Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[blackite]

Hello, I've been lurking in this thread for a few days now and before I begin I would like ask some of the proponents that believe that feminism and gaming should mix a few questions to clarify what your positions are on certain subjects. (Because if I wanted to deal with straw men all day I would be playing Skyrim right now.)



* Why do you think that feminism and gaming should mix?
(My understanding of Feminism being: Link [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminist])

* Do you think that any female character that are portrayed as weak are damaging to women? Or that women are allowed to be portrayed as weak as long as it fits the context of the world/story?

* Do you think that game developers have a responsibility to be politically correct? Or that their only responsibility is to be profitable. (And why?)


* What would your idea of a well written female character be?

* What do you believe the solution to this problem is?

 

[carnex]

I think everyone here know what I think about feminism and that it's not represent in that definition. However

- Games are medium and everyone and everything is invited to use that medium. My agreeing is without consequences on that. I will punch as many holes in their products as I can if I see that as needed, but they are, of course, free to use it to their own goals.

- They are characters. Author is free to use any character, without restrictions in any role he sees fit.

- Authors are responsible to flip "the bird" to any notion of political correctness, social justice or any such concept that would change his vision.

- Anna from Planescape Torment, Kate Archer from No One Lives Forever, Elena Fisher and Chloe Frazer from Uncharted...

- I don't see the problem. What I see is bunch of people who loudly publicly demand certain games and characteristics/features/characters in games but are unwilling to do the job themselves or pay someone to do the job for them. When you want something you either support it or wait until someone finds his own reason for doing that/giving it to you.

 

[generals3]

Actually her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature. Big tits is a common symbolism for "life" and "nurture". The sorceress was an original approach towards the whole necromancy concept. Instead of having a dude command the dead to rise up you have a woman giving life to the dead.

So, in what way does a dress that impossibly ends right after covering her nipples, and has a split so you are always able to see her bare legs symbolize her "life-giving" nature? How about that image of her (that's fucking used everywhere) bending over and shoving her staff up her ass?

Reveal your insight, oh wise one, as to the symbolism of her stripper-tendencies and aversion to real clothing!

Actually this wasn't my interpretation but someone who actually thought about it (http://hokutoandy.kinja.com/dragons-crown-creator-george-kamitani-responds-to-kota-477592374). And it made sense, but heck why even try to look for deeper meaning when you can limit yourself to the surface and ***** about what you see there. (and here's an other analysis showing DC's art isn't just "random" http://art-eater.com/2013/03/from-mickey-mouse-to-jesus-the-latest-dragons-crown-trailer-is-full-of-epic-homages/)

All those things you mention are quite irrelevant as it doesn't dispute her breast size may be there for symbolic reasons.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually this wasn't my interpretation but someone who actually thought about it (http://hokutoandy.kinja.com/dragons-crown-creator-george-kamitani-responds-to-kota-477592374). And it made sense, but heck why even try to look for deeper meaning when you can limit yourself to the surface and ***** about what you see there.

All those things you mention are quite irrelevant as it doesn't dispute her breast size may be there for symbolic reasons.

Is she giving life to the staff?

Like...is she nurturing it? Because it looks like she's titty fucking it. But I suppose she could be nurturing it. Staffs need nurturing too, yo.

Here's the thing. And here's where everyone needs to reflect on and acknowledge their confirmation biases.

1. That's actually an interesting article, and does make an argument to support the huge breasts (if not their inclusion on a typically waifish form). Mind you, the artist HIMSELF talked about grossly exaggerating male/female sexual characteristics to "stand out from generic fantasy", but that was a tossed off answer. Even if Hokutoandy's analysis was shown to be ultimately incorrect, it would still be interesting and insightful analysis.

2. That character is so obviously sexualized that anyone making the argument it was designed SOLELY to communicate nurturing and fertility is so full of shit they are literally 99% shit. Let's look again at what confirmation bias is...

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Because you are predisposed to defend the game/art and dislike criticism of it on the grounds that it's juvenile/pandering/etc, you hand wave the extremely salient observations regarding her bare legs, come hither expression, and eternal staff-fucking poses that make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever because no one actually stands that way. The point of THOSE decisions was not to communicate "nurturing", nor to evoke ancient fertility goddesses. The point of those artistic decisions was to pander to a very specific T/A enthusiast demographic.

I don't really want to argue about the "morality" or "artistic integrity" or anything else involved with that decision, because it's boring. But LifeCharacter's criticism is totally legit. It's not "surface bitching". It's calling a spade a spade.

Just be objective, yeah? You'll find it encourages others to be objective too. Too many fucking polemics on this topic, not enough discussion.

 

[generals3]

I'm quite aware of the whole ancient fertility goddess, motherly necromancer thing that VW has been using; someone way back when Dragon's Crown first showed off its character designs showed me it and I agreed with it because it made sense and was an interesting take on necromancy. That is why, as you'll notice if you read my post, I never mentioned her large breasts, but brought up the parts of her design that you can't just wave off with the excuse of symbolism.

So, again, care to share your insight about every other aspect of her design and how it all symbolizes her life-giving nature? Because, if it's just the breasts, and if you don't consider "breasts" to be her entire design, her design is not symbolic of her life-giving nature, one part of it is.

And i never claimed to have the answers to everything (so you can ask that question with condescension over and over but all you'll get back is condescension from me). Someone claimed her whole design was just made to be sexually appealing. I pointed out there was symbolism behind her design. Does that mean sexual appeal played no role? Well no. But it's still misleading to oversimplify the situation and overlook very interesting symbolism which adds value to the design just to be able to complain more extremely. There is a big difference between a character who was solely designed to be "sexay" and one where it was designed to be sexy but also symbolizes certain things.

There seems to be this strong sex-negative attitude that once there is sexualization you can just throw away the table and overlook everything else.

And again, since her breasts are part of the design the symbolism behind it, is also symbolism which goes behind the character as a whole. Not every single aspect of the character needs to contain the same kind of symbolism.

 

[Olikar]

Is she giving life to the staff?

-snipped image-

Like...is she nurturing it? Because it looks like she's titty fucking it. But I suppose she could be nurturing it. Staffs need nurturing too, yo.

The devs can hardly be blamed for what people put in fan art can they?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The devs can hardly be blamed for what people put in fan art can they?

I wondered if that was fan art when I posted it. It's a very convincing approximation of the artist's original work. In many of which, she is for some reason flossing her conspicuous butt crack with that same staff. So the point remains. =\

 

[generals3]

What's more misleading? Saying that she was designed to be sexually appealing to men, because every single aspect can be taken as sex appeal? Or saying that her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature because one part of it could be taken to symbolize fertility/motherhood/whatever?

Every single aspect? Is the fact she raises the dead from their grave sex-appeal? The only aspects of her actual design which can be seen as sexually appealing are her breasts and revealing clothing. So it would be 1 aspect which has been added for symbolic value and one for sexual appeal. And heck do we even know it was for sexual appeal? What if the devs just thought she looked bad ass in those clothes? Did they say she was designed because *fap fap*? At the end it is all speculation. I admit I could have been more precise in my first post but i did refer to the big breasts specifically as to point out where the symbolism in the design lied.

But I didn't overlook everything else; you're the one who seems to be overlooking everything other than her large breasts because they can't be waved off with "symbolism." I acknowledged the potential symbolism of her ridiculous breasts, and then looked at pretty much everything else and saw a lot of it adding up to lots of sex appeal. Sure, the large breasts (that move like things nonexistent outside of fanservice land), the clothing, the staff, her ass grinding on the staff, that look on her face, and everything else that could easily be chalked up to sex appeal could have some symbolism, but that doesn't somehow get rid of the fact that it's all sex appeal.

The ass grinding and all that is quite irrelevant considering it's one picture. A character isn't determined by one picture. If you judge a character design based on one picture you're doing it wrong. Maybe that particular picture was blatantly designed for sex appeal. But that doesn't mean the character was.

You can snap your spine a few times like the Sorceress trying to interpret everything so it's not just sex appeal, but it's still sex appeal, and there's a limit on how much you can throw into one design before sex appeal overtakes all the artistic referencing and symbolism people use to excuse it.

Yes and no. That's all subjective. Someone may be stuck at the sex appeal but not everyone cannot look past it and still see it for what it is despite the sexualization being blatant.

So one aspect of a character symbolizing something means that people defending that design can say that "her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature," even if nothing else in the design actually supports that?

But other aspects do support that. It goes in line with her role as a necromancer. She is a life-giver so to speak.

 

[broca]

We understand that perfectly, we don't see why that is a problem, or why that make's it sexist. Because as far things goes, it not a problem nor is it sexist. On the other hand people getting offended by that is all fine, but saying because I am offended therefore it sexist or problematic is fucking stupid.

Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. I think you just summed up the problem with this whole controversy. You say that you acknowledge that, 9 times out of 10, women characters in video games are created so that they will be sexy to men? And this doesn't bother you, right? Which is totally okay!

The problem is when you say it isn't okay for other people (people who are not you) to find this troublesome, and to want it to change. You are essentially saying that your experience with video games (they are fine and I enjoy them as they are now) is more valid than other people's experiences (I am made uncomfortable by the way games are now, and would like some change).

This is a major problem with the gaming community (and the internet community as a whole): a serious lack of empathy. I see where you're coming from; I too like looking at sexy ladies doing sexy things sexily. Here's where I'm coming from: this glut of sexy ladies comes at a cost to something much more valuable - inclusivity. The medium is alienating a huge amount of people. Not just women, either, but anyone who values art with a maturity level higher than that of a teenage boy.

Let's be honest here: we aren't going to miss out on some fantastic artistic vision just because a game developer decided to give his female character a long-sleeve shirt instead of a bikini top.

While i think that some people see the issue but don't see it as a problem, that's not why (at least) some of the people on this thread argue against (certain kinds of) feminism in gaming or certain feminists. Look at this thread where people actually tried to find solutions to the problem ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.826144-Women-gaming-problems-solution-discussion-1?page=1 ) and compare the posters there to the posters arguing in this thread. Notice something? Some people who here argue against (certain kinds of) feminism in gaming or certain feminists there actually tried to find solutions for the problem, which seems to disproof your theory about dismissal of the problem being THE underlying problem.

Wanna know what the real issue behind all this madness is? Many people aren't against more or better written women in games. They just disagree with the some peoples/feminists interpretation of gaming and games as misogynist and sexist or them behaving like certain kinds of games shouldn't exist. I will give you a analogy to make my point clearer: imagne many people agreed with socialists that we need better social systems. But then, instead of trying to find ways to achieve this, the next 6 months are then spend by people who agree that social systems need to change discussing socialist theory. Sounds crazy? Swap "better social system" for "more women in games" and "socialists" with "feminists" and you have exactly what is happening right now.

Edited for clearity.

 

[generals3]

Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. I think you just summed up the problem with this whole controversy. You say that you acknowledge that, 9 times out of 10, women characters in video games are created so that they will be sexy to men? And this doesn't bother you, right? Which is totally okay!

The problem is when you say it isn't okay for other people (people who are not you) to find this troublesome, and to want it to change. You are essentially saying that your experience with video games (they are fine and I enjoy them as they are now) is more valid than other people's experiences (I am made uncomfortable by the way games are now, and would like some change).

Here's the thing though. I don't see a lot of people saying others cannot find it troublesome nor that they can ask for change. What people disagree with are the guilt tactics involved with the moralistic crusade being carried out. There is a difference between saying "I think this sucks and should change" and saying "This is sexist and misogynistic so it must change". Most of the debating is not about the opinion, but about the claims regarding the morality of these designs/games.

This is a major problem with the gaming community (and the internet community as a whole): a serious lack of empathy. I see where you're coming from; I too like looking at sexy ladies doing sexy things sexily. Here's where I'm coming from: this glut of sexy ladies comes at a cost to something much more valuable - inclusivity. The medium is alienating a huge amount of people. Not just women, either, but anyone who values art with a maturity level higher than that of a teenage boy.

No. Just no. This is an argument I have proven to be based on severe bias many times already. The medium itself does not do what you claim it does. And for the simple reason only a minority of games are actually guilty of what you blame them of. Tetris, Sim City, WoW, C&C (except RA3 a bit), Rise Of Nations, AoE, Civilization, Total War, Bejeweled, Solitaire, EVE, and god knows i could spend a whole night going further, do not alienate anyone. Your issue is that you focus on a very specific subset of games and somehow think this sample is representative of the whole medium. There are all kinds of games which come in all kinds of shapes and forms and most of them are not as men-"exclusive" as you suggest. It would be like saying that porn isn't inclusive towards straight men and lesbians because gay porn is aimed at gay men (and maybe to women, I dunno). That would be an absurd claim. Yet it is exactly what you claim about the VG industry.

And this has nothing to do with appreciating art with certain maturity. In case you didn't know art has evolved across all types during history which clearly shows there is no objective "good art". Consequently making a judgement about people because they like something you consider immature is pretentious and arrogant.

Let's be honest here: we aren't going to miss out on some fantastic artistic vision just because a game developer decided to give his female character a long-sleeve shirt instead of a bikini top.

That is your opinion. If someone considers a bikini to be fantastic art than so be it.

 

[DracoSuave]

The research is actually very positive, however--Gaming culture CAN change despite the anonymity. The problem turns out that there's no reward for good behavior more than the punishment for bad behavior. As well, communities are not empowered to do something about behavior they do not desire in their community. This leads to the situation you describe--where people are unwilling to be a positive influence because they don't see a point to it, nor do they have an outlet for dealing with the negative influendes. Remember, in most games' communities, if you encourage others to be good, if you stand up for people against toxic individuals, the best you get is the game allowing you to continue getting what you pay for, which is what happens if you say nothing at all.

Do you think a little behaviour psychology will change a (percieved) group of people that consists of individuals who have almost nothing in common? What is "Gaming culture" anyway? If you want a nice group of people, you have to keep it small and almost isolated.

The results are speaking for themselves.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You better start doing the same and provide me some proof of said body of people that are supposedly calmly stating their opinions that there should be more games with female representation not being mythical beasts (and not singular forum-dwellers either, but "industry people" that have a voice in the larger industry) without trying to take the moral upper hand of the argument and calling certain works outright sexist/misogynistic/offensive/bad/any other sort of stuff or I think I'm done with you.

Actually that's not how burden of proof works. You're the one making the claims, I'm the one responding to your posts and pointing out that your claims are straw men, or hasty generalizations, or poisoning the well. You can be "done with me" all you want. You post in the thread, I'm free to criticize your fallacious arguments. That's how criticism works. Put your work in a public space, and it's free to be criticized.

As for "ample proof"...you link articles that confirm your bias. That's all you do. That's not "proof" of anything other than an utter lack of objectivity on this issue. I'm not sure what you think "proof" means. Maybe you think selectively quoting Wikipedia, lurching back and forth on whether or not dictionary definitions of words are legitimate, mining game websites or feminist blogs for strident articles that reinforce your perspective, and making wild generalizations about 50% of the population based on your anecdotal outlook constitutes "proof". It's unfortunate if you do.

One of the theme's with Vanilla ware is the fact that women who deals with the dead tends to have large breast, wide hips and such. Represent fertility, nurture and such. You can also have a character sexualized while having being a symbol for something else.

Yep, that was sort of the point, only in the inverse. As I said, I enjoyed Hokutoandy's article and found his arguments compelling...if entirely one sided.

 

[nuttshell]

The results are speaking for themselves.

Oh, yes they do. Did you play in bronze or silver league recently?