Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[runic knight]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

Hhm... What if someone made an indie game that was somewhat similar to Papers Please? Maybe have a game set during WWI with the protagonist being a woman whose husband has gone off to the war and she goes into the work force to take care of her family?

Just trying to think of, what would a feminist game be?

Actually, depending how the gameplay aspect worked, that could be an interesting game idea. Maybe have it similar to Papers by putting the concern over the family often in conflict the concern over others, and have decisions the worker makes in conversations apply towards a larger impact in the society itself. Keep in mind, there would have to be some point of impact the player has to make to change it from simple monotony to a more impactful and involving story telling. The reason Papers seemed to be more then just the paperwork simulator was because it gave players emotional impact on the lives of the people trying to enter the country. There would have to be a similar sort of weight to the decisions and job that the woman in this game makes for it to compare.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

Hhm... What if someone made an indie game that was somewhat similar to Papers Please? Maybe have a game set during WWI with the protagonist being a woman whose husband has gone off to the war and she goes into the work force to take care of her family?

Just trying to think of, what would a feminist game be?

Actually, depending how the gameplay aspect worked, that could be an interesting game idea. Maybe have it similar to Papers by putting the concern over the family often in conflict the concern over others, and have decisions the worker makes in conversations apply towards a larger impact in the society itself. Keep in mind, there would have to be some point of impact the player has to make to change it from simple monotony to a more impactful and involving story telling. The reason Papers seemed to be more then just the paperwork simulator was because it gave players emotional impact on the lives of the people trying to enter the country. There would have to be a similar sort of weight to the decisions and job that the woman in this game makes for it to compare.

Hhm... Perhaps have it so that she starts out as a worker at a company of some sort, perhaps a steel factory or some sort of labor intensive job, and eventually, through both your ability and through chance, she eventually ends up being in charge of this particular factory. This could help lead to having to balance out the fact that some of the men that work there or that are above you might not think that's right and so you're under scrutiny to do the work correctly and follow the rules. However, then you're faced with other things that would make you want to use your authority to help other people, maybe someone sexually harasses one of the women workers but there's enough not known about the situation that going for harsh punishment might be seen as abusing your authority. Or maybe a situation where there's a dangerous job that someone got really hurt doing and so they're in the hospital and two people are willing to take it, one is a man and one is a woman, the conflict arises from the man being that's actually more physically qualified for the job but the woman needs the extra money for her family.

Depending on how everything works out by the end, it could have an ending where the woman becomes a leading figure in women's rights.

Lot's of possibilities actually.

 

[carnex]

The problem comes from the connotation of the word. If you say that someone sucks you stated opinion that he is no good, and context will say what's he not good at. Like if you say that someone sucks while he sings in karaoke bar, everyone will conclude that that person sings badly or at least you think so.

But if you say that one is "sexist" you slapped on that person socially unacceptable characteristic that marks him.

So there is huge difference.

What if that guy in the karaoke bar starts changing the words to the song in way that implies women are only good for having sex with and cooking? Can we call him sexist then? Or are we not allowed to because it might hurt his feelings, nevermind the women listening in the audience?

You can't objectively prove something is sexist. There's no scientific method for proving sexism. Everything isn't math. It's a criticism, just like "this sucks" or "this is offensive to me as a gamer." I say call a spade a spade.

The silly thing is, it seems like we agree on the issue (there aren't many good representations of women in games, and when there are they are usually scantily clad for no reason), but you have an angry knee-jerk reaction if anyone uses the words "sexism" or "feminism."

We differ on several more impostant facts, like the fact that I constatly present facts VS you presenting feelings, and my support of artist's freedom from censorship.

But, anyway, I don't "knee-jerk" at the mention of feminism, whatever that phrase means here (seriously, I never know what words mean on internet, people use them out of their normal meaning all the time). Feminism is an ideology that in core holds belief that there are injustices towards women embodied in their social constructs of "Patriarchy", "Rape Culture" and "Pay Gap" which were, as far as I'm concerned, proven as false in developed western world using facts of our daily lives. If those constructs are wrong then they are harmful to my sex and therefore I see it as something that I have to oppose.

As I pointed out, I'm all against censorship. Not that there is content that I would prefer not to have to see, there is a lot of it. My nation was demonized for a long time and there are still lingering injustices concerning that. Never the less, however it hurt to see "war criminal" that massacres thousands on a whim in game be of my nationality in popular game, it's a matter of artistic freedom. As I said before, in my opinion artist or author if you prefer has a DUTY to ignore social norms and wisdoms if those are going to limit or change work based on his vision.

