Women as Reward

[IMPress Polly]

Well, as I've predicted, the latest episode of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is indeed garnering articles and commentaries both in the gaming press and beyond. From Destructoid we find a dismissive presentation that sounds pretty much like Dr. Who's except less intellectual, while the article from Cosmopolitan on the subject (perhaps somewhat more reflective of the vantage point of women on the subject) offers complete agreement. I think the latter shows you that, within the women's movement, even the hardcore sexual liberals tend to be supportive of Sarkeesian's work. The view on gaming forums depends entirely on which ones you frequent. Some are very dismissive, while others are almost unanimously in agreement with Anita on this. That's so far anyway. (If anyone is interested in links, I can provide them.)

Well anyway, as to my own general thoughts on Women as Reward, personally I don't see what there is to dispute here because the case is made pretty thoroughly. In fact, I think this is her best video in the series yet for a couple of reasons:

First of all, the highly structured way in which she makes her case ensures the clarity of each point. I mean that Women as Reward is more highly structured than her earlier videos and it helps. To something XL said, she begins by pointing out how, over time, the smooch of victory has degenerated into full-fledged reward sex, as nothing less can be expected for victory as this point. From there, she breaks the remainder of the commentary down into a number of formal categories (which is new for this series), checking them off over the course of the episode as she completes her remarks on each and, as usual, substantiates her case with dozens of concrete examples spanning in this case the last three decades. (Feminist Frequency productions are the gold standard for feminist commentary on video games.)

Just as important as the level of structure though is the way this episode wraps up: by pointing out that the large scale on which this kind of material is produced and consumed (both in games and other media) yields a real-world impact for the way that women get treated both in gaming environments and elsewhere. While all episodes of this series have pointed that out, this was the first one to really single out gaming-world examples and include some critiques not just of the gaming industry, but also of some gamers themselves, taking sides in some actual debates that have taken place in the gaming community in recent years (around that later Mass Effect games and more recently around Dragon Age: Inquisition for example). That's important because I feel like the presentation of feminist views in general is often written off as just a demand for politeness ("political correctness"), as if sexual harassment, sexual assault, a 23% income gap, etc., are merely matters of rudeness and impropriety that only the overly sensitive complain about or seek to address. Behind all these facts of life under patriarchy are corresponding cultural attitudes that don't get developed spontaneously. They come from somewhere. That is what organizations like Feminist Frequency are about: addressing those underlying attitudes by highlighting from where and whence they come.

Yes, there is a lack of nuance here that I imagine can be off-putting to many men and also to some women. Still, the stark presentation has a purpose. Incidentally, in connection to the whole matter of nuance on the gender politics of games, Feminist Frequency has earlier this year announced their intention to make a separate series on the treatment of men in video games. Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is dedicated specifically to the topic of female tropes.

[The Xl]

The biggest issue I have with her is that she seems to nitpick every little thing, conflating legitimate points with non points or minor points at best, and it hurts her message, because she's pressing it too far and clearly grasping at straws. Watching a couple of her other videos, she seems to have a problem with individualism as well.

She makes some good points, but it's hard to ignore the legitimate, major flaws in her logic. I can see how she's a lightning rod for criticism. I do have to wonder if this is done intentionally for the purpose of increasing her bottom line, her monetary worth, and for the purpose of making her more famous....

[PolWatch]

Video games are designed to sell to the target market....adolescent males. I don't see the games changing because these are the images that appeal to immature males. It would be nice if the women were represented more realistically or respectfully but the entire field is fantasy based. I just don't see the images changing until they are no longer profitable. Sex sells.

[Dr. Who]

Well, as I've predicted, the latest episode of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is indeed garnering articles and commentaries both in the gaming press and beyond. From Destructoid we find a dismissive presentation that sounds pretty much like Dr. Who's except less intellectual, while the article from Cosmopolitan on the subject (perhaps somewhat more reflective of the vantage point of women on the subject) offers complete agreement. I think the latter shows you that, within the women's movement, even the hardcore sexual liberals tend to be supportive of Sarkeesian's work. The view on gaming forums depends entirely on which ones you frequent. Some are very dismissive, while others are almost unanimously in agreement with Anita on this. That's so far anyway. (If anyone is interested in links, I can provide them.)

Well anyway, as to my own general thoughts on Women as Reward, personally I don't see what there is to dispute here because the case is made pretty thoroughly. In fact, I think this is her best video in the series yet for a couple of reasons:

First of all, the highly structured way in which she makes her case ensures the clarity of each point. I mean that Women as Reward is more highly structured than her earlier videos and it helps. To something XL said, she begins by pointing out how, over time, the smooch of victory has degenerated into full-fledged reward sex, as nothing less can be expected for victory as this point. From there, she breaks the remainder of the commentary down into a number of formal categories (which is new for this series), checking them off over the course of the episode as she completes her remarks on each and, as usual, substantiates her case with dozens of concrete examples spanning in this case the last three decades. (Feminist Frequency productions are the gold standard for feminist commentary on video games.)

