Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

[Guerilla]

You're "not equating" the two but you really do. Because if you use segregation as an example of how most gamers ignore constant feminist complaining about a female character in a bikini (which is only proof of sexual repression within the feminist community and not an indication of sexism), what you're basically saying is that this problem is as obvious and big as segregation which also some people couldn't see why it's a problem. Which is, oh God, so wrong yet so funny.

Read again. No, I'm not equating them. I'm using one as an example of how the other thought process is flawed. I'm not equating the magnitude of the problems. Huge difference.

For instance, someone could compare one country occupying another country by saying, "If someone broke into my house like that, I'd certainly shoot at them until they left." And that person wouldn't be saying that a home invasion is equal in magnitude to a nationwide invasion (or that a nationwide invasion is as small as a home invasion). They are drawing a parallel between certain aspects of the two, which is not the same as stating an equivalence.

The same thought process that led folks to look at half-measures like separate-but-equal and say, "Well, there, ain't that enough?" shares the same flaw with the thought process that says, "Well, there, we had a COUPLE okay female characters, can we shut up about it forever now?" And the current problem calls for a similar (in structure, again, not in magnitude) response: "No, we're not done dealing with this yet, because lasting change has not yet happened."

If you aren't able to see the distinction between comparing and equating, you're being willfully blind in an attempt to make an opposing argument easier to dismiss. There are many points upon which we could disagree, but you're choosing one that simply isn't up for debate.

I thought you were providing the example to show how blind people are sometimes to bigotry or something. You're right, if you're using it for showing the equal but separate part it's a comparison, I apologize.

The thing is though that argument is kind of terrible too. It's not separate but equal, this isn't some government oppressing people it's just an entertainment industry focusing on its actual customers, not the potential future customer feminists imagine that COULD exist. Like I've asked before, do you considering the lipstick manufacturers sexist for focusing on women?

There isn't a current problem just manufactured controversy. I didn't see you guys complain because the puzzle game industry is FULL of games pandering to women. But I guess that's why many gamers dislike feminists, they're always more than happy to use double standards and half truths just to reach the conclusions they want.

 

[Melaphont]

I'm trying to read this topic, I honestly am, but everytime I read the topic title I cringe and cant keep looking. Whoever thought of this topic title is terrible at topic titles and you should feel bad.

That said, without reading past the topic title,cause I cringe just reading it. No feminists or ANYONE else shouldn't step off. We should debate, and show why they are wrong or ignore them. Everyone should be welcome in games and all criticism should be welcomed(as long as it isnt Jack Thompson, all games should be banned crap). We should revel in challenge and debate with culture critics, cause that just means the game industry is becoming even more relevant in pop culture.

sorry if I missed the point of the topic, but damn that title.

 

[Deadcyde]

Feminists aren't really in our hobby. They're in games media, well, as much as they are in anything that gives them a chance to spout their ideals.

But gaming itself? Meh. I don't see them in any games i play online, picketing a dragon because someone used the wrong pronoun or the elves boobs are too big. Don't even see them in shooters where the gamers take advantage of anonymity and a chance to blow off steam in the least cerebral way possible and tell everyone that they fuck their mums.

Now i'm bothered by the way gaming is portrayed in the media, and that gaming media has a fairly obvious bias.. But as to gaming itself?

Gaming is foremost for gamers, gamers are the ones demanding the product and putting up with retarded anti consumerist stuff to get it. So these vocal types pushing an agenda rather then gaming itself? Not making a slight difference. Because they don't actually care about gaming.

Otherwise, devs are already aware that girls play video games and more and more games are available that accommodate that.

Frankly games journalism and gaming in media need to ease up on the feminist stuff. Mainly because it seems to be ignoring gaming entirely.

 

[maxben]

You're "not equating" the two but you really do. Because if you use segregation as an example of how most gamers ignore constant feminist complaining about a female character in a bikini (which is only proof of sexual repression within the feminist community and not an indication of sexism), what you're basically saying is that this problem is as obvious and big as segregation which also some people couldn't see why it's a problem. Which is, oh God, so wrong yet so funny.

Read again. No, I'm not equating them. I'm using one as an example of how the other thought process is flawed. I'm not equating the magnitude of the problems. Huge difference.

