The Portrayal of Men and Masculinity in Video Games

[axlryder]

So if the people who wrote these incredibly machisimo-laden stories are okay with dudes having emotions beyond "angry" and "very angry," why aren't we?

Depends on who you ask. Sam Keane suggested that modern men haven't defined what masculinity means to our culture. So in a supreme gesture of laziness, they simply collect some stereotypes about what it means to be feminine and say, "Do the opposite of that."

I think masculinity in video games has pretty much followed the tropes masculinity has followed for a long while. Many modern gaming protagonists who aren't being reminiscent of a smarmy Indiana Jones or grizzled marine exude an almost animalistic aura. I don't think men are so dependent on woman that the only way they can hope to define their own masculinity is by looking at femininity and just "doing the opposite". If anything, I'd say men cling to an image of savage hyper-masculinity in our culture specifically because of our modern culture impedes them from fulfilling said image or anything close to it.

 

[axlryder]

I think masculinity in video games has pretty much followed the tropes masculinity has followed for a long while.

Examples?

If anything, I'd say men cling to an image of savage hyper-masculinity in our culture specifically because of our modern culture impedes them from fulfilling said image or anything close to it.

Why? Because it's a thing we should actually aspire to? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

cave men, Hercules, Notable members of various military forces throughout thousands of years, Various famous film personalities, etc. Obviously different individuals have different personalities, though our perception of masculinity does have range, even within our own culture (Just compare Kratos to Nathan Drake). However, obviously our modern perception of it draws from some very old sources.

As to the second part, I though my statement was pretty clear (though I was specifically speaking within the context of gaming). Men cling to an image of hyper-masculinity in video games because society limits them in fulfilling that image. It makes sense that many men WANT to embody that to some extent. They wouldn't play video games where they're slicing dudes up with chain swords if they didn't think it was cool or admirable in some way. Now, I'm not saying that if guys all became grizzled war-heroes that violent video games would just disappear ( I know a lot of vets who enjoy shooters). Hell, I think a lot of guys wouldn't even take the option to become a grizzled war-hero, as I'm sure many of them prefer their safe, vicarious enjoyment of Master Chief's grand exploits from behind the television. I just think many guys would branch out into other game types and genres if they could more easily obtain that traditional image of masculinity that they might aspire towards (I know a lot of vets who have). Of course, one could argue that having such an image ingratiated into them from a young age is what largely what causes that fascination with guns 'n" stuff. Regardless, overall I honestly think it's a little ridiculous that men would suddenly only be able to figure out what it means to be manly by "doing the opposite" of woman. At worst I'd saying a portion of many men are really just absently carrying on some vague ideas of masculinity established by their forebears, even if it isn't necessarily applicable in a modern context.

 

[Terramax]

They're video game characters. They're not real. Therefore, I'm not threatened by them, or feel expected to comply to their physical or emotional ideologies in any way. Especially when 99% of them are so fantastical, it would be impossible to do so.

Fuck playing as the guy who looks like the janitor at my old high school... I want to play as robotic rabbits again!

Oh, yes, please! Another Jumping Flash would be outstanding. Imagine the possibilities with today's console capabilities?

 

[undeadexistentialist]

Yeah, I'm as aware of the tropes and cliches and gender roles and such as much as everybody here, but at the same time they don't HUGELY grate on me, and I'll tell you why; it's the same reason I almost exclusively spend my time on fantasy RPG's, it's the same reason I avoid 'realistic war shooters' like the plague, and it's the same answer I'd give to any of the morons spouting about how video games make us more violent and 'corrupt' us. Quite simply, I play video games to enjoy doing things I can't do in real life. I like RPG's because then I get a choice in what I do which broadens my options, I enjoy fantasy because it contains elements that will never exist in the real world, and I don't see them as role models in any way shape or form because I play to make THEM follow MY desires, not the other way around.

