Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[McMarbles]

I have heard this argument before when people talk about comic book women being objectified. This is the best response I have seen.

Make of it what you will.

I would play that. I'd play its brains out.

There's this, but we have to go all the way back to the 70s for it.

We need a Legion of Superheroes fighting game. Could you imagine the roster? It'd be HUGE.

 

[Izzyisme]

I wasn't going to respond to that, but you are goading me. Really?

Why do you immediately assume that was about you? Do you have a problem establishing fantasy from fact? If not, then I'm not speaking to you with that assessment. My point is that is a serious problem that I cannot address here. It's a problem that no one person is qualified to address.

I actually find it kind of interesting that you're assuming that I'm insulting you or implying that you cannot differentiate the two. I think we both just need to calm down if the argument is really getting that heated.

But you still haven't responded to the actual point that I made, which is that the way that the media overall portrays something affects, on some level, how people think about it. It is not as though a healthy person can play a single violent video game and then go on a shooting rampage without any other issues. But it is possible that if every game that you play portrays women a certain way, and it is also reflected in advertising, movies, etc. then it can have a huge impact on people.

 

[Gorrath]

I still think you ignored my second point, and if I didn't make it clearly, I'm sorry. Women are portrayed as being universally one thing or as having only one value or has having only one body type. Thus, it is objectification of women as a whole. The idea of objectification is that female characters are almost always placed in a single role, that of a the passive love interest, and if not, are still objectified sexually. Why should a female hero, female sidekick, or female villain still be a sexual object? Male characters, on the other hand, can be anything. When smart women are bland scientists without agency and strong women who talk with their fists and murder without empathy have to rescue them, then your point will stand. Right now, it doesn't. Then, both male and female characters will be portrayed lazily. Now, there is a stark difference.

If the point of discussion was simply about sexual objectification, we wouldn't be disagreeing I think. Female villains, sidekicks ect. don't have to be sexually objectified, they simply are for the sake of sales, the same reason why they stick a gun-wielding dude on the front of the box. Male characters can be anything, so long as they are either A.) Heroic idealized dude or B.) Objectified. As for there being no games with strong females blowing away masses of disposable men, I shall orient thee toward the newest Tomb Raider game. I feel we are both painting in broad strokes though, as we are obviously talking the AAA market outside of games where you create your own character, the indie scene is chalk full of different characterizations for both males and females.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

snip.

Nobody is saying men are never eroticised. In gaming however it's EXTREMELY rare like to the point of none existence. Men aren't really objectified in gaming not like women. That's what the issue is.

I feel that you are ignoring my point, or are entirely ignorant of the class of games to which I am referring. Can you honestly deny that the male characters in an otome game are anything but objects for the lust of the player, who accesses the world of the game narrative through a female avatar?

And what do we say about a game like Sengoku Basara? It's cast is almost entirely male, but are all designed for the enjoyment of female players, who were conceived as its primary audience (the director has confirmed this in interviews). Clearly they have a significant degree of agency in the game narrative, but mustn't they fall into the same category as the female protagonists Jim discussed, who are presented as objects of desire in addition to their narrative roles?

What do we say about games not conceived with an audience exclusively of any gender, but whose creators crafted its male characters with a female gaze in mind? What about characters designed to appeal to multiple groups for different reasons? The male cast of Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy games certainly don't have their female followings by accident.

These are just some of the types of portrayal that are completely erased from the discourse by arguments that reduce all male characters to an archetype of the big, strong, brave man who saves the world or the girl or something. That may not be what you intend to do, and it may not reflect your beliefs but it is the what the language you (and Jim, and Moviebob, and a lot of other people) employ functions to do. One day, I would like to click on a link to an article or a video about gender in video games and see a reasonable treatment of these and other generally ignored subjects, because they are interesting, and because they form a not insignificant part of the games industry that we ought to be paying attention to.

 

[Khrowley]

If male protagonists really were objectified then they look like this:

http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/post/50005631043/psdo-sexism-is-over-parody-redraws-of-the

And for all the men who start whining and moaning about how wrong this looks; you can take your double-standards and bite my ass and choke on it.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

In other words: Objectively a playable character have to be seen as genderless.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. Playable characters are frequently gendered. Do you really think that, for example, Booker DeWitt from Bioshock Infinite is just as female as male? Or that Duke from Duke Nukem is just as likely to be a woman as a man?