For instance, someone could compare one country occupying another country by saying, "If someone broke into my house like that, I'd certainly shoot at them until they left." And that person wouldn't be saying that a home invasion is equal in magnitude to a nationwide invasion (or that a nationwide invasion is as small as a home invasion). They are drawing a parallel between certain aspects of the two, which is not the same as stating an equivalence.

The same thought process that led folks to look at half-measures like separate-but-equal and say, "Well, there, ain't that enough?" shares the same flaw with the thought process that says, "Well, there, we had a COUPLE okay female characters, can we shut up about it forever now?" And the current problem calls for a similar (in structure, again, not in magnitude) response: "No, we're not done dealing with this yet, because lasting change has not yet happened."

If you aren't able to see the distinction between comparing and equating, you're being willfully blind in an attempt to make an opposing argument easier to dismiss. There are many points upon which we could disagree, but you're choosing one that simply isn't up for debate.

I thought you were providing the example to show how blind people are sometimes to bigotry or something. You're right, if you're using it for showing the equal but separate part it's a comparison, I apologize.

The thing is though that argument is kind of terrible too. It's not separate but equal, this isn't some government oppressing people it's just an entertainment industry focusing on its actual customers, not the potential future customer feminists imagine that COULD exist. Like I've asked before, do you considering the lipstick manufacturers sexist for focusing on women?

There isn't a current problem just manufactured controversy. I didn't see you guys complain because the puzzle game industry is FULL of games pandering to women. But I guess that's why many gamers dislike feminists, they're always more than happy to use double standards and half truths just to reach the conclusions they want.

Talk about half truths, do you really think that there are more puzzle games pandering to women than those that are gender neutral? Because that is insane. No one says that it is wrong to have some games pandering to a particular audience, the problem is if the vast majority do. Do I consider lipstick a sexist product? For certain, because they sold it as a must have to be feminine. They developed a market by tapping into the fears of women about their attractiveness. Similarly, protein shake manufacturers are sexist for doing the same to men. Are these products sexist for not being marketed to the other gender? Does it matter if they are fundamentally already sexist whether they are sexist for some other reason as well? That seems like an unnecessary argument to have.

You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.

 

[white_wolf]

So the sexuality part is what drives the other gender away.

Yeah the sexuality can be a factor in driving women away or never picking up the game to start with there are reasons why men who date/married to female console gamers who play Witcher can't get them to try it because those women see them playing it and go its a porn simulator.

I also found a man commenting in a thread once stated he worked for a marketing firm that aided video games makers appeal he stated a case he undertook of a developer who made an RPG and wanted to boarden their market even more prior to this for 5 years the game was holding steady with its players and at a split of 40%F and 50%M players this man told this developer decloth your female avatars and npcs and while your at it sex them up inflate their breast, the dev did as instructed and the numbers switched 20%F to 70%M that game dev sacrificed its fem base for more men and cash. Not to mention all the women (and some men) on here can tell you about the games they haven't picked up do to the way the women in any game are treated and look ( like to scantily dressed for their role or weather compared to the men of the same) in game or portrayed in advertising that turns them off.

A lot of anecdotal evidence and unsourced material. In my experience women aren't that prude and many of them have no problem with porn. Then again I'm not an American so maybe that's the problem since there's a difference culture about sex there.

Also, did you consider that maybe it wasn't women that left at all but men that came that caused the percentages to change?

Yes there are differences for different cultures and then we have individual tastes so basically no one can be just written off as prude = doesn't play games. Also why would a male player increase cause women to flee when they were just fine playing the game with the 50%? Considering the change in appearance not gameplay was made there is no reason to say because more men joined up the original base fled.

 

[seaweed]

Feminists can stay. Misandrists can get out.

 

[Guerilla]

Talk about half truths, do you really think that there are more puzzle games pandering to women than those that are gender neutral? Because that is insane. No one says that it is wrong to have some games pandering to a particular audience, the problem is if the vast majority do. Do I consider lipstick a sexist product? For certain, because they sold it as a must have to be feminine. They developed a market by tapping into the fears of women about their attractiveness. Similarly, protein shake manufacturers are sexist for doing the same to men. Are these products sexist for not being marketed to the other gender? Does it matter if they are fundamentally already sexist whether they are sexist for some other reason as well? That seems like an unnecessary argument to have.

