Philosophy of Sexualization, The Anatomy of a Horse

[WindKnight]

That is one of the most coherent posts I have seen in a gender thread for quite some time.

However, I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't an analogy involving a horse in there.

As for the actual topic, y'know, I still have no idea what exactly constitutes "objectification." Yeah, it means to treat someone like an object, but I don't get what that actually entails.

Essentially, that their being sexy comes before else - dignity, practicality, comfort and agency. That
their not a person choosing to be sexy, but an object positioned, dressed (and often contorted) to be sexy.

Sites like escher girls and repair her armour show good examples - the former where anatomy and posture are put together solely to show as much sexiness as possible, whether it be practical, comfortable or even possible as well as how sometimes women are still presented as sexy when they shouldn't be (a battered and bleeding woman on the floor posed thrusting her boobs out, or a serious moment where someone upset that their friend appears to have drowned is posed like a lesbian makeout session), and the latter about how outits that are supposed to be about saving your life and keeping you from harm leave big gaping holes over vital areas, and how often with a little imagination and effort they can be made practical but still appealing.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh gender is the flavor of the year mainly because, hey there are a lot of female gamers undeniably, but somehow the bar of "good female character" Got set so high its basically unobtainable, yet they still do try. Half the reasons why people say "female character" isn't good are down right hilarious being called bad characters cause they looked to sexy or needing a man at some point or their is a male option also. People will at least agree on a good black character was Lee from the walking dead, Or Kanji and Kinda gone home is a good example along with many other of good LGBT characters, But the last and probably only good female character was a Raptor queen in primal rage according to female character afficandos.

 

[ForumSafari]

Eh gender is the flavor of the year mainly because, hey there are a lot of female gamers undeniably, but somehow the bar of "good female character" Got set so high its basically unobtainable, yet they still do try.

That and for some reason people seem to mix up the idea of a good or realistic female character and a 'strong' female character, as if a character should be strong to be realistic.

As unpleasant as it is most real women are not particularly strong because most people are not particularly strong. In fact even the crappest of female characters has, in my experience, been significantly more impressive than a lot of the real people I know.

As for sexualised clothing I'm not even going to really go there, except to observe that the way most real female clothing is cut is not for practicality. In fact there isn't much in the way of female character clothing that I can't imagine real women I know wearing if they could.

 

[Gorrath]

That is one of the most coherent posts I have seen in a gender thread for quite some time.

However, I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't an analogy involving a horse in there.

As for the actual topic, y'know, I still have no idea what exactly constitutes "objectification." Yeah, it means to treat someone like an object, but I don't get what that actually entails.

Essentially, that their being sexy comes before else - dignity, practicality, comfort and agency. That
their not a person choosing to be sexy, but an object positioned, dressed (and often contorted) to be sexy.

Sites like escher girls and repair her armour show good examples - the former where anatomy and posture are put together solely to show as much sexiness as possible, whether it be practical, comfortable or even possible as well as how sometimes women are still presented as sexy when they shouldn't be (a battered and bleeding woman on the floor posed thrusting her boobs out, or a serious moment where someone upset that their friend appears to have drowned is posed like a lesbian makeout session), and the latter about how outits that are supposed to be about saving your life and keeping you from harm leave big gaping holes over vital areas, and how often with a little imagination and effort they can be made practical but still appealing.

I feel the need to interject that I more or less agree with everything you say here, but it bothers me a great deal that when people try to pin down "objectification" everyone gets tunnel vision and explains objectification in terms that almost always deal with women and sexualization. Hell, Jim Sterling (who I usually agree with and has a good head on his shoulders) out and out claimed that men are simply not objectified in games, which is absurd. So if I may, I'd like to amend your idea a bit.

Objectification is when a single trait or set of traits are used to reduce a character or person to nothing more than that trait or set of traits. This occurs with female characters often in the form of sexual objectification in the way you have described. Using imagery that downplays any trait other than that which is sexually suggestive. As you say, this happens when a female character is posed and/or dressed in such a way as to be dissonant from the context of the rest of the image/game/narrative ect.

This also very often occurs with male characters when devested of traits other than brutish violent behavior. Posing them in such a way as they tower above devastation without a hint of empathy for what they've done, dressing them in a nonsensical way that emphasizes brawn over brains, or rolling out an endless tide of male characters who's sole defining trait is to be mowed down without thought to award achievement to the player. Female characters are objectified as sexual objects, male characters are objectified as violent machines or disposable crash-test-dummies.

Anywho, I don't know if you meant to imply that objectification is defined by female sexual objectification or if you were just using that as an example. In either case, I felt it should be clarified that objectification is more than just the sexual and it affects more than just female characters. You may already understand all of that, but there are those out there that do not.

