To Only Examine Inaccurate Portrayals of Females And Not Males Is Sexist

[zehydra]

Let me share with you a story..

In B.C. Canada, a "equal rights group" brought a "men's only lounge" to court for being sexist. Because women were not allowed in. All the examples you are using were applied to the case. Unfortuantely, it faded from the news and the result wasn't heard.

Boy Scouts of Canada allows girls to join.Why? becuase excluding females was argued to be sexist.

Girl Guides of Canada does not allow males to join. Why? Isn't that sexist too? Or do you argue that "people like me" think that if boy scouts is co-ed, shouldn't girl guides be as well?

Or are you going to keep calling me a horrible person?

Same fallacy. Addressing issue X does not mean that you also have to address issue Y at the same time. You can choose to address sexism against females, sexism against males, both, or neither in a particular discussion or legal action.

The situation that the quotee is talking about here is that there is also a sexist bias in which issue gets addressed. It appears to him/her that sexism against females is addressed far more frequently than sexism against males, which would be sexist if it is indeed true.

 

[OldGus]

-As Skoosh noted, the stereotyped representation of males shows them as effective alphas, not, in most cases, sex objects.

-Even if they were represented in such a way, the fact that unpleasant thing happens to group B does not justify it happening to group A.

-Women's rights groups are concerned with exactly that. Women's rights. That doesn't make them sexist. It makes them focused. They don't show much interest in the misrepresentation of fish either. But I don't see people complaining about that.

-The fact that Men's rights groups have limited exposure (Lol at the concept of they're not being any) is not the fault of Women's rights groups. If you don't think there's enough groups out there advocating for men then start one.

- The fact developers are doing this to appeal to the masses is irrelevant. Doing something immoral for money is no better/worse than doing it because you're a dick.

May I ask a question? Some forms of entertainment are designed for women- for example, books like Twilight- and they feature men designed to be what women want them to be, and female characters designed to be what women want to be. Essentially, the female equivalent of current videogames, in literature format.

Do you feel that designing these books to appeal to women is an offense to men? If the answer is no, is it the fact that videogames primarily designed to appeal to men exist that bothers you, or the fact that a large percentage of videogames being released are designed for men that bothers you?

I think based on their arguments, they're more towards the large percentage rather than the existence end. Personally, that's where I fall as well. I'd appreciate more neutrally targeted games, as those often are forced to include characters that are more... well, characterised... than their pandering counterparts in order to be successful. While we can agree that there are male and female ideals, I believe we can also agree that there are human ideals, and that those tend to be less based on appearance.

 

[conflictofinterests]

And apparently, some people think my femshep is hotter than miranda.
Which may or may not be silly since I went out of my way to make her look like a particular korean actress, and most of her features are "average."
Who knows, maybe having average features is hot.

I remember some NatGeo show or something similar explaining how averaging the appearance of a general population (segregated by sex) produced composite pictures of a man and a woman which were almost always deemed attractive by that general population.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, yeah, average is hot.

 

[The Wooster]

-As Skoosh noted, the stereotyped representation of males shows them as effective alphas, not, in most cases, sex objects.

-Even if they were represented in such a way, the fact that unpleasant thing happens to group B does not justify it happening to group A.

-Women's rights groups are concerned with exactly that. Women's rights. That doesn't make them sexist. It makes them focused. They don't show much interest in the misrepresentation of fish either. But I don't see people complaining about that.

-The fact that Men's rights groups have limited exposure (Lol at the concept of they're not being any) is not the fault of Women's rights groups. If you don't think there's enough groups out there advocating for men then start one.

- The fact developers are doing this to appeal to the masses is irrelevant. Doing something immoral for money is no better/worse than doing it because you're a dick.

May I ask a question? Some forms of entertainment are designed for women- for example, books like Twilight- and they feature men designed to be what women want them to be, and female characters designed to be what women want to be. Essentially, the female equivalent of current videogames, in literature format.

Do you feel that designing these books to appeal to women is an offense to men? If the answer is no, is it the fact that videogames primarily designed to appeal to men exist that bothers you, or the fact that a large percentage of videogames being released are designed for men that bothers you?

Well. All characters are "designed to appeal" in some way. That being said a character that is pandering to either gender isn't, usually, a particularly good character. Twilight is a pretty good example of this.

I have no problem with games targeted at a specific gender, or any other demographic for that matter. I just disagree with the assumptions dev make about said genders. The fact that devs think we need huge knockers thrust in our faces to enjoy a game is as insulting to the intended male audience as it is to the unintended female audience.

