Violence in games vs Sexism in games?

[tippy2k2]

snip

You're quite right about a lot of progress and looking at the positives as well (something I did throw in at the end of my post but I could have elaborated on a lot more). Also, how could I have forgotten Faith!?! I loved Faith!

As for your last line

The key issue is separating sexiness from sexist. The two have been linked and the reason for the link is because of male developers making said characters when Barbie (yes the doll) shows that well it's not just guys who do it.

That's where I think everyone is going to run into problems with one another because everyone has a different definition what's sexist versus exploiting sexy. For example...

I don't think anyone from any fighting games is sexist (yes, even "Oh shit I sneezed and my outfit popped off" Ivy) because everyone in those games look like their clothing went through a wood-chipper before the fight started. So it sounds weird (because it is kind of weird) but the "sexism" cancels itself out that way to me. That's a view that many are going to disagree with. Same with my "does it make sense in context of the story?" reasoning of why characters like Geralt and Zero Suit Samus look sexy but it's not sexist.

And to end my post on a happier note, I think everyone can agree with this:

Oddly there's more a lack of female protagonist in general which is more of an issue.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I've heard this argument a lot, but I'm still very unclear how you can support one thing, but the other thing appears to be wrong.

When people discuss violence in video games, many agree that there is no direct correlation between violence in video games and violence in real life. Therefore, if I were to play a First Person Shooter, I would feel the need to shoot people in real life.

But, when sexism is discussed in games, many say it's not the same thing or "false equivalence". I watch a lot of Bob "Moviebob" Chipman's videos, but I'm still a bit confused. How does one thing lead to another? If I can play an FPS, and not shoot someone based on my experience, then how would playing a sexist video game (Let's say Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum-Laude, which for the record was just a terrible game) make me mistreat women?

I do understand sexism does exist, but I'm still unsure how sexism in the media will cause sexism in real life. Through desensitization?

It is a false equivalence because of the size of the acts under discussion vs. a baseline of normal behavior. For a regular person not already inclined to acts of violence in their daily routine (i.e. not a psychopath already) the act of going out and shooting someone is an extreme departure from normal behavior. For the same regular person and the same baseline behavior the act of thinking something (that women should dress in skimpy outfits, that a lack of women at a place, function, in a given situation is basically normal, etc.) is a tiny thing - in comparison to the massive thing of putting one in someone's head.

Now, I'm not agreeing with the whole argument people make that basically amounts to "monkey see, monkey do" in most cases - no. I'm simply pointing out why the label of false equivalence is a valid one in terms of assessing the differences of arguments you brought up here.

Though - if people are arguing that sexism in video games will lead people to like, rape random strangers or beat on their wives - that's, again, a huge departure from the baseline norm and would be closer in value to the argument vs. violence of games will make people go out and commit random acts of violence. Not many people use either one of those arguments with much credibility these days though - barring the Fox News followers.

Sexism isn't just beating women or raping them though - for the record here. Sexism has a large range from the tiny thoughts about the opposite gender (either gender here, sexism isn't limited to misogyny - there's misandry too and sexism covers both of those, lest we forget) to actual actions against them that are non violent (no-girls-allowed/no-boys-allowed policies/acting like that's a policy even if it isn't officially) to actual violent actions against the opposite gender (physical violence, psychological violence, etc.).

 

[Fox12]

Violence can be justified. Sexism, racism, anti-semitism, ect. can never justified. If you're attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself. Typically, in games, if there is violence, your'e playing the "good guy." You're defending the weak, defending yourself, or fighting a villain. When this isn't the case then the game is usually a parody, like Saints Row, or a deconstruction, like Spec Ops. But explain to me a situation in which you would be justified for being sexist, or demeaning women. Replace the word "sexism" in your post with "racism" and tell me if that changes your mind. There are KKK games that are racist. Are those games justifiable based on your argument? I don't play sexist games because I don't support sexism, and I don't want to support developers who are. I also find that sexist games ten to fall into stereotypes and bad writing.

