Sexism in the industry

[wulf3n]

Um... I'm not entirely sure how to respond to any of that. Especially the part about "deluding".

I guess I should try and put the fallacy in formal terms? Maybe that would make it better. Although I'm not all that good at it.

Premises:
X is a problem worth discussing
Y is a worse problem
Conclusion:
X is no longer a problem discussing

The conclusion is not supported by the premises. Therefore fallacy.

Maybe I'm just insane but that seems [almost] perfectly logical to me. Not necessarily the part where "X is no longer worth discussing" but rather "X shouldn't be treated in the same manner as Y"

Unless your argument is that everyone should only ever exert themselves in the most productive manner possible, then there's no delusion.

It comes down to people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In these types of threads privilege and entitlement get thrown around a lot. Given the topic at hand this is a case of the very dark gray kettle calling the pot black. The reason I feel the "Y is a worse" argument reveals delusion is because the only people it really affects are those who perceive themselves to be unselfish, but waste time arguing something selfish.

Although one could also say that sexism in video games is not a problem worth discussing in and of itself, although that's a subjective opinion, and you're not going to convince a lot of people of that.
Especially when a) people do seem to care, judging by the insane number of topics/posts we get on the subject, and b) like half of your own posting history is devoted to sexism in nerd culture/video games.

Whether or not it's "worth" discussing is dependent on the person discussing.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

Making a game for a target audience does not justify sexism. The developers have every right to make a sexist game, or a game that has fanservice, because of freedom of speech. However, that does not make it morally right, regardless of their motivation.

This is where people take the 'Games are art' bandwagon way to far. Sure creators have freedom to an extent, but to criticize a big title for pandering to its central audience is to ignore that means by which a major title gains its support, through investors (of whom are stakeholders in the project and will direct how it is made in an attempt to gain the greatest profit).

Also, applying your morality to pieces of fiction not particularly targeted toward you is not a valid criticism.

Fanservice is sexist when a characters primary role or personality trait is to be sexually attractive, and her entire personality revolves around this one trait. If her only personality trait is that she's attractive then it devalues her as a human being, because it suggests that her only worth is her physical value to the male audience.

There's a very defined line between what is fictional and what is reality, and if a writer/creator decides that their work would be better if a character was included to fulfill only one role I don't think they should be judged for creating a fantasy setting where this is possible. Remember that unless it says it was 'based on a true story' it means that this work deliberately deviates from reality in order to satiate the player/viewer with an experience in which they would enjoy. And in a capitalistic world if a developer thinks that their audience will appreciate fan service more then a coherent narrative, firstly it speaks volumes about the audience but secondly that's their decision and we all have the power to either accept or reject this concession.

To imply that a product is discriminatory towards a whole gender because it seeks to service the desires of another is (imo) a bit over-reaching. If a game isn't for you, it isn't for you, it doesn't mean that its sexist, it may just be trying to appeal to the fantasies of one particular demographic, especially when considering games (as well as anime) are deliberate hyperbole and deviations from reality (so the audience knows that what they are experiencing is indeed fiction).

 

[BlackJimmy]

Sexism in the industry isn't limited to the portrayal of women in gaming, but in how male gamers treat real women when gaming with them and when they meet them at conventions.

We don't kill people in real life, so it's not a concern and not the same.

 

[Caiphus]

Whether or not it's "worth" discussing is dependent on the person discussing.

Yes, it's subjective, like I said. Which makes the "Y is more important" argument make even less sense. On whose opinion are we ranking this stuff?


Nobody is suggesting that we treat sexism in video games the same way as, say, the conflict in Syria. No government is, for example, sending billions in international aid to attempt to have sexism in video games resolved.

There's no question of limited resources. People are devoting their leisure time to discussing sexism in video games. That's already probably better than vegetating in front of a Sex and the City DVD. It is absolutely fallacious to suggest that they should stop. You have been given plenty of examples demonstrating why, there's really no point going any further.
One could make the "Y is more important" argument on any topic in this forum. Or on any website. It would still be silly.

The argument about privilege is a different one entirely.

If someone argues that you should feel bad because you enjoy video games that cater to you, that person is wrong. There's been a lot of arguing about privilege in the thread already, and I think most of the good points have been made.

However, you are also wrong if you tell people not to ask for games to cater to them. That's when people can and will get angry at you for being privileged. Surely you understand? Video game publishers/developers aren't being held ransom here. They already know that they can make much more money by selling games to heterosexual white men. I mean, look at how many games try to mimic CoD, WoW, etc.

If you've ever asked for a niche to be catered to, such as asking for a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil, or for a AAA point and click adventure game, then you are doing the same thing as women/homosexuals asking for games to cater to them. That might be "selfish" on some literal definition. But there you go.

 

[wulf3n]

Fortunately reality doesn't operate based on what you'd like the conclusion to be.

Not a conclusion, simply an observation.

Again, reality. Place everyone on a single problem, even issues they're not qualified to deal with, and see what happens.

Would that I could.

Can you imagine what it'd be like trying to organize the entire United States for the purpose of curing AIDS? You'd have large numbers of people sitting around with their thumb up their ass because they aren't even remotely qualified to deal with the issue.

Sure if you try and get everyone doing the exact same thing, i.e. research, but not everyone has to contribute in the exact same way.

It's the same thing here, different people take different qualifications to cast a wide net over as many issues as possible.

By here I assume you're referring to the internet and forum discussion like this. I don't see how this is related to anything.

Well the death rate has remained fairly constant at 100% so...yes, yes I do.

again I don't see how this is related to anything.

 

[MammothBlade]

Wall of text

No. Sometimes, we have to prioritise this valuable resource called "care". There's only so much of it to go around. I think people who are putting all their activist energies into relatively less pressing matters are squandering it.

 

[wulf3n]

However, you are also wrong if you tell people not to ask for games to cater to them.

If it were simply asking there wouldn't be any contention. When it falls into insults, i.e. calling the industry sexist for simply catering to specific audience that's when "debate" happens.

That's when people can and will get angry at you for being privileged.

Do you not see the irony of people that live in a society where one of their biggest concerns is a form of entertainment doesn't cater to them calling someone else privileged?

Surely you understand?

I understand wanting something. I don't understand insulting others for not getting it.

If you've ever asked for a niche to be catered to, such as asking for a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil, or for a AAA point and click adventure game, then you are doing the same thing as women/homosexuals asking for games to cater to them.

Like before contention regarding diversity rarely comes when it is simply being asked for, what people get upset over is when it is compared to issues such as misogyny, homophobia or racism.


edit:

The argument about privilege is a different one entirely.

I would disagree in that the "appeal to worse problems" fallacy only holds weight to those privileged few that don't see themselves as privileged. Those that aren't privileged wouldn't be here discussing the issue, and those that know and accept their privilege don't care that there are worse problems.

 

[Caiphus]

Do you not see the irony of people that live in a society where one of their biggest concerns is a form of entertainment doesn't cater to them calling someone else privileged?

No, because it's not really ironic. Now, you're also probably making the mistake in thinking that it's one of their biggest problems. I assume most of them have jobs that they dislike, or co-workers that they hate, just like you or I. Again, those problems don't preclude us from discussing sexism in video games.

It really comes down to empathy. I don't know if you are a PC gamer, but if you were complaining about a shoddy PC port from a popular console game, and others took the piss saying "Well shit, developers make more money off consoles. What are you going to do?", you would be allowed to call them privileged. See the parallel?
Now, a shoddy PC port might not be your biggest concern. Still a worthy complaint, though.
Again, it would be wrong of you to insult them for enjoying their console games, unblemished by ports or half-baked controls. And it would be wrong of them to tell you not to complain.

I think there's some disconnect here. I know it's tempting to be personally offended when someone calls video games sexist. I used to feel that way too. Like, literally six months ago.

The difficulty is in realising that, as a (I'm assuming here) straight white man, you and I are in a privileged state. There's nothing wrong with that, and again you shouldn't feel bad. It's not your fault. The problem comes with thinking that because you shouldn't feel bad (and again, you shouldn't) that it's impossible for other people to be uncomfortable because they are not privileged.

If you enjoy boobs in video games, go ahead. They're there for your enjoyment. That's literally the reason they're there actually. Seriously, that's the developer going "Hey, wulf3n, I know work/school has been tough. Use these to relax". But that's uncomfortable for people that aren't you or I, see? But if boobs are in all video games - although it's not quite as bad as that - then the industry has a problem as a whole. And it's nothing wrong with you. You're just buying things that are specifically designed to cater to you.
And that's privilege.

 

[wulf3n]

No, because it's not really ironic. Now, you're also probably making the mistake in thinking that it's one of their biggest problems. I assume most of them have jobs that they dislike, or co-workers that they hate, just like you or I. Again, those problems don't preclude us from discussing sexism in video games.

They don't preclude, but they should provide perspective.

It really comes down to empathy. I don't know if you are a PC gamer, but if you were complaining about a shoddy PC port from a popular console game, and others took the piss saying "Well shit, developers make more money off consoles. What are you going to do?", you would be allowed to call them privileged. See the parallel?

They're no more privileged than I am in that situation.

Now, a shoddy PC port might not be your biggest concern. Still a worthy complaint, though.

Without a game in mind, it's hard to say, also it depends on the type of complaint.

Again, it would be wrong of you to insult them for enjoying their console games, unblemished by ports or half-baked controls. And it would be wrong of them to tell you not to complain.

It would also be wrong for me to call the creators shysters or con-artists because the game was a shoddy port.

I think there's some disconnect here. I know it's tempting to be personally offended when someone calls video games sexist. I used to feel that way too. Like, literally six months ago.

It's not tempting so much as it is valid. It's like when people say, "I'm not calling you x, I'm saying you're acting like x" thinking that's not an insult. It is.

The difficulty is in realising that, as a (I'm assuming here) straight white man, you and I are in a privileged state. There's nothing wrong with that, and again you shouldn't feel bad. It's not your fault. The problem comes with thinking that because you shouldn't feel bad (and again, you shouldn't) that it's impossible for other people to be uncomfortable because they are not privileged.

But they are privileged, just not as privileged.

If you enjoy boobs in video games, go ahead. They're there for your enjoyment. That's literally the reason they're there actually. Seriously, that's the developer going "Hey, wulf3n, I know work/school has been tough. Use these to relax". But that's uncomfortable for people that aren't you or I, see? But if boobs are in all video games - although it's not quite as bad as that - then the industry has a problem as a whole. And it's nothing wrong with you. You're just buying things that are specifically designed to cater to you.
And that's privilege.

It's also privilege to expect people to cater for you.

 

[wulf3n]

If you're just going to conjecture at me you're better off not engaging me at all.

Likewise if you're not going to provide any explanation other than "you're wrong".

The fact that you consider this a good idea demonstrates that you've never been placed in charge of other persons before. Or been responsible for the completion of a project.

If that is what you choose to believe.

How would you get people without relevant training to contribute then?

Everyone would have relevant training in some area. Logistics, Finance, Transport. Those that don't can provide support in ways that don't require training. i.e. raising money/awareness etc.

Activism, even on forums like this there's still advocacy. In fact, a forum like this is a good place for advocacy.

In what way? The internet is the worst offender for people sticking to their original opinions regardless of anything said, done or shown.

You've stated that you believe there will be a time when we have no major issues to consider, ostensibly you believe that there will come a near-utopian period where only then we can begin to consider social issues. I've pointed out that it's unlikely we'll ever solve our largest issue, the fact that we die, ergo you're essentially saying the same thing as mammothblade -- there will never be a time when it's appropriate to discuss this.

You assume I consider the inevitability of death to be an issue.

 

[Caiphus]

Snip

In almost all of your responses, you seem to have the definition of privilege confused.

Privilege is the enjoyment of an advantage, benefit, or economic utility, given to you because you belong to a certain group of persons.

Complaining about something does not make you privileged. It might make you petty, pedantic, or something similar depending on what you are complaining about. For example, they don't let me in the ball pit at McDonalds anymore.

If a console gamer gets a perfect control scheme for his game, because he bought the game on console, that is an advantage he enjoys because of a group he is in.
If we, as straight, white men get video game stories/characters designed to appeal to us because we are part of that group, then we are enjoying a benefit because we fit in a group.
If a shooter fan gets to enjoy the 8-10 AAA shooters that come out, again he is privileged.
It's all rather similar.

Those complaining about any of the above situations are not privileged. They are unhappy with their lack of benefit, and drawing attention to it.

Anyway, you seem hell bent on disagreeing with me on every point, or replying with some non sequitur, so please forgive me if I do not reply further. It's rather late here.

 

[wulf3n]

Anyway, you seem hell bent on disagreeing with me on every point, or replying with some non sequitur, so please forgive me if I do not reply further. It's rather late here.

Fair enough, I'll simply close with one final statement.

Privilege is the enjoyment of an advantage, benefit, or economic utility, given to you because you belong to a certain group of persons.

Complaining about something does not make you privileged.

The fact we are in a position to complain about these issues makes us privileged.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I mean there's definitely a lack of representation for strong female characters, but comparatively how many strong black main protagonists are there? It's hardly the most underrepresented group.

That's beside the point though. I don't necessarily think the problem is downright sexism in the industry (at least not if you're using it as shorthand for misogyny as is often done.) It's the industry mindset of pandering to 14-25 year old males, which is the alleged main demographic for videogames. There was a quote about "remember me" where apparently at one point one of the executives against the female protagonist said something like "you cant have the player, who's a dude, play a girl and kiss another dude." It gives off less the vibe of "I hate women" and more "WE NEED THE 14 YEAR OLD BOYS TO BUY OUR GAME!!" and that mindset to me is what seems to be the root of most of it. That's probably why big bouncy boobs in DoA and Dragons Crown and all that too.

 

[MammothBlade]

No. Sometimes, we have to prioritise this valuable resource called "care". There's only so much of it to go around. I think people who are putting all their activist energies into relatively less pressing matters are squandering it.

Are you actually positing that empathy is a finite resource?

You're suggesting it isn't? Beats me. There's only so much emotional energy one can exert.