appropriate perhaps "Gamergate is against more female characters in gaming" I dunno your choice in the end - CrazedMan 4:01 7 December 2014
 * It would be ludicrous to suggest that there's no sexism in video games, however what is not so ludicrous is the moral panic about sexism in video games being used as a shield against valid criticism and ethical concerns. That's what any hypothetical article would focus on. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's not what this article is focused on. This article is not about how corrupt gaming journalists use social justice issues to shield themselves from criticism, but rather about why Anita Sarkeesian is wrong. Regardless, I think this article should be deleted for low quality. - Rust Cohle (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anita has been relevant since day one of GamerGate (GG). The omission of criticism of her work- despite her poor arguments, and her lack of delivery of promised content- in the mainstream media, is one of their most conspicuous crimes. When Anita brought her pseudo-academic work to the public, she was always supported and promoted. This, along with the GameJournoPros reveal, adds merit to the idea that journalists have been/are trying to push an agenda through gaming. Anita then appeared on Nightline, which- whilst it was not very focused on GG- it showed Anita as anti-gg's frontline. The journalists attacking GG hide behind people like Anita and Zoe, pushing them into spotlight. They do this to push the their narrative that GG is a movement focused on harassing people like them. It makes GG's cause much easier if we can use arguments like Galbrush to debunk Anita's arguments. Given the current mess of a situation, I believe it is a side-objective of GamerGate to show that we do not attack her because she is a woman, but because she is wrong. Articles like this are definitely worth keeping. Gazareth (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really a paradox
The conclusion is that women will end up not being in video games. This is not illogical. A paradox would prevent a conclusion due to contradicting paths.

Should be called "Galbrush Problem", or something similar. Didn't want to edit it myself because I'm brand new here. Gazareth (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional angle describing the problem.
This piece seems to help add a layer of explanation to the standards the "galbrush problem" is talking about.

Specifically, this section: "Sailor Moon’s cast is massive — and they are nearly all female, from the heroes to the villains to the sidekicks. This manifold nature removes the burden of representation from any one or two female characters as is the case in most media: Usagi can be emotional, flighty, and boy-crazy, and still a wonderful heroine because she doesn’t stand for half the population.

In this way, watching Sailor Moon as a woman is like suddenly realizing you’ve been drowning and taking a big gulp of air — the female characters can just be. You don’t cringe internally when one of them becomes a love interest, or is grievously injured, or fails. It is so relaxing to indulge in, so genuinely escapist to put aside that tally one keeps in their head of deaths, rapes, and de-powerings."

The implication here seems to be that unless the cast of a work of fiction has "enough" female characters, any females present should be devoid of and and all stereotypical traits or character flaws, and nothing bad should happen to them.

Consequently, this demands females be prevented from being fully developed characters unless some unstated gender quota is met.