69 réponses à ce sujet

[Althix]

 But not being allowed to do those jobs is the problem.

which also includes working in the mines, dodging the bullets on the battlefield or working with..  i don't know electroplating(you gonna love the vapors).

 

By virtue of being a man the decision of who gets to do what has been made. Please look beyond the last 100 years of 1st world nations. Women are still beaten, stoned and set on fire at the will of and by laws made by men.

you don't say. because males are dominant.

 

Anita and several others are doing no more than other women have had to do in the last 100 years. We had to have permission to become secretaries long before we ever had a chance to become managers and we had to have permission to open checking accounts long before we became millionaires. We had to have permission to vote, that is to say, we had to have permission to speak up to those that make laws that affect us. And even today, we still need permission from men to determine what is best for our own bodies.

Well tell you a secret. Proletarian ideology of the Soviet Union made all genders equal. My grandmother was working same shift as men on manufactory. She even made it to foreman, and each day car was taking her from home to the work and from work to home. My grandfather by father's line had the very same treatment as foreman of the manufactory. How about that?

As for Anita, as i said - she fightng with consequences not with the problem, i really want to believe that this woman is smart enough not to mistake consequence for a problem. Another issue with her some logical mistakes and how she deliver her arguments. It's not a persuation by some logical facts, it's more like an attempts to enforce her view by gentle pressure. Which is fine, but i am too old for that. Also her analysis often has "see tree but not the forest behind it" behavior.

 

And about bodies - you know i was raised with the understanding that woman is first and foremost - a mother. Shocking right? So as male i can tell you this - if you (as a woman) don't want to give birth to the a child - you are wasted potential, and it's better for your genes to die.

 

Even the most unbiased and supportive men will have been brought up in an environment where they simply assume that things are the way they should be. The very same thing that keeps you from committing a crime is also the same thing that disallows you the ability to see what equity really means. It is no surprise that parents are unable to express what equity means to their children, for the same reason.

mmmhm. well you see as a person who was born and raised in the Soviet Union - i know exactly what gender equality means, and example of this i already stated above. It's just a part of ideology which was cultivated in the SU for almost 80 years.

So if in the society all are comrads (or similar name for equals) such approach will also have its effect on media. Such as literature, films and video games. 

--

and about death threats. these are simpthoms of the sick society in general. society of the sociopaths and people with general mental disorder. so in society such as this Anita and Co. wanna do gender equality? well good luck with that.

Also - if i would want to remove some person, i would do that without making threats. Because alerting your victim or leaving some clues which can bring retribution back to you - is just stupid.

 

Another example - Wulfsten "i hope even you" phrase. I have no idea how to react on this. And what caused such choice of words. I think Wulfsten is judging and condems me. Oh well.

 

anyway, that's a wall of text and quotes, i hope i didn't made too much mistakes.

 

p.s. You see i am all hands for gender equality, if it is actually equality.

p.p.s. i was using "you" a lot, please keep in mind it's just a manner of speaking or making a conversation rather than insinuations about you specifically or making assumptions about your intentions or behavior.

[Bhryaen]

Given that the Sarkeesian vid was placed here, I figured I'd add this one (that I just found) by Youtuber Thunderf00t that addresses the Sarkeesian method of "investigative journalism." I recognize that the Sark vid from earlier in the thread was introduced in part because Sarkygirl essentially undermines herself with her material- i.e., not introduced specifically in order to advocate her methodology, but Thunderf00t's vid "objectifies" her methodology in an enlightening way that her vid doesn't, and by extension it demonstrates why her use of the Vaughan sequence to trash DAO- in the manipulative and dishonest way she portrays it- is not at all unusual or surprising for Sarkygirl.

 

In brief, she will play the game like the most depraved nitwit she can manage in a tiny fraction of the course of the game while screen-capturing it, then show the clips of herself doing it as evidence that the game was intended to be played that way. (It's possible that it's not even her own gameplay footage that she's using, but that wouldn't assuage the dishonesty.) The game most featured in the vid is "Hitman" but a similar analysis applies to her disparaging references to DAO: the Vaughan sequence is a small portion of a much larger game in which the player could choose to be a depraved nitwit, but would do so with consequences for their game (rejection by the CE community, for ex), and more often players choose the non-nitwit route anyway. Note that there wasn't anything in the gameplay she could show in her vid to demonize DAO, having to rely on cutscene material alone.

