The rampant Sexualization in videogames

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Jarimir said:
But people do advocate drinking less alcohol and soda and eating less fast foods and sweets. I don't see much of an uproar about it either. And in the cases of these things I can actually see a benefit from people warning others to avoid excess consumption. Some people are very ignorant of the dangers of overconsumption.

So, you want people to be educated but will complain if you are witness to any "education" that you feel you don't need.
You seem to have entirely missed the point.

"You run the risk of getting fat and dying by eating all those fatty foods"
is different from
"Eating those fatty foods is wrong, you will get fat and die, your are stupid for doing so and I will campaign for the government to forcibly prevent you from doing so."

I'm all for giving people the facts they need to make an informed decision. But that decision is their own, and if they make an informed decision that they want to run the risks of smoking or eating fatty foods, then it's time for you to butt out.
 

broca

New member
Apr 30, 2013
118
0
0
Jarimir said:
broca said:
snip

Okay, the Stanford definition could be understood both ways, as it is unclear whether "the end of sexism in all forms" applies to men and women (as the "all" implies) or only to women (as "seeks justice for women" before "the end of sexism in all forms" implies). The Oxford definitions doesn't mention "equality for the sexes", it mentions "equality of the sexes" and even that only as the basis for "the advocacy of women's rights". So according to the definition feminists believe that the sexes are equal, but advocate only for womens rights.

Is feminism a movement for equal rights for both sexes? Stanford definition: unclear. Merriam Webster: 1 definition: yes; 1 definition: no. Oxford: no (see above). Wikipedia: no. This adds up 1 yes, 3 no, 1 unclear. Conclusion: Feminism is mainly defined as a movement for women, not a movement for women and men.
Well shit, I've got to stop supporting feminism then, because some guy on the internet says that they only care about women's rights, and I have no way of judging things on my own. And I should ignore all of the other feminists that say that they are supporters of equality for BOTH of the sexes. They are clearly lying because the dictionary says so.

Or maybe I will stay just as I am. Male, gay, and a supporter of feminism, enemy of inequality, etc...
You really don't understand was i was saying. Feminism is a movement that is mainly defined as a movement for women, not for equality. Are there feminists that are working for equality? Yes. Is it a defining feature of feminism according to most definitions? No. All i tried to point out is that while there are surely feminists who's goal is equality, you can not say that feminism on the whole is about equality. And saying that the feminists you know feel that way is a really bad argument as you can easily find feminists who would disagree about that.

Also, no idea why you think i want you to stop being a feminist (or even care whether you are or not). First, what's so bad about feminism being for mainly for women? Second, i never claimed that no feminist could be for equal rights. I just pointed out that you can't claim that feminism on the whole is about equality.
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Jarimir said:
Show me then a government that is using Anita Sarkeesian videos or bad reviews of Dragon Crown as an excuse to forcibly prevent you from playing games that contain objectified women.
Y'know there's a little thing called context, if you'd stick to it then this discussion would be much more coherent.
Allow me to give you another example, one that's actually applicable to the context of video games.

"Those video games could inspire or inflame body image issues"
and
"Those video games are sexist, they show what a terrible state the industry is in, I appeal to all developers to not make characters like as as frequently or at all."

The first option educates the consumer, and encourages them to be more discerning with their purchases.
The second option attempts to guilt the consumer into changing their preferences. And expresses an interest in forcibly reducing consumer choice.

How are you not getting this? Surely you've heard this discussed before, in greater detail in regards to illegal drugs.
Y'Know, the whole "Is it morally sound to stop one from doing something that's bad for them, against their wishes" discussion.

Now considering the fact there's no right answer, and we have to make at least one baseless assumption to have the discussion in the context of video games, I'd rather keep it general.


Jarimir said:
Also there are plenty of people that crack jokes about being fat and/or eating too much fast food.
Ugh.....
Jarimir said:
And there are people campaigning the government to try to limit "junk food".
And I think that is wrong.
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
Retrograde said:
Mr F. said:
Hey look at that, loads of dictionary definitions.

What the whole 'the word feminism is defined as this therefore it IS this' line of argument falls down when you get men like Earl Silverman who struggle against active opposition from feminist groups and feminist ministers to get funds for battered men, and their oppositional stance is essentially, what do we want to give men funding for things when we could be giving it to women?

You can throw definitions around all you want, but in reality, feminism presents itself as a female advocacy group that won it's battles a long time ago, but see, the trough is there for all to see and why the hell would they walk away? So they lie about how much they've won and they outcast people who speak out against the dogma.

Not to mention a proud tradition in censoring dissent in the name of 'safety'.

What makes it truly odious, and truly dangerous, is that you oftentimes wind up with people like you defending it blindly. Try and convince the government that maybe some of their funds could go towards male shelters as well, and you'll see venom so strong and for such a length of time you'll be destroyed without the blink of an eye, and they'll feel great about it because you were an enemy of woman kind.

