Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First of all, remember the quote chain. This paragraph and all the quotes that followed it were about bikini armor female characters in MMORPG's. So do you admit that in the case of Bikini armor MMORPG's we shouldn't be talking about objectification? (that would already be a start)Sepko said:
Now because you still decided to go there even though it wasn't relevant to the initial point you tried to refute i'll still address this one. You said that both females and males are being idealized for the costumer, however that in no way proves they are being objectified. I mean Naomi in MGS4 looks quite hot and often had her labcoat buttons open (except in cold environments), but she was most definitely not an object, she had a huge role in the story and even manipulated the protagonist, snake. The fact a female character was idealized for male gamers doesn't imply in the slightest that she's being objectified. The illusion that female characters are being more objectified than male characters merely stems from the fact there are a lot more male protagonists which de-facto get a much bigger role than other characters. However regardless of gender protagonists will have more agency and secondary characters will have less (or often even none).
There are off course games where women are being objectified (thinking of that rape game in Japan for instance) but they're a minority.
Actually the reason why i believe i have the i-win-argument against objectification of women in the western gaming industry is because 99% of the arguments used to imply there is objectification of women rely on intellectual dishonesty, wrong usage of the word "objectification" or are simply broken. You see, based on the innocent until proven guilty principle this would be an all win argument that the industry is innocent of objectification.
And with them i referred to minorities.
And please the argument is not to be more inclusive, it's to be more inclusive by not making sexist games which treat women like shit. Unless off course you think women are treated just fine in games? In which case i'd wonder what this was all about.
People? These things don't exist in a vacuum.
What I'm noticing a lot about many of these comments that don't think female objectification is a problem in video games is an attempt to say, "But it happens to men, too. And we're not angry." Or something to that effect.
You can't just take this one instance of how women are portrayed or really any societal injustice to women in general and then simply compare it with a male counterpart. Why?
Because (white) men never had to fight for their right to vote.
They didn't have to wage a war on what was accepted at large to earn the go ahead to work outside of the home and didn't have to endure being smacked on the ass once they got there.
They didn't have to insist that they be let into the best colleges and were never told they could really only go into teaching or nursing when they got there.
The list goes on. Individual results may vary, but anicdotal evidence of some men going through anything similiar is in no way the same as a societal movement to keep women as a second class citizen.
And to simply say that because progress has been made-- a lot of it really-- means that we're now on equal footing in our society, that the playing field has now finally been leveled is simply not true. No more than having a black president has made us in anyway post-racial. It is MORE level than it has ever been, but is certainly not there yet.
The point being that when you say, "But it happens to men too..." you're ignoring the power dynamic and the history. You can call a white man "boy" and it can be a little demeaning. But it certainly doesn't hold the same connotations as calling a black man "boy". History has already defined what that exchange means, and you can't say, "Hey, I don't like being called 'boy' either! Can't we call it even?" Nope. We can't.
I'd also encourage those of you who are suggesting that media portrayals of gender or race hurt no one but the weak minded actually go do some reasearch on the subject. If you think media trends don't impact a large part of society, then you'll have a hard time explaining how trends catch on in general. There are volumes written from anthropological, social and even medical (mental health) perspectives. These things matter. They effect how people perceive and treat each other and how people think. I suppose if I have to give you a place to start, I'd go with Laura Mulvey and her essay ?Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema?-- which I think can have a direct correlation to female representation in video games. But the idea that there is no research indicating these media representations matter is laughable. There are entire careers based on this kind of research.
Media isn't merely an echo back of what society is yelling; it also influences what we yell about. It's a circular thing. We may impact media, but media also certainly impacts us and how we view ourselves and others.
What I'm noticing a lot about many of these comments that don't think female objectification is a problem in video games is an attempt to say, "But it happens to men, too. And we're not angry." Or something to that effect.
You can't just take this one instance of how women are portrayed or really any societal injustice to women in general and then simply compare it with a male counterpart. Why?
Because (white) men never had to fight for their right to vote.
They didn't have to wage a war on what was accepted at large to earn the go ahead to work outside of the home and didn't have to endure being smacked on the ass once they got there.
