Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit.
For science reasons.

If you think this is cloth rather than armor, boobsocks then.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.

Checked pictures of actual female jet pilots and astronauts, none of them wore boob-plate or boob-socks. Maybe because to get proper support, they just use some bra underneath their uniform .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit.
For science reasons.

If you think this is cloth rather than armor, boobsocks then.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.

Checked pictures of actual female jet pilots and astronauts, none of them wore boob-plate or boob-socks. Maybe because to get proper support, they just use some bra underneath their uniform .

If you are flying space. The sheer force you would be exerted to when turning around would simply rip you in half.

Funny thing when she is cloaking her helmet comes down and covers her face.

Lets not forget that the ghosts also are wearing skin tight clothing.

But with advanced technology suits become more slimmer and less bulky. The more advanced the slimmer the uniform or suit. Its just how things progress. Especially for pilots.

Just going to grab off points that sprang out, quoting would be a mess.

>> Women are more intelligent than men

Too broad and thus incorrect. Men and women have cognitive differences due to a different brain structure, such as men being better at spatial awareness and women being better at episodic memory, to name one example for both. All of those are parts of intelligence but as you cannot rationalize those and say which has the largest impact on the overall "intelligence", making the bland "women are more intelligent than men" statement should be considered wrong.

>> Men and women are equal from a biologic / neurologic point of view!

No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.

This is a good start to get a general idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

>> Sexism is irrational!

Depends. It can be both. If used to gain an advantage, it's rational. It can also be irrational, however, when sexism is used to suppress emotional problems. Men might be sexist towards women because of jealousy, women could be sexist towards men because of suppressed anger. There's a lot of reasons. But sexism can be both irrational and rational. Same as racism.

Too broad and thus incorrect. Men and women have cognitive differences due to a different brain structure, such as men being better at spatial awareness and women being better at episodic memory, to name one example for both. All of those are parts of intelligence but as you cannot rationalize those and say which has the largest impact on the overall "intelligence", making the bland "women are more intelligent than men" statement should be considered wrong.

Agreed.

No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.

This is a good start to get a general idea:

Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.

Apparently it is not 'correct'

 Asherian Command wrote:


Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.

Apparently it is not 'correct'

See my previous statement. Melissia knows a lot about video games and I highly respect her for it, but she is unable to discuss this special matter for reasons stated above. But alas, that's the advantage of scientific facts: it doesn't matter whether someone likes them or not, they're there

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Melissia will just ignore that because it is evolutionary psychology and biology.

Apparently it is not 'correct'

See my previous statement. Melissia knows a lot about video games and I highly respect her for it, but she is unable to discuss this special matter for reasons stated above. But alas, that's the advantage of scientific facts: it doesn't matter whether someone likes them or not, they're there

I actually study video games and their effects on people. We have to learn how games effect people XD

And how do they affect people?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how do they affect people?

They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do not affect behavior in the slightest (Whoops)

 Asherian Command wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how do they affect people?

They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do affect behavior in the slightest

I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might stimulate that bloodthirsty part of the human psyche though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how do they affect people?

They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do affect behavior in the slightest

I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might give ideas though.

Well that might of been because they drank from lead.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how do they affect people?

They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do affect behavior in the slightest

I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might give ideas though.

Well that might of been because they drank from lead.

Hah, good point. Yes, lead pipes may not have been a clever choice of metal for plumbing.

To clarify I don't think games have adverse effects on people. Unlike certain people that I know of. *Cough* my sister *cough*

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how do they affect people?

They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do affect behavior in the slightest

I would argue that they don't really desensitize; the Romans were pretty violent all on their own without any form of media.
They might stimulate that bloodthirsty part of the human psyche though.

Aren't the Romans famed for their violent form of entertainment?

Aren't the Romans famed for their violent form of entertainment?

Also for pushing certain species into extinction.

Yeah they were known for it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
To clarify I don't think games have adverse effects on people. Unlike certain people that I know of. *Cough* my sister *cough*

 Asherian Command wrote:
They do not affect behavior in the slightest

Do you think prolonged gameplay sessions can exacerbate pre-existing social and mental conditions? like that comic that I see brought up sometimes in these threads

Heck, do you think they can have any effect at all on a persons personality? I thought books/movies/stories could do that but I guess games are the exception or none of them actually have any effect.

 Lotet wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
To clarify I don't think games have adverse effects on people. Unlike certain people that I know of. *Cough* my sister *cough*

Do you think prolonged gameplay sessions can exacerbate pre-existing social and mental conditions?

Heck, do you think they can have any effect at all on a persons personality? I thought books/movies/stories could do that but I guess games are the exception or none of them actually have any effect.

I don't think they can, as research has been inconclusive on all matters.

I mean you can be brainwashed in a certain way but that is incredibly different than just normally playing a game.

If you have a prexisting condition it might increase the chances of behavior problems. But we don't know because we have only tested it in the lab and not in normal settings as the laboratory will sometimes cause the effects to be exaggerated to the 9th degree.

