Serious question for feminist critique of video games

[Vegosiux]

A "culture" does not simply imply that something happens, but also that it is seen as normal or acceptable. Violence happens, but it is not considered acceptable unless specifically justified.

Neither is sexism.

Please provide an example of justified sexism.

Addressing men as "sir" and women as "ma'am". Different treatment on the basis of gender, which is the textbook definition of sexism, yet completely benign and justified.

Yeah that's not what sexism is. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

"Discrimination" is nothing less and nothing more than "treating something differently than something else based on whatever". So yes, prejudice based on gender is a specific form of sexism. Not the only form of sexism, though.

Just like violence does not necessarily have to be adverse - an open-palm slap is a violent act, but in some cases, like if a person is hysterical and in danger of hurting themselves or others, or suffering a rather nasty attack of hiccups, it can help them refocus and calm a bit.

 

[TekMoney]

A "culture" does not simply imply that something happens, but also that it is seen as normal or acceptable. Violence happens, but it is not considered acceptable unless specifically justified.

Neither is sexism.

Please provide an example of justified sexism.

Addressing men as "sir" and women as "ma'am". Different treatment on the basis of gender, which is the textbook definition of sexism, yet completely benign and justified.

Yeah that's not what sexism is. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

"Discrimination" is nothing less and nothing more than "treating something differently than something else based on whatever". So yes, prejudice based on gender is a specific form of sexism. Not the only form of sexism, though.

Just like violence does not necessarily have to be adverse - an open-palm slap is a violent act, but in some cases, like if a person is hysterical and in danger of hurting themselves or others, or suffering a rather nasty attack of hiccups, it can help them refocus and calm a bit.

You may be the only person in the world who subscribes to a definition of sexism that includes the example you gave. And it would not surprise me if you just invented it now.

 

[Vegosiux]

You are THE worst at metaphors.

Excuse me, "metaphors"? I'm operating with dictionary definitions here.

Sexism clearly does not mean what you think it does and no one subscribes to this definition.

Strong words, but do I really have to copy paste some dictionary stuff?


sexism
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex


discrimination
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic; something that serves to differentiate.

Of course most of the sexism discussed at present is the problematic type, that's why it's being discussed after all. However, that is not all there is to it. Funnily enough, your definition of sexism is included in mine - mine isn't as much different from yours than it is simply expanded to "all kinds of differential treatment based on gender, derogatory or otherwise."

No one ever said the definition of sexism was the mere fact that linguistically females and males are referred to as... well female and males.

Nor did I claim anyone did, funnily enough.

Nor does anyone have a problem with sir or ma'am.

Indeed. It's differential treatment based on gender which nobody has a problem with, because it's justified and there's no adversity behind it.

Sexism is the act of limiting and insulting someone because of their sex.

Yes, that is also sexism.

Expecting that one is unsuitable for a job or for a role because of their sex is sexism.

As is this.

Saying 'hi ma'am' is not and no one ever said it was.

Go ahead and give me a citation on how "sexism" should only include the bad stuff and shouldn't refer to any other differential treatment based on gender. "Everybody knows you're wrong" is something anyone can say with zero effort, and its weight as an argument is about zero as well.

 

[Vegosiux]

You may be the only person in the world who subscribes to a definition of sexism that includes the example you gave.

So I'm a minority? Cool, can I pull the "I'm being oppressed" card now?

And it would not surprise me if you just invented it now.

Setting aside the fact that I've used this example several time in the past, why would that not surprise you? Because you felt the need to imply certain character flaws on my part?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

A "culture" does not simply imply that something happens, but also that it is seen as normal or acceptable. Violence happens, but it is not considered acceptable unless specifically justified.

Neither is sexism.

Please provide an example of justified sexism.

Why? A justification can be anything that someone wants. But fine, man tells woman who's looking under the hood of her car that he can fix it for her. In this particular case, he's doing it because he assumes that because she's a woman that she doesn't know how to fix her car because "that's something men do".

