Female Gamers: Are you tired of being presented with no dignity?
- Thread starter sabaducia
- Start date
It figures this would get dragged out to this extreme...
Some issues are ingrained in culture.
Look at shop mannequins:
They don't have realistic figures. And while there's a reasonable amount of variation, consider this:
a male manequin has a figure that about 1 in 7 men have.
A female one has a figure matched by about 1 in 350 women
Depictions in games probably drive the extremes up for both groups by a significant amount.
Now, lack of realism isn't a problem.
But, listen to the odd complaint here from men saying that they can't relate to a female lead, and you'd probably realise that this kind of problem is about 1000 times worse for the girls...
They mostly face being forced to take on male roles, or using female depictions that pander more to male fantasies than their own.
So what? You say? Games are designed for a male audience?
If you don't like it, don't play them?
Well, that last one is a particularly dumb joke of a statement, because by and large it underlies the reason why girls aren't encouraged to be interested in games - They're told it's not for them.
So, regardless of what the true demographics are, we are in a situation where the presumed demographics for games appear to be males aged 15-25.
To be a girl gamer in an environment like that implicitly requires an ability to look past this.
The girls that can't, don't play games to begin with... And while such an exclusionary image exists around an entire entertainment medium, that's unlikely to change.
Which of course, leads some people to the excuse that there's therefore no reason to even bother trying to change anything...
Now then. This topic has been strained beyond breaking point, so I would think it's about time it died.
Some issues are ingrained in culture.
Look at shop mannequins:
They don't have realistic figures. And while there's a reasonable amount of variation, consider this:
a male manequin has a figure that about 1 in 7 men have.
A female one has a figure matched by about 1 in 350 women
Depictions in games probably drive the extremes up for both groups by a significant amount.
Now, lack of realism isn't a problem.
But, listen to the odd complaint here from men saying that they can't relate to a female lead, and you'd probably realise that this kind of problem is about 1000 times worse for the girls...
They mostly face being forced to take on male roles, or using female depictions that pander more to male fantasies than their own.
So what? You say? Games are designed for a male audience?
If you don't like it, don't play them?
Well, that last one is a particularly dumb joke of a statement, because by and large it underlies the reason why girls aren't encouraged to be interested in games - They're told it's not for them.
So, regardless of what the true demographics are, we are in a situation where the presumed demographics for games appear to be males aged 15-25.
To be a girl gamer in an environment like that implicitly requires an ability to look past this.
The girls that can't, don't play games to begin with... And while such an exclusionary image exists around an entire entertainment medium, that's unlikely to change.
Which of course, leads some people to the excuse that there's therefore no reason to even bother trying to change anything...
Now then. This topic has been strained beyond breaking point, so I would think it's about time it died.
I must be playing some very different games to the ones most girls are playing.
I will concede that there are quite a lot of games (mostly older ones) where the role of the main female is only to be rescued. It never really bothered me though. Sure Princess Peach is a total wuss but it is hard to fight in a poofy pink gown and it never lessened my enjoyment of the game.
Most of the women in the games I play are usually too busy kicking bottom to care about being objectified. Bad guys that leer are usually shot to stabbed or pulled limb from limb or sliced and diced into bloody gore.
So no I would have to say that it has never occurred to me that dignity was being taken in any way.
I don?t find it particularly threatening when the lead female is tall and curvy and gorgeous. For one it is nice to pretend to be tall and gorgeous and also because though guys may look at a busty CG woman with lust it is also pretty likely that they would turn off their consol or computer to go out with their girlfriend.
I think we give men too little credit. They aren?t stupid, (alright a couple of them are but that is because they are human not necessarily because of the contains of their trousers.) and they know the difference between fantasy and reality and its probably safe to say that if they had to choose between the two they would pick a woman that they could actually touch.
(And if they didn?t would we actually want them touching us anyway?)
I will concede that there are quite a lot of games (mostly older ones) where the role of the main female is only to be rescued. It never really bothered me though. Sure Princess Peach is a total wuss but it is hard to fight in a poofy pink gown and it never lessened my enjoyment of the game.
