The opposite of feminism in gaming?

[ThrobbingEgo]

Sweden is just the most insane place on the planet earth. Is also one of the least functional countries in the world & getting worse.

Looks pretty good to me. You know, comparatively speaking.

http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/SE
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/americans-want-to-live-in-a-much-more-equal-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/

Edit: Bottom line: It's sad that you hate your own suggestions when they're pointed out to have been implemented in Sweden.

 

[VortexCortex]

If you can acknowledge that there are arbitrary gender roles in society, you acknowledge patriarchy. If you can't acknowledge the presence of arbitrary gender roles, you're somehow typing from a coma.

If you choose to label this Patriarchy and not Matriarchy, despite the fact that -- contrary to our closest evolutionary relatives -- the human female body specifically evolved to not signal the race to her time of ovulation, which makes it harder to tell when an impregnation can be best performed, the effect of which is to control the male activity in the reproductive cycle, and completely ignore that a consensus among females and males in society is that: Women can use Sex to get what they want, but men can't because Sex is what they want. Then your Label is bogus and your definitions are suspect.

 

[VortexCortex]

You deny my statement as true.

Women can use Sex to get what they want, but men can't because Sex is what they want.

...Did you actually post that? You've either never been in an actual any kind of relationship with a woman, or you're twelve.

I've had a handful of serious relationships, and have two children. Your Ad Hominem attack is not compelling in the least. You take offense to my statements and list counter points, then shut down the discussion. That does not prove your point. I stated that it was a "trope", or common consensus among both men and women. Disprove it.

My observation is based on observation, both anecdotal and statistical. Sex drive is not a factor in the social norm. My issue was with your selection of the labeling of this trope as Patriarchy vs Matriarchy. Going to a bar and getting free drinks because you're a beautiful female is not equally as frequent as going to a bar and getting free drinks because you're a handsome male. Some think that men buying drinks for women is a symbol of female reliance on males, but they need to provide evidence to back this claim. In my experience the opposite is true. I see it as female influence of the allocation of monetary resources, due to sex appeal, which it actually is... It's not sexist to acknowledge a trope, if we can not discuss it then what is the damn point of Feminism?!

Whether these occurrences are good or bad is subjective. I take neither side since I have not sufficient evidence for or against. Where a feminist labels such sexually oriented thinking as Patriarchy, I question why that term was selected as such, and put forth an equally valid argument considering it appears to be more Matriarchal in nature to me.

Saying "I'm Done Here"... is, well, childish. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10343-Were-Done-Here] You're responding to the tone of the comments without actually engaging the argument.

1. Women generally want sex. Some women have higher sex drives then their male partners.

I did not say women did not want sex, just noted a general societal norm. If you refute this norm then you refute the basis for which the very existence of Feminism stands... I agree men and women are sexual equals, but the existence of a Patriarchy would rely on a discrepancy in the equality, would it not? If you agree that the trope does exist, then why the dismissive attitude?

2. Sex isn't determined by ovulation. Women can engage in intercourse at any time in their cycle.

Perhaps you've not experienced it yet, but yes, ovulation does affect sex drive in women. Do not imply my statement is a false equivalence. Women can have sex whenever they want was precisely my point. The fact that men have a disproportionate degree of control over when sex is available was the point of my comment, which you thus agreed with? The lack of "going into heat" and producing signs of ovulation serves to cause changes in the male reproductive behavior. The males must remain around the female longer and mate multiple times to ensure their genes are carried on, rather than mate most frequently only when the female is ovulating, then take a more distanced or absent role, like lions and dogs do...

3. Just because you're not getting any doesn't mean women are trying to control you.

Ouch! So edgy! I'm not getting any! I'm irrationally in fear of being under control! No, I said that it does have an effect on the male reproductive cycle. To refute this, you must prove otherwise rather than make presumptions about my sex life. You've used the oldest trick in the book: logical fallacy of Ad Hominem, attacking my character rather than my arguments. It's quite uncalled for.

I'm done here.

Good riddance. Your arguments were neither compelling nor logical, and contained no evidence.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Ah you see. Now you're being sexist, that or you're agreeing that Feminism isn't about equality. Why can't Masculinism be about equality of men? You've demonized the term or at least said it's less useful even though it could seek to achieve the exact same goals as Feminism purports to. That's sexist. Why can't masculinism be about Making men equal to women? Giving the equal pay for equal jobs, giving them equal custody rights, jail terms, and child care benefits -- Men want to stay home with my child on paternity leave too! It could be the exact same as Feminism. I admit it was a ruse. A Jedi Mind Trick that I played on you to test your preconceived sexist notions about equality...

