That's naivety, not idealism.DrVornoff said:
Expecting a group of people to react amiably to being spammed (and insulted, forgot to add that in the post above) has nothing to do with idealism. It's naive.
The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Expecting a group of people to react amiably to being spammed (and insulted, forgot to add that in the post above) has nothing to do with idealism. It's naive.
It's not sexist to say women like sex. It is sexist to make every single woman in the game or whatever like sex, even when none of the male characters like sex.
Oh, and by the way:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4719-Gender-Games
Oh, and by the way:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4719-Gender-Games
You know, the hardest thing to explain to MRAs and people who spout MRA-type arguments is that men and women are not on equal footing. In spite of all the evidence - extraordinary numbers (1 in 6!) of women being victim to sexual assault, the notorious gender gap in pay, the very need for there to be laws that say it's okay for a woman to do Man Things like voting or owning property (laws which are constantly coming under attack) - there's still a pernicious narrative that women have it pretty good, so can we focus more on man problems please?Darkmantle said:
Besides, his point isn't that you can't be offended/demeaned by depictions of men, it's that the industry is built entirely to please "you", the young single white male. Unrealistic depictions of men and women are there because the industry majority believes that its entire userbase is young men who want to save Ms. Triple-D Tits with their six pack abs and twelve-inch raging erections. That's a problem for both genders, obviously, which is a central tenet (probably THE central tenet) of feminism - The Patriarchy Hurts Everyone.
The core difference, though, is that the patriarchy is built to help men and demean women, and for all the limitations put on men, it genuinely does help men. Consider, say, the gender breakdown of books reviewed by major publications [http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count]. Or, hell, all the stuff I listed in the first paragraph of this little mini-essay. Men as a rule have it easier than women in all arenas. That's why it's so important to unpack representations of women - the best way to break down the patriarchy is to show genuine support for the gender it's trying to push down. Conversely, fixing men's issues won't grant women a reprieve from the patriarchy, it'll just make the patriarchy more liveable for men.
Consider this, if you will. The whole "Misandry in Video Games" thing is about criticizing all the "hurtful stereotypes" (to quote the video) of male protagonists in games. That's it, that's their focus - one character role. The "Tropes vs. Women" series wouldn't make it one minute into a video if they had to even list all the AAA titles that had female protagonists. Men have a whole ocean of representation in games; women have Chell and Faith and Lara Croft and a whole roster of oversexualized Tekken/SF/DoA et al. characters. This in spite of the fact that almost half of all gamers are women. [http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp]
P.S. I take issue with the implied notion that an industry dominated by men is somehow engaging in systemic man-hate.
I don't think patriarchy will ever die, at least in the west. We've been a male dominated society for so long, that any attempt at change is going to be like headbutting a brick wall.
Personally I don't see how a matriarchal society would be any different from a patriarchal one; you'd be just swapping out one set of problems for another, regardless of what feminists say.
The main problem I have with feminists in general is that, in absence of a really big cause, like voting rights, equal pay, civil rights, right to run for office, etc. They go looking for trouble in places where the problem is either a simple misunderstanding, or so laughably minor, all it does is perpetuate the negative stereotypes the movement has picked up over the years.
Personally I don't see how a matriarchal society would be any different from a patriarchal one; you'd be just swapping out one set of problems for another, regardless of what feminists say.
The main problem I have with feminists in general is that, in absence of a really big cause, like voting rights, equal pay, civil rights, right to run for office, etc. They go looking for trouble in places where the problem is either a simple misunderstanding, or so laughably minor, all it does is perpetuate the negative stereotypes the movement has picked up over the years.
I hate to do this, but....
times are a changing. Both genders have real issue with sexual assault, it's time to address the problems of today, not the 80s or 90s
P.S. Not man hate, man stereotyping, just like I'm sure they don't systematically hate women either, they sure do use stereotypes though. the problem is analytics based game design, where clueless marketing people try to guess what should be in the game to make it sell.
my_ledge_ends said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knXHUQ2A1J4&feature=g-user-u
times are a changing. Both genders have real issue with sexual assault, it's time to address the problems of today, not the 80s or 90s
that's been disputed, because if you take out CEO earnings the pay gap drops to a notorious 2-3 percent, and I'm hesitant to believe even that. Most of those studies do it by total, not job by job, and that's a big flaw with the stats.
but there are indeed laws! That's what you don't get! we've dealt with those issue because of prejudice in the past. you CANNOT use those instances to prove anything about the situation of today. You would hold this generation responsible for the pasts mistakes. It was unfair back then, I know, but vengeance isn't a good policy.
yeah, that is the problem for both genders, and you are never going to be able to fix it unless you ADDRESS both genders. Do you think I liked to be stereotyped by the industry as you have described? that all it takes to please me are big tits and stupid wide shoulders? I try to avoid games like that, because I don't want that.
Nope. Prison rates, male dominated. Suicide rates, up for men. Workplace deaths, up for men (by a lot mind you). Majority of soldiers sent to die over seas, men again. Domestic violence, about even. Child custody cases, men lose. By dismissing all of men's problems and framing your argument as the system ALWAYS help men, you are undermining your own claims of trying for equality.
P.S. Not man hate, man stereotyping, just like I'm sure they don't systematically hate women either, they sure do use stereotypes though. the problem is analytics based game design, where clueless marketing people try to guess what should be in the game to make it sell.
You're not specifying who she is committing fraud against. If it is against the US government, then report it to the US government. If it is to her backers on kickstarter, that isn't even possible. Nothing has been delivered, and she is still within the scheduled production timeline. If you feel you have been defrauded by Sarkeesian, it is your obligation to take the matter to a court, not an internet forum.PercyBoleyn said:
It's most likely that you're talking about the backers on kickstarter being defrauded. If that's the case, then no. She has done no fraud at this point. I find your assertions beyond absurd if you think she has committed fraud at this point for the kickstarter project.
That isn't fraud or a problem. If you're talking about her organization being 'non-profit', that only means the surplus funds must further the organization. That does not mean she isn't allowed to write herself a check as the talent, writer, and promoter of her show.PercyBoleyn said:
It's not a problem because she is well within her rights as an organization to take money people give her for her product. That's really the only thing happening here. She is getting paid for making online videos.
Also, imagine her doing exactly what you hunch will happen: delivering a shitty product and taking a lot of money. Show me the problem. She is making money off a shitty product. The people paying her would not victims; they would be fools.
This is exactly how capitalism works. People pay for a product, and they get a product. This particular example of capitalism is not an example of misconduct or fraud.
MovieBob is not trying to explain why women are the only ones with a case; he is explaining why women have a stronger case. He goes over this in the video.hooksashands said:
You're allowed to have whatever reaction to video games you desire. If you want to get a boner at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead. If you want to feel diminished at the near-nude characters male or female, go right ahead.
Your door can swing whichever way you like.
The point bob is addressing is the trend in video games as well as the obvious primary intent behind those aspects. He is not addressing you as a single person with personal reactions to the video games.
To say that both genders have problems with portrayals in video games is to ignore the scale of both issues. Both may be bad, but one is enough worse than the other for it to be a problem.Darkmantle said:
Also, unrealistic portrayals are not inherently the problem. It's not possible to get a realist portrayal of a person in any media, because there are logical constraints. Every single video game character is an unrealistic portrayal. What makes unrealistic portrayals a problem is when there is not a variety of unrealistic portrayals. Since there are only two genders to talk about, comparing them is not unreasonable. There is more variety of portrayals of men in video games than there are for women in video games.
If there were more, but still pretty close, there wouldn't be a problem. The point of the other side of the discussion is that there is enough more so that it is a problem.
Finally, unrealistic portrayals are only half of an issue. The full issue is to consider the 'amount of character' a character has. I don't know exactly what the name for this is, because I'm no critic, but I can recognize it in non-game media. When a character doesn't have enough 'character', they're frequently referred to a 'shell'. In games it is harder to pin down, because characters don't really have characters in the same sense as in movies or books; most of the 'character development' happens through game-play. That is, game-play lends 'amount of character' as well as story-driven character in video games.
It's not really a secret that women generally have fewer 'amount of character' as men in video games. The point is that they have enough fewer to warrant it a problem.
Men have more 'character' characters, and men have more variety of portrayals. And women have sufficiently less than men such that this is a problem. This isn't an equal gender problem. If these problems were closer together, but both pretty shitty, that's an equal gender problem. They're not close at all.
Except women don't have a stronger case. More accumulated examples, maybe. But the fact is almost every male character created within the last nine years falls into similar territory, representing one or more of the following archetypes:Yoshi Bibi said:
-Obscenely muscular, swearing beefsoldier.
-Androgynous manboy with unlimited supply of wangst.
-Average build guy who must have an obligatory scar to show he's still badass.
-Short brown hair mary sue.
-GAY AND FEELING FAAAABULOUS
-Goth prettyboy swordsman who is entirely too serious.
-Comic relief fat guy. Loves to eat.
-Irritating thief dude. Greedy and a womanizer.
I could keep going but what's the point.
No shit? Thanks for pointing out my options as far as the obvious is concerned.Yoshi Bibi said:
Hence the double-hinge.Yoshi Bibi said:
No, he specifically discourages men from sharing the same outrage because "omg wemen hav it so much worss u dun undarstandz!", then goes into turbo bullshit mode by telling men that they are cultivating both an unrealistic body image for women (to make them feel bad) and the same for themselves (to feel more confident, somehow). By extension of your logic, women who get pissed off about this are just having a "personal reaction."Yoshi Bibi said:
Great, I agree, we need more good female characters, now how do we do that?Yoshi Bibi said:
Because it certainly isn't railing against the "patriarchy" and saying it's all white male teenager's fault. And honestly, if I were a developer, I would be heavily disillusioned after some of the recent Lara Croft controversy.
People complained making her boobs too big objectified her, so they reduced their size. And I swear to god I read on this very forums someone complaining that reducing Lara's bust size was sexist and demeaning to woman, especially large-breasted women.
my mind was blown.
anyway, I say the heart of the problem is analytics based game design, where (as I've before somewhere in this thread IIRC) marketers try and guess what their "target" audience wants and then get developers to put it in their games. The problem seems to be supply side here.
