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.

It's sort of hard to argue with "your presence ruins the game for me," especially when it's accompanied by, "so your needs must be secondary to mine."

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.

You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.

Make up your mind. Are you for your skewed idea of historical accuracy or not?

I have said from the beginning that I don't give a damn about historical accuracy.

But then again, neither do you, you just like acting like you do.

Actually, I do. If you knew me, I nitpick historical movies, I play paradox games because they are historically accurate. There was a tiny amount of females soldiers throughout history to modern day but you just glance over it and provide very small exceptions.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Actually, I do.

No, you don't. You only care for your skewed, distorted interpretation of history, as evidenced by this thread.

If a truly realistic game came around you'd be gaking your pants in rage over how "unrealistic" it is.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Actually, I do.

No, you don't. You only care for your skewed, distorted interpretation of history, as evidenced by this thread.

If a truly realistic game came around you'd be gaking your pants in rage over how "unrealistic" it is.

No. Just no. There is a time in someone's argument that is so stupid, it is pointless arguing back. If you read other books other than females in history, you would understand females are less than 10% of combatants.

melissia why does the industry need to change?

We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.

Bullockist wrote:
melissia why does the industry need to change?

We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.

It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear

Bullockist wrote:
melissia why does the industry need to change?

We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.

Specific? As specific as including 51% of the population of the planet? Call me crazy if you want but that doesn't seem highly specific to me.

... at least not as specific as including 49% of that population to the exclusion of the rest, and I'm pretty sure that if every character in these games was a woman then you'd be asking where the dudes were.

Hive fleet , I'm saying she is expecting the industry to change to HER specifications.

As i said i like using female characters in games, i wouldn't mind more. Personally if there were no guys in games i wouldn't give a crap. From this viewpoint I'm wondering why we need 51% inclusion of sprites/polygons , the gender of them doesn't mean much to me , I'm focussing on the character, not what gender they are.

You want to focus on the gender first, go ahead. I think people get way to involved in this "gender war" bs.

We don't get too involved in it, it gets too involved in us. Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to, and do nonsense like call it "gender war bs" and "socio-political crap". We don't, because it follows us wherever we go within our culture, whether that's down the street or into the digital world of a game. Meanwhile, you get luxuries like being able to take for granted seeing people like you everywhere, being told that they are the best, that you are the best, that you can do anything, be anything, while we're getting reminded of this cultural baggage at every turn, even when we fire up a video game for some fun and relaxation.

Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone.

Meh. Unless you have a strong narrative built up around an individual - such as games like the Witcher, Halo, Beyond Good and Evil or Tomb Raider, there really ought to be a choice on protagonist genders. The arguments against are kind of silly. I very rarely play female characters in RPGs, because it's harder to get my head around the character i'm trying to be. I can understand that from the other end. On the other hand, if it really is an issue of funding - like an indie game that can only produce a set number of models on their budget, I can understand that too.

But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that? Admittedly, the only games I really care enough about to hook up the old headphones and interact with people on are MMOs, and I've never seen crap like that in any of the ones I play. I presume there's something of a stan(d) your ground kind of thing, but still. I mean, I had a guy try to break a bottle over my head at a certain bar in germany once. So I left, and didn't go back.

Isn't that just another way of saying, "gaming is a boys club, so get out?"

I'm actually a bit stunned at some of the more recent opinions on this thread.

I would like to recommend "Mount & Blade: Warband" as that tries to strike a balance between playing as female characters and historical accuracy. - They actually do describe playing as a female is 'hard mode' but entirely possible.

If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.

Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters? I certainly don't and that's why nobody gives a damn. And rightfully so. It's a free market and if only very few people complain about the lack of female leads, nobodoy will care. The paying majority dictates what's on the market and what's not, nobody cares for any minorites with special wishes.