They didn't have to insist that they be let into the best colleges and were never told they could really only go into teaching or nursing when they got there.
The list goes on. Individual results may vary, but anicdotal evidence of some men going through anything similiar is in no way the same as a societal movement to keep women as a second class citizen.
And to simply say that because progress has been made-- a lot of it really-- means that we're now on equal footing in our society, that the playing field has now finally been leveled is simply not true. No more than having a black president has made us in anyway post-racial. It is MORE level than it has ever been, but is certainly not there yet.
The point being that when you say, "But it happens to men too..." you're ignoring the power dynamic and the history. You can call a white man "boy" and it can be a little demeaning. But it certainly doesn't hold the same connotations as calling a black man "boy". History has already defined what that exchange means, and you can't say, "Hey, I don't like being called 'boy' either! Can't we call it even?" Nope. We can't.
I'd also encourage those of you who are suggesting that media portrayals of gender or race hurt no one but the weak minded actually go do some reasearch on the subject. If you think media trends don't impact a large part of society, then you'll have a hard time explaining how trends catch on in general. There are volumes written from anthropological, social and even medical (mental health) perspectives. These things matter. They effect how people perceive and treat each other and how people think. I suppose if I have to give you a place to start, I'd go with Laura Mulvey and her essay ?Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema?-- which I think can have a direct correlation to female representation in video games. But the idea that there is no research indicating these media representations matter is laughable. There are entire careers based on this kind of research.
Media isn't merely an echo back of what society is yelling; it also influences what we yell about. It's a circular thing. We may impact media, but media also certainly impacts us and how we view ourselves and others.
I can't remember from the quote chain what exactly I said, if I didn't say it then I'm saying it now, sexualisation and objectification are both things that happen in gaming, usually with the latter following the former. With Naomi they stopped at the needless sexualisation, because she's at least useful to the plot. It's still a problem because there's absolutely no reason why she would have her lab coat and shirt unbuttoned that far down while also not wearing a bra, at least the developers had the good sense to keep her warm whenever she went outside. Her main science lab tech outfit only looks like that for the male gamers, which many developers still think significantly dominates the games market, which really isn't the case. The female demographic in hardcore gaming has been steadily growing for quite some time now.generals3 said:
And you're right, it is an illusion that female protagonists are being more objectified and sexualised than males because males aren't objectified or sexualised in games. At all. Please try to understand this point that somehow continues to fly over you.
And you keep bringing up this primary and secondary character agency thing like it means something.
There's objectification and sexualisation in video games, I'm not seeing your point here. Intellectual dishonesty? Where? Why? This collection of words you're calling a paragraph is not telling me anything.generals3 said:
So it's to be more inclusive then, which is exactly what I said.generals3 said:
And with that last bit......what? Are you serious?
Welcome to the Escapist, ZombieRamone76!ZombieRamone76 said:
And that was well put.
In short, the target audience is hetero male. Since these are fantasies targeted at them, they will include the things that the target likes, like sexualized female characters, big guns or swords, great combat or action, and cool effects.
I think that women should get these too, or at least female empowerment fantasies.
Pretty sure Jim already did this exact same video a year or two back (and not the one he pointed to in today's vid). Not that I agree with it any less.
That aside, if I could add a wee point, it'd be that games aren't so much designed by men for men any more, but by committee for men, which is certainly no better. Because now it's not about boobs for boobs' sake, but boobs for money's sake.
Hooray for... something...?
That aside, if I could add a wee point, it'd be that games aren't so much designed by men for men any more, but by committee for men, which is certainly no better. Because now it's not about boobs for boobs' sake, but boobs for money's sake.
Hooray for... something...?
To be fair to myself, I've only ever said some women like Kratos. Not intended to generalise at all. And besides, I was making a point from a more objective stance at the time (not about the tastes of individuals at all).CrossLOPER said:
FF has been really varied, which is exactly right IMO. Again I'm amazed it isn't brought up more often, during a whole segment of FFVII Tifa takes control of the situation after Cloud has a nervous breakdown and ends up being pushed around in a wheelchair. Weak sympathetic guy character with emotional damage, plus strong self-possessed female character? Like, hello? This was years ago too?
