Philosophy of Sexualization, The Anatomy of a Horse

[Zhukov]

When someone complains about the excess of drab modern military shooters, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make some non-drab-modern-military-shooter games"?

When someone complains about day-one DLC, why are they not met with, "Well, if you're so passionate about it you should become a game developer and make games without day-one DLC"?

It can be applied to every single criticism of absolutely anything.

You know what, that's exactly what you should do, or at least put your money where your mouth is and support those that are doing exactly that.

If you complain there aren't enough female game protagonists, why aren't you grabbing up games like the Atelier series (nearly every game in the series has a female protagonist), Lily Looking Through, etc, etc, etc (if you want I could run through my game collection this evening and name off every game I own with an explicitly female protagonist, I just named the first couple i could think of offhand, I suspect I probably have more such games than most people complaining that there aren't enough of them).

Because having a female protagonist (or somehow addressing some other complaint one may have) does not automatically make a game good and worthy of purchase.

For example, the anime-esque presentation of the Atelier games precludes me from ever spending a cent on them. And that's before we even mention matters of gameplay, story etc.

Oh, yeah, because they don't get enough media click bait fauxtroversy stories about them and they aren't giving anyone a career as a professional victim.

Oh, the bitterness! The cynicism! It burns.

Y'know, it never ceases to amaze me how angry people get over this topic. It's what makes it such a slog to discuss. There are few things more off-putting then angry, bitter people.

 

[zerragonoss]

You know what, that's exactly what you should do, or at least put your money where your mouth is and support those that are doing exactly that.

If you complain there aren't enough female game protagonists, why aren't you grabbing up games like the Atelier series (nearly every game in the series has a female protagonist), Lily Looking Through, etc, etc, etc (if you want I could run through my game collection this evening and name off every game I own with an explicitly female protagonist, I just named the first couple i could think of offhand, I suspect I probably have more such games than most people complaining that there aren't enough of them).

Because having a female protagonist (or somehow addressing some other complaint one may have) does not automatically make a game good and worthy of purchase.

This brings up the biggest flaw with money where your mouth is type arguments, games are very complex things that can be good or bad despite having things you dislike or like. If I like a how a game bucks industry trends does not mean I will enjoy it and vice-versa. If their was the option to wait till a game was on sale, and than state that I did so as I disliked it treatment of female characters; that if it was better I would have payed more I would. Our money is only able to say that we bought the game, or that we did not, it cant say why we bought it. Well I care about these issues, their are few offences bad enough for me to think it would ruin the game but more act as probably a 10$-15$ change in my decision.

 

[wulf3n]

Look, I `vote with my wallet` however I can. I own pretty much every decent game with a female protag and a few not too decent ones too.

The problem with "voting with ones wallet" is that it doesn't work. At least not in the AAA games industry. Even if a AAA title has poor or no representation of women it can still and usually does sell like hotcakes, because the majority of the AAA audience really doesn't care, so the few of us who do, choosing not to buy has no significant impact.

This is why the criticisms post-mortem and accusations of sexism don't work and are getting tiresome.

But I'm also making my voice heard.
Most people who are arguing for better female representation do this

Honestly I believe this "divide" stems from not a differing of goal, but rather a different opinion on the steps to achieve that goal. One side want's to change the industry by criticizing and attacking the games that aren't doing the things they want to get the publishers to change, the other side feels that's wrong, that a game should be allowed to be whatever or for whomever it wants, and that the best way to change things is to show that a viable market for more diverse games exists, so that the publishers want to make more diverse games and not feel like they have to in order to avoid the internet furor.

 

[wulf3n]

There is so much wrong with this, yet I see people who think this type of shit all the time.

And yet few ever ask why people think this type of shit, and that's disappointing.

The twitter comments were truly telling of this.

Instead of trying to understand why the person hold those views and address the underlying cause, the default is just to insult, as if that somehow makes them better than those they criticize.

 

[Voulan]

That is one of the most coherent posts I have seen in a gender thread for quite some time.

