Fox12 said:
In all honesty, I can't help but feel like these comments miss the point. I think a lot of people are irritable about the above games, not because there are sexually attractive women in them, but because sexual attraction seems to be their defining, and sometimes only, trait.
Nailed it in one. The problem is that people frequently try and make it about something completely different.
Norithics said:
Nobody stands up and says "hey, we shouldn't let any girls in our treehouse" anymore,
Hi. You must be new to gaming, where that's actually a fairly common mentality.
You can't yell and rally and put up big political bills to fix these very subtle problems with the way our society works[/quote]
How fortunate, then, that people really aren't. Again, the issue is framing. When a woman who drones on about tropes can be considered a radical extremist who is crusading to destroy gaming as we know it!!!! what then, is a measured or reasonable response?
When people say something as innocuous as "I would like more/better female representation in games," the opposition shouts and screams and attacks.
The tool set for people who want fair treatment of women is usually calmer and less histrionic than the opposition. This is in stark contrast with your notion that the tool set is outdated; it seems being reasonable still begets an unreasonable response, affording little reason to actually remain reasonable.
Still, minorities and women are put to the screws in that if they raise their voices even slightly, it's because they're typically angry or hysterical. There
is a measured and active response in that a woman getting as angry as a man is considered a bad thing, same with the "angry negro" stereotype (which also apparently applies to latinos). There is a double standard here that is quite pervasive: women have to be careful to remain calm, because the minute they raise their voices, they're out of control. Hell, they probably already are. There's a reason The Amazing Atheist's tantrums are considered less "extreme" than the bland recitals of Anita Sarkeesian. Men are, quite frankly, entitled to tantrums in our society. This doesn't cut "both ways," either, to be frank. It's not even considered part of the man-child stereotype which carries negative connotations, because men exploding is just considered standard.
Feminists already have to be incredibly careful not to knock the stick that is up society in general's ass even slightly. Any vibration can set the mainstay off. This is unfortunate, because you have a group in power who gets upset if you tell them that they are in power. Virtually any statement is taken as an attack, hostile and offensive.
oreso said:
Is it? There are bigger issues, surely. Putting these problems in some kind of perspective might be valuable.
There are bigger issues, but saying "you need to sort out your priorities if this bothers you" is something entirely different. People are bothered by a lot of things. This board itself is rife with people bitching about--what's that phrase--First World Problems. And even within the first world problem meme, it's rarely stated that you need to sort out your priorities. Being spoiled first worlders is the subject of a trite joke, but being spoiled first worlders who are female is more frequently treated as trivial.
Rarely are the majority told to get some perspective. It'd be nice if they were once in a while. then again, the majorities in question don't like not being taken seriously, even on trivial matters.
So how are the rest of us supposed to react?
