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

[Phasmal]

Well, then, you've no right to be `convinced girls aren't gamers.`
We may not be as many, but there's no way I'm any less of a gamer because I'm a woman.

WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

I NEVER meant to imply that. AT ALL. The girls that I do know as gamers are every bit my equal as a gamer. It's just really hard to find a girl that enjoys it even half as much as I.

Well, yeah, but when you say you're unconvinced that girls are gamers as here:

PS: I should point out that I am completely unconvinced that girls are in fact gamers.

I kinda think, well what does that mean?
Does that mean you think girls don't play games? That's silly, obviously we do.
So it sounds like you're saying that even girls who play games aren't `gamers`.

Still, I'm glad that's not what you meant.

Yeah, ladygamers are rare, but hopefully if we get over all the sexism sillyness and get our medium a bit more accessable, they will become less rare.
And who knows, you may eventually find someone who likes games as much as you.

 

[D Moness]

Tell you what, go on Facebook, and find all the girls that are you friends with, and possibly girls that are friends of friends, and tell me how many you know to or see making positive comments about gaming, or someone they know playing games. Tally them and post the results back.

Or better yet, start a thread here asking if you're a girl or a guy, and make a poll. If anything, that will be more fair because I'd wager there are more girl gamers here than on facebook.

I do not have a facebook so that might be a bit problematic for that one
As for topics here to ask people if they are male or female , there are already more then a handful made so i do not have to make one again.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.381842-Poll-Poll-Are-you-Male-or-Female?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.233552-Poll-Male-or-Female?page=1


8 women that are gamers that i am friends with. That are 7 people from the handful of people i consider my friends (from the around 20 people that i consider friends(only 2 people i consider best friends, one of them is a women obsessed with skyrim >.<))

 

[Signa]

Well, then, you've no right to be `convinced girls aren't gamers.`
We may not be as many, but there's no way I'm any less of a gamer because I'm a woman.

WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

I NEVER meant to imply that. AT ALL. The girls that I do know as gamers are every bit my equal as a gamer. It's just really hard to find a girl that enjoys it even half as much as I.

Well, yeah, but when you say you're unconvinced that girls are gamers as here:

PS: I should point out that I am completely unconvinced that girls are in fact gamers.

I kinda think, well what does that mean?
Does that mean you think girls don't play games? That's silly, obviously we do.
So it sounds like you're saying that even girls who play games aren't `gamers`.

Still, I'm glad that's not what you meant.

Yeah, ladygamers are rare, but hopefully if we get over all the sexism sillyness and get our medium a bit more accessable, they will become less rare.
And who knows, you may eventually find someone who likes games as much as you.

Yes, rarity is what I was trying to express. Looking at the entire female population, I could call them pretty, caring, makeup wearers, chatty, but not gamers. Doesn't mean there aren't male examples of those things, or that all girls fit into those generalizations in some shape. I meant that I'd have a hard time finding a girl that was ready to get down with me in a fight to the death in Smash Brothers. There was some stat someone spouted about girls making up 47% of gamers, and I call BS on that, because I'm pretty sure they are just playing one or two games that don't represent the medium.

 

[Signa]

Tell you what, go on Facebook, and find all the girls that are you friends with, and possibly girls that are friends of friends, and tell me how many you know to or see making positive comments about gaming, or someone they know playing games. Tally them and post the results back.

Or better yet, start a thread here asking if you're a girl or a guy, and make a poll. If anything, that will be more fair because I'd wager there are more girl gamers here than on facebook.

I do not have a facebook so that might be a bit problematic for that one
As for topics here to ask people if they are male or female , there are already more then a handful made so i do not have to make one again.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.381842-Poll-Poll-Are-you-Male-or-Female?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.233552-Poll-Male-or-Female?page=1


8 women that are gamers that i am friends with. That are 7 people from the handful of people i consider my friends (from the around 20 people that i consider friends(only 2 people i consider best friends, one of them is a women obsessed with skyrim >.<))

I too am without a facebook. Still, good to know that about 1 in 5 (rounding heavily) are girls around here. I'll try to start spouting that stat when talking about girl gamers.

