Sexism in the industry

[red_bedbug]

"I'll just f*ck her until she learns her place again" (that is still the one that infuriates me the most).

Ahahahaha, that ones fantastic.

Simply because it produces the image of f*cking a woman into the kitchen. Startin off in the living room and then rogering her senseless about the house until you end up in the kitchen, finishing off and being like "AND STAY THERE!"

Put it that way, that is both hilarious and disturbing.

In context, the reason it made me angry is because it stems from the idea first of all that a woman needs to get put back in some place, and that men somehow have the power to 'fix that' with their 'd*ck'. In a more extreme case, it is the same line of thought that gets men to rape lesbians, to try and 'f*x' them, because that will "now that they've tried d*ck they will learn to like men". Actual quote.

Now, that is a very extreme scenario, and normally I would not think the person seriously meant it. In context however, I am not that sure. It's a dangerous thing for one to think, even subconsciously. Unfortunately, those are two very real situations which happen far more often than one thinks, the first of which I have actually witnessed, so I don't take that kind of comment well when there is a chance that it's meant seriously.

Just wanted to explain my line of thought behind that. Please, nobody take it offence on it, I just felt I should clarify. ^^

The trouble is that the 'industry' panders to middle class white males, thus the majority of gamers ARE middle class white males. Therefore the industry says "middle class white males play our games, we'd better market to them!". The whole thing is very self fulfilling. And obviously sex (see sexism and objectification) sells.

The thing is, I don't have a problem with a honkin great pair of hooters in a game, and honestly I don't know many women who do either. They might roll their eyes and give a bit of a "Chuh, men!" but that's it.

Its the community who have the problem, as you said, reacting like rabid maniacs at even the hint that sexism exists in the gaming industry. The level of bile some people spewed and the amount of sticking of metaphorical fingers in metaphorical ears and metaphorically going "LALALALALA!" saddened me a bit. I thought as a collective gamers were a little more progressive.

Yup... heck, I have even sent pics and videos involving boobs to my male friends in the past, because I actually found most of them funny, and because I know them and I know that for all their 'go back to the kitchen' jokes, they don't actually mean them seriously and would never disrespect a woman. When the first reaction however is spewing vile comments and aggressing women for simply daring to point out being able to play only women with massive jugs might make them feel uncomfortable... it dawned to me that out of all those people, there is a large chunk that actually believes what they are saying. And that is worrying. Whether this is the fault of the depiction of women in video games or the gamer community, I do not know, but in the meanwhile, nobody is willing to take a look at it and try to figure it out.

That is not to say that feminists don't have their own faults... part of the reason they are attracting so much hate is that for a while, the branch of feminism that was most known was the more extremist current which alienated a lot of people, myself included. So it created this negative stereotype that all feminist are man-hating bitches that despise sex and want to crush men. Some will still refuse to accept any well-constructed argument in favour of "if you say that you are objectifying me!". Which, just... really???

Conclusion: Meh.

 

[VodkaKnight]

I think we should let Feminism take the back seat for a minute, and think about the following;
There are very few playable black characters without character customisation.
There are very few playable asian characters outside JRPGs.
Russians are always evil.
There are very few disabled characters.

 

[JimB]

I think you better explain the logic behind how a video game not having a female protagonist is ?sexist.? Is any game that doesn?t have black or Asian protagonists ?racist? or every game without gay or transsexual protagonists ?homophobic/transphobic? respectively?

In an age when the technology exists to permit character customization for every single game, the refusal to use that technology in favor of providing set characters is a valid topic for scrutiny, particularly when they provide a range of characters to choose from who are all male. I suspect that if one were to ask the developers, "Why didn't you create the game such that the players could choose a female protagonist," the answer will be to the effect of, "That's not the story we wanted to tell," which I have to follow up by asking, "Why? What about Grand Theft Auto V only makes sense if the player is in control of a male protagonist?"

Substitute the adjective of your preference for "female" to apply the questions to whatever other -ism you're curious about.

 

[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.

Not seeing the problem? You just described three different markets, with different expectations and the only thing they share is that their audience is male. Two of them DoA and Dragon Crown share fan service, but there is nothing wrong with that either. One audience doesn't want females player characters, nothing wrong with that, nor catering to young males also.

Are you asking if I'm not seeing the problem or are you stating you're not seeing the problem? In either case, there's nothing wrong with DoA or Dragon's Crown. If you like big jiggly boobs and want to make a game about it, or if you want to make a game that panders to people who like big jiggly boobs, that's not a problem, not to me at least. Some people would argue that it is but some people have their panties in a bunch. The problem I see is the situation "Remember Me" was in, where there's the vision and drive to make something different and it gets squelched for NOT pandering to a certain demographic.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't think the issue is receiving so much attention due to its relative importance. Rather, it's just the fad at the moment.

It's hard to call something a fad (honestly, at least) when it's been building up for years upon years. This is nothing new, and it's unlikely to go away any time soon. That's the thing about fads: they tend to be short-lived and intense.

And yes, I know you say it wasn't intended negatively. That doesn't mean it's true in any case.

 

[JimB]

story and characterization

Right. So what about the story and characterization of Grand Theft Auto V (or some other game, since I get the feeling we're no longer talking about it) only makes sense if the protagonist is male?

They did make a statement on the matter, and it is a very valid one to make: It is their work and they can portray their creation and characters however they like.

I never once said they can't. I said it is valid to ask questions about why. Sexism is about motivations, and if Rockstar has an absolute right to portray their creation and characters however they like, then everyone else in the world has an absolute right to ask them why they portray their creation and characters like they do.

This argument is ludicrous, and people who make it are actually the "entitled" ones. They aren't entitled to a reason as to why a company or a certain artist decided to make their work a certain way.

What argument? Are you saying I ever said people are entitled to an answer? Because I didn't. Go back through my posts if you don't believe me. I said the audience gets to ask; I never so much as implied that Rockstar or anyone else is obligated to answer the questions asked...though I will say that if they refuse to answer the questions, then they give the audience no choice but to go with whatever answer makes the most sense to them.

Are you also questioning every movie casting choice or whatever a painter is painting by asking them: ?Why, why did you have to paint that flower?? or ?Why did it have to be Brad Pitt as a main character, I wanted Judi Dench!? Give me a reason! Not good enough??

This is going to get very irritating if you insist on changing the subject like this, but in answer to your question: Yes, I do question those things, though maybe not in the sense you mean. There's a story--I don't have time to look through my books for it right now, but I'll do my best to remember to come back once I've found it--about a movie director who was answering questions about her movie at some panel or another, and a member of the audience asked her if it was intentional that the main character of the movie, whose name I think was Monique or something, was writing her name in the fog on her bathroom mirror while the movie's soundtrack played a song about money, so that the singer was singing "M-O-N" at the same time the actress was writing the same letters. The director reportedly was pretty visibly annoyed with such a stupid question, responding with word to the effect of, "Of course it's intentional. Everything that happens in a movie is intentional. A writer has to write it, actors have to act it, directors have to decide how to capture it, editors have to put it into place," so on and so forth.

That applies to pretty much every piece of art or fiction ever created. Since it's all imaginary, everything put into it was put into it by someone who chose to put it there. The only accidents are errors: paint dripping on the canvas and the painter not noticing; an actor in the background plugging his ears with his fingers before the gunfight scene starts and the director not noticing; a glitch that a programmer doesn't notice.

Because everything that's included in a piece of art and is not an error is there by choice, and everything that isn't included and isn't an error was left out by choice, the motivations of the people who made those choices are subject to question when issues of sexism (or what have you) come up.

They don?t owe any particular group of people anything.

What is this "anything" you seem to think I'm saying someone owes to someone else? And while we're on the topic of owing, if the someone who doesn't owe someone else anything doesn't owe them anything, then do I owe that someone my silence, since we seem to be basing our behavior entirely off of what obligation demands?

 

[Quadocky]

No. I'm going to use a quote from Urban Dictionary because it fits so well.

"A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle."

It is not a term for people interested in social justice, it's for a specific type of person that's interested in it. It's like describing a specific flavor of Doritos.

Hah. That is ridiculous. You just can't win on the internet.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well for GTA what would satisfy and answer to why there are only Male characters in the game? With a lot of games in general you have budgets where you can only get some voice actors and mocappers, not a case for GTA. Writers not able to produce a good female character or as good a character as they good a male is a good reason for a lot of games that have more male writers.

To point the finger directly at GTA having a mixture of sexes would change the character interactions with each other dynamically which isn't something really arguable because the character are fleshed out and interact with each other. If they said you wouldn't have the same comradely if it wasn't all guys so the story wouldn't be as good, would that satisfy?

Not all but some asking the question of why no female lead in GTA aren't asking cause they want to know why, they are more trying to shame rockstar for not putting one in. Do you really want to hear a company come out and say " Our market testing and data annalist shows that having an male character will get us much bigger profits then almost no or lose money if it was an female character" ? Developers don't like to gamble anymore, how often can they really throw money away making the game people ask for but don't buy?

 

[JimB]

Found it.

There's a story--I don't have time to look through my books for it right now, but I'll do my best to remember to come back once I've found it--about a movie director who was answering questions about her movie at some panel or another, and a member of the audience asked her if it was intentional that the main character of the movie, whose name I think was Monique or something, was writing her name in the fog on her bathroom mirror while the movie's soundtrack played a song about money, so that the singer was singing "M-O-N" at the same time the actress was writing the same letters. The director reportedly was pretty visibly annoyed with such a stupid question, responding with word to the effect of, "Of course it's intentional. Everything that happens in a movie is intentional. A writer has to write it, actors have to act it, directors have to decide how to capture it, editors have to put it into place," so on and so forth.

I was pretty close. The movie is Sans Toit Ni Loi; the director is Agnes-with-an-accent-over-the-E Varda; the character's name is actually Mona (my bad); the song is "the Changeling" by the Doors; Mona is writing in dust rather than fog, but it is on a mirror; the quote is, "Of course it's intentional. This is a fiction, a construction, and nothing happens purely by accident."

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Why would you be so obviously offended if you're not? White male heterosexuals don't need minorities to stick up for them, you know.

It's called being annoyed. It's not about sticking up for white heterosexual males, it's about people using buzzwords like they mean something.

I don't see any problem with how I phrased myself.

It's not about there being a problem, I'm asking you whether that's what you meant to type because otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I don't believe most characters are created with race in mind, white and male is just a default which is problematic for other reasons. Somehow other mediums manage to represent minorities rather well, I refuse to believe gaming is some exceptional medium that can only represent white males.

Well I'd hope you'd think that considering it doesn't just represent white males. What point are you trying to make here?

The problem with the representation of minorities in gaming is a conversation worth having, yet here you are arguing that we can't have it because there are lazy writers in the world who don't put any care into their characters.

Did you read what I said? I never said it's an argument not worth having, I said lot's of people aren't giving it the care that it needs in order to make a positive influence. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't make an impact on society just by championing a cause, they did it because they could speak and speak well and move people to understand their position.

Stop trying to misrepresent what I say. I never said this conversation isn't worth having, I said that most of the people that advocate for social justice now aren't doing it well, and those that DO do it well are being drowned out by the "social justice groupies".

So let me get this straight; before you'll consider the grievances of homosexuals in the gaming community valid they must release a treatise on why? It's not simply enough that there is a valid argument in favor of having homosexual characters, but people in favor of them have to constantly remind you of that or else you're apathetic to the whole thing?

Where are you getting this stuff? When did I say anything like that?

I don't understand why representing women or minorities better is "pandering" but representing white males is not.

Once again, stop making out what I say to be what it isn't. When did I say representing women or minorities is pandering? I didn't. I said that when it IS pandering, it's bad. And most of it actually IS just pandering.

And if you want an example of a game that has a homosexual lead and she isn't a homosexual due to pandering, play PISS, fantastic game.

I believe explained this in the following paragraph, "wealthy" is often used as a short-hand term for American middle class.

*facepalm* You totally ignored my point about wealthy being a relative term and used as shorthand for the American middle class.

I seem to have completely missed the point of this tangent too, what does any of this have to do with games targeting the wealthy? If what you believe Quadocky was talking about the middle class, then how do video-games target the middle-class? What is the point of this? Do games target the middle class because they can afford them? What?

And since video games are a luxury item the purchase of such is demonstration of either some degree of wealth or extremely poor priorities.

....... Okay... and? What's your point?

*loud, agitated groan demonstrating obvious and continued frustration at everyone missing this very simple point* Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because you'd have to be to see that whether or not you're playing as a white person has abso-fucking-lutely just god damn shit to do with the fact that white males are catered to almost exclusively in the gaming industry.

How? What stops a black person, a white person, a gay person, a heterosexual, bi-sexual or whatever from picking up a game and playing it? Whoop de shit, the main character is white, what a freaking privilege. Or are you forgetting about what the point of a game is? Gameplay. You do not need to be male or white to enjoy a certain kind of gameplay, that's why talking about the race and sex of the main character as if it's some sort of privilege that prevents those that are not white and male from playing those games sounds so ridiculous.

Great! So why are you making excuses for the status quo?

Show me where I was making excuses and I'll tell you!

Or we could do this: "hey, maybe there should be video games that focus on representing what it's like to be a person with a disability?" God fucking damn it's not hard to advocate for something, is it?

Good luck with that swaying someone to invest in that idea. I'm sure such a nuanced and well written argument will really be influential. And I'd rather you not refer to me and other aspies as if we have some kind of disability, thank you.

 

[I Max95]

because it's a problem, and because there are more female gamers out there then anyone seems to notice, and because the immature assholes of the gaming community keep spitting bile about it and pretty much prove every femminist point that has ever been brought up through their hate speech alone.

but you're right, it's not the only problem there is and maybe it doesn't deserve the attention it's getting, given the amount of other problems that exist in the medium, but i'm sure those will have their day in the spotlight at some point.

 

[runic knight]

They should want to create complex, varied, interesting characters but no there is no stricture that reads they must do that. Reasonable advocacy for a change in social mores is not about legislating what people have to be feeling, but rather a discussion on why they should different.

I get the idea that some people most likely want to, and indeed do deviate from the general trends if one looks into the indie market or beyond the Triple A industry to find it. But I refer to the general idea of more of a company/consumer notion. If what you sell actually sells well, and when you try to deviate, it doesn't sell as well, what incentive is there to push for sweeping changes? The larger industry has shown many times they are willing to stick with something that worked before when it comes to gameplay, policies, visuals and the like, why would story tropes and character designs not be expected to fall into the same trap? Especially when not all games should want complex or varied characters and plot, and deep characterization is largely ignored in the vast majority of game types to begin with.

No one believes that Pac-Man would be better if he were a homosexual leather-daddy or Miss Pac-Man were transitioning from male-to-female. It's not a matter of capturing the same demographic power as the white heterosexual male, but rather arguing that other groups are severely underrepresented.

Ok, I can see that as a fair argument to make, especially in regards to variety and complex experiences. But keep in mind, there is difference between aiming for that demographic and rehashing what has sold well before that merely appeals more to one demographic over the other.

You'll notice that this discussion doesn't really persist as much in movies and especially literature. Despite both having the same demographic concerns they regularly manage to churn out works that represent women, gays and minorities very well. Even if people have grievances against specific works in those other mediums no is talking about them in the same way they do mediums more closely related to so-called "nerd culture".

Gaming also gets more criticism for violence then film. Given the tone many discussions take, it takes away from your case here when much of it is blaming games for some larger fault in society or culture itself.
Beyond that, games have a hard time representing people at all. The most well known characters are often soulless avatars for the player that look iconic but are not actually people. That the few that are decently characterized are in products designed towards the largest buying audience is not too surprising. After all, the cost to make a game in capital and technical skill is much higher and demand for compelling story and deep characters is much lower. Look at some recent games that have had good characters. Most of them are not only good male characters, but good characters all around. I can understand the frustration that many are underrepresented, but between limited capital to make a game, low demand for story/rich characters in general, and the need to be as appealing as possible for the target demographic, it is perfectly understandable why. And understanding that does help give insight in how to change things I believe.

At some point you have to step back and consider if the criticism is fair, gaming is attempting to solidify itself as a valid art-form and to do that it needs to shed the image of being a boys club filled with immature brats. Otherwise we risk going the way of comic books, which have been around for the better part of a century and struggle with establishing themselves as a legitimate art form.

I have no issue with fair criticism and everything you mentioned thus far is fair, albeit not presented the best way I think.
I will raise a counter point that gaming is not some uniform movement, but a huge collective of individuals, most I am sure have no real desire to be high art in the same way most movies have no real desire to be Citizen Cain. Gaming is an entertainment media, and while many within will push to explore it as an art, many more treat it as an industry and make games for the sake of profit. The entire reason the Triple A market is so big is because they have gotten good at getting profit after all.
The main issue I hear gamers trying tackle in relation to art is not that they are (that is pretty obvious), but rather that they have the same potential to be great art the way film or literature has shown it does. I think the indie scene and kickstarters are probably the best place to look if you seek that the same way I wouldn't suggest people looking at summer big name release schedule for high art in movies. If you are browsing popcorn flicks, hard to be surprised when they aren't great works of art or inclusionary masterpieces.

Sure, but games are art and one of the things that art does well is push the boundaries of acceptable social mores and raise a discussion about them. Art can be subversive, but video games don't really seem to be doing that, at all. It's not just a matter of AAA games not doing that, and I would argue that your explanation doesn't make sense because even Hollywood movies have managed to be subversive, but also that the indie community isn't doing it either. That's not too terrible, gaming is a young and in many ways immature medium.

I think you may need to look deeper into indie games, though I get the general point made. Still, keep in mind that how the industry and hobby behaves is often shaped by how the culture reacts to it. Games are already called child murder simulators and promoters of violence against women, do you think many people want to try to look at that and push boundaries? Especially when such an undertaking might require a couple million dollars to do properly?
We have had attempts in gaming to get people to think. Spec-Ops: the line I think tried that and succeeded in some way to force players to look at violence in games and the way a game instructs you to do things. But those are not often commercial successes or are not pulled off well.
It is a bit much to expect too much of that though when the majority of the larger industry is treating games like popcorn flicks rather then concept art, most smaller attempts are overlooked and underfunded and society itself attacks the media enough as it is. The comparison to Hollywood is also a little unfair as movies have an easier time recouping invested money, so more risks can be taken, as well as how it being a respected art form, can more easily (relatively anyways) gain the needed money and team to make the art in the first place.

I don't understand this mindset that we're asking people to feel bad, no one is asking them to feel bad. Video games cause shitstorms anyway, the violence in video games scapegoat has been thrown around for decades and Medal of Honor caused a significant controversy when it was originally announce the OpFor faction was going to be named "The Taliban". Yes, they backed down in the latter case but the shitstorm persisted until launch. Even if we make the case that the AAA industry won't take a risk like that, and we're in agreement there, why isn't the indie community even trying?

Probably because of the points I raised before. There is a higher skill level required to make a game then a movie or book. You can, with just the tools, still make either of the later and have it in a state that others can look at, regardless how crappy it may be pulled off. With games, you can't. You need to know how to make them, or at least make use of something that does, as well as how to share that with other people. A game requires to at the very least be programed right to be functional. Granted, flash game makers and the like make even this pretty low now, and I would not be surprised if the sort of games you seek exist in flash form. But that is a problem, isn't it? If you include even flash games, you literally have more games to look at then you have hours in your life to spend looking into them, and that number only grows.

You should read what I was responding to; a question was asked about how you target a

Again, I'm going to note the fallacy in responding to me without reading what I was responding to. The problem is that publishers seem to be taking the wrong cues from the data they have, they aren't designing their products around appealing to the male 18-35 demographic as much as they're designing their products around shutting other demographics out. If you're a woman trying to get into gaming it can be very difficult; there's a severe shortage of characters who appeal to women in gaming and most female characters are designed around the idea of being eye-candy for men. Minorities exist as stereotypical mooks to be shot by the white protagonist, and even when they occupy positions of authority it's often as the right-hand to a white man. Gays and lesbians are similarly represented as stereotypes with the men often being shown as ineffectual, weak and the latter simply doesn't exist in gaming. Instead we have bisexual women depicted as decadent sluts who exist as eye-candy for men.

You seemed to have abandoned a point there at the start.

They aren't shutting them out any more then Metroid or Tomb Raider or Beyond good and evil shuts me out. They are not appealing to me as much, but that is it. Furthermore, you describe the popcorn flicks of movies I described before. And you forgot to mention that the male protagonists are soulless voids, or emo prettyboys. I never disagreed that many games are lazy with character design and tropes, merely that it was a sign of racism or sexism or that it was done to exclude anyone. The only people who don't play are those who do not wish to. That is their choice, and their reasons for it are their own, but it is no different then me not wanting to watch one of the hundreds of RomComs where the male lead is a stupid lovable jackass with a heart of gold and the female lead is a carefree spirit hidden behind a businesslike attitude. They don't appeal to me as much as they could does not mean they exclude me.

This paragraph has nothing to do with anything I've said.

It is a reminder of perspective and a reminder that games are voluntarily bought. They are a product made to fill an entertainment demand, most often in a way that maximizes profit by appealing to the largest responsive demographic. As such, by design, they will never exclude anyone who can pay, merely appeal less to them for whatever individual reasons that would affect the would-be player's choice to buy. Even skimpy dressed female characters and an all brown army of mooks does not exclude anyone from playing any more then I am excluded from a restaurant if I dislike what is on the menu. It is not exclusion when I make the decision, it is opting out.

If being catered to isn't a privilege then what is it?

Getting an advantage or special treatment. This was why I said in the following line that it could be argued that paying customers have privilege, though I didn't go into detail there because I couldn't decide if I wanted to treat that as a "no shit" sort of thing or a "which doesn't anything regarding race/sex" thing

*groans* No, I'm not saying they should guilty about it I'm saying that they should acknowledge the privilege of being catered to. You're the one here claiming that developers and publishers designing games solely for the white male isn't an example of white male privilege. There seems to be a recurring thread among people who deny privilege, the assumption seems to be that unless something is overtly sexist/racist it can't be privilege. That's the only way I can explain why people keep throwing out the old "it's not like video games can't be sold to women/minorities" canard.

The issue I have is that you mistake my impact on games as a customer and my general demographic's impact as setters of the trends as a privilege relating to race or sex. I understand how you came to that conclusion, but I have tried to explain the flaw within it several times now. Customers set trends by what they purchase and what they demand. When you try to present that as a privilege, I am torn how to reply. On one hand, yes, the people who pay to support the product will of course be given an advantage when it comes to how the product is shaped as the company wants money. Yet on the other, it feels like privilege is being used as the wrong word merely because of it usual tie in the "white man's guilt" fallacy, especially true since you seem to use it that way.

Yes, women are privileged in that they are allowed to wear certain clothing without social stigma attached. Women have even managed to break into the clothing style of men without much stigma attached while acceptable clothing for men has remained fairly static over the last several decades.

Are they privileged here because they are women, or because as the people buying the product, they shaped the demand and the supply then used to meet it? I use this example to try to highlight what I have as an issue with you saying I have a privilege because I am white when I have the privilege (I hate using the word so, but I'll use it as per your application) because I pay and thus shape the product by helping shape demand. Doesn't even get into how as an individual I only have a very small impact to shape demand and how the industry can misunderstand that demand or habits that handicap them when trying to understand demand and everything else.

Which is it? First you say that women are more likely to buy dresses because of cultural influence but now you're claiming it's a matter of individual choices. Individual choice doesn't factor into it, for a large part of history a man being seen in a dress would be enough to get him a severe beating, perhaps even murdered. It's the same with video games, it wasn't considered an acceptable thing for women to play video games so they tended not to.

Culture shapes individuals. Tradition, religion, laws and social norms all affect what people will do as individuals along general trends. The individual still has the choice, but will most often take into account how society will react to that choice. You can argue about how a choice with an obvious downside is not a choice, but it still is. A choice with no real repercussion either way, such as other demographics buying games is even more revealing of individual decision.
You make a good point about women. I wont say they were unaccepted to play games the same way a man in a dress was seen as unacceptable, but rather the hobby was seen as more male centric at the very start, so that would weigh into choice if they wanted to participate or not (maybe earning the label of tomboy for doing it?). As such though, they forfeited the right to influence demand, leading to what we have now. What is worth noting though is that women still played games and still had a large impact on the demand (and as a result, the supply) of games, but along genre lines. There are games and even full genres with vast majority women players, and as a result they meet the demand more. Oddly enough though, puzzle games, facebook games and sim games, areas dominated by female players, do absolutely nothing to make better characterizations or deeper plots, nor do they try to represent people very much (exception of the sims brand of games. They seem treat everyone as gibberish speaking possible bisexuals though, so take of that what you will)

So asking to be treated the same as someone else is privilege now? Are you also one of those people who think that gay marriage is all about gays asking for "special rights"?

Gay marriage is not a right, as no marriage is a "right" as far as I am aware. The right stems from the legal ability to form a contract of that nature with another consenting adult and receive government sponsorship/perks for it. That I think everyone should have equal access to.
As for my remark here, you are not asking they be treated like everyone else, you are asking for special consideration, that is the problem. Everyone is being treated based on what they can provide as customers. Some demographics provide a hell of a lot more then others, so of course they would be represented more in order to appeal to them. When you talk about how some demographics are not represented as well as you'd like or as often (none are, no, not even the white heterosexual male is represented very well in most games. Shallow stereotype tropes everywhere.), you have to acknowledge the reasons why. Saying games should include more representation of women or deeper characters of minorities as specific to minorities or women alone comes off as requesting special consideration for them solely due to them being minorities or women.

You're guaranteed to find a character you can relate to and games designed to cater to you, as per your own admission.

I paid dearly over my 2+ decades of investing into games for the slightly increased (not guaranteed) chance to find a character I relate to or game designed to fit my taste... Sadly though, I am still waiting for one catered to me specifically, as I explained before about how general trends in demand shape what is supplied, and as an individual customer, I only have so much power to shape that demand in what I do or do not buy. Oddly enough though, the character I probably related to the most off the top of my head was Jade from Beyond good and evil. Relating to a character is not gender nor race locked after all. And the game I think closest fits what I want tends to be split along genre, though Dark Souls seems closest in recent memory. Not sure how that relates to the topic, just thought I would mention.
I will reiterate though, relating to a character is not dependent to the character's race or gender at all. Just as with books and movies, people can relate to characters of other genders or races, if the character itself has aspects they can relate to as people. The main issue here is that games rarely have characters people can relate to beyond shallowly (such as, say, gender, race, or preference to trope). I am not guaranteed anything, merely given a higher likelihood as a result of investing into gaming, supporting the ones I want to succeed and not the ones I wish to not.