CRACKED: "6 Sexist Video Game Problems Even Bigger Than the Breasts"

[AkaDad]

In order to start understand the sexism and misogyny, you need to understand the underlying reasons why gamers have this animosity toward the female gender and the need to lash out in the comments.

The main problem is women wont have sex with them, it drives them crazy and they use words like "politically correct" and the like. Eventually they'll find a woman to have sex with, and the hatred will subside.

 

[SuperScrub]

In order to start understand the sexism and misogyny, you need to understand the underlying reasons why gamers have this animosity toward the female gender and the need to lash out in the comments.

The main problem is women wont have sex with them, it drives them crazy and they use words like "politically correct" and the like. Eventually they'll find a woman to have sex with, and the hatred will subside.

Hey, before I was in a relationship and had sex with a woman yet I acknowledged that women have an equal place among video games, Although that could be because I was raised by my mother well, and I have fond (and not so fond) memories of playing video games with my half sister.

 

[Ickorus]

I highly doubt someone at 2k games even thought about that plothole that elizabeth could just get out herselfe during making the game.

I agree with your post but I'm just going to nitpick here, the tower Elizabeth was kept in was explained in-game to be constructed with a giant siphon which inhibited and could even outright block her powers to prevent her escaping.

 

[Anget Colslaw]

I'm just going to leave this comment from Know Your Meme's comment section on their "Who needs feminism?" page.

Spoiler

Let?s just get this straight here. There are basically two types of feminists:
1. People who want women to be treated equally to men. You know, as in? pretty much everyone in the civilized world at this point.
2. Whiny, annoying idiots who see the ?patriarchy? behind every corner and believe, though they may not admit it, that women deserve special treatment.

Guess which type shows up a lot on the internet.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

The one thing I can never understand about articles like this (and similar topics and arguments) is how people so often seem to hold up Duke Nukem as the poster child for everything that's wrong with the video game industry in terms of sexism, misogyny, etc.

Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't know that the whole point of Duke Nukem is that he's a parody of over-the-top, testosterone-fueled, super-macho action heroes, and you're not supposed to take him seriously? I mean, his name is Duke Nukem, he chugs beer and steroids to give himself extra power, carries a gold plated pistol, quotes movie lines from other cheesy over-the-top action heroes and movies, and kills one of the bosses by literally ripping off his head and shitting down his neck, how much more obvious can they make it?

 

[Anget Colslaw]

The one thing I can never understand about articles like this (and similar topics and arguments) is how people so often seem to hold up Duke Nukem as the poster child for everything that's wrong with the video game industry in terms of sexism, misogyny, etc.

Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't know that the whole point of Duke Nukem is that he's a parody of over-the-top, testosterone-fueled, super-macho action heroes, and you're not supposed to take him seriously? I mean, his name is Duke Nukem, he chugs beer and steroids to give himself extra power, carries a gold plated pistol, quotes movie lines from other cheesy over-the-top action heroes and movies, and kills one of the bosses by literally ripping off his head and shitting down his neck, how much more obvious can they make it?

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, this still isn't obvious enough for them.

I'm not even sure rapidly flashing the word "PARODY" over the screen would get it through to them.

 

[oZode]

How the fuck is Bioshock Infinite sexist?

That game was not sexist, and even though you got to save Elizabeth at a couple points. The thing that captures her is way, way tougher than you and you don't even kill it.

Spoiler

Elizabeth does when you break the statue that limited her full power when she warps it to Rapture, and Elizabeth manages to save herself through you in a way in the dark future part through her own abilities.

Than you have the part where she's your daughter.

That being said there are instances where gender stereotyping is laughable like with Other M which made no sense seeing previously established character. I get making the person in armor more human, but it just seemed a bit much to make Samus who's a bounty hunter limit her abilities at the volition of a Captain who is paying her to do a job. It's like Boba Fett being told to not use his jet pack, why would you want to limit the abilities of a bounty hunter you employ?

