Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[camazotz]

Gender issues? On the Escapist? In Jimquisition specifically?
That could NEVER happen...

OP: Can we talk about ANYTHING other than gender issues. It's getting to be borderline obnoxious. Pick any other dead horse you like.

We need to make a randomized dead horse picker for topics in the escapist

amongst the topics we can have

gender issues
objectification
games should be art
on disc DLC
DRM is bad
is piracy OK?
Racism

and that's just for gaming

"Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse, or beating a dead dog in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided."--Wiki Definition

Whew! Good to know those are all resolved and done with. Can ya tell me how they turned out? I haven't seen a satisfactory measure of closure on any for some bizarre reason.
.
.
.
.
(Reality check: let's see what gets the most page hits. There's your Escapist Article picker, right there)


All praise Jim, for he has devoured the FSM and taken his power!

 

[Izzyisme]

But that's not objectification. If you are given agency, you can choose how to act, even if some of your choices will be judged harshly by societal standards. But if you don't have agency, you don't even get to choose.

The definition of agency, as we're using it here, is "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power". Having the capacity to exert power doesn't mean that you aren't acting as an agent for someone else. If we narrowly limit the definition of agency to choice then most male protagonists lack agency as well, Link for example.

I'm sorry I didn't make this clear, but I didn't mean just narratively. I mean what the player experiences as well. The player controls Link, and the player defeats the monsters and saves the Kingdom (and the Princess). On a narrative level, obviously it is more complex. But Link has agency experientially. But how does the player experience men and women differently in games? That is the key question, and it involves both player experience and portrayal in the narrative. More often than not, men are the protagonists and they seem to have agency because we control them and we feel, if the game is good, that our actions are causing whatever is happening on the screen to happen. Female characters are far less likely to be protagonists. How about characters who we do not control? Then on a narrative level, the question is how much power they exert. If women in games are limited to only expressing sexual power, which is not really power at all in most games because of the lack of sexual agency, then that is objectification. Women exist to express sexuality alone, and it is not a sexuality they have control over. But men can express agency in sorts of ways.

Look, if agency means free will, then maybe nobody has agency because it's possible that nobody has free will. But how does that character feel in the narrative? Sometimes the two contradict each other, like in Metal Gear Solid. It is a brilliant commentary on this distinction, because the player feels like Snake is cool and in control. You experience a character with agency, but the narrative reveals that he has no power. It still feels pretty cool to play as Snake, and the same isn't as often true with female characters.

 

[Sticky]

snip

snip

snip

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that harmful representations have to present themselves as real for it to be harmful. I firmly believe that people are capable of differentiating fantasy and reality. The problem comes in when media attempts to portray itself as real. Like it is something to emulate.

I can't say video games are guilty of that. Nothing is more absurdist than the entertainment medium we've created for ourselves where you can recover from a gunshot wound by sucking your thumb for a few seconds.

Just to be clear: It was never my argument that things that aren't real can't harm people, I even made that refutation initially when discussing media as a whole, my argument is that video games and several other kinds of media fall outside any realm of believability and therefore aren't capable of causing the drama people are spinning it to be.

Also I'm reasonably sure that no one in their right mind would ever assume video games to be "real". At least not in their current form. The closest I could ever find to anyone who thinks that way are people who play Train Simulator 2013, and I have faith that the objects of their affection falls squarely in the realm of trains.

Let me just reiterate my previous post. People know fantasy from reality. People know, when they read Harry Potter, that magic isn't real. But fiction is supposed to reflect something true about the real world. If it didn't, then nobody would enjoy it. It is grounded in reality, or else we would have no way to connect to it. The characters feel emotions that we feel, and the societies often function like our society, or are supposed to evoke aspects of our society. So when a movie portrays Bruce Willis gunning down several thieves in an office building, we know it is a fantasy, but we enjoy it. We think it's cool. It is cool because they are the bad guys and Bruce Willis is saving the day.

But what about things that aren't true or false. Fiction, including video games, as prescriptive as well descriptive statements. The hero is someone who never gives up. Is that true or false? Should we connect with that emotionally, or not? Suddenly, it becomes unclear. People can derive very different messages from fiction. Did Fight Club convince you that nihilism is awesome and punching people in the face is masculine, or that it is pointless and you need to grow up.

tl;dr That was a bit pretentious, but my point is that fiction relies on us believing certain things about how world works for us to enjoy it. If those assumptions it demands are harmful, it could have a harmful impact.