OK then dude, if you think that lipstick manufacturers are sexist then there's not much to talk about. Apparently some of you people never got the memo that men and women look and think differently and you won't rest until you've assimilated everyone. You're the Cybermen of gender issues.

You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.

I agree with that. Still though, a business being practical by focusing on its demographics is common sense.

 

[Guerilla]

So the sexuality part is what drives the other gender away.

Yeah the sexuality can be a factor in driving women away or never picking up the game to start with there are reasons why men who date/married to female console gamers who play Witcher can't get them to try it because those women see them playing it and go its a porn simulator.

I also found a man commenting in a thread once stated he worked for a marketing firm that aided video games makers appeal he stated a case he undertook of a developer who made an RPG and wanted to boarden their market even more prior to this for 5 years the game was holding steady with its players and at a split of 40%F and 50%M players this man told this developer decloth your female avatars and npcs and while your at it sex them up inflate their breast, the dev did as instructed and the numbers switched 20%F to 70%M that game dev sacrificed its fem base for more men and cash. Not to mention all the women (and some men) on here can tell you about the games they haven't picked up do to the way the women in any game are treated and look ( like to scantily dressed for their role or weather compared to the men of the same) in game or portrayed in advertising that turns them off.

A lot of anecdotal evidence and unsourced material. In my experience women aren't that prude and many of them have no problem with porn. Then again I'm not an American so maybe that's the problem since there's a difference culture about sex there.

Also, did you consider that maybe it wasn't women that left at all but men that came that caused the percentages to change?

Yes there are differences for different cultures and then we have individual tastes so basically no one can be just written off as prude = doesn't play games. Also why would a male player increase cause women to flee when they were just fine playing the game with the 50%? Considering the change in appearance not gameplay was made there is no reason to say because more men joined up the original base fled.

They just assume that women fled because of cleavage. Personally, I've never met women so uptight that behave like that in my life . In fact most women I know don't give a crap about shit like this and the only people I've met who do care are internet warriors who are eager to protect women from these "threats".

 

[Melaphont]

As the "paradoxical" #gamergate feminist I'd have to say that feminists should be a part of games in fact many gamers ARE feminists. Despite whatever extreme rhetoric you may have heard most feminists don't seek to change games. We want more games from more diverse perspectives. The idea isn't to dictate how you make your games, but to encourage others from diverse perspectives to make their own games from their own perspectives. Straight white men need video games too and there will always be room for that.

Because of some of the inflammatory narratives going on as a proponent of #gamergate I feel the need to point out that gamergate is not about silencing feminist views or anyone else's. We simply seek to make games journalism platform for everyone to be given a fair shake. Gamers are a diverse group and there is nothing wrong with games being made that reflect that.

Yup, the more people who get into gaming the more market there is for all sorts of games. The more the merrier, as an egalitarian I think it does nothing but help the game industry. Competition is always good.

 

[Harrowdown]

The very fact that you assume that feminists are attacking gaming from the outside, like some kind of foreign army, is reason enough for us to welcome feminism to our hobby. Gaming is not some ancient and venerable society that's being forced to open it's doors to the plebs, and attempting to exclude people or to stifle debate is not good or noble in any way. it's elitist, exclusionary, and downright backwards. Yes, the discussion often becomes ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to paint every individual asshole with the same 'feminazi' brush. To paraphrase South Park, "Anita Sarkeesian is not the emperor of feminists."

 

[Melaphont]

The very fact that you assume that feminists are attacking gaming from the outside, like some kind of foreign army, is reason enough for us to welcome feminism to our hobby. Gaming is not some ancient and venerable society that's being forced to open it's doors to the plebs, and attempting to exclude people or to stifle debate is not good or noble in any way. it's elitist, exclusionary, and downright backwards. Yes, the discussion often becomes ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to paint every individual asshole with the same 'feminazi' brush. To paraphrase South Park, "Anita Sarkeesian is not the emperor of feminists."

I think some of it is just the fear of not knowing how the market works. Games are not going to go away that are profitable. And for them to make changes that are in anyway noticeable, there would have to be a major shift in purchasing habits. Anita in no way speaks louder then money.

