Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[Izzyisme]

You can list empowered females in games in a single post in an internet forum? You don't see that as a problem at all?

Of course it's a problem, I don't get the feeling that he was saying it wasn't a problem. The issue is that the objectification of men is either ignored or the very idea ridiculed. There's a deep-rooted idea ingrained into our culture that men aren't worth protecting or fighting for. Imagine how well a homosexual main protagonist fighting to save his very male life-partner would go over? Hell, imagine a male character fighting to save his transwoman love interest. Aside from the publishers shooting down such an idea because focus-test groups allegedly said "ew das gay", you don't get the feeling that society looks down on men who can't help themselves?

If I understand you, you're saying that societal expectations of men having agency are just as problematic as societal expectations of women not having agency. I have to disagree with that, unless you think agency isn't an important value. Also, there are many cases in video games of men rescuing other men. Even physically strong men saving other physically strong men.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though. Surely you can see that? Women aren't just their body. They are people. They can be attractive without that attractiveness being their only or central quality and being posed and animated solely for male titillation.

To women it's as jarring as seeing Marcus Fenix fighting in just his speedo giving it the wiggle waggle at the screen now and again and winking.

 

[Nicy]

Thank you for this video, Mr. Sterling.

 

[Sticky]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though.

Harmful to whom? Who are these mystical people who are harmed by video games?

If people are seeing things like Code of Princess (which btw, I find waaay worse than Dragon's Crown because they are at least attempting to wear clothes there) and being harmed psychologically by them, how is this not a sign of a much more urgent problem with that individual?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though.

Harmful to whom? Who are these mystical people who are harmed by video games?

You don't think portrayals of men and women in the media can be harmful to society at large. Perhaps you would like to explain that to all the women who have eating disorders or the young men who have depression?

Media is more influential on how we think than you realise.

 

[Izzyisme]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though.

Harmful to whom? Who are these mystical people who are harmed by video games?

Anybody who is influenced by them. Which is everybody, by the way. If you think that you are immune to being bombarded by specific portrayals of a particular gender by the media (which includes video games), you are deluding yourself.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

The point is they are portraying women poorly and as a female gamer I don't like playing those portrayals. So I'm asking games developers to consider that.

Why is that so bad.

 

[Sticky]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though.

Harmful to whom? Who are these mystical people who are harmed by video games?

You don't think portrayals of men and women in the media can be harmful to society at large.

I think normal, well-adjusted people are perfectly capable of differentiating fantasy and reality.

If I didn't think that, then I would have to say that Jack Thompson, Fox News, the head of the NRA, or even the Christians who were saying that Pokemon and Harry Potter is promoting satanic worship, I would have to say those people were right.

And why wouldn't they be right if I bought into this absurd notion that people can't differentiate fantasy from fact. That somehow the very imagery of the unreal somehow taints the very real. That the laws of our universe are somehow less applicable when the laws of fantasy come into play.

Sorry, I just don't buy that, it's why I think that everyone is entitled to enjoy what they like. Because telling them that it's harmful to enjoy what I don't like leads to complete invalidation of my opinion and ideals. It would in every sense of the word, make me a hypocrite.

Anybody who is influenced by them. Which is everybody, by the way.

If you have a problem determining fantasy from fact, then you have a serious issue that can't be addressed on the internet.

 

[Gorrath]

I respectfully disagree. Having a culture that glorifies and fetishizes violence is certainly problematic. I agree that making physically strong men the ideal is a problem. But there are two key differences:
1) Not all male characters fit this archetype, or to be more precise, there is a smaller percentage of female characters who are not sexually objectified than there are male characters who are not physically capable. Gordon Freeman is a scientist who has to save security guards. Even in terms of characters who don't use physical violence, such as wizards, there is a stark difference between male and female portrayals.
2) The more important point is that you say that often, weaker male characters need to be saved by stronger male characters. Thus, there are both types of male characters in games, even if one is often depicted as superior in some way. The problem is that there are no options for female characters. It's sexually objectified or the highway. That's why the problem is sexism. Women as a whole are depicted a certain way. If you have different types of male characters, but some are portrayed as the ideal, that is difference in kind from the sort of issue facing female characters.

I actually have no problem with fantasy violence at all, but that's a different argument.

