The Big Picture: With Great Power

[runic knight]

damn, gonna be another partial for now.

You are aware that words like "sexist" have harsh stigmas in our society, yes?

And if enough people agree with me to make an actual difference, then the publishers should probably consider the complaint. If not enough people agree to make a difference, then I'm just a lunatic dog howling at the moon and who cares what I think anyway?

There is the idea of the vocal minority. A loud voice is more likely to be heard, even if it is from a lunatic, as you say. And much like the repeated claims about video games causing school shootings, claims of sexism attracts the scavenger news and demagogues. Thus it may lead to developers changing their product to appease the loud group that is neither majority or even customer. Thus why I argue so much, as I don't want to see games changed just to suit the desires of a political ideology or some personal interpretation of feminism.

You are trying to push a change by guilting and condemnation of a trait that you even admit you might not be applying correctly.

I am conceding the possibility that I'm wrong, yes. I do that just because I like to be precise, though. I have, in the past, conceded the possibility that there might be a CIA conspiracy against me personally, tainting my water supply with mind-altering drugs specifically for the purpose of damaging my intellect so I can't threaten their future plans; I conceded it not because I think it's at all likely to be true, but because the possibility does exist within physical reality. Likewise, it is physically possible I'm wrong about the industry being sexist. I don't think so, though.

Fair enough to admit it for the sake of honesty then. I still find the tactic used to try to get change underhanded at best.

Furthermore, no woman or man should get a job just because it satisfies some notion of balance of genders in that career. That is like making a guy a nurse even if he lacks the ability or skill just because he is a guy and there is an under-representation of guys in nursing.

When you tell me why it's necessary for Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Chekhov, and Scotty to all be male, what personality traits or storylines they have that can only be told if the character is male, then I will stop pointing out how weird it is that Uhura the only woman aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise.

You look at it from the wrong perspective. In a story like that where gender is not explored, it is merely creator ascetic or market pressures that decides gender. That the majority of the crew is male is not required (from what I have seen of the show, gender plays no importance on the majority of the stories), it just simply is. Hell, one could make the same question about why there is a woman on the ship at all. It could have easily been a story about an all male crew just the same. Or all female for that matter. Being that it is fiction, there is no actual requirement for equality in the first place. You ask why things are as they are but it really seems to come from a presumption about how they should be. A degree of unfairness in representation as though there has to be equal or fair representation of both genders in the first place. Sad fact of the matter is, there is no such requirement, and there should not be such a hindrance in how stories are made or told. There is already social pressures that push for such equality and that is how it should be, as creators then decide the audience and make the product with them in mind.

At best she might represent females within that world, though that is still a far cry from representing all women in reality itself.

I didn't say she represents all females in the world; I said she is the only female in the world. As such, any traits she has are representative of all women because she's the only woman around to be represented. I argue that she represents women in the real world because as she is the sole representative of the double-X chromosome in the Marioverse (at least prior to Princess Daisy), I have no basis to assume anything else. I cannot assume a more diversified understanding of women until I've seen some evidence of it.

You have no basis to assume that much though. It stems from the idea that a lone character HAS to represent their gender or associated group, but that is not always the case, not in creator intent and not in finished product. Especially in stories that are only as deep as the mario ones. There is no requirement that a character has to represent their group, and while you may interpret it as such, your interpretation is not just personal opinion. Hell, you are aware that one of the reasons so few creators use female characters now is that mindset in the first place? The scrutiny over the character not because of the character itself, but because of the gender. One could argue it is a sexist behavior as you are treating the female characters differently then the male ones solely on their gender. And the media itself does that often with countless over examinations of a character because of the gender as though they should represent their group. It is sort of dehumanizing, if you will forgive the lose application of it to a fictional character, that the characters can't be individuals and instead have to be representatives of their gender, held to a standard of what is or is not appropriate for said gender.

Mario is the only man in the Mushroom Kingdom beside his brother and Wario; does that mean he represents all men and the view the creators have of them in reality?

You already provided two other men, so no. You also forgot Bowser and, at least as of Super Mario Bros 2, Toad.

Except all three are plumbers, mustached and wear overalls. Traits applied to all would actually imply a stronger support that they are suppose to represent all men.
Bowser and toad are not humans, they are of other species. A dragonturtle and a fungi probably can't represent humans very well any more then the koopas, goombas or thwomps.

The problem here is that it is used by culture more often, not games.

The video games industry is a specific part of culture. I can't tackle "culture" as the enormous, all-encompassing thing you seem to mean it to be, just because it's too big for me to ever get my hands around. The video games industry is small enough that I can possibly make a difference.

But that is like saying I have a fever, but my whole body is too big to deal with, you will will just try to worry about my foot. It is a fruitless endeavor as the whole body will have a far greater impact on the limp then all your attempts to fix just the limp. Hell, you should be aware that you a tiny piece compared to even the smaller scale of the entire industry, so you would have a difficult, near impossible task either way.

You are connecting stuff here as though games cause that with no actual evidence other then they correlate. Correlation does not equal causation.

If the video games industry is a culture of its own, then we as a culture are not doing enough to fight the things I've described, and I say we all own responsibility for that.

Video game culture is a subculture. Yes, we certainly have our issues, but my biggest qualm is when people lay the blame of issues of the larger culture we live in at the feet of the subculture.

Also, you ignore the large amount of legitimate criticisms of her by pointing at the worst of her detractors as examples of the whole.

I'm ignoring them because I'm not talking about them. Legitimate criticism is inherently not sexist, so it has nothing to do with the sexist environment I oppose.

except when you bring up the trolls when talking about her opposition, as it presents the idea that the only ones who do are the trolls. Furthermore when you bring up the trolls as validation of her stance under the idea that "if you get those sorts of assholes against her, she must be right", you again relegate all the valid opposition against her stances as worthless compared to the asshat trolls. The trolls are elevated as the more important group to concentrate on, devaluing any criticisms she has as merely more of the sexist troll behavior. And how many out there has outright presented that those who oppose her ARE sexist for doing so?

I have several sisters, nieces and women as friends. Many of them love games, including the ones with traits you find unappealing. None seem to feel shamed for being a woman to start with.

I'm glad for you and for them, but they're not my motivating force here.

But they are still affected by your actions and should be taken into account in how your attempted actions would affect them as well.

Maybe come up with a better idea or at least a more thought out intent and direction.

If you have an idea, I'll listen to it. In the meantime, this is what I got.

Figure out the motivation and behaviors of our culture that promote the idea, figure out why th traits you dislike are popular and sell, figure out alternatives and even if there is a market for it and use market forces such as supply and demand, as well as creator's laziness to follow trends in the hopes of fast cash, to create the media with the traits you want and encourage adoption of it by others to show it is a valid one rather then try to push it onto others who will only fight it tooth and nail every step of the way, some even to the point of spitefulness.
So, team up with some programers and make a simple indie game or two that highlights the traits you want. If there is a market for such a game, the obvious vacuum will work in favor for you to profit off it.

At the start, I could because I believed you had other people's best interest at heart, even if I thought you were going about it in a misguided way. Your last few posts have been changing that though, with strongly implied ideas of satisfying your own ego over finding the best solution and ignoring the rights or desires of other people just because they disagree.

My ego has nothing to do with it. I assume I'm right because I have to; because if I assume I'm wrong, then I can't interact with the world because whatever I believe is wrong and I'll have to cede all my agency to some authority without which I'm helpless. I can't do that. I assume I'm right, and I use myself as a metaphor for anyone who agrees with me because if I claim I have the support of others, then I'm being the kind of dickleak who tries to impress people with the armies of phantoms behind him, and I hate those people, so I won't do it.

I don't assume I am right outright, rather, I assume I have the best response I can form based on the experiences and information I have. I can have confidence in my ability to say "based on all I know, this is the best answer and this chain of reason is why". Tuhs why I argue though, in hopes of moving closer and closer to a better truth.

As for "ignoring the rights of others:" Oh, whatever. If my making arguments on an internet forum is violating anyone's rights, then it's a hard fucking world we live in where speaking an opinion is a violation of another's rights, and I may as well get used to being a tyrant who tramples human sovereignty, because communication of ideas is apparently nothing less than fascism.

Your intent to change things would violate the rights of others if indeed you got your way. That was my point. The rest was sort of commentary on how you contribute to culture through the web, yet you accuse games of having a negative influence on culture by simply contributing to it as well.

Hell, you seem to be revealing a mindset of an "us" and "the enemy" that I find disturbing.

Anyone who opposes my goals is, by definition, my opponent. I'm not sure I ever used the word "enemy" except in a direct quote of an aphorism, though.

But most people who oppose your goal may simply oppose your conclusions or the means you reach them. There are lots of shades of grey.

Anything preventing a woman from buying it because she is a woman. Telling retailers not to buy it, preventing them from playing online, treating them differently than other players (this being, they get a different product or experience than male buyers).

I think your definition of the word "discrimination" is so specific as to be nearly useless.

Yet it is closer to the legal one. And it is not hard to do, but still not seen examples of it in video games.

Dolls that are never fucked are hard to imply as fuckdolls.

