When you attempt to dismiss it as not a problem, to justify and excuse and defend the abuse that has long been heaped upon women in general and the feminist movement in specific, yes, I'm willing to ignore the insults you received.
The fact that there has been scientific proof showing that women are more likely to be abused than men is proof enough of misogyny inherent in society. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Melissia wrote: When you attempt to dismiss it as not a problem, to justify and excuse and defend the abuse that has long been heaped upon women in general and the feminist movement in specific, yes, I'm willing to ignore the insults you received.
This thread is about how special rules apply to women that don't apply to anyone else.
Verbally abused and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Physically assaulted and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Raped as a man/adolescent boy, doesn't matter.
Genitals cut off or otherwise mutilated and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Executed for having a sexual attraction to another man, doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters is that a woman is playing videogames in which the fictional characters are passive actors. Call the police! Someone draft a UN resolution!
I've been kinda split on whether I'm wanting to contribute to the discussion or not... I dunno, is that a bad thing? Is asking if it's a bad thing, a bad thing? Yeah, that's a crazy, circular sidetrack there.
Anyways, I read this blog here and a couple of comments actually got me thinking a bit. Particularly
"Lastly, as oldfeminist so rightly pointed out, we need to engage the men in tech communities to stand next to us and call it out. The tragedy is that the moderate voices never usually bother speaking out, possibly because they just don’t realise how bad it is."
This was combined with a discussion recently on the (bbc) radio (2) about an incident with the boxer Curtis Woodhouse and a troll.
Well, sort of a troll...
The point that the radio discussion seemed to be coming to, well, as far as a point is ever made on the BBC (they don't like saying anything definitive) was - in my own understanding - that there is:
1) Trolling :- Essentially a combination of (warning, swearing) John Gabriel's G.I.F.T and heckling of public figures. To be perfectly honest, in my opinion, this is expected from the internet in great numbers, due to the G.I.F.T... This is what most third parties think when someone is being 'trolled.'
2) Harassment :- This is entirely a different kettle of fish, this is the finding out peoples personal email addresses, real names instead of handles 'thing.' - The really, quite frankly, bad, personal and directed stuff. I think most people would say that this isn't on.
In other words, just like real life. The difference between shouting out to a comedian "you're rubbish" as he passes by and following them home several days a week and scaring their children.
Now, what happened on this radio programme was, people were getting on at Woodhouse a bit for "over-reacting" and the narrative up until that point had been entirely about 'trolling' and point 1. That is, until Woodhouse pointed out that it had been a systemic thing which had been going on for several months and simply wasn't just the guy insulting his boxing ability, or lack thereof but very specific and quite nasty things.
So, I do think this is all sort of related to this discussion and more good could be done with err, the terminology? That could help people like me, understand the problem.
So, it seems, to me, that there is a significant problem out there of women in traditional geekery arenas being disproportionately harassed compared to men. Which is a really bad thing.
However, this is often misstated as being trolled which is, quite possibly not that disproportionally different compared to other subjects where there's a lot of discussion on.
Then, conflating the two in discussions can often lead to well meaning people who want to help out not taking the situation as seriously as it could and even actively making things worse by joining the trolling side out of misguidedness.
I genuinely am not attempting to excuse anything with this... semi-coherant ramble but am instead trying to identify things to actually help out.
And, if I haven't stuck my neck out enough now and brought all hell down on me I might get myself into more trouble by talking about a noted time when I ended up realising I was being really quite chauvinistic/sexist and quite frankly a jerk...
TedNugent wrote: The only thing that matters is that a woman is playing videogames in which the fictional characters are passive actors. Call the police! Someone draft a UN resolution!
Or, perhaps instead of creating a strawman and then whaling on it, we could start a discussion thread in the video games forum section of a wargaming website and discuss the merits of her argument as they are. Which is what we were doing.
We haven't been talking about the video for several pages now, which as I recall was something to the effect that some videogames have a common trope in that women are portrayed as passive actors.
Then I had to be lectured for five pages about how women are unjustly subjugated and abused in society. You wanna get back to videogame tropes be my guest.
Compel wrote: In other words, just like real life. The difference between shouting out to a comedian "you're rubbish" as he passes by and following them home several days a week and scaring their children.
That's... actually a rather clever way to explain it. Thank you. Do you mind if I quote you in the future?
TedNugent wrote: Then I had to be lectured for five pages about how women are unjustly subjugated and abused in society.
Women have been the single most universally and consistently oppressed group in the world throughout human history.
If you don't want to listen to a lecture about "how women are unjustly subjugated and abused in society", why the hell would you go in to a thread discussing a feminist topic?
TedNugent wrote: Then I had to be lectured for five pages about how women are unjustly subjugated and abused in society.
Women have been the single most universally and consistently oppressed group in the world throughout human history.
If you don't want to listen to a lecture about "how women are unjustly subjugated and abused in society", why the hell would you go in to a thread discussing a feminist topic?
Because I want to discuss feminism, obviously, which is why I am compulsively talking about this.
Here you are directly leading into the topics I raised, e.g. violence against men historically, discounted because it was off-topic. May I now talk about how men were oppressed, degraded, humiliated, subjugated and mutilated throughout history, as a matter of comparison to your claim that "women have been the single most universally and consistently oppressed group in the world throughout human history?"
I think this is the typical problem with discussions on feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading and that's why I wanted to introduce the above. I can never be a woman and therefore my grievances can never be valid in a discussion that excludes all consideration of the counterpart gender. Therefore we should not be having a discussion that excludes all consideration of the male gender.
Tednugent wrote:This thread is about how special rules apply to women that don't apply to anyone else.
Verbally abused and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Physically assaulted and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Raped as a man/adolescent boy, doesn't matter.
Genitals cut off or otherwise mutilated and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Executed for having a sexual attraction to another man, doesn't matter.
I think the point is that even though these things happen to both genders, they almost undeniably happen to women much more.
I liked the video, thought the presentation was a bit dry as already mentioned but it seemed to give a good general overview of the trope and its early history. You have to be blind to not see some sort of sexism within games and I don't see why you wouldn't want to support the removal of such crap as well as all the other terrible, overused plots in video games.
Yahtzee, Extra Credit and TotalBuscuit have all spoken out against sexism and these kind of terrible, repetitive writing and I've never seen any abuse on the scale Anita Sarkeesian got. So it's just coincidence that a small, low scale kick starter project got infinite more gak from the gaming community then popular reviewers/game commentators did over the same subject and it wasn't because the former happened to be a women?
You specifically ignored the many, MANY times that feminist advocates have proposed things which would benefit men, so that you can claim that feminists ignore men-- because you have no argument otherwise.. You dismiss almost the entirety of human history so that you can try to make a claim that men, as a group, are oppressed as much as women, flying in the face of untold legions of historians who would and have said otherwise. Instead of talking about feminism, you attempt to bring up male genitalia and attempt to bring the discussion entirely about men.
This is a thread about feminist critique of video games. If anyone wants to talk about men's rights ideologies and issues they are welcome to start another thread. Off-topic posting is, however, against the rules of this site.
Tednugent wrote:This thread is about how special rules apply to women that don't apply to anyone else.
Verbally abused and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Physically assaulted and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Raped as a man/adolescent boy, doesn't matter.
Genitals cut off or otherwise mutilated and you're a man, doesn't matter.
Executed for having a sexual attraction to another man, doesn't matter.
I think the point is that even though these things happen to both genders, they almost undeniably happen to women much more.
Hello.
Um, I would take some objection to the idea that those things all undeniably happen to women much more.
I would say it is a fair assumption that women have been raped more than men, both as war booty and as subjects to an asymmetric power relationship. It's also completely obvious that women have been denied social privileges and social prestige in a lot of different faculties, and in that sense it's totally legitimate to say that women have been relegated to a passive role not just in videogames but in the working world, in the voting booth, in the town squares and lecture halls and stadiums and universities, theaters. To that extent, yes, women have been subjected to an extraordinary loss of social prestige and social privilege. They have missed out on gigantic amounts of opportunities and as a result society has been largely impoverished of X numbers of geniuses in the sciences and the arts.
But for instance I would not say that more women have been shot with bullets than have men, or that more women have been put to the sword than have men, or more women have died in submarine or airplane crashes, or that more women have been eaten by wild animals than men. I would not say that women have been subjected to the same level of working hazards as men and so forth and so forth.
Also men tend to take up the overwhelming proportion of the prison population and also are subjected to capital punishment historically at much higher rates than women.
I liked the video, thought the presentation was a bit dry as already mentioned but it seemed to give a good general overview of the trope and its early history. You have to be blind to not see some sort of sexism within games and I don't see why you wouldn't want to support the removal of such crap as well as all the other terrible, overused plots in video games.
Yahtzee, Extra Credit and TotalBuscuit have all spoken out against sexism and these kind of terrible, repetitive writing and I've never seen any abuse on the scale Anita Sarkeesian got. So it's just coincidence that a small, low scale kick starter project got infinite more gak from the gaming community then popular reviewers/game commentators did over the same subject and it wasn't because the former happened to be a women?
I would say yes, it's obvious that Mario and Zelda have terrible writing and I don't even think we could get Shigeru Miyamoto to apologize for it if we tried. The dude is just a crap writer, but I think he focuses the majority of his craft on game design. I think if nothing else the OP has made a strong case that game reviewers should point out how overused and basic this trope is when reviewing games.
Her video was well researched and animated and actually I would say the interesting videogame footage cuts offset the somewhat dry tone of her voice.
And yes, she did receive an irrational backlash from the typical suspects that have a kneejerk reaction to the subject of feminism whenever it is brought up.
Part of the reason women take up less of the prison population is that due to years of patriarchal domination and what amounts to brain washing, women are perceived as weak an non threatening. As such they can get away more often with harassment of all forms up to and including actual violence.
This is an issue feminists need to address as well. Humans are incredibly fragile beings with multiple vulnerable spots. It may be highly unlikely, but it is possible for that 5' 100 lb female to kill you with a single blow even if it is by accident.
It IS an issue that feminists are attempting to address-- one of many, many issues. The idea that "women are special" and "men are expendable" is bad for BOTH genders, just in different ways.
Yes it devalues men as individuals, places women on pedestals, and devalues female indepence and capabilities. Part of the problem with the advancement of feminism is that some men like being devalued and some women like being worshiped on a pedestal.
This reaction to Anita reminds me of the backlash against a female modder in the TES community. She made a lot of beautification and sexual mods for male characters and was flamed constantly as being a pervert and homosexual (people assumed she was male). Meanwhile the backlash against the OTT G cup female models that have been created for every TES game since Morrowind has always been minimal.
Eventually, you're going to fail to live up to the standards of the pedestal, and you'll be lambasted for the failure all the more harshly for it. Or worse, those that dislike you will simply make something up. And you aren't supposed to defend yourself when they try.
Amaya wrote: Maybe, but unless it's done publicly there will always be another sap (WK) out there to worship the ground you walk on.
White Knighting itself is hit or miss. Sometimes it's honestly a good thing, driven by people who just don't like to see others picked on. Other times it's actually another form of misogyny in disguise.
Yeah, so-called "nice guys" that are just playing at nice to get sex, and get mad when it doesn't work because their phonyness is obvious to anyone who really pays attention.
White knighting cannot be good and still be white knighting. Remember the definition of white knighting is that someone sticks up for you for the purpose of exploiting you in some other way, most generally in some sexual fantasy. That said, not everything that routinely gets called white knighting is white knighting.
The pedestal thing gets back to my question: has the pervasiveness of the damsel trope limited the role of female characters in video games generally? It seems to me that the extreme frequency of objectifying female characters has created expectations that make it hard to even imagine how female characters can exist as subjects in video games. Just taking Samus as an example, this character was unquestionably an agent for many years, cutting very strongly against the grain. But her most recent incarnation reverses that: while she is still the protagonist and "does things," she's bizarrely naive and frankly stupid -- a far cry from the badass of other installments.
Zelda did the same thing with Sheik being revealed as Princess Zelda. "This badass guy who was helping you is actually a chick and has to go get captured now."
Yeah, it's hard to imagine a game about Boba Fett where he weeps as much as Samus does in Other M. I don't think the fact that she's shown out of suit so much and with a voice is a coincidence in this regard, either.
Manchu wrote: Remember the definition of white knighting is that someone sticks up for you for the purpose of exploiting you in some other way, most generally in some sexual fantasy.
That's an interesting take on the term . Not the definition I'm used to, but I can see it.
I honestly can't name a female character that the player is forced to play as that is not a sex symbol with the sole exception of the character from Beyond Good and Evil.
This reminds me of that Family Guy rendition of the end of Mario, where Mario expects Peach will kiss him once Bowser is dead and she refuses on the very reasonable grounds that she doesn't even know him. Kind of an interesting idea that a world where women are pervasively seen as damsels will produce pathetic white knights.
Speaking of damsels, I was looking for a game on Steam with a female protagonist, and I saw the new Bioshock Infinite. From the trailers it looks like you have to rescue the girl.
Yep. She'll probably address that in a future video.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: This reminds me of that Family Guy rendition of the end of Mario, where Mario expects Peach will kiss him once Bowser is dead and she refuses on the very reasonable grounds that she doesn't even know him. Kind of an interesting idea that a world where women are pervasively seen as damsels will produce pathetic white knights.
I rescued you, where's my sex?!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is this art reflecting society or society reflecting art?
If white knighting is a real thing, which is arguably generally and in each specific instance, then it does fit pretty well with the expectations of women that a feminist critique of the damsel trope predicts. At the very least, the white knight meme itself shows that such a prediction is accurate at least at the level of perception.