People are allowed to make sexist/racist games if they want, they have that right of free speech. However, I have the right to criticize them for it, and I won't apologize for doing so. Playing a sexist game in real life may not make you sexist, just like playing a racist game may not make you racist. However, by purchasing such games you are interacting in the free market, and telling developers that it is okay to continue making games like this. This will affect how the population as a whole views the medium. There's a reason that Anime and Comic Books have a negative connotation to them.

 

[generals3]

Though - if people are arguing that sexism in video games will lead people to like, rape random strangers or beat on their wives - that's, again, a huge departure from the baseline norm and would be closer in value to the argument vs. violence of games will make people go out and commit random acts of violence. Not many people use either one of those arguments with much credibility these days though - barring the Fox News followers.

Well... The Anita phenomenon begs to differ. She clearly established a link between domestic violence and the Euthanized Damsel trope in her second video and yet she has "lots" of supporters.

Violence can be justified. Sexism, racism, anti-semitism, ect. can never justified.

Tell that to all those who favor "positive discrimination" (which is actually de-facto negative discrimination against the "opposite" group)

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm pretty sure the argument is generally that female representation in games is distasteful for female gamers rather than that it actually affects real life. The comparative argument would be something like disliking that games force you to commit violent acts rather than allowing other resolutions. So not really similar lines of argument.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

snip

As for your last line

The key issue is separating sexiness from sexist. The two have been linked and the reason for the link is because of male developers making said characters when Barbie (yes the doll) shows that well it's not just guys who do it.

That's where I think everyone is going to run into problems with one another because everyone has a different definition what's sexist versus exploiting sexy. For example...

I don't think anyone from any fighting games is sexist (yes, even "Oh shit I sneezed and my outfit popped off" Ivy) because everyone in those games look like their clothing went through a wood-chipper before the fight started. So it sounds weird (because it is kind of weird) but the "sexism" cancels itself out that way to me. That's a view that many are going to disagree with. Same with my "does it make sense in context of the story?" reasoning of why characters like Geralt and Zero Suit Samus look sexy but it's not sexist.

That's what bugs me the most. While following these discussions i've noticed a shift that even anything remotely sexy = sexist.
Every lewd gesture, every sexy outfit/pose, every romantic-relationship => sexist sexist sexist.

I always thought the whole debated started with : "We don't have enough diversity."
But in recent discussions it sounds more like: "Iek! Sexystuff!" to me

Also has anyone citations on all the claims that videogames "it helps perpetuate gender stereotypes". That's a bold claim on a heavy psychological impact of gaming on our minds.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

In response to the main question: besides fringe people (in which case few people take their arguments seriously) I haven't really seen many people argue necessarily that sexist games or games with sexism in them promote sexist attitudes in real life. I've seen the desensitization argument more times, although to be fair it's brought up as often as video games desensitizing one to violence, so I'm not sure it's necessarily a more widely held opinion either. As for if I think there is a correlation, it's the same thing with violence: chances are that person already had that attitude or that belief to begin with, and the game merely validated their opinion, not give them one.

Although if I'm to be honest, I honestly don't give a shit anymore. I'm getting tired of these arguments that I don't even care anymore if a game is explicitly sexist/racist/ageist/classist/whateverist, and I certainly have stopped caring if other people get upset about these games. All I really care about now is if I personally enjoyed the game even with those supposedly bad elements, and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Though - if people are arguing that sexism in video games will lead people to like, rape random strangers or beat on their wives - that's, again, a huge departure from the baseline norm and would be closer in value to the argument vs. violence of games will make people go out and commit random acts of violence. Not many people use either one of those arguments with much credibility these days though - barring the Fox News followers.

Well... The Anita phenomenon begs to differ. She clearly established a link between domestic violence and the Euthanized Damsel trope in her second video and yet she has "lots" of supporters.

