Violence and Sexism in Video Games - History repeats itself

[ManutheBloodedge]

Between 1992 and 2009, the so-called "Killerspiele-Debatte" (killer game debate) happened in Germany. Fueled by violent mass-shootings, a lot of people asked for a ban of games like Conterstrike. One proposed law even went as far as making it illegal to own and use such games, with the possibilites of police operations in gamer's homes.

Looking back, I recognize a lot of similarities between this and the debate over sexist video games we had over the last years, especially regarding the tone and arguments the enemys of violent video games displayed:
Uniformed and biased media reporting blatantly false information about games, and the main arguments used being more about taste than anything else. The mindset of "I don't like it, I find it disgusting, why does that need to exist?"

Would you agree that the debate about sexist video games is similar to the debate about violent video games? In what ways do they differ? Do you think this new debate is more mature than the last? Have the people in your country reacted differently?

Spoiler: PS

For anyone interested, the debate about killer games ended in an quintessential german way. Basically, the German culture union declared that video games are art and are therefore free to be as violent as they like. I guess that's why whe didn't had a sexism debate over here. We have a regulation, case closed. Sometimes I love my home country.

EDIT: After multiple retorts along the lines of "there is no legislation involved this time, so the two debates are not similar at all"; I just wanted to clarify that I meant they are similar in regards to media coverage, tone and arguments used. Especially that most arguments are not taste more than anything else. So they way video games are being discussed in the public eye has not changed at all since then.

 

[EternallyBored]

I don't know much about the German debate, but the American one ended in the early 2000's with the Supreme Court upholding video games as being protected the same way movies and books are.

The primary and major difference between the sexism and violence debates in the U.S. Is there that there is no legal weight behind either side because neither side is really trying to legislate anything. It's also why this debate is far more divisive, even people that thought video games were too violent or that violence was too prevalent in the medium often still sided against American congressmen and jack Thompson because they may not have liked the current state but they still didn't want the government telling people what they could or could not buy.

This time there is no jack Thompson equivalent, and the U.S. And state governments are not weighing in on the issue, so the debate is far more even unlike last time where the vast majority of people in the hobby were against the extreme anti-violence advocates regardless of what their views on video game violence were. Consequently, it makes this debate much different as the issue is less about restriction and government regulation and/or censorship, and more about criticism, public pressure, and subjective arguments.

There are some similarities, but I would argue that there are far more important differences as well, the Supreme Court acknowledging that games are covered under the first amendment won't change anything this time, because the government isn't involved, and neither side is trying to legislate games, so both sides are excersizing their free speech to argue their points.

In the end, there are superficial similarities, but not much else.

 

[CritialGaming]

Regardless of the debate. Shouldn't the "video games are art" qualify the sexism in games as well? If a video game can be as violent as it wants, does that not in turn permit it to be as sexist as it wants as well?

Everyone knows by now that I don't fall much in line with people's mindset on sexism in video games, and for the sake of the thread I'm not going to bother with that here.

To your point of, "Do you think this new debate is more mature than the last?" No. In fact I think it is more immature. See people seem to be unable to be mature enough to see a woman in a video game wearing a "sexy" dress and not instantly think of her as a sex object. Rather than seeing a woman dressed up for uncover work or simply an evening on the town as game context allows, people instead only see a skimpy dress and are quick to label sexism upon it.

Nobody seems to have the maturity to look at context within a given game anymore. There is no conception of anything but one side of the sexist coin. There is no understand that a woman can be naked, but not sexy, a women can be a side character but not oppressed.

One of the things I see is the women in Mass Effect. Most people in this fight say that the women in ME are merely trophies. The sex the player gets with any number of the girls in the game is nothing more than a reward for the player. The women are objectified and treated as sex objects.

Yet this is only half true. Are the sex scenes in the game "rewards" for the player? Yes, but I would argue that in an RPG most, if not ALL, cinematics are rewards for the player. And it all depends on how the story treats those female characters, and how their relationship with Shepard equates into the game as a whole. You can treat Tali with care and complete respect, she is not a "reward" nor a toy. Yet the sex scene is viewed that way simply because the method in which that scene unlocks. Players have to complete side missions, as well as select certain conversation choices to get to this point with Tali (as well as any other romance option).