Amaya wrote: I honestly can't name a female character that the player is forced to play as that is not a sex symbol with the sole exception of the character from Beyond Good and Evil.
I could think of a few others, April Ryan & Zoe Castillo from the longest journey series, Faith of Mirrors Edge. Beyond that though I'm really having to think hard and resort to obscure foreign or indy titles. I guess you could also include Lara Croft after the recent release so long as you ignore over a decades worth of titles in the series.
Melissia wrote: I found that cracked article to be funny, but I'm wondering about a male's viewpoint of the various points he brought up.
Reasons #4 and #5 are particularly germane to the discussion. Also, the male viewpoint there seems specifically cultivated for the sake of comedy. I'm not saying it isn't problematic just emphasizing Sarkeesian's point that problematic things can also be enjoyable.
Its a little bit like the type of male who is the Nice Guy and thinks that after X number of nice guy actions someone will sleep with him
Amaya wrote: I honestly can't name a female character that the player is forced to play as that is not a sex symbol with the sole exception of the character from Beyond Good and Evil.
FemShep, or any character you create in RPGs. But then again that is down to the individual as to how they are played.
Manchu wrote:This reminds me of that Family Guy rendition of the end of Mario, where Mario expects Peach will kiss him once Bowser is dead and she refuses on the very reasonable grounds that she doesn't even know him. Kind of an interesting idea that a world where women are pervasively seen as damsels will produce pathetic white knights.
Robot Chicken did it too with Legend of Zelda:
Sorry for crappy video quality.
Is this art reflecting society or society reflecting art?
I tend to think it's a never ending cycle of one bouncing off the other.
Melissia wrote:I found that cracked article to be funny, but I'm wondering about a male's viewpoint of the various points he brought up.
As someone who normally doesn't like Cracked, I kind of like that one. It has a sort of blunt realism too it. I think #1 is 100% accurate. Probably the most insightful thing I've ever read off that site. #2 I think is generally true, though I'd honestly throw in a lot of the nice things guys do for women plays to that as well. No just the mean things. We're conditioned to treat ladies with respect, which then mixes in with feelings of lost masculinity (it's like mixing matter and anti-matter, it just blows up).
#3 is interesting. I never thought of it in that way, but I have read articles and sections of books that talk about the repression of male sexuality in culture. That where women have their sexuality intrinsically connected to the essence of their person, a man's sexuality is separated (a side effect of objectification/actification I think). I don't know... Gonna need to think more on that one.
#4 I'm not sure on. Yeah I definitely think that culturally we think of women in a very physical sense, but I'm not sure I'd characterize men as always thinking about sex. I can freely admit it certainly occupies a lot of time, but not all the time. I can't say I've ever felt anger at an unattractive woman. At worst just indifference. But then maybe I'm not the ideal case cause I feel indifference to a lot of things. I do definitely see those annual summer magazines where they have the celebrities in swimsuits and its all about who's hot and who's not, but I never paid much attention to that stuff. It's tabloids, so I assume only the pathetic bother.
#5 Definitely though I think the author characterizes it slightly wrong. We're taught that the success of a man (and intrinsically our masculinity) is measured by our ability to get what we want. I don't think that the stories are necessarily about a woman having no choice in the matter (I don't think that plays into this) I think it's about how we're taught that if we do <list of good things> that we will eventually find that special girl and be happy. When reality doesn't work out like that (and it usually doesn't) we get frustrated. When our 'happily ever after' is continually thwarted, some men react very very badly and I've recently had a very real experience with this problem with my sister's ex. I'd clarify that point not as men thinking they're entitled to a hot girl, but rather that men think that by doing all the things expected of them one will just drop into their lap (maybe that's splitting hairs though). They then get frustrated either because that fantasy never happens, or because they are unable to live up to the masculine ideal in the first place and then they blame women for having standards they can't live up to.
I think a lot can be said that one of the reason's the divorce rate is so high is that men (and I think women too) have been conditioned by popular culture into viewing love and marriage as something a lot less complicated and a lot more romantic happily ever after than it really is. I mean, how many stories actually continue past the "they finally did it" part? X-File's lost ratings when the sexual tension between Mulder and Scully ended. Along with a terrible Season 2, it hurt the series Dark Angel (which pretty much ran off Jessica Alba's sex appeal to begin with). Generally the happy ever after only happens at the end of something. End of story, everything else is hunky dorry. Until the sequel comes along and you find out they broke up.
About #4, I think this one helps contextualize the anger even guys who consider themselves open-minded have with feminist critiques. For example, after watching the damsels vid I thought to myself, "given that I agree with everything she said why do I still feel like she was hostile?" There was a gap between my rational and emotional reactions. In some way, and I admit to having trouble articulating this, I think this is related to the fine line between being decorated and being decor. I think this also comes up in that sleazy "Feminism v. Facts" vid where that guy attempts to rehabilitate the damsel trope by saying Sarkeesian doesn't value healthy relationships.
About #5, I really agree with LoH's notes on this one -- all popular media, including video games, do tell men that a beautiful woman is their just reward as part of a successful male life. And so this is inextricably bound up with many a man's definition of success and feeling of self worth. So it's not simply that men feel they are owed a beautiful woman but more importantly that men feel that a successful man is owed a beautiful woman. Otherwise successful single guys that I know have a lot of self-doubt wrapped up in being single -- and it's toxic: not having a beautiful wife or girlfriend throws everything else they've accomplished into doubt.
These examples show how feminist critiques aren't necessarily out to "get men" or somehow "even the score" (as per Monster Rain asking what an acceptable ratio of object-to-subject portrayals of female characters would be earlier ITT) but rather how uncritical use of narrative structures like the damsel trope have negative consequences for women and men.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Its a little bit like the type of male who is the Nice Guy and thinks that after X number of nice guy actions someone will sleep with him
Guys like that are why many women, including me, often put "nice guy" in quotation marks.
Self-described "nice guys" who were just being nice to try to get in the pants/skirts of the women they were being nice to.
Apologies, I didn't think to put it in quotation marks. Tried to look at your link but it just looks like a jumble gak of images to me (I don't use that site, or come to think of it Twitter )
The "nice guys of okcupid" has images of self-proclaimed "nice guys" from OKCupid, a dating website, with what they have said and voted for overlaid on top.
Isn't the entire purpose of a dating site to eventually have sex? I know some people have had success with them (my cousin met his wife of 4 years now on eharmony I think), but most males on it at least are just trying to scratch an itch.
The article exists not to explain the "Nice Guys of OKCupid", but rather to make excuses for them.
The second half of the article is facepalm inducing.
Amaya wrote: Isn't the entire purpose of a dating site to eventually have sex? I know some people have had success with them (my cousin met his wife of 4 years now on eharmony I think), but most males on it at least are just trying to scratch an itch.
And there's nothing wrong with that. But you should at least be honest about it.
Amaya wrote: Isn't the entire purpose of a dating site to eventually have sex?
According to whose standards? Oh that's right:
Amaya wrote: but most males on it at least are just trying to scratch an itch.
I'm not sure I agree. The guys I know using these sites are looking for more than sex. But they are definitely looking for their hot girl reward.
Some connections:
- the damsel trope portrays women as the reward for bearing hardships - the White Knight image is generated by the damsel trope - the Nice Guy ® is the candid White Knight, laying out the real story - the damsel trope therefore encourages dudes to see considerate behavior as a hardship
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: The article exists not to explain the "Nice Guys of OKCupid", but rather to make excuses for them.
Nah, the article doesn't excuse their behavior at all. If anything, I think it shows how positive goals, like seeking companionship and intimacy, can be twisted into gendered hatred.
Melissia wrote: Ugh, no. That article is almost CNN-like in its execution.
Really? Even when it says;
See, the site seemed to say. You're not single because you're 'too nice'. You're single because you're a jerk.
Critics of the Nice Guy™ are right on at least one thing: Nobody "owes" you sex, no matter how nice you are, how much money you spend on them, or how close a friendship you have.
What these men lack in their lives isn't just sex, but all the things that sex stands for in our culture: intimacy and connection with other people, affirmation of our own value and desirability, and love.
But if it's wrong to assume that if you treat someone nicely enough, they'll eventually fall in love with you, surely it's also wrong to conclude that if someone is a serial sexual reject, it must be because they're a jerk.
By the time Remember Me was shown to prospective publishers, it was too late to change Nilin from a woman to a man, and this was enough to cause potential backers to abstain from publishing the game. “We had some that said, 'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that,'” Morris told the Report.
Even if Morris had changed Nilin to be male, that solution produced its own drama. “We wanted to be able to tease on Nilin's private life, and that means for instance, at one point, we wanted a scene where she was kissing a guy,” Morris said. “We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.'”
Morris chuckled. “I'm like, 'If you think like that, there's no way the medium's going to mature,'” he said. “There's a level of immersion that you need to be at, but it's not like your sexual orientation is being questioned by playing a game. I don't know, that's extremely weird to me.”
Mind you I don't entirely agree with his reasons for having a female character as the main, but even still it sheds some light on the industry. A very negative light.
Or to quote an article from TheMarySue: "To put it mildly, [there is] a pervasive, industry-wide assumption that female-led gains don’t sell and therefore are not worth the risk, and that even if you do make them you probably shouldn’t spend too much money on them [...]" There is an attitude in the video game industry to inherently devalue what women want. It is by no means unique to the video game industry-- it also exists in film as well, for example.
It certainly shows the field of difference that can and does exist between those who physically make the game itself and the pencil pushers who want to sell it. Especially since the game's concept is on its face awesome.
Although, the article also shows the opposite side of the coin as well:
“The world we were building was much more about emotion, intimacy, identity, and the way technology would intersect those. It just felt like the other side of the coin, the yin and the yang, and it just made sense to us that it would be a female character.”
So yeah. His reason's aren't pure but it's still useful for us. Kind of harks back to Cracked's #3 actually. Maybe it's not just about male sexuality, but how we express emotion. All the big guy hero's tend to be kind of stoic (Master Chief immediately springs to mind) at least in their demeanor. Guys only show emotion when they're pissed, or their girlfriend just died (in which case they're still kind of pissed). Women are seen as being more emotional (in both the positive and negative senses of that word).
Melissia wrote: Mind you I don't entirely agree with his reasons for having a female character as the main, but even still it sheds some light on the industry. A very negative light.
You mean its a stagnating industry that keeps rehashing the same plot lines and titles year after year with little innovation?
LordofHats wrote: It certainly shows the field of difference that can and does exist between those who physically make the game itself and the pencil pushers who want to sell it. Especially since the game's concept is on its face awesome.
As usual its the pencil pushers that are more concerned with a regurgitating a format that is successful and not taking risks
Amaya wrote: IMO games should have gender neutral leads.
Yeah, I agree -- outside of licensed characters at least. For example, you can and have to play Catwoman for some parts of Arkham City but overall it's Batman's story and switching him out for Batgirl (or even Robin for that matter) would not make for a better game.
Manchu wrote: About #4, I think this one helps contextualize the anger even guys who consider themselves open-minded have with feminist critiques. For example, after watching the damsels vid I thought to myself, "given that I agree with everything she said why do I still feel like she was hostile?" There was a gap between my rational and emotional reactions. In some way, and I admit to having trouble articulating this, I think this is related to the fine line between being decorated and being decor. I think this also comes up in that sleazy "Feminism v. Facts" vid where that guy attempts to rehabilitate the damsel trope by saying Sarkeesian doesn't value healthy relationships.
About #5, I really agree with LoH's notes on this one -- all popular media, including video games, do tell men that a beautiful woman is their just reward as part of a successful male life. And so this is inextricably bound up with many a man's definition of success and feeling of self worth. So it's not simply that men feel they are owed a beautiful woman but more importantly that men feel that a successful man is owed a beautiful woman. Otherwise successful single guys that I know have a lot of self-doubt wrapped up in being single -- and it's toxic: not having a beautiful wife or girlfriend throws everything else they've accomplished into doubt.
These examples show how feminist critiques aren't necessarily out to "get men" or somehow "even the score" (as per Monster Rain asking what an acceptable ratio of object-to-subject portrayals of female characters would be earlier ITT) but rather how uncritical use of narrative structures like the damsel trope have negative consequences for women and men.
I wasn't the one who started the conversation about numbers, if you'll recall. I simply asked what the acceptable ratio would be after you mentioned a numerical disparity.
/waits for several paragraphs of semantic distortion about how that's not what you said.
Monster Rain wrote: I wasn't the one who started the conversation about numbers, if you'll recall. I simply asked what the acceptable ratio would be after you mentioned a numerical disparity.
It wasn't a conversation about numbers. I mentioned what should be an obvious disparity, you started in on ratios. When I directly asked you whether you meant it as a cap and trade solution -- i.e., if there are X non-objectified female characters how many objectified ones is the industry allowed -- you ignored the question. Care to answer it now?
Amaya wrote: IMO games should have gender neutral leads.
Yeah, I agree -- outside of licensed characters at least. For example, you can and have to play Catwoman for some parts of Arkham City but overall it's Batman's story and switching him out for Batgirl (or even Robin for that matter) would not make for a better game.
Ooo, I wouldn't bring comics into this discussion. If anything has misogynistic overtones it is western comics...
As for that story I mentioned. Fortunately a couple of posts earlier have highlighted a new word, so I don't need to embarrass myself too badly. However, I will caveat this as, since it's a true story, there will no doubt be plenty of me rationalising and making excuses. So yeah, sorry.
It was the first night out with some other new people at a new job in IT back in 2008/9. So there were a bunch of us round a table and I started mansplaining about techy stuff to one of the girls there who was a trainee Project Manager. Basically, I was making a twit out of myself in doing it, without noticing until one of the other guys whispered to me and said, "dude, she's a techie."
