In Honor of Women's Month, Unskilled Shot >>> Wild Shot

TLCstormz

So, INSTEAD of the woman being deemed unskilled, she is now deemed reckless.

Thoughts?

CNash

Ah, so that's what happened. I wondered where "Wild Shot" came from. Guess somebody figured out that only the female goons had "Unskilled Pistol" and got a little uncomfortable.

To be honest, though - the Pyro is female, the Spy is female. These are badass goons who can mess up your day if you don't control their tiles. It's nice that we're "correcting" an implied statement that women are unskilled when using pistols, but it's not like there's no representation of competent female HAMMER or SHIELD agents here.

XandorXerxes

New enemy types: American Gladiators. They've been brainwashed by Osbourn to stop our heroes. Muscles of both sexes everywhere. Instead of Tommy Guns they get... something else. Nerf weapons? Eye pokes? Vicious Mockery?

Marine8394

My wife has always felt that it was a "slight" toward women. And I agree. Perhaps the Devs would like to meet her, and she could show some of the "skills" some women have in the use of weaponry. I mean not on them but on a range. She lives for muli-target range wars where you run a course shooting specifically selected targets. In over 100 competitions she has yet to shoot an innocent target. I am quite proud of her. AND I feel very safe around her, and I pity the fool who EVER attempts to mug her, or car jack her.

STOPTHIS

Seems like a pointless change. I always figured the Analyst was more of a desk jockey and so it made sense they wouldn't be as skilled at other agents when it came to firearms. But this change doesn't seem to improve anything. Just call it pistol and be done with it.

The Bob The

^ What he said. Rather than a statement about women, I always assumed this goon, as a media analyst, just wasn't trained (or, y'know, SKILLED) in firearms. On the other hand, I always thought it was a weird choice for a goon in the first place. Was "accountant" too much of a stretch?

Marine8394

I believe the OP was looking at it from a pure diplomatic stand point. That is why I said it's a "slight". Which it is. Nothing huge. But when it comes to a piece of consumer base a more diplomatic, or correct titling could be in order. Instead of a sweeping generalization toward a gender.

Dragon_Nexus

Why are people getting offended by this? This feels very mnuch like trying to be offended, or assuming you're supposed to be offended.

I read that and saw "Huh, a goon who hasn't had much pistol training. Hense she's unskilled." You know, the same thing I'd assume if the goon was male. I didn't think "Well obviously she's unskilled, she's a woman lol"

I do not understand this generation that is SO sensitive to everything that every little thing causes offense somehow. How do you guys survive school? If I'd gotten this offended and touchy about every percieved or direct insult to me during my highschool era I'd never have survived it.

Marine8394

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Why are people getting offended by this? This feels very mnuch like trying to be offended, or assuming you're supposed to be offended.

I read that and saw "Huh, a goon who hasn't had much pistol training. Hense she's unskilled." You know, the same thing I'd assume if the goon was male. I didn't think "Well obviously she's unskilled, she's a woman lol"

I do not understand this generation that is SO sensitive to everything that every little thing causes offense somehow. How do you guys survive school? If I'd gotten this offended and touchy about every percieved or direct insult to me during my highschool era I'd never have survived it.

Again. I say I am not offended. I just consider it a slight. Some might be sensitive because others now live in a generation where women are treated better than when they grew up. Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

Dragon_Nexus

Marine8394 wrote:

Again. I say I am not offended. I just consider it a slight. Some might be sensitive because others now live in a generation where women are treated better than when they grew up. Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

Why is it a slight? It's saying this particular character is unskilled at using a pistol. Not that, because she is a woman, she could not possibly be skilled at using a pistol.
You're reading way too much into absolutely nothing. You're *choosing* to see offense where none is intended.

Marine8394

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Marine8394 wrote:

Again. I say I am not offended. I just consider it a slight. Some might be sensitive because others now live in a generation where women are treated better than when they grew up. Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

Why is it a slight? It's saying this particular character is unskilled at using a pistol. Not that, because she is a woman, she could not possibly be skilled at using a pistol.
You're reading way too much into absolutely nothing. You're *choosing* to see offense where none is intended.

Please read my words again. I never said I was offended, just the opposite. It's a small slight because of the gender choice by assumed stereotyping. It is what it is.

avs962

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Marine8394 wrote:

Again. I say I am not offended. I just consider it a slight. Some might be sensitive because others now live in a generation where women are treated better than when they grew up. Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

Why is it a slight? It's saying this particular character is unskilled at using a pistol. Not that, because she is a woman, she could not possibly be skilled at using a pistol.
You're reading way too much into absolutely nothing. You're *choosing* to see offense where none is intended.

I would have to agree, I don't see it as a slight. Main reason being that the commander goon is also a female and her ability is simply 'pistol'. That is because, I assume, the commander was trained and is skilled in the use of firearms, whereas an administrative worker would not have that proficiency.

carrion_pigeons

Marine8394 wrote:

Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

If you're looking for recognition beyond body parts (and I agree you should be), then why are you basing your opinion about the ability on nothing but the implied body parts of the character?

