Poll: (Another) feminism discussion

[CloudAtlas]

I don't think so. What about the recent Dragon's Crown furore? People were lining up to condemn the game based on nothing more than character designs and a preconception about how exploitative and misogynist they were.

What about it... to be honest, I can't remember having read the words you're using that much. Aren't they usually just saying that almost all female characters, playable or not, in the game are very sexualized, and are often presented in very suggestive poses? And, yea, of course they don't regard those as positive things, but I've seen much fiercer debates.

Yes, women can be misogynistic too. Nothing new.

How can they be called misogynist if a) they're women themselves b) they don't hate other women and c) their actions are harming no one?

For statements or actions to be misogynous (or racist or homophobic), ill intent is not required. You'll find many women who have the same prejudices about their own gender as many men do.

 

[generals3]

I see your point, but with all due respect this is getting completely away from the core issue, which is whether or not the games industry has an issue with sexism. Call it what you will, there's a not insignificant portion of gamers that take issue with the way women have generally been portrayed in the medium. That's a sexist issue by definition.

But is it really:

"1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women"

=> There is no prejudice. (unless one can prove me the devs think all women have big tits and don't like clothes)
=> There is no discrimination based on sex of actual people. Now one could argue there is discrimination based on sex towards the female characters. To which i say: Who-Gives-A-F*ck-About-Pixels?! I kill pixels on a daily basis, so really if we're gonna defend the pixel's rights we should start there!

If you ask me there is no sexism problem. Just people angry they don't get what they want and others bandwagonning to be PC or to be a White Knight.

I think it's pretty amusing there's no link to your definition when there's clearly more to it, as shown by the fact you only showed entry 1.

I went for the one used by everyone? (well at least that's usually the definition used in social issue debates). Tell me what is your problem with games? How are games sexist according to you?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I see your point, but with all due respect this is getting completely away from the core issue, which is whether or not the games industry has an issue with sexism. Call it what you will, there's a not insignificant portion of gamers that take issue with the way women have generally been portrayed in the medium. That's a sexist issue by definition.

But is it really:

"1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women"

=> There is no prejudice. (unless one can prove me the devs think all women have big tits and don't like clothes)
=> There is no discrimination based on sex of actual people. Now one could argue there is discrimination based on sex towards the female characters. To which i say: Who-Gives-A-F*ck-About-Pixels?! I kill pixels on a daily basis, so really if we're gonna defend the pixel's rights we should start there!

If you ask me there is no sexism problem. Just people angry they don't get what they want and others bandwagonning to be PC or to be a White Knight.

Not all devs need to fall under the definition for sexism to exist in the industry, but if some do, then there's sexism in the industry.
You can't pretend that there's zero sexism regarding the portrayal of women in the industry.
I've provided massive amounts of links where the female protagonist has been replaced by a male one. We've treateded that topic pretty well.

But you seem to be talking about the sexialuzation factor. It's really simple. Protagonists are usually designed for the target audience you say the games are aimed at. Men.
That means protagonists of either gender are made for men first, women second...if ever. The easiest way to get a guy's attention is generally a woman's T&A, looking attractive, and guns, especially regarding women.
Bad games are built on this idea like X-Blades.
Even playable games are built on this.

I'm hard pressed to think of a AAA where the female protagonist was actually designed to be ugly. Guys generally aren't restrained by looks at all.
Most female protagonsits are at least inoffensive to look at. In fact more than a few are actually based on models. Generally this is not for the benefit of women, mind you. While guys can be based on models, it's sure not for the benefit of women for the most part.

I'll end that bit of rant with this. The sexualization of characters is discriminatory towards women. Not only in the reliance on T&A, but in who the sexualization is aimed at. It's not universal across the industry, but pretending it's thre seems like a bad joke to me.

 

[generals3]

[
You went for half a definition. There's only a '1' there. Where's the 2 entry?

When you want to say something doesn't fit a definition, no honest person only provides a single entry when there are multiple. And the 1 means there's at least a 2.