I then realised how much of a jerk I'd been. So yeah, that's kinda a proof I suppose that there is still an issue.
There's a couple of other experiences about the topic which, luckily for me, don't really involve me. Someone in another area I worked told me about how at various workplaces she kept getting dragged out to do all these 'Women in Technology' presentations internally and at local schools and things despite being perfectly content to just sit there and code stuff like everyone else. Now, is that actually not helping anyone if she's really does not want to do public speaking? Wouldn't she have been better just being treated by anyone else with just a casual, "anyone wanting to look to impress the boss anytime soon by volunteering for this?"
Now, I do think things have improved, even in the few years since I made a jerk out of myself on that night out. I mentioned it earlier in the thread but, people like Ada Lovelace are now getting more recognition.
I, personally, think that people like Felicia Day (even though I think there is some controversy about her????) is doing some gap bridging too. Or have I just gone off on a tangent there?
Yeah. She's been in the news for awhile because of the success of The Guild but last year some idiot on Destructoid got drunk (according to said idiot) and posted some comments about whether or not she was relevant and equated her to a glorified booth babe. Fortunately he got the boot within a matter of hours.
I dislike Felicia Day. Her acting hasn't impressed me and for some reason every other comment about her is how how she is...at the risk of invoking the "2/10 would not bang" meme...I just don't see it.
Not sure how you mean that. Do you mean that guys saying that an attractive girl isn't attractive or that the first thing a guy does is judge a woman's appearance?
Pretty much both. More obviously the second. But the first one, too: I mean she's obviously not unattractive. She's no super model, either. We justify making such distinctions based on her career choices: as an actress, she's selling her appearance. Therefore, with all the other conventions of consumerism in tow, we get to be as harsh as we want. Even guys who generally are uncomfortable with the thought of viewing women as decoration find it less problematic when talking about actresses.
I think the notion that actresses rely on their appearance to be successful is very outdated. I can't think of a particularly famous actress who is renowned for her acting ability that is particularly stunning. If anything the most attractive ones are lambasted as being mediocre and never become extremely successful despite their good lucks.
I also think the only reason anyone thinks they look as a good as they supposedly do is because that message is constantly shoved down our throats by the media.
Amaya wrote: for some reason every other comment about her is how how she is...at the risk of invoking the "2/10 would not bang" meme...I just don't see it.
Now, if a male did this would he be accused of objectifying her, or of basing his opinion of her on her physical appearance?
I meant outdated in the sense that it simply isn't true.
Kate Winslet is flat out unattractive (imo) and I don't see how anyone outside of a select few would honestly say she's a particularly attractive woman. Who cares? She can act, that's all that matters. If anything incredibly attractive actresses would be detrimental to a film as it would be harder for audiences to relate to them as they would be so idealistic.
Amaya wrote: Kate Winslet is flat out unattractive (imo)
Would not bang, huh?
As I don't believe sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship is morally acceptable, the answer would be no. Not only to her, but to actresses I do find physically attractive.
Directly into the microphone, sir, that's right. Yes, we'll make sure your wife gets the tape.
Infidelity is obviously not at issue. "Would/would not bang" is a game played under "ideal" conditions. If you can imagine being in a position where whether you are sexually attracted to Kate Winslet actually matters, how is it so hard to further imagine that you're also not married in the scenario?
Given that I do not know her personally the only thing I can comment on is her acting.
I don't see how saying she is unattractive is related to #4. I don't consider her decoration. How is this any different than saying I don't understand why women find a certain male actor to be attractive?
Leonardo Dicaprio for example. Don't get it...at all. He's an excellent actor though.
I judge everyone's appearance though. Hairstyle, facial structure, clothing, muscularity, muscular aesthitics, tattoos, piercings, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: You didn't just say "she's unattractive."
Amaya wrote: There are men I would have relations with before I voluntarily touched Kate Winslet.
You requested further clarification.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also don't think sexuality is black and white, as in you are hetero or homosexual. I don't consider myself bisexual. I would never engage in actual relations with a male, but I have no problem admiring one as being sexually attractive.
Apparently this means I look at everyone as decoration.
Amaya wrote: Apparently this means I look at everyone as decoration.
This is a really key point.
Again, as far as I can tell feminist critique is not some kind of scheme women dreamt up to subject men to guilt and manipulation. Rather, it is (or at least is a subset of) critical thinking about how people deal with each other. Women aren't the only people who are dehumanized through objectification. And men aren't the only ones who objectify.
I don't see how observations are dehumanizing unless you intentionally reduce individuals down to their appearance. Simply because I think someone is unattractive does not mean I make any assumptions about their intelligence, personality, or interests.
You're equating judging someone's appearance with dismissing all other traits. There is a difference between judging their appereance and judging them on their appearance.
Cracked #4 is stating that men are doing the latter to women.
I think you're engaging in critical thought. Outside of this context, the comments would not be differentiated in this specific way.
This is a great example of how being critical is not the same thing as prohibiting things or not enjoying things.
It is certainly possible to find a person physically attractive without objectifying them. The objectification that tends to get caught up with the experience of appraising physical attraction arises IMO from uncritical thought.
Monster Rain wrote: I wasn't the one who started the conversation about numbers, if you'll recall. I simply asked what the acceptable ratio would be after you mentioned a numerical disparity.
It wasn't a conversation about numbers. I mentioned what should be an obvious disparity, you started in on ratios. When I directly asked you whether you meant it as a cap and trade solution -- i.e., if there are X non-objectified female characters how many objectified ones is the industry allowed -- you ignored the question. Care to answer it now?
Melissia wrote: Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.
It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.
In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?
Melissia wrote: Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.
It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.
In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?
While watching Charmed? (hah, edited because I just saw what that autocorrected from, and it's still possibly true if you are talking about Shannon Doherty - what kind of monster doesn't get along with Alyssa Milano)
That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.
Melissia wrote: Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.
It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.
In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?
While watching Charmed? (hah, edited because I just saw what that autocorrected from, and it's still possibly true if you are talking about Shannon Doherty - what kind of monster doesn't get along with Alyssa Milano)
That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.
Yeah, I agree I think some Hollywood tropes can actually be quite damaging psychologically (like Disney princess movies teach girls to be submissive and let men be in control) and I also find it weird how so many Hollywood movies have "love at first sight" yet I don't know anyone who
believes in "love at first sight".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I find Kate Winslet reasonably attractive.
Hollywood's depiction of love isn't really that different than those of past centuries. It's more prolific now, and I do think that's having an effect but there is another one:
Women don't have to marry someone anymore. In the past there was always pressure from a woman's family to get married, especially if there weren't any sons. Her dowry could support her parents and siblings and she could care for her parents as they grew older. And once married, it was taboo to end a marriage even in cultures with measures intended to protect a woman from a husband who couldn't provide for her or abused her. Loyalty to other families for mutual security, children, etc. This is no longer true.
This extends a bit larger than gender relations per se, as it's also about obligations to children and a larger society, and Hollywood has had an effect in shifting the focus of marriage from practical to emotional, but society and changes within it have had an effect as well.
Bromsy wrote: That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.
Lack of realism from one of the most fake and superficial places on earth? Surely you jest
Monster Rain wrote: I am unable to sleep because Hollywood conditioned me that a horribly burned man with a red sweater and a knife glove is going to kill me if I do.
Damn you Hollywood!
We aren't supposed to talk about him! That's the only way to contain him.
Just watched the video... who would of thought that Popeye and Mario could be the root of women's disparities, Also I'll never look at King Kong the same way again... I never knew that a giant gorilla carrying a damsel in distress up the Empire State building could be so offensive.
"Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.
Manchu wrote: "Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.
Honestly the idea of damsel in distress isn't bad in itself it's just when it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless" then it is a problem, especially since it clashes with the North American values of being independent and self-sufficient
Manchu wrote: "Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.
So what if one simply chooses to interpret these early games as cheeky pop-culture references?
The case can certainly be made for that, I think. Also, the games were much more limited in their ability to build stories in-game, so using familiar tropes and themes certainly would have allowed a sort of "shorthand" to establish character motivation.
Manchu wrote: "Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.
Honestly the idea of damsel in distress isn't bad in itself it's just when it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless" then it is a problem, especially since it clashes with the North American values of being independent and self-sufficient
I think that's the major disconnect on the issue. The use of a trope is interpreted as misogynistic, or as a goofy way to motivate your little plumber to break bricks with his head.
Monster Rain wrote: I am unable to sleep because Hollywood conditioned me that a horribly burned man with a red sweater and a knife glove is going to kill me if I do.
Damn you Hollywood!
We aren't supposed to talk about him! That's the only way to contain him.
I also actively avoid summer camps and the state of Texas.
As a side note, I wonder, since video games with misogynistic tropes are negatively affecting society, if there is some merit to the idea that violence in video games should be examined as well.
Monster Rain wrote: As a side note, I wonder, since video games with misogynistic tropes are negatively affecting society, if there is some merit to the idea that violence in video games should be examined as well.
And if not, why?
From what I understand it is unconfirmed that violence in media causes more aggression in society as the studies on the issue are all over the place with some showing strong correlation and others showing little to none at all.
Should probably mention that damsel in distress doesn't just exist in video games (oh right I said that pages ago).
I said on page 1 of the thread that I didn't see much point in being critical of an excuse plot. I think the thread has hashed out that the trend is worth discussing, even if the individual games themselves are not. Likwise, the idea that a violent game will drive someone to violence is a stupid concept (in the same way that I doubt playing Super Mario World ever made someone stand up and declare their eternal hatred for women). But it does say something about how violence is viewed in society and how we interpret it.
Monster Rain wrote: So what if one simply chooses to interpret these early games as cheeky pop-culture references?
I think that can hold up in a vacuum: if you take Donkey Kong, for instance, and treat it as a game no one heard of that went nowhere then yeah it's just a reference back to King Kong. But when you look at it going forwards, as the founding moment for objectification of female characters in video games such that
Cheesecat wrote: it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless"
then the "cheeky pop culture reference" angle is obviously inadequate.
I for one am not saying that these games were designed to hate on women. The point is not motive. The point is consequence. The consequence appears to be self-perpetuation where, as Cheesecat mentioned, female characters are objectified by default. Female characters with agency are the exception.
Monster Rain wrote: So what if one simply chooses to interpret these early games as cheeky pop-culture references?
I think that can hold up in a vacuum: if you take Donkey Kong, for instance, and treat it as a game no one heard of that went nowhere then yeah it's just a reference back to King Kong. But when you look at it going forwards, as the founding moment for objectification of female characters in video games such that
Cheesecat wrote: it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless"
then the "cheeky pop culture reference" angle is obviously inadequate..
I'm not sure that the success of the game is relevant. There are plenty of games that used the damsel trope that went nowhere, and many that did not that were successful. If you try to make the point that Galaga is somehow misogynistic you will hear me laughing whereever you happen to be. I think you're ascribing far too much cultural impact to Donkey Kong, Billy Mitchell notwithstanding.
I for one am not saying that these games were designed to hate on women. The point is not motive.
On the contrary, I think the entire point is motive. The term "misogyny" has been thrown around here quite a bit, and attributing it to the overuse of tropes (I think it would be better in this case to use the word "cliche") implies a certain level of malevolence that I think would nicely encompass an intent, or motive, to engender further, to use the literal definition of the word, hatred of women.
LordofHats wrote: I said on page 1 of the thread that I didn't see much point in being critical of an excuse plot. I think the thread has hashed out that the trend is worth discussing, even if the individual games themselves are not. Likwise, the idea that a violent game will drive someone to violence is a stupid concept (in the same way that I doubt playing Super Mario World ever made someone stand up and declare their eternal hatred for women). But it does say something about how violence is viewed in society and how we interpret it.
I agree with you about both the violence and the Mario bit.
My question is more to those who think that using these tropes is perpetuating misogyny. If misogyny in video games begets more misogyny, why shouldn't we wonder the same thing about violence, drug use, sex with and the subsequent murder of Vice City prostitutes, stacking comically large hamburgers, etc?
Manchu wrote: The consequence appears to be self-perpetuation where, as Cheesecat mentioned, female characters are objectified by default. Female characters with agency are the exception.
This was confirmed by my link earlier, where producers often refuse to back a game because it has a female lead-- and the ones that do get only 40% of the marketing funding of ones with male leads on average. It's part of the culture of video game developers/producers, without actually being reflective of reality outside of that culture.
Sure it's relevant. If it is successful, it will be copied. As was apparently the case.
Monster Rain wrote: attributing [misogyny] to the overuse of tropes ... implies a certain level of malevolence
Not at all. Misogyny does not exclusively connote active hatred. As used in this thread, it refers to a largely unconscious default viewpoint about gender -- again, a consequence rather than a motive. I don't think game designers use the damsel trope in a scheme to hurt female characters much less women generally. Nonetheless, the pervasiveness of the trope has arguably limited the role of female characters generally in video games. The assumption I am trying to break you of is that a feminist critique necessarily implies a specific "solution" or even a specific problem. So let's turn to your question about violence in dealing with that:
Monster Rain wrote: My question is more to those who think that using these tropes is perpetuating misogyny. If misogyny in video games begets more misogyny, why shouldn't we wonder the same thing about violence, drug use, sex with and the subsequent murder of Vice City prostitutes, etc?
First, let's distinguish between acts and values. Regardless of whatever studies by whoever, every reasonable person who has played violent video games knows those games do not directly make people who play them violent. Why? Because reasonable people know the difference between real violence and pretend violence. Similarly, playing a video game that uses the damsel trope in its story line will not directly make a reasonable person objectify women by trying to save them from whatever conundrum -- for the same reason: reasonable people know the difference between a real human being who is a woman and Princess Peach.