 

[maxben]

Talk about half truths, do you really think that there are more puzzle games pandering to women than those that are gender neutral? Because that is insane. No one says that it is wrong to have some games pandering to a particular audience, the problem is if the vast majority do. Do I consider lipstick a sexist product? For certain, because they sold it as a must have to be feminine. They developed a market by tapping into the fears of women about their attractiveness. Similarly, protein shake manufacturers are sexist for doing the same to men. Are these products sexist for not being marketed to the other gender? Does it matter if they are fundamentally already sexist whether they are sexist for some other reason as well? That seems like an unnecessary argument to have.

OK then dude, if you think that lipstick manufacturers are sexist then there's not much to talk about. Apparently some of you people never got the memo that men and women look and think differently and you won't rest until you assimilated everyone. You're the Cybermen of gender issues.

You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.

Surprisingly I agree with that. Still though, a business being practical by focusing on its demographics is common sense.

Men and women do look and think differently, but I don't think you can argue that lipstick is some primordial biological need/desire that was born with the first time nature split a species into male and female. The sexism is that it preys on a gender's fears, which ARE different. Men are terrified of not being/appearing strong, and protein/supplement companies know that and abuse that to make money. Women are terrified of not appearing beautiful, and companies like lipstick manufacturers use that and prey on it. I completely agree with you that there are differences between the situation of men and women based on fundamental differences.

But hey, I think we hit some points of agreement, that's positive! I mean, we still disagree on a lot but at this point any agreement is a plus in my opinion, considering the arguments that have been going on.

 

[PoisonTaco]

Femenists should spend less time complaining about games and actually make something themselves. Clearly if there's so many of them there would be a decent market right? They get lots of followers on their blog posts and videos so there should be enough to sell games to.

Just go make their own Femenist Fantasy Land full of empowered women doing empowering things that they do.

They can buy it and let me enjoy my "sexist" games.

 

[Guerilla]

Men and women do look and think differently, but I don't think you can argue that lipstick is some primordial biological need/desire that was born with the first time nature split a species into male and female. The sexism is that it preys on a gender's fears, which ARE different. Men are terrified of not being/appearing strong, and protein/supplement companies know that and abuse that to make money. Women are terrified of not appearing beautiful, and companies like lipstick manufacturers use that and prey on it. I completely agree with you that there are differences between the situation of men and women based on fundamental differences.

But hey, I think we hit some points of agreement, that's positive! I mean, we still disagree on a lot but at this point any agreement is a plus in my opinion, considering the arguments that have been going on.

I agree with most of your post but I definitely don't agree that these products or the companies that make them are sexist because they preys on a gender's fears. It's a universal fact, not just capitalist logic as some people believe that wherever there's demand there'll be supply. Women want to be more beautiful and the demand is met through thousands of beauty products. The same applies to men and being strong. Personally I find nothing wrong with my need to look and feel strong and certainly don't feel exploited for using proteins.

What preys on the fears of people is marketing and it's one of the main reasons I despise that disgusting capitalist monstrosity and waste of precious resources. But that's irrelevant to the discussion so I won't start ranting about it.

 

[Melaphont]

You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.

What are you implying here? It is so nebulous and imprecise that you could have this mean anything you want. Essentially it sounds like you are telling people what they are or are not allowed to like or you are inferring they are cattle and just cant help themselves. I mean, culture typically dictates habits in people, and the only way to break this is to tell people what to like(so you think someone should be paternal to markets?). I mean, your talk about regulations, democracy and capitalism is all sorts of weird, since democracy is rule by majority, which is why the US isn't a democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

 

[DM Gray]

I'm an antifeminist (because of the rampant misandry; I'm well aware individual feminists can be stellar people, and I absolutely support women's rights) but I am 100% in agreement with Loki_The_Good.
Feminists are entitled to their opinions, and their input is valued (even when I disagree)
The reason feminism is getting so much flack is that disagreement with feminism (Sarkeesian in particular, who I think is a *really* shitty example of feminism) is not represented or even allowed. (anyone arguing with that assertion just needs to look at the last 3 weeks )

#gamergate should be about inviting EVERYONE to speak, rather than casting out feminism because Sarkeesian and her kind have been afforded a pedestal for too long.
Remove the pedestal, not the opinion.
Feminists have joined us in #gamergate and #ntyourshield.
Welcome them as brothers and sisters. When we've made sure everyone can speak, then we can start arguing

 

[Dastardly]

I thought you were providing the example to show how blind people are sometimes to bigotry or something. You're right, if you're using it for showing the equal but separate part it's a comparison, I apologize.

