I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Regarding the OP:

Disclosure: I haven't read the whole thread, so this may be duplicated material.

As a gender abolitionist I find it objectionable that traits would be necessarily associated with one sex or another. Granted, when one looks at averages (specifically within a given racial cross-section) there may be tendencies, but this doesn't actually pan out when it comes to individual people, unless you are specifically looking for the strongest, best, brightest, etc. within a given group (say, Olympic atheletes) And even then it's debatable.

[Referring to male or masculine traits idealized by the patriarchy and in video games.] Strength (both physical and mental) is one; another is resilience, coolness under pressure, rationality, and perseverance

Speaking of averages, scientific studies have demonstrated that women's resilience and perseverance (more specifically endurance to physical hardship, continual arduous effort and pain toleration) mark at noticeably higher mean values than do men. While not necessarily a published example, the pain endurance test demonstrated by the Mythbusters crew was a good public demonstration that the women had a noticeable ability to tolerate pain (specifically submersion in icewater) for longer periods. Men within a given racial group tend to average greater strength than women, granted. But Rationality and cool under pressure are not associated specifically with men or women by any study I know of.

But again, when it comes to specific people, it's not necessarily inappropriate for a women to be particularly strong, fact, smart, cool, rational, or whatever, so this is easily sidesteppable in fiction. Even in my roommate's experiences training one of the first women in the San Francisco fire department, her crew featured powerhouses of women who outperformed most of the men in the entire department. Some people are just build like tanks.

I can't even fathom what mental strength is. FriendlyFyre. The ability to add large strings of numbers? The ability to speak twenty languages? The ability to memorize a thousand cooking recipes? Granted, our scientific sector has, like many other parts of modern post-Roman-Catholic western society downplayed the role of women in scientific and technological advancement, but current efforts at historical archeology have made strides to reverse the effects of these tendencies. Since the dawn of time women have been proven to be as intellectually adept as men, and the notion that men are some how smarter or more rational (or that women are especially subject to hysteria), is rather antiquated.

You'll also notice that traits associated with femininity, including being emotionally open, vulnerability, caring, or cooperative, are rarely shown to be useful in game scenarios, even though they can add depth to a character.

As a male gamer, I'm emotionally open and caring, and serve as a peer counselor to friends and colleagues that are in emotional crisis. In both games and work situations, I seek out cooperative environments and supporting roles, and I avoid competitive games. I'm also quite XY, have a penis and am comfortable with my masculinity. (And I am physically strong -- I'm the guy that lugs heavy boxes and opens jars -- I'm not into using my might to hurt others, even when confronted with a violent situation).

So again, not seeing that a game that idealizes specific character traits or specific basic talents as perpetuating the patriarchy. I do see our dearth of female protagonists as perpetuating the patriarchy.[footnote]In 2013 45% of gamers are female despite the industry's belief that most are college-age males. Also, less than 30% of males want to play male characters so as to identify with them. Less than 20% of males want to play females that they sexualize. Many (around 45%) want to play female protagonists for lack of variety amongst generic male heroes.[/footnote] I think there's better evidence than what Sarkeesian has chosen to illustrate her thesis, and it does a disservice to the conversation that she is pushing for games that continue genderization at all.

Incidentally, FriendlyFyre there are many, many different kinds of feminists, not just liberal or radical and it's not a good idea to try to force someone into a specific pigeonhole, since few people actually agree with all ideological points of any given positional platform. Sarkeesian lost my support when she attempted to invalidate the opinions of her peers on grounds that they were indoctrinated. Saying that your opponents are too crazy to have a valid opinion is not going to win you arguments or, for that matter, friends.

238U

 

[carnex]

1. Male dominated--which doesn't mean that all men are powerful or all women are powerless--only that the most powerful roles in most sectors of society are held predominantly by men, and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women

I will give you simplified version of an answer. In today's western world there are more females then males, and many positions of power are chosen by votes of confidence yet it's male prevalent. (please don't make me go down the "democracy rabbit hole, again there are books worth of discussion needed for any worthwhile endeavor. This is simplification.

2. Organized around an obsession with control, with men elevated in the social structure because of their presumed ability to exert control (whether rationally or through violence or the threat of violence) and women devalued for their supposed lack of control--women are assumed to need men's supervision, protection, or control

Yet men primarily oppress other men, not women with greater punishments, stricter gender behavior, and shaming for which they put forward females as they are farr better at those tactics. . If females are excluded for any reason it's because if they weren't, men would have to stomp on them in their ascend which goes against our natural instincts and social wisdom.

