I'm tired of the anti-feminist circlejerk here (and every where else on the internet)

[Eri]

Hey no offense dude, but your statement is quite contradictory
'I'm tired of the anti-feminist circlejerk' I understand as you saying you're tired of people having a go at feminists
'Feminism is not needed, and it is in fact men that are being oppressed' As much as I agree with this view, it means you are disagreeing with feminism.

He was being sarcastic at the end there.

Men are not oppressed btw.

I do wonder about that...

 

[Darken12]

well thats kind of point then..western games are not that bad in terms of sexualised females, belive it or not alyx vance is actually not the only bastion of practical clothing in a sea of T&A mabye she was in 2004 but times move (I could name a bunch minor-ish charachters)

its having them as main charachters we have trouble with

Uh, no. The point is that the number of games has been narrowed so much that I only had a bit over 30 titles at my disposal, and a significant number of which A) did not feature women at all or B) were aimed at children. That isn't evidence against sexualisation by any means. I do agree that there's a problem with a lack of female main characters, but rampant sexualisation is still a thing that exists, and especially during a recession (as tough economic times means writers have to ensure sales at all costs, which often involves slapping T&A on anything in the hopes it will garner more sales).

You realize there are women who are anti feminists right?

Also it's really funny that someone painted feminists as arrogant and you give credit to his side by proclaiming that everyone who disagrees is really just a whiner rather than someone with actual disagreements.

I do realise, yes. As a feminist ally, I acknowledge that women can be whatever they want to be, and that includes anti-feminists.

What? When did I say that all who disagree are that? I'm saying that anti-feminism isn't surprising because it's a natural reaction of people who are losing their privilege. That doesn't mean that everyone who spouses that belief does so out of the same reasons, but that we should expect anti-feminism as a reaction from the privileged. Every time a marginalised group has wanted to fight for equal rights or stand against oppression, those who benefited from the oppression have reacted against them to avoid losing their benefits. It's normal and part of human nature.

Sometimes it is. Like Jacob in Twilight people who make this stuff seem to think women are attracted to them so sometimes it's eye candy. Like Maxi in Soul Calibur, he's showing off his six pack and muscles, but he might as well be a metrosexual. He's clearly not a power fantasy and my guess is the six pack and muscles were meant to be eye candy for women (same with a few other male characters in Soul Calibur).

Sigh. Because a minority of male characters are sexualised for the benefit of non-lesbian women/non-straight men, it doesn't mean that it's done just as often, or as blatantly as female sexualisation. Dante has been sexualised too, for the benefit of those who like men, and I'm sure you'll find a scant handful of male characters along the same vein (and a recent episode of Glee). These are not evidence that things are equal or that the disproportionate female sexualisation is justified.

No, you are assuming incorrectly.

Decent as in they are ok, not ugly, not bombshells, just decent, like "That game was decent."

And the sirens are not inconsequential (Boarderlands 2)

Spoiler

There are a grand total of 6 Sirens in all of the universe, they are a big deal and some of the most powerful folk in existence

I played darksiders 2 but for the life of me cant remember a single thing about it but that person you posted is NOT a sex object, and the asscreed 3 person, she is ok looking, but again not a bombshell or ugly, so not a sex object.

So again, the three I specifically called out fail as examples.

Excuse me, but since when has sexualisation equalled physical attractiveness? If a woman is plain-looking, overweight, older, with no curves to speak of, or somehow similarly unlike the stereotypical media portrayals of beauty, that doesn't mean that if you put them in a tiny bikini and the camera fixates on every inch of their flesh, they aren't sexualised. Sexualisation is all about authorial intent, it has nothing to do with the characters themselves. Because they are. And even if a woman doesn't fit the stereotypical portrayal of beauty according to the media, she's still beautiful and people will still find her attractive, further dispelling your argument.

While I admit that the sexualisation in Borderlands 2 is pretty tame when compared to other games, it's still completely unnecessary. Why are the sirens not wearing practical body suits, instead of gratuitous cleavage and random bits of exposed flesh? Is it really important that one of their hips is exposed so as to give the appearance of bikini/underwear? Is the boob window a crucial part of their attire? What reasons are there for these character design choices if not titillation?

But like I said before, if you restrict the definition "must be specifically and exclusively portrayed as sex objects", you're narrowing down the 15 or so games left from the available pool to about 7 or so. Give me more months along 2012, however, and I'll find you replacements quite easily.