But there is a less obvious difference between values expressed in video games and values expressed in "real life." This is because values are expressed narratively in every medium, whether in video games or in "real life." Broadly speaking, the values expressed in a video game story line are not pretend values. Values in video games are certainly exaggerated, simplified, and otherwise distorted but they are nonetheless distortions of real rather than make believe phenomena. There is a much closer connection between our sense of right and wrong in video games and our same sense in real life, which is exactly why so many video games capitalize on allowing players to either follow or willfully violate their own value systems. In any case, we learn our values from stories -- religious stories, stories about our own or family members' lives, and stories we experience in popular media, etc.
But we don't learn lessons from every story we experience. We are ideally critical of stories that try to inform our values. Think about how you react to the missionary on your doorstep (on the rare occasion you actually answer the door): you don't just buy into everything the missionary says. You either ignore what he says altogether or argue against it, in either case establishing boundaries between his values and yours. My theory is that the less critical you are about a story, the more likely you are to be unconsciously influenced by it in the context of repetitive exposure. Getting back to violence in popular media, I think this what is often called "desensitization." Playing CoD doesn't make a person go on killing sprees -- but it can, especially if it is not critically evaluated, affect that person's view of violence. The same goes for uncritical, repetitive exposure to the damsel trope.
In this light, you can see that the trope itself isn't really the problem. A feminist can play and enjoy Donkey Kong or Super Mario. The problem is doing so uncritically. Again, back to violence, it is important to remember that CoD is just a game and the values it entails regarding violence should not be anyone's model. But you can only get that far by actually admitting that CoD does entail values.
Instead of fisking that post I think I'll just reply in generalities here, Manchu.
As to the success of Donkey Kong and its success, I think you'd have a hard time proving that any games using the damsel trope were directly influenced by Donkey Kong instead of the centuries of entertainment that came before it.
On our parsing of the word "misogyny" I don't actually think you are as much of an extremist on this issue as others seem to be. I think that marketing demographics have more to do with the lack of female protagonists than cheap plot devices, but we're on the internet so we have to pretend that marketing isn't actually a thing.
Regarding your interesting thoughts on video game violence as it relates to the discussion, as well as the earlier mention of whether or not a critique implies a problem or solution, I can only once again agree that there's nothing wrong with thinking critically about anything and everything.
The fact that Donkey Kong fits into a larger pattern leading backward and forwards in time is exactly what we are talking about as pervasiveness.
Misogyny seems to be a default viewpoint that can "sharpen" to active hatred when it is challenged. Women speaking about video games seems to be just such a challenge. In the face of this "sharpening," it's clear why people use terms like misogyny in increasingly radical ways.
Yes, critical thinking is always good. There is a prejudice against it in our culture, however -- and especially against speaking critically: again, I actually agree with Sarkeesian's video and thought she did it respectfully (importantly, those are entirely separate points). At the same time, even I still felt confronted by a hostile viewpoint while watching it.
Pervasiveness of the trope, to me, doesn't equate in all cases to a desire to deprive females of agency. Again, I agree that the trope is pervasive. We part company at attributing it to a cultural devaluing of women.
Monster Rain wrote: Pervasiveness of the trope, to me, doesn't equate in all cases to a desire to deprive females of agency. Again, I agree that the trope is pervasive. We part company at attributing it to a cultural devaluing of women.
It equates to, at worst, lazy storytelling.
I don't quite agree with that, but I also don't agree entirely with the sentiment that it is entirely free of misogyny either. The same goes with almost all misogynistic parts of games. I don't think very many of them are done intentionally to devalue women. I think a lot of it is done without thinking.
The same has been true of racism. How many racists have hated people they've never met, met someone of that race (I hate that term, it is inaccurate), and realized how stupid their racist beliefs were?
Monster Rain wrote: Again, I agree that the trope is pervasive. We part company at attributing it to a cultural devaluing of women.
Melissia posted an explicit example of how female characters are devalued by the video game industry: publishers, whether at accurately or not, believe that games with female leads are less lucrative than ones with male leads. It's becoming increasingly apparent that this isn't because only boys like video games. Looking at the portrayal of female characters, we find that the industry is also more comfortable with female characters who lack agency, that is who cannot be leads, and has been pervasively for a long time. Whether you these things are ultimately connected, it cannot be simply dismissed.
Monster Rain wrote: Again, I agree that the trope is pervasive. We part company at attributing it to a cultural devaluing of women.
Melissia posted an explicit example of how female characters are devalued by the video game industry: publishers, whether at accurately or not, believe that games with female leads are less lucrative than ones with male leads.
Wanna post me a link? There's a... reason I haven't seen that link, though my hypothesis is that this is, still, due to market analysis and not an institutionalized hatred of women. We'll see how my educated guess holds up, if you feel like indulging me.
If there's this huge market waiting out there for the type of game that you're suggesting, I would suggest writing the data from your research on the subject into a proposal and pitching it to someone who makes these decisions.
Video games, like all(?) art, transmit culture, and exposure to that culture can inform our view of the world. Someone isn't going to play a video game and then immediately do something misogynistic, just like someone isn't going to play a violent game and then do something violent as a result. That doesn't mean those ideas don't influence us to an extent.
Regarding violence, I'd point out that almost all the violence in video games is either:
1. presented as Wrong by context; if a villain hurts an innocent there are likely to be cues there that the villain should not be doing this
2. considered absolutely acceptable by broader society. When you play a soldier and kill other combatants, you're doing something that (I believe) most people will agree would be acceptable and proper in the real world. When you are flying your space ship, defending the planet from alien invaders trying to wipe out/enslave humanity, general consensus would probably be that this is an okay thing to do.
It's rare for a video game to present indiscriminate or otherwise unjustified violence uncritically, just like it is in broader culture; the views on violence transmitted in these games tend to be in line with society's views. I think it's likely that they do, in turn, mould the viewer's ideas (and this isn't as simple as violence = good, at the very least it's that violence against combatants is fine and violence against non-combatants is wrong).
And of course, none of that is to say that we're blank slates for video games to write on, but saying "nobody is influenced by media at all" is a weird position to take that I think would probably be wrong.
Monster Rain wrote: my hypothesis is that this is, still, due to market analysis and not an institutionalized hatred of women.
Likewise. I don't think that companies balance their books on how much they oppress group X, and shareholders seem to prefer their dividends in cash and not Patriarchy Points
Monster Rain wrote: If there's this huge market waiting out there for the type of game that you're suggesting, I would suggest writing the data from your research on the subject into a proposal and pitching it to someone who makes these decisions.
The industry does not need me to author a study. There have been reports on women making up large portions of the gaming market and even more particularly the console market for about a decade now.
Monster Rain wrote: my hypothesis is that this is, still, due to market analysis and not an institutionalized hatred of women.
Likewise. I don't think that companies balance their books on how much they oppress group X, and shareholders seem to prefer their dividends in cash and not Patriarchy Points
Well hopefully we can put those strawmen to bed then, right?
Manchu wrote: Well hopefully we can put those strawmen to bed then, right?
Strawman? I was just trying to lighten the mood just a wee shade with some humour. I hoped that the Orkmoticon would have made that apparent, I know know badly sarcasm works on the internet
I saw. But it is reinforcing the same wrongheaded argument that the feminist critique of video games is not relevant because the specific goal of game developers is not to hate on women. That is a strawman and it has plagued this thread. Again, something doesn't need to be intended to be a consequence.
“If you look at the first three months, with the smaller quantity of female-led games, they did not sell as well. The ones that were male-only sold better,” Zatkin explained. There are some more interesting bits here. Games that allow you to choose your gender are reviewed better than games that offer male-only heroes, but the games with male only heroes sold better. In terms of pure sales numbers, in the first three months of availability, games with only a male hero sold around 25 percent better than games with an optional female hero. Games with exclusively male heroes sold around 75 percent better than games with only female heroes. . . If you’re funding a large-budget game and you see these numbers, you see that you lose sales by adding the capability to choose a female hero, and you lose significant sales by releasing a game with a female hero. “You look at unit sales, and if you look at unit sales by platform, you can see that it holds true except on the DS,”
. . .
That’s something you can take away from this,” Zatkin said. The problem also comes from marketing departments. There is a sense in the industry that games with female heroes won't sell. “I think that there is general feeling from marketing that it’s hard to sell a mass-market game that’s a female-only protagonist,” Zatkin agreed. “This may be changing greatly with mobile and social, where you’re expanding the audience, but in core console land, there’s a lot of marketing thought that it’s hard to sell a game with a female-only protagonist in a core genre. The question is, is this something that really doesn’t happen, or do marketing budgets get gimped?”
Now reading that it does seem more likely that the primary concern for many companies is the return on their investment, rather than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I saw. But it is reinforcing the same wrongheaded argument that the feminist critique of video games is not relevant because the specific goal of game developers is not to hate on women. That is a strawman and it has plagued this thread. Again, something doesn't need to be intended to be a consequence.
I'm sorry you too it that way, there was no attempt to reinforce anything.
The point of that article is that the industry a creates self-fulfilling prophecy on the issue of portrayals of females. It's not as simple as "they just don't sell."
I'd also propose that the games industry also is very bad at reading market data. Just like how they love to blame the second hand market, or pirates, they like to blame that a game sold poorly on stupid things like "there was a girl as an optional character." Never mind that the sections of the game with said optional female character were poorly designed and boring, detracting from the overall experience. The industry tends to find stupid things to blame for its failures. Like the time the head of Silicon Knights complained that they weren't get tail sales because of the second hand market, rather than the fact that their games suck and no one really wants to buy them to start with.
Agreed, LoH. I mean, we can see that the industry massively sucks in so many ways. Day One DLC, for example. And yet when this issue comes up, people seem to think publishers are sincere geniuses.
Part of it I'll bet is that the folks who market a game, have probably never even played it. They probably just get a blurp or something from the dev team with some highlights to put on the box.
Manchu wrote: The point of that article is that the industry a creates self-fulfilling prophecy on the issue of portrayals of females. It's not as simple as "they just don't sell."
From the article
So is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? Do publishers send female-lead games out to die without proper support? “I think it might be, and I think in some cases, though this is a guess, that these games may be considered more niche, and you advertise niche games less,” Zatkin said.
Manchu wrote: Day One DLC, for example. And yet when this issue comes up, people seem to think publishers are sincere geniuses.
Manchu wrote: Having a female lead does not make a game "niche." Anyone who was chasing money in a really clear-eyed sense would realize that.
Until you have data to back that up it will continue to seem like you're stating an opinion as fact.
You're right, game companies don't need you to do their market research for them, as much as a cop out as that statement was. They have done it themselves and acted accordingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Agreed, LoH. I mean, we can see that the industry massively sucks in so many ways. Day One DLC, for example. And yet when this issue comes up, people seem to think publishers are sincere geniuses.
This from the guy throwing around the term "straw man"?
Manchu wrote: Having a female lead does not make a game "niche." Anyone who was chasing money in a really clear-eyed sense would realize that.
I'm not saying it make it niche. I'm just repeating what someone in the industry said. The fact of the matter is that with so few female leads in games its easy to see why they are described as niche. If they look at their data objectively and see that male lead games are what sells then I can understand their position (not trying to justify it). The games industry isn't exactly known for innovation, or deviating from what makes them money, hence all the Call of Duty and sports game clones. With the state of the economy and studios like THQ closing, and EA taking a financial hit then that may not change for some time.
On the other hand, I've never thought it'd be unfair to say that a great many market researchers are not scientifically inclined and therefore do not realise that:
Monster Rain wrote: This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.
Then why do said games sell less? The obvious answer is that women make a smaller % of the market, which is true given current statistics, but why?
Oh no, they only pay attention to the ones that DIDN'T sell as much as they wanted-- to this line of reasoning, the successful games with female leads or options for female leads (the mass effect and metroid series for example) are just outliers which they shouldn't evenb bother trying to reproduce.
Which, given the industry's tendency to copy successful games (often while ignoring what made them successful), is just a weird attitude.
LordofHats wrote: Then why do said games sell less? The obvious answer is that women make a smaller % of the market, which is true given current statistics, but why?
One obvious answer is that games with female leads receive 40% of the marketing budget as games with male leads.
So games with female leads receive, on average, less than half of the budget as games with male leads receive for marketing purposes.
Monster Rain wrote: This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.
Then why do said games sell less? The obvious answer is that women make a smaller % of the market, which is true given current statistics, but why?
Because the target markets don't want them, for any number of reasons?
Or the most obvious answer is maybe the games in question weren't all that great.
Monster Rain wrote: This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.
Then why do said games sell less? The obvious answer is that women make a smaller % of the market, which is true given current statistics, but why?
Why would this be the reason a game with a female lead sell less, I don't see how making a female lead would make men less interested in the game.
As a continuation of my last post (finishing a LoL game lol):
Think of video games as constituting a action movie genre. Most games can be most easily compared to an action movie, with others being most similar afterwards to adventure films (horror probably falls in third). These are predominantly male markets. The guys over in marketing, probably realize this, and treat video games in many ways as action movies when thinking of how to sell them. This cuts women out of the equation as the mentality is that women don't like action movies. There are few romance games, drama games (at least not outside Japan), comedies, etc. This leaves marketing obsessed with the idea that like an action movie, a game with a female lead is less likely to sell.
Think of the article Machu listed. Games that offer both male and female leads sell less but are reviewed higher. This is a meaningless connection. The games that offer both, tend to be RPG's, which are a slightly smaller market than action games, but one with consistently higher marks from reviewers. A marketing team however (as we see in the article) conflates the numbers and assumes the wrong conclusion.
I'm on Compel with this. They seem to confuse causation and correlation.