In moral-choice games my average first character is an evil, cruel, sadistic son of a *****, when in real life I'm as nice, reasonable and polite as can be (without sounding self-congratulatory). In games when I can have 'relations' I usually first go for a 'playa' getting with as many chicks as I possibly can, when in real life I'm 21 and I've been with two girls in my entire life. Most of all, though, in real life I rarely make a choice without second-guessing myself, so in games my characters are subject to my whim. I want to kill that guy? I kill that guy. I want to steal something? I take it. I want to put myself in huge danger saving that random NPC? Why the hell not? I take "video games as escapism" to a more literal extent than it seems most people do. I'm not only not really bothered about being surrounded by attractive people, but when I say I use video games as a form of escapism, I use video games to be SOMEBODY ELSE. I also enjoy acting for the same reason.

Bearing that in mind, "gritty realistic shooters" bore me stupid, because if my choices are going to be so severely limited in terms of plot, forms of interaction, the way events unfold etc are going to be out of my control, it has to be extremely well written for me to want to do it more than once, and bugger all modern games of this sort do that. As for characters I like, as I play RPG's so my characters are more based on who I make them, the only one that leaps to mind is Garrett from the Thief series, and it is somewhat hard to pinpoint why without running over the tropes. He's a sarcastic/misanthropic anti-social loner, but I guess one of the areas he differs from the run-of-the-mill modern character is his approach. I suppose he fits his character a lot better (in my mind) because he has more responses than just "RARGH PROTAGONIST SMASH", which is absurdly refreshing. The most generic modern games to me always seem to boil down to running around shooting people, whereas Garrett feels a hell of a lot more like the character I would like to be, sneaky, cleaver and tricky, using violence only when stealth fails (or at least having the option of doing that). It's a nice change, and it seems like much more of a display of skill than kicking in the door and putting your enemies' insides on the outside

 

[imnot]

I can relate to Alan Wake, and I desire his jacket...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I think masculinity in video games has pretty much followed the tropes masculinity has followed for a long while.

Examples?

If anything, I'd say men cling to an image of savage hyper-masculinity in our culture specifically because of our modern culture impedes them from fulfilling said image or anything close to it.

Why? Because it's a thing we should actually aspire to? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

cave men, Hercules, Notable members of various military forces throughout thousands of years, Various famous film personalities, etc. Obviously different individuals have different personalities, though our perception of masculinity does have range, even within our own culture (Just compare Kratos to Nathan Drake). However, obviously our modern perception of it draws from some very old sources.

I'd disagree actually. Just in the 19th and 20th century we saw a lot of changing in the definition of masculine and what it meant to be a good man. For example, it was not considered a particularly good manly trait to have swelling muscles in the late 19th-century and at that time it was also considered the hallmark of a good father that he gave his children a good round of spanking when they didn't behave.

Prior to World War I going to war was considered a manly duty and a litmus test of your manliness, but post-world War I we see a massive decline in the idea that war somehow makes men. This particular trope remained all the way up to the mid-80's. The movies about soldiers and war that came out after world war II provides us with plenty of men who'd rather not be doing war but mans up to do their duty (John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies, Alistair MacLean scripts etc.). The men we see in these movies are not nearly the same kind of masculine we see today. John Wayne always played characters (no matter if they were soldiers or cowboys) with strong moral values, the heart in the right place and who was afraid but saddled up anyway. There was much less emphasis on brawn, attitude and headstrongness back then and more emphasis on moral compass, dutifulness and accepting the consequences of your actions.

For an even better example look at Casablanca. Humphrey Bogart in that movie was the 40's stereotype for a manly man. For most of that movie we are exploring his moral compass and eventually we get to see how he altruistically sacrifices his own love in favor of helping the allied war effort. Or just look at how movies set in medieval times has changed from Ivanhoe to Robin Hood (2010), with less focus on noble and corteous knights and more of an emphasis on grit and aggression.