 

[WindKnight]

Eh gender is the flavor of the year mainly because, hey there are a lot of female gamers undeniably, but somehow the bar of "good female character" Got set so high its basically unobtainable, yet they still do try. Half the reasons why people say "female character" isn't good are down right hilarious being called bad characters cause they looked to sexy or needing a man at some point or their is a male option also. People will at least agree on a good black character was Lee from the walking dead, Or Kanji and Kinda gone home is a good example along with many other of good LGBT characters, But the last and probably only good female character was a Raptor queen in primal rage according to female character aficionados.

You really seem to be misinterpreting Jims point with the last line - Alyx Vance and Jade from beyond good and evil are generally accepted as being great female characters by both genders, but you can very easilly find unattractive male characters - including ones who look like a horse has kicked them in the face, but the nearest you get to a strong capable and not-sexually attractive woman in gaming is the aforementioned dinosaur goddess. In short, wimmins got to be attractive, yo, we ain't having no plain janes cause anything less than a 10 ain't doing it for the boyz.

 

[Phasmal]

I did not dodge the question. You asked the question that was designed to promote your position no matter what the answer is, not further the discussion. I didn't say "make better one yourself" but "do something about it". There is wolds of difference there.

Yes I do complain about things that I can't influence to any degree. But that's that I can't influence. Even then I still look for a way. Problem is people CAN influence if they are customers. They can but they are unwilling since it will diminish their personal pleasure and enjoyment.

I my seem hostile, but I'm just tired of people who think never do anything and demand everything. That expect everyone to take every risk for them and then suck it up when they don't appreciate that one bit.

I won't address `Make it yourself` because that's so many levels of stupid stacked on top of each other, and you said that's not what you mean.

Look, I `vote with my wallet` however I can. I own pretty much every decent game with a female protag and a few not too decent ones too. But I'm also making my voice heard.
Most people who are arguing for better female representation do this- do you need to view each one's purchase history before you can listen to them? You're just assuming complaining on the internet is the only thing they do because it's the only thing you can see.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Great post, OP, but I don't think that 90% of the posters in this thread read it. Most of the arguments against you comply with your main points.

EDIT: after the first page at least. So far we're doing a good job at staying on topic... nevermind. The thread kinda got hijacked... and I'm gonna throw my two cents in... I'm sorry OP.

 

[Gorrath]

You really seem to be misinterpreting Jims point with the last line - Alyx Vance and Jade from beyond good and evil are generally accepted as being great female characters by both genders, but you can very easilly find unattractive male characters - including ones who look like a horse has kicked them in the face, but the nearest you get to a strong capable and not-sexually attractive woman in gaming is the aforementioned dinosaur goddess. In short, wimmins got to be attractive, yo, we ain't having no plain janes cause anything less than a 10 ain't doing it for the boyz.

I always wonder about this point because it stretches credulity to the point where I think it snaps. While I don't mind at all if someone states that there are issues with female representation in games and that there seems to be a much greater liberty taken with male characters and their looks, whether something is sexually attractive or not is totally subjective. So when we make statements like "not-sexually attractive woman", who is the arbiter of what this is defined as? I usually see people hedge this bet by tacking on some phrase that hand waves this issue (traditionally, conventionally), but it still bothers me. It bothers me even more when people repeat exaggerations like they are true facts.

Jim did state that the dinosaur goddess was, I think, the only one he could find who fit the bill, but that just tells me he wasn't looking too hard, or exaggerating to prove his point. How about Hannah from Fable 2? Not only is she the Hero of Strength, one would be hard pressed as hell to convince me that she fits the bill of "conventionally attractive."

The same applies for male characters. Is Kratos hot? I'm sure there are lots of women who'll say no, no he is not. There are also those who will say absolutely yes, yes he is. So which woman gets to be the one who decides if Kratos is "horse-kicked ugly" or a "hunk"?

And again, I'm not blind to this issue. There is no doubt that far greater liberty is taken with male characters than female characters when it comes to look and dress, but when these sorts of discussions come up, the goal-post moving begins in earnest as subjective answers come pouring in from both sides. I think it is far more useful for us to concentrate on whether characters are well written or poorly written, not on whether they meet some arbitrary standard of hot or not-hot.

 

[Bocaj2000]

It's not realistic standard to expect doing nothing but complaining until it turns into whining to change anything. I hear that it's not fair argument again and again when in fact it's not fair to expect people to sacrifice for you and you to do nothing and reap the benefits.

