Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[mdqp]

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?

Well, if you want to go down that route, then male characters in videogames are a really hard standard to live up to...

I wouldn't say that objectification is the whole problem (although it is part of it), I'd say that there is a problem with female characters design. They are not always meant to be goals/trophies in videogames, but there is a good number of them which is simply poorly portrayed, and there is a lack of variety. Sometimes it's not even pandering, it's just resorting to hollywood's standards idea of "normal" (which means, 9 times out of 10 they are all incredibly beautiful), or abusing some tropes. It's certainly ridiculous, and sometimes stupid, but I feel that using the term "objectification" isn't appropriate for a lot of games, and that things are wrong on a different level.

 

[Vivi22]

Monxeroth, it is not everyone has seen all internet videos before. Even if it is a covered topic, that does not make it any less valid or relevant. I see people saying things like this all the time, as recent as the whole Dragon`s Crown issue.

It does if there is nothing new brought to the table in a long time then yes, that does make it less relevant since its blown out of proportion and not as equally urgent as it is true yknow >_>

Less valid, most likely not

So you think there is no benefit to reframing an argument for, what could potentially be, a new audience? Or a segment of an audience that may still be in denial about an issue that others have already covered?

Because you'd be wrong in that case. Objectification is still an issue, and people, including members on this very site, continue to use this flimsy excuse to defend it indicating the message hasn't quite sunk in yet.

And I have one final problem with the major premise behind your comments on this video: you seem to be of the opinion that there is some actual debate to be had here about whether women and men are or aren't being objectified in the majority of video games. But this belief that if there is one side to an argument, there must be another, equally valid counter argument is a fallacy. It's simple fact that viewed through the lens of Western culture, games are objectifying women and idealizing men. There is nothing more that can be brought to this argument because anyone arguing the opposite is factually wrong, and anyone trying to defend the current state of affairs is at best an idiot and at worst sexist.

Regardless of what your parents and teachers told you as a child, not every issue actually has two valid sides, and not everyone's opinion is worthy of respect and tolerance.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Why? Because i dont happen to agree with this one in particular or the way it presents itself while there are numerous other Jimquisition episodes that i deem fucking gold-worthy (no sarcasm intended, im actually being serious real talk here ok?)

Its just a mere observation and i havent said and or implied that you should just quit and never do this again, its your show, you have the right and the only entitlement to anything here to do as you wish.
If these subjects and these types of videos are what you want to produce in the future then, ok, do that, your videos and your show and my subjective opinion or anyone elses for that matter should NEVER be the reason to compromise the integrity and the presentation of your videos.


Like you said, some people do not like the jimquisition persona and presentation.
...and? who gives a flying fuck if people dont like it or not?
Internet and videos like these are personality driven - Totalbiscuit

So i find it just contradictory for people to demand change in personality and peronas when..thats what some people are here for, thats why im here >_>

For the second time, you're altering what your argument was. It's not that you "disagreed with this one in particular." You said my whole show repeats itself and only says the same things. If that's what you believe I do, I wish to amicably suggest an alternative Monday morning viewing.

 

[Karadalis]

Thats all pretty nice but on the topic of "All female chars have to be beautifull" Uhm... yeah? Wich woman would want to play an old hag that looks like the hunchback from notre dam.. or who wants to play the super fat lady from borderlands 2? Among males and females.. i would say no one. Or have you ever seen a female player make a ugly fem shep and say "Yup... thats who i want to play as" Beauty is an idialisation for both gender and does have alot to do with sexualisation. The problem here is that man and woman alike on a broader scheme think that being "sexy" as a woman is a more positive trait (and i dare you to tell me otherwise when we have things like XXX next topmodel and beauty contests for little girls) then lets say being someone with a full fledged education. Furthermore you wont see "ugly" main chars because when women do train their bodys reasonable enough their figure does tend to create an hourglass figure, something attractive to males. Because a fat women would realistically not last for a minute in most action games the same reason fat untrained males wouldnt last long enough. So basically what it comes down to is huge asses and tits that would also be a big hindrance in survival. So all this argument boils down to is: Make less giant ass and titties... make more realistically proportioned women. Oh and while youre at it make them interesting chars with their own agenda and ideals.. thank you.

That "hero" chars are made attractive and pleasing to the eye and given traits that are seen as positive by most humans is a reason. They are the $%&( hero, and they have to look the part.

