The ANCOVA revealeda significant main effect of participant gender and a significant main effect of partner gender.Male participants sent significantly fewer sexist jokes (M=2.29,SE=0.15) than female participants(M=2.74, SE=0.15). Male partners received significantly more sexist jokes(M=2.13,SE=0.15) than female partners(M=2.89, SE=0.15). This latter main effect was qualified by the predicted significant two-way interaction between type of video game and partner gender on sexist jokes (Figure3). Planned contrasts revealed that being exposed to the sexualized video game (rather than the non-sexualized video game) significantly increased the number of sexist jokes sent to women,[t(199)=2.28,p=.024,d=0.44], but did not significantly influence the number of sexist jokes sent to men [t(199)=−1.22,p=.222,d=0.24]. Thus, the first hypothesis was supported.
Are sexist jokes, which, this study proves, even linked to actual aggressive behavior? Or should instead sexual things, in a context of being two adults playing half naked babes be considered something private and both are consenting?
You know what this kind of study proves? Absolutely nothing, at best you can try to make the same kind of test with characters almost naked, male and female players, that’d be fun, but that’s not relevant at all, and does not makes anyone an aggressive person.
The only assumption, and this is an opinion of a study that is more like, pissing in a violin, with a conclusion like «Sexualizing games leads to more aggressiveness», despite the study they made does not proves or demonstrate much difference.
But scientifically speaking, yes, men have a thing called testosterone, that’s a factor, it’s biological and does not makes any men a systematic kind of overly aggressive monster. More, however, regarding the numbers and the difference, the margin on the graph looks significantly different, but on the raw data, it’s really the same.
Again, it’s the goal of a game, you’re not playing chess or anything intellectual but more a game where you smash your adversary for fun. We all played vidya with a sister, a cousin, a friend, wether it’s Mariokart, Goldeneye, Street fighter, Tekken or Dead or alive, and if you wanted aggressiveness and sexist insults? there you go, she was a pro at it. I can also bring in many anecdotes, the same journalists at Kotaku will bring as evidence. This has no validity.
Next, a moratorium if wether usage of bombs or nukes in combat simulation/war games is even moral, you can make a LOT of studies in this kind and make stats and analyze with a psychiatrist what the player says when he drop a bunch of pixels on a fictional target that exist nowhere but on the memory of some electronic circuit.
Are we seriously debating this? This scientific research that just is a research, on a theory, and an interpretation of the results, a point of view, but again, it is still an observation.
The more I read the structure of this publication, the more it is «I have a theory, here’s a social experiment we did, here’s why I think this goes against my initial idea but there’s also my idea why».
Edit: on the topic of SJWs, there’s an article a person who wrote years ago I wish that was translated in English, but is the best and most accurate defition of what is this movement, so
I’m leaving it there.
