Increasingly skinny women in video games?

[Paradoxrifts]

http://athena.uwindsor.ca/users/j/jarry/main.nsf/0/aa9ed943e56182bf85256abe005bc3f6/$FILE/Stice%20et%20al%20(1994).pdf

I found that in 20 seconds on Google scholar. There's really no excuse for ignoring the research in this day and age.

Not the person you're currently talking too, but..

Strictly speaking, is it misogynistic to say that the psychologically-disturbed idiots who fashion themselves into concentration camp victims, one mouthful of regurgitated bile at a time, through ruined teeth nonetheless, probably didn't start doing so in order to appear more physically pleasing to men, specifically gamers, who enjoy video game jiggle physics?

Unless of course the guy playing the game was, like, totally hot, but the majority of male gamers who enjoy this sedentary hobby are anything but the pick of the litter when it comes to physical attractiveness, are they?

And as you seem to have absolutely no problem with posting content depicting insulting stereotypes of basement-dwelling comic book geeks, isn't the special consideration you're asking for here just a little like asking the chubby lady with the monobrow whose really into her arts & crafts hobby to feel sorry for a young male body builder who heart explodes after abusing his body with steroids in order to, quote unquote, score some hotties?

You see I am not the least bit concerned when it comes to mental illnesses that are most typically associated with shallow, vapid people regardless of their gender. On a day to day basis I literally go out of my way to avoid contributing to what I feel are far worthier causes because ultimately I've got other shit to do with both my time and money.

Like buying and playing games with unrealistic polygon boobies.

 

[Kahunaburger]

No I didn't read the study

Well, there's your problem. My advice is to base your viewpoint on reality. The best way to do that is to look at empirical evidence. Which, in this case, concludes that media does have a role in body image disorders.

Strictly speaking, is it misogynistic to say that the psychologically-disturbed idiots

Opening with sanism is not the best way to convince people that you're interested in having a reasonable discussion.

probably didn't start doing so in order to appear more physically pleasing to men, specifically gamers, who enjoy video game jiggle physics?

And as you seem to have absolutely no problem with posting content depicting insulting stereotypes of basement-dwelling comic book geeks,

Because discriminating against someone based on gender and mental health is totally the same as calling someone out on sexism?

You see I am not the least bit concerned when it comes to mental illnesses that are most typically associated with shallow, vapid people regardless of their gender.

Sanism: not just for the 19th century, apparently.

On a day to day basis I literally go out of my way to avoid contributing to what I feel are far worthier causes because ultimately I've got other shit to do with both my time and money.

Like buying and playing games with unrealistic polygon boobies.

I gathered as much, along with the fact that you're apparently really defensive and insecure about it.

 

[Smeatza]

No I didn't read the study

Well, there's your problem. My advice is to base your viewpoint on reality. The best way to do that is to look at empirical evidence. Which, in this case, concludes that media does have a role in body image disorders.

Now you're just deliberately taking my words out of context.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this type of media has a role in body image or any related disorders. 90% of my last post was highlighting that but you decided to focus on a side note.
I think we're done here.

 

[Kahunaburger]

No I didn't read the study

Well, there's your problem. My advice is to base your viewpoint on reality. The best way to do that is to look at empirical evidence. Which, in this case, concludes that media does have a role in body image disorders.

Now you're just deliberately taking my words out of context.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this type of media has a role in body image or any related disorders. 90% of my last post was highlighting that but you decided to focus on a side note.
I think we're done here.

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves). Your argument essentially is the equivalent of saying "okay, so cigarettes cause cancer, but you haven't proven that blue cigarettes cause cancer!"

 

[Stu35]

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves).

Just something to consider relating to the whole 'media gives women poor self-images, causes eating disorders etc.' thing... I'd argue thats a bit off-topic. If such things are caused by the media, it's not video games doing it - it's magazines aimed at, and edited by, women.

Things like Closer, Grazia, Heat, etc, are far more damaging to a modern womans self worth, than any video game.