1) The original point was simply that male characters are not objectified, which I think is a falsehood. While you can point our Freeman (and I did figure he'd come up) he is as rare as the well fleshed out female character, is he not?

2) You seem to be suggesting here that simply having another kind of male, no matter if he is objectified or not, makes this an issue of sexism. I disagree totally. The reason we see bland 'scientist' characters as agency-less goals to be acquired is the exact same reason we see sexy female NPCs treated the same way. It's lazy or convenient writing. It isn't just about men being superior to women, it's about a particular kind of character being superior to all others. What's more, the 'idealized' character himself often isn't portrayed any better than the 'objectified' female. He's usually a buff guy who talks with his fists and murders without empathy, sympathy or remorse. The meta issues associated with this portrayal of 'idealized' men seems to carry every bit of baggage that the 'objectification' of the women does.

The whole point of this episode was to try and claim that male characters aren't objectified, when there is a whole class of them that very clearly are. I am every bit as interested in seeing a broad range of female and male characters (and everything else too) in a variety of roles, but we aren't going to have that if we cover our ears and pretend like this problem is purely sexism and there's no such thing as objectified men in games.

 

[Boogie Knight]

This subject just frustrates me cause I want to enjoy cheap titillation every once in a while after a hard day's work, and it's gonna take years to successfully woo the woman I have my eye on.

I think the idealized men, as depicted in this vid were pretty boring. I've preferred James Bond to Marcus Phoenix.

Honestly, I'd rather look at pretty people than unattractive ones for my entertainment, that's why complete dummies can rise so high in Hollywood.

Don't even know what my point is anymore.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

So you don't think anorexia is more prevalent in western society because of how women are portrayed in the media? That's strange because I think everyone else accepts that as a fact.

Media affects the way we think whether we like it or not. Maybe not to the extremes that are sometimes suggested but it scrapes away at us.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

snip

Men aren't objectified though they are idealised as Jim pointed out.

This is as harmful as female objectification and it's just as insidious. It's probably the reason a lot of young men, I know a lot do on this site, have depression.

I never see any guys complain about it outside sexism threads though. If you want to see more normal guy heroes you (male gamers) should say. There's no shame in it.

Moonlight Butterfly, have you ever read Mark Simpson's work on masculinity? I think you might find it enlightening, or at the very least interesting.

I would also like to say that, as a person who is quite fond of the eroticized male form, the idea that men are never objectified, which is what the phrasing you and Jim are using suggests, is laughable. It is probably less laughable if you artificially limit yourself to Anglosphere culture, but that would be a very poor excuse in this modern media climate. You are presenting a correct analysis of big, grizzly, square-jawed muscle men like Kratos or Marcus Fenix, but they are not the sum-total of the images of men that exist. They represent a significant portion of what the games industry produces and sells, and that cannot be ignored, but a nuanced, intelligent critique, which is what this subject requires, demands an acknowledgment and interrogation of other images and archetypes. There are at this moment, legally available in English, games dedicated to presenting images of sexually attractive men to a female audience and interviews with the directors of those games, in which that fact is made explicit. They are more numerous and more successful in other countries and other languages, and they are by no means as numerous as games for an intended audience of young, heterosexual men. Nevertheless, they have a place in this discussion and I would very much appreciate it if that place were to be acknowledged. I believe that their inclusion and analysis would greatly benefit the discourse in which you are attempting to engage.

I also feel that this discussion would benefit greatly from a better understanding of objectification, as a concept, on the part of its participants. I spoke just now of sexual objectification, as did Jim and as have most people here, but that is really only a subset. To my knowledge, the question of how the interactive nature of video games as a medium affects the subjectivity and objectivity of characters has never been sufficiently addressed. All this discussion of people as physical 'objects' rather than of an object/subject dichotomy suggests to me that this entire debate rests on a theoretical foundation that is far from sound.

 

[Reyold]

Don't you think the reason people, (Not just Jim, Bob made this same point a good while ago), keep talking about these problems may be because they haven't stopped being problems?

Ignoring the problems won't make them get better.

As for those who really are just tired: just because good arguments exist showcasing a real problem does not mean that the problem has magically gone away. You have to get up and do something about it too; the grass isn't going to mow itself.

There is nothing worse than a bunch of people who agree that something must be done, yet do fuck all when it comes to actually realizing that change in the world, and then proceed to complain that the problem is "getting old" when they get bored of showing their moral outrage.

