Women in games are not systematically oppressed - a vertical slice

[Robert B. Marks]

Endtherapture: I don't have time to read the entire thread, but maybe this can help clarify things...

First, you need to know what a trope is, and how it works. A trope is a storytelling shorthand. Let's say that I want to tell my readers/audience/players in as little space or time as possible that a protagonist is driven, tragic, and probably going to become morally compromised over the course of their story arc. Well, one shorthand for this is to start the story with their girlfriend being murdered. The moment this happens, everybody looking at this story gets it. The murder of the girlfriend isn't portrayed as a good thing - it is, in fact, immediately seen as a bad thing (and this is an important point that I'm going to come back to).

Likewise, let's say I want to create a villain who is a complete monster, and I want the reader/audience/etc. to know it quickly, so that I can get on with the plot. Since our cultural context involves chivalry, I can have the villain commit some act of violence, physical or sexual, against a female character. Again, this isn't seen as a good thing - it is immediately condemned, and it is a very fast way to get everybody reading/watching/playing to hate the villain and want them destroyed.

These tropes are used because they work. And, they are legitimate storytelling tools. If they are balanced out across the medium with a number of other tropes accomplishing the same thing, it's not a problem. For example, I can achieve a similar effect for the tragic, about to be morally compromised hero by having the villain kill their father, or brother, or best friend. Similarly, I can create a fearsome, evil villain by having them torturing some random guy to death in a gristly way with a smile on their face. In all of these examples, the victims are props. They have no agency. They exist solely to provide the storytelling shorthand that tells the reader/audience/player what they need to know so that the story can move forward.

The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many.

In all seriousness, look at the last two Tropes vs. Women videos (the two "Women as background decoration" ones), and you'll see what I mean. Most of it is just tropes being used for storytelling purposes, but the pattern is clear, and disturbing.

Now, I did read the first page, and there was plenty of good points made about how women are depicted when they are proper characters in the games, so I won't elaborate on that too much, save to make one point: costuming based on function and costuming based on sexual fantasy are two different things. To take a superhero example, when the male costume says "I am a dangerous vigilante, and if you cross me you'll wake up in the hospital, if you wake up at all," and the female costume says "I am an easy lay, let's go back to my place," that's a problem, and sexism in action.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Endtherapture: When my post went up, I had a chance to read this: "The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press."

Actually, I'd say it too, and I was one of the gamers who was on the front lines back in 2002 fighting for video games to keep their First Amendment protections. The identity of "gamer" as it was back in the 1990s probably became obsolete by 2010 - not because people stopped playing games, but because that identity was based on the playing of games beyond the basic family board games (like Monopoly) separating us from everybody else. Between the 1990s and 2010, everybody else joined us, so that separation no longer existed and therefore the basic thing that defined that identity ceased to be. I know this may be a strange comparison, but it's like suffragettes - once women got the right to vote, the identity of "suffragette" really ceased to exist too, because it was based on the battle for the right to vote. They didn't stop fighting for women's rights, but their identity became something else.

The way I like to put it is we all became players, and, frankly, that's better. It means that this medium can continue to grow, as now it can be for everyone. These days, if anybody has the claim to being a "gamer," it's the ones who do it professionally. And as for those "real gamers" who draw a line against "casuals" and women and who wage harassment campaigns against those who dare to say that the medium should be more inclusive - well, to somebody like me, that feels like they're taking the identity that I and many others held with pride for so many years and crapping all over it. We didn't care who people were, what sex they were, what they played, or why they played - we only cared THAT they played.

So, I don't play games for a living, and I'll be damned if I'm going to identify with a group of reactionary abusive misogynists. I'm a game player, not a "gamer," and proud of it.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Man I liked it much better when gender politics wasn't in everything. Now it's getting really obnoxious.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Bolo: First, thank you for posting the links - they were very interesting to read, and very worth reading.

That said, I completely disagree with you on this: "So i think this narrative that women are harassed online more and are done so purely for being women is 100% complete bullshit. It's often used a shield or a stick to beat people who disagree with certain viewpoints. Women see almost ALL abuse online as "Because I'm a woman" and i think it enhances their profile over and above the statistical reality because it nets them more attention. Men who are abused online are generally ignored or told to get over it. Women who are abused online create massive media defense networks make careers out of it."

Frankly, I think you're reading too much of a conspiracy theory into this. Being driven from your home is NOT "making a career" of anything - it's being terrorized. And the fact that this sort of treatment also happens to others who aren't women doesn't make it right, or in any way acceptable. It is abhorrent, regardless of who is on the receiving side.

In the last 30 days, two people have been driven from their home by explicit threats of violence - Anita Sarkeesian and game developer Zoe Quinn. One more game developer, Phil Fish, was driven out of the industry for calling out the harassment against Zoe Quinn. If you can't recognize this as the problem it is, then you've got issues.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Big Tuk: "So I never judge games on social commentary. The only criteria for a game is.. 'Did I/Am I having fun playing it?' If I can say yes, well the game devs did a good job. I don't care if the characters are cliched, or female or male... so long as the game is fun and entertaining I'm perfectly fine with it. I don't care if the game has bme shooting, demons, nazis, jews, black people, white people, men, women; as long as they make it fun or entertaining or at the very least interesting. It's a good game.