 

 

That said, I admit I play hardly any of the popular-title games in part due to repugnance to the same things Sarky (profitably) claims to abhor... except that I also find repugnance to the depraved nitwit stuff done to men, regarding which feminists like Sarkygirl have only silence. (Of all those titles she mentioned in her linked vid, I've played only DAO and GTA4, though I did just get Bioshock Infinite.) I'm just not in favor of pretending that a video game is supposed to be some cultural monument to "social justice"- or in this case only to women's advocacy. If DAO fails to be voted a Paragon in the Feminist Assembly, I nevertheless still enjoy it. If people want a sense of what happens to art when it's created to appease moralizers, just look at the dullard-headed political art that came out of the propagandistic early Soviet Union or the contrived, stale lyrics and sound of religious rock-n-roll. I'd rather take my chances with freedom of expression than feminist-dictated art, Sarky...

[Overdosing]

Dragon Age: Origins on Stephen Colbert:

 

http://thecolbertrep...ok_103014_cn_17

[SerTabris]

It seems to me that the main point here is that there is a long list, and somewhat less a few individual games on it. Elsewhere in the Colbert Report interview, he asks here to 'name three games', which she refuses to do. Naming three games from the list wouldn't really make the overall point, which is about aggregate trends.  I think there are some similarities to the Bechdel Test in that regard (in that the point isn't that any individual movie fails the test but how many of them do).

 

I do think it's a bit unfortunate that DA:O got to be the 'pull quote' for the PBS segment.  I also think that there are some issues with that segment of the game, and that it comes off quite a bit better as a female CE than as a male CE.

[ahtf]

You can't take one segment of a game and use it as an example of sexism in games. In that case you can take one sequence out of hotel rwanda and say that it shows the problem of rasism in the movie industry....

 

Movies, books and games must always be judged for the hole.

 

In dragon age women and men can be criminals, heroes, rulers and vicitims.

 

How can  developers, authors and moviemaker  make storys if they become accused for sexism, racism, you name it for one scene in their product. Dragon age origins show women and men as equal. That in one scene a woman is the victim dosnt show on a problem of sexism in the games industry, which makes it ridicolus to use it as an example. There are plenty of good examples to find, but she chooses dragon age since its a main stream game and it gives her more publicity.

[luism]

It wasn't until I played the city elf play through as a female did I feel any sense of real justice. As a male it was a typical save the damsel in distress type mission. As the female it was like yeah you guys just messed with the wrong elf. You really messed up now. Perhaps the reporter could try playing this mission as a female city elf I think she would become a da o fan

[Eloka]

I think DA:O does it to shine light on the problems Elves face, it's not like GTA where you can murder a prostitute and steal her money after you sleep with her. No, it's highlighting a problem a specific race of women face and showing how horrifying it is, it was not made to come off as "sexualized" I don't think it was at all. I think it was handled well and sympathetically. 

 

That isn't to say that tropes don't exist in DA:O but these tropes exist everywhere, our entertainment is a reflection of our society as a whole, because humanity seems very apathetic towards tropes and unwilling to consider or even discuss alternatives or realities without defensiveness. This is why for the most part I barely engage in these conversations because there is just too much cognitive bias and hostility lingering around them.

I am honestly tired of the verbal abuse that happens whenever this woman comes into a conversation. I can disagree with many of her points without low blows, but it seems there is a good portion of reactionary people involved in this hobby, and I do think that is a problem. Because people who aren't involved in our hobby then assume that it is only made up of emotionally blunted young white teenage boys, because we all know the media runs with the loudest and worst possible people out there, when it is far from the truth. I think speaking about this together and highlighting some of the problem people will make our hobby seem more adult and we will stop being labeled "children". I just don't see this happening any time soon, maybe I am only looking at the negative though?

I think she makes some good points and some bad ones, just like anyone else her thoughts can be a hit and a miss. Even talking about video game culture as a whole calmly sometimes the "feminist propaganda" is thrown around, I understand that there are feminist out there who do just try to stir ****, but every woman speaking is not that person and sometimes just speaking gets you a "shrill harpy card". It's frustrating and ultimately the only people who feel entitled to speak their minds are the same people just dismissing everyone. Apparently everyone has their own "propaganda" 'the women, the gays, the trans, the people of colour' everyone has their own "propaganda" when they are just speaking about their experience, their positions even just examining their thoughts/ideals without maliciousness. Except straight white men, that is; everything they say is the 'ultimate truthniess' they don't have any 'emotional investments' or 'bias' nope just "logic". 

