The Counterpoint

[Something Amyss]

According to what I can dig up, women make up almost half of the general gaming audience. About 47%, and one of the fastest growing markets. If the ESA is to be believed, at least.

People dismiss it based on methodology and the assertion that they all play Cooking Mama or something.

 

[OfficialJab]

You'd think that the users here would take the hint from the comic: The reason why fire is the metaphor used is because this comic is flame bait...

Where exactly is your line between 'flame' and 'conversation'? Not quite where it should be, I think.

 

[secretsantaone]

18-25 year old men are the target market to AAA videogames.

Who'd have thought it.

 

[mdqp]

I said male or not, not being female. Whether you're a woman or man, the physical strength to overcome someone who wrongs you is just a human desire. Not for 100% of the crowd maybe, but even for them it stimulates something.

Their personalities aren't really being discussed here, because it's a case-by-case whether their gender is incorporated into the story enough for it to matter. I'd say GF is a good example as well, because gender isn't exploited in any way. I don't think dialogue too often enforces the stereotyping. Maybe that's not true, but I can't think of any examples.

I missed that bit about male or not, sorry. I can't say I agree that people want to be able to physically overcome anyone who wrongs them, but I can't say I know what others want either, so I am not going to argue that.

I really don't like considering mute protagonists as characters, they might be good avatars, but if you say that Gordon Freeman is good because gender isn't exploited in any way, that isn't a good argument, as that should be the bare minimum in any character (we might disagree on what "exploited" exactly entails, but we both agree that it is what we consider stereotyping, basically, which is what we are discussing as bad in the first place).

 

[Monsterfurby]

Basically it's like this, in a very generalized kind of way:

Women in video games (often) are the way they are to satisfy male sexual fantasies.
Men in video games (often) are the way they are to satisfy male sexual fantasies. (i.e. "I wanna be that guy.")

Problem:

The sexuality of men is generally more tied to direct visual/auditive input and therefore quite easy to address by means of multimedial content.

The sexuality of women does NOT work that way.

 

[Mike Fang]

Actually, it's an excellent counterpoint. The entire implied premise of the original assertion (Women are depicted badly in media) is that a gender disparity exists. Pointing out that it also happens to male characters disproves the inequality along gender lines.

This is my stance as well. People don't do it to say that it's okay, they do it because the vast majority of the time people talk about how women are misrepresented in the media, they do so with the opinion that it is down to gender inequality, and that it is sexist.

If both genders are misrepresented then yes, it sucks, but it isn't down to sexism or discrimination, so the argument is invalid. If people want to complain about poor portrayals in the media, then they need to do so without trying to play some sort of "victim" card. That's what people take issue with, not the idea that there are poor portrayals.

Let's take South Park for instance. It was once used as an example of people being discriminated against (Jews for example), but it makes fun of everyone and everything. It doesn't choose one group to make fun of and leave others alone, so you can't complain that your particular group is being "picked on", because it isn't.

Not to mention that comparing a woman being physically hurt (objectively bad) to women not liking large breasted fictional characters (subjectively bad) is a poor example. Obviously it was done for comedic value, but it helps when it works with the message you are trying to make, rather than against it.

I'm glad someone was able to put to word what I was thinking. These are both arguments I can get behind; unfair and degrading representation isn't a good thing, but feminists can't -really- claim that it only happens to women. I'll concede it's happened to more women than men, but it's still not exclusive. The only difference is more men tend to just shrug it off when a male character is made out to be a dumb-as-a-brick beefcake in a loincloth or jock strap, whereas more women tend to feel insulted when a female character has big breasts, a big butt and is a bubble-headed tease.

I think this is one of those cases where this argument only holds water with those who have the following mentality:

"I had a lousy morning; I was taking a shower and the hot water ran out while I was in it."

"That's nothing; yesterday I stepped in the shower, and I got a blast of ice cold water."

"But that's just what I said!"

"Yes, but my story's worse because it happened to ME."

 

[OfficialJab]

I really don't like considering mute protagonists as characters, they might be good avatars, but if you say that Gordon Freeman is good because gender isn't exploited in any way, that isn't a good argument, as that should be the bare minimum in any character (we might disagree on what "exploited" exactly entails, but we both agree that it is what we consider stereotyping, basically, which is what we are discussing as bad in the first place).

Again, we're not really talking about whether they're a quality character or not, just whether they are an example of pandering to gender, which they're not. I have no opinion on either of them as characters (Samus from Fusion is great, though) for the purposes of this conversation.

 

[Aureliano]

Ugh, "feminism" Tuesday again?

If you're on fire, put yourself out. But don't expect sympathy from other people who are on fire. You're going to be sorely disappointed. And by sorely disappointed, I mean still on fire.

