Women in games are not systematically oppressed - a vertical slice

[JimB]

The series has plenty of strong independent women.

This is a bit of a tangent, but would you mind defining what you mean by "strong, independent woman?" I ask because I think there's a somewhat unfortunate tendency to take terms like "strong" and "independent" literally; for instance, I once saw a massive blog post by someone claiming to be a feminist who claimed Frozen is sexist trash because Anna is physically weak (she should have defeated the bad guy at the end of the movie with kung fu, not by throwing herself under a sword!) and because she attempts to enter a romantic relationship with a man (that means the movie is telling all girls they should get married to the first man they ever see!).

I apologize if it seems like I'm insulting you by comparison, but it's a viewpoint I've seen often enough that I just feel safer asking for clarification of terms.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I'm sorry, none of these concepts flew into my head when I was playing one of my favorite games of the last generation Dark Souls. When I could play as a female knight with reasonable armor I wasn't thinking "This is so boring with it's semi-realistic depiction of armor) Some of the Dark Souls armor was stylized, but it was reigned in style. All of the armor looked like it was designed to protect someone first and look cool second. And it wasn't boring. It was awesome. And frankly it's not the point anyway. It's not that people want "realistic" armor. They want fair armor.

Spoiler

http://youbentmywookie.com/wookie/gallery/1211_wtf/SexistGame.jpg

Which means if men have armor that looks like it's actually designed to protect them, so should women. And if women have armor that is designed to show off their ass, so should men.

 

[MeatMachine]

Wait, I don't have the option to play as a woman in this game?
This MUST mean that the game depicts men as being INTRINSICALLY SUPERIOR to women.
Sexism, sayeth I!

 

[Nieroshai]

How could you forget saints row?

It literally allows you to play as a transgender homosexual that identifies as shrek and become the president of the united states!

I think it makes sense that if you play a woman in 2 beyond, you're actually a M-F transsexual against your will due to your post-bomb surgery. It's still overall tongue-in-cheek sexist though with how it treats women overall. Not that it doesn't completely fit the street gang narrative. Should we expect thugs who murder, peddle hard drugs, steal cars, what-have-you, to suddenly draw the line at prostitution?

 

[shatnuh]

I question the criteria of this list.

I think your definition of "sexist" is too narrow.

Just because a game has female NPCs or a good female supporting cast, doesn't automatically mean the game is not sexist. Because the portrayal of those females within the game can still be considered to be sexist.

And that gets to the heart of it.

Moreover, just the fact that the thread opens with a "vote with your wallet" argument is kind of disingenuous. If we don't buy the games, we're not real gamers and not customers. If we do, we're enablers. Screw the double standard, if my opinion is going to be discounted, I might as well have fun while I'm at it.

Further, we can be critical of things we otherwise like. Even the evil feminazi extremist Anita Sarkeesian acknowledges that, and she's an evil feminazi extremist.

You could support games that are inclusive of all genders. For example I dislike modern military shooters, I don't like them so I have crowdfunded a bunch of old school RPG games. EA isn't going to respond to a petition with online, they're going to respond to people not buying their games and look at things that needs to change. There is no shame in not supporting games that don't.

Some of you are looking at games in a very...narrow way. Women are allowed to show cleavage, that does not inherently make a game sexist. The Witcher 2 has themes such as rape and the crimes of war but does not use them in a titillating manner like "this rape scene is so hot", but in a terrifying way. The tone of the game is mature so the inclusion of these themes does not feel like pandering, just as the rape scenes in Game of Thrones are horrifying. Unless everyone just wants PG games with no exploration of mature topics.

I don't think you really understand what the meaning of "sexist" is. A rape scene, any rape scene, creates a victim. Now, that can be of either gender, but most commonly found in our digital media today is that of male-on-female rape. Ergo, most rape scenes victimize females. So, when you consistently use women being raped as a tool to move your plot, whether it be to create a vengeance motive for another character, or using it as a way to "toughen up" a female protagonist, you prove that you see the psychological trauma of rape as being a far secondary topic to whatever plot you've lazily worked the heinous act in. So when games like The Witcher and Game of Thrones do just that, it's not any masterwork of storytelling. It's objectification. And honestly, I'm really sick and tired of the "medieval times" argument. None of these stories actually take place on our defined Earth. They are their own countries and worlds. So why must we allow every dark fantasy idea get a pass on womens rights? It's not our Earth! Why must we be beholden to such vile acts to engross and immerse the masses? It's lazy, and outright disgusting.