Brilliant. So you just admitted you're cornered. I've correctly refuted the claims there was sexism based on the commonly used definition and instead of disproving me you are using cheap politician rhetoric which consists of dodging and trying to attack credibility. I couldn't have dreamed of a better "victory".

 

[ghostrider409895]

When I consider the idea that games might have sexist tendencies, I really do not consider the art style or character drawings as an issue. I know some games might blatantly have women as sex objects, but I think it isn't just the fact that they look like sex objects - it is that they are treated some times as just objects. The person that posted this thread mentioned that he did actually watch the videos of tropes vs women in games, and while I do not agree with all that she says, some of what she mentioned does ring as a valid point - mainly when women are used as no more than a plot device. I think that often when playing a game, or reading a story, I do see that a woman was taken away and that the goal is to either get her back or avenger her. I know essentially anyone can be taken away as with any possession, but often women are the default reason and motivation. I know that often I do care about the people who were taken, but it does seem kind of cheap when see all the repeated examples set side by side.

Also, women are not often made a main character. I know RPGs have that - and they should since it is a role playing game where you live on in that world - but most any games beyond that lack female protagonists. They are sometimes set into the background if at all. I cannot talk for women, so I don't know if it is fine playing as man for several games, but I know if it was reversed I would want to see a few more games with a male as the protagonist.

In my opinion we just need to have better character portrayal and work done to eliminate sexism if there are going to be women as part of the main plot. I don't think it is too hard. We just need to have more imagination than repeating the rather old and used "she was killed/kidnapped so go save/avenger her" story line.

 

[generals3]

Not all devs need to fall under the definition for sexism to exist in the industry, but if some do, then there's sexism in the industry.
You can't pretend that there's zero sexism regarding the portrayal of women in the industry.
I've provided massive amounts of links where the female protagonist has been replaced by a male one. We've treateded that topic pretty well.

But you seem to be talking about the sexialuzation factor. It's really simple. Protagonists are usually designed for the target audience you say the games are aimed at. Men.
That means protagonists of either gender are made for men first, women second...if ever. The easiest way to get a guy's attention is generally a woman's T&A, looking attractive, and guns, especially regarding women.
Bad games are built on this idea like X-Blades.
Even playable games are built on this.

I'm hard pressed to think of a AAA where the female protagonist was actually designed to be ugly. Guys generally aren't restrained by looks at all.
Most female protagonsits are at least inoffensive to look at. In fact more than a few are actually based on models. Generally this is not for the benefit of women, mind you. While guys can be based on models, it's sure not for the benefit of women for the most part.

I'll end that bit of rant with this. The sexualization of characters is discriminatory towards women. Not only in the reliance on T&A, but in who the sexualization is aimed at. It's not universal across the industry, but pretending it's thre seems like a bad joke to me.

Look Raven we two have been over this a lot together. I won't convince you what you call sexism is what i call free market in a capitalistic system and vice versa.

You say sexism, i say targeted marketing.

And male characters don't look bad either btw. They may not look "pwetty" but they look appealing for their audience. On that aspect both female and male characters are equal. Both are made to appear appealing towards the target market.

That your demographic happens not to spend enough to warrant targeting is not their fault, it's your demographic's fault. Marketing is about making money not losing it to please social justice crusaders.

 

[generals3]

Actually I'm pointing out that you have provided half the definition of a word and tried to proclaim you refuted something based on that. And now you're going around declaring victory because I asked you to provide the full definition. I'm pretty sure I don't need to use 'cheap politician rhetoric' to attack your credibility, you seem to have a distaste for having any.

It's not cheap rhetoric to ask you to provide the full definition instead of only part of it. And it would be so easy for you to provide the rest, provided you actually got that from a dictionary. So where's the rest?

And admitted I was cornered? You're the one evading. I pointed out at the start you provided at most half a definition and instead of just providing the rest you start diverting by asking me questions that have nothing to do with you providing the rest of it.