[Zyrious]

if you actually watch the episode where she uses that clip, you'll notice DAO is barely mentioned at all. It's certainly not "singled out" - the majority of the games she uses to demonstrate her point are quite varied and relevant to the subject matter. Even then, DA and BioWare should not be impervious to criticism. They may do a better job than most people, most of the time, but they're not perfect.

 

One thing of note: often, violence against women is sexualized in a way that violence against men is not. This applies to Dragon Age as well, and the City Elf origin in particular. Obviously, there are male victims of sexual violence in the real world, but they are barely represented in comparison to female victims in pretty much any kind of media you can think of.

That would be because sexual violence against men is rare, extremely rare when compared against sexual violence compared against women. I obviously don't see the issue they have with the scene but then these are the same people who hate games that accurately portray history (Our society back then of course being patriarchal with agnatic (sometimes agnatic-cognatic) succession).

 

Once upon a time feminism meant "Equal Rights and Opportunities" but now it's an extension of identity politics and the homogenization of the human race. "Women are no different then men!". Actually yes they are, but that's not a bad thing. We have different genitalia, we have different health issues and vulnerablities and strengths and weaknesses. It's just a fact of life. That doesn't mean that women are inferior and it doesn't mean a game set in medieval times portraying a sex crime is saying "Women are inferior", it's saying "Horrible men sometimes did sex crimes as a way of feeling powerful and demeaning others". Which makes even more sense with the elf-racism and whatnot. As women cannot, with any ease atleast, perform a sex crime on men it is pretty much non existent, most male sex crimes are male-on-male (which did happen but rarely). That's just a fact of life. It's not sexist, it's not demeaning.

 

This is part of a larger disturbing trend not just in gaming but in all media. Women literally cannot be portrayed as women in the eyes of many feminists. Men are tortured and slaughtered on a regular basis IRL and History. Male characters are introduced for the soul purposes of being decapitated or tortured or worse. This is fine to show. Women are subject to sex-crimes and other violence IRL and History and this is an absolute no-no to show! Just because it's different doesn't mean it's in any way saying "Look at the inferior women!". However We live in a day and age where some countries are banning peeing standing up. This does not surprise me one bit. It does disturb me. Is there a disproportionality to it all? Yeah, there is - Men experience violence more in video games. The little violence involving women is scrutinized. There are more male soldiers IRL, more male soldiers in games, more male leaders IRL, more male leaders in the games. That doesnt make it sexist, it means men are generally more involved in these area's and that translates into a lot of games. Because we're different. God forbid.

 

Guess what. Men and women are different. We live differently, we look differently, we devlope differently (women faster, too), crimes are committed against us differently, and we react to things different, but that's ok! Because differences enrich our society.

TL;DR Violent crimes of almost inventively different sorts are commited against men on-masse in video games on a regular basis, and often beyond necessity for the plot, and it's seen as ok. Violent crimes against women in games are actually far less than they are in real life and are scrutinized beyond rationality. It's a bit of hypocricy but it goes beyond that. The source of this problem is that women cannot be portrayed differently than men in their eyes, but since women are actually different from men, the problem will be unceasing and annoying until such times as a horrible dictator unleashes a form of genetic engineering i dare not imagine. I like to imagine a world where we acknowledge we are "Different, but equal" and can show that in media instead of "You've now been genetically engineered so that you can only pee sitting down and reproduce through a complicated form of miosis".

 

*waits to be called misogynystic and in support of the massive patriarchy that looms over the western world*.

[Ferretinabun]

Zyrious - At the risk of poking the hornet's nest (and I know I'm going to regret this later), you're missing the point.

 

No-one (that I can see) is denying men and women are different - certainly biologically. But that doesn't necessarily justify all differences in treatment between the sexes.

 

Anita's case in a nutshell is that women in video games are often relegated to a small number of restrictive and male-centred roles and archetypes. Her intention in the Tropes v Women series is simply to identify the most common/offensive ones and explain why they are problematic.

 

Imagine women in video games were NEVER anything other than victims of violence or passive damsels in distress who need saving (we know that's not the case but go with me on this). All other roles are filled by men. It does no good to defend this by saying "But women CAN be victims of violence or kidnapping in real life!" or "In some games men are killed/kidnapped too!" That would be to miss the problem entirely. Because the cry of Anita is not "Female characters must never be portrayed in a negative light." It is actually, "Female characters should have as wide a range of roles as male ones - and not just be seen through a male lens."