Most of the women in the games I play are usually too busy kicking bottom to care about being objectified. Bad guys that leer are usually shot to stabbed or pulled limb from limb or sliced and diced into bloody gore.
So no I would have to say that it has never occurred to me that dignity was being taken in any way.
I don?t find it particularly threatening when the lead female is tall and curvy and gorgeous. For one it is nice to pretend to be tall and gorgeous and also because though guys may look at a busty CG woman with lust it is also pretty likely that they would turn off their consol or computer to go out with their girlfriend.
I think we give men too little credit. They aren?t stupid, (alright a couple of them are but that is because they are human not necessarily because of the contains of their trousers.) and they know the difference between fantasy and reality and its probably safe to say that if they had to choose between the two they would pick a woman that they could actually touch.
(And if they didn?t would we actually want them touching us anyway?)
I agree with all you've said pretty much (but you already knew that). I love the thought: we're not supposed to play games. I guess it's a time thing, perhaps one day we will conquer games, but I think I'd like to see equal pay first. Although I had no idea about the mannequin thing, though I have always wondered...CrystalShadow said:
I especially agree with the part about this thread dying! It's been milked enough now - I got what I wanted, and more! Now, let us rest.
You relies that superman is an alien from the planet krypton and that is the reason he is super strong, not cause of his pecs. Heck he was super strong as a scrawny teenager. Therefore his massive chest is unnecessary. He is super strong naturally because he is super human.sabaducia said:
Also, why exactly is it a crime to be attractive in a video game? Pixels don't rob you of any dignity, just because we see the female video game steryotype so much does not mean we equate that to actual women.
We know Ivy's boobs are unrealistic, ITS A GAME.
well... i'm a female gamer. that said, i'm also mostly lesbian.
so having unnecessarily sexy girls in games is an added bonus!
^^
so having unnecessarily sexy girls in games is an added bonus!
^^
OK... That first image here really reminds me of something.Avykins said:
Because, this self-same discussion has happened repeatedly in relation to comic books as well.
That image of Superman can hardly be considered sexualised when you put it in context.
But, that's pretty easy to miss.
This shows the contrast: http://odditycollector.livejournal.com/97166.html
If you can't figure out the destinction between the images there, and the ones you gave, then obviously you won't understand the idea of overly sexualised.
Not that it's the only (or even primary) issue here.
Let's start here. Do you know what men are expected to be by women (aka not immature girls)? Responsible, communicative, and trustworthy. We expect you to hold down a job, share your thoughts (tactfully and that goes both ways), and be someone we can be proud of. You don't have to be the next Adonis, or have a huge wang, or Rambo, but we do need you to be willing to defend home and family to the best of your ability. What attracts might be looks or personality, but what makes us stay is the caliber underneath. At least, the ones worth having stay. I'm not here to say that all women are paragons of morality and sensibility. I've met my fair share of stupid whores. But I've also met my fair share of worthless men, too. Not because they had teenie weenies or were poor or average-looking, but because they hit their girlfriends, or lied to them, cheated on them, or were lazy and greedy or *shudder* dirty (as in willingly lived in filth).Avykins said:
Next up: porn objectifies women. Porn devalues sex. Porn creates unrealistic expectations of life. Note: Did I say porn does NOT objectify men? No, I did not. Saying it does objectify women is not cancelled by not also saying that it objectifies men. We can't
"avoid it" when the men that we want meaningful relationships with think less of us because of an unreasonable standard set by a fantasy. It IS a fantasy, however, being unable to appreciate (feel free to read: masturbate to) what is normal is quite frankly unhealthy.
Fair play: Romance novels give women unrealistic expectations about relationships and sex. One is literally viral in its ability to force itself into everyday life. The other is not.