I'm not responsible for the content of her opinion, nor those who support her. I would say that, in my opinion, that is too large of a stretch to make and doesn't appropriately factor in the real world reasons that domestic abuse occurs in society - nor the differences between what motivates or sanctions domestic abuse in a variety of cultures, because the reasons are varied from situation to situation socially and culturally.

I would not deem the Euthanized Damsel trope a significant contributor in comparison to any real world contributor.

Speaking to credibility though? my impression has been that hers is not high outside of a certain circle.

Edit: yet there's a world of difference between "contributes to" and there being some "link" vs. being a direct cause or even an indirect cause.

If I go on a killing spree this evening at dinner, for an absurd example, my meal being burnt might have contributed to my outburst - or not - but it wouldn't be the cause in any case because dinner being burnt is simply not ever sufficient cause to do that. It could be a contributing thing though, but not ever enough to point to and say "that's why."

 

[Lilani]

I've heard this argument a lot, but I'm still very unclear how you can support one thing, but the other thing appears to be wrong.

When people discuss violence in video games, many agree that there is no direct correlation between violence in video games and violence in real life. Therefore, if I were to play a First Person Shooter, I would feel the need to shoot people in real life.

But, when sexism is discussed in games, many say it's not the same thing or "false equivalence". I watch a lot of Bob "Moviebob" Chipman's videos, but I'm still a bit confused. How does one thing lead to another? If I can play an FPS, and not shoot someone based on my experience, then how would playing a sexist video game (Let's say Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum-Laude, which for the record was just a terrible game) make me mistreat women?

I do understand sexism does exist, but I'm still unsure how sexism in the media will cause sexism in real life. Through desensitization?

I don't think you quite understand what false equivalence is. False equivalence has nothing to do with correlation, it's about a lack of correlation. False equivalence is when you take two similar things and try to say they are the same or operate under the same circumstances, but fundamentally they do not. This comic explains it rather well:

Spoiler

Basically, it's saying that one counter-argument to the "Women are hypersexualized and that's a problem!" argument is that "Men are hypersexualized, too!" However, the problems are not inherently the same. Because while women in games are hypersexualized to appeal to men, so are the male characters. Females are made to appeal to the male SEXUAL fantasy, while male characters are made to appeal to the male POWER fantasy. So yes, both are characterized, but since in both cases they are made to appeal to men you can't say men have it just as bad.

Nobody is saying video games "cause" sexism in real life, it's the other way around. They are symptoms of sexism in real life. It shows the industry is refusing to recognize the growing number of female gamers, and as we are hearing stories of devs having to fight tooth and nail to get female main characters in their game it shows that the bigwigs of the industry are literally shutting down concepts and projects just because they want the lead to be a female instead of male. That is a problem which affects not only the freedom and flexibility of developers, but also the range of products and characters gamers get to experience on the receiving end.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

What's different between violence, and sexism?

Because violence is something we all can take part in. Men, and women can both beat the drek out of eachother, kill one another, and so forth just fine. It's pretty inclusive!
I come from a long line of women who enjoy watching wrestling, for instance.
Violence is often fun, and exciting to watch!
Hell, I relished watching Michelle Waterson on Bully Beatdown years ago, and I like watching women wrestle, and am glad it's tarting to get half decent again.

Sexism isn't inclusive. It's the opposite of that. It draws a line in the sand, and divides people. The industry perpetuates it, the players perpetuate it, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the negative stuff, and believe me, women are as far as videogames go.
It feels like it's starting to go away, some, and I bet talking about it is the only reason for it. How long this resurgence of worthwhile female playable main characters in their own games that aren't shallow, sex symbols, and/or there to look sexy at the same time lasts, I don't know, though.
It's still not exactly common yet, mind you, but I feel like there's some progress.