 

When it comes to the Victim of Violence role specifically, the differences between the depictions of male v female victims is extremely telling. Female victims are often sexualised; male ones almost never are. This tells us that the industry still panders to a perceived male demographic - and implies some unpleasant things about exactly what that demographic wants to see in their games. It tells us the default, assumed audience for games is specifically male. This is, despite your derision, patriarchy.

 

This is not a rallying call to 'homogenize the sexes'. It is a challenge to the assumption of a male audience, and the pandering to it in video games (and media in general). And that is a good thing.

[Zyrious]

Zyrious - At the risk of poking the hornet's nest (and I know I'm going to regret this later), you're missing the point.

 

No-one (that I can see) is denying men and women are different - certainly biologically. But that doesn't necessarily justify all differences in treatment between the sexes.

 

Anita's case in a nutshell is that women in video games are often relegated to a small number of restrictive and male-centred roles and archetypes. Her intention in the Tropes v Women series is simply to identify the most common/offensive ones and explain why they are problematic.

 

Imagine women in video games were NEVER anything other than victims of violence or passive damsels in distress who need saving (we know that's not the case but go with me on this). All other roles are filled by men. It does no good to defend this by saying "But women CAN be victims of violence or kidnapping in real life!" or "In some games men are killed/kidnapped too!" That would be to miss the problem entirely. Because the cry of Anita is not "Female characters must never be portrayed in a negative light." It is actually, "Female characters should have as wide a range of roles as male ones - and not just be seen through a male lens."

 

When it comes to the Victim of Violence role specifically, the differences between the depictions of male v female victims is extremely telling. Female victims are often sexualised; male ones almost never are. This tells us that the industry still panders to a perceived male demographic - and implies some unpleasant things about exactly what that demographic wants to see in their games. It tells us the default, assumed audience for games is specifically male. This is, despite your derision, patriarchy.

 

This is not a rallying call to 'homogenize the sexes'. It is a challenge to the assumption of a male audience, and the pandering to it in video games (and media in general). And that is a good thing.

Except that this makes assumptions about both Men and the Industry which are not true. Women are seen as being seen in sexual crimes more often because generally speaking, only women are the victims in sexual crimes. Men almost never are. To somehow "balance that out" is to deny reality. When these crimes are depicted it's not meant to be sexist or demean women but generally to depict reality, either as a supporting element of the plot or character development.

 

I've also seen her, and other modern feminist claims, and a lot of them are upset at any depiction of women that doesn't have them as A)The lead protagonist and B ) Doing things exactly as a man would. Except that, as men and women are different in both form and function we tend to approach many situations differently IRL(not always). There being more men in "Action Roles" is just a reflection of reality - There are more male gamers and more men in "action roles" in real life. As more female gamers come into the core gaming genre more female protagonists are added, but then female protagonists are often written differently from a male protagonists. Not as inferior, just as what one imagines a woman in said position would act like, rather than a shorter guy with longer hair(and that's not always true either, in some RPG's the female protagonist is almost written identical, even when it doesn't fit). It's not meant to be sexist or demeaning, and this assumption is made purely to try and enforce change on the industry, regardless of if it is actually needed. There have been plenty of Strong females added to games over the past couple of years, at some points even going to the point of shoehorning it in when it doesnt fit to the point of corniness.

 

The "assumption of a male audience" had generally been actual statistical fact. The industry changes as its audience does, most female gamers are casual but as the core female gaming pool has increased, so too has the option of a female protagonist in games. However, there will never be a "majority" of female protagonist games or games with mostly strong female characters because this is both contrary to reality and the general audience. Keep in mind that also assuming all women want to supplant male protagonists with all female protagonists or flat out remove women from games who aren't the "Strong woman" trope is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

To summarize my point however, in plenty of games there are strong female characters and even the option of playing one (especially in RPG's). However, the complaints persist because they have not reached a majority and because they are often treated differently. Not worse, but differently. Part of it is, indeed, Homogenization of the sexes. Part of it is identity politics (In the US atleast. for those overseas our country is currently more polarized than it has ever been and the left has been trying to segregate people by sex and race in politics in order for political gain(I.E, if your a woman, men hate you and you have to vote for us, if you're black, whites hate you and you should vote for us). Again, until women are treat like men with longer hair, or even superior/better than men depending on who you ask, many will not be happy. This movement is not about equality or fair representation, it's about becoming contrary to reality for personal, political, or ideological gain.