 

[Dastardly]

Sexism doesn't have to be, "Ha! You're a woman! Let's make sport of you!" The more common and insidious type goes more like, "Oops! Sorry, women, didn't see you there..." The developer who made the "girlfriend mode" comment, for instance -- it's not that he hates women, it's that he demonstrated that, on a pretty basic level, he tends to feel that girlfriends aren't on the gaming radar. His careless comment was an outgrowth of an inner inequality.

So when I help customers and they say "finally a use for men" it means that there is a real feeling that men are useless in society?

It means that, on some level, they give some weight to the idea. Like I said, it's not some conscious hatred. But it might mean their perceptions and expectations are at least mildly colored by the "stupid, lazy husband" stereotype that's so popular in commercials, etc.

Or, as is often the case, they're poking fun at the others who believe that. They're using it ironically. But when that happens, here's what you have to consider: irony only works because there is the thwarting of an existing expectation. The expectation has to be there before it can be thwarted. So while that person may not actually hold the belief, even subconsciously, the fact that they're able to use it ironically means it's present enough to have a place in the popular conscious.

 

[D Moness]

So when I help customers and they say "finally a use for men" it means that there is a real feeling that men are useless in society?

Well aren't guys only useful for lifting heavy objects and swatting spiders

(couldn't resist)

 

[Signa]

It means that, on some level, they give some weight to the idea. Like I said, it's not some conscious hatred. But it might mean their perceptions and expectations are at least mildly colored by the "stupid, lazy husband" stereotype that's so popular in commercials, etc.

I don't see the problem with that. If something has given that impression to females that guys are useless and lazy horndogs, it doesn't bother me, and I have no need to stamp that out. All I need to do is make sure I don't fit that sterotype, and it will not apply to me. If guys in general did that, the stereotype would just go away entirely, and false perceptions would have nothing to stand on. The jokes might still exist (like greedy Jews), but usually at that point, the "victims" of those jokes laugh at them too.

 

[Zerstiren]

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

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

No one should be exempt from criticism. But so what? I'll never understand why there was such a huge backlash against Sarkheesian. She's not changing anything, even if she did try. But all she's doing is making a CRITIQUE, PERIOD. Anyone can criticize me for my preferences and beliefs (you may not like me at all), and I welcome it. It's entirely different from the rabid fears about progressives re-aligning gaming content steered towards "correct fantasies."

 

[Something Amyss]

No one should be exempt from criticism.

But if I mock your beliefs in a joke form, it's TOTALLY OKAY!

...At least, that's what I'm hearing a lot. >.>

But so what? I'll never understand why there was such a huge backlash against Sarkheesian. She's not changing anything, even if she did try. But all she's doing is making a CRITIQUE, PERIOD. Anyone can criticize me for my preferences and beliefs (you may not like me at all), and I welcome it. It's entirely different from the rabid fears about progressives re-aligning gaming content steered towards "correct fantasies."

Gamers don't like criticism. Is it really any shock that someone turning a critical eye on us got such a negative response?

Additionally, as far as I can tell, "PC Bullshit" only really means "stuff I don't like.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not really surprised by these backlashes. I mean, Calvin and Hobbes mocked this sort of thing before it was even an issue in video games. To paraphrase: "video games don't make you violent. I'd like to shoot anyone who says so."

Besides, the only exercise gamers get is running their mouths off lol!

(you see, I added in the lol so people would know I was joking and therefore couldn't criticise it...>.>)

 

[Dastardly]

If something has given that impression to females that guys are useless and lazy horndogs, it doesn't bother me, and I have no need to stamp that out. All I need to do is make sure I don't fit that sterotype, and it will not apply to me.

That's easy for us to say, because we've never found ourselves truly limited by that negative stereotype. Of course, some guys have a more negative experience with it than others -- and it'd be unfair to judge that they must have deserved it. See, it's one of those unfair stereotypes people often defend with the, "Well, y'know they exist for a reason" rhetoric.

