Yeah, I agree. I was just assuming it would be multiplayer, but honestly, I don't know too much about it other than "OMFG, IT'S BIG STRONG MEN CAPTURING A HELPLESS WOMAN AND SLAPPING HER ON THE ASS WHEN SHE STRUGGLES"Pist0l 07 said:
Why are people so against 'feminism' in gaming?
- Thread starter aks100
- Start date
Why does gaming getting this kind of marketed to men approach, deserve attention over any other example? Gaming is getting the shit kicked out of it for displaying the same advertising trends that alcohol, take-out, sports, cars and dozens of other mediums openly employ. And everyone goes 'Hahah, its funny because they're making a joke about men being the primary market.'
But when gaming does the exact same thing, its all about keeping the wimmens down?
Makes me sad =(
But when gaming does the exact same thing, its all about keeping the wimmens down?
Makes me sad =(
/Spitconflictofinterests said:
How the hell was this post Hostle? I just expalined my point what makes it hostle? in either case changing the game mode to be a female char instead wouldnt even fit in the game if was even added. if women find that offesive I wouldnt be suprised, since majority of women dont have a sense of humor. im sure fox news will tear this apart even more so when its released, going back to my original point small percent of people always get offended about one thing or another and companies cater to the very small group of whiners who will more than likely never even pay for that product, so why should the comapany make changes? most of the playerbase is men and the game is geared toward that fact. duke is suppose to be a complete douch by DESIGN and if anyone were to take it serious than they are just retarded.
Slash12 said:
Exactly. The same applies to masculism. Each movement claims the gender they represent is being persecuted and advocate rights for one gender alone without realizing the only way to reach equality is if both men and women advocate the rights of both women and men.
Ok first off, we live in a ridiculous world where we arent allowed to live our lives and speak our minds- why? Because some Asshole will take offense at it, and say, "You cant say that thats not nice" Its the reason why Duke Nukem and video games as a hole recieve so much hate from the media. And its why I loved that poster that said something about video games being cheaper than your girlfriend. The world needs to grow up and learn that sometimes offensive things are funny. GET OVER IT.aks100 said:
That said, I have no problem with girls in gaming. Don't know that many, but no problem with it. And I haven't seen alot of hate given in their direction... so... yeah...
I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'll go ahead and post my two cents anyway; video games have been predominated by white males. It's only been in the last couple decades that video games haven't been strictly played by the token "nerd", and there's only been a noticeable female demographic in video gaming in the last few years.
In coalescence with this, the media, particularly the far-right (not going to name any names) over the last couple decades, has made it a mission of theirs to demonize active feminists; that feminists have some sort of ulterior motive, most often very hostile to men - exemplified by the oft quoted real life "Feminazi" (gee, thanks Limbaugh), Valerie Solanas.
These two things combined meant that a new, technologically advanced industry dominated by men, was relatively hostile to women. To some men, video gaming was seen as one thing that was exclusively male, and this meant that a lot of male video gamers in the late 90's and early 00's were stringently opposed to what they saw as "feminization" of the video gaming industry, something they revered as typically male.
The entirety of what I said is pure conjecture, it could be all totally wrong, but it just seems to be the prevailing opinions I've seen.
In coalescence with this, the media, particularly the far-right (not going to name any names) over the last couple decades, has made it a mission of theirs to demonize active feminists; that feminists have some sort of ulterior motive, most often very hostile to men - exemplified by the oft quoted real life "Feminazi" (gee, thanks Limbaugh), Valerie Solanas.
These two things combined meant that a new, technologically advanced industry dominated by men, was relatively hostile to women. To some men, video gaming was seen as one thing that was exclusively male, and this meant that a lot of male video gamers in the late 90's and early 00's were stringently opposed to what they saw as "feminization" of the video gaming industry, something they revered as typically male.
