Increasingly skinny women in video games?

[SL33TBL1ND]

But being supportive of equality between the sexes is feminism, whether or not you affiliate with any particular group or not. Nor do you have to agree with their methods. Do you support equal rights for men and women? If yes, you are, in the colloquial sense (which is what I'm talking about), feminist. I'm not saying you have to call yourself feminist, it's just when someone (like the first person I replied to) says they aren't a feminist, most people will automatically assume they aren't for all of this. It's a simple matter of clarity, which is important on the internet.

I do not consider that to be the definition of feminism.

That's nice, but it is the definition of feminism. You can similarly believe that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it so. Opinion =/= fact. Sorry.

it does not accurately describe all major feminist organizations active right now

It does, actually, describe them 100% accurately. Researching what "all major feminists and feminist organisations want" does not mean that you watch fox news for 5 minutes and conclude you know everything now. It would imply actually talking to and listening to said feminists.

In other words: You did not do your research. Complete and utter research failure right there.

If people assume that being against feminism means being against equality or against women, that is their own problem for failing to educate themselves sufficiently and they will not be worth speaking to until they have rectified their mistake.

No, the only one that isn't educated here is you. Again: Please stop watching foxnews for your education.
As many studies and examples like you prove, that drives your level of information down, not up. You are, indeed, not really worth speaking too until you start doing your research.


The way you are talking about feminists is, hilariously enough, the exact way whiny people claim feminists act:
Taking a few individuals out of context and pretending the whole is like that. Using your flawed logic, all men are clearly terrible. I can just copypaste your flawed arguments in there to support that. So go you, crusader for faulty logic and bad research

Ad hominem. How nice. That certainly shows you're arguing in good faith and it's certainly a great way to convince someone who was just complaining about formal logical fallacies.

Calling out someone on committing ad hominam is itself the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam. Nice.

It is certainly true that some, quite possibly even most feminists work for equality, but working for equality cannot be an inherent quality of feminism because there have been, and are still, groups which identify themselves as feminist and are not in favor of equality.

Then they are wrong. The definition of feminism is: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Therefor, if they aren't an advocate of equality, they aren't feminist.

I'll leave the rest to the person you actually replied to.

You got me there. I'll have to be more careful with my rhetoric in the future.

As for your definition, where does it come from? Who wrote it and what authority did they have to define feminism, an ideological movement (or perhaps a series of ideological movements) with no hierarchical structure or central authority of any kind? The various factions of feminism have been arguing about the definition of feminism for decades, with no end in sight. Some of the most prominent third wave thinkers have even argued that any given woman is free to define their own feminism as they see fit. My own definition is just that: a working definition I arrived at to describe all the various groups of people which use or have used the name.

Feminism is a movement made up of many smaller movements and organizations spanning more than two centuries with no bar to admission and no one with the authority to kick people out. Does it really offend you so deeply that a movement like that ends up being to broad to define in terms as narrow as you would like?

You appear to argue in a later post that how feminism, or any other ideological movement, started is the definition of what it will always "really" be, but how many feminists alive today have even heard of Mary Wollstonecraft, let alone actually read "Vindication of the Rights of Woman"? Of those who have, how many would consider that the basis of their ideology or hold any appreciation for the context of the time in which it was produced (remember, universal rights for men was almost as radical an idea in 1792 and Wollstonecraft had written another "vindication" on that subject two years previously)? Would it really be fair to either party to hold that the definition of feminism cannot have changed? You referred to the socialism of Marx in that other post; don't you think the influx of Marxist ideas and terminology during the second wave could have radically altered the nature of the movement (this is only an example, of course, there have been other, equally significant shifts)?

Look, all I said in my original posts, was that in general conversation, people usually use the term feminism to mean equal rights between sexes. Which was why, in my original post, I was surprised to read that the initial person said very specifically that they were not a feminist. I took this to mean they were against equality between sexes, which is an absolutely ridiculous position to hold. They later elaborated on this to say they were not against that, but rather for it. In general conversation with every person I've ever spoken with until now, this has been the accepted definition of what feminism is.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

I think one thing that tends to be lost in these sort of conversations, is that realistically speaking you need to be in pretty good shape to do what most game protagonists do.

Now - here is the British swimming team for the 2012 olympics.

Spoiler: GB Swim Team

^That is what an accomplished female athlete looks like.

