Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[generals3]

Take bikini armor MMORPG: the female characters are exactly the same as male ones except more sexualized. They have the same amount of agency, power, whatever, just with more skin. That's not objectification that's sexualization.

It's both actually. You make the women look busty to sexualise them, and only to sexualise them cuz really, that's all they're good for, to look pretty. Seeing as they're only designed that way for the sexiness, we've degraded them as people down to sex objects, hence the objectification.

No man. That makes no sense at all and is just a plainly twisted view on things. Developers put a lot of time in the design of their characters. Both males and females and they try to make them aesthetically pleasing to their audience. If their audience happens to prefer sexualized aesthetics for the female characters that's what the devs will do. On that aspect both male and female characters are objectified equally. One could also say that men are being degraded to muscled machines in said games than. But these kind of reductionist views make little sense.

I don't know where you're going with this, Jim was talking about how rarely it was that women had a leading role in games, and in a generally respectful way, and if they were in the game at all in some significant way. And if they were significant, they're usually the goal by which to motivate the player as the male protag to proceed, cuz that's all the womenfolk are good for apparently.
You should enlighten us on this male-secondary-characters-as-goals list, and then cut out all those who're in games that aren't sold to the west (cuz western games and games sold in the west are what Jim is talking about) and then cut out those who weren't designed specifically for the ladies (as sexualisation and objection is the topic of this episode)

Go.

The fact women have few leading roles would be irrelevant to the objectification case. You can't have every single group being given a leading role in a single game. Otherwise we could go on and say black people or muslims (or almost any type of minority in the western world) are being objectified as well.

And sure i can give you a list: The president in MGS2 was a goal to obtain. His role was merely to be captured and saved, nothing more. In Red Alert 2 Romanov was merely a puppet of Yuri with no agency whatsoever, just a little dog mentally controlled by the bad guy. And i think i've saved quite a buttload of helpless dudes who had no agency in WoW.

 

[Sepko]

It's both actually. You make the women look busty to sexualise them, and only to sexualise them cuz really, that's all they're good for, to look pretty.

OK, what is the standard cup size that game designers should be going for?

Something sensible and not gravity-defying? And if you really have to ask "what's sensible?"...ugh

I've been told a lot of things on the internet. Take a guess at how many of those things have profoundly affected my life.

It's the internet. Nothing anyone says on this topic should be taken with much weight. If someone on the internet tells you that you should like something, for right or wrong, you are free to completely ignore them. To suggest that you can in any way be compelled by a half-hearted argument constructed by fanboi apologists on an internet forum is laughable.

So this is the original quote that prompted this:

Thanks Jim. Something to link when people bring this tired and completely false argument up. I've actually had people tell me I should find Kratos sexy and if I don't I must be doing it wrong.

I'm seeing nothing in these three sentences that implies that she's been "compelled" or "profoundly affected", just that she's annoyed by these dumb fanboy arguments and now she has a quick shortcut to momentarily end her annoyance.

 

[Sepko]

No man. That makes no sense at all and is just a plainly twisted view on things. Developers put a lot of time in the design of their characters. Both males and females and they try to make them aesthetically pleasing to their audience. If their audience happens to prefer sexualized aesthetics for the female characters that's what the devs will do. On that aspect both male and female characters are objectified equally. One could also say that men are being degraded to muscled machines in said games than. But these kind of reductionist views make little sense.

It may be "twisted" but that's the way it is.
Also you should probably watch the video again, if you did at all, because everything in that thing you call an argument was pretty much destroyed by Jim.

I don't know where you're going with this, Jim was talking about how rarely it was that women had a leading role in games, and in a generally respectful way, and if they were in the game at all in some significant way. And if they were significant, they're usually the goal by which to motivate the player as the male protag to proceed, cuz that's all the womenfolk are good for apparently.
You should enlighten us on this male-secondary-characters-as-goals list, and then cut out all those who're in games that aren't sold to the west (cuz western games and games sold in the west are what Jim is talking about) and then cut out those who weren't designed specifically for the ladies (as sexualisation and objection is the topic of this episode)

Go.

The fact women have few leading roles would be irrelevant to the objectification case. You can't have every single group being given a leading role in a single game. Otherwise we could go on and say black people or muslims (or almost any type of minority in the western world) are being objectified as well.