Again all but relevant. Let me tell you why i only put number 1.
A: it's the one everyone uses
B: Instead of going for good dictionaries like the oxford i took the lazy route this time and just clicked the first link and when i saw number 2 i was like "never saw that one" and never saw anyone use it that way.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexism?q=sexism => Here on oxford only the one i presented is given there
C: I'm not the kind of guy who puts extra efforts in refuting something he doesn't have to. Why would i refute a definition never used? Just to make you happy? My point was to refute arguments made, not fictional ones.
D: Your attack was 100% pointless because you couldn't give me any other definition used in this context. You knew I correctly refuted everyone's claims because that's the definition everyone uses.
E: Now please ask me for number 2 again. (i know you're going to)

 

[generals3]

A: That is not a proper reason and as far as I know you're just making it up. Who the fuck is 'everyone'? Everyone on your side who wants to hide that?

No good sir, everyone on your side.

B: So in other words you left out the one you didn't like and now you're admitting it. Brilliant.

No i left out what i've yet to be seen used in this context as a definition of sexism.

C: Right we're just supposed to trust it's never used coming from the guy who tries to declare victory because someone just asked him to provide the full definition.

Just asked? You maybe forgot your first answer, there was no question at all. Remember I asked you first to give me the definition you use. I wanted to see if you were capable of spontaneously giving an other, which would have been evidence you do use it in other ways in this context. However you couldn't, you deflected. Which is exactly what I expected.

" I think it's pretty amusing there's no link to your definition when there's clearly more to it, as shown by the fact you only showed entry 1."
(=> no question there)
"I went for the one used by everyone? (well at least that's usually the definition used in social issue debates). Tell me what is your problem with games? How are games sexist according to you?"

D: You're just claiming it is the one everyone uses and won't bother to provide your source still. And now you're a mind reader, you know what everyone wants and you know that the big scary chicken really knows you're right and just is evil and wants to trick everyone into thinking you're wrong because... reasons!

I don't read minds. I do however read posts.

E: Why are you so scared to provide the full definition if you were willing to use that source for even half of it?

Anyway, anyone who googles 'sexism definition' knows you're trying to be selective. Here are the ones that come up in order in the search:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexism

And then we get: http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexism

Almost as if you're trying to, oh I don't know, selectively leave out the other one. Thanks for admitting defeat by doing so.

Actually i always type "oxford definition xxxxxx", normally... This time I didn't because it's late. Normally I am indeed too selective to use random online dictionaries. That is true.

And you know what is funny. At first i was about to refute "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex " but i thought, nah. No one on this forum has used this definition and the last thing we need is people thinking they can throw around the word even more. (and based on the lack of answer to my initial question, i was right, you didn't think about it because it's not commonly used, actually almost never let alone on this forum when discussing games)

But do you know what the rebuttal is? Extremely simple. The same one that discredits Anita's entire "work": Evidence. No study has yet to 'prove' games "foster" anything on that aspect.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Not all devs need to fall under the definition for sexism to exist in the industry, but if some do, then there's sexism in the industry.
You can't pretend that there's zero sexism regarding the portrayal of women in the industry.
I've provided massive amounts of links where the female protagonist has been replaced by a male one. We've treateded that topic pretty well.

But you seem to be talking about the sexialuzation factor. It's really simple. Protagonists are usually designed for the target audience you say the games are aimed at. Men.
That means protagonists of either gender are made for men first, women second...if ever. The easiest way to get a guy's attention is generally a woman's T&A, looking attractive, and guns, especially regarding women.
Bad games are built on this idea like X-Blades.
Even playable games are built on this.

I'm hard pressed to think of a AAA where the female protagonist was actually designed to be ugly. Guys generally aren't restrained by looks at all.
Most female protagonsits are at least inoffensive to look at. In fact more than a few are actually based on models. Generally this is not for the benefit of women, mind you. While guys can be based on models, it's sure not for the benefit of women for the most part.

I'll end that bit of rant with this. The sexualization of characters is discriminatory towards women. Not only in the reliance on T&A, but in who the sexualization is aimed at. It's not universal across the industry, but pretending it's thre seems like a bad joke to me.

