The Big Picture: Gender Games

[RanceJustice]

I'm glad Bob explained that the vast majority of female gamers have no problem with "sexy" character design. However, I feel that he stumbled on the issue of posing more than anything. In fact, I think this is actually an excellent example of gaming equality - in many cases, both the character's appearance and the pose/attitude personality are basically a set of ideals.

When he went through the male characters poses, he correctly identified a lot of what they were presenting. However, it appears the female poses he chose a different interpretation simply to make a point. Is Mike Haggar's "Arm up, implying strength" pose a comfortable or normal way for a man to stand? No of course not, its just as much of a "I could be looking in the mirror or showing off for the player" as a female character cocking her hips to the side. Both male and female characters embody various tropes that go through their character design. Morrigan Aesland is a succubus, her entire character is designed around sex in accordance with legends predating video games; we'd expect her poses to suggest exuding temptation and danger. All of these poses fit these characters, not simply provide eye-candy. I think its rather telling that Soul Caliber's Ivy is shown exclusively in her sexy outfit, but not her nearly completely covering "George Washington" attire, one of her default outfits.

Characters in games are typically designed to various ideals that are impossible or unlikely to be present in real life. Most men aren't going to look like Mike Haggar or even Marth, most women aren't going to look like Ivy or Samus. This isn't an issue - most people want to play ideals in certain circumstances. However there are also elements or realism when important to the story. Look at GTA4 - no character, male or female, is a perfect ideal and that's part of the design and it works in that environment. Look at the sheer variety of character designs in Alpha Protocol; you have several romance options and at least 2 of them are (SIE and Madison) are not developed to be stereotypically hot. In fact, the most "normative" attractive member, Scarlett reacts negatively to attempts to compliment and spend time addressing her beauty, unless you know her very well: she wants to be taken seriously as a reporter. Mina, while attractive but not designed as "Asian Seductress" trope, has a similarly complex set of reactions that lead to what's most likely the most in-depth actual "relationship" in the game.

We have more variation in female characters than ever and while I grant there is a part of the male gamer market that is hostile to females even asking question, I think it is because the vast majority of the so-called "Feminists" who bring up topics often are the more hardcore variety from the "All sex with a man is rape, sky god killed mother earth, Womyn" camp as opposed to the "Lets treat everyone equal" camp. To use a real life comparison, there are feminists who actively degrade other women for making the choice to stay home and raise their children while their partner brings in money - a perfectly respectable choice and excellent for the offspring. However, these feminists are truly no better than the old school chauvinists in that they are trying to limit the definition of valid choices for women, just on another path. They bring this same line of belief to games that somehow if every female character isn't "I am woman hear me roar, I don't do anything for the benefit of any MAN anywhere" somehow it isn't a modern valid role for a woman. That's wrong as well.

Much like racial and religious groups that make critical statements of video games, the feminist community tends to bring its extremes: the moderates and more reasonable folks don't typically find the need to bring forth these sorts of issues as they just aren't that big a deal without extremist beliefs.

 

[internetzealot1]

Oh, and does anyone think its ironic that Gears of War is probably one of the better games in this area?

Firstly, why would it be ironic? People don't appreciate the characterisation of the sub-cast in Gears games... Fenix and Dom are kinda lame, I'll be the first to admit, but Coletrain, Tai, Prescott, Hoffman, Dizzy, Jack, Carmine the 1st... I could go on.

Secondly, sci-fi in games and film has given us some of the best female characters going, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Lt. Mira(Space Marine), Liara(ME2 moreso then 1 imo, she was much more capable and believable in that game) and Samus(pre other M) to name but a few and none of the females in gears are sexed at all but Sam and Bernie are stand out example of chicks getting shit done for me. Lt. Mira especially is getting some serious applause from certain crowds, and for good reason.

Its just that whenever people talk about immature games with mature content, they tend to bring up Gears of War.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

It's embarrassing how many people are trying to excuse female objectification in video games by saying it happens to men as well by pointing to all of the beefy conan-space-marine types. people seem to be completely missing the point. Muscle bound men are seen as sexually attractive in popular culture, but this sort of body structure is also seen as 'Heroic'. The strong male character looks like someone who is capable of taking his knocks and giving a beating to the bad guys, whomever they may be. The common female character in video games or other media is considerably less muscular, instead of focusing on how strong and physically capable she is, games, movies, etc instead routinely focus on their sexuality. As pointed out in the video, they are frequently put into suggestive poses and either have a coquettish expression, if they have an expression at all.

snip

I would agree with the "money is your vote." Often, this is why I don't buy triple-A titles. The indie and art game scene has none of this "feminist problem;" feminists are instead seen as assets, and feminist criticism is useful.

Women might not purchase as many copies of extreme tits volleyball, but the point is moot. We appear to have a lack of Trip-A titles marketed towards a good 42% (and growing) of the market share. That's not just misogynistic, that's bad business.

Publishers may be in it to make money, but I maintain a shred of hope that the Devs are aiming for something higher (maybe art, even?). So I implore them to grow up and make their products worth taking seriously.

EDIT: There remains the underlying problem of the lack of female game creators, which is far, far less than the number of female gamers. There isn't so much of a "male conspiracy" as there is a serious sausage fest in the dev departments.

