Increasingly skinny women in video games?

[Danne]

Really, society has just developed the notion that all women are scrawny, over sexual icons. So, the gaming industry gives those 12 year old kids what they want. I don't approve of it, but it happens. Oddly enough, Final Fantasy actually has some of the better portrayed females.

 

[Smeatza]

Actually, I present the results of studies as the results of studies.

You are applying the results of the studies to completely irrelevant situations.
And you can post "ah well that's just a blue cigarette argument" all you want but you know full well that is unscientific and over-simplifying things.

I really don't understand why this is a hard concept for you.

Another snide remark, is all you have left petty insults?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Actually, I present the results of studies as the results of studies.

You are applying the results of the studies to completely irrelevant situations.
And you can post "ah well that's just a blue cigarette argument" all you want but you know full well that is unscientific and over-simplifying things.

If we establish a causal link between media and body image, there's no reason to believe that a particular instance of media will not exhibit this link just because that particular instance of media is related to a video game. Unless, as I said earlier, you have a study that demonstrates a differential effect on body image from video game-related media. I'm not ruling out the possibility of that, but if you don't have that study you are in fact making a "there's no evidence that blue cigarettes cause cancer!" argument.

 

[Lilani]

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.

That, and like the video games industry it was and still is a very male-dominated and male-oriented medium. Only in the last 10-20 years have filmmakers really figured out how to make movies that specifically appeal to women. So video games are still very immature, in both the sense of how old the medium in, and in the sense of the typical gamemakers not having a clue how to deal with and appeal to women.

Luckily, the women's rights movement has already happened, so it shouldn't take them nearly as long as film did to figure it out.

 

[Smeatza]

Actually, I present the results of studies as the results of studies.

You are applying the results of the studies to completely irrelevant situations.
And you can post "ah well that's just a blue cigarette argument" all you want but you know full well that is unscientific and over-simplifying things.

If we establish a causal link between media and body image, there's no reason to believe that a particular instance of media will not exhibit this link just because that particular instance of media is related to a video game. Unless, as I said earlier, you have a study that demonstrates a differential effect on body image from video game-related media. I'm not ruling out the possibility of that, but if you don't have that study you are in fact making a "there's no evidence that blue cigarettes cause cancer!" argument.

Studies have shown that smoking cigarettes is addictive, so smoking nylon must be addictive too.
That would be a more relevant cigarette analogy.

The studies you linked did not show that there is a casual link between body image and the media in general. It showed there was a possible link between body image and health and fitness, beauty and fashion, and entertainment gossip and arts magazines. And comedy, drama and game shows.

This covers such a tiny selective percentage of the media you could in no way use it to represent the media as a whole. Not to mention the relatively small scale of the study and the fact it was conducted in the very ridgid 5 point "Strongly Agree - Strongly disagree" style. Oh and the fact that all the subjects (as few of them as there were) were from a very select group of students.

The more I read of this study the more convinced I am that you haven't even read it.
I'll take another direct quote from the study
"The data did not support the predicted direct effect from media exposure to ideal body steriotype internalisation." It then goes on to explain the many issues with limitations and lack of precision in the study.
They say in the study itself how it cannot be used to make the conclusions you are making.

The bottom line is the study is simply not robust enough to show what you say it does.
If you wish to conclude that the trend will be the same for all types of media, regardless of the MASSIVE differences between them and how they are percieved, then you are free to do so. It is not a scientific conclusion however.

 

[Lilani]

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?

Most likely, the mustachioed macho man in your head is clad in a bit more than a golden thong.

That is the difference, here. As Kahunaburger worded it earlier, the fantasies portrayed for male characters are what men want to be. The fantasies portrayed for female characters are what men want to fuck (as opposed to what women actually fantasize).

 

[Paradoxrifts]

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

We can't have a reasonable discussion? Of course we cannot have reasonable discussion! You've gone and fenced off my entire opinion behind an 'unreasonable discussion' barrier in your noggin before I even got here.

As a general rule I'm against marginalising people, stripping them of something they enjoy, for the dubious benefit of those who cannot successfully process reality by themselves without developing a major malfunction in their cortical stack. By bubble-wrapping the entire world for the sake of the mentally-ill you make allowances for the pursuit of madness, which in upon itself is the practice of madness so far as I'm concerned. The human mind is exceedingly resourceful when it comes to generating psychosis and detaching itself from reality.

But then again I simply don't buy it as a genuine concern whenever feminists bring up the mental health of women suffering from Bulimia or/and Anorexia. They're just sort of brought up and then expended, used, as form of munition on a cultural battlefield.