3. Male identified: aspects of society and personal attributes that are highly valued are associated with men, while devalued attributes and social activities are associated with women. There is a sense of threat to the social structure of patriarchies when these gendered associations are destabilized--and the response in patriarchy is to increase the level of control, often by exerting control over women (as well as groups who are devalued by virtue of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or class).

Physical aspects of culture and behavior, both bad and good, are attributed to males since males are evolved to be more detached more physical being (when you friend falls in hunt or war, you keep your activity since survival of others, even women who do not participate in those activities, depend on it). Psychological and social aspects are attributed to females since they never needed those fallback structures for distancing themselves. They habitated more stable and safer structure of family and friends where cooperation was more valuable then competition as grieving and compassion over getting job done.

4. Male centered: It is taken for granted that the center of attention is the natural place for men and boys, and that women should occupy the margins. Public attention is focused on men. (To test this, take a look at any daily newspaper; what do you find on the front page about men? about women?)

Actually out culture is, in recent decades, absolutely obsessed over females. Before it was all bout power, fame and value to society. Now its female gender and power, fame and value to society

 

[carnex]

I don't believe i ever said females did less work then the males, especially since males and females probably hunted TOGETHER in order to provide for themselves. If you have an idea why females would be the ones to perceive the need for personal control over working together instead of males I would willingly listen to it.

You may feel like they did, but evidence points otherwise. If they did we would, probably, been wiped out. I never expressed opinion you attribute to me. I said they worked foraging and hauling stuff around which wans't really easier, might be even harder, but was far safer activity and imperative is to prevent harm done to her.

it sounds like we agree on the agricultural front, the production of resources was the first time they had a inclination to not share. Sort of like the beginning of "The God Must Be Crazy"

Actually, we don't know what was going on with provision sharing within family. However, we start seeing resource withholding as means of controlling general population, gender not withstanding.

The question is why would the possession of females become so important? You'd say it was biological, and it would have to do with them wanting their generations to propegate, but would that REALLY lead them to consider violence against other's rather then working together?
Why (or how) did women go from the great mother, an essential part of existence, to a casualty of it?

Err... explain what you wanted to state here since I can't deduce anything.

 

[FriendlyFyre]

Yoshaian, can i call you yoshi? Thanks.

What is this? You have to make your trolling a little less obvious, bro.

I never said I would prove anything, this is not about me proving Anita right or wrong. This is me suggesting that if we look more closely at games and stop thinking everything in them is "normal" that we may be more open to the possibility that she is onto something.

This entire debate should run on evidence, without evidence these claims are nothing more than opinion pieces, poor ones at that.

This is not science, because in some ways it would deny objective judgement due to how deeply it has shaped out culture. What we can do is ask questions and see what the answers have in common.

On the contrary, it IS science. Everything is science.

I gave a definition of patriarchy by a fairly well-known feminist (Allan G. Johnson) and explained how certain phenomenon make more sense under patriarchy then believing that people are just awful because they can be. here it is again.

1. Male dominated--which doesn't mean that all men are powerful or all women are powerless--only that the most powerful roles in most sectors of society are held predominantly by men, and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women

Who defines power? Aside from the the fact that we have had a woman prime minister in my country, and many women run companies, have held and hold high positions of power. Is the role of a mother not a powerful one? I ask it again, who defines power? You must reconsider the question of male 'domination' because in the question itself you show a misunderstanding of social roles and their various importances.

2. Organized around an obsession with control, with men elevated in the social structure because of their presumed ability to exert control (whether rationally or through violence or the threat of violence) and women devalued for their supposed lack of control--women are assumed to need men's supervision, protection, or control

In my first-world society, women have control, and they gain more every day. For example, control over their fertility, via the pill. Control over what they wear in the workplace - they can wear anything. Control over their choice of profession - they can choose any profession they like and they often have encouragement, financial or otherwise, to go into certain professions. You spout vague platitudes and give no concrete examples.

3. Male identified: aspects of society and personal attributes that are highly valued are associated with men, while devalued attributes and social activities are associated with women. There is a sense of threat to the social structure of patriarchies when these gendered associations are destabilized--and the response in patriarchy is to increase the level of control, often by exerting control over women (as well as groups who are devalued by virtue of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or class).