In regard to medieval-ish settings, it's just logical that men take the lead most of the time. In regards to phyisical strength, men are superior to women by nature. Period. Men are designed for physical activities - on average, of course. More muscle mass, higher reaction to adrenaline, more brut-ish set of mind etc.

And with games, the market just follows the leading culture in regards to literature etc. and, of course, history where most "heroes" were male. Don't go Joanne d' Arc on me, one example isn't enough to balance the vast majority of male examples out (plus she pussied out in the end as well and surrendered to her enemies).

The main reason why I, e.g. play female characters in WoW is because I got to look at a character for the entire time - and I prefer to look at a women than a man for purely asthetic reasons (and really, male pandas are just fat -_-). Vice versa for my gf, playing a male human.

Fun fact: 82% of ME players played male Shepherd. What does that tell to us? That 82% of all players played the male version using the male voice actor and at the same time, the entire voice acting done for female Shepherd was only effective for 18% of the community. Money well spent!

 rockerbikie wrote:
It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear

I'm just going to quote what I posted earlier to contradict your blatantly ignorant and dismissive statement:

 Melissia wrote:
[...]
I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).

A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.

Not that I expect you to give a damn about that when you can instead just say "she's a crazy feminist so let's just ignore her and attack a strawman instead".

And then people wonder why I often sound angry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that?

Normally if I feel like I really don't want to deal with this crap, I use a gender-neutral or masculine name. I get treated much better when I masquerade as a man. So long as I don't use my mic anyway.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear

I'm just going to quote what I posted earlier to contradict your blatantly ignorant and dismissive statement:

 Melissia wrote:
[...]
I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).

A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.

Not that I expect you to give a damn about that when you can instead just say "she's a crazy feminist so let's just ignore her and attack a strawman instead".

And then people wonder why I often sound angry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that?

Normally if I feel like I really don't want to deal with this crap, I use a gender-neutral or masculine name. I get treated much better when I masquerade as a man. So long as I don't use my mic anyway.

People such as Amazingatheist have made arguments against the feminist community with stats and a majority of feminists ignore it. You are not indicative of a majority of feminists. The Patriachy does not exist, it did 50 years ago. Men don't go sitting in chairs laughing manically thinking of new ways to subjugate females. Maybe universalist would be a better term than feminist.

 Melissia wrote:
... 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.

Yes, I'm aware that $1 spent in marketing should bring in more than $1 in return but I don't feel like turning this thread into MathHammer.

So looking at a financial statement and seeing that product X didn't sell as well = racism? Your argument is reaching the point of absurdity.
They don't just look at one product. They look at a number of them. They look at averages. They look at historical data and future predictions. When the facts on the ground support it, when a viable market is there the situation will change. Cultural attitudes etc. do not play as big a role as you would like to imagine in budgeting. Especially at a senior management level were all they are about is the projected $ return and whether they meet or exceed that.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
We don't get too involved in it, it gets too involved in us. Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to, and do nonsense like call it "gender war bs" and "socio-political crap". We don't, because it follows us wherever we go within our culture, whether that's down the street or into the digital world of a game. Meanwhile, you get luxuries like being able to take for granted seeing people like you everywhere, being told that they are the best, that you are the best, that you can do anything, be anything, while we're getting reminded of this cultural baggage at every turn, even when we fire up a video game for some fun and relaxation.

Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone.

Your references to the benefits of being "mainstream patriarchal" are illuminating but patentedly untrue. Those types of things are given by your parents not through some kind of racial/gender factor.For the record my dad always told me what i couldn't do because he's a very cautious "look at it from all angles" guy , but his opinion does not have to form the basis for my outlook.
I don't understand the benefit of seeing people like me everywhere.
You do realise it is YOU who is dragging around all this baggage?
I could sit round blaming my life on genetics, but i don't, it's up to me to do what i want , not to blame someone else.
I think you have a very large chip on your shoulder and dropping it would be beneficial.'