And sure i can give you a list: The president in MGS2 was a goal to obtain. His role was merely to be captured and saved, nothing more. In Red Alert 2 Romanov was merely a puppet of Yuri with no agency whatsoever, just a little dog mentally controlled by the bad guy. And i think i've saved quite a buttload of helpless dudes who had no agency in WoW.

We're not talking about cultural diversity we're talking about gender diversity, there's a difference. Also, women aren't a minority, they're half the human race. Christ.
And that's one heck of a list, now watch me crumble it down as pretty much none of them were created with the female gaze in mind.
Wanna know how many female characters there are that're in games that've been sold in the west who're all secondary, useless, designed to specifically look sexy and merely goals for the male protagonist? Or can you figure that out for yourself?

 

[bluepotatosack]

Very interesting video.
Still, this whole "objectification in fictional media" still doesn't sit right with me.
I mean, they're fictional characters, objects, is there anything wrong with objectifying objects?

I genuinely found this quote disturbing. Fictional characters are still representations of people. Attitudes towards fictional characters can influence peoples perspectives in real life. Or offer you an idea of their attitudes towards real people.

 

[Genocidicles]

Great video as usual. Just one little nitpick.

Half of the gaming audience is women, but that's counting iPhone games, TV games, Facebook games and all their ilk. If it's even slightly interactive, it's counted as a game.

The audience of Triple A games though is still predominately male, so I don't see the problem in these games being made for men.

 

[Spearmaster]

snip


These are actually interesting points.

1st point: I really don't think the exclusion argument works because
1-Nobody is being excluded from buying or playing anything.
2-Nobody is being actively excluded, game creators/developers are not creating games with a "we don't want women to play this game" mind set.
3-Im pretty sure sales demographics are what drives the pandering of AAA titles.
4-These types of game are not "the only thing provided" but there are very very few other options.

It's not active exclusion though. Women aren't actively excluded from stip clubs either but they don't generally (Not always but most of the time) find them places they want to be.

Now that's an extreme example. But its similar to the passive exclusion that is created by many videogames that results from creating an environment that many women find distasteful.

I had a girlfriend who enjoyed the Soul Calibur series. This is admittedly a pretty sexualised series but at least the were a varied set of female body types. She stopped playing around SC4 because the boobage/upskirting became so blatant that it made her uncomfortable.

Yes the men in that game are similarly ridiculously apportioned but they (except for Voldo) aren't constantly displaying it in a sexualized manner. Imagine if all the male characters were sexualized in way that appealed to homosexual men. The hetero-normative outcry would be absurd.

2nd point: I did not use the term entitled to dismiss an opinion, is not the point of all these discussions to say that people are or should be entitled to stronger female characters? If they feel they are not entitled then there is no problem. If someone says someone should provide them with something then that is entitlement. "They need to provide us with better female characters" = "We are entitled to better female characters" There is nothing wrong with that IMO but economics will trump it every time, so until it is financially beneficial for a private company to provide it, its probably not gonna happen. I do feel there is a huge untapped market there for the right company that knows what they are doing.

I still think that 'entitlement' is a weasely and inappropriate word. 'Want' and 'desire' are better descriptors. Properly 'entitlement' is suggestive of being either deserving or rights or ownership. You have a right to your property or a fair trial. You do not have a right to a free lunch.

Nobody serious is suggesting that we all have the right to dictate the content of commercial or artistic works. Rather that we would like to see more varied examples, especially in regards to female characters. One way of making that more likely is by talking about it.

Unfortunately there is the problem that some in the bro-gaming community (Not you per se but some) see this a threat to the boys club and will try to hose down any discussion of it by calling 'entitlement', dredging up the false comparison of how men and women are depicted, or paleoconservative arguments along the lines of: "it's always been like this so it shouldn't change"

This is frustrating to people who would like to see the medium mature and gain depth. Perhaps move away from the 80s like excess of dumb plots, muscle men and big tits that pervades most of gaming. Not to say that all that should disappear completely but

3rd point: Even if artistic design is being trampled over as you say it is, does that give justification to trample it even further? If a developer/publisher tells an artist to change a character design its probably more contractual than anything, it all depends on who has creative control of an intellectual property. The only way for a consumer to have any say is through free market economics and I fully support that.