Who determines value of the aspects of society and our personal attributes? What are these attributes/aspects? What are the concrete examples in which these attributes are valued/devalued? Again, vagueness. No actual statements of worth are made, just vague wavings of the hand.

What the responses by patriarchy which increase levels of control? Where are the concrete examples where they happened/are happening? (same question for race/ethnicity/etc)

4. Male centered: It is taken for granted that the center of attention is the natural place for men and boys, and that women should occupy the margins. Public attention is focused on men. (To test this, take a look at any daily newspaper; what do you find on the front page about men? about women?)

I think I've made my point now, but again, give examples? Otherwise this is just assertions with no evidence.

I have mentioned some of the most prevalent issues of women in 1st world civilizations, including misogyny (Hatred of the feminine) and how it effects our community ("Checking women's knowledge of games," where men can be assumed so) Also objectification that serves only the male audience and leaves no room for concepts of sexuality for female players (Skimpy armor)

Provide examples of misogyny in first-world society and prove that they are the rule rather than the exception.

Provide examples of how this supposed misogyny affects our 'communities' and prove that they are the rule rather than the exception.

Provide examples of objectification that serves only the male audience and prove that this is rule rather than the exception.

I do not use the word perpetuate because it strikes me as being to close to controlling. I state that when these things are so prevalent in games, they form our idea of what is "normal," and that we are more likely to accept what we believe is normal, even if that is something like people getting death threats or being told to "Suck it up" when playing in a tournament.

Prove that prevalent ideas in video games form our ideas of what is 'normal'.

Prove that we are more likely to accept these things as a result.

Look, I understand that you don't think this can have validity if it can't be tested or proven, but the fact is we see evidence around us everyday when it comes to jokes, pictures, and even who get's published in the latest science journal. And if you accept it, you will start to understand the world in a way that can truly benefit humanity just as science can.

If the evidence is around us everyday, start collecting it and publish it right here in this thread, I'll be listening. BTW you don't understand the term 'science'.

Science: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

No Yoshi, just being personable

Because you believe everything is science, i.e. we can gain knowledge of the patterns in the world through a strict method, you should be able to to see limits of that method. If not, you seem to be asserting that science is without bias, which is a very dangerous thing to say about anything practiced by humans.

"Should be run on evidence"? I think I've actually been calling it a discussion, but even then, asserting that there is only one way to do it, even if that way is more effective, is the exact rationale for why so many people dismiss feminism and the idea that patriarchy is present in our lives.


How's this for a rule, a young woman who posts a picture of herself on facebook is more likely to get comments pertaining to her beauty then if a young guys posts the same? Why? My theory is that women are primarily valued for their appearances, which are essential to the picture, while males are praised primarily for their ability to cultivate masculine traits, which show up best through actions.

It's based on persona experience, and it's only a hypothesis, but at the risk of confirmation biasing it I think it's a fairly decent observation that could provoke useful discussion.

I'll respond to the rest of your questions when I have more time.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I wouldn't go so far as to say legos became a boys club, rather, the aspects of the established types of sets simply grasped more of the traits one would assume of them. Knights sets have existed from the start, always with weapons and often dragons too. The city ones, the space ones, they use the same themes in a cycle, revisiting them with a new flavor but never any less inclusive to girls then the settings themselves would dictate. The only change I can think of is the inclusion of more firearms type pieces, as for the longest time they strayed away from those (outside of pirate muskets, for some reason). Thus one can only claim that is more directed to boys by implying that violence and guns are male oriented in the first place, a social construct that, in this case, is not enforced on those playing with the legos in the first place. The space sets for instance are simply sci-fi, nothing that excludes women, and often they have a female minifig or two with the sets to have some variety, though obviously they are aware the audience is more male then female, so they may have more male minifigs. The various set types have always come off as unisex to me, with exception of the blatantly pink ones. My nieces sure have no issue pitting pirates against space aliens with my old collection, though they do say the pink set is for girls too.
So in that regard, it isn't a boy's club as it does nothing to exclude girls, there is just a "competing" type of sets that may appeal to a girl's interests more.

