The Counterpoint

[franksands]

But not all women are naked and sexualized to hell and back in video games, you are overreacting. Most of the major franchises have none of this. What are the big games nowadays? CoD, Uncharted, Gears of War, Halo, GTA, Assassin's Creed and Red Dead Redemption come to mind. NONE of these games have female characters clearly made as an object of sexual lust for men. None of them. You find these classic bikini warrior females in niche games like Hack & Slash, JRPGs and Fighting Games. Not in the broad mainstream.

1)So you're saying that games that have NO women in them do not suffer of women being oversexualized? That's a relief.
2)I never played Red Dead Redemption, but I have seen some friends playing it and the only female characters I saw were cliche whores. Not a very good example of strong female characters.
3)I don't have a problem with erotic games, I've played some very good flash games on playforceone, but there the goal of the game is to see women having sex. If a game were honest with what's it is about I have no problem with it, and even then, it's possible to do a sex game without having women as the weak character

a) Females don't care a lot about naked male skin --> Ezio fandom (seriously, look it up)
b) Be honest, how many of your female and male friends really play a lot of video games that are more than iOS and free online games?

I don't know anything about Ezio, but knowing rule #34 I bet there is. But there's a difference between fandom and slashfic and these things being in the game as in Miranda in ME2.
Secondly, are you really, honestly saying girls only play iOS farm games and whatnot? Seriously? Do you get out much? Because just in my office I have two female coworkers: One love WoW, and not the cutesie fanserviced night elves, she plays in the Horde with a minotaur. The other has a PS3 and from what I know plays a lot more Prototype and Infamous than Rayman or Kingdom Hearts. She in particular hates all this touchy feely stuff normally associated with women. And that's just the people I have more contact with. I also remember a friend from college that his girlfriend really kicked ass in starcraft and wiped the floor with any one that played with her.

About the list, I know there are a few almost naked characters, like Kratos, but I don't remember the camera zooming on kratos ass.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The reason why DOA girls are all jiggly, wasp-waisted waifs is the same reason why Kratos is 7 feet of steel-reinforced steroid.

No, actually, it really isn't.

The DOA chicks look like that because that's what guys (at least, the guys who play those games) want to look at.

Kratos is the way he is because that's what guys want to look like, and therefor play as.

I wonder who all those guys are that want to look like Kratos. His physique is utterly ridiculous. Then again, I can't stand God of War so perhaps I'm just not in the right demographic to judge such things...

Individual tastes notwithstanding, I'm sure there are more guys who want to be Kratos than there are girls who want to fuck Kratos.

As I said in another gender inequalities thread, using the Kratos example has always puzzled me. The man is (especially by the end of God of War 3) an irredeemable, murdering bastard, who slaughters is own wife and child and then destroys the entire world in pursuit of his own personal revenge. Yeah, I'm sure those are the exact qualities a woman looks for in a man, and that's without even going into his physical appearance.

May I remind you that Joran van der Sloot (murderer of one woman and suspected of killing Natalie Holloway) has been confirmed to have gotten a woman pregnant while in jail during an unsupervised visit? Or that time where Ted Bundy (not the shoe salesman) was being tried and women were giving him love letters and fucking WEDDING PROPOSALS?

*ahem*

Snarky comment aside, there are only three basic differences between men and women that I give any relevance to. In ALL other aspects, men and women are equal. Here are the three that I've seen:

1) Women are generally built tougher while men are generally built stronger. Both have scientific data backing them and the former was a myth tested, and confirmed, by the Mythbusters. Side comment: no one is generally built intelligent.

2) "Women are crazy, men are stupid; and one of the main reasons women are crazy is because men are stupid. It's not the only reason, but it's a big one." - George Carlin. We have had intelligence and sanity from both genders in this regard; however, when it comes to general basics, I've always found this little observation by one of the world's best social critics to have a ring of truth to it.

3) Reproduction. Men contribute anywheres between 9 seconds and 2 hours to this process, women contribute roughly 9 months or more. I'd like to see the average male on this planet take anywhere between a seven and nine pound dump in one turd and NOT scream or show any signs of pain during that process. If successful, I'd love to hear their views on pregnancy shortly after their experience.