 

[Ryotknife]

Tired of hearing people say that men are portrayed just as poorly. Male figures are empowering and seen as desirable to male players. They make them feel suave or badass or whatever. Yes, Redfield has unrealistically large arms, but that's not a common female sexual fantasy. Whereas long legs and large breasts are common male sexual fantasies. The males in videogames are either a blank slate of badass or an actual character, where as the females are often depicted as object, with their body twisting into an impossible shape for the sake of arousal. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. The overall trend is still very sexist. Yes, the males are unrealistic, but not sexualized. They aren't catering to females, they are unrealistic in the ways many males want.

err..they are not catering to any guys i know.

badassery is more an attitude thing than physical characteristics. Dante from the devil may cry series is a badass, but doesnt look like he can benchlift a bus (although he probably could due to demon powers). compare this to the gears of war or even the characters in starcraft 2 and they look RIDICULOUS.

so no, they are not conforming to the way males want.

is the guy in decent shape? check. thats the entire physical checklist.

everything else is attitude, aptitude, and acquisitions.

Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. You don't think the majority of the annoying 12-year-olds on xbox live aren't pumped by the fact that they are playing as a giant with a chainsaw-gun? And Dante is pretty damn cut, just not at the unreal level. He is also playing at the power fantasy, so I don't see how that goes against my point.

Those gigantic, ugly soldiers in Gears and Starcraft are definitely playing more to males feeling like a badass than anything else. It's primarily males buying the games. Yes, attitude matter a lot, but for realistic war games, looking like you can wrestle a grizzly bear helps instead of demon powers. It's also that there isn't a female equivalent. There's less than half a dozen examples of female warriors looking remotely like they could be powerful. They are almost always designed with sexuality in mind.

the majority of males do not desire that male fantasy.

okay, so we are talking about 12 year old boys. 12 year old boys still like ninjas, right? how many ninjas have the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger? virtually none?

I rest my case. Yes, most guys wish they were good looking, tall, with well toned muscles. that does not equate to looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger which is just as extreme as a women with unrealistic bust size weighing 90 pounds.

TERA is an abomination that deserves to receive flak in this particular subject. however the industry as a whole has improved significant in regards to the sexes in the past decade. 10 year ago you would be hard pressed to find any game with decent memorable female character who wasnt a damsel in distress or a childhood friend of the protagonist and played second fiddle throughout the game.

Now we are seeing more and more games with decent male AND female characters in it, and gaming is better for it.

 

[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?

Most likely, the mustachioed macho man in your head is clad in a bit more than a golden thong.

That is the difference, here. As Kahunaburger worded it earlier, the fantasies portrayed for male characters are what men want to be. The fantasies portrayed for female characters are what men want to fuck (as opposed to what women actually fantasize).

Oh. That makes more sense... yeah, that's a little lopsided.

 

[Beryl77]

It's been said often but I can't sleep and have a lot of time right now, so I'll say it as well. Money, money, money. The biggest target audience for games are males somewhere between 15 and 30, that's the biggest audience for games at the moment (not including facebook games like farmville and iphone games like Angry Birds). Most companies want to appeal to them because that's where they can make the most money. They don't care about making their games equal for everyone, they just want money.
Most women in games often look fragile although they might be strong, sexy and while often portrait as smart still need very often help. Whom does that appeal to most? To the companies' main demographic.
Men are portrait as muscly, badass, determined, not showing weaknesses and always knowing what to do. Again, a way to appeal to their main demographic.

If the target audience would generally change to, let's say Teenage girls, the games and the portrayal of men and women in those would change as well accordingly.

Of course not everyone likes those things in men and women but the majority does and that's what the companies care about. Selling the games to as many people as possible.

What I also don't like about this, besides the obvious objectification, is being told how I'm supposed to be. Man or woman, I simply dislike it when there are "ideals" and it's expected of us to try and live up to those.

 

[ThreeWords]

Some quotes from the site below which I can't respond to and make me sick.

Seneth Somed: "Being 5f9 and 100 lbs. with DDD tits is not physically perfect for anyone but a porn star. For people whose job is fighting bad guys, it is completely ludicrous."

So women who are born with naturally large breasts or strive to achieve athletic figures are prostitutes just because their bodies happen to be conventionally attractive? It isn't always artificial.

I don't think that Seneth Somed is suggesting that the body-shape in question has moral implications for a woman; rather, it strikes me that the conjunction of being taller than average and having large breasts, while at the same time being extremely slim or, for example, having a 24 inch waist, is an unlikely and/or unnatural occurrence.
The height/weight ratio gives a BMI of 14.8, which is severely underweight; given this situation, triple-D breasts are unlikely.

I should clarify at this point, just in case, that I am not make a judgement on anyone who is shaped this way.