But, in making the competing product that is more "ideal" for the gender, does that not undermine ideas of inclusiveness? Yes, you get more people buying the product, but you encourage segregation into the same sort of preset categories that culture and society at large already does. I have been a fan of legos since I was a child, and the ones on the shelf look the same to me (only more cool because better pieces), and at no point as a child or adult did I think that they were anything but universal as a toy, especially given the toybox nature of the toy itself to make whatever you wanted. By taking that and then acknowledging socially created gender expectations, aren't they doing more harm there?

To tie it back to video games, by making pandering pink games, are they really including them as players and members of the gaming community, or is the industry merely getting more sales while the community itself is divided further by the behavior that funnels people into preset, socially assumed groups?

It didn't help that Lego shied away a lot from making feminine lego people in the main lego lines. It wasn't just the setting, but the players in the setting that helped drive lego city becoming a boys club home. You aknowlege that much.
I gotta ask, though, why the segregation? If girls are okay playing with the old style figures with yellow heads, and C shaped hands, (I know I was) why give girls something almost entirely different? Make feminine lego people more common. It's not like they haven't made awesome ones already like the LotR sets. Make the pastel worlds lego tries to put girls in compatible with lego city.
Again, why the dramatic split? It baffles me.
I mean it's nice they did some girl centric notions with lego sets, but they also segregated them away from lego city. I mean, It sounds weird, but wouldn't guys like some home appliances to mess around with? The color pallate doesn't have to be pink, and pastel, mind you.

I do think Lego ended up doing more harm than anything by trying to split guys from girls. Getting rid of universal appeal is going to bite Lego in the rear sooner or later.

If they just kept female representation up in the lego people, and didn't go from showing boys and girls playing with lego to segregatring the advertisement so much, I think they wouldn't have to worry about pandering to girls so much because they'd still be playing with the more universally appealing legos.

To your last point, I do feel like it's not including women into gaming so much as saying "Here, now go play over there."
If they just tried to keep it universally appealing then they wouldn't have to worry so much.
Honestly, I think games were fairly inclusive in the past, but that went away until all but recently. I remember a time whre I don't think I really had to worry if I were getting a good game next year that had a woman as a protagonist.
I mean sure, every now and then women were kicked out of a game, but we still got a decent amount of games with female protagonists, I think.
Lara Croft/Tomb Raider games won tons of awards.
Aya Brea was well received as a character, yet she was dressed fairly normally.

The gaming industry forgot that it's kinda easy to be inclusive, I'd say. Make well written female characters that aren't dressed in a way that no sane woman would dress outside of cosplay, and put them in good, or atleast decent, playable games.
I honestly don't remember the gaming industry having so much trouble until they started going the way of pandering almost solely to guys either.
Maybe it's just me?

 

[CloudAtlas]

We can all debate a hundred different reasons why to like or dislike Anita. However the one thing that Anita destroys herself over is the fact she never provides solutions.

She is happy to point out what's wrong, happy to criticise, however she does not provide any solutions beyond "stop doing it."

1. In order to solve a problem, you first have to understand it. Unfortunately, many people don't even acknowledge the existence of a problem, let alone understand it.

2. You have the right to criticize something without offering solutions. Not every critique needs to contain solutions.

3. Aren't the solutions to this problem pretty obvious? What can you do about the prevalence of damsels in distress, for example? Give female characters more agency, and give more male heroes other motivations than rescuing the girl. There you go, problem solved.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Aww yeah another one of these threads! Wooohoo!

Honestly what pisses me off about the whole ordeal is that the energy behind it all is misdirected. If both parties approached a different, solvable, remarkable issue like say... curing AIDS; with as much energy, and vitriol as they do debating and arguing and taunting and threatening and soapboxing... That shit would have been cured.

Now I know how the pope must feel about masturbation

To be fair, I think the gender issues in gaming is an easier battle to win vs Aids.

If gender issues in games stopped being an issue, people could move on to other things. Maybe racial variety in games? I'd like to see that take flight. I think it needs to be addressed, but I'm a one battle at a time kind of person.

If the small problems would just go away, we'd have nothing but the larger problems to focus on.
Buuut the small problems, like gender issues in videogames, aren't going away any time soon, few people are in a hurry to fix them, and some people are actually fighting to keep them in.
The battle wages so long as there's something to fight over.

Threads like these are full of reasons why people are hung up on combating the status quo of gaming.

