Why are people so against 'feminism' in gaming?
- Thread starter aks100
- Start date
Recommended Videos
More or less. Mainly distrustful of people, but close enough. But the presence of "ism" still doesn't by default mean a word is "anti-" anything.Pist0l 07 said:
Of course, but when you have the name Saint Cynicism I couldn't pass that up. Although theoreticly almost any ism could be reduced to anti something.Saint Cynicism said:
Feminism: anti womens' inequality
Optimism: anti pessimism
Pessimism: anti optimism
Paedobaptism: anti unbaptized infants
Republicanism: anti...goverments that aren't a rebuplic
Well some of them are pretty hard. Look at this one, Zootheism: attribution of divine qualities to animals. I guess...anti...non divine animals?
Edit: Slightly relevant to this thread, check out the Colbert Report from this night, pretty ridiculous.
It is a marketing fact?Torrasque said:
"But if you look at movies, OTHER games, manga, anime, and commercials, you see an overwhelming support of what I have said." Really?
Let's take a look at games:
Xbox: Halo 2
Xbox 360: Halo 3
PS 2: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
PS 3: Gran Turismo 5
SNES: Super Mario World
PC : The Sims
Which of this games were advertised using "Sex sells"? And if they were can you proof that they sold so good because of "Sex sells"?
What about the other games on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
All your post sounds like is "Everyone knows 'sex sells'", but where are the facts? Where are the top selling "sex sells" advertised games? They are clearly outnumbered by other games.
Hello, I am that guy!Torrasque said:
For example in Guild Wars female Rangers have the choice between a bikini and a lot of more sensible fighting attires: I will never wear the bikini in fights, but when sitting at the beach in Fisherman's Haven I might wear it, because that is the only place where the bikini fits in.
Easiest argument I've had to argue, ever.Kashrlyyk said:
FPS games are exempt from the "sex sells" rule because there are usually no females in the game.
Halo has fems, but CoD, MoE, BF, etc. don't have fems at all.
So sex doesn't sell for these games, simply because its a massive cockfest.
San Andreas: You can go to the strip club. There are hookers in the game.
You ever hear of the saying "sex, drugs, and alcohol" ?
Every single GTA game is built on that saying, and OH HEY! What comes first? Sex!
Gran Turismo: You don't even see humans in the game besides the heads of your driver. Covered by a helmet.
Imo, I think a hot girl would drive my car better than a guy.
Super Mario world: It's core demographic is children. Its meant to be childish.
Sims: Ok, now you're just picking ANY fucking game you can think of.
I don't even consider Sims to be a game, its such a waste of time and space.
"My life is boring. I will play a game that simulates LIFE because my life is boring as fuck. That will stimulate my life! WOO HOO!"
You are the reason that I try to avoid saying absolute arguments like "all douchebags are douchebags" or "all retards that argue against principles that have been agreed upon to be FACT, are retards". Because you need to find ONE counter-example, and suddenly my point is completely invalid eh?
I can think of at least 10 games to each of your games, that support my claim. But I'm not going to.
I'm going to wait and see what bullshit comes from your mouth next.
Nothing destroys an argument more, than the person themselves saying how shitty their argument is.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Lots of hostility here. It's not like it's even that big a blip on my radar. You need to calm down sir.mxfox408 said:
I was just trying to explain how I felt about the situation, and it's mostly gender neutral. I just prefer a little more intellect in my characters. More power to you if you prefer low-to-no intelligence in and behind your characters, doesn't bother me. I probably wasn't going to play Duke Nukem or any of the things you like anyways, because they cater to people who prefer things like you do as opposed to people who prefer things like I do. At the end there I was just trying to suggest a possible solution to the offensive nature of one of the minigames, which in all honesty might not detract that much from the title or the minigame itself. (I mean, come on. Lesbian implications hardly ever go wrong in the straight male demographic)
Anyways, "taking the time to complain" as you put it isn't so much a hassle for me, as is implied, as another element of entertainment. I debate on forums like these because I enjoy the challenge of putting together coherent arguments in the hopes of swaying others to agree with me, or getting said others to pose some information that I can learn from and will sway me towards their beliefs.