If some of you are really tired of hearing about the problem, then get off your rears and do something about it. Write a book, spread the word, and make videos; do something for crap's sake rather than whine about how "old" the problem is, because nothing is more "old" than a gaggle of apathetic geese honking and hissing at passing cars.

Both of these, so, so, much.

I don't fault people for being tired of the whole sexism debate, but unless we actually do something about it, nothing will probably change. Instead of just discussing the issue, let's actually get rid of the problem. Discussion is important, but only if it leads to action.

I think one thing we can do, beyond what was already suggested by Hap2, is make better female characters in our own games. I don't know how many of us here are indie devs (I myself aspire to be one), but if we're making games, maybe we can try to consciously include well-written female protags into our games (or better yet, well-written characters period). I imagine we already would anyway, but a more conscious effort would help create more diversity in the industry.

It won't single-handedly solve the problem, but I think it's a good start.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip.

Nobody is saying men are never eroticised. In gaming however it's EXTREMELY rare like to the point of none existence. Men aren't really objectified in gaming not like women. That's what the issue is.

 

[Izzyisme]

I respectfully disagree. Having a culture that glorifies and fetishizes violence is certainly problematic. I agree that making physically strong men the ideal is a problem. But there are two key differences:
1) Not all male characters fit this archetype, or to be more precise, there is a smaller percentage of female characters who are not sexually objectified than there are male characters who are not physically capable. Gordon Freeman is a scientist who has to save security guards. Even in terms of characters who don't use physical violence, such as wizards, there is a stark difference between male and female portrayals.
2) The more important point is that you say that often, weaker male characters need to be saved by stronger male characters. Thus, there are both types of male characters in games, even if one is often depicted as superior in some way. The problem is that there are no options for female characters. It's sexually objectified or the highway. That's why the problem is sexism. Women as a whole are depicted a certain way. If you have different types of male characters, but some are portrayed as the ideal, that is difference in kind from the sort of issue facing female characters.

I actually have no problem with fantasy violence at all, but that's a different argument.

1) The original point was simply that male characters are not objectified, which I think is a falsehood. While you can point our Freeman (and I did figure he'd come up) he is as rare as the well fleshed out female character, is he not?

2) You seem to be suggesting here that simply having another kind of male, no matter if he is objectified or not, makes this an issue of sexism. I disagree totally. The reason we see bland 'scientist' characters as agency-less goals to be acquired is the exact same reason we see sexy female NPCs treated the same way. It's lazy or convenient writing. It isn't just about men being superior to women, it's about a particular kind of character being superior to all others. What's more, the 'idealized' character himself often isn't portrayed any better than the 'objectified' female. He's usually a buff guy who talks with his fists and murders without empathy, sympathy or remorse. The meta issues associated with this portrayal of 'idealized' men seems to carry every bit of baggage that the 'objectification' of the women does.

The whole point of this episode was to try and claim that male characters aren't objectified, when there is a whole class of them that very clearly are. I am every bit as interested in seeing a broad range of female and male characters (and everything else too) in a variety of roles, but we aren't going to have that if we cover our ears and pretend like this problem is purely sexism and there's no such thing as objectified men in games.

I still think you ignored my second point, and if I didn't make it clearly, I'm sorry. Women are portrayed as being universally one thing or as having only one value or has having only one body type. Thus, it is objectification of women as a whole. The idea of objectification is that female characters are almost always placed in a single role, that of a the passive love interest, and if not, are still objectified sexually. Why should a female hero, female sidekick, or female villain still be a sexual object? Male characters, on the other hand, can be anything. When smart women are bland scientists without agency and strong women who talk with their fists and murder without empathy have to rescue them, then your point will stand. Right now, it doesn't. Then, both male and female characters will be portrayed lazily. Now, there is a stark difference.

 

[Sticky]

snip

So you don't think anorexia is more prevalent in western society because of how women are portrayed in the media? That's strange because I think everyone else accepts that as a fact.

Where did anorexia come into play? You bringing a red herring into this argument only cheapens the discussion as a whole.

We're not talking about the media, we're not talking about how the media likes to portray real life. I could write an essay right now on how the media's job is to take real life, spin it into fiction, and then represent it as an actual, factual representation of reality. We could even talk about how news, pop culture, even the popularity of many sites on the internet owes it's very existence to cherrypicking and fabricating the best and worst of mankind and presenting it as the baseline average.