 

[Darken12]

I never said they were. You said that men aren't sexualized by making them overly muscled but sometimes they are. I agree that people like Kratos don't really count because like you said he's a power fantasy but I think there are some male characters that count.

And I never said that no men ever where sexualised for the benefit of people who find men attractive. But the fraction of male characters that are sexualised in such a way is so small as to be irrelevant. Over 90% of all male characters are most definitely a power fantasy for men (see: all those warshooters, for example), and many of them aren't even muscled! Look at Nathan Drake, Gordon Freeman, Dante, Shepard (who is MUCH slimmer than James Vega, despite both of them being in N7, for example), the protagonists of all those sandboxes (GTA, Saints Row, etc), the protagonists of pretty much every horror game ever (like Harry, Henry, Murphy, Alex and James), they are all very much skinny or average.

 

[Quadocky]

No, Rape Culture stands independently, WE are not a rape culture, you can can support 'rape culture' or be against it.

But obviously most people are against it. You have nothing to suggest anyone significant proportion are "for rape".

That doesn't matter. If you make light of rape or some such you are still contributing to rape culture. If you do not call them out on their error you are complicit with rape culture.

That's a complete U-turn from saying people active support monsters. Now you are undermining the very idea of humour.

Humour is a coping mechanism that is needed more than ever for the worst traumas of the human condition. When British Sailors in the Falklands had their ship blown apart and were floating in the Antarctic ocean - scores of their comrades dead and dying and their fate extremely uncertain. They all banded together and sung in chorus "Always look on the bright side of life"

First responders to disasters and soldiers will regularly seen joking and laughing, with their hands covered in the blood of people they tried and failed to save... because if you don't laugh you'll cry. And you'll lose all ability to go on.

Making light of unbearable horrors is as human as it gets. It doesn't somehow make us in favour of such evils in the world, they are just part of making it bearable. If I make a joke making light of death and human mortality, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of people dying.

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

One is not undermining the very idea of humor by not contributing to horribleness, which would be the very opposite of humor.

 

[Treblaine]

No, Rape Culture stands independently, WE are not a rape culture, you can can support 'rape culture' or be against it.

But obviously most people are against it. You have nothing to suggest anyone significant proportion are "for rape".

That doesn't matter. If you make light of rape or some such you are still contributing to rape culture. If you do not call them out on their error you are complicit with rape culture.

That's a complete U-turn from saying people active support monsters. Now you are undermining the very idea of humour.

Humour is a coping mechanism that is needed more than ever for the worst traumas of the human condition. When British Sailors in the Falklands had their ship blown apart and were floating in the Antarctic ocean - scores of their comrades dead and dying and their fate extremely uncertain. They all banded together and sung in chorus "Always look on the bright side of life"

First responders to disasters and soldiers will regularly seen joking and laughing, with their hands covered in the blood of people they tried and failed to save... because if you don't laugh you'll cry. And you'll lose all ability to go on.

Making light of unbearable horrors is as human as it gets. It doesn't somehow make us in favour of such evils in the world, they are just part of making it bearable. If I make a joke making light of death and human mortality, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of people dying.

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

One is not undermining the very idea of humor by not contributing to horribleness, which would be the very opposite of humor.

You said: "If you make light of rape or some such"

That includes jokes.

That is how you link your completely out there statement that anything other than an extreme minority (i.e. prison inmates) "support rape" or "support rape culture", by saying that includes "making light of rape or some such".

So you can deny it all you like, but it's clear you are trying to have it both contradictory ways.

 

[lacktheknack]

No, Rape Culture stands independently, WE are not a rape culture, you can can support 'rape culture' or be against it.

But obviously most people are against it. You have nothing to suggest anyone significant proportion are "for rape".

That doesn't matter. If you make light of rape or some such you are still contributing to rape culture. If you do not call them out on their error you are complicit with rape culture.

That's a complete U-turn from saying people active support monsters. Now you are undermining the very idea of humour.

Humour is a coping mechanism that is needed more than ever for the worst traumas of the human condition. When British Sailors in the Falklands had their ship blown apart and were floating in the Antarctic ocean - scores of their comrades dead and dying and their fate extremely uncertain. They all banded together and sung in chorus "Always look on the bright side of life"

First responders to disasters and soldiers will regularly seen joking and laughing, with their hands covered in the blood of people they tried and failed to save... because if you don't laugh you'll cry. And you'll lose all ability to go on.

Making light of unbearable horrors is as human as it gets. It doesn't somehow make us in favour of such evils in the world, they are just part of making it bearable. If I make a joke making light of death and human mortality, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of people dying.