If you notice, she's fairly thin.

Now I agree, that even ^her body type isn't necessarily realistic, depending on the setting. I wouldn't expect her to be able to swing a warhammer as large as she is... but then, I wouldn't expect the other two guys to either.

In both cases, I think we'd be looking at a much broader body type - like Hammer from Fable2, for instance?

Spoiler: Even this might be slightly too thin for that weapon...

So essentially what I'm advocating here is not necessarily equal representation (as being larger isn't necessarily helpful for acrobatic combat and such), but more realistic representation overall.

Not that stylised characters are a bad thing. Just... unless your entire game has the same unrealistic proportions, try and keep the size 0 barbarians to a minimum.

How about:

or

 

[Smeatza]

I'll never understand why people complain a fictional work does not represent real life accurately.
As this thread has illustrated, if one particular piece of fiction doesn't do things the way you like there are always many that do.

It's all just aesthetics anyway. Surely it would be more offensive to have female characters of all different sizes and shapes, sexualised and no, but the actual content of the game shows them as damsels in distress and subservient to the men.

Anyone who's worried about inequality or objectification would do well to turn their attention to things more relevant to reality - like fasion magazines.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Anyone who's worried about inequality or objectification would do well to turn their attention to things more relevant to reality - like fasion magazines.

It's all part of the same problem. The argument that "thing A is shitty and stupid, so let's not talk about thing B being shitty and stupid until we fix everything about society that causes thing A's shittiness and stupidity plz" is not a good one.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Interestingly enough the fiction does represent the real world more accurately than people admit. If you have ever been to a gym (and judging from this forum, no one has) try it sometime. There are women there dressed exactly like some 12 year old with a tissue box by his keyboard selected their outfits. Yet they *gasp* chose to dress that way. And while for every girl there wearing enough cloth to account for half a t-shirt on me there is five dressed more conservatively. The girls wearing less just seem to stand out more.

 

[Kahunaburger]

There are women there dressed exactly like some 12 year old with a tissue box by his keyboard selected their outfits.

Actually, they're dressed like some woman who wants to go to the gym has selected gym clothes to wear to the gym. Context, people.

 

[Smeatza]

Anyone who's worried about inequality or objectification would do well to turn their attention to things more relevant to reality - like fasion magazines.

It's all part of the same problem. The argument that "thing A is shitty and stupid, so let's not talk about thing B being shitty and stupid until we fix everything about society that causes thing A's shittiness and stupidity plz" is not a good one.

My point was that fictional works are just that, fictional.
It's the equivelant of saying that "Sex and the City" doesn't portray men in a fair and balanced light. It's not supposed/trying to, and that's why it works.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Anyone who's worried about inequality or objectification would do well to turn their attention to things more relevant to reality - like fasion magazines.

It's all part of the same problem. The argument that "thing A is shitty and stupid, so let's not talk about thing B being shitty and stupid until we fix everything about society that causes thing A's shittiness and stupidity plz" is not a good one.

My point was that fictional works are just that, fictional.
It's the equivelant of saying that "Sex and the City" doesn't portray men in a fair and balanced light. It's not supposed/trying to, and that's why it works.

There are many things wrong with Sex and the City, and I'm not convinced the portrayal of men even makes it to the top five. I'm also of the opinion that we can think critically about Sex and the City, games, and magazines, and our ability to think critically about one of these things doesn't detract from our ability to think critically about the rest of these things.

 

[dimensional]

I see this has quickly devolved from increasingly skinny women in videogames which I would disagree with as most have been thin (not skinny) to an argument about the sexualisation of women in games...again.

Well ignoring the fact that games are not the only form of media which sexualise woman or portray either sex unrealistically why not portray them as they are? obviously it seems to sell but only to an extent as usually if you go overboard it actually puts people off, I dont think they are making any political messages with their way of designing women.

If you are really against it then dont buy those games and if you say but the games good so I want to play it then you obviously dont care to much about its portrayal of woman so your arguing about something simply because you feel you should for some reason (because you have been told something is wrong so want to make a show about caring even though really you dont care that much).