Well, like I said, if it really is a marketing mistake then the system should correct for itself. Someone will come out with a game that appeals more to women and it will sell more than its competitors because more women will buy it. Problem solved. Eventually someone at EA or some other place is going to realize the size of the female market and take advantage of it. That's how capitalism works. I'm not a full libertarian or anything, in fact I'd like to see some things at least be partly socialized so that everyone can afford it (for instance very basic things like health care), but this is the kind of thing that capitalism is great at doing.

And no, most devs are likely in it to get paychecks so they can afford food. Sure, I think most of them probably enjoy their jobs, but they're still in it to make a living. 'Art' has become a meaningless and pretentious term. It used to simply be something that was created in order to be appreciated for its beauty. Now it seems that beauty isn't enough and art has to have some sort of insipid message so it can 'make people think'. What rubbish. The only valid way to argue for something is with cold and rational argumentation, everything else is either propaganda or sophistry. Games are a form of entertainment, they don't need to be anything else. They can create an emotional response in the player or they could just be mindless violence, it really just comes down to what the consumer wants out of their product.

It's seriously distressing how you don't seem to understand that "the system should correct for itself." is false. The system has found something marketable- in this case the sexual objectification of women, and there is no reason to think that it will stop marketing this image as long as it makes money. This is not harmless, and this image is not marketed solely towards men, as some have attempted to argue. One need look no further then the multitude of women who subject themselves disorders to Bulimia or Anorexia in order to fit into the marketed 'ideal' of feminine beauty.

The Gilded Age if nothing else provides plenty of material on the ability of capitalism to damage society in the pursuit of capital. There is no proof that capitalism, left on its own, naturally trends towards the benign.

Art does not exist in a vacuum, it is influenced by culture and with the way sexuality is marketed in today's world,sexuality and sexism is very much a relevant topic in regards to art. As for games, regardless of whether you think of them as art or not, they are not created in a vacuum either-they are influenced by culture-they are in no way simply 'entertainment'.

You missed out on half of the conversation. We weren't arguing about whether video games will stop objectifying women. I agree, they won't because there is a market for it. I was instead arguing that the market will offer more games geared towards women that DO NOT objectify them because there is a market audience for those types of games.

Do you really think that the 'objectification of women' is caused by some evil Hegelian world spirit that possesses mankind? The objectification of women has its roots in the male sex drive.

Let me explain this in terms of evolution. The adaptation that makes human beings successful is our ability to reason. The problem is that in order to develop our ability to reason we have inexorably long developmental cycles where our young are vulnerable for about ten years. This has lead to specialization between the sexes. Women have a nine month pregnancy, and then must nurse and take care of the children. This meant that physical strength was impractical for them. Instead they developed to be physically weaker than men because they were charged with foraging and raising children. Men, on the other hand, became charged with hunting and fighting. This made them the natural leaders of society because they were the ones who had to decide where to go in order to follow their prey. The relationship stayed this way for most of human history. Now that physical prowess is no longer the deciding factor for leadership, there is no reason why the sexes can't be on equal footing. The problem is that this is a fairly new development and it has to go against millions of years of evolution.

Frankly, I don't regard sexuality as a bad thing. The important thing isn't that men and women see each other in a completely asexual manner, it's that they recognize that the important factor for how someone functions in society is their intelligence. That being said, I really don't see how censoring everything that tends to objectify men or women is going to change much of anything.

Frankly you're confusing cause and effect, the images in the media are merely a symptom of the underlying values of society. It isn't capitalism that is to blame. Capitalism is merely an economic system, it isn't a value system. It's consumerism. If society still had a strong emphasis on family connections, then people would get their values from their families. But parents don't raise their children anymore, they set them in front of the TV. So is it any wonder why people get their values from the media? A consumerist society will treat people as sex objects to be possessed because it defines life in terms of how many objects you can possess. The problem is that American culture wasn't strong enough to handle capitalism.

You don't have to have an iron will to resist the images in the media, your parents just had to raise you with a little backbone. But as long as parents are lazy people are going to be slaves to the popular media. Trying to change the media itself is an uphill battle that I'm afraid you can't win. Maybe in a socialist society where the government completely controlled the media it would be possible, but in our capitalist society it is always going to take advantage of the market. Sex sells. If you want it to stop selling people are going to have to stop buying it.

 

[MysticMongol]

I'm glad Bob explained that the vast majority of female gamers have no problem with "sexy" character design. However, I feel that he stumbled on the issue of posing more than anything. In fact, I think this is actually an excellent example of gaming equality - in many cases, both the character's appearance and the pose/attitude personality are basically a set of ideals.

When he went through the male characters poses, he correctly identified a lot of what they were presenting. However, it appears the female poses he chose a different interpretation simply to make a point. Is Mike Haggar's "Arm up, implying strength" pose a comfortable or normal way for a man to stand? No of course not, its just as much of a "I could be looking in the mirror or showing off for the player" as a female character cocking her hips to the side. Both male and female characters embody various tropes that go through their character design. Morrigan Aesland is a succubus, her entire character is designed around sex in accordance with legends predating video games; we'd expect her poses to suggest exuding temptation and danger.

Hah, no. (Almost) every female video game character is already constantly striking sexual poses, so we aren't informed that Morrigan is a succubus because she's exuding sexuality, but rather because she exudes bats. For years I thought she was a vampire.