But the fact remains that being a male still goes a long way toward putting someone in the Culture of Power in the modern world. So we can't really compare our "plight" to that of women or minorities (for whom the consequences can be far more real and harmful).

Now, this isn't to say it's not equally wrong. It's just as wrong to stereotype against a white, middle class, heterosexual male as it is against a poor minority homosexual woman. Both 'wrongs' are equal in weight and severity.

The difference is in the real-world impact of the negative stereotype. If a guy is typecast as a lazy horndog, it might mean he misses out on a date. If a woman is typecast as mechanically inept and overly emotional, it might mean she misses out on a job. The fact that our culture still bases "normal" on "preferences of white, middle-class, heterosexual males," means that we (men of that description) can shrug off a lot more abuse of that sort.

Unfortunately, it also means some of us are very ready to downplay the plight of others by falsely assuming it's analogous to our own. Usually, we do this because we think saying the effects are unequal means believing the wrong is unequal.

(To put it another way: It's wrong for me to shoot someone. If I shoot someone who can afford body armor, it does a lot less damage than on someone without armor. Either way, it's still just as wrong to shoot either person... but I think we can agree that the person being shot with the body armor can't claim the shooting hurt them to the same degree.)

 

[Darkmantle]

Sexism doesn't have to be, "Ha! You're a woman! Let's make sport of you!" The more common and insidious type goes more like, "Oops! Sorry, women, didn't see you there..." The developer who made the "girlfriend mode" comment, for instance -- it's not that he hates women, it's that he demonstrated that, on a pretty basic level, he tends to feel that girlfriends aren't on the gaming radar. His careless comment was an outgrowth of an inner inequality.

So when I help customers and they say "finally a use for men" it means that there is a real feeling that men are useless in society?

Yes, and if these threads are anything to go by, you should write a blog about how horribly sexist they are and start a petition to get them run out of town.

Captcha: How about that?

lol

 

[Dastardly]

Yes, rarity is what I was trying to express. Looking at the entire female population, I could call them pretty, caring, makeup wearers, chatty, but not gamers. Doesn't mean there aren't male examples of those things, or that all girls fit into those generalizations in some shape. I meant that I'd have a hard time finding a girl that was ready to get down with me in a fight to the death in Smash Brothers. There was some stat someone spouted about girls making up 47% of gamers, and I call BS on that, because I'm pretty sure they are just playing one or two games that don't represent the medium.

Surely looking back over this, you can see how you're stacking the deck, right?

It's like there are two competing measurement companies, each with a different idea of how long a meter is... and Company A makes the claim, "Our metersticks are more accurate!" And to back up their claim, they compare one of their metersticks to... one of their metersticks. Lo, and Behold, they match!

Of course in the real world, the length of a meter is independently verified. The problem in gaming is that the would-be "independent verifier" is Company A (Guys making games).

You have a hard time finding girls to play Smash Bros. with because Nintendo didn't work very hard to market that game (or most of the games featuring the characters, or most of the systems on which those games were played) to women. It was assumed early on that guys would be into games... mostly because computers were still "a guy thing," and most developers were men.

And then you follow up by doubting the 47% statistic because you feel it's including games that "don't represent the medium." In what way? If the problem is that 'the medium' is currently represented in an unequal way, our concern shouldn't be accurately forcing statistics to conform to that flawed reality.

But what sort of games do you mean? What are some video games that you feel don't accurately fit the description of video games?

 

[Signa]

If something has given that impression to females that guys are useless and lazy horndogs, it doesn't bother me, and I have no need to stamp that out. All I need to do is make sure I don't fit that sterotype, and it will not apply to me.

That's easy for us to say, because we've never found ourselves truly limited by that negative stereotype. Of course, some guys have a more negative experience with it than others -- and it'd be unfair to judge that they must have deserved it. See, it's one of those unfair stereotypes people often defend with the, "Well, y'know they exist for a reason" rhetoric.

