Does sexist tropes in video games influence behavior? Violence =/= Sexism?

[mmiki]

I'm not the person you responded to, but this struck a chord.

"Doing the right thing" is another thing entirely from the original assertion.

True. I tackle the problem from this angle because I find it hardly productive to try to debate facts in an environment where we lack the necessary background to accurately judge these issues. That is what my null hypothesis talk was alluding to: Without knowledge in psychology and social sciences, we don't even know what basic assumptions we need to make. In addition, I always find it a tad dishonest to demand "evidence" on a forum as if that call would ever result in anything more than links to newspaper or blog post, or if you're lucky some abstract of some paper that no-one can access, let alone understand. The people who actually have the means to "prove" those things to us surely won't spend the time required to do so on an internet forum about games.

The burden of proof lies on the one making an extraordinary claim. And there isn't any scientific proof. It's not that no one knows how to find it or link it, there just isn't any.

For one, morality isn't universal, and neither is the interpretation of what is and isn't a sexist trope. If you have a group of people who claim moral authority on the basis of "sexist tropes making people sexist" or some variant of it, and they want to influence the industry, then "where is the proof for your assertion" becomes a very important question.

I disagree with the morality not being universal bit, but that's a complex topic that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. In any event, that sexism is amoral does not seem a very controversial issue, so it seems to me whether or not it's universal is irrelevant so long as we mostly agree on it.

Morality is only universal if you are very narrow-minded. What is considered amoral in the U.S. and Thailand and Russia and Germany is a completely different thing.

As for sexism, I doubt that if we took 10 random people from the forum that we could agree on what is and isn't a sexist trope. Sexual characters like Miss Fortune are a frequent target of the Moral Police on the basis that her depiction is supposedly sexist, but she's a very popular character among a lot of LoL players, including female LoL players. Aren't they the ones that are supposed to decide if the depiction of the character is sexist?

As for your second point, I fail to see why "influencing the industry" leads to any specific requirement of proving that what you want to reduce is harmful. Quick time events aren't harmful to society at large, and yet no-one has a problem when I make a YouTube video demanding the industry stops using them so much. We all influence the industry with our opinions and decisions. I have yet to see someone claiming any special authority or position of influence over the industry. There are just people making videos or other public statements of their interpretations and their opinions. We can listen or we don't, but it's hardly grounds for any specific scrutiny.

Not liking QT events is one thing, claiming that they harm society is another.

I don't have a problem with someone saying "I don't like how this character is depicted, it makes me uncomfortable" or "I don't like the amount of killing in this game, it's too much." That's a valid opinion to have. Once you start claiming there is danger to society, that's what I have a problem with.

And it's not a matter of someone claiming special position of influence. Big websites and Youtubers affect the industry. They are the people with big soapboxes. AAA publishers are above and beyond most of this because their marketing budget buys them enough hype and exposure that they can dictate their own terms (see Shadow of Mordor controversy), but indie developers largely depend on word of mouth and the outlets that I mentioned.

If they are pushing a political agenda, that's a problem for gamers who don't subscribe to that particular political agenda.

If there is proof that what they call "sexist tropes" affects society in a negative way, then there are grounds for everyone to join in and say "this should not be acceptable".

If it isn't then it's just people who are claiming this pushing their political/cultural agenda and system of values and claiming moral authority with no basis in reality. It's the same argument that was used to claim that video games cause violence.

I have a couple of problems with this last bit. First, while the "video games cause violence" argument may have been based on similar premises, the intended result was much different, namely specific legal action against games, making them less available etc. Second, it's not quite clear what you mean by "pushing" a political or cultural "agenda". It certainly sounds bad, but what does it entail? And Third, what is "moral authority" and how can it be based in reality, seeing as morality is certainly not subject to some kind of physical evidence?

I think I explained the first bit in the previous paragraph. In any case, even if the intended result is not direct government censorship, self-censorship can be equally as bad once you determine something is Bad For Society.

Second part is currently a controversial topic at the moment that I try to stay away from. Can we agree that in absence of evidence, "sexist tropes cause sexism" is a political statement? I say this in no small part because "sexist trope" is open to interpretation. In some circles, any sexual depiction of a woman is sexist.

Third, moral authority means that you are claiming something should be a certain way because it is right or wrong. This is the core of this argument. If it affects society in a negative way, it is wrong, and there can be very little argument against that. If it doesn't, it's an opinion like any other and it can be challenged and discussed.

Why is it a problem? It's a problem when games start being judged on "what message they are giving" rather then their artistic merit. This has happened before.