And I can't agree with that sentiment when it comes to video games. I can't say that video games in particular could have any harmful impact to the person playing them. They are merely a function of imagination.

If we're going to argue 'coulds' and 'shoulds' then we should be instead arguing if video games can affect the person playing them. Most studies disagree with you when it is shed in that light.

I also highly contest the 'could' in that previous statement, for that to be proven, it would seem to me that there must be a conclusive link between video games and behavior of any kind.

It goes back to the argument that used to plague the internet in the late 90's: Are video games really harmful to people? Now, just as then, I say no. Science is still conflicted on the matter, but promising research has agreed with my stance. So I have stuck by it.

I also can't say that I disagree with Jack Thompson or fundie Christians and make that claim that video games have any kind of adverse effect on people. And I can't see how you can make that claim either.

 

[Izzyisme]

snip

snip

snip

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that harmful representations have to present themselves as real for it to be harmful. I firmly believe that people are capable of differentiating fantasy and reality. The problem comes in when media attempts to portray itself as real. Like it is something to emulate.

I can't say video games are guilty of that. Nothing is more absurdist than the entertainment medium we've created for ourselves where you can recover from a gunshot wound by sucking your thumb for a few seconds.

Just to be clear: It was never my argument that things that aren't real can't harm people, I even made that refutation initially when discussing media as a whole, my argument is that video games and several other kinds of media fall outside any realm of believability and therefore aren't capable of causing the drama people are spinning it to be.

Also I'm reasonably sure that no one in their right mind would ever assume video games to be "real". At least not in their current form. The closest I could ever find to anyone who thinks that way are people who play Train Simulator 2013, and I have faith that the objects of their affection falls squarely in the realm of trains.

Let me just reiterate my previous post. People know fantasy from reality. People know, when they read Harry Potter, that magic isn't real. But fiction is supposed to reflect something true about the real world. If it didn't, then nobody would enjoy it. It is grounded in reality, or else we would have no way to connect to it. The characters feel emotions that we feel, and the societies often function like our society, or are supposed to evoke aspects of our society. So when a movie portrays Bruce Willis gunning down several thieves in an office building, we know it is a fantasy, but we enjoy it. We think it's cool. It is cool because they are the bad guys and Bruce Willis is saving the day.

But what about things that aren't true or false. Fiction, including video games, as prescriptive as well descriptive statements. The hero is someone who never gives up. Is that true or false? Should we connect with that emotionally, or not? Suddenly, it becomes unclear. People can derive very different messages from fiction. Did Fight Club convince you that nihilism is awesome and punching people in the face is masculine, or that it is pointless and you need to grow up.

tl;dr That was a bit pretentious, but my point is that fiction relies on us believing certain things about how world works for us to enjoy it. If those assumptions it demands are harmful, it could have a harmful impact.

And I can't agree with that sentiment when it comes to video games. I can't say that video games in particular could have any harmful impact to the person playing them. They are merely a function of imagination.

If we're going to argue 'coulds' and 'shoulds' then we should be instead arguing if video games can affect the person playing them. Most studies disagree with you when it is shed in that light.

I also highly contest the 'could' in that previous statement, for that to be proven, it would seem to me that there must be a conclusive link between video games and behavior of any kind.

It goes back to the argument that used to plague the internet in the late 90's: Are video games really harmful to people? Now, just as then, I say no. Science is still conflicted on the matter, but promising research has agreed with my stance. So I have stuck by it.

I also can't say that I disagree with Jack Thompson or fundie Christians and make that claim that video games have any kind of adverse effect on people. And I can't see how you can make that claim either.

Edit: Changed it because a claim I made was unsubstantiated.
I'm not talking about video games causing people to take a certain action. I'm talking about video games and other fiction helping to mold attitudes. I don't think video games can cause people to do something terrible. But like any kind of fiction, I definitely think they can affect your attitudes towards things.

 

[likalaruku]

It took me a very very long time to learn to accept & live with the way women are portrayed in comic books & games & anime. Now I can play Mortal Kombat 2011, feel a bit of breast envy, & simultaneously resent how none of the men are remotely attractive & pity them for having to wear so much clothing.

So now that I've learned to live with & even love these asskicking strippers, I just want to objectify men equally. I absolutely agree that male characters are made to appeal to straight men, because even though I can't speak for all women, I can tell you that this woman has never seen an attractive male character in a non asian game.