I would like to think that sex may sell, but not so much as higher entertainment value.Torrasque said:
When someone takes offense to a certain product because of what it contains eg duke nukem who is just stupid fun even though its made for audiance who just love it for shits and giggles, 9/10 times are not being objective when criticizing or recommending changes. Put it simply feminazis are usaully never objective when it comes to things they deem offenssive, and want it changed. Everything done will always offend someone no matter what you do, so why bother trying to cater to every minority of the margin who wont ever even buy it to begin with? Take fox news for example i doubt they ever played the games they critisize and demand they be changed, so why would any developer change its product based up a smal percent that more likely wont ever even purchase its product? As a male who was raised to respect women and treat them with curtisy in other words gentleman, but i ask what for after 10 years i ask why? Thetr are alot of Women dont respect men, even those that treat them well. And you can see why some guys want to enjoy what we do on our time without having to constantly edit it because someone may find it offensive. Hell what us guys often think about is offensive, thats what this blows down to is small percent getting offendedconflictofinterests said:
Fair cop, I can understand that; consistently working to deadlines must be draining, I don't envy you that!John Funk said:
I will continue to air my thoughts though.
A point I'd like to clarify is that I'm talking about when a row is instigated by the woman that results in her being hit.
My point though is this; you always see the woman as the victim. You seem to dismiss any culpability that the woman has. The hypothical domestic situation I created above is common, it can be compared to the worst week of an average marriage extended over the majority of the relationship.
Not forgetting to mention the fact that the physical abuse a man commits leaves evidence aplenty behind whereas the verbal, mental and emotional abuse a woman commits leaves no such trail. Try having a vindictive woman who knows you intimately well insult you and you keep your cool; then report her and see how far you get. Try proving anything before you get laughed out the door.
Your argument seems to be that as soon as a woman is hit she is the victim, no matter the circumstances.
This necessitates the claim that whatever it is a woman does violence is never an appropriate response.
This ends up with the conclusion that there are either no bad women (they wouldn't have done something to deserve that response), or that they have superior rights to men (you can't hit a woman).
Violence is, occasionally, an appropriate response. That is why bouncers have a job, why cops carry truncheons and why countries have armies. And why millions of men fight every day in an effort to sort out disagreements between them.
I obviously do not suggest violence is a good option, it is almost certainly never one to commit to without trying many other things first. I am also not suggesting that all, or even most, cases of physical abuse are like this. I am suggesting that a decent sized percentage are.
Violence is a part of life, it always will be. This is why charges should be pressed rather than the state directly prosecuting.
To declare it inherently illegal is to declare one part of society at a disadvantage to another; as I mentioned before women, in general, have consistently been proved to have superior command of language and emotional understanding as well as the ability to use that to obtain a desired outcome. To block one whilst not blocking the other gives that other an advantage, and how could you stop this advantage anyway?
To suggest that physical abuse always causes more harm than verbal and emotional abuse is plain wrong, both can cause horrific damage. Again, if you ban the one that leaves evidence how do you create equality by also stopping the one that leaves no trace?
Reminds me of Harrison Bergeron.
It is you who is perpetuating an unequal viewpoint, one where women are superior to men, not I the opposite.
People have equal rights but they are not themselves equal.
Feminists claim that women are still unequal to men in Western society, we obviously disagree on this. I did have one moment of insight though, and it was the poem I spoke about before, Rudyard Kiplings If, that triggered it.
As I mentioned before men have more judgements and expectations put on them than women do. This is a two sided coin, with pros and cons. Women on the other hand have fewer such things to meet and, again, this has pros and cons.
The expectation that every man try to be a Man, as envisaged by the poem, is the backbone of male society. This generates a certain level of respect among and between men. For example, you assume when meeting a male stranger that he tries to be a Man.
Women do not have a direct corrolary, the closest they do have being the Mother. These two titles consist of wildly different traits though and so aren't comparable. Men have even begun to emulate the Mother with the Father, and they recieve the respect that role engenders.
Women emulating a Man though, they do not recieve the same respect that a Man does. I think this simply comes down to the fact that the term Man, while just a title signifying traits that a woman is more than capable of possessing, leads one to conclude that you have to be a man in order to be a Man.