For example, I quickly googled Closer and looked at their site - first thing I read 'I'VE LOST 2ST EATING MY FAVOURITE CARBS!', Grazia magazine: 'JUBILEE-UP YOUR LOOK WITH THESE ROYAL TIPS'...

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Women are their own worst enemies when it comes to their unfair portrayal in the media. Men simply provide ourselves with an ideal of what we'd like, for our own gratification. Women, on the other hand, produce media products designed to make women hate themselves.

Edit - Interestingly, a bit more quick browsing through a couple of these sites(wanted to check the editors were women, they are), they do exactly the same with men that we do to women - portraying them as Objects. Just another thing to consider I feel.

 

[richetensor]

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves). Your argument essentially is the equivalent of saying "okay, so cigarettes cause cancer, but you haven't proven that blue cigarettes cause cancer!"

Sexism in media most emphatically does not cause eating disorders. It can contribute, but it is only one of many things which do. In particular, it should be noted that anorexia has a very strong genetic component, and having a family member who has suffered from it puts you at far greater risk of suffering from it yourself than simple exposure to hypersexualised media.

Also, a not insignificant number of people with eating disorders are male (indeed, given the stigma attached, the rate of occurrence is probably underreported) which, from everything that you are saying, implies that sexualisation in games affects men as much as women.

 

[Smeatza]

No I didn't read the study

Well, there's your problem. My advice is to base your viewpoint on reality. The best way to do that is to look at empirical evidence. Which, in this case, concludes that media does have a role in body image disorders.

Now you're just deliberately taking my words out of context.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this type of media has a role in body image or any related disorders. 90% of my last post was highlighting that but you decided to focus on a side note.
I think we're done here.

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves). Your argument essentially is the equivalent of saying "okay, so cigarettes cause cancer, but you haven't proven that blue cigarettes cause cancer!"

The human brain is much more complicated than that though.
It has been shown that the types of media previously listed (health and fitness, beauty and fashion, and entertainment gossip and arts magazines. As well as comedy, drama and game shows.) can have an effect on body image.
Are you really expecting me to believe that a book has entirely sexualised attractive characters, a movie where everyone is good looking and sexy or a video game set in a fictional universe where all the characters are sexualised, to have the same effect?
The same effect as these types of media that actively depict unattainable ideals as attainable?
It's not only one hell of a jump in logic, there is no evidence to suggest this to be the case.
The fact of the matter is there is nothing sexist about wanting to see sexualised characters in fiction, it's not real, it's an escape from reality, it is a little to do with the real world and it's issues as can be.
To want the same of reality, or media supposedly representing reality, is different.

To sum it up, girls who watched "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" in their youth, don't now have a poor body image because they're not 2D like Jessica Rabbit.

 

[A Weakgeek]

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves).

Just something to consider relating to the whole 'media gives women poor self-images, causes eating disorders etc.' thing... I'd argue thats a bit off-topic. If such things are caused by the media, it's not video games doing it - it's magazines aimed at, and edited by, women.

Things like Closer, Grazia, Heat, etc, are far more damaging to a modern womans self worth, than any video game.

For example, I quickly googled Closer and looked at their site - first thing I read 'I'VE LOST 2ST EATING MY FAVOURITE CARBS!', Grazia magazine: 'JUBILEE-UP YOUR LOOK WITH THESE ROYAL TIPS'...

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Women are their own worst enemies when it comes to their unfair portrayal in the media. Men simply provide ourselves with an ideal of what we'd like, for our own gratification. Women, on the other hand, produce media products designed to make women hate themselves.

Edit - Interestingly, a bit more quick browsing through a couple of these sites(wanted to check the editors were women, they are), they do exactly the same with men that we do to women - portraying them as Objects. Just another thing to consider I feel.

You know what? I like this post, because it brings up something I feel doesn't get brought up enough. Because people who ask for equal portrayal of genders in media often have this "us vs. them" mentality. But who exsactly are "they"? It isn't just men, or some distinct group. Its usually just different inviduals, all affected by cultural standards and practices. Culture at whole would need to change for anything signifigant to happen.