The problem isn't the sexy designs, or the fact that the characters are striking poses. Of course they're striking poses, the designers are trying to communicate information about the character with it. Here, let me pull an example from the latest street fighter game, where all the characters are sexually attractive paragons of humanity, even the men. (One's a big muscly dude with almost no clothes who oils up before every fight.)

Specifically, let's look at the pre-fight introduction poses.

There's Juri. Yes, like every other female character she's slender and young. Yes, she wears a shirt that is a handkerchief tied in place over her chest. But her pose tells us a lot about her. It says she's ready to fight, and that she's quite confident--the wide, aggressive stance, and the fact she's leaning into the challenge says she's excited about the upcoming fight. She looks cruel, she looks evil, and her eye thing is eye thinging, which tells us she's a borderline crazy person. So we've got a violent fighter who's about to hurl herself into the fray, and if you're not careful she'll probably eat one of your ears.

This is a fine pose for a fighter.

This is Cammy. Like Juri, she's a genetically engineered supersoldier with a sexy body and not very much in the way of clothing. Unlike Juri, this pose doesn't suggest her attitude about the upcoming fight, or how she's going to act in that fight. It does suggest that she's sexually available. Look at my ass, this pose says. I bet you could insert something into it. Can you think of anything fun to put in my ass?

This is a fine pose for a porn star.

Both are dangerous, sexy women with ludicrous backstories and not very much clothing. But one is being presented as a threat, and one is being presented as a fantasy.

Look at the sheer variety of character designs in Alpha Protocol; you have several romance options and at least 2 of them are (SIE and Madison) are not developed to be stereotypically hot. In fact, the most "normative" attractive member, Scarlett reacts negatively to attempts to compliment and spend time addressing her beauty, unless you know her very well: she wants to be taken seriously as a reporter. Mina, while attractive but not designed as "Asian Seductress" trope, has a similarly complex set of reactions that lead to what's most likely the most in-depth actual "relationship" in the game.

Are you kidding? SIE, the slender, large-breasted Caucasian woman in a tiny, tight shirt, with long blonde hair in a pony tail is not stereotypically hot? Madison is less of a goofy cutout, but she's still a thin white chick with a low cut to her shirt and too much makeup. Just because she's not smuggling balloons doesn't make her a shining testament to diversity in female character design.

Every romance in a chatty RPG is equally terrible, because they all play out the same way--tell a woman what she wants to hear, who cares if it's a lie, and you are rewarded with off-screen sex.

Here, five sentence romance FAQ for Alpha Protocol.

SIE: Be aggressive, B - E - Aggressive.
Scarlett: Be professional and send her news stories.
Madison: Promise to protect her with your big manly arms, and don't flirt until you take her home.
Mina: Don't shoot very many hostages, and be professional, she is a reward for playing nice.

All girls: If one asks about another, say, "She didn't mean nothing to me, baby, it's you I'm thinkin' of."

Ladies' Man!
(Treated four women like objects achievement unlocked)

 

[cainx10a]

I'm glad Bob explained that the vast majority of female gamers have no problem with "sexy" character design. However, I feel that he stumbled on the issue of posing more than anything. In fact, I think this is actually an excellent example of gaming equality - in many cases, both the character's appearance and the pose/attitude personality are basically a set of ideals.

When he went through the male characters poses, he correctly identified a lot of what they were presenting. However, it appears the female poses he chose a different interpretation simply to make a point. Is Mike Haggar's "Arm up, implying strength" pose a comfortable or normal way for a man to stand? No of course not, its just as much of a "I could be looking in the mirror or showing off for the player" as a female character cocking her hips to the side. Both male and female characters embody various tropes that go through their character design. Morrigan Aesland is a succubus, her entire character is designed around sex in accordance with legends predating video games; we'd expect her poses to suggest exuding temptation and danger.

Hah, no. (Almost) every female video game character is already constantly striking sexual poses, so we aren't informed that Morrigan is a succubus because she's exuding sexuality, but rather because she exudes bats. For years I thought she was a vampire.

The problem isn't the sexy designs, or the fact that the characters are striking poses. Of course they're striking poses, the designers are trying to communicate information about the character with it. Here, let me pull an example from the latest street fighter game, where all the characters are sexually attractive paragons of humanity, even the men. (One's a big muscly dude with almost no clothes who oils up before every fight.)

Specifically, let's look at the pre-fight introduction poses.

There's Juri. Yes, like every other female character she's slender and young. Yes, she wears a shirt that is a handkerchief tied in place over her chest. But her pose tells us a lot about her. It says she's ready to fight, and that she's quite confident--the wide, aggressive stance, and the fact she's leaning into the challenge says she's excited about the upcoming fight. She looks cruel, she looks evil, and her eye thing is eye thinging, which tells us she's a borderline crazy person. So we've got a violent fighter who's about to hurl herself into the fray, and if you're not careful she'll probably eat one of your ears.

This is a fine pose for a fighter.

This is Cammy. Like Juri, she's a genetically engineered supersoldier with a sexy body and not very much in the way of clothing. Unlike Juri, this pose doesn't suggest her attitude about the upcoming fight, or how she's going to act in that fight. It does suggest that she's sexually available. Look at my ass, this pose says. I bet you could insert something into it. Can you think of anything fun to put in my ass?

This is a fine pose for a porn star.