One obvious answer is that games with female leads receive 40% of the marketing budget as games with male leads.
Since women continue to become a larger demographic with each passing year, I don't think male leads have been much of an inhibition to them. Tomb Raider (before it sucked) did well for a game with a female lead, as did Metroid (before that atrocity that was Other M).
Games that break the mold, are rare, and usually you're likely to see that maybe 75% (random number off the top of my head) of them fail. Publishers are aware of this but they take it way too far. The sex of the lead hasn't stopped women from buying games, but there's an assumption that it will stop men, even though several series stand out as doing very well in spite of the gender of the lead. This then get perpetuated, because when a female lead pops up, she gets less funding for her game, the game turns out worse, and the boys over in marketing assume that her gender is the reason sales were lower than desired, not that the game was bad (cause my guess is they never played it).
That women are the smaller demographic probably plays into marketing budgets as well, but I'm not sure that it explains it either. Beyond Good and Evil is a good example of a game that had a female lead but was poorly marketed despite being a stellar title. Everyone wants a sequel but the first game's poor sales have probably lost the game into development hell (I assume, we haven't heard anything for years) and the fools over in marketing probably conflate Jade's gender as being a reason for the failure.
Cheesecat wrote: Why would this be the reason a game with a female lead sell less, I don't see how making a female lead would make men less interested in the game.
On the PC, overall both genders liked Zoey in Left 4 Dead more than the other characters, across both games. Similarly, female Shepard (and especially her voice actress) are often beloved more than the male Shepard. There was also a HUGE backlash, and not just from women, against Other M because they tried to make Samus a whiny pathetic child instead of someone remotely competent.
There's a lot of false assumptions being made on the subject that aren't actually reflected in the reality of the situation.
But if we're judging solely on marketing would that only equate to 40% fewer sales? The figure give was that male lead games sell 75% more.
If not then what other factor(s) may be at play?
The obvious answer is "effective marketing can lead to a a larger higher increase in sales".
Getting people to actually hear about your game, nevermind want to buy it, is very important in actually making sure it gets sold, sometimes moreso than actually making a good game.
Mind you, I'm not saying that there aren't other factors. Frankly, there just aren't enough games with female-only leads to actually make much of a judgement-- it's a very statistically insignificant figure, especially for such a widely varying medium such as gaming.
Manchu wrote: Having a female lead does not make a game "niche."
Until you have data to back that up it will continue to seem like you're stating an opinion as fact.
The data exists whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Google is your friend. Also, would you call Portal 2 a niche game? If so, then I guess even niche games can sell really, really well.
Seriously? Given your behavior ITT, I thought Strawman was your middle name. Either that or Dodger. As near as I can assume, since you insist on trollishly posting one liner gems like the one I just quoted instead of transparent reasoning, you seem to argue that female characters are objectified in video games and otherwise marginalized simply because female characters are in a sense beyond all problematic gender stereotypes and prejudices simply worth less than male characters. That argument assumes that the people responsible for measuring that value are above the cultural and political issues of gender. What you identified as a strawman argument is simply my criticism of that assumption. If it truly wasn't your assumption then how about actually posting complete thoughts rather than snipes?
Monster Rain wrote: This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.
Melissia wrote: The obvious answer is "effective marketing can lead to a a larger higher increase in sales".
Getting people to actually hear about your game, nevermind want to buy it, is very important in actually making sure it gets sold, sometimes moreso than actually making a good game.
Mind you, I'm not saying that there aren't other factors. Frankly, there just aren't enough games with female-only leads to actually make much of a judgement-- it's a very statistically insignificant figure.
Statistically insignificant? Someone else in the thread objected to them being described as "niche"
My point is that if they receive 40% less of the marketing budget, and sell 75% worse than the male lead games then the argument can be made that these are not as commercially viable i.e. for an extra 1/3 of the budget a male lead game will bring in 75% more revenue. Any company bases forecasts on past data. If the market does not show that something is likely to give the return as another product they'll invest less in it. The easiest way for you as a consumer to change it is either buy more female lead games, or have a Kickstarter to release your own product and show that there is in fact a viable market.
There was also a HUGE backlash, and not just from women, against Other M because they tried to make Samus a whiny pathetic child instead of someone remotely competent.
As an aside, that's what happen when you let the guys who made this:
Work on this:
Honestly not sure what Nintendo was thinking with that one...
Some of the comments there I think has an interesting perspectives:
While that's your opinion (and mine), perfectly valid and how I believe it -SHOULD- be, have been and always will be. However, as a former Media student I can firmly say that typically, the inclusion of any demographic outside of a white male in any form of media has a lot of "baggage" in the form of stereotypical representation and expectations. If you think about it like this, How do you know that a character that is on a TV show is gay without them outright telling you? Or that it is set in the U.S. and not the U.K. or Europe? So when it comes to writing any character for any piece of media typically writers fall back on these same, tired, old and sometimes down right insulting stereotypes, simply because it's an easy way of telling the audience what a character is about. Without having to spell it out. This means shallow, boring, one dimension characters that don't really engage people. ME3's writers have generally, from what I have seen, been above this crap and that is why they, as the article says, had absolutely no issue writing for new and interesting characters in their games. Good on Bioware, It's a shame EA still sucks.
It's the same as in films. There are lots of different roles for men but there only ever seem to be 2 for women. She's got to either be tough, a muscle mary who takes crap from no one or she's got to be a damsel in distress, totally incapable of fending for herself. They're never just normal and that's because the people thinking up the characters have issues themselves. "We're putting a woman in, we're gonna have to rewrite the whole script and create new situations". No you don't, just add a normal woman in there and give her a few lines. Simple.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly not sure what Nintendo was thinking with that one...
Probably nothing nice. This is Japan we're talking about. I'm certain someone will call me a racist or something, but Japanese culture is really fethed up at times, especially (but not exclusively) regarding gender and sexuality issues.
Melissia wrote: Probably nothing nice. This is Japan we're talking about. I'm certain someone will call me a racist or something, but Japanese culture is really fethed up, especially (but not exclusively) regarding gender and sexuality issues.
No you're mostly right.
Japan's culture has a lot of issues with sexism right now. Take the former head of Team Ninja for example. Tomonobu Itagaki is a pig, in every sense of the word. But Tecmo fired him for it, but they also fired the woman who accused him of harassment (and rumors says she's just the only one to speak out) for getting their "personal affairs" mixed up with their "corporate responsibilities." The courts, in spite of everyone knowing Tomonobu is a pig, pretty much gave him a pass.
I'd actually say that comic is inaccurate. A lot of the stuff made in Japan, never makes it state side.
The anime made it state side, but the game it is based on never did (as far as I know). But Saber is very popular with boys and girls in Japan, and is just one of a large number of popular female characters over there. This isn't to say these characters are not stereotyped, many of them are. But Japan has a much MUCH larger number of media that tries to appeal to both boys and girls than you find in the US or Europe. It's just that a lot of it never leaves Japan so we get this image of an extremely misogynist country when the situaion there is really a lot messier and a lot more complicated (and it part that's because marketers in Japan assume the rest of us aren't interested XD).
Manchu wrote: Also, would you call Portal 2 a niche game? If so, then I guess even niche games can sell really, really well
They can sell well, but that does not take away from the fact that female lead games are in a distinct minority. Hence the description "niche"
That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".
LordofHats wrote: I'd actually say that comic is inaccurate. A lot of the stuff made in Japan, never makes it state side.
It's accurate, however, if you think about it in terms of the games actually being asked about in the comic.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They can sell well, but that does not take away from the fact that female lead games are in a distinct minority. Hence the description "niche"
By making fewer games with female leads such games become niche and we can't make niche games because they don't make money so we'd best make less games with female leads so that we can ... wait, oh right, this is circular argument.
This is what is meant by a self-fulfilling prophecy. A publisher believes a game will not do well and funds it accordingly. Surprise, surprise when it sells poorly.
That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".
Excellent distinction. It also helps to note that female leads, even less problematic ones like Chell, can actually appeal to male gamers as well as female gamers.
That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".
Excellent distinction. It also helps to note that female leads, even less problematic ones like Chell, can actually appeal to male gamers as well as female gamers.
Valve seems to a fairly good job at creating less stereotypical video game characters in general like Gordan Freeman is a skinny nerd.
Gordon Freeman has his flaws-- in terms of "less stereotypical", he's a white anglo-saxon protestant male hero, so... he's still pretty stereotypical in that regard-- but still, he is an interesting character, to be sure.
Good point, Milquedawg. Alyx Vance was also a more three-dimensional female character than most in video games. Didn't stop HL2 from selling and Alyx is pretty highly regarded among male and female gamers.
Melissia wrote: Gordon Freeman has his flaws-- in terms of "less stereotypical", he's a white anglo-saxon protestant male hero, so... he's still pretty stereotypical in that regard-- but still, he is an interesting character, to be sure.
I don't think his religion is every mentioned or is that more about what the average player would assume?
Manchu wrote: Good point, Milquedawg. Alyx Vance was also a more three-dimensional female character than most in video games. Didn't stop HL2 from selling and Alyx is pretty highly regarded among male and female gamers.
She's also highly regarded, and quite normally dressed:
Manchu wrote: Good point, Milquedawg. Alyx Vance was also a more three-dimensional female character than most in video games. Didn't stop HL2 from selling and Alyx is pretty highly regarded among male and female gamers.
Even the AI in the portal series are more interesting than most video-game characters.
Melissia wrote: Gordon Freeman has his flaws-- in terms of "less stereotypical", he's a white anglo-saxon protestant male hero, so... he's still pretty stereotypical in that regard-- but still, he is an interesting character, to be sure.
I don't think his religion is every mentioned or is that more about what the average player would assume?
It's the standard hero for the video game industry. By my estimates, at least 85%+ of all heroes for video games are WASP males.
LordofHats wrote: She's also highly regarded, and quite normally dressed
Right and even so she is still generally thought of as attractive. Go figure. I don't know about you chaps but while playing the game I was crushing on Alyx.
Melissia wrote: That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".
Well what's your definition then? I'm quoting from someone in the video games industry in the article I posted earlier
Manchu wrote: By making fewer games with female leads such games become niche and we can't make niche games because they don't make money so we'd best make less games with female leads so that we can ... wait, oh right, this is circular argument.
This is what is meant by a self-fulfilling prophecy. A publisher believes a game will not do well and funds it accordingly. Surprise, surprise when it sells poorly.
No its called reading the historic data and comparing it with marker research. If there is no market there then developers don't invest more than they are likely to get a return in. If there was a market there, regardless of gender, then the industry would be investing in it. Especially because it is stagnating and being the pioneer in a new market = $
Melissia wrote: Gordon Freeman has his flaws-- in terms of "less stereotypical", he's a white anglo-saxon protestant male hero, so... he's still pretty stereotypical in that regard-- but still, he is an interesting character, to be sure.
When did his religion get mentioned? Or is it assumed because of his race?
As he is a silent protagonist for the most part he is as interesting as you project him to be.
Melissia wrote: That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".
Well what's your definition then?
Dude... it's... IN.... THE... FETHING.... POST... THAT YOU QUOTED...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If there is no market there then developers don't invest more than they are likely to get a return in.
Your assumption is that these investors can and do read the market in a totally detached way, totally uninformed by the prejudices that shape them every day as people. I'm not saying video game executives are never critical thinkers -- but this is a deep issue, as we have been saying. As Monster Rain and others have pointed out, the damsel trope certainly did not begin with Donkey Kong or even King Kong. These are deep seated values that we are not even aware of most of the time. It is fairly obvious that games with female leads can make money. Even games with male leads that have non-objectified female characters can make tons of money. And yet both of these things remain comparatively rare. Not objectifying women does not tank sales.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When did his religion get mentioned? Or is it assumed because of his race?
The "P" in WASP is a demographic marker not a system of religious beliefs. For example, my own religion is Catholic but I fit into the WASP demographic.
Manchu wrote: Your assumption is that these investors can and do read the market in a totally detached way, totally uninformed by the prejudices that shape them every day as people. I'm not saying video game executives are never critical thinkers -- but this is a deep issue, as we have been saying. As Monster Rain and others have pointed out, the damsel trope certainly did not begin with Donkey Kong or even King Kong. These are deep seated values that we are not even aware of most of the time. It is fairly obvious that games with female leads can make money. Even games with male leads that have non-objectified female characters can make tons of money. And yet both of these things remain comparatively rare. Not objectifying women does not tank sales
Yes, games with female leads make money. But not as much as those with male leads, who make 75% more money. How does gender distort that figure? What part of the data used skews the raw numbers?
Do I believe that they look at the numbers, yes. Its their job. They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment. It doesn't matter what the product it, it doesn't matter about the morals or ethics because they are looking at their bottom line. They are looking for what keeps their shareholders happy, keeps them in the black and keeps the bonuses coming in.
Are there tropes in games, yes like every other media out there. Do I believe that an overused trope used as a driving plot in a storyline is going to effect how much senior management allocate to a project? No.
Manchu wrote: The "P" in WASP is a demographic marker not a system of religious beliefs. For example, my own religion is Catholic but I fit into the WASP demographic.
Pretty sure the P part of White Anglo Saxon Protestant stands for Protestant. Unless you have something that confirms Gordon Freeman's religion I haven't seen a single thing that states his beliefs, if any.
**edit**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yes, games with female leads make money. But not as much as those with male leads, who make 75% more money.
Because they aren't invested in as much; because they constantly reject any games that would have a female lead because they have a female lead; because they try to strong-arm developers in to forcing their lead characters to be white anglo-saxon protestant males without exception.
When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down, OF COURSE they won't sell as well.