Any time a character is presented as a compilation of sexual traits, sexual intercourse is a necessary part of it, so.

Not true. Nudity itself doesn't always mean sex, so why would sexual traits mean it?

AA also relies on a religious idea from which to gain strength to defend against temptation and often seems borderline cultist in how behavior is altered through community.

I'd say that's pretty much what community does, yeah. I don't necessarily attach any negative stigma to that--alteration of behavior is only bad if the behavior is altered to be bad--so no insult is implied.

Yes and no. How behavior is altered can be bad. Anything that leads to dependance or submission to a higher will has a risk of being very bad.

Also, again, I call up simple history where in spite of an overabundance of stories with those traits you hate, women have made steady progress.

I know women are better off now than they have been in the past (well, not in Ohio, but never mind). I just think public opinion is a hurdle to be overcome rather than some irrelevant factor disconnected from the problem.

The culture is hurdle, of sorts. It can also be a force to push for the change, as is example by the progress gay marriage has seen. My point here was that the use of tropes with women having passive or negative traits, hell, the use of stories that would openly describe them as property (religious texts for instance) still did not prevent the progress in the way you suggest video games now can.

I am saying the stories are not the driving force so spending your time blaming them is a pointless waste of it.

I'm not sure I ever said they're a driving force. Contributory factor, sure, but driving force?

A factor enough that you think your time is better spent chasing them down then any other factor then. Perhaps not driving but maybe strongest, if I can infer that your targeting of it implies how you rate such factors.

And do I have to go over how women characters in video games don't have to represent the entirely of womankind?

If it makes you feel better, sure, knock yourself out.

Well an individual character does not have to represent the groups they are a part of as anything but individuals. A religious character may have overbearing-ness as a trait, but that does not mean all religious characters are, even if the only character the player sees that is religious is said overbearing one. Being able to distinguish an individual from a group is sort of the point of arguing against sterotypes, why does your rational support it though, in that the individual has to represent the group if they are the only one there?

Trends that you have no data or statistics on aside from personal experiences but fair enough.

That's right, I don't. I am not a scientist, and I don't know where those studies are or if they even exist. I have never claimed to be a scientist, either. If a scientist is the only source of information you'll accept, then let me know and I'll quit wasting your time talking to you about this stuff.

You don't have to be a scientist to use a little research to back a claim. And when you start making sweeping claims about trends, that does require a little backing behind it. All I ask is a little logic and reason behind opinions and some support behind larger sweeping claims. I don't think it is unfair to ask for a reasonable person when discussing the topic, as I had already assumed you were one.

And anyone who doesn't want to play a game with a skimpy character does not have to either. Why does it cause hurt and have negative consequences, forces cultural influence on women when a game does it, but your (and other people's) attempts to label the industry and proclaiming your desires for change is not an aspect of trying to force change?

All I can do is contribute my voice to a chorus. The effect is dependent upon how loud that chorus is, and that, in turn, is determined by how many people agree with me. I cannot force anyone to agree with me; I can only convince them. If trying to convince people is a form of force, then I am an unapologetic monster, because I will not stop saying that I think I'm right for fear that someone might agree with me.

So, it is alright to cause change when it is your opinion, but it is bad to cause change (assuming games have the effects you claim) when it is not what you like? My point here was not that you were a monster, just logically inconsistent if my understanding was correct.

The majority cannot force its beliefs on the minority when it violates the law or the rights of the minority. There are protections against that, otherwise we would all be Christian and still have slaves.

Sure it can, in a democracy. In a democracy, anything can be changed by a vote. What you're describing is a republic, which has core tenets that are not subject to alteration.

Which, if I assume the constitution counts as core tenets, a large amount of democracies also are (as republics are not excluding of democratic principles).
Thus the western world can still be said to have safeguards in place to prevent the majority from having total control, and thus would makes any point about majority opinion sort of moot until and unless it showed itself consistent with the tenets already in place.

Besides, you scoffed at the idea that it mattered the majority opinion on what is sexist, yet you obviously don't think it is right that the norms that you consider sexist are allowed to go freely.

That I think a majority forcing its will on a minority is an acceptable tactic does not mean I agree with every instance of that tactic being employed.

If the tactic is wrong, it is wrong because of what it is, not because of how it is used. Hell, in debate, the idea of majority opinion is a logical fallacy anyways, as just because more people agree does not make it any more or less true. And again, I will ask you why it is bad when majority opinion says games like DOA are alright now, but it would be good if they started to say no? Is that not just "it is bad because I don't like it?"

 

[JimB]

Typing sheets of text is not a sign of intelligence.

I never said it is. I said you want me to dumb them down for you. That doesn't mean either I or my posts are intelligent; just that you want them to be dumber.

I actually honestly believe that concept of "special is better" is utter crock.

Uh...okay. You're again arguing against something I've never said, though.

Getting back on topic, author of discussed video, of course, do not have any useless degrees, he is totally honest and do not need to bend the truth or use verbal equivalent of CAPSLOCK to prove his point.

That statement is too far away from English for me to understand its point. Please rephrase it more carefully.

A loud voice is more likely to be heard, even if it is from a lunatic, as you say.

Does my talking about feminism in video games here and on two other fora count as loud, then?

And much like the repeated claims about video games causing school shootings, claims of sexism attracts the scavenger news and demagogues. Thus it may lead to developers changing their product to appease the loud group that is neither majority or even customer. Thus why I argue so much, as I don't want to see games changed just to suit the desires of a political ideology or some personal interpretation of feminism.

What ought they to suit, then?

I still find the tactic used to try to get change underhanded at best.

Meh, it doesn't bother me. If I am using guilt as a weapon, then the only people who would be affected by it are those whose consciences bother them or else those who will listen to anything anyone says. I didn't give the first group its guilty conscience and I can't do anything about the second group, so I won't accept responsibility for either, and the second group will change its mind the next time a dissenting voice speaks up anyway.

You look at it from the wrong perspective. In a story like that where gender is not explored, it is merely creator aesthetic or market pressures that decides gender.

These statements really frustrate me, not in a way intended to convey anger at you, runic knight, but in the sense that I really can't figure them out. I don't understand how "market pressures" is a valid excuse, because market pressures also drives Apple to keep its costs low by making all its products in Chinese sweatshops so horrible all the windows are barred so no one can commit suicide by jumping from them; market pressures do not absolve Apple of its choice to fund and perpetuate such an environment. Likewise, I get the feeling you think "creator aesthetic" is some immaculate concept that occurs apart from the personality that creates it and all the prejudices that compose that personality.

That the majority of the crew is male is not required (from what I have seen of the show, gender plays no importance on the majority of the stories), it just simply is.

If it's not required, then why are they written and cast that way? "It just is" isn't the answer, either, because it's only true in an irrational universe where cause and effect are separate.

Hell, one could make the same question about why there is a woman on the ship at all. It could have easily been a story about an all male crew just the same.

And I'd ask why about that, too.

Being that it is fiction, there is no actual requirement for equality in the first place.

No, there isn't. That doesn't mean it's invalid to point out the inequality.

You have no basis to assume that much though. It stems from the idea that a lone character HAS to represent their gender or associated group, but that is not always the case, not in creator intent and not in finished product.

No, it stems from...

Okay. Have you ever heard the saying (that I am probably getting slightly wrong), "Every picture an artist paints is a self-portrait?" It's based on the idea that art is an expression of what the artist has to say, and what the artist has to say is determined by how he views the world. What an artist shows us might not be all the world there is to show, but it's the world he wants us to see, and the artist, or rather, the team of artists behind the first decade or two of Super Mario games wanted us to see a world with only one woman in it; specifically, a woman who exists to be kidnapped, who cannot arrange a security force that would protect her from being kidnapped despite being the ostensible ruler of a kingdom, and who must rely on a nearly mute man to save her.

One could argue it is a sexist behavior as you are treating the female characters differently then the male ones solely on their gender.

I think you're reaching here. I specifically said it's the scarcity of female characters and their roles in the games that makes their representations troubling.

Bowser and Toad are not humans, they are of other species.

If you object to the term "men," then pretend I said "male."

But that is like saying I have a fever, but my whole body is too big to deal with, you will will just try to worry about my foot.

Diseases are treating by poisoning them to death. The bugs have no choice but to die when exposed to the toxic drugs. Sociology is much, much more complex, and I am not equipped to handle it on any scale save that of a community I am part of.

Video game culture is a subculture. Yes, we certainly have our issues, but my biggest qualm is when people lay the blame of issues of the larger culture we live in at the feet of the subculture.

I never in life said sexism is the child of the video games industry. I said we have embraced it, and we are responsible for that. We make our own choices.

Except when you bring up the trolls when talking about her opposition, as it presents the idea that the only ones who do are the trolls.

I really didn't think it was necessary for me to point out that trolls are trolls, and people who are not trolls are not trolls and therefore ought not to be considered trolls.

How many out there has outright presented that those who oppose her are sexist for doing so?

I wouldn't know. That's not my argument, and I don't feel compelled to make it for anyone.

But they are still affected by your actions and should be taken into account in how your attempted actions would affect them as well.