That some archtypes are prevalent through history isn't unexpected. Soldiers have always been male and thus it is easy to create the necessary conotations with minimal effort. The way we see soldiers portrayed is also often how we expect men to be, because being a soldier is something that only men can be.

[
As to the second part, I though my statement was pretty clear (though I was specifically speaking within the context of gaming). Men cling to an image of hyper-masculinity in video games because society limits them in fulfilling that image. It makes sense that many men WANT to embody that to some extent. They wouldn't play video games where they're slicing dudes up with chain swords if they didn't think it was cool or admirable in some way. Now, I'm not saying that if guys all became grizzled war-heroes that violent video games would just disappear ( I know a lot of vets who enjoy shooters). Hell, I think a lot of guys wouldn't even take the option to become a grizzled war-hero, as I'm sure many of them prefer their safe, vicarious enjoyment of Master Chief's grand exploits from behind the television. I just think many guys would branch out into other game types and genres if they could more easily obtain that traditional image of masculinity that they might aspire towards (I know a lot of vets who have). Of course, one could argue that having such an image ingratiated into them from a young age is what largely what causes that fascination with guns 'n" stuff. Regardless, overall I honestly think it's a little ridiculous that men would suddenly only be able to figure out what it means to be manly by "doing the opposite" of woman. At worst I'd saying a portion of many men are really just absently carrying on some vague ideas of masculinity established by their forebears, even if it isn't necessarily applicable in a modern context.

Let us preface here by saying that society has always tried to prevent people from fulfilling the ideals that are currently seen as hyper-masculine. Uncontrolled aggression, agency without thinking of consequences and a lust for violence are anathema for society because they are the very opposite of what society is.

Look back at John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart again. They were men because they made decisions, they bore the consequences of these decisions and they stood up for what they thought was right. They were in essence family fathers as seen in the American Dream. Historically, those are the defining trait of masculinity: Agency and responsibility. The man made decisions for his family and provided for them. In our current post-modern society however, feminism has largely stripped that from masculinity however, since the feminist movement has (and still is) advocating that women can be the agents of their own life and shoulder the responsibility of caring for themselves.

Thus, in the process of empowering women, the feminist movement has not only deconstructed the female gender role but also deconstructed many parts of the male gender role. With the most important parts no longer being solely exclusive to men, the male gender role should have been re-defined and there are certainly some of that going on (the "latte dad" in Sweden for example). But a majority of men, and media in particular, do not wish to let go off their old, safe and powerful, male gender role. So instead of finding new things that could be manly, they stick to what remains of the old gender role. Which at this point is violence, aggression and recklessness.

So to sum it up, the problem today is that the masculine stereotype has not followed the times and is now a shell of what it once was. It is a relic from before the feminist movement and instead of men working on updating it and making it into something that can fit with the times, they cling to what remains of it. Obviously, this becomes a problem because it makes the average game protagonist seem like a hormonal teenager with too much muscle and not enough common sense.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

I think masculinity in video games has pretty much followed the tropes masculinity has followed for a long while.

Examples?

If anything, I'd say men cling to an image of savage hyper-masculinity in our culture specifically because of our modern culture impedes them from fulfilling said image or anything close to it.

Why? Because it's a thing we should actually aspire to? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

cave men, Hercules, Notable members of various military forces throughout thousands of years, Various famous film personalities, etc. Obviously different individuals have different personalities, though our perception of masculinity does have range, even within our own culture (Just compare Kratos to Nathan Drake). However, obviously our modern perception of it draws from some very old sources.

I'd disagree actually. Just in the 19th and 20th century we saw a lot of changing in the definition of masculine and what it meant to be a good man. For example, it was not considered a particularly good manly trait to have swelling muscles in the late 19th-century and at that time it was also considered the hallmark of a good father that he gave his children a good round of spanking when they didn't behave.