Both are dangerous, sexy women with ludicrous backstories and not very much clothing. But one is being presented as a threat, and one is being presented as a fantasy.

Look at the sheer variety of character designs in Alpha Protocol; you have several romance options and at least 2 of them are (SIE and Madison) are not developed to be stereotypically hot. In fact, the most "normative" attractive member, Scarlett reacts negatively to attempts to compliment and spend time addressing her beauty, unless you know her very well: she wants to be taken seriously as a reporter. Mina, while attractive but not designed as "Asian Seductress" trope, has a similarly complex set of reactions that lead to what's most likely the most in-depth actual "relationship" in the game.

Are you kidding? SIE, the slender, large-breasted Caucasian woman in a tiny, tight shirt, with long blonde hair in a pony tail is not stereotypically hot? Madison is less of a goofy cutout, but she's still a thin white chick with a low cut to her shirt and too much makeup. Just because she's not smuggling balloons doesn't make her a shining testament to diversity in female character design.

Every romance in a chatty RPG is equally terrible, because they all play out the same way--tell a woman what she wants to hear, who cares if it's a lie, and you are rewarded with off-screen sex.

Here, five sentence romance FAQ for Alpha Protocol.

SIE: Be aggressive, B - E - Aggressive.
Scarlett: Be professional and send her news stories.
Madison: Promise to protect her with your big manly arms, and don't flirt until you take her home.
Mina: Don't shoot very many hostages, and be professional, she is a reward for playing nice.

All girls: If one asks about another, say, "She didn't mean nothing to me, baby, it's you I'm thinkin' of."

Ladies' Man!
(Treated four women like objects achievement unlocked)

What a load of bullshit. That's the 'gameplay' mechanic of every single romance portion of an RPG ... and specially of Alpha Protocol where you are expected to act certain way with people to well achieve your goal ... since one of the agent many talent is apparently his aptitude to manipulate people. Having meaningful and realistic relationship in a game, specially one where you are on the run would be ludicrous. I don't see Thorton proposing to Madison anytime soon, going to church to tie the knot with Madburg behind his tail. Though that would make for a pretty funny cliche battle ... in a church.

This romance system works with MALES (ALISTAIR, ZEVRAN, OGREN, OOOOOGREEEEEN!!!11111) as well as with FEMALES. And Mikey is just building up a relationship with these women over a LONG period of time. It's not like he is "hey babe, let's fuck now ... I got a world to save after all". And if it wasn't enough, all those relationships are doomed to failure ... something that's rare in other games (lol, Mass Effect).

And you just got to roleplay as an asshole ... congrats. At least one game is doing something right about roleplaying, instead of being SUPA EVIL or SUPER GOOOOOOD (lol, kotor).

Personally, I would rather have a bromance with Steven Heck, because you know ... he is awesome. And doesn't have a secret that will bite you in the cheeks, like either of those 4 romance option have.



About the sexy clothing of Cammy, I may not be a SF player, that sure looks like a decent distraction for her hapless opponents ... like poor Balrog.

 

[omegawyrm]

Wow, this board has a much fucking larger proportion of sexist bigots than I expected. "Women are already equal in every way!" Really? You are really that blind? You've yet again shattered my naive illusions that I belong to a progressive or thoughtful fan community. I suppose I have only myself to blame though.

 

[I forgot]

This argument is weak.... some actually did portray the character (Morrigan and Mai). Those complaining about a sexy pose are being presumptive and ignoring everything else that can show character, like the facial expression.

Please understand that when the complaint is, "Almost all female video game characters are portrayed as sluts and whores," responding, "Some of them actually are sluts and whores!" is not any better.

As for feminism:
I have been maced just for sitting down at a table adjacent to a table where a woman sat in a public cafeteria (and afterwards screamed at for being a dirty filthy male).

You were assaulted in a cafeteria, unprovoked? That isn't an example of the matriarchy coming down on you like a fist, that's an example of crime. Or it would be, if there was any reason to believe this actually happened.

I didn't say they were sluts and whores, you did and to me this is what's representative of the problem. That a woman striking a sexy pose immediately makes them a whore or a slut and any woman who can be attributed to sex or sexuality is immediately demonized.

 

[cainx10a]

Wow, this board has a much fucking larger proportion of sexist bigots than I expected. "Women are already equal in every way!" Really? You are really that blind? You've yet again shattered my naive illusions that I belong to a progressive or thoughtful fan community. I suppose I have only myself to blame though.

It's kay. The world has a much fucking larger proportion of sexist bigots towards men, specially minority men since as far as I remember I have always been told I am a barbaric 'muslim' man who like to keep the women down ... for the past fucking 7-8 years ... in every fucking elective class I have been to.

Also, you fail to point out which argument is wrong and how it is wrong. But thanks for painting everyone in the community who disagrees with you as sexist bigots. It's kay, men are supposed to have a thick skin ... apparently.

 

[Oroboros]

You missed out on half of the conversation. We weren't arguing about whether video games will stop objectifying women. I agree, they won't because there is a market for it. I was instead arguing that the market will offer more games geared towards women that DO NOT objectify them because there is a market audience for those types of games.

You don't seem to have understood when I addressed that in the first paragraph. There is no reason to expect them to change as long as they can make the most money by targeting men, the largest demographic. As is, they seem to be increasingly abandoning niche genres, there's no reason to think that they won't continue to exploit women and treat them as a niche market.

