The Big Picture: Gender Games Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | |
Every so often, I and Moviebob align in opinions. | |
Which I wouldn't have a problem with, except we're replacing the fearless adventurer with the frightened college student in a horror movie. The big problem I think isn't so much sexy or pose, but how women are portrayed in games period. Did anyone else notice a majority of the examples Bob posted were from fighting games? Games where characterization is crammed into 3 minutes of ass kicking, or outside the fight in bio blurbs which few people read or care about. Not a whole lot of room for character development. If most folks have to look up Mai on wiki to get the gist of the character, it's cause she yet another female character in a sea of fighting rosters. But hey it's not Bobs fault, if you look out side fighting games, you pretty much get a sausage fest. Though fighting games don't exactly have equal rosters themselves, most end up looking pretty hotdogged, that is to say you'll end up with more hotdogs to a pack then you will buns. Female characters more often then not serve as love interests to be avenged, rescued, lamented over, or back ground characters who sole purpose seems to be to make the game less homoerotic. Female Leads are a bit of rarity, most gals are lucky to get one game that manages to be successful. While others might be part of rotating cast of characters like some franchise time share. As it stands there's really only two gals that have carried their respective franchise throughout, Samus Aran and Lara Croft. Both who have been "reinvented" to be more vulnerable. I'm not saying that vulnerable female characters are a bad thing, but does it have to be those two? The Lady Croft and Samus I fell in love with did run around and lose there shit every time something scary happens. Anyway what we need are more gals in the foreground in games, ones that have character, and can be the star of the games themselves. We're getting there, but we're no where near the level of say comic books, which have a whole slew of female led teams, female teams and female lead characters. And while we're on that subject where the hell is my Wonder Woman video game? Aquaman gets a game but not the Amazon Princess herself? Whats up with that? | |
Thank you, Moviebob, for putting it into words so well. (I should probably state, however, that many of the posts in this thread are...well, about what I'd expect.)
In some people's opinion, that apparently defeats the entire purpose of the character being female to begin with. (Hell, I've heard people whining about the female characters in Rift.) The real question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not so much of the market should be catering so heavily to that particular segment. | |
I reiterate: I LOVE YOU, MAN <3 Thank you for spreading awareness. I think it all starts with language, especially with the whole industry only wanting to target their product to heterosexual, teenage boys instead of anyone else. It demonizes everyone who are and everything that is stereotypically, and I use that word lightly, feminine (ex: homosexual teenage boys, transgender people, and women). For instance, "lady gamers" sound just as ridiculous as "lady reader" or a "lady writer" or a "lady dancer". By referring to male gamers as just "gamers", you exclude an entire demographic. Women can be gamers too. They're gamers. Another example would be the usage of "fag" when playing Call of Duty. I get all kinds of troglodytes using the word and it degrades homosexual men typically thought to be feminine (but aren't; there are homosexual men who are the most masculine people I know). That kind of language has to stop, especially if you don't mean it the way it sounds. | |
If companies just want to turn a profit, then they should be investing in the same bejeweled/angry birds ventures that you offhandedly dismiss - these are the games that have the highest investment-profit ratios compared to trip-A titles. What's your point? Economics rule? Social incentives don't matter? We shouldn't have any consumer conscience? Only cater to your target market (counter-example - look at your profile pic)? Moar Sex and violence? Because you've said a whole lot of nothing so far. Maybe you just need to play more Orgasm Simulator - you need the link again, bro? | |
I do believe I said "MOAR SEX PLZ" and I meant it. Keep it "coming." | |
If you guys need a good facepalm look at this 90% of these anime/pony loving morons don't know what characterises a strong woman/or person in general (even if you leave the sexualization out of the argument, cringeworthy to say the least) | |
I feel the need to come back to this Video, mainly because I was so offended by it. I used to think "Wow bob's a pretty smart guy," Here's for you bob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IOuW2-YImI&feature=related I used to like your stuff, but now I want nothing to do with it. No more. You are pathetic bob. | |
Oh, yes. How dare he call us possessers of the Y-chromosome out?! We must never forgive him! It's our right to stare at cleavage to our heart's content, and calling us out on it is verboten, and an obvious attempt at taking away what makes us real men! Well, with my poor attempt at sarcasm out of the way... No, MovieBob is not being pathetic here, he is proposing his points, and I can agree with most of them. At least they are more cohesive than that disgusting link you have provided. It is filth that does not belong in a time that wishes itself to be enlightened and progressive. This is not an assault upon your person. This is not some part of a massive conspiracy to undermine your rights. It is simply MovieBob explaining his view on why genderrolls in a game is offputting to some. And also a request for the gaming community in general to stop rushing to man the trenches at the very murmur of gender equality. One that haven't been heeded here, obviously... Furthermore, explain to me why half of our species' population's wish for equal rights is a threat to you. | |
this is why people paint feminist with the same brush. | |
Is it bad that I could barely pick up on the feelings of those poses? | |
I suspect that it is considered improper of me to add to a thread this old, but I really, really, really had to say that by George, Bob, you can be amazing. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | |
No, I understand what you're saying. If women are 40% of the market and they decide to boycott sexist games then the market will DEFINITELY correct itself. As I was arguing against the previous person, I don't think women make up a large portion of the market for the games that objectify them so I DON'T think it will correct itself. But if you combine the argument that these games are harmful to women because of the body image they represent AND the argument that the market won't correct itself because women don't buy these games then you've essentially neutered your own position. If women aren't buying the games then it's hard to see how it will affect their body images. If, however, women do buy the games and don't care, then you're essentially arguing that we need to step in and do their thinking for them.