Well the question here is the touchy one on whether Triple-AAA games are "Art" or whether they are a commercial product. Like movies there are some games that are 'art' and there are games that contain art but if they were truly art then the amount of focus testing that goes into making big budget titles would not occur and the developer of Remember Me wouldn't be being told to change the gender of the protagonist.

So creating something that someone likes is passive exclusion? Because of the fact that someone else might not "like" it? If that is the case I would like to create a list things I'm passively excluded from but I don't want to crash the forum listing it all.
This idea of passive exclusion also seems to say that people are excluding them selves based on personal taste, not being passively excluded by a game. We usually call this personal choice not passive exclusion.

If using the word entitlement is weasely and inappropriate what can be said for the term passive exclusion? As long as nobody claims a right or privilege to be provided with changes to games ill stop using the term entitled but only if people don't use a ridiculous term like passively excluded.


**Edit**

2nd point: I did not use the term entitled to dismiss an opinion, is not the point of all these discussions to say that people are or should be entitled to stronger female characters? If they feel they are not entitled then there is no problem. If someone says someone should provide them with something then that is entitlement.

No, that is not the case.

I don't recall anybody saying that they are entitled to stronger female characters. People have said that they would like this, but that is not the same as feeling entitled. For example: I might desire a supermodel girlfriend, but by no means does that mean I feel that a supermodel is obligated to be my girlfriend.

If they're not, they should be. We should demand better from our female characters and how they're treated, because they deserve better, and so do we.

Or there is stuff like this

 

[Sepko]

Great video as usual. Just one little nitpick.

Half of the gaming audience is women, but that's counting iPhone games, TV games, Facebook games and all their ilk. If it's even slightly interactive, it's counted as a game.

The audience of Triple A games though is still predominately male, so I don't see the problem in these games being made for men.

God forbid we'd allow more of the women-folk to be part of the Triple-A audience by at least looking like we're more inclusive :\

 

[generals3]

It may be "twisted" but that's the way it is.
Also you should probably watch the video again, if you did at all, because everything in that thing you call an argument was pretty much destroyed by Jim.

I have seen it and i think i know what you're thinking of. However I would urge you to spare yourself the embarrassment of bringing it up. But if you want go ahead and tell me how Jim "destroyed" that argument. Tell me how the fact that characters with the exact same amount of agency and overall awesomeness are suddenly merely objects because they show more skin. (And i hope that by phrasing it the way i did made a lightbulb go on in your head telling you why you shouldn't quote Jim as an attempt to "destroy" the argument)

We're not talking about cultural diversity we're talking about gender diversity, there's a difference. Also, women aren't a minority, they're half the human race. Christ.
And that's one heck of a list, now watch me crumble it down as pretty much none of them were created with the female gaze in mind.
Wanna know how many female characters there are that're in games that've been sold in the west who're all secondary, useless, designed to specifically look sexy and merely goals for the male protagonist? Or can you figure that out for yourself?

The list isn't that long because i didn't for instance bring up all the examples from the entire MGS saga and because being primarily a RTS, Civ, and multiplayer FPS gamer i don't have such a wide array of RPG's and thus can only give a limited set of examples. However if even with my limited gaming library i can give you quite a few examples imagine how many a hardcore RPG gamer could give you.

And i've never said women are a minority. That's just you trying to put words in my mouths. However they are a minority costumer base for the games we're discussing. As such in the eyes of developers when it comes to pleasing them they're on the same footing.

 

[generals3]

Great video as usual. Just one little nitpick.

Half of the gaming audience is women, but that's counting iPhone games, TV games, Facebook games and all their ilk. If it's even slightly interactive, it's counted as a game.

The audience of Triple A games though is still predominately male, so I don't see the problem in these games being made for men.

God forbid we'd allow more of the women-folk to be part of the Triple-A audience by at least looking like we're more inclusive :\

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

 

[scw55]

Yesterday I started writing a post about my opinion. But I couldn't find the words to say what I thought.

Instead I'm going to make a request.

Can someone show me an image of a man that's objectified that women find appealing? I'm curious. Because I don't think I can image it. In less the man is effeminate.

