I called Panda a hypocrite for seeing females as being objectified, but not males. At the time she said she didn't see it that way, and has repeated that sentiment despite claiming to want equal gender killing.
My comment was general, not directed at you, if you've read the rest of my post, you'd see I do agree men are objectified in games.
And what is it that you think I cant see here Ynqve?
That a lot of us feel like the representation of certain characters and demographics are a problem. And that it has a part in a much larger context. That it's not "just a game".
You disagree or don't care? Fine, go ahead and enjoy your games. I won't stop you!
My comment was general, not directed at you, if you've read the rest of my post, you'd see I do agree men are objectified in games.
Your comment couldn't have been in general when I was the only one calling people hypocrites.
And I read the rest of your post. I didn't call you a hypocrite, so it didn't matter.
What I think people forget in issues like this is the power imbalance as well. Women don't have the power to marginalize men. (And they shouldn't. No one should be marginalizing anyone.)
I think sexist and damaging portrayals of women in media is more pressing than sexist or damaging portrayals of men simply because the power imbalance makes it easier to reinforce those stereotypes and hurt women. Both are issues that should be addressed, however.
No one who is concerned with equal representation is a hypocrite for trying to tackle a single issue of it, that happens to face on one gender or the other. This is perfectly ok , you don't have to deal with every issue at the same time, at all times.
Hypocrisy starts coming into play when people try to say that games are less accessible or user-friendly to women than to men, because of mostly treating them like sex-objects, while at the same time the game treats men mostly as meat-bags for kill but this somehow doesn't play a role in user-friendliness/accessibility.
It's ok to focus on one issue, but saying that it favors the one over the other requires you to either be blind or hypocritical.
Is there no possibility that the disposability of male characters in videogames and the sexualisation of female characters in videogames affect players (both men and women) differently? Taking it one step further, is it possible that the role of the player and their avatar in either or both of these scenarios also impacts how players react and are affected? Some level of self-insertion is usually implied in most games (ones that include any kind of anthropomorphic representation anyway; obviously something like solitaire doesn't.) Does killing male characters 'feel' different when the player avatar is female, and vice-versa? Does looking at sexualised characters 'feel' different depending on whether the player, or the player avatar, is male or female?
I mean I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist and I haven't studied it one way or the other, but it seems logical to me that both cultural/social conditioning and the level of player agency involved could impact on how any representation affects the person in front of the the screen. I think we all like to think that all the things we think and do and feel are spontaneously and innately generated in ourselves and not influenced by outside forces like parenting, cultural background, marketing and so on; but really, we all bring all of our cultural notions and 'baggage' (for lack of a better term) with us in everything we do, so that is going to affect how we perceive things, even when we don't realise it. It's like that old saying: 'Wherever you go, there you are'.
Your comment couldn't have been in general when I was the only one calling people hypocrites.
I honestly apologise. I promise it wasn't directed at you, I just brushed through the thread and saw hypocrisy in regard to issues tackled being mentioned here and there, I didn't register in my mind if it was said by one or two persons or more. I was more concerned with those trying to counter claims of hypocrisy than by those making them, which is what the second part of my post was about.
What I think people forget in issues like this is the power imbalance as well. Women don't have the power to marginalize men. (And they shouldn't. No one should be marginalizing anyone.)
I think sexist and damaging portrayals of women in media is more pressing than sexist or damaging portrayals of men simply because the power imbalance makes it easier to reinforce those stereotypes and hurt women. Both are issues that should be addressed, however.
I feel like women marginalize men all the time, simply through judgement of attraction or manliness. If one wanted, we could talk about how men are sexualized, all of the gentlemen with abs and perfect fitness and so on and so on. Just like females, the way you represent men in media can indeed make real men feel unimportant. And it's done by society's expectations for both genders, which women contribute to. Like the modelling industry.
I honestly apologise. I promise it wasn't directed at you, I just brushed through the thread and saw hypocrisy in regard to issues tackled being mentioned here and there, I didn't register in my mind if it was said by one or two persons or more. I was more concerned with those trying to counter claims of hypocrisy than by those making them, which is what the second part of my post was about.
Don't worry, I don't take things seriously. I got the point of what you were saying, I just wanted to state for the record. 
That a lot of us feel like the representation of certain characters and demographics are a problem. And that it has a part in a much larger context. That it's not "just a game".
You disagree or don't care? Fine, go ahead and enjoy your games. I won't stop you!