Do you really think that the 'objectification of women' is caused by some evil Hegelian world spirit that possesses mankind? The objectification of women has its roots in the male sex drive.

Not what I said. I said:

The Gilded Age if nothing else provides plenty of material on the ability of capitalism to damage society in the pursuit of capital. There is no proof that capitalism, left on its own, naturally trends towards the benign.

Did I say capitalism is evil? No. Don't put words in my mouth. just that there is a reason to expect the market to steer itself away from material that is degrading to women as long as it sells.

Let me explain this in terms of evolution. The adaptation that makes human beings successful is our ability to reason. The problem is that in order to develop our ability to reason we have inexorably long developmental cycles where our young are vulnerable for about ten years. This has lead to specialization between the sexes. Women have a nine month pregnancy, and then must nurse and take care of the children. This meant that physical strength was impractical for them. Instead they developed to be physically weaker than men because they were charged with foraging and raising children. Men, on the other hand, became charged with hunting and fighting. This made them the natural leaders of society because they were the ones who had to decide where to go in order to follow their prey. The relationship stayed this way for most of human history. Now that physical prowess is no longer the deciding factor for leadership, there is no reason why the sexes can't be on equal footing. The problem is that this is a fairly new development and it has to go against millions of years of evolution.

Wow. So women make bad leaders? In other words, they can't be trusted to think for themselves? You seem to be missing the point that most of the world aren't hunter gatherers...(not to mention your rather simplistic view of hunter gatherer cultures) At any rate, this stereotype is not relevant in industrialized nations, where people don't need to hunt for food, and don't need to gather, and women don't need to be the ones taking care of the children. Video games are not marketed towards hunter gatherers at any rate.

You are essentially arguing that women are incapable of leading society due to evolution....so this excuses exploitation of women? Perhaps you could word this better, because this sounds eerily similar to excuses made by slave owners in 1800's America. I assume you aren't pro-slavery, so could you word this better?

"Frankly, I don't regard sexuality as a bad thing. The important thing isn't that men and women see each other in a completely asexual manner, it's that they recognize that the important factor for how someone functions in society is their intelligence. That being said, I really don't see how censoring everything that tends to objectify men or women is going to change much of anything."

Not arguing against sexuality. Just arguing against brands of sexuality that are degrading and harmful to women. You are aware that the ideals marketed in video games aren't universal and never have been? There are alternative ways of expressing feminine sexuality without degrading them.

"Frankly you're confusing cause and effect, the images in the media are merely a symptom of the underlying values of society. It isn't capitalism that is to blame. Capitalism is merely an economic system, it isn't a value system. It's consumerism. If society still had a strong emphasis on family connections, then people would get their values from their families. But parents don't raise their children anymore, they set them in front of the TV. So is it any wonder why people get their values from the media? A consumerist society will treat people as sex objects to be possessed because it defines life in terms of how many objects you can possess. The problem is that American culture wasn't strong enough to handle capitalism.

You don't have to have an iron will to resist the images in the media, your parents just had to raise you with a little backbone. But as long as parents are lazy people are going to be slaves to the popular media. Trying to change the media itself is an uphill battle that I'm afraid you can't win. Maybe in a socialist society where the government completely controlled the media it would be possible, but in our capitalist society it is always going to take advantage of the market. Sex sells. If you want it to stop selling people are going to have to stop buying it."

Exactly. Capitalism has no values. No morals, etc. It's a blank slate. Hence there is no reason to expect it to change for the benefit of society on its own, when it can make more money playing to peoples prejudices and emotions. That being said, there is no reason to think that the media does not feed back into the culture. Every commercial with a half-starved, half-dressed model it reinforces these biases. Advertising makes money off of playing peoples emotions after all. For example, people are more likely to go buy a house alarm if they see one of those commercials where a woman home alone is visited by a burglar and only saved by her alarm. They wouldn't use these commercials if they were not effective. (notice hows never a man that is helpless in these situations, another topic for another time, perhaps)

In short, I'm saying that just because there is a market for it, doesn't mean it can be handwaved away as simply being a normal function of the system that is inevitable and unchangeable, and that it should be allowed to run its course like some sort of weather pattern. As long as there is a market for it, it will continue to be marketed, and through media saturation of this view of beauty, it continues to feed the market to create more demand. Leaving it to its own devices is no solution. I do agree that education is the best way to counter this though.

 

[MysticMongol]

About the sexy clothing of Cammy, I may not be a SF player, that sure looks like a decent distraction for her hapless opponents ... like poor Balrog.

Sounds good to me! The female characters can win fights by taking off their shirts and stunning their opponents with a look at the twins, and male characters can win fights by being excellent fighters! Why are all those feminists complaining? That's game balance!

Your opinions are terrible, and you are too.

I didn't say they were sluts and whores, you did and to me this is what's representative of the problem. That a woman striking a sexy pose immediately makes them a whore or a slut and any woman who can be attributed to sex or sexuality is immediately demonized.

They're not just striking a pose because someone's taking a picture or they're trying to impress a romantic interest. They're striking a sexy pose at all times, it is their default activity. About to engage in a life or death struggle? Just got a powerup? Your home town just got set on fire? Waiting for the bus? Sounds like a great time to squeeze their tits together, yay!