I actually did sacrifice time and money to further goals I wanted. I have put my money and effort. In past and I will do it in the future. It's the only way one should be able to gain anything.

Why do you assume that you're the only one who "sacrifices time and money" for things you want? Do you think that you're the only one who 'votes with your wallet' or (if you do) create interactive media? For all you know you could be arguing with an animator, programmer, or even a producer. I'm sorry for getting offended, but don't get self-richeous on us just because we voice our opinion. You don't know us nor what we do for our beliefs.

 

[Gorrath]

Great post, OP, but I don't think that 90% of the posters in this thread read it. Most of the arguments against you comply with your main points.

I think the OP is largely correct, but the devil is in the details. We can have a discussion about the nuances of sexualization and objectification while all agreeing that it would be better if not all female characters were treated merely as sex objects. The OP is right that there isn't a lot of debate on the issue of "is objectification overdone" but it's because of the fact that there isn't much to debate there that we tend to focus on talking about those layers of complexity and nuances. Focusing our efforts and debate on the details does not inherently detract from our agreement on the broader subject.

 

[Bocaj2000]

You really seem to be misinterpreting Jims point with the last line - Alyx Vance and Jade from beyond good and evil are generally accepted as being great female characters by both genders, but you can very easilly find unattractive male characters - including ones who look like a horse has kicked them in the face, but the nearest you get to a strong capable and not-sexually attractive woman in gaming is the aforementioned dinosaur goddess. In short, wimmins got to be attractive, yo, we ain't having no plain janes cause anything less than a 10 ain't doing it for the boyz.

I always wonder about this point because it stretches credulity to the point where I think it snaps. While I don't mind at all if someone states that there are issues with female representation in games and that there seems to be a much greater liberty taken with male characters and their looks, whether something is sexually attractive or not is totally subjective. So when we make statements like "not-sexually attractive woman", who is the arbiter of what this is defined as? I usually see people hedge this bet by tacking on some phrase that hand waves this issue (traditionally, conventionally), but it still bothers me. It bothers me even more when people repeat exaggerations like they are true facts.

Jim did state that the dinosaur goddess was, I think, the only one he could find who fit the bill, but that just tells me he wasn't looking too hard, or exaggerating to prove his point. How about Hannah from Fable 2? Not only is she the Hero of Strength, one would be hard pressed as hell to convince me that she fits the bill of "conventionally attractive."

The same applies for male characters. Is Kratos hot? I'm sure there are lots of women who'll say no, no he is not. There are also those who will say absolutely yes, yes he is. So which woman gets to be the one who decides if Kratos is "horse-kicked ugly" or a "hunk"?

And again, I'm not blind to this issue. There is no doubt that far greater liberty is taken with male characters than female characters when it comes to look and dress, but when these sorts of discussions come up, the goal-post moving begins in earnest as subjective answers come pouring in from both sides. I think it is far more useful for us to concentrate on whether characters are well written or poorly written, not on whether they meet some arbitrary standard of hot or not-hot.

Go back and read the OP. You two are not enemies, so stop acting like it.

EDIT:

Focusing our efforts and debate on the details does not inherently detract from our agreement on the broader subject.

It's a debate on the wrong things though. It is a fact that there is more character design variety in males than females, and it is a fact that there is a demand for more well written female characters. These two ideas do NOT conflict with each other and are indisputable. Treating them as opposing sides to a larger field does, in fact, weaken the argument as a whole.

 

[Gorrath]

Go back and read the OP. You two are not enemies, so stop acting like it.

Firstly, I read the OP, so no need to assume I didn't. Secondly, please read the response I already wrote to you above. I wrote it specifically to preempt this sort of accusation from you.

EDIT: I see you saw my preemptive response and edited your reply to me, so allow me to do the same. Debating the details and nuances of how female characters are portrayed is not the "wrong debate". I find that notion to be ridiculous. Not only is it perfectly fine to have a debate about the details, it's damned important. All of us agreeing that sexualization of female characters is overdone does not mean we agree on any detail of how the issue should be rectified or when or where the problem presents itself. It is great that we can have a general consensus about the broad topic, but to claim that any debate of the details of the topic is somehow unworthy or misguided is silly.

 

[DrOswald]

And if people want these potentially untapped veins of story telling and character dimensions to be explored, surely they should lead by example?

The onus is on those who are passionate about the change to get stuck in and help make something, instead of just criticising others creations.

Why does this argument only ever see the light of day in relation to gender stuff?

When someone complains about the excess of drab modern military shooters, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make some non-drab-modern-military-shooter games"?

When someone complains about day-one DLC, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make games without day-one DLC"?