Also, I often say "Own your own sexuality". In my view, there is nothing wrong with overly sexually charged representations of character. And I mean that in terms of all sexes. Those cannot influence anyone to perceive members of some sex as anything different than they are except in some extreme and borderline cases, and you can?t really restrict one medium due to those extreme and borderline cases.

There for I subscribe to the idea that any person that has problem with overly sexually charged representations of sexes in games has some other issues that this, rather benign act triggers. Much of it is banal like out upbringing making us queasy of seeing naked or semi-naked bodies out of their usual, sterilizing context. So, it's not actually character's or artist?s fault, it's actually our projection on that character. Just like me and that "war criminal". If you are comfortable with your own sexual being you are much less likely to feel othered and harmed by sexual or any other representation of any group you see yourself fit in. If you are confident in your own convictions, nothing so simple can shake them. I might be wrong, but I'm yet to be proven wrong.

And what about if he sings that song? If I don?t know that person I might conclude many things, but at the same time I do know that person liking a song does not mean he agrees with lyrics. I never did any art of violence against woman except twisting arm of one when she tried to hit me over and over (first few times I just caught and moved her arm away) and I really think that violence against anyone is bad (And I'm sexist in the fact that I did occasionally settle thing with fists with another man but that was a long time ago, ended in my teen years). Yet I can enjoy music that have really controversial lyrics. From ultra-feminist ones to woman-hating ones. It's music and there is more than words to it, plus as with any artistic endeavor, there is a lot of hyperbole involved. For example I really like song "Shotgun Shell" by Elvis Hitler even if I don't agree with it's message or with lifestyle of author.

Yea, you can be spurred to question him of choice, but also you can?t simply attribute something socially damning to him based on so little evidence. There is really beautiful stained glass in Vienna depicting slave labor and forced conversion to Christianity in Mexico (also Emperor Maximilian as successor to past ?great leaders? of that country). But the fact that you like that stained glass does not make you racist or fundamentalist.

And, yes, I?m attached to views of everything through scientific view, it?s what I was thought all my life and what I found to be only really objective and useful view in the long run. At the same time I lived through the toxicity of complacency to feelings of one particular group or person and have first person experience how counter-productive that is.

 

[carnex]

I love how people here will argue that art is a medium that should never be censored. Artists should be free to express what they want and how they want it.

Women with huge breasts? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly raped? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly beaten? Sure thing.
Women with no personality? Sure thing.
Women with other ridiculous proportions? Sure thing.


Feminism? Oh, f*ck no.


Ridiculous.

What is ridiculous here is your comparison between content and ideology.

Feminism in games, as theme or content is perfectly normal thing. Anyone's acceptance of it is irrelevant.

Feminist opinion as a force that restricts roles and content of games is unacceptable, just as any other ideology (religious, political or whatever) is not welcome to force their ideals onto authors.

 

[carnex]

Feminist opinion as a force that restricts roles and content of games is unacceptable

I find this sentiment odd, every time I see it, cause the vast majority of the arguments of feminists in regards to gaming is to call for more varied and interesting depictions of women, gender roles, and content.

This is in direct opposition to the forces that are restricting roles and content of games. Your argument makes no sense.

That's because you are taking just half of the argument into perspective. Whole this started with Anita and backlash against Dragon's Crown (and now Miami Hotline 2). Their narration wasn't one of including more variety and deeper characters but one of condemning already present character as socially bad (regressive crap, harming image of women etc. to quote some). While word "censorship" was never used, implying that something is socially unacceptable is calling for removal of said content. And that is unacceptable to me.

I don't know how that is called but it's one of the oldest trick in the book. Tie one questionable notion to one everyone will agree upon and when first is rejected blame them for rejecting the second. Here, when I reject removal of content, I'm attacked as if I said that there shouldn't be more variety because those two notions were first presented as one entity, inseparably tied one to other.

 

[runic knight]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

Hhm... What if someone made an indie game that was somewhat similar to Papers Please? Maybe have a game set during WWI with the protagonist being a woman whose husband has gone off to the war and she goes into the work force to take care of her family?

Just trying to think of, what would a feminist game be?

Actually, depending how the gameplay aspect worked, that could be an interesting game idea. Maybe have it similar to Papers by putting the concern over the family often in conflict the concern over others, and have decisions the worker makes in conversations apply towards a larger impact in the society itself. Keep in mind, there would have to be some point of impact the player has to make to change it from simple monotony to a more impactful and involving story telling. The reason Papers seemed to be more then just the paperwork simulator was because it gave players emotional impact on the lives of the people trying to enter the country. There would have to be a similar sort of weight to the decisions and job that the woman in this game makes for it to compare.