Oh no, this building is burning down! But is anyone watching me? I better strike a vogue just in case!

 

[cainx10a]

About the sexy clothing of Cammy, I may not be a SF player, that sure looks like a decent distraction for her hapless opponents ... like poor Balrog.

Sounds good to me! The female characters can win fights by taking off their shirts and stunning their opponents with a look at the twins, and male characters can win fights by being excellent fighters! Why are all those feminists complaining? That's game balance!

Your opinions are terrible, and you are too.

Way to totally ignore Cammy's FIGHTING ABILITIES.

Oh and your opinions are not any better, but you are a wonderful human being. Well, have fun foaming at how the video game industry is mean towards your gender. I'll go have some fun playing a video game.

 

[MysticMongol]

Way to totally ignore Cammy's FIGHTING ABILITIES.

Oh and your opinions are not any better, but you are a wonderful human being. Well, have fun foaming at how the video game industry is mean towards your gender. I'll go have some fun playing a video game.

I'm a dude, hth.

 

[cainx10a]

Way to totally ignore Cammy's FIGHTING ABILITIES.

Oh and your opinions are not any better, but you are a wonderful human being. Well, have fun foaming at how the video game industry is mean towards your gender. I'll go have some fun playing a video game.

I'm a dude, hth.

Oh apologies my 'good' man ... dh.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

Just kind of thinking about the insanity of saying that's not realist in the games that seem to be the big offenders in the strike a sexy pose debate.

Is it realistic for Cammy to strike a sexy pose in a skimpy outfit, no not really. But then it's a game where Dhalsim can stretch his arms out about 20 feet, E. Honda can fly across a room like he was on wires, and Blanka can shoot lighting out his butt. Sure breast physics in the Dead or Alive series is nothing like the real world but you don't hear people complain because Street Fighter's Rufus doesn't have real world belly physics.

Most of the games where women are doing the unrealistic poses seem to be set in games that are about as far from the real world as you can get to begin with.

 

[Uszi]

Wow. I mean, I liked the in-depth approach. This is like, polar opposite of not being able to find enough material.

You found 5:00 minutes of material in one tiny portion of a larger material. Please come back to it, Bob. Anyway, you generated a shit storm of comments so...

 

[Clonekiller]

Hate to break it to you buddy, but this armor design is extremely stupid. She's protected EVERYWHERE except the two most vital area (heart and face/head) - her neck isn't protected by anything but a red scarf either, which really doesn't do anything against swords, axes and the like.

Granted, she isn't overly sexy because her stance is pretty neutral, but this is exactly the kind of 'WTF?' armor design feminist rally against, as essentially it's more important for the character to show her beauty (through her face and boobs) then to not get killed.

*Facepalm* Missed the second pic I had in the same post did we? Course, your right in some respects. The leather should go up to the neck line. However, a full-face helm compromises vision, so the helm is more of a combat tactical choice rather than an attractiveness thing. (Judging by the half-plate theme, it can be assumed that she favors vision and mobility over protection) In addition, no combat armor in history has ever protected the neck. Why? Cause your neck needs space to move. The last thing you want to do is accidentally strangle yourself on your armor. (The closest thing armorsmiths came up with were chain mail collars or additions to the backs of helmets) As a result, the scarf is actually not a bad choice.

On another note, even you have to admit that that armor is a huge step up from the stuff in games like Mortal Kombat. Is it perfect? No, but it is certainly leaps and bounds in the right direction.

P.S. Care to post a pic of your ideal female armor design? I'm rather curious now.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

You missed out on half of the conversation. We weren't arguing about whether video games will stop objectifying women. I agree, they won't because there is a market for it. I was instead arguing that the market will offer more games geared towards women that DO NOT objectify them because there is a market audience for those types of games.

You don't seem to have understood when I addressed that in the first paragraph. There is no reason to expect them to change as long as they can make the most money by targeting men, the largest demographic. As is, they seem to be increasingly abandoning niche genres, there's no reason to think that they won't continue to exploit women and treat them as a niche market.

Once again, you missed a large part of the previous conversation. I was saying that if 40% of the market for video games are women, as cited by the person I was arguing with, and those women forgo games that objectify them, then the market will correct itself. 40% is NOT a niche market.

Do you really think that the 'objectification of women' is caused by some evil Hegelian world spirit that possesses mankind? The objectification of women has its roots in the male sex drive.

Not what I said. I said:

The Gilded Age if nothing else provides plenty of material on the ability of capitalism to damage society in the pursuit of capital. There is no proof that capitalism, left on its own, naturally trends towards the benign.

Did I say capitalism is evil? No. Don't put words in my mouth. just that there is a reason to expect the market to steer itself away from material that is degrading to women as long as it sells.

The point was that the objectification of women cannot be corrected merely by censoring the media, because its primary cause is the male sex drive. It's been happening before the first printing press.

Let me explain this in terms of evolution. The adaptation that makes human beings successful is our ability to reason. The problem is that in order to develop our ability to reason we have inexorably long developmental cycles where our young are vulnerable for about ten years. This has lead to specialization between the sexes. Women have a nine month pregnancy, and then must nurse and take care of the children. This meant that physical strength was impractical for them. Instead they developed to be physically weaker than men because they were charged with foraging and raising children. Men, on the other hand, became charged with hunting and fighting. This made them the natural leaders of society because they were the ones who had to decide where to go in order to follow their prey. The relationship stayed this way for most of human history. Now that physical prowess is no longer the deciding factor for leadership, there is no reason why the sexes can't be on equal footing. The problem is that this is a fairly new development and it has to go against millions of years of evolution.