I was speaking about beating a stereotype, not how damaging it is. We aren't talking about damaging ones, just insulting ones. People get insulted too easily, and having thin, sensitive skin does nothing to protect us from them. Go on[footnote]actually, don't. I'm not challenging you to get yourself banned for insulting me, I'm just boasting how impervious I am to insults because I have a sturdy mindset[/footnote], bring your worst against me, I'll laugh it off. There's no reason why "girlfriend mode" shouldn't be laughed off to.

Surely looking back over this, you can see how you're stacking the deck, right?

Yes, it is a catch-22. But why are games so unlikable for girls? What is it about their design that makes them hate them, or call them stupid? Not every game is all about gunning down terrorists, so why don't more girls play games like Zelda, Jak and Daxter, The Longest Journey, Okami, or Pokemon? Those games should be gender neutral, but no[footnote]going to insert the word "average" here, for Phasmal's sake. I still feel bad about about that misunderstanding Phasmal![/footnote] girl is looking for those experiences, or any experience with electronic entertainment. If they do experience it, it's that shallow passing like playing Farmville with their Facebook friends. "Girlfriend mode" represents an opportunity for girls to get into gaming with their significant other, and yet the community got all bitchy at Gearbox for stating it that way. Apparently, they like that catch-22, because they will whine about not being included, and then whine about being included.

Edit: Didn't address the 47%
I don't doubt that 47% of women engage in some sort of electronic entertainment through their smart phones, Facebook, or one of the random sites on the internet that hosts a ton of casual games. What I'm doubting is that 47% of gamers are women, because enjoying brief time-wasters, and only those brief time-wasters doesn't make you a gamer. Gaming has all sorts of rich experiences, and those casual games are fun to play even on a regular basis, but they alone don't make you a gamer any more than listening to the radio makes you an audiophile.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

My (personal) interpretation on the girlfriend mode comment was that this developer was personally associating girlfriend with someone who doesn't play video games, but with whom I want to share this interest, which is the whole point of the BFF skill tree. As a developer who was talking off the cuff (rather than making a prefab statement issued to him by the marketing department) he chose a phrase that anticipated his intentions once the game was made (share my cool game with my non-gamer girlfriend). Of course, as someone who shares games with gamers and non-gamers alike, I may be reading a lot into this. I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

There's also the issue that girlfriend / boyfriend / wife / husband are the more common parlance we use for paramours, as opposed to sweetheart, romantic partner (rather clinical, that one), loved-one (includes siblings, parents, children) and so on. And Gearbox pretty much issued a statement that they'd really rather the devs get to talk to the public and occasionally say something that might get interpreted wrong, rather than have all public statements filtered through a public-relations department.

Regarding the presumption by the Idle Thumbs crew that Borderlands is misogynist I had thought (mistakenly) that Idle Thumbs was a bit more popular than it is. The culprit in this case is Sean "Famous" Vanaman [http://www.seanvanaman.com/] who generally has some pretty smart things to say, but has yet to back up his claim in this case. I still want to hear his point, or that of anyone who agrees with his belief.

Regarding the Vagina Dentata vs. Fellatio thing I just find it amusing that dentata remains a significant part of our cultural narrative (and the number of vagina-monster bosses in games has been noted elsewhere [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_235/6978-Vaginophobia.2]) in the game community.

Regarding rape jokes, the George Carlin example serves as an illustration of how rape is not funny, since even if you take his absurdist example, you can start to dissect the unfortunate implications of it. And yet people are still inclined to laugh at Top Secret! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance][footnote]Of course, it may be that men getting raped is acceptably funny, or that getting raped by animals is similarly so.[/footnote]

Myself, I still think mistake seriousness for pointless solemnity. [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/11/] Rape, like torture, stereotypes and racial slurs, needs to be regarded with care, but to exorcise all humor from the rape dialogue (or all rape from humor) would have detrimental, silence-inducing consequences.