Just like a man trying to take the word feminism away from the movement, and replace feminism with it! <.< j/k

In all seriousness, I'm being realistic, here. Men have often been in, and are in places of power so they haven't often felt the need to fight for male rights in and of themselves, and those who -really- fight for equality aren't really known to me, save Jim Sterling (Thank GOD for Jim!) who I've come to respect immensely, and even still, he doesn't slap an -ist lable on himself, nor do I slap one on him.
That's just some of why it's practically unheard of to me.
I've never heard of any movement that's akin to your idealized masculinism, and the closest thing i've been exposed to is the people trying to maintain the status quo of keepign the woman down in one way or another.
If there's a masculinism that's seeking equality, good for those that support it! If you know it to be true, fly the banner, and let people know about it!

It certainly doesn't help that a lot of guys are so hard driven to defend the status quo of the gaming industry. Sure, some guys are seeking equality in the gaming industry, but seriously, there's quite a lot arguing against equality, too.

Still, fair enough, you've opened my eyes that masculinism can be beyond things like keeping the gaming industry sexist. Now it needs to be put into practice, and be visible so I'm not only exposed to the wrong sort of masculinism.

There's no known reason to be against female protagonsits to me. Excuses are just that. Excuses. I honestly find it hard to stomache people who defend the status quo, and the status quo itself. I admit that much.

You're labeling anyone who is anti feminist as also not wanting more female protagonists in games. This is what's called a False Dichotomy. I fear you've got a mental block. THINK! Stop ignoring that beautiful mind of yours and USE IT: Just because I say there is no evidence that the tropes presented need exclusion from games, or that they further sexsism, and also point out that you may be biased, and that Feminism itself is inherently biased (on average, based on a random sampling, and it's damn name), does not mean I want less female protagonists. I am being harsh not because you're female, but because of THIS:

To be clear, I make games and seek to provide equal representations of women in games

How much more clear can I POSSIBLY be? I am one of the ones you want to convince to put more females in protagonist roles, I say I want the same thing.... Yet, you can't stomach my "excuses" when my only "excuse" for not hopping on your bias band wagon is that I REQUIRE PROOF to make a determination to determine if I should? Do NOT lump me in with those you despise simply because I am a Scientist who does not agree with you. That would be exceedingly ignorant. Indeed, I feel it a charity to even reply.

I'm not lableing anti-feminists anything! It's a laugh you think I am. I don't care if people are anti-feminist, what's important to me is where they stand on dealing with the sexism in the industry, and female protagonists.

If they're anti-feminist, and want to see female protagonsits in games, then why not make it more clear as opposed to just attacking the people who do want more female protagonists? There's so much hostility in the counterarguments, and not much sense in the counterarguments. People scream it's not sexist, but provide no real proof it isn't sexist. They want me to believe it's just marketing, or lately "capitalism" despite those are just some of the reasons behind the sexism.

You're one of the people I have to convince? Either you want to or you don't. You shouldn't need much convincing since it needs to be something you want to do! Take that idea to several producers as an experiment, and see what happens!
As much as I dislike the excuse "I don't want to see women put into leading roles out of obligation" as a reason to not include women, it still shouldn't happen. The reason I dislike the excuse because they say it as if they're ignorant of the fact that women often get taken out of a game, replaced by a male as a protagonist, or the like. Developer's arts are being suppressed already.

Scientists research. You've shown none, and no apparent interest in researching aside from saying you'll have to. Here, have a look:
http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/ or http://www.gameinformer.com/games/god_of_war_ascension/b/ps3/archive/2012/04/30/sony-unveils-god-of-war-ascensions-multiplayer.aspx

I see lots of flimsy reasons to exclude women in those examples.
You wanna scream over proof, and evidence? How about those links? Want more links? I can get'em.

You don't have to jump on my bandwagon, or anyone's. I'm not going to force you to. I know what it's like to be stubborn since I am stubborn myself.
Still, if you, or others want to defend the status quo I see as sexist without the ability to prove it's not, by all means, do. Doesn't mean I have to appreciate it at all. Do I care what your reasons are? No, not really. There's not a real middle ground here. Either women get more roles as protagonists, or they don't. Either you want to see more female protagonists, or you don't.

I mean seriously, do I care if you dislike femnist extremists, feminism in general, or dislike me? Not at all.

You've demonized the opposing side of the argument as being the wrong one, failing to consider if there are any non-anti-female counter points. This sort of argument for feminism is detrimental -- It's biased and deceptive, and thus wrong.

The problems men and women face in the gaming industry are not equal. Women have a lot more ground to cover to get to that equality, IMO.

Escapist's own Jim Sterling touches a lot on my gripes with the gaming industry.

That is YOUR SEXIST OPINION. I think men have JUST AS MUCH ground to cover in terms of gender equality. If you do not, then that is your opinion, and I will label it as sexist. For, how do the women cover the ground in the games without affecting the mens' roles in games too? I say the issue is one and the same, one of equality. You say one gender deserves more consideration than the other. To quote Mr. Sterling: "Bull. Fucking. Shiiit!"