 

[Sticky]

And by both, you mean me.

I try to be diplomatic and you still assume that I'm viciously attacking you. This argument isn't that important to me. I'll just stop responding if you think that I'm just launching baseless ad-homs at you or that I'm trying to debase your entire system of beliefs regarding this sensitive issue.

But you still haven't responded to the actual point that I made, which is that the way that the media overall portrays something affects, on some level, how people think about it. It is not as though a healthy person can play a single violent video game and then go on a shooting rampage without any other issues. But it is possible that if every game that you play portrays women a certain way, and it is also reflected in advertising, movies, etc. then it can have a huge impact on people.

Sorry, I edited it with a response initially, I'll repost it here:

This is where our point of disagreement lies, society and the expectations thereof are a very real thing, video games are not.

My whole gripe with this entire argument is that people are treating the enjoyment of certain video games as a serious issue. And it really isn't, if anything, it's a portrayal of serious issues that lie in game development. Which makes arguments about what people should or shouldn't be enjoying at best pointless and at worse trivializing the core problem as a whole.

 

[Izzyisme]

I still think you ignored my second point, and if I didn't make it clearly, I'm sorry. Women are portrayed as being universally one thing or as having only one value or has having only one body type. Thus, it is objectification of women as a whole. The idea of objectification is that female characters are almost always placed in a single role, that of a the passive love interest, and if not, are still objectified sexually. Why should a female hero, female sidekick, or female villain still be a sexual object? Male characters, on the other hand, can be anything. When smart women are bland scientists without agency and strong women who talk with their fists and murder without empathy have to rescue them, then your point will stand. Right now, it doesn't. Then, both male and female characters will be portrayed lazily. Now, there is a stark difference.

If the point of discussion was simply about sexual objectification, we wouldn't be disagreeing I think. Female villains, sidekicks ect. don't have to be sexually objectified, they simply are for the sake of sales, the same reason why they stick a gun-wielding dude on the front of the box. Male characters can be anything, so long as they are either A.) Heroic idealized dude or B.) Objectified. As for there being no games with strong females blowing away masses of disposable men, I shall orient thee toward the newest Tomb Raider game. I feel we are both painting in broad strokes though, as we are obviously talking the AAA market outside of games where you create your own character, the indie scene is chalk full of different characterizations for both males and females.

Then I fundamentally disagree with your definition of objectification. Objectification means that the person is rendered as simply an object to be used by someone else. Someone is defined not by what they can do or what they can achieve, but by what they can do for someone else. Objectification is not when an individual character is portrayed as such. After all, it's a work of fiction. Not every character can be driving the plot. The problem is when agency is removed by gender. That's the definition of sexism. Women are far more likely to lack agency than men are. Claiming that the portrayal of men as muscly and strong is unrealistic is perfectly true, but it isn't the same problem. The point is that when making a male character, it is possible that they will have agency and it is possible that they will not. For female characters, it is far rarer for them to have any agency, sexual or otherwise. So thus, objectification is a problem that disproportionately affects one gender, and so it is legitimate to wonder why women are objectified more than men.

 

[Raioken18]

Why do I often come here to hear about games and entertainment, and end up leaving feeling like someone has tried to make me feel bad for being a white male?

I don't recall anyone mentioning race until now. And why would this make you feel bad, unless you somehow feel guilty about something you did?

I think he meant in general, quite a few of the topics lately have been about issues of racism and sexism and the white male is made out to be the bad guy being both a male and white. It's hard not to take it personally when other people are pinning the blame to you, even if you haven't done anything.

Mainly because (and I think this applies to most hetero male gamers:

A. I enjoy viewing stylized sexy women (Shock and horror!!!).

B. I'd generally ignore something with a sexy man because I don't find that appealing. I'm not offended, I just choose to ignore it.

C. I don't really understand why this is such a big issue.

It's like whenever I hear someone say "A man gets with a woman 10 years younger than him and he's a hero, but a woman, she gets insulted and called out on it". My mum is going out with a dude 15 years younger than herself, she hasn't had any negative comments from anyone... (She was surprised by this). Her actual response was "You go girl" or "You cougar, rawr!" etc.