But try and criticise the snakes for that? And you'll get people like you quoting how the word is clearly defined as 'equality for women' and how could I possibly not want that? What issues could I possibly have with thinking women are people to?
GOD DAMN! Sometimes I really wish there was some kind of way of up-voting other posters on these forums. Thank you for speaking sense!
Here's hoping the Earl Silverman Center won't get scrapped because of a certain miss Woolly Bumblebee getting bogged down in drama.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
bobleponge said:
Here's the crazy thing: A lot of the stuff that feminists are advocating? They actually solve men's issues as well!
Generic cheap feminist answer #2547517924

Now let me ask you how creating a false reality in which men don't get raped nor abused by their partners help men? Oh wait it makes it worse because they actively reinforce the stereotype men can't be victims. Yes that's what happens when you claim to care about both gender but never address issues of one, people get the impression that gender doesn't have issues.

Either feminists are lying or they're dangerously incompetent. Either way there is no reason why any non-mislead rational man would be apart of a movement actively marginalizing his gender's victimization.

Want women to have to register for the draft? Make it so there's no stigma against women doing "manly" jobs.
And how much does this "stigmatizing" happen? And who does it? It wouldn't surprise me many women themselves would be to blame as well. (but it's easier to blame the evil patriarchy)

Want men to not be judged for taking care of children? See above.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Since when are men judged for taking care of kids? The only judgement that happens is for not working but both don't necessarily go hand in hand (think of daycare centers which allow both working and taking care of kids).

Want men to not have to conform to the Don Draper stereotype? Well that goes hand in hand with with not forcing women to conform to the passive, motherly stereotype.
But women don't conform to that stereotype already. Unless passive includes being just as violent in relationships as men.

(and i don't personally care about the last issue)
 

The Material Sheep

New member
Nov 12, 2009
339
0
0
bobleponge said:
Here's the crazy thing: A lot of the stuff that feminists are advocating? They actually solve men's issues as well!

Want women to have to register for the draft? Make it so there's no stigma against women doing "manly" jobs.

Want men to not be judged for taking care of children? See above.

Want men to not have to conform to the Don Draper stereotype? Well that goes hand in hand with with not forcing women to conform to the passive, motherly stereotype.

Want video games to feature fewer muscle-bound hunks and more realistic looking dudes? Why, in order to that you'd have to be willing to create well-rounded characters that represent a variety of body types... like, say, an overweight black women who is actually capable of doing things for yourself.

(and to everyone saying that the supposed sexualisation of men doesn't bother you; maybe look up "false equivalence.")
Unfortunately most of that is untrue of the feminist movement at large. Feminism is not the be all end all "ism" for gender equality and women's rights. It's a self contained theory that claims certain things about society and defends the tenets religiously. So, you can believe in gender equality, and the rights of women to be individuals in society, but that doesn't make you a feminist. To be a feminist you have to believe in patriarchy, and all the the little tangential beliefs that tie on to it.

Feminism, solves non of the things you mention.

I'm afraid if feminism's only blocking point for women entering the draft was a stigma for doing "manly" jobs then feminism is trying very hard, and really as a theory isn't concerned that the female gender doesn't have to deal with that crap.

Feminists actively work against men to not being care giver's by parroting the notion that as a gender, men are less caring and more abusive. That masculinity is inherently abusive.

And to your last two points, no one has to conform to ANY of these stereotypes and feminism over complicating the discussion on this subject with accusations of misogyny at every other turn doesn't help.

Feminism at this point does NOTHING to solve these problems. It has no interest in solving it's problems because like most ideologies founded around a single oppressed group, the ones propagating it only really maintain any kind of power while there are still people to place in an us verses them paradigm.
 

Elesar

New member
Apr 16, 2009
333
0
0
The response to this is quick, and I've never heard a good counterpoint to the response. It's such a well known response that both Jim Sterling and Moviebob have made this point, ON THIS VERY SITE, but apparently I have to tell it to you siomasm:

Overly muscled men are not there to be eye candy for the girls. They are there to be self image fantasies for you. You are practicing false equivalency and what's more you KNOW you are practicing false equivalency.

Here is the other issue. Now, do me a favor and run through a list of male and female characters in video games and tell me: What percentage of male characters are depicted as not being attractive vs. what percentage of female characters are depicted as being not specifically attractive. Men can look like whatever they want, they have a wide variety of different looks and body types available to them. Women, with surprisingly few exceptions HAVE to be attractive.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0


Hate this comic. It seems to miss the damn point. It isn't "pfft, we aren't bitching" it is suppose to be "no, it isn't just because you are a woman, it is part of a larger damn issue that affects both genders." See, the reply here isn't so much to a "gosh, aren't you tired of how often they rehash the same damn character tropes?" As it is a "OMG SEXISM! You guys are sexist for liking these games. That is sexism. Tropes are sexist."
When it is a simple, rational debate most people will agree that more variety can character types are always a good thing. When you resort to accusatory tone and emotionally loaded and manipulating terms to push an ideological agenda instead of seeming like a fan of the hobby wanting to better it, well, part of the reason people get so defensive I think.
So, for a better comparison with the comic, the final one should be the guys standing there on fire trying to convince the asshat with the lighter (with a nice big EA logo to represent the large corporate developers) to stop setting people on fire already. Maybe with a "we know, we been trying to deal with it for a while now" sort of snarky response. Add in someone in the background saying he is ok being on fire for more intellectual honesty, though the joke sort of dies with that much involvements. Wait, no, the joke was dead on arrival anyways.