 

I know of no men at all, especially in the industry, who don't want female characters in a variety of roles besides "victim". What they don't want is political pressure that forces them to ham fist in female characters into every game and every role no matter the story or setting, and they don't want to be forced to make every single female character the "Strong Woman" trope. Hell, every male character isn't depicted as strong. For instance If a game is set in baghdad 2003 then a plethora of females in general is unlikely. That's not sexism in the slightest. You wouldn't know it by going to some of the modern feminists websites though.

 

Even bringing up the "Patriarchy" is laughable, implying the representation of women in Games is meant as a way of propping up the male class as superior or keeping women down. That is ridiculous, inflammatory, and the type of arguments i see all too frequently.

[Ferretinabun]

Women are seen as being seen in sexual crimes more often because generally speaking, only women are the victims in sexual crimes. Men almost never are. To somehow "balance that out" is to deny reality.

 

Yet again, you are missing the point. Please reread my post above and try to take in what I'm saying.

 

The complaint isn't that we need to 'balance out' representation between the sexes on every issue. The complaint is that women are too rarely represented outside a small number of problematic, regressive and male-centred roles - in this case, a victim of (possibly sexual) violence simply to add background flavouring or to provide shallow motivational points for the hero to 'get the bad guy'.

 

Anita is not calling for there to be an equal number of male kidnapping/abuse victims. She is calling for there to be more female characters who break these regressive moulds.

 

 

 

There being more men in "Action Roles" is just a reflection of reality - There are more male gamers and more men in "action roles" in real life.

 

Video games are not reality. They are escapism. Escapism anyone should be able to enjoy. And the ratio of male-to-female gamers is evening out in the long run. So it really should be time to drop the regressive female roles.

 

 

 

The "assumption of a male audience" had generally been actual statistical fact. The industry changes as its audience does

 

Cart before the horse. As video games grows in popularity and respectability, should it not be the industry trying to create a more welcoming environment for women, rather than waiting until they think they have a large enough female user-base to justify the change?

 

 

 

To summarize my point however, in plenty of games there are strong female characters and even the option of playing one (especially in RPG's). However, the complaints persist because they have not reached a majority and because they are often treated differently

 

Incorrect.

 

There are indeed a growing number of games with female leads. But the complaints persist because the regressive and backwards female representations are still churned out with worrying regularity. Video series like Anita's simply serve to raise public consciousness on this issue, and that alone, is a good thing. We should all have half an eye to the tropes and messages our media employs to let us make an informed choice about whether we want to perpetuate them.

 

 

 

I know of no men at all, especially in the industry, who don't want female characters in a variety of roles besides "victim".

 

You're simplifying the issue. The fact remains that there is still a significant number of games where females exist only as 'victim', 'maternal figure', 'love interest', or similar reductive - and most importantly, male-centric - roles. So this claim of yours rings a little hollow.

 

 

 

Even bringing up the "Patriarchy" is laughable, implying the representation of women in Games is meant as a way of propping up the male class as superior or keeping women down. That is ridiculous, inflammatory, and the type of arguments i see all too frequently.

 

Patriarchy simply implies a male-focussed status quo. It does not necessarily imply evil, oppressive conspiracies. It can just as easily imply complacency from those who hold the power and therefore have little interest in changing it.

 

The video games industry is extremely male-run and male-focussed. That's just a fact. But getting some men to even realise this can be an up-hill struggle because they view it simply as 'the way games are' or 'the only way that makes sense'. I do not envy Anita the Herculean task of getting people to realise that media can be done differently - and arguably should!

[Merle McClure II]

Funny thing is until I stumbled on this thread I didn't even know who this Anita person was, and after reading/watching the videos I personally believe that she's either shooting herself in the foot, is knowingly preaching to the choir, or is simply stirring the pot and lining her own pockets in the process. All of which is her right to do of course.  --- Still, she'd have made a much better argument if she showed GTA3 gameplay where you can pay a hooker and then kill her to get your money back OR that one car game where running over a woman/baby stroller was actually worth MORE points then hitting someone else. --- I do have to admit that the one fair point she mentioned is that man are almost never portrayed as victims of sexual crimes (And it does happen in RL, albeit not in as large numbers as women so I would support showing sexual/domestic crimes with the proper ratios of victim/perp.)

 

 

--- As for the Dragon Age Universe, if I remember correctly isn't male rape implied as happening in the Kirkwall Circle? (It's been awhile since I've played DA2 so I could be misremembering.) --- Awakening at least does jokingly touch on the subject in the party banter.