Most gamers reacted this way due to a multitude of reasons. Firstly, in a similar vein to what I said above, a lot of gamers (typically, but not always male) believe that bringing topics such as feminism and political correctness into video gaming will effectively change the video games that are made, and many, in a not entirely unjustified opinion, believe that by censoring video games, what made us enjoy them in the first place will be lost. Secondly, some people (this isn't restricted to the video gaming industry, by the way) feel that it seems like feminists are always complaining about something, and that somebody always wants a video game taken off the shelves for various, usually politically correct reasons (whether or not this has any basis in reality is debatable, but their reasoning stands), and this can really tire some people who feel as if the video games they love to play are constantly under threat. Lastly, a lot of people see many of the lobbyists, feminists, etc., as not particularly interested in video gaming, and only interested in stirring up things for the sake of stirring things up; that they don't really understand video games and thus shouldn't have the right to try and change them.aks100 said:
The entirety of what I said is pure conjecture, it could be all totally wrong, but it just seems to be the prevailing opinions I've seen.
The bolded parts indicate, at best, a lack of respect and, at worst, open hostilitymxfox408 said:
Also, if I may also take a tone lacking much respect: You don't like people complaining about things other people can just get over. I know the feeling. :|
Ohh i see it because i have an opposing view that you deem it hostile, you make it sound as if i was screaming or shouting lol quit the opppsit, i just choose to use my sentance enhancers, i dont speak to be politically correct which is what your doing here instead of sticking to the topic.
It's interesting that most of the opinion in this thread is 'men are the najority that mean we can be as sexist as we like'. Oh really? So if the majority of video games players are white you can be as rasicst as you want? Because sexism and rascism make people feel the same way. Sick and excluded. We enjoy video games and when companies do even subtle little things to suggest we shouldn't be playing thier games it makes us feel unwanted and out of place.
This thread itself is a good example of that. It was started by a women, who then never replied again... but threads like this make female gamers feel like we don't belong like we are seperate and then the male gamers complain that we think of ourselves that way? You can't have it both ways. Either you see us as seperate and we are different and special or we are part of the gang.
This thread itself is a good example of that. It was started by a women, who then never replied again... but threads like this make female gamers feel like we don't belong like we are seperate and then the male gamers complain that we think of ourselves that way? You can't have it both ways. Either you see us as seperate and we are different and special or we are part of the gang.
I personally don't always believe that people who disagree with certain feminist ideals or particular points are wrong...
But in that particular scenario (Games cheaper than your Girlfriend), it's kind of easy to assume it is sexist or at least stupid, but even if it isn't is that going to make anyone buy the game that wouldn't have bought it before? It seems more likely to alienate people (maybe even through confusion) than to win people over.
I mean, maybe people are getting offended too easily (it seems to happen a lot) but at the same time, it's a lame advertisement in the first place, are they trying to make some kind of statement by going against complaints or are they just confused?
I do believe games should be less sexist(specifically meaning it panders less to one gender) in general.
I'm actually kind of curious, I keep hearing that girl-gamers want good female leads in games, but what is your measure of a good lead (whether female or male)? It's hard to tell sometimes.
But in that particular scenario (Games cheaper than your Girlfriend), it's kind of easy to assume it is sexist or at least stupid, but even if it isn't is that going to make anyone buy the game that wouldn't have bought it before? It seems more likely to alienate people (maybe even through confusion) than to win people over.
I mean, maybe people are getting offended too easily (it seems to happen a lot) but at the same time, it's a lame advertisement in the first place, are they trying to make some kind of statement by going against complaints or are they just confused?
I do believe games should be less sexist(specifically meaning it panders less to one gender) in general.
I'm actually kind of curious, I keep hearing that girl-gamers want good female leads in games, but what is your measure of a good lead (whether female or male)? It's hard to tell sometimes.
I personally don't mind stuff like Duke Nukem when it's all just a big joke, but I admit that I would be offended by this advertisement. Why? The reason is that Duke Nukem is a parody of many different things (action movies, overly sexualized males as well *LE GASP*, old games, etc). This advertisement is just mocking one very specific demographic, making girls into the prime target.