 

[Burnouts3s3]

Spoiler

Basically, it's saying that one counter-argument to the "Women are hypersexualized and that's a problem!" argument is that "Men are hypersexualized, too!" However, the problems are not inherently the same. Because while women in games are hypersexualized to appeal to men, so are the male characters. Females are made to appeal to the male SEXUAL fantasy, while male characters are made to appeal to the male POWER fantasy. So yes, both are characterized, but since in both cases they are made to appeal to men you can't say men have it just as bad.

Spoiler

You know something, I always kind of had a problem with the idea of the male power fantasy. Those same things can be appealing to women too, and that's not to say I play certain muscular characters to get that feeling of male power. I just play those characters because they're the ones out there. Do I have a desire to become a muscular blade wielding sociopath whenever I play Kratos? No. Do I enjoy playing him? Sure, why not?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

We have an endemically and pervasively sexist culture (just have a look at Everyday Sexism and be depressed [everyday] by the fact any of that shite happens). We want all mediums to be wholly inclusive, but for that to happen we kinda need society in general to get its double-standards patriachal act together. So, chicken, meet egg... (and vice versa)


Boiling it down [to dangerously simple one liners]:

Media reflects society.
We have a sexist society.
Ergo: sexist media.

Classic Lara and her Classic sized breasticles aren't going to make someone walk outside and slap the nearest female. But, a culture which perpetuates narrowly defined associations re womanhood and [socially conditioned] femininity isn't doing anyone favours - particularly young girls who'd like some more diverse examples in the media they're surrounded by.

(which, for an obvious caveat: doesn't mean simply swapping out pink Barbies and LEGO, and making all young girls play with, I dunno, Action Force or whatever kids these days play with... But we do need to move away from the Blue = Boy, Pink = Girl binary; such narrow simplicity isn't good enough for either gender. at the moment, however, the need to address sexism re women is a much bigger issue)

I'm not entirely sure if I've addressed the actual thread, though... No offence, but the original post rather led to a bit of a no-brainer reply (re why sexism in the media may be a real problem, the answer being: because it reflects a sexist society, and this ain't good).

 

[K12]

This is a good question.

It's different for a couple of reasons.

1) Real world violence is rare (relatively speaking) but sexism/ gender distinctions isn't.
and
2) Violence is simple and obvious but sexism isn't.

The idea that games can "desensitize" or (my preferred term) "normalize" violence or sexism are affected by both of these. Recognising violence is really easy, it's hard to not notice a violent act even if you don't do anything about it. Sexism is really complicated, think about how many debates go on about "is this sexist or not" and how unclear the answers in some situations. The violence debate is nearly always "is this violence justified", the fact that it is violence is usually obvious.

So basically the fact that something can unconsciously influence you is more plausible with something subtle and everyday like sexism rather than distinct and rare, like violence. Perpetuating stereotypes is just plain easier than encouraging violent behaviour. One influences assumptions and the other influences actions.

Obviously if the claim is that sexist games will make gamers rape or beat their wives then yeah that is exactly the same silly argument. It's just "games cause violence" but a more specific kind of violence.

Another thing worth saying is that I think the "sexism games make people more likely to be sexist" is a secondary or even tertiary issue for sexism in games. The main big one is that it gives girls a hard deal by lessening their enjoyment of games in general.

 

[Ikasury]

sigh... the big 'issue' is that people can't understand each other and no amounts of gender-amalgamation/fluidity or the increasing change of what exactly 'gender' is in our society will change the fact men and women simply think differently... there is a basic underlying trend in our different thought processes that just make us see the world differently...

males see things 'simply' and are generally set into simple ways, their way of thinking is geared to focusing on a single target and doing whatever is necessary to acquire said target for whatever means for the situation, something probably hungover from our hunting days as a species...

females see things in broad strokes, as the primary caregivers for young we have to be able to multitask, we see far more in one broad stroke then any guy ever will, we're better with grasping large concepts of a situation and a higher sense of paranoia to protect us from potential predators... but this gets annoying when we see things that are 'right there' but really aren't...

guys think pinpoint whats necessary, ladies see EVERYTHING whether its immediately necessary or not...

apply this to video games (or really any situation actually):

-game requires killing to acquire target:

male view: pick up gun, shoot other guys, acquire target, get trophy...

female view: spotting every little detail of said characters, why are they doing this? what's the purpose? where's the next opponent coming from? why are there only dudes? that's really weird... this is really weird... and kinda pointless... and repetitive... i could be making food or reading something as this is rather tedious... oh, guess i killed that guy... huh... yea... meh...