It can be applied to every single criticism of absolutely anything.

Because there are already plenty of people doing these things? People very often think "modern games are shit, I am going to indie develop an awesome game" and then they go and do it. But when people complain about female leads no one goes and does it.

People who complain about drab military shooters are typically passionate about video games (specifically game design.) A significant percentage of those people will go and do something about it because they care enough about video games to try to change them. Also, making games is often something they have always wanted to do.

People who complain about sexuality in video games typically are people who are more passionate about sexuality than video games. Much fewer of this group will go and do something about it because they never wanted to make games in the first place.

 

[furthestshore]

Eh gender is the flavor of the year mainly because, hey there are a lot of female gamers undeniably, but somehow the bar of "good female character" Got set so high its basically unobtainable,

Malarky. The bar is extremely low, but the industry manages to limbo under it like Hermes Conrad. We know from EEDAR that of the games where it's possible to tell the main character's gender, only 4% were explicitly female. And as Penny Arcade pointed out, games starring women get less than half as much marketing as games starring men, pretty much ensuring that "games starring women just sell less" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And these numbers are improvements on what we used to have. The fine people at Valve eloquently demonstrated that having a well-written non-sexualized female lead (or TWO) is hardly poison for sales.

the last and probably only good female character was a Raptor queen in primal rage according to female character afficandos.

Strawman.

 

[Gorrath]

It is a fact that there is more character design variety in males than females, and it is a fact that there is a demand for more well written female characters. These two ideas do NOT conflict with each other and are indisputable. Treating them as opposing sides to a larger field does, in fact, weaken the argument as a whole.

I decided to make a new post to address this point instead of again re-editing my previous reply. Sorry if this creates any confusion. I agree with every point you make here, so I'm not sure what part of any of my posts it is meant to disagree with. I did not claim at any point that writing better female characters and having a greater variety of female characters were somehow opposite goals or mutually exclusive.

What I said was that assigning some arbitrary label of hot vs not-hot was useless because it was wholly subjective. A better written female character may very well include a body type different from what is usually afforded in games, but it gets us nowhere arguing about whether or not a character counts as "sexy" since there is no agreed upon criteria for "sexy". I also took umbrage with the repeated use of Jim Stirling's claim that the Dinosaur Goddess was the only non-sexualized, strong female character ever. It's simply not true. (I'm not even sure he made that claim, but people seem to think he did.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

I?ll start out by defining the goal of the majority. For there to be women such that they are treated as people. That?s it. Everyone not only agrees with this point,

Er, everyone would claim to agree with this point. But, like people who start sentences with "I'm not sexist, but", that's not always the case.

 

[Gorrath]

Eh gender is the flavor of the year mainly because, hey there are a lot of female gamers undeniably, but somehow the bar of "good female character" Got set so high its basically unobtainable,

Malarky. The bar is extremely low, but the industry manages to limbo under it like Hermes Conrad.

I wonder about this, as it has a level of subjectivity to it that I think makes people talk past one another. On the one hand, I would agree that the bar is very low, but that's if we are setting the bar making "good female character" = "not a sex object". One could argue that this, while saddening, isn't a bad way of looking at it since even that is hard to find. On the other hand, if one sets the bar making "good female character" = "critically accepted as well written, deep and unoffensive to most everyone" I think we get a much higher bar that would be hard to obtain. I've a feeling you're talking about the former, and he might be talking about the latter.

If we do talk about the former, it's progress of a kind. Baby steps for the new media and all that. But we'll hardly silence the debate with characters that stumble up to and fall over the bar of "not egregiously offensive sex object for ogling". It's something to aim for, and you're right that we're somehow managing to wiggle under it on a consistent basis. For that much higher bar, that's what I 'd like to actually see happen and where I think real progress in games should be made, not just for female characters but for all characters.

 

[Schadrach]

When someone complains about the excess of drab modern military shooters, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make some non-drab-modern-military-shooter games"?

When someone complains about day-one DLC, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make games without day-one DLC"?

It can be applied to every single criticism of absolutely anything.

You know what, that's exactly what you should do, or at least put your money where your mouth is and support those that are doing exactly that.

If you complain there aren't enough female game protagonists, why aren't you grabbing up games like the Atelier series (nearly every game in the series has a female protagonist), Lily Looking Through, etc, etc, etc (if you want I could run through my game collection this evening and name off every game I own with an explicitly female protagonist, I just named the first couple i could think of offhand, I suspect I probably have more such games than most people complaining that there aren't enough of them). Oh, yeah, because they don't get enough media click bait fauxtroversy stories about them and they aren't giving anyone a career as a professional victim.