grassgremlin said:
What's going on here, I need to understand.
Most agree that, while video games don't
cause violent behavior, they can desensitize us to violence. There's evidence to that, which is more than any of the other claims can boast.
To me, the issue is with what
type of behavior the game can promote/endorse/encourage.
Violent behavior? No, not really. That requires a very active role on the part of the person doing the behavior. No one will imitate violent behavior unless they were already very heavily leaning that way -- the game might just provide them ideas on
how to do it, or whatever. It is often claimed that people who cite videogames as the cause of their violent behavior were
already violent people, and this was just one tiny straw that broke the camel's back.
But can a game influence a person's thoughts passively? Yes. Absolutely.
And the problem is, as I see it, that many people in the world already, passively, have absorbed sexist modes of thinking. We're programmed to associate blue with boys and pink with girls. We're programmed to picture athletes as male and models as female -- thus associating "being capable" with masculine and "being nice to look at" with feminine.
Sexist tropes in games (like violence to the already violent-minded folk) adds fuel to an existing fire, and one that is MUCH, MUCH harder to fight. A murderer can't deny they have killed a person, but a sexist ass can deny the true motivation behind a bad thing they did.
As with the claims of violence, the idea is that the content is tapping into an already-existing reservoir of behaviors and responses. Sexism, however, is far more common than the urge to mass-murder, and it is much easier to hide (from oneself, as well as others), in the same way crazy people don't
know they're crazy.
So, really, the two issues
are being treated by the same standard, when you really look at it. It's just more people are forced to face accusations of sexism, so the social backlash is larger.