Also citing Sterling agrees with you, and implying that both your opinions are therefore more valid than mine, is an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT This comment may exist on the escapist website, but make no mistake, I don not hold anyone's opinion above the examination of science, or the requirement of evidence in order to prove a hypothesis.

You wanna compare notes on the ground men, and women have to make up in the videogame industry? Have you tried to compare them, or are you blindly trying to be egalitarian? Being egalitarian doesn't help one see the problems when one only goes after the problems that affect both genders.

By the way, where the heck is your research? Your science?
For all your boasting you bring an awful lot of nothing to the table.
You wanna enlighten me, but you're not really even attempting to. You can't just provide an excuse with nothing behind it, and dismiss the problem. Especially when I post a link backing up my view with someone who's experienced it, or provide examples galore!

I run short on time, so I will simply reply to the marketing comments without quotation. I proposed a solution to the perceived problem, and attempted to prove I was on your side -- if you could stop redefining where the "sides" actually were, it would be really great. Do not say "Who is making the games I want" Hell, start a campaign to do so and fund the development if you so desire. You cited self selective examples to support your claims of misogyny. SOME publishers don't support games with female heroes. I can not make a logical leap to labeling this as sexist misrepresentation without more evidence. That you can does not make my point less valid: Where's the damn numbers? Is this representative of all game publishers as a whole? Is the problem getting worse or better?

Seriously, you think I have the talent, and resources to make a game that'll matter? The connections to find people that are qualified to help? I should only be so lucky. I might have a vision, but I know full well my skills as a whole, my equipment, and my funds aren't up to snuff to reach it.

You want me to start a kickstarter? Who the hell am I to make a kickstarter? I can't even convince half the people on this board of anything short of me being some misandric feminist (and I don't even consider myself a feminist, or misandric) for crying out loud! Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself to lead a parade, nevermind a kickstarter.
I'm not saying this to garner any pity, mind you, I'm saying it to be realistic.

If I could have realistically set out on a campaign to make my own game, I would have done it.

Honestly, that "make your own game!" notion really is irritating. As if it's just that easy? There's lots of people who make games that just don't do well and they far outnumber the success stories. Not everyone's going to be a star when they make their own game. That's cold reality.

To me it seems you are disgusted at folks who disagree with your position simply because they disagree, even when THEY WANT THE SAME THING YOU DO AND ARE THE VERY PEOPLE YOU WANT TO CONVINCE TO THINK THE SAME WAY YOU DO. You have preconceived notions that those opposed to your OPINION are disgusting and uninformed. It smacks of simple minded biased thinking. THAT disgusts ME.

Explain to me how people can simultaniously disagree on wanting more female protagonists, yet want more female protagonists?
Further, if I can't convince those people, then I can't. Obviously I'm no master of diplomacy here. Isn't that blatantly obvious? I'm abrasive, irritated, jaded, irritable, and generally not one to have a wonderful outlook.

I -am- informed over the vast swaths of BS the gaming industry pulls that's sexist coz it I get offended a bit too often by what the industry does with female protagonists alone! And I'm not seeing any proof, or evidence to the contrary. That's what's gotten me so irritable over the practices of the gaming industry, and those that defend the industry's practices towards sexism. And I try to enlighten people, but often enough my replies are people who agree, nothing, or people who go on wild tangents trying to say I'm wrong for some reason.

I want more females roles in games too. Not as the result of feminist mandates, but because I like to explore both female and male characters' stories. Yep. Female centered stories. I'm making a distinction based on sex. Guess what? I have a sexual preference too!

Well, hot damn, we've nothing more to debate over since that's the whole topic I wanted to cover!
But a question remains! If you want that, basically what I want, then why on earth did you pick a debate/argument with me in the first place? I'd love to know!

Allow me to jump the gun here, and assume the reason is you don't like the way I think. Well, so what if I'm not perfect? Who is? My motives may not be the same as yours, and you may not agree with them, but once there's some actual equalibrium in the gaming industry, and the games it produces I'll certainly stop complaining. Until then, I'm going to do what I think is right to help draw attention to the sexism in the gaming industry.

Even if you perceive me as a misandric feminist (and I glean that you do), I'm not exactly screaming for female domination here, am I? I just want to see female protagonists get more common, and with more agency in their lives, and aren't in terrible games, and stop often flying under my radar... wait, scratch that. I scrape, scratch, research like mad, and do what I can to find console games (I hate the unreliability of PC gaming) with female protagonsits, and then I repeat the process to find games out of those I can afford, and/or want. My net's already pretty wide. It also helps that my significant other does the same thing.
That said, I want female protagonists to stop flying under the radar of the vast majority of people, and be in nice games where they have agency over their lives.

It'd be a bonus if they weren't in games where you select the gender of your character, or if they are gender select games, have the gender matter through out the game as opposed to predetermined areas.

If I'm wrong in the reasoning you decided to get into a debate with me, then please do enlighten me, will ya? I'm thoroughly interested.

