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

[Azaraxzealot]

I've had an interesting relationship with Feminism, which is what this is, second wave feminism. I wish the third wave feminist would stop calling what they're doing feminism, and call it egalitarianism or something.

Anyway, back to me, I made a graph showing my state of mind growing up in an environment saturated by feminist propaganda between the age of about 13 to 23. Some of the peaks are meant to be a bit further back, But I made this in like 5 minutes.

The green line shows the feminist propaganda I've been exposed to. The Red line shows how much I care, you'll notice it is now in the negative because I've been saturated with said propaganda that much (And the pink line) that I fucking hate the movement and everything related to it, to the point where it might actually be having the opposite of the intended effect. The pink line is a little more complicated, it really represents my self loathing. For the longest time I accepted that there was something wrong with me, the peak should really be behind the red lines peak. The blue line represents my identity as a heterosexual male, you can see it has recovered, but not completely; Any hole is a goal. The Blood red line shows how ready I am to initiate gene modification practices to give me both working sexual organs and show everyone how it's done.

I think what's getting lost in translation with these feminist arguments, particularly within the gaming community, is that the majority of males that these people are preaching to aren't in the demographic that caused the strife. Your average male gamer who reads Cracked or the Escapist is about 22 years old and white, and has been blamed for every single civil rights violation, racist, misogynistic, and Environment damaging act that their parents did, while they look up at the glass ceiling that their parents occupy in the super saturated job market, all the while been told that they are useless if they don't have a job and/or live with their parents and constantly reminded to check their privilege levels THE MOMENT the 18-28 y/o white male tries to make the kind of argument I just made.

"We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no great war... No great depression. Our great war's a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. - We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman Is really the answer we need."

I think for the longest time so many people have been trying to say what you say, but just say it worse and it leads to people labeling you as backwards-thinking/misogynist or any other number of stigmatized labels.

While I may not completely agree with your viewpoint, I sympathize with it, well done.

 

[Subscriptism]

Bioshock has a stronger case for it than The Last of Us but neither is sufficient. The point of The Last of Us is that Ellie is a child all further arguments are rendered moot by this, Ellie doesn't have "Father issues", Joel has daughter issues.
Bioshock on the other hand contains a very strong female character, she willfully defies Booker, only teams back up with him out of self interest, she never in any way relies on him to "solve her problems". She starts off as a naive young girl and matures into a revenge seeking titan who only wants to punish Comstock for what he has done to her and everyone else. The whole point about a "penis showing up to save her" is stupid. She was content with her life, she didn't know any better because she had always been a prisoner, she didn't know what she could have or anything about the outside world. Once she realized she could have freedom and that she wanted it she fought tooth and nail to keep it, including fighting Booker for it, and winning I'll remind you.

I will not argue with any point about Other M, we all know what that's like.

 

[Demongeneral109]

I recently learned that The Escapist hates women. Which, in hindsight, is kind of like recently learning the sun rises in the same place ever day.

The sun doesn't rise in the same place everyday.
http://bit.ly/14ozUd9

If I told you I actually knew that but couldn't think of an appropriate synecdoche other than "the sky is blue", would you believe me?

I still deserve that for saying it, though.

Okay, I will defend Elizabeth for as long as I can. I believe she represents a deconstruction of the damsel in distress. Sure, Booker has to save her a few times, but on the flipside, Elizabeth saves him too [from drowning, falling off, and every time the player dies if you get technical.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF - no, I'm sorry. It's a personal thing. It's just...I never want to see the word 'deconstruction' again. Saying something is a "deconstruction" does not invalidate criticism. I think the problem partly is that nobody seems to know what a deconstruction is, just that Watchmen was one.

A deconstruction of a damsel-in-distress would probably be either 1) a selfish and evil woman who compels men to do everything for her, probably by manipulating them either sexually or by appealing to their sense of honor, or 2) a mock-Princess Peach scenario, where the whole needing-to-be-saved is actually an elaborate sex game. Oh, or 2b) where the damsel never actually got kidnapped, she just eloped with the supposed kidnapper.

Now I have not played a single second of Bioshock Infinite, so I can make no statement about Elizabeth's character, but I am reasonably confident she is not a deconstruction of a damsel-in-distress.

