Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[hex000]

Short answer yes long answer yyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssss
okay okay long answer with some semblance of intelligence yes they should be able to mix for these reasons

one) I think it's an assumption that people with these sorts of viewpoints are going to raise them during our hobby saying they shouldn't mix is a little like saying members of the BNP Republicans or people who like Marmite shouldn't mix, yes there will be some who will raise their voices above the general cacophony but to paraphrase someone whose name I've forgotten I would rather let a thousand vengeful "feminists" rage at me online then stopped one "feminist" from playing video games

two) while there may be scary radical feminists who believe in radical ideas it's like that in every group in that once that group reaches a certain size there are guaranteed to be a certain number of it who are the kinds of people we change seats on the bus to get away from an example of this would be all those lovely people on Xbox live who persist in telling me things about my mother Furthermore feminism is like pie there are many different varieties encompassing a wide range of viewpoints and ideas and I believe it's quite likely that you've played video games with someone who is at least partly builds their life view around those ideas.

three) if I could be allowed to change gears slightly and move on to the idea of feminist ideals being included in games storylines and things like that Considering the overwhelmingly maleness of our favourite hobby it might be a good idea to get some feminism in here I for one would love to play a radically feminist gears of War.

four) I have to do some more research but I don't think it's a given that looking at media of one type causes you to take on the ideas presented therein, I am not saying that it would be a bad idea for gamers to absorb a little feminism just that as long as you have a wide variety of ideas being presented to you in your media without other contributing factors you're not going to absorb solely from one source.

 

[DracoSuave]

The results are speaking for themselves.

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

Contrast that to how it was before they started all the stuff they've tried.

Definite improvement.

 

[nuttshell]

Contrast that to how it was before they started all the stuff they've tried.

Definite improvement.

Contrast that to how the game was when they started out and the player base was small.

 

[DracoSuave]

Contrast that to how it was before they started all the stuff they've tried.

Definite improvement.

Contrast that to how the game was when they started out and the player base was small.

In turn, contrast it to the community of DoTA, which is where it derived from, and HoN which HAS a small player base.

Regardless you haven't advanced your point, which is that their efforts are pointless, when their efforts have shown results DESPITE the issues you've stated with community size.

It's not the size of the community, it's what you get out of acting positive within that community.

 

[generals3]

[

Why are you so afraid of the word "sexist?" What is the difference between "this sucks" and "this is sexist?" The solution is exactly the same, why argue over semantics (also, men and women being treated differently is like, the basic definition of sexism)?

There is a difference: "this sucks" is extremely subjective and doesn't have a moral connotation. However "this is sexist" is making a factual claim (sexism is not subjective such as quality) and also has moral implications (sexism is considered wrong). The solution may be the same but the implications are not.

I think all the years where video games were judged harshly as uncool has made gamers far too sensitive. You see any criticism as an attack on you, the game creators, and the whole community, when in this case the majority of critics are gamers themselves (myself included). You see "this game has a few sexist elements" and translate it into "everyone who made this game and enjoys this game is a sexist pig." We criticize because we love games and we want them to grow and change for the better. Games have many different elements to them, and it is possible to dislike one part while enjoying most other parts.

No what made gamers sensitive towards moralistic claims were all the accusations VG's were morally evil. They make people asocial, they make people violent... and now a brand new group started to bring in Sexism. And while not everyone who uses sexism as an argument argues it makes people in RL sexist it has been used plenty of times (thank you Anita...). It's getting tiring to hear how VG's are corrupting society (without evidence to support the claims). And as such whenever loaded words like "sexism" are thrown you're gonna meet a lot of resistance. Mainly since the sexism only exists in the marketing (gender based targeting), which is omnipresent in almost every industry. Giving flimsy clothing to certain characters is not in itself sexist. Heck the usual mantra is "let's make all the characters look good for audience X". It just so happens audience X doesn't really care for big titted males in bikinis.