The issue I have is that I feel like much of the feminist stuff is looking for sexism at times, especially when games that aren't actually sexist get called sexist for not depicted every woman as a mary sue. Humans as a species need help, a individual is capable of doing many things, but in the hero's journey there is help and a mentor generally. So if the female character gets help from a guy, can that really be called sexist?

 

[Lilani]

I was mostly responding to the person who started this mini-thread about how the character gets put into a situation where they can escape and that's common (ie. the getting tied up example), my point being that why would you put them in a situation where they couldn't escape? That design would make no sense.

Well yeah it doesn't make sense to have your character permanently captured, unless that's a way of losing. I've played games where the character is captured, but one way or another you end up getting out of it because it's required for the game to go on (just in a movie when the main protagonist gets captured--of course they're going to escape, it's a matter of how). The examples I'm think of are from Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box, when Layton and Luke are knocked out and tied up in a closet in a castle. They are able to escape quite easily, and it turns out this was deliberate because the owner of the castle has set up an elaborate ruse to get people to think he's a vampire, so if someone gets too close he does this to get them to go away.

The other example of this I know of (apart from Amnesia) is Half-Life 2, when Gordon is in the Citadel and is captured by Doctor Breen and taken to his office. He ends up being freed due to a tech malfunction, if I recall correctly. And after that Breen runs away I think, and you escape his office...somehow. I dunno, it's been a while since I played, lol.

OH! And Skyrim, the very beginning of Skyrim, where your hands are tied and you're being taken to your own execution. Extra Credits actually made a good point about this--Skyrim is a game about boundless exploration, so having a beginning which limits your movement and freedom really whets your appetite for what's to come.

 

[maninahat]

...And with websites that really are feminist like RPS or Kotaku (instead of just publishing a few articles about it from time to time which can easily be ignored like Cracked does) i don't see why liking them in the past, when this stuff was less dominant, and not liking them now after they have changed should create cognitive dissonance.

I ask about cognitive dissonance, because obviously (for RPS anyway) these smart, observant writers didn't just magically get stupid, or decide to jump on a feminist bandwagon. They engaged with the discussion and in their capacity as game journalists, came to the conclusion that these women are onto something. That many of their readers didn't is interesting. The fact that many game journalists are seeing things the feminist way, but many in their audiences aren't, is also interesting. Normally the only differences of opinion you tend to see is when a critic gives a negative review of a game people generally like, but these feminism discussions are something else entirely.

Basically my question boils down to "why do you no longer see eye to eye with those writer chaps? Don't you find that at all strange?" I've got my own theory, but it isn't very flattering for those who disagree with the writers.

 

[Vegosiux]

Basically my question boils down to "why do you no longer see eye to eye with those writer chaps? Don't you find that at all strange?" I've got my own theory, but it isn't very flattering for those who disagree with the writers.

Well, my personal guess would be that I'd likely find it a lot more strange if the audience agreed with them writers on each and every thing. I mean, they're not Moses, and their sites aren't stone tablets.

As for the comment about them being "smart", well, sometimes "jumping on the bandwagon" is the smart and pragmatic thing to do, depending on the situation, and being a shameless pragmatist myself, I can't really blame them for doing something like that if it was the most pragmatic thing to do. But I'm going with my cynicism too on this point - these feminist "discussions" on gaming sites are anything but academic (which relates to the point I made earlier, about them seeming a lot more focused on self-gratification than actual progress).

As for discussions right here? I consider there to be two kinds of people in them, the people I can respectfully disagree with on their entire position, or on some of their individual points; and the people who get hostile, aggressive and confrontational and will start implying character flaws on my part and attacking my personal integrity if I do that. And again, it doesn't matter which side they're on (or even what the discussion is actually about, for that matter). Now, sometimes people are just having a bad day and might be a bit cranky, so I'm willing to give a bit of a benefit of doubt even to the second kind.

But bottom line is, just because up to the point you've agreed with what someone has been saying that shouldn't mean not agreeing with them on what they say next should imply "cognitive dissonance".