But we're not here to talk about that, we can move that discussion to another thread if you wish. We're here to talk about video games, there isn't any evidence that people are more violent, less prone to respecting human life, or are otherwise less immoral because of things that are very much presented as the absurd. Games don't present themselves as being real unlike television, reality shows, or most popular media in general.

Anyone who approaches games as being real has already lost a very important battle in regards to their psyche.

 

[Izzyisme]

It's because they have every right to like those games and those portrayals.

Sometimes they really are harmful and exclusionary though.

Harmful to whom? Who are these mystical people who are harmed by video games?

You don't think portrayals of men and women in the media can be harmful to society at large.

I think normal, well-adjusted people are perfectly capable of differentiating fantasy and reality.

If I didn't think that, then I would have to say that Jack Thompson, Fox News, the head of the NRA, or even the Christians who were saying that Pokemon and Harry Potter is promoting satanic worship, I would have to say those people were right.

And why wouldn't they be right if I bought into this absurd notion that people can't differentiate fantasy from fact. That somehow the very imagery of the unreal somehow taints the very real. That the laws of our universe are somehow less applicable when the laws of fantasy come into play.

Sorry, I just don't buy that, it's why I think that everyone is entitled to enjoy what they like. Because telling them that it's harmful to enjoy what I don't like leads to complete invalidation of my opinion and ideals. It would in every sense of the word, make me a hypocrite.

Anybody who is influenced by them. Which is everybody, by the way.

If you have a problem determining fantasy from fact, then you have a serious issue that can't be addressed on the internet.

I wasn't going to respond to that, but you are goading me. Really? You think that you are so smart and so well adjusted that your opinions and views pop out of thin air? You don't think that the society we live in molds you into the person you are today? And you don't think that the media is an important part of forming your views and values?

You don't have to think something is real for it to affect you.

 

[Karadalis]

snip

Men aren't objectified though they are idealised as Jim pointed out.

This is as harmful as female objectification and it's just as insidious. It's probably the reason a lot of young men, I know a lot do on this site, have depression.

I never see any guys complain about it outside sexism threads though. If you want to see more normal guy heroes you (male gamers) should say. There's no shame in it.

Inherent male problem,

they would rather deny that they have a problem with the depiction of males in games then actually talk about that the "idealized" standard male char makes them feel unadequit(sp?)

After all those are all positive traits that every male should aspire to right?

Modern society puts as much social pressure on young males as they do on young females.. the difference here being that as a male you should be not only good looking but also dominant, taking the lead, getting into the action, have a huge amount of experience in all things "manly", be fit and healthy and have self esteem as solid as mount everest.

If youre lacking some or any of those you will be more or less shunned by society and ofcourse have less chances with the other gender.. because women do want attractive and "successfull" men right?

Also Males are tought not to complain and take it like a man from childhood on... so expecting them to speak up against something that aparantly are "positive" traits for male sterotypes is a bit to optimistic.

And ofcourse many males dont even know that their feelings of insecurity comes from the depiction of the ideal man in media

It also partially explains the existance of douchebags.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Theres some other issues that need to be addressed in this debate. Like the fact that Senran Kagura might never make it outside of Japan due to the west being prudish and crying sexist at anyything that has boobs.

Well it came from the same culture that released Dead or Alive Beach Volley Ball as a retail game and not one of those one's you download off suggestive sites full of trojan virus's.

 

[Sticky]

I wasn't going to respond to that, but you are goading me. Really?

Why do you immediately assume that was about you? Do you have a problem establishing fantasy from fact? If not, then I'm not speaking to you with that assessment. My point is that is a serious problem that I cannot address here. It's a problem that no one person is qualified to address.

I actually find it kind of interesting that you're assuming that I'm insulting you or implying that you cannot differentiate the two. I think we both just need to calm down if the argument is really getting that heated.

You don't think that the society we live in molds you into the person you are today?

This is where our point of disagreement lies, society and the expectations thereof are a very real thing, video games are not.

My whole gripe with this entire argument is that people are treating the enjoyment of certain video games as a serious issue. And it really isn't, if anything, it's a portrayal of serious issues that lie in game development. Which makes arguments about what people should or shouldn't be enjoying at best pointless and at worse trivializing the core problem as a whole.