I love gorey violent games and while I'm a feminist, I don't mind getting a few laughs out of really stupid pandering. In this case, yeah, I'd be offended because it's not like EVERYONE is getting a laugh out of it. It's too specific to women so they get left out and it's just guys that get to sit back and say, "Oh women! Always spending money recklessly on shoes and make-up, LOL!"
I love gorey violent games and while I'm a feminist, I don't mind getting a few laughs out of really stupid pandering. In this case, yeah, I'd be offended because it's not like EVERYONE is getting a laugh out of it. It's too specific to women so they get left out and it's just guys that get to sit back and say, "Oh women! Always spending money recklessly on shoes and make-up, LOL!"
want to know why?
Because Humanity is Full of Idiots and They are Using Feminism as a Way to Kill video games
(This is my opinion)
They must be Destroyed in order for us to grow (Well we should also destroy Fox News and Justin Bieber but thats me)
Because Humanity is Full of Idiots and They are Using Feminism as a Way to Kill video games
(This is my opinion)
They must be Destroyed in order for us to grow (Well we should also destroy Fox News and Justin Bieber but thats me)
I think a lot of people posting on this thread have a severe lack of knowledge about feminism. There are a lot of different types. There are the "Feminazis" (to coin such a phrase), but also Liberal Feminism (which I am a subscriber to), Lipstick Feminism (which I also believe in), Anarcho-Feminism etc. Feminism as a general concept does not seek to promote the rights of females over the rights of males. It is the structural quest for equality. Be this in the law, society or video games.
Personally, I believe there is still some sexism in the video games industry - it is an immature medium for the moment (meaning that it's a young medium, not that it's for children). It's growing pains. However, it is not endemic, nor is it systematic. Games such as Duke Nukem are parodies of sexism, actually. I can see why some people see it as offensive - however, Duke Nukem is satire. Not to mention the increasing number of games with strong, female protagonists.
"Men get treated just as stereotypically." - This is bullshit. Men have not had the gender equality issues that women have had over the years. Stereotypes exist, yes, but men are not harmed by these perceptions because (some would argue, anyway) they are the ones that mostly perpetuate and create them.
Also, Krankheit made an extremely intelligent post. Some great points there.
And, of course, censoring ANYTHING has a negative effect. Censorship of video games should be a no-go area - they are art, just like any other medium.
Personally, I believe there is still some sexism in the video games industry - it is an immature medium for the moment (meaning that it's a young medium, not that it's for children). It's growing pains. However, it is not endemic, nor is it systematic. Games such as Duke Nukem are parodies of sexism, actually. I can see why some people see it as offensive - however, Duke Nukem is satire. Not to mention the increasing number of games with strong, female protagonists.
"Men get treated just as stereotypically." - This is bullshit. Men have not had the gender equality issues that women have had over the years. Stereotypes exist, yes, but men are not harmed by these perceptions because (some would argue, anyway) they are the ones that mostly perpetuate and create them.
Also, Krankheit made an extremely intelligent post. Some great points there.
And, of course, censoring ANYTHING has a negative effect. Censorship of video games should be a no-go area - they are art, just like any other medium.
Actually I think the common opinion is that many people associate feminism to radical feminists and that because men are the majority of gamers they will be represented more in games. Companies making a majority games with male protagonists or silly ads are not subtle suggestion telling women to stay out of gaming. Its most likely; a) Companies know the majority of gamers are male so they feel the best way to raise their profit from the game is to make the protaginist male, or b) Video game developers are mostly male as well, so they make the main character male as well.xXxJessicaxXx said:
If it is (a) its not because companies are against female gamers, it is because they don't think they can make as much profit from female gamers then male. Its not about sexism it is about profits and while it may not be nice, thats what companies do. Gamers complain all the time that companies cashed out and "dumbed down" a game to make a little more profit. Look at all the complaints about Dragon Age 2, Halo Reach, or Socom 4 if you want some examples.
I probably need to explain (b) more. If it is (b) it probably comes from a somewhat subconscious process. When a person is reffering to another person of unknown gender, they usually try to define the unknown. This means a male will refer to the person as a he, and a female would call the person a she. Its not sexism it is just the mind trying to define the unknown the easist way it knows.