"And yes I did say Jews... what? You got a problem. You're fine with a hundred and one games about shooting people of one broad social group but not another? And yeah I also said black people. What? Nothing wrong with a game where you shoot only black people. There are dozens of games where you shoot only white people so why not."

Big Tuk: You've just declared that you're fine with the most violent kind of bigotry and racism, so long as it's fun. Please consider all the condemnation and crap that's about to land on your head to be self-inflicted.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

.....

Likewise, let's say I want to create a villain who is a complete monster, and I want the reader/audience/etc. to know it quickly, so that I can get on with the plot. Since our cultural context involves chivalry, I can have the villain commit some act of violence, physical or sexual, against a female character. Again, this isn't seen as a good thing - it is immediately condemned, and it is a very fast way to get everybody reading/watching/playing to hate the villain and want them destroyed.

These tropes are used because they work. And, they are legitimate storytelling tools. If they are balanced out across the medium with a number of other tropes accomplishing the same thing, it's not a problem. For example, I can achieve a similar effect for the tragic, about to be morally compromised hero by having the villain kill their father, or brother, or best friend. Similarly, I can create a fearsome, evil villain by having them torturing some random guy to death in a gristly way with a smile on their face. In all of these examples, the victims are props. They have no agency. They exist solely to provide the storytelling shorthand that tells the reader/audience/player what they need to know so that the story can move forward.

The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many......

I agree with the first two paragraphs and disagree completely with the last cited paragraph.

The one female death at the start of the game is the problem but the thousands of dead male characters after that are fine? What a disgusting sexist double standard that is. Where are the feminists that demand equality there too? Are there any? How can anyone claim to be for equality and NOT want to get rid of that sexist double standard in games too?

And if I remember correctly Anita is definitely against equality in that area of games.

EDIT: Why is a sexist trope ONLY a problem if the female gender is affected by it??????

 

[Something Amyss]

-snip-

-snip-

Í doubt I'm going to make any headway here, but I find it really weird we're having this "vote with your wallet" argument even as EA's saying "buy our game or there won't be another." Worse, since Atmos made the positive correlation with Dungeon Keeper, which was predominantly lip service in the first place.

Yeah, considering that the "buy our game or there won't be another" has been the bigger of the two trends....Tell me again how boycotts work in the business?

 

[endtherapture]

Endtherapture: I don't have time to read the entire thread, but maybe this can help clarify things...


The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many.

Is this really a problem though? I mean, it's using violence against women sure, but it's not promoting violence against women, it's using violence against women to establish a villain or a vile character. The protagonist is barely involved in violence against women in most games. The other methods to get this across is violence against a group of innocents, or violence against children or animals. We see the former, and if the latter happens it's mainly implied due to the disturbing implication of depicting children and pets being killed or abused.

In all seriousness, look at the last two Tropes vs. Women videos (the two "Women as background decoration" ones), and you'll see what I mean. Most of it is just tropes being used for storytelling purposes, but the pattern is clear, and disturbing.

Now, I did read the first page, and there was plenty of good points made about how women are depicted when they are proper characters in the games, so I won't elaborate on that too much, save to make one point: costuming based on function and costuming based on sexual fantasy are two different things. To take a superhero example, when the male costume says "I am a dangerous vigilante, and if you cross me you'll wake up in the hospital, if you wake up at all," and the female costume says "I am an easy lay, let's go back to my place," that's a problem, and sexism in action.

I've watched them, and frankly she just shows a bunch of instances of violence against women, presented without context in a bunch of negative ways. You can frame anything as negative and harmful if you take these instances, and thunderf00t (who is an incredibly intelligent and well reasoned man IMO) has done just that here:

I prefer it in women in games don't wear chainmail bikinies anyway...but that's becoming more and more of an option in a game rather than the norm which is good.

 

[LarsInCharge]

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.

Yeah.

I love the DOA series. But I can admit that it contains some content that is definitely a bit stereotypical and chauvinistic, if not sexist. The fact that a full half of the playable characters are female doesn't change that. (In-game the girls are all tough and kick-ass, but in the pre-rendered scenes they revert to clumsy, simpering and over-emotional bits of fluff... which pisses me off not because I'm a crusading anti-sexist, but because it's ham-fistedly changing the tone of some characters I quite like).

You can have a game with very positive representation but poor depiction, and vice-versa.

Only a couple girls actually fall apart in cutscenes. Ayane, Kasumi, Helena, and especially Christie are shown to be competent badasses in and out of gameplay.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Í doubt I'm going to make any headway here, but I find it really weird we're having this "vote with your wallet" argument even as EA's saying "buy our game or there won't be another." Worse, since Atmos made the positive correlation with Dungeon Keeper, which was predominantly lip service in the first place.

