Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[Tanakh]

That's what I think censorship is. I don't think a woman saying "Here are games I think should be made, and here are games I think shouldn't" constitutes "censorship" in the slightest, although admittedly it makes for a terrifying buzzword for her more ardent detractors to throw about.

Damn me and my bad use of language. I meant to say "ain't a veiled way of ADVOCATING FOR censorship", yeah, of course it's not censorship, but I can't but dislike most people that want to disappear what doesn't fit with them, xcept gringos and their global wars, life is more fun with them

 

[carnex]

Art is free for criticism, discussion and evaluation on a number of levels. None of them get closed off for discussion because the discussion makes people uncomfortable. If you want to make a counter argument, just defend the piece in question. Even if your defense is flaky, it's better than demanding the criticism just go away because "you find it reprehensible". That's a hell of a lot closer to censorship than anything the critics are saying.

What a load of bollocks. Art is to be criticized and deconstructed in every possible manner. It was used and abused exactly because it hits us hard emotionally and therefore must be target or harsh criticism. On the other hand censorship in not something that sould be applied to art. Even if it portrays bunch of blackfaces happily being whipepd while they pick cotton. Criticised to hell and back, but not censored.

 

[Tanakh]

While I can't deny if that's true, I can point to actions taken by feminists in the early to mid 1900's which let people know they existed, they were equal, and they were many, just like the civil rights movement.

But the actions taken by the early feminists, aren't going to work in games, so I'm legitimately curious as to the new game plan to tackle the issue of misogyny in video games.

The thing is brah, actions taken by woman to acquire rights have existed since way before, at least the 18th century but i think they are as old as humanity. They didn't got anywhere tough because the social tissue was not ready for them, the economic demands didn't need feminism.

I think a good analogy would be to see it as a pinwheel, it doesn't provoke any changes nor usually moves anything but tells us if the wind is blowing and in which direction. Again, more of a conscience than a motor.

As for the issue of misogyny, I simply don't see it, but since usually just play PvP games might be less apparent.

 

[wulf3n]

The thing is brah, actions taken by woman to acquire rights have existed since way before, at least the 18th century but i think they are as old as humanity. They didn't got anywhere tough because the social tissue was not ready for them, the economic demands didn't need feminism.

I would argue it's more a case of the Political structure in which the people have power over the government was essential for ideological movements to create change, prior to this, real change could only be achieved through military action.

Though honestly I don't really have enough knowledge or interest to really debate the issue.

 

[carnex]

Don't forget Garrus.
I don't think the creators of Mass Effect ever thought that a stick thin, scaly, bird/lizard/cat alien would enter the wet dreams of so many of my fellow ladies.

Perhaps we should compile a list of characters female gamers are most attracted to and see what similarities they tend to have.

Thanks
You just reminded me of great example of difference between female and male preferred representation of desired sex. That women really prefer or even need context and that context can replace physical attraction while men are much more visual.

 

[broca]

From her second video (transcript as given on her website).

Okay, I read through that, concentrating specifically on the bolded parts. Where was the call to censorship?

You do realize there's a significant gulf between harsh criticism and pro-censorship, right? Ring me up when you have her...or anyone...quoted as saying "All sales of game X must be immediately halted because of reasons" and I will join you on the picket line. I will even bring a bitchin' sign.

Yes, and there is a difference between harsh criticism and claims that something is harmful. Did she explicitly say "I want to ban X"? No. Did she anything short of calling for a ban? Yes. She did make the argument that there is a link between video game tropes and real world violence against women, which, if you accept it as valid, can only mean that this kind of tropes must not exist. This crosses the line for me.

But i don't think that either of us will convince the other one of his/her position, so i think we should stop here and agree to disagree.

 

[Tanakh]

I would argue it's more a case of the Political structure in which the people have power over the government was essential for ideological movements to create change, prior to this, real change could only be achieved through military action.

Though honestly I don't really have enough knowledge or interest to really debate the issue.

What can I say brah, more of a Dialectical materialism follower here. For me everything, or almost, is about dough.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

There are many things to say for gender equality in videogames. Feminism is a totally different matter because the vision on that ideology is really differs widely. Between fighting for equal gender rights and treatment or nitpicking about every little patch of nude skin shown (though in my experience, it's actually mostly men doing the latter).

A real issue where I consider myself a "feminist" in (even though I'm male), is having more strong female leads. Self-validating marketing logic has totally taken over in this department I believe: "We've only ever really put games with male leads out there, so male leads obviously sell better." That seems to be the message.

Another crazy argument thrown around recently, was that developers should have their right of "creative freedom" not to add female protagonists. A right that you can only invoke if you are putting out a creative product in the first place, not if you're adhering to every cliché possible like GTAV with their 3 burly male protagonists each playing classic ganster roles.

Yeah... I do want me some muscular mom from Ukraïne flushing some guy through the toilet instead of the 10000th aggressive chain-smoking and badly shaven gangster type doing that.

 

[carnex]

The thing is brah, actions taken by woman to acquire rights have existed since way before, at least the 18th century but i think they are as old as humanity. They didn't got anywhere tough because the social tissue was not ready for them, the economic demands didn't need feminism.

I think a good analogy would be to see it as a pinwheel, it doesn't provoke any changes nor usually moves anything but tells us if the wind is blowing and in which direction. Again, more of a conscience than a motor.

As for the issue of misogyny, I simply don't see it, but since usually just play PvP games might be less apparent.

It's not that it didn't need, it's more that there were very little available workplaces that weren?t physically excruciating (not that women didn't do some of those) and dangerous to life and health. Also, with industrial revolution gave industrialists unprecedented control over person?s life, like nothing after early serfdom (workplace person worked at, shops where person bought supplies and lodgings were often owned by same person or group of colluding owners) which often led to need for women to work so that family could sustain itself (really, probably the low point for females, new expectations forced upon them with no real relaxing of old ones. No power/no responsibility dynamic still standing).

What I always found funny and great example how powerful marketing is, is the fact that Suffragettes movement was led by upper class females which were most protected and privileged group in history outside some royal families. And they called themselves Suffragettes. One of the most brilliant marketing moves in history.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What a load of bollocks. Art is to be criticized and deconstructed in every possible manner. It was used and abused exactly because it hits us hard emotionally and therefore must be target or harsh criticism. On the other hand censorship in not something that sould be applied to art. Even if it portrays bunch of blackfaces happily being whipepd while they pick cotton. Criticised to hell and back, but not censored.

So...where's the load of bollocks? I recall saying "criticism, discussion and evaluation". Did someone ninja edit "and censored" in white ink at the last second?

There's a lot of "she's done everything BUT call for censorship". And my reaction to that is "fair game, then".

 

[Dragonbums]

Don't forget Garrus.
I don't think the creators of Mass Effect ever thought that a stick thin, scaly, bird/lizard/cat alien would enter the wet dreams of so many of my fellow ladies.

Perhaps we should compile a list of characters female gamers are most attracted to and see what similarities they tend to have.

Thanks
You just reminded me of great example of difference between female and male preferred representation of desired sex. That women really prefer or even need context and that context can replace physical attraction while men are much more visual.

Actually...yeah, now that you bring that up it makes sense.
If there is one thing female fans who are sexually interested in Garrus have stated appealed to them is that they like and voice and personality above all things.
In fact, his actual appearance is probably down on the list in 3rd or 4th priorities.
Same with all the others. Axel, Dante, Drake, all of them always had a story, personality and/or context in order for them to be liked.
A hunk guy that is there for the sake of being hunk is shrugged off.
The same can even be said for a female characters with big breasts. Plenty of guys have stated that those women have no interest to them for they aren't even important to the context of the story.

 

[carnex]

There are many things to say for gender equality in videogames. Feminism is a totally different matter because the vision on that ideology is really differs widely. Between fighting for equal gender rights and treatment or nitpicking about every little patch of nude skin shown (though in my experience, it's actually mostly men doing the latter).

A real issue where I consider myself a "feminist" in (even though I'm male), is having more strong female leads. Self-validating marketing logic has totally taken over in this department I believe: "We've only ever really put games with male leads out there, so male leads obviously sell better." That seems to be the message.

Another crazy argument thrown around recently, was that developers should have their right of "creative freedom" not to add female protagonists. A right that you can only invoke if you are putting out a creative product in the first place, not if you're adhering to every cliché possible like GTAV with their 3 burly male protagonists each playing classic ganster roles.

Yeah... I do want me some muscular mom from Ukraïne flushing some guy through the toilet instead of the 10000th aggressive chain-smoking and badly shaven gangster type doing that.

Fact is, big buget games exist, first and foremost, to generate profit. Developers rely on focus groups, test subjects and market research when deciding on certain aspects of game design. And resuts you can see in big budget games.

EA took risks to go after "inteligent gamers" at the beggining of this generation. They lost money. In movies, Universal did the same for few years, and lost money. Nintendo listened to their fans, and lost money. You can see why they rely on focus groups, test subjects and market reserach. Those earn them money.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Feminism is done! It accomplished it's mission; there is literally nothing in our culture that women are barred from doing, and in fact have a great deal of advantages in certain areas (mostly family court and criminal court). Women have the right to vote, they have the right to abort an unwanted or inadvisable fetus. They. Are. Equal.

 

[Tanakh]

It's not that it didn't need, it's more that there were very little available workplaces that weren?t physically excruciating (not that women didn't do some of those) and dangerous to life and health. Also, with industrial revolution gave industrialists unprecedented control over person?s life, like nothing after early serfdom (workplace person worked at, shops where person bought supplies and lodgings were often owned by same person or group of colluding owners) which often led to need for women to work so that family could sustain itself (really, probably the low point for females, new expectations forced upon them with no real relaxing of old ones. No power/no responsibility dynamic still standing).

I still think "didn't need", and by that I mean didn't need as a qualified part of it's workforce, because not well situated women have always done physically excruciating and dangerous tasks but before current social organizations it would have been impossible to ask them to work in addition to what they did. But with work came a modicum of power, and with the consciousness of it some changes were made, we are still far off from a just place for woman tough.

 

[carnex]

--

I still think "didn't need", and by that I mean didn't need as a qualified part of it's workforce, because not well situated women have always done physically excruciating and dangerous tasks but before current social organizations it would have been impossible to ask them to work in addition to what they did. But with work came a modicum of power, and with the consciousness of it some changes were made, we are still far off from a just place for woman tough.

It's not like they couldn't. Some did, but most people do have emapthy and concience so they didnt.

But the reason why I replyed is to ask you what you meant with last sentence, especially last statement in it.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Don't forget Garrus.
I don't think the creators of Mass Effect ever thought that a stick thin, scaly, bird/lizard/cat alien would enter the wet dreams of so many of my fellow ladies.

Perhaps we should compile a list of characters female gamers are most attracted to and see what similarities they tend to have.

Thanks
You just reminded me of great example of difference between female and male preferred representation of desired sex. That women really prefer or even need context and that context can replace physical attraction while men are much more visual.

It funny you should mention how men are visual; I read a book called Men On Strike by Helen Smith, and one of the reasons she states the education system has failed young men and boys is that they aren't visual enough.

Video Games are a visual medium, which I suppose is one of the reasons it's such a male dominated medium: "Men play video games, Women read books."

I could fill an entire research paper with extrapolations of gender differences to media consumption and portrayal, but I think it would dissolve into word salad a quarter of the way in.

 

[nuttshell]

It's cool. I thought it might be something like that. I was just confused.
I do believe I tried to clarify what I meant by "lazy" in my last reply to you.

No hard feelings.
I don't think your clarification fully justifies your validation:

Many of those caricatures are quite clever. Exaggerating secondary sexual characteristics to distinguish yourself from "generic fantasy" is not. The exaggeration of secondary sexual characteristics in fantasy is a trope as old as Jimmy Hoffa's bones. It is the living definition of "generic", at least in the T/A swords and sorcery tradition. That doesn't mean you can't like it. Nor does it mean it can't or shouldn't exist. It just means I think it was creatively lazy.

I can't see another game that does this much exaggeration and not only on secondary sexual characteristics. I would be very happy to recieve recomendations.
When I first saw an ingame video of it, I thought: "Hey! Finally, the people who are tired of sexualized characters can have a good laugh." Apparently, I thought wrong.

The artist himself was accused of much, much worse things than creative laziness, and took the criticism cheerfully in stride. There's really no need to rally to his defense.

I don't care about the artist, I care about his work because I think it is undervalued. Even if he was only a drooling 14 year old boy, I would still think what he made was good.

Even then it's more than just a caricature in most cases. Those that put in the effort to look find plenty of hidden reference and possible meaning.

Yes but a few posts before, I wanted to show that it's still good even without all that. I think, I only mentioned mythological references then.

 

[Olikar]

Art is free for criticism, discussion and evaluation on a number of levels. None of them get closed off for discussion because the discussion makes people uncomfortable.

It has nothing to do with comfort but relevance and intellectual value. And I (and most of western philosophy) don't believe art should be criticized on moral grounds or political/social values, in fact most would argue the opposite, and that Art should be the one criticizing morality and political/social values not the other way round. Someone can say a work of art is morally disgusting or sexist or whatever but what does that actually tell you beyond that the person is offended by the work? It offers no actual insight into the aesthetic value of the art, and is really nothing more than the person whining 'WAAAAAAAAA this opposes my own views and opinions!"

To highlight why I think criticizing art on social ground diminishes the value of art take the short story The Renegade by Camus. Camus was a staunch atheist who believed religion was poisonous to rational thought and this story is written as a metaphor for that. If I was to bring my own social values into it I would criticise the book for being monstrously bias and intolerant towards religion, I would call it disgusting vile trash. But of course since I am actually capable of rational thought, I know that my social values are not only irrelevant to other peoples judgment of the book (because my personal opinions and philosophies are of no use to others) it is also entirely irrelevant to mine, because even though I disagree with the message I can appreciate how masterfully the message was delivered (which is in my opinion the true value of art.)

If you want to make a counter argument, just defend the piece in question. Even if your defense is flaky, it's better than demanding the criticism just go away because "you find it reprehensible".

I don't think I ever said it should go away I just said the people who spout that sort of rubbish should expect to be ignored by the artists they criticise since not only will the artist be unlikely to care about the moralistic implication of their art there's a good chance that they don't even share the moral values of the person doing the criticizing. (Which seems to be a problem with these sorts of socially motivated schools of art criticism, a Feminist analysis is only useful to a Feminist, a Marxist analysis is only useful to a Marxist etc.)

That's probably because the question is malformed due to the fact that feminism IS opposing misogyny.

You might as well ask 'Why does no one tell how extinguishing fires is supposed to put them out?'

Feminism is removing barriers to female integration within society.

I am sorry but that's just complete bullshit, Feminism may claim to be simply about combating misogyny but it's not that simple, there are much further reaching implications to the term Feminism, there are decades of thought and discussion attached to the term. I mean would you believe a Communist when you tells Communism is just about making people equal?

 

[wulf3n]

Exaggerating secondary sexual characteristics to distinguish yourself from "generic fantasy" is not. The exaggeration of secondary sexual characteristics in fantasy is a trope as old as Jimmy Hoffa's bones. It is the living definition of "generic", at least in the T/A swords and sorcery tradition.

The problem here is your still only giving it a surface level assessment and then went on to call it lazy.

This comes off as "I don't care to look into any deeper meaning, therefore it's lazy". That may not be your intent, but that's how it sounds.

That doesn't mean you can't like it. Nor does it mean it can't or shouldn't exist. It just means I think it was creatively lazy.

Which is because you didn't give it a chance.

The artist himself was accused of much, much worse things than creative laziness, and took the criticism cheerfully in stride. There's really no need to rally to his defense.

It's not about rallying to his defense but an attempt to show knee jerk reactionary behaviour and the intertwining of insult with criticism is bad and commonly done.