Depolarizing the Sexist Debate: Idle Thumbs and Girlfriend Mode on Borderlands 2

[Ninjamedic]

it is not overly PC to refuse to laugh at humor that is meant to simply be offensive and isn't funny.

Is this about the Tosh thing?

 

[Ninjamedic]

Among others.

Right, I'm just unsure why the Tosh and Akin controversies have anything to do with the "Sexism in Gaming" flame wars.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Didn't somebody thought of the possibility that the character will actually be the girlfriend of the game's main character ?

 

[Dastardly]

Well lets be honest here there's a reason that sometimes women aren't on the gaming radar and that is because throughout gamings history the biggest demographic in the industry was men.

This has all the hallmarks of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Games have, by and large, been developed by men and sold to men. In those spaces where "girl games" have been stuffed, it's historically been built on a male-centric understanding of women (fashion, horses, shopping, yay!).

The reason gaming was "mostly guys" is because games were made by guys and sold to guys. It's not because women weren't attracted to the medium, as evidenced by the fact that now, even without counting mobile/Facebook games, women are nearing half the market.

But see, we get stuck because people look at the history of the market and say, "See? Mostly guys. No wonder that's who they sell to," instead of recognizing that games have been made for guys, so no wonder that's who's bought them.

Games aren't like music or cinema in which there was an instant universal appeal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The reason movies had "universal appeal" is because studios made action/suspense movies "for guys" and drama/romance "for girls." The medium was used to target both demographics from the get-go... of course, not equally. See, cinema suffers from many of the same problems we attribute to gaming -- most movies seem geared toward men, and most of the female characters in them conform to any of several male-centric sets of expectations.

And as long as they continue selling mostly "guy movies," is it any wonder they can also claim it's because most of their revenue comes from guys? The idea that women don't buy as many games because they're not as interested in the medium of gaming is like claiming men don't buy bras because they're not as interested in clothing -- no, they're just not interested in products blatantly intended for the other gender.

 

[Lieju]

Maybe at times. But saying something is 'just a joke' should not protect you from criticism.

Hold up, hold up. Obviously, there's going to be a line somewhere, but saying that is saying certain issues can not be funny, or never taken in a non-serious context.

No it's not. Read what I said. I said that it should not protect you from criticism, not that you shouldn't say it or make jokes like that in the first place.
But if you do say something, just saying 'it was a joke' is not really a defense by itself.

It's the whole "rape and Muhammad jokes are NEVER OK" mentality that is kinda dangerous.

And I never said that.
In fact, I'm of the opinion that you can joke about anything. But it's good to examine those kinds of jokes to see what's the joke is on, because people don't always notice the preconceptions they hold. For example, the mentality that rape is funny if it's attractive woman on man. That is something that you should be able to criticise, because the underlying assumptions are rather nasty.

Making things into taboos has never helped anyone. In the case of BL2, this was far closer to a joke than an insult. Even if it was insulting, the correct response is to just say "Hey, I know you were joking, but watch it, because that was kinda insulting." Even asking them to take it back is being too forceful for the situation.

I think it's the fact that he didn't think it would be offensive that's the problem. It's not a big deal in itself, but it's just one sign that the 'woman aren't gamers'-attitude still exists, and it's worth pointing out because of that.

And it's worth examining this culture.
But of course anger (especially on the net) can just be unleashed disportionately.

But how many people are really demanding the guy's head on a plate here?
Aren't most people criticizing the sentiment and attitude more than the guy?

 

[Signa]

Maybe at times. But saying something is 'just a joke' should not protect you from criticism.

Hold up, hold up. Obviously, there's going to be a line somewhere, but saying that is saying certain issues can not be funny, or never taken in a non-serious context.

No it's not. Read what I said. I said that it should not protect you from criticism, not that you shouldn't say it or make jokes like that in the first place.
But if you do say something, just saying 'it was a joke' is not really a defense by itself.

How is taking criticism for a joke different than saying they shouldn't joke about that thing? I see no difference. There can be a "too soon" moment, but if you're calling someone out on a joke, that means you think they shouldn't have joked about it. At all.