I do feel like the people it is hurting the most are male gamers made to feel bad about something they enjoy.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Video games are part of the media...

Anorexia isn't a 'red herring' is an actual effect on people by the media which is what you asked for. I'm not suggesting anyone sees gaming as 'real' just that how men and women are presented to us daily has an effect on us.

Guys like to see tits and ass I understand that. The thing is though, women still have those things when they are presented as people and not just as sex objects.

 

[Gorrath]

If male protagonists really were objectified then they look like this:

http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/post/50005631043/psdo-sexism-is-over-parody-redraws-of-the

And for all the men who start whining and moaning about how wrong this looks; you can take your double-standards and bite my ass and choke on it.

No, the problem there is that it is a huge presumption about what people find erotic. I imagine you wouldn't find many females that think those guys are sexually attractive. And as for myself, I don't actually care. If someone put those characters in a game looking like that, and the game was fun, I'd play it. Objectification isn't simply a matter of looks, it is a matter of reducing a character to a few essential parts, robbing them of any humanity. This is done constantly to male characters in games, just look at the thousands of disposable, faceless, characterless, males who's only purpose is to serve as mindless drones to be shot.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

B. I'd generally ignore something with a sexy man because I don't find that appealing. I'm not offended, I just choose to ignore it.

You can afford to do that because 90% of games don't sexualise men.

That's the problem. It's a matter of choice.

 

[daxterx2005]

Kratos is a trampy man.

 

[Izzyisme]

And by both, you mean me.

I try to be diplomatic and you still assume that I'm viciously attacking you. This argument isn't that important to me. I'll just stop responding if you think that I'm just launching baseless ad-homs at you or that I'm trying to debase your entire system of beliefs regarding this sensitive issue.

But you still haven't responded to the actual point that I made, which is that the way that the media overall portrays something affects, on some level, how people think about it. It is not as though a healthy person can play a single violent video game and then go on a shooting rampage without any other issues. But it is possible that if every game that you play portrays women a certain way, and it is also reflected in advertising, movies, etc. then it can have a huge impact on people.

Sorry, I edited it with a response initially, I'll repost it here:

This is where our point of disagreement lies, society and the expectations thereof are a very real thing, video games are not.

My whole gripe with this entire argument is that people are treating the enjoyment of certain video games as a serious issue. And it really isn't, if anything, it's a portrayal of serious issues that lie in game development. Which makes arguments about what people should or shouldn't be enjoying at best pointless and at worse trivializing the core problem as a whole.

I'm sorry about the earlier post. I edited it before you wrote your response, hoping you wouldn't see it, but you did. I guess we're both checking this thread pretty frequently. This point seems unrelated. I also don't think that anyone is being a "Stop Having Fun Guy." Nobody is telling you not to enjoy video games. Obviously the issue is in game development, but if we are just more aware of what is problematic as consumers, then the industry will change. I am not telling you not to buy these games and not to enjoy them. I'm just saying be more aware of what they are portraying and how it impacts society in a broader sense. That's good enough for me.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I see several people in this discussion (possibly Jim included) who appear to view the presumption of agency as an absolute good. In a fictional setting, this may be true. A character expected to be powerful and in control of a situation generally can be, and the message that a person of a certain type has the potential to do great things does not appear harmful.

I would argue that this is not, however, the case in reality. Certainly, the expectation of agency can positively benefit an individual by rendering others likelier to view them as capable of certain tasks or eligible for certain positions, but this only holds true so long as the individual in question actually has some degree of agency in their situation. When the presumption of agency is applied to an individual who does not have agency in their situation, who may, in fact, need help, it has the effect of rendering others less likely to acknowledge their need or to provide them with assistance. The individual's inability to master the situation may be seen only as a failure to be mocked. Society may be unwilling to acknowledge the individual's vulnerability or victimization because that would go against its narrative of presumed agency. That is how the presumption of agency can be a harmful stereotype, and it does not take much effort to find places where this dynamic is at work in the world around us.

 

[Erttheking]

Thank you Jim for setting the record straight as to which of our shallow, one-sided characters are objectified and which are not. God bless. I also hate that smug attitude of yours, keep up the good work.