238U

 

[Dastardly]

I was speaking about beating a stereotype, not how damaging it is.

And it's easier to "beat" a stereotype when the consequences of that stereotype are just mild inconvenience. You may think I'm talking about the "girls don't like games" stereotype, but rather I'm talking about the stereotypes that lead to that one -- yes, stereotypes stack one on another.

bring your worst against me, I'll laugh it off.

Sorry, but when has a commonly-held stereotype actually posed any real threat to you? This one actually stems from beliefs that are damaging to our image of women.

But why are games so unlikable for girls? What is it about their design that makes them hate them, or call them stupid?

It's stacks upon stacks of social programming here.

1. Computers, when they started, were about math and science. Those were, at the time, "men's work." So the early life of computers was steeped in the idea that computers were a man's world. Those early programmers became the pioneers of the video game industry, and they attracted others like themselves (white, college-educated men).

2. Why do games that center on fighting appeal more to boys than to girls? Because from an early age, we only sell the fighting-centric toys to boys, while selling girls the "nurture and play house" toys. We all but program them not to like activites that center on fighting, and then we wonder why they don't all love Zelda or Pokemon.

3. You call those games "gender neutral," but I'd like you to note the male-dominated culture of the games. Link? Jax and Dexter? Ash Ketchum, etc.? (Misty is so stereotypically "girly" that I'd caution against using her as a counterexample) Those games are absolutely not gender neutral. They feature males, often rescuing females, and they center on activities that we've already established are almost exclusively sold to males (fighting).

Apparently, they like that catch-22, because they will whine about not being included, and then whine about being included.

This kind of comment demonstrates the underlying attitude. You feel we're, what? Throwing them a bone? "Here, you can play the easy mode while we're busy with the real game?" You make them a "they," and then summarily dismiss them as whining. You generalize them in caricature, and then you blast them for the traits you've assigned to that caricature... and what's more, you're still measuring their behaviors as "whiny" or otherwise abnormal based on a perspective that makes the male view "normal."

I don't doubt that 47% of women engage in some sort of electronic entertainment through their smart phones, Facebook, or one of the random sites on the internet that hosts a ton of casual games. What I'm doubting is that 47% of gamers are women, because enjoying brief time-wasters, and only those brief time-wasters doesn't make you a gamer. Gaming has all sorts of rich experiences, and those casual games are fun to play even on a regular basis, but they alone don't make you a gamer any more than listening to the radio makes you an audiophile.

Now you're just playing No True Scotsman. If you play videogames with any degree of regularity, you can call yourself a "gamer." I'm a golfer when I'm out on the course. Now, I don't typically introduce myself as "a golfer," as it's not my primary characteristic, but you're moving the goalposts here...

What's more, the 47% stat is talking about "people who play video games," not people who "identify themselves primarily as gamers." And if you'll go back and read up on that 47%, that stat intentionally left out mobile/social gaming (presumably because they knew people like you would write the stat off as being mostly Facebook games).

Even so, Farmville is a video game. It might not be your favorite, or an exemplar of the medium, but it is a game that is administered via your eyeballs -- a video game. It proves that the video game market can sell to women. They simply choose not to for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Callate]

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. 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"?

I think part of the problem is that any viewpoint that sees a standing U.S. Representative (with a place on the House Science Committee, no less) believing that "legitimate rape" doesn't cause pregnancy as a matter even being on the same spectrum as the Borderlands 2's "girlfriend mode" comment risks making itself seem ridiculous. There seems to be very little place for moderation- or "depolarization"- in the discussion, with one side ready to label one some kind of politically correct fascist if one isn't entirely in accord with their views, and the other equally willing to label someone a sexist (if not out-and-out misogynist) whose views are rendered without value due to male-privilege-induced blindness.

As far as elected figures, law, and policy go, I absolutely think there's room to make changes for the better for women, and I'm all for energy being expended there. But as far as fictionally-centered entertainment media goes, I'm less than convinced, either that the energy some people seem so passionately willing to expend is in any way effective or even if it's really a particularly progressive focus.

