The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[CloudAtlas]

Maybe someday it will change. Yes. And do you want to know when it will change? When publishers notice that there are quite a few people who want things to change. And how do these people get the publishers to noticing them? By telling them, by complaining about stuff, by demanding stuff. And how do folks like you react when people do exactly that?

They whine about them "taking their toys away".

See now that's wrong. My fight lies against those who think they can impose their cheap self righteousness on the industry. The irony is that years ago I was complaining about T&A in games too. But than social crusaders came and i just can't get myself to tag alongside of them. I disapprove so much of the cheap methods I'm willing to give up our common goal.

So you're saying that it's fine for us to state our preferences, but not to justify our preferences with reasons beyond pure selfishness?

And if you're willing to give up on your own goals just because you don't like some of the people who happen to fight for the same goals - and who, If I dare say, to a large extent, are nothing but a chimera - then I'm sorry for you.

 

[Kaxbe]

Who are these female characters being made for? Who are these male characters being made for? That alone should tell you the difference between idealized women in video games and idealized men in video games.

 

[generals3]

So you're saying that it's fine for us to state our preferences, but not to justify our preferences with reasons beyond pure selfishness?

And if you're willing to give up on your own goals just because you don't like some of the people who happen to fight for the same goals - and who, If I dare say, to a large extent, are nothing but a chimera - then I'm sorry for you.

No i'm saying it's wrong to use false claims. The claim that games being more targeted to one gender than an other is sexism is wrong. The claim that somehow these games make people more sexist or whatever is wrong too (or at least unproven).

And you don't need to be sorry for me. I'm just staying one step ahead. I won't give an inch to moralists in VG's unless their cause is backed up. Otherwise I should also fight alongside those who claim VG's make people more violent, because those people even have MORE evidence to back up their claims. I would be a hypocrite to agree with people who say the way VG's represent women is any way harmful and not join the anti violent VG's brigade.

And if the problem is not that it in any way harms anyone than the moralist attitude is not justified.

 

[rob_simple]

The problem with that is that you, by your own admission, completely pulled those figures out your arse.

No one is saying that for every one game made purely for men, there must be another made purely for women, all we rational-minded folks are saying is that maybe, once in a while, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if games had more of a feminine slant.

Well I mean developers don't have unlimited time and resources. If they're spending time and money making something that means they can't spend that time and money on something else.

Which, again, would be a problem if there wasn't a huge number of developers and platforms for development to choose from. Hell, these days, if you don't like what's on offer, you can get a game builder and make your own game if that's what you really want.

We're living in a time when there is more variety and options open to the individual in gaming than ever before, and you're getting pissy because some people --minorities or otherwise-- would also like to be catered to, every now and then?

That, my friend, is the dictionary definition of 'entitled'.

And here's the problem with your whole argument:

I only play good games...

Do you want to know what is wrong with this? I'm a straight, twenty five year old dude and I like rom-coms. I will watch absolutely anything with Ryan Reynolds in it, which just so happens to include balls-out action flicks like Blade Trinity and Wolverine, and romantic comedies like Definitely Maybe. They are all good films, and I enjoy them for that reason; I don't just enjoy what society says my gender is supposed to enjoy.

Maybe I dislike them because I find them boring? I don't exactly like all the stereotypical manly stuff, but it's more entertaining to watch someone have a gun fight than it is to watch two adults ***** like a couple of teenagers over difficulties in their relationship.

You are talking objectively about a subjective medium. My ex girlfriend thought karate films were boring as shit whereas I thought they were the tits, but we both agree that Freaky Friday is an awesome film, despite ostensibly being about a grown woman and a teenage girl bitching over difficulties in their relationship.

You are being extremely narrow-minded by saying 'I don't want it in my games therefore no one can have it.'

I have no problem with female protagonists. I just find the kind of entertainment you're supposed to watch at a sleepover while eating chocolate and an entire tub of strawberry icecream incredibly boring and not worth my time.

Again, you are stereotyping so hard that it hurts, but I digress. Gaming is not all about you, and saying that just because you don't find something entertaining should not restrict developers, if they want to, from developing games for people who do want the kind of entertainment you can apparently only take in while flicking your bean over a One Direction poster and getting your nails did.

 

[rob_simple]

Uh huh, here's the thing, though: we have plenty of games that already pander to the male teen-to-late-twenties demographic.

So you're counter to this is just to say 'well they have enough'? Why should it be you who determines what enough is when you don't even like them?