Hhm... Perhaps have it so that she starts out as a worker at a company of some sort, perhaps a steel factory or some sort of labor intensive job, and eventually, through both your ability and through chance, she eventually ends up being in charge of this particular factory. This could help lead to having to balance out the fact that some of the men that work there or that are above you might not think that's right and so you're under scrutiny to do the work correctly and follow the rules. However, then you're faced with other things that would make you want to use your authority to help other people, maybe someone sexually harasses one of the women workers but there's enough not known about the situation that going for harsh punishment might be seen as abusing your authority. Or maybe a situation where there's a dangerous job that someone got really hurt doing and so they're in the hospital and two people are willing to take it, one is a man and one is a woman, the conflict arises from the man being that's actually more physically qualified for the job but the woman needs the extra money for her family.

Depending on how everything works out by the end, it could have an ending where the woman becomes a leading figure in women's rights.

Lot's of possibilities actually.

That might work. Could add in something akin to Mass Effect where conversations and dialog trees affect both how the characters react and the flow of the game/plot. Still seems to be too on the nose though. Part of the point of a game is the immersion and the ability to explore a topic in a personal way that is different then a book or movie. As such, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't railroad decisions or outwardly incentivize one sort over another (just making the dilemma no longer based in plot but rather player desire for goodies/progress versus player desire for immersion and true character choice). And would need to avoid any sort of obvious dichotomy choices (oh god, the good/evil pattern where the end result is based in the grand total of ones you made. So sick of that lazy "role playing"). Still, there is a lot of potential here to work with.
Not sure how to make the gameplay itself fun though. Maybe set it up as a sims like game throughout your factory? Add in a loyalty aspect to see how willing your workers are to work with you/work harder or longer hours if you are behind on production and tie in to some overall goals you have to meet. I don't know.

 

[runic knight]

Feminist opinion as a force that restricts roles and content of games is unacceptable

I find this sentiment odd, every time I see it, cause the vast majority of the arguments of feminists in regards to gaming is to call for more varied and interesting depictions of women, gender roles, and content.

This is in direct opposition to the forces that are restricting roles and content of games. Your argument makes no sense.

You know, it is funny, because whenever I hear feminism being brought up in relation to gaming, it is always as part of an argument condemning practices in gaming. I can't think of many that were started and formed on creating diversity or interesting characters, and usually when it is brought up, it relates A. only to female characters, implying that they are the only ones who should be diverse and interesting but ignoring how dull and uninspired most male characters are too, and B. offered as a secondary complaint in a topic spurred by some Dragon's Crown or DoA sexy or skin based complaint. It is hard to be thought of as a champion of diversity and freedom when you are the part of "No". Hell, do me a quick look into the topics in articles relating to feminism and tell me how many are honest appeals for greater character diversity and how many are complaints or condemnations about a current trend. They are different goals, and all I have seen from feminism in that regard is the later.

Therefore, the main reason feminism is often seen as a force of restriction and condemnation is because that is how most feminist topics are brought up into gaming discussions in the first place: As condemnations and cries for change(by using guilt and associating the games/art being condemned with actual physical violence or discrimination). When the movement represents itself with dishonest tactics and fear mongering, and acts like the "violent games are bad" political masturbation machine, you can't help but have it viewed as a restrictive ideology.

For an analogy, lets say I am against ice cream vans driving around the city. My argument brings up that countless children get abducted every year and that child prostitution is bad. Now, I am not trying to censor the ice cream truck drivers here, am I? No, instead I would be using a deceptive and disingenuous tactic to get public opinion to do my dirty work for me. Sort of like whenever someone bemoans scantily clad female characters and then starts off into rape discussions and physical assaults. People are not stupid, they can see bullshit for what it is, and when feminism is brought up more often as an attack on the choices people have made and the freedom of game makers and publishers because they did not live up to their ideology, that is going to be treated and called bullshit. Unfortunately, when it happens enough, it does become pretty strongly associated with it in the same vein that Christianity is to Creationist tactics in the athiest community.