-

Mods are probably the best way to help with the issue. However, it does mean if you want fairness you need a PC and a game with mod support. And even then, the majority of exciting mods will be making women sexy and not males (see nexus).

It also annoys me when modders who produce sexy male mods say I will never do a female version as there's too many female mods already. Fair enough. There are a lot. Just it makes you a mirror of the problem by out-right refusing. You can say that it's not in your interest. But don't say never. Just makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

[Sepko]

It may be "twisted" but that's the way it is.
Also you should probably watch the video again, if you did at all, because everything in that thing you call an argument was pretty much destroyed by Jim.

I have seen it and i think i know what you're thinking of. However I would urge you to spare yourself the embarrassment of bringing it up. But if you want go ahead and tell me how Jim "destroyed" that argument. Tell me how the fact that characters with the exact same amount of agency and overall awesomeness are suddenly merely objects because they show more skin. (And i hope that me phrasing it the way i did made a lightbulb go on in your head telling you why you shouldn't quote Jim as an attempt to "destroy" the argument)

You're basing your argument on the delusion that male and female characters are somehow "equally objectified" when they're not. Ever. In the slightest. They're not even in the same category as each other.
Women characters are designed for males mostly for the sex appeal for other males. Any interesting personality traits or helpfulness to the overall plot is pushed aside so that they can be slapped on the box art to sell more copies of the game.
Men, on the other hand; with your argument you're saying that men are designed that way because designers think male gamers will think they're sexy. This isn't the case. At all. They create the male characters as a power fantasy or as an idealised version of the human male; big, gruff, handsome and all that jazz.
Same with women, they're ideally designed by male designers for male gamers.

The list isn't that long because i didn't for instance bring up all the examples from the entire MGS saga and because being primarily a RTS, Civ, and multiplayer FPS gamer i don't have such a wide array of RPG's and thus can only give a limited set of examples. However if even with my limited gaming library i can give you quite a few examples imagine how many a hardcore RPG gamer could give you.

And i've never said women are a minority. That's just you trying to put words in my mouths. However they are a minority costumer base for the games we're discussing. As such in the eyes of developers when it comes to pleasing them they're on the same footing.

First, if you're a limited-genre gamer you shouldn't imply yourself to be the be-all-end-all argument against the objectification of women in the entire western gaming industry.

Second, your last two sentences make absolutely no sense. Who are "them" and what are they on the "same footing" as?

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

my favorite character from the Left4Dead franchise is Louis. Most people will roll their eyes and say 'God, Louis was a whiny, chipper little man *****.'

Yeah. And that's exactly why I liked him.

He wasn't a 6 foot something walking slab of beef and stereotype, like most black characters are in gaming. It actually made me feel good to play a black character that I didn't have to turn off my 'minority sensitive meter' and just have a breath of fresh air. Other than Francis, the first game was good in that respect. It's in this mindset where I think about this post on the first page.

I recall having a similar discussion about the portrayal of men vs the portrayal women in popular culture overall. For from objectifying men, this other person seemed to think that men were unfairly stereotyped as fat idiots who were completely dependent on women to save them from themselves. Now I want you to look at these pictures and ask yourself
http://www.bundyology.com/bal2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJk4uH5eXdY/TVylPQrTwnI/AAAAAAAAAFw/whLXMmyXaOE/s1600/peggy.jpg
Which standard is harder to live up to?

I'd honestly say both. People might look at my gender and say 'Well, whatever, you're choosing to be difficult. It's much harder to be a Peggy than an Al. You can look like an Al and get a Peggy.'

I'm not choosing to be difficult. I'm responding with what history in this culture has taught me. I feel separated from both, but admittedly more so with Peggy than Al. But I don't feel the standards apply.

A lot of time when race came up (by the way, is anyone looking forward to moving back to race being the hot button issue after 2012 and now a good chuck of 2013 was "MEN TREAT US LIKE WALKING PLEASURE PITS!" vs "NUH UH! AND IF WE DID, WHY IS THAT BAD?!"?), an answer from the majority of gamers said "If minorities want to be treated or represented better... they should make the games themselves."