The only reason why gaming seems to have it so bad is because its such a young medium. How risky were movies in the 1920's? Did they try to break any social norms? No, I think very very few of them did.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, it's pretty conclusively demonstrated that sexism in media does cause problems up to and including mental health problems, and there is quite a lot of game-associated media (including games themselves). Your argument essentially is the equivalent of saying "okay, so cigarettes cause cancer, but you haven't proven that blue cigarettes cause cancer!"

Sexism in media most emphatically does not cause eating disorders. It can contribute, but it is only one of many things which do.

If it contributes, that means there's a causal link.

In particular, it should be noted that anorexia has a very strong genetic component, and having a family member who has suffered from it puts you at far greater risk of suffering from it yourself than simple exposure to hypersexualised media.

Also true. I don't think diathesis/stress is exactly the right term, but if not it's a very analogous concept to how the literature seems to show that eating disorders work.

Also, a not insignificant number of people with eating disorders are male (indeed, given the stigma attached, the rate of occurrence is probably underreported) which, from everything that you are saying, implies that sexualisation in games affects men as much as women.

Yeah, I believe some of the studies I linked above also show a link between media and body image disorders for men as well as women.

To want the same of reality, or media supposedly representing reality, is different.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any sources to back it up, or shall we file it under "but there's no proof that blue cigarettes are addictive?"

 

[Kahunaburger]

Women are their own worst enemies when it comes to their unfair portrayal in the media. Men simply provide ourselves with an ideal of what we'd like, for our own gratification. Women, on the other hand, produce media products designed to make women hate themselves.

You don't see how saying "[insert problem here] is 100% the fault of [insert gender here]" is a little simplistic? A more accurate viewpoint would be that this is a general problem with how society depicts human beings.

 

[Smeatza]

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any sources to back it up, or shall we file it under "but there's no proof that blue cigarettes are addictive?"

I think you'll find you have the burden of proof here.
And if it was as cut and dried as you make it out to be I'm sure you would have already provided me with the proof that I request.
Unfortunately your argument is flawed and as I have proved, you are pushing baseless assumptions as fact.
We really are done here now.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Not who you were asking, but as someone who has actually studied feminism, this is incredibly dishonest.

First of all, which feminism are you talking about? There are a lot of different subdivisions, and they believed a lot of different things. Your definition only really does a good job of summing up the main thrust of the first wave. Several second wave groups (including the groups that gave us most of the terminology currently used to discuss gender issues) were violently opposed to rights for gay men, describing male homosexuality as a patriarchal reaction to feminism. Many of the most prominent second wavers openly idealized Valerie Solanas, a mentally unhinged murderer who wrote a book advocating the systematic extermination of men, who she described as "walking dildos". Her admirers still hold an annual convention and perform dramatizations of her work to captive audiences of Swedish school children (their numbers have included prominent publishers, educators and lobbyists from throughout the post-industrial world). The third wave believes in a host of special legal protections, stemming from the work of MacKinnon, and continue to receive serious complaints about racism and transphobia. Obviously there are many positive things various branches of feminism have accomplished as well, but these are some examples of things which might make people hesitant to join their ranks. Personally, I parted ways with feminism because I found their major academic branches supporting incompetent and unprofessional academic practices which I find unforgivable in published work (countless formal logical fallacies, failure to conduct proper research, misuse of data, failure to cite proper sources, etc.).

Feminism is more than one idea and it is entirely possible to be in favor of equality without identifying as a feminist.

[bolded the pertinent bit]

Urm, do you have a source for that please? Cos I'm born, raised and live in Sweden and I have NO idea who this Valerie Solanas is. Then again I'm OLD (29). Maybe I should ask my nieces... She sounds crazy though.

Not surprising you wouldn't have heard her name come up. I don't believe she was ever in Sweden herself and it is only later followers of her work that have been active there.

She's most famous for shooting Andy Warhol (she wanted to shoot her publisher because she thought a "right of first refusal" clause in her contract meant he held the rights to all her future work, but she couldn't find him). She went to jail because she was crazy and shot three people, but a lot of the prominent radical feminist groups of the time, particularly the Red Stockings, held vigils for her and saw her as a revolutionary to be admired (including notables like Robin Morgan, founder of Ms Magazine, who demonstrated for her release and Tri-Grace Atkinson, who founded and then led the New York branch of NOW, who called her "the first outstanding champion of women's rights"). Solanas herself considered them all too soft and wanted nothing to do with them.