From a gameplay standpoint, yes the women are merely rewards. But that is the result of it being in a video game. Nobody thought Aeris or Tifa from FF7 were merely rewards. Cloud only gets with them by selecting certain conversational choices and spending enough time with them. Yet because there is nothing in FF7 that shows them fucking, it gets a pass. It's implied upon the player in their imagination. Yet the result from a gameplay standpoint is basically the same.

So I feel it depends on context. I don't like that people are so quick to judge something or call something sexism, merely by looking at a screenshot or short snipet of video.

Does sexism exist in gaming? Yes. Sexism is everywhere, not just gaming. The real question is, what are people willing to do about it?

TL;DR - While I do believe sexism in gaming exists and is a real problem. I think that people get overzealous and are too quick to put a sexism label on anything they don't like. Much like it used to happen with raw violence in gaming. Basically same shit, different label.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

This isn't at all like the JT thing in spite of how people try to spin it that way. Actually the spin is one of big differences between then and now. JT wasn't much for. He had his convictions and he argued them and then people argued with what he argued. You don't really see that as much now. There is a lot of spin with people arguing with what someone didn't say. I think this thread is a common example. There is no JT here, there are no court cases or lawyers. the artistic merits of games have been established. Games are legally protected as art and aren't subject to government regulation. None of those issues are being argued now. It's settled.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Huh, so the German debate ended with a "games are art and thus are protected" argument, huh?

If only the United States had some sort of statute that says the same thing. Too bad.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Would you agree that the debate about sexist video games is similar to the debate about violent video games?

Not even remotely.

In what ways do they differ?

Nobody is trying to establish laws against games. No one is trying to get the government involved. Games are already considered art, there's nothing left to "win".

Do you think this new debate is more mature than the last?

No. We aren't even waiting for Jack Thompson types to actually say anything anymore. There's a thread in this section based around what someone thinks someone might say and getting mad at them ahead of time for it.

Have the people in your country reacted differently?

Sure, we called video games art decades ago.


Side note, this is why I get really mad at the "you shouldn't criticize games like they're art, they're just games" defense usually employed by people upset that someone criticized their vidya-titties. "Games are Art" is the single strongest defense against actual-factual government censorship in the US. Kinder eggs aren't art, thus they're banned by law in the United States.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Would you agree that the debate about sexist video games is similar to the debate about violent video games?

Not even remotely.

In what ways do they differ?

Nobody is trying to establish laws against games. No one is trying to get the government involved. Games are already considered art, there's nothing left to "win".

Do you think this new debate is more mature than the last?

No. We aren't even waiting for Jack Thompson types to actually say anything anymore. There's a thread in this section based around what someone thinks someone might say and getting mad at them ahead of time for it.

Have the people in your country reacted differently?

Sure, we called video games art decades ago.


Side note, this is why I get really mad at the "you shouldn't criticize games like they're art, they're just games" defense usually employed by people upset that someone criticized their vidya-titties. "Games are Art" is the single strongest defense against actual-factual government censorship in the US. Kinder eggs aren't art, thus they're banned by law in the United States.

The old debate was about if games had the protection of being art. Now I think it's about if games also have the responsibility of being art. For awhile there games had their cake and ate it too. they were declared art by the court supreme, but no one expected them to actually be art. (They didn't expect them to be challenging, complex or to make a statement.) Now (as in about 2 years ago?) people stared actually seeing games as art and expecting art from them.

 

[Erttheking]

Eh, it's not quite the same. No one is trying to ban games in this debate, hell, a lot of people I see just want more variety. For the love of crap, I just want more games to have character creators that actually let you create women with actual muscles. Look at Dragon's Dogma? How many games have character creators that good?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Eh, it's not quite the same. No one is trying to ban games in this debate, hell, a lot of people I see just want more variety. For the love of crap, I just want more games to have character creators that actually let you create women with actual muscles. Look at Dragon's Dogma? How many games have character creators that good?