Also, to be a part of male society and to be judged throughout life as a man trying to be a Man, and is expected to do so, is a necessary part; one that cannot be skimped.
This is an issue of respect not equality and what may, I believe, be what causes the impression that women aren't equal. Women are respected of course, as individuals and for what they achieve, but it is different to the respect that is afforded a Man.
(Disclaimer: Not all men are Men, many aren't and many do not even try. Most do not get the respect given to a Man, it's just respect to the assumed effort (and wariness of danger with some) that is exchanged between strangers. Once you know the person you can judge for yourself whether or not the person deserves that respect; women are part of this system too.)
If I'm even close to right I have absolutely no idea how to change it.
As I mentioned before men have more judgements and expectations put on them than women do. This is a two sided coin, with pros and cons. Women on the other hand have fewer such things to meet and, again, this has pros and cons.
The expectation that every man try to be a Man, as envisaged by the poem, is the backbone of male society. This generates a certain level of respect among and between men. For example, you assume when meeting a male stranger that he tries to be a Man.
Women do not have a direct corrolary, the closest they do have being the Mother. These two titles consist of wildly different traits though and so aren't comparable. Men have even begun to emulate the Mother with the Father, and they recieve the respect that role engenders.
Women emulating a Man though, they do not recieve the same respect that a Man does. I think this simply comes down to the fact that the term Man, while just a title signifying traits that a woman is more than capable of possessing, leads one to conclude that you have to be a man in order to be a Man.
Also, to be a part of male society and to be judged throughout life as a man trying to be a Man, and is expected to do so, is a necessary part; one that cannot be skimped.
This is an issue of respect not equality and what may, I believe, be what causes the impression that women aren't equal. Women are respected of course, as individuals and for what they achieve, but it is different to the respect that is afforded a Man.
(Disclaimer: Not all men are Men, many aren't and many do not even try. Most do not get the respect given to a Man, it's just respect to the assumed effort (and wariness of danger with some) that is exchanged between strangers. Once you know the person you can judge for yourself whether or not the person deserves that respect; women are part of this system too.)
If I'm even close to right I have absolutely no idea how to change it.
Edit: Clarification.
At first I agreed with the people saying women are generalized in video games, and need more balanced representation.
But then I played Mass Effect.
But then I played Mass Effect.
Calm down there, sir. You still seem very hostile. I enjoyed Duke Nukem 2D when I was a little girl on my Grandpa's computer. Good Ol' Duke is how I got into gaming in the first place. I enjoy mindless fun games from time to time, and while I don't often buy them, I might have bought Duke Nukem simply for nostalgia purposes. I still might, though it certainly won't be as much a part of my child's life as the 2D version was for mine. I don't think things people think are predominantly offensive, or at least I think the things people predominantly think should be taken as somewhat naturally occurring and therefore shouldn't be taken as offensive.mxfox408 said:
Still, I would honestly like to know if you find the idea of this minigame having female playable characters vying to capture the aforementioned babe honestly offensive. How does it detract from the mindless fun of this mingame? Aside from all this talk of feminism and feminazis, what is objectionable about this proposal?
Actually I'm a little confused how that minigame is going to work. Is it going to be multiplayer or singleplayer? If it is multiplayer then I assume Duke while not be the standered character model, in which case I see no problem implementing a female character model. I'm pretty sure it is multiplayer since it would basicly be capture the flag but they could make a singleplayer CTF(or CTB) section in this case. If it is singleplayer then I assume the charcter would be Duke in order to maintain countinuity.conflictofinterests said:
I agree!Torrasque said:
No, if you checked the link I provided you would have found that all those games are THE ABSOLUTELY BEST SELLING GAMES of the mentioned systems according to the wikipedia website.Torrasque said:
And now I am done with you.
I would like to think that sex may sell, but not so much as higher entertainment value.[/quote] Thank you.conflictofinterests said:
I contributed early on in this thread and it was getting kind of off topic then. It just seems to be going around in cicles with different people jumping in and arguing the same points :/ I'm a woman and I don't have a problem with Duke Nukem he's a big joke...really.DaHero said:
