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.

Suits aren't either hot or itchy. Most jobs that require suits are indoor and involve AC in any case.

What a bizarre comment!

I always found neckties to be a little itchy.

Manchu wrote:
Suits aren't either hot or itchy. Most jobs that require suits are indoor and involve AC in any case.

What a bizarre comment!

It's not that bizarre. I know I don't like to wear suits. Long sleeves or even pants. I think it's the women get more freedoms in what they wear thing. I don't work where They work though. I can't explain it.

nomotog wrote:
Long sleeves or even pants. I think it's the women get more freedoms in what they wear thing. I don't work where They work though. I can't explain it.

My job has a pretty relaxed dress code; but I definitely have not seen women without pants here.

I have to say that that's likely for the best, if for nothing else than for hygienic and safety reasons.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The thing pushed as the feminine ideal these days is perfection. You have to be physically attractive to men, talented, have a boyfriend/husband and when the time comes be a good mother. And none of the rest counts if you aren't physically attractive to men.

(and just to note that both masculine and feminine in this context are completely arbitrary signifiers that we place on things, not intrinsic to the things themselves)

Good point , I hate to be the one to get howled down but anyways.

I actually think that women have some part in the continuation of these sexist images of women. As previously noted anecdotally in this thread a lot of female gamers make a fantasy version of themselves when gaming , I have no problem with this as that is what gaming is about (although I never make a fantasy version of myself). I think this ties in with the feminine ideal of perfection, the fantasy version is often smaller waisted smaller hips , larger lips and larger breasts. Personally, I cannot see the game industry changing human fantasy ideals any time soon , beefcake will stay and skimpy female costumes will stay as people choose those attributes in order to play out a fantasy and do things they cannot do in real life.
I find it interesting that female miniature painters seem to paint a large number of stereotypical cheesecake models. I(t's not like there aren't un cheesecake models out there.)

I like the take on Smurfette being the opposite of Japanese harem characters, I'd never thought of it that way and was amused by the change in my perspective. Smurfette principle - Smurfette harem!

I don't see why women can't make their own games? Why do women want to change games like duke nukem or shadows of the damned?

Also I find this video pretty funny:

Bullockist wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The thing pushed as the feminine ideal these days is perfection. You have to be physically attractive to men, talented, have a boyfriend/husband and when the time comes be a good mother. And none of the rest counts if you aren't physically attractive to men.

(and just to note that both masculine and feminine in this context are completely arbitrary signifiers that we place on things, not intrinsic to the things themselves)

Good point , I hate to be the one to get howled down but anyways.

I actually think that women have some part in the continuation of these sexist images of women.

They aren't sexist.

Manchu wrote:
I really disagree. Most games are extremely linear and agency is illusory. This is the well-made point of BioShock. Very few video games have so much player choice as to make shallow characterization a necessity. (Skyrim is an example.)

A game isn't just the story, it's the actions of the player. Consider Deus Ex, which attempts to create a story about a hard as nails superspy... but ultimately the player is just enjoying a game, and while at times he'll get right in to the story, a lot of the rest of the time he'll just be exploring for its own sake, or attempting to kill bad guys in strange and humiliating ways and stuff like that. Imagine if half through the movie James Bond decided to forget about the terrorist or the hot girl, and just see if he could figure out how to climb that crane in the distance.

My point is that well crafted, deep characters in fiction act in certain ways, respond to a problem with a certain manner of thinking. And we enjoy watching those characters act as they do in film, TV and books. But in a computer game we're put in charge of those characters, and what we do with them is generally miles away from how they are written. It produces a jarring effect that means even if a character happens to be really well written and conceived, we just won't see it on the screen.

I'm a bit wary of this kind of argument. I don't think that markets simply reflect realities. I think they also generate realities.

Sure, its a process that feeds on itself. But that doesn't mean there isn't something there, at the base, a basic difference in the kinds of media enjoyed by the two genders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
It seemed you agreed with what was said that as long as the "special" character has a critical purpose within the story other than some group representative.

Not necessarily a critical purpose in the story, just that they should be an interesting character in and of themselves, and not be differentiated through gender and nothing else. Consider if Smurfette was the only girl, but her name was Moneybags Smurf and she was always trying to make deals for profit... and she just happened to be a girl.