Yeah, considering that the "buy our game or there won't be another" has been the bigger of the two trends....Tell me again how boycotts work in the business?

First: Hostage taking only works when people cave.
Sadly, the spineless masses have caved over and over again in the last console generation, to the point where large companies are feeling bold enough that extortionate garbage like Dungeon Keeper is either viable, or close enough; that it's only a matter of time before the market caves again.

Second, if EA, (or whoever) is only willing to offer garbage like Dungeon Keeper for a given franchise, then further contribution towards such works in the franchise (or company) will only result in the production of more garbage.

They will keep pushing the envelope as long as they think we're too stupid/hooked/gullible to buy it.

Some might argue that a crappy game is better than no game, and that by supporting the crappy games, that capital will find its way to more ambitious, actually good games.

But I find that notion laughably naive, in two ways.
1) "No game" is easier on my wallet than something that I wish I had never purchased. There are plenty of good games on backlog, and even new good games still being made by other firms.

2) What incentive do they have to offer better? These producers aren't developers with vision, they're ruthless businessmen chasing easy, sustainable profit. When the gaming well runs dry, the franchise owners will sell their assets, deploy their golden parachutes and move on.

It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of production; sometimes the wrong people are in charge of high potential.

An actual boycott will at least accelerate the process of their departure so that franchises and material may find their way into the hands of firms that will actually do something good with it. There's no guarantee obviously, but given that several indie projects and "spiritual sequels" are already popping for classics that larger franchise owners' refuse to do justice, I'd say it isn't that far fetched anymore.

 

[Batou667]

Only a couple girls actually fall apart in cutscenes. Ayane, Kasumi, Helena, and especially Christie are shown to be competent badasses in and out of gameplay.

True, the girls most central to the story seldom get played for laughs (although Kasumi's "mermaid dream" from DOA4 was pretty silly). Other girls get bizarre personality-transplants, presumably just for comedic or titillation value - for example Hitomi going from a kick-ass girl capable to taking down a living weapon one minute, to a ditsy bint who goes "uguu~!" and spills her breakfast all over the ceiling when the doorbell rings unexpectedly.

But hey, it's DOA, not Shakespeare, I guess we shouldn't read too much into it...

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

I knew that. I posted that image because...

Please don't tell me you honestly are saying the sequel is different from the first game... and isn't sexist. Please.

Nudity and sex does not make something sexist. What an immature attitude that is to take.

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

I knew that. I posted that image because...

Please don't tell me you honestly are saying the sequel is different from the first game... and isn't sexist. Please.

Nudity and sex does not make something sexist. What an immature attitude that is to take.

You're right.
Which is why the Witcher series is sexist.

This is not a game with nude characters. This is a game where you collected softporn cards of every woman you made the protagonist go to bed with, in a collect-them-all fashion. Then, the game evolved to the full scenario of a porn movie, as the video I've linked highly demonstrates. For example, when the pizza guy... I mean, the "hero"... enters the house to find two lesbians who quickly turn heterosexual to ask him to join them. And you're telling me this isn't sexist. The game is chock-full of male fantasy sex scenarios, and you need me to explain that to you?

To make you fully understand, please imagine the other way around: a game with a female protagonist in which you can collect softporn nude pics of hot men, in which there's a lot of full frontal male nudes during sex scenes. No, I don't think you can possibly understand that. But I know you would NOT play that game.

You're just bullshitting now man, exactly the same as Sarkeesian does, cherry picking and misrepresenting scenes to suit your agenda. Where do the lesbians turn hetero for Geralt? It's certainly not Philippa, she's a completely lesbian, if it's prostitutes, then well it's prostitutes, it's a medieval setting, that's their job and that's the setting.

In The Witcher 2, you do not collect naked pictures of female characters. There are sex scenes with love interests, but Triss, which you posted, is a fully fleshed out character who is capable and pro-active, and drives the plot, possibly even manipulating Geralt. Sure the game has a bunch of male sex fantasies, but it's not sexist, it has gay characters, lesbian characters, straight characters and characters who aren't interested in sex at all.

If I had brought up TW1 yes I would've agreed, the game is sexist, TW2 is not though, and TW1 was not part of my vertical slice, so don't give me any shit for it.

 

[endtherapture]

Would you play TW2 if it was the other way around? Would you play it if it was about a heroine flirting with hot guys, where you can be rewarded with sex scenes focusing on all of said hot guys, who are all super perfect and always alluring towards you, the player?
Would you play a game that among its selling points told you it featured scenes where you can admire nude penises (but no vaginas)?

You don't ever see a vagina in TW2, so what your point is that would I look at a topless videogame male? Yes I would, because that happens often in the game. Selling point of the game? You've got to be kidding...let's look at the back of the box.

I don't see any part of the game saying "yeah we've got sex scenes of naked women for you, that is a core feature of the game". You're talking out of your arse mate.

But yeah I would play TW2 if the genders were reversed, because I love the graphics, the gameplay and most of all the story and characters of the game. Not because I get to ogle naked pixel breasts. Get real.