The opposite of feminism in gaming?

[xaszatm]

Note: While this topic was indeed created in response to the new Anita video, I really, Really, REALLY don't want this topic to devolve into just that video. There are other forum dedicated to that topic and I want to focus on something else. Thanks

The topic of this forum is in essence, and open forum question: what is the opposite stance in the debate about women in gaming? I ask this because I have seen many videos of the Jimquisition, Game Overthinker, Big Picture, Extra Credits, etc. talk about it and there is always a group of people saying that there side isn't represented or represented poorly. Alright then, this topic is essentially for you. What is the opposite stance in this debate?

Because when I do read the comments before the inevitable degradation into name calling and ban hammers, I can never understand why people are against this. Below I have a list of the average responses (Note: these are generalizations and I am hopefully not quoting anyone directly)

"This topic is discussed too much. We shouldn't have to talk about it!"

"The video was horrible!"

"These problems don't exist anymore/are not as bad as you think!"

"Men are just as objectified."

...None of these strike me as a good reason. Maybe I just don't get it. But I cannot believe that these are good reasons to get behind that side of the debate. So for a better understanding of this stance, I am asking for a more detailed response. (Apologies for the poor writing.)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Snip

Acknowledging the ways in which patriarchy affects men isn't the opposite of feminism. It IS feminism. Women are given the short end of the stick in terms of political power and earning potential, but men and boys also suffer from constrained roles and limits to what is acceptable "masculine" expression. Anita has said things to this effect several times in the past, as well as in this last video.

Feminism isn't anti-man, it's anti-patriarchy.

 

[Darken12]

Maybe I just don't get it. But I cannot believe that these are good reasons to get behind that side of the debate. So for a better understanding of this stance, I am asking for a more detailed response. (Apologies for the poor writing.)

There is a strong fear that feminism is going to want to censor/content-control. Some feminists might want this, but not all, and it's most certainly not an idea supported by feminism as a whole. However, that's basically what it boils down to, in the end. Most gamers are afraid that feminists are like the media who cracks down on violent games. They feel that if they are allowed to have their say, feminists will restrict creative freedom and forbid developers from making this or that kind of game.

There's also a very controversial issue when it comes to "sacred male spaces", but the least I talk about that, the better.

So, TL;DR: fear.

 

[PBMcNair]

There's also a very controversial issue when it comes to "sacred male spaces", but the least I talk about that, the better.

Do I even want to know ? I can't think of a situation where that phrase makes sense. Unless we were talking about some kind of highly religious, gender segregated parking structure... and thats easily the stupidest idea I've had in months.

Normally I'd add some serious to balance the humour, but this is really not my area of expertise.

 

[FreakofNatur]

If there was an opposite then I might say there is a disregard of the "common man" because well, they're common, and they're always men, and they're always getting killed/killed.

The poor, unfortunate normal person is as spectacular as that 3 second slow-motion cut-scene where his body is impaled upon the protagonist's glory. Why does it have to be a guy? It's more organic isn't it? A army-man rather than a army-woman.

I feel the organic put-down for the common man is the equivalent to the put down of women in general. Both groups are highly unflattered by popular media and well, it's the stereotype, isn't it?

 

[the December King]

I agree with Darken12's take on the broad look at the scene.

That's what I have always assumed generates these kind of reactions to critical analysis of video games: That there is a percieved agenda to convince huge swaths of people that these games are 'bad' and thus should be banned, and any future games have to be changed/generated to conform to the agenda or an equivalent censorship.

 

[mionic]

Snip

Acknowledging the ways in which patriarchy affects men isn't the opposite of feminism. It IS feminism. Women are given the short end of the stick in terms of political power and earning potential, but men and boys also suffer from constrained roles and limits to what is acceptable "masculine" expression. Anita has said things to this effect several times in the past, as well as in this last video.

Feminism isn't anti-man, it's anti-patriarchy.

I'm glad to see this as a response. Feminism has become almost scarily misrepresented by hypocrite misandrists and the likes, and to see the word "Feminism" be so strongly associated with it, really hurts what actual feminism is.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

The opposite stance is that the feminists I assume you're referring to are making a mountain out of a molehill. Debating as if the patriarchy is some sort of pervasive force in all things and characters are designed specifically to diminish women as people if missing the point, because those on the other side don't actually think any of that is true.

 

[The Lyre]

I made a fairly lengthy post about this in the other thread, so I'm going to quote myself here. It also has a less relevant, but short paragraph about Anita. Sue me.

Spoiler: Trigger Warning; Evolution, biological imperatives, and gender roles within

This actually isn't a remotely new idea - it's just not something that's really ever talked about.