For the longest time I just wanted to say that since we're all human, it should be easy not to fall to the stereotype if a minority character is included at all. I mean, around 20 percent of the world's population are white, but they seem to dominate media. Even more so in games. It's really frustrating to download a 'fully customizable rpg' and see the darkest I can be is a well tanned white guy.

But it does make sense. Even if a good chunk of players are another race, gamers are still thought to be a majority of white teen males. It's not a mistake that you'll see a developer's commentary of an upcoming game just to hear them say 'we wanted to make the lead character so relatable to the player' and have him look like bland, non-descript chiseled white guy. Because that's who is designing it and that's who they see playing.

While the sexual objectification in gaming of women will not stop any time soon, there seems to be only two options. Either we have to have more exclusive woman development teams start making games with the 'female persepctive' and have the white male teen dominated audience play them to see... huh... not that different playing a woman, and it can be compelling even if we have different chromosomes. Or there needs to be more of a female infiltration of the market.

The gaming world has shown with respect of a few truly innovative titles, they are not willing to give up the use of stereotypes with slapped on backstory to ship out as 'characters'. To say 'we should be better than this' is to truly hold Gamers apart from the majority of the world to which we all know are simply not better than this. But the strides we did make in the world is by having comedians, actors, musicians, songwriters, and playrights fight their way into media, get their story told on their terms, and let people see it's ok to see it from a different perspective.

Because as sad as it is to say, we would have never had any President say 'I don't see what's wrong with Gay marriage' if Will and Grace, Ellen, and those Queer eye guys come on and entertain a vast majority of people and show 'Hey, they aren't so bad'.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Thanks Jim. Something to link when people bring this tired and completely false argument up. I've actually had people tell me I should find Kratos sexy and if I don't I must be doing it wrong.

No one actually told you this.

Omg I didn't realise you have been with me ALL OF MY LIFE. holy shit.

Do you have cameras in my room?!?!

No one ever walked up to you, pointed to Kratos and explicitly commanded you to "LIKE THAT".

They did on a forum once.

I think it was something like 'Well women like muscly men. If you don't like Kratos there is something wrong with you' or along those lines. :S

I once said to my friend Oreso that Final Fantasy does a REALLY good job of balancing male fanservice and female empowerment.

 

[scw55]

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

I think he confused "increasing market audience" with "political correctness gone wrong".

 

[Sepko]

Yesterday I started writing a post about my opinion. But I couldn't find the words to say what I thought.

Instead I'm going to make a request.

Can someone show me an image of a man that's objectified that women find appealing? I'm curious. Because I don't think I can image it. In less the man is effeminate.

Just look up fanart of stuff on DeviantArt, there's plenty there. But in actual gaming, I can't really think of anything either.

 

[Sepko]

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

I think he confused "increasing market audience" with "political correctness gone wrong".

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

You. Generals3. You read all of that ^
Right now.

 

[Eve Charm]

Yesterday I started writing a post about my opinion. But I couldn't find the words to say what I thought.

Instead I'm going to make a request.

Can someone show me an image of a man that's objectified that women find appealing? I'm curious. Because I don't think I can image it. In less the man is effeminate.

Just look up fanart of stuff on DeviantArt, there's plenty there. But in actual gaming, I can't really think of anything either.

I'm gonna go for a low blow here but it's true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scene_It_Twilight_Coverart.jpg

 

[Sepko]

Yesterday I started writing a post about my opinion. But I couldn't find the words to say what I thought.

Instead I'm going to make a request.

Can someone show me an image of a man that's objectified that women find appealing? I'm curious. Because I don't think I can image it. In less the man is effeminate.

Just look up fanart of stuff on DeviantArt, there's plenty there. But in actual gaming, I can't really think of anything either.

I'm gonna go for a low blow here but it's true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scene_It_Twilight_Coverart.jpg

lol I'm sure there are worse things out there. Probably not, this is Twilight after all.

 

[generals3]

You're basing your argument on the delusion that male and female characters are somehow "equally objectified" when they're not. Ever. In the slightest. They're not even in the same category as each other.
Women characters are designed for males mostly for the sex appeal for other males. Any interesting personality traits or helpfulness to the overall plot is pushed aside so that they can be slapped on the box art to sell more copies of the game.
Men, on the other hand; with your argument you're saying that men are designed that way because designers think male gamers will think they're sexy. This isn't the case. At all. They create the male characters as a power fantasy or as an idealised version of the human male; big, gruff, handsome and all that jazz.
Same with women, they're ideally designed by male designers for male gamers.