Prior to World War I going to war was considered a manly duty and a litmus test of your manliness, but post-world War I we see a massive decline in the idea that war somehow makes men. This particular trope remained all the way up to the mid-80's. The movies about soldiers and war that came out after world war II provides us with plenty of men who'd rather not be doing war but mans up to do their duty (John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies, Alistair MacLean scripts etc.). The men we see in these movies are not nearly the same kind of masculine we see today. John Wayne always played characters (no matter if they were soldiers or cowboys) with strong moral values, the heart in the right place and who was afraid but saddled up anyway. There was much less emphasis on brawn, attitude and headstrongness back then and more emphasis on moral compass, dutifulness and accepting the consequences of your actions.

For an even better example look at Casablanca. Humphrey Bogart in that movie was the 40's stereotype for a manly man. For most of that movie we are exploring his moral compass and eventually we get to see how he altruistically sacrifices his own love in favor of helping the allied war effort. Or just look at how movies set in medieval times has changed from Ivanhoe to Robin Hood (2010), with less focus on noble and corteous knights and more of an emphasis on grit and aggression.

That some archtypes are prevalent through history isn't unexpected. Soldiers have always been male and thus it is easy to create the necessary conotations with minimal effort. The way we see soldiers portrayed is also often how we expect men to be, because being a soldier is something that only men can be.

[
As to the second part, I though my statement was pretty clear (though I was specifically speaking within the context of gaming). Men cling to an image of hyper-masculinity in video games because society limits them in fulfilling that image. It makes sense that many men WANT to embody that to some extent. They wouldn't play video games where they're slicing dudes up with chain swords if they didn't think it was cool or admirable in some way. Now, I'm not saying that if guys all became grizzled war-heroes that violent video games would just disappear ( I know a lot of vets who enjoy shooters). Hell, I think a lot of guys wouldn't even take the option to become a grizzled war-hero, as I'm sure many of them prefer their safe, vicarious enjoyment of Master Chief's grand exploits from behind the television. I just think many guys would branch out into other game types and genres if they could more easily obtain that traditional image of masculinity that they might aspire towards (I know a lot of vets who have). Of course, one could argue that having such an image ingratiated into them from a young age is what largely what causes that fascination with guns 'n" stuff. Regardless, overall I honestly think it's a little ridiculous that men would suddenly only be able to figure out what it means to be manly by "doing the opposite" of woman. At worst I'd saying a portion of many men are really just absently carrying on some vague ideas of masculinity established by their forebears, even if it isn't necessarily applicable in a modern context.

Let us preface here by saying that society has always tried to prevent people from fulfilling the ideals that are currently seen as hyper-masculine. Uncontrolled aggression, agency without thinking of consequences and a lust for violence are anathema for society because they are the very opposite of what society is.

Look back at John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart again. They were men because they made decisions, they bore the consequences of these decisions and they stood up for what they thought was right. They were in essence family fathers as seen in the American Dream. Historically, those are the defining trait of masculinity: Agency and responsibility. The man made decisions for his family and provided for them. In our current post-modern society however, feminism has largely stripped that from masculinity however, since the feminist movement has (and still is) advocating that women can be the agents of their own life and shoulder the responsibility of caring for themselves.

Thus, in the process of empowering women, the feminist movement has not only deconstructed the female gender role but also deconstructed many parts of the male gender role. With the most important parts no longer being solely exclusive to men, the male gender role should have been re-defined and there are certainly some of that going on (the "latte dad" in Sweden for example). But a majority of men, and media in particular, do not wish to let go off their old, safe and powerful, male gender role. So instead of finding new things that could be manly, they stick to what remains of the old gender role. Which at this point is violence, aggression and recklessness.

So to sum it up, the problem today is that the masculine stereotype has not followed the times and is now a shell of what it once was. It is a relic from before the feminist movement and instead of men working on updating it and making it into something that can fit with the times, they cling to what remains of it. Obviously, this becomes a problem because it makes the average game protagonist seem like a hormonal teenager with too much muscle and not enough common sense.