-game has only male leads:

male view: squad move out...

female view: this is really gay... like so much even rue paul might have a problem... and they aren't even doing anything interesting... why am i playing this again?

-game has only female leads:

male view: odd... but okay, acquiring targets...

female view: that's... weird... okay... okay i get this, sweet chicks duking it out... and they are all wearing rediculous outfits!! are you serious?! woman where did you pull that sword out of?! seriously!! what the hell... ugh fuckit, i'mma stab that ***** for having bigger boobs then me...

-game has mixed leads:

male view: lets see, healer, tanker, dps, glass cannon... alright squad move out...

female view: -snorts- least they have some funny stuff to say... oh man, those to are eyeing each other, GET A ROOM!! HA!! oh right combat... uh... go blow stuff up nukey-dude while i watch the sideline drama...

-game has scantily clad woman as plot device:

male view: acquire woman, get new gun, kill bad guy... yes, yes, uh-huh when can i move on from this cutscene?

female view: *****'s boobs are bigger then mine -.- fuck her and fuck this game... (rival target acquired... spend rest of time trying to kill her)

-game has scantily clad male as plot device:

male view: what a pussy... (target acquired, spend rest of time trying to kill him)

female view: what a pussy... (spends rest of game trying to get him to shut up) "OR" he's so cute... i think i'll leave him in a corner just so i can look at him... no wait, he'll probably die... damn... eh, well, fuckit i'm done with this its kinda boring...

-game has child as plot device:

male view: escort mission, move target to position... as quickly as possible to not lose points...

female view: goddamnit, not another freakin' kid... fine, trying to get through this... OH WHAT THE HELL KID!! i swear when i have kids... actually no, fuckit, i think i won't have kids if they're this stupid...

.....


so is there a correlation between vidya-games violence/sexism to enacting violence and sexism? not on their own, no i doubt it, but like all things in life they can (like all media) provide a kind of positive/negative reinforcement to these concepts, thus encouraging/discouraging them, people without the capacity to accept they are FANTASY and NOT REAL see this as a reinforcement to do said horrible things, so it really comes down to how much of a gullible person you are...

do i see sexism in video games? yes... though is more unintentional in my opinion, this is a fantasy medium, people are going to make what the want and what they're familiar with, you can't take ANY of this literally... personally one of my FAVORITE games based solely on the art is Magna Carta, and in that all the guys were either cross-dressers/uber-burly and the ALL the women were basically bomb-shell-boobs-strippers save like one (who was probably actually a guy now that i think about it XD) that's an example of its so ridiculous its funny and in a way awesome, as the female characters weren't any more detrimented then the males... plus you can't argue with the artist, who basically said 'i just want to make beautiful people', can't argue there buddy...

is it annoy as a woman playing games? yes, but that's because most games are made predominantly by dudes and dudes have no idea how women think, back to my first point, the sexes simply see things differently, i like a game where i can make a female character as my main, i get annoyed having only dudes to pick from, my annoyed when all the chicks i 'can' pick from are 2D and just generally BAD characters in general... course that's typically followed by ALL the characters are 2d and just bad to begin with...