If the character was depicted as anything but a woman, would you draw any conclusions about what the game is saying about *any* other category the new depiction might belong to?
"Men are bad at using pistols, lol"
"Robots are bad at using pistols, lol"
"People with blonde hair are bad at using pistols, lol"
"H.A.M.M.E.R. agents are bad at using pistols, lol"
"Small woodland animals are bad at using pistols, lol"

Feminism is great when the goal is to clear away generalized statements like "all women are X, or deserve X". Treating women like people with actual characteristics beyond their gender is important. So let's all do what feminism is actually good at, in this case, and look at the Analyst as an person who, as would be typical of analysts in general, has little training with pistols, and recognize that her gender has no impact on her ability to do her job. She's incompetent because of other, much more relevant stuff.

Marine8394

carrion pigeons wrote:

Marine8394 wrote:

Some of us fought for female equality and recognition beyond body parts. The casualness that seems small can sometimes lead to larger ramifications.

If you're looking for recognition beyond body parts (and I agree you should be), then why are you basing your opinion about the ability on nothing but the implied body parts of the character?

If the character was depicted as anything but a woman, would you draw any conclusions about what the game is saying about *any* other category the new depiction might belong to?
"Men are bad at using pistols, lol"
"Robots are bad at using pistols, lol"
"People with blonde hair are bad at using pistols, lol"
"H.A.M.M.E.R. agents are bad at using pistols, lol"
"Small woodland animals are bad at using pistols, lol"

Feminism is great when the goal is to clear away generalized statements like "all women are X, or deserve X". Treating women like people with actual characteristics beyond their gender is important. So let's all do what feminism is actually good at, in this case, and look at the Analyst as an person who, as would be typical of analysts in general, has little training with pistols, and recognize that her gender has no impact on her ability to do her job. She's incompetent because of other, much more relevant stuff.

I would have to say you just backed my point up. The character is an analyst, female, and assumed incomplete in all skills. Like you stated. Generalized statements.

Marine8394

Oh and the body part that is left out is the characters brain.

Dragon_Nexus

Marine8394 wrote:

Please read my words again. I never said I was offended, just the opposite. It's a small slight because of the gender choice by assumed stereotyping. It is what it is.

No it's not. It's something you're trying to make it. It's an agenda you're trying to push, and it doesn't fit.

If the goon was male, would you consider it a slight against the male gender, implying we're all too dumb and uncoordinated to have any kind of gun proficiency? The Shield pyro is black. Does that imply all black people like setting fire to things because of their savage nature? The snipers are male. Does that imply males are inherently better at being snipers because women's eyes are inferior?

You can insert any kind of implyied sexisim or racisim you want into any situation, that doesn't make it true. Creating controversy where none exists is what puts movements like feminism back and gives an otherwise noble goal a bad name.

Besides, if we changed the name to "wild shot" doesn't that imply she's out of control, probably due to those hysterical female emotions, and isn't as accurate as a male would be, because males are capable of controlling themselves better?

Marine8394

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Marine8394 wrote:

Please read my words again. I never said I was offended, just the opposite. It's a small slight because of the gender choice by assumed stereotyping. It is what it is.

No it's not. It's something you're trying to make it. It's an agenda you're trying to push, and it doesn't fit.

If the goon was male, would you consider it a slight against the male gender, implying we're all too dumb and uncoordinated to have any kind of gun proficiency? The Shield pyro is black. Does that imply all black people like setting fire to things because of their savage nature? The snipers are male. Does that imply males are inherently better at being snipers because women's eyes are inferior?

You can insert any kind of implyied sexisim or racisim you want into any situation, that doesn't make it true. Creating controversy where none exists is what puts movements like feminism back and gives an otherwise noble goal a bad name.

Besides, if we changed the name to "wild shot" doesn't that imply she's out of control, probably due to those hysterical female emotions, and isn't as accurate as a male would be, because males are capable of controlling themselves better?

What part of anything I said went beyond a simple opinion? An agenda? Offended? Who is getting all amped, dog on a bone tenacious about a simple opinion? You are for some reason. Don't bring color into this because that's waaay off topic. As it goes for assumption please do not assume you know me, or any agenda I may have.

carrion_pigeons

Marine8394 wrote:

I would have to say you just backed my point up. The character is an analyst, female, and assumed incomplete in all skills. Like you stated. Generalized statements.

No, not assumed. Actually is. That's not a generalized statement.

You, personally, are creating the generalized statement. The game didn't do that.

Marine8394

carrion pigeons wrote:

Marine8394 wrote:

I would have to say you just backed my point up. The character is an analyst, female, and assumed incomplete in all skills. Like you stated. Generalized statements.

No, not assumed. Actually is. That's not a generalized statement.

You, personally, are creating the generalized statement. The game didn't do that.

Go back and read the original post. The person asked for my thoughts. I gave them. They are sound and accurate if looked at reasonably. So far I have been evenly stable about what I said, and will remain so. I am not trying to flame something here. Reread other contradictions stated and do not try to place them on my doorstep.

Dragon_Nexus

Marine8394 wrote:

What part of anything I said went beyond a simple opinion?

How about...you stating it as fact by using phrases like "It's a slight". and "It is what it is" implying there's no room for debate on whether it is or is not a slight on her gender.

udonomefoo

Hey I have an idea, let's all argue for the sake of arguing about the semantics of something totally pointless.

Bonus points will be awarded for out of context quotes, misinterpreted intent, gross generalizations, straw men, and misplaced anger.

Ready....GO!