For the record, i am into equal rights and anti discrimination, i just think it is counter productive to focus on the past all the time. I really hope that we sort out the final kinks very soon.
Equal rights should mean that, equal rights, equal pay, and no special bonuses for anyone (well ,except maybe free education for aborigines but that's a little different).

I was raise in a house with 2 rather strident feminists and i find all this blaming others to be very unlike the attitudes of my mother and sister in my formative years. They were very much "do it yourself" people and your post strikes me as "waiting for someone to fix it for you". I've worked with several women who were district managers for large supermarket chains in the 70's , and i think if they can do it in the 70s well surely people can do it now.

I actually prefer having people around me who aren't from the same socio-economic/racial background , I find them more engaging/interesting. My sister went to an international school, so from a very young age i was surrounded by japanese people. I don't see anything particularly great about anglo-australian society and particularly value the different viewpoints/food that other backgrounds bring. I make an effort in talking to people that whenever they bring up some racial bs i make an effort to try and show them a different viewpoint (but not Queenslanders most of them are beyond convincing ).
I particularly dislike this whole aNti-muslim thing atm , after reading half the koran (i'd like to read the whole thing in arabic one day) and several history books on the foundation and development of Islam, i find this "whole fear of different people" thing is founded on nothing but fear and as such is worthless. My boss is Islamic and quite frankly is the most moral person i have ever met, and he inspires me to be a better person.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.

So that you can be abused, reviled, shut down, attacked, insulted, and silenced. Then we can ask this question:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters?

And smugly retort, "I didn't think so."

Quite a system, that.

 Manchu wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.

So that you can be abused, reviled, shut down, attacked, insulted, and silenced. Then we can ask this question:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters?

And smugly retort, "I didn't think so."

Quite a system, that.

Because the civil rights movements across the world got results by being silent?

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads.

The only two you can actually name, I see.

So you admit that your position is wrong and that there needs to be a change in the industry.

Jill Valentine, Lilith/Maya, Zoey/Roschelle, Alice Littel, Kameo, Bayonetta, the entire cast of Skullgirls, The leading lady of Hydrophobia.....

There are plenty of female leads out there.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads.

The only two you can actually name, I see.

So you admit that your position is wrong and that there needs to be a change in the industry.

Jill Valentine, Lilith/Maya, Zoey/Roschelle, Alice Littel, Kameo, Bayonetta, the entire cast of Skullgirls, The leading lady of Hydrophobia.....

There are plenty of female leads out there.

Bullet Witch too. Also didn't Princess Peach rescue Mario in a game too?

 Manchu wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.

So that you can be abused, reviled, shut down, attacked, insulted, and silenced. Then we can ask this question:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters?

And smugly retort, "I didn't think so."

Quite a system, that.

It's a fun trick. The other nice thing is that only one side of the discussion really has any skin in the game. It's a deeply personal matter (which makes it all the more absurd when people accuse one of "bringing politics where it doesn't belong") and by discussing it at all you open yourself up to be hurt.

Bullockist wrote:
Your references to the benefits of being "mainstream patriarchal" are illuminating but patentedly untrue. Those types of things are given by your parents not through some kind of racial/gender factor.

Maybe it's unfair of me to cut your post down to this and quote myself, but hey:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Because the civil rights movements across the world got results by being silent?

I'm not advocating silence. I'm explaining what happens when female gamers -- and even male gamers making similar points -- actually speak up about these issues. Sigvatr's post is another example of prejudice-reinforcing self-fulfilling prophecies. The assumption is that if there was a real need for change, that need would be widely vocalized. First off, there is an increasingly vocal acceptance that gender is an issue in video games. Second, it is met with massive hostility -- a pervasive attempt to dismiss it, shut it down, silence it, stamp it out. And that hostility isn't new. It's not that this is only now an issue. It's that the scales are starting to tip just a little in the big picture sense, probably thanks in large part to the internet, so that the existing hostility is no longer enough to silence people on this issue such that we can pretend it doesn't really exist.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm not advocating silence. I'm explaining what happens when female gamers -- and even male gamers making similar points -- actually speak up about these issues.