We live in a society that is, in times of emergency and immediate danger, decidedly "Women and children first!". We are also mammals, that, with very few exceptions, leave the violence entirely to males - it's their biological role, their niche, and it's not really something we can do anything about.

Whilst none of us really want or like them, we do have these prescribed gender roles, but it isn't society that prescribed them - it's neurology, not sociology. The very large parts of our brains that are still chimps and lizards expect the females to squeeze out ickle babbies, and the men to die protecting those bundles of joy.

Feminism has always quite rightly pointed out that women have never had the same rights or freedoms as men, but it's not really for the reason they seem to think it is. It's not even really about the woman - it's about her precious womb.

Whereas modern Feminism especially portrays women as being caged in barbed wire, I'd say it's more accurate to say they've always been smothered in cotton wool and pillows - definitely trapped, definitely not free, but completely protected from that big, bad, outside world. Not something they ever necessarily wanted, but again, it wasn't really about what men or women wanted, it was about that special baby factory in the woman's stomach. Similarly, a man always typically been expected to 'own' his woman and child, but that also entailed providing for and protecting what was 'his' - he's always been legally obliged to do so in all circumstances, even if she was no longer his wife or mate; after all, he's the man, and that's what the male is supposed to do.

Where I personally take issue is when people tell me that I am somehow privileged because of this. No thanks, I'd rather not work and die for a womb. We can argue who has it worse all day, but ultimately we've all been screwed over in some way by the part of our brain that's still bestial.

It does highlight one of the conflict points, though. It might be argued that women are more valued (hence not being canon fodder, or ever put into games as canon fodder) but at the exact same time feminists like Anita are saying 'why'? What makes women so special that they shouldn't be mowed down alongside the men? Why are wives and daughters threatened instead of brothers or sons? (And that being so valued is just a flipside of inequality.)

And that leads to my problem with Anita specifically - I don't believe she acknowledges it at all. I don't think she believes women can ever be seen as 'special' by men, I don't think she recognises that side of things at all.

She has tunnel vision - she only sees the cases in which women are victims. All of those video responses she got, outlining this exact point, and all it really got was a thirty-second acknowledgement that, yes, maybe bad things happen to men in video games too. Maybe they die by the thousands for every one damsel in distress, maybe you valiantly mow them down to save that damsel, but, really, isn't the princess the real victim, here? At the end she dies, you know!

My point isn't that men have it bad, or worse than women - my point is that we're all fucked either way, we're either denying the part of us that's a human, or the part of us that's a lizard, and either way it's going to cause confusion on gender roles.

The part of us that's smart, the part of us that can build and invent things, knows that, really, men and women should be able to do the same things when they want to.

But the part of us that lived in caves still thinks there's a wolf at the door and if we don't stop bitching and do what we're supposed to do, then we're all going to disappear.

For me personally, the other 'side' of this, the 'male side', is somewhat close to what Sterling initially pointed out in his video; for every disproportioned, heavily-sexualised mammary monster, there's a ridiculous space marine, a moronic, grunting, feral individual that is somehow meant to represent a 'real man'.

Sterling rightly pointed out that there is a difference between objectification and idealisation, but I fail to see how one is somehow worse than the other. They both utterly misrepresent the gender they 'belong' to and have nothing in common with the average gamer. Just as the average woman probably doesn't see herself in Bayonetta, I have never seen myself in Marcus Fenix. How is it better that I am supposed to want to be Marcus Fenix, but want to bang Bayonetta? I don't want to do either of those things. Neither of these things are desirable to me.

He also failed to mention that, beyond the protagonist, males are utterly disposable, pretty much worthless in video games. The huge majority of human enemies you kill in the huge majority of video games are entirely male. You have killed thousands upon thousands of anonymous male drones, and are most likely surprised when you find yourself mercilessly slaughtering female NPCs. No one gives a shit about all those male deaths, but when one damsel is kidnapped and killed, somehow there's a gender war going on, and 'The Patriarchy' wants to brainwash your feeble gamer mind.

How is it different? Because the damsel doesn't have a choice? Neither do the enemy NPCs, they're video game characters. Because damsels are powerless? So are the NPCs when the protagonist comes knocking with shotguns and grenades or swords and fireballs.

You think being a damsel seems pointless? At least her death has meaning in the plot. Most male supporting characters get killed off for the sake of action and explosions, not emotion. Anita talks about the exceptions of good female characters, but relatively speaking, for every thousand male NPC that dies in a video game, only a handful usually make an impact on the gamer.

I would also like to point out, however, that I do not believe this is an issue for either gender. Despite what others may claim, these characters were never intended to represent their genders. These are fictional characters, they are pixels, without genitalia, they are cave-drawings, no one is designing these characters as paragons, as ambassadors for their genders, no one is telling you to be like them or to act like them.