I would love to see things like "Jersey Shore" and the slew[age] of reality television go the way of the dodo. But no matter how bitterly I despise these things, it isn't going to change that they're there because some people really enjoy watching them. I feel somewhat the same way about things like Ivy's costume in the latest Soul Caliber. You can make people feel guilty about enjoying watching a virtual female marionette bounce her breasts all over the screen (and you can certainly make them resent you for making them feel guilty), but pat yourself on the back as you might for "raising your voice" and "making yourself heard", I genuinely don't believe that it's going to make it stop- and is as likely as not to engender a backlash, likely a really thoughtless and offensive one.

Perhaps the best way (and possibly the only way) to make a better place for women in games, in the industry, and in the online world has to be not to condemn existing products, but to supplant them. Get more women writing and designing games, and make them good games that sell well across the board. Design female characters who are neither fantasy cheesecake nor strident and abrasive, but admirable, human, compelling, and flawed- and don't criticize them if they aren't feminist power fantasies. And demand better tools for moderation of online spaces, not just for women's sake, but for the sake of everyone who wants to play in an atmosphere of friendly competition rather than one that seems constantly on the verge of lapsing into ad hominem attacks and even real-world violence.

My two cents.

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

It's a bit apples-and-oranges. I tend to agree that "beefcake", such as exists in video games, isn't really there for "the ladies". But to be fair, I think it should be observed that if women don't really identify with the 38-DDD woman in the spiked heels and the impractical armor, it isn't entirely fair to imply that men are identifying with some incredibly macho ripped space marine, either. Seriously? You expect to be well received arguing from the starting line that we're so delusional we think that's us?

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

I'll defer to George Carlin on this: only when they're funny.

More seriously: some things we joke about because they're so serious that we either laugh about them or let them rule our lives with fear and misery. Do a web search for jokes about death some time. Or dead babies.

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

Beats me. I'd really like to believe we're mostly past that kind of thing, but to hear some folks on talk radio, maybe not.

 

[Ryotknife]

Yes, rarity is what I was trying to express. Looking at the entire female population, I could call them pretty, caring, makeup wearers, chatty, but not gamers. Doesn't mean there aren't male examples of those things, or that all girls fit into those generalizations in some shape. I meant that I'd have a hard time finding a girl that was ready to get down with me in a fight to the death in Smash Brothers. There was some stat someone spouted about girls making up 47% of gamers, and I call BS on that, because I'm pretty sure they are just playing one or two games that don't represent the medium.

Surely looking back over this, you can see how you're stacking the deck, right?

It's like there are two competing measurement companies, each with a different idea of how long a meter is... and Company A makes the claim, "Our metersticks are more accurate!" And to back up their claim, they compare one of their metersticks to... one of their metersticks. Lo, and Behold, they match!

Of course in the real world, the length of a meter is independently verified. The problem in gaming is that the would-be "independent verifier" is Company A (Guys making games).

You have a hard time finding girls to play Smash Bros. with because Nintendo didn't work very hard to market that game (or most of the games featuring the characters, or most of the systems on which those games were played) to women. It was assumed early on that guys would be into games... mostly because computers were still "a guy thing," and most developers were men.

And then you follow up by doubting the 47% statistic because you feel it's including games that "don't represent the medium." In what way? If the problem is that 'the medium' is currently represented in an unequal way, our concern shouldn't be accurately forcing statistics to conform to that flawed reality.

But what sort of games do you mean? What are some video games that you feel don't accurately fit the description of video games?

ehhh

if 47% of "gamers" are women, but women are rarely seen in the AAA games, community, cons, tournaments, devs, etc etc but include the more casual games, then that suggests that there are a lot of women who play casual games. Nothing wrong with that.

well clearly casual games are doing something right if so many women enjoy them, so gender is probably not an issue there. Should we not, therefore, concentrate our efforts into the more "hardcore" genre?

put it this way, say 47% of the bridges make it difficult for trucks to pass. However, some bridge types work just fine, whereas another bridge type has problems with trucks. Should we not concentrate on fixing that particular bridge type instead of changing all of the bridges?