The effect I'm having is to try to get Ivy Valentine to wear pants. I'm sure your female friends and family can weather the effect I want to have on them.

Figure out the motivation and behaviors of our culture that promote the idea; figure out why the traits you dislike are popular and sell; figure out alternatives and even if there is a market for it and use market forces such as supply and demand, as well as creator's laziness to follow trends in the hopes of fast cash, to create the media with the traits you want and encourage adoption of it by others to show it is a valid one rather than try to push it onto others who will only fight it tooth and nail every step of the way, some even to the point of spitefulness.

...How is trying to convince people of the sexism in games not trying to use a market force like demand to create the media I want?

I don't assume I am right outright; rather, I assume I have the best response I can form based on the experiences and information I have. I can have confidence in my ability to say "based on all I know, this is the best answer and this chain of reason is why." Thus why I argue though, in hopes of moving closer and closer to a better truth.

It sounds like your method stops short of ever trying to change anything. Am I reading you wrong?

Your intent to change things would violate the rights of others if indeed you got your way.

Which rights?

But most people who oppose your goal may simply oppose your conclusions or the means you reach them.

If they only oppose my conclusions and/or methods, then they by definition can't be opposing my goals, and the only argument we can have is one similar to whether it's the barley or the hops that makes Brand X Beer taste so good.

Not true. Nudity itself doesn't always mean sex, so why would sexual traits mean it?

My apologies; I chose my wording poorly. I meant to say "sexualized."

 

[runic knight]

A loud voice is more likely to be heard, even if it is from a lunatic, as you say.

Does my talking about feminism in video games here and on two other fora count as loud, then?

I don't know. Guess that depends who reads these forums in the first place.

And much like the repeated claims about video games causing school shootings, claims of sexism attracts the scavenger news and demagogues. Thus it may lead to developers changing their product to appease the loud group that is neither majority or even customer. Thus why I argue so much, as I don't want to see games changed just to suit the desires of a political ideology or some personal interpretation of feminism.

What ought they to suit, then?

Te people making them and the people buying and playing them. The will and creative ideas of the creators and the desires and wants of the paying customer, same as for any industry. Yes that would means that your opinion can be heard as part of the mass of customer, but just a part, and one that still has to respect that others share different views and that the products made may not favor your ideas at all, and that not favoring them is not sexism in and of themselves.

I still find the tactic used to try to get change underhanded at best.

Meh, it doesn't bother me. If I am using guilt as a weapon, then the only people who would be affected by it are those whose consciences bother them or else those who will listen to anything anyone says. I didn't give the first group its guilty conscience and I can't do anything about the second group, so I won't accept responsibility for either, and the second group will change its mind the next time a dissenting voice speaks up anyway.

Odd. Game makers didn't make your friend feel hurt, the feelings were there to begin with yet you use that as motivation to push for change with justification that guilting people is fine because those feelings were already there?
You miss out the group who fight PR battles, the group who are afraid of crazy backlashes, the group who don't want to be seen as unsympathetic and the group who just wants to make a good product but can only hear the most extreme opinions.

You look at it from the wrong perspective. In a story like that where gender is not explored, it is merely creator aesthetic or market pressures that decides gender.

These statements really frustrate me, not in a way intended to convey anger at you, runic knight, but in the sense that I really can't figure them out. I don't understand how "market pressures" is a valid excuse, because market pressures also drives Apple to keep its costs low by making all its products in Chinese sweatshops so horrible all the windows are barred so no one can commit suicide by jumping from them; market pressures do not absolve Apple of its choice to fund and perpetuate such an environment. Likewise, I get the feeling you think "creator aesthetic" is some immaculate concept that occurs apart from the personality that creates it and all the prejudices that compose that personality.

First, again, you haven't shown well that video games perpetuate any sort of environment, let alone one as horrible as china sweatshops. And ignoring that, market pressures are also part of the reason you can get change, as any PR backlash for negative aspects can cause the company to change for the better too. I recall a recent one where a clothing ceo or something said he didn't like fat people in his clothes and the backlash that got. So the market, which is influenced by overall culture, causes change based on what the culture deems appropriate or not.
Secondly you keep inferring prejudices and motivations based on the fact you dislike the trait and you apply a member of the group as representative of the whole. The former a personal opinion with all the lack of weight that brings with it and the later the reason for most of the inferences in the first place.
Finally you equate anything with a trait you dislike as a negative. That is the whole idea behind Tropes V. to begin with, that the tropes are negative. I disagree. I find tropes as merely tools to be used. In the same way, I see market research and aesthetic in the same vein, tools that can be good or bad. I was providing both as alternative examples of why choices were made though, besides a prejudice or sexist notion.

That the majority of the crew is male is not required (from what I have seen of the show, gender plays no importance on the majority of the stories), it just simply is.

If it's not required, then why are they written and cast that way? "It just is" isn't the answer, either, because it's only true in an irrational universe where cause and effect are separate.

Maybe the creator just had that set up in mind? Maybe it fits better with his created universe? Maybe they just really liked Shatner? I don't know why, I haven't read up on the creator to find the reasons he did. Hell, it could just have been a cultural influence that said a captain would be more believable as a male then female to highlight my whole point about how the product itself can be non-sexist (in that it doesn't discriminate against who can use/enjoy it), while still influenced by a culture with a sexist mindset (character genders chosen based on what will sell better based on public opinions). That the characters are majority male on the show does not in and of itself make it sexist, as that is as valid a possibility as any other and said possibility doesn't discriminate, even if the creators did in making the choice. Sort of a weird way to explain it I think, but do you follow me on this one?

Hell, one could make the same question about why there is a woman on the ship at all. It could have easily been a story about an all male crew just the same.

And I'd ask why about that, too.

I'd give the same answer about not knowing.

Being that it is fiction, there is no actual requirement for equality in the first place.

No, there isn't. That doesn't mean it's invalid to point out the inequality.

But it is a little pointless. Namely because the response to "that is all guys" will be a resounding "so what?", which will inevitably be followed up by an inference based on that. Seems a roundabout way to get people to ask you why you think it is sexist.

You have no basis to assume that much though. It stems from the idea that a lone character HAS to represent their gender or associated group, but that is not always the case, not in creator intent and not in finished product.

No, it stems from...

Okay. Have you ever heard the saying (that I am probably getting slightly wrong), "Every picture an artist paints is a self-portrait?" It's based on the idea that art is an expression of what the artist has to say, and what the artist has to say is determined by how he views the world. What an artist shows us might not be all the world there is to show, but it's the world he wants us to see, and the artist, or rather, the team of artists behind the first decade or two of Super Mario games wanted us to see a world with only one woman in it; specifically, a woman who exists to be kidnapped, who cannot arrange a security force that would protect her from being kidnapped despite being the ostensible ruler of a kingdom, and who must rely on a nearly mute man to save her.

So a story about a very crappy ruler then? Or a justification for the game in the first place? The problems with comparing games to paintings is that a game usually has to justify the player's interaction within it. A painting can exist solely as the artist's presentation of the world, so the quote is much better fitting. Even for a book or a movie, it would still be more applicable then a game. A game requires audience participation, which usually requires justification for that interaction. It is like the artist who has to compromise their art. Yeah, they want to show this awesome painting, but in order to do so, they have to make it more accessible or change it here and there to appeal to more people or pander to the guy paying the bills. With games, the interaction and the playing of them is often the "art" of it. No one really cares about the story of mario, they just love the gameplay. But in order to enjoy the gameplay, the creators often feel there needs to be a justification, a story, even if it is something paper thin, recycled age old one.

One could argue it is a sexist behavior as you are treating the female characters differently then the male ones solely on their gender.

I think you're reaching here. I specifically said it's the scarcity of female characters and their roles in the games that makes their representations troubling.

The problem here is that mindset requires there is suppose be a balance in the first place. There doesn't have to be, and that they are not as many female as male characters is can stem from many aspects, be it market demand, cultural ideas, story source material, copycat game design, sequalitis entrapment, or fear to use one because the media jumps on that shit like hungry buzzards in a way that makes it hard to have a character who can both appeal to the demographic targeted as well as fit the game itself while still fending the buzzards. You have been asking alot, why not use female characters. Well, why should they? Risk alienating the core demographic or at least losing them to a competitor? Deal with the PR headache of over scrutiny? Have the efforts called pandering to a group that has traditionally been less receptive to buying games? There is a lot of practical reasons to not do so. While I think they should get out of their conservative mindset and do it a lot more often myself, from a rational mindset I can still see why they don't.

Bowser and Toad are not humans, they are of other species.

If you object to the term "men," then pretend I said "male."

But aren't the toads sort of genderless, being fungi and all? I guess in later games they take on appearances of gender. I suppose bowser counts as male, though he has kids and yet never seen a matching female of his species. If he gave birth, wouldn't that make him not quite a male though?
There was more then just humanity that had me question them.

But that is like saying I have a fever, but my whole body is too big to deal with, you will will just try to worry about my foot.

Diseases are treating by poisoning them to death. The bugs have no choice but to die when exposed to the toxic drugs. Sociology is much, much more complex, and I am not equipped to handle it on any scale save that of a community I am part of.