 

[carnex]

Because you believe everything is science, i.e. we can gain knowledge of the patterns in the world through a strict method, you should be able to to see limits of that method. If not, you seem to be asserting that science is without bias, which is a very dangerous thing to say about anything practiced by humans.

"Should be run on evidence"? I think I've actually been calling it a discussion, but even then, asserting that there is only one way to do it, even if that way is more effective, is the exact rationale for why so many people dismiss feminism and the idea that patriarchy is present in our lives.


How's this for a rule, a young woman who posts a picture of herself on facebook is more likely to get comments pertaining to her beauty then if a young guys posts the same? Why? My theory is that women are primarily valued for their appearances, which are essential to the picture, while males are praised primarily for their ability to cultivate masculine traits, which show up best through actions.

It's based on persona experience, and it's only a hypothesis, but at the risk of confirmation biasing it I think it's a fairly decent observation that could provoke useful discussion.

I'll respond to the rest of your questions when I have more time.

Yes everything should be evaluated according to evidence. That is only, non-subjective way of looking at things. I can feel weak, yet punching holes in weight bags. I can feel fat, yet showing off my ribs through clothing...

I case of your example. Females, as love interest, are evaluated on their child bearing capabilities which primary are age, genetic potential\health (skewed by current prevailing culture preferences) and both of those are well represented through physical look of a person. Males are, however, evaluated by their capabilities of providing safe space for family first, then by their genetic potential with other factors falling far shorter. That's why many women fall for horrible "bad boys".

You can support with with evidence even if it's not simple physics for example. Why do you think we have social researches done non-stop?

 

[generals3]

How's this for a rule, a young woman who posts a picture of herself on facebook is more likely to get comments pertaining to her beauty then if a young guys posts the same? Why? My theory is that women are primarily valued for their appearances, which are essential to the picture, while males are praised primarily for their ability to cultivate masculine traits, which show up best through actions.

It's based on persona experience, and it's only a hypothesis, but at the risk of confirmation biasing it I think it's a fairly decent observation that could provoke useful discussion.

I'll respond to the rest of your questions when I have more time.

One could refer to evolutionary psychology or behavioral biology for to explain that. It's because when seeking partners males tend to seek healthy and fertile (young) partners, things which are subconsciously based on appearance. On the other hand women are seeking for good genes (strength, intelligence, etc.) which is less appearance based. This makes the appearance of a woman more important than a man hence why one is more likely to be praised for it than the other. (these are theories and hard to conclusively prove mind you)

 

[FoxKitsune]

Aww yeah another one of these threads! Wooohoo!

Honestly what pisses me off about the whole ordeal is that the energy behind it all is misdirected. If both parties approached a different, solvable, remarkable issue like say... curing AIDS; with as much energy, and vitriol as they do debating and arguing and taunting and threatening and soapboxing... That shit would have been cured.

Now I know how the pope must feel about masturbation

To be fair, I think the gender issues in gaming is an easier battle to win vs Aids.

If gender issues in games stopped being an issue, people could move on to other things. Maybe racial variety in games? I'd like to see that take flight. I think it needs to be addressed, but I'm a one battle at a time kind of person.

If the small problems would just go away, we'd have nothing but the larger problems to focus on.
Buuut the small problems, like gender issues in videogames, aren't going away any time soon, few people are in a hurry to fix them, and some people are actually fighting to keep them in.
The battle wages so long as there's something to fight over.

Threads like these are full of reasons why people are hung up on combating the status quo of gaming.

It's honestly very funny when you stop to think about it. The one thing that everyone in this thread, regardless of their views on Anita, would agree on right here on the spot is that having a better variety of characters in gaming, both male and female from different backgrounds, couldn't HURT gaming as a medium. Then there's the group (and I count myself among them) that figure it would be seriously beneficial to the medium.

And the thing is, if we've got one group of people saying 'I like things as they are, but it couldn't hurt` and a second group saying `we want this`, then you'd think the industry would jump right in to sort that out. Not that anyone can fault certain publishers for trying. It's just a shame that there are so many of those same titans content to continue working on the same business models they always did in the past.

 

[A Weakgeek]

How's this for a rule, a young woman who posts a picture of herself on facebook is more likely to get comments pertaining to her beauty then if a young guys posts the same? Why? My theory is that women are primarily valued for their appearances, which are essential to the picture, while males are praised primarily for their ability to cultivate masculine traits, which show up best through actions.