I can't personally back up girls like A) and II). If you're a girl and stupid enough to do that and the following paragraph after 3) then I have no pity for you. Name-calling never wins you the argument (even if it makes you feel better) and talking yourself up makes everyone skeptical. Accentuating the boobage also makes your arguments rather ...ridiculous. I can however back it up with:
It's about the fact that she's eye candy, and has no value beyond that. When you're always the eye candy (especially when you personally are not) you are very much aware that this game never thought twice about you. You're not a dude, therefore YOU DON'T MATTER. Even when the eye candy is sucessful, intelligent, and witty, she's still just eye candy at the end of the day. Her worth was not in her achievements, but in her T&A. If we really have to go the dignity route, then think on this:CrystalShadow said:
Every man starting tomorrow in every game always wore a speedo, and had a huge package. All of them. Even the code monkey (no relation to Code Monkey) in the corner who pipes up only to say "teh hakurz r coming!" wears a speedo, and has a ginormous weenie. They all have muscle definition - some thick, some lean, and they all have perfect features. After a while, it would start to get old. The space marines wear speedos. The knights wear speedos. The kings wear speedos (but they at least get a fur-lined cape). It's ridiculous, but suddenly, that's the way it is. And you never see anything different. No scars, no helmets, no grizzled army vets, just pretty hunks in speedos. You would be bored, and offended, I'll wager. We no more want to see ourselves in bikinis with giant boobage all the time than you would want to see your space marines without their armor and scars. Does that means it's not okay from time to time? Sure it is. From time to time. Not every time we pop in a game.
Of course women emphasize their own sexuality for attention. So do men, and saying they don't is nothing short of a lie. Good lord, nearly everything in your post is just ... wrong. Ivy is not an "attractive female lead." Her weapon has nothing to do with her possible sex appeal. Her weapon is a sword that is a whip and she is stereotyped as a dominatrix. Dominatrix does not necessarily equal "attractive female lead." Mary Tyler Moore was an attractive female lead in her show. She was dressed and successful.Avykins said:
What particular subject are you referring to, that men to not need to "cry" over? First of all, how derogatory! As if the only way a woman can get her point heard is if she sheds tears?! You also present crying as if it were detestful and the context you used it made it devalued and therefore since you made it a thing that only women do, you devalued women. If you want to throw your hands up and cry, "geez it was only a phrase, get over it!", and we rephrase it as "something men are subjected to but do not feel the need to complain about", then have you not been paying attention? Plenty of men have spoken up in this thread agreeing that women are often presented in video games with no dignity or value beyond that of her figure. They have added their voices to the complaint and therefore are complaining.
Back to that last part, women and men both work to attract potential mates. Women, however, are expected to conform to society's ideas of what is appropriate female behavior and this is still taking time to fix their hair, put on makeup, and wear attractive clothing when in public. This is whether she is trying to attract a mate or not. If she does not do these things, she is labeled in a derogatory fashion and people assume she does not value herself because she is not trying to be pretty.
Why does Axe exist? Why are there men's necklaces and bracelets? Why does Abercrombie have half-naked men (boys, really) on the walls? (Not just to attract the girls!) Men work hard at making themselves pretty, and there's a market for it! They just don't have those kinds of expectations from society to do it all the time. They have other ones, granted, but honestly while we want fantasy and escapism as much as the next person, we want OUR fantasy. Not yours.
I'm sorry if this seems personal, it's not, but the very way you think is indicative of a culture that still thinks of women as objects and with no worth beyond that of a pretty smile and a pretty figure.
I'm a GUY and I'm tired of women presented with no dignity... video games or otherwise.
I figured by, oh, 2009 society would have grown up... oh wait, it IS 2009. Well, consider my estimation null and void.
As far as games go, if there's a Character Creator, I tend to make a lot of female characters. My reason: I absolutely LOVE strong female protagonists. The kind that can get over as a serious personality without having to bounce up and down. So I try to portray that in my creations.
As far as games with preset female characters presented in such a way, there's very few. I can give one really great example that often goes unsung. Alis Landale in the original Phantasy Star for SEGA Master System.