But there are some changes I'd like to see on the women's side. I want the woman to save the men. I want the woman to hit on the men, more bitchy snarky tsunderes, more whip-cracking dominatrixes, more tomboys who aren't interested in romance, more female villains. As for Eastern games/anime/manga...Their women have become annoyingly weak, have annoyingly childish voices, & need to wear pants, even if they're skin-tight....It wasn't that way in the 80s, at least not in Japan.

 

[Izzyisme]

I'm sorry I didn't make this clear, but I didn't mean just narratively. I mean what the player experiences as well. The player controls Link, and the player defeats the monsters and saves the Kingdom (and the Princess).

Given that the problem with male/female representation in games is a narrative issue that makes the agency of the player an irrelevant point. I'm ignoring the rest of this, I don't mean to sound rude but it doesn't have a flying fig to do with anything I've said.

No, I think it does have a lot to do with it. Sorry you ignored it. I think it's important for understanding objectification. I think the player experience is actually deeply connected to the narrative. The back story can tell you that Link is a toy of fate, but the experience of cutting down Moblins and collecting Rupees is very different and seems to show real agency. You can disagree if you want. But when you play as Link, do you feel helpless?

 

[Zeles]

For the 'smug' bit you could have just put up a flashing sign saying "satire". Maybe then people would connect the dots, or learn a new word...
Has anyone ever ask female players what they'd like their female (and male) characters to look and act like?

Oooh! Ooooooooh! Can I say what I want my female characters to look and act like? I'm gonna!

I want a female character who wears practical armor. Nothing with slots for boobs or any crap like that. I want them to be a hero, to be able to kick ass, but also be feminine when she feels like it. Like, Veronica from Fallout:New Vegas. A personality like that!

 

[Izzyisme]

No, I think it does have a lot to do with it. Sorry you ignored it. I think it's important for understanding objectification. I think the player experience is actually deeply connected to the narrative. The back story can tell you that Link is a toy of fate, but the experience of cutting down Moblins and collecting Rupees is very different and seems to show real agency. You can disagree if you want. But when you play as Link, do you feel helpless?

Once again, the issue of how the characters are portrayed, how they are presented to you, is an issue of narrative and not mechanics. No, you do not feel as if you're a plaything of fate when you control Link. You would not feel as if you were a damsel in distress if you were controlling Zelda either, especially if you have a halfway competent design team. It is an irrelevant, and silly, point.

Right, but do you get to control Zelda? Other than in those Phillips CDi games or in Super Smash Bros.

 

[Alar]

Your use of forward slashes has totally changed my way of doing things. I'll do a top ten gaming babes next week.

Wooo~! Lookin' forward to it!

In all seriousness, I do have to agree. We are idealized in games, but personally I would like to see some of that for women too. Not that settling down on one generalized thought of what men and women are 'supposed' to be is a good thing, but simply because it would open things to wider audiences and give us broader viewpoints to see and play games from.

I like the option to play as a female protagonist. I like the option for her to be strong and brave and capable. I like the ability to romance other people from her point of view. These things are not bad or negative, but I suppose that coming from a roleplayer's point of view, they only make sense.

Good video.

 

[Eve Charm]

Remember when video games were about being fun? Lets get back to that instead of seeing who can protect females most over gender issues. We know what the internet is, we know know people suck but we don't need people throwing themselves in front of us everytime someone makes a gender crack.

5 people don't make rant videos and put them on youtube for jim everytime someone says something bad about his show.

Thinking you need to protect coddle and whatnot everyone when someone makes a gender crack is just as demoralizing if not more so then the crack itself when they are spewed just as much as all the other usuals like race, sexuality, age and anything else idiots on the internet can make up.

And while men might not be objectified in video games, 50 shades of grey is one of the best selling books with adult female readers. There is plenty in there.

Let us deal with the wraith and stupidity of the internet the same way anyone else would.

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I very much feel that when I'm forced to play a male character that I don't sympathize with, such as Booker Dewitt from Bioshock Infinite, I'm shoved into a typical male role.
I very much feel objectified as a soldier who's there to do all the work, do all the thinking and take responsibility for everything. Without getting the chance to decide anything for myself.

That seems rather contradictory. If you have to do "all the thinking" then how is it that you don't get to make any decisions? Thinking is about making decisions.

Anyway, in Bioshock Infinite, it's Elizabeth who does most of the thinking, deciding and taking of responsibility, not Booker. Booker is is essentially on a linear path decided by Rosalind Lutece and Elizabeth, the key protagonists of the game.