I see the problem you?re raising and I agree. The myths that gave men an idea of what they could or should do are becoming obsolete. But I don?t think this is something that will be solved by men as a group just ?letting go? as it were.

I once read a paper talking about homeless men that may be helpful for this debate and for the life of me I can?t find it now. If I can find it I?ll edit a link in. The gist of the article was that we have a drastically higher amount of male homeless then female. One point that really resonated with me was value in males has traditionally been associated with agency and strength (whatever form that may take). Thus a males worth is predicated on his power. The male without power is worthless and thus is not given assistance when needed and looked down on for even needing the help. The problem arises when both society and the male individual buy into this notion. It turns into a negative spiral with the man thinking he is worthless, being affirmed by society that he is worthless and in turn losing agency and hope. The cycle takes another step down with society looking down on the male again.
Honestly, we can see the problem. I don?t know how to stop it.

OP, is it cool if we turn this into a brain storming page?

If women are taking agency more in society should they switch into a protector/guardian role? Can we allow both men and women to act across the gender divide, creating four effective genders? Should we tell our sons that they are beautiful regardless of what the world thinks? Should we try to instruct our daughters in gallantry?

I?m scared for my future children.

 

[axlryder]

So to sum it up, the problem today is that the masculine stereotype has not followed the times and is now a shell of what it once was. It is a relic from before the feminist movement and instead of men working on updating it and making it into something that can fit with the times, they cling to what remains of it. Obviously, this becomes a problem because it makes the average game protagonist seem like a hormonal teenager with too much muscle and not enough common sense.

I'm not going to bother really countering you, because this point is basically the last point I made in my own post. You kind of just repeated me with that one. "At worst I'd saying a portion of many men are really just absently carrying on some vague ideas of masculinity established by their forebears, even if it isn't necessarily applicable in a modern context." Same basic meaning as what I just quoted from you. That said, even in our video games we see soldiers who are weary or unwilling. Those who don't want to do what they're doing but must carry on anyway. That trope has continued on (which makes sense, as war is still not viewed as a supremely honorable or desirable thing). We also see many men fulfilling that authoritative roll in games (I think you're exaggerating how "most" video game protagonists are). Like I said, there's a broad spectrum of masculinity displayed even within our modern culture, even if much of it still adheres to some similar traits or qualities. Also, some ancient societies (like the Spartans or mongols) really did have hyper-masculine men. Regardless, I generally agree with you here, I still think it's just ridiculous to think that men have defined their masculinity by being "the opposite" of female. They're really just loosely carrying on the traits of the past.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I see the problem you?re raising and I agree. The myths that gave men an idea of what they could or should do are becoming obsolete. But I don?t think this is something that will be solved by men as a group just ?letting go? as it were.

I once read a paper talking about homeless men that may be helpful for this debate and for the life of me I can?t find it now. If I can find it I?ll edit a link in. The gist of the article was that we have a drastically higher amount of male homeless then female. One point that really resonated with me was value in males has traditionally been associated with agency and strength (whatever form that may take). Thus a males worth is predicated on his power. The male without power is worthless and thus is not given assistance when needed and looked down on for even needing the help. The problem arises when both society and the male individual buy into this notion. It turns into a negative spiral with the man thinking he is worthless, being affirmed by society that he is worthless and in turn losing agency and hope. The cycle takes another step down with society looking down on the male again.
Honestly, we can see the problem. I don?t know how to stop it.

OP, is it cool if we turn this into a brain storming page?

If women are taking agency more in society should they switch into a protector/guardian role? Can we allow both men and women to act across the gender divide, creating four effective genders? Should we tell our sons that they are beautiful regardless of what the world thinks? Should we try to instruct our daughters in gallantry?

I?m scared for my future children.

I am not suggesting that men "just let go", because doing that is what basically put the male gender role where it is today. I am suggesting that there's no way back to the 1950's american dream with a providing dad, a supportive housewife, a son who likes baseball and curious and a daughter who's pretty and prudent and that because of this, men (as a whole) need to think forward and start defining what it is they really want to be as men.