All in all, I reject your claim that I need some proof as justification for me to voice a certain opinion. My moral convictions are grounds enough for me to support or not support something. I might be (morally) against significantly supporting something that I don't wholly understand, but I am certainly not going to actively fight it because the evidence is lacking.

I'd like you to quote the part where I said this. You have a right to voice your opinion, I have a right to criticize your opinion, and your moral convictions are not a shield against criticism. I also have a right to criticize your moral convictions if they are used as a basis for an argument. But I'm not going to, because it's pointless.

And this goes back to what carnex said, if we're going to base an argument on feels rather than evidence, it's unproductive.

I will agree that having sexist tropes such as poorly written female characters that exist only as plot devices or eye candy is not so great & can reinforce stereotypes on those who already believe them. Also as carnex said I to didn't (at least intend to) propose a null hypothesis I just wanted to state that we should wait for a study to come out before declaring facts, there is no doubt that media has some influence on our thoughts, the key word being some as in we don't know if it is even an amount to where we act upon the thought or don't just dismiss it from our mind as being untrue.

I just wonder why the response seems to be "as long as there is no evidence, I am going to assume everything is fine" rather than "interesting point, maybe we should look into that". It's all fine to demand evidence before you are willing to take action, but before we can even know what evidence to demand, we need to be familiar with basic psychology and how media interacts with. Maybe the basics already point towards a strong connections between attitudes held and attitudes experienced in culture and media?

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, and it is not upon anyone else to disprove. I dislike female characters being used only as plot device or eye candy, and if anyone says that, I'll agree with them.

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What you are saying is very true we cant know if we are being influenced, with this in mind I try to think of the impression my comment is going to make when I speak to someone face to face & put myself in their shoes, if I feel if I were them would I be offended & proceed from there. Though it may not be a flawless system it is really the best gauge I can have from self interpretation.

Personally, I feel that the difficulty isn't coming up with a solution, but in recognising the problem.

 

[carnex]

Well if you are asking for proof, then you are asking the other side of the debate to disprove the null hypothesis, which for you appears to be that there is no connection between the sexism we see in a game and sexist attitudes in our heads. It's perfectly correct of you to ask for evidence first and make judgements later. What I wonder is what our starting position is, in other words what exactly it is that we are looking proof for. Or, to be more exact, what exactly the hypothesis is we are trying to disprove.

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I never actually claimed anything. Certain people who are in gaming media spotlight from time to time are making claims and they have raised quite a following. I'm asking people who subscribe to that person's line of thinking why they do so when all my research ended up with nothing supporting it.

I would wholly agree with your reservations concerning the actual impact. I think it's safe to say that at this point, no-one can say much anything about how harmful sexism in media, specifically games, is. But what I am wondering is why do we care so much about the end result? Sure if we were talking about laws or other restrictions on freedom, we would need to demand actual harmful behavior. But if we are just talking about accepting certain criticisms and making informed choices ourselves? Then I feel like making the "right", i.e. the moral decision is more important than worrying about the end result. We should be mindful of sexist tropes in gaming and take them into account when we make our purchasing decisions, we don't need evidence on the long term effects to make that decision.

I can not subscribe to your line of thought. I need evidence to make informed decision. If I make decisions based on how I feel, half cooked evidence or pure whim I'm effectively rolling a dice, I'm playing a blindfolded percentage game. That is not something I'm comfortable with. Feelings are too easily manipulated and evidence of that is everywhere around us. From religion to advertisement, emotional manipulation is a science onto itself.

Ultimately moral is not universal constant. Personally we have one set of moral standards and everyone's differ at least a bit. Collectively we have a group morals that's compromise, not a law of averages but something with heavy slant towards leading persona's moral values if not outright dictate of moral authority. Neither of those are actually reliable in any way, shape or form to actually benefit society as a whole and it's members individually. That's why I can't make new moral decisions based on feeling alone. Ironically enough, that would feel wrong to me.

I care about the the end result because it's the end result that influences medium and thus makes return influence onto us. I care about end result because I can't see actions as isolated events but as a part of a whole.

Well, I am sorry to not being able to contribute much to the topic you want to discuss. I am not an expert on social issues or psychology, and I doubt very many other posters are. And of those that have any background on the topic, I severely doubt anyone is going to go at the great lengths required to actually establish the facts for the pupose of a forum discussion. So I think a professional, scientific environment is better suited to your desire to discuss the facts.

