What problems do gamers have with how women are represented in games?

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.

**Asherian Command**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hence the “not enough armor” .
On the drawings though, it looks like chain-mail.

Yes, there really should be chain-mail there, but I guess it was beyond the cosplayer's ability to create it.

Might of run out of time and just wanted to make it as quickly as possible and forgot about that.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

I did read Terry Pratchett, but I was not thinking about the Discworld when I spoke of paper-powered golems. I was referring the original, biblical, trope-defining golem.

During the Middle Ages, passages from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) were studied as a means to attain the mystical ability to create and animate a golem, although there is little in the writings of Jewish mysticism that supports this belief. It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritualistic use of various letters of the Hebrew Alphabet forming a "shem" (any one of the Names of God). The shem was written on a piece of paper and inserted either in the mouth or in the forehead of the golem, thus bringing it into life and action.

In some tales (for example, some versions of those of the golems of Chełm and Prague, as well as in Polish tales and version of Brothers Grimm), a golem is inscribed with Hebrew words, such as the word emet (אמת, "truth" in Hebrew) written on its forehead. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א) in emet, thus changing the inscription from "truth" to "death" (met מת, meaning "dead"). Other versions add that after creating an entity out of clay, it would be brought to life by placing into his mouth a shem with a magic formula, and could later be immobilized by pulling out the shem[/b], or by reversing the creative combinations, for, as Rabbi Jacob ben Shalom, who arrived at Barcelona from Germany in 1325, remarked, the law of destruction is the reversal of the law of creation.

This aspect of the golem is usually omitted in fantasy because when your golem is made out of brain (or fire, or flesh, or stone in the case that concern us now, or any other exotic material) rather than clay, it is harder to put some paper inside of it. Terry Pratchett was just closer to the biblical material than the fantasy one, which is not all that surprising given how he likes to not stay too close to the usual high fantasy tropes. Just like his elves are much more scary faerie than the usual pointed-eared frail supermen.

**Manchu**

Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

**Asherian Command**

Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

They are from jewish myth I believe.

**Sigvatr**

Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".

**Melissia**

Asherian Command wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

They are from jewish myth I believe.

Kabbalah, specifically, or perhaps it might be better to say "Jewish Mysticism", a Jewish subculture.

**AdeptSister**

It will be good to hear Feminist Frequency's opinion on Bayonetta as it will be interesting. I look forward to it.

I just need to see if it's worth getting a Wii U? When does Smash Bros. U come out?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Okay then, the Talmudic golem or what have you.
Jewish folklore and mythology, Christian folklore and mythology, are the two not supposed to be pretty damn close up to when the son of the big boss came around (nepotism much)?

Note that the Golem of Prague was apparently supposed to be a he, not a it.

**Sigvatr**

AdeptSister wrote:
It will be good to hear Feminist Frequency's opinion on Bayonetta as it will be interesting. I look forward to it.

Actually, not hearing from Feminist Frequency ever again would be better for everyone

**Manchu**

Sigvatr wrote:
For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".

So you need a soul to be gendered?

What about Data?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Sigvatr wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".

Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.

Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.

**Sigvatr**

Manchu wrote:
So you need a soul to be gendered?

Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.

Yes, Data would be an "it". It's a tool, after all. A robot, android actually. Don't need it anymore? Destroy it. I don't see the point in assigning a gender to a robot. It can't reproduce anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".

Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.

It may have been a female Necrontyr before, but now, it's a soulless, metal thing that only serves the C'tan's will.

**Manchu**

Sigvatr wrote:
Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.

Sig worthy stuff

Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, Data would be an "it". It's a tool, after all. A robot, android actually. Don't need it anymore? Destroy it.

What makes a person more than a tool? Please don't post any general statements, just your opinions please!

**CthuluIsSpy**

Sigvatr wrote:
Manchu wrote:
So you need a soul to be gendered?

Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.

Yes, Data would be an "it". It's a tool, after all. A robot, android actually. Don't need it anymore? Destroy it. I don't see the point in assigning a gender to a robot. It can't reproduce anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Golems do not appear in the Bible.

Also -- not sure why golems cannot have gender (or at least be gendered).

For the very same reason Necrons do not have a gender - they are soulless, dead automatons, tools, if you want so. They are "its".

Actually, they do have a gender as of Fall of Orpheus; there's a Necron Overlady known as the Queen of Oblivion.

It may have been a female Necrontyr before, but now, it's a soulless, metal thing that only serves the C'tan's will.

Fair enough, though I would say it is still technically female as it considers itself as female.
If a race has no or uses no gender, would they have terms for genders?

**Sigvatr**

Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Keep in mind that I don't make general statements. I post my opinion.
Sig worthy stuff

If you need to be reminded of basic forum rules, feel free to add

Seriously, though, this is what everyone does unless otherwise stated. When someone says "Potatoes are awful.", then I normally assume that this individual person thinks that way, I don't think that person wants to say that everyone should think that potatoes are awful. Because potatoes are awesome.