 

[Izzyisme]

Right, but do you get to control Zelda? Other than in those Phillips CDi games or in Super Smash Bros.

Yes [http://zeldawiki.org/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Spirit_Tracks], you do. For that matter, in narrative terms Zelda has demonstrated that she has agency several times. In Ocarina of Time she spent most of the game maneuvering in the shadows, working against Gannondorf. She's the friggin' leader of the Sages and the embodiment of wisdom for god's sake.

Well yeah, but only by becoming a man (if you interpret Sheik as male, which I know is disputed) or by being trapped in a suit of armor. And I think Spirit Track to some degree is an improvement over her role in other games. But the specifics don't matter. I feel like we got off topic. The key argument here was whether or not the lack of female protagonists and their role in game stories confers a lack of agency and thus objectification in a way that it doesn't for men. We've been arguing particulars of definitions of agency, but I think that doesn't matter so much. What was the key disagreement between us, again?

 

[Gatx]

Anyone else feeling a disconnect when Jim is saying that publishers think that males wouldn't want to play as women while, followed by footage of a DoA game where the only playable characters are female?

Anyway I went into this episode thinking I was going to disagree but I came away pretty convinced. Though someone had already posted 10+ pages before that you rarely find anything but "pretty" girls in leading roles in... well... everything. Even if they're "ugly" in a book you can be sure that in a movie adaptation they'll be pretty. So while videogames CAN be the first ones to do it, it's probably not going to happen and they're can't shoulder all the blame.

Anyway it's happened once, at least in my opinion.

Spoiler

Even most of the in-game characters just talk about his abs, and his story quests were generally some of the weakest in either game. I can't even figure out what his story was about... he had father issues, but not really because he seemed like a pretty well adjusted guy?

Good points Jim, but, perhaps you've forgotten - there are male characters made for a female audience.

Male characters made for specifically a female audience, usually a teen female audience, over in Japan. They're those effeminate pretty boys so much of the western male audience seems to hate. So, oddly enough, when male characters are made specially 'for women' the reaction is about what the female reaction is to female characters made to appeal to men.

Personally I always rather liked the prettier eastern male characters, if for no other reason that they were a breath of fresh air, an escape, from the constant barrage of overly muscled, overly masculine and utterly nonsensical male characters of western games.

They're not really "objectified" though. With JRPGs a lot of the more good looking leads will have legions of female fans, but obviously they're not reduced their appearance only. Even in an otome game, the general setup is that the guys are fighting over the player. The female lead is the one getting hit on rather than trying to obtain a guy. That said, in the reverse scenario of a galge, the female characters are pretty fleshed out as well (it's a "game" where all you do is read text while looking at stills after all, so they have to be).

Maybe it's just inherent differences in tastes. Maybe men in general are more easily satisfied by just physical appearances (in general, so one feel the need to respond by saying you're more of a personality man), while women want the total package.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You know why homosexuality is starting to become accepted in Western society more and more? It's not because gay, lesbian and bisexual people bitched and moaned, and called people homophobes...

Actually, a large part of the reason is exactly that. Gays and lesbians bitched and moaned something fierce, enough to result in events such as Stonewall. And it got results.

... it's because they led by example and showed people that there is no difference between love between two people of the opposite sex and the same sex beyond the physical.

No, it wasn't. Is revising history a hobby of yours or something?

The suffragettes didn't ***** and moan that the patriarchy was keeping them down, while accusing men of being the problem.

Yes, they did.

Sitting on forums such as these and complaining isn't helping anybody. It's not raising awareness, and it's not making people change their mind.

Yes, it is.

By your logic, the Suffragettes shouldn't have raised a fuss. Those who opposed slavery and racism shouldn't have gotten all uppity and spoken out, they should have just shut up and lived quiet decent lives as a "good example" to the racists who ran society.

The internet [em]is[/em] the modern-day public square. Going out into a physical public square in your city is much less likely to effect change than posting online.

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

Spoiler: Would you like some cheese?

It's good cheese.

Goes well with whine. I know because I've had some here already.

Anyway, I think the reason no one talks about a solution is because we all kind of "know" what it is.

We just have to ask/demand more diversity in game characters. Whether or not the developers/publishers listen is another thing. After all like we found out with The Last of Us, they seem to not want to even bring women in to test the game, so I guess all we can do with others is keep asking, or be louder.