One could argue being fine with such games never being made, depite them not being for you, despite other people wanting them, is just as bad from a moral perspective. Basically, it still is the same old "I don't like this therefore it would be better if it didn't exist" it just adds a "but I won't say it should be banned, just that I think it shouldn't have even been made in the first place and that those who like are sexist (hence fine to disregard )" at the end as though that makes everything all better. It doesn't.


I don't play driving games, I fid them dull as hell. I would never in my wildest drems be HAPPY about them being driven out of the market or campaign against them or nything, as I would empathize with those who like them as they presently are. The climate on "sexist" games makes it ok to not empathize with the desires of their fans, dehumnizing them. It is equally as immoral as portraying shooter fans as violence loving evildoers.





(Also, Dragons Dogma has Berserk cosplay armor, sometimes its hard to believe capcom made that gem.)

 

[Zhukov]

One could argue being fine with such games never being made, depite them not being for you, despite other people wanting them, is just as bad from a moral perspective. Basically, it still is the same old "I don't like this therefore it would be better if it didn't exist" it just adds a "but I won't say it should be banned, just that I think it shouldn't have even been made in the first place and that those who like are sexist (hence fine to disregard )" at the end as though that makes everything all better. It doesn't.

a) You're tilting at windmills. Hardly anyone actually says that. Most people just say, "I don't like this and here's why." Some will add, "Also, here's how I think it could be better."

b) Even if people do say that, it has no effect on the people who are entirely free to continue playing their allegedly sexist games. Unless of course they're afraid of getting their precious fee-fees hurt. Fortunately I have it on good authority that being considerate of other's feelings in a debate is a sign of weakness because only easily triggered feminazi SJWs get offended.

 

[EyeReaper]

The big differentiation is the objective/subjective split between matters. Violence is very easy to classify. Sexism is all over the place (metaphorically, unless you believe in teh paytreearky). Look at say, the Nintendo Princesses, Bayonetta, Bikini Armor, the ability to murder strippers in sandbox games, big tits and huge asses, the ability to play as a dude in some games but not a lady, etc. etc. Are any of these things I just rattled off sexist? Maybe. That's the problem. It can be interpreted both ways.

The only way it's similar is that just because it is portrayed in the media, It definitely won't influence anybody of sound mind. Doom didn't make the crazies shoot up columbine, Hitman's strip club isn't going to make the next generation into redneck wife-beaters.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I would say they are different, but not in a good way.

Right now the effort seems to be targeted towards developers and publishers, but the outcome is the same. Support the effort to get rid of enough so it is out of sight and out of mind, which is when people stop making a big deal about it, like violent video games.

This specific criticism has a purpose, which is to persuade an opinion of an ideal form of content in gaming. You can tell when it uses generalizations about the state of gaming or society rather than the product in itself. While criticism is a whole lot better than your local government going in with the obscenity law, please realize the intent is quite similar, which is protecting the moral health of the populace. If you have ever used the argument, sexist games don't cause sexism ... but actually it may cause sexist attitudes, then the removal is a moralistic one. And if you see something sexist and "just don't like it" well I'm pretty sure the plight of women has something to do with it.

Personally if you just don't like it, most of is down to personal taste due to how one was socialized. There are some things I don't like because they are sexist, and there are somethings that I like which are sexist. And besides, even if every artist realized the error of their ways and stopped using fanservice, in the end you would still have the same amount of shitty games and unoriginal content, except there will be no more fanservice. So I'm not entirely sure what the point is, unless you have some noble goal in mind. But if you do that, you shouldn't give violent video games any special treatment.

 

[FalloutJack]

So, the long and the short of it is that the violence and the sexism is proven irrelevent again. Not really surprised.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

One could argue being fine with such games never being made, depite them not being for you, despite other people wanting them, is just as bad from a moral perspective.

No, one really couldn't. If you can't understand the difference between not caring about some sort of game and advocating for it to be banned than that is a wholly internal problem that belongs solely to you. Well, I say that, but it also belongs to a depressingly large subset of the gaming community who see censorship and attempts to steal gaming at every turn.

I don't play driving games, I fid them dull as hell. I would never in my wildest drems be HAPPY about them being driven out of the market or campaign against them or nything, as I would empathize with those who like them as they presently are. The climate on "sexist" games makes it ok to not empathize with the desires of their fans, dehumnizing them. It is equally as immoral as portraying shooter fans as violence loving evildoers.