But as i said, if my main char is a female i would rather have her not have huge bazookas that would slap her in the face each time she jumps up and down... thanks.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Question!!! Why does Superman shave his legs? HOW does Superman shave his legs? I mean Greenlantern I can get, Human with alien technology. How does Superman manage though? Industrial strength polymer leg waxing?

1) Superman is an Alien
2) Why assume his species has leg hair?
3) Why assume he is a "he"?

He burns the hairs off with his heat vision, duh!

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

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?

THANK YOU. And thank Jim as well for bringing this up. This sort of thing has been burning me up for years. The fact that you can have a shlub for a male lead character in a game, TV show, or movie but every female has to be thin and beautiful at all times. And until very recently it's gone unquestioned. Even shows as recent as King of Queens, Seinfeld, Friends, The New Girl, How I Met your Mother...while the female characters may be played by talented actresses, there is a much broader range of body types when it comes to the male characters than the female ones.

And even when you get a show like Drop Dead Diva or Ugly Betty that has a female lead that doesn't conform to the Hollywood standard of beauty, their "ugliness" needs to be addressed in some way. In Drop Dead Diva, Brooke Elliot plays a larger woman whose body becomes inhabited by the soul of a supermodel. I understand not every episode addresses the whole "lul thin lady has to deal with being fat and ugly lul" thing, but the fact that she's fat is still a part of the basic premise of the show, and it wouldn't be the same without that aspect. And while Ugly Betty is all about deconstructing materialism and beauty standards and such, her "ugliness" is still used as a plot device. When was the last time a man's looks were used as a plot device? The closest example I can think of is Twilight, but since many consider Dead or Alive to not be a fair example in this discussion perhaps it should be left out as well.

I'm not much of a connoisseur of sitcoms, but if I had to choose a favorite I'd have to say Roseanne. Roseanne is one of the only sitcoms (or TV shows in general) that has "unusual"[footnote]Read: imperfect, not stereotypical, and not archetypal[/footnote] characters without the show becoming about those unusual aspects. It has an overweight couple, but the show isn't about a couple that's overweight. It has gay characters, but it isn't about people who are gay. It has episodes on teen pregnancy, masturbation, abortion, birth control, infidelity, drug abuse...but the show as a whole can't be pegged as being about just one of those things.

People praise Will and Grace for bringing homosexuality out in the open, or Secret Life of an American Teenager for "tackling" the issue of teen pregnancy. But to me those shows still miss the point because life isn't about JUST dealing with gays or JUST dealing with teen pregnancy. It's about all of those things rolled up into one big mess, and that's what Roseanne is. One big pile of trials and problems and imperfections being dealt with one day at a time. And until we can truly have gay characters without the fact that they're gay being a big deal, or female characters without the fact that they're female being a big deal, I don't think we can say we're truly "over" homophobia or sexism. Or racism for that matter--Hollywood still likes a pasty white male lead when they aren't looking to make a movie like The Blind Side or Madea Goes to the Grocery Store to Buy Lemonade.

Okay, slightly veered off the rails there, but you get my point. As much as we like to think we're "over" treating sexes and races the same in games and movies and what have you, there is still a lot of appalling stuff going on. And while we may no longer be casting males as females like in the Elizabethan era or putting black and yellow face on white actors, it's still there and still being done for the same reason of, "The masses don't want to see non-white non-males doing awesome things, only one race and one sex can do the job right."

 

[franksands]

I've always tried to verbalize the difference between how men and women are treated in videogames and you explained it perfectly, Thank God for you, Jim (even if I'm an atheist). I've been playing a lot of mass effect recently, and I just would like to point out the difference between a male character:

http://imgur.com/EINr5wq,5QvMRIS

and a female character:

http://imgur.com/EINr5wq,5QvMRIS#1

 

[Machine Man 1992]

That's what I needed to hear; a clear, concise definition of what the buzzwords of the day mean, an acknowledgement of the other side without the demonization, and conceding that there is a problem, but not the same problem.

Just another reason why Jimquisition > Moviebob

 

[FoolKiller]

I have heard this argument before when people talk about comic book women being objectified. This is the best response I have seen.

Make of it what you will.

My only problem with that picture is that none of the female versions of those three even remotely resemble that image. Batgirl is fully covered, Supergirl has the skirt instead of the tights but still is the same, and the Green Lantern uniforms are well... uniform, except for a bit of cleavage.

Now as for others, I can see where they're coming from but these are bad examples as there are actually female equivalents that aren't so skimpily dressed.