I appreciate what you're looking for, honestly. I feel like the games industry as a whole gets a terrible rap for being outright sexist. But your vertical slice sadly falls victim to the "medieval times" argument too many times for me to believe you really know what you're looking for. And you've certainly voted with your wallet, but I think you're not voting for decent female representation. I think you're voting for, "Well, at least not EVERY woman in this game is a whore."

And by later bringing up Malcolm X and Mississippi Burning is ignorant to the fact that those are both very real, very true stories. Nothing in the Witcher has ever happened. Ever.

Ever.

 

[Pikey Mikey]

Hell yeah! Baldur's Gate (I really love those games)

If I may make a small list of games that I don't think are sexist (EDIT: ok, just two because this is in danger of becoming a wall of text (I blame Baldur's Gate, because it's interesting =P));

Baldur's Gate, I would not consider it sexist, because you only really save ONE woman, and that's your close friend who you grew up with so she doesn't count as a damsel (and the person who kidnapped her kidnapped you and your whole party, so he is far more powerful than you anyway). One of the main villains is female and I will just say it; Viconia is my favorite party-member because, while you can romance her (nearly impossible, but I digress), she is the best cleric in the game and that has to count for something.

System Shock 2: SHODAN is female (shut up, she is (even though she's a machine)), best part of that game is just when SHODAN talks to you. I love those audio logs :3 I don't think there's anything remotely sexual about her and she is not the one who needs help of the two of you.

This is becoming far too long of a post, so I'll just end it here =P

 

[Pikey Mikey]

Mini-post. I think WoW is like 50-50, because while there is typical g-string & bra combo. There is also the armor that I like, which is, you know, actual armor, that covers the body =P (and yes, I don't like having my female night elf rogue dressed lightly (is that weird?), because I even roleplayed it enough to give her short hair which is better when you're fighting (less chance of getting grabbed and it doesn't get in your face (and YES, this has no effect on the gameplay in WoW. But I still like it because it makes her look like a combatant (I wouldn't say fighter/warrior because she stabbed people in the back with knives...a lot))))

Why do these post start out as a sentence or two in my head any mutate into so much more? It's like the RE-viruses
(captcha 'foul play' yes...Yes indeed =P)

 

[teh_Canape]

descending into hell, if the last level of TR1 is to be observed

Atlantis, actually
where you fight lots of demonlike creatures that have no skin for some reason
and a doppelganger that also has no skin and somehow the doppelganger doesn't die when you cause her to jump into the lava/fire, and returns in tomb raider underworld

 

[crypticracer]

Here's the thing, if you wanna tell a good story and you think you can do that the best with a diverse cast, that's awesome. What's problematic is inherently thinking that there's some intrinsic benefit to diversity.

I have to interject here, as I do feel diversity is intrinsically better. While perhaps not true on an individual basis, looking at overall trends makes it clear to me.

You could have every character be a young white man with a grim determination and a stubble, and if they are all well written maybe that's ok, but if they are all so well written, then why not have some of them be diverse? If it changes nothing about the writing or voice acting, how could giving variety in design not improve it?

I personally much prefer a game that try's something new but is lackluster in other areas, to a game that's the exact same thing, I already own thirty times, but is incredibly well made. (Though I think that simply by the fact that they are not trying anything new or different it does lower the quality of their game. It doesn't make the game bad, but why shouldn't I just go play my other game exactly like it and save some money?)

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't get what you mean...if you're not a gamer...why are you here? If you buy these sexist products and then complain about them...why not just not buy them? Consumer boycotts are an old practise.

I am a gamer. I don't know how you got there from here. But you sort of demonstrated what I was getting at with the double whammy. Are you sure that wasn't intentional?