I think they could only under extreme circumstances. like if the person is extremely depressed and is prone to be manipulated it might be. But highlight the word might. Because that is only a theory and has not been proven.

Games can teach, but I don't think they can change you.

Its like when someone blamed a book because their son read it and became a serial killer. I am pretty sure her son was already a serial killer the book just gave them confidence and reinforced their idea.

But that didn't change anything whether the book was there or not, its not like as if it a drug affecting your brain.

Games can have an effect on people. Just like movies, books, ect. That is kind of the point. I mean no one writes a book with the hope that the reader will gain nothing from the experience.

Well, I guess words and images just don't have the impact that people who speak and draw to a high level would like to think they have. Education/Information examples aside.

Apparently they don't actually do anything more than reinforce your existing personality.

Lovely talking with you...

nomotog wrote:
Games can have an effect on people. Just like movies, books, ect. That is kind of the point. I mean no one writes a book with the hope that the reader will gain nothing from the experience.

That is not what I am saying, but that is not changing behavior. You can learn stuff but I don't think it will make you want to kill people. We have cognitive abilities that protect us from that.

 Asherian Command wrote:
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do not affect behavior in the slightest (Whoops)

You are contradicting yourself. Twice.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
They can, but they can't. They can desensitize and they can teach people probably better than most other forms of education.

They do not affect behavior in the slightest (Whoops)

You are contradicting yourself. Twice.

There is a difference between teaching an idea, and changing someones behavior.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Men and women are equal from a biologic / neurologic point of view!

No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.

No, you're not.

We're different, but equal.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Men and women are equal from a biologic / neurologic point of view!

No. Simple as that. If you make this statement, you are uneducated and misinformed. Hands down.

No, you're not.

We're different, but equal.

Umm that is not what he said. He said biologically and neurologically. That is true.

In society we are equal.

Depending on were you are society doesn't see men and women as equal. Often men and women are more equal in the eyes of biology then in the eyes of society.

nomotog wrote:
Depending on were you are society doesn't see men and women as equal. Often men and women are more equal in the eyes of biology then of society.

Thats also false as there have been plently of examples showing that women are better at somethings, and men are not. Biologically women have to bear childern which is a disadvantage. (And also an advantage)
But it is an advantage men do not get pregnant.

LordofHats wrote:And? It's kind of outlandish to proclaim young males only wanted to play white men considering the popularity of Tomb Raider, Metroid, etc etc.

I'm not suggesting that female characters are bad, in fact I'd be more than pleased to see all male characters in all games be genderflipped by Tsunako or Takeuchi or Ume-sensei. But of course, that's quite the opposite of what feminists want. They want all games which supposedly cater to a tiny minority of people that play games for the sake of scoring political points. Characters should be informed by the vision their creators have in mind when making the game, and given the disposition of most creators (relatively young, male, gamers themselves), that's going to naturally tend towards pandering to the audience and market of the gaming industry.

As outlandish as claiming this group will lose interest if other kinds of protagonists are created.

There's room for all kinds of protagonists, but I think that propagandizing games in the way that feminists want is definitely going to turn away the majority of the audience.

Framing this as an issue of advancing feminist values is a complete misnomer. Nothing about including more dynamic females in lead and supporting roles is all that obstructive. To the contrary, most developers seem amicable to broadening horizons. Why wouldn't they be? If you're just retreading the same ground as everyone else, then your job is pretty boring. It's publishers who aren't interested because publishers don't care about creation (just profiting from it).

The issue isn't with female leads or dynamic female characters, it's with the very sterile and unlikeable kinds of female leads that those who call for change desire, and the arbitrary equality they seek to enforce on fictional universes.

Crystal-Maze wrote:The problem here is that games designers, and you apparently, assume the male to be the default.

Given the premise of most games involves violent, and often military conflict as a core feature, that's not really unreasonable. Even then, though, developers who aren't so concerned about realism are perfectly justified in making women the lead characters in violent conflicts, and some of my favorite games are exactly like that. What's problematic is when female characters are forced into prominent roles when they clearly shouldn't be, or when the behavior of female characters if modified from what the creator intended, to suit the political positions of an active and hostile minority.

Its not a question of whether the story calls specifically for a woman (otherwise we default to a man), but a question of 'why on earth shouldn't it have a woman in it?'.

I think that's entirely the wrong approach to take. Every character should be defined well enough so that their sex isn't just an arbitrary characteristic which can be swapped out to meet quotas, or else you're dealing with some pretty shallow characters.

Its a fictional game; if your imagination can stretch to whip-blades, laser guns and zombies, but not to women wanting to use the guns or fight the zombies, I think there is something very wrong with your imagination.

I don't think many people are going to cite Zoey from Left 4 Dead as an example of an unwelcome female character. I don't think many gamers at all are upset by that kind of portrayal of women in their games.

It's feminists who are.

The story doesn't have to change. It just needs more women in it.