I hope I never have to repeat this (but I'm guessing I will, more than once): anyone who uses difference to prove ANYTHING is either profiting from it and/or using it to improve their own self-esteem.

Well, I never said that there weren't any women out there who wanted to fuck Kratos, there are conceivably a few. I was just pointing out that, looking at his behaviour, I doubt he was designed to be a Paragon of 'What Women Want'.

Can't argue with the rest of your post (well, except for number 3, where I have to point out that, painful as it would still probably be regardless, a man's anus is not designed to dilate 10cm first).

Now, moving swiftly on from the mental image I just gave myself...

 

[RJ 17]

There is a difference between being portrayed unrealistically, and being portrayed demeaningly my fellow Y chromosome owners.

You mean like how every man in every commercial you've ever seen is depicted as a clumbsy, stupid, absolutely incompotent donkey who'd get tangled up in the blinds if his brilliant wife weren't there to run every aspect of his life for him?

Captcha: "Cubic Spline".......the fuck?

Now honestly, Isn't that more wish fulfillment more than anything else? No matter how stupid or useless the guy is, he always has a hot wife to go home to and fix everything for him? These sorts of guys are pretty obviously set up as clowns, I mean nobody should really view Homer Simpson as a role model. Besides that stereotype just puts puts more pressure on women to put up with oblivious man-children while taking care of the actual children AND keep themselves looking personal stylist beautiful.

Wish fulfillment? Nope, can't say I see it as that. Because even in THAT case it just FURTHER emphasizes the fact that not only are men clumbsy, stupid, and incompotent, but they actively WANT to be clumbsy, stupid, and incompotent. It suggests that all men really want is a hot wife to take care of them so they can sit around on the couch Al Bundy style with one hand on the remote and the other down their pants.

Indeed, Homer and Al are not meant to be role models, they're parodies. That such commercials and TV characters are "wish fulfillment" implies that men WANT to see those two as role models so they, themselves, can be fat, stupid, and lazy with a wife that handles everything for them.

 

[Phuturist]

Mr. Franksands yours was a terrible post and you should feel ashamed.

1)So you're saying that games that have NO women in them do not suffer of women being oversexualized? That's a relief.

Only CoD has no women.

2)I never played Red Dead Redemption, but I have seen some friends playing it and the only female characters I saw were cliche whores. Not a very good example of strong female characters.

"I have no idea but I it's a bad example anyway." fantastic. Look up Bonnie MacFarlane. Or don't and be quiet about it.

3)I don't have a problem with erotic games, I've played some very good flash games on playforceone, but there the goal of the game is to see women having sex. If a game were honest with what's it is about I have no problem with it, and even then, it's possible to do a sex game without having women as the weak character

I don't get why you mention that sexual content in games should be binary, meaning not there at all or everything about the game, and it has nothing to do with the discussion but fine, have it your way.

I don't know anything about Ezio, but knowing rule #34 I bet there is. But there's a difference between fandom and slashfic and these things being in the game as in Miranda in ME2.

You don't get it. Men find Miaranda attractive (I suppose, although most don't) because she has big breasts. Females find Ezio attractive because he is mysterious, charming and strong. There is not market for Ezio crotch bulge shots because nobody is into that, not even females. That was my point.

Secondly, are you really, honestly saying girls only play iOS farm games and whatnot? Seriously?

No I did not.

Do you get out much?

Oh christ, I shouldn't even reply to your post.

Because just in my office I have two female coworkers: One love WoW, and not the cutesie fanserviced night elves, she plays in the Horde with a minotaur. The other has a PS3 and from what I know plays a lot more Prototype and Infamous than Rayman or Kingdom Hearts. She in particular hates all this touchy feely stuff normally associated with women. And that's just the people I have more contact with. I also remember a friend from college that his girlfriend really kicked ass in starcraft and wiped the floor with any one that played with her.

Bravo. That's 3. How many guys have you met that played video games to the extend of those 3 girls? No really, answer me, look at the numbers and then come at me with that argument again.

About the list, I know there are a few almost naked characters, like Kratos, but I don't remember the camera zooming on kratos ass.

Yeah, that was the one character that I mentioned that is probably not designed for females.

 

[RJ 17]

There is a difference between being portrayed unrealistically, and being portrayed demeaningly my fellow Y chromosome owners.