Companies aren't trying to exclude female gamers, they just don't see as large of a market from them. So I'm all for female gamers making their voice heard and asking for more games with female protagonists, but complaints that this gamestation ad is a subtle message to keep out female gamers, well, I find that a little hard to see. As for the developers, I feel confident that the more female game developers there are, there will be more games featuring female protagonists.
Of course.Pist0l 07 said:
Yes, you'd need proof to get someone convicted. My point is that it is very hard to get it, compared to the obvious signs of physical abuse. Coupled with that is the fact that what one person finds insulting will not necessarily translate to others. You cannot accurately gauge how badly someone is hurt by verbal or emotional abuse even if you hear what has been said.
You're imagining speech as some cold debate over an arcane point that one is trying to convince the other of. That is not the case. The pen is mightier than the sword and that fully translates to the spoken word. You seem to be arguing a case where a couple has a debate, not too dissimilar to what we are having now, which is concluded and neither party convinces the other of their point of view. One party, I'll nominate myself for this dubious honour, takes umbridge at your inability to comprehend my argument and then threatens to track you down and punch you. That would be, coarseness incoming, fucking absurd.
No, an argument between two people who know eachother intimately are uniquely capable of insulting one another far beyond the capabilities of, for example, some tosser down the pub; an argument between them does not even have to own an important point, the point is an excuse to have an argument where you can insult one another. The insults are even more hurtful because not only are they personally crafted and perfectly targeted they are coming from someone that you, at least ostensibly, love.
That point of view is precisely why some men view women as worth less than men. Examine "you should not hit a woman" for a moment. It obviously inherently implies you can hit a man. On top of that it implies a woman cannot take being hit. This implies women are frail, fragile or any other corresponding adjective; that they are weak. Weakness does not engender respect, weakness engenders contempt. Imposing this rule implies the state views women as weak, whereas leaving it up to the invdividual lets them balance their advantage in this physical school against the vitriol being flung their way by their advantageously erudite opponent.
As sexist as it is I will take more insult from a woman before rising to violence than I would from a man.
You could of course outlaw all violence and try to change male culture but, as I state and you dispute later on, this leaves them at an inherent disadvantage in a confrontational situation with a woman.
Obviously I disagree. If I walk up to some bloke in a pub and call him "bad things" I fully expect to get punched, rightly so. I have been hit when I deserved it and I've been hit when I haven't; I've hit someone who deserved it and never, in my opinion and that of the authorities, hit someone who hasn't.
My previous points merely suggest that violence is an option, not that it is the correct one.
As for your second point, exact-fucking-precise-arse-ly. The point comes down to the fact of whether you believe more men are capable of beating their wives for no reason other than to please themselves or that women are capable of insulting the absolute fuck out of their husbands. Bear in mind this entire point is about cases where it is judged that the woman, or victim of the physical assault, instigated the event that led to her recieving the injury.
Edit: Do not forget that violence against women is a very taboo thing whereas insulting someone is not only not taboo but viewed as normal.
No, I'm not putting forward a judgement on any particular case. My point is that as long as the victim of the physical strike/attack is in control of their mental and physical faculties the decision to prosecute or not depends on them, not the state. This ranges from ABH to GBH to rape to attempted murder.
This is because people sometimes, after having time to cool off, admit to being responsible for the attack in the first place.
Back to my first point here, we are emotional beings before we are logical ones. Violence will always be around.
I, what? Google it, anything it. I learnt this at school.
Also, more emotional does not mean emotionally weaker, as much as the male psyke would dispute. More emotional simply means more likely to emote and that the strength of that emotion will be more concentrated than that of an average male.
The emotional strength of your average man compared to your average woman can be likened to comparing a brick to a metal rod. The brick is harder but brittle, the rod is strong but can be bent. It takes more to break the brick than bend the rod but, once it's broken it's fucked whereas the bent rod can adapt.
Well I and, as far as I am aware, the scientific community agree with my premise. Maybe not with my conclusion but with my premise certainly.