And they have a veritable stable of sexualised guys.
Greetings! And thank you very much for the warm welcome. I've read the Escapist for years but never really signed up.the December King said:
As for the idea of the games being strictly male power fantasies, what I'd counter with is this: If you accept media being a circular relationship (as I certainly do)-- the idea that media is not merely a reflection of the media consumer but also influences the media consumer-- then it can't be said that games are simply giving men what they want. They're also influencing men and re-enforcing ideas put forth by the media for a long, long time. Some men have complained in this thread that they have felt pressure to be strong and brave because of how they've been portrayed in the media. I have no idea if these arguments were made in earnest or were just put forth to counter the claims that women feel impacted by their own portrayal in the media, but let's take them at their word for now: So some men are also feeling put upon by this power fantasy that is being re-enforced in media. The only way to break that cycle is to start to explore other ways of being a man in terms of representation and that can be done by also showing other sides of women in these games.
I guess my point is that while we may certainly gravitate toward certain kinds of entertainment based on gender, not a ton of this stuff is neccessarily inherent in our genes as many people want you to believe. Women aren't simply drawn to the color pink because of DNA. No, we've been brought up to associate pink for girl, blue for boy. The media ran with it, re-enforcing those early childhood lessons. A lot of what we think we know about our gender has come from the media. So media also needs to change some as we try to find a decent balance between the messages we're sending people of both genders. This certainly doesn't mean overtly "manly" games like COD or God of War aren't going to be around anymore (I see some people adopt the all or nothing stance over this as if including some games with some broader variety of media images means that there won't be any overly "masculine" war fantasies allowed-- it's not a zero sum game). I think it just makes sense to begin to include more people in AAA games and start to broaden the scope some.
The argument was once upon a time made, "Why would Jews WANT to go into exclusive gentile country clubs? It's not for them!" Besides the issue of equality (and let's leave that one on the side of the road for now because I'm not saying AAA don't let women play them through some legal mandate), a reason was that those clubs were the most oppulent with the biggest golf courses, so why can't they be for everyone? I'm sure lots of us would argue that AAA games are certainly not objectively the "best", but they do get the shiniest and biggest play grounds. So maybe we can start to not think of them as primarily for the guys. No need to ghetto-ize females from the really big games-- why not just make them a little more inclusive?
The sexualization isn't needless. It is there to make the character more aesthetically pleasing to the player. (at least that's what the devs/publishers think) And this is also why male characters aren't stick men. The fact the characters are being given aesthetic attention in a different way doesn't in the slightest work as an argument to prove women are being objectified. Sexualized, yes. But not objectified. And why do you imply i claimed women aren't being more sexualized? I thought i was quite clear about that since the beginning, yes they're being more sexualized, but if sexualization =/= objectification. And male protagonists are just as much objectified as female protagonists. In different ways but they are. Being depicted as a blob of muscles only good to fight is actually being objectified for instance.Sepko said:
Sure it was. It was telling you that i can claim to know the answer to this topic despite not playing every type of game equally. Just like you can claim you have the answer despite the fact you probably don't play every type of games either.
You're gonna have to explain what these "different ways" men are objectified in before I tell you again that it's not objectification it's a power fantasy and idealism.generals3 said:
And yeah, the sexualisation with Naomi is completely needless. You could've had her top done up like a normal human female and she would've still been aesthetically pleasing, with significantly less of the whore factor. Same with the Sorceress from Dragon's Crown, she didn't need to be designed with ginormous mammary explosions, but they did so to sell game copies.
Having knowledge of the Civ Games, MGS and multiplayer shooters does not make you even remotely knowledgeable on gender issues in games I can tell you that right now. If we're going by this logic I should be a super-expert with a PhD.generals3 said:
'Male Characters aren't Stick Men'generals3 said:
Meet Fancypants man.
--
And yes. Women are being objectified en masse by the games industry and the comic book industry. You can claim otherwise all you like but when you take a damn good look at the whole picture, women are being OBJECTIFIED, given zero personality and literally no 'character' or 'desirable' female trait. Sexualization may not be objectification, but the two go hand in hand far too often. You can be sexualized and not be objectified (In my personal opinion, Masane from Witchblade is a good example of this. And yes, I know what you're thinking. 'A Witchblade character that isn't sexually objectified? Yes. It exists. She's good tons of desirable traits like her bravery, emotional strength and immense courage and willness to self sacrifice while being attractive and a fanservice bonanza.), and you can be objectified without being sexualized but that doesn't mean that you can't be both at once.