Instead, the concern I have is that some forms of media imply that the above-mentioned is not only desirable but also a necessity, and that to be otherwise is to be somehow defective; creating a stereotype that is manifestly untrue.
Quibble over the health issues if you want, but an unnecessary obsession alone can certainly be a problem.

 

[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.

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.

That's fair. You're right, I can't assume that, but I can be surprised and confused when someone says something different.

 

[Stu35]

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.

I never said that.

I said women are their own worst enemies when it comes to this thing. I never said they didn't have other enemies.


Of course, what I said WAS a massive simplification, but at least it was somewhat more accurate than the 'videogames cause eating disorders' simplification to which I was responding.

 

[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.

That's fair. You're right, I can't assume that, but I can be surprised and confused when someone says something different.

That's true. Everyone has a right to ask what someone else means and get an answer when it comes to subjects like that. Honestly, I used to make those kinds of assumptions all the time until I started studying languages and spending a lot of time around people from completely different cultures. It's really amazing how big a difference that sort of thing can make to communication (fun fact: in Japanese, the English word "feminist" refers to a man who indulges women, something along the lines of an old-fashioned gentleman. And you thought there was a lot of variation in the English usage).

 

[A Weakgeek]

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.

Luckily, the women's rights movement has already happened, so it shouldn't take them nearly as long as film did to figure it out.

Maybe this time they manage to do it in half the time. I have faith that the medium has matured alot by 2040.

 

[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.

I never said that.

I said women are their own worst enemies when it comes to this thing. I never said they didn't have other enemies.


Of course, what I said WAS a massive simplification, but at least it was somewhat more accurate than the 'videogames cause eating disorders' simplification to which I was responding.

Oh, so you were making a strawman, then. Because I don't think I saw anyone in this thread saying "video games cause eating disorders."

 

[Kahunaburger]

The studies you linked did not show that there is a casual link between body image and the media in general. It showed there was a possible link between body image and health and fitness, beauty and fashion, and entertainment gossip and arts magazines. And comedy, drama and game shows.

So in other words, between a wide variety of visual media and body image (for just one of the many studies discussed in the meta-analyses.) So, yeah, I'm not buying the whole "but I'm sure the visual medium I like (and other visual media associated with it) behaves completely differently from all these other visual media that its visual style copies wholesale from!" argument.

"The data did not support the predicted direct effect from media exposure to ideal body steriotype internalisation." It then goes on to explain the many issues with limitations and lack of precision in the study.
They say in the study itself how it cannot be used to make the conclusions you are making.

Well, you're half right. If you look at the graph on page 838, it's a good visualization of what they're talking about. They found significant direct effects of media exposure on eating disorder symptamotology and gender role endorsement. Gender role endorsement predicts ideal-body stereotype internalization, which in turn predicts body dissatisfaction.

They then performed a statistical test for mediation, and found that the media exposure -> gender-role endorsement -> ideal-body stereotype internalization/body dissatisfaction -> eating disorder symptamatology link is supported by the data, and their tests indicate that this causal chain partially mediates the effect of media on eating disorders. And as you said, they did not find a media exposure -> body image -> eating disorder mediation.

So,

A) the study does in fact support the findings that media exposure predicts eating disorders.

B) I maintain my belief that we should teach kids to read and draw conclusions from scientific journal findings in high school.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

We can't have a reasonable discussion? Of course we cannot have reasonable discussion! You've gone and fenced off my entire opinion behind an 'unreasonable discussion' barrier in your noggin before I even got here.

Well, you certainly can't have a reasonable discussion if you don't try. I'm not averse to reasonable discussion - I have them with people all the time. With people who subscribe to 19th-century models of mental health, even.

As a general rule I'm against marginalising

Not liking the things you like isn't marginalizing you. Neither is pointing out the problematic aspects of the things you like, or even discussing how aspects of the things you like may be part of much larger social problems.

By bubble-wrapping the entire world for the sake of the mentally-ill you make allowances for the pursuit of madness, which in upon itself is the practice of madness so far as I'm concerned.

My advice would be to read an introductory abnormal psychology text and educate yourself on how mental illness actually works. You seem to have developed strong opinions on it without basing those opinions on empirical evidence, which seems like a strange way to approach it to me.

 

[Vault101]

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?

the equivalent to that for me would be commander Shepard...

the equivalent to certain types of female protagonists for you would be...say.....a man wearing nothing but a leather strap, the game always focusing on his fabulous muscles...

there is a difference, its just hard to explain

 

[Phisi]

Buy whatever you want. If you really don't like the idea of skinny bitches (my English teacher said that once ) then don't buy the game.