CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
No, it doesn't. It's just a wrong statement that's been proven wrong by science for similar topics such as violence in TV and video games. The only case where this *could* apply (and note the "could" as we do not have significiant results yet) is when people are already very prone to having such an attitude.
Doesn't it help perpetuate that form of social conditioning though? Not saying it will, just putting that theory forward.
Yes, and that is a very important point. While Anita makes a wrong direct relation between video game characters / treatment of women, she isn't all wrong about it. She just tackles the issue from the wrong side. In my previous post, I showed how a good web series on the matter would be structured and such a structure would allow showing up the actual, potential, relations between video games and real life behavior. A simple game of mind shows what I speak of:
The thesis "Sexism in video games leads to sexism in real life!" is very polemic and sounds reasonable at first sight as "learning by model" is the learning model most people are familiar with. We all have been going through this step when we were babies...it's how we learn to speak (among other things). Thus such a simple Stimulus -> Response theory is easy to understand...and sells well. Now, let's turn it around. How does "No sexism in video games leads to no sexism in real life!" sound to you?
The truth is: it's somewhere in between. And that's a truth most people do not like. It's no "right" or "wrong", it means that if you want to get to the bottom of it, you need to really invest time and effort in the issue. And it doesn't sell as well. I am not specifically referring to Anita again, this refers to all media. If you regularly follow news in newspapers and TV, what thesis is more likely to appear on the news? "Video games make our children become killers!" or "Video games help developing social skills!" (they do, in special situations, with a significant value, but that's another issue). Bad news sell better than good ones and bad ones stick to our mind a lot better than good ones. People like to complain about stuff because it solidifies our personality by projecting fears etc. at peers (among others). But again, different issue. It's just that all these things are deeply connected to each other and make this a very interesting, but complex topic...that cannot be treated seriously by an extemely biased web series. Would you rely on Fox News if you want to know about the democrats' new political direction?
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. As stated above, making a direct relation to real sexism is wrong. The main actual point is that video games are mass media by now, similar to TV, the computer and the internet. They are a solid part of our culture and thus also reflect its attitudes etc.
"Yes, and they are sexist because we are sexist!"
...could be a direct conclusion one could make now. And again: short circuit thinking and wrong. Just like all mass media, video games aren't one big chunk of games. They have a lot of different genres, same as TV shows. And just as TV shows, they have different audiences. Most games that Anita presented were action-ish games...games that are, by a long shot, favored by men...cue in what I said in my previous post. Anita completely ignores the economical part of the entire issue. She mainly comes from her, excuse me, typically idealistic feminist background and ignores the main reason for why we have such things in video games: money. Damsel in Distress is, in the Western culture, one of the most famous archetypes in all media, be it literature, movies, video games etc. Would you consider classic Greek dramas sexist? And on top of that, you got male brains coded to protect women (VERY rough, but again, another huge issue). Simple story device that helps you selling games to your main target audience? Any company / author would be foolish to not use it. It's the easy way out. Catering to women is a lot more difficult. A lot of women liked Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect...because of, according to them, the complex characters and well-written story. Men liked it for...the complex characters and well-written story (with a bigger focus on the latter). It has a huge story. Well-thought out (NOT talking about the piece of crap that was Dragon Age 2) and detailed. Compare it to games like DMC or most other games Anita presented: simple, linear story. Save the girl. Women are less attracted to it, but men are satisfied with such a simple explanation. The game sells, mission done with minimal effort. Instead of writing hours and hours and hours on a story, you use the most simple script you can think of. If it sells well, it does well and will continue to do so.
Now, back to your initial question, and sorry for the long windup, but I wanted to give a more in-depth view on it from a more rational perspective:
Video games
reinforce certain stereotypes children / people already know from their own socialisation / different media. They, however, are
not responsible for it. Plus, if we take the results from video game violence, we also see that the actual effect is pretty small and
not significant. (excluding a certain "risk group"
. There are other, a lot more important, factors to consider if we want to know about potential influence factors.
If Anita was really interested in the issue, she'd get in contact with gaming studios and help designing her own vision of a strong-female fronted video game, e.g. via Kickstarter. She would use the money to start some studies on the matter, to see if there truly is a problem or if there aren't. Her explanations might sound reasonable to some people, but without empirical evidence to back it up, they are...completely worthless.
Phew, hoped that shed some light on the issue from a different perspective =)
~4100
~1660