And male protagonists sexualized as much as female protagonists?
Tell me how many women you see lining up to screw Rufus, The Revolting Slob, Mario, etcetc. The fact of the matter is that you can claim females aren't sexualized in comparison to men at all but in the end men have numerous other different body types to pick from and deal with while women have to play bikini armor girl that always needs rescuing and has the personality of Kristen Stewart, which is to say that personality of a brick wall which is to say no personality at all.
And there are ways to make characters more aesthetically pleasing without needing to oversexualize. Many. Many. Many ways.
And, last thing here.
Have you ever wanted to be/have the powers of 'Superman', 'Batman', 'Asura', 'Kratos', or some other idealized super hero? Congratulations then. You now see the difference.
I don't wanna be Supergirl, Batgirl or...do those other two even HAVE female counter parts that fight?
Anyway those guys are power fantasies for YOU guys. There's nothing in the AAA industry for a girl like me to really want to be. The last male character - made stateside to my knowledge - that actually had me thinking about him was Fenris from Dragon Age. DA 2 was from 4 years ago to put things in perspective.
A power fantasy and idealism can very well include objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a weak argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.Sepko said:
You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to consider confusing. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more than 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.
Very good video Jim. Very informative, expertly highlighting the difference between Male and female characters.
I do have a few comments/questions.
The first major argument you make is based entirely on the intent of the author. Is it your opinion that authorial intent is the determining factor in the nature of a character? Or is there room for the person playing the game to reinterpret the character?
For an example, Bayonetta is often held up as one of the quintessential examples of objectification of women in video games. However, I have always thought that Bayonetta was closer to a female version of the typical idealized male protagonist. She has all the common traits: She is powerful, she is given a personality (her interactions with Cereza, for example, greatly deepen her personality), she owns her sexuality in a way that only male characters are typically allowed to do, she is brave and smart, and, of course, she is physically ideal. The only major difference I can find is that it is Bayonetta was assumedly created by men for men as a character to objectify (which I am sure is true to a great extent.)
From this example springs a couple of questions:
Is the character of Bayonetta a contributing factor to the objectification of women in video games even though she is portrayed more as an idealized woman than a sex object?
If Bayonetta has been created by women to appeal to women but was otherwise identical, would the character still be considered an example of objectification? Should the character still be considered an example of objectification?
My next comment/question is not directly related to the topics in the video, so please be patient with me as I frame the question.
In the video game community, there is a certain reaction to female characters. These characters are always condemned as objectification of women, etc. We praise the any female character that is non-sexual, often holding them up as examples of strong female characters even when their only defining feature is a lack of sexuality in a crowd of highly sexual female characters. On the other hand, developers are criticized for creating any hint of sexuality in a female character, even in female characters that are strong female characters in every respect. The most recent character I can bring forward as an example is Elizabeth of Bioshock infinite.
The vast majority of people loved Elisabeth, but the criticism I most often saw against her was that her dress showed off too much cleavage and that this cheapened the character. And it is true that the dress she wears is sexy. But it is hardly an objectifying sexuality. And this is only one of many examples I could bring to the table.
It seems to me that the forward thinking video game community has settled into a dangerous position against female sexuality. So many of us have been fighting for so long against negative depictions of female sexuality that we automatically react any depiction of female sexuality as a bad thing. We are essentially embracing a very old and very damaging idea: That women are not to be sexual. They are allowed to be desirable, but only in a modest, chaste, or otherwise non sexual sort of way. And if a woman is openly sexy then she has degraded herself and all other women. In short, we are ashamed of female sexuality.
What are your thoughts on this? Is this an actual problem that is happening, or am I just overreacting? And if it is a problem, what can we do to correct it?
I do have a few comments/questions.
The first major argument you make is based entirely on the intent of the author. Is it your opinion that authorial intent is the determining factor in the nature of a character? Or is there room for the person playing the game to reinterpret the character?