First of all, remember the quote chain. This paragraph and all the quotes that followed it were about bikini armor female characters in MMORPG's. So do you admit that in the case of Bikini armor MMORPG's we shouldn't be talking about objectification? (that would already be a start)

Now because you still decided to go there even though it wasn't relevant to the initial point you tried to refute i'll still address this one. You said that both females and males are being idealized for the costumer, however that in no way proves they are being objectified. I mean Naomi in MGS4 looks quite hot and often had her labcoat buttons open (except in cold environments), but she was most definitely not an object, she had a huge role in the story and even manipulated the protagonist, snake. The fact a female character was idealized for male gamers doesn't imply in the slightest that she's being objectified. The illusion that female characters are being more objectified than male characters merely stems from the fact there are a lot more male protagonists which de-facto get a much bigger role than other characters. However regardless of gender protagonists will have more agency and secondary characters will have less (or often even none).

There are off course games where women are being objectified (thinking of that rape game in Japan for instance) but they're a minority.

First, if you're a limited-genre gamer you shouldn't imply yourself to be the be-all-end-all argument against the objectification of women in the entire western gaming industry.

Second, your last two sentences make absolutely no sense. Who are "them" and what are they on the "same footing" as?

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

Actually the reason why i believe i have the i-win-argument against objectification of women in the western gaming industry is because 99% of the arguments used to imply there is objectification of women rely on intellectual dishonesty, wrong usage of the word "objectification" or are simply broken. You see, based on the innocent until proven guilty principle this would be an all win argument that the industry is innocent of objectification.

And with them i referred to minorities.

And please the argument is not to be more inclusive, it's to be more inclusive by not making sexist games which treat women like shit. Unless off course you think women are treated just fine in games? In which case i'd wonder what this was all about.

 

[ZombieRamone76]

People? These things don't exist in a vacuum.

What I'm noticing a lot about many of these comments that don't think female objectification is a problem in video games is an attempt to say, "But it happens to men, too. And we're not angry." Or something to that effect.

You can't just take this one instance of how women are portrayed or really any societal injustice to women in general and then simply compare it with a male counterpart. Why?


Because (white) men never had to fight for their right to vote.
They didn't have to wage a war on what was accepted at large to earn the go ahead to work outside of the home and didn't have to endure being smacked on the ass once they got there.
They didn't have to insist that they be let into the best colleges and were never told they could really only go into teaching or nursing when they got there.

The list goes on. Individual results may vary, but anicdotal evidence of some men going through anything similiar is in no way the same as a societal movement to keep women as a second class citizen.

And to simply say that because progress has been made-- a lot of it really-- means that we're now on equal footing in our society, that the playing field has now finally been leveled is simply not true. No more than having a black president has made us in anyway post-racial. It is MORE level than it has ever been, but is certainly not there yet.

The point being that when you say, "But it happens to men too..." you're ignoring the power dynamic and the history. You can call a white man "boy" and it can be a little demeaning. But it certainly doesn't hold the same connotations as calling a black man "boy". History has already defined what that exchange means, and you can't say, "Hey, I don't like being called 'boy' either! Can't we call it even?" Nope. We can't.

I'd also encourage those of you who are suggesting that media portrayals of gender or race hurt no one but the weak minded actually go do some reasearch on the subject. If you think media trends don't impact a large part of society, then you'll have a hard time explaining how trends catch on in general. There are volumes written from anthropological, social and even medical (mental health) perspectives. These things matter. They effect how people perceive and treat each other and how people think. I suppose if I have to give you a place to start, I'd go with Laura Mulvey and her essay ?Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema?-- which I think can have a direct correlation to female representation in video games. But the idea that there is no research indicating these media representations matter is laughable. There are entire careers based on this kind of research.

Media isn't merely an echo back of what society is yelling; it also influences what we yell about. It's a circular thing. We may impact media, but media also certainly impacts us and how we view ourselves and others.