As for them dressing impractically I dont mind as long as it fits the style of the game obviously if they were going for total realism it would be different but those games are pretty rare. Im not sure its doing much harm either I mean who thinks I want to be just like this video game character so im going to grow a mustache and become a plumber only to find that unfortunately in RL jumping on turtles is actually considered animal cruelty, basically they are not role models they are not real people the only bearing they have to reality is in how much the artist decided to portray.

Maybe that can be our next topic the portrayal of animals as enemies that will harm or kill you when in actuality they are mostly quite afraid of humans. Im sick of this injustice done to our 4 legged (and 2,6,8,100, whatever) friends and am afraid it is warping peoples perspectives sure you get helpful animal companions but they are usually token companions with little depth designed just to make you go awwww or as a walking detector for buried treasure. Animals are not enemies and are certainly not tools so why do games keep portraying them as such?

 

[Mouse One]

Spoiler

Don't read this the wrong way, I love the first two films in the Aliens franchise to death as much as the next geek, but are female gamers really crying out for the chance to play games taking on the role of a protective mother figure?

There are also huge problems with surgically removing what makes Ripley awesome from the medium of film and transplanting it into a game. In the films Ripley's key motivation to answer the hero's call to action, defy genre expectations and survive her horrific circumstances stems from her being a mother, whether that role is acquired through biological means or frontier-style adoption of orphans. Firstly you just cannot have an unlikely hero like Ripley in a video game precisely because the medium tells you who the main character is as soon as you start playing with the movement controls.

In other words, Ripley is an awesome female character because she's a realistic woman who ends up on the Hero's Journey and kicks ass. Ordinary person rising to extraordinary circumstances and all that.

But I disagree that is impossible in a videogame, for all the limitations of game narrative. Isn't that exactly what the characters in the Left 4 Dead franchise are? Come to think of it, Zoe from L4D1 is a pretty rocking female character-- cute, sure, but comes across as regular gal who discovers her inner zombie kicking soul when circumstances require.

 

[Kahunaburger]

If you are really against it then dont buy those games and if you say but the games good so I want to play it then you obviously dont care to much about its portrayal of woman so your arguing about something simply because you feel you should for some reason (because you have been told something is wrong so want to make a show about caring even though really you dont care that much).

While excessive objectification is in fact a deal-breaker for me in video games, I don't think that we can say that people who dislike objectification in media are somehow undermining their own case by not boycotting all media that they find politically questionable. People can in fact enjoy problematic things while being aware and critical of the problematic aspects for the same reason that people who read and enjoy the Odyssey aren't endorsing ancient Greek political views.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well the answer is simple. In fact its at the top of your screen right now.

Escapism.

You see when you play a game or read a book you want to be in a story. Just for a bit. You want to play a role. For thousands and thousands of years all these stories have contained characters who are perfect. This is because people want to fill these "perfect" roles. They want to escape for a bit from their "normal" or average lives to something fantastic and flawless, into a place where they have the power and influence and importance. Almost all games give you this. Youre special. Youre important. You are going to make a difference. And above that youre physically peak. Pretty much all art of women and men has portrayed them as physically perfect or much better than they could be in real life. The persuit of perfection enhances a work because people want to fill this unatainable role of perfection for a moment because they realise it cannot be done in real life. This is healthy and normal.

Even in games with real characterisation youll rarely find a character as inherently flawed as everyone is in real life. Its very rare. People do not want to fill a role worse than the one they currently fill. What would be the point? They dont want to fill a role of a weaker person because they want to feel stronger than they are already. There is a place for these stories. They are engaging and gritty and really make you think. However it is not for everyone.

What is NOT healthy and normal is to decide these things are attainable in real life or should be. You cannot be a perfect adonis or aphrodite, with infinite power and influence. It cannot be. You fill this role for a moment to, in effect, take joy from the role playing of such a character.

This is why all the women are sexy and the men are buff. People want perfect roles to fill for the most part. Everyone does from time to time. There IS a place for stories with real flawed characters and they SHOULD be represented. However to remove these completely would damage the medium. Some women want to be intelligent, attractive, strong and heroic from time to time. Sometimes i want to rip entire armies apart with magic while being morally perfect and just and attractive. Sometimes i want to explore the flaws in a character. This range of experiences is good.