To borrow a line I have heard a bit, if you don't want to be associated with those people, you need to clean up your own community. The irony being the feminist community actually has an ideology and community with more uniform ideas then gamers do. Gamers are just people who share a hobby, they are not an ideological or religious group and have no code they need to follow to be part of it beyond enjoying games, nor any way to enforce said code on other members. As such, they are as able to clean up members of their "community" as people who like the color blue are to clean up the blue-lovers community. Being that close to 70% of the population of the states, for instance, are gamers, we have as much a chance of getting a uniform community as the divided politics of the nation. Hell, less so as at the very least we would branch out of one party into a chunk of the other, and at least the political parties have some general mission statement.


Sorry, sort of rambled there.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

Hhm... What if someone made an indie game that was somewhat similar to Papers Please? Maybe have a game set during WWI with the protagonist being a woman whose husband has gone off to the war and she goes into the work force to take care of her family?

Just trying to think of, what would a feminist game be?

Actually, depending how the gameplay aspect worked, that could be an interesting game idea. Maybe have it similar to Papers by putting the concern over the family often in conflict the concern over others, and have decisions the worker makes in conversations apply towards a larger impact in the society itself. Keep in mind, there would have to be some point of impact the player has to make to change it from simple monotony to a more impactful and involving story telling. The reason Papers seemed to be more then just the paperwork simulator was because it gave players emotional impact on the lives of the people trying to enter the country. There would have to be a similar sort of weight to the decisions and job that the woman in this game makes for it to compare.

Hhm... Perhaps have it so that she starts out as a worker at a company of some sort, perhaps a steel factory or some sort of labor intensive job, and eventually, through both your ability and through chance, she eventually ends up being in charge of this particular factory. This could help lead to having to balance out the fact that some of the men that work there or that are above you might not think that's right and so you're under scrutiny to do the work correctly and follow the rules. However, then you're faced with other things that would make you want to use your authority to help other people, maybe someone sexually harasses one of the women workers but there's enough not known about the situation that going for harsh punishment might be seen as abusing your authority. Or maybe a situation where there's a dangerous job that someone got really hurt doing and so they're in the hospital and two people are willing to take it, one is a man and one is a woman, the conflict arises from the man being that's actually more physically qualified for the job but the woman needs the extra money for her family.

Depending on how everything works out by the end, it could have an ending where the woman becomes a leading figure in women's rights.

Lot's of possibilities actually.

That might work. Could add in something akin to Mass Effect where conversations and dialog trees affect both how the characters react and the flow of the game/plot. Still seems to be too on the nose though. Part of the point of a game is the immersion and the ability to explore a topic in a personal way that is different then a book or movie. As such, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't railroad decisions or outwardly incentivize one sort over another (just making the dilemma no longer based in plot but rather player desire for goodies/progress versus player desire for immersion and true character choice). And would need to avoid any sort of obvious dichotomy choices (oh god, the good/evil pattern where the end result is based in the grand total of ones you made. So sick of that lazy "role playing"). Still, there is a lot of potential here to work with.
Not sure how to make the gameplay itself fun though. Maybe set it up as a sims like game throughout your factory? Add in a loyalty aspect to see how willing your workers are to work with you/work harder or longer hours if you are behind on production and tie in to some overall goals you have to meet. I don't know.

Given that you mentioned Mass Effect, here's another suggestion.

Make a game that isn't about trying to communicate a particular stance, just give the option to choose between a fully-realised and voice-acted male OR female player character.

Mass Effect didn't set out to be A Feminist Game, but I think if any game deserves that title, it's that one. If we're really gunning for equality, then simply show a woman being as capable the male lead. And to do that, just re-record the dialogue with a female voice actor. Femshep effectively goes through the exact same experiences as ManShep or BroShep or whatever he's referred to as (don't care, FemShep for ever). She's also sexual without being obviously-sexualised, as well.

I think more often than not media, produced with a core theme of NNNGH LOOK HOW SOCIALLY AWARE WE ARE played too hard, can end up being kinda cringey.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

Feminist opinion as a force that restricts roles and content of games is unacceptable

I find this sentiment odd, every time I see it, cause the vast majority of the arguments of feminists in regards to gaming is to call for more varied and interesting depictions of women, gender roles, and content.

This is in direct opposition to the forces that are restricting roles and content of games. Your argument makes no sense.

That's because you are taking just half of the argument into perspective. Whole this started with Anita and backlash against Dragon's Crown (and now Miami Hotline 2). Their narration wasn't one of including more variety and deeper characters but one of condemning already present character as socially bad (regressive crap, harming image of women etc. to quote some). While word "censorship" was never used, implying that something is socially unacceptable is calling for removal of said content. And that is unacceptable to me.