However, I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't an analogy involving a horse in there.

As for the actual topic, y'know, I still have no idea what exactly constitutes "objectification." Yeah, it means to treat someone like an object, but I don't get what that actually entails.

A very general definition is to literally view someone like you would an object - something that you can own and that has no personality or say in anything they want themselves. Most people apply the term to sexualised characters because they tend to have no personality at all, but are intended to be looked at and desired. They are like objects in that they are inanimate, have no feelings or desires of their own and are only there to be used. They give the illusion to the player that they can be owned by them. They lack autonomy and dignity as a result.

Applying the term to women is to say that women in media are only there to be subservient to the male gaze, and have no desires of their own. It's a bit of a heavy concept, hence why it's discussed so widely and often leads to arguments. No one wants to be compared to an inanimate object, and no one wants to be told that they only intend to desire and use someone either. It's a very subjective situation.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I may be in the minority but I love me a little objectification. I love some titillation for the sake of titillation, sexiness for no other reason than to turn me on and appeal to my sexual drive.
I don't want all games to be like that, but I do want some to be. I really hate it when people try and argue that any sexualized depiction of characters in a game is automatically unethical or immoral unless there is some deeper point to it. Sexuality is a big part of what makes us human. It should be celebrated, it should be explored, and yes, sometimes it should even be pandered to.

 

[DementedSheep]

oppps wrong thread

 

[wulf3n]

Well the underlying cause seems to be a crippling separation from perception and reality,

[fortune cookie wisdom]
Perception is reality. Reality is defined by how we perceive the world. Hence "reality" is different for everyone.[/fortune cookie wisdom]

and I didn't see any responses to it because I don't think anybody could read that and delude themselves into thinking they could have a reasonable discussion with the person,

I don't doubt, however I don't see what purpose insulting said person achieves.

especially since a lot of what was said in that post was demonstrably wrong, even on this forum, while many other parts are borderline ad hominem[footnote]"I live in a universe where women are kept from personal responsibility" - because that sure as fuck isn't insulting and condescending to any woman who reads it and degrades them as being lesser.[/footnote].

While they may not be representative of the majority of experiences, it's not impossible that those are said persons experiences, and their sexist, borderline misogynistic views stem from something real, and not idle fantasy.

There was a lot of lively discussion in that thread, though, like in most threads broaching anything surrounding gender politics, and most of it didn't rely on insinuating insults towards people. Probably much more than necessary revolved around Anita Sarkeesian herself (gah when will some of the people who oppose her learn about the Streisand Effect), but that was due to be expected seeing as the OP addressed her specifically.

It's not really the originating thread where I see the problem, but rather it's existence on twitter, and why some people felt the need hurl insults at a person that can't clarify or defend their position.

 

[Phasmal]

But I'm also making my voice heard.
Most people who are arguing for better female representation do this

Honestly I believe this "divide" stems from not a differing of goal, but rather a different opinion on the steps to achieve that goal. One side want's to change the industry by criticizing and attacking the games that aren't doing the things they want to get the publishers to change, the other side feels that's wrong, that a game should be allowed to be whatever or for whomever it wants, and that the best way to change things is to show that a viable market for more diverse games exists, so that the publishers want to make more diverse games and not feel like they have to in order to avoid the internet furor.

Well I disagree. It's not going to change if developers can't hear people wanting change and being pissed with the way some (stupid) things are done now.
I buy as many diverse games as I can, I do what I can, but if something's stupid, you're not going to see me fall over graciously for it, I'm going to call it stupid.

Developers already are made to pander, but everyone's okay with that.
I'm guessing we're not going to agree on this subject, and I'm okay with that.

 

[carnex]

How was it stupid?I thought it was admirable how people were willing to put effort into something that they feel strongly about.If more people did that then things like government corruption,economic troubles,and more other things would'nt be as big as they are now.