If you instead try to educate the women themselves instead of pressuring developers, then the women WILL boycott the games that objectify them, and this WILL be an example of the free market correcting itself. Do you understand? When people talk about the market correcting itself, they are talking about 'correction' in an ECONOMIC SENSE, NOT A MORAL SENSE. If women are fine with these games and buying them anyway, or if only men are buying these games, then the market doesn't need correction. The market's job is to supply people with a product that they desire, not to enforce some moral code.
If your argument is that games will warp the fragile minds of young men so that they objectify women then you're wrong. Games don't turn perfectly chaste young christian boys into perverted freaks any more than they turn placid and peaceful people into murderous psychopaths. The imagery in games and the media is an EFFECT of the popular male psyche more than it is the cause of it. It might have some slight effect of reinforcement but that's about it.
I like how you placed this last quote at the end even though I was responding to it. My point was that education is the only way.
I have been doing two things: 1) responding to your criticism of the free market and 2) showing how the images in the media are the RESULTS of our values and not the cause of them. My arguments against censorship fall into my first response. I am arguing that because of the free market system, if someone wants a product, someone will produce that product. My point is that the only way for you to stop these images is either through government censorship or by changing the fundamental nature of human beings. Here I focused upon the former, even if it is not your position. I focused upon making the latter point elsewhere. I am telling you that pressuring the developers is the wrong way to go and won't accomplish much of anything. You have to change the desires of the public, not their ability to buy things based upon those desires. Even if you pressured developers (without outright government censorship) to stop making games, you haven't changed the fact that people want those types of games.
The implications are not obvious. I sincerely doubt that a bunch of 13 year old girls are going to run away to Mexico to get breast implants so they can look like Kasumi from DOA. I've played plenty of Gears of War, yet I've somehow resisted the impulse to inject myself with horse steroids. You're making mountains out of mole hills. I could maybe see this as a valid argument against actual actresses who are pop culture idols and thus something little girls actually look up to, but come on: video games? Video games are almost always set in complete fantasy.
Sure, I acknowledge that there probably are detrimental effects to women in the way these games present them. I just don't think these effects are NEARLY damaging enough to justify trying to ban games, or really even launching negative campaigns to try to get people to stop making them. I think you're better off trying to teach people how to distinguish between reality and fantasy. It's fine to indulge yourself in gratuitous sexual or violent content as long as you don't let it get to your head.
What you're proposing is something akin to the absolutist Temperance movement. Instead of telling people that they should drink in moderation, you're trying to get people to stop drinking altogether. (Note that I'm not comparing you to the Prohibition movement which wanted to legally ban alcohol, so don't accuse me of a straw man fallacy.)
What exploitation? Listen, slavery is exploitation. Prostitution is exploitation. Indentured servitude is exploitation. Child labor is exploitation. Hiring people to work in your coal mine and then charging them for their pick axes is exploitation. Video games do not exploit women. Perhaps they objectify them, but that is a completely different thing. I could maybe see this argument made against the porn industry because a lot of the actresses probably have mental health issues (i.e. were sexually abused as children), but not in video games. Who is being exploited? The pixelated characters that don't actually exist? Perhaps it's the voice actors, but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure none of the voice actors are addicted to crack. In fact, they probably have a beast of a union, actors are notorious for that.
Sure it objectifies women. People, both men and women, are hard wired to view each other as sexual objects. The problem arises when they only view each other in this manner.
You seem to be conflating two separate but related issues: 1) the objectification of women in video games and 2) the unhealthy body image portrayed by video games. What I think you fail to realize is that whatever body image is popular, skinny, fat, giant nose rings or plates in one's lip, it's still possible to objectify women.
So what do you want to stop? Both? I'm telling you right now that men are always going to want to consume a product where women are treated as sexual objects. The male sex drive is such that sometimes a guy just wants sexual gratification. There's a lot of evolutionary psychology on the matter, but the essence is that men have been pressured by evolution to spread their genetic material as much as possible. But just because men have a drive to some times treat women as sex objects, it doesn't mean that they also are incapable of love or respecting a woman for her mind. It just means that SOMETIMES all a man wants is sex. It's OK for people to want meaningless sexual gratification, it's perfectly natural. By arguing this point I am not somehow advocating that we repeal women's suffrage. Products that treat women as sex objects are aimed at men who are in a certain mood. They are not the expression of some male chauvinist worldview. Anyone who is dumb enough to derive their sexual worldview from a video game has much deeper issues.
As far as body images go. I am disgusted if I can see a woman's ribs. I am also turned off if a woman is obese. Go ahead and tell me that I'm a terrible person, I could care less. In some societies where resources are scarce fat is a sign of wealth and is considered attractive. This is a trend in Polynesian societies. However, in OUR society, we have an abundance of resources. Thus if a person is muscular and fit this signifies that that person has the time and resources to take care of their physical appearance. They can afford a membership to a good gym and possibly a physical trainer.
Personally, I agree that anything under 10% body fat is unattractive. But anything over 20% is also both unattractive and unhealthy (actually that's for men, I think it might be 20-30 for women, but you catch my drift). Frankly, fat rolls and cellulite are unattractive, and they SHOULD BE. We're living in a society plagued by obesity where people are dying of heat disease and diabetes, so we shouldn't be telling anyone that they can be obese and yet still be attractive. Not only is it wrong by our current ideals of beauty, it's downright irresponsible.