That's awfully nebulous Ynqve. Help me understand: what is it about Inquisition (or any other game) that you're railing against here? I mean, specifically!
Is there no possibility that the disposability of male characters in videogames and the sexualisation of female characters in videogames affect players (both men and women) differently?
It -like anything in the world- even affects two different individuals differently, let alone two groups of individuals. That doesn't change the fact that since games objectify both men and women trying to claim that games are more male-oriented and make women feel unwelcome, because women are objectified in games, even though men are also objectified, is hypocritical.
I feel like women marginalize men all the time, simply through judgement of attraction or manliness. If one wanted, we could talk about how men are sexualized, all of the gentlemen with abs and perfect fitness and so on and so on. Just like females, the way you represent men in media can indeed make real men feel unimportant. And it's done by society's expectations for both genders, which women contribute to. Like the modelling industry.
What power do women have to marginalize men in society as it is right now? There may be a few very specific instances where women have the upper hand (child custody for instance). But, on the whole, women do not have social power to put men down and keep them down.
It reminds me of when white people complain about racism. No POC has the power to hurt you with their words. Women may make inappropriate and damaging remarks about men, and that's wrong, but there is no force behind it that will actually harm those men- as a whole, NOT an individual.
Judgement on manliness comes back to sexism against women, by the way. Calling a man a "p---y" is calling him weak or womenlike- which is clearly a negative thing. Women do it too, yes, and it's still wrong when women do it, but it's still rooted in misogyny.
Guest_Donkson_*
*Yawns*
I called Panda a hypocrite for seeing females as being objectified, but not males. At the time she said she didn't see it that way, and has repeated that sentiment despite claiming to want equal gender killing.
We are talking here about sexual objectification.
Killing is something you have to do in the game if you want to keep the genres of games that are there at the moment. I mean unless people want only play similar games as Farmville. So that's something you can only change towars equal gender killing if you want males not to be mistreated (personally I don't see it as mistreatment since it's positive to me and I want female characters to achieve those positions as well).
Equality is what I'm looking for in the end. Make more sexy male characters or less sexy female characters, more female enemies or less male enemies. That would make me personally happier with games.
What power do women have to marginalize men in society as it is right now? There may be a few very specific instances where women have the upper hand (child custody for instance). But, on the whole, women do not have social power to put men down and keep them down.
It reminds me of when white people complain about racism. No POC has the power to hurt you with their words. Women may make inappropriate and damaging remarks about men, and that's wrong, but there is no force behind it that will actually harm those men- as a whole, NOT an individual.
Judgement on manliness comes back to sexism against women, by the way. Calling a man a "p---y" is calling him weak or womenlike- which is clearly a negative thing. Women do it too, yes, and it's still wrong when women do it, but it's still rooted in misogyny.
Women control sex for one, and that's more powerful than any institution or laws that man can ever make. In our society, women wield a lot of power, made all the more so by men not recognizing it.
And words are words. White men should be able to complain about racism just like anyone else, because that is a social issue based off of a social construct. And really, women call men p ussies too. And to be real honest, it makes sense because men generally are more physically imposing, so saying a man is "womanlike" to call him a weak man makes sense even if one finds it offensive. But that's besides the point.
And judgement on manliness does not come back to sexism against women because of this when the point is women have a large role in this societal judgement in the first place.
*Yawns*
Agreed.
People often underestimate or ignore women's effects on society while giving special attention to males. I understand why and its natural, but people making a big deal about this while ignoring the feminine role often are being sexist or ironically racist themselves without even knowing it.
Equality is what I'm looking for in the end. Make more sexy male characters or less sexy female characters, more female enemies or less male enemies. That would make me personally happier with games.
And we've gone full circle on the topic so I'm taking a break for a while.
It -like anything in the world- even affects two different individuals differently, let alone two groups of individuals. That doesn't change the fact that since games objectify both men and women trying to claim that games are more male-oriented and make women feel unwelcome, because women are objectified in games, even though men are also objectified, is hypocritical.
Everyone is an individual, but that doesn't mean that there aren't trends and patterns within demographic groups. If it were true that there were no way to predict how anything would appeal (or not appeal) to groups of people, then marketing would not exist at all. Games companies would not specify that a protagonist needed to be male to appeal to male players, for example, because if there were no trends then you would expect everything to appeal/not appeal across all groups in equal measures. There would not be special 'pink' versions of items aimed at women. Makeup would be advertised and modeled by men and women in equal amounts, mens' bodies would be used to drum up interest in tech products, cars, etc. as often as womens' bodies, and so on. Children's toys would not be split into 'girls toys' and 'boys toys' and Barbie, My Little Pony, cooking and dolls would be aimed at boys as often as girls, and toy guns, robots, cars and soldiers would be aimed at girls as often as boys. That is not true at all, at the moment.