Probably because a guy complementing a guy is going to be called a ******. Also, girls would more likely be hesitant to send mixed messages to guys by calling them handsome.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Not more of this shit again.

1. There is room for a whole host of viewpoints in gaming as well as any media. Right now these viewpoints are dominated by young men but there are definitely games that operate from other frames of reference, like Gone Home to name a recent title, and this will happen more and more as gaming expands and reaches a wider audience as it has been doing.

2. Just how harmful something like huge tits on a Dragon's Crown character is very much up for debate.

3. Rape and death threats have nothing to do with gaming and everything to do with the internet. You go look on Youtube, on religious or political forums, famous people's twitter accounts, and you will find hate and threats and terrible behavior. To try and use a small but vocal number of terribly behaving people to draw conclusions about everyone with a certain opinion is just wrong and helps no one and clarifies nothing.

4. Discussion is great but do we have to beat this dead horse over and over and over? I am always the last person to say "stop talking about that" but just speaking personally I am sick to death of these topics.

 

[Flames66]

*sigh*... With all due respect, I just don't care. And have never cared about this 'sexism' issue. How many bloody threads are we gunna have about this before we put this to bed? I'm not upset, I'm exhausted of this topic and I wonder when this community will have some ELSE to talk about.

I suspect we will keep having new threads on this issue as long as it is an issue and, with games like Metroid Other M taking huge steps backwards, I don't see that changing any time soon. You claim not to care, yet have opened a thread on this issue with clear warning from the title as to its content, read the massive OP (I assume) and opinionated on it. I suggest that, if you don't care, you read the title and go no further.

Or you stop to try to convince people that your feminism based interpretation of the state of gaming is right and instead settle for a position that less ideological, less controversial and more likely to lead somewhere. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that the damsel trope is lazy and bad story telling and therefore should be used less instead of insisting on everyone sees the feminist "truth"? Because i would guess that many people on forum could agree to the first but not to the second. But instead it mostly becomes a discussion about whether one thing or another is sexist or objectification or leads to real live aggression against violence (my favorite) and in turn a discussion of this terms and in turn a discussion of feminism in general; all of which (as should be clear by now) has a close to zero chance of changing the opinion of anyone of either side.

Edit: Perhaps i come off as harsh, but i really have no problem with your post. If anything, i like it: you calmly explain your position and it clearly shows that you care about the subject. But still this stuff has been debated so many times (mostly without leading anywhere) and i don't see why it should be better this time as everyone has made up his/her mind by now.

It is very difficult to extract ones emotional engagement in an issue when discussing it. Talking in a calm, rational manner is the best option IMO.

...You're assuming her attitude towards direct criticism wouldn't change if she and her research, or whatever, was elevated to the professional level, which is absurd. Perhaps it's not criticism she takes umbrage with but the quality of said criticism.

See, that's the problem. Criticism of her ranges the entire gamut from the aforementioned threats, all the way to professional, academic-quality work. Sure, the latter is the minority, but it still exists and goes unanswered.

If I received two thousand emails a day and one thousand nine hundred of them where hate mail and threats I would probably bin the lot.

 

[Smeatza]

I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian but.........
I lowered my standards of academia to pre-school level.

Hm. See, you seem to be implying that by having fewer standards, you're better then me? And I guess that's supposed to make me feel upset, because no one is better then me?
I don't get it.

I can honestly say that you as an individual weren't even in the back of my mind when I was typing that.
And I'm not sure how expecting proper standards from work that purports itself to be at least partially academic, makes one a better person.

Huh. Or maybe you were just joking.

It was a humourous comment but the sentiment rings true.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Daystar, Daystar, Daystar... it's thoughtless comments like this that landed you on my Ignore list for a year (you've been removed from said ignore list due to being awesome). Tisk, I say. Tisk.

Thoughtlessness?

Noting that she completely refuses to acknowledge, let alone rebuttal, many, many people out there bringing up valid concerns and logical flaws with her arguments, is thoughtlessness?

it's thoughtless comments like this that landed you on my Ignore list for a year

We call that irony where I come from, considering this conversation.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I don't resent the fact that she has opinions, or the fact that she plays games. I simply think her opinions are wrong and she is hugely misinformed and selective in the evidence she presents in her videos. She's entitled to her opinions, I'm entitled not to respect them. I genuinely think the money used to create these videos could have been spent in about a million different ways.

