Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[carnex]

--

What can I say, wouldn0t want to be in your position. Seems like you really just can't find someone who makes games just for your taste. That sucks, but other than that I can't really say anything. Gather people with same problem and try to get some attention. But, as I said before, publishers have really bad experience with listening to such pleads/demands.

Only thing I can say is that information are more readily available than ever before. One can't complain about lack of something if they didn't research it beforehand. But, as it stands now, largest demographic group in gaming is not interested enough to look up what would suit their tastes, they have enough games they like showed down their throats on facebook and all other sites they visit on regular basis.

--

Oh the horror of having 10 or so games with sexually charged contend on covers in last 5 or so years. Oh the horror, the apocalypse. men are going to rape everything that walks and then beat them up, all in public... yea, I'm being highly sarcastic because you are being highly cynical and spinning your opinions on the spot in same post.

Now that out of the way, you should understand that Bayonetta is embodiment of female empowerment exactly because of what you described. It's all in context. She is always one in charge, and obviously she is always doing it for herself. It purposefully exclude player and other characters from her acting. That's because it's for her and her alone. She is sexy and she knows it but at the same time she let's player know that she isn't just anyone. She is large and in charge, hovering above everyone, dominating everything and if you want her you better be top of the masterclass. That character is, in my opinion, actually created to metaphorically castrate male gamers who are used to have slavish doll presented to him like you get in Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball.

I won't address rest except to notice how you go on full frontal attack on sexually charged representation of women, then when confronted retreat to equal representation only to charge gain in very next post you make. An I will keep saying the same. You have no right to decide what I like. I keep my nose out of you business and plan to keep yours out of mine. Only equal treatment there is.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

No.

I want to play videogames.

I don't want politics, feminism, cis-privilege, gay marriage, immigration reform, gender politics, transsexual acceptance, anti-war, pro-interventionist, abortion, PeTA or Greenpeace in my entertainment.

Take your soapbox, for whatever purpose, however valid or petty your complaints, and take it somewhere where it doesn't impact my unrelated hobby.

My only problem is, you keep saying it's your entertainment, your hobby. It is a hobby that also "belongs" to feminists, trans*, gays, immigrants, and environmentalists. Right? I mean, you don't want it, but you do not own videogames, and you can't honestly tell me more variety would be bad for the industry.

There's no such thing as "just" entertainment. This - and related - industries provide jobs, a venue for artistic expression, careers, technological advancement, companionship, competition, and other numerous goals beyond a goal to just be "entertaining". I mean, music is technically just for entertaining, but I won't put up a fence and say Bob Dylan should keep his Times They Are A-Changin' riffs to himself... movies are entertainment, but we all take the Schindler's Lists with the Transformers, right? And games, they are entertainment, but is it any one person (or group of person's) responsibility to gatekeep the perspectives that come into that?

Your entertainment is just that - your entertainment. Videogames are not yours, though. They are, not to sound to sappy, everyone's. Don't be the troll at the bridge for everyone and everything that wants to participate that isn't to your expectations or standards, man.

 

[wulf3n]

you can't honestly tell me more variety would be bad for the industry.

Variety in games is rarely the issue being discussed, except for a select few insane ranters.

The real issue is a different group of insane ranters who are trying to impose their beliefs on the masses. Take the recent example of the censoring of Zero Punctuation because a select few were "offended" at an offensive joke within a show that gained notoriety by being offensive.

The idea that games are for everyone is noble if not somewhat naive, however it can only truly work if people are willing to leave well enough alone when a games(s) is catering for something they find distasteful.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

you can't honestly tell me more variety would be bad for the industry.

Variety in games is rarely the issue being discussed, except for a select few insane ranters.

The real issue is a different group of insane ranters who are trying to impose their beliefs on the masses. Take the recent example of the censoring of Zero Punctuation because a select few were "offended" at an offensive joke within a show that gained notoriety by being offensive.

The idea that games are for everyone is noble if not somewhat naive, however it can only truly work if people are willing to leave well enough alone when a games(s) is catering for something they find distasteful.

Well that's up to a creator to censor their own work. If people have strength enough to stand their ground they will make a product that is... you know, their product. "Catering to everyone" is less a problem with the everyone bit and a more a problem inherent to the caterers.

When I talk about variety, though, I talk about a variety of perspectives. Feminism has a "place" in gaming because it's a a viewpoint that is often ignored. If someone shoehorns in feminist ideals to their game, then that's on them - they're as horrifically pandering as if they shoehorned in, I dunno, online multiplayer, co-op, Kinect. But more games made fresh from the perspective, made with intent and passion... and made alongside what we already have? That can't honestly be a bad thing.