I don't know how that is called but it's one of the oldest trick in the book. Tie one questionable notion to one everyone will agree upon and when first is rejected blame them for rejecting the second. Here, when I reject removal of content, I'm attacked as if I said that there shouldn't be more variety because those two notions were first presented as one entity, inseparably tied one to other.

@runic_kight , too


Look at it this way. Let's imagine a hypothetical shoe company, one that makes all the shoes in the world. Now, this fictional shoe company makes high-quality shoes, but they only make them in one color: bright orange. People get tired of only being able to buy orange shoes, so they start petitions and make videos and whatever, trying to let the company know that they'd like shoes of different colors. They do a lot of work, and it's clear that many people want differently colored shoes.

Then the shoe company announces a brand new line of shoes, more comfortable than ever; but, they're orange. Like, the ugliest shade of orange you've ever seen. So of course the people get mad; not because they don't want any orange shoes, but because the shoe company had an opportunity to make shoes of a different color, and they didn't. They made the lazy choice, and made the shoes the same ugly shade of orange that they'd always been.

Of course, then an opposing voice speaks up. They like the color orange, and they're worried that the first group wants to stop the company from making orange shoes (which is a little silly, because they already have hundreds of pairs of orange shoes as it is). They accuse the first group of banning orange shoes, which again, is silly. The first group doesn't want orange shoes banned, they want to be able to wear shoes without them being orange all the time.

It's not "I hate these shoes because they're orange," it's "I really want to like these shoes, but I'm having a hard time because you guys insist on constantly making them orange."

Does that make sense?

I think the problem you're having isn't that your words aren't making sense, it's that your analogy is inadequate.

Think of it more like "Only orange shoes are being made. And some people are (allegedly) using their orange shoes to kick people to death with. Those dastardly ORANGE SHOES."

You might then see the issue people have with Sarkeesian.

 

[runic knight]

@runic_kight , too


Look at it this way. Let's imagine a hypothetical shoe company, one that makes all the shoes in the world. Now, this fictional shoe company makes high-quality shoes, but they only make them in one color: bright orange. People get tired of only being able to buy orange shoes, so they start petitions and make videos and whatever, trying to let the company know that they'd like shoes of different colors. They do a lot of work, and it's clear that many people want differently colored shoes.

Then the shoe company announces a brand new line of shoes, more comfortable than ever; but, they're orange. Like, the ugliest shade of orange you've ever seen. So of course the people get mad; not because they don't want any orange shoes, but because the shoe company had an opportunity to make shoes of a different color, and they didn't. They made the lazy choice, and made the shoes the same ugly shade of orange that they'd always been.

Of course, then an opposing voice speaks up. They like the color orange, and they're worried that the first group wants to stop the company from making orange shoes (which is a little silly, because they already have hundreds of pairs of orange shoes as it is). They accuse the first group of banning orange shoes, which again, is silly. The first group doesn't want orange shoes banned, they want to be able to wear shoes without them being orange all the time.

It's not "I hate these shoes because they're orange," it's "I really want to like these shoes, but I'm having a hard time because you guys insist on constantly making them orange."

Does that make sense?

The problem with your analogy is threefold. First, there is a limited amount of resources the company has to make products, so at some point making blue shoes will mean less orange shoes made. This shouldn't matter if the demand is equal but Secondly the demand for orange shoes has been a stable market. Regardless what people say, the actual numbers show that orange shoes sell really damn well. Finally, and here is the important part, they are already making shoes of every other damn size and color. Seriously, you just have to check in the back and you can find them all. (for games, this is all the games made by developers big and small that don't fall into the tropes). The reason they are in the back though is because no one actually buys them. Be it chicken or egg thing here, the end result is that orange sells, so orange will be supplied and advertised.
Also, as Oirish_Martin said, the campaign to get change is represented by people claiming orange shoes leads to people being kicked. Yes, there are certainly those out there that are fighting just for more publicity for the other colors and bigger name shoes to be orange less often, but the "movement", if you would call it that, seems hell bent to present the argument like orange shoes are morally wrong and causes social problems.

So you have a group of people demonizing orange shoes, claiming they want variety yet not actually buying said available variety, some going as far to label people as colorists and insinuate they lead to a culture of kicking people in the face. They don't represent the interests of the majority people actually buying the product, and while they rarely outright say "don't make orange shoes", the demonizing of the product leads one to ask that if they believe what they are saying, why would they ever support orange shoes being made at all? They lead to face kicking, after all.