You're touching on a whole entire other discussion, which is that there are many very different things that file under the label "video game." Most of what you listed are basically elaborate board games, without much plot or characters, and as such they aren't really relevant. The issue is that, when games do try to function as a storytelling medium, they will more often than not rely on sexist* tropes.


*note that I am calling the tropes sexist, not the game devs or the players.

You claimed the "medium" was not inclusive. You made a claim which basically put the whole industry in the same pot. I happen to consider every VG a VG. If you want to make a claim regarding a specific subset of games you better need to be precise about it. And even as a strory telling medium is that true? C&C told stories, WoW did as well, you also have games like CoD, MGS, and so on which tell stories but don't rely on sexist tropes. (and what is a sexist trope to begin with? Because no the DiD trope is not sexist. Because the implication would be that the moment a protagonist of gender X saves a victim of gender Y it's sexism)

 

[nuttshell]

In turn, contrast it to the community of DoTA, which is where it derived from, and HoN which HAS a small player base.

Regardless you haven't advanced your point, which is that their efforts are pointless...

My point was also, that the playerbase will be nice in the beginning and when it's small. HoN and DotA have been around for quite some time. The playerbase in LoL is too large to be controllable and too old to be tolerable to bad and new players. Thats why here: http://forums.euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=122 you will constantly see recruiting threads on the first page by small groups who want to play having fun without the hate.

 

[carnex]

Why are you so afraid of the word "sexist?" What is the difference between "this sucks" and "this is sexist?" The solution is exactly the same, why argue over semantics (also, men and women being treated differently is like, the basic definition of sexism)?

The problem comes from the connotation of the word. If you say that someone sucks you stated opinion that he is no good, and context will say what's he not good at. Like if you say that someone sucks while he sings in karaoke bar, everyone will conclude that that person sings badly or at least you think so.

But if you say that one is "sexist" you slapped on that person socially unacceptable characteristic that marks him.

So there is huge difference.

Also, the word "sexist" as it is defined in all online dictonary is damn stupid

Webster Dictionarry, least toxic definition i could find. But really they are all the same, worded differently.

Definition of SEXISM
1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

First part, two thumbs up. Good definition, Should have stopped there.
Second part. Discrimination against women (usually worded "especially against women"). So, prejudice or discrimination against men is automatically less bad and harmful? I would say that's the bloody definition of SEXISM right there.

2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

This is pure facepalm material. Social roles based on sex are not bad in themselves. Forcing them onto people unwilling to take them IS bad, but roles are roles, totally neutral. If men wants woman to be housewife it's not bad unless he forces her into that role against her will. If woman asks men to do dangerous job to provide her with more comfortable life it's not bad unless she forces him in one way or another.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Also, the word "sexist" as it is defined in all online dictonary is damn stupid

Webster Dictionarry, least toxic definition i could find. But really they are all the same, worded differently.

Definition of SEXISM
1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

Bleargh that's unfortunate.

Vocabulary.com seems a little more neutral...

Sexism means discrimination against people because of their sex: anything unfair to males or females, because they're males or females, is an example of sexism.

While it strays into universally male towards female sexism in the examples, it refrains from letting that seep into the definition itself.

 

[Olikar]

Why are you so afraid of the word "sexist?" What is the difference between "this sucks" and "this is sexist?"

The phrase "this sucks" is a statement on the quality of a game, the phrase "this is sexist" is nothing more than moralising over art.

 

[MoeMints]

You can't objectively prove something is sexist. There's no scientific method for proving sexism. Everything isn't math. It's a criticism, just like "this sucks" or "this is offensive to me as a gamer." I say call a spade a spade.

A spade being a spade is objective.
While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

 

[runic knight]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that criticism still be highly valuable to, say, Christians who preferred a lot of Christ in their rock? Who would be the likeliest consumers of that particular brand of criticism? Or say, if you were the kind of person who was very concerned about religious or ideological contexts when it came to the art you enjoyed, would you not appreciate a critic who explored those ideas?

