Escapist Podcast: PAX Panel: What Women Really Want From Female Characters

[[The]Rock]

35:41 - "Eff that, I'm getting my kid the fuck out of there"

Golden

 

[Feralbreed]

Boring. Maybe if women actually started making games they could achieve these goals they're discussing.

And complaining about no women appearing in a special operations war-game like Modern warfare 3? Please.

 

[bdcjacko]

I might get in trouble, but this thought just popped into my head after listening to this and then reading the comment section. Someone should make a video game based off that tv show Snapped. Where you go around solving crimes based off the tv show.

 

[bdcjacko]

Also, why isn't the first lady of video game crime ever brought up. What about Carmen Santiago?

 

[Nashidar]

Good podcast.

Although ...you do have to give some games/movies slack. Like Captain America - which is based off a comic book so the story is kinda already in place - and if you just put in more female characters which didn't exist you'll just annoy people because you mess with the story.

Being true to the source is very important after all.

One point of feedback: Take it easy on the damn mic already. Geez. The feedback/scratch hurt my ears.

 

[Nashidar]

Oh - and FYI - there is currently a poll going on in the Firefall forums that is worth voting on:

http://www.firefallthegame.com/community/threads/about-the-scantily-clad-armored-soldiers.7634/

 

[megarik]

Men are being sexual discriminated because womaen are totally treated softer than men , It is completely logical that men are used more often in videogames they can have more museces in an shorter time than woman so to all your woman that may quote me and complain dont complain to me but to nature.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Were any of the women on the panel queer in any way?
I just ask because very often discussions of "what woman want" often ends up being "what heterosexual women want" but just unstated. Or woman == traditional femininity. Or woman == motherhood in the context of heterosexuality.

I think that is one of the problems I'm having with what was otherwise an awesome panel. A whif of heterosexism.

I'm getting the feeling that none of the women is an awesome butch lesbian. That changes some perceptions around gender issues in gaming or other places.

Thank you for bringing that up. That's something I'll have to try and address for the next time we do this panel.

 

[Nashidar]

I'm getting the feeling that none of the women is an awesome butch lesbian. That changes some perceptions around gender issues in gaming or other places.

Well ... yes and no.

I think the point the panel was trying to make here that a character can be a good character regardless of gender or sexual persuasion.

Only recently have I started seeing more relationship options taking place.

I do agree with you though that what is female or what is male really can not have one singular definition.

I would love a game that would allow me to do the following:

1. Determine if my character is female or male.

2. Choose my sexual persuasion (lets start with the basic 3 of homosexual, heterosexual, and bi-sexual).

3. Choose the attitude of my character.

4. Choose the degree of clothing/skin exposure of my character - however - let me change this whenever I like.

5. Choose how "buff" my character is. I'm man but I'm not Mr. Muscles at all. I'm 5'11" and weigh 68kg. Let me choose how toned or muscular my character can be to reflect the type of character (e.g. if I'm trying to be a ninja assassin I need to be lean and toned).

Those are the basic 5 - but they are the basic 4 that makes up people in every day life.

These are 5 items that, really, identify WHO we are as people.

You may not think it with number 4. but its true - the way we dress and carry ourselves often expresses our own moods and attitude at the time. Since this changeable so should our clothing.

 

[Orange Monkey]

Strong female character (outside of video games) Katniss Everdeen from the Hunger Games books

 

[HydraMoon]

I have to admit, I expected to nod in agreement with this podcast much more than I did. I'm familiar with the work of the women on it and I have massive respect for all of you. I suppose I expected a more feminist approach to the subject since the topic was what women want.

Even with me grinding my teeth over the 'what about the mens!' defenses that were used multiple times- I really enjoyed the podcast. I'd love to hear more podcasts like this.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Thanks for the link.

Don't mention it. There's a third part I didn't link BTW:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108442-UPDATE-Video-of-Females-on-Female-Characters-Panel

 

[Callate]

By and large it was a great discussion. I was particularly intrigued by Kathleen's comments about the lack of long-term-relationship characters in games, which kind of mirrored and expanded upon Yahtzee's comments in Extra Punctuation a bit back.