You mean like how every man in every commercial you've ever seen is depicted as a clumbsy, stupid, absolutely incompotent donkey who'd get tangled up in the blinds if his brilliant wife weren't there to run every aspect of his life for him?

Captcha: "Cubic Spline".......the fuck?

Now honestly, Isn't that more wish fulfillment more than anything else? No matter how stupid or useless the guy is, he always has a hot wife to go home to and fix everything for him? These sorts of guys are pretty obviously set up as clowns, I mean nobody should really view Homer Simpson as a role model. Besides that stereotype just puts puts more pressure on women to put up with oblivious man-children while taking care of the actual children AND keep themselves looking personal stylist beautiful.

Wish fulfillment? Nope, can't say I see it as that. Because even in THAT case it just FURTHER emphasizes the fact that not only are men clumbsy, stupid, and incompotent, but they actively WANT to be clumbsy, stupid, and incompetent. It suggests that all men really want is a hot wife to take care of them so they can sit around on the couch Al Bundy style with one hand on the remote and the other down their pants.

Indeed, Homer and Al are not meant to be role models, they're parodies. That such commercials and TV characters are "wish fulfillment" implies that men WANT to see those two as role models so they, themselves, can be fat, stupid, and lazy with a wife that handles everything for them.

Yeah PARODIES. So they aren't ment to be taken seriously. Even if they were, that's holding men to ridiculously Low than the ridiculously high standards of appearance women are held to. Besides it's not the the laziness that's the wish fulfillment, it's the hot wife that's devoted to you.

And so the demeaning portrayals of women are supposed to be taken seriously? You're still dodging the point, it really isn't that complicated. Parody or not, most media still depicts men in insulting and demeaning ways. The fact that you seem to be saying "Oh well you're just supposed to laugh at them and pay it no attention" is even more insulting because THAT implies that male behavior is nothing but one big joke. You can tell a horrendously racist joke and say "Oh I'm just joking for the laughs", but that doesn't make what you said any less racist, does it?

And since when is being held to a lower standard a good thing? Should men not be held to as high a standard as women? Oh, that's right, men are incompotent jokes and it's alright because we're meant to laugh at them. If that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with the mindset of "well women are held to a higher standard of responsibility but that's alright because they're supposed to be eye-candy that takes care of everything."

Look, here's the breakdown. The entire point is that it's bad to generalize the genders into stereotypes. It happens to men AND women, neither one is good. The stereotypes are that women should be nothing but eye-candy and men are nothing but jokes. The fact that it also happens to men certainly does not justify it also happening to women, however the fact that it happens to men does prove that the perceived inequality isn't there. It happens to EVERYONE, regardless of gender. I'm sure women find it insulting that they're depicted as unimportant arm-trophies for a man, just as I personally find it insulting that men are depicted as fat, stupid, and incompotent.

 

[Soak]

*snip*

But to have something to say vaguely related, instead of both sides complaining at each other, why not work together and complain about both things at once?

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou, oh so friggin thank you!

I restrain myself from bringing up all the wicked situations i already had in discussions about this matter, it's enough to point at where the one in this forum is going at.

Why is it so hard to just work together to put out this damn fire? Because we're not able to share the tools? Because we can't decide who gotta regulate the water and who holds the tube? Because we're to immobile to take turns in the process, or actually use it simultaneously? Better let everything burn to the ground first, eh? Typical problem of pretty much every solution to make and then nothing's getting fixed. I just don't get it, why this appears to be so much of a better choice for most people.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

You seem a little angry man. Did I strike a nerve?

And besides, that's even what I said it is. It's the guys who feel like they have to argue something for a woman, because the women clearly can't do it themselves. I even described the exact situation. But you picked up on two words and got offended. Good job champ.

 

[IndomitableSam]

Can't argue with the rest of your post (well, except for number 3, where I have to point out that, painful as it would still probably be regardless, a man's anus is not designed to dilate 10cm first).

Now, moving swiftly on from the mental image I just gave myself...

Actually... we don't dilate that much either. Hopefully a doctor snips us open the rest of the way, but often women literally rip open until the anus and vagina are actually one hole until they're sewn back up.

Pretty picture, huh?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Can't argue with the rest of your post (well, except for number 3, where I have to point out that, painful as it would still probably be regardless, a man's anus is not designed to dilate 10cm first).