 

[TekMoney]

A "culture" does not simply imply that something happens, but also that it is seen as normal or acceptable. Violence happens, but it is not considered acceptable unless specifically justified.

Neither is sexism.

Please provide an example of justified sexism.

Why? A justification can be anything that someone wants. But fine, man tells woman who's looking under the hood of her car that he can fix it for her. In this particular case, he's doing it because he assumes that because she's a woman that she doesn't know how to fix her car because "that's something men do".

You didn't explain why that's justified. You just gave an example of someone assuming something based on sexism.

 

[Vegosiux]

You do realize that the definitions of discrimination don't always apply to prejudice, right?

That is kind of my point.

"She chose the colors with great discrimination." says the example. Now would you make the logical step that she is also being colourist against those colours?

I'd say she is being colourist. (I'm going to write down this word. I like it.) It's a matter of personal preference of course, but she's obviously deciding in favor of some colors and against others based on their, well, color. I'd not say she's being prejudiced against certain colors, though.

To distinct between two separate things does not mean you are being prejudice

So far this is true, but...

or sexist.

..if you're making distinctions based on gender, you're making a sexist distinction.

We're at an impasse here. Which is rather silly, seeing as it's quite a trivial point. I dare say that we agree on the entire "sexism as prejudice is a bad thing and should not be condoned" thing - the relevant point.

 

[josak]

Sexism clearly does not mean what you think it does and no one subscribes to this definition. No one ever said the definition of sexism was the mere fact that linguistically females and males are referred to as... well female and males. Nor does anyone have a problem with sir or ma'am. Sexism is the act of limiting and insulting someone because of their sex. Expecting that one is unsuitable for a job or for a role because of their sex is sexism.

Saying 'hi ma'am' is not and no one ever said it was.

Nope, actually he is dead on correct and many people including for example the communist movement had a problem with exactly that hence the use of "comrade" for males and females.

 

[VondeVon]

I have been wondering the last few years why feminists like Sarkeesian complain that much about womens roles in video games. If she is so much against it -snip-

Very first line and you show yourself to either a) have completely missed the point, b) be trolling or c) one of those unfortunate people who hear X but process it as Y.

Sarkeesian doesn't 'complain that much'. She's not 'so much against it'. She just tries to educate about tropes that do exist, with a focus on those negative to females. It doesn't help her popularity that she tends to cherry pick (but cherry picking doesn't mean her examples don't exist) nor that she tends to ignore any other view, but she has stated outright that she does enjoy these games she's breaking down and isn't against them existing so much as she wants people to open their eyes and pay attention to the underlying elements that we all take for granted, blinded to by familiarity.

You can argue her points, you can come up with your own counter examples, but the second anyone tries to turn it into an argument or response against Sarkeesian herself or 'feminists like Sarkeesian', then they're ignoring the whole damn point of contention in the first place.

Saying 'if you don't like something, make your own' is like saying 'if you don't like being discriminated against, go somewhere where they don't'. It's a valid response, but not one that lends itself to social evolution. If people had not raised unpopular opinions in the past, we'd still have slavery now.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

A "culture" does not simply imply that something happens, but also that it is seen as normal or acceptable. Violence happens, but it is not considered acceptable unless specifically justified.

Neither is sexism.

Please provide an example of justified sexism.

Why? A justification can be anything that someone wants. But fine, man tells woman who's looking under the hood of her car that he can fix it for her. In this particular case, he's doing it because he assumes that because she's a woman that she doesn't know how to fix her car because "that's something men do".

You didn't explain why that's justified. You just gave an example of someone assuming something based on sexism.

No. It is a justification. Just because you don't think it's a morally right justification doesn't mean it's not a justification. The man feels has the justification of assuming the woman doesn't know how to fix her car because she's a woman and "they don't know how to fix cars". That's his justification for it.

 

[Vegosiux]

What are you even trying to argue, you know very well that no one uses the term this way and your definition is vague and... well not the definition.