I see forum as a place for exchange of ideas, questioning yours own and others convictions and initial testing of certain hypotheses among other other more lighthearted activities. I am not social major, just amateur philosopher with wide spectrum of interests. I don't actually dabble all that much in social research, i rely on findings of people who are far more qualified and versed in that field. However I still find that any opinion I have must be based on some real world facts and something more than just my personal experiences and my mind actually likes working with hard data. That's why I push for that angle.

As a personal experiences go, I still can't find any comfortable spot on scale between "original intent" and "death of the author" so in that department I'm mostly a passive reader and not a debater. At least I stooped being one for the most part since I find you can't really debate person's feelings without, well, getting feelings stirred up.

 

[mmiki]

Here is the link to the entire study, which again was a very well written study, if you ask me. https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Mou Peng.pdf

I'm getting red flags all over the place.

1." For instance, women are usually perceived as subordinate and passive- dependent to men, with sexual relationships as
central in life (Cantor, 1987)."

A 27 year old study. How many of you played any game that was made in 1987? I did, on Commodore 64, but that is beyond the experience of most people that play games these days. You were lucky if you could figure out what the hell it was you were playing let alone what private parts it has.

This is a cover of Dragon Magazine from 1989. : https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/621939.jpg
Can we just say it was a different time?

2. "Dietz?s (1998) study was one of the earliest stud
ies to examine stereotypical portrayals in video
games. The content analyzed both the portrayal
of women and violence in a sample of 33 most
popular Nintendo and Sega Genesis video games."

Ok, we're at -16 years, which is still the Pleistocene in terms of gaming but I have a different problem with this. 33 Nintendo and Sega games is a too small sample size and somewhat specific (Japanese cultural influences, orientation of Nintendo as a "family company" that leads it to having what the Western society considers an outdated outlook on a lot of things, including depictions of homosexuality) to draw any sort of conclusion.

So, what did it find?

3."Not surprisingly, Dietz (1998) found
that 41% of the games were devoid of female characters.
Only 15% (5 out of 33) portrayed women
as heroes or as action characters, while 21% (7
out of 33) portrayed women as victims or as so-
called ?damsel in distress?. At the same time, in
28% of these games, women were portrayed as
sex objects based upon physical appearance or
sexually-oriented actions."

"Not surprisingly." Indeed.

So, 5 of the 33 games ("only" 15%) portrayed women as heroes. Ok, that's a bit low, but women as damsels appeared in 7 games. So they were damsels about as much as they were heroes, in this small sample size. You can see how the tone and interpretation can change your view of the data.

4. For the subsequent analysis, she picks 20(!) most popular video games to run a statistical analysis. Anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics will tell you how unrepresentative this is.

The list of games provided is also somewhat suspect.

Spider-Man is a dude. Why is it on the list of popular games? Because it's a tie-in to the Spider-Man movies which made gajillions of dollars. Madden NFL is about male sports league. Medal of Honor:Frontline is about the OSS in WW2. NBA Street is about, again, a male sports league.

Then we have two driving games, Need For Speed:Underground and Grand Turismo 3. I haven't played GT3, but my memories of NFS:Underground are that your character is referred to by name and you never get to see your character. Maybe there should have been an option to choose your gender in that game, seeing as it wouldn't have made one bit of difference.

In any case, if you set your sample size to be this low then I'd say your data is going to be skewed.

5. Even if we accept the data as valid, here's what conclusion says:

"Previous studies have shown that media figures from TV programs and films have great influ
ence on adolescent (Giles & Maltby, 2004)."

Lets see what's the title of the original study:
"The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations
between autonomy, attachment and interest in celebrities."

Ok, media figures appears in the title, perhaps you can make that stretch.

"As a special type of media figure, game characters
might also influence adolescent."

The original study actually focused on celebrities in Singapore. Actual, living people. Not fictional characters.

Lets check it out.

"This study aims to examine how the media use of adolescents is related to their worship of
entertainment celebrities, and how celebrity worship affects their values and self esteem. . We
conducted a survey of 621 adolescents aged from 11 to 18 years old in Singapore. We confirmed
that adolescents? celebrity worship in Singapore includes three aspects: Entertainment-Social
values, Intense-Personal feelings, and Borderline-Pathological tendencies. All the three aspects of
adolescents? celebrity worship were associated with adolescents? media consumption, and with the
level of adolescents? comparison to the celebrities. Also, we found that adolescents? celebrity
worship is associated with, materialistic values, self-esteem as well as life satisfaction. As
adolescents worldwide all like to worship entertainment celebrities, findings of this study could be
extrapolated to other societies in the world. "

Here is the link: http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/1/0/3/pages231036/p231036-1.php

The authors of this study are aware that you can't mix things up as you wish. Here's another quote: "2. We did not include sport celebrities because sports idols are different from entertainment idols and because only six respondents indicated sports celebrities as their favorite idols." Small sample size and different kind of celebrities = can't do science with this.