An entire genre of video game is not the same as the presence of sexism in a video game, so once again we have a problem that resides solely with you and your understanding of things. Also, last time I checked, driving games do not, as an inherent quality of their existence, denigrate, disrespect, and/or objectify over half the human population for the sake of someone's desire to denigrate, disrespect, and objectify said half of the population.

When I don't care about a game, I don't follow it and try to prove why my disinterest is valid and why others also ought not care and why those who disagree with me and do care are either confused, wrong or harbor malevolent personality characteristics. I just go away and do other things, entirely separate from it. If you can't notice why going away and doing the thing you care for differs from persistently trying to persuade people and show why you're right for not caring, as though someone asked you to explain to them your dislike, I can't help you either.



The "presense" of sexism isn't factual, hence, reasonable people can disagree about it being there at all. To ascribe to a game the traits you percieve in it and go on and say that those who like it do so because of what you, not they, see in it, is irrational. Instead, how about humbly ASKING them to tell you what they get out of the game, while openmindedly accepting their views as equal to all other views. That will lessen the friction we see here quite a bit. Even if we take the worst case scenario and you're entirely correct that these games do all these bad things to women, surely that is not ALL they do, nor is it the prime focus for most of them. Hence, people could play them for any number of reasons beyond their dark desires to be mean to women. To not even consider this as a possibility and outright declare what other people want shows tons of bias.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

When I don't care about a game, I don't follow it and try to prove why my disinterest is valid and why others also ought not care and why those who disagree with me and do care are either confused, wrong or harbor malevolent personality characteristics. I just go away and do other things, entirely separate from it. If you can't notice why going away and doing the thing you care for differs from persistently trying to persuade people and show why you're right for not caring, as though someone asked you to explain to them your dislike, I can't help you either.

And when I don't care about a game, and for the sake of this phrasing, said game makes up an impressively large chunk of the marketplace, I tend to make it a bit known that I don't care about it and why with the hope that maybe something different might be made. You know, take part in that whole demand part in supply and demand that consumers are supposed to take part in. I also criticize games that I like for the faults I find because I want them to be better and I only ever seem to really criticize the excuses people give for why the faults in something they like don't exist. I might just be forgetful but I don't remember the last time I just saw a game I just wholeheartedly didn't like and I just railed into it; I only remember responding to other people's attempts to sweep away any and all criticism.

The "presense" of sexism isn't factual, hence, reasonable people can disagree about it being there at all. To ascribe to a game the traits you percieve in it and go on and say that those who like it do so because of what you, not they, see in it, is irrational. Instead, how about humbly ASKING them to tell you what they get out of the game, while openmindedly accepting their views as equal to all other views. That will lessen the friction we see here quite a bit. Even if we take the worst case scenario and you're entirely correct that these games do all these bad things to women, surely that is not ALL they do, nor is it the prime focus for most of them. Hence, people could play them for any number of reasons beyond their dark desires to be mean to women. To not even consider this as a possibility and outright declare what other people want shows tons of bias.

You've said this before, but this isn't fantasy Japan and everyone isn't required to approach things they dislike with a reverence and humbly ask for the fans to bequeath the noble knowledge of why sexualized children are great and teenagers in lingerie are necessary. And the subjectivity of sexism would be a reasonable point and something people could discuss if it wasn't for some people just outright denying the possibility of sexism and going to whatever possible lengths they can to argue why it doesn't exist. I've listened to and read it enough to know how utterly unconvincing the vast majority of it is.

Besides that, there's a reason that the criticism is often limited to just the sexism and not the gameplay or some other thing that one could like. It's similar to the reason why I can say that some of the games I like are pretty damn sexist without dropping myself into the eternal pit of contradiction: I like the other parts of the game in spite of the sexism, not because of it. If all these people are of a similar mind in relation to the games they play, they should have no problem with others pointing out sexism, because they supposedly don't care about that and are more interested in the parts of the game that aren't related to that.