I do like me some tits though. Bayonetta is one of my favourite games and I fully intend to pick up Catherine at launch. I really like tits. Just not for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

[thelastmccabe]

I agree everything you said Jangles

 

[infohippie]

Probably has something to do with the whole, treating women like second class citizens for a few hundred years, incident.

I've never accepted that as reasoning for anything. Yes, women used to be treated extremely poorly by men. No, it's not the men alive today that did this. No, it is not happening to women in modern western societies. It is (IMO) no longer valid as a reason for anything. I have never personally subjugated or oppressed women. Nor has my father. Why should we be blamed for the failings of our ancestors?

 

[Jangles]

Along with the seemingly renewed vigor of feminists everywhere, writers of gaming articles have begun to pander to the push for "equality" in every single aspect of life and have begun to ask "Why are females in games made to be extremely attractive to the vastly male majority of core gamers?"

Yeah, except that's not the complain that any female feminist gamer has (at least none that I've ever met).

As a female gamer, MY complaint is that there are fairly few female protagonists, and that many of the female characters in gaming reflect negative stereotypes.

Most games are about white men being awesome. If there's a female character in the game, she's there for that guy to have sex with or rescue (or both).

This isn't a problem with just gaming either - movies have this problem as well. However, there are several categories of movie marketed to women. Very few video games market to women, however. Well, outside of Popcap. So that's a problem.

What I want are more strong female protagonists. Why can't the detective be a woman, instead of a hardbitten man? Why not the action hero? And I have no problem giving the player a little eye-candy, as long as the woman is well written and interesting.

Aya Brea, Samus (apart from Other M), Chell (from Portal), and Female Shepard are the only strong female protagonists I can think of off the top of my head, and that's just sad. There need to be more women protagonists.

I mean, do you, as a guy, really have a problem seeing a fine ass running around carrying your video game gun? I didn't think so.

I really don't haha. But (i dont have any numbers or statistics) isnt the ratio of core girl gamers to core guy gamers about matching the number of female protagonists/ co-leads (in AAA games)

- there is a female Shepard as much as there is a male one
- Chell
-Samus
-Beyond Good and Evil girl
-Lara Croft
-Arguably Alex Vance is near equal to Freeman
- Multiple MGS leading ladies are strong and good characters


Games not realistic to have female protagonists

- CoD (women are prohibited in U.S. to have a front line position, which is wrong IMO)



I do see your point though

 

[Jangles]

Jangles, if you're not a troll then you're someone speaking from atop the walls of male privilege (google it). There is actually a huge amount of gender equality theory out there, folks have been studying it for 50 years now, and you seem to be aware of none of it.

Long story short, the games designed for the male dollar are full of scantily clad women to do, and alpha males to be. Meanwhile, the games for girls have petz and poniez and all sorts of patronising shit. The difference isn't just in the volume of games for guys, it's in the fact that they bother to aim them at guys properly, whereas for girls they just slap some pink together. You talk about 'both sides of the equation' to glibly dismiss a valid criticism about argument focus, and yet you ignore that a portrayal is nothing without an audience. Male audiences are being treated MUCH BETTER than female audiences, despite recent evidence that huge proportions of women game as well. Furthermore, you explicitly reinforce the notion that pandering to male gamers is 'where the money is', ignoring the counterpoint that there might be money in pandering to women instead or *gasp* producing a mature piece of entertainment for all audiences.

When male isn't the default playable character gender, when women are involved in designing games for women, when gender differences in character stats are better than "She can't carry as much, she's a gurl", and when we've found some way to atone for the whole jiggle physics thing THEN the straight white males can talk about how we are being misrepresented. Until then, it just comes off as ignorant bitching from a privileged class that doesn't like losing its privileges.

Anyone in the western world, especially the U.S., is atop the stone wall of privilege.. the quickly eroding stone wall of privelege soon to become the bamboo wall of privilege.

 

[Jangles]

So... Harry Mason and James Sunderland from Silent Hill, Blanka, Oro, and Gen from the Street Fighter series, Chuck Greene from Dead Rising 2, Tommy Vercetti of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Ray McCall of the Call of Juarez games, etc. etc... are all "Adonises"?

I think you have a point about gamers not objectifying women as much as some would like to portray, but to be blunt, I don't think you make it very well...