I would go as far to say that linking a study of celebrity worship in Singapore to influence of game characters on development of adolescents to be intellectually dishonest.

6. I could keep digging through other references but I'm not overly interested. I don't know if this paper has been peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal (just writing a paper isn't enough, you know). I hope the academic standards are high enough to point out problems that I found in a single read of the document.

 

[Stephen St.]

The burden of proof lies on the one making an extraordinary claim. And there isn't any scientific proof. It's not that no one knows how to find it or link it, there just isn't any.

And why is the claim extraordinary? Because it seems perfectly ordinary to me to claim that the things I experience influence the way I think. Now not to be dishonest, there are people making extraordinary claims, and there is questions of what sexist thinking actually entails and where it starts. But on the basic level, I don't think it strains credibility to claim that what games depict will have an effect on us.

Morality is only universal if you are very narrow-minded. What is considered amoral in the U.S. and Thailand and Russia and Germany is a completely different thing.

People can believe something is amoral without that actually being true, but as I said, this comes with a whole bunch of philosophy basics that I don't think we should start discussing here.

As for sexism, I doubt that if we took 10 random people from the forum that we could agree on what is and isn't a sexist trope. Sexual characters like Miss Fortune are a frequent target of the Moral Police on the basis that her depiction is supposedly sexist, but she's a very popular character among a lot of LoL players, including female LoL players. Aren't they the ones that are supposed to decide if the depiction of the character is sexist?

I didn't talk about the interpretation of specific media content. I talked about the basic premise that sexism, i.e. the different treatment of people purely based on their gender, and objectification, i.e. the treatment of a human being as an object to the purposes of another human being, are both "bad", i.e. amoral.

That we can then always disagree on specific examples of sexism or objectification is a given.

Not liking QT events is one thing, claiming that they harm society is another.

I don't have a problem with someone saying "I don't like how this character is depicted, it makes me uncomfortable" or "I don't like the amount of killing in this game, it's too much." That's a valid opinion to have. Once you start claiming there is danger to society, that's what I have a problem with.

Ok, fine. Let's just make sure we don't just dismiss any cricticism of gaming on the basis of (arguably) sexist and objectifying depictions as out of hand because we don't have evidence on the consequences of such depictions.

And it's not a matter of someone claiming special position of influence. Big websites and Youtubers affect the industry. They are the people with big soapboxes. AAA publishers are above and beyond most of this because their marketing budget buys them enough hype and exposure that they can dictate their own terms (see Shadow of Mordor controversy), but indie developers largely depend on word of mouth and the outlets that I mentioned.

If they are pushing a political agenda, that's a problem for gamers who don't subscribe to that particular political agenda.

Everyone's agenda is a problem for people who don't agree with said agenda. But what is the agenda and why do we disagree with it? To use my example, if my agenda was "let's get rid of QTEs", you would not disagree and try to stop my agenda just because there is no evidence that QTEs are harmful. Even if I happened to also claim that QTEs are harmful.

I think I explained the first bit in the previous paragraph. In any case, even if the intended result is not direct government censorship, self-censorship can be equally as bad once you determine something is Bad For Society.

You are saying it's "equally as bad", what does "bad" mean in this context?

Second part is currently a controversial topic at the moment that I try to stay away from. Can we agree that in absence of evidence, "sexist tropes cause sexism" is a political statement? I say this in no small part because "sexist trope" is open to interpretation. In some circles, any sexual depiction of a woman is sexist.

I'd take "political statement" to mean a statement made in order to advance certain interests, in this context at least. Given that, I think that "sexist tropes cause sexism" is a probably a political statement most of the time, though it wouldn't necessarily be less political if the evidence was there to back it up.

Third, moral authority means that you are claiming something should be a certain way because it is right or wrong. This is the core of this argument. If it affects society in a negative way, it is wrong, and there can be very little argument against that. If it doesn't, it's an opinion like any other and it can be challenged and discussed.

Morals decide what is right or wrong, so the moral question comes before we can even look at any facts. We first need to establish that sexist behavior is bad, and then we can demand evidence that gaming causes sexist behavior. If that evidence is there, we can then conclude that gaming leads to bad behavior. One doesn't assume any special authority everytime one makes a moral claim.