But how many people are really demanding the guy's head on a plate here?
Aren't most people criticizing the sentiment and attitude more than the guy?

One of the biggest threads on here in the last 2 weeks was the Girlfriend Mode thread. Not all of the posts were calling for the guy's head, but it shouldn't have caused the stir that it did. It didn't even register with me as a controversy until everyone else started posting about it.

PS: I should point out that I am completely unconvinced that girls are in fact gamers. At least on the level we are talking about here. Back in highschool, we had a game club where all the nerds went every friday and played all sorts of games. There were 4 girls there out of 40 or so people. 2 of them were identical twin sisters, their best friend, and then this one girl that was so socially awkward that no one liked her (besides the point). Every girl I've met since only plays games like Farmville, Bejeweled, and maybe Nancy Drew mysteries. AAA games just aren't made to be interesting for girls. That is a fault of the industry, but it's also a lot to do with the mentality of females. I'm far more likely to run into a girl that says "you play games? When are going to grow up?" than someone who would do Baal runs in Diablo 2 with me. That's the part we should be focusing on, not how the makers of a game that the general populace of girl gamers wouldn't pick up on their own volition are acknowledging that fact.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Now maybe it would be very hard to make a joke about you (I'm assuming caucasian, Western, 16-24, middle-class man) but the evidence would suggest that if someone started to, you suddenly wouldn't think it was very funny. Now obviously since this is the internet you can pretend all you want, and maybe you personally genuinely wouldn't be offended, but here's a nice basic rule to live by.

If you're not one of the people being joked about, don't just assume the joke didn't cause offence.

Because frankly, what exactly do you know about being talked down to simply because of your gender/class/race?

Yes, exactly. That's exactly what my last statement was meant to do, and your response seems pretty angry to me. Maybe not all caps insulting my family angry but calling me ignorant and questioning my motivations?

You very obviously didn't do that for the comments that the Borderlands developer made, you just assumed they were a joke, but the second I make an assumption that targets 16-24 white males I get a response within seconds telling me how wrong I am.

I'm sorry I reckon I'm probably missing something here: What exactly is your point?

Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between a short comment, with an obvious light hearted interpretation and your making a comment that, so far as I can tell is dead serious.

Everybody get's pissed off if you make serious assumptions about them as an individual based upon something as vague as gender or skin colour. Humour is a different matter entirely, there's an entire sub genre that consists of taking the piss out of yourself and others in a 'no harm done' sort of way.

Honestly being so primed towards reacting badly that you take offense at something that has obvious benign interpretations is pretty fucked up in and of itself.

 

[Lieju]

How is taking criticism for a joke different than saying they shouldn't joke about that thing? I see no difference. There can be a "too soon" moment, but if you're calling someone out on a joke, that means you think they shouldn't have joked about it. At all.

What?

So if I have anything negative to say about something, it automatically means I think it shouldn't exist?
Do you realise what you're saying?
That any criticism automatically means you think the person doesn't have the right to voice their opinion?

Or that criticising a joke automatically means I think the whole subject should be out of bounds?

I seriously try to think the best way to explain this...

Let's say someone paints a picture of an apple. I criticise it, maybe say that I don't like it because it's badly painted, or just not my taste. Am I, by saying that, saying that the painting should not exist? That people shouldn't paint apples?

Now let's say someone tells a sexist joke.
I criticize it, pointing out I didn't think it was funny (which is just my opinion, and comedy is subjective) and point out the joke is based on a sexist assumption (which the person telling the joke might not even have thought about).

Am I making myself clear, at all?

Every girl I've met since only plays games like Farmville, Bejeweled, and maybe Nancy Drew mysteries. AAA games just aren't made to be interesting for girls. That is a fault of the industry, but it's also a lot to do with the mentality of females.

Perhaps you should talk to women, then not just girls.
We aren't some weird species with totally different thought-processes.
And isn't that the point? If people treat gaming like a boy's club, women are going to be less inclined to be interested. If you only cater to men, is it any wonder women are going to feel excluded?

Also, casual games are games too.