[Bhryaen]

Anita's case in a nutshell is that women in video games are often relegated to a small number of restrictive and male-centred roles and archetypes. Her intention in the Tropes v Women series is simply to identify the most common/offensive ones and explain why they are problematic.

 

Imagine women in video games were NEVER anything other than victims of violence or passive damsels in distress who need saving (we know that's not the case but go with me on this).

 

Mm, no. Don't think I'll "go with you" on that one, particularly as we can thus already preclusively (and thankfully) acknowledge from the outset that an exclusivity of weak roles for women is "not the case." I also thus don't need to list the plethora of women in games- even in Dragonvaughan Age Origins- that don't fit Sarky's bemoaned "tropes" or can only do so only by a Herculeana ideological stretch. (Too lazy to document it anyway, and no one's paying me $150K+ to rant on about it... though there are plenty of YouTube vids that already have...)

 

Sarkeesian's own nutshell case regarding tropes, on the other hand, is more along the lines of the hypothetical "all women's roles suck" type you already dismiss in the subsequent paragraph. She starts from that premise and just collects game snippets to "prove" it, excluding all material that demonstrates the contrary. It fails not only for being, you know, incorrect- a deliberate distortion even, albeit a profitable one for herself- but also for the absurdity of its focus entirely on da womynz. Really? In a sea of violence against men that you as a player continue to do as a granted- as unflinchingly as possible- for hours on end even, Sarkygirl puts a finger in the air and states that she doesn't like that that one girl had to be rescued and couldn't rescue herself or couldn't avoid needing to be rescued in the first place. Way to point out the most disturbing aspect of the game... for a "woman-centered" feminist. Not that I'm against game violence, but if you're going to get upset about it, why the selectivity of attention, particularly as the damsel usually gets rescued, unlike our much-reloaded protagonist? And if she's supposed to be sensitizing people to women's "plight" in game narratives, her knee-jerk classification of women as "damsels in distress" comes across almost like responding to a rape victim (guy or girl) with "Well, now you're a statistic." Players struggling to save said "damsel" care more about her than Sarkygirl the Wannabe Heroine (who by her own admission doesn't even like videogames)... And, yes, there are plenty of game rescues of guys, those Daniels in distress... A better analogy might be the reaction of someone who has just been mugged saying, "And most importantly, officer, the mugger's shoes so clashed with his pants. Like, awkward!" Sarky wears girl-colored glasses.

 

As to the "sexualizing" theme, Sarkygirl's critique is just obtuse- and only she knows her "intention" in this. Yes, sex sells. Nothing right or wrong about it- just a fact about human society that we do enjoy the whole gettin down thingy, even just being reminded of it. Of course, fan girls of Alistair and Zevran and Varric are clearly forced to adore such sexualized males- poor damsels- and naturally they can be counted on to get mods that reduce those characters' sex appeal- so DA is a rare exception to the rule of overwhelmingly using women's sex appeal rather than men's perhaps. But, yes, adding sex appeal to, like, anything tends to spice it up. Oops- secret's out. In fact, the worst that sexiness in a game does is become a distraction from the game itself. (Playing Lara Croft in the 2013 "Tomb Raider" can be very difficult for me to sustain over long periods...) Not that I'm some great advocate of utilizing sex appeal in games (I've spent 1000s of hours working my way to and through Baldur's Gate with nothing but a bird's eye view of terrain), but how honest is it to react with a mere tsk-tsk? That's not an argument. Better to level the argument against the game designers not for their cruel and dastardly "sexualizing" of women but for taking the cheap and easy route of libido-stimulation in storytelling as a substitute for employing a more creative and compelling storyline.

 

To respond with, "Eww, sex," isn't exactly a counter, much less honesty. Nor is it a counter to say, "Eww, sex in that context," since the context is sitting either on the couch or a desk chair in front of a monitor. It's only the viewer that can conflate the sex and violence (whatever that involves), and generally the viewer will pick one or the other, tuning out the violence for the turn on. In fact, the sex appeal may be the only thing interesting on a screen full of gore- which again says more about the quality of the game narrative than about the furthest reach of women's advocacy in the gaming industry. We see plenty of sex-laden material on the silver screen and don't collect $150K for preaching about it. Notably Sarkygirl won't include in her college-essay-style "reports" mention of the game "The Evil WIthin" with its non-sexual graphic gore, but getting a Sarkygirl Seal of Sexual Approval in such a way doesn't exactly "sanitize" that incontrovertibly very disturbingly violent game. That's why this is just a ridiculous line to take:

 

When it comes to the Victim of Violence role specifically, the differences between the depictions of male v female victims is extremely telling. Female victims are often sexualised; male ones almost never are. This tells us that the industry still panders to a perceived male demographic - and implies some unpleasant things about exactly what that demographic wants to see in their games. It tells us the default, assumed audience for games is specifically male. This is, despite your derision, patriarchy.