It is the artist's job to maintain artistic integrity, not the audience. If people were offended by Zero Punctuation, is it their fault it was censored? Truly? And I mean, if Zero Punctuation wants to offend people, the show can continue to do so - Yahtzee clearly doesn't, though, and makes these decisions himself. No-one is making up anyone's mind but their own, and if they sway someone else's hand, well... you know, that's on the hand. People choose their target demographic. It's not hard to do. If they decide that demographic is "everyone," well, so be it. If they offend people in that scope, and they don't want to... well that's their decision to enact self-censorship.

No feminists are working at the FCC, to my knowledge. There's no council on this with any kind of actual power to make people say and do things. It's the creator's choice to cater to these people.

 

[JediMB]

No form of activism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism] that tries to tell a creator what they can and can't create should have any right to exist.

Haha, that's brilliant! A straw man argument and horrible hypocrisy at the same time!

Good show, wulf3n!

Here is also a video of a young gentleman that actually did his research, telling you about a lot of games that Anita conveniently overlooked:

Oh, look! Is that another video from a guy who thinks that the Damsel in Distress parts of Sarkeesian's video series should have totally deviated into completely different subjects? I think it is!

"Here is my essay on how to save pandas from extinction. But because of popular demand, I'm going to spend a couple of pages talking about grizzly bears."

 

[wulf3n]

Well that's up to a creator to censor their own work. If people have strength enough to stand their ground they will make a product that is... you know, their product. "Catering to everyone" is less a problem with the everyone bit and a more a problem inherent to the caterers.

I'd argue it's more about capitilism and the desire to eat being stronger than a desire for artistic integrity but ultimately neither is the issue at hand.

What is at hand is that while some were offended many weren't and while offense itself isn't much of an issue, what is an issue is having something you enjoy altered because others didn't like it.

It is the artist's job to maintain artistic integrity, not the audience. If people were offended by Zero Punctuation, is it their fault it was censored? Truly?

When they actively call for it to be censored yes, yes it is their fault.

if Zero Punctuation wants to offend people, the show can continue to do so - Yahtzee clearly doesn't, though, and makes these decisions himself.

Well we're speculating as to whether it was Yahtzee or The Escapist who decided to change the content.

People choose their target demographic. It's not hard to do. If they decide that demographic is "everyone," well, so be it. If they offend people in that scope, and they don't want to... well that's their decision to enact self-censorship.
No feminists are working at the FCC, to my knowledge. There's no council on this with any kind of actual power to make people say and do things. It's the creator's choice to cater to these people.

In a world where the desire to survive outweighs the desire to create and no few demographics are really enough to fill that need the power of the people is grander than that of the FCC.

No form of activism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism] that tries to tell a creator what they can and can't create should have any right to exist.

Haha, that's brilliant! A straw man argument and horrible hypocrisy at the same time!

Good show, wulf3n!

Feel free to contend the point as opposed to the scatter shot of fallacies hoping one sticks.

 

[Saxnot]

Oh, I know it's not a new thing. I've watched the rise and fall of female characters, the evenlope pushing of the sexualization grow and grow, and such.

Few games rely on sexualization? In the long run, sure, since few games have women. But even Tomb Raider's Lara Croft was based off a model, and she's a lil' noisy when breathing.
Remember Me? Just look at the cover.
I'm not saying that they can't exist but I figure they hold up as examples.

I gotta say it flat out, female NPCs likely don't mean anything to women who're interested in gaming.
Bayonetta is extremely polarizing between the sex positive and sex negative sorts, and it's not hard to see why.

CoD has very few female characters but once word spreads women are being included, they're in.

Women do play street fighter, and I've heard of some in SF tournaments on a more pro level.

As much as Giana Sisters stand as a decent game where the female protagionists are done fairly well, I gotta ask, how well known is that game beyond intense gamers who pay attention to gaming? The women who're turned off by the way gaming's gone aren't hanging out at the windows waiting, they need their attention grabbed.

So, your nationality is getting painted badly. Why not complain about it? You certainly are allowed to.
You can't say "Something like that's hapening to me, so stop complaining" and expect it to work. Having a thick skin only goes so far. Decades of trying to put up with my pet peeves have worn my skin away, and I'm really tolerant. Again, imagine the women who aren't as tolerant because it's the first impression?
As much as a nationality can get painted as the bad guy, I can't think of it being consistently, and heavily done for a long time. Sure, kinda often, but I don't think it in stacks up vs women getting sexualized. And it's way easier to pretend the soldier you're playing as comes from your nationality, imo, than pretending a guy is a woman.
That's not to say I don't have empathy for you, here. I'm not going to outright say "suck it up" so much as try and point out that where you stand isn't as close to where women stand as you think.
I can see where you're coming from, and I wouldn't mind it much at all if you elaborated.