I'm far more likely to run into a girl that says "you play games? When are going to grow up?" than someone who would do Baal runs in Diablo 2 with me.

I think that holds true to people in general.

I'm finding it difficult to find people to play co-op with me, men or women, most are casual gamers at best.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

The problem with "girlfriend mode" is not that it implies female gamers cannot play as well as male gamers (it doesn't, unless you believe that all female gamers are involved in romantic relationships with other people who play video games, which would be exceptionally stupid of you), the problem is that it assumes that all gamers are heterosexual men (or lesbians, but I doubt he was thinking of that). It represents the wildly inaccurate image people like him have of their audience, a problem hardly unique to gaming.

That said, people seriously need to stop talking like there's actually something in the game called "girlfriend mode". The inaccuracy is getting kind of pathetic and the only thing it will accomplish is getting everyone to call it "girlfriend mode" instead of its actual name when the game comes out.

 

[Fappy]

I'm sick of this overly PC crap, everyone too easily offended learn to take a damn joke.

My god, this a thousand times, this.

Agreed. I thought it was clever. It was kind of obviously he was just kidding around.

 

[theblindedhunter]

You really don't have to apologise for being rude, I'm not about to get offended by your use of the word crap. I mean, what happened to the days when sticks and stones was true? People these days ARE just too soft. I'm not saying we should never be offended, but we're getting to a point where everything anyone says is offensive to SOMEONE. If I make an offhand sexist or racist joke, does that mean I am either of those things? No. I've made jokes about all these "taboo" subjects, including jokes about whites and men, both of which I am. Strangely making jokes about yourself are fine but not about someone else.

Let me give another example. I have a friend who is Asian. We used to joke about him being a terrorist, and he would make a joke about if I had killed any minorities lately, or if I've taken up heroin (because I'm half Scottish, and apparently Scottish people all tkae drugs). We both knew we were joking, and neither of us were offended. However, at one point, on a night out, someone called my mate a "Paki sand ******". IT was obviously not a joke, and he was very offended, I was offended because that's just not on, and all our other mates were pretty offended by this racist jerkoff.

My point being, that there is a difference between joking and standing on a soapbox shouting about blacks shouldn't be allowed in the country, gays are evil or whatever other prejudices people have. I'm not saying we should never be offended, I'm saying we shouldn't feel offended when people don't mean to cause you offense. I'm not even saying that ALL comedy is harmless. There's a difference between, say, Jim Davidson, who's racist and sexist, or Al Murray who is both of those things, but in a way that you know he's obviously joking. You might find DAvidson offensive because he probably believes half of what he said, it's hard to get upset in the same way with Murray because it's obviously a ruse.

I'm alright with being overly polite, it doesn't really bother me.
But it seems we're mostly in agreement, though I wonder if at times people have a very good reason for being offended, certainly in their eyes at least, and you may just not understand it or disagree. So it wouldn't really be right to say "people get offended too easily", but instead "I disagree with your reasons for getting offended", though I suppose they are deceptively similar.
In your Youtube link, for example, he suggests that people who get offended at a show simply change the channel, and then there would be no problem. It sounds reasonable on its face, but reasons for being offended may go deeper that "I don't like this show". If I had stronger opinions about what is popular, for example, I might be offended that Jersey Shore exists, because it is very distressing that something like that is what people think they should make famous.
Or if I was a racist, I might be offended that the local news has a black guy, because I hate that the world has gotten to a point where blacks can tell me what is going on in the world. Or, if I was worried about it, that the local news doesn't have a black guy, and it is terrible either that some people have the sway to make that the case for their awful reasons, or that society is still at a point where it favors whites over blacks.

The instance I was using to frame the Nazi thing was one of these cases. I wasn't even the target of the "joke", it was a "comedian" (I really must use quotes here) thanking lesbians for taking all the ugly girls. That is horribly offensive. Not because I'm a lesbian, because I'd at least need a sex change before you could start claiming that, but because there are people who think they can insult an entire group of people based on something very personal to themselves, and spread degrading ideas about women and lesbians alike, and there are other people that think this is funny. It pisses me off that this can continue to exist in society, and that there is not so much I can do to stop it.
It was a "joke", sure, and not a very funny one, but the offense wasn't so much in the joke, but what the joke meant.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I seriously try to think the best way to explain this...