So people demanding change shouldn't be silent, but they also shouldn't be vocal in case of abuse?

 Manchu wrote:
Sigvatr's post is another example of prejudice-reinforcing self-fulfilling prophecies. The assumption is that if there was a real need for change, that need would be widely vocalized. First off, there is an increasingly vocal acceptance that gender is an issue in video games.

I'm sorry but this reads too much like another contradiction. You critiscise one post for saying that if there was a need for change that it would be voiced, and in the next sentence you say that it is being voiced.

 Manchu wrote:
Second, it is met with massive hostility -- a pervasive attempt to dismiss it, shut it down, silence it, stamp it out. And that hostility isn't new. It's not that this is only now an issue. It's that the scales are starting to tip just a little in the big picture sense, probably thanks in large part to the internet, so that the existing hostility is no longer enough to silence people on this issue such that we can pretend it doesn't really exist.

Yeah, wide spread hostility to the videos at the start of the thread from 4chan (the Internet Hate Machine) and other trolls who revel in getting a reaction for reaction's sake. Somewhat different to actual physical violence that was carried out during the civil rights era.
A pervasive attempt to silence and dismiss it, or people seeking other rational explanations other than "The Patriarchy did it"?

Also I'd like to note the "pervasive attempt" by Ms. Sarkeesian to shut down and silence debate on the issue herself by attempting to silence other perspectives on this issue herself

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So people demanding change shouldn't be silent, but they also shouldn't be vocal in case of abuse?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You critiscise one post for saying that if there was a need for change that it would be voiced, and in the next sentence you say that it is being voiced.

Wow. Just wow. Is anyone else having this amount of trouble reading my posts? Okay, it's simple: A standard response to someone bringing up gender in video games is that it isn't really an issue at all. They say if it was an issue, you'd hear about it. This whole line of thought is ridiculous because the person making the argument is presently hearing about the issue they claim they never hear about. It's a shill tactic. It's meant to shut people up and at the same time turn shutting them up into evidence that they should have never spoken up in the first place.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Also I'd like to note the "pervasive attempt" by Ms. Sarkeesian to shut down and silence debate on the issue herself by attempting to silence other perspectives on this issue herself

You get another "wow" for that one. Turning off comments is not shutting down debate -- it's just moving it. There is a difference between telling someone "you cannot discuss that here" and "you are a stupid ugly slut and you should be raped for making this vid."

All in all, you don't seem to understand even the most basic dimensions of this discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Is anyone else having this amount of trouble reading my posts?...
You get another "wow" for that one...
All in all, you don't seem to understand even the most basic dimensions of this discussion.

I know better than to respond in kind, especially to a moderator. If your attitude is to condescend and patronise then I don't see any reason to respond to you further.

How could you respond in kind considering the amount of bad faith you have shown ITT? You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not actually read (or at least understand) the posts that you are responding to or even the stuff you yourself post.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I know better than to respond in kind, especially to a moderator. If your attitude is to condescend and patronise then I don't see any reason to respond to you further.

In the interests of keeping this civil, polite and not dragging the thread off topic you know where my PM button is

There's no need for a PM because this is on-topic. I posted a critique of the argument that gender is not an issue in video games and you twisted that into advocacy of people who think it's an issue remaining silent.

Personally, I'm kinda glad Manchu is a mod, he's saying stuff right now that I'd want to be saying but would only do so passive-aggressively.

Like uh, this. Dammit.

The reactionary response wants to get under and behind the points rather than respond to them. People would prefer the arguments didn't exist in the first place; crafting counterarguments, after all, acknowledges the existence of arguments. HiveFleetPlastic pointed out something very, very important along these lines earlier:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to

That might be the central power of privilege: to arbitrarily phase in and out of "existence" (for the purposes of discussion) certain realities.