I am merely stating that a bad character is a bad character, and an unrelatable character is unrelatable regardless of their gender. My assertion is that the majority of video games are poorly written, with poorly written characters, and this has nothing to do with whether or not you have a vagina.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Feminism isn't anti-man, it's anti-patriarchy.

I was always under the impression that feminism (cl)aimed to be pro-women, not anti-anything. It's the painting of feminism as "anti-" that causes all the problems.

Apparently.

 

[The White Hunter]

Maybe I just don't get it. But I cannot believe that these are good reasons to get behind that side of the debate. So for a better understanding of this stance, I am asking for a more detailed response. (Apologies for the poor writing.)

There is a strong fear that feminism is going to want to censor/content-control. Some feminists might want this, but not all, and it's most certainly not an idea supported by feminism as a whole. However, that's basically what it boils down to, in the end. Most gamers are afraid that feminists are like the media who cracks down on violent games. They feel that if they are allowed to have their say, feminists will restrict creative freedom and forbid developers from making this or that kind of game.

There's also a very controversial issue when it comes to "sacred male spaces", but the least I talk about that, the better.

So, TL;DR: fear.

Sacred male spaces? The fuck is that?

This whole topic is just flame bait though, but since it's not in religion and politics maybe it'll stay as a campfire rather than a than an unstoppable blaze....

 

[generals3]

Note: While this topic was indeed created in response to the new Anita video, I really, Really, REALLY don't want this topic to devolve into just that video. There are other forum dedicated to that topic and I want to focus on something else. Thanks

The topic of this forum is in essence, and open forum question: what is the opposite stance in the debate about women in gaming? I ask this because I have seen many videos of the Jimquisition, Game Overthinker, Big Picture, Extra Credits, etc. talk about it and there is always a group of people saying that there side isn't represented or represented poorly. Alright then, this topic is essentially for you. What is the opposite stance in this debate?

Because when I do read the comments before the inevitable degradation into name calling and ban hammers, I can never understand why people are against this. Below I have a list of the average responses (Note: these are generalizations and I am hopefully not quoting anyone directly)

"This topic is discussed too much. We shouldn't have to talk about it!"

"The video was horrible!"

"These problems don't exist anymore/are not as bad as you think!"

"Men are just as objectified."

...None of these strike me as a good reason. Maybe I just don't get it. But I cannot believe that these are good reasons to get behind that side of the debate. So for a better understanding of this stance, I am asking for a more detailed response. (Apologies for the poor writing.)

Soo, the reason that the problem isn't as bad as claimed is not a good reason? It seems that you have decided that no matter what your side would be right. Just think about it, let's say someone said the wage gap is problematic and the counter-argument is: the wage gap is actually tiny and thus not problematic. Surely that kind of argument would work to convince you? I mean if your argument is based on the notion that something is problematic and the counter is that it actually isn't their argument is as strong as yours. And at that point it boils down to: who is factually right?

To put this into practice in this context. A lot of people think the use of certain tropes or sexualization is problematic in games. However, none of them manage to provide objective evidence for that. At the end it all boils down to: I don't like it. And than a lot of speculation to transform an opinion in an absolute truth. I compare that with religious people who try to convince people their faith isn't faith but knowledge of the truth.

So yeah, until people provide evidence that games make people sexist or the use of tropes is what causes the female gamer segment in the triple A gaming category to be so small it's just all speculation and i'll judge it as that.

 

[Legion]

"This topic is discussed too much. We shouldn't have to talk about it!"

While there are some people who do it in the *Puts fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" kind, most of the time the reason people do this is because the vast majority of discussion on this just descend into flame-wars and name calling. It becomes tiresome to see a topic brought up, and have to walk on egg shells because it's so easy for somebody to try starting an argument over the most innocuous things.

The option to simply avoid those topics is a better solution really, but to be honest the kind of person who says a topic is over discussed isn't limited to the discussion of sexism and/or feminism. You see it for all kinds.

"The video was horrible!"

I don't see why that wouldn't count as a good reason. Unless you are saying that it's a fact that it's a good one. Or I am missing what you mean.

"These problems don't exist any more/are not as bad as you think!"

The suggestion that they don't exist at all? I agree, that's a stupid argument.

That they are not as bad as some think? Again, I don't see why that doesn't count as a good reason. There are many women who are not unhappy with the role of women in games. The "feminist" perspective is not a universal fact, it is an opinion. The amount of gamers in the world is in the hundreds of millions, if it was such a big issue, I'd have thought the general media might say something about it. Instead the general consensus of the non-gaming world is that gamers are still by and large neck-beard virgin males who live in their mothers basements.