 

[Ukomba]

Don't both genders want to be desirable? Making male characters appeal to men, means making a man whom women want. Old and grizzled can still be attractive to women. Sean Connery won People's Sexiest Man Alive at 59, and there are regularly men over 40. It seems to come down to more what each gender finds attractive and playing to that. Women buy those skimpy outfits and try to pull off those looks even when they shouldn't.

Games are playing up that old 'men are shallow, women are deep' stereotype of what each find attractive. Not necessarily wrongly. My wife can watch Hunchback of Notre Dame and say Esmeralda should have chosen Quasimodo. And it seems just as many women go for the dark, troubled, and brooding Snape as do Edward or Jacob.

For the record, I'd like to see more variety of women in games for variety's sake, but this might be more of a 'men and women are different' issue. I personally like the female avatars. I preferred Fem Shepard to Male Shepard, and had no problem romancing Garrus with her. My wife preferred a blond male renegade Shepard.

*Side question* is Jack from Mass Effect objectified? She wears the skimpiest outfit and I'm sure fits some peoples definition of desirable.

*Side Side note* Is it weird to find Kasumi and Tali the most attractive females in Mass Effect? They are the most covered.

 

[the December King]

Why do I often come here to hear about games and entertainment, and end up leaving feeling like someone has tried to make me feel bad for being a white male? Did I do something wrong in playing certain games and liking them? If so many women play games, then why aren't there more games for them (that, I assume, would objectify men properly and whatnot)? And if no one is really listening to them and 'what they like', then why are more and more playing the current games? Ar e they actually playing any of these 'apparent-male-power-fantasy/objectifying-women-action/adventure' games, or do most gamer women like other types of games?

I always felt that the protagonist/hero in an adventure story should most likely reflect what is needed or wanted of him or her. Lara Croft has to have 'sexy' (or in practical terms, developed and strong) abs and legs to make jump after jump and climb ridiculous things. She has to be fit, and to many people fit is sexy, on a very basic level.

Kratos is like a brick shithouse that has MMA experience and did steroids between adventures/quests for revenge, but it is expected of him, thanks in no small part to 300/ancient greek sculpture.

...

Not sure where I am going here, but I assume toned or muscular men must be attractive to some women, or something.

I guess my point is, is that I want my escapist protagonist to make sense in the context of the narrative. Everything else in a game is classifiable as objectified, though not necessarily sexually- goals, interests, support, rabble, MOBs, etc.

I hope that made some sense- I thought it would when I started typing...

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Well I took one look at the title and my reaction was "oh for f*** sake", watched it and like every "gender politics in games" jimquisition or anything on the internet my reaction was well founded. I am do sick of hearing about this "issue", I get it, I really do. Telling me 20 more times isn't going to make me get it any more and neither is it going to change the minds of those who refuse to get it. All it does is make me apathetic, once upon a time I was active over this issue, now I'm so sick of hearing about it from everywhere I avoid getting involved.

There will always be both extremes to this, there will always be those who rail against any attempt for equality and there will always be those waiting to blow any little perceived inequality up to ridiculous proportions. Frankly I'm sick of both sides, I'm sick of the gamer kiddies making all male gamers look bad and I'm sick of every little thing being some giant drama. If everyone stopped being so reactionary to everything and chose when to speak up instead of it being constant it will be noticed a lot better than a constant white noise of nonissues drowning out the few actual issues.

Well, the "goal" (for those who actually want to see something ever get done) is not to get rid of these kinds of characters forever and all time. It's just to have a little more variety. Spice of life and all that. And in that respect there has been progress. We aren't really close yet to the spectrum of characters being more even on all sides, but we are getting there. Little by little. And once it is so, you will likely here very little from the "extremes".

As for the "white noise" issue. Well, if we could make that quiet we could probably just take care of all the problems anyway. That said, even in a storm there are places where it's still quiet. And ya can always just take a break from it. Everyone needs a little rest once in a while.

 

[Orbot_Vectorman]

Dear Jim, your argument is invalid, this is due to the Postal Dude. He is a male character that is in no way idolised nor should he be. He is at best a terrible human being.

Hey, I take offence to that. J/k. But yea, he isn't apart of the big "AAA" releases, so unfortunately our favorite psychopathic red head can't be used for this argument.