Except the ones that survive, or the ever flowing flood from the rest of the infected body.
You are part of society and culture itself. Even if limited only to your nation, what you are trying to enact as change in gaming could just as easily apply to culture, maybe even more so.

Video game culture is a subculture. Yes, we certainly have our issues, but my biggest qualm is when people lay the blame of issues of the larger culture we live in at the feet of the subculture.

I never in life said sexism is the child of the video games industry. I said we have embraced it, and we are responsible for that. We make our own choices.

Yes, but we are both part of gaming subculture and the overall culture. Sexism is there in both, but it is there because it is part of the overall culture. Of course a subculture would share that trait when it is part of the parent culture. We have no more embraced it then any other aspect of our culture.

Except when you bring up the trolls when talking about her opposition, as it presents the idea that the only ones who do are the trolls.

I really didn't think it was necessary for me to point out that trolls are trolls, and people who are not trolls are not trolls and therefore ought not to be considered trolls.

You didn't distinguish at all though, and you concentrated on the behavior of trolls as though it was more important. I am sure some of those who criticized her were not just the usual internet troll, but far too often I see it presented as though the entirety of the comments represent gamers opinions, or at least male gamers.

How many out there has outright presented that those who oppose her are sexist for doing so?

I wouldn't know. That's not my argument, and I don't feel compelled to make it for anyone.

But they are still affected by your actions and should be taken into account in how your attempted actions would affect them as well.

The effect I'm having is to try to get Ivy Valentine to wear pants. I'm sure your female friends and family can weather the effect I want to have on them.

Yes, they could, as could I. I just need a compelling enough reason to support that you want your personal dislike of a design choice to lead to change in said design when the design is already successful enough to warrant its continuation.

Figure out the motivation and behaviors of our culture that promote the idea; figure out why the traits you dislike are popular and sell; figure out alternatives and even if there is a market for it and use market forces such as supply and demand, as well as creator's laziness to follow trends in the hopes of fast cash, to create the media with the traits you want and encourage adoption of it by others to show it is a valid one rather than try to push it onto others who will only fight it tooth and nail every step of the way, some even to the point of spitefulness.

...How is trying to convince people of the sexism in games not trying to use a market force like demand to create the media I want?

Because you are trying to convince people that like the media that they should not. You are not trying to create demand, or even make use of it, but simply take it away from another thing. That does not work. Hell, tell some people something is bad and watch as they become more interested in it then before.
You are trying to shame people into decreasing demand for a product, but without a suitable alternative, people will have no where else to go to get the games they want. Some people like the design of skimpy women, many just are fine putting up with it because they like to play the game. Shame all you want like a conservative christian group on the evils of rock and roll, but if there is no other options, the demand for games will be meet.

I don't assume I am right outright; rather, I assume I have the best response I can form based on the experiences and information I have. I can have confidence in my ability to say "based on all I know, this is the best answer and this chain of reason is why." Thus why I argue though, in hopes of moving closer and closer to a better truth.

It sounds like your method stops short of ever trying to change anything. Am I reading you wrong?

I try to enact change, but do so with care and respect that others may not feel the same. I have my core principles that I can be pretty unyielding about and will try to enact changes that match those, but most of the change I wish to enact is simply freedom rather then pushing for restrictive changes. I suppose I want to change things to more freedom with regards to everyone rather then restricting what they can or can't do.

Your intent to change things would violate the rights of others if indeed you got your way.

Which rights?

Freedom of speech for one. I know they is tossed around like candy around here, but any sort of change that would prevent certain traits or would force others would be a restriction on the speech of the creators to tell the stories they want with the characters they want.

But most people who oppose your goal may simply oppose your conclusions or the means you reach them.

If they only oppose my conclusions and/or methods, then they by definition can't be opposing my goals, and the only argument we can have is one similar to whether it's the barley or the hops that makes Brand X Beer taste so good.

We have similar goals, did you know? Most of this entire conversation has been arguing about method. I too want more change and variety in games, more female leads, more homosexual characters, just more variety in characters, tropes and the like. I want this for different reasons then you I imagine, but our goals seem very similar in end result.

Not true. Nudity itself doesn't always mean sex, so why would sexual traits mean it?

My apologies; I chose my wording poorly. I meant to say "sexualized."

Oh, alright then.

 

[JimB]

I don't know. Guess that depends who reads these forums in the first place.

I was going to say something gently snarky here, asking you if you aren't doing what you're accusing me of an infringing on my rights based on unproven beliefs about the effect I'm having, but in the first place that isn't helpful, in the second place I'm not sure how fair it is, and in the third and perhaps most relevant case I think I've figured out the difference between you and me: optimism. You think it's better to let fear of negative outcomes silence a person, and I think it's better to let the hope of positive outcomes prompt a person to speak.

The people making them and the people buying and playing them.

Is this an absolute? If someone comes along and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that video games cause violence in children, for instance (they won't, but it's a hypothetical, so run with me), should the game maker's desire still be the paramount factor?

Game makers didn't make your friend feel hurt, the feelings were there to begin with yet you use that as motivation to push for change with justification that guilting people is fine because those feelings were already there?

I admit I'm fairly cold-hearted and have muted emotional responses, so maybe what you're saying makes sense to a lot of people, but it makes no sense to me. Guilt is a response to being judged, and a person's own conscience is that judge. If your conscience lacks the perspective or the backbone to let you know you're innocent even when you are, then you are going to have to overcome that problem yourself, because I can't fix you.

(I'm using the general "you" here, not the "runic knight" you.)

First, again, you haven't shown well that video games perpetuate any sort of environment, let alone one as horrible as Chinese sweatshops.

First--and I've said this before, but I'll say it again--I am not comparing levels of evil. I am comparing levels of responsibility. Comparing levels of evil is useless; it's a form of moral relativism that always ends in everything being good because it's not as bad as the worst thing we can think of (which is always Hitler).

Second, I just don't believe there is any level of proof you would accept. You seem to want scientific studies that I don't have access to or even a reason to believe in the existence of, or, failing that, some kind of sexismometer that measures sexism as if it's a physical energy form like radiation. I cannot provide proof you are willing to accept, so all I can do is let the audience decide based on their own senses and experiences.

You equate anything with a trait you dislike as a negative.

What?

Maybe the creator just had that set up in mind?

That is just a longer way of saying "It just is."

Hell, it could just have been a cultural influence that said a captain would be more believable as a male than female to highlight my whole point about how the product itself can be non-sexist (in that it doesn't discriminate against who can use/enjoy it), while still influenced by a culture with a sexist mindset (character genders chosen based on what will sell better based on public opinions).

So you're arguing an action motivated by sexism is not inherently sexist.

My head hurts.

Seems a roundabout way to get people to ask you why you think it is sexist.

I've already explained why I think it's sexist, and I dislike repeating myself, so no, I am not motivated by a desire to prompt people to ask me to repeat myself.

So a story about a very crappy ruler then?

If the story was about Princess Toadstool, she would be on camera for more time than it takes to kiss Mario on the cheek and then go back to the kitchen to make him a sandwichcake.

(I'm not sure that sandwich joke is entirely fair, but I think it's funny, so I'm leaving it.)

The problems with comparing games to paintings is that a game usually has to justify the player's interaction within it.

What the artist thinks the rest of the world wants is even more telling of the artist's own mindset, though. With few exceptions, most people are selfish pricks who project their own beliefs and motivations onto everyone else. Like Shakespeare himself said, "I am that I am, and they that level at my abuses reckon up their own." If someone makes a game where the woman is incompetent and only exists to get saved and then reward the man who does it by going back to the kitchen and serving him food, then that's a lot more telling of his mindset than it is of some nebulous hivemind of gamers.

The problem here is that mindset requires there is suppose be a balance in the first place.

I think if someone wants to ignore the majority of the population (fifty-one percent) as irrelevant or undeserving of representation, then that person has some deep-seated problems.

Risk alienating the core demographic or at least losing them to a competitor?

If the core demographic is so afraid of women it won't even deal with imaginary women on a TV screen, then the core demographic is pretty fucking sexist.

But aren't the Toads sort of genderless, being fungi and all?

Nope. Toadette is a real character.

I suppose Bowser counts as male, though he has kids and yet we've never seen a matching female of his species.

Yeah, that is weird. For want of a better idea, I assume Kammy Koopa magicked them into existence.

Even if limited only to your nation, what you are trying to enact as change in gaming could just as easily apply to culture, maybe even more so.

So your objection isn't to what I'm saying, but to where I'm starting?

You didn't distinguish at all though, and you concentrated on the behavior of trolls as though it was more important.

I just--I really have no idea what to say to this. When I talk about trolls who threaten murder via rape, I am only talking about trolls who threaten murder via rape, and not about the people who don't threaten murder via rape. If you didn't threaten to murder her via rape, then any statement about people who threaten murder via rape is not directed at you, cannot logically be directed at you, and is invalid even it is still illogically directed at you. Do I really need to include a disclaimer at the end of every paragraph saying the people I'm talking about are not the people I'm not talking about?