 

[runic knight]

It didn't help that Lego shied away a lot from making feminine lego people in the main lego lines. It wasn't just the setting, but the players in the setting that helped drive lego city becoming a boys club home. You aknowlege that much.
I gotta ask, though, why the segregation? If girls are okay playing with the old style figures with yellow heads, and C shaped hands, (I know I was) why give girls something almost entirely different? Make feminine lego people more common. It's not like they haven't made awesome ones already like the LotR sets. Make the pastel worlds lego tries to put girls in compatible with lego city.
Again, why the dramatic split? It baffles me.
I mean it's nice they did some girl centric notions with lego sets, but they also segregated them away from lego city. I mean, It sounds weird, but wouldn't guys like some home appliances to mess around with? The color pallate doesn't have to be pink, and pastel, mind you.

I get what you are saying, in that like how most sets were still the same size, the female aimed ones were larger. As for why, that I don't know. I'd assume some way to compete with barbie, as the designs tended for the longer limbed look then the stumpy minifigs, and companies love to chase trends, but beyond that, I couldn't say.

I do think Lego ended up doing more harm than anything by trying to split guys from girls. Getting rid of universal appeal is going to bite Lego in the rear sooner or later.

If they just kept female representation up in the lego people, and didn't go from showing boys and girls playing with lego to segregatring the advertisement so much, I think they wouldn't have to worry about pandering to girls so much because they'd still be playing with the more universally appealing legos.

This I do agree with. Hell, if they made a knight of space or whatever series that used the larger figurines (and thus were compatable more so to the female pastel versions now), I think it would be good. I do remember that they did, at one time, have those larger figurines used for the advanced sets with the gears and hole-punched blocks. But not seen those in years.

To your last point, I do feel like it's not including women into gaming so much as saying "Here, now go play over there."
If they just tried to keep it universally appealing then they wouldn't have to worry so much.
Honestly, I think games were fairly inclusive in the past, but that went away until all but recently. I remember a time whre I don't think I really had to worry if I were getting a good game next year that had a woman as a protagonist.
I mean sure, every now and then women were kicked out of a game, but we still got a decent amount of games with female protagonists, I think.
Lara Croft/Tomb Raider games won tons of awards.
Aya Brea was well received as a character, yet she was dressed fairly normally.

The gaming industry forgot that it's kinda easy to be inclusive, I'd say. Make well written female characters that aren't dressed in a way that no sane woman would dress outside of cosplay, and put them in good, or atleast decent, playable games.
I honestly don't remember the gaming industry having so much trouble until they started going the way of pandering almost solely to guys either.
Maybe it's just me?

Actually, I think you sort of hit the nail on the head here. Inclusive shouldn't be hard. Even without a balanced distribution of male an female protagonists, just making games that are enjoyable to play should be enough most of the time. Even with games like Dragon's Crown, I would say would be alright so long as sane options were given (and the excessive nature of the cheesecake is seen as a stylistic self-parody). I suppose though that the industry behavior of aiming towards the male 18-35 demographic golden chalice has become the downfall in every other respect. For something people don't mention much anymore, besides nintendo, when is the last time you seen a triple A game designed for kids in general? sony and microsoft seem to hitch their wagon to the 18-35 core demographic entirely.

I think it was MovieBob who compared the games industry to the 90's comic industry, and one of the things of that era was the move away from getting new readers. I can help but look at the triple A industry as doing the same. The only reason it hasn't made them crash and burn is probably because nintendo gives no shits and makes those games and indie titles fill in the middle ground enough. Also CoD being run by 12 year olds probably does a lot to keep things aflot there too.

You know, I am gonna steal FriendlyFyr's idea of making a thread directed towards solutions for these sorts of things in a grand explaination sort of way. Maybe a big delve into the underlying reasons for half the bullshit in the first place would help us fix things.

 

[sky14kemea]

Another thread which could have been posted in any of the other countless Sarkeesian threads. I think the mods should be more active in merging these threads together.

We don't get to browse the forum as often as normal users, since we're either busy in our own lives or working on the Mod queue/user group.

If you feel threads could be merged, you can always link them to us in the group [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Moderation-Team], that way we'll definitely see it, instead of hoping we pass by these threads and comments on our own.