 

I have no statistical evidence to back up this claim, but I would venture to assume that nearly all wives and girlfriends enjoy and even count on that "unpleasant thing" about their guys that their male loved ones "want to see" in their bedrooms. Those husbands and boyfriends who don't want to see it, well, not as pleasant for the wives and girlfriends... The fact that hetero guys (or ****** girls, for that matter) like to see sex appeal in the girls in their videogames- videogamely living or videogamely dead- may be "unpleasant" for you, but I'd venture to say that most humans don't suffer this issue... which is why you'll forever see it recur in games, commercials, TV shows, music videos, movies, and, you know, interested folks.

 

But you add the extra "concern" about videogames that they add more sex appeal to the girl Victim of Violence (it's an official role, you see- at least in Sarkeesian game mechanics- replete with capital letters) than the guy Victim of Violence (of which there are far more). So the men aren't made sexy enough for you. Ahh, I get it. (Well, it's either that or opposition to violence in general which you aren't stating- and neither is your girl Anita.) But I'll deal with it as a political question- which ultimately is just an economic one. If your audience is overwhelmingly hetero male... why feature in a game a predominance or even equal share of bare guy butts, naked dudes, and closeups of various portions of the male anatomy- whether on Violence Victims or not-violently-affected characters? The demographic you mention (or at least the hetero part of it), would be, erm, wondering wtf... and sales would decline. Is it oppression of women to recognize one's demographic and cater to it in such a way? Is it oppression of men to target women ages 25-35 in some product advertisement that sells overwhelmingly to women ages 25-35? Or oppression of women ages 36 and up? If "patriarchy" comes down to "But girls get to be more sexy than guys for a predominantly heteromale audience!", then this in itself appears "extremely telling" about the mythical male nemesis monster, and I can't say I'm worried about it. Rather "patriarchy" is thus a bit of a joke just to articulate... Don't worry- the principle is simple: as the demographic changes, so will the content... If the demographic doesn't change, however, don't anticipate significantly more depictions of naked guy butts. Sorry, ladies and gay guys. Actually that is a bit of a shame.

 

But I think the gaming industry has already gone out of its way to add sexy-dude material to its games- and likely will continue to do so- in an attempt to lure in a larger demographic. It's just that girls like Sarkeesian, as I mentioned, state outright that they don't like videogames in the first place... just before collecting a small fortune for railing against videogames for not being to their liking...

[DarthGizka]

Well, the main point is that Sarky's criticism is superficial and specious, taking one single scene out of context and bending it to suit her purpose. IIRC she didn't even point out obvious things like the Desire Demons (which Bioware replaced with an accountant-type male in DAI, in some act of 'anticipative compliance').

With stupidity like that she's only hurting her cause.

[Merle McClure II]

Wanna bet on how quickly the Desire Demons get modded back in? 

[Penumbract]

Please. The oviously put equally muchh brainpower and work in this report as mui in this sentence.

[Ferretinabun]

 

Mm, no. Don't think I'll "go with you" on that one, particularly as we can thus already preclusively (and thankfully) acknowledge from the outset that an exclusivity of weak roles for women is "not the case."

 

This is the equivalent of saying "Lots of films DON'T have issues of race representation, therefore there is no problem with race representation in films at all!"

 

That's not how it works. Unless you are bashing a strawman that Anita is calling out EVER SINGLE GAME EVER for using shallow female tropes. Which she clearly isn't.

 

It is a problem if these tropes are merely common. Which they kindof are.

 

I do agree they are becoming LESS common. And this is a good thing. And the sort of consciousness-raising Anita is doing should only hasten their decline. Again, a good thing.

 

 

 

She starts from that premise and just collects game snippets to "prove" it, excluding all material that demonstrates the contrary. It fails not only for being, you know, incorrect- a deliberate distortion even, albeit a profitable one for herself- but also for the absurdity of its focus entirely on da womynz

 

That's because she isn't sitting there crying "ALL GAMES ARE SEXIST!!". And if you think that's what she's doing then you are simply wrong. She is making a case - and then supporting it with examples. That's how academics build cases. She doesn't comment on the games which do not feature regressive female characters (of which there are a good number, thankfully) because they do not fall into her purview.