 

[maninahat]

Basically my question boils down to "why do you no longer see eye to eye with those writer chaps? Don't you find that at all strange?" I've got my own theory, but it isn't very flattering for those who disagree with the writers.

Well, my personal guess would be that I'd likely find it a lot more strange if the audience agreed with them writers on each and every thing. I mean, they're not Moses, and their sites aren't stone tablets...bottom line is, just because up to the point you've agreed with what someone has been saying that shouldn't mean not agreeing with them on what they say next should imply "cognitive dissonance".

Okay, I can agree with that. No one is expected to agree with the writers all the time. I still think this is different though, just in the sheer volume of people disagreeing vehemently on the issue, and how we've got to this situation where many writers are on one side of the coin, and many readers are on the other.

I notice how the cynic in you suggests that these writers are climbing on the bandwagon - that this sounds more plausible than the notion that they honestly believe what these feminists are saying. I see this sort of thing being said a lot in different ways. I've seen readers call the commentators white knights and bleeding hearts, whilst somewhat smarter people have called them out on smugness, or their attempts to impress their peers/to women. The thing about that is that once you start speculating about the writer's motive or sincerity, you no longer have to deal with what they are actually saying. An RPS writer may have put forward a long, detailed criticism of female characterisations, which you can easily sidestep by discussing the writer's sincerity, instead of what they wrote.

Note that I'm not criticizing those people who actually take the time to question the points raised by feminists/writers. I'm more concerned about those who find themselves disagreeing with the writers without showing signs that they even engaged with what they wrote in the first place. This is what I think is happening; there is a general inertia among people to confront an issue that is still largely invisible to them, so it is easier to accuse a feminist of being self-centred or deluded then to lever out of the chair and see things from where they are standing. I hate this argument, and I might as well start calling "sheeple" and inserting Loose Change quotations in my forum signatures. Nevertheless, I think that is what is happening, and that as the more savvy and experienced people within the game industry start to catch on to what these feminists are saying, the more these people are going to have to squirm in their chair and find reasons to ignore these idiot commentators.

Then again, perhaps the journalists are over-sensitive, deluded and self-centred. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at least some of the time.

 

[Vegosiux]

I notice how the cynic in you suggests that these writers are climbing on the bandwagon - that this sounds more plausible than the notion that they honestly believe what these feminists are saying. I see this sort of thing being said a lot in different ways. I've seen readers call the commentators white knights and bleeding hearts, whilst somewhat smarter people have called them out on smugness, or their attempts to impress their peers/to women.

Well, "white knights" and "bleeding hearts" exist, but I'm not saying anything about how common they are, only that I ran into a handful. I'm not calling everyone with a "feminist" stance a "white knight" and all. But I'm more saying, yes, that this seems to be "a thing" lately, and it kicks up dust, generates traffic, so jumping into the middle is practically sound. Some people pull it of well, some pull it off less so.

The thing about that is that once you start speculating about the writer's motive or sincerity, you no longer have to deal with what they are actually saying. An RPS writer may have put forward a long, detailed criticism of female characterisations, which you can easily sidestep by discussing the writer's sincerity, instead of what they wrote.

That actually isn't entirely correct, since it'd be a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem. In my case it'd mostly mean I'd be inclined to believe I can better discuss the same points with someone else. One's motives do not invalidate their arguments, they might make those arguments a helluvalot more difficult to discuss civilly, however.

Note that I'm not criticizing those people who actually take the time to question the points raised by feminists/writers. I'm more concerned about those who find themselves disagreeing with the writers without showing signs that they even engaged with what they wrote in the first place. This is what I think is happening; there is a general inertia among people to confront an issue that is still largely invisible to them, so it is easier to accuse a feminist of being self-centred or deluded then to lever out of the chair and see things from where they are standing. I hate this argument, and I might as well start calling "sheeple" and inserting Loose Change quotations in my forum signatures. Nevertheless, I think that is what is happening, and that as the more savvy and experienced people within the game industry start to catch on to what these feminists are saying, the more these people are going to have to squirm in their chair and find reasons to ignore these idiot commentators.