Just as important as the level of structure though is the way this episode wraps up: by pointing out that the large scale on which this kind of material is produced and consumed (both in games and other media) yields a real-world impact for the way that women get treated both in gaming environments and elsewhere. While all episodes of this series have pointed that out, this was the first one to really single out gaming-world examples and include some critiques not just of the gaming industry, but also of some gamers themselves, taking sides in some actual debates that have taken place in the gaming community in recent years (around that later Mass Effect games and more recently around Dragon Age: Inquisition for example). That's important because I feel like the presentation of feminist views in general is often written off as just a demand for politeness ("political correctness"), as if sexual harassment, sexual assault, a 23% income gap, etc., are merely matters of rudeness and impropriety that only the overly sensitive complain about or seek to address. Behind all these facts of life under patriarchy are corresponding cultural attitudes that don't get developed spontaneously. They come from somewhere. That is what organizations like Feminist Frequency are about: addressing those underlying attitudes by highlighting from where and whence they come.

Yes, there is a lack of nuance here that I imagine can be off-putting to many men and also to some women. Still, the stark presentation has a purpose. Incidentally, in connection to the whole matter of nuance on the gender politics of games, Feminist Frequency has earlier this year announced their intention to make a separate series on the treatment of men in video games. Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is dedicated specifically to the topic of female tropes.

My response was not intended to be dismissive, but rather to recognize the underlying physiological and psychological differences between males and females that have always been part of our narrative as a species. The notion of female warrior heroine is anomalous in real life and not one that generally even appeals to the majority of females. Female as the impetus for action is far more realistic, whether she is the intelligent queen making decisions which are fulfilled by her loyal warriors or whether she is the leader of a group of space pirates out thinking their targets or outwitting their pursuers. Our history and story telling is replete with such women for whom men have gone to battle and forfeited their lives. The notion of a woman being a physical Amazon defeating male attackers is far less common in the human narrative and frankly fairly unrealistic unless she is wearing a gender equalizing robot suit.

We also have to recognize the biological differences that make males more physically aggressive and females far more passive and how that plays into our biological imperative as a species. The obviously exaggerated fantasies portrayed in these video games while generally objectifying females, still none the less serve to appeal to the psychology of males who are necessarily attracted to the softness and passivity of females. A heavily muscled aggressive female is unattractive if not repellent to most males. As a result, given that they are the target market, despite the fact that females comprise at least 50% of the gaming market, that game with such a protagonist would be unappealing to young males, although wouldn't dissuade female gamers from playing. Participants play these games identifying with the character they choose. How many males would choose to be the female warrior, whereas how many females are likely to play the game as a male?

Then we get to the marketing aspect of these games. As PolWatch noted, sex sells. So while there should certainly be more female characters in video games to appeal to female players, if they don't appeal to males, the game developers would lose the male market share, whereas the opposite is not true. That exemplifies the basic different psychology between males and females. Many females will read books where the protagonist is a male - few males read books where the protagonist is female. Females are more capable of identifying with either sex, whereas males are far more exclusive.

[silvereyes]

Okay, I just watched it. I had to watch on my phone, and had to create a youtube account to watch it, so you owe me one.(I kid, I kid, hope that didn't sound like male privilege )

I think it's undeniable that in many genres, mostly mature ones, but others too, that women are seen as objects and are overly sexualized. I'm guessing that programmers and developers create games like this thinking that the majority of their market is the male demographic and that this will help them sell more copies, it is a business after all, and people in this industry, like nearly every other, are looking to turn a profit. It doesn't make it moral or right, but it is the nature of it. When you consider that people buying these mature titles are looking for edginess, sex, violence, things of that nature, and that in some games, over the top sexuality may even be part of the genre, then they may have a point. Frankly, I think a lot of the problem is that women allow themselves to be exploited, over sexualized, and painted in a bad light, a material only light, by continuing to give these developers business. As you've proven before, a large chunk of gamers are female, and if they all went on strike so to speak, and didn't monetarily support these games or even game companies, I think you'd see a change pretty quickly.

As far as women being used as trophies in games, it certainly does exist and is quite vulgar and demeaning in some cases, but I think it's important to note the differences between how some games go about it. Their is a huge difference in the way Grand Theft Auto and God of war goes about it, and how a Super Mario Bros goes about it and to a lesser extent, Metroid. The former is vicious and distasteful, showing women out to be objects that are used, and the latter is generally fun and innocent, no harm no foul in my opinion. If anything, I thought Metroid put women in a good light, showing them to be both strong and also sexy while still remaining tasteful. I think when things like that are conflated, it turns the the average person, the average male specifically, off. I think more traction would be had with the sentiment if they stuck to the really bad stuff.