It was movement to "retake" something that was not theirs in the first place. Just because one is emotionally and financially invested in some piece of work or art it does not make it his property. Not any more then they own "choose your own adventure" story.

Complaining that ending is bad, nonsensical and designed purely to allow and promote sequels? Yes, it's customers right and expression of one's feelings and opinion. Even not buying new product by the same author due to disappointment with the ending is perfectly normal.

Demand to change it? I can't really support it. In my opinion that's example of pure over extension of ones entitlement.

I won't address `Make it yourself` because that's so many levels of stupid stacked on top of each other, and you said that's not what you mean.

Look, I `vote with my wallet` however I can. I own pretty much every decent game with a female protag and a few not too decent ones too. But I'm also making my voice heard.
Most people who are arguing for better female representation do this- do you need to view each one's purchase history before you can listen to them? You're just assuming complaining on the internet is the only thing they do because it's the only thing you can see.

If that's true I owe you and apology. You do put money where your mouth is. I'm sorry i didn't exclude you from my broad generalization. I didn't know. Consider that i didn't intend to include you (or any other person that actually did that, you are first one here to actually stated so) and that I don't include you whenever I use this argument in the future. I'm not sarcastic, my honest opinion is that complaining without will to sacrifice anything for cause if bad and actually hurts the goal in long term. Eve Charm described exactly that.

Why do you assume that you're the only one who "sacrifices time and money" for things you want? Do you think that you're the only one who 'votes with your wallet' or (if you do) create interactive media? For all you know you could be arguing with an animator, programmer, or even a producer. I'm sorry for getting offended, but don't get self-richeous on us just because we voice our opinion. You don't know us nor what we do for our beliefs.

My statement is both criticism from my point of view and a provocation to either spur one into action or in opposition. And that opposition can be based either on base of different set of opinions or, as only user Phasmal stated so far, fact that they already did so and feel incorrectly criticized. In any case, whoever replies to me, he further informs me of their own position on that idea and furthers the discussion.

Well I disagree. It's not going to change if developers can't hear people wanting change and being pissed with the way some (stupid) things are done now.
I buy as many diverse games as I can, I do what I can, but if something's stupid, you're not going to see me fall over graciously for it, I'm going to call it stupid.

Developers already are made to pander, but everyone's okay with that.
I'm guessing we're not going to agree on this subject, and I'm okay with that.

As Eve Charm already stated, developers and publishers are tired of always hearing that people want more of something and then not buy it. Earliest example I know of developer being burned by their own fanbase was Sierra on-line and the case of the highly demanded but poorly sold Space Quest 6. It was a breakthrough in title in some ways, as good as any other part of Space Quest series that so many loved and hold dear to their hard yet it sold poorly and cost company pretty penny in the end. Latest I know is "Operation Rainfall" debacle.

 

[wulf3n]

Well I disagree. It's not going to change if developers can't hear people wanting change and being pissed with the way some (stupid) things are done now.
I buy as many diverse games as I can, I do what I can, but if something's stupid, you're not going to see me fall over graciously for it, I'm going to call it stupid.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying developers/publishers shouldn't hear peoples opinion. What I'm saying is that positive reinforcement works better than negative. A bunch of people harassing the developers isn't going to do anything to sway their minds, especially when the game sells fine.

Developers already are made to pander, but everyone's okay with that.

Not everyone's okay with that. I'd wager very few people on this forum are.

 

[carnex]

So I presume you don't support government protests since the people don't "own" it(the rich elite do however).

Why is it entitlement exactly to expect someone to keep promises they made regarding a product?

You are actually comparing complaining about government to video game? And doing it seriously. You know, hyperbole in written usually is annotated by something else when crated in written since you lack tone of voice and gesticulation to mark it.

Anyway, you are comparing incomparable. Government is something you elect and expect to represent your opinions and convictions as a consequence while with game you are buying a product as it is. And that's just first of mountain of reasons why you can't compare those two.

I wrote more on what I think about that but I don't want to poison the topic so I'm going to PM you that.