Your quote above has me thinking of another trope: "the harem" the one guy with a bunch of women after him, typical plotline for Japanese anime like Ranma 1/2 (great male/female gender role confusion).
What if the Smurfette trope is just the strong female lead and a harem of men? You could read stuff like this with Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake character.

Like everything it depends on the execution, and also the audience.

My fear is that the inequity may have gone on long enough that the feminism movement will not stop at equality and feel justified in pursuing more.

In some places things have gone so far. There's no magic rule preventing women from being just as obnoxious about gender relations as men when given the chance. But right now, in mainstream media, the problem remains mostly one way...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
So what's the female equivalent of that? What's the female fantasy?

If I had to base my opinion solely on the women I've gamed with, I'd say it actually is the stripperific waif-fu practitioner. Back in my college days of MMOing, that's what the overwhelming majority of females in the guild I ran with made, despite options to not do so. It's what my girlfriend continues to make, going out of her way to make her toons as hot as possible. Even Felicia Day, who identifies herself as a feminist and has quite a lot to say about objectification, has said that when the character options allow it, she basically makes herself with larger lips and breasts.

Sounds about right. I mean, obviously it varies a lot from person to person, but the general preference is probably found in comparing lad's mags to fashion mags.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Part of what's bad about the gender binary is it restricts men, too. I think men get gender-policed a lot more than women, for some reason. I want to say it's because if you're a man doing feminine things you're making a lie of the whole system, whereas if you're a woman doing masculine things it's only logical because masculine > feminine.

(and just to note that both masculine and feminine in this context are completely arbitrary signifiers that we place on things, not intrinsic to the things themselves)

People claim that a lot but I don't think they've just thought of the girly characteristics that are seen negatively, and not thought about all the attributes that are seen as positive when shown by men. Stuff like caring, maternal behaviour, which is considered female primarily, but when guys act like that they are thought of well. Or keeping a clean house, primarily considered a female thing, but guys who manage it are thought of more highly. Or good communication, especially on relationship stuff, typically associated with women, respected in everyone who manages it.

There are lots of 'girly' behaviours that are kind of tolerated in girls but the subject of mockery in men... like gossiping or drinking sweet alcoholic drinks. But there's just as many things that are seen as boyish that are not seen positively, like machismo and foolhardy risktaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Anita Sarkeesian's videos simply bring up topics; they don't attempt to silence anyone else. This is a key difference between her and many of her detractors.

It can be because of the cultural inequity that goes both ways that guys get so "butthurt" about her videos: I personally dislike how TV shows typically portray guys as the stupid man-child that the woman has to steer around like another of her kids. For guys to point out things they do not like, it tends to be perceived as whining and I would receive more ridicule from men than women.

That's not been my experience. When pointing out the tendency for shows and commercials to have the 'idiot Dad' I've pretty much only ever gotten agreement, both men and women saying how much they hate that too.

I must wear pants, no shorts in the summer, women get to wear skirts (and do not give it a miss).

You would be the first person I have ever met in my life who envied the get up women must wear at the office.

Compared to make up, hair and bras, having to wear long pants and a tie is really, really trivial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I always found neckties to be a little itchy.

I never had any issue with wearing a tie when I started working. Then I took a job where ties weren't expected and I didn't care much... except now I'm expected to wear a tie again and I cannot get used to it again, even after a couple of years.

Anita. *shudder* If theres one person on this planet that i'd like to never see or hear again, its her.

But OT:

I used (Not anymore for obvious reasons this thread confirms) to be pretty invested in the whole Sexism Debate, mainly because of stuff like Metroid Other M making Samus Aran a bad character (They had to really work hard on that!) and a ton of the "Ms Male" stereotypes where a Dev just slaps some Breast onto a male stereotype and expects hordes of cheering Feminists at his door.