The "problem" is that video games are a product, sold to make money. As long as the white heterosexual male is still the core consumer of video games (always has, always will be), then we will continue to have big-titted action babes, muscle men, and the like.Darkmantle said:
Besides, isn't gaming moving toward a less sexist environment already? Look at the backlash to the Hitman: Absolution trailer with the battle nuns. A few years ago, having BDSM nuns be beaten up by a scary man would be par for the course, but instead, gamers decried the trailer as violence porn.
Well, for one, female inmates are twice as likely [http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/svpjri0809pr.cfm] as men to experience inmate-on-inmate sexual assault.Darkmantle said:
For two, I would argue this is getting more into the atrociousness of the American prison system. This Guardian article [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women] raises a good point; both genders experience a dramatic rise in the chances of being a victim of sexual assault, mainly because prison rape is viewed as part of the "justice package." American society dehumanizes its inmates - regardless of gender - to a sickening degree.
Um, no. [http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf]Darkmantle said:
Check this out:
Even in a female-dominated field like education, men earn more than women, by 5%. Ludicrous, is it not?
But, I mean, even that you need to do something like "take out CEO earnings" - is that not in itself kinda disturbing that not only are the vast majority of men are CEOs, but that they earn so much more than women?
You miss my point; that there even need to be laws in the first place is what bothers me - that and they're constantly under attack (cf. Wisconsin and Michigan).Darkmantle said:
I have no idea where you're getting vengeance from. Nonviolent solutions are totes awesome, imo.
The Patriarchy Hurts Everyone. Ironically, even when it tries to help.Darkmantle said:
Ok, sloppy wording, my apologies. What I meant was that men have more resources available to them in general than women. Better employment rates, higher salaries, etc. Acting like men aren't disadvantaged ever - that's dishonest. Male nurses have it pretty fucking rough, for one.Darkmantle said:
Anyway, going to take your claims one-by-one.
1. Yep, male-dominated, and the majority of them are African-American and Hispanic. This is an interesting place for discussion, but again this gets into the American judicial/prison system (also intersectionality! yay intersectionality)
2. Men successfully commit suicide more, but three times as many women [http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html] attempt suicide. I remember reading a study some time ago that correlated certain suicide methods with gender - women were more likely to choose nonviolent methods, like swallowing a lot of pills, whereas men were more likely to choose violent methods, like shooting themselves. That would probably explain the gap (pills are definitely more recoverable than gunshot wounds to the head) but I can't back that up.
3. A legitimate problem, I agree with you, directly related to the fact that the most dangerous jobs in America (mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction industries) are all male-dominated. I would wager this is due to how we socialize these jobs by gender.
4. Oh, I'm actually in the Army, this'll be fun. You do know that the military deploys units, not individuals, right? Women's representation in the military is in the teens [http://iwl.rutgers.edu/documents/njwomencount/Women%20in%20Military%202009%20Final.pdf], and beyond that, women in the military are subject to the Combat Exclusion Policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Exclusion_Policy], which prevents them from working in combat roles below the battalion level (used to be brigade, but the pentagon opened it up to battalion a few months ago). Women are not authorized to serve in a fifth of the armed forces.
Speaking of women's representation in the military, did you know that the majority of senior officers come from career branches that women aren't allowed to join? We've actually seen the first female 4-star general in the Army and Air Force in the past four years.
Here's something else that's cool - there has been exactly one woman who's gotten the Medal of Honor, and that was over 100 years ago. Oh, and we've only had two women get a Silver Star since WWII, one during the war in Iraq and one during the war in Afghanistan.
5. General domestic violence, yes. Domestic violence between intimate partners - women are by far worse off [http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/].
6. Interesting, that. The argument is that women are "expected" to be the nurturing one in a relationship, which is an outlook that benefits women in custody cases. I agree, it's a legitimate problem as well.
The stereotype being, for depictions of both genders, that "this is what men want to see". It's the difference between a man's dilemma of "I'm not being catered to correctly," versus a woman's dilemma of "I'm not being catered to at all."Darkmantle said:
But, once again, The Patriarchy Hurts Everyone.
Ack, sloppy wording. What I meant is that men have more resources at their disposal.Father Time said:
...Wait, the draft? Really, man? We haven't had a draft in over forty years, and it's probably never coming back. Our military prides itself on being an all-volunteer force. I should know - I'm in the Army.
When there's gender parity in every category - pay, job representation, etc. Also, things like rape culture will be gone. I mean, there are concrete goals to feminism; a lot of them, in fact. Too many for me to list in one place.Father Time said:
Hey, free speech man, if I were a private citizen I could make a Nazi flag and fly it in my front yard. Thing is, I'd be called out for it, and rightfully so.Father Time said:
That's the end game here - misogyny in video games would be called out without people (i.e. Sarkeesian wiki vandals) freaking the fuck out.
And actually, fixing women's issues would help, for one by stopping the degradation of traditionally "feminine" things. Men who enjoy, say, being a nurse would see quality of life improvements.