Melissia wrote: Because they aren't invested in as much; because they constantly reject any games that would have a female lead because they have a female lead; because they try to strong-arm developers in to forcing their lead characters to be white anglo-saxon protestant males without exception.
When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down, OF COURSE they won't sell as well.
They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment. It doesn't matter what the product it, it doesn't matter about the morals or ethics because they are looking at their bottom line. They are looking for what keeps their shareholders happy, keeps them in the black and keeps the bonuses coming in.
Are there tropes in games, yes like every other media out there. Do I believe that an overused trope used as a driving plot in a storyline is going to effect how much senior management allocate to a project? No.
You are attempting to make it sound as though they do not market games with female leads as often as male leads because they are woman. They don't. Its because they don't sell to begin with and when the market changes that will too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Yeah, I don't think any response I can give here will suffice. I mean. even the Wiki article DreadClaw posted explains why he is wrong. *shrug*
My apologies, I hadn't read the last section. I'm only used to hearing it as a derogatory term (usually when my wife is talking about the South )
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment.
Stop assuming supreme competence.
Stop assuming that these people are extremely logical and rational robots.
These are human beings. Flawed human beings, like everyone else. Human beings in an industry that has a ton of cultural baggage. Human beings with imperfect information and imperfect motives and imperfect ideas on how to obtain their goals. But in the end, merely human.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment.
Stop assuming supreme competence.
Stop assuming that these people are extremely logical and rational robots.
These are human beings. Flawed human beings, like everyone else. Human beings in an industry that has a ton of cultural baggage. Human beings with imperfect information and imperfect motives and imperfect ideas on how to obtain their goals. But in the end, merely human.
Stop assuming malice
Stop assuming that people are incapable of personal feelings/issues aside
Stop assuming incompetence
When there is a demonstrable market, no cogent argument of market risk, and still no movement on the market, incompetence is not a terrible conclusion.
Also, for the four hundred thousandth time, malice is not assumed.
It's been established for something along the lines of twenty four pages that we are not talking about intentional malice.
Bold. The step before all caps Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice
And no objection to the others I mentioned? As Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice
It's been established over and over and over and over and over again that this assumption on your part is wrong.
As for the rest, no, my not responding doesn't make you right. It just means that I find this conversation with you tiring-- you do not appear to pay attention to your own words and sources, never mind everyone else's.
Manchu wrote: Having a female lead does not make a game "niche."
Until you have data to back that up it will continue to seem like you're stating an opinion as fact.
The data exists whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Google is your friend.
This is quality. The data is out there, go find it. Right back at you for my assertions regarding video game marketing. Look how constructive this is.
Regarding the link you posted, I stand by my original hypothesis. While it was an interesting look at video game publishing, I didn't see the misogynistic heart of darkness of the industry.
Seriously? Given your behavior ITT, I thought Strawman was your middle name. Either that or Dodger. As near as I can assume, since you insist on trollishly posting one liner gems like the one I just quoted instead of transparent reasoning, you seem to argue that female characters are objectified in video games and otherwise marginalized simply because female characters are in a sense beyond all problematic gender stereotypes and prejudices simply worth less than male characters. That argument assumes that the people responsible for measuring that value are above the cultural and political issues of gender. .
The first few sentences of that made little sense to me. To respond to what I could understand:
Not above, but driven by motives (ie greed) that may supersede personal values.
Manchu wrote: What you identified as a strawman argument is simply my criticism of that assumption. If it truly wasn't your assumption then how about actually posting complete thoughts rather than snipes?.
For the former, I can only say that I wonder if you're saying it with a straight face. As for the latter, how many sentences should I use to express ideas to cross the "snipe" threshold?
Monster Rain wrote: This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.
That is a defense.
How so? It doesn't attempt to keep them from criticism, it only attempts to make that criticism accurate. Whether or not the criticism is valid is another discussion entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice
Hold the phone...
You think that the fact that someone uses the word "intentionally" means that they are implying "intent"?
lollerskates!
In order to keep a tally of my positions held in this thread:
Being mean to Ms. Sarkeesian is bad.
Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.
The use of tropes and cliches in entertainment are pervasive, including the one in the thread title. I disagree with the notion that this reflects a cultural hatred of women. Also, if one believes that these things in a game reinforce a mindset or system of values, it is reasonable to ask if other themes or features in games are similarly influential.
Thinking critically is good.
Video game marketing disparities aren't proof positive of institutionalized misogyny.
Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.
No one is doing that.
There are examples as early as four pages into this thread.
No, there aren't.
Claiming that people who are actively criticizing Sarkesian are saying that Sarkesian cannot be criticized because some people who criticize her are donkey-caves is, to describe it in a single word, insane, and completely contradicts the actual facts of the matter. This discussion has already been had, and your side lost because it is not based off of any logical concepts but rather off of an entirely illogical form of argument-- the strawman.
Your idea that a worldview summarized as "people should be treated with respect regardless of gender" can only ever be espoused by not only just extremists, but only delusional extremists, just goes to show how biased and out of touch with both reality your arguments actually are.
Your lack of understanding of economics is also well known, but that's not really relevant here.
According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.
By contrast, Zoey was voted most popular character amongst Left 4 Dead players-- a game series which had a roster of six men and two women amongst its playable characters. They CHOSE her out of the others, instead of just going with whatever the game handed them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice
Hold the phone...
You think that the fact that someone uses the word "intentionally" means that they are implying "intent"?
lollerskates!
I know, imagine relying on the natural meaning of the words used
I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
You are only claiming such because you are desperately grasping at straws to try to discredit what I have said-- since you do not exactly have much of a point otherwise.
Melissia wrote: According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.
Melissia wrote: According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.
Can I ask were you got that from?
It was an old rock paper shotgun episode. Something like 15% or so of players just chose the default male character. Although I recall the comments section amusingly pointing out that the percentage points of that poll didn't add up to 100%, so apparently another five percent never made it past the customization screen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Checking back, I see actually several polls on the matter, not all of which agree on the specific numbers (for example, one of them stated that 53% of players picked Soldier while another one said only 48% did, and yet another one said 65% did), so I'm going to have to see about finding the actual information from Bioware.
Monster Rain wrote: While it was an interesting look at video game publishing, I didn't see the misogynistic heart of darkness of the industry.
Once, more a retreat to the strawman. Developers and publishers don't hate women. They do think female characters are worth less than male characters. This is "devaluation" in the most literal sense of the term.
Monster Rain wrote: how many sentences should I use to express ideas to cross the "snipe" threshold?
I suppose you'll say I'm starting another conversation about numbers now that you brought it up. If you don't know what the difference is between posting a rational argument and a snide remark then maybe you should read more and post less -- especially concerning this thread. Your innocent act is about as thin as I have seen on Dakka and that's saying something. For example, are you actually ever going to answer that ratio question -- I mean, since you claim sincerity here and that one liners like "what ratio of objectification would be acceptable" is not just flamebaiting, then I'm sure you have an answer for me about whether you think the industry can justify objectification as long as they also have some quota's worth of non-problematic female characters.
Monster Rain wrote: It doesn't attempt to keep them from criticism, it only attempts to make that criticism accurate. Whether or not the criticism is valid is another discussion entirely.
You are pretending that an argument you are making is a fact. It's called begging the question.
If you're speaking to me again could you at least respond to the points I raised that you refused to address?
Melissia wrote: I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.
You are only claiming such because you are desperately grasping at straws to try to discredit what I have said-- since you do not exactly have much of a point otherwise.
You mean that reading "intentionally" as meaning intent was shown was an attempt to discredit you?
Female leads have historically not sold as well (some exceptions notwithstanding), and from market research that trend doesn't seem to change. Now does that lack of investment by developers mean that;
A) They won't invest as much because the return isn't as good and they may get a better return with another product
B) That they base their decisions on emotive issues and cannot separate culture from the facts on paper
As I've already said I believe that when the market change then this too will change. Not that there is some culture shift in attitudes towards women, but that the forecasts show that there will be a suitable return on their investment to justify the risk. That is the nature of almost every business. To make money regardless of morals etc. If they sideline characters it is because of financial reasons, not some cultural baggage unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary.
Melissia wrote: Checking back, I see actually several polls on the matter, not all of which agree on the specific numbers (for example, one of them stated that 53% of players picked Soldier while another one said only 48% did, and yet another one said 65% did), so I'm going to have to see about finding the actual information from Bioware.
I know BioWare gave some data on their FaceBook page and a video today but I didn't see the breakdown.
As an aside, less than half of all players that played the game finished it? Wow, and I thought I was being lazy only playing it once...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean that reading "intentionally" as meaning intent was shown was an attempt to discredit you?
It shows that they intended to get rid of female characters. It does not show that they did so because they hate women. That is your assumption. For the fourty thousandth time, that is not my assumption, and claiming it is so just makes you look desperate.
There is minimal backlash (en total) against hyper sexualized two dimensional female characters in video games or any media for that matter. Feminists are dismissed as crazy or misandrists by the majority. Multiple males in this thread (and others) have claimed it is a non issue.
But when a woman creates mods with sexualized men (for her standards) she is lambasted as being a homosexual (there are no girls on the internet, remember?) or a pervert.
Melissia wrote: As an aside, less than half of all players that played the game finished it? Wow, and I thought I was being lazy only playing it once...
Damn, I've sunk a few hundred hours into it. I can't imagine not finishing it, but that's just me
Melissia wrote: It shows that they intended to get rid of female characters. It does not show that they did so because they hate women. That is your assumption. For the fourty thousandth time, that is not my assumption, and claiming it is so just makes you look desperate.
And I'm saying that they are motivated by financial, rather than cultural values. I don't recall saying hate, but I won't accuse you of looking desperate
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And I'm saying that they are motivated by financial, rather than cultural values.
I never disagreed that they're motivated by money, but that's not really relevant. I'm saying that cultural values color their interpretation of the data, leading them to jump to inaccurate conclusions-- such as shutting down or forcibly changing (against the will of the writers, a problem that in comic books is called an "editorial mandate") because of a misplaced belief that female leads are unprofitable specifically because they're female.
That's what cultural values DO, they color our interpretations of the data we receive. Because of our culture, we know that a red light means stop, while a green light means go. Because of our culture, we know that a hand held up palm facing you is a sign for "stop", while in another culture, it might actually mean something rather profane and/or sexual. Our upbringing and values colors our interpretation of the data, and this is not really bad, it's necessary for functioning as a human being, but that doesn't mean that nothing should ever change.
That's one example. "13% of mass effect players use the default hero". Still not sure where they got that from.
So if 83% use a customised character, and 13% use the default, according to BioWare (I'd imagine that its easy for them to track this the same way they got their other data) then it stands contrary to the claim that "According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: But when a woman creates mods with sexualized men (for her standards) she is lambasted as being a homosexual (there are no girls on the internet, remember?) or a pervert.
If someone did, good for her. Where was this reported?
Melissia wrote: I never disagreed that they're motivated by money, but that's not really relevant. I'm saying that cultural values color their interpretation of the data, leading them to jump to inaccurate conclusions-- such as shutting down or forcibly changing (against the will of the writers, a problem that in comic books is called an "editorial mandate") because of a misplaced belief that female leads are unprofitable specifically because they're female.
That's what cultural values DO, they color our interpretations of the data we receive. Because of our culture, we know that a red light means stop, while a green light means go. Because of our culture, we know that a hand held up palm facing you is a sign for "stop", while in another culture, it might actually mean something rather profane and/or sexual. Our upbringing and values colors our interpretation of the data, and this is not really bad, it's necessary for functioning as a human being, but that doesn't mean that nothing should ever change.
I keep hearing that culture affects how people read numbers but I don't see how culture affects the fact that male lead games sell 75% better than female lead games or how you read that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: It's been mentioned a few times (I think it was linked to earlier) in this thread.
Thanks, I missed that. It doesn't bother me, so good for her.
Your idea that a worldview summarized as "people should be treated with respect regardless of gender" can only ever be espoused by not only just extremists, but only delusional extremists, just goes to show how biased and out of touch with both reality your arguments actually are.
Your lack of understanding of economics is also well known, but that's not really relevant here.
So, yeah. The usual uninformed petulance and equivocation. I'll pass.
BrookM wrote: I liked playing as FemShep, her voice actor put so much more effort into it than her male counterpart.
I prefer FemShep, too, but I wouldn't say ManShep didn't do as good of a job. I just think ManShep is far more generic. When you think about FemShep's voice, it would probably be generic, too -- if there was a long tradition of generic(izing) female leads. But there isn't so that performance stands out by comparison to its male counterpart.
BrookM wrote: I liked playing as FemShep, her voice actor put so much more effort into it than her male counterpart.
I prefer FemShep, too, but I wouldn't say ManShep didn't do as good of a job. I just think ManShep is far more generic. When you think about FemShep's voice, it would probably be generic, too -- if there was a long tradition of generic female leads. But there isn't so that performance stands out by comparison to its male counterpart.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with Jennifer Hale being one of the best voice actors out of there of either gender.
Hale's experience and accolades dwarf Meer's. Why can't we just admit that Hale is the better voice actor? It has nothing to do with the fact "female leads" are rare. It's not as if there aren't many female characters with speaking roles in many games to compare to...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I thought it was commonly accepted that nobody understands economics, especially those paid to do so!
People like to oversimplify things. Never a good idea, especially with statistical analysis.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't see how culture affects the fact that male lead games sell 75% better than female lead games or how you read that.
Yes you did, you just ignored it.
Let's say a woman walked up to you and punched you in the face. Tell me, why did she walk up to you and punch you in the face? Can you tell, with the information that you have (which is only what I have given you; a human female punched you in the face without warning or explanation), why she did that?