Why is it a problem? It's a problem when games start being judged on "what message they are giving" rather then their artistic merit. This has happened before.

Assuming that the message of the work isn't part of the artistic merit, which I find a very weird assumption.

I'd like you to quote the part where I said this.

What I was referring to was this:

If there is proof that what they call "sexist tropes" affects society in a negative way, then there are grounds for everyone to join in and say "this should not be acceptable".

Emphasis mine. What I took away from that is that "joining in" in voicing an opinion first required proof of harm.

You have a right to voice your opinion, I have a right to criticize your opinion, and your moral convictions are not a shield against criticism. I also have a right to criticize your moral convictions if they are used as a basis for an argument. But I'm not going to, because it's pointless.

And this goes back to what carnex said, if we're going to base an argument on feels rather than evidence, it's unproductive.

Ok, I agree with that. I'd just caution against being overly broad with the definition of "feelings".

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, and it is not upon anyone else to disprove. I dislike female characters being used only as plot device or eye candy, and if anyone says that, I'll agree with them.

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

All agreed, though not all moral codes are arbitrary and based on feelings, of course. It's just that there is more to be considered than direct evidence playing games causes sexism. It's credible to claim that what we experience in games influences our worldview in one way or another. Sure, we don't know how that influence works. But just knowing that who we are is defined by what we experience, we should be mindful of the media we consume.

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I never actually claimed anything. Certain people who are in gaming media spotlight from time to time are making claims and they have raised quite a following. I'm asking people who subscribe to that person's line of thinking why they do so when all my research ended up with nothing supporting it.

I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I am not trying to put words in your mouth or reframe what your intention is, I just want to point out that science works by disproving theories. You start out with a hypothesis and try to disprove it. We need the initial hypothesis, though, and in this case this requires some basic premises about how our psyche, or personality, if you like, works. For example, we know that the human brain has no Fact/Fiction category. Everything is equal in terms of experience. That is why dreams seem real while you have them, and why merely imagining things can be therapeutic. The reason we can differentiate between fact and fiction is because we can contrast new experiences with the old ones, singling out the experiences that don't fit. We know that things while we see a game aren't real, but that doesn't mean every message a game contains is actually filed under some "fiction" cabinet in our brains. They become part of the bigger picture just like everyone else. That is the reason I find it important to analyze and citicize what messages these games contain.

I can not subscribe to your line of thought. I need evidence to make informed decision. If I make decisions based on how I feel, half cooked evidence or pure whim I'm effectively rolling a dice, I'm playing a blindfolded percentage game. That is not something I'm comfortable with. Feelings are too easily manipulated and evidence of that is everywhere around us. From religion to advertisement, emotional manipulation is a science onto itself.

But we constantly make decisions based on incomplete facts. If we'd always wait for the full picture, nothing would get done. I am all for looking deeply into the facts when it comes to legal action and limiting the freedom of others. But for question as to what I support or don't support? I am going to go with the things I believe to know. Sure we should always be mindful of our own feeling taking over our decisions. Of course we should stay open to new views and take evidence into account as it comes in. But sitting around twiddling your thumbs because "well, we can't be sure, can we"? That just seems like a cop-out.

Ultimately moral is not universal constant. Personally we have one set of moral standards and everyone's differ at least a bit. Collectively we have a group morals that's compromise, not a law of averages but something with heavy slant towards leading persona's moral values if not outright dictate of moral authority. Neither of those are actually reliable in any way, shape or form to actually benefit society as a whole and it's members individually. That's why I can't make new moral decisions based on feeling alone. Ironically enough, that would feel wrong to me.

I care about the the end result because it's the end result that influences medium and thus makes return influence onto us. I care about end result because I can't see actions as isolated events but as a part of a whole.

I think we are confusing actually held moral positions, which are an empirical reality and can just be observed, and morality as a philosophical concept which is part of a-priori reality and has to be reasoned. If you have a philosophical moral code, and something goes against that code, then you don't wait for adverse consequences, you are against it on principle. Of course some moral codes advocate striving for certain results, but I think those aren't very well reasoned, and I personally lean more towards the importance of intent over results.

I see forum as a place for exchange of ideas, questioning yours own and others convictions and initial testing of certain hypotheses among other other more lighthearted activities. I am not social major, just amateur philosopher with wide spectrum of interests. I don't actually dabble all that much in social research, i rely on findings of people who are far more qualified and versed in that field. However I still find that any opinion I have must be based on some real world facts and something more than just my personal experiences and my mind actually likes working with hard data. That's why I push for that angle.