Because you are trying to convince people that like the media that they should not.

No, I'm trying to convince them it's sexist. I never said one word about whether anyone can or should enjoy it. You will note I still have all those games in my house, after all.

Freedom of speech for one.

No. Stop right there. Freedom of speech is the right not to have your speech infringed upon by the government. It is emphatically not the right to say whatever you want without anyone criticizing or disagreeing with it or trying to create pressure to stop them from saying offensive things; if it is, then you need to stop wasting your time with me and start focusing on those monsters who, by not buying her products, are infringing on Paula Deen's rights to say she wants a slave-themed wedding with a waitstaff of niggers in white jackets or whatever the hell it is she said (I wasn't paying attention).

Nothing I do changes that video games producers can make whatever games they want within the boundaries of the law. If I somehow create an atmosphere of disapproval of jiggle physics, and if that stops producers from making more jiggle-titty games, then I have not infringed on anyone's rights to make such a game: The producers have just decided that they'd rather make money than make a game about zero-gravity breasts.

We have similar goals, did you know? Most of this entire conversation has been arguing about method. I too want more change and variety in games, more female leads, more homosexual characters, just more variety in characters, tropes and the like. I want this for different reasons then you I imagine, but our goals seem very similar in end result.

I'm glad, but this is the first time you've mentioned it, so I kind of have to assume focusing on what we agree with is a very, very distant second compared to your goal of illustrating how much you disagree with me.

 

[runic knight]

I don't know. Guess that depends who reads these forums in the first place.

I was going to say something gently snarky here, asking you if you aren't doing what you're accusing me of an infringing on my rights based on unproven beliefs about the effect I'm having, but in the first place that isn't helpful, in the second place I'm not sure how fair it is, and in the third and perhaps most relevant case I think I've figured out the difference between you and me: optimism. You think it's better to let fear of negative outcomes silence a person, and I think it's better to let the hope of positive outcomes prompt a person to speak.

Odd, I thought I was the optimist here. I don't get where I am letting fear silence anyone when I have been arguing against creators having their games silenced to suit your personal tastes on what tropes or patterns are sexist. Rather then any outside force to strongly discourage if not prevent stories or tropes from being used, I instead thought it was possible to enlighten others so that the culture as a whole demands less of such tropes and by alternative, more better written and not so cliche writing. Hell, between the two of us, I am the one pushing for greater freedom in this regard, instead of trying to remove options. I really don't get how you can think I am for silencing anyone unless you misread me that poorly. Most of my complaint has been about method after all, and how one would go about enacting the change rather then end result so much.

The people making them and the people buying and playing them.

Is this an absolute? If someone comes along and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that video games cause violence in children, for instance (they won't, but it's a hypothetical, so run with me), should the game maker's desire still be the paramount factor?

If they can prove that, then you suddenly have a valid reason because at the point another right would be threatened (that of life). As history has shown, freedom of speech can and will be restricted when it comes into direct conflict with life. Hell, should you be able to prove your own claims beyond a shadow of a doubt, simple market response of the informed would force change, even if creators are slow to accept it. But that does require proving the case and not relying on any pressures from a governing body or legislature or some other collective force pushing their will on creators and consumers alike.

Game makers didn't make your friend feel hurt, the feelings were there to begin with yet you use that as motivation to push for change with justification that guilting people is fine because those feelings were already there?

I admit I'm fairly cold-hearted and have muted emotional responses, so maybe what you're saying makes sense to a lot of people, but it makes no sense to me. Guilt is a response to being judged, and a person's own conscience is that judge. If your conscience lacks the perspective or the backbone to let you know you're innocent even when you are, then you are going to have to overcome that problem yourself, because I can't fix you.

(I'm using the general "you" here, not the "runic knight" you.)

I could apply those same words too your friend, where the hurt she feels is merely a response to her own inadequacies and personal demons and she is going to have to overcome that problem because I can not fix it for her. This relates back to why I dislike trying to guilt trip creators as it is emotional manipulation, pure and simple. It is the plea of "think of the children", and can be manipulated to support countless ideas. The idea of guilting people doesn't even have to be over the action itself, but rather twisting things to guilt their conscious on a tangentially related matter, as is done with feminism and games. Claims it causes suffering in others, even though the games themselves don't cause anything of their own and it is just personal response that is causing any supposed pain. Or the often dragged out rape victimization though a series of leaps where the guilt tries to manipulate an action that sound logic would not come to.

(not saying you have done the later, merely examples where guilting can be done not based on the product itself but rather the claimed results of the product, be they proven or not. )

First, again, you haven't shown well that video games perpetuate any sort of environment, let alone one as horrible as Chinese sweatshops.

First--and I've said this before, but I'll say it again--I am not comparing levels of evil. I am comparing levels of responsibility. Comparing levels of evil is useless; it's a form of moral relativism that always ends in everything being good because it's not as bad as the worst thing we can think of (which is always Hitler).

As equivalent of responsibility rather than evil then. As you haven't shown they cause any environment, let alone perpetuate it where as sweatshops by requirement of the workers in the first place can be far more easily shown to perpetuate it's own. Though, if you are not trying to compare evil, you'd do well to avoid dragging up examples where it is so clearly implied, intentional or not on your part.

Second, I just don't believe there is any level of proof you would accept. You seem to want scientific studies that I don't have access to or even a reason to believe in the existence of, or, failing that, some kind of sexismometer that measures sexism as if it's a physical energy form like radiation. I cannot provide proof you are willing to accept, so all I can do is let the audience decide based on their own senses and experiences.

I am not asking for such definitive proof at the moment, more just some support for broad claims made and a proper application of definitions and explanations of how it fits. If something is sexism, show how it fits the definition by showing where is is discriminating or explaining the bias in a way I haven't already countered.

You equate anything with a trait you dislike as a negative.

What?

The traits in games you dislike are treated as negative. Skimpy outfits - negative, Shallow characters - negative. Does this fit correctly?

Maybe the creator just had that set up in mind?

That is just a longer way of saying "It just is."

Maybe that is the answer? You seem to keep going on about this one but I don't quite get why. Why does there even have to be a reason behind it in the first place?

Hell, it could just have been a cultural influence that said a captain would be more believable as a male than female to highlight my whole point about how the product itself can be non-sexist (in that it doesn't discriminate against who can use/enjoy it), while still influenced by a culture with a sexist mindset (character genders chosen based on what will sell better based on public opinions).

So you're arguing an action motivated by sexism is not inherently sexist.

My head hurts.

Actually, yes. If I make a game with a strong, deep and engaging female character, it could have the utmost sexist motivations behind it. I could be doing so in order to pander to the female gamer market that is high in demand right now. I would be treating my customers based on stereotypical gender (not traditional gender role here but rather the stereotypical gender role rebellion) and designing the game to fit that like a glove. The end result could be a very progressive, insightful game that wouldn't be sexist in it's own right. The motivation behind it would be horribly so.
For another example, lets go evolution. Darwin was a horrible racist, and it is rumors such racism may have influenced his motivation of evolution. That does not make his work racist in the end. Some people are sexist in spite of their best efforts so it only stands to reason that some people can be neutral in spite of sexist motivations.

Seems a roundabout way to get people to ask you why you think it is sexist.

I've already explained why I think it's sexist, and I dislike repeating myself, so no, I am not motivated by a desire to prompt people to ask me to repeat myself.

Yet the result is getting people to ask why you think it is so.

So a story about a very crappy ruler then?

If the story was about Princess Toadstool, she would be on camera for more time than it takes to kiss Mario on the cheek and then go back to the kitchen to make him a sandwichcake.

(I'm not sure that sandwich joke is entirely fair, but I think it's funny, so I'm leaving it.)

You can have a story about someone seen through the eyes of an onlooker. Wasn't that the point of the latest bioshock game after all? Hell, perhaps mario's travels and conflicts are meant to show us how terrible a ruler she is, in the state of the kingdom, the open dangers, the rebellion of goombas and the like. The safety hazards of bottomless pits and open lava holes alone could be commentary in how little the ruler cares about the safety of her people. A bit of a stretch perhaps, but no more so then the Communist Mario notion from before.

The problems with comparing games to paintings is that a game usually has to justify the player's interaction within it.

What the artist thinks the rest of the world wants is even more telling of the artist's own mindset, though. With few exceptions, most people are selfish pricks who project their own beliefs and motivations onto everyone else. Like Shakespeare himself said, "I am that I am, and they that level at my abuses reckon up their own." If someone makes a game where the woman is incompetent and only exists to get saved and then reward the man who does it by going back to the kitchen and serving him food, then that's a lot more telling of his mindset than it is of some nebulous hivemind of gamers.

Except it is only telling of what the maker things the gamers want. I would argue that it is more telling the respect of the audience then of women in general. I think the way games have been and are marketed and even designed would support this idea as well. Gamers are shallowly pandered to a lot, rather then assume it is because the developers think so terribly of women that it reflects on their decisions, a simpler, more rational explanation would be that they think so little about the expectations or maturity of the audience itself. The industry views its audience as the teenage geek stereotype, so they would make their product with that audience in mind, no?