Wow. So women make bad leaders? In other words, they can't be trusted to think for themselves? You seem to be missing the point that most of the world aren't hunter gatherers...(not to mention your rather simplistic view of hunter gatherer cultures) At any rate, this stereotype is not relevant in industrialized nations, where people don't need to hunt for food, and don't need to gather, and women don't need to be the ones taking care of the children. Video games are not marketed towards hunter gatherers at any rate.

You are essentially arguing that women are incapable of leading society due to evolution....so this excuses exploitation of women? Perhaps you could word this better, because this sounds eerily similar to excuses made by slave owners in 1800's America. I assume you aren't pro-slavery, so could you word this better?

ROFL. This is the funniest part. You CLEARLY didn't read all the way through. I was saying that women should be equal because they have equal intelligence to men, but millions of years of evolution are behind the old model of society, which is why it is so hard to change. Remember that people basically sold off their daughters before there was any such thing as video games, or the printing press for that matter. You're probably not going to change much of anything by censoring video games.

Frankly, I don't regard sexuality as a bad thing. The important thing isn't that men and women see each other in a completely asexual manner, it's that they recognize that the important factor for how someone functions in society is their intelligence. That being said, I really don't see how censoring everything that tends to objectify men or women is going to change much of anything.

Not arguing against sexuality. Just arguing against brands of sexuality that are degrading and harmful to women. You are aware that the ideals marketed in video games aren't universal and never have been? There are alternative ways of expressing feminine sexuality without degrading them.

I was referring to the male sex drive. I don't see anything wrong with men wanting to buy games like DOA. Sure, it's immature, but it's for their consumption. Not to mention the fact that you can enjoy the cleavage of virtual women without automatically thinking that women are only good for their bodies and belong in the kitchen. It's not out there to force women to want to look a certain way. The women being objectified are pixelated fantasies. I agree it probably does have harmful side effects to weak minded people, but weak minded people are pretty easily harmed. The level of freedom that we would need to restrict in order to protect those people just isn't worth it. I'm all for women boycotting such games or protesting them and trying to get their message out and change society. I'm just not down for censorship.

Frankly you're confusing cause and effect, the images in the media are merely a symptom of the underlying values of society. It isn't capitalism that is to blame. Capitalism is merely an economic system, it isn't a value system. It's consumerism. If society still had a strong emphasis on family connections, then people would get their values from their families. But parents don't raise their children anymore, they set them in front of the TV. So is it any wonder why people get their values from the media? A consumerist society will treat people as sex objects to be possessed because it defines life in terms of how many objects you can possess. The problem is that American culture wasn't strong enough to handle capitalism.

You don't have to have an iron will to resist the images in the media, your parents just had to raise you with a little backbone. But as long as parents are lazy people are going to be slaves to the popular media. Trying to change the media itself is an uphill battle that I'm afraid you can't win. Maybe in a socialist society where the government completely controlled the media it would be possible, but in our capitalist society it is always going to take advantage of the market. Sex sells. If you want it to stop selling people are going to have to stop buying it.

Exactly. Capitalism has no values. No morals, etc. It's a blank slate. Hence there is no reason to expect it to change for the benefit of society on its own, when it can make more money playing to peoples prejudices and emotions. That being said, there is no reason to think that the media does not feed back into the culture. Every commercial with a half-starved, half-dressed model it reinforces these biases. Advertising makes money off of playing peoples emotions after all. For example, people are more likely to go buy a house alarm if they see one of those commercials where a woman home alone is visited by a burglar and only saved by her alarm. They wouldn't use these commercials if they were not effective. (notice hows never a man that is helpless in these situations, another topic for another time, perhaps)

You don't get it do you? It's not about captialism being good for society, it's about society being free. If people want to buy smut or insipid crap, that's their business. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And you're dead wrong about men, they're affected JUST as much as women. All the crap about suppressing your emotions and acting like a mindless jock is a good example. You're basically suggesting that no one can think for themselves so the government has to step in and do their thinking for them and censor the crap out of everything. While I agree that very few people can think for themselves, I don't care to have that type of government thank you very much.

Get your posters and march if you have to. Get the word out to as many people as you can. Boycott industries and protest. But if you can't change peoples minds it doesn't mean that you have the right to force them or take away their freedom.

In short, I'm saying that just because there is a market for it, doesn't mean it can be handwaved away as simply being a normal function of the system that is inevitable and unchangeable, and that it should be allowed to run its course like some sort of weather pattern. As long as there is a market for it, it will continue to be marketed, and through media saturation of this view of beauty, it continues to feed the market to create more demand. Leaving it to its own devices is no solution. I do agree that education is the best way to counter this though.

In this situation, education is the ONLY way. It's not like healthcare, where people can't afford a vital service. That probably DOES deserve government intervention. In the case of video games, you're talking about depriving people of what they want because it can indirectly harm others. If it wasn't right during prohibition then it sure as hell isn't right now. Sure it's generally mindless smut, but they still have a right to spend their money on it. You can protest, boycott and run adds to try to change people's minds, but I damn well better not see any Prop 57's for game censorship in the next election.