Her quest begins to avenge her brother's death at the hands of the evil King Lassic's Robotcops. As it progresses, she discovers a larger scheme behind it in the form of an ancient evil entity known as Dark Falz. In the end, she restores peace and becomes queen. And she accomplished it all without having to shake her chest or wiggle her ass.
In later games (Not the Online ones), her story becomes legend and she is seen as their world's greatest champion. The sequels also have several displays of strong women in their universe as seen here... [link]http://www.phantasy-star.net[/link]
I figured by, oh, 2009 society would have grown up... oh wait, it IS 2009. Well, consider my estimation null and void.
As far as games go, if there's a Character Creator, I tend to make a lot of female characters. My reason: I absolutely LOVE strong female protagonists. The kind that can get over as a serious personality without having to bounce up and down. So I try to portray that in my creations.
As far as games with preset female characters presented in such a way, there's very few. I can give one really great example that often goes unsung. Alis Landale in the original Phantasy Star for SEGA Master System.
Her quest begins to avenge her brother's death at the hands of the evil King Lassic's Robotcops. As it progresses, she discovers a larger scheme behind it in the form of an ancient evil entity known as Dark Falz. In the end, she restores peace and becomes queen. And she accomplished it all without having to shake her chest or wiggle her ass.
In later games (Not the Online ones), her story becomes legend and she is seen as their world's greatest champion. The sequels also have several displays of strong women in their universe as seen here... [link]http://www.phantasy-star.net[/link]
I know how the market works. It is us consumers who have the power. Not the developers, not the big name companies, gamers have the power. So the bottom line is you are blaming the wrong people. You should be blaming yourself along with all of us. It is after all our built in need to reproduce that is causing the problem. Not the fact that they may use a bit less clothes than they could have to sell a game. A game we run out in the millions to buy. And just because you can list of a game that has females portrayed a bit more fantastical than other games that are topsellers it doesn't matter. For every title you can list I can list a game that sold just as well that had little or no female characters so they could not be exploited.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Once again, you're being too absolute (in what seems to be not so much an attempt to defend gaming as much as pursue an agenda you have with these supposed "bra burning feminists), seeing only one extreme option or the other.squid5580 said:
Other options are:
1) It's not "a piece of stereotypical ramblings": it's an outdated description of gaming that doesn't apply anymore. Because:
a) Over the past couple of years designers *have* recognized that "big bouncing breast physics hiding behind a piece of dental floss" are the equivalent of junk DNA--they don't help in the survival of the fittest that is the marketplace.
b) while ridiculous models of women may have sold games in the past, they don't anymore. Maybe because the 'shock value' of upskirts and breast physics is as played out as exploding barrels. Maybe it's because real porn is more available. Whatever the case, it could be that X-Blades would have sold a ton of copies ten years ago, but not today because the marketplace has changed.
c) The hierarchy of gaming genres has changed. At one time fighting games were the dominant genre--at least, the most dominant genre where women were well represented. Now you find women in 'story shooters' which are the big deal now that fighting games used to be. And fighting games is where you find the most blatant use of "big bouncing breast physics hiding behind a piece of dental floss."
2) while numerically there may be "a ton of other games that portray women wearing modest clothes" the proportions among the games that get market share and mind share aren't so skewed. It may be that companies like BioWare and Valve aren't doing this, but then you've got big dogs like EA and Capcom giving you an unlockable outfit like this:
or this
being an image used to sell an RTS game. When major franchises like SC, RE, C&C, Ninja Gaiden, DOA, etc. are doing it, you can't just dismiss that by saying 'a few'.
+++
Finally, even if it is "stereotypical ramblings" should we be trying to "blow it away" or should we be trying to do something more productive with it? Isn't your hostility based on your assumption that anyone who makes the point the OP makes is saying that 'we are all "hordes of sex depraved gamers" which was just a mistake you made based on an incorrect assumption about how the market works?
Oh and your little image of a pin up girl like pilots used to paint on thier planes in real life is wearing quite a bit so I don't know why you posted it. The image is not tasteless, she is not overly well endowed so I can only guess that it is women in games in general that you find offensive.