Maybe he should have said aversion, or that it plays with the trope. Anyway, a deconstruction is "When applied to tropes, or other aspects of fiction, deconstruction means to take apart a trope so as to better understand its meaning and relevance to us in Real Life" In this context, to say Elizebeth is a deconstruction is not strictly invalid. You forget that for a deconstruction to work, it first has to be played straight. With that in mind, only your second example is accurate ie. a damsel being 'kidnapped' while not wanted to be rescued. I think braid is the most prominent deconstruction, since it winds up that you are the villain, the princess does not want to be rescued by you. With this in mind, lets look at the damsel in distress.

According to TV Tropes, the damsel in distress is " A character, usually female and nubile, is portrayed as helpless and in danger in order to put the cast in motion. In particular, the cast is unified, putting aside differences in pursuit of the rescue." Now lets look at bioshock, as far as strict letter of the word goes, Liz falls pretty solidly under playing it straight. She is kidnapped, and you rescue her at least twice. However, lets look further into it. In the traditional sense, the damsel is, in fact, largely helpless, being the load for the party if with them, and the plot device if not. In this, Elizabeth is not a damsel at all. She plays a support role, summoning allies and supplies to help booker... who is a solider, and so should know how to fight better than a girl locked in a tower. She precipitates her own rescue at least once, and actually defeats what by all rights should be a major boss in a cutscene. At best, she is a badass damsel, someone who is kidnapped, but with spunk, but in my mind, she is more an aversion, or perhaps playing with the trope rather than conventionally playing it straight. If it were a deconstruction, she would be psychologically busted by her continual distressed status(which she isn't, particularly since she is rarely distressed) or be opposed to rescue outside of "im not worth it" related reasons. Yeah, im just gonna leave it at 'playing with trope' or aversion, since you are right, it is not a deconstruction.

Possible poor choice of words on my part. I used the term: "deconstruction" because I visualized the writers looking at the trope, taking it apart, analyzing it's components, and then putting it back together to resemble the trope, but not quite. On the surface level, she fits in to the classic trope nicely. Girl of Stature imprisoned in a tower guarded by a terrible monster with the only chance of rescue coming from our male hero. Needing to be rescued though on its own isn't a problem or something offensive. The damsel in distress trope becomes offensive because it implies that she is no more important then a prize to be won, and is helpless with no internal agency. The fact that it's so common is also a major problem. Looking strictly at Elizabeth though, she begins as a means to an end for the player, but as the game progresses, and the relationship builds, the goal isn't to save her to get the reward, but because it's the right thing to do. She also has plenty of agency, as decisions she makes have a great amount of impact on the game. I also don't buy that she's helpless. No more helpless then Booker himself at least. So yeah, my use of the word was based on her occupying a lot the accepted traits of the trope, but none of the problems. I also thought your examples of deconstruction were more just "direct contradiction".

i'm gonna ad hoc a definition of deconstruction here, since the TV Tropes one doesn't really cover it. A Deconstruction is less an analysis followed by a subversion, and more a brutal critique of the inherent problems of the trope. A great deconstruction is Madoka magica(of magical girls) Its focus for the deconstruction is that, really, you can't expect little girls to fight eldrichs horrors and not be psychologically effected. By the end of the series, every character has either psychologically broken and gone on a psychotic rampage, fought an unwinable battle to commit assisted suicide, or sacrificed so much that they are a broken shell of who they once were. Unlike say, card captors or sailor moon, this series points out the inherent problems of the genre by creating realistic characters. EvA did the same thing... knowing that, it is impossible to argue that Liz is an any way a deconstruction,

 

[Stabby Joe]

Why is it when I encounter articles like these I quickly go to the comments section, specifically top comments and find more rational thought?

 

[Nepukadnezzar]

Actually really like it, I agree with everything the CRACKED staff has to say.
I do not know enough of the gaming industry to tell about the last part, but I think every other argument is sound in its own right (I am male btw)
It is well researched and it addresses the topic with enough honesty to be hilarious at times.
"Dead or Alive uses more computer power to model Kasumi's breasts than NASA had for the moon landings. That's actually not a joke"
"Mario could just as easily have been trying to grab a golden pipe wrench, or find a gas mask so that he doesn't hallucinate so badly when clearing blocked sewage lines in the pharmaceutical animal-testing lab."
wait what?

 

[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