Sexism in gaming, do we really give a f**k?
- Thread starter hazabaza1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The way I see it, the muscled male hero and the buxom heroine aren't power fantasies or sexual fantasies.
They're just exaggerations of masculinity and femininity.
Spoilered because pictures:
They're just exaggerations of masculinity and femininity.
Spoilered because pictures:
Exaggerated female attributes are sexually appealing to some men, whilst exaggerated male attributes aren't appealing for some women apparently:
Pictured above: Exaggerated masculinity.
Pictured above: Exaggerated femininity.
That's how I see it anyway. So I don't really give a fuck about the supposed sexism in games. There's sexism in the community though, but I don't think the topic is about that so whatevs.
Pictured above: Not masculinity.likalaruku said:
Pictured above: Sexy.
Pictured above: Exaggerated masculinity.
Pictured above: Exaggerated femininity.
That's how I see it anyway. So I don't really give a fuck about the supposed sexism in games. There's sexism in the community though, but I don't think the topic is about that so whatevs.
You said such games cant get greenlight, cause the industry is crashing cause of mutual destruction caused by wolf crying feminists.matthew_lane said:
So as it wasnt cancelled, I use that as the point to prove that its not harming the industry and that game devs are not giving up their jobs.
you have a short-term-memory do you?matthew_lane said:
what happens to a game release that cant get greenlight? I guess it gets cancelled...matthew_lane said:
(I guess you actually mean that cancelled as in scrapped and given up is not the same as not getting greenlight and therefor being on hold and waiting)
also, as you like to state how opinions arent facts, what games exactly didnt make it to release due to the (evil) feminists?
With a little rephrasing my former post is also for you understandable, even through red glasses.
You still expect me to believe me that you have never come into contact with any pop music in the last decade, what are you a shut in? don't own a TV? don't even watch the news or read any news paper? It's near impossible to escape for that long. Not being involved in commenting on sexism on the industry isn't the problem, its when someone raises the subject and you say you don't care is the issue. Its that double standard that makes any argument regarding sexism in the gaming industry meaningless and hypocritical. If you said something along the lines of, "yeah its bad that sexism is present in the music industry, but it doesn't mean it should be acceptable in the gaming industry." Then i could at least hold some respect for your opinionShanicus said:
But what about all the times that people have pointed out that you can like something with sexist content without being sexist? And all the times people have pointed out that something can have sexist content without being sexist through and through, or without even being the product of intentionally sexist thinking? Saying that something is sexist isn't declaring some kind of holy war against it. It's just saying, y'know... I think it's bullshit, and this is the particular flavour of bullshit I think it is.generals3 said:
I've yet to see these alleged "burn it to the ground" arguments, at least not from anywhere that's not a backwater super radical blog. For instance, Anita Sarkeesian certainly didn't seem to be aiming for that; she's gone on about Zelda and Mario games being sexist, but she hasn't been demanding people boycott Nintendo, as far as I know. And as I'll describe below, sexualisation isn't even very controversial; you'd be seeing a hell of a lot more arguments if it was.
Yeah... You never said you hate gays. You just used a derogatory piece of slang for homosexuals to describe four guys and a girl in a picture together. It wasn't even just "faggy" it was "fucking faggy". That's going to piss people off, just so you know. If that's satire then I have no idea what the hell it's satire of. It just seems to be you doing a purposefully bad job of reading into something, and then saying that's what other people are doing rather than demonstrating why they've done a bad job of it.flarty said:
And that's the problem with your argument, saying that no one was complaining about the Gears of War character design. Okay, no one actually complained about them but it's been a long running joke that everyone takes the piss out of, the same as the Dead or Alive girls. People complained about the Hitman trailer because it involved one guy beating seven shades of shit out of eight women who are inexplicably dressed in fetish gear. Occasionally in slow motion. If the problem was just sexualisation, like a lot of people assume, then why aren't all the big controversies over stuff like Dead or Alive? Why is Bayonetta not only not the centre of an old controversy, but is even described as a strong female character now and then?