Ya I mean don't we get threads about how the open world is ruining the RPG. Gammers love love to complain about what they don't like. It's not bad. It's a good ting. It's how we learn to make better games, or at least new games. Also it can be nice to complain about a games problems.

Sexism is kind of subjective, but that doesn't mean every view is valid. There are differently people who know more about the topic then others.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

When I don't care about a game, I don't follow it and try to prove why my disinterest is valid and why others also ought not care and why those who disagree with me and do care are either confused, wrong or harbor malevolent personality characteristics. I just go away and do other things, entirely separate from it. If you can't notice why going away and doing the thing you care for differs from persistently trying to persuade people and show why you're right for not caring, as though someone asked you to explain to them your dislike, I can't help you either.

And when I don't care about a game, and for the sake of this phrasing, said game makes up an impressively large chunk of the marketplace, I tend to make it a bit known that I don't care about it and why with the hope that maybe something different might be made. You know, take part in that whole demand part in supply and demand that consumers are supposed to take part in. I also criticize games that I like for the faults I find because I want them to be better and I only ever seem to really criticize the excuses people give for why the faults in something they like don't exist. I might just be forgetful but I don't remember the last time I just saw a game I just wholeheartedly didn't like and I just railed into it; I only remember responding to other people's attempts to sweep away any and all criticism.

The "presense" of sexism isn't factual, hence, reasonable people can disagree about it being there at all. To ascribe to a game the traits you percieve in it and go on and say that those who like it do so because of what you, not they, see in it, is irrational. Instead, how about humbly ASKING them to tell you what they get out of the game, while openmindedly accepting their views as equal to all other views. That will lessen the friction we see here quite a bit. Even if we take the worst case scenario and you're entirely correct that these games do all these bad things to women, surely that is not ALL they do, nor is it the prime focus for most of them. Hence, people could play them for any number of reasons beyond their dark desires to be mean to women. To not even consider this as a possibility and outright declare what other people want shows tons of bias.

You've said this before, but this isn't fantasy Japan and everyone isn't required to approach things they dislike with a reverence and humbly ask for the fans to bequeath the noble knowledge of why sexualized children are great and teenagers in lingerie are necessary. And the subjectivity of sexism would be a reasonable point and something people could discuss if it wasn't for some people just outright denying the possibility of sexism and going to whatever possible lengths they can to argue why it doesn't exist. I've listened to and read it enough to know how utterly unconvincing the vast majority of it is.

Besides that, there's a reason that the criticism is often limited to just the sexism and not the gameplay or some other thing that one could like. It's similar to the reason why I can say that some of the games I like are pretty damn sexist without dropping myself into the eternal pit of contradiction: I like the other parts of the game in spite of the sexism, not because of it. If all these people are of a similar mind in relation to the games they play, they should have no problem with others pointing out sexism, because they supposedly don't care about that and are more interested in the parts of the game that aren't related to that.

As someone who dislikes sports games, realistic racing games and most shooters that lack a good storymode, I know how it is for the things one dislikes to be glorified everywhere and to seem like they're all that gaming is consisting of. I STILL don't bother wasting my time on them though, as the things I do like are much more worthy of that energy and passion. I just ignore those big game shows, don't watch E3, just generally avoid this stuff and in its place follow niche fighting game streams and chibi art radio shows from Japan, you know, stuff that interests me.



The possibility of sexism and the certainty with which people argue that it exists are conflicting messages. You do not begin to argue if something exists by listing the evils this thing which we do not even know it exists yet has caused. Basic logic. If people say things are happening with sexism's existance treated as the undisputed basis, people will strongly object, as we haven't yet established that basis to even exist at all.


Lastly, people can dislike things in games for a million reasons, not just because of sexism. Even if they dislike what you dislike, it doesn't mean they do so for the same reason. Like, lets take an extreme example, you dislike how battle damaged chars get stripped of their clothing in this one game, I do too. To you, it's objectifying women to strip them and is sexist, to me their uniforms look cooler than their underwear or I may have a stocking fetish so the plain underwear look is too vanilla or a million other things. Point being, we may dislike the same thing but we do so from endirely different perspectives. This is why you have to ask, you can't just speak for people and expect them to just nod along. You can't assume everyone thinks like you do.