No. But you can make assumptions. There's several to make. For example, you can assume that you did something to piss her off. Or, for example, you can assume she did it because she's a rotten [bleep] and is mean to everyone. But why do you make these kinds of assumptions? Because you have imperfect information and you are attempting to fill in the gaps. But more likely than not, given the situation, you never seriously considered any alternatives to that one assumption. What if she did so on a dare? What if she was paid to do so by someone else, or did so on someone else's behalf with no malice on her part? What if it's just a case of mistaken identity? And so on and so forth. Once an explanation is found, one has to be convinced of it being wrong. It's not bad per se, it's certainly a good idea to try to figure out the world around you, but it should always be kept in mind that we do so with imperfect information.
So, let's bring this to the subject at hand. Imperfect information (they do not take in every single variable that predicts why and when and how a game will become successful-- it's not possible to do so) combined with cultural baggage from earlier times (see: Hollywood, Comics, Literature, Newspapers, etc) along with a natural tendency to write about what you know led developers to create mostly male characters. The exceptions to this rule in the early days of the gaming industries were quite rare, and usually only came from relatively minor developers, rather htan any major ones that developed any sort of franchise-- the only exception I can think of for this would be Metroid's Samus Aran and Tomb Raider's Lara Croft. As the industry grew from its infancy, it started doing research on to what makes these games sell. Instead of taking the whole picture in (which is often an impossibility anyway), they saw that games with male characters (which were already by far the majority simply because that is what the mostly male writers would actually end up writing in the first place) sold more than female characters.
But they did not actually research WHY this was the case. They just assumed that no one wanted to play female characters. As time went on, this developed in to an inherent bias in the industry, to the point where producers will try to shut down or force change in games which have female leads-- and for those that continue to have htem anwyay, they will underfund them, which is how we have such startling numbers as "games with female leads receive, on average, 40% of the marketing funding as games with male leads". Like most of the time that these kinds of products do not receive proper advertising, this results in games which do not sell anywhere near as well. As a result of the games not well due to being underfunded, future games are underfunded, ensuring that they continue to do poorly. However, not all of the games do poorly. The ones that don't, however, are labeled as statistical outliers and ignored-- where any other startling success will be rushed to copy, any successful female lead will not be copied because of the long-built in biases of hte industry.
It's not as simple an issue as "the numbers say that they don't sell as well". You have to actually look in to WHY they don't sell as well.
Edit: Goddamn, I didn't mean to type a fething essay here. Sorry about that.
Let's say a woman walked up to you and punched you in the face. Tell me, why did she walk up to you and punch you in the face? Can you tell, with the information that you have (which is only what I have given you; a human female punched you in the face without warning or explanation), why she did that?
No. But you can make assumptions. There's several to make. For example, you can assume that you did something to piss her off. Or, for example, you can assume she did it because she's a rotten [bleep] and is mean to everyone. But why do you make these kinds of assumptions? Because you have imperfect information and you are attempting to fill in the gaps. But more likely than not, given the situation, you never seriously considered any alternatives to that one assumption. What if she did so on a dare? What if she was paid to do so by someone else, or did so on someone else's behalf with no malice on her part? What if it's just a case of mistaken identity? And so on and so forth. Once an explanation is found, one has to be convinced of it being wrong. It's not bad per se, it's certainly a good idea to try to figure out the world around you, but it should always be kept in mind that we do so with imperfect information.
So, let's bring this to the subject at hand. Imperfect information (they do not take in every single variable that predicts why and when and how a game will become successful-- it's not possible to do so) combined with cultural baggage from earlier times (see: Hollywood, Comics, Literature, Newspapers, etc) along with a natural tendency to write about what you know led developers to create mostly male characters. The exceptions to this rule in the early days of the gaming industries were quite rare, and usually only came from relatively minor developers, rather htan any major ones that developed any sort of franchise-- the only exception I can think of for this would be Metroid's Samus Aran and Tomb Raider's Lara Croft. As the industry grew from its infancy, it started doing research on to what makes these games sell. Instead of taking the whole picture in (which is often an impossibility anyway), they saw that games with male characters (which were already by far the majority simply because that is what the mostly male writers would actually end up writing in the first place) sold more than female characters.
But they did not actually research WHY this was the case. They just assumed that no one wanted to play female characters. As time went on, this developed in to an inherent bias in the industry, to the point where producers will try to shut down or force change in games which have female leads-- and for those that continue to have htem anwyay, they will underfund them, which is how we have such startling numbers as "games with female leads receive, on average, 40% of the marketing funding as games with male leads". Like most of the time that these kinds of products do not receive proper advertising, this results in games which do not sell anywhere near as well. As a result of the games not well due to being underfunded, future games are underfunded, ensuring that they continue to do poorly. However, not all of the games do poorly. The ones that don't, however, are labeled as statistical outliers and ignored-- where any other startling success will be rushed to copy, any successful female lead will not be copied because of the long-built in biases of hte industry.
It's not as simple an issue as "the numbers say that they don't sell as well". You have to actually look in to WHY they don't sell as well.
So you're trying to equate market research with facts, figures and evidence and reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those with someone getting punched without an explanation? Facts vs supposition? We aren't comparing apples with apples now are we?
So you're saying that the reason that they don't sell as well is not because historic data and predictions show that they do not in fact sell as well as other games, but they're underfunded? If that were true then demand would outstrip supply and there would be plenty of clear indications that there is an untapped market.
Unless you have something concrete that doesn't make assumptions concerning the differences in why games with female leads do not sell so well.
Melissia wrote: You're assuming that the free market is a perfectly rational and perfectly intelligent thing with perfect access to all information.
I am not.
The free market doesn't actually even exist, never mind be perfect.
No, you keep assuming that senior management are beholden to their emotions when assigning a budget, and not their financial forecasts. Especially when they'll be responsible to the Board and/or shareholders for why their investment did not yield a sufficient return.
Corporations have proven time and again to be slow to change even when the information was right before their eyes. Data has often been misinterpreted and the true signal lost within static.
Also, simply because women make up a large percentage of gamers, doesn't mean they play the same game males do. Perhaps complaining about the lack of female leads in the FPS genre for example might be an excercise in futility if there is evidence that the vast majority of said players are male.
To do a proper analysis we'd have to assess genres on a case by case basis, not the industry as a whole.
Amaya wrote: Hale's experience and accolades dwarf Meer's. Why can't we just admit that Hale is the better voice actor? It has nothing to do with the fact "female leads" are rare.
Even if Hale is a better voice actor than Meer, that wouldn't indicate that female leads being rare in video games has nothing to do with her performance being comparatively more compelling.
Amaya wrote: It's not as if there aren't many female characters with speaking roles in many games to compare to...
There aren't many female lead roles to compare it with, a.k.a., one of the chief topics of this thread.
Manchu wrote: When you think about FemShep's voice, it would probably be generic, too -- if there was a long tradition of generic(izing) female leads.
You said quite plainly that the only reason Hale's performance was notable was because she was female lead character and that was rare.
That's quite insulting to her talent. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with RPGs, but she has been doing excellent voice work for a long time across many games despite not being a female lead.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No, you keep assuming that senior management are beholden to their emotions when assigning a budget
On the contrary, I never said that they were somehow emotional wrecks unable to control their emotions.
I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making. Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people? No. He was making a decision to turn them aside because he believed, based off of common cultural perceptions, that they would not be good for business-- that they wouldn't have the money, that they would attract undesirables such as criminals and drug-users, and that they would scare away more desirable customers (who just so happened to be white). Or if they did serve non-whites, the businesses offered inferior services to the black people instead of equal services-- again, perceiving them as less valuable customers, even when they both paid the same prices for the same products.
Many, if not most, did not necessarily think "I hate black people so I'm not serving them". They wanted higher profits so they did things which they perceived would result in higher profits. But that does not make their decisions the correct ones, either financially or morally.
Companies are not perfectly intelligent things that make perfectly rational actions based off of perfect information.
They are inherently flawed things that are slow to adapt to change which have imperfect levels of information.
Amaya wrote: Corporations have proven time and again to be slow to change even when the information was right before their eyes. Data has often been misinterpreted and the true signal lost within static.
Also, simply because women make up a large percentage of gamers, doesn't mean they play the same game males do. Perhaps complaining about the lack of female leads in the FPS genre for example might be an excercise in futility if there is evidence that the vast majority of said players are male.
In a recession with competition for decreasing profits I fin it hard to believe that companies don't want to tap into untouched, viable markets. So is the signal being lost because of internal policy, or because there is a cultural imbalance regarding the perception of females?
Also even with the figures in this thread we see that women are still in the minority of gamers.
Melissia wrote: Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people?
Please clarify this statement. I think you're making a grievous factual error here.
The 1950s had black people segregated from white people, both in society and in businesses. For example, frequently, businesses and communities would have two separate water fountains that were labeled "for white people" and "for black people". Or they would segregate black people in to less desirable sections of a restaurant, assuming they allowed them in at all.
Amaya wrote: Corporations have proven time and again to be slow to change even when the information was right before their eyes. Data has often been misinterpreted and the true signal lost within static.
Also, simply because women make up a large percentage of gamers, doesn't mean they play the same game males do. Perhaps complaining about the lack of female leads in the FPS genre for example might be an excercise in futility if there is evidence that the vast majority of said players are male.
In a recession with competition for decreasing profits I fin it hard to believe that companies don't want to tap into untouched, viable markets. So is the signal being lost because of internal policy, or because there is a cultural imbalance regarding the perception of females?
Also even with the figures in this thread we see that women are still in the minority of gamers.
And the minority can technically be as high as 49.99999%. At what point does the minority become statisically significant?
You also ignored the key point of my post, we have to analyze female gaming on a genre and platform basis. Making gross generalisations is unwise and I can guarantee you any competent company is analyzing sales on a case by case basis.
Melissia wrote: Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people?
Please clarify this statement. I think you're making a grievous factual error here.
The 1950s had black people segregated from white people, both in society and in businesses. For example, frequently, businesses would have two separate water fountains that were labeled "for white people" and "for black people".
Do you really think I'm that stupid?
And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies? By forcing them to have seperate, yet equal (lol), facilities businesses were forced to invest additional capital into attracting "colored" business or ignore a segment of the populace and lose further profits. It was a lose-lose situation for businesses. Only extremely racist owner would turn away customers.
You're also erroneously comparing two very different things. Actively turning away customers is very different than not attempting to appeal to a certain demographic.
And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies?
Yes.
I'm not sure if it's that I have an appallingly low opinion of businesspeople or that you have an astonishingly high opinion, but apparently we have very different expectations of rationality from them
And do you honestly think that any good businessman wanted to support such policies?
Yes.
I'm not sure if it's that I have an appallingly low opinion of businesspeople or that the average person has an astonishingly high opinion, but apparently we have very different expectations of rationality from them
By definition a good businessman would be interested in maximizing long term profits.
In addition, 40 percent of all gamers are women. In fact, the ESA noted that women over the age of 18 represent nearly twice as much of the gamer population, than do boys age 17 or younger. In the world of online and wireless games, 44 percent of gamers are female, according to the ESA. Casual games account for almost half of the online games played the most often
Emphasis mine.
"The only difference is that women typically spend less time in a single sitting playing than their male counterparts," said Phaedra Boinodiris, chief executive officer of WomenGamers.com.
Amaya wrote: Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.
A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.
Monster Rain wrote:It was not my intent to say that familiarity with supply and demand was sufficient for total understanding of the field of Economics.
I can't believe I just had to type that.
Can you explain to me how I was supposed to read those eleven words differently? You made a vapid remark that didn't imply you knew anything about economics. Most people misuse supply and demand anyways...even if they "know" what is...
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote: By definition a good businessman would be interested in maximizing long term profits.
Wow, the business community is utterly screwed then-- we don't have very many of those, to be sure.
I think the number of failed companies or those in the red would have made that evident. Also, you don't have to be a particulary good businessman to be successful. Simply coming up with a unique and attractive product and avoiding being a complete buffoon will lead to some success.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with video games but there are fewer female leads and therefore less pronounced a "generic" female lead performance.
That's your best counter? Honestly?
Edit: It is really sad that you just can't come out and say Jennifer Hale is a good voice actress.
Melissia wrote: On the contrary, I never said that they were somehow emotional wrecks unable to control their emotions.
I never said that was your position. Now who is misrepresenting?
Melissia wrote: Companies are not perfectly intelligent things that make perfectly rational actions based off of perfect information.
They are inherently flawed things that are slow to adapt to change which have imperfect levels of information.
I'm not even dignifying your race discussion with any substantive response.
There is a vast difference between imperfect information and "intentionally" cutting out females as lead in games because of emotion and cultural reasons.
Monster Rain wrote: Amaya, I can appreciate that you're feeling scrappy but damn, man, you are failing at reading.
That was a productive post, do you have any other useful insights or do you enjoy being a mosquito interjecting the occasional nonsensical observation?
Imperfect information showing that female lead games do not sell as well as versus someone feeling that female lead games are not so popular so they shouldn't be funded. That's a lot of difference, especially when you haven't shown that the information is imperfect enough to cause such a disparity
Monster Rain wrote: Amaya, I can appreciate that you're feeling scrappy but damn, man, you are failing at reading.
That was a productive post, do you have any other useful insights or do you enjoy being a mosquito interjecting the occasional nonsensical observation?
It was a response to your post, after you engaged me by injecting a, ahem, nonsensical observation.
I have two problems with this. The fact that games marketed toward 28% of the console audience get 40% of the marketing budget than other games seems like an argument for my side. Also, the "video game market" is extremely diverse, making the second figure you posted less than convincing for the purposes of this discussion.