People are making it out to be a much bigger issue than it is. They are computer games. When it comes down to it, they are extremely unimportant. I see people get more worked up over crap like this than the fact there are women forced to marry when they are children, suffer genital mutilation and are unable to work/vote/drive/learn due to the men in their society.

It's not that these things are not concerns, it's that people are making them out to be a hell of a lot more important than they really are.

"Men are just as objectified."

I tend to see this one get misused. While there are some people who think men are objectified, Jim Sterling has already countered that particular argument, so there is nothing for me to add.

What people are normally trying to say is not that men are objectified in the same sense as women. But that the representation of males is just as unrealistic as the representation of women. This is not used to suggest that women's issues therefore "don't matter", it is used against those who take the particular stance that women are being singled out.

To use a "real world" example:

Two people apply for a job, a man and a woman. They both do not get the job.

The woman says: "I didn't get the job, it's because I am a woman".
The man replies: "It's not because you are a woman. I didn't get the job either".

The man isn't suggesting that it doesn't suck that she didn't get the job, he is saying that the reason behind it is not because she is a woman. She wasn't being singled out because of her gender, so the fact that she is acting like a victim is baseless.

The point people normally try and make is that people should stop acting like it's a gender issue, and instead look at it as a problem with character writing overall. That better writing is what is needed in general, not better representations of women alone.

 

[NeutralDrow]

We live in a society that is, in times of emergency and immediate danger, decidedly "Women and children first!". We are also mammals, that, with very few exceptions, leave the violence entirely to males - it's their biological role, their niche, and it's not really something we can do anything about.

Whilst none of us really want or like them, we do have these prescribed gender roles, but it isn't society that prescribed them - it's neurology, not sociology. The very large parts of our brains that are still chimps and lizards expect the females to squeeze out ickle babbies, and the men to die protecting those bundles of joy.

Except that's not actually true. Gender-stratified roles through history have been almost exclusively the domain of the upper classes, who tended to either keep upper class women down or at least misrepresent them afterward (those in power get to write the histories). What we know of most periods of human history for everyone else (<url=http://sandradodd.com/sca/womenandwork>including some with stereotypes in the other direction), not to mention currently existing hunter-gatherer societies, is that human relations tend towards egalitarianism and separate "men's and women's" work is <url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Division_of_labor.aspx>fairly recent.

I'm also trying to think which mammal species leaves violence exclusively to males, unless you're referring only to intraspecies competition for mates. I can't think of any when it comes to hunting or defense, except maybe wild pigs.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Feminism is given a bad reputation by the louder, more obnoxious feminists who genuinely would prefer women to have all the power. That's the problem with feminism; bad reputation created by bad members. A reputation that is helped along by people who want to see feminism fail.

Then again< I reject the term "feminist." It's stupid, imo because it carries with it so much anger and negativity and implications. "Oh, you're a feminist? You must be after the castration of men." It aint the case but the term feminist seems stupid anyway. It's supposed to be about freedom and equality. That should be everyone. Everyone should want freedom and equality, I don't see why we need separate names for that shit. Anyway, I'm rambling...

As for "the opposite of feminsism", though; I think that's just people who only see the bad side of it. It's people who are uneducated and only have mainstream media to tell them what's what. I don't have a name for that.

 

[bug_of_war]

There is a strong fear that feminism is going to want to censor/content-control. Some feminists might want this, but not all, and it's most certainly not an idea supported by feminism as a whole. However, that's basically what it boils down to, in the end. Most gamers are afraid that feminists are like the media who cracks down on violent games. They feel that if they are allowed to have their say, feminists will restrict creative freedom and forbid developers from making this or that kind of game.

There's also a very controversial issue when it comes to "sacred male spaces", but the least I talk about that, the better.

So, TL;DR: fear.

The main problem is extremists. Say what you will about ideology, 90% of the people whom practice it do so without anyone getting angry, it's that small 10% extremist group that pervert the main point and actually spread the wrong idea of what the actual ideology is pushing. A feminist wants equality for the sexes, a misandrist hates men.

Darken is also right though, games are getting attacked quite often on issues in them, and we don't want to have all games end up being 1 genre with 1 style. However, there should still be room for blatant self gratification games that exploit certain aspects of life, because variety IS the spice of life. If we can't discuss the issue, then the issue gets worse, both in the sense of games not maturing because of a resentment of change, and games not being allowed to used over the top tones due to being too scared.

We need to find an equilibrium, but the answer is not running away from the discussion or taking away an entire form of art just because it's not politically correct.