It is about how blind people can be to bigotry. The idea is, if basically our whole society could, at one point, have been so blind to racism on such a grand scale, why is it so hard to believe that a small section of our society could still remain completely blind as to another form of bigotry?

Like I've asked before, do you considering the lipstick manufacturers sexist for focusing on women?

That would be an apt comparison... if 50% of the lipstick market were men purchasing lipstick for their own use. Not the case, though. Games, however, are a whole 'nother thing. This would be more like cars being almost exclusively designed around and marketed toward men. EVERYONE uses cars, why limit the market that way? So it is with games.

There isn't a current problem just manufactured controversy. I didn't see you guys complain because the puzzle game industry is FULL of games pandering to women. But I guess that's why many gamers dislike feminists, they're always more than happy to use double standards and half truths just to reach the conclusions they want.

There really is a problem. The sheer number of games starring white male protagonists is staggering as compared to the percentage of gamers who are actually white males. It would be like allowing the state of California to decide every election nationwide -- they don't represent most of the country, nor do they represent a wide enough variety of views and beliefs and values.

The problem in a lot of games is that, even still, most female characters are not stand-alone characters. They exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists. They are, at best, plot devices. At worst, they are male-gaze eye candy.

It's not that good examples of female characters don't exist. It's that they are still so small a percentage of the available examples.

To offer a common counter-example, and one that I agree with personally, you hear a lot of people complaining that far too many TV commercials portray men as insensitive idiots. When someone in a commercial is doing something dumb, 8 of 10 times it's a husband or father or boyfriend. Is it all commercials? No. But it's enough that a lot of guys have started noticing in recent years and see a trend.

ANY trend like this is a problem. It's not about whether it's women, men, blacks, whites, hispanics, dogs, or lawn furniture being misrepresented. It's about any group being relegated to only a small selection of roles, typically those that reinforce stereotypes held by members of other groups.

 

[Melaphont]

The problem in a lot of games is that, even still, most female characters are not stand-alone characters. They exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists. They are, at best, plot devices. At worst, they are male-gaze eye candy.

It's not that good examples of female characters don't exist. It's that they are still so small a percentage of the available examples.

To offer a common counter-example, and one that I agree with personally, you hear a lot of people complaining that far too many TV commercials portray men as insensitive idiots. When someone in a commercial is doing something dumb, 8 of 10 times it's a husband or father or boyfriend. Is it all commercials? No. But it's enough that a lot of guys have started noticing in recent years and see a trend.

ANY trend like this is a problem. It's not about whether it's women, men, blacks, whites, hispanics, dogs, or lawn furniture being misrepresented. It's about any group being relegated to only a small selection of roles, typically those that reinforce stereotypes held by members of other groups.

Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?

 

[Dastardly]

Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?

Blind dismissal, hiding behind the spectre of statistics (all of which are readily available on the internet, is a lazy bit of pseudointellectuality. Basically, your plan here is to play "King of the Hill," where you stand with what you consider the Power position and just deflect and play a lethargic defense hoping to wait out the opponent.

There are a lot of games that fit what I'm talking about. Most available AAA games feature white male protagonists. Go look at them. LOOK. You'll see it, or you're just being willfully blind. There are plenty of available citations that indicate the gaming market is roundabouts 50% female, too. Google it.

 

[Melaphont]

Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?

Blind dismissal, hiding behind the spectre of statistics (all of which are readily available on the internet, is a lazy bit of pseudointellectuality. Basically, your plan here is to play "King of the Hill," where you stand with what you consider the Power position and just deflect and play a lethargic defense hoping to wait out the opponent.

There are a lot of games that fit what I'm talking about. Most available AAA games feature white male protagonists. Go look at them. LOOK. You'll see it, or you're just being willfully blind. There are plenty of available citations that indicate the gaming market is roundabouts 50% female, too. Google it.

So then you are only talking about AAA games? Also, telling someone else to google something, when you are the one to make a statement/claim is at best dishonest. You have said a whole bunch of nothing, other then sentiment. I would think if you would make a claim, you would be able to support it. And yes, I concede most protags are probably white and male...Which is why I asked you what industry are you comparing, where the content creators dont reflect the content? You are not being very specific and talking pretty vague. I guess this is a way to discuss stuff I guess?