 

If she were making a video series on racial issues in films, why would she waste everyone's time talking about all the films that DON'T have any racial issues in them?

 

Actually, she does, in fact, sometimes call out games for praise for the way they handle female characters and plots, to illustrate her points with examples of how things could be done differently - Monkey Island, for example, and Papo and Yo. But I guess that doesn't fit your vilified strawman of Anita, huh?

 

In a sea of violence against men that you as a player continue to do as a granted- as unflinchingly as possible- for hours on end even, Sarkygirl puts a finger in the air and states that she doesn't like that that one girl had to be rescued and couldn't rescue herself or couldn't avoid needing to be rescued in the first place.

 

Her thesis is female representations in gaming. If you want a video series on male representations in gaming, then by all means, make one. I'd be very interested to watch it.

 

Besides, you're sailing very close to the fallacious "Men are the usual victims in violent games, therefore we have it WORSE" argument. Which is bunk because it is also usually men doing all the violence. And most of the non-violent things. That's kindof Anita's point - men are overrepresented in gaming.

 

 

 

Yes, sex sells. Nothing right or wrong about it- just a fact about human society that we do enjoy the whole gettin down thingy, even just being reminded of it.

 

Yes, sex sells. But it is disproportionately targeted at men. We can see this in action in the DA world: the Dalish Armour is an example of 'bikini-armour' - a ludicrous attempt to sexualise women in combat. The fact that it can now appear in game without anyone so much as noticing is a very sad sign of how normalised this has become. And the designer's of Morrigan's outfit clearly had showing off her boobs first and foremost in their mind. None of the male outfits in the game are similarly overtly sexualised. And DA is so very, very far from the worst offender in gaming when it comes to this. Compared to most, DA really is streets ahead of many games when it comes to equality - but that's damning with faint praise.

 

Again (because I feel this is going to need repeating), no-one is complaining about sex being in games at all. The complaint is that it is targeted chiefly to men and not to women.

 

 

 

I would venture to assume that nearly all wives and girlfriends enjoy and even count on that "unpleasant thing" about their guys that their male loved ones "want to see" in their bedrooms.

 

Then I'd hope you're talking about a completely different 'unpleasant thing'. Because if you think nearly all wives and girlfriends 'enjoy and even count on' their husbands and boyfriends getting off on sexualised violence then I truly worry for any woman in your life.

 

Sexualising violence, murder and brutality commericalises them and presents them as something titilating and saucy. Do you really need me to spell out why this is a problem?

 

 

 

 If your audience is overwhelmingly hetero male... why feature in a game a predominance or even equal share of bare guy butts, naked dudes, and closeups of various portions of the male anatomy- whether on Violence Victims or not-violently-affected characters?

 

Again, you're just appealing to the 'make for your biggest demographic' argument (and implicitly acknowledging that a male bias in games does actually exist, by the way...). "Most of our audience is male, so let's make exclusively for them." "Most of our audience is white, so let's make exclusively for them." "Most of our audience is straight, so let's make exclusively for them."

 

The biggest problem with this argument is that is implies men will actively be put off from buying games that DON'T feature sexist, homophiobic and racist cliches. Just because you're white, doesn't mean you want to see racist stereotypes in your games. Just because you're straight, doesn't mean you want to see homophobic stereotypes in your games. And just because you're a man, doesn't mean you want to see sexist female stereotypes in your games. There are plenty of games that I, as a man, enjoyed which nevertheless feature strong, deep female characters (The Walking Dead season 2 being fresh in my mind because I played it recently).

 

Making games that appeal to men does not mean you immediately have to objectify women in it. They can just be good games.

 

And if you are going to put sexualised content into your game, then why should men be put off by the fact that there is AN EQUAL AMOUNT of male-to-female flesh on show? Because any man that is, is displaying a level of privileged entitlement that really should not be pandered to.

 

You are basically saying: "Why would we men want equality?" If you can't work that one out for yourself then you likely will never get it.

 

 

 

It's just that girls like Sarkeesian, as I mentioned, state outright that they don't like videogames in the first place... just before collecting a small fortune for railing against videogames for not being to their liking...

 

Pro tip: When you have to scrape the barrel for tangential ad hominem attacks, it's not a sign that your argument is in a very good state. Just sayin'...