Sigvatr wrote:
What makes a person more than a tool? Please don't post any general statements, just your opinions please!

I'm not going there /again/. The last thread people went there, 3 people got banned and 2 were warned. Not feeling like playing the Dakka Moderation Bingo

**Manchu**

FYI, 99% of Dakkanauts manage to post their opinions without breaking the site's rules.

It sounds like you are saying that only someone (as opposed to something), i.e., persons, can have a gender. What about animals? Animals clearly have sex; do they also have gender?

You know, I really think discussion of gender needs to be grounded in a much richer theoretical basis. As things stand, we are throwing around complicated terms (like "gender") without really knowing if we're talking about the same thing.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Sigvatr wrote:
Actually, not hearing from Feminist Frequency ever again would be better for everyone

Nah, one may disagree with them on some of what they say, but it is still an interesting watch.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which makes things that less interesting. I'm tired of aliens having a distinguishable male / female gender. There needs to be more aliens that are actually...alien.

Maybe they have actually 10 different genders, and they could only reproduce when they had a combination of 6 genders, or 7 genders if one of those was a male. We just have encountered only necron of the male and female gender, but the 8 other unnamed genders exists somewhere else!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
It sounds like you are saying that only someone (as opposed to something), i.e., persons, can have a gender. What about animals? Animals clearly have sex; do they also have gender?

Are you implying animals are things?

**Manchu**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Are you implying animals are things?

If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things." Obviously, a category called "things" is not very helpful.

I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Manchu wrote:
If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things."

If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday. Then again, that explains why I am a vegetarian and you are (I guess) not.
What about non-human species in fantasy, like dwarfs and elves? What about the now-extinct different branches of homo ?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Manchu wrote:
If the only options are "persons" and "things" then I think (non-human) animals are "things."

If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday. Then again, that explains why I am a vegetarian and you are (I guess) not.

Funny, I would also go for "persons," and I am not a vegetarian.

Two categories are too narrow. Three categories would be better - Humans, Non-Human Organisms, and Objects.

**Manchu**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday.

Well, we might have to back track eventually to the concept of personhood, but one thing at a time:

Manchu wrote:
I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?

I would say NO. As far as I can tell, gender is a relational rather than absolute concept. Anyone and anything can be gendered. Fictional characters, including automatons, can meaningfully be identified and identify themselves with gendered terms.

This raises the question of whether being gendered as, for example, a woman actually makes one a woman.

So for example, Data is referred to as a "he" but does that make him a "man"?

More complex example: Shale from Dragon Age.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Two categories are too narrow. Three categories would be better - Humans, Non-Human Organisms, and Objects.

I would go with four: humans, animals, plants, and objects. With humans being a subcategory of animals.

Manchu wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If the only options are “persons” and “things”, I will go for animals are persons everyday.
Well, we might have to back track eventually to the concept of personhood, but one thing at a time:
Manchu wrote:
I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?
I would say NO.

I would say yes at least for sex → gender, but I have been using a slightly wrong definition of gender for, like, forever, and I know it.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Two categories are too narrow. Three categories would be better - Humans, Non-Human Organisms, and Objects.

I would go with four: humans, animals, plants, and objects. With humans being a subcategory of animals.

Plants are already non-human organisms though.
4 categories would certainly be more specific.
Taxonomy is fun!

Manchu wrote:
I don't want to stray too far from the point of the question, which was basically -- does having sex necessarily imply having gender (and vice versa)? do these things have to go together?

When you say sex, do you mean the act, or the biological components required to perform such acts?

**Manchu**

Alright now, please stay on topic. The point of bringing up a bit of theory is to make sure we have some common understanding of gender, not to categorize Creation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
When you say sex, do you mean the act, or the biological components required to perform such acts?

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

**CthuluIsSpy**

Ah of course, Occam's Razor.
So...no. Otherwise it would impossible for there to be gendered fictional characters.

**Sigvatr**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ah of course, Occam's Razor.
So...no. Otherwise it would impossible for there to be gendered fictional characters.

Unless they were...

...caught in the act.

**Manchu**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So...no. Otherwise it would impossible for there to be gendered fictional characters.

I think you are being a bit overly literal. The sex of Hamlet is male.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Manchu wrote:
Alright now, please stay on topic.

By on topic here, you mean keeping focused on whether a stone construct with no genitalia can be considered male (or female), or not?
Is it really relevant to the bigger picture of "What problems do gamers have with how women are represented in games?" ?

**Manchu**

Are you asking whether what gender means is relevant to how gender is portrayed?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Manchu wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So...no. Otherwise it would impossible for there to be gendered fictional characters.
I think you are being a bit overly literal. The sex of Hamlet is male.

Now I'm confused.
Hamlet is a fictional character, so he doesn't have a sex. He does have a gender though.