From my point of view, it seems that people who complain about the amount of discussion on sexism just aren't interested in understanding what the point being made is. And that's why your reference to Bill Hicks is wrong too; often people complaining about this stuff don't think the product is a piece of shit. They don't think it's rotten to the core. They see a small part of it that they think is a piece of shit, and they seek to extract it or to stop it from happening again. Sure, some people might get overzealous about it, but isn't that always the way of things?
Are video games sexist? Yes but only because the creations tend to reflect the creators (males) prespective. it's amazing how few women protagonist there are compared to men especially in fps and open world games (excluding Saints Row which almost perfectly handles race and gender). Video game developers need to be more than white/asian heterosexual males if sexism and racism is to be erased from them. So basically sexism is here to stay.
See, you're not making a reasonable argument. You claim games are sexist and as a consequence it's BS. An argument can't possibly be any weaker. And while i disagree there is any sexism why would anyone point towards sexism and complain about it and than go along and rationalize said sexism. Makes little sense. That would be something a defender would do because he hasn't realized yet games aren't sexist to begin with. And the whole idea of rationalizing all that sexism is exactly because sexism has an insane amount of negativity linked to it.Geo Da Sponge said:
Anita most certainly aimed for that. You don't say things like "it reinforces toxic views of women" if you don't want to see it burn. Unless off course she likes toxic views of women. She may have not asked it literally but her conclusion implied that those products had to be boycotted. If someone goes around and say violent video games make people violent, does he really have to say they should be boycotted for his desire for said games to be boycotted to be expressed?
And who was talking about sexualisation? Sexism =/= sexualisation.
If you don't get it fine, not my problem, if it offends you, then again not my problem. I've stated many times that the point of the post was to highlight how ridiculous character design of both genders are over the top through out a large amount of game. Why are we supposed to take the depiction of female character with large breasts any more seriously than the big brute that is Marcus Fenix. If you don't like the way i presented my argument, I'm afraid that's tough shit.Geo Da Sponge said:
If there was any genuine malice behind it it would be a problem.
But there's not.
It's more like bad marketing.
Sex sells.
It's as old an adage as time its self
And nothing has proved it wrong yet.
So we're going to keep getting big tits and muscleheads and the lithe pretty boys, and the ruggedly handsome guy, and the bald space marine, and the cocksure libido guys,
We're talking about the sexism against men for them only thinking we like one body type right?
But there's not.
It's more like bad marketing.
Sex sells.
It's as old an adage as time its self
And nothing has proved it wrong yet.
So we're going to keep getting big tits and muscleheads and the lithe pretty boys, and the ruggedly handsome guy, and the bald space marine, and the cocksure libido guys,
We're talking about the sexism against men for them only thinking we like one body type right?
No. In fact, we care so little that we talk about it all the fucking time.
Just like Twilight, Justin Bieber, that Sarkesian woman, My Little Pony and all other things I would likely have never heard about if people stopped hurling them into everyone's face and go "LOOK AT THIS! ISN'T THIS STUPID?"
Though I suppose I have to thank you for the ponies, yo.
Just like Twilight, Justin Bieber, that Sarkesian woman, My Little Pony and all other things I would likely have never heard about if people stopped hurling them into everyone's face and go "LOOK AT THIS! ISN'T THIS STUPID?"
Though I suppose I have to thank you for the ponies, yo.
generals3 said:
I wasn't making an argument about games. I'm not the one calling it, or them, bullshit. I'm not even attacking anything in particular as sexist at the moment. I'm trying to explain to you why it all seems blown out of proportion to me, but heaven forbid I try to make you realise that the other side of the argument isn't as crazy as you think. What do you think I was calling sexist, or bullshit? "It"? Which apparently means "games", despite the fact that I never used the word "games" in my post and I'd have to utterly insane to think that all games, everywhere, are sexist. I didn't say what "it" was, because I was just making a point about how people like you shut down any attempt to understand an argument presented to you the moment you hear the word "sexist". Which is exactly what you've just done! You some how managed to turn me making a point about how someone calling something sexist isn't always a sweeping generalisation about how terrible the entire game industry is... Into me making a sweeping generalisation about how terrible the entire game industry is!
Let me explain this again, because I may not have made it clear the first time. I am not calling anything sexist in this thread. I should have put "I think it's bullshit, and this is the particular flavour of bullshit I think it is" into speech marks, because I was trying to explain the points other people are making. That when something is called sexist, that's a complaint that should be confronted like any other if you have an interest in the quality of the thing they're complaining about. You can't just flat out deny it and move on.
Gee, you're right. You don't say things like "it reinforces toxic views of women" if you don't want to see it burn. Unless you want to see it, say... Changed for the better. Or balanced out by better examples. I've said "They don't want to destroy it all just because they have complaints", and you've just responded with "They totally do, because that's what complaining people always want". It is possible to think something is bullshit, even sexist bullshit, without being an overzealous crusader.
And as for who was talking about sexualisation, have you looked around this thread? There are loads of people who have been saying that complaints about sexism are about sexualisation.
Maybe I'm just trying to suggest a way to present your argument in a more clear way? Okay, fine. Don't bother trying to clarify your points or make your OP less flame enticing. That sounds like a good way to start an argument rather than an actual discussion, but you made it clear that you have no interest in actually discussing things here from the start.flarty said:
The reason we take the portrayal of Marcus Fenix more seriously, by the way, is because while it's stylised, it's still a stylised version of a powerful physique which is actually helpful to have. That, and the fact that he's not posing like an idiot or wearing something completely impractical to show it off.
I honestly don't care much about sexism in the games but it annoys me to no end when people think a man's idealization like Kartos or Marcus is a sexualizing it for women. Most girls do not like steroidbeasts. Look at what fangirls swoon over, it's characters like Dante or Cloud.
Can men really not tell the difference or is it just a flimsy defense?
Can men really not tell the difference or is it just a flimsy defense?
To be fair there's no shortage whatsoever of men with Marcus-like body shapes dotting the covers of romance novels. Not saying Marcus is entirely comparable to those, his face probably isn't made to please the ladies and, much more importantly, his presentation isn't sexual in the least.TehCookie said:
But the situation isn't quite as clear-cut as women only liking lithe men such as Dante and Cloud and strong muscular men being there purely as male power fantasies. And considering that female sexuality still isn't quite as public I don't think it's all that weird for there to be confusion over the matter.
No, it's not a complaint which should be confronted like any other. That's quite clear when real life issues get pulled into it (alleged sexism in RL in the gaming industry, effects on rl attitudes, etc.). On top of that the word "sexism" is used to make people feel guilty because their real problems could be much more accurately be described without using a word with such a negative connotation and used to refer to Real Life problems. Why say sexism instead of "i don't like semi nude female characters", why say sexism instead of "i'd rather have more female protagonists". The reason is simple: sensationalism. Sexism is a word which makes men go into guilt trips due to the anti-sexism crusade in RL and thus instead of making reasonable arguments like everyone else they use guilt. Unless a game is truly sexist and tries to tell the players women are merely sex objects to be used by men pulling the sexist card is worth only contempt.Geo Da Sponge said:
What others say is quite irrelevant. We were discussing sexism and i even made a reply in the beginning of this topic saying that as long as sexualization is being equated to sexism debates about sexism are worthless.
And i'm sorry but claiming certain things negatively affect people's behavior is not just a complaint. It's a very grave accusation towards the makers of those games who are claimed to be a source of RL misogyny. And when such a claim is made it's quite clear what has to happen: it has to be disappear. Either through drastic change or plain deletion. There is a difference between asking for a change because you'd prefer things done in an other way, which doesn't imply there something inherently wrong with the basic formula, and claiming there is something inherently wrong with the basic formula. If the formula is inherently wrong it has to disappear.
Do I care about sexism in games? Well, yes. If you ignore the general consensus that I, as someone often arguing against the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and the sexy police, must be for sexism, if not just not against it, then you can see I do care about sexism in games. I just don't find 90% of what people complain about is actually sexism and I find those who do often destroy any credible chance of discussion by reverting it into emotional impulses and flame wars.
Now, in games there is an over abundance of male protagonists, pandering sexuality and power fantasy plots. Problem is, that alone is not sexism. That is just targeted demographics and corporations following patterns and bad ideas in the pursuit of profit. Why is the main character a man? It isn't because they think women can' do it, it is because their market research showed that their target demographic gave a 12% better response to that over a genderless or female counterpart. And because most of the decisions in gaming are based on "how will this end in profit" I can't see them as sexist, just stupid.
"But runic?" you ask "I thought you said there was sexism in gaming, if it isn't something we can point to obviously, what is it?" Good question. Since sexism is a bias or discrimination based on gender, most of the sexual marketing just doesn't fit, since it is sort of universal. Not in the way it is done, but in the nature of doing it. Having a character with big tits is just that, a character with big tits. It says nothing about the character, nothing about women as a whole and nothing about the intent of the makers of the game itself beyond they chose that ascetic. Now, chances are likely that was done to either match a style, match a property, or agree with market testing. Not to make a bias against women, nor to discriminate or devalue you, but rather, to get the highest chance of making money. But some times, there is more then just character artistic design and greed guided decisions. Sometimes, there is actual sexism.
People have been complaining about the Dragon's Crown sorceress of late, though that is just character design style. The character itself is, well, there is none. For all the player characters, there seems no actual persona there. There could be a paper mask floating around for all the meaning in the character design there is beyond just the artist's personal style. There is no theme of women being weaker or men being stronger. There is no story where she is subservient to males or even as a weaker character. There is no discrimination towards women by someone using that design.
Now look at Metroid: Other M. The character model is not some top-heavy bimbo but a respected fan favorite. The story though is one that can be labeled sexist in tone and that is reinforced in gameplay. A formerly badass character reduced to a girl crushing on a CO to the point she restricts herself, asking permission to use the tools needed. While this is just inferred, it is far more convincing an example then any character model with big tits alone. It isn't that Samus is "hot" so much as the story and gameplay paint her as lesser then the CO who no one heard about before or cares. While I agree that cases can be argued about it being a genderless issue, I think that case is at least more viable an example of sexism in gaming then the vast majorities of complains we hear about.
Another, rather obvious example, is that Rape Play game... forgot exact name, think that might be it. You, as the main character, catch, grope and rape women. Whole point of the game. Every noticeable woman in it seems to be an option, and there is nothing else to the game except using the women. The artistic choice here doesn't matter when the theme and point of the game is to use women as sex objects. So yes, pretty obvious sexism there. but you see why it is obvious? You see it doesn't concern itself with how characters look so much as overall theme, the story and gameplay message in the end. With Mario, it is saving the world's leader; She happens to be a princess. This game though, the point is making women into sex objects.
Almost every single complaint about sexism in games boils down to a disparity in numbers. Too many females are rescued. Too few female protagonist. The data says there is X number of females and Y number of males and because the numbers are wide, this is bad. The problem is, you will find that sort of disparity with EVERY case of target demographics. The problem though, is that the target demographic here falls closer to gender lines then most. You will find more women in make up adds. You will find more men in hardware and tool adds. You will see more men in truck adds. You will see more women being targeted by those stupid paperback romance novels. Demographics are targets based on who buys, and this can unfortunately lead to a cycle of the same group being marketed to because they are known to buy. That, though, is a problem of how companies sell things though, and not one of a sexist ideal or discriminatory intent. And while one might be quick to jump and say "But they aren't advertising and making products for women equally" as a sign of discrimination, in truth, it isn't. They don't prevent women from buying them. They just advertise what they have for sale. And the simple truth is, No one is entitled a product or to be advertised to in the first place. They do what they think will bring them more money, and as stupid as it can be, that alone is not sexism, no matter how unbalanced the numbers are.