Theres some other issues that need to be addressed in this debate. Like the fact that Senran Kagura might never make it outside of Japan due to the west being prudish and crying sexist at anyything that has boobs.

No matter how objectified a women is in a game, no matter how much we argue about it, it has never stopped a game from being released. If anybody says that, they are making an excuse. Argue away.

This thread is going to end in a flame war. This cannot be avoided. I really do want to talk about this in a calm and rational manner but...that's just not gonna happen, let's face it.

I don't understand how a "flame war" differs from a heated debate, and I don't see whats wrong with it, if you have something to say, just say it.

In all the threads I've seen recently on this subject, nobody even cares that much to get upset about it. We all just like to argue with other random internet people. It's why we're here. It's fun, join us.

In the time it took me to read page 6 of this thread(I'm a bit slow, a few minutes maybe?), 16 more people posted comments. So clearly Jim, this topic is dead and you should stop bringing it up.

The difference is that in heated debates, there's still an actual debate going on. In flame wars, it's less intelligent discussion and more "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid." Nothing productive happens, people just piss each other off and throw names around. It's been happening a lot in this thread.

 

[Fiairflair]

As far as I'm concerned, videogames exist to provide a virtual fantasy world. Don't get upset because you don't belong in the target audience of the person providing the fantasy. As for sexual objectification, Roger Ebert sums it up pretty well in his "Hugh Hefner has been good for us" article:

"Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do. And truth to tell, most women regard men as sex objects. We regard many other aspects of another person, but sex is the elephant in the room. Evolution has hard-wired us that way. When we meet a new person, in some small recess of our minds we evaluate that person as a sex partner. We don't act on it, we don't dwell on it, but we do it. You know we do. And this process continues bravely until we are old and feeble."

Now please, stop being so goddamn sensitive.

Roger Ebert's confusion of sexuality, sexualisation and objectification offer no justification for telling people to stop objecting to things that matter. Jimquisition is not mandatory viewing. If the theme or the discussion it generates causes offence then the solution is obvious.

Hint: It isn't to tell people to be less sensitive.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But your video manages to address the issue in an interesting way, without resorting to trying to be a white knight like SOME contributors on the escapist...

... keep up the great work man, and dont be discouraged by the trolls.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[Sticky]

snip

Video games are part of the media...

It's debatable if lumping them in with a giant umbrella term called "The Media" is even the right way to approach this. I have problems with any argument that complain about this nebulous horror known as "The Media" but refuse to segregate it depending on the very real differences that each medium has. I would categorize "the media" in full into things that are portrayals of real life and things that are merely fictional elaborations. Fictional Books for instances are clearly works of fantasy, and I would doubt anyone would confuse them with reality much like Video Games.

Anorexia isn't a 'red herring' is an actual effect on people by the media which is what you asked for. I'm not suggesting anyone sees gaming as 'real' just that how men and women are presented to us daily has an effect on us.

Guys like to see tits and ass I understand that. The thing is though, women still have those things when they are presented as people and not just as sex objects.

You claim that you don't feel video games are trying to portray themselves as real yet you also claim that people can be harmed by them attempting to portray sections of them as very real representations.

Do you see the problem with that logic? I'm okay with less sex objects and better characterization, but trying to portray it as a problem with society, 'The Media', video games, or even the people that enjoy them is way, waaaay off the mark and confuses the real issue at hand. I can't agree with it, I can't agree that things that could never be are somehow harmful to the mental state of real people.

The real issue being that game development is difficult by definition and it's far easier to throw in stand-ins of real people into video games instead of depictions of actual people. This is made doubly easier by absolutely none of it being physically real. No real actors, no real world, no real society to base itself off of.

And while this is very freeing from a creative standpoint, it also presents the problem of offering infinite possibilities but no clear focus or goal to the artists tasked to shaping that world.

So what do they do? They throw in the cheapest, easiest stuff to create and collect their paycheck. Not because they hate women or because they want to objectify them, but because it's easy. Because it doesn't challenge anyone or anything.

THAT is what we should be fighting, THAT is a banner that everyone can rally around. Trying to subdivide it into genders only isolates everyone and results in lots of bickering. Like the thirteen odd pages of this thread.