Let's say someone paints a picture of an apple. I criticise it, maybe say that I don't like it because it's badly painted, or just not my taste. Am I, by saying that, saying that the painting should not exist? That people shouldn't paint apples?

Now let's say someone tells a sexist joke.
I criticize it, pointing out I didn't think it was funny (which is just my opinion, and comedy is subjective) and point out the joke is based on a sexist assumption (which the person telling the joke might not even have thought about).

Am I making myself clear, at all?

While I don't think you are personally guilty of this, you have to realize that a lot of critics *are* saying this. Where something that is offensive in nature should be censored if not outright banned. Unfortunately they make the most noise and get the most press making the moderate discussion that it should be difficult.

 

[DioWallachia]

Apparently when confronted with needing a word to mean 'not very good at games' the first thing this guy thinks of is 'women.' And that shows the deeper underlying problem with his outlook.

Hum....what? if women were not very good at playing games then why in the fuck not only the thing is called "GIRLfriend Mode" but also the NPC or whatever that is going to help is a woman?


My point exactly.

 

[Signa]

How is taking criticism for a joke different than saying they shouldn't joke about that thing? I see no difference. There can be a "too soon" moment, but if you're calling someone out on a joke, that means you think they shouldn't have joked about it. At all.

What?

So if I have anything negative to say about something, it automatically means I think it shouldn't exist?
Do you realise what you're saying?
That any criticism automatically means you think the person doesn't have the right to voice their opinion?

Or that criticising a joke automatically means I think the whole subject should be out of bounds?

I seriously try to think the best way to explain this...

Let's say someone paints a picture of an apple. I criticise it, maybe say that I don't like it because it's badly painted, or just not my taste. Am I, by saying that, saying that the painting should not exist? That people shouldn't paint apples?

Now let's say someone tells a sexist joke.
I criticize it, pointing out I didn't think it was funny (which is just my opinion, and comedy is subjective) and point out the joke is based on a sexist assumption (which the person telling the joke might not even have thought about).

Am I making myself clear, at all?

Ok, I get what you are saying, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. If I made a joke or a painting and someone said "your work is bad, and you should feel bad" I'm going to take it as a sign that they think I shouldn't do it at all. That's why we have constructive criticism. It lets the creator know that they aren't hated, just that they should do better. I wasn't talking about constructive criticism, just the cold, hard "you suck!" type of responses. You say that to an artist, and the best response you could hope from them is "you just don't get it," and the worst is just going be them being completely demoralized.

Every girl I've met since only plays games like Farmville, Bejeweled, and maybe Nancy Drew mysteries. AAA games just aren't made to be interesting for girls. That is a fault of the industry, but it's also a lot to do with the mentality of females.

Perhaps you should talk to women, then not just girls.

Semantics confusion. I was including my female adult coworkers in there too.

We aren't some weird species with totally different thought-processes.
And isn't that the point? If people treat gaming like a boy's club, women are going to be less inclined to be interested. If you only cater to men, is it any wonder women are going to feel excluded?

But that's my point, girls (or women if you prefer.) around me are completely allowed or encouraged to play games with guys, but they still don't (my brother's GF being a perfect example). It's not like games are controlled with penises, and girls just simply can't participate, they just don't want to. That says to me that they have completely different thought processes. That's not a bad thing, but it's a thing that shouldn't be ignored.

As a guy, I don't know how to cater to a woman when designing a game. I would absolutely love a series of games that has some sort of crossover into "guy game" territory, but is aimed at women. I don't know what that would be like, but I think we should have it. I'd love to have a girl that I could game with and watercooler chat about the virtual adventures we shared. My perception of the girls around me doesn't leave that as a likely possibility.

Also, casual games are games too.