In an ideal future gender shouldn't be an important factor for what's expected of you. Agent women and supportive men should be treated equal to agent men and passive women. I believe that what we are seeing today, with the current trend of hyper-masculinity in media, is the death throes of the old masculine stereotype, a last attempt to make an outdated concept fit into a modern world. The problem with the masculine sterotypes is that they punish any man who fail to live up to the expectation of agency, aggression and capability and in a society where women are more and more frequently telling men to let the women be their own agents, that is an ever increasing number of men.

Just like feudalism slowly withered away after the first liberterian movement, so do I believe that old gender stereotypes will wither away now. Hopefully to be replaced with something more forgiving and less punishing for the majority that can't live up to the ideals.

Not really no. He rightly called these portrayals stereotypes. You seem to be confusing them with archetypes.

She.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

I see the problem you?re raising and I agree. The myths that gave men an idea of what they could or should do are becoming obsolete. But I don?t think this is something that will be solved by men as a group just ?letting go? as it were.

I once read a paper talking about homeless men that may be helpful for this debate and for the life of me I can?t find it now. If I can find it I?ll edit a link in. The gist of the article was that we have a drastically higher amount of male homeless then female. One point that really resonated with me was value in males has traditionally been associated with agency and strength (whatever form that may take). Thus a males worth is predicated on his power. The male without power is worthless and thus is not given assistance when needed and looked down on for even needing the help. The problem arises when both society and the male individual buy into this notion. It turns into a negative spiral with the man thinking he is worthless, being affirmed by society that he is worthless and in turn losing agency and hope. The cycle takes another step down with society looking down on the male again.
Honestly, we can see the problem. I don?t know how to stop it.

OP, is it cool if we turn this into a brain storming page?

If women are taking agency more in society should they switch into a protector/guardian role? Can we allow both men and women to act across the gender divide, creating four effective genders? Should we tell our sons that they are beautiful regardless of what the world thinks? Should we try to instruct our daughters in gallantry?

I?m scared for my future children.

I am not suggesting that men "just let go", because doing that is what basically put the male gender role where it is today. I am suggesting that there's no way back to the 1950's american dream with a providing dad, a supportive housewife, a son who likes baseball and curious and a daughter who's pretty and prudent and that because of this, men (as a whole) need to think forward and start defining what it is they really want to be as men.

In an ideal future gender shouldn't be an important factor for what's expected of you. Agent women and supportive men should be treated equal to agent men and passive women. I believe that what we are seeing today, with the current trend of hyper-masculinity in media, is the death throes of the old masculine stereotype, a last attempt to make an outdated concept fit into a modern world. The problem with the masculine sterotypes is that they punish any man who fail to live up to the expectation of agency, aggression and capability and in a society where women are more and more frequently telling men to let the women be their own agents, that is an ever increasing number of men.

Just like feudalism slowly withered away after the first liberterian movement, so do I believe that old gender stereotypes will wither away now. Hopefully to be replaced with something more forgiving and less punishing for the majority that can't live up to the ideals.

Not really no. He rightly called these portrayals stereotypes. You seem to be confusing them with archetypes.

She.

Mhh... So it will all work out in the end?

From what I?ve seen it looks like it?s going to be a painful transition. Is there anything we as a group can do to make this easier for everyone? Or is it something we are going to have to weather as a collective?

I don?t think we are going to get away from some type of stereotype, it?s the social scaffolding, but can we change these stereotypes to include the virtues we want?

 

[axlryder]

cave men, Hercules, Notable members of various military forces throughout thousands of years, Various famous film personalities, etc. Obviously different individuals have different personalities, though our perception of masculinity does have range, even within our own culture (Just compare Kratos to Nathan Drake). However, obviously our modern perception of it draws from some very old sources.