 

[Mosley_Harmless]

As far as I'm concerned, videogames exist to provide a virtual fantasy world. Don't get upset because you don't belong in the target audience of the person providing the fantasy. As for sexual objectification, Roger Ebert sums it up pretty well in his "Hugh Hefner has been good for us" article:

"Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do. And truth to tell, most women regard men as sex objects. We regard many other aspects of another person, but sex is the elephant in the room. Evolution has hard-wired us that way. When we meet a new person, in some small recess of our minds we evaluate that person as a sex partner. We don't act on it, we don't dwell on it, but we do it. You know we do. And this process continues bravely until we are old and feeble."

Now please, stop being so goddamn sensitive.

 

[DGMockingJay]

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?

People say that the females are stereo-typically shown useless and male fantasy.

Men on the other hand are brave, big, muscular and full of agency, able to make their decision.

Which standard is harder to live up to?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Jim brought up a point that I'd never thought of before, being that male protagonists can be 'ugly' (I don't consider his examples to be ugly, though...Old Snake was pretty great) while female protagonists have to be attractive.

But to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't play a game if the main character was Rachel from Binary Domain. It may sound shallow, but it's the truth. I'm okay with playing a female protagonist, but she'd have to be attractive in some measure for me to consider it.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Dear Jim, your argument is invalid, this is due to the Postal Dude. He is a male character that is in no way idolised nor should he be. He is at best a terrible human being.

Hey, I take offence to that. J/k. But yea, he isn't apart of the big "AAA" releases, so unfortunately our favorite psychopathic red head can't be used for this argument.

Even if Postal was AAA, the argument is a very flawed one. In general, male heroes are idealized. I do not believe, however, that ALL male characters are idealized. We're only dealing with the general and common examples here. Of course anti-heroes, flawed heroes, and downright villain protagonists exist. I always Kane & Lynch's best feature was how it starred two characters who were both physically *and* psychologically ugly people.

But again, male characters are allowed to be flawed, ugly, and even broken. Female protagonists, not so much.

 

[the December King]

I'm not much of a connoisseur of sitcoms, but if I had to choose a favorite I'd have to say Roseanne.

LOVED Roseanne! Good call.

Although personally, when Roseanne stopped smiling or laughing (around season 7), that as the beginning of the end for me. It got too whacky and she became insufferable.

 

[wizzy555]

On the "all women have to be beautiful" issue. This is still present across most of society. Asking the game industry to be ahead of the curve on that particular issue is asking a lot.

On the issue of objectification and idolization. I think it's important to recognise the subjectivity here. The game developers may design the characters intending one thing, but not is not how it is necessary received. - I actually think the original Lara Croft was a pretty good role model.

A lot of the "objectified" women are strong and independant and not interested in pleasing men - at least on paper. Which is what the last generation of feminist critique was primarily concerned with.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm more curious about things that revolve around this debate. Female characters in media as sexual objects with little or no agency are referred to as a problem, either because they exist at all, or because they are too pervasive and... what? Is it because it is lazy writing? Is it because it sets up standards of beauty that are unreal? Is it because it sets up standards of behavior for women that are appaling? I'm interested in knowing why people think this objectification is bad, otherwise how can one set up counter arguments without resorting to strawmanning?

If we say that the objectification is bad because it is lazy writing, so too can we argue that making idealized male figures is equally so. Even with agency intact, a male hero figure who simply exists as an idealized version of real people is, frankly, boring as crap.

If we say objectification sets up unrealistic and unattainable standards of beauty, so too does idealization often do the same. You can point to 'ugly' male characters and say they aren't setting up any standards of beauty, but they do set up unrealistic expectations of masculine appearance. Even the ones that do have scarred faces and greying beards almost always have muscular forms with rediculous porportions. Almost as often as the idealized protagonist saves the objectified woman, he also saves a horde of skinny, dare I say 'nerdy' looking male characters who are equally defenseless, suggesting that having 'brains' is less preferable to having brawn.

If we say objectification is bad because it sets up standards of behavior that are appaling, the same can be said for idealized male characters. The tropes associated with said idealization usually involve little or no sympathy or empathy and that revolve around suggesting men are or should be brutish oafs. Even clever male characters with wit in their dialogue act without much more thought than "point gun, kill bad guy," much of the time.

That's just a few examples, but the point I"m striving at here, is that while idealization does not equal objectification, can it not cause many or all of the exact same problems? If so, why would we dismiss it as being a valid comparison to objectification? I'm not even saying it is. As I started out in my first paragrah, we'd need to lay out all of the reasons objectificaion IS bad and find out if idealization can cause those exact same problems.