The problem is in the AAA industry/market/community, the moment you add casual games (an area that probably doesnt suffer from gender issues nearly as much if at all) all you do is muddy the problem.

 

[Signa]

I was speaking about beating a stereotype, not how damaging it is.

And it's easier to "beat" a stereotype when the consequences of that stereotype are just mild inconvenience. You may think I'm talking about the "girls don't like games" stereotype, but rather I'm talking about the stereotypes that lead to that one -- yes, stereotypes stack one on another.

bring your worst against me, I'll laugh it off.

Sorry, but when has a commonly-held stereotype actually posed any real threat to you? This one actually stems from beliefs that are damaging to our image of women.

Once again, I'm not talking about damaging stereotypes. This is about being insulted by clear and justifiable observations. If you don't like what others see in your group, separate yourself from that group. You may think that's complicated for some, but that's just an excuse to me. I may have preconceptions of people based on stereotypes, but if you quickly show me how you don't fit in with those, I'm not going to judge you by them. If you're a person that judges anyway, then you're in the wrong for continuing to not see that someone is different than expected. Wrong and completely blind in fact, because people tend to notice things not behaving as expected.

Besides, the matter at hand here: what is so damaging about believing that girls don't like videogames? I have no business telling people what to like, so why would anyone? What I'm seeing here though is girls saying they do like video games, yet this isn't a game that they'd play.

But why are games so unlikable for girls? What is it about their design that makes them hate them, or call them stupid?

It's stacks upon stacks of social programming here.

1. Computers, when they started, were about math and science. Those were, at the time, "men's work." So the early life of computers was steeped in the idea that computers were a man's world. Those early programmers became the pioneers of the video game industry, and they attracted others like themselves (white, college-educated men).

I just don't see this. I'm 29, and computers have been far removed from "maths" and "men's work" my whole life. My earliest memories involves the rising popularity of the NES and yet girls weren't moving in droves to play with this "toy." Math and Men's work has nothing to do with enjoying gaming on the NES. It was 2 buttons and a D-pad, and you could use it to move Chip and Dale around on the screen. That's another thing: TV shows have had tie-ins since the NES, and those shows weren't aimed at just boys. Why wouldn't a girl who likes a show want to play the characters in a game?

2. Why do games that center on fighting appeal more to boys than to girls? Because from an early age, we only sell the fighting-centric toys to boys, while selling girls the "nurture and play house" toys. We all but program them not to like activites that center on fighting, and then we wonder why they don't all love Zelda or Pokemon.

3. You call those games "gender neutral," but I'd like you to note the male-dominated culture of the games. Link? Jax and Dexter? Ash Ketchum, etc.? (Misty is so stereotypically "girly" that I'd caution against using her as a counterexample) Those games are absolutely not gender neutral. They feature males, often rescuing females, and they center on activities that we've already established are almost exclusively sold to males (fighting).

Maybe because girls actually like that stuff? I was 8 when my first sister was born. My brother and I had all sorts of toys for boys, yet my sister would instantly latch onto dolls like they both contained magnets. It lead to a lot of sibling bickering because when we'd try to play with her, she'd only want to play dolls, and got upset when we were more violent and destructive with them than she wanted (IE: Oops, mama dropped the baby down the stairs of the doll house!). It wasn't programed into her in the slightest, it was just nature. The only possibility otherwise is if she was copying our mother, but for a 2-4 year old, going with the flow of two older brothers would have been easier than being "programed" by her own dolls.

I did use Jade as an example earlier in the thread. She would have been my fall-back on those characters I listed. That's not much of a counterpoint though, because BG&E was a beautiful fluke in the games industry. Perhaps I could have come up with some better examples, but they are about as gender neutral games get. You still need to have a goal, and you still need to have contention. If contention isn't feminine enough, then why even care about not having games being made for your gender? Is Cooking Mama what we should have been making all this time? That seems far more insulting than anything we've discussed thus far.