Not buying it. Heracles adhered to ancient Greek morality much as Odysseus did. Greek virtues are not the same as our modern virtues which have been shaped by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Unless you can actually name specific masculine figures, I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. You can't just say "military heroes" and call it a day. You need specific examples.

Also, you can't just point to Kratos and Drake and call that proof. Kratos in the first game was meant to adhere to Greek tragedy. He was not a likable character. Perhaps in ancient Greece he would have been more sympathetic, but we only feel pathos for him at the end. The sequels proceeded to take a dump on that.

As to the second part, I though my statement was pretty clear (though I was specifically speaking within the context of gaming). Men cling to an image of hyper-masculinity in video games because society limits them in fulfilling that image. It makes sense that many men WANT to embody that to some extent.

I don't buy that either. What we see are the power fantasies of little boys, not heroic masculine archetypes.

Regardless, overall I honestly think it's a little ridiculous that men would suddenly only be able to figure out what it means to be manly by "doing the opposite" of woman.

What are the worst insults you can level at a man? To compare him to a woman.

I'm not going to bother really countering you, because this point is basically the last point I made in my own post. You kind of just repeated me with that one.

Not really no. He rightly called these portrayals stereotypes. You seem to be confusing them with archetypes.

Okay, first of all, your own initial point was incredibly vague so I should really be calling you on that before you try and wring more information out of me. I'm not going to spend my time countering some half baked idea.

Oh I see, so in the past calling a man a woman was never seen as an insult? And you consider that definitive proof of anything in a modern context? I don't buy such a weak inference either, sorry.

Also, stop splitting hairs. Semantics aside, the general idea is the same. I'm speaking within the context of gaming, where many characters are just made up of a string of stereotypes anyway. Games are hardly noted for their stellar writing, so there is some obvious overlap there. What's more, more maturely written games (which are becoming increasingly more common) do fill archetypal roles, not the oversimplified reverse stereotypes you're talking about. Our points were extremely similar.

 

[axlryder]

Okay, first of all, your own initial point was incredibly vague so I should really be calling you on that before you try and wring more information out of me. I'm not going to spend my time countering some half baked idea.

You want me to go into more detail? Okay then. Where do you want me to start? What point do you want me to elaborate on? I'm free all day.

Oh I see, so in the past calling a man a woman was never seen as an insult? And you consider that definitive proof of anything in a modern context? I don't buy such a weak inference either, sorry.

So you deny that this has anything to do with the modern perception of masculinity?

Also, stop splitting hairs. Semantics aside, the general idea is the same. I'm speaking within the context of gaming, where many characters are just made up of a string of stereotypes anyway. Games are hardly noted for their stellar writing, so there is some obvious overlap there.

So one form of bad writing makes another acceptable?

What's more, more maturely written games (which are becoming increasingly more common) do fill archetypal roles, not the oversimplified reverse stereotypes you're talking about.

Such as? And what do you mean by reverse stereotypes?

No no no, Men have to weather it because Women won't let them have anything.

You put exactly zero thought into that, didn't you?

Oh god, you know I really don't have time for this. I honestly would be interested in continuing this conversation, I'm sure it would be interesting but I have a schedule. I can see this would become overly long and something I just don't have the time/energy for. What's more, the style in which you make points (quote breaks) usually results in long conversations, potential tangents, etc. If you could, can you just reference me the writing of the guy you're talking about? That would make this much easier, as I could read through it and more easily assess the overall idea.

 

[loc978]

I think...

...kids need to stop looking up to me.

I am not a good role model, at least from a sociological standpoint.

 

[axlryder]

Oh god, you know I really don't have time for this.

Then I wonder why you chose to get involved.

If you could, can you just reference me the writing of the guy you're talking about? That would make this much easier, as I could read through it and more easily assess the overall idea.

Start with "Fire in the Belly" by Sam Keane.

I didn't initially think it was going to go for as long as a probably would. Admittedly a bit shortsighted on my part. I'll look up the book, thanks.