Manchu wrote: For example, are you actually ever going to answer that ratio question -- I mean, since you claim sincerity here and that one liners like "what ratio of objectification would be acceptable" is not just flamebaiting, then I'm sure you have an answer for me about whether you think the industry can justify objectification as long as they also have some quota's worth of non-problematic female characters.
Why should I have an answer for a question I asked you? #actualquestionnotasnideremark
Manchu wrote: [You are pretending that an argument you are making is a fact. It's called begging the question.
It isn't a fact that publishing executives, or executives in general, are primarily concerned with maximizing profit? #actualquestionnotasnideremark
Amaya wrote: Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.
A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.
I'm sorry, Monster Rain, can you please explain how am I supposed to interpret this?
I state that most people do not understand economics (after you suggested Melissia does not) and that I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.
You stated that "A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means."
Other than an implication that understanding "supply and demand" is somehow the end all to understanding economics, how am I supposed to read your post?
This particularly confusing since most people who claim to understand "supply and demand" have a very rudimentary grasp of the concept and economics is much more complex than "supply and demand".
Imperfect information showing that female lead games do not sell as well as versus someone feeling that female lead games are not so popular so they shouldn't be funded.
... which is the conclusion one comes to when one takes the data at face value instead of looking at the reason why the data is the way it is. If one sees that a movie has gone bad and sees a black lead in it, then assumes that all black leads will give poor returns on all movies in the future, it'd be a pretty stupid assumption, too-- and an assumption likely motivated by latent racism.
Both the historical and modern reasons for the disparity are fairly obvious, and I described them earlier.
Also, for the record, marketing that only gives you a dollar or less in return for every dollar spent is a very poor investment to begin with. Marketing is expected to return far more than that.
Amaya wrote: Given that most people don't understand economics, I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.
A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means.
I'm sorry, Monster Rain, can you please explain how am I supposed to interpret this?
I state that most people do not understand economics (after you suggested Melissia does not) and that I wouldn't be surprised if neither of you did.
You stated that "A Ph. D isn't required to know what "supply and demand" means."
Other than an implication that understanding "supply and demand" is somehow the end all to understanding economics, how am I supposed to read your post?
This particularly confusing since most people who claim to understand "supply and demand" have a very rudimentary grasp of the concept and economics is much more complex than "supply and demand".
There are varying levels of understanding a given subject, from no understanding at all to total understanding.
The concept of the Law of Supply and Demand is one of the most basic principles in the subject of economics. While complete understanding of the concept might be difficult to manage, any basic education on the subject of economics should at least provide familiarity with the concept.
That's a bit like saying you don't need a PhD to do basic arithmetic when someone points out most people don't understand advanced calculus.
Worst thing you can do with economics is oversimplify. If all someone understands is supply and demand they can't really contribute an informed opinion to a discussion on economics.
But if they very clearly don't understand that basic of a concept, they don't have any business taking shots at someone else's knowledge on the subject.
I'm well and truly bored of this tangent, however.
This, may be a bit off topic but in general to females in gaming and gender roles. What type of games would have females as protagonists?
If it's a medieval game, I would probably not want to play it unless you play as a prominent female e.g. Matilda of Tuscany. In the FPS genre, it is a little grey, if it is late 20th century or futuristic I am fine with female characters but if it is world war II or any period before... No thanks. In RPGS and MMOS, I would like well written characters all round, I hate some characters who are there for sex symbols in thus discussed games.
There were a handful of female knights. There were female soldiers in the Resistance, Soviet Army, and Finnish army. The Viet Cong had female soldiers.
Monster Rain wrote: While it was an interesting look at video game publishing, I didn't see the misogynistic heart of darkness of the industry.
Once, more a retreat to the strawman. Developers and publishers don't hate women. They do think female characters are worth less than male characters. This is "devaluation" in the most literal sense of the term.
Monster Rain wrote: how many sentences should I use to express ideas to cross the "snipe" threshold?
I suppose you'll say I'm starting another conversation about numbers now that you brought it up. If you don't know what the difference is between posting a rational argument and a snide remark then maybe you should read more and post less -- especially concerning this thread. Your innocent act is about as thin as I have seen on Dakka and that's saying something. For example, are you actually ever going to answer that ratio question -- I mean, since you claim sincerity here and that one liners like "what ratio of objectification would be acceptable" is not just flamebaiting, then I'm sure you have an answer for me about whether you think the industry can justify objectification as long as they also have some quota's worth of non-problematic female characters.
Monster Rain wrote: It doesn't attempt to keep them from criticism, it only attempts to make that criticism accurate. Whether or not the criticism is valid is another discussion entirely.
You are pretending that an argument you are making is a fact. It's called begging the question.
I'm a bit skeptical about the lack of sources indicated by the PDF. I also find it to be a bit misleading as it seems a majority of females gamers I have contact with like to play MMOs, jrpgs or are really casual in general. If it indiciated how long each gender of each age bracket plays the game, I found find the source more creditable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: There were a handful of female knights. There were female soldiers in the Resistance, Soviet Army, and Finnish army. The Viet Cong had female soldiers.
They were a rarity, less than 1%, I don't think it fits the theme correctly. If there was a rare 1 in 1000 chance to spawn as female in those games. With an option on medieval games especially online where there is a female/male choice, it ruins the authenticity of the game. It ruins the atmosphere.
The ESA is a bad place to go for stastics. When we usually speak of Video Games, we mostly refer to retail games whereas the ESA also includes social games where female players are a whole lot more numerous than male gamers. And really, I don't want people to put both retail and social games in the same box...
Amaya wrote: Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.
I want categories into hours played, genre and console. I think a thing that is bad about the gaming community is the modding community, most of the time where there is female character, there is a "sexier" mod or a nudity mod. Very distasteful.
Amaya wrote: Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.
Technically, yes, but social games are, by an incredibly large shot, inferior to actual videos games in terms of quality. That's why good statistics separate those from actual retail games.
Amaya wrote: Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.
Because the demographics for the markets are starkly different, hence why lumping them together doesn't serve a useful purpose unless one is talking about all electronic games ever made. In this thread at least, we're talking about the large scale productions associated with traditional consoles and PC gaming. The smaller social gaming market, has no where near the same kind of investment to produce the products and are normally done on an indie level.
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
Melissia wrote: The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD
Melissia wrote: The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD
Actually I was disputing that the number is so drastic as people claim it is.
I don't deny that a lot of women are playing agmes for the first time and are introducing themselves to games through social games though. And there's nothing wrong iwth that. Hell men basically did that back in the Atari/Arcade era.
I have little doubt that women do play significantly more facebook games than men.
I don't do facebook much, but I've just had a bunch of game spam in. 1 male friend is playing a facebook game, 6 female friends are, including my 60 year old aunt.
Melissia wrote: The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD
Actually I was disputing that the number is so drastic as people claim it is.
Oh, it's far from that obvious. Iirc it's <10%, the latest one I remember is, iirc, 5% in favor of women. On the other hand, traditional video games have an "advantage" of +20% for men when it comes to mobile games. Zyngia has, iirc again, about 60% female players. It's not overwhelmingly different, it's a small but noticeable difference.
Melissia wrote: The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
"There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke. The original meaning of that joke was to poke fun at anyone who white knighted or -especially- anyone who engaged in cybersex. Meaning the joke was to imply that both parties in a "cybersex" conversation were typically two men, one being a man and the opposite being a man pretending to be a girl for his own amusement.
You need to stop taking things trolls say so seriously. The only reason trolls do what they do is to get under people's skin. ED is not an actual representation of people's feelings on internet subjects, it is in fact a giant satire of internet culture.
TedNugent wrote: "There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke.
No, it was not. Denying that it was used as an excuse to abuse women does not make you correct.
You attempt to dismiss the issue by saying "stop taking it so seriously" only because you have no goddamned clue what the hell is going on. "Oh they're just joking" which is why they viciously attack for hours on end, making up lies and throwing every insult they can at you-- and do this non-stop for almost a fething decade.
If this is your idea of a "joke", then you are a very, VERY sick individual.
If you ignore them, you're a dumb bitch / a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you don't show a picture, you're a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you do show a picture, you're an attention whore and/or a slut and they'll viciously attack you.
Women are abused three times more than men, in multiplayer games. I posted a link on the study several times in this thread. The people who do this abuse use every excuse they can to insult women. They do not just limit this abuse to multiplayer games, as I showed in numerous other links earlier in this thread.
Helping to manage a mud, I can tell you, it was only quarterly ironic at most. The vast majority of girls, back in 2005-ish were guys pretending to be girls to get free stuff (including becoming staff in one or two rather dark chapters of the games history).
However, Melissa is right in saying that there were genuine women on there who did suffer abuse. It was before 'tits or GTFO' was a phrase, but it was a similar idea. It also harkens back to an earlier post of mine when I wrote about the difference between trolling and harassment.
That meme was intimidation, and I'll agree with you there that it created a catch-22.
The purpose of which was really to shoehorn you into more verbal abuse, which is the forte of the troll. It is of course fair to say that if you show them your breasts, you lose the game. The only way to win against the trolls is of course to troll them back. One way of successfully countertrolling "ToGTFO" would be with a jpeg of a shirtless obese man with an ample chest. It's all a matter of recognizing their modus operandi, which is trolling, and maneuvering in an efficient countertroll.
Granted, these people are not polite human beings in that sense. The normal rules of human discourse do not apply on it-shall-not-be-named-Chan.
TedNugent wrote: One way of successfully countertrolling "ToGTFO" would be with a jpeg of a shirtless obese man with an ample chest
No. That doesn't work. I would know, I've tried it. It just means they'll call you a liar and a slut, and heap more abuse on you, or start attacking you with weight-based abuses, etc.
Especially if they know for a fact that you are female, IE having heard your voice and what not.
Stop confusing this with your average troll. This is not merely trolling. It has been a constant campaign of harassment against women.
It ruins the atmosphere still. Especially for multiplayer games like chivarly. If there was 1 or 2 games on the market that would not be the problems with medieval games. I've seen requests for females on multiplayer games like Chivarly and War of the Roses. TF 2 has a joke pyro is a girl, I'm suprised females are not angry about that game. Also, if there is one, it would probably be extremely sexist towards the female protagonist.
If you ignore them, you're a dumb bitch / a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you don't show a picture, you're a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you do show a picture, you're an attention whore and/or a slut and they'll viciously attack you.
Women are abused three times more than men, in multiplayer games. I posted a link on the study several times in this thread. The people who do this abuse use every excuse they can to insult women. They do not just limit this abuse to multiplayer games, as I showed in numerous other links earlier in this thread.
Blame some boys and their egos. The problem is that people can edit their voice on PC to sound like a girl and then there are girls when you tell them off for being bad, they use the excuse "I'm a girl".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.
That's true, it's less common but still happens. Heck, 3 out of 10 of my raid team were females back in Wrath and they were more fun to play with than the male members. I personally find MMOs and Japanese games a more female dominated area of gaming than "social games" which I do not consider gaming because it takes no strategy and planning only waiting. Games like Victoria II which I play a lot of requires a lot of strategy compared to "social games".
No it doesn't, not in any way whatsoever. Games are about telling interesting interactive stories and allowing the player to have fun with them. Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.
Melissia wrote: Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.
Well, unless you're trying to be historically realistic at which point the only question is how realistic you want to be.
Chivalry is an awesome game. All of my most serious clan player friends from Red Orchestra play that game because it has an enormous skill curve and depth along with being tons of fun. You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.
Melissia wrote: Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.
Well, unless you're trying to be historically realistic at which point the only question is how realistic you want to be.
If you're trying to be historically accurate before you try to make a fun game, you've already failed.
That said, excluding women from battles in which women participated is historically inaccurate, making the argument of exclusion based off of historical accuracy an inherently self-contradictory one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TedNugent wrote: You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.
TedNugent wrote: You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.
I appreciate quality multiplayer games.
Chivalry isn't one of them.
Lies.
As I said, Chivalry has a deep skill curve and is greatly competitive for that reason (numerous exploits notwithstanding). It has a strong competitive and clan community and it has drawn players from some of the most competitive games I know of. It has a very loyal fanbase and it was crowdfunded on Kickstarter by that fanbase - it started out as a mod, the stamp of authenticity and seriousness on part of the development staff.
You can have your Call of Doodies and your Mario Karts, as for me, I shall have my Chivalry or die trying. FOR AGATHAAAA
TedNugent wrote: So what battles did women participate in historically?
Most medieval wars, most wars prior to medieval times, both of the world wars, most of the wars after WWII.
Basically, just about every single war in human history had women participating as combatants. During the "War of the Roses", for example, there have been well-preserved historical records showing that women were part of the basic infantry, sometimes bringing their own weapons and other times coming with nothing and being provided weapons. Women participated in battle in both world wars, but it's especially noticeable in WWII where entire regiments of women participated in the Russian army, including famous sharpshooters and pilots, as well as women participating in the various resistance movements There were fighters amongst the Viet Cong and North Koreans, who were female as well, and women have been involved in combat (despite the supposed lack of "combat roles", the reality on the ground is that female soldiers have participated in combat) in every single major war the US has been involved in since the first invasion of Iraq-- and by now most modern military forces don't distinguish on gender, but rather on ability (which leads many to ask for highly talented female specialists as well as grunt soldiers). There have been numerous female leaders of armies, as well as noble warriors such as knights and samurai, as well, including leaders of entire nations that led their armies to war.
I'd actually ask you to bug Lynata about it more than me, however. I'm not a history buff. I find history to be boring unless it can be subverted and changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TedNugent wrote: You can have your Call of Doodies and your Mario Karts
I think you're ascribing far too much cultural impact to Donkey Kong, Billy Mitchell notwithstanding.