There was a pretty good panel discussion with a number of women associated with The Escapist on female characters in video games, and the general consensus was that none of them really had any problem with female characters being "sexy".

Though it would be nice if a little more often female characters didn't go into combat wearing outfits that couldn't possibly stay in place without industrial-strength adhesive.

look at what they overcame. yes. adonis.

 

[Pegghead]

if Lara Croft were 105 pounds, had glasses, wore sweat pants, and had a eating disorder, no one would believe that she is an ass kicking,well, tomb raider.

How does having massive breasts help in being an acrobatic tomb raider?

They mean that she can raid my tomb any day of the week

In all seriousness, you raise a good point. I'm tired of playing as male protagonists (even in RPGs with all the sliders set to "fatass slob") who look like Fabio crossed with Jesus Christ. Where are all the pale, skinny, tired-looking male heroes of videogame land?

 

[Jangles]

Anyone in the western world, especially the U.S., is atop the stone wall of privilege.. the quickly eroding stone wall of privelege soon to become the bamboo wall of privilege.

Way to glibly handwave off a valid critique with a veiled jab at Yellow Peril fears... I'm totally saying troll.

But just in case you're not, privilege isn't some nebulous concept of how lucky we are to be Western. It's a well defined theory of how the 'haves' innately don't understand the plight of the 'have-nots', with the implication that we 'haves' are the ones who need to change our thinking if we want to resolve tensions. It isn't something you just accept - tearing down privilege barriers is innate to any resolution of racism, sexism, nationalism, whateverism. Surely that's the goal? You can help fight for equality simply by being better aware of the shape of the battlefield - right now you're all turned around. You seem to think that feminism has run its course, and that they've managed to overturn entrenched social inequalities stretching back millennia in 5 decades. That's simply not true. In the zero-sum game of gender politics, men's concerns will have to give up some attention in order for women's concerns to be addressed. We've had it too good for waaaaay too long, and I don't think it's unreasonable to have a main focus on improving the many inequalities faced by women, or gays, or racial/religious minorities, before we get all chatty about the problems of the straight white male. Complaining about this does indeed make you sound silly, at least to me.

I am not suggesting whatsoever that feminism has run it's course, and I am by no means saying sexism does not exist, or that women do not need any more rights. Quit exaggerating my ignorance into something that it is not. Sure, you can play the normal political game and paint me as ignorant, white satan counting my cash. It's easier to win that way.


Also, it is thinking inside the box and thinking that gender politics has to be a zero-sum game that makes it just that. Affirmative action and all the other easy ways to create "equality" just perpetuate inequality.

Haves are in a perfect position to understand have-nots. The right kind of Haves are the ones who built themselves up from have-nots and bettered their situation. Have-nots, can understand the Haves position of they worked to get some.

You are relying on such metaphysical principles in order to discredit anyone who is challenging a popular movement. Therefore it seems that we are using the same tactics.

However, where we do differ is here.

"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- François-Marie Arouet

I am not in a place to fear the "yellow peril" as you so predujicially call it. I live in a great country that knows how to be fiscally and morally responsible, and has never been obsessed with domination, and thus can never be dominated.

 

[fulano]

Solid post, but not too smart of you to go after feminism when you don't even understand what it means--especially when what you say is fairly partial to feminist ideology (I know, shocking!).

 

[Jangles]

Probably has something to do with the whole, treating women like second class citizens for a few hundred years, incident.

I've never accepted that as reasoning for anything. Yes, women used to be treated extremely poorly by men. No, it's not the men alive today that did this. No, it is not happening to women in modern western societies. It is (IMO) no longer valid as a reason for anything. I have never personally subjugated or oppressed women. Nor has my father. Why should we be blamed for the failings of our ancestors?

Because the current generation needs a way to profit off their parent's misfortunes. If there 'aint someone to blame, there 'aint something to claim.

Thanks for the valid point.

 

[HydraMoon]

snip

All people are asking is that videogames be designed to appeal to a wider demographic; it really is that simple. We aren't even wanting ALL videogames to appeal to everyone- we just want a little more than the one or two games a year.

From what you have said, this concept seems to make you feel threatened and defensive. I say this because you are arguing the classic 'What about the men?' argument that feminists hear all the time. In my experience there's nothing that needs explaining- it's all out there. We have different views on it and will not likely see eye-to-eye; nor is that a requirement.

So, to answer your original question- to examine portrayals of women and not men in videogames is not sexist. It's simply choosing to focus on a certain group.