The point I'm making is for you to do this: Prove to me you're not tilting at windmills just like the anti-violence in games folks. Do that, then I'll consider your points valid, and adjust my thinking accordingly. I don't have a strong opinion either way -- I wait for EVIDENCE. I am a Scientist. Your borderline Ad Hominem Attack of claiming I'm not scientific because I'm ignoring evidence is quite ridiculous when you consider: 1. There is no hard evidence, only hearsay, and 2. You're not examining the entire pool of evidence, just a few self selected samples. On average, I'd say that MOST companies AREN'T being sexist. I posit the frequency of male vs female protagonists can be directly linked to the frequency of male vs female players. I have evidence to back this argument for myself. I will not try to convince you of it. I fear that is a waste of time. Open your closed mind. There is knowledge to be had outside of it.

Want evidence? Try the links above. That's a small fraction of the sexism I've heard of in the industry, and no doubt an even smaller fraction of the sexism I haven't heard of since I'm almost always finding new examples. These links wouldn't be out there if there weren't some truth to them, especially since they come from interviews of people directly involved with the game. And that evidence also shows on the gaming racks, in the magazines that show games that are coming out, and are out, and threads like these which are extremely numerous to say the least, and are still a bitter battleground between people wanting better representation of women in games, and people who don't.

It's not like I'm trying to convince you videogames cause violence as I don't believe it myself, nor am I trying to convince you of any of Jack Thompson's views.

I just feel I'm just pointing out what should be frikking obvious if one researched.

Okay, now that I've provided you with evidence in the links above, where are -your- numbers? Where's -your- evidence to the contrary? You can posit all you want, but all you're really doing is screaming I don't have evidence despite me providing some, while you provide none yourself. Not even a link. At best some very random tale about your pal gleaning freebies off of people in an MMO. Yeah, that really makes up for all the bad I see in the industry, doesn't it? Some random people getting free virtual items at random from random people because of their avatar's appearance?
That other people get harassed for random things in games while you forget, or deny/denied women get targeted over their gender?
I've already explained that shouting racist, or homophobic slurs at people, while wrong, is often baseless while harassing women over their gender often isn't, haven't I?

You can't just say you have evidence, and not show it. That just removes all your credibility, bluntly. I at least tried to offer some evidence even if you're keen on not researching the matter yourself. It's not particularly hard to research the matter, either.

Honestly, get over yourself, too. Who are you in the gaming industry, exactly?
What blow against the preconcieved notions that female protagonists don't sell, aren't profitable, and don't want to be played as by enough gamer base that it'd hurt sales do you plan on striking? I'd love to know!

And a "scientist", and a proud one at that, that doesn't show research, or provide their own evidence, yet demands it from people? And makes demands that people change their notions while offering nothing to really back up why they should?

Think of me what you will, at least I've attempted to offer far more evidence, and proof.

Honestly? If you want to change MY mind, you need some evidence, and proof of your own. More than what others have presented. You want to open my mind? Put some effort into it instead of just berating me on acting on data I've accumulated.
Frankly it's hillarious you think it's a waste of time to present your data, and yet you want me to be more open minded, and use my brain. Kinda sad, too, now that I consider it in that you don't think your data is compelling enough to even dent my beliefs. Goes to show the confidence you have in your research, doesn't it?

And even if you don't manage to convince me with your findings, you might convince someone else that reads it.

 

[Wyvern65]

Yeah.

1. I sent a PM because discussion of SF was offtopic and I wanted to be respectful of the other members of this forum. You clearly have no such qualms.

2. I'll blockquote myself because you're being more than a bit disingenuous:

I find it useful to compare what's happening in gaming now to what happened in science fiction writing in the 60's and 70's. SF as a genre in the west was popularized in boy's adventure magazines. As a medium it was both aged and gendered. Women writers and female viewpoints and concerns were vanishingly rare. During the change a lot of contentious things were said and a lot of extreme positions staked out. I'd say by and large things worked out in the end. Maybe that example can give us a modicum of hope.

The above is a paragraph. A paragraph can contain multiple ideas. I did NOT write "SF as a genre was popularized in the 60's and 70's" I was comparing what is happening now with what happened in the SF genre in the 60's and 70's. I then went on to provide some historical context. The /reason/ SF lacked female writers and viewpoints was because /when/ it was popularized in the west it was in boys adventure mags (the pulps). The /change/ in the genre did not happen until the 60's. That doesn't mean the genre failed to exist before then.

When you responded listing magazine titles and the pulps I called you on it because it was clear that you, personally, do have some knowledge of the history of SF. Perhaps that assumption on my part was wrong. But your outrage stems from an inability to actually read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote. Yet again.

And you're making an issue of this /why/, exactly? So you can be proven right and I can hang my head in shame?

Sorry, I won't apologize for being in error about something I never said.

 

[Wyvern65]

Defunct? What is this I don't even.