 

[The Random One]

Thank you for this comic. A worthy subject that must be repeating again and again until people finally understand, which you tackle wittily and smartly. It never ceases to amaze me how you use your voice to denounce what's wrong with gaming culture rather than simply pander to your audience and/or pointlessly mimic Penny Arcade as many would.

SO OF COURSE YOU MUST BE FLAMEBAITING THE FORUM YOU TROLL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

According to what I can dig up, women make up almost half of the general gaming audience. About 47%, and one of the fastest growing markets. If the ESA is to be believed, at least.

People dismiss it based on methodology and the assertion that they all play Cooking Mama or something.

You're too late, someone dismissed it by saying they are all playing Farmville on the last page!

Of course if half the people playing games are women and they have almost no voice it must be because they are all playing girly casual games, and not because they are understandably reluctant to join a culture eager to label them as attention whores, fakers or sluts, and the only way to prove themselves worthy is to internalize that culture (therefore becoming themselves eager to label others as attention whores, fakers and sluts).

 

[Fappy]

You'd think that the users here would take the hint from the comic: The reason why fire is the metaphor used is because this comic is flame bait...

The irony is that the discussion's been surprisingly civil thus far. I imagine it will have fallen off the deep-end by the end of Page 3 though >.>

 

[Mr. Omega]

Hey, Foldable Human! I like that show. And remember that episode.

In all seriousness: yeah, that is a problem. People seem to think that both sides having problems means we need to ignore them both. And that the fact that both sides have problems means that both sides are equal in just how much of a problem it is.

 

[secretsantaone]

You're too late, someone dismissed it by saying they are all playing Farmville on the last page!

Of course if half the people playing games are women and they have almost no voice it must be because they are all playing girly casual games, and not because they are understandably reluctant to join a culture eager to label them as attention whores, fakers or sluts, and the only way to prove themselves worthy is to internalize that culture (therefore becoming themselves eager to label others as attention whores, fakers and sluts).

If women were as big of a market as you say they are, developers and publishers would have doubtless tried to appeal to them. Surprisingly enough, they like money.

I'd say it's much more likely that most women play more facebook and smartphone games than AAA titles.

 

[lacktheknack]

You're changing Zombie Tintin? But Zombie Tintin was the best one! D:

OT: Fire hipsters. That's a fun image to remember when people try the old "it doesn't matter because it hurts multiple people" argument.

 

[The Random One]

Actually, it's an excellent counterpoint. The entire implied premise of the original assertion (Women are depicted badly in media) is that a gender disparity exists. Pointing out that it also happens to male characters disproves the inequality along gender lines.

This is my stance as well. People don't do it to say that it's okay, they do it because the vast majority of the time people talk about how women are misrepresented in the media, they do so with the opinion that it is down to gender inequality, and that it is sexist.

If both genders are misrepresented then yes, it sucks, but it isn't down to sexism or discrimination, so the argument is invalid. If people want to complain about poor portrayals in the media, then they need to do so without trying to play some sort of "victim" card. That's what people take issue with, not the idea that there are poor portrayals.

Let's take South Park for instance. It was once used as an example of people being discriminated against (Jews for example), but it makes fun of everyone and everything. It doesn't choose one group to make fun of and leave others alone, so you can't complain that your particular group is being "picked on", because it isn't.

Not to mention that comparing a woman being physically hurt (objectively bad) to women not liking large breasted fictional characters (subjectively bad) is a poor example. Obviously it was done for comedic value, but it helps when it works with the message you are trying to make, rather than against it.

I'm glad someone was able to put to word what I was thinking. These are both arguments I can get behind; unfair and degrading representation isn't a good thing, but feminists can't -really- claim that it only happens to women. I'll concede it's happened to more women than men, but it's still not exclusive. The only difference is more men tend to just shrug it off when a male character is made out to be a dumb-as-a-brick beefcake in a loincloth or jock strap, whereas more women tend to feel insulted when a female character has big breasts, a big butt and is a bubble-headed tease.

I think this is one of those cases where this argument only holds water with those who have the following mentality:

"I had a lousy morning; I was taking a shower and the hot water ran out while I was in it."

"That's nothing; yesterday I stepped in the shower, and I got a blast of ice cold water."

"But that's just what I said!"

"Yes, but my story's worse because it happened to ME."

OK so this is very concisely why this argument doesn't work:

Alleged discrimination against men happens because men are portrayed as powerful, emotionally dumb testosterone factories.
The social outcome of that portrayal is that men must be physically strong and have no feelings.
Being physically weak and too emotional are traits current society ascribes to women.
Therefore, alleged discrimination against men is itself against women as well, because it says it's bad to have traits perceived as feminine.