For an example, Bayonetta is often held up as one of the quintessential examples of objectification of women in video games. However, I have always thought that Bayonetta was closer to a female version of the typical idealized male protagonist. She has all the common traits: She is powerful, she is given a personality (her interactions with Cereza, for example, greatly deepen her personality), she owns her sexuality in a way that only male characters are typically allowed to do, she is brave and smart, and, of course, she is physically ideal. The only major difference I can find is that it is Bayonetta was assumedly created by men for men as a character to objectify (which I am sure is true to a great extent.)
From this example springs a couple of questions:
Is the character of Bayonetta a contributing factor to the objectification of women in video games even though she is portrayed more as an idealized woman than a sex object?
If Bayonetta has been created by women to appeal to women but was otherwise identical, would the character still be considered an example of objectification? Should the character still be considered an example of objectification?
My next comment/question is not directly related to the topics in the video, so please be patient with me as I frame the question.
In the video game community, there is a certain reaction to female characters. These characters are always condemned as objectification of women, etc. We praise the any female character that is non-sexual, often holding them up as examples of strong female characters even when their only defining feature is a lack of sexuality in a crowd of highly sexual female characters. On the other hand, developers are criticized for creating any hint of sexuality in a female character, even in female characters that are strong female characters in every respect. The most recent character I can bring forward as an example is Elizabeth of Bioshock infinite.
The vast majority of people loved Elisabeth, but the criticism I most often saw against her was that her dress showed off too much cleavage and that this cheapened the character. And it is true that the dress she wears is sexy. But it is hardly an objectifying sexuality. And this is only one of many examples I could bring to the table.
It seems to me that the forward thinking video game community has settled into a dangerous position against female sexuality. So many of us have been fighting for so long against negative depictions of female sexuality that we automatically react any depiction of female sexuality as a bad thing. We are essentially embracing a very old and very damaging idea: That women are not to be sexual. They are allowed to be desirable, but only in a modest, chaste, or otherwise non sexual sort of way. And if a woman is openly sexy then she has degraded herself and all other women. In short, we are ashamed of female sexuality.
What are your thoughts on this? Is this an actual problem that is happening, or am I just overreacting? And if it is a problem, what can we do to correct it?
The quickest way to please absolutely no one is to try and please everyone, because if a game hasn't been made for someone then it has been made for no one. Which would work out all fine, if games existed trapped alone in a vacuum with only their audience and their wallets for warmth and company. Video games do not exist in a vacuum. They must compete for the same limited supply of recreational spending as any other provider delivering recreational entertainment. So what you're up against is free choice and the tendency of markets to conform themselves around those people willing to spend the most money.Sepko said:
So what I'm saying here is that I've never bought a game along this line of thinking, "Gee wiz golly gosh, I hope somebody else enjoys this game more than I do!"
Nor have I ever thought to myself, "I hope everyone enjoys this game just as much as I do!"
My only concern has ever been, "Will I enjoy this game?"
End of story. Roll credits.
They can be done. But i need evidence. Evidence that is never given. All i see is people saying: sexualization = objectification! Or comparing male protagonists with female secondary characters as an example male characters have more personality, importance, agency, etc. Which is an obviously intellectually dishonest argument because protagonists, regardless of gender, get more of all those traits de-facto.Angelblaze said:
Why do you repeat a strawman argument i just refuted in the quoted post? I have never claimed that and just clarified that in the post you quoted.
Never said otherwise. But that doesn't really matter in this context. You'll notice for instance that WoW didn't go for the sexualization route. It's an aesthetic choice some devs make.
I don't know supergirl or batgirl nor their super powers so i wouldn't know. (and since we're talking about video games i'm not sure why that is relevant?)
Well you may wanna be The Boss (she's not the protagonist though) from MGS3. Bad ass chick who exceeds all other characters in heroism and plain bad assery.
And while you have a valid point for a complaint, that the industry doesn't care as much about you than other consumers, it doesn't say anything about objectification of female characters.
And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.generals3 said:
Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.generals3 said:
What she said ^Angelblaze said:
Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.Sepko said: