Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[Specter Von Baren]

Are you familiar with the quote "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's pretty relevant here. There's a difference between "you shouldn't do/say/make that" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do/say/make that", and only the latter qualifies as censorship.

And here is the thing, she says neither of the two clearly in that video, it's up for our interpretation. She however does say that:

- "Even though most of the games we're talking about don't explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering"

after just stating:

- "It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet."

And it is very clear in the context of the sentence:

- "Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world."

That she is sure that videogames are having an influence to increase violence on women.

No, it isn't 'very clear'. It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited. Things are often 'very clear' when you just want to support your conclusion and don't bother to consider alternate explanations beyond your favorite.

That's a weird thing to hear from you considering how often Sarkeesian presumes to know why someone did this or that thing with a video game character despite not knowing why they did it only because it favors the narrative she's trying to make.

 

[Tanakh]

It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited.

Ok... then you are saying she might say devs should change content to adapt to her moral standards because she finds the current ones distasteful? You are correct, never considered such shallow option, changing work of others that doesn't harm anyone to fit your tastes, my bad.

And the conclusions don't matter brah, it's the methodology what I can't abide, I can't see her as more than an opinionated entertainment content producer because has yet to stumble to the most basic science in her work. Maybe a better way to say it is that I can't even get to her conclusions thinking it's more than rambling.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

A game is a game. Just enjoy it for what it is. Though gamers can see an take things as racist or sexist or whatever. It depends on the person and those that you are playing with.

Off topic, in the UK there is a tv show looking for the best package....as in.....men in underwear to become a model. Now, if this was "TV show to find a new Boob model for Bras" woman would complain. Sexism is every where to some degree. Its best saving the moaning for real sexism not some dumb arses insulting you in a game. Or a game character has boobs.

 

[Tanakh]

snip

You know what brah, to avoid wasting our time I'll just block you, mainly mine. Good luck and may the force be with you.

 

[Olikar]

It's fairly hilarious that you're lambasting her building up with speculation to reach a conclusion that she doesn't say... but you speculate she is implying.

Expect if you knew anything about her work you would have noted she all but directly states violence against women in videogames leads to real life violence.


Quote:

Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets "deserved it", "wanted it" or were "asking for it",

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it's dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to "save them".

So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent.

Consequently violent revenge based narratives, repeated ad nauseum, can also be harmful to men because they help further limit the possible responses men are allowed to have when faced with death or tragedy. This is unfortunate because interactive media has the potential to be a brilliant medium for people of all genders to explore difficult or painful subjects.

Violence against women is a serious global epidemic; therefore, attempts to address the issue in fictional contexts demands a considerable degree of respect, subtlety and nuance. Women shouldn't be mere disposable objects or symbolic pawns in stories about men and their own struggles with patriarchal expectations and inadequacies.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Are you familiar with the quote "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's pretty relevant here. There's a difference between "you shouldn't do/say/make that" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do/say/make that", and only the latter qualifies as censorship.

And here is the thing, she says neither of the two clearly in that video, it's up for our interpretation. She however does say that:

- "Even though most of the games we're talking about don't explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering"

after just stating:

- "It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet."

And it is very clear in the context of the sentence:

- "Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world."

That she is sure that videogames are having an influence to increase violence on women.

No, it isn't 'very clear'. It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited. Things are often 'very clear' when you just want to support your conclusion and don't bother to consider alternate explanations beyond your favorite.

That's a weird thing to hear from you considering how often Sarkeesian presumes to know why someone did this or that thing with a video game character despite not knowing why they did it only because it favors the narrative she's trying to make.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with someone who is anti-Sarkeesian must clearly be a Sarkeesian fan.

And of course pointing out something you claim Sarkeesian does *totally* justifies what he does. Or wait no, that's logically fallacious.

Stoop lower.

*sigh*

"And since the majority of these titles focus of delivering crude, unsophisticated male power fantasies, developers are largely unwilling to give up the Damsel in Distress model as an easy default motivation for their brooding male heroes or anti-heroes."

Claims that there's no deeper reason for having a DiD than to just have a quick and easy motivation. While it might be the case in some of these instances it is not for all of them.

"These token gestures of pseudo-empowerment don?t really offer any meaningful change to the core of the trope and it feels like developers just throw these moments in at the last minute to try to excuse their continued reliance on the damsel in distress."

Claims that the reason they do it is to excuse their use of the DiD.

"The Damsel in the Refrigerator is part of larger trend of throwing women under the bus in increasingly gruesome ways in an apparent attempt to interject what I?ll loosely refer to as ?mature themes?."

Says that the only reason people use these is to make their games mature.

"The writers deliberately wrote her character to annoy the player so in the end, the violence against her becomes the punch line to a cheap, misogynist joke."

Presumes that the reason for that scene is to make a cheap misogynist joke. In other words, she's saying they did that because it would be demeaning to a woman and that they think that doing that is funny.

"These damsel?ed women are written so as to subordinate themselves to men."

That the entire point is to make women be subordinate to men and there are absolutely no greater story reasons a person could POSSIBLY have for doing so.

And yet... after that she goes back on what she said.

"Despite these troubling implications, game creators aren?t necessarily all sitting around twirling their nefarious looking mustaches while consciously trying to figure out how to best misrepresent women as part of some grand conspiracy."

Having her cake and eating it too. She gets to do a lawyer trick, putting an idea out before the jury/audience and when someone objects to it the lawyer/she takes it back, having accomplished what they wanted, putting it in the minds of the jury/audience even though it will not officially be on record.

"In fact these games usually frame the loss of the woman as something that has been unjustly ?taken? from the male hero."

That the reason for doing this is because the people making the games see these female characters as property that was taken from the male hero and that that's what they are conveying to the audience. That it's not just HER interpretation of these things, but that it is in fact the truth.

Try. Harder. Please, when you want to make me out to be lying. I consider myself an honorable person, so I don't appreciate being accused of stooping to a low level when it comes to debating things.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

There is no way people don't see how some female characters in games like Dragon's Crown are problematic

By themselves? No. In fact, I say let the man-children have their "juvenile power fantasies." I just think we need other types of games, as well.

The minute you start insulting an audience for what they like is when you lose all credibility. If guys want to play a game with a bunch of erotic female characters, fine. If they want a game where you play only as a male, fine.


Just as little tween girls can fulfill their sad sex fantasies by reading books like twilight with 1 dimensional overly-handsome guys. Stereotyping and insulting an entire audience is fun, right?

And I'm not defending women haters or saying the industry doesn't need better depiction of females. I'm defending those who like erotic women in their game but are not women haters and I'm saying there is more room for improvement when it comes video game appeal for the opposite sex.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Are you familiar with the quote "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's pretty relevant here. There's a difference between "you shouldn't do/say/make that" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do/say/make that", and only the latter qualifies as censorship.

And here is the thing, she says neither of the two clearly in that video, it's up for our interpretation. She however does say that:

- "Even though most of the games we're talking about don't explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering"

after just stating:

- "It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet."

And it is very clear in the context of the sentence:

- "Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world."

That she is sure that videogames are having an influence to increase violence on women.

No, it isn't 'very clear'. It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited. Things are often 'very clear' when you just want to support your conclusion and don't bother to consider alternate explanations beyond your favorite.

That's a weird thing to hear from you considering how often Sarkeesian presumes to know why someone did this or that thing with a video game character despite not knowing why they did it only because it favors the narrative she's trying to make.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with someone who is anti-Sarkeesian must clearly be a Sarkeesian fan.

And of course pointing out something you claim Sarkeesian does *totally* justifies what he does. Or wait no, that's logically fallacious.

Stoop lower.

*sigh*

"And since the majority of these titles focus of delivering crude, unsophisticated male power fantasies, developers are largely unwilling to give up the Damsel in Distress model as an easy default motivation for their brooding male heroes or anti-heroes."

Claims that there's no deeper reason for having a DiD than to just have a quick and easy motivation. While it might be the case in some of these instances it is not for all of them.

"These token gestures of pseudo-empowerment don?t really offer any meaningful change to the core of the trope and it feels like developers just throw these moments in at the last minute to try to excuse their continued reliance on the damsel in distress."

Claims that the reason they do it is to excuse their use of the DiD.

"The Damsel in the Refrigerator is part of larger trend of throwing women under the bus in increasingly gruesome ways in an apparent attempt to interject what I?ll loosely refer to as ?mature themes?."

Says that the only reason people use these is to make their games mature.

"The writers deliberately wrote her character to annoy the player so in the end, the violence against her becomes the punch line to a cheap, misogynist joke."

Presumes that the reason for that scene is to make a cheap misogynist joke. In other words, she's saying they did that because it would be demeaning to a woman and that they think that doing that is funny.

"These damsel?ed women are written so as to subordinate themselves to men."

That the entire point is to make women be subordinate to men and there are absolutely no greater story reasons a person could POSSIBLY have for doing so.

And yet... after that she goes back on what she said.

"Despite these troubling implications, game creators aren?t necessarily all sitting around twirling their nefarious looking mustaches while consciously trying to figure out how to best misrepresent women as part of some grand conspiracy."

Having her cake and eating it too. She gets to do a lawyer trick, putting an idea out before the jury/audience and when someone objects to it the lawyer/she takes it back, having accomplished what they wanted, putting it in the minds of the jury/audience even though it will not officially be on record.

"In fact these games usually frame the loss of the woman as something that has been unjustly ?taken? from the male hero."

That the reason for doing this is because the people making the games see these female characters as property that was taken from the male hero and that that's what they are conveying to the audience. That it's not just HER interpretation of these things, but that it is in fact the truth.

Try. Harder. Please, when you want to make me out to be lying. I consider myself an honorable person, so I don't appreciate being accused of stooping to a low level when it comes to debating things.

I'd suggest you try a bit harder. You know, totally missing the objection that whatever she does doesn't justify what he does isn't trying very hard since my post wasn't exactly long enough you can reasonably miss that bit.

Trying to justify poor speculation on his part with supposed poor speculation on Sarkeesian's part is what's stooping low. And you succeeded in stooping lower by ignoring when I pointed it out and pretending that my objection was mainly your claim.

And when did I defend HIS post?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Are you familiar with the quote "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's pretty relevant here. There's a difference between "you shouldn't do/say/make that" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do/say/make that", and only the latter qualifies as censorship.

And here is the thing, she says neither of the two clearly in that video, it's up for our interpretation. She however does say that:

- "Even though most of the games we're talking about don't explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering"

after just stating:

- "It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet."

And it is very clear in the context of the sentence:

- "Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world."

That she is sure that videogames are having an influence to increase violence on women.

No, it isn't 'very clear'. It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited. Things are often 'very clear' when you just want to support your conclusion and don't bother to consider alternate explanations beyond your favorite.

That's a weird thing to hear from you considering how often Sarkeesian presumes to know why someone did this or that thing with a video game character despite not knowing why they did it only because it favors the narrative she's trying to make.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with someone who is anti-Sarkeesian must clearly be a Sarkeesian fan.

And of course pointing out something you claim Sarkeesian does *totally* justifies what he does. Or wait no, that's logically fallacious.

Stoop lower.

*sigh*

"And since the majority of these titles focus of delivering crude, unsophisticated male power fantasies, developers are largely unwilling to give up the Damsel in Distress model as an easy default motivation for their brooding male heroes or anti-heroes."

Claims that there's no deeper reason for having a DiD than to just have a quick and easy motivation. While it might be the case in some of these instances it is not for all of them.

"These token gestures of pseudo-empowerment don?t really offer any meaningful change to the core of the trope and it feels like developers just throw these moments in at the last minute to try to excuse their continued reliance on the damsel in distress."

Claims that the reason they do it is to excuse their use of the DiD.

"The Damsel in the Refrigerator is part of larger trend of throwing women under the bus in increasingly gruesome ways in an apparent attempt to interject what I?ll loosely refer to as ?mature themes?."

Says that the only reason people use these is to make their games mature.

"The writers deliberately wrote her character to annoy the player so in the end, the violence against her becomes the punch line to a cheap, misogynist joke."

Presumes that the reason for that scene is to make a cheap misogynist joke. In other words, she's saying they did that because it would be demeaning to a woman and that they think that doing that is funny.

"These damsel?ed women are written so as to subordinate themselves to men."

That the entire point is to make women be subordinate to men and there are absolutely no greater story reasons a person could POSSIBLY have for doing so.

And yet... after that she goes back on what she said.

"Despite these troubling implications, game creators aren?t necessarily all sitting around twirling their nefarious looking mustaches while consciously trying to figure out how to best misrepresent women as part of some grand conspiracy."

Having her cake and eating it too. She gets to do a lawyer trick, putting an idea out before the jury/audience and when someone objects to it the lawyer/she takes it back, having accomplished what they wanted, putting it in the minds of the jury/audience even though it will not officially be on record.

"In fact these games usually frame the loss of the woman as something that has been unjustly ?taken? from the male hero."

That the reason for doing this is because the people making the games see these female characters as property that was taken from the male hero and that that's what they are conveying to the audience. That it's not just HER interpretation of these things, but that it is in fact the truth.

Try. Harder. Please, when you want to make me out to be lying. I consider myself an honorable person, so I don't appreciate being accused of stooping to a low level when it comes to debating things.

I'd suggest you try a bit harder. You know, totally missing the objection that whatever she does doesn't justify what he does isn't trying very hard since my post wasn't exactly long enough you can reasonably miss that bit.

Trying to justify poor speculation on his part with supposed poor speculation on Sarkeesian's part is what's stooping low. And you succeeded in stooping lower by ignoring when I pointed it out and pretending that my objection was mainly your claim.

And when did I defend HIS post?

And where did I say anything about what Sarkeesian presumes?

You replied to me with some nonsense about how Sarkeesian does this and that when I hadn't said anything about whether she did or did not. The only seeming relevance is that you were accusing her of doing something I accused someone else of.

But sure, backtrack more. Pretend that in fact your first post to me came out of the blue and was supposed to have pretty much nothing to do with the conversation I was having.

Hhm...

"It could easily be that she is saying that the reason it's kind of a shitty thing to do is because it's a real ongoing issue being trivialized and exploited. Things are often 'very clear' when you just want to support your conclusion and don't bother to consider alternate explanations beyond your favorite."

That's the part that prompted me to reply to your comment. Hhm. I suppose I misinterpreted it then? I guess I misinterpreted what you were arguing for with him. It wasn't to necessarily say that that wasn't what Sarkeesian was saying, but to point out the problems with his arguments. Am I right in this line of thinking?

 

[carnex]

Until I regularly see

and



in mainstream games and other media,
then I get to accuse the "heterosexual patriarchy" of censoring and covering up men and spoiling MY fun.

Sigh...

I believe this last paragraph of yours is ironic but never the less I wand to point something out for who knows what time. Males and females have different preferences in graphical representation of their chosen sex for love interest (vast majority is still purely heterosexual no mater what internet tries to assure people of). Also we seek different qualities in those sexes (I wont mix gender in this time, please no social constructs in this discussion. Hole is deep enough without them).

We want to see female as beautiful, young, healthy. Those are primary attributes and have deep root in biology and are reinforced by society. Prime biological function of female being is to bear children thus most males, and most of homosexual/bisexual females are therefore attracted to characteristic that represent good child bearing capabilities. So, age, health and good genetic predisposition (beauty) are what we seek from visual representation of potential partner.

However, males have biologically and historically different role. Since men don't have disabilities due to pregnancy caused to him he is seen as provider and protector. Therefore age falls down the ladder of importance and reining are symbols of wealth and social position, shows of power and aggressiveness and genetic predisposition (build/beauty). Waving his penis around and wiggling his ass does not represent those characteristic although you might stretch it to represent playfulness which is desirable trait and even might imply high level of self-confidence which is highly desirable (factors in both provider and protector role).

For that reason in already posted Avengers poster we see 4 male character in "I'm gonna wreck something" positions while only female character does heroic but inactive position that emphasizes her body and flexibility (usual way to represent youth). If it was other way arroung nobody would see it as attractive and therefore nobody would have their desire to see the movie reinforced which is main job of said poster. Maybe if the movie was ridiculous parody, but not othervise.

That there are many other factors that go in gender roles like (exception exist, these are general sex characteristics with wide range of expectations)

Male disposability vs Female's innate value

Male visual view vs Female social/contextual view

Males much more casual approach to sex and sexuality compare do females

etc.

And, in the end, I must repeat another thing I always say. Men and Women are different on so many levels that we must understand and accept that we won't necessary enjoy same thing to the same degree if at all. Best representation is to take erotic magazine for men and erotic magazine for women (not ones targeting everyone, there are specialized ones) and to take comparative look. You?ll notice how they are nothing alike. That's how different we are.

 

[Mid Boss]

Feminism and movies mix. Feminism and art mixes. They mix in books, music, and even cartoons. There's nothing that makes video games special.

The problem here seems to be the ass holes in the feminism movement. This really... REALLY shouldn't need to be explained but here goes.... Every group of people has ass holes among them. No matter how well meaning or altruistic the group is. They have perverts. They have self entitled snobs. They have raging, barely coherent, pricks.... No group in history has been immune to this.... Surprise!! You can find ass hole scientists, Christians, liberals, conservatives, kindergarten teachers, authors, artists, presidents, comic book fans, taxi drivers, bronies.

Video games are not a clandestine haven from social issues and feminism is not exempt from having bad eggs.

 

[wulf3n]

Actually going and looking at the transcript I was wrong and so was he:

Likewise engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don?t have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent.

She's saying it has a negative cultural influence it seems. Not that it increases violence towards women.

I don't know

it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent.

While not outright saying promotes violence against women, violence against women would fall under the category of:
Men - Commanding and Aggressive.
Women - Subordinate and Dependent.

I think it's the vague nature of the statement and the lack of supporting evidence that creates the problem here.