Apparently, they like that catch-22, because they will whine about not being included, and then whine about being included.

This kind of comment demonstrates the underlying attitude. You feel we're, what? Throwing them a bone? "Here, you can play the easy mode while we're busy with the real game?" You make them a "they," and then summarily dismiss them as whining. You generalize them in caricature, and then you blast them for the traits you've assigned to that caricature... and what's more, you're still measuring their behaviors as "whiny" or otherwise abnormal based on a perspective that makes the male view "normal."

I really disagree with your analysis of this point. We're not "throwing them a bone." by allowing them to play Borderlands with us. We're granting them the option to play when it would have been too difficult to even try otherwise because of their lack of experience. Actually, let me take that back, because it just sounds like spin. Or not... whatever. You're making it sound like offering a way in is an insult. It's not. It's guys wanting to share their favorite things with their favorite person. If you've never played a FPS game, having your friend hand you the controller is going to be a very intimidating expereince. If you are experienced, then the "girlfriend mode" offers nothing interesting to you.

As for the caricature point, I don't even know why that's a problem. I can't know every female ever. I can only identify them as a group, and what they say as a group and the actions they take as a group. Two girls in this thread already informed me they are not part of that group, so anything I say about that group doesn't apply to them. Right now, I hear that group rumbling with dissent ("whining" for short) about something that doesn't apply to them (girls that don't play games saying that a game insulted them). If you're not rumbling with dissent and are a girl, or you are a girl that plays games, then you're not part of that generalization. Because I don't know every girl, I don't know who to separate out from the generalization, and I wouldn't even bother with the language to fix that anyway, because frankly, your feelings aren't my concern. Which is why I brought up the "beating the stereotype" discussion in the first place. If it doesn't apply to you, then it's meaningless.

I don't doubt that 47% of women engage in some sort of electronic entertainment through their smart phones, Facebook, or one of the random sites on the internet that hosts a ton of casual games. What I'm doubting is that 47% of gamers are women, because enjoying brief time-wasters, and only those brief time-wasters doesn't make you a gamer. Gaming has all sorts of rich experiences, and those casual games are fun to play even on a regular basis, but they alone don't make you a gamer any more than listening to the radio makes you an audiophile.

Now you're just playing No True Scotsman. If you play videogames with any degree of regularity, you can call yourself a "gamer." I'm a golfer when I'm out on the course. Now, I don't typically introduce myself as "a golfer," as it's not my primary characteristic, but you're moving the goalposts here...

What's more, the 47% stat is talking about "people who play video games," not people who "identify themselves primarily as gamers." And if you'll go back and read up on that 47%, that stat intentionally left out mobile/social gaming (presumably because they knew people like you would write the stat off as being mostly Facebook games).

Even so, Farmville is a video game. It might not be your favorite, or an exemplar of the medium, but it is a game that is administered via your eyeballs -- a video game. It proves that the video game market can sell to women. They simply choose not to for the reasons outlined above.

I can't comment on this further. I didn't read the study, I just saw someone else mention the stats. The rest is just opinion of how to apply labels and I'm not going to argue that. That's a stupid thing to argue about. I just know how I define "gamer" and it's not matching up with what others have decided. No big deal. My only problem is how someone's definition of "gamer" is close enough to mine to have Borderlands 2 on their radar, and yet still be insulted by the comments made by the Gearbox dude. Go ahead and call yourself a gamer if you play nothing but Facebook games, but why the hell do you give a damn about Borderlands 2 then? There's nothing there for crossover!

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I enjoy discussing these things because it lets me put words to the feelings and observations I have. Unless you have some illuminating perspective that you've held back, I've pretty much said all I can say on the matter. I'm just going to end up repeating myself and I get a lot less civil when that's the case.

 

[Zerstiren]

Zachary Amaranth

ah, joking! very clever!