All the issues arise from the inability to seperate this role playing from reality. Being physically perfect from societies standards is fantastic. But impossible. And although we may fill a role to explore this fantasy its important to remember it is impossible and its exactly what it is. Fantasy. Real life should never be held to its standards. Its just a role to play. There is no pressure to be an adonis or an aphrodite and we need normal characters to reinforce this. There is a place for adonis's and aphrodites though. It shouldnt taint peoples views just because they exist.

 

[Smeatza]

Anyone who's worried about inequality or objectification would do well to turn their attention to things more relevant to reality - like fasion magazines.

It's all part of the same problem. The argument that "thing A is shitty and stupid, so let's not talk about thing B being shitty and stupid until we fix everything about society that causes thing A's shittiness and stupidity plz" is not a good one.

My point was that fictional works are just that, fictional.
It's the equivelant of saying that "Sex and the City" doesn't portray men in a fair and balanced light. It's not supposed/trying to, and that's why it works.

There are many things wrong with Sex and the City, and I'm not convinced the portrayal of men even makes it to the top five. I'm also of the opinion that we can think critically about Sex and the City, games, and magazines, and our ability to think critically about one of these things doesn't detract from our ability to think critically about the rest of these things.

It is your right and priveledge to critisize. However to say there is an inherent problem (as many in this thread have) is sensationalist.

 

[Kahunaburger]

And although we may fill a role to explore this fantasy its important to remember it is impossible and its exactly what it is. Fantasy.

Or, more specifically, heterosexual male fantasy.

Guys in (most) video games are the guys that teenage males want to be. Girls in (most) video games are the girls that teenage males want to fuck.

In a nutshell:

 

[Kahunaburger]

It is your right and priveledge to critisize. However to say there is an inherent problem (as many in this thread have) is sensationalist.

There is an inherent problem. Hence the criticism.

 

[dimensional]

While excessive objectification is in fact a deal-breaker for me in video games, I don't think that we can say that people who dislike objectification in media are somehow undermining their own case by not boycotting all media that they find politically questionable. People can in fact enjoy problematic things while being aware and critical of the problematic aspects for the same reason that people who read and enjoy the Odyssey aren't endorsing ancient Greek political views.

I agree about obsessive objectification being a deal breaker for many people (which is why most games only go so far) I also agree with people being able to enjoy things without endorsing but then its not really a problem youre not endorsing it or condemning it (if you are condeming it you should not be playing it), so theres no problem you just enjoy it for what it is. Which is why I find it strange people think there is a problem in the first place sure you can (and should) critique games and their portrayal of women (and men) but its not a problem its pretty inconsequential really. Things will always change though and then we can have different `problems`.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

And although we may fill a role to explore this fantasy its important to remember it is impossible and its exactly what it is. Fantasy.

Or, more specifically, heterosexual male fantasy.

Guys in (most) video games are the guys that teenage males want to be. Girls in (most) video games are the girls that teenage males want to fuck.

In a nutshell:

I think its a bit strange to attack fantasies in a medium thats sole purpose is the living of fantasies.

That said I think a real issue is the mediums inability to cater to everyone. I personally am NOT uncomfortable with that portrayal of batman. I think if women want to play games where every character is perfectly orientated and designed to fill their every fantasy (for some this is twilight) more power to them. They can have that. I more games should try and do this. Let everyone playout their whims and desires in games. The only issue i raise is that it should be for everyone and no one should have the right to rain on another persons parade.

Games are for fantasy. I say more fantasy for everyone! And of course when im feeling more serious i want well rounded perfectly normal games too where people are real characters and are purposely flawed in many ways like i am.

 

[Smeatza]

It is your right and priveledge to critisize. However to say there is an inherent problem (as many in this thread have) is sensationalist.

There is an inherent problem. Hence the criticism.

Would you say there is an inherent problem with people cliffhanger endings being used in fiction?
Or is there an inherent problem with the fact that Twlilight movies are being released?
Because both of these things have been widely critisized.

You not liking something is nobodies problem but your own. You can say that something is not to your personal tastes, but to say that all media should uniform itself to suit your particular tastes, and presenting it as a moral issue is silly.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You not liking something is nobodies problem but your own. You can say that something is not to your personal tastes, but to say that all media should uniform itself to suit your particular tastes, and presenting it as a moral issue is silly.

Despite what TvTropes would have you believe, someone calling out racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. in media is neither advocating censorship, nor required to keep their objections to themselves so that people who would rather not think critically about media can continue to do so in peace and quiet.