Written SF wasn't 'defunct' during the sixties and seventies. It didn't disappear and magically re-appear (when, exactly?) Books don't count? I'm not sure how you could even think that or claim it. I never mentioned short stories at all, but even if I had there were plenty of SF mags during that time. (New Worlds springs to mind.)

A hell of a lot happened in SF during those 20 years.

That's when the 'new wave' of SF happened which brought a bunch of humanist, political and feminist concerns into the field for the first time and caused a lot of anger and upset and divided both the creators and the consumers of science fiction into two polarized camps with a lot of the same kinds of name calling that is happening now in video gaming.

Which was kind of my entire point. It's a pretty exact analogy to what's happening today.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

I don't quite understand why this woman is the voice for all women, when not all women disagree. I know quite a few women that are aware of the differences between man/woman and are content with that. In some countries this means women don't have to serve mandatory 2 year army time (Singapore for example does this), that they perceive men as protectors and inevitably the ones who take care of them if they were to be with child. I don't think this is all too unnatural or outrageous.

The extreme of this would be this little twitter gem:

"I would NOT talk to any man who wouldnt give up his seat on the bus for a woman or girl! #jerks"

 

[generals3]

(This isn't just about who's the lead character. Give me a list of female characters in games who talk to other female characters about something other than a man.)

I'm sorry, i'm not playing the kind of games which suddenly shows scenes totally irrelevant to the story. Your argument blows on your face due to the fact the genre of gaming discussed here has very little meaningful social interactions to begin with. The games we're discussing have interactions limited to what makes the plot move forward. And that usually involves the protagonist. I'm fairly certain that in the sims you can have women talk with women about random stuff. On top of that the majority of games don't belong to the stereotypical violent AAA game genre. Limiting yourself to one sub segment which is by its genre most likely not to give you what you want is intellectually dishonest.

 

[generals3]

Why can't Masculinism be about equality of men?

We already have a movement against applying limiting gender roles to men. It's called feminism.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Feminism is anti-patriarchy (what we call the social structure of arbitrarily assigned gender roles), not anti-men. Anita even did a thing on male gender roles in liquor ads, for fuck's sake. She's done other videos on the same subject. She even mentioned male gender roles in the latest Tropes VS Women video.

That video shows exactly why the idea of feminists giving a shit about men can't be taken seriously. You do realize that her video, supposedly about male gender roles emphasizes on how WOMEN are being protrayed?!

Seriously how can anyone fall for such oblivious nonsense? She never cared about men and never will. And the only time she does pretend to it is because it has an impact on WOMEN.

 

[Lady Larunai]

Seriously, you think I have the talent, and resources to make a game that'll matter? The connections to find people that are qualified to help? I should only be so lucky. I might have a vision, but I know full well my skills as a whole, my equipment, and my funds aren't up to snuff to reach it.

You want me to start a kickstarter? Who the hell am I to make a kickstarter? I can't even convince half the people on this board of anything short of me being some misandric feminist (and I don't even consider myself a feminist, or misandric) for crying out loud! Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself to lead a parade, nevermind a kickstarter.
I'm not saying this to garner any pity, mind you, I'm saying it to be realistic.

If I could have realistically set out on a campaign to make my own game, I would have done it.

Honestly, that "make your own game!" notion really is irritating. As if it's just that easy? There's lots of people who make games that just don't do well and they far outnumber the success stories. Not everyone's going to be a star when they make their own game. That's cold reality.

So after reading 5 pages of 2 sides shouting across the vacuum of space which i will stay out of.. I want to reply to this...

Why not?

Why does a game have to be great or amazing? there are tons of people making what will be terrible games that would be happy if just a single person saw and played it, or related to it. Look at a lot of indie games/flash games some of them are horrible but im betting someone played them, look at Alone and Dys4ia both meaningful, simple and from my personal stance dis4ia was a terrible game, but people related, people played them, they made news, albiet small news but they were shared and it made a name for those people.

So whats stopping you from learning these things? downloading a free program and making art assets and then a kickstarter to fund a programmer or buy an engine license, there are free or reasonably cheap engines that will allow for simple creation of mobile games, why muffle your own voice on the prospect that its not easy?

Not every artist does it for the fame, they do it for the love of the medium.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Snip

A'ight. I'm gonna reply to this because you posted that fine logic pyramid (or possibly lifted it from Jane's post, I can't remember which of you posted it first now, but Jane's gone and gotten himself suspended again and doesn't respond to me when I ask him questions anyway), so obviously you're a fan of logic and rationality. You're using it as a bit of a cudgel in this thread, but there's some effort there.

That does not prove your point. I stated that it was a "trope", or common consensus among both men and women. Disprove it.

You know as well as I do that the burden of proof is on the person making the statement, not the person questioning it. If I told you all left handed people were thieves, and then said "DISPROVE IT", you would have neither the time nor inclination nor ABILITY to do so, especially not in the void of an internet forum. It's not like you and I are in a lab, running a study together. I could say whatever I wanted. For example, I could simply sniff and say...