Look Raven we two have been over this a lot together. I won't convince you what you call sexism is what i call free market in a capitalistic system and vice versa.

You say sexism, i say targeted marketing.

And male characters don't look bad either btw. They may not look "pwetty" but they look appealing for their audience. On that aspect both female and male characters are equal. Both are made to appear appealing towards the target market.

That your demographic happens not to spend enough to warrant targeting is not their fault, it's your demographic's fault. Marketing is about making money not losing it to please social justice crusaders.

Regardless of point of view, yours or mine, it's based on gender, both in character design, and who it's targeted at, and who it's not targeted at, and the treatment of the representatives in the product. It is discriminatory, and hsd predjudice which puts it under your own definition of sexism.
Your definition does not say it has to be malicious, or intentional, though I would call it intentional in more than a few cases. It is malicious in a few cases.
The fact that it can be interpreted this way, and it's by no means a stretch to interpret it that way, IMO, means people are going to have a problem with it.

Just because it can be done in the name of business, and I'm not saying it's 100% either way, does -not- make it immune to being called out. If we allow businesses to not care about anything but making money, well, this world would be a lot worse than it is.
It's entirely possible to have a moral compass as a company, or industry -and- make money.
I don't imagine writing it off as a business decision will really convert people. They likely understand it's business related, but, like me, they don't really care because it's just absurdly common, and so one sided.
Even if they -do- buy it, I'd imagine they won't buy it forever. I bought it before, a long time ago. Now I just can't excuse it anymore. The industry decided it didn't want to change. Infact, I dare say it got worse.

I'm not saying it's the worst form of sexism in business, but it's there, and frankly more than a few people have a problem with it. Perhaps if it weren't so prevailent in the mediam people wouldn't have a problem with it. I can, and do blame the industry for it's prevailence. Can the industry redeem itself? Sure. I'd love it if they wanted to.
Thing is, if they don't want to, sooner or later people will force them to. I'm sure we don't want that, but it's more up to the industry than it is us.

 

[generals3]

Regardless of point of view, yours or mine, it's based on gender, both in character design, and who it's targeted at, and who it's not targeted at, and the treatment of the representatives in the product. It is discriminatory, and hsd predjudice which puts it under your own definition of sexism.

If you're going to apply sexism theories to targeting in marketing than I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for you because you should feel a victim 24/7. Car producers are sexists, soft drink makers are sexist, the movie industry is sexist, the gaming industry is sexist, the clothing industry is sexist, the cosmetic industry is sexist, the food industry is sexist, the press industry is sexist and i'm fairly certain i'm missing a lot.

Targeting is everything: it's culturist, it's ageist, it's sexist, it's racist, it's wealthist and so on. The reason is simple: it's because the WHOLE THEORY is based on discrimination. Applying social discrimination morals to targeting is ludicrous. You're basically saying Marketing is immoral and should be scrapped from the curriculum.

 

[generals3]

The Hegemon does not need to be rational [http://www.overthinkingit.com/2012/07/18/video-games-political-correctness/]; a classic means of deflecting criticism is to fall-back to a noncontroversial point and make a baseless assertion. Your position is a classic strawman, it gives a superficial appearance of addressing the issue while asserting that the problem people really have is with *insert popular thing here*. It's akin to Bush defending the Iraq War because freedom is a good thing.

It is not a strawman. The fact you do not see that producers target the most lucrative market is a result of a free market and a capitalistic mindset is quite "bizarre". It's actually as obvious as an ogre standing in front of you.

The consensus on these forums for the ones who don't find sexism in gaming to be an issue seems to be either A) the author has sole, absolute authority over his work and cannot create a sexist/racist work without intending to do so. B) Counter allegations of sexism with "FREEDOM! ARTISTIC INTEGRITY! CAPITALISM!"

And both have more merit than hiding behind sensationalism to push their preferences. There was a time where people would present their opinion as opinion.

Again, gives the appearance of addressing criticism while not actually saying anything at all. Yes, we agree that the reason the Sorceress looks and acts the way she does is sheer pandering, but that doesn't absolve them of criticism. Instead, it enforces it by demonstrating the problem is institutional. You aren't helping your position, you're hurting it.