If some games (or any other consumer product) and their creators literally explicitly say 'we are aiming this at X', why would we disbelieve them and assume it's really aimed at the entire population of the world as a whole, and expect sales figures to reflect that?
Guest_Donkson_*
Bingo, Killabee!!!
100000000000000000000000000000000 + likes for that.
I completely understand these arguments and complaints about misogyny... if we were still in the 1940's.
Now, women have plenty of power and in some cases, an advantage over men.
BW has done an excellent job in including women in their games.
It also must be remembered that us females can be just as bad when it comes to "sex objects". Cullen at the winter palace is a great example of this.
If we are to refer to real life cases, I know a nympho chick who admitted to "using" men for sex.
I am guilty of treating other women as sex objects (obviously, I'm a lesbian). But can't I treat them as a sex object, aaand respectfully as a person? Who says I can't have both? 
Sex is sex. Most people like it, most people get turned on by something another person (opposite gender or not) does... not everybody is going to crack a fat over Miranda Lawson type chicks, by the way. Some people might like the "chantry robe" look... while not intending to be sexy, can still be regarded as a "sex object".
And we've gone full circle on the topic so I'm taking a break for a while.
Me too. It's making my head hurt. We're basically getting to the point where people are saying. "Yeah, guys have it bad sometimes too (though nowhere near as bad of course,) but it's all rooted in misogyny. Remember, the patriarchy hurts men too!"
@Laurelinde
Yeah, ok, no disagreements here, I think. How does any of that change that ignoring male objectification and claiming only female objectification exists, therefore games are unwelcome to women and not men, since women are supposedly the only ones objectified, would make one a hypocrite?
Women control sex for one, and that's more powerful than any institution or laws that man can ever make. In our society, women wield a lot of power, made all the more so by men not recognizing it.
And words are words. White men should be able to complain about racism just like anyone else, because that is a social issue based off of a social construct. And really, women call men p ussies too. And to be real honest, it makes sense because men generally are more physically imposing, so saying a man is "womanlike" to call him a weak man makes sense even if one finds it offensive. But that's besides the point.
And judgement on manliness does not come back to sexism against women because of this when the point is women have a large role in this societal judgement in the first place.
Agreed.
People often underestimate or ignore women's effects on society while giving special attention to males. I understand why and its natural, but people making a big deal about this while ignoring the feminine role often are being sexist or ironically racist themselves without even knowing it.
Oohhwhaatt? Women control sex? Well, I imagine they'd control it inasmuch as they control what happens to their own bodies. Or are you saying that a woman withholding sex is a deliberate front against men? I've heard of this stance, but I've never dialogued with someone who held it.
The point being, calling a man womanlike because he's viewed as weak is putting women into a negative position.
I had someone tell me once that I had a "girl car." It's a PT Cruiser convertible soft top. I don't rightly care what gender people want to put into it, but by calling it a "girl car" is implying that it's somehow lesser than a "male car" (whatever that would be- I've driven a Crown Vic, a Ford Tempo, and an GMC Sierra Classic diesel engine pick-up, I've honestly never gendered my car). But it's reinforcing the notion that something "womanly" or perceived as feminine is automatically wrong when braced against a male concept.
That's awfully nebulous Ynqve. Help me understand: what is it about Inquisition (or any other game) that you're railing against here? I mean, specifically!
Read the damn thread. You know exactly what it's about.
Read the damn thread. You know exactly what it's about.
And exactly why is it reasonable to demand equality of outcome for those games that were developed with a specific demographic in mind?
Because equality is nice to have? Cause it's not always nice to feel excluded from things you like? Cause it actually wouldn't be hard for games to be developed in both male and female gamers in mind?
I guess I'm just out of luck liking fantasy, scifi and action things.
Because equality is nice to have? Cause it's not always nice to feel excluded from things you like? Cause it actually wouldn't be hard for games to be developed in both male and female gamers in mind?
I guess I'm just out of luck liking fantasy, scifi and action things.
I don't personally mind if someone has a specific demographic in mind for a piece of media.
It's the utter, extreme skewing toward one demographic that bothers me. When a company wants to break the mold and aim for a different demographic, the pitchforks are raised, or they lose funding. That's a problem.
Retour en haut