My observation is based on observation, both anecdotal and statistical.

Your anecdotal observation is absolutely worthless, and 100% contaminated by bias. You know that. It's why no one should offer up anecdotes as factual evidence of ANYTHING. It's fine if you're having a casual conversation with someone, but you're flying the "Logic and Facts Plox" flag in here, so you need to hold yourself to your own standard. And statistical? If you have statistics, provide them. Actually scratch that, don't, unless you have extensive information available as to how those statistics were compiled, and sufficient education to understand just how scientifically rigorous they were or weren't, AND sufficient education (and verbal eloquence) to sit down and explain at length to everyone listening just how scientifically rigorous they were or weren't. Do you have that? Because I don't. I doubt the people drawing up the statistics do, to be frank. You know as well as I do both of us could choose a position in the argument of "feminism" or "sexism", leave right now, and come back with an arm load of statistics and anecdotal evidence supporting our position. Which of us would be right? In the eyes of onlookers, whomever offered up statistics and anecdotal evidence that supported their individual confirmation bias.

If your response to this is "The person I was responding to was being anecdotal" or "I am trying to illustrate the power of bias by being biased", don't. You have a higher standard you need to adhere to, because you're the one beating the logic and rationality drum.

Going to a bar and getting free drinks because you're a beautiful female is not equally as frequent as going to a bar and getting free drinks because you're a handsome male.

Support this assertion. Anecdotal or "common consensus" is not sufficient. You have labelled yourself a SCIENTIST. Be SCIENTIFIC.

Some think that men buying drinks for women is a symbol of female reliance on males, but they need to provide evidence to back this claim. In my experience the opposite is true.

Your anecdotal experience is insufficient as rebuttal to this claim. Simply saying "they need to provide evidence" was sufficient, but you appear to be attempting to use someone else's unsubstantiated claim to prop up one of your own.

I see it as female influence of the allocation of monetary resources, due to sex appeal, which it actually is...

Support this assertion.

It's not sexist to acknowledge a trope, if we can not discuss it then what is the damn point of Feminism?!

It's not scientific to offer up a "trope" as evidence of a fact, either. Nor is what you're describing a "trope", you're using the word somewhat wrong (a trope is basically a "cliche"). I believe you are conflating "trope" with "truism", because I have a hard time imagining you would promote cliches as evidence of anything other than laziness in expression.

Where a feminist labels such sexually oriented thinking as Patriarchy, I question why that term was selected as such, and put forth an equally valid argument considering it appears to be more Matriarchal in nature to me.

Sweeping generalization regarding feminists. Not scientific, and calls into question your assertion that you "take neither side". Which, I might add, is in and of itself a problematic assertion (IMO). The bifurcation of the exploration of gender identity and sexual roles in society into armed camps is just going to result in polarizing dissent.

I did not say women did not want sex, just noted a general societal norm. If you refute this norm then you refute the basis for which the very existence of Feminism stands.

I'm not sure how your generalization about women, which you based again on a cultural/social "truism", cannot be debated without refuting the basic ideology of Feminism. Perhaps I'm overlooking something. The feminism I am familiar with ASSUMES a certain level of cultural/social indoctrination, which it then asserts is where these "truisms" come from in the first place. Surely you do not suggest things like "commonly accepted wisdom" or "people say" are EVIDENCE of anything? Or am I misunderstanding your argument?

Good riddance. Your arguments were neither compelling nor logical, and contained no evidence.

You've dropped the tone here. I appreciate you felt under attack, and lord knows I have a hard time not firing back when I feel I am being insulted (as my many warnings attest), but I again assert you are presenting yourself as a logical, rational, and SCIENTIFIC individual who is above the fray. Don't post that awesome pyramid and then end your post with emotional snark (which, by the way, leaves you open to a warning of your own, I'd consider editing a few of your posts).

 

[asap]

I guess Rapelay is the opposite. Nothing feminist about that. Just good old fashioned role play.

 

[LAGG]

I wasn't part of any meeting where men and women agreed that videogames, and the videogame industry should be unfair to women.

I wasn't in the meeting where "the videogame industry" decided that most games should become Power Fantasies and be unfair to fans of the Survival Horror genre.
Welcome to niche markets.

Seriously, you think I have the talent, and resources to make a game that'll matter? The connections to find people that are qualified to help? I should only be so lucky. I might have a vision, but I know full well my skills as a whole, my equipment, and my funds aren't up to snuff to reach it.

You want me to start a kickstarter? Who the hell am I to make a kickstarter? I can't even convince half the people on this board of anything short of me being some misandric feminist (and I don't even consider myself a feminist, or misandric) for crying out loud! Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself to lead a parade, nevermind a kickstarter.
I'm not saying this to garner any pity, mind you, I'm saying it to be realistic.

If I could have realistically set out on a campaign to make my own game, I would have done it.