No, if we don't buy a game, we're written off as not a customer and/or not gamers. Hell, sometimes we're written off as not gamers even when we do buy. And you've managed to sandwich both at once. If you don't buy, what's your problem? If you do buy, you are the problem.

As for boycotting, people flip the tables when someone just reads off sexist tropes. I can only imagine what an actual boycott would do. But more to the point....

"Vote with your wallet" in this instance is realistic. Albeit a bit reductive since if gamers only support products they know they will like, boundaries never get pushed and the medium stagnates (kinda like Hollywood and their obsession with remakes).

Of course that's discounting basic human curiosity. Unless the market is in such an insular state that collapse is imminent, curiosity will eventually win out.

Yes, because boycotts in gaming have been so effective in the past. Now, I'm sure one or two examples will invariably come up and be used as all the proof to the contrary one needs (exceptions always disprove the rule, after all), but as a whole, this is an industry that doesn't care and/or looks to other excuses. When a game doesn't sell, it's because of piracy, or sometimes used games. They've pushed this narrative to the point the consumer has actually taken it up. Brilliant propaganda. Hell, we have game companies doing it to themselves: Square Enix blamed their fiscal woes on the failure of three games, two of which were five+ million sellers. Combine this with the notion that the expectation is a pass-fail on a single issue which may not even be obvious from first blush and a tendency to use "vote with you wallet" as a response to people actively talking, you're not looking at a pretty picture. On top of that, there's no real way to track a negative vote.

Though I probably should have stopped with the "vote with your wallet to silence" bit. "Vote with your wallet" is part of a larger strategy that involves consumer awareness, which is what it's used to shout down. Criticism is literally a part of that, and we've seen how well that's been received.

Combine that with an already marginalised or ignored group?

SEEMS LEGIT.

 

[Vault101]

[snip.

you will however notice that majority of games that have a female protagonists are only optional, which is the same misguided (and incorrect) idea that female protagonists are a risk....at least with movies this has proven notto be the case

I'm not gonna call it oppression, but I will call it an issue

 

[Vault101]

Anita Sharkeesian, or hoever you spell her name, is what I call a fire starter. She gets offended or upset about something, and she deems it a crime, or villainous, or basically WRONG to do at all. Are video games like Mario, Skyrim, GTA, Saints Row racist? Are they REALLY sexist? Of course not. They do in no way, advocate the hatred of ANY kind of person. Are they representations of REAL LIFE? Of course not, they are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
.

1. you can take a critical look at something and not deem it sexist overall...however

2. something does not have to "advocate" anything to be potentially problematic. You'll find practically NOTHING outright advocates sexism/racism, it can however reinforce it even if you take in the context

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I want to say one thing regarding this subject:

It's telling that many of the people condemning the (obviously wrong) harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian stood by and did nothing when Jack Thompson got death threats and harassment for his work. Can we all at least agree that Jack Thompson didn't deserve death threats, regardless of how stupid, ignorant or repugnant you found his opinions?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yes, because boycotts in gaming have been so effective in the past. Now, I'm sure one or two examples will invariably come up and be used as all the proof to the contrary one needs (exceptions always disprove the rule, after all), but as a whole, this is an industry that doesn't care and/or looks to other excuses.

I know a lot of folks love to bash boycotts (*insert L4D2 and CoD4.x pics here*) but if I may posit, it's the UNORGANIZED "boycotts" that work more than the organized ones. That is, the unspoken disinterest and revolt that occurs; it most certainly does occur, but is harder to document precisely because companies love to invent all manner of excuses.

When a game doesn't sell, it's because of piracy, or sometimes used games. They've pushed this narrative to the point the consumer has actually taken it up. Brilliant propaganda. Hell, we have game companies doing it to themselves...

Exactly!

This is just like in how whenever a Hollywood movie bombs, it is NEVER, EVER, the fault of bad scripting.
Even though scripting is unquestionably one of the most influential elements.

Outside of critics, nobody really questions it anymore.

Something similar of happened in gaming earlier this year with EA's Dungeon Keeper farce.
The game bombed, EA acknowledged it...and then blamed the audience for not being "ready for it".