A few things:

- The people suggesting that "Voting with your wallet" is "childish". Thats BS. The ONLY real power customers in this day and age have, is their wallet. Big time Publishers look on a sale chart, and if there are some nice big Numbers on there, the practice that led to that number will continue. To give an extreme example, if "Farming Simulator 2013" would sell a number of copies with 6-8 digits, you can be damn sure that the market will literally drown you in Farming Simulators. Its how the industry works. The Customer is a cow that is to be milked until it runs dry or runs off to another Farmer. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Dismissing concerns of a gender being badly represented is bad, this applies to both sides of the argument. You should not dismiss "Smurfette" because the guys from 300 are running around half naked and thus the complaint is invalid. But this is also stupid if you apply it the other way around. I KNOW that stuff like 300 is a power Fantasy. I KNOW that this isnt sexualisation. That doesnt mean that it doesnt piss me off. I faceplam just as hard for every token female "Obviously in this because we needed breasts" character as I faceplam for every token Marcus Fenix (Or however you write that) Tank, that walks like he has a broom up his . Seriously, look at the dude. By rights he should pulverize his spine everytime he turns his head! IMHO, the problem isnt just with female represantation, but also with the outright _NEED_ for that male Powerfantasy gak. Both have to stop if you want meaningful change. Good Male Characters do not have to be big, muscly and talk like Darth Vader, just like female Characters dont need to be "Arnie with Breasts" or just glorfied Fanservice.

-Please, for the love of Thor, do not just argue for a "Female Quota", but also for actually GOOD female Characters. Its absolutely meaningless if Dev's just make half the NPC cast of a Game female, when all of them are one-dimensional cardboard Characters who just fill a certain threshold of female characters. I want likeable, epic characters, male and female, so the DEV's realise what Games like Metroid or Beyond Good and Evil allready proofed. That you can have a female lead that doesnt fill every stereotype and people will still like it.

 illuknisaa wrote:
I don't see why women can't make their own games? Why do women want to change games like duke nukem or shadows of the damned?

Also I find this video pretty funny:

Yeah pretty funny... Never change a social order that is one of the worst regarding the role of woman in the whole world.

Bullockist wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The thing pushed as the feminine ideal these days is perfection. You have to be physically attractive to men, talented, have a boyfriend/husband and when the time comes be a good mother. And none of the rest counts if you aren't physically attractive to men.

(and just to note that both masculine and feminine in this context are completely arbitrary signifiers that we place on things, not intrinsic to the things themselves)

Good point , I hate to be the one to get howled down but anyways.

I actually think that women have some part in the continuation of these sexist images of women. As previously noted anecdotally in this thread a lot of female gamers make a fantasy version of themselves when gaming , I have no problem with this as that is what gaming is about (although I never make a fantasy version of myself). I think this ties in with the feminine ideal of perfection, the fantasy version is often smaller waisted smaller hips , larger lips and larger breasts. Personally, I cannot see the game industry changing human fantasy ideals any time soon , beefcake will stay and skimpy female costumes will stay as people choose those attributes in order to play out a fantasy and do things they cannot do in real life.

Well, it's important to note that there isn't a universal "human fantasy ideal." They're part of our culture and to a large extent what we consider attractive is arbitrary and learned, not intrinsic to us.

But yeah, women do play a large part in holding up and enforcing The Patriarchy. It's not just men who create and transmit the culture and harmful ideas.

 sebster wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Part of what's bad about the gender binary is it restricts men, too. I think men get gender-policed a lot more than women, for some reason. I want to say it's because if you're a man doing feminine things you're making a lie of the whole system, whereas if you're a woman doing masculine things it's only logical because masculine > feminine.

(and just to note that both masculine and feminine in this context are completely arbitrary signifiers that we place on things, not intrinsic to the things themselves)

People claim that a lot but I don't think they've just thought of the girly characteristics that are seen negatively, and not thought about all the attributes that are seen as positive when shown by men. Stuff like caring, maternal behaviour, which is considered female primarily, but when guys act like that they are thought of well. Or keeping a clean house, primarily considered a female thing, but guys who manage it are thought of more highly. Or good communication, especially on relationship stuff, typically associated with women, respected in everyone who manages it.

There are lots of 'girly' behaviours that are kind of tolerated in girls but the subject of mockery in men... like gossiping or drinking sweet alcoholic drinks. But there's just as many things that are seen as boyish that are not seen positively, like machismo and foolhardy risktaking.