As a personal experiences go, I still can't find any comfortable spot on scale between "original intent" and "death of the author" so in that department I'm mostly a passive reader and not a debater. At least I stooped being one for the most part since I find you can't really debate person's feelings without, well, getting feelings stirred up.

Ok, I guess that's a healthy position to take. I just would like us to not be dishonest with ourselves and think that answering every claim with "citation needed" makes one a paragon of scientific integrity. There are certain realities to our forum that we should take into account, namely that we are probably laypersons on these issues and that just because someone cannot come up with evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course, just assuming it exists would be just as wrong. I think it's more important to explain how we why the issues and why we view them that why, trying to make our preconceptions visible to the other party. A forum is better suited to find reasonable positions to take, not for straight fact-finding.

 

[mmiki]

The burden of proof lies on the one making an extraordinary claim. And there isn't any scientific proof. It's not that no one knows how to find it or link it, there just isn't any.

And why is the claim extraordinary? Because it seems perfectly ordinary to me to claim that the things I experience influence the way I think. Now not to be dishonest, there are people making extraordinary claims, and there is questions of what sexist thinking actually entails and where it starts. But on the basic level, I don't think it strains credibility to claim that what games depict will have an effect on us.

Then it's perfectly ordinary to suggest that playing violent video games causes you to be more violent. But all the research that was done on the subject has indicated that it doesn't.

Morality is only universal if you are very narrow-minded. What is considered amoral in the U.S. and Thailand and Russia and Germany is a completely different thing.

People can believe something is amoral without that actually being true, but as I said, this comes with a whole bunch of philosophy basics that I don't think we should start discussing here.

You were the one suggesting that morals were universal. They aren't. They are highly dependent on culture. I have nothing more to say beyond that.

As for sexism, I doubt that if we took 10 random people from the forum that we could agree on what is and isn't a sexist trope. Sexual characters like Miss Fortune are a frequent target of the Moral Police on the basis that her depiction is supposedly sexist, but she's a very popular character among a lot of LoL players, including female LoL players. Aren't they the ones that are supposed to decide if the depiction of the character is sexist?

I didn't talk about the interpretation of specific media content. I talked about the basic premise that sexism, i.e. the different treatment of people purely based on their gender, and objectification, i.e. the treatment of a human being as an object to the purposes of another human being, are both "bad", i.e. amoral.

That we can then always disagree on specific examples of sexism or objectification is a given.

Everyone here will agree with the basic premise, but it's not the basic premise that is the point of this discussion.

It's that:
a) said tropes are inherently sexist
and
b) use of those tropes reinforces sexism in players

For something like Damsel In Distress, I disagree on both counts.

If they are pushing a political agenda, that's a problem for gamers who don't subscribe to that particular political agenda.

Everyone's agenda is a problem for people who don't agree with said agenda. But what is the agenda and why do we disagree with it? To use my example, if my agenda was "let's get rid of QTEs", you would not disagree and try to stop my agenda just because there is no evidence that QTEs are harmful. Even if I happened to also claim that QTEs are harmful.

That games shouldn't be judged on fun, but on having the "right message". Like I said, this ties into a topic that is quite controversial at the moment that I want to stay away from in this discussion and otherwise, so can we leave it at that? It is beside the point anyway.

I think I explained the first bit in the previous paragraph. In any case, even if the intended result is not direct government censorship, self-censorship can be equally as bad once you determine something is Bad For Society.

You are saying it's "equally as bad", what does "bad" mean in this context?

I don't understand the question. Self-censorship is equally as bad as censorship. I don't know how to break it down further unless you don't think that censorship is bad, which would require another thread.

Second part is currently a controversial topic at the moment that I try to stay away from. Can we agree that in absence of evidence, "sexist tropes cause sexism" is a political statement? I say this in no small part because "sexist trope" is open to interpretation. In some circles, any sexual depiction of a woman is sexist.

I'd take "political statement" to mean a statement made in order to advance certain interests, in this context at least. Given that, I think that "sexist tropes cause sexism" is a probably a political statement most of the time, though it wouldn't necessarily be less political if the evidence was there to back it up.

Sociology is an academic study of social behavior. It's a social science that bases itself on empirical investigation and critical analysis.

Social activism is a political movement. It is not a science.

"Sexist tropes cause sexism" can be of interest to both sociology and social activism, but if it is found to be scientifically false, it is no longer of any interest to sociology. But it would still be of interest to social activists who hold that particular belief because they are not bound by scientific method or evidence.

If we could even agree on what tropes are sexist, which I doubt.

Third, moral authority means that you are claiming something should be a certain way because it is right or wrong. This is the core of this argument. If it affects society in a negative way, it is wrong, and there can be very little argument against that. If it doesn't, it's an opinion like any other and it can be challenged and discussed.

Morals decide what is right or wrong, so the moral question comes before we can even look at any facts. We first need to establish that sexist behavior is bad, and then we can demand evidence that gaming causes sexist behavior. If that evidence is there, we can then conclude that gaming leads to bad behavior. One doesn't assume any special authority everytime one makes a moral claim.

What I was trying to say is that if an argument is made from special moral authority, it is not much of an argument at all. It is an opinion that built into something that it isn't by claiming moral high ground.

Why is it a problem? It's a problem when games start being judged on "what message they are giving" rather then their artistic merit. This has happened before.

Assuming that the message of the work isn't part of the artistic merit, which I find a very weird assumption.

I'm talking about a piece of media being slammed because it doesn't have the message that the reviewer is comfortable with.
You don't want to discuss specific media, so I'm being non-specific.

I'd like you to quote the part where I said this.

What I was referring to was this:

If there is proof that what they call "sexist tropes" affects society in a negative way, then there are grounds for everyone to join in and say "this should not be acceptable".

Emphasis mine. What I took away from that is that "joining in" in voicing an opinion first required proof of harm.

My bad, I should have phrased it differently.

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

All agreed, though not all moral codes are arbitrary and based on feelings, of course. It's just that there is more to be considered than direct evidence playing games causes sexism. It's credible to claim that what we experience in games influences our worldview in one way or another. Sure, we don't know how that influence works. But just knowing that who we are is defined by what we experience, we should be mindful of the media we consume.

60 years ago the woman's place was considered to be in the kitchen, by most people. People that believed this weren't evil in the frame of reference of their own moral system. My mother still says "it has to be known who wears pants in the house". It's something that she believes in and nothing I say ever changes that. This is anecdotal evidence which is no evidence at all, but beyond entering into a philosophical discussion, I don't know what else to say. To me, moral codes are nothing more than arbitrary. Something becomes a moral code when it's held by a sufficient amount of people with sufficient amount of influence. We can agree to disagree on this count.

Personally I'd be more interested in whether you can use positive examples to increase understanding between genders, than worrying if a skimpy outfit reinforces patriarchy.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, and it is not upon anyone else to disprove. I dislike female characters being used only as plot device or eye candy, and if anyone says that, I'll agree with them.

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

Ok you seem to have missed what I actually said specifically was .

I will agree that having sexist tropes such as poorly written female characters that exist only as plot devices or eye candy is not so great & can reinforce stereotypes on those who already believe them.

This is like how if you show racist people racist beliefs that conform to theirs they tend to believe it more. Also check check this post to see that I am not claiming this is true without some research first being conducted.

OK, I have read some of the posts here, not many, but some have said this before. And this is crucial piece of info. There isn't any research that would suggest that games influence people to act sexually in inappropriate manner. Absolutely none. Every piece I have found on the mater is pure speculation or opinion piece. Even research papers that have some research don have only some tangential connection to this idea and even then they are labeled inconclusive.

If you are claiming that games influence people in such manner, please find some proof. Until then, yes it's Jack Thompson all over again. The fact that it feels right doesn't make it right or gays would still be in ghettos in many parts of even western world.

I was about to post this very statement so good thing I decided to read through the thread before posting so thank you carnex. Seriously people with out a study and solid scientific evidence all we can do is merely speculate which makes us no more credible then people like Jack Thompson. I understand we all have opinions on this & feel the need to voice our concerns but please don't treat them as objective fact but only as a hypothesis.

 

[mmiki]

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

Ok you seem to have missed what I actually said specifically was .

I will agree that having sexist tropes such as poorly written female characters that exist only as plot devices or eye candy is not so great & can reinforce stereotypes on those who already believe them.

This is like how if you show racist people racist beliefs that conform to theirs they tend to believe it more. Also check check this post to see that I am not claiming this is true without some research first being conducted.

Fair enough, I misread that. My apologies.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

If they start claiming that it affects society in a negative way however (like Mrkillhappy is doing here), I'd like to see some evidence. I also dislike deus ex machina and think it's indicative of lazy writing, but I'm not claiming that my feels say it affects society in a negative way. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in absence of evidence, I'm just projecting my personal dislikes into an arbitrary code of morals.

Ok you seem to have missed what I actually said specifically was .