Absolutely NO acknowledgement of the horrible price gouging and game-crippling mechanics.

Combine this with the notion that the expectation is a pass-fail on a single issue which may not even be obvious from first blush and a tendency to use "vote with you wallet" as a response to people actively talking, you're not looking at a pretty picture. On top of that, there's no real way to track a negative vote.

It's more complicated to evaluate what you don't have data for, vs what you do.

Though I probably should have stopped with the "vote with your wallet to silence" bit. "Vote with your wallet" is part of a larger strategy that involves consumer awareness, which is what it's used to shout down. Criticism is literally a part of that, and we've seen how well that's been received.

Combine that with an already marginalised or ignored group?

SEEMS LEGIT.

"Vote with your wallet" is just applicable economics.
Unfortunately, (and ironically) it's also turned into the sort of farce we see flippantly used to dismiss criticism.

"Don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet."

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Here's the thing, if you wanna tell a good story and you think you can do that the best with a diverse cast, that's awesome. What's problematic is inherently thinking that there's some intrinsic benefit to diversity.

I have to interject here, as I do feel diversity is intrinsically better. While perhaps not true on an individual basis, looking at overall trends makes it clear to me.

You could have every character be a young white man with a grim determination and a stubble, and if they are all well written maybe that's ok, but if they are all so well written, then why not have some of them be diverse? If it changes nothing about the writing or voice acting, how could giving variety in design not improve it?

I personally much prefer a game that try's something new but is lackluster in other areas, to a game that's the exact same thing, I already own thirty times, but is incredibly well made. (Though I think that simply by the fact that they are not trying anything new or different it does lower the quality of their game. It doesn't make the game bad, but why shouldn't I just go play my other game exactly like it and save some money?)

I agree with you that "new exciting things" are good and I want them. I'm simply...baffled by your narrow scope of them. I don't see a game with a diverse cast as "exciting", not any more so than a game with all white men as the cast. Give me a game with Dragons as the main cast, or ants, or bees, or a big robot who splits into many different smaller robots each with its own personality.


If you wanna champion newness and innovation, you shouldn't focus on a very very narrow way in which games can innovate in a marginally miniscule way and just act as though that's good enough. I don't want gaming to focus on just having a more diverse cast of humans and just be happy there. What if you play as the parrot of the pirate game rather than as a white/black/asian/whatever human pirate captain. All people are the same, no matter their sex or race or ethnicity. They're all people. A diverse cast is equal to an all white one. I don't discriminate or judge people based on those factors. For me, uniqueness isn't making the angry gun-toting marine female or short or fat or from africa. Uniqueness is making an army game and not having the player control any soldiers or something along those lines. Of making a game about military affairs where the played doesn't shoot. Making a more varied group of playable chars that all do what their white counterparts have been doing for 20 years, only bringing their "ethnic flavor" to the mix, is not creative in the least. I get that diverse people want to identify more with playable chars. I'm a Greek dude, the only char of my background in gaming of any note is Kratos and who'd wanna identify with that. I know it sucks. It's still not innovative or creative just cause more people would identify with it though. Those two things are not linked.


Ultimately, the fact that something is already excellently written means that it is what it ought to have been. If something is well made it is "itself" and shouldn't change. If everything is itself then we benefit. A game being itself through having a diverse cast is equally valid. Thing is, I don't give a damn how diverse the cast is so like how I won't care if I play as a white dude, I won't care if I play as a black transgender midget either. I just want the game to be good in whichever way the people who are creating it think is best, since they know better. I choose to trust them and will judge the product based on it.

I'd much rather play a bad game which is as intended than a bad game which is only bad cause of compromise made to fulfill some imaginary quota of inclusivity or whatever else. You can blame the devs for the bad game but what you have to blame for the compromised game is the culture which causes people to feel like compromising. This culture is cancer to good game creation. It should go away.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...
I don't think you really understand what the meaning of "sexist" is.

Do you?

...
A rape scene, any rape scene, creates a victim. Now, that can be of either gender, but most commonly found in our digital media today is that of male-on-female rape. Ergo, most rape scenes victimize females.