Really, i'm not sure whether sexualisation is still that prevalent in recent games. You mentioned remember me, but that's more of a counter-example. yes, Nilin looks good, but she has a personality and importance to the plot. I never had the feeling she was being objectified or sexualised. is the fact that she is attractive enough to accuse remeber me of sexualisation? Likewise, Tomb Raider. i'll agree that for most of it's history Lara was sexualised, but the reboot portrayed her as a normal young woman, not a sex object.

obviously, games like Deadpool or Soul Calibur have very sexualised female characters, but that's part of what those games are. i'm not saying it's a good thing there, but you don't expect an action movie or a james bond movie to have a lot of deep, nonsexualised characters.

 

[JediMB]

Oh, look! Is that another video from a guy who thinks that the Damsel in Distress parts of Sarkeesian's video series should have totally deviated into completely different subjects? I think it is!

"Here is my essay on how to save pandas from extinction. But because of popular demand, I'm going to spend a couple of pages talking about grizzly bears."

Did you even read my post (I know you didn?t watch the video), or did you just see ?Anita? and immediately felt the sudden urge to jump to her defense in a blind rage because that is what you people do?

Haha, blind rage. That's rich. Sorry, but my default state of apathy is too strong for my emotions to reach that high.

No, I didn't think I had half an hour to watch yet another bullshit video excelling at Missing The Point?. So I skipped through it. That's pretty much what you deserve with an unprofessional splash screen like what that video has. Not to mention his Kickstarter's splash image, which was so obviously and terribly modeled after Sarkeesian's.

And I've read your post, but I wanted to focus on your hilarious comment that a "gentleman" talks about games "Anita overlooked", as if adhering to the subject of one's video means you're overlooking all the stuff you could go on infinite tangents with.

No form of activism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism] that tries to tell a creator what they can and can't create should have any right to exist.

Haha, that's brilliant! A straw man argument and horrible hypocrisy at the same time!

Good show, wulf3n!

Feel free to contend the point as opposed to the scatter shot of fallacies hoping one sticks.

But you did the fallacies so well, yourself!

I didn't think I needed to say more, considering that your apparent claim that feminism inherently tries to censor creators is false, and your very statement not only encourages censorship of feminists... but says feminism shouldn't exist to begin with.

 

[Olikar]

No form of activism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism] that tries to tell a creator what they can and can't create should have any right to exist.

Haha, that's brilliant! A straw man argument and horrible hypocrisy at the same time!

Good show, wulf3n!

Wow you managed to type out a full sentence without actually saying anything of any value to the discussion and you got a few condescending remarks in there too! Great job! But next time try to actually substantiate why you think it's a strawman or horrible hypocrisy instead of throwing around buzzwords.

Oh, look! Is that another video from a guy who thinks that the Damsel in Distress parts of Sarkeesian's video series should have totally deviated into completely different subjects? I think it is!

"Here is my essay on how to save pandas from extinction. But because of popular demand, I'm going to spend a couple of pages talking about grizzly bears."

But isn't that exactly what Anita and other pro-censorship feminists do? Look at the recent case of Hotline Miami 2 and the 'rape' controversy, "Here is my essay on a game that has nothing to do with gender roles or rape and is purely a celebration of the ultra-violent aesthetic. But because it suits my political opinions, I'm going to spend a couple of pages talking about gender roles and rape."

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

In a world where the desire to survive outweighs the desire to create and no few demographics are really enough to fill that need the power of the people is grander than that of the FCC.

Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?

I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.

 

[Maitresse Zem]

this thread is a whole lotta talk, not so much actual less-of-being-a-douchebag, which I personally feel is the root of the problem to begin with. good intentions or not- if you're gonna be an ass about it, you're not helping the case.

 

[wulf3n]

I didn't think I needed to say more, considering that your apparent claim that feminism inherently tries to censor creators is false, and your very statement not only encourages censorship of feminists... but says feminism shouldn't exist to begin with.

Please show me where I said any of that.

And while I thought it was painfully obvious I suppose I need to clarify my position.

This is about Activism, the "ism" behind why is ultimately irrelevant to the point I'm making. Social Activism in the context of the entertainment industry and the free market really only relates to actively trying to impede creation.

In essence what I'm saying any attempt at censorship has no right to exist. And before you cry hypocrisy again, an act of censorship is not a form of expression, and no, I'm not saying criticism has no right to exist.

Now you might say it's still a strawman as feminism/feminists haven't done this, I refer back to my initial post were I make no reference to feminism, and to the recent Zero Punctuation Censorship to which I was ultimately referring to.

Therefore it's neither Strawman nor Hypocrisy.