You can say it's 100% inclusive just because both men and women can physically play the games all you want, but to say that the content is 100% inclusive is complete bullshit.

So it only counts as inclusive if it's geared exclusively towards women? I don't think you know what inclusive means.

As to the whole, 'people asked for bigger tits so we gave it to them,' well, that just smacks of the old adage, 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

So the real question is why should your tastes hold more precedence over their taste? And could this make you elitist?

Oh my god! Straw men, everyone! There are straw men everywhere! Quick, get the women and children to safety, from this army of straw men Father Time has released upon us!

Seriously, though, this is pathetic. You are trying to twist all my points into some sort of fascist, pro-vagina manifesto, when it should have been clear I've only ever been suggesting that maybe levelling the playing field wouldn't be such a bad thing.

-I said there are already plenty of games for men as a way of demonstrating that if there suddenly started to be some games for women then it wouldn't be as though men had nothing to play,anymore; nor would it mean games for men stop getting made.

-I in no way implied it's only inclusive if it's 100% geared towards women, in fact I said the exact opposite of that: that it is not inclusive when, as many games are, the content is 100% geared towards men. You should be a politician with the way you can try and twist things around to say what you want.

-I haven't brought my personal tastes into this, once. If you really want to know, I love big tits as much as the next red-blooded male, but I also love when I can connect with my games on an emotional level, and not just a boner level. That's besides the point though, which is that I am not saying anyone's tastes should be forced on anyone, I am only saying that someones tastes should not be rejected on the basis that they are a woman and, 'lol gaming is for boys! gbt kitchen!'

 

[CFriis87]

Who are these female characters being made for? Who are these male characters being made for? That alone should tell you the difference between idealized women in video games and idealized men in video games.

There is no difference. When marketed to boys and men, women are idealized to give the player the strongest possible incentive and motivation to follow a certain path. The male character is idealized to give the player the ability to follow that path. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[rob_simple]

There's still a long road to travel, and it certainly doesn't help that the detractors of Anita Sarkeesian set the scale back a few years or so every time she releases a video, but I think we're getting there.

I'd argue that Anita sets us back by being way too eager to call things sexist/problematic/whatever that she makes people who complain about sexism look bad.

To be honest, it's the lesser of two evils to me: I, personally, find Anita to be unbearable in the way she has to make everything about gender, but that annoyance pales in comparison to the mountains of death and rape threats she has received as a result of this.

It doesn't matter if I dislike her as a person, or disagree with her views, she in no way deserves the levels of abuse she has received, and it absolutely goes a long way towards demonstrating what is wrong with the boys club mentality held by a lot of gamers, today.

 

[Dogstile]

Its quite simple. The idea is that if you ignored a problem other people were having until you yourself had the problem, what right do you have to complain that people are ignoring your problem?

That's the "moral/ethical" basis the poster is coming from.

Oh well, I refuse to take these discussions seriously anymore. All it ever devolves into is people going into "personal" experiences which stand for fuck all in a real debate, how they "feel" which has more standing because of the debate subject, but is still worthless on its own and finally insults.

I am not using any personal experience or emotion though, I purely ask for the logcial conclusions that lead to your statenment: "If you have ignored other people's issues before, it is morally reprehensible/discredits you to now adress your own issues". I have already brought forward numerous points why I think this is illogical, and that this would, if applied to all movements, discredit pretty much every civil rights movement ever, since there are always more problems to be adressed.

I can bring forward additional points: Your statement assumes that a problem was "ignored", which requires knowledge of the problem. Can you prove that, prior to the feminist movement with regard to games, anyone knew that people were having a problem with the design of male characters in videogames?

I don't think you understand. I was not getting involved, I was clarifying what the other poster meant. Go ask him.

 

[Kaxbe]

Who are these female characters being made for? Who are these male characters being made for? That alone should tell you the difference between idealized women in video games and idealized men in video games.

There is no difference. When marketed to boys and men, women are idealized to give the player the strongest possible incentive and motivation to follow a certain path. The male character is idealized to give the player the ability to follow that path. Two sides of the same coin.

You seriously typed that and saw no difference between how/why women and men are idealized in video games?

 

[rob_simple]

There's nothing stopping women from playing therefore it's not excluding them. Whether they were designed to appeal to them is a different story.

Right, just like there's nothing excluding men from playing games aimed at women, so why are so many men so fucking aggressively opposed to the idea of letting women into our culture?