As I said...the value of criticism is determined by its audience. I don't share tastes with Armond White, so I don't read his articles or take his opinions into consideration when deciding which films to watch, but that doesn't mean his criticism is "worthless". Just worthless to me. As I am not the center of the universe (ALAS!), the fact a thing is worthless specifically to me doesn't amount to very much.

It's fine to dismiss criticism, based on your personal outlook. It's fine to debate criticism. What I don't understand is any argument that says "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it is worthless" or "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it shouldn't exist".

 

[runic knight]

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that criticism still be highly valuable to, say, Christians who preferred a lot of Christ in their rock? Who would be the likeliest consumers of that particular brand of criticism? Or say, if you were the kind of person who was very concerned about religious or ideological contexts when it came to the art you enjoyed, would you not appreciate a critic who explored those ideas?

As I said...the value of criticism is determined by its audience. I don't share tastes with Armond White, so I don't read his articles or take his opinions into consideration when deciding which films to watch, but that doesn't mean his criticism is "worthless". Just worthless to me. As I am not the center of the universe (ALAS!), the fact a thing is worthless specifically to me doesn't amount to very much.

It's fine to dismiss criticism, based on your personal outlook. It's fine to debate criticism. What I don't understand is any argument that says "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it is worthless" or "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it shouldn't exist".

I have to ask though, what is the worth of an opinion echoed?

When I hear someone talking about criticisms, I assume that of journalists or columnist who are reviewing something. I assume it is reference to value of the product reviewed as measured in relation to the quality of its product and against the quality of the competitors. I may even assume it is in regards to its own merits.
I never assume that it is being judged by the light of a religion or ideological stance that it was never meant to appeal to or apply to. Not because I may not be part of those groups, but rather, trying to measure the product along those lines is worthless to the point or quality of the art itself. I know, I know, worthless is relative, and probably not the best word to use here, but only one I have at the moment.

For someone outside the target audience of the criticisms (say wrong religion), the opinion matters not at all by default. They do not share the same limiting mindset in trying to see how the art fits within the context of that world view. To someone within the targeting audience though, the problem can still arise when you have different opinions on what does or does not fit within it. The argument becomes a debate over the subjective interpretation of the religion itself, and still ultimately boils down to "in my opinion" once you cut through the fat of "for people who share my belief."

When it comes to something like video games as art, there are still aspects that are more objective. Functionality of the product, how well it works in general, can be seen in that way. Visual style can be explained (even if opinion on said style is still personal opinion). Even story and character aspects can be quantified to a degree that can help when it comes to the audience making their opinions. How well it fits into someone's personal (and yes, it will always be personal, as no two people have the exact same beliefs) morality or philosophical viewpoint just doesn't do the same thing, except to those who would already be slanted to that opinion.

So, if the opinion is merely an echo of the audience's view (or is just accepted blindly), can it really be said to have much worth as a criticism.

 

[Thr33X]

Feminism and gaming should never be made to exist in the same breath. Period. Femininity on the other hand in gaming, now that's something I'd like to see. I dare for any woman who writes or draws or dabbles in any form of game design to make a female character in a game that fits their lofty ideal of "what a woman is" and make it in a way that in effect doesn't alienate or objectify in and of itself. It can't be done, because what's one person's idea might not be the next person's.

Normally that's fine and dandy.

There was one a time where if one didn't like something, they just said they don't like it, it sucks, or whatever the case may be. Of a female character (let's say Ivy from Soul Calibur for example) suddenly got noticeably enhanced from one game to the next physically, there was a knee jerk reaction, but otherwise it's just what the designers wanted to do with the character.

Fast forward to 2013 and any depiction of the female body showing an inch of skin is all of a sudden a social injustice. What the crap? So now designers have to be mindful of the sensitivity of a minute group of consumers? That's pretty much the call to action being made here, and it's ridiculous. I've broken an oath I made to myself now to never post in one of these type of threads again...so now I must go find my dagger.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I have to ask though, what is the worth of an opinion echoed?