Yes and no. You can't call my dad a gamer if he likes to play online cards. You don't call someone a real bookworm if they read Twilight. You aren't a movie buff if you enjoy Transformers. You're not an audiophile because you heard a song on the radio you liked. Are casual games still games? Hell yeah! But it's not those games we are talking about here. I'm talking about games of skill and reaction, games that challenge the players to create tactics, games that make the players understand the metagame so as to maximize their competitiveness, or games that tell a story with well developed characters that you would love to share with someone. The casual games we are speaking of offer almost none of that. Anyone is fully welcome to enjoy those games, but if that is all you play, you'd best consider what the label "gamer" means to you.

EDIT: Whoa. See above video. It explains my position on this issue explicitly, but uses better communication than I'm casually capable of.

 

[Lieju]

I seriously try to think the best way to explain this...

Let's say someone paints a picture of an apple. I criticise it, maybe say that I don't like it because it's badly painted, or just not my taste. Am I, by saying that, saying that the painting should not exist? That people shouldn't paint apples?

Now let's say someone tells a sexist joke.
I criticize it, pointing out I didn't think it was funny (which is just my opinion, and comedy is subjective) and point out the joke is based on a sexist assumption (which the person telling the joke might not even have thought about).

Am I making myself clear, at all?

While I don't think you are personally guilty of this, you have to realize that a lot of critics *are* saying this. Where something that is offensive in nature should be censored if not outright banned. Unfortunately they make the most noise and get the most press making the moderate discussion that it should be difficult.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't criticise.
And there's a difference in speaking against a specific piece of art or entertainment, and saying the subject matter should never be handled in anything.
Why would it be okay to criticize the plot, the game-mechanics, the AI etc, but not the sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever?

I think it's equally dumb to say you should never criticise, say, the depiction of rape, than it is that you should never under any circumstances depict rape in anything.

It's not definitely helping the moderate discussion if people assume criticism = demand for sensorship.

 

[Lieju]

Ok, I get what you are saying, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. If I made a joke or a painting and someone said "your work is bad, and you should feel bad" I'm going to take it as a sign that they think I shouldn't do it at all. That's why we have constructive criticism. It lets the creator know that they aren't hated, just that they should do better. I wasn't talking about constructive criticism, just the cold, hard "you suck!" type of responses. You say that to an artist, and the best response you could hope from them is "you just don't get it," and the worst is just going be them being completely demoralized.

I see. For you, criticism means automatically mean spirited, and you differentiate by saying that non-mean spirited criticism is 'constructive criticism'.
When I say 'criticism' I don't mean flaming here, I'm talking about voicing one's opinion on something, being a critic.
And I'd like to remind you where this discussion started; I said saying 'it's a joke' is not a valid defence from criticism. What are we even talking about here?
Here's my point:
People are allowed to say stupid things, and people should be allowed to point out those things are stupid.
Also, something can be shit, and I can think it's shit, but it doesn't mean I think it shouldn't exist.
I'm not trying to burn all copies of Twilight, after all.

But that's my point, girls (or women if you prefer.) around me are completely allowed or encouraged to play games with guys, but they still don't (my brother's GF being a perfect example). It's not like games are controlled with penises, and girls just simply can't participate, they just don't want to. That says to me that they have completely different thought processes. That's not a bad thing, but it's a thing that shouldn't be ignored.

Or, you know, it's cultural.

As a guy, I don't know how to cater to a woman when designing a game. I would absolutely love a series of games that has some sort of crossover into "guy game" territory, but is aimed at women. I don't know what that would be like, but I think we should have it. I'd love to have a girl that I could game with and watercooler chat about the virtual adventures we shared. My perception of the girls around me doesn't leave that as a likely possibility.

Maybe you aren't the authority on all womankind? Just a thought.
Women are people, just like men, and have different likes and dislikes. But things like having the choice to play as a woman, or having female characters that are equally complex and relatable as the men, would be good.

Or think of something like Portal. Does your ability to enjoy the game as a man suffer from the player character being female?
Ideally, 50% of characters like Chell whose sex doesn't matter would be female.
But making those characters always men sends the message that being a man is the norm, having tits is weird and unnatural.

 

[Something Amyss]

Of equal interest to me (in the same podcast) was the unquestioned acceptance that Borderlands [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderlands_%28video_game%29] was a particularly misogynistic game, the justification of which I do not comprehend.