Well that would change the story, but I'm all onboard for a 100% female cast in most circumstances, so long as they're not the hollow, unlikable political caricatures that feminists want them to be.

Maybe they could even be wearing clothes.

Attacking an aesthetic on the basis that it's unrealistic or undignified is simply not going to fly in an entertainment media.

As a gamer, I am truly interested in feminist ideals permeating the games that I play. Would it really hurt to include a playable female character?

If that's all that was being asked, then I'd be the biggest supporter of being "truly interested in feminist ideals permeating the games that I play." Unfortunately, it's not. Feminists want more women of a particular type to be present in games. A particular type that I find utterly distasteful and am completely uninterested in.

The problem with saying that the market is 'male and young' is that it creates a catch 22 in favour of the status quo. All of the main characters are men, so you attract a male audience. Then if women don't want to play the games with a male character, you point and say 'obviously only men want to play, lets make more male main characters'. But if women do play the games with male main characters, you get to point and say 'we're attracting a female audience, lets change nothing'.


http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2014.pdf

I'll leave this here. 50% of games purchased by women. 48% played by women. Average game player is 31. There is your 'Overwhelmingly young, male audence'.

If you seriously believe that as many women play games as men, you're crazy. I imagine these stats are grossly inflated by casual and mobile gaming, and even then, this study probably got its data from simply surveying a small, unrepresentative sample. There's absolutely no way that women purchase or play as many games as men, full stop.

LordofHats wrote:If a character is good, they will garner interest, whether they be man, woman, hero, villain, murderer, rapist, etc. So long as it is interesting it will fly. What's between their legs is really a ludicrously minor issue to have blown up as much as it is. Some women asking for more women in games isn't going to ruin anyone else's fun times.

Again, if that's ALL it were, then this would be a non-issue.

Vertrucio wrote:Also, publishers only think that their market is male and young. The reality is that the game playing and buying public is actually made up more of 20-30+ year olds. Also, the gap between male and female players is dwindling. But part of the reason there is a gap at all is what we're talking about. If you talk about different gaming markets, there's actually a huge number of female game players that play casual games. Those might never be converted to the type that will play or at least try an in depth game, but we'll never know if the market doesn't change it's portrayal of women that drives away women from even trying.

You assume that I have any interst in supporting the expansion of the market's audience. That sort of thing runs quite directly contrary to anyone interested in games as they are, because the reason that they can be made in the way they are now with the resources that they have now is because there's a particular kind of demand. An expansion of the target demographic waters down pretty much everything I, and I imagine most other games, want from games. What you get when you appeal to the whole population is casual and social gaming, and I certainly don't want more resources headed to that sort of gaming than towards the complex and more "hardcore" games that I actually play and like.

It's a common defensive reaction to think that feminism is a negative pressure. Reality is, that pressure is just eyes being opened. It's like your avatar. Japanese animation, while often lauded for unique portrayals of women, is just as much a cesspool of the worst portrayals of, well, any group of people in existence.

Feminism wants to destroy a lot of what I like about games and replace it with things I very strongly dislike. Of course it's a negative pressure.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kali wrote:
If nobody stands up for creative freedoms

The convenient, hypocrite excuse.

 Kali wrote:
As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way. It's not only a matter of how gaming isn't equal in its pandering, but also why it shouldn't be. After all, we all want creators to make things that we like and I'm just one among countless others who are interested in defending and promoting the community and market to incentivize that productive behavior.

The truth.

It is funny how you did not even notice how you were contradicting yourself.

It's not a contradiction, as developers should have the freedom to make whatever they want, but what I'm personally interested in incentivizing them to make are products that I personally like. I won't protest outside their offices for making a game I don't like, but I would protest outside the offices of their publisher if the game was denied publication because it didn't meet the demands of political factions like feminists.

So, what do you believe:
- If the story explicitly require a male character (because of that segment when he cannot use his hands and have to write his name in the snow ), then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character (because she will become pregnant during the game ) then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make him a man, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character , then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, toss a coin to see if you are going to make it a man or a woman, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character, then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make her a woman, that is fine for you.

I strongly suspect it is the first solution.

Uh, none of the above. All characters should be created as their creators intend them, whether they're male or female or intersex or robots or whatever else.

Also please provide example of why a story would have to be modified if the character's gender is changed.

Any, since the characters are at least half of what makes the story what it is.

Again, if that's ALL it were, then this would be a non-issue.

Except it is all it is. Everything else you said exists purely in your imagination or the imaginations of people who don't actually pay attention to what most feminists are saying.

 LordofHats wrote:
what most feminists are saying.

Doesn't matter, because they're not the ones exerting pressure on the gaming community. These ones are:

Because two people represent all feminists everywhere.

I laughed at the idea that Sarkeesian was actually achieving her goal earlier in this thread, and I still laugh at it. Anyone perceiving her as some kind of great threat to video games hasn't been paying attention to how little progress she's made. Quinn's never even said much about feminism, or about changing the industry for that matter. She just complains about how mean everyone is to her.

And now we loop back to the original point of the thread.