Then, all we must do is buy the games with characters that we find to be more diverse(in this particular case, women who aren't made to be overly "sexy"), and maybe tell them why we bought the game with a short email. We can still buy games that don't of course. Heck, buy Dragon's Crown and you can do both. It has some over sexualized female characters, as well as some that aren't like the elf archer.

Also, while people are not being hurt physically, or insulted directly by the overuse of some characters in games. It is making some feel bad, or uncomfortable.

I agree with you, I do wish people did not feel so bad or were less uncomfortable with games but sadly I believe it is impossible to make the perfect game that nobody will have a problem with...well maybe tetris. Maybe rather than trying to white wash every game we need to split games into even more diverse genres and try to see that each genre has an equal representation. This is very hard with AAA titles because publishers only make a game AAA to try and drive sales for that title as high as they can go and that seems to involve heavy pandering to the teenage male heterosexual demographic.
Honestly I blame Developers/Publishers not so much for poor female or no female character design but for chasing the AAA game unicorn around and only having 1-2 AAA games every 1-2 years when they could be making several more diverse games where more diverse groups could be represented. When a company's IP catalog consists of 2-4 AAA IPs it severely lessens the chances that any of those games will pander to anything but their core demographic. I figure that a company with 5-10 more diverse non AAA IPs would see bigger profits and a broader more diverse fan base and could even see some gamers intermingling between IPs that they normally wouldn't play.

 

[Raioken18]

You know why homosexuality is starting to become accepted in Western society more and more? It's not because gay, lesbian and bisexual people bitched and moaned, and called people homophobes...

Actually, a large part of the reason is exactly that. Gays and lesbians bitched and moaned something fierce, enough to result in events such as Stonewall. And it got results.

... it's because they led by example and showed people that there is no difference between love between two people of the opposite sex and the same sex beyond the physical.

No, it wasn't. Is revising history a hobby of yours or something?

The suffragettes didn't ***** and moan that the patriarchy was keeping them down, while accusing men of being the problem.

Yes, they did.

Sitting on forums such as these and complaining isn't helping anybody. It's not raising awareness, and it's not making people change their mind.

Yes, it is.

By your logic, the Suffragettes shouldn't have raised a fuss. Those who opposed slavery and racism shouldn't have gotten all uppity and spoken out, they should have just shut up and lived quiet decent lives as a "good example" to the racists who ran society.

The internet [em]is[/em] the modern-day public square. Going out into a physical public square in your city is much less likely to effect change than posting online.

I somehow thing you are overexaggerating the problem if you just compared skimpy armor in a digital medium to slavery.

As for homosexuality being more accepted in society, it is, but like video games you need to be selective as to where you go. Like you aren't going to go to a Biker Bar and hit on the first guy you see in leather, it's likely to see you killed. You can choose to play games without sexualized characters, or you can play DoA (anything) then complain about hot it offended you. No one is holding a gun to your head, and there are special Biker Bars where you can go if you are homosexual but you should definitely stay away from the others.

 

[penthesilea180]

I'm really confused as to why there is such a big fuss over this episode. Jim's making a logical argument to a common counterargument people make against recognizing and addressing female objectification in games. Who cares if other people have said the same thing? I'm glad he is adding his voice and maybe reaching some people in his audience who haven't come across this idea yet. Even with the counter examples of objectified male characters or idealized female characters, the general trend is still obvious.

As to the Jimquisition persona, I find it annoying but it's becoming less so every time I watch. In fact, I refused to watch at first because I thought he was just another internet blowhard. However, I've been pleasantly surprised by his choice of subject matter. He's still a blowhard, but I think I kind of get why he frames his show like that.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I somehow thing you are overexaggerating the problem if you just compared skimpy armor in a digital medium to slavery.

When did I do that?

I was simply commenting on your interpretation of how various civil rights movements played out. Which was mostly inaccurate. You were the one who brought up such movements in relation to the videogame discussion, not me. I never mentioned skimpy armour at all. You directly stated that gay rights did not progress by people bitching and complaining. I simply disagreed with that specific comment.

Do you not consider gay rights and feminism on par with other civil rights?

None of the progress that has been made in these areas came about by people just shutting up and letting the majority put them in their place. They were hard-fought battles.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Booker does the thinking, *I* don't get choices, in regards to the narrative. That's what I meant.

Booker doesn't do any thinking in the Bioshock Infinite story. He's basically a simpleton who is subject to fate.