Honestly, that "make your own game!" notion really is irritating. As if it's just that easy? There's lots of people who make games that just don't do well and they far outnumber the success stories. Not everyone's going to be a star when they make their own game. That's cold reality.

Yes, you can, everybody can.
Not all games have to be AAA multimillion titles. You don't even need Kickstarter, not even a budget.

You just have to Download a few free software and learn them. Unity, Gimp, Blender if you want 3D. Jump into #unity3d at http://webchat.freenode.net/ and ask for guidelines of where to start. Also, head to the next Global Game Jam and participate, even if you don't know anything.

And of course, gender doesn't matter, just your willingness to make it happen.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Want evidence? Try the links above. That's a small fraction of the sexism I've heard of in the industry, and no doubt an even smaller fraction of the sexism I haven't heard of since I'm almost always finding new examples. These links wouldn't be out there if there weren't some truth to them, especially since they come from interviews of people directly involved with the game. And that evidence also shows on the gaming racks, in the magazines that show games that are coming out, and are out, and threads like these which are extremely numerous to say the least, and are still a bitter battleground between people wanting better representation of women in games, and people who don't.

What you are complaining about isn?t ?sexism? but something called ?market realities?.
Publishers aren?t charities and don?t operate on hugs and kisses, they will make decisions based on the expected target audience to try and get the most money possible out of it.
Despite what a dubious ESA study that counts people playing solitaire, on their mobile phone or a Facebook game every month as ?gamers? says, most of the core games often have a specific audience. (for better or worse)

There was also an interesting article two years back about Activision outright refusing female leads and purposely changing True Crime 3's (which was previously known as Black Lotus and was finally released as Sleeping Dogs under Square Enix) to a guy since female leads don't sell: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29719/InDepth_No_Female_Heroes_At_Activision.php

To be quite honest I don't think they are that far off, look at past games featuring female leads like Oni, Mirror's Edge, Beyond Good & Evil, WET, Velvet Assassin, No One Lives Forever (well there was a second part there) etc. Games like StarCraft: Ghost were even cancelled before they released.

You'll notice that they have one thing in common, which is that they didn't get any sequels yet, let alone to talk about *franchises* and they didn't sell very well no matter how good they were.

The only two exceptions that come to mind are Tomb Raider/Lara Croft (which was established back in 1996), the appeal should be rather obvious and Metroid (which was established even further back in 1986), although Samus is covered up in armor for the largest part of the games and appears as such on most covers looking like a robot.

Bayonetta also sold rather disappointingly, at least for SEGA who had high expectations: http://www.vg247.com/2009/08/21/sega-coo-talks-about-company-expectations-for-bayonetta/
It would very likely not have gotten a sequel if Nintendo didn't step in because they needed an "Exclusive" title to prop their new console a bit, we will see how that will develop.

Spoiler: For reference here are the covers

From the Mass Effect 2/3 Stats we for instance know that only 18% of the players played as Female Shepard and I guess that includes a lot of guys that liked Jennifer Hale since I know a few: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-20-bioware-18-percent-play-mass-effect-as-femshep
http://www.vg247.com/2013/03/25/mass-effect-retrospective-and-infographic-farewells-series/
This didn?t even change because of the increased marketing Female Shepard received.
If a similar (or even smaller amount) of customers wouldn't grab a game for that reason because it doesn't instantly appeal, it could pretty much explain the sales troubles of a bunch of these games.

This is also an interesting article about an actual study into this "issue": http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/10438/article/study-of-box-art-reveals-games-that-feature-non-sexualized-women-on-the-box-don-t-sell-well/

But you seem to be arguing about a different thing entirely than everyone else, the largest argument seems to be around the *depiction* of female characters in certain titles.
All this analysis and painstaking searching for fault (as well as all these controversies) might prove to even have a negative impact on what you are looking for, since a lot of publishers would rather not have to deal with the drama that usually follows (see for instance the last Tomb Raider) and might just take the easier (and more marketable) way out.

There?s a few upcoming games with female protagonists like Remember Me and I don?t know if The Last of Us or Beyond: Two Souls even count cause they?re more side-companions in each game with the protagonist still a man.
If these games would sell (like say Tomb Raider) you can be sure that publishers wouldn?t ignore a market and try to make a "franchise" out of them, all evidence so far points to barely being one there.

This is a thing that a lot of market niches are affected from including say strategy gamers or old-school Adventure/RPG gamers since they don't seem to have an audience in the high millions and publishers won't rethink their stance because of "moral issues" if it doesn't make them any money.
Best way to get a game you like seems to be KickStarter at the moment.

You're forgetting something
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
At the very least.
Remember Me is out in less than 2 days and I haven't seen a single commercial on tv or internet for it. I dare say Nilin is doomed to obscurity before the game even releases. Sure people who keep up heavily on gaming news know about Remember Me, and Two Souls at least know the names of the game, but what about the average gamer?
Tomb Raider barely got advertising.
And that is a very short list of the heroines who have flown under the radar, or nearly so.