Now, moving swiftly on from the mental image I just gave myself...

Actually... we don't dilate that much either. Hopefully a doctor snips us open the rest of the way, but often women literally rip open until the anus and vagina are actually one hole until they're sewn back up.

Pretty picture, huh?

Spoiler

Why? Why would you do that to me? I was innocent until today! D':

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I think the main problem with this comic....other than "oh boy, is it feminism tuesday already?"...is the way they're illustrating it.

The illustration that they use is one of a woman getting burned and the two guys shrugging it off. In this case, this is actually an excellent counterpoint almost to the point of shutting down the conversation.

Why?

Because, without going to TV Tropes, violence against males has been a long accepted practice in our media whether it is video games or movies. Since Kratos has been mentioned, we can see that the next game is going to back away from violence against women or any female creatures. Males, on the other hand, are going to continue to have Kratos expose their insides to the outsides. Females are quite often the minority in the cannon fodder section usually only coming in as sub-bosses/bosses if at all.

If the comic had addressed the sexual portrayal of females vs males or even sexualizing violence against women, it may have had a point. As it is, the last panel should have had roughly 20-30 males on fire with 4 also having katanas stuck through their abdomen and 15 having taken a shotgun blast to the chest for it to actually be proportional. Under those circumstances, it is absolutely appropriate to make the counterpoint of how men are far more likely to have violence inflicted on them in any form of media than women.

 

[JJShaw]

bullshit complaint, bullshit argument. (well, mostly)
when did video gaming get so goddamn serious?

 

[Taunta]

It is not a good counterpoint. Saying that females are presented unfairly in media does not negate the fact that men are portrayed unfairly in media, but just a statement about women. It is not a competition. Problems do not cease to exist when there are other problems.

If I told you that I was feeling depressed, and you told me that I shouldn't be depressed because there are starving kids in Africa, that'd be a pretty douchey thing to say, because again, this is not the Problem Olympics.

 

[Taunta]

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."

This wouldn't be a problem if the argument was "ONLY females are portrayed negatively in media", but that's not the case. If it were the case, then yes, that would be a valid counterpoint, but the argument is simply "women are portrayed negatively in media". In which case "Uh yeah men are too" is completely irrelevant. It's not a competition, it's not a comparative or superlative statement, it's people trying to put down a problem by stating that other problems exist.

 

[Taunta]

somewhat relevant quote by some escapist forum user:


As much as girl gamers grouse about how terrible girl-targeted games are, the fact is that they sell better than games that actually respect women.

Beyond Good and Evil had a respectable female lead and a newbie-friendly learning curve and was generally ignored, despite a raving critical reception. Many combat-oriented games let players choose the genders of the characters in a non-exploitive fashion, so female gamers do have options to have a female lead.
Hell, the current trend of targetting fratboys with sex scenes and massive boobs is pretty recent. Through the '90s, games were youth-oriented... even games for more mature players seriously avoided sexuality. Things like DOA were the exception, not the rule.
Girls avoided games even then.
At some point you really shouldn't be surprised when the gaming industry gives up on you and says "screw it, let's just put in some naked ***** into the game - the people who would get offended aren't our customers anyways".
The only games that seem to qualify as girl-games are the ones that focus on social aspects with a fringe of hyper-tedious gameplay. When The Sims and Farmville are the things that break ground into the female gamer market - both known for little but drama and tedium - it's really no surprise that game developers don't have much interest in catering to you. I mean, it takes a miracle of timing and luck to get those games to take off (they cannot be promoted through traditional channels - they need to go entirely by word-of-mouth), and they're the kind of thing that would be repulsive to work on.

Really, the gaming industry extended the olive branch many, many times... and the results have been less than impressive. Even Nintendo's only real inroads into female gamers was with the WiiFit, which is the kind of approach that most of the industry doesn't even have as an option - Sony and MS don't have the kind of reputation to pull it off, and nobody else has the hardware ability. Despite their initial focus on being a family and party unit, Nintendo has obviously found that the biggest market was young children (of both genders). Those pictures of fashionable, hip women holding wiimotes and excitedly playing some non-depicted game? What game are they playing? Does anyone know?

They tried. They tried from every possible angle, and the only angle that seems to work is kinda repulsive (farmville).

You're really bringing up the "girls only play Sims/Farmville/WiiFit" bullshit? Really?

 

[PoweD]

somewhat relevant quote by some escapist forum user:


As much as girl gamers grouse about how terrible girl-targeted games are, the fact is that they sell better than games that actually respect women.

Beyond Good and Evil had a respectable female lead and a newbie-friendly learning curve and was generally ignored, despite a raving critical reception. Many combat-oriented games let players choose the genders of the characters in a non-exploitive fashion, so female gamers do have options to have a female lead.
Hell, the current trend of targetting fratboys with sex scenes and massive boobs is pretty recent. Through the '90s, games were youth-oriented... even games for more mature players seriously avoided sexuality. Things like DOA were the exception, not the rule.
Girls avoided games even then.
At some point you really shouldn't be surprised when the gaming industry gives up on you and says "screw it, let's just put in some naked ***** into the game - the people who would get offended aren't our customers anyways".
The only games that seem to qualify as girl-games are the ones that focus on social aspects with a fringe of hyper-tedious gameplay. When The Sims and Farmville are the things that break ground into the female gamer market - both known for little but drama and tedium - it's really no surprise that game developers don't have much interest in catering to you. I mean, it takes a miracle of timing and luck to get those games to take off (they cannot be promoted through traditional channels - they need to go entirely by word-of-mouth), and they're the kind of thing that would be repulsive to work on.

Really, the gaming industry extended the olive branch many, many times... and the results have been less than impressive. Even Nintendo's only real inroads into female gamers was with the WiiFit, which is the kind of approach that most of the industry doesn't even have as an option - Sony and MS don't have the kind of reputation to pull it off, and nobody else has the hardware ability. Despite their initial focus on being a family and party unit, Nintendo has obviously found that the biggest market was young children (of both genders). Those pictures of fashionable, hip women holding wiimotes and excitedly playing some non-depicted game? What game are they playing? Does anyone know?

They tried. They tried from every possible angle, and the only angle that seems to work is kinda repulsive (farmville).

You're really bringing up the "girls only play Sims/Farmville/WiiFit" bullshit? Really?

I'm sorry, but its mostly true.
If most of those "gamer girls" played AAA games, DOA wouldn't be sold or made the way it is right now.

 

[Denamic]

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."

This wouldn't be a problem if the argument was "ONLY females are portrayed negatively in media", but that's not the case. If it were the case, then yes, that would be a valid counterpoint, but the argument is simply "women are portrayed negatively in media". In which case "Uh yeah men are too" is completely irrelevant. It's not a competition, it's not a comparative or superlative statement, it's people trying to put down a problem by stating that other problems exist.

Why only argue about one gender's plight when both are subject to it? That's some pretty ironic sexism.

 

[Taunta]

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."

This wouldn't be a problem if the argument was "ONLY females are portrayed negatively in media", but that's not the case. If it were the case, then yes, that would be a valid counterpoint, but the argument is simply "women are portrayed negatively in media". In which case "Uh yeah men are too" is completely irrelevant. It's not a competition, it's not a comparative or superlative statement, it's people trying to put down a problem by stating that other problems exist.

Why only argue about one gender's plight when both are subject to it? That's some pretty ironic sexism.

That's not sexism. That's called focusing on a single subject. Once again, the existence of one problem does not diminish or negate another problem.

 

[Taunta]

somewhat relevant quote by some escapist forum user:


As much as girl gamers grouse about how terrible girl-targeted games are, the fact is that they sell better than games that actually respect women.

Beyond Good and Evil had a respectable female lead and a newbie-friendly learning curve and was generally ignored, despite a raving critical reception. Many combat-oriented games let players choose the genders of the characters in a non-exploitive fashion, so female gamers do have options to have a female lead.
Hell, the current trend of targetting fratboys with sex scenes and massive boobs is pretty recent. Through the '90s, games were youth-oriented... even games for more mature players seriously avoided sexuality. Things like DOA were the exception, not the rule.
Girls avoided games even then.
At some point you really shouldn't be surprised when the gaming industry gives up on you and says "screw it, let's just put in some naked ***** into the game - the people who would get offended aren't our customers anyways".
The only games that seem to qualify as girl-games are the ones that focus on social aspects with a fringe of hyper-tedious gameplay. When The Sims and Farmville are the things that break ground into the female gamer market - both known for little but drama and tedium - it's really no surprise that game developers don't have much interest in catering to you. I mean, it takes a miracle of timing and luck to get those games to take off (they cannot be promoted through traditional channels - they need to go entirely by word-of-mouth), and they're the kind of thing that would be repulsive to work on.