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

One is not undermining the very idea of humor by not contributing to horribleness, which would be the very opposite of humor.

I take it that you're not into black humor, then?

Unless you're saying that the act of making rape jokes is "contributing to horribleness", which I think is a noteworthy but ultimately hyperbolic statement. I mean, does me cracking a dead baby joke mean that I'm actively contributing to a sentiment in the world that infanticide is acceptable? (If you say "yes", I'm afraid we're never going to find common ground.)

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I love these threads, it's like a train wreck: it's terrible but I can't look away.

Ah yes the best posts to generate discussion.

step 1. User sees what may become a controversial thread.
step 2. Gets super excited
step 3. Doesn't read a single post and declares sarcastically "thread will go well etc"
step 4. Feels better about himself

I mean have you read a single post in this thread? There is some good discussion going on, but if you feel it isn't good, you should address those issues, not make a post to make you feel better about yourself.

I'll let you in on a secret: controversial threads can generate discussion!!! Amazing! Mind blowing! And that is exactly what is happening here.

I'm sure 4chan likes your kind of posts. Take them there please.

Are you kidding? I read a ton of the stuff here, that's why it's so entertaining. So much of the stuff people put on these threads is so absolutely bat-crap crazy but still wildly entertaining. Are there some good points? Sure, but arguing on the internet? Nah, I'm good.

Also, it's a little odd that the person who's being insulting and condescending (two prime indicators of self-esteem issues) is the one claiming that someone who made an innocent and not really serious comment is just doing it because they need to "feel better about themself".

 

[Giftfromme]

I love these threads, it's like a train wreck: it's terrible but I can't look away.

Ah yes the best posts to generate discussion.

step 1. User sees what may become a controversial thread.
step 2. Gets super excited
step 3. Doesn't read a single post and declares sarcastically "thread will go well etc"
step 4. Feels better about himself

I mean have you read a single post in this thread? There is some good discussion going on, but if you feel it isn't good, you should address those issues, not make a post to make you feel better about yourself.

I'll let you in on a secret: controversial threads can generate discussion!!! Amazing! Mind blowing! And that is exactly what is happening here.

I'm sure 4chan likes your kind of posts. Take them there please.

Are you kidding? I read a ton of the stuff here, that's why it's so entertaining. So much of the stuff people put on these threads is so absolutely bat-crap crazy but still wildly entertaining. Are there some good points? Sure, but arguing on the internet? Nah, I'm good.

Also, it's a little odd that the person who's being insulting and condescending (two prime indicators of self-esteem issues) is the one claiming that someone who made an innocent and not really serious comment is just doing it because they need to "feel better about themself".

Making up silly and broad statements such as "absolutely bat-crap insane" will make you feel better for a time, but it will cease to entertain you. Don't worry, I was in your position once too, along time ago...

Just dismissing a conversation, argument, discussion or whatever the hell is going on here because you don't agree with some of the points made is just bad practice really. Or dismissing it all when you don't understand what is going on. If you can, you should try responding to someone's argument in particular, but if you can't, these threads are probably beyond you lol.

You claim your comment to be innocent but it's the same in every thread of its type. Someone proclaims some nonsense about how the thread will go and the only time the thread actually goes that way is when those same people want to derail the thread.

Try switching it up. Say something like "I believe this thread is heading into X direction because of Y reasons. Then your post will make you look a little more intelligent. But if its obvious good discussion is going on, there's no point in making the comment you did.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I was criticizing you for not getting obvious sarcasm, not for your Men's Rights viewpoints, which has a presence far larger on the internet than in real life. Do you seriously believe that heterosexual, cisgender, white males that run 99.9 percent of the world's important shit are oppressed?

Why do you seriously insist on lumping together the tiny enclave of international power brokers with ordinary people on the basis of skin colour, sexual orientation and gender? That sure sounds like something a bigot would do.

When you judge people according to the colour of their skin, you're a bigot.

When you judge people according to their gender, you're a bigot.

When you judge people according on the basis of their sexual attraction to others, you're a bigot.

Three for three, Stalkingpanda14. People in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

 

[unpronounceable]

They have those stereotypes because they're villains, not because they're muscled. The only one of those stereotypes that shows up outside villains is the idea that the more muscled you are, the dumber you are. But you'll find that easily balanced by the fact that muscled protagonists are always as smart as the plot needs them to be.