My main point there is that men should be able to gossip or drink sweet alcoholic drinks or be a single parent or whatever without being looked down on as upsetting the natural order. It's not just a matter of men having something and women wanting it at the expense of men, as feminism is sometimes conceptualised.

At least, I think that was my main point.

Stuebi wrote:
- The people suggesting that "Voting with your wallet" is "childish". Thats BS.

Personally, I already have games sitting around that I haven't finished or would like to play more (thanks, Steam sales!). The bottleneck is time. I don't lose anything if I skip a game that makes you play a guy for no reason in favour of one that doesn't. I skipped Killing Floor, for example.

That said, it's also important to let developers know why you didn't buy a game if you want it to mean anything. If you just don't buy a game, that doesn't send a clear message. Taking the Killing Floor example, the developers of that game have no way of knowing why I didn't buy the game, because I never said anything. Maybe I never noticed it. Maybe the genre doesn't appeal. Maybe the graphics were too simple. Maybe it's too expensive. Without the feedback, they don't have the first clue.

I say this because the more commonly-seen flipside of the "not buying a game because you can't play a game is childish!" argument (which is, frankly, bizarre) is "you shouldn't tell anyone, just silently not buy or pay for the game," which is just as wrong.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Stuebi wrote:
- The people suggesting that "Voting with your wallet" is "childish". Thats BS.

Personally, I already have games sitting around that I haven't finished or would like to play more (thanks, Steam sales!). The bottleneck is time. I don't lose anything if I skip a game that makes you play a guy for no reason in favour of one that doesn't. I skipped Killing Floor, for example.

That said, it's also important to let developers know why you didn't buy a game if you want it to mean anything. If you just don't buy a game, that doesn't send a clear message. Taking the Killing Floor example, the developers of that game have no way of knowing why I didn't buy the game, because I never said anything. Maybe I never noticed it. Maybe the genre doesn't appeal. Maybe the graphics were too simple. Maybe it's too expensive. Without the feedback, they don't have the first clue.

I say this because the more commonly-seen flipside of the "not buying a game because you can't play a game is childish!" argument (which is, frankly, bizarre) is "you shouldn't tell anyone, just silently not buy or pay for the game," which is just as wrong.

I agree with this, the point I was trying to make is that complaints can and often will be drowned out by sales. To give an example of what i mean:

You could write entire pages, essays or whatever for Infinity Ward, explaining that you are upset with the fact that COD does not include female characters (This is just an example, I have no idea if the newer ones have some meaningful females). But as long as those sales hit the desired mark and the Publisher can add another golden bathroom to his palace, he wont give to feths about your opinion. Im pretty sure you could at least somewhat guess the fact that im pretty bitter about this state of consumer-treatment these days, especially after my point of the customer being a cow.

But I do agree that voicing your opinion is important, but I honestly think that in 95% of cases where you explain _why_ YOU did not buy a game, the company will only care if they think listening to you will give them money. Bioware realised pretty quickly after the whole ME3-ending thing that the outrage could potentially cut down some sales. Granted, it took them a while, but as soon as a Publisher gets the "Im loosing money" whip out, you can be sure that something will happen shortly. So in short, DO vote with your wallet, but feel free to qualify that action with a well written opinion.

PS.

As some added blurp on a more personal note. I kinda look down on people who bash series and specific games despite KNOWING what tropes and stereotypes they drive. You would probably laugh at how many people happily bash games like Mass Effect, Cod, Battlefield etc. and will write entire topics on what horrible Developers and Publishers Bioware, EA etc. are. but then preorder and buy the "Special Edition Platinum Box Set" the very MOMENT it becomes avaible. Its a level of Hypocrisy that drives me up the walls.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
My main point there is that men should be able to gossip or drink sweet alcoholic drinks or be a single parent or whatever without being looked down on as upsetting the natural order. It's not just a matter of men having something and women wanting it at the expense of men, as feminism is sometimes conceptualised.

At least, I think that was my main point.

It might have been your main point. This things gone on so long who can tell who was saying what anymore

I agree with that, by the way. Honestly, I think one of the best thing feminism has contributed is breaking down the assumptions of traditional gender roles.

 sebster wrote:
It might have been your main point. This things gone on so long who can tell who was saying what anymore

I agree with that, by the way. Honestly, I think one of the best thing feminism has contributed is breaking down the assumptions of traditional gender roles.