What was your point again?

My point is that no, I actually do not know that to be a self-evident fact and that yes, I do know plenty of people who use definitions "my way", do excuse me for not going out of my way to introduce them though. And since anyone can say something's self-evident I need more than "It's self-evident". The entire discussion started on a question about "justified sexism", and it turned into semantics from then on.

But I'm going to stop being a nitpicky smartass now, seeing as this line of discussion is contributing exactly nothing to the actual relevant points.

 

[Estelindis]

I am NOT saying that if you dont like [media] then just make your own. I am saying that if you spent the better part of your like complaining about something and you have enough money to combat it by making a game the way you think it should be (or hireing people to do it for you if you have no design experience yourself), it is hypocritical not to do so . because you cant expect to have other people make the world better for you if you have the means yourself but just dont want to do it.

Her Kickstarter was funded to make videos. She has to use the money earned to fulfil her obligations to backers before she can use any excess money for other things.

 

[thewatergamer]

Ehhh
I stopped caring about the whole feminism deal just now, its devolved into a bunch of trolls trolling extremist feminists and Anita and then them going and playing Damsel in distress to the mainstream shlock,

So yeah moving on

 

[Vegosiux]

And the thing is, Sarkeesian's approach is obviously working. There are obvious signs that, for the first time, major game developers are taking these things into consideration when designing games; just look at The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, or the new CODs. This is because there are a lot of people, including Sarkeesian, talking about these issues, and developers are listening (and some of them are talking about it, too).

TL;DR - She does it because it works.

Firstly, this is just post hoc ergo propter hoc, and the only game you listed that actually has a female protagonist is TR.

Secondly, games with well-written supporting female characters haven't been unknown before the entire Sarkeesian thing, you just had to look past the big budget blockbusters suffering from testosterone poisoning and sequelitis.

So not only is it not apparent how Sarkeesian's approach "works", I'm not actually seeing a change at all from the scene before she came along. You said it yourself, it's not about individual games. It's about trends. And three examples do not make a trend. But of course, do feel free to tell me how it's "self-evident", how "everybody knows" it's like that, and how I can only not agree with you because I've been brainwashed by the patriarchy if that's what you want to do.

 

[Vegosiux]

Also, I made it pretty clear that it wasn't "Sarkeesian + video games = good female characters." She's part of a larger trend of people talking and writing about this stuff, which existed before her obviously (though I do think the attack on her Kickstarter brought the issue to the forefront of the culture). And those weren't examples of games with female protagonists (again, you assume I said something I didn't! "straw-man"), they were examples of developers making a demonstrable effort to make their games more inclusive with stronger female characters.

I am aware you did not say it. But "more female protagonists" is another of the main points, one that gets focused on a whole damn lot, and to be completely honest; I'm pretty confident that Sarkeesian herself wouldn't give TLOU and Bioshock Infinite too much credit because in both those games the female characters lack agency, they're still serving more as plot devices than independent characters. She tends to take issue with female characters lacking agency as she has demonstrated time and again so it's a pretty safe assumption to make. And coupled with the fact that the best way to give a character agency is to make them the protagonist...

Secondly, your claim was that Sarkeesian's approach is "working" and that it's evident in how developers make an effort to make stronger and better-written female characters. You did nothing to back that up, since what you'd need to show is a demonstrable influence from Sarkeesian's approach that caused such efforts, or indeed, that there are efforts that (would) have not existed before this entire thing exploded in the first place.

"Raising awareness" is a pretty expression to use, because it implies one's actually putting some serious contribution towards tackling the issue. But I'm a rather cynical old curmudgeon, so I see especially this kind of "raising awareness" as a bunch of hot air. Hot air is nice and all because you can do plenty useful stuff with it, but it's not who produces the hot air that should be looked upon with admiration and respect, it's the one who harnesses it. Of course; nothing prevents one from harnessing their own hot air, but you don't do that by producing even more hot air.