Some people do have power fantasies like that, yes, but a significant portion of the male population have the fantasy of being muscled to a certain degree, and games capitalise on that. Yes, being desired is part of the power fantasy, but it's not the same as objectification. The overlap is with sexualisation, not with objectification (they aren't the same thing). In order for objectification to take place, the game needs to encourage the audience to admire the female character from a distance instead of relating to her on an emotional level. This is most often accomplished with the use of the (straight) male gaze when designing game visuals, and by not informing the player of personal things about her (such as her name, backstory, personality and the like, things that we can use to connect to her on an emotional level). Not all female characters are objectified, but a significant portion of them are, and almost all of them are sexualised to some degree.

And before anybody jumps in to correct me, male mooks in videogames are often objectified too, but not sexually. Yes, male mooks are often treated as guilt-free gun-fodder to dispose of, with no names, personality of backstory given. Yes, this is true. However, they are practically never put on skimpy clothes to ogle, while female characters very often are.

You can't have it both ways.

I could argue in exactly the same way that women having a certain body type in video games is a power fantasy because women want to appear attractive.
Why is it that when women appear in a conventionally attractive way, it is exclusively for the benefit of males, but when men appear in a conventionally attractive way, it is again exclusively for the benefit of males?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This is most often accomplished with the use of the (straight) male gaze when designing game visuals, and by not informing the player of personal things about her (such as her name, backstory, personality and the like, things that we can use to connect to her on an emotional level). Not all female characters are objectified, but a significant portion of them are, and almost all of them are sexualised to some degree.

What games have you been playing?
I haven't played a single game in recent memory that fits these characteristics.
I haven't ever seen this legendary male gaze that's so often mentioned either.
I'm getting the feeling that feminists played a few shitty games that have these characteristics and have suddenly decided to apply them to the vast majority of games.

 

[Darken12]

You can't have it both ways.

I could argue in exactly the same way that women having a certain body type in video games is a power fantasy because women want to appear attractive.
Why is it that when women appear in a conventionally attractive way, it is exclusively for the benefit of males, but when men appear in a conventionally attractive way, it is again exclusively for the benefit of males?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

/facepalm

I already addressed this exact same question. I'm not even going to bother retyping, I'll just quote myself.

You haven't paid attention to all the stuff I've said about cinematography and the camera, have you? The differences between power fantasy and sexual fantasy are clear as day when you examine the way the camera engages the character. If the camera wanted to sell the idea of a sexy woman as a power fantasy for women, it wouldn't linger on her cleavage or ass (or any part of her body), it wouldn't feature close shots of anything but her face, and it would involve the woman doing something with her appearance. Just like a man with muscles in a power fantasy uses them to lift things, punch things and otherwise exert force unto the world, a woman who would use her appearance as a weapon would use it to accomplish her goals. The power fantasy is about agency. A woman needs to exercise her agency in order to fit the role of power fantasy, and most objectified female characters are allowed little to no agency by their creators.

As to "why", I will repeat what I've been saying from the start: because of the male gaze. The male gaze is, by definition, male (and straight), so it sexualises women and empowers men because that's what the average straight male wants male and female characters to be portrayed as. Sexualised male characters are rare and have to be handled very carefully or else there's a risk of appearing "gay" to the audience, and women who aren't sexualised are either not conventionally attractive (according to modern media standards) or nonexistent.

What games have you been playing?
I haven't played a single game in recent memory that fits these characteristics.
I haven't ever seen this legendary male gaze that's so often mentioned either.
I'm getting the feeling that feminists played a few shitty games that have these characteristics and have suddenly decided to apply them to the vast majority of games.

Sigh. Must I do this every thread? I had a post in this very thread with several different examples. Furthermore, are you so blind to sexualisation that you can't find those examples for yourself? Do I need to lead you by the hand and show you all the cases of female sexualisation one by one? Or better yet, get bogged down in an endless argument where someone nitpicks every example I pick because semantics and "but that's normal!!"?

I already did what you're asking me to do, and more than once. I am not going to spend another two hours paging through google image search to find pics that prove my point. Go to the wikipedia lists of games from 2010 onwards and look at their images on google images. Whenever you see a woman with unexplained/impractical/gratuitous cleavage or other bits of skin exposed for no reason at all, you'll have the examples you want.

If your argument is "what you're saying doesn't exist", then I'm sorry, but that's patently false. If your argument is "it's not that bad", then we can sit down and go back and forth with that, but we have to start from the self-evident assumption that women are disproportionately sexualised in videogames.