The problem here is that mindset requires there is suppose be a balance in the first place.

I think if someone wants to ignore the majority of the population (fifty-one percent) as irrelevant or undeserving of representation, then that person has some deep-seated problems.

Except they aren't ignoring that much of their market. Most of the gaming market is male (think something to the effect of 70%). That they would maintain the base first is not surprising. You assume the entire population will be considered as potential customers, when it is more likely broken down into high and low risk tiers based on past habits. So if male gamer A has a 60% chance of buying a game this month but female gamer B only has a 20% based on past spending habits, who would you try to respond to first, especially considering your competitors will be releasing products of their own. I said it before, the industry is conservative, and while I think it is foolish in the long run, there is still a logic to its decisions devoid of sexist motivations.

Risk alienating the core demographic or at least losing them to a competitor?

If the core demographic is so afraid of women it won't even deal with imaginary women on a TV screen, then the core demographic is pretty fucking sexist.

If the core demographic is thought of as that way. The market patterns support the idea (even if self fulfilling prophesy issues there). Culture and reality is sexist, hence why I keep asking why worry about games when they aren't the problem, just a visible speck of the larger iceburg.

But aren't the Toads sort of genderless, being fungi and all?

Nope. Toadette is a real character.

Toadette? I don't even know how to respond to that one really. Seems like a poor attempt to appeal to females by putting in a female character just for the sake of being able to say they have put in a female character. Perhaps to try and quiet people complaining about the lack there in, completely avoiding the larger issue in order of claiming they have "done something". Could be quite representative of the very sort of results that cause me to argue against so freely used claims of sexism in the first place, though only if I infer quite freely.

I suppose Bowser counts as male, though he has kids and yet we've never seen a matching female of his species.

Yeah, that is weird. For want of a better idea, I assume Kammy Koopa magicked them into existence.

but, one is female looking? Who am I kidding, the damn kingdom has birdo. Marioverse is weird.

Even if limited only to your nation, what you are trying to enact as change in gaming could just as easily apply to culture, maybe even more so.

So your objection isn't to what I'm saying, but to where I'm starting?

No, I am objecting to a lot of what you are saying, but I can still relate enough with where you stand on things to figure out where would be best to try to get change. I may disagree with what you say, but I can sympathizes with your motivation of wanting to help your friends and I do think that getting the discussion started in the right place would do a world of good in just having it there instead of springing up in these proxy battles that solve nothing in the end.

You didn't distinguish at all though, and you concentrated on the behavior of trolls as though it was more important.

I just--I really have no idea what to say to this. When I talk about trolls who threaten murder via rape, I am only talking about trolls who threaten murder via rape, and not about the people who don't threaten murder via rape. If you didn't threaten to murder her via rape, then any statement about people who threaten murder via rape is not directed at you, cannot logically be directed at you, and is invalid even it is still illogically directed at you. Do I really need to include a disclaimer at the end of every paragraph saying the people I'm talking about are not the people I'm not talking about?

No, it is because you brought up the trolls at all in a conversion that had a tangent on discrediting her or the faults of her stance. At no point should trolls have been a valid thing to bring up any more then if I brought up all the people who insulted al gore in a discussion about global warming. It just seemed unneeded to discuss, so that it was mentioned at all implies some motivation in bringing it up in the first place, with my inference being that you thought the trolls the more important aspect.

Because you are trying to convince people that like the media that they should not.

No, I'm trying to convince them it's sexist. I never said one word about whether anyone can or should enjoy it. You will note I still have all those games in my house, after all.

Applying a label with a negative stimga does sort of suggest you will frown at the people enjoying the games with those traits or even those traits themselves outright. It comes off as saying "I am not saying you can't, but you will be a horrible person if you do".

Freedom of speech for one.

No. Stop right there. Freedom of speech is the right not to have your speech infringed upon by the government. It is emphatically not the right to say whatever you want without anyone criticizing or disagreeing with it or trying to create pressure to stop them from saying offensive things; if it is, then you need to stop wasting your time with me and start focusing on those monsters who, by not buying her products, are infringing on Paula Deen's rights to say she wants a slave-themed wedding with a waitstaff of niggers in white jackets or whatever the hell it is she said (I wasn't paying attention).

I am aware what freedom of speech is and how it applies, including the limit on it to government infringement, not criticisms. My contention is based in what you seek to accomplish. You want the gaming industry to change, yet nothing short of some sort of pressure (from a government body, as they would be the only ones with the authority to do so selectively) would be able to change the gaming industry in such a way when the rest of the culture is not changed. Thus the right to free speech can be brought up when the main method of getting change would most likely be force from legislature or government agency. This is another reason why I said you'd have to concentrate on the larger culture itself, as aiming at a smaller subgroup would require some sort of infrastructure to limit the effect the overall culture would be having. It isn't that you are trying to create pressure, it is that in order to have an effect, you would need a force behind it. My suggestion would have the force be the effect of culture itself. Yours, being a narrow focus, would have to be legislature if emotional manipulation does not work. This is parallel to advocates against violence in games, as they push for legal restrictions or inhibitions as well as try to appeal to emotions to get their opinions to have an effect, out of necessity of the way they go about it. It isn't that you disagree, it is the undertones of stopping what you dislike that can only be accomplished by some legitimate pressure.
I suppose I could have explained that better at first, before using freedom of speech so I sounded less like the usual internet jackass, my apologies there.

Nothing I do changes that video games producers can make whatever games they want within the boundaries of the law. If I somehow create an atmosphere of disapproval of jiggle physics, and if that stops producers from making more jiggle-titty games, then I have not infringed on anyone's rights to make such a game: The producers have just decided that they'd rather make money than make a game about zero-gravity breasts.

I'll agree here. But the question I have to ask is how will you get the change? Your disapproval does not reflect the majority opinion, we have gone over that already, thus you aren't creating an atmosphere of disapproval but rather voicing complaints. The difference between a full scale social movement and the Westburo Baptists protests. The jiggle physics and the like have demand in the market and make money, be it because or just in spite of that trait. Your language has suggested somehow stopping such traits from being in games, though when you are trying to do it in spite of public opinion, cultural acceptance/embracing, and lucrative market demand, there is little means one can imagine before touching on the idea of some sort of legislative means, especially with the specter of violence legislature so often drawn up. I have heard the same manner of speaking about violence in games and have seen it taken hold of by those who push for legislation to force their opinions once simple disapproval refuses to hold ground in the overall culture.

We have similar goals, did you know? Most of this entire conversation has been arguing about method. I too want more change and variety in games, more female leads, more homosexual characters, just more variety in characters, tropes and the like. I want this for different reasons then you I imagine, but our goals seem very similar in end result.

I'm glad, but this is the first time you've mentioned it, so I kind of have to assume focusing on what we agree with is a very, very distant second compared to your goal of illustrating how much you disagree with me.

Focusing on how much we have in common makes for short conversations that don't explore the topic very far. Besides, there is value in finding a way to reconcile the opposing viewpoints we have on method, more so then merely agreeing. The debate forces me to reassess my lines of thought and logic with every post in a way that strengthens my understanding in a way that "yeah, I agree" rarely can. Though I suppose I do get too far into the details I lose sight of the larger picture from time to time.

 

[JimB]

Sorry, I've missed a few things in the last week. Let me correct my errors.

Just gonna conclude our discussion, JimB, not trying to get the last word in or anything. I've got to say, despite my immediate reaction, this is one of the few internet-based discussions I've not felt was a waste of time.

Thanks. I won't respond to your post since you want it to be a conclusion, but if it needs to be said, I feel you're a perfectly reasonable person yourself. The same should be said of runic_knight, incidentally, even if I do get pissed off sometimes.

Speaking of:

I don't get where I am letting fear silence anyone when I have been arguing against creators having their games silenced to suit your personal tastes on what tropes or patterns are sexist.

You seem to be arguing that any fear of being wrong should be a cause for silence, because being wrong might make you oppress someone.

If they can prove that, then you suddenly have a valid reason because at the point another right would be threatened (that of life).

Okay, just checking. I originally planned a whole "Well, if the right isn't absolute, then let's argue about where the line is" discussion, but oh, never mind.

I could apply those same words too your friend, where the hurt she feels is merely a response to her own inadequacies and personal demons and she is going to have to overcome that problem because I can not fix it for her.

Which inadequacies are those?

This relates back to why I dislike trying to guilt trip creators as it is emotional manipulation, pure and simple.

I'm not specifically trying to guilt creators just because I don't care what they feel about their products as long as their products stop annoying me, but even so, what's wrong with emotional manipulation? It, like anything else, is just a tool, and tools are only bad if they're used for the wrong job.

The traits in games you dislike are treated as negative. Skimpy outfits - negative; shallow characters - negative. Does this fit correctly?

Er...I guess, as a general rule, though here's the usual disclaimer about context mattering and blah blah blah. I'm suspicious of this, though, because I feel like you're saying my disliking it is what causes me to perceive it as negative rather than my perception of it as negative causing me to dislike it.