Something that cannot be overlooked is that people need to see the gameplay. Now more than ever I would say thanks to being burned by Duke Nukem, Aliens Colonial Marines, and now, likely, the star trek game that commercials with gameplay are needed. I guess they'd never show the bugs, though.

And another thing. The definition of sexism that is applicable to the gaming industry even if you apply the marketing excuse. The definition does not stipulate that it has to be done out of purely intending to be sexist. Even as a sideeffect it is still there.

Even with Fem-shep's increased marketing you say? Increased from zero to what? I hardly have seen any aside from picking her default look, and a redone trailer that I doubt showed on tv more than a handful of times, and an apearance at a gaming awards show in a brief video showing her competing with her male counterpart, and randomly shown box art. I cannot say it was a huge dose of encouragement to see her played more oft. Feels more like a loveletter to those that did play as her.

Ever notice that despite poor sales, and femshep's poor play stats (which is still near 1/5th the playthroughs and even then I think it was the first plays that were tracked) that a lot of female characters have become iconinc? At the very least memorable?

The article about non-sexualied women on covers is something of a non-issue with me. I fully recognize sex sells, and I also enjoy the sexualization to a degree. I want to look stylish, and spectacular in game. A cool looking, confident protagonist that owns who they are, and what they look like, and what they do is as important to men as it is to women. Believe it or not, Bayonetta is not universally hated by women. She was a power trip which is something important in games. You as the playable character feel powerful, and awesome. As awesome as an NPC is, I doubt they will ever give the same feeling of accomplishment as a playable character would.

It is not the depiction I have a problem with. It's the frequency that the depicted women are playable.

Still, it might be a good idea to have a limit on the sexualized looks. It might turn off a female gamer if it goes too far.

Again, a kickstarter notion when I seriously doubt I have the cred to pull it off, nevermind the talent, or resources to. I have nothing to offer but a vision, and even then that vision is blurry. I cannot promise how I would pull it off. Might be why I am not in the gaming industry in charge of concepts, and am hoping the people that are will take notice.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

)

Seriously, you think I have the talent, and resources to make a game that'll matter? The connections to find people that are qualified to help? I should only be so lucky. I might have a vision, but I know full well my skills as a whole, my equipment, and my funds aren't up to snuff to reach it.

You want me to start a kickstarter? Who the hell am I to make a kickstarter? I can't even convince half the people on this board of anything short of me being some misandric feminist (and I don't even consider myself a feminist, or misandric) for crying out loud! Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself to lead a parade, nevermind a kickstarter.
I'm not saying this to garner any pity, mind you, I'm saying it to be realistic.

If I could have realistically set out on a campaign to make my own game, I would have done it.

Honestly, that "make your own game!" notion really is irritating. As if it's just that easy? There's lots of people who make games that just don't do well and they far outnumber the success stories. Not everyone's going to be a star when they make their own game. That's cold reality.

So after reading 5 pages of 2 sides shouting across the vacuum of space which i will stay out of.. I want to reply to this...

Why not?

Why does a game have to be great or amazing? there are tons of people making what will be terrible games that would be happy if just a single person saw and played it, or related to it. Look at a lot of indie games/flash games some of them are horrible but im betting someone played them, look at Alone and Dys4ia both meaningful, simple and from my personal stance dis4ia was a terrible game, but people related, people played them, they made news, albiet small news but they were shared and it made a name for those people.

So whats stopping you from learning these things? downloading a free program and making art assets and then a kickstarter to fund a programmer or buy an engine license, there are free or reasonably cheap engines that will allow for simple creation of mobile games, why muffle your own voice on the prospect that its not easy?

Not every artist does it for the fame, they do it for the love of the medium.

Because I do want the game to be amazing. I want it to recieve lots of attention, and be worth that attention. I would not be happy if I made it just for me, and only I and a few dozen other people ever played it, or only a few people gave it good reviews and that was it. It would not be to gamble with it dieing in obscurity.

It would not be for the love of the effort, and medium rather it would be for turning the tide against the people that say a female protagonist would not be profitable from small scale indies to activision, and rockstar.

That said I do not believe I have the right motives to even be making a game at all.

Further, my PC is a mid-range laptop, and I only say mid range because windows gave it a 4.1 rating. A laptop that is currently down for repairs. This post, my previous post, and my near future posts are being made with my ps3s web browser.

I have nothing solid on my own part to offer confidence in anyone that would fund me. I do not have a clear vision on the game I would make and that would be the most important thing of all.

That is why I am hoping that the people that have the job of making games, and producing them will do their jobs and make games with female protagonists with more frequency, effort, and general support towards being successful.

It's easy to say Just do it, but it is easier said than done.

With how common it is, I have to hope that "make your own game" will not be the newest copout against people wanting the industry adding more female protagonists to the game. I think it would be detrimental to indie developers in general as the notion would get a bad rap from it being used against people as a weapon.