A situation in which you kill, any situation in which you kill, creates a victim. Now, that can be of either gender, but most commonly found in our digital media today is that of male-on-male killing. Ergo, most killing situations victimize males.

...
So, when you consistently use women being raped as a tool to move your plot, whether it be to create a vengeance motive for another character, or using it as a way to "toughen up" a female protagonist, you prove that you see the psychological trauma of rape as being a far secondary topic to whatever plot you've lazily worked the heinous act in.

Hello, this is the 20,028,918th guard killed today by someone somewhere on this Earth. Can I have my death move the plot? Could my death please not be just another one of hundred meaningless deaths in the game and instead be an important part of
the game? Also thanks to the player my little brother now waits in vain for his big brother to come home and play chess with him, can't bear the thought of him griefing. And, oh man, my wife an...and my daughter ....

...
So when games like The Witcher and Game of Thrones do just that, it's not any masterwork of storytelling. It's objectification.

If that's objectification than everyone that gets killed in games is also objectified to be an obstacle to overcome via killing.

...
And honestly, I'm really sick and tired of the "medieval times" argument. None of these stories actually take place on our defined Earth.

But they all involve HUMANS of DIFFERENT GENDERS. But even if they don't involve humans. Why would being on a different planet somehow remove rape from society? Even in our modern days lots of people are murdered and lots of people are raped. So when the game plays is completely irrelevant to this subject. Rape and murder has always existed and it will sadly always exist.

...
So why must we allow every dark fantasy idea get a pass on womens rights? It's not our Earth! Why must we be beholden to such vile acts to engross and immerse the masses? It's lazy, and outright disgusting.

What about the HUMAN right to life of all the men that get killed in all those games???

...
Nothing in the Witcher has ever happened. Ever.

Ever.

Including the rape scenes! And yet you are ranting about them as if the have.

How many games actually include a rape scene? How many games includes death of LOTS of men mindlessly mowed down by the player?? And yet those mass murdering players are really nice boys and girls in real life.
Why are you assuming this will be different for a rape scene? Why are you talking about such a ridiculously small problem as if it is a huge issue??

ALL GAMES OBJECTIFY EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE PLOT! AND ALL BOOKS AND MOVIES DOES THAT TOO! BECAUSE THEY ARE FICTION!!!!!

 

[endtherapture]

I don't get what you mean...if you're not a gamer...why are you here? If you buy these sexist products and then complain about them...why not just not buy them? Consumer boycotts are an old practise.

I am a gamer. I don't know how you got there from here. But you sort of demonstrated what I was getting at with the double whammy. Are you sure that wasn't intentional?

No, if we don't buy a game, we're written off as not a customer and/or not gamers. Hell, sometimes we're written off as not gamers even when we do buy. And you've managed to sandwich both at once. If you don't buy, what's your problem? If you do buy, you are the problem.

The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press.

As for boycotting, people flip the tables when someone just reads off sexist tropes. I can only imagine what an actual boycott would do. But more to the point....

Boycotting/protesting does work. The Mass Effect 3 debacle showed that. Feel free to disagree, but in a capitalist society, writing passive aggressive articles, having debates on forums and making videos are not going to make the corporations in control of game development. You have to take direct action beyond just sitting in your desk chair at home comfortably moaning about things that "oppress" you.

[snip.

you will however notice that majority of games that have a female protagonists are only optional, which is the same misguided (and incorrect) idea that female protagonists are a risk....at least with movies this has proven notto be the case

I'm not gonna call it oppression, but I will call it an issue

I don't think the choice between genders of character is "an issue" at all. I think it's actually the best option, most inclusive of men and women and men to want to play as women and vice versa. I think it's hilarious how you are calling it "an issue".

 

[Vault101]

I don't think the choice between genders of character is "an issue" at all. I think it's actually the best option, most inclusive of men and women and men to want to play as women and vice versa. I think it's hilarious how you are calling it "an issue".

no those games aren't the "issue" those games are fine

my "issue" is we don';t have many games with a non-optional female protagonist

The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press.
.

a few editorials come out on the word gamer and al of a sudden its "feminist groups" talk about creating bogeywomen here