I fail to see how a women being attractive and etc. equates to them having their dignity taken away but a man being sexualized does now. Well you say, the man is self sufficient. So Lara Croft (who we all know is sexualized) is undoubtedly self sufficient as well. So is Ivy. Most attractive female lead are, in fact.
The reason that this is true (and it is, no doubt about it) is not because women are being pressured into having a body that is incredibly rare (which also does happen but is not why the stats for this case happen to be the way that it is) but rather because there is a lot more variation in female body shapes then male body shapes.
For males there are very little varying factors, shoulders, gut size, and a bit more that does vary but doesn't vary to the extent that it does with women.
For females there is variation in shoulders, hips, bust size, etc. etc. to a much larger degree then men.
Now, this is an old post but I had to respond to it.CrystalShadow said:
The reason that this is true (and it is, no doubt about it) is not because women are being pressured into having a body that is incredibly rare (which also does happen but is not why the stats for this case happen to be the way that it is) but rather because there is a lot more variation in female body shapes then male body shapes.
For males there are very little varying factors, shoulders, gut size, and a bit more that does vary but doesn't vary to the extent that it does with women.
For females there is variation in shoulders, hips, bust size, etc. etc. to a much larger degree then men.
I'm a woman. I don't care one little bit, because I'm comfortable with how I look. Also I know guys just like to look, and that they don't actually (normally) let that affect the way they deal with women irl. The ones that actually expect and demand that kind of body are not worth knowing and, frankly, are doomed to be virgins for life.
Then again, I've happily gone to strip clubs with my boyfriend in the past, and no, I'm not bi. The drinks are cheap.
Then again, I've happily gone to strip clubs with my boyfriend in the past, and no, I'm not bi. The drinks are cheap.
This man is made of pure solid correctness. You'd just complain however they were depicted anyway.Avykins said:
Um, you're mixing up sexualised with attractive, for one. One does not necessarily imply the other.tsolless said:
Take a look, and see if you can spot the difference between these images: http://odditycollector.livejournal.com/97166.html
and ones that are just generally considered to be 'attractive'.
Anyway, that wasn't really something I was trying to mention though.
Now, this is an old post but I had to respond to it.CrystalShadow said:
The reason that this is true (and it is, no doubt about it) is not because women are being pressured into having a body that is incredibly rare (which also does happen but is not why the stats for this case happen to be the way that it is) but rather because there is a lot more variation in female body shapes then male body shapes.
For males there are very little varying factors, shoulders, gut size, and a bit more that does vary but doesn't vary to the extent that it does with women.
For females there is variation in shoulders, hips, bust size, etc. etc. to a much larger degree then men.[/quote]
A good point, though it depends on how precise you want to be, I guess. Men have variations in hip size, chest circumference, size of arms and legs, height...
As do women.
Some things just don't stand out as much on one as they do the other.
These statistics of course relate to a fairly well known argument about Barbie, who while not entirely impossible, represents the appearance of no more than 1 in a million people.
There's also a general issue of attainability in body image generally though.
Male images are by and large much less distorted than female ones.
While the likes of Marcus Fenix may be particularly unobtainable, and the average JRPG lead is implausible for a westerner beyond the age of about 16 or 17, most images aren't distorted enough to be out of reach of the entire male population if you're willing to put in a lot of effort.
But, men aren't even under all that much pressure to live up to such physical standards, so it's something of a moot point.
This issue obviously goes well beyond games, (as this video amply demonstrates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knEIM16NuPg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F)
but there is something to be said for having a prevalent body-image that is so badly distorted that most women can't even get all that close to it.
One group is typically distorted to the upper limits of what's plausible... The other is routinely taken beyond what's plausible.
Sure, people need to recognise the unreality of such images, and not try to hold themselves to those kinds of standards, but why should we force such images on people's fantasies, when it's clear they're not appreciated by a fairly substantial group?
Ahem. Now, I just need to resist the urge to continue this pointless thread any further.