If it's actually done so, which I doubt, it's done nothing to break down what the majority of each gender views as ideals or goals.

There is most likely more to this issue than just the game side, after all using a gender to make money is used basicly everywhere for instance in magazines and TV.

That beeing said, like a few have already pointed out, there is no universal power fantasy over what woman or man should look like or be like. Also values and morals have a huge impact on things like this,for example if you are a man who openly preaches for equal rights but turns around and teach your children that men are the ones who should bear the entire economical weight on their shoulders when it comes to a familiy .

Of course one can flip the coin and say that women who are for equal rights,and then teaches their daughters in turn to always depend on the man to do the heavy work and take care of money.

All of theses "small" things along with like religion, political stand points and such is what all adds up to create issues like this, and yes sorry if i went abit of topic on the matter.

No game is complete without some pixel boobs and ass. [joke]

 MetalOxide wrote:
No game is complete without some pixel boobs and ass.

I assume your trying to be inflammatory, but some times it looks as if people actually believe it. You hear the phrase sex sells quite a bit. (I know in one of anita's speeches or videos she mentions it's not sex that sells, but objectification.) Is it true though? I don't have big recherche numbers. In my experience, I have been more often repelled from games that try to use breasts and bottoms to draw me in. In fact now a days I think that fan service is actually a short hand for this game is bad. See a half naked woman on the cover, ya that's not a game worth playing. They could sell really well, but I have a hard time believing that. You never hear about DoA beach volleyball braking sales records. At least not now a days.

I could be wrong though. The one thing most people know about mass effect is the sex. People keep modding nudity and big bouncing breasts into skyrim. You also see more eroticism in general in games. Flipping back through some games I have played lately and a fair amount have something. GTA5, borderlands, assassins creed, Far cry 3 (Actually far cry 3 would be a good game to look at in how it handles women. In particular how it handles the idea of the damsel in distress. I was expecting it's handle to be 100% sexist, but there is more to it.)

nomotog wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
No game is complete without some pixel boobs and ass.

I assume your trying to be inflammatory, but some times it looks as if people actually believe it. You hear the phrase sex sells quite a bit. (I know in one of anita's speeches or videos she mentions it's not sex that sells, but objectification.) Is it true though? I don't have big recherche numbers. In my experience, I have been more often repelled from games that try to use breasts and bottoms to draw me in. In fact now a days I think that fan service is actually a short hand for this game is bad. See a half naked woman on the cover, ya that's not a game worth playing. They could sell really well, but I have a hard time believing that. You never hear about DoA beach volleyball braking sales records. At least not now a days.

I could be wrong though. The one thing most people know about mass effect is the sex. People keep modding nudity and big bouncing breasts into skyrim. You also see more eroticism in general in games. Flipping back through some games I have played lately and a fair amount have something. GTA5, borderlands, assassins creed, Far cry 3 (Actually far cry 3 would be a good game to look at in how it handles women. In particular how it handles the idea of the damsel in distress. I was expecting it's handle to be 100% sexist, but there is more to it.)

Please don't take any offence to my post, I was just joking around.

 MetalOxide wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
No game is complete without some pixel boobs and ass.

I assume your trying to be inflammatory, but some times it looks as if people actually believe it. You hear the phrase sex sells quite a bit. (I know in one of anita's speeches or videos she mentions it's not sex that sells, but objectification.) Is it true though? I don't have big recherche numbers. In my experience, I have been more often repelled from games that try to use breasts and bottoms to draw me in. In fact now a days I think that fan service is actually a short hand for this game is bad. See a half naked woman on the cover, ya that's not a game worth playing. They could sell really well, but I have a hard time believing that. You never hear about DoA beach volleyball braking sales records. At least not now a days.

I could be wrong though. The one thing most people know about mass effect is the sex. People keep modding nudity and big bouncing breasts into skyrim. You also see more eroticism in general in games. Flipping back through some games I have played lately and a fair amount have something. GTA5, borderlands, assassins creed, Far cry 3 (Actually far cry 3 would be a good game to look at in how it handles women. In particular how it handles the idea of the damsel in distress. I was expecting it's handle to be 100% sexist, but there is more to it.)