I was noticing something somewhat similar in popular music recently. There's a lot of "love is pain", "We're in love, it's so awesome", "He/she left me, I'm in pieces, how could that fiend do this to me" stuff, but the vast majority of it is about love that's so new they haven't removed the stickers yet. A song like "Lady in Red" stands out in part because it's clearly about a relationship that's been going on for some time.

But I do have to make one quibble: as someone who does the majority of the housework and child-rearing in my own home, is pisses me off when "of course men don't do as much of the housework" comments are accepted as gospel without substantiation or challenge. It may still be true in some cases- hell, many cases. But one source I've read says Department of Labor statistics suggest that it's less true with every passing year, and currently stands at an average disparity of 20 whopping minutes a week. There's plenty of examples in both media and real life where women are treated unfairly without digging into this kind of stereotype for points.

 

[dystopiaINC]

female protagonists? how about some more female antagonists as well? like more Glados and Darth Traya type villains? if were are gonna see more female protagonist i was to see the reverse as well.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Also, kudos to you for getting offended without me even having to suggest any gender. I just asked a hypothetical question. But since you addressed it specifically...

Yes [http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/latane_bystand.html], gender [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394507/Women-selfish-men-likely-bad-mouth-friends-says-study.html] is a confounding variable [http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Confounding%20Variable] in a person's inclination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect] to help someone.

Also informative, are episodes of "What would you do?". Just count the number of females and males who intervene.

Have you actually read these studies you posted? Because the results directly contradict each other.

Thanks for posting... another wonderful example of poorly designed experiments and bias in research, though? That's something we can always learn from.

Also, these studies were all performed on civilians, not soldiers or professionals of any kind. You failed to address the topic at hand in any meaningful way whatsoever.

 

[Taunta]

Also, kudos to you for getting offended without me even having to suggest any gender. I just asked a hypothetical question. But since you addressed it specifically...

Yes [http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/latane_bystand.html], gender [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394507/Women-selfish-men-likely-bad-mouth-friends-says-study.html] is a confounding variable [http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Confounding%20Variable] in a person's inclination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect] to help someone.

Also informative, are episodes of "What would you do?". Just count the number of females and males who intervene.

Have you actually read these studies you posted? Because the results directly contradict each other.

Thanks for posting... another wonderful example of poorly designed experiments and bias in research, though? That's something we can always learn from.

Also, these studies were all performed on civilians, not soldiers or professionals of any kind. You failed to address the topic at hand in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Thank you for demonstrating your critical failure to understand the term "confounding variable".

Poorly designed experiments? Bias in research? The Darley and Latane studies were groundbreaking in understanding bystander apathy, and are taught by textbooks around the world. But care to explain how these experiments are poorly designed or biased in anyway? The only bias I'm seeing here is you dismissing my evidence solely because I am the one that came forth with it.

Last time I checked, soldiers and other professionals are human too and therefore are not above human behavior. Human behavior is human behavior and whatever occupation you have does not exempt you from it.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Last time I checked, soldiers and other professionals are human too and therefore are not above human behavior. Human behavior is human behavior and whatever occupation you have does not exempt you from it.

>Still not addressing the fact that the results of these studies are contradictory

>Still not addressing the fact that first response professionals, the actual topic at hand here, which these studies don't involve, do respond differently in crisis situations than bystanders and there is no evidence of gender bias

So... you've got nothing. Have a nice night.

 

[Taunta]

Last time I checked, soldiers and other professionals are human too and therefore are not above human behavior. Human behavior is human behavior and whatever occupation you have does not exempt you from it.

>Still not addressing the fact that the results of these studies are contradictory

>Still not addressing the fact that first response professionals, the actual topic at hand here, which these studies don't involve, do respond differently in crisis situations than bystanders and there is no evidence of gender bias

So... you've got nothing. Have a nice night.

Yeah. I am. If you actually read and understood the definition of "confounding variable" this doesn't need to be explained to you. But since telling you this twice hasn't sunk in yet, and I need to spell things out for you.