I will agree that having sexist tropes such as poorly written female characters that exist only as plot devices or eye candy is not so great & can reinforce stereotypes on those who already believe them.

This is like how if you show racist people racist beliefs that conform to theirs they tend to believe it more. Also check check this post to see that I am not claiming this is true without some research first being conducted.

Fair enough, I misread that. My apologies.

Hey don't sweat it I've misread my fair share of posts in the past, have a good day.

 

[Stephen St.]

Then it's perfectly ordinary to suggest that playing violent video games causes you to be more violent. But all the research that was done on the subject has indicated that it doesn't.

I'd like you to actually engage with what I wrote instead of making sweeping claims and tell me
a.) How that follows from what I wrote and
b.) If, by considering my view false, you therefore think playing games does not actually add to your experiences.

You were the one suggesting that morals were universal. They aren't. They are highly dependent on culture. I have nothing more to say beyond that.

There is a discipline called moral philosophy.

Everyone here will agree with the basic premise, but it's not the basic premise that is the point of this discussion.

I was unaware you were the arbiter of what the basic premises of the discussion were, especially since I repeatedly stated what it was that I was discussing.

I don't understand the question. Self-censorship is equally as bad as censorship. I don't know how to break it down further unless you don't think that censorship is bad, which would require another thread.

I do think censorship is bad, but this is based on a moral position, namely that it takes away freedom and that such is amoral. Since you consider morals merely opinions held by people, I don't know what "bad" is supposed to mean. Harmful to society (what are the goals of society and who defines them)? Stifling artistic expression (why is that expression valuable)? If I don't know what "bad" means, I cannot tell what you wish to say by equivocating censorship and self-censorship. To be frank, I don't even know how you define self-censorship exactly, because the term itself is actually kind of contradictory (censorship, by definition, is outside influence, if it is "self" then it kinda stops being "censorship").

Sociology is an academic study of social behavior. It's a social science that bases itself on empirical investigation and critical analysis.

Social activism is a political movement. It is not a science.

"Sexist tropes cause sexism" can be of interest to both sociology and social activism, but if it is found to be scientifically false, it is no longer of any interest to sociology. But it would still be of interest to social activists who hold that particular belief because they are not bound by scientific method or evidence.

If we could even agree on what tropes are sexist, which I doubt.

All agreed with. It's just that on the other hand, if the statement is scientifically true, it can still be of interest to social activism.

What I was trying to say is that if an argument is made from special moral authority, it is not much of an argument at all. It is an opinion that built into something that it isn't by claiming moral high ground.

Again "moral authority", which you haven't defined outside of "anytime someone says something about morality". So everyone who talks about morality is claiming moral authority and also a liar, because morality doesn't exist, is that about accurate?

I'm talking about a piece of media being slammed because it doesn't have the message that the reviewer is comfortable with.
You don't want to discuss specific media, so I'm being non-specific.

Oh we can talk about games specifically, if you wish, though I am unsure as to what difference that makes. I don't see the problem with games being judged, in part, on what message they send, at least so long as we are judging them as an artform, not a benchmark for render quality. If you want a positive example: I'd be doing a disscervice to Spec Ops: The Line if I tried judging it without the message it sends, because at that point it becomes a mediocre and sometimes outright grueling shooter with bad Multiplayer. And if I do that, I obviously also have to take into account messages I disagree with. It's not like you couldn't still buy it if you are of a different opinion.

60 years ago the woman's place was considered to be in the kitchen, by most people. People that believed this weren't evil in the frame of reference of their own moral system. My mother still says "it has to be known who wears pants in the house". It's something that she believes in and nothing I say ever changes that. This is anecdotal evidence which is no evidence at all, but beyond entering into a philosophical discussion, I don't know what else to say. To me, moral codes are nothing more than arbitrary. Something becomes a moral code when it's held by a sufficient amount of people with sufficient amount of influence. We can agree to disagree on this count.

Personally I'd be more interested in whether you can use positive examples to increase understanding between genders, than worrying if a skimpy outfit reinforces patriarchy.

Well if that is the direction you would like to channel your energy in, I'd be wholly in support. What annoys me about the discussion is that the "games cause sexism" debate is overshadowing everything. To me, the interesting part of the discussion is analyzing and deconstructing certain popular video game tropes. If someone says "this trope is sexist and consuming media with this trope makes you sexist", then disagreeing with the latter part of the argument doesn't invalidate the former, and I can decide whether or not I am willing to support certain tropes without needing to know whether or not they affect any viewer negatively.