 

[Lexodus]

Spoiler: More than anything, I think this is what OP is getting at

Probably has something to do with the whole, treating women like second class citizens for a few hundred years, incident.

I've never accepted that as reasoning for anything. Yes, women used to be treated extremely poorly by men. No, it's not the men alive today that did this. No, it is not happening to women in modern western societies. It is (IMO) no longer valid as a reason for anything. I have never personally subjugated or oppressed women. Nor has my father. Why should we be blamed for the failings of our ancestors?

People like to pull that about slavery of Africans too. It's not any more valid a reason for black people to be all offended about stupid shit and demand reparations than for women to do the same for men alive today. Both are stupid and illogical and makes me want to hurt people when they bring it up.

This, holy shit this. I'm sick of people seeing the colour of my skin and assuming that it makes me a racist slaver overlord. If that's not racism, I don't know what is, especially considering I'm actually mostly African/Austrian mix, not British or American. And I do think the male stereotype in games is just as much of a problem, if indeed it is a problem at all- although the idea is that girls care about their appearances etc. and men don't give a flying fuck, that is not true at all. Most men are at least a bit sensitive- after all, when women's standards are defined by such shallow publications as Cosmopolitan, that will also reflect on us. Those things aren't just about how to starve themselves in the right way, but also how to leave a guy if there's even a little bit of fat on him. To this end, constantly seeing these paragons of masculinity running around kicking ass will make any lesser man feel a little bit inferior or upset in the same way that a girl gamer might when she sees Lara's jiggling funbags.
Unless, of course, they're not stupid and realise that it's just a game.

And did you also forget who the classic stereotypical gamer is?

Spoiler: This guy!

And when is he going to be able to get into society and meet a nice girl who kicks ass and has massive hooters that will fall for his nerdly (lack of) charms and social graces? Just as much as being a massive buff dude with an oversized weapon and muscles to make Arnie jealous in his prime is wish fulfilment for these same nerds, so is being able to snag that girl who will, as long as he looks like he does, never give him a second glance.

 

[pennygwoods]

Everything you are saying is the same point = pander to the crowd that makes the most money. Period. it isn't sexist.

Gosh, well if you say it's not, then it must not be. But what do I know? I'm just a girl. *giggles and bats eyelashes*

I don't get it. You write a post, then you spend the next 10 posts shooting down everybody who doesn't agree with you. I mean, are we really supposed to shed a tear for the poor, poor oppressed men? And in VIDEO GAMES, no less?

 

[redeemer09]

[http://photobucket.com/images/devil%20may%20cry%203%20dante] yeaah men have neeever have been subjected in a game.....

 

[Blair Bennett]

if Lara Croft were 105 pounds, had glasses, wore sweat pants, and had a eating disorder, no one would believe that she is an ass kicking,well, tomb raider.

How does having massive breasts help in being an acrobatic tomb raider?

This is fantastically tangential to the topic but...I certainly hope you aren't implying that 105 lbs. is anything other than underweight.

OT: I admit, there is as much hyperbole surrounding male video games characters as there is female, but the problem, in my opinion, lies not in how our demographic views either gender, but rather in how people unfamiliar with games perceive our views on gender to be. That said, I think that most of what people consider unequal about how gender is represented in games is not so much that women are always represented as oversexualized, because they're not, but rather because, in a majority of cases, they are represented as only that, and sometimes serve as nothing more than floating, crying, vaguely sentient cleavage. However, I would like to stress that I am, in fact, aware that males have their own stigma in games.

EDIT: I missed a spot. I made it pretty clear that I understand that men are misrepresented in video games, but I think what some people take issue with is the fact that, while women are sometimes misrepresented as being plot-irrelevant sex toys, men are more susceptible to being misrepresented in a way that is designed to make them more badass or competent not just in the eyes of women, but also men. This is where I presume the inequality is supposed to be found, because for the longest time, in order for a woman to be even halfway useful as a character, the trade off was to have vastly unrealistic features. With men in mind however, though they may be impossibly pretty or gratuitously rugged, these features and aesthetics are not used in an overtly sexual manner. This is assuming, perhaps, that sexualization equates to weakness. This is not in any way the truth, however, in the past video games have not been particularly secretive about how much they like to associate one with the other. I don't flatter myself by thinking that this is a perfect, or even decent thesis, I just think that this might where some people are coming from when they decry games for being, if not sexist, then unequal.