Also I rewrote your shower metaphor reversing the roles:

"I had a lousy morning; I was taking a
shower and the hot water ran out while I
was in it."

"That's nothing; yesterday I stepped in the
shower, and I got a blast of ice cold water."

"What? Mine is much worse. I was already in the hot water so it felt even colder. Plus, my boiler's been leaking so this happens all the time. How about we go down to see what's wrong with it?"

"FUCK YOU, DIDN'T I JUST SAY I GOT A BLAST OF COLD WATER ONCE? EVERYONE IS EQUALLY FUCKED! GO TO HELL!

 

[OfficialJab]

You're too late, someone dismissed it by saying they are all playing Farmville on the last page!

Let's have a look at the quote....

"Different markets, I'd imagine. For the purposes of surveys, something like FarmVille will count as well. But even further from that, you'd need to break down genres. How high a percentage of the AAA-action genre is male/female? I'd wager significantly different from 60/40. To some extent, females may feel isolated from those games just because the heroes are men, but how many?"

So the brief mention of FarmVille was not, in fact an assertion that "they are all playing Farmville", but part of a larger point that most of the gender stereotyping exists in specific genres, which "I'd wager" have a very different breakdown that surveys don't always take into account.

I even take your point that there are probably women who would play more titles if they weren't put off by the depiction of women in them - we only differ in how strong we think that influence is.

 

[mdqp]

Again, we're not really talking about whether they're a quality character or not, just whether they are an example of pandering to gender, which they're not. I have no opinion on either of them as characters (Samus from Fusion is great, though) for the purposes of this conversation.

But isn't that a narrow point of view? I am sure pac-man doesn't pander to genders (well, there is the pink ghost that ends up always having a ribbon whenever is depicted outside of the game, I guess... ;p ) , but what's the point of debating just plain and simple pandering or not pandering? I doubt it has any real value, if it isn't put into its context (that being the fact that, GM isn't a character, so it could only pander with his looks, and looks for male protagonists are still mainly within the "limits", as far as I have seen).

If you dismiss their quality as characters, you are also removing a lot from this discussion, I have dozens of games with characters so poorly introduced/explained/developed/whatever that they could never be considered to be pandering to one gender or the other, but that's because they can barely be considered characters. The soldier I played in the first Medal of Honor on my psx didn't pander either. It also bears no meaning into this discussion because of its nature of a "non-character".

 

[OfficialJab]

But isn't that a narrow point of view?

I have dozens of games with characters so poorly introduced/explained/developed/whatever that they could never be considered to be pandering to one gender or the other, but that's because they can barely be considered characters.

I don't really understand what you mean here. That physical pandering doesn't exist if there is no attached personality? The girls in DoA: Beach Volleyball are poorly introduced, explained and developed (I imagine), so are they not pandering to a very specific audience? This is kind of a rhetorical question...

I also wouldn't consider the fellas from Gears of War as 'within physical limits', but again, it's supposed to be a symbol of strength, not an attainable image, so that doesn't really matter I guess.

 

[Toilet]

I was on fire before it was cool.

 

[burningdragoon]

*reads some comments*

Who would've thought something as unambiguously bad as being on fire would be misread as some kind of desirable state for people to be in...

 

[mdqp]

I don't really understand what you mean here. That physical pandering doesn't exist if there is no attached personality? The girls in DoA: Beach Volleyball are poorly introduced, explained and developed (I imagine), so are they not pandering to a very specific audience? This is kind of a rhetorical question...

I also wouldn't consider the fellas from Gears of War as 'within physical limits', but again, it's supposed to be a symbol of strength, not an attainable image, so that doesn't really matter I guess.

Pandering is also about attitude. If there is a good looking girl in a bikini, is that necessarily pandering? If it is out of place, yes, but if the location is a beach? It depends on what they did with the character. At the same time, you can pander without having almost-naked girls, representing a woman as a "tease", for example. It doesn't mean that one can't do pandering without a character, I am saying that not pandering without a character is extremely easy, you just need to make sure that the design isn't a joke, and thousands fit the bill (all the protagonists of the whole GTA series, the whole Call of Duty series, the whole Medal of honor series, practically 95% of the RPGs I can think of, a bunch of strategy games, etc.). If a game is basically a porn with a fighting game attached, I don't even care to talk about it, because it's like complaining about people being sexualized in a porn movie. Maybe I am too cynical toward DOA and I don't expect anything from it, who knows?

Just to make myself clear, I don't see anything inherently wrong with pandering, the problem is that it is widespread and overabused, in my opinion, but this is another discussion.

You name Gears of War, but the games mentioned above by me surely are normal in their physique. I said the majority, which implies that some don't respond to this rule, and expecting all games to fit the bill would be weird.