Please don't take any offence to my post, I was just joking around.

I knew you where joking, but that doesn't mean I can't ponder the meaning of your joke.

As has been pointed out, these "gender roles" are more elements of our cultures.

There will always be ways to divide groups of people from others by pointing out what makes them "different".

These discussions seem too "sensitive" looking to find offence in perceived bias or pigeonholing.

I really do not care how anyone behaves as long as they "play well with others" and think that would further the cause for humanity more than any named group of people ever could because in the end they have agendas and tend to only be inclusive to those they represent.

Funny, my wife said she liked me when I first met her working together in the summer. My buddy liked her and kept trying to help her lift things and do stuff for her and I just treated her like "one of the guys" and only helped when asked. It usually boiled down to matters of technique than brute strength anyway so she did not need or want any real help. I asked why it meant something to her back then and she said "it felt like respect". Calling her the "Big Amazon" (5' 10") got mixed reviews as well.

People actually believe this con-artist demagogue?

 MetalOxide wrote:
If we are going to talk about female gender stereotypes in gaming then we must also talk about male gender stereotypes as well. Whilst I do agree that women do draw a short straw when it comes to legitimate, respectful protagonists in the game we should not automatically exclude sorting out some of the god-awful male protagonists as well.

I'm not a fan of Anita, she has a very strong bias towards women which turn a lot of men away, she baits trolls and then acts as though male gamers are misogynistic pigs, she has gained lots of money through her Kick-starter, yet most of her videos are just her talking in front of a green-screen. You would of thought that she would of traveled around interviewing game designers, market researchers ect.. who work for the big companies such as EA, asking them about sexism in video-games and what is being done to counter it. It seems as though she is only in it for the money.

The best way to counter sexism in the gaming industry is to stop buying games from the big companies, buy indie games instead. I have found tons of great indie games that are not at all sexist.

THIS x1000

A lot of research by countless youtubers has been done on Anita Sarkeesian, her past, her business practices and her agenda. I'm not saying that there is no sexism in video games, but Anita Sarkeesian is NOT a credible spokes'person' on this issue. (INB4 someone says its sexist to use the term spokes'man')

She clearly has an agenda of personal profit, and her MO includes many questionable practices.

She troll baits people, by saying something so controversial, bias and one sided that its bound to attract a lot of angry flak from a vocal minority and especially trolls. Then she harvests a cherry-picked selection of abusive comments (ignoring all the level headed, well thought out critiques of her work) and presents those comments as evidence of a misogynistic hate campaign against her. Then she uses the trolls (that she deliberately provoked and attracted) as justification to shut down all comments on her videos.

She used this tactic to boost sympathy for herself, ironically presenting herself as a 'Damsel in Distress', shortly before her Kickstarter. Due to the exposure, and the ignorance of many of her backers, she smashed her Kickstarter goal of $6000, raising $160,000. Conveniently, she enabled comments on her Kickstarter video whilst disabling comments on all the rest of her videos, thus funneling all the trolls to the Kickstarter campaign vid and making it appear as though she was suddenly being attacked out of the blue for daring to state her intention of investigating sexism in video games, when in actual fact these trolls and the legitimate non-sexist critics had been attacking / criticising her work for quite a while before hand.

If anything, this 'hate campaign' is one which she has engineered herself. She made a biased, one-sided and deliberately controversial attack on an entire group of people and sub-culture, knowing full well the reaction that she would get from a vocal and narrow section of that group. This was the exact reaction she wanted and need so that she could discredit the wider video game community and industry.

She deliberately sought these people out, by spamming adverts for her Kickstarter on 4chan of all places, that notorious internet troll lair.

What she has done, is equivalent to persistently seeking out a person (going to 4chan and posting adverts for her Kickstarter) and abusing and insulting them; then complaining that you're a victim of violence when they turn and whack you.


She also has been exposed for lifting Lets Play and other gameplay footage from other youtubers without crediting the Channels who created that footage. With $160,000, and little apparent investment in better video recording equipment, surely she can afford to actually carry out first hand research by buying/renting games, recording her OWN footage and gaining first hand experience of the games she wishes to critique. At the very least she should credit the sources from which she harvests Lets Play footage.