Maybe that is the answer? You seem to keep going on about this one but I don't quite get why. Why does there even have to be a reason behind it in the first place?

Partly because cause and effect are real, so if there is an effect for which there is no cause, then the universe operates on principles of magic. Mostly, though, I keep on it because it's being offered as an argument, and there's no response to that. There just isn't. It's this enormous, featureless, impenetrable wall of "no" that no possible argument could ever pierce because its own assertion of "just 'cause" cannot be overcome. Nothing I or anyone could ever say could overcome that position, because you can always fall back on, "No, it's not that, just 'cause." It is everything-proof armor.

If I make a game with a strong, deep and engaging female character, it could have the utmost sexist motivations behind it. I could be doing so in order to pander to the female gamer market that is high in demand right now. I would be treating my customers based on stereotypical gender (not traditional gender role here but rather the stereotypical gender role rebellion) and designing the game to fit that like a glove. The end result could be a very progressive, insightful game that wouldn't be sexist in its own right.

I think you're equating actions with products. The distinction is fine, but relevant.

(I have long since lost the thread of this conversation, so if my saying that counts as conceding a point, please let me know. We could be agreeing with each other here for all I know.)

Yet the result is getting people to ask why you think it is so.

And I'll keep answering the question if it seems useful to do so, but that's not the point.

You can have a story about someone seen through the eyes of an onlooker.

I'm not real familiar with that kind of story, so honest question: Do such stories usually have the conflict centered around the POV character and the struggles he has to overcome?

Except it is only telling of what the maker thinks the gamers want.

And why would he think that?

I would argue that it is more telling the respect of the audience then of women in general. I think the way games have been and are marketed and even designed would support this idea as well. Gamers are shallowly pandered to a lot, rather then assume it is because the developers think so terribly of women that it reflects on their decisions, a simpler, more rational explanation would be that they think so little about the expectations or maturity of the audience itself. The industry views its audience as the teenage geek stereotype, so they would make their product with that audience in mind, no?

I think if someone wants to ignore the majority of the population (fifty-one percent) as irrelevant or undeserving of representation, then that person has some deep-seated problems.

Except they aren't ignoring that much of their market.

I did not say they're ignoring the market. I said they're ignoring the population.

Most of the gaming market is male (think something to the effect of 70%). That they would maintain the base first is not surprising. You assume the entire population will be considered as potential customers, when it is more likely broken down into high and low risk tiers based on past habits. So if male gamer A has a 60% chance of buying a game this month but female gamer B only has a 20% based on past spending habits, who would you try to respond to first, especially considering your competitors will be releasing products of their own. I said it before, the industry is conservative, and while I think it is foolish in the long run, there is still a logic to its decisions devoid of sexist motivations.

Okay, let's grant that women won't buy video games. How, by creating games with almost entirely male casts and with female characters who exist only as objects to be pursued by the male characters, is the industry not supporting an atmosphere of sexual segregation?

If the core demographic is so afraid of women it won't even deal with imaginary women on a TV screen, then the core demographic is pretty fucking sexist.

If the core demographic is thought of as that way.

If the core demographic is that sexist, then it's sexist. If it's not but the industry thinks it is, then we're back to my Shakespeare quote about the industry projecting its sexism onto us and then telling us our sexism is what they're responding to.

Toadette? I don't even know how to respond to that one really. Seems like a poor attempt to appeal to females by putting in a female character just for the sake of being able to say they have put in a female character.

I can't disagree with you there. Perhaps I made a misstep when I said "Toadette is a real character" rather than "The character of Toadette actually exists;" my point was only to illustrate that the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom have sexual characteristics, not to claim that she's a good character.

No, it is because you brought up the trolls at all in a conversion that had a tangent on discrediting her or the faults of her stance. At no point should trolls have been a valid thing to bring up any more then if I brought up all the people who insulted Al Gore in a discussion about global warming.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you that in a conversation about whether a culture is generally sexist, it is not okay to mention examples of that culture behaving in sexist ways.

Applying a label with a negative stigma does sort of suggest you will frown at the people enjoying the games with those traits or even those traits themselves outright. It comes off as saying "I am not saying you can't, but you will be a horrible person if you do."

No, it means I think the games are sexist. That's as far as it goes.

You want the gaming industry to change, yet nothing short of some sort of pressure (from a government body, as they would be the only ones with the authority to do so selectively) would be able to change the gaming industry in such a way when the rest of the culture is not changed.

That I am choosing to begin my push for change in the video games industry does not mean I want it to end here. These things ripple. As a component of the larger culture, change in the microcosm will lead to change in the macrocosm.

But the question I have to ask is how will you get the change? Your disapproval does not reflect the majority opinion, we have gone over that already, thus you aren't creating an atmosphere of disapproval but rather voicing complaints.

Voicing my complaints is the only method I have of convincing people to agree with me, until and unless some freak science accident gives me Jedi mind powers.

 

[runic knight]

I don't get where I am letting fear silence anyone when I have been arguing against creators having their games silenced to suit your personal tastes on what tropes or patterns are sexist.

You seem to be arguing that any fear of being wrong should be a cause for silence, because being wrong might make you oppress someone.

Not quite, more so any fear of being wrong should at least have you delay any action that would deny or unduly pressure someone's decisions. Base on a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" mentality here, if you aren't sure, you definitely should not be supporting or promoting any decisions that would curtail the rights or creative choices of others.

If they can prove that, then you suddenly have a valid reason because at the point another right would be threatened (that of life).

Okay, just checking. I originally planned a whole "Well, if the right isn't absolute, then let's argue about where the line is" discussion, but oh, never mind.

Fair enough. Not unreasonable here, just feel you promote something that would restrict the choices available to game makers but have not yet given a valid enough reason to justify that restriction on them.

I could apply those same words too your friend, where the hurt she feels is merely a response to her own inadequacies and personal demons and she is going to have to overcome that problem because I can not fix it for her.

Which inadequacies are those?

I don't know, the point of that was to show that telling people to deal with it doesn't solve anything, especially when it can just be flipped back anyways.

This relates back to why I dislike trying to guilt trip creators as it is emotional manipulation, pure and simple.

I'm not specifically trying to guilt creators just because I don't care what they feel about their products as long as their products stop annoying me, but even so, what's wrong with emotional manipulation? It, like anything else, is just a tool, and tools are only bad if they're used for the wrong job.

Indeed. Tools are bad when used for the wrong job, or also used incorrectly, over used to the point of damage or used in place of a better tool, or used when not very effect. Emotional manipulation can be described as a couple of those. Beyond even that though, in terms of debate itself, it is admitting a lack of reason for the change. It is the very basis of its own fallacy even. If nothing else, it comes off as saying you have no good reason to do so, thus manipulate instead.

The traits in games you dislike are treated as negative. Skimpy outfits - negative; shallow characters - negative. Does this fit correctly?

Er...I guess, as a general rule, though here's the usual disclaimer about context mattering and blah blah blah. I'm suspicious of this, though, because I feel like you're saying my disliking it is what causes me to perceive it as negative rather than my perception of it as negative causing me to dislike it.

Sort of what I was going for, though again, not quite. The two options are very well tied and often human nature will play tricks on the way we look at things, where traits we dislike are seen as negative first, then justified by claiming they are negative, thereby explaining the dislike in the first place.
The problem here is that traits like above aren't negative. as you so put it, traits are tools and only bad if used the "wrong" way. Though, wrong being subjective to opinion makes the whole thing a bit of a "I don't like this" in the end.

Maybe that is the answer? You seem to keep going on about this one but I don't quite get why. Why does there even have to be a reason behind it in the first place?

Partly because cause and effect are real, so if there is an effect for which there is no cause, then the universe operates on principles of magic. Mostly, though, I keep on it because it's being offered as an argument, and there's no response to that. There just isn't. It's this enormous, featureless, impenetrable wall of "no" that no possible argument could ever pierce because its own assertion of "just 'cause" cannot be overcome. Nothing I or anyone could ever say could overcome that position, because you can always fall back on, "No, it's not that, just 'cause." It is everything-proof armor.

You are presuming to know the motive of something based on the end result. I first explain that there could be a plethora of reasons that could all result in the same end result, but that doesn't seem to satisfy. Eventually, I can't offer an explanation so I just gave up and admit I do not know and can only guess with no actual reliability of the truth of that guess. Maybe there is no reason.
The only argument it is being used here to support is the one that challenges your presumption of motive based on the end result. Aside from the other reasons I gave as options, there is always the option of "just because", one that if often forgotten because people see the need to derive meaning from every decision even when sometimes there wasn't one.
Thus I am not saying "no, it is not that, just 'cause'.", I am saying "no, that is not the only valid option"

If I make a game with a strong, deep and engaging female character, it could have the utmost sexist motivations behind it. I could be doing so in order to pander to the female gamer market that is high in demand right now. I would be treating my customers based on stereotypical gender (not traditional gender role here but rather the stereotypical gender role rebellion) and designing the game to fit that like a glove. The end result could be a very progressive, insightful game that wouldn't be sexist in its own right.

I think you're equating actions with products. The distinction is fine, but relevant.