Now, in games there is an over abundance of male protagonists, pandering sexuality and power fantasy plots. Problem is, that alone is not sexism. That is just targeted demographics and corporations following patterns and bad ideas in the pursuit of profit. Why is the main character a man? It isn't because they think women can' do it, it is because their market research showed that their target demographic gave a 12% better response to that over a genderless or female counterpart. And because most of the decisions in gaming are based on "how will this end in profit" I can't see them as sexist, just stupid.
"But runic?" you ask "I thought you said there was sexism in gaming, if it isn't something we can point to obviously, what is it?" Good question. Since sexism is a bias or discrimination based on gender, most of the sexual marketing just doesn't fit, since it is sort of universal. Not in the way it is done, but in the nature of doing it. Having a character with big tits is just that, a character with big tits. It says nothing about the character, nothing about women as a whole and nothing about the intent of the makers of the game itself beyond they chose that ascetic. Now, chances are likely that was done to either match a style, match a property, or agree with market testing. Not to make a bias against women, nor to discriminate or devalue you, but rather, to get the highest chance of making money. But some times, there is more then just character artistic design and greed guided decisions. Sometimes, there is actual sexism.
People have been complaining about the Dragon's Crown sorceress of late, though that is just character design style. The character itself is, well, there is none. For all the player characters, there seems no actual persona there. There could be a paper mask floating around for all the meaning in the character design there is beyond just the artist's personal style. There is no theme of women being weaker or men being stronger. There is no story where she is subservient to males or even as a weaker character. There is no discrimination towards women by someone using that design.
Now look at Metroid: Other M. The character model is not some top-heavy bimbo but a respected fan favorite. The story though is one that can be labeled sexist in tone and that is reinforced in gameplay. A formerly badass character reduced to a girl crushing on a CO to the point she restricts herself, asking permission to use the tools needed. While this is just inferred, it is far more convincing an example then any character model with big tits alone. It isn't that Samus is "hot" so much as the story and gameplay paint her as lesser then the CO who no one heard about before or cares. While I agree that cases can be argued about it being a genderless issue, I think that case is at least more viable an example of sexism in gaming then the vast majorities of complains we hear about.
Another, rather obvious example, is that Rape Play game... forgot exact name, think that might be it. You, as the main character, catch, grope and rape women. Whole point of the game. Every noticeable woman in it seems to be an option, and there is nothing else to the game except using the women. The artistic choice here doesn't matter when the theme and point of the game is to use women as sex objects. So yes, pretty obvious sexism there. but you see why it is obvious? You see it doesn't concern itself with how characters look so much as overall theme, the story and gameplay message in the end. With Mario, it is saving the world's leader; She happens to be a princess. This game though, the point is making women into sex objects.
Almost every single complaint about sexism in games boils down to a disparity in numbers. Too many females are rescued. Too few female protagonist. The data says there is X number of females and Y number of males and because the numbers are wide, this is bad. The problem is, you will find that sort of disparity with EVERY case of target demographics. The problem though, is that the target demographic here falls closer to gender lines then most. You will find more women in make up adds. You will find more men in hardware and tool adds. You will see more men in truck adds. You will see more women being targeted by those stupid paperback romance novels. Demographics are targets based on who buys, and this can unfortunately lead to a cycle of the same group being marketed to because they are known to buy. That, though, is a problem of how companies sell things though, and not one of a sexist ideal or discriminatory intent. And while one might be quick to jump and say "But they aren't advertising and making products for women equally" as a sign of discrimination, in truth, it isn't. They don't prevent women from buying them. They just advertise what they have for sale. And the simple truth is, No one is entitled a product or to be advertised to in the first place. They do what they think will bring them more money, and as stupid as it can be, that alone is not sexism, no matter how unbalanced the numbers are.