Questions have been raised about whether she has actually played the games she attacks. She often criticises games for specific instances of unflattering portrayals of female characters, but ignores instances later in the same game when those very same characters are portrayed in a positive way. She takes many things out of context, to support her argument.

A specific example off the top of my head...A cutscene in a game, when a women is detained by Soldiers and is forcibly stripped naked and subjected to a decontamination shower, with the soldiers acting (predictably) leery - though they do not rape or sexually assault the character. She calls this misogynistic, but when the entire cutscene is looked at in context, its clear that the woman is one of many civilians, men women and children, being detained, stripped and decontaminated. Yet Anita presents this ordeal as being unique for the woman.

She criticises the use of stereotypical gender signifiers used to distinguish between male and female characters (often picking on old retro games when the lack of pixel details necessitated the use of simple visual clues such as feminine and masculine colours, bows, eyelashes etc). And yet, in every video she appears in heavy makeup, with large oversized earrings and other jewellery, low cut tops and colourful clothes. Anyone else see the irony in that? How can her complaints about the use of gender signifiers be taken seriously when she makes heavy use of gender signifiers herself?

There is footage on youtube of her attending a Seminar on 'Tele-Seminar Secrets'. She gives a testimonial on how the Seminar has helped her understand how Tele-Seminars could "change the face of my business and help me make lots of money". It doesn't discredit her arguments, but it does show that her intention is to run a profit making business. She is not approaching the issue of video game sexism as an academic publising peer reviewed research; but as a demogogue appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the politically correct Media.


Some video games are sexist, and there can be a viable dialogue and discussion of the issue. But Anita is a charlatan looking to make a personal profit in the Offence Seeking industry. Its people like her that are discrediting Feminism.

What we are getting from Anita Sarkeesian, who disables comments, ignores her genuine critics and focuses only on trolls; is not a dialogue but a monologue.

Have an Exalt on me, Shadow.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She criticises the use of stereotypical gender signifiers used to distinguish between male and female characters (often picking on old retro games when the lack of pixel details necessitated the use of simple visual clues such as feminine and masculine colours, bows, eyelashes etc). And yet, in every video she appears in heavy makeup, with large oversized earrings and other jewellery, low cut tops and colourful clothes. Anyone else see the irony in that? How can her complaints about the use of gender signifiers be taken seriously when she makes heavy use of gender signifiers herself?

I saw a thing today that might explain it pretty well. http://upnotnorth.net/2014/01/06/pac-woman-and-mr-pac-woman-rom-hacks/

The deal with gender signifiers isn't that they're "things that one gender does that the other doesn't." They're things you use to mark a character as being a particular gender. Anita Sarkeesian isn't a picture, she's a person, so using makeup or whatever isn't a "gender signifier." It's something you use in art.

The gist is that in our culture, male is seen as the default. If you draw a generic person, it's male. Take, for example... those little signs that go outside toilets to show what gender the toilet is for. There's nothing to say that little male icon is male - it's just a person. It's assumed to be male because male is the default. The female version, then, is similar to the male one, but with gender signifiers added. That's usually a dress, in the case of the toilet signs, but there are a large array of these signifiers that get used in different kinds of art. In the case of the Ms. Pac-Man sprite, that's her bow, lipstick and beauty mark. Other depictions of her give her heeled boots and gloves, long eyelashes and eyeshadow. These are all things that are added to the default (male) art to mark her as female.

Feminists in general have a beef with male being the default and think it's something that works against women in our culture. Gendered signifiers both stem from and reinforce the idea of male as default.

Saw a video about Anita that made me burst out laughing.

Go to 3:45 exactly, and pause it.

This guy makes a convincing argument that the game concept pitched by Anita ("The Last Princess") is a Mary Sue power fantasy (the character looks like Anita, even down to the earrings) and even conforms to some of the tropes Anita regards as sexist - male with boobs etc.



Not saying that this guy is correct, but damn is he funny.

While I like to harp on her complete lack of integrity (and did it way to much when all this started), that belongs in an Anita Sarkesian thread (please don't make one) rather than a women in games thread that simply uses her as a springboard. EDIT: Though I'll stand up and propose that if you want to solve sexism in mass media, focusing on story cliches and motiffs is probably not a good starting point, but I think that pretty much all of us know that's not her goal whether we think she's just in it for glory or if she's trying to raise awareness.