You seem to feel that games with traits you find sexist are sexist because those traits determine the end product. You justify that by appealing to the motives behind those traits and the reasons those traits are popular or still exist. You seem to be claiming the actions of choosing those traits are equivalent to the end product being sexist. My analogy here was merely trying to highlight that by showing that motivation and end product are separate, and even sexist motivation and action can result in non-sexist product. Thus it can stand to reason that the inverse may also be true.

(I have long since lost the thread of this conversation, so if my saying that counts as conceding a point, please let me know. We could be agreeing with each other here for all I know.)

I don't know if it does or not. I think ti might be best to let this thread go, seems to have meandered too far from the road and now I don't see how to get back right now lol)

Yet the result is getting people to ask why you think it is so.

And I'll keep answering the question if it seems useful to do so, but that's not the point.

What is the point then?

You can have a story about someone seen through the eyes of an onlooker.

I'm not real familiar with that kind of story, so honest question: Do such stories usually have the conflict centered around the POV character and the struggles he has to overcome?

Not always. Often, if there is a plot, it is tangential and simple in order to concentrate on the true target. Think a story about a newspaper writer who needs a scoop on some actor. The true plot is the actor's life story, but the framing device is a simpler plot about the writer designed to justify the telling of the actor's story in an entertaining way or with a justified audience proxy asking obvious questions.

Except it is only telling of what the maker thinks the gamers want.

And why would he think that?

Because games are a product, a luxury one at that, and a huge industry. Especially true of the triple A section, they pay attention to what the customer responds to. They may not be the brightest about doing so, but they do notice the patterns of sales and figures. Thus they would think gamers want a certain product based on what sold well before. Dirt brown corridor shooters for instance.

Except they aren't ignoring that much of their market.

I did not say they're ignoring the market. I said they're ignoring the population.

Why would they care about the population as a whole? What business does in that regard? I don't quite get where you are going on this one, could you elaborate? Keep in mind they are not making decisions with intent to alienate the female gender, ratehr they are using traits that seem to be responded to well. Now yes, those traits also display a gender variation in sales and what either gender seems to want, but that is different then outright ignoring the female demographic. It is like saying McDonalds is ignoring the demographic who don't like fast foods when they concentrate on maintaining the market they have by adding more fast food to the menu.

Most of the gaming market is male (think something to the effect of 70%). That they would maintain the base first is not surprising. You assume the entire population will be considered as potential customers, when it is more likely broken down into high and low risk tiers based on past habits. So if male gamer A has a 60% chance of buying a game this month but female gamer B only has a 20% based on past spending habits, who would you try to respond to first, especially considering your competitors will be releasing products of their own. I said it before, the industry is conservative, and while I think it is foolish in the long run, there is still a logic to its decisions devoid of sexist motivations.

Okay, let's grant that women won't buy video games. How, by creating games with almost entirely male casts and with female characters who exist only as objects to be pursued by the male characters, is the industry not supporting an atmosphere of sexual segregation?

First, few games I can think of have female characters as objects. Not very developed, certainly, but few are actual objects any more then other support characters within the same stories. Toad in the mario games is as much an object as princess peach at base value, and you save 7 of them before the single female rescue. As such, you seem to be complaining that the only character with actual agency is the player character, something expected of games to be honest, and possibly the villian.
As for supporting sexual segregation though? Not quite.
There is no actual segregation being done, there is choices by individuals who buy the games on if they want that sort of not. this is like saying there is a sexual segregation being supported in fashion magazine subscriptions if the traits of the product appeal more to the female gender then the male in that. it is supporting the traits you dislike, yes. And those traits have trends along gender lines, true. But there isn't some force outside the individual keeping one gender out. The decision is still ultimately up to the person buying it if they want to participate or not, with nothing but their individual tastes determining if they do or do not. Now the culture within gaming might be a more of an argument for segregation given how some can try to force out or deny entry, but the product itself doesn't do that. The only thing a product that has skimpy clothed women does is appeal to those who want that, and repel those who do not. You mistake the overall sales pattern with the product itself in assuming the traits that show a disparity in popularity among males or females is itself segregating things when the truth is any supposed gender segregation is individual choice, though probably more influenced by cultural expectations on what a gender should or should not like.

If the core demographic is so afraid of women it won't even deal with imaginary women on a TV screen, then the core demographic is pretty fucking sexist.

If the core demographic is thought of as that way.

If the core demographic is that sexist, then it's sexist. If it's not but the industry thinks it is, then we're back to my Shakespeare quote about the industry projecting its sexism onto us and then telling us our sexism is what they're responding to.

I don't like ranch dressing. Never sat well with me. I do like chicken though, and often get something chicken at fast food places I go to. Now, most of those places assume I will want ranch with my chicken sandwich because that is what the sales figure patterns have shown to them. I usually get it if I don't request otherwise. The problem is it isn't even 50% that do, but rather the largest percent out of many competing options of sandwich and dressings. Furthermore, when offering ranch as the first choice, it increases the pattern as some just take what they are given.
In games, the largest demographic may respond to what you call sexist traits. The response being purchase. It is more complex then that though as the traits themselves may not be the intent in buying the games, but rather details just assumed to increase sales. This is one of the reasons I keep saying you can't assume motivation so simply. This is why I also say that the games made can only reflect what the makers assume we like. are you familiar with the Allegory of the Cave by chance? (assume that is the correct name of it). Where a man in a cave can only see the shadows of the ideas on the wall, not the actual ones, and therefore can only guess on the bit he sees.

Toadette? I don't even know how to respond to that one really. Seems like a poor attempt to appeal to females by putting in a female character just for the sake of being able to say they have put in a female character.

I can't disagree with you there. Perhaps I made a misstep when I said "Toadette is a real character" rather than "The character of Toadette actually exists;" my point was only to illustrate that the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom have sexual characteristics, not to claim that she's a good character.

Fair enough I guess. Though the reasons for that still sort of baffle me. Now I wonder about every thing in the kingdom having eyes...

No, it is because you brought up the trolls at all in a conversion that had a tangent on discrediting her or the faults of her stance. At no point should trolls have been a valid thing to bring up any more then if I brought up all the people who insulted Al Gore in a discussion about global warming.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you that in a conversation about whether a culture is generally sexist, it is not okay to mention examples of that culture behaving in sexist ways.

How well they relate and how fitting they are to the conversation are important to note though. I could talk about how horrible Christians are in our culture by mention of the Westburo Baptists. Or how bad Germans are because of the whole Nazi thing. The thing with mentioning examples is that when you just to the extremes, it appears you are looking at the outliers on the data table, not the general trends or overall picture. It presents a farce of intellectual honesty. When discussing feminism, I could just as equivalently bring up the blog supporting all men being castrated. It is an extreme opinion, not shared by most. It doesn't help the conversation and actually hurts it by changing the dynamic from discussion to association with the extreme. It makes people more polarized and is a cheap emotional tactic. But hey, it IS an example of feminist interpretation, am I right? Do you see why I protest your example here?

Applying a label with a negative stigma does sort of suggest you will frown at the people enjoying the games with those traits or even those traits themselves outright. It comes off as saying "I am not saying you can't, but you will be a horrible person if you do."

No, it means I think the games are sexist. That's as far as it goes.

It can be inferred though. Hard not to even, when using labels with stigmas. Hell, it is rare that someone saying "this is bad" doesn't continue on to "you are bad for liking it"

You want the gaming industry to change, yet nothing short of some sort of pressure (from a government body, as they would be the only ones with the authority to do so selectively) would be able to change the gaming industry in such a way when the rest of the culture is not changed.

That I am choosing to begin my push for change in the video games industry does not mean I want it to end here. These things ripple. As a component of the larger culture, change in the microcosm will lead to change in the macrocosm.

But a change in this way not only always fails (see music, d&d, drugs, etc), it can backlash. Any time you try to get a change in a microcosm that is based in getting people to stop doing something, they keep doing it. The attempt to get them to stop only gives publicity and encourages others to do it (in this case, to ride the controversy. See ads for Wartune). It sparks defensiveness and in the end makes it a harder beast to change. Furthermore, you add to the rift between those who want change and those who feel what they like is under attack by outsiders, allowing opportunists to take advantage.

But the question I have to ask is how will you get the change? Your disapproval does not reflect the majority opinion, we have gone over that already, thus you aren't creating an atmosphere of disapproval but rather voicing complaints.

Voicing my complaints is the only method I have of convincing people to agree with me, until and unless some freak science accident gives me Jedi mind powers.

I prefer rational arguments myself. I have some faith that in general people are intelligent enough to hold conversations and be compelled by convincing information if done in a manner that is not abrasive or offensive to them and does not push them or their hobbies on the defensive. No one wants to listen to other people just complaining, but people are very receptive to ideas, suggestions and discussions. And arguments, people seem to enjoy those too.

 

[keniakittykat]

In connection to the Tropes vs Women reference, I don't take Alisia Sarkeesian seriously.

Watch her episode, then Facts vs Women and you'll see why.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not, it was the horrific outcry of (mostly) guys who feared for their fandom and cried not all that quieter than a Banshee scream far before the video's were even made.