You can criticize her all you want. However I was replying to raven and if you would read her post you would see how my response was 100% on spot. It's very easy to criticize a point while leaving out context

Give us the other definition lest you continue making yourself look dishonest.

I did actually (and i didn't even bother read the rest of the replies to those particular posts because that discussion went awfully off topic and my last response to him said everything that was needed to be said)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Regardless of point of view, yours or mine, it's based on gender, both in character design, and who it's targeted at, and who it's not targeted at, and the treatment of the representatives in the product. It is discriminatory, and hsd predjudice which puts it under your own definition of sexism.

If you're going to apply sexism theories to targeting in marketing than I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for you because you should feel a victim 24/7. Car producers are sexists, soft drink makers are sexist, the movie industry is sexist, the gaming industry is sexist, the clothing industry is sexist, the cosmetic industry is sexist, the food industry is sexist, the press industry is sexist and i'm fairly certain i'm missing a lot.

Targeting is everything: it's culturist, it's ageist, it's sexist, it's racist, it's wealthist and so on. The reason is simple: it's because the WHOLE THEORY is based on discrimination. Applying social discrimination morals to targeting is ludicrous. You're basically saying Marketing is immoral and should be scrapped from the curriculum.

The thing is about a lot of the industries you mention, is that they market to both genders way more than the game industry does, and they recognize the importance of it, too. Even automotives are marketed towards women even though at face value, it's directed at men a great deal.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/cars-men-women-lifestyle-vehicles-trucks-crossovers.html

Soda?
Diet Coke's aimed at women for the most part.
Dr. Pepper Ten is obscenely marketed towards men with it's "It's not for women!" campaign that doesn't end there with it's macho flavored marketing.

Movies? Are you kidding? There's a great many "chick flicks" out there. Action movies are becoming more inclusive of women.

The clothing industry is marketed heavily to both genders. People compete to have the hottest styles for both genders!

I'd imagine even lipstick is marketed towards goths, male, or female somewhere out there despite so much societal pressure that guys shouldn't wear it.

Pretending videogame marketing is even remotely equal to the marketing of both genders a lot of other companies do is absurd. Videogames are bad enough that people are complaining about it despite so much other "marketing" out there. That's telling, to me.

Marketing is -not- immoral in and of itself. It's a tool. But like a hammer, you can use it to build something positive, like an inclusive gaming industry, building more inoffensive female representations, etc. or something bad like bashing our skulls in with so much rampant sexism.
All marketing is not equal in it's sexism, or any -ism.

 

[keniakittykat]

I still don't have a fucking clue what the issue is here. Why do people care so much about the artstyle in these games? How does it possibly affect anyone negatively at all?

Frankly anyone who seriously finds this kind of thing offensive needs to fucking reconsider their priorities in life.

Yeah, there may be more important issues, sure, but whenever my only choice in let's say an RPG is either "10 kinds of different armored men of different races and class" and "20 sets of tits in 10 different shades wearing a bikini" I usually don't even bother, and it kind of pisses me off. There's just too many of them. For example: I love Ivy Valentine, she's a sexbomb-badass. But do we really need more of that? No, not really.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I still don't have a fucking clue what the issue is here. Why do people care so much about the artstyle in these games? How does it possibly affect anyone negatively at all?

Frankly anyone who seriously finds this kind of thing offensive needs to fucking reconsider their priorities in life.

Yeah, there may be more important issues, sure, but whenever my only choice in let's say an RPG is either "10 kinds of different armored men of different races and class" and "20 sets of tits in 10 different shades wearing a bikini" I usually don't even bother, and it kind of pisses me off. There's just too many of them. For example: I love Ivy Valentine, she's a sexbomb-badass. But do we really need more of that? No, not really.

Is there really too many of them? People say that all the time but I can't think of many RPGs that actually do that.

(not counting Asian MMO's of course, but I can't imagine many people here play those games)