 

[rob_simple]

There's still a long road to travel, and it certainly doesn't help that the detractors of Anita Sarkeesian set the scale back a few years or so every time she releases a video, but I think we're getting there.

I'd argue that Anita sets us back by being way too eager to call things sexist/problematic/whatever that she makes people who complain about sexism look bad.

To be honest, it's the lesser of two evils to me: I, personally, find Anita to be unbearable in the way she has to make everything about gender, but that annoyance pales in comparison to the mountains of death and rape threats she has received as a result of this.

It doesn't matter if I dislike her as a person, or disagree with her views, she in no way deserves the levels of abuse she has received, and it absolutely goes a long way towards demonstrating what is wrong with the boys club mentality held by a lot of gamers, today.

Nobody likes being told that what they like is sexist or bigoted, so it doesn't really prove much that she got trolled IMO. I've seen men who call things sexist get piled on too. Ebert got a lot of flak when he said games can never be art, which isn't as bad as what Anita says.

So now we're victim blaming, are we? Good stuff.

Oh yeah, poor Roger Ebert got some nasty things said against him, probably that he was dumb and didn't know what he was talking about, that is absolutely equatable to a relentless online campaign of hatred and bile, peppered with threats of rape and murder on a daily basis that has lasted for months maybe even over a year, at this point.

Likewise, I remember frequently being called a poof for having long hair as a teenager, so now I know exactly what it's like to be gay and have your life threatened by right wing lunatics. Turns out it's not that big a deal, the gays should just get over it, like I did!

 

[rob_simple]

There's nothing stopping women from playing therefore it's not excluding them. Whether they were designed to appeal to them is a different story.

Right, just like there's nothing excluding men from playing games aimed at women, so why are so many men so fucking aggressively opposed to the idea of letting women into our culture?

I got you mixed up with someone (I blame lack of sleep) and I thought you were saying we should do away with all games/game characters meant only to induce cheap sexual thrills in men.

I got no problem with variety. Hell I don't even like all the cheap thrills (not while free internet porn is an option), I just don't like people who go on a moral crusade to get rid of them, which is what I thought you were doing (again, totally my fault, I have a lack of sleep).

Carry on.

Well now I'm going to have to apologise in advance for when you read my hyperbole-laden reply to your Sarkeesian comments.

God damn, man, why you got to go and be all civil-like, now?

 

[Stephen St.]

I really dislike dissecting posts sentence by sentence, it always comes across as so aggressive. I mean no offense, though. I just found it helpful to go along the lines of your argument step-by-step.

The power that men had in the past was a necessity for them to fulfill the societal obligations that came with the rights they had.

Yes, power usually comes with responsibilities. Does not diminish the power, though. Else we would not need checks and balances in government.

Men were solely responsible for building up society (not saying they did it without women, just that they were the ones held responsible), as well as supporting for their families.

Well, obviously, only the one with the power can be the one responsible, right? Everything else is nonsense.

The right to vote was initially something men had to earn through military service, the reasoning being that men should at least have a say in the affairs of the government and country that they were sent to die for.

That happened in some societies, not in others. In fact, the only real evidence I found for this kind of voting right is the UK Representation of the People Act of 1918.

Even the most powerful man today is valued more for his usefulness than his humanity, this is what makes men the "disposable" group, despite their social and political power.

Speculation. There is no way to prove that claim.

Women have an inherent worth in our society, but when a man is no longer useful, he becomes worthless.

Again that "inherent worth" is speculative. It isn't clearly defined, for one. One could easily argue that the worth of women is no more "inherent" than the worth of men, if that worth is supposed to be childbirth. Because there clearly are women who lack that ability, and would hence not possess worth. So childbirth to women would be like physical strength to men. Something that most, but not all members of the group have, and only if you have it, you are useful and have worth.

This culture of disposability is as ancient as mankind itself and has to do with evolutionary psychology, Karen Straughan on YouTube explains it a lot better than I can here, so here's one of the first of her videos I have seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

I'm not asking you to see things my way, I'm just hoping to have more people see the things I see.

Thanks for the heads-up, I will try watching it soon. I think it's perfectly fine if you want me to see things your way, everyone is allowed to argue .

It is obvious that, in a biological sense, women are more important than men for the survival of the species. Biological and cultural definitions of worth are not identical, however. Everyone is an object to those that are in a position of power over them. That happens to men and women equally. The difference in recent history is not that there were no male objects, i.e. disposable soldiers, but that there were no female subjects, i.e. Rulers, Magnates or Popes.