personally i hate the argument of 'loincloth equals stripper-outfit' it doesn't, Kratos in his man-skirt (which was typical of greek heroes and their portrayl) isn't about making him 'sexy' to woman, its about making him 'sexy' to men, loincloth for guys generally means 'primal'-beastlike-rage guy, this is a male ego-boost, not fanservice for women, some woman may see it as sexy, like some guys find bomb-shell-boobs sexy, but its not 'reeeaaally' there for us women... see clothes can 'enhance' female sex-characteristics easy (its part of our evolutionary design to attract a mate) while males is a bit more difficult (at least by censorship standards), guys show off their prowess or strength, beat up opposing males, and women find that sexy as it marks that male dominant to the other thus attractive... you can't really boil that down to a particular 'look' without slipping into male-fantasy-hero-worship and basically male-fanservice for male-egos .-. in my experience the only male character i can think of that got close to idealized female-fanservice/attractiveness without the male-hero-worship overriding it is Dante, the original, from Devil May Cry... he just kinda eeks 'i'm sexy awesome and better then all of you' and in the first game he's not even showing any skin so kinda tramples 'loincloth' vision...

so i suppose its not really "does this encourage sexism" as us women don't really get anything from our point of view and it gets rather boring after awhile, least that's my take on this argument... .-.

and please don't take that top part too seriously, just what i've seen from people i know playing the same games XD

 

[Vault101]

[snip]

I think we are influenced by media more than we'd like to think...

 

[Uhura]

I wonder who keeps putting all those male power fantasies in romantic novels and female friendly porn!

But which game characters match the guys on the covers of romance novels? In the photo posted earlier in the thread, the men have warm toned healthy glow on their skin and their muscles are not too over the top. The guys mentioned in this thread thus far don't really look the same to me. Kratos looks dead, his skin is gray and his muscles are over the top. Geralt is really pale too and his face is kinda busted up. Can' say much about Sam Fisher since I didn't find any shirtless pics of him.

It's not that no woman finds those guys attractive (because some women do). It's that at least the guys The Kodus mentioned don't really fit the style of most romance cover guys. Guys in romance novels are usually tanned and look athletic and healthy. I can't really come up with that many guys who fit that description in games. Shepard?

The comparison doesn't convince me.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's not that no woman finds those guys attractive (because some women do). It's that at least the guys The Kodus mentioned don't really fit the style of most romance cover guys. Guys in romance novels are usually tanned and look athletic and healthy. I can't really come up with that many guys who fit that description in games. Shepard?

The comparison doesn't convince me.

Spoiler: This, is

Spoiler: Basically the same as this

I never got the idea that to "Appeal to women" the characters have to look "Gay".

I mean, I'm gay, I can tell you pretty sure, that if the most attractive thing to women was gay men, we really wouldn't get too far as a species.

In reality, men are perfectly fine with other men whom are attractive to women, why would this suddenly change if these characters were in video games?

 

[Vivi22]

If I can play an FPS, and not shoot someone based on my experience, then how would playing a sexist video game (Let's say Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum-Laude, which for the record was just a terrible game) make me mistreat women?

I've literally never seen someone even make this argument before so I'm not even sure why you think this is a prevalent argument. Anyone saying that playing a sexist game will mistreat women is an idiot and should be ignored.

The actual problem with sexist games is that they actively discourage women from playing games, or entering the game industry. 50% of the population is literally being given every reason to want nothing to do with the industry on any level. That's bad. And while games like Leisure Suit Larry will always have their place and a specific audience, there's a lot of casual sexism in games which has no good reason to be there and is a strong indication that the industry as a whole has questionable views on women and their place in society. And given the stories of sexism within gaming workplaces which have come to light in recent years, as well as rampant sexism from a disgustingly large and loud segment of the gaming public, there is a real problem here and it's one that needs to be addressed.

No one is saying that a sexist game will make people sexist. Those arguing against sexism in games are saying that there are games being made which are sexist for no reason, the industry itself has an issue with sexism, and the gaming community at large has an unbelievable amount of sexism that runs through it (not to mention homophobia, racism, etc.). There are an awful lot of people right now who think that sexist portrayals of women, and sexist treatment of women gamers and game developers is acceptable. It's a problem that already exists, not one that people are worried will be created.