Also, thread starter fails are satire. Most of the issue isn't even with how women are portrayed unrealistically, it is that unrealistic portrayal is so damn common...in the most publicized triple A game market anyways. Namely, it is the complaint that women are always so oversexualized, though in your attempt, you do touch on that portrayals of both genders can and do often suck in gaming. See my earlier point about it being part of a larger issue?

Captcha: Sun is shining. Well, I guess that is a good reason to go all bikini clad...
 

Stephen St.

New member
May 16, 2012
131
0
0
Smeatza said:
Because you are less likely to trust someone who has been proved a liar.
Interestingly enough, scientific research is structured in such a way that trust is largely unnecessary. Also, even if we accepted that the feminist movement deliberately ignored male issues for their own gain, that would make the egoistic and selfish, but not liars.

Smeatza said:
Again, a ridiculous generalisation.
How is that a generalisation? Are you going to doubt that the people who fund, make and market videogames are and have been, predominantly male?

Smeatza said:
Wait, movement? I was talking about one particular argument, I wasn't even talking about a single policy or position of any kind of movement.
Only people can be discredited, not arguments themselves. Therefore, you had to be talking about the people making the argument, which I took the liberty to call a movement.

Smeatza said:
Let me give you an analogy.
I might try and ban fireworks, using the unnecessary distress they cause wild and domestic animals as my justification. If it were then revealed that I hunt for sport (and therefore don't care about animals being caused distress) and that I am an amateur astronomer (which is why I would prefer the sky be devoid of fireworks), then I would be discredited.
It wouldn't matter if everything I said about fireworks scaring animals was true. Because I as an individual have been proved untrustworthy.
Which is an irrational way to conduct a discussion. Again, in your above example, the person is selfish, but he is not lying. It is fine to distrust a person's factual statements if you distrust them, personally. But as long as the facts are established by a trustworthy party, the argument can no longer be attacked by attacking the person. That is what we call ad hominem arguments, which are not acceptable in a discussion.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
Everyone got the portrayal of the sorceress in Dragon's Crown all wrong.

In D&D, sorcerers/sorceress's use the charisma stat as their main stat. Thus, if you want to convert this literally. You have every single attractiveness stereotype rolled up into one bundle.

I believe this trope also manifests as the ridiculously large shoulders of the warrior character and the, um, legs of the female barbarian ( Constitution? Fortitude? Honestly I have no idea )

Thus, the sorceress was exaggerated to near comical proportions ( Every part of her literally sways when she walks )

Its astonishing how many people STILL get their jimmies in a rustle over a crude depiction of a fictional woman in a game. Women in video games HAVE always been depicted as, well, over sexualized. Its not stopping now. And it certainly won't stop any time soon. As long as men dominate the video game industry, it will continue to be so.

Kind of strange when you see such a heated debate over over-sexualisation in video games and no one complains about the over-sexualisation of everything else and pornography....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJGkG1g-Lk

As maddox says, women's magazines are made by women, for women. Likewise. Men's videogame's are made be men, for men.

Granted women DO PLAY video games ( please god no gamer girl rage posts ) , but lets be frank, its not a majority.
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Jarimir said:
I found Anita Sarkeesian's videos to be educational.
Seriously dude, wtf? Where on earth does she come into this?

Jarimir said:
Maybe you (and many others) need to work on your guilt complex. Call me or something I like sexist, I wont necessarily feel guilty at all. Hell, sometimes I admit that I am sexist. I don't feel it's over anything important or grossly affecting how other people experience their lives. If someone points out something I did that might be sexist, tells me it offends them, I will make a reasonable effort not to offend them again.
I just.....I don't.....Who on earth said anything about guilt?
Disagreeing with the exploitation of sensitive issues for personal gain is not the same as guilt.
Disagreeing with the use of sensationalist and deceptive tactics, in order to manipulate others to one's cause is not the same as guilt.

Jarimir said:
I see people making claims that the gaming industry is sexist and I see the gaming industry taking steps to address that. What exactly is the problem here?
I see people making bullshit claims that the gaming industry is sexist and I see the gaming industry responding to this with nothing more than publicity plays.

Now seen as you seem to have now dropped all pretense of coherence and relevance, you're going to need to pull something awesome out of the bag to persuade me to reply again.