Now how this all relates to Sweden is by way of her book, the SCUM Manifesto. Early drafts show that SCUM stand for "Society for Cutting Up Men", although some contemporary followers will deny the connection. The work describes and advocates for the systematic murder of all men on Earth, following which women live by themselves in a utopia. A Swedish group calling themselves SCUMM currently performs the work as a school play, to audiences of children who have no choice in watching their performance. They have also been responsible for several commercials, most notably one in which three young women shoot a man who is sitting on a park bench reading a newspaper and then begin dancing, followed by a title card bearing the phrase "do your part".

 

[OtherSideofSky]

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.

Very well. I suspect that this has been a product of context. I live in an academic environment where the definition of feminism is hotly debated and anything so simplistic would be laughed at. I know that there are also environments in which the name has come to be associated exclusively with the radical branches and carries a negative connotation. My point is, terminology can hold a wide range of different meanings for different people and in different contexts, and you can't assume that everyone is speaking from the same context that you are.

 

[Kahunaburger]

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any sources to back it up, or shall we file it under "but there's no proof that blue cigarettes are addictive?"

I think you'll find you have the burden of proof here.
And if it was as cut and dried as you make it out to be I'm sure you would have already provided me with the proof that I request.

I linked you to quite a great deal of proof (and you unknowingly linked yet more proof), and you responded with the blue cigarette argument. Like, I get that you like looking at pictures of boobs & stuff, but I don't think that's sufficient reason for us as a society to be okay with perpetuating harmful imagery.

 

[Nimzabaat]

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.

So you consider a strip of fabric that goes from slightly above the breasts to almost below the breasts, and another that rides slightly below the hips to almost covering the posterier to be average gym clothes? You are that 12 year old boy aren't you?

I know there's a difference, because typical gym guys wear... pants and shirts or sometimes tank tops. Just saying there's something to be said for the realism in women not choosing practical attire. Have you seen how many women roll or break their ankles because of those ridiculous high heeled shoes?

Oh and just so's you know, when I say go to a gym and look around. Try it. You'll see all the context you could want in real life. You don't have to buy a membership or anything

 

[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.

So you consider a strip of fabric that goes from slightly above the breasts to almost below the breasts, and another that rides slightly below the hips to almost covering the posterier to be average gym clothes?

Haha what kind of gym do you go to? Because that's certainly not what ppl wear at my gym.

 

[Smeatza]

I linked you to quite a great deal of proof (and you unknowingly linked yet more proof), and you responded with the blue cigarette argument. Like, I get that you like looking at pictures of boobs & stuff, but I don't think that's sufficient reason for us as a society to be okay with perpetuating harmful imagery.

And still you hide behind your demeaning attitude. Act as high and mighty as you like, take what others have said out of context all your want, outright lie as much as you care, ignore the majority of points and pick holes in side notes to your hearts content. But you have provided no proof whatsoever and have persistantly tried to present your own assumptive opinion as fact.
And no amount of snide remarks will change that.

 

[Easton Dark]

I play as guys with big muscles, great hair, and above-average fighting abilities all the time and it doesn't bother me. Is it different for a woman playing as women with enhanced appeal and abilities?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I linked you to quite a great deal of proof (and you unknowingly linked yet more proof), and you responded with the blue cigarette argument. Like, I get that you like looking at pictures of boobs & stuff, but I don't think that's sufficient reason for us as a society to be okay with perpetuating harmful imagery.

And still you hide behind your demeaning attitude. Act as high and mighty as you like, take what others have said out of context all your want, outright lie as much as you care, ignore the majority of points and pick holes in side notes to your hearts content. But you have provided no proof whatsoever and have persistantly tried to present your own assumptive opinion as fact.
And no amount of snide remarks will change that.

Actually, I present the results of studies as the results of studies. I really don't understand why this is a hard concept for you.