Really, the gaming industry extended the olive branch many, many times... and the results have been less than impressive. Even Nintendo's only real inroads into female gamers was with the WiiFit, which is the kind of approach that most of the industry doesn't even have as an option - Sony and MS don't have the kind of reputation to pull it off, and nobody else has the hardware ability. Despite their initial focus on being a family and party unit, Nintendo has obviously found that the biggest market was young children (of both genders). Those pictures of fashionable, hip women holding wiimotes and excitedly playing some non-depicted game? What game are they playing? Does anyone know?

They tried. They tried from every possible angle, and the only angle that seems to work is kinda repulsive (farmville).

You're really bringing up the "girls only play Sims/Farmville/WiiFit" bullshit? Really?

I'm sorry, but its mostly true.
If most of those "gamer girls" played AAA games, DOA wouldn't be sold or made the way it is right now.

You wanna cite any demographics for that?

 

[PoweD]

somewhat relevant quote by some escapist forum user:


As much as girl gamers grouse about how terrible girl-targeted games are, the fact is that they sell better than games that actually respect women.

Beyond Good and Evil had a respectable female lead and a newbie-friendly learning curve and was generally ignored, despite a raving critical reception. Many combat-oriented games let players choose the genders of the characters in a non-exploitive fashion, so female gamers do have options to have a female lead.
Hell, the current trend of targetting fratboys with sex scenes and massive boobs is pretty recent. Through the '90s, games were youth-oriented... even games for more mature players seriously avoided sexuality. Things like DOA were the exception, not the rule.
Girls avoided games even then.
At some point you really shouldn't be surprised when the gaming industry gives up on you and says "screw it, let's just put in some naked ***** into the game - the people who would get offended aren't our customers anyways".
The only games that seem to qualify as girl-games are the ones that focus on social aspects with a fringe of hyper-tedious gameplay. When The Sims and Farmville are the things that break ground into the female gamer market - both known for little but drama and tedium - it's really no surprise that game developers don't have much interest in catering to you. I mean, it takes a miracle of timing and luck to get those games to take off (they cannot be promoted through traditional channels - they need to go entirely by word-of-mouth), and they're the kind of thing that would be repulsive to work on.

Really, the gaming industry extended the olive branch many, many times... and the results have been less than impressive. Even Nintendo's only real inroads into female gamers was with the WiiFit, which is the kind of approach that most of the industry doesn't even have as an option - Sony and MS don't have the kind of reputation to pull it off, and nobody else has the hardware ability. Despite their initial focus on being a family and party unit, Nintendo has obviously found that the biggest market was young children (of both genders). Those pictures of fashionable, hip women holding wiimotes and excitedly playing some non-depicted game? What game are they playing? Does anyone know?

They tried. They tried from every possible angle, and the only angle that seems to work is kinda repulsive (farmville).

You're really bringing up the "girls only play Sims/Farmville/WiiFit" bullshit? Really?

I'm sorry, but its mostly true.
If most of those "gamer girls" played AAA games, DOA wouldn't be sold or made the way it is right now.

You wanna cite any demographics for that?

Why should i?
Game sales show it themselves.

 

[lacktheknack]

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."

This wouldn't be a problem if the argument was "ONLY females are portrayed negatively in media", but that's not the case. If it were the case, then yes, that would be a valid counterpoint, but the argument is simply "women are portrayed negatively in media". In which case "Uh yeah men are too" is completely irrelevant. It's not a competition, it's not a comparative or superlative statement, it's people trying to put down a problem by stating that other problems exist.

Why only argue about one gender's plight when both are subject to it? That's some pretty ironic sexism.

That's not sexism. That's called focusing on a single subject. Once again, the existence of one problem does not diminish or negate another problem.

Actually, the single subject should be "People are portrayed negatively in media". If both men and women are subject to it, then gender shouldn't matter one way or the other, as they're coming from the same direction.