Gender is a confounding variable in person's inclination to help people. That means that we know that it has a significant effect on the target behavior, but it does not affect the behavior in a consistent way, so there is no clear answer.

No. The topic at hand is how humans are humans and your profession is not, and should not be a character's sole defining trait.

Sorry to spoil your one-liner, but I'm done wasting my time with you since you've demonstrated not only a failure in critical reading and understanding, a persistent idealism that people with lofty occupations are superhuman, and a failure in understanding the origin of the discussion. Trying to greentext on other forums gets you nowhere and makes you look like you're trying a last ditch effort to make yourself seem superior. I'm done connecting the dots for you.

 

[Ariseishirou]

No. The topic at hand is how humans are humans and your profession is not, and should not be a character's sole defining trait.

No, it isn't. We've been talking about professionals since the initial post. You addressed two different types of professionals in the post that I responded to: doctors and soldiers. Wherein you claimed that a female doctor would handle a certain situation differently than a male doctor, and offered no evidence for that claim. I have personal experience that directly contradicts that claim, which I stated. You then insinuated that gender is a factor in how much a soldier - another professional - values human life. And, once again, offered no evidence whatsoever.

Instead, when you were called out on it, produced a contradictory and irrelevant set of studies about bystanders, who do not act like first response professionals such as soldiers and doctors, for which some (contradictory) evidence of gender difference (though, relative femininity and masculinity, actually, if you'd bothered to read them - not gender).

So yes, we were talking about professionals.

And no, you've offered absolutely nothing of value. You've been wasting my time trying to save face and lying about the comments you've made: which were about professionals. Offer any data whatsoever showing a gender difference in the value placed on human lives between male and female soldiers or how a male or female doctor talks about fatal conditions with patients, or you prove you had absolutely nothing but unrelated, irrelevant, and misleading information about the gender performance (not even gender!) of civilian bystanders with no training.

You, you know, you could lie about what you said and flounce. Up to you.

 

[Taunta]

No. The topic at hand is how humans are humans and your profession is not, and should not be a character's sole defining trait.

No, it isn't. We've been talking about professionals since the initial post. You addressed two different types of professionals in the post that I responded to: doctors and soldiers. Wherein you claimed that a female doctor would handle a certain situation differently than a male doctor, and offered no evidence for that claim. I have personal experience that directly contradicts that claim, which I stated. You then insinuated that gender is a factor in how much a soldier - another professional - values human life. And, once again, offered no evidence whatsoever.

Instead, when you were called out on it, produced a contradictory and irrelevant set of studies about bystanders, who do not act like first response professionals such as soldiers and doctors, for which some (contradictory) evidence of gender difference (though, relative femininity and masculinity, actually, if you'd bothered to read them - not gender).

So yes, we were talking about professionals.

And no, you've offered absolutely nothing of value. You've been wasting my time trying to save face and lying about the comments you've made: which were about professionals. Offer any data whatsoever showing a gender difference in the value placed on human lives between male and female soldiers or how a male or female doctor talks about fatal conditions with patients, or you prove you had absolutely nothing but unrelated, irrelevant, and misleading information about the gender performance (not even gender!) of civilian bystanders with no training.

You, you know, you could lie about what you said and flounce. Up to you.

Say what you want, but the fact that you don't see the connection between the studies and the topic at hand illustrates to me about how much you've been paying attention. And I really, really don't enjoy repeating myself. So I won't.

But I like how I'm the only one in this argument that has bothered to come up with evidence, which you immediately dismiss as "irrelevant, unrelated (Those two words mean the same thing, by the way. Learn your vocabulary before you try to engage in conversations with other people.) and misleading" as well as being examples of "biased and poorly executed" studies. Which when I ask you why they're biased and poorly executed, you immediately drop the subject and pretend like I didn't say anything.

If you want to call me flouncing, go for it. At least I can read. If you can't understand how those studies relate, and you can't understand the definitions of "bystanderism" and "confounding variable" even though I gave them to you, and even connected the dots for you, then you really need more help than I can offer.

And by the way, because I am petty, you're the one wasting your own time sir. No one is forcing you to continue to whine about "Ewww relating studies to discussions is too hard!"