The problem is that I don't think you're going to change people's minds. Teenage boys are biologically hardwired to enjoy the sight of breasts. I don't think any campaigns for social awareness are going to change that fact, so you should probably just get used to it and try to educate women to ignore it.

 

[Kahnmir]

I think this pose argument is weak. If feminist's (or perhaps women in general, because maybe there's a difference? I dunno.)problem with "sexy character design" is the poses, why not just SAY that then?
Either women are not the the great communicators with "social skills developed over thousands of years" that feminism has lead us to believe or this is just BS. Sorry, it just is, and maybe the latter statement as well.

Also, I know you that are a feminist yourself and believe that women are superior to men, mainly because they have boobs, which no man could blame you for thinking, though you seem to think it goes beyond just boobs.

I, however, and am individualist. I absolutely refuse to believe that some person is superior to me simply because they have an XX chromosome or an XY. I WILL NOT DO IT, EVEN IF THEY ARE, I WILL OVERCOME THEIR SUPERIORITY, I WILL MAKE MYSELF BETTER. BECAUSE I AM A MAN! HEAR ME ROAR!

 

[hooksashands]

Can you ladies (and men) stop trying to force this retarded penile guilt complex on me? Yea, I'm sorry all the female leads are dressed like skanks, sorry their concept art is stupid and hints at a weak personality, sorry you have such slim pickings when it comes to a reliable, smart and interesting girl hero. But what the hell do you want from me? How is any of this my fault? And most importantly, how is bitching about it and blaming male gamers going to change anything?

I'm approaching the point where I really don't feel like taking this issue seriously anymore. If Kratos, Marcus Fenix, and Nathan Drake are representing ideal make characters, count me the fuck out. You're tired of being a wanton sex object? Well I'm tired of being stuck with tragic antihero, burly macho man and wisecracking douchebag.

 

[Ramzal]

Can you ladies (and men) stop trying to force this retarded penile guilt complex on me? Yea, I'm sorry all the female leads are dressed like skanks, sorry their concept art is stupid and hints at a weak personality, sorry you have such slim pickings when it comes to a reliable, smart and interesting girl hero. But what the hell do you want from me? How is any of this my fault? And most importantly, how is bitching about it and blaming male gamers going to change anything?

I'm approaching the point where I really don't feel like taking this issue seriously anymore. If Kratos, Marcus Fenix, and Nathan Drake are representing ideal make characters, count me the fuck out. You're tired of being a wanton sex object? Well I'm tired of being stuck with tragic antihero, burly macho man and wisecracking douchebag.

This. So very very this. It just seems like if we have a different opinion of "Well, it's not THAT big of a deal" we get labeled as bigots.

You know what would solve everyone's problems? And I'm going to be the one to say it and if I'm hated for it, than so be it. But it needs to be said. If women are truly offended by things like this, want things to change, or demand to stop being thought as nothing more than a sex object than they need to stop reacting to every little thing in a video game like revealing clothing or sexy poses like someone just yelled "Get in the kitchen."

You want to know the actual point of sexist or even undermining looks at women in video games? Look at Poison from Capcom games. Capcom of japan believed that a woman attacking a man in America was so outlandish and that a man fighting back and hitting her was so sexist, they went out of their way to make her a intersex person. (Someone who is both sexes)

And you complain about Cammy having her butt being shown? Seriously. Hell, did you notice the decrease in women in games who just wear skirts and wait for their powerful husband to come back from the fight? Anya from Gears of War had only RECENTLY fired a weapon to kill something in the defense of her friends and decided that's what she needed to do. How is that not a large jump and progression in times?

And guys really need to stop treating women as if they are glass eggs. The more you step and and try to speak out for women to the degree that everyone who disagrees is a sexist, the more and more it seems like you feel women -need- to be defended by you.

Think I'm being a sexist pig? Guess what? I'm not. Why? Because honestly, I'm african american and I've dealt with people's outlook on that. Someone had yelled a racial slur at me and ran away before while I was sitting down reading a book. I looked at him run and someone came over to me, apologized and asked if I was alright.

I responded with "Thank you for your concern, but I do not need to be protected from words" Hell, even after that, someone hung up posters for a "If you are being racially attacked and need help, call this hotline." If anything pissed me off, it's crap like that. It's insulting when someone comes out with an opinion as if I need to be protected from the big bad world.

Seriously, people. The sooner we drop the need to go out of our way to protect a group of people from something that is LITERALLY not important the better. Tyrin Lanister from Game of Thrones put it best:

Tyrin: So you are a bastard. Not only that, but a NOBLE bastard. Instead of taking offense to that, wear it as you wear your armor. Carry it with you, use it as a shield so that no one may hurt you with it.

I used my ethnicity as armor. I do not think it's important nor do I think it's what defines me, however it is with me until I die. So that when people say "You're black" I respond with "Why yes, yes I am." Why is it that women should be any different? Or do you people think they are so weak that they need defending?

Also, lemme put this out there just so that people get in their heads. THERE ARE WOMEN IN THE WORLD WHO DRESS/ACT SLUTTY! By far, not all women. The minority. But it is a factor non the less. But you know what? That's just how they dress and act. To me, this seems like a case of not accepting a kind of person for who they are.