 

[wulf3n]

Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?

I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.

In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?

I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.

In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.

If one million nerds can't speak George Lucas out of Greedo shot first, what hope is there for any creative justice? At least they're catering to someone.

Besides. What part of "appealing to everyone" leaves anyone but the creators at a lost? The only think at palpable risk here is if you're a creator who has a specific vision that they need a bigger audience than there is for (as has forever been the case in anything not self-financed, god bless Kickstarter), or people who don't want the game they're playing to be played by anyone else. The kind of people who want games that dissuade minorities and women away for some reason. And if you are that kind of person, is there any doubt why people aren't going to try and cater specifically to you?

Even the most offensive of TV shows and movies basically build clauses into themselves to ensure "every target's a fair target" - South Park comes to mind. They daren't at any point write themselves into validating the views of anyone in the opposition of what they're mocking.

 

[wulf3n]

Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?

I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.

In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.

If one million nerds can't speak George Lucas out of Greedo shot first, what hope is there for any creative justice? At least they're catering to someone.

That only serves to reinforce my point. A man with multi billion dollar empire is able to create what he desires and appeal to no one, whereas a person/company that hinges on the success of their next project has to appeal to as many as possible.

The kind of people who want games that dissuade minorities and women away for some reason. And if you are that kind of person, is there any doubt why people aren't going to try and cater specifically to you?

Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.

Oh, people who can't participate are sad? Oh, no. Oh what tragedy! What shiteaters! Oh, nevermind. I mean it's perfectly rational to cater to the man with the "no blacks" sign on his restaurant door, that man just... no. No, it's not a good thing to be doing. And I don't know what you mean by "affects them," if that's the case, does it not go the other way? Why does it affect you that people complain that the game should be another way? It doesn't affect them one way, so why does it affect you the opposite?

 

[wulf3n]

Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.

Oh, people who can't participate are sad? Oh, no. Oh what tragedy! What shiteaters! Oh, nevermind. I mean it's perfectly rational to cater to the man with the "no blacks" sign on his restaurant door, that man just... no. No, it's not a good thing to be doing. And I don't know what you mean by "affects them," if that's the case, does it not go the other way? Why does it affect you that people complain that the game should be another way? It doesn't affect them one way, so why does it affect you the opposite?

I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.

You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.

You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.

I believe there should be a choice.

I also believe that cutting people out of the loop is bad and dangerous, and that forcing people into the loop - while somewhat distasteful - is a better alternative. If there were enough games on the market that there were those that did both, I wouldn't be talking to you. But at the moment the former is the norm.

I mean, I'm over here saying everyone should be allowed at my party, and you're over there saying only white straight men can be at your party, and you think I'm the evil one? Oh, okay. I didn't realize equality was so threatening! It's not going to take away your party, though. It's just gonna put more people in it. Fuck me, right?

 

[wulf3n]

I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.

You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.

I believe there should be a choice.

And that's great, but then why would you have a problem with those who also want choice, but just choose differently to you?

I mean, I'm over here saying everyone should be allowed at my party, and you're over there saying only white straight men can be at your party, and you think I'm the evil one? Oh, okay. I didn't realize equality was so threatening! It's not going to take away your party, though. It's just gonna put more people in it. Fuck me, right?

That's not what's happening at all. This is a case of I'm having a party, everyone's allowed but it's not going to suit everyone. Now I'm not trying to stop anyone from organizing a party their way, yet people are telling me how to organise my party.

Now you can say "It's not going to take away your party" but If you're telling I can't have things at my party then you are taking away my party.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.

You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.

I believe there should be a choice.

And that's great, but then why would you have a problem with those who also want choice, but just choose differently to you?

Because there's no alternative. Or, not enough alternative.

If a girl wants to play a game that speaks to her in the same way male-centric games speak to their audience, her choice is... uh... um... I dunno, something by Anna Anthropy? I don't mind her philosophies but geez, do you want girls to have to play her games, too? Oh no...

So yeah, at the moment the choice is a "for everyone" game, like an RPG with character creation 'n junk, like a Pokemon, some kind of more fluid piece like Mirror's Edge that just kind of tangentially brushes up against anything even remotely gender-oriented, or... she can dive into Call of Duty and be called a slutwhore? She can play a Dead or Alive and look at women be objectified for a bit? Like there's too much of one thing and not enough of the other. Is crying for balance so awful to you?

I don't like the idea of taking anything away from anyone, but geez, I mean if you're making a game and its like that easy to add in, I dunno, a female avatar or whatever, and you're like "nope I'm makin' this game for the mens y'know that'd cut into my budget by like a whole lunchbreak"... I'm gonna feel justified in complaining. Just sayin'.