Male privilege certainly exists in the mind of some males, and certainly it's a problem. Like she said, a lot of elements of society play a part to some extent, and sure, video games play a role. But at the end of the day, we all have our own free will, and no matter what is around us, it isn't an excuse to act like a jackass. I'm someone who plays many different genres of games, yes, even some that exploit women in certain ways, like Grand Theft Auto, yet I don't let it dictate how I view or treat women. People need to be held accountable for their own behaviors, I feel like society is always looking for an excuse or justification for everything.

Also on the privilege bit, it felt like she was condemning all men, or most men, as if this male privilege exists within the vast majority of males, and I don't think that's fair. I also feel that she was insinuating that every male, either consciously or unconsciously, has some degree of this privilege and sees women as pieces of meat to some degree, and I don't feel that was fair or accurate. All in all, I understand and even agree with a lot of what she says, but I think in some cases, it's taken a bit too far, whether it's merely insinuated or explicitly stated. Interesting watch, in any case.

Wow, I'm impressed. Well thought out and explained.

[The Xl]

Wow, I'm impressed. Well thought out and explained.

Everyone has their moments, even me.

[The Xl]

Video games are designed to sell to the target market....adolescent males. I don't see the games changing because these are the images that appeal to immature males. It would be nice if the women were represented more realistically or respectfully but the entire field is fantasy based. I just don't see the images changing until they are no longer profitable. Sex sells.

Adults and even women are big on games. Teenage/young males were the only target 20-30 years ago, but they grew up, and a lot of them still play. It's a reason why you see long standing franchises that were established decades ago doing so well. Mortal Kombat games still sell like hot cakes. The Final Fantasy 7 remake will probably break records. And a lot of the reason that is happens to be because people in their 30-50s still play.

[The Xl]

My response was not intended to be dismissive, but rather to recognize the underlying physiological and psychological differences between males and females that have always been part of our narrative as a species. The notion of female warrior heroine is anomalous in real life and not one that generally even appeals to the majority of females. Female as the impetus for action is far more realistic, whether she is the intelligent queen making decisions which are fulfilled by her loyal warriors or whether she is the leader of a group of space pirates out thinking their targets or outwitting their pursuers. Our history and story telling is replete with such women for whom men have gone to battle and forfeited their lives. The notion of a woman being a physical Amazon defeating male attackers is far less common in the human narrative and frankly fairly unrealistic unless she is wearing a gender equalizing robot suit.

We also have to recognize the biological differences that make males more physically aggressive and females far more passive and how that plays into our biological imperative as a species. The obviously exaggerated fantasies portrayed in these video games while generally objectifying females, still none the less serve to appeal to the psychology of males who are necessarily attracted to the softness and passivity of females. A heavily muscled aggressive female is unattractive if not repellent to most males. As a result, given that they are the target market, despite the fact that females comprise at least 50% of the gaming market, that game with such a protagonist would be unappealing to young males, although wouldn't dissuade female gamers from playing. Participants play these games identifying with the character they choose. How many males would choose to be the female warrior, whereas how many females are likely to play the game as a male?

Then we get to the marketing aspect of these games. As PolWatch noted, sex sells. So while there should certainly be more female characters in video games to appeal to female players, if they don't appeal to males, the game developers would lose the male market share, whereas the opposite is not true. That exemplifies the basic different psychology between males and females. Many females will read books where the protagonist is a male - few males read books where the protagonist is female. Females are more capable of identifying with either sex, whereas males are far more exclusive.

A lot of it comes down to profit. Will selling sex make males more inclined to buy a game? It seems so. Is there any consequence from the potential female buyers? No, those females interested in particular genres still buy too, it doesn't deter them. So from a strictly monetary perspective, it makes perfect sense for developers and programmers to go the route that they do. Does that make it moral? Not necessarily, it is what it is.

[Dr. Who]

A lot of it comes down to profit. Will selling sex make males more inclined to buy a game? It seems so. Is there any consequence from the potential female buyers? No, those females interested in particular genres still buy too, it doesn't deter them. So from a strictly monetary perspective, it makes perfect sense for developers and programmers to go the route that they do. Does that make it moral? Not necessarily, it is what it is.

At the end of the day people vote with their wallets, so if the 50% female market decide that the objectification of females in video games is off putting, they won't buy those games and the developers will find a significant drop in revenues. I don't see it happening any time soon.

[AeonPax]

`
I used to play online games. Then I discovered online games in darknet.