I never did get a chance to talk about Anita's princess game idea, but that video gives me a chance. As a general idea it's a nice one. The princess realizes that she isn't going to be rescued so she has to do it herself. Anita is not a game dev though. The big one being she basically has two games ham fitted together. Moving from a combat heavy game into a stealth heavy game is jarring to the player. Also like the video even points out her ending is illogical. Why would the princess just give up being princess?

I liked the core idea though and thought it could work. First thing I would do is cut out the part near the start where your killing monsters and leveling up. I like the idea behind the second half better and stealth gameplay is rare these days. The next is you have to give the princess an arc well I am thinking two arcs. Some for of character development over the game. Give her a reason to abandon the throne at the end.

Maybe, When she starts, she is a really bad princess. Like a "let them eat cake" princess. She is snobby, insulated and dismissive. That could even be the reason she gets kidnapped at first. People just hate her. So the idea is after she escapes, she goes through a journey of growth. At first she working to regain the throne only for her own selfish reasons. She wants revenge, she wants her crown back, so she trains and learns new abilities and powers (smoke bombs) so she can over throw the insurrection government. As she goes along, she starts her second arc. Well spending time in her city, she sees how bad her city is, but she also see that it's not a new state. Life was just as bad when she was in charge. That kicks off her second arc. She looks into her self and realities not only was she a bad person, bus she still in that same person under her new armor and she makes a choice to change. It's kind of a simple two arc set up. First she learns to kill, then next she learns to care, so by the end of the game her change of heart makes sense.

Well that is my take on her idea. It might not be any better then hers, but I had fun thinking about it.

If you want good examples of games that have female characters, point and click games feature the most female characters ever.

Hidden object games are great examples of stories with strong female characters. Female characters are uncommon because the game industry has yet to grow up out of the heh boobies idea. There are slews of games that are like that. The industry has to grow up like the hidden object games part of the industry. I have studied the industry and I can conform that the industry is getting better with more gender diversity it is increasing character deviations in gender and race.

Now female characters in the triple industry are usually sex symbols and giving them top heavy problems. Because that is what their audience wants. They want girls to be a sex symbol. It sounds horrible but sadly that is what the audience wants so the industry makes it that way.

Now game designers usually research before they actually write up a game, it is a team effort and very rarely is there a single individual who demands their way of thinking. It is a team that decides what goes on in a game and what characters go on. There are very few characters that are just put there to take up screen time in a game. (Hopefully)

Anyway hopefully my point of view fleshes out what happens in the industry as a whole, as someone is becoming quite active in the game industry.

I've mentioned it a few times in the last 19 pages or so but, in my opinion, probably the way things should be approached is rather than saying character type X and Y are sexist but that character types should be divorced from the sexes.

The tough, one liner talking, carrying a big gun Action Hero, shouldn't be an Action Hero because only men can be Action Heroes, but is one, because they're an Action Hero and that's what Action Hero's are, irrespective of their sex.

Even though it's semi a parody (more so bad, it's good), the film Doomsday with Rhona Mitra sort of covers it, I think. She wasn't massively played for sex appeal or the like (especially since she takes her eye out in a homage to Escape from LA in the first few minutes.) - Or at least, wasn't done much more so than say, Bruce Willis in Die Hard back in the day.

The big dumb action women. I don't think I have seen that yet. We do have action women, but they tend not to be big and they tend not to be dumb. It's kind of interesting to look at these gender swapped tropes and compare them because most of the time they don't simply change the gender. They change a few other minor aspects as well. Looking at the other changes that go along can reveal some neat stuff.

nomotog wrote:
The big dumb action women. I don't think I have seen that yet. We do have action women, but they tend not to be big and they tend not to be dumb. It's kind of interesting to look at these gender swapped tropes and compare them because most of the time they don't simply change the gender. They change a few other minor aspects as well. Looking at the other changes that go along can reveal some neat stuff.

Final Fantasy
Metriod Prime the Other M
X Blade
Heaven's Sword
Ninja Gaiden

There you go enjoy stupid action women.