When I hear someone talking about criticisms, I assume that of journalists or columnist who are reviewing something. I assume it is reference to value of the product reviewed as measured in relation to the quality of its product and against the quality of the competitors. I may even assume it is in regards to its own merits.
I never assume that it is being judged by the light of a religion or ideological stance that it was never meant to appeal to or apply to. Not because I may not be part of those groups, but rather, trying to measure the product along those lines is worthless to the point or quality of the art itself. I know, I know, worthless is relative, and probably not the best word to use here, but only one I have at the moment.

For someone outside the target audience of the criticisms (say wrong religion), the opinion matters not at all by default. They do not share the same limiting mindset in trying to see how the art fits within the context of that world view. To someone within the targeting audience though, the problem can still arise when you have different opinions on what does or does not fit within it. The argument becomes a debate over the subjective interpretation of the religion itself, and still ultimately boils down to "in my opinion" once you cut through the fat of "for people who share my belief."

When it comes to something like video games as art, there are still aspects that are more objective. Functionality of the product, how well it works in general, can be seen in that way. Visual style can be explained (even if opinion on said style is still personal opinion). Even story and character aspects can be quantified to a degree that can help when it comes to the audience making their opinions. How well it fits into someone's personal (and yes, it will always be personal, as no two people have the exact same beliefs) morality or philosophical viewpoint just doesn't do the same thing, except to those who would already be slanted to that opinion.

So, if the opinion is merely an echo of the audience's view (or is just accepted blindly), can it really be said to have much worth as a criticism.

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

Fast forward to 2013 and any depiction of the female body showing an inch of skin is all of a sudden a social injustice. What the crap? So now designers have to be mindful of the sensitivity of a minute group of consumers? That's pretty much the call to action being made here, and it's ridiculous. I've broken an oath I made to myself now to never post in one of these type of threads again...so now I must go find my dagger.

Well...

A) "Minute" is a projection. There's no real way to measure how large or small the body of consumers that are sensitive to issue X or issue Y. Companies likely employ metrics, but even those will never be 100% accurate.

B) Who said "Have to"? Companies are free to react as they choose. Art and film and literature have faced hard questions since their inception, and it never slowed the flow of controversial art and film and literature. The idea that "Artists must be protected from criticism lest they start listening to it" is ludicrous. If an artist draws a pair of ambulatory tits, that is his prerogative. If the artist then responds to criticism of his tits and draws something different in response, THAT IS STILL HIS PREROGATIVE. Just as it would be his prerogative to ignore the criticism, or take it half way, or even respond to the criticism with an even more antagonistic piece.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I love how people here will argue that art is a medium that should never be censored. Artists should be free to express what they want and how they want it.

Women with huge breasts? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly raped? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly beaten? Sure thing.
Women with no personality? Sure thing.
Women with other ridiculous proportions? Sure thing.


Feminism? Oh, f*ck no.


Ridiculous.

 

[MoeMints]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

Runic actually has it fairly accurate, but specifically...

While criticism comes from personal perception, it being short-term and merely subjective should be the opposite of what it intends to be.

When one does not show any attempt to actually being a audience, peer, and/or credible judge of the maker who receives this criticism, you lose importance to those who have opposing views. In many times, even to the point of people only agreeing with you because they would already.

Such like the most cherrypicked games I see, I have definitely seen many a person not shown any attempt at understanding the core of the game and fanbase, rather doing reactionary claims that are just white noise after the 20th time we've been over this.

Love, hate, good, and bad, and all their variations should all be thrown out the window, or be given as little significance over the reasoning behind those terms.

My argument isn't "this critique is worthless because I don't like it", its "this critique is worthless because it wastes everyone's time that wasn't going to agree with it."

 

[runic knight]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.