I'm curious as to why it came up in the first place, as you have left us devoid of context. I have little interest in terms of downloading this podcast just to hear the context, so I'm afraid I might have to let this one drop, but it seems dubious this came from nowhere.

Getting back to the girlfriend mode issue, granted, there are better terms that could have been used, but we're talking about a developer's own nickname for the BFF skill tree, perhaps for want of a safer term coming to (his) mind (sweetheart mode? spouse mode? noob mode? muggle mode?)

I'm not sure why one would think that he couldn't think of a better term for BFF, since it already stands for "Best Friends Forever," a much more acceptable line to use. He calls it the BFF tree at the same time.

The prejudice I personally read from this is not that girls can't shoot but that friends and partners of gamers can't shoot, which is sometimes the case. Some of us have buddies and paramours that aren't as accurate as we are, possibly because they're playing on an Xbox (ka-ziiiing!)

Hmmm...friends and paramours. Yet it was called specifically girlfriend mode.

It's nice that you have interpreted in more than what's there and all, but still.

It may even be useful to have a standard scale

(apologies for the clipping, but I didn't want to have to edit out 900 tags)

While this idea would be useful, the realistic is that dynamic issues don't always fit a flowchart and you can cheapen them or infuriate people as there isn't really much in the way of standards.

That said, a developer's poor choice of non-official terminology for a skill tree, I'd think, is hardly a blip in the maelstrom that is brewing, especially when juxtaposed to a representative running for senator using pseudoscience as justification to deny rights to women in the US.

The US is, of course, the country that has more votes for American Idol than for the Presidential elections. While I find this appalling, it's not specific to this sort of deal. I think more people should care about politics in this country, and I especially think that more people should be thrown off by a guy on a science committee who thinks vaginas are magic, and to an only slightly lesser extent that this isn't that far off from the platform of one of the major parties, but this is also the country where a Vice President candidate's workout plan tends to trend significantly higher than tje candidate himself.

Of course, to attack scrutiny of the sexism-in-gaming tapestry bravely, more questions will have to be asked (and answered), one of which is Exactly what amount of sexism in a game is enough about which raising a stink is appropriate? At what level is it obligatory? And at what point is it so mild that a commenter would be regarded as "too sensitive"?

Again, it'd be nice if there was a single definitive standard, but there isn't one.

Does beefcake balance out cheesecake? If not, what does?

"Beefcake" is usually aimed at men, just like cheesecake. The idea that these idealised males are aimed at women is folly and false equivalence.

Are rape jokes (jokes that mention rape or imply rape) ever appropriate?

Yes, but I think this is largely the difference between Daniel Tosh and George Carlin. George Caarlin's "rape can be funny" was an absurdist notion for the sake of example while Tosh's was "hey, imagine this specific chick who I'm annoyed by getting raped five times in a row."

Context is always important.

How can vagina dentata really be a thing in a society in love with fellatio?

Vagina Dentata can be interpreted multiple ways, and frequently has. Can you be more specific?

From what I've seen so far of Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women series on YouTube, and her Kickstarter project on video games, I'm not impressed.

Sarkeesian's videos spend way too much time on the Bechdel test, for one. I think this itself ties right back into the notion of a hard scale for sexism and how it can easily become an issue. While the concept of the Bechdel test was never really intended to be a hard rule, it still has become one (and worse, represents multiple things to multiple people) and it gets a lot of attention when more pressing issues could be discussed.

However, the FemministFrequency channel contains a lot of good points about representation in the media. While you might not be impressed, it's actually slightly less impressive that she seems to be one of the best put forth. I haven't xactly seen every feminist video on Youtube, but she spends more time actually addressing the real issues in a decent way than almost any other I've seen.

So it should be possible to see a better exploration of female representation in games and the issues surrounding it. All it would really take is this discussion not devolving into the usual poo-flinging that happens around here. Just naming Sarkeesian, however, swings the odds long against that.

Hell, just suggesting sexism in video games does.

Pardon the snark, but at least I limited it to my closing statement and did address the issues I saw with this.