Yes, you are on to something here. It's very dependant on how the points are brought across too, I'd think.

For example, my personal dislike for Anita Sarkeesian comes from her (lack of) methodology, lack of credit given to let's players whose footage she used, a few glaring examples of completely misinterpreting characterizations of female characters (Zia didn't even get kidnapped nor did she have to be saved, Lili did, but in Psychonauts everyone gets kidnapped and needs to be saved) plus that unsubstantiated talk about a link between videogame violence against women and domestic abuse.

On the other hand, we have, for example Gethsemani here on the forums, who's quite a feminist, and I can easily talk things over with her, even if we run into disagreements occasionally, because she's open to discussion, researches her points and all that.

I suspect there's another problem, though, that the writers for entertainment sights might be seen as a bit of an "authority" in some way by the readers, and therefore to be more likely to meet opposition simply because "fight the power, man". I think I'll want to actually dig deeper into this sometime and see if I'm on to anything, or if it's just a red herring.

Then again, perhaps the journalists are over-sensitive, deluded and self-centred. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at least some of the time.

Quite, I mean, there are people on both sides of the argument, and people might have all kinds of quirks.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Oh this is Cracked. I fucking love cracked but it's the quality spikes up and down like a fucking roller coaster.

Which is kinda to be expected when you HAVE to put out 3 articles per day (no idea which genius came up with that schedule).

 

[Raika]

I'm not sure if this tired debate even deserves my attention anymore. As a woman with a male best friend who gets a lot of shit from women for no reason(and I mean no reason at all, the poor fucker just wants to be left alone), I'm frequently caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to any "gender issues" in or out of the gamer subculture. Most of the debate just consists of people jumping up and down like silly chimps, throwing shit at each other until something sticks, and while I actually do have thoughts on the matter-- legitimate thoughts into which I've put a lot of extraneous thought-- any words I say will fall on deaf ears because it ultimately only comes down to "PATRIARCHY!" versus "WHORES!"


So I'll just say that if you want a template on how portraying a woman in a video game should be done, then click the reveal button.

Spoiler

 

[Yuuki]

We should just have two categories of games, "games that are sexist against women" and "games that aren't sexist against women". The primary authority on deciding which games goes where should be Anita Sarkeesian (who better than her, right?).
Feminists can then analyze both categories and take their findings to developers/writers.
Then the writers can proceed to not give a fuck and toss all that info into a bin, because game development/writing isn't done according to requests/commissions like what you see on DeviantArt, developers should be able to make what they want to make and face criticism (or ignore criticism) of their work later

 

[Reeve]

I do find it funny that I got an advert for breast enhancement cream at the bottom of the article

Breast enhancement...cream?

Is that real? Does it work?!!1

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I do find it funny that I got an advert for breast enhancement cream at the bottom of the article

Breast enhancement...cream?

Is that real? Does it work?!!1

Of course it works. It can turn your puny breast into something closely resembling a slab of kevlar, capable of withstanding close-range gunshots and knife-attacks.
Granted, the purple-ish colour is a bit of a turn-off and the scales take a bit of time getting used to, but other than that, I highly recommend the breast enhancement cream.


On topic:
Meh, not the worst article on the subject but certainly nothing close to being "insightful", I don't really think this brought anything new to the table, it just repeated popular and less popular opinions and packaged them in list-form, which, as we all know, is cracked's bread and butter. The fact that it wasn't really funny nor entertaining did not help it, seeing as I go to cracked for entertainment purposes and this article didn't manage to make me laugh or even chuckle, nor did it have a mind-blowing impact, as some of their sciencey articles often do.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Amongst other things, they claim that The Last Of Us and BioShock Infinite are sexist because Ellie and Elizabeth need the help of the male main character. >.<

No, it's that these capable or in one case powerful characters turn phenomenally stupid and need to be led around on a leash because REASONS that is at issue here, not that they need a man's help. Or not merely that they need a man's help, but how desperately incompetent they become without it.

I mean, this is explained directly in the artile. Did you not understand it or are you deliberately ignoring it?

Yeah, characters that have never once experienced actual combat or the actual world outside of their safe little bubbles prior to meeting the main character should not become emotionally and psychologically fragile people when faced with bullets wizzing by their heads or blood thirsty monsters want to eat out their throats, no, they need to be the space marines buried under thirteen inches of armor and can take a bazooka shell to the face before they'll so much as flinch. Ellie was not an all-powerful character - she was a child with somewhat of an attitude problem towards the people she wasn't familiar with, and Elizabeth was a woman who had been contained by a hulking giant of a monster all of her life - sure she had the power to open up tears in reality, but she was also afraid of what was on the other side or what might happen if she failed - for instance, the scene where she and Booker are in the elevator and she opens a tear and the Songbird flies towards them - yeah, an all powerful character can be afraid and it isn't wrong to see them as being human rather than androids.
Jeez, I'm sick and tired of seeing people think how either all women need to be emotionally dead powerhouses or have practically no women at all because "oohh, this female character has emotions, she must be weak".
I'm for the idea that if male characters can be portrayed in a rainbow of variation, then females can as well, and that includes the emotionally weak, hysterical, or ones that show weakness when in the face of danger when compared to the leading character who is established as a person who has experience with day-to-day life threatening situations and combat. A character unfamiliar with such things needs to be led through the battlefield, not leading themselves - it'd be like a toddler trying to fly a jet against a pilot who has over ten years experience, it just isn't realistic to see something like this happen.

TL;DR: You and I don't agree on this point

I love how you just add the proper context and it makes the criticism dissolve into a pile of obvious pettiness. Plot-points, it seems... "don't exist in a vacuum".

I don't think it's weird to think that a 15 year old girl might be a bit emotional after caving a man's head in for the first time. It would be weird if she wasn't.

I didn't care for the article.

"There's nothing wrong with a hero-rescue tale, but it doesn't always have to be boy saves girl."

It's not. Look harder. Rescue missions are in just about every action game, including CoD. Try focusing less on Mario & Zelda. Gaming is bigger than Mario and Zelda.

"The developers said they wanted the players to care for Lara and protect her. Horseshit. I didn't want to protect her, I wanted to smack her and tell her to get her shit together."

For real? Is this humour?

'"Rape culture" is the normalization of sexual violence against women, treating it like something that just happens and blaming or shaming the victims. You see it in the news: If you can replace "rape" with "rain" and the story still works, that's rape culture. Was the woman wearing too little? Out too late? Would she have been fine if she'd stayed at home reading a nice book on etiquette for ladies?'

Is this the old "pointing out that women can do things to limit opportunity = it's women's fault if it happens" thing? Can you not allow some middle-ground?

"In video games, this normalization reduces rape to a special effect to shock the player, motivate the hero, establish the villain, or even make a joke, with no more thought given to the victim than to an empty bullet casing. It's something that only happens to women, a subtle punishment just for daring to be women. When games mirror this mode of violence, it's proble-fucked-up-matic and serves to further encourage this type of mentality and attitude toward rape."

Yes, plot-points are there to give meaning and context to the player. Well observed. You could use this argument to trivialize anything in the story...

Is there even much rape or attempted rape in games? I can't think of much. Mafia 2 is the first thing that comes to mind. That wasn't a "they got pinned down, that's got a rapey vibe" kind of thing either, that was a very definite attempt at rape, happening to a man.

I do think there's a point to be made about female representation in games. I would just rather people didn't lie to make it. Hyperbole is the enemy, and probably has a preaching to the choir effect. People who agree, agree... nothing won there. People who don't agree are more likely to think you're a sensationalist ass.

 

[[REDACTED]]

This is a learning experience, Escapist. Go down to the comments, arrange by votes, read. That is how you do sexism discussions.

 

[Shadowstar38]

]This is a learning experience, Escapist. Go down to the comments, arrange by votes, read. That is how you do sexism discussions.

That implies that a comedy site can handle this better than us.

...Who am I kidding. Any site could.