Women as Reward

[PolWatch]

I'm not a gamer....my interest is how women are represented in popular media. Women who are gamers need to make their voices heard by using their wallets. If they are satisfied with how they are represented then there is no problem. I suspect its a matter of just accepting the status quo. There is no reason for the industry to offer change without motivation. The best motivation for any industry is money.

[IMPress Polly]

kilgram wrote:
I want to link to an article written in Forbes about the Witcher 3 and the criticism received by Sarkessian.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...the-witcher-3/

I believe that mature games want to be more realistic and portray real problems in their games like racism, sexism, prostitution...

I don't see anyone outside of perhaps GamerGate and the Family Research Council suggesting that they shouldn't. My problem when it comes to the matter of how franchises like The Witcher address sexism and prostitution lies in how they do so. Now let's take the case of sex work for example. When a game sets it up such that the player is incentivized to purchase the services of a prostitute by a reward system (e.g. getting experience points for doing so), that isn't the same thing as making a totally free choice because there's an incentive system there affecting your decision-making process. That for one thing. Even more importantly though, as long as the player's sole available relationship to prostitution is the option of purchasing the service...well it's hard to characterize that as anything other than sexual objectification. Put those two things together and you can see what Anita Sarkeesian was criticizing about The Witcher franchise in the OP video concerning how the game uses women's bodies as prizes.

If one is serious about addressing the topic of sex work as a social issue, not just including it to titillate a largely male player base, then here's a good way of going about that: consider the example of Heavy Rain. In that game, the player, in part of the game, takes on the role of a woman who becomes a sex worker in order provide for the needs of her family, which is a far less comfortable experience than being on the purchasing end, and one that presents workers in that field as real, complex human beings, not just as products to be consumed for experience points or health boosts. That relationship to her encourages empathy rather than callousness. You see the difference? It's not that the subject matter should be off limits, but that these workers should be treated as multi-dimensional human beings because that's what they are in the real world.

I could go through Erik Klain's article (which I've already read before) pointing out lots of similar things, but I find it too disingenuous really to be worth that kind of investment, so I'll just highlight a couple of the more absurd "points" he makes:

Mr. Klain criticizes John McIntosh's argument that Geralt, lead protagonist of The Witcher 3, is "emotionally deficient" in a way that reinforces the uncomplicated stoic warrior male archetype rather than challenging it by pointing out, for example, that "He's...incapable of crying because of his mutations...". Somehow it never dawns on Mr. Klain that said mutation doesn't exist in real life and is instead a convenient, arbitrary plot device calculated to further toughen up our protagonist to a degree that is literally inhuman. And then he spends pretty much the rest of the article justifying the routine sexual harassment of Ciri (criticized by Anita Sarkeesian in tweets) by arguing that it's there because the game is all about realism. Certainly no double-standard there!

The Witcher franchise is a fantasy series filled with ghouls, wraiths, etc. There is nothing especially realistic about it. Such games can either challenge or reinforce existing stereotypes and prejudices. The Witcher franchise, both as a novel series and a game series, does a little bit of both, but mostly the latter. It's not that one can't appreciate the game in aggregate or anything, but I firmly believe that if we can't criticize those things therein that are obviously about reinforcing sexist attitudes, then I think we do not only women everywhere, but also video games as a medium, a disservice because we hinder the further development of the medium as an art form by limiting the range of stories that it's okay to tell to ones that fit within the ideological framework of patriarchy.

[kilgram]

I don't see anyone outside of perhaps GamerGate and the Family Research Council suggesting that they shouldn't. My problem when it comes to the matter of how franchises like The Witcher address sexism and prostitution lies in how they do so. Now let's take the case of sex work for example. When a game sets it up such that the player (and I'm sorry, but Geralt is definitely the main character: it's his story, he's the one on the box cover and in the commercials, etc.) is incentivized to purchase the services of a prostitute by a reward system (e.g. getting experience points for doing so), that isn't the same thing as making a totally free choice because there's an incentive system there affecting your decision-making process. That for one thing. Even more importantly though, as long as the player's sole available relationship to prostitution is the option of purchasing the service...well it's hard to characterize that as anything other than sexual objectification. Put those two things together and you can see what Anita Sarkeesian was criticizing about The Witcher franchise in the OP video concerning how the game uses women's bodies as prizes.

If one is serious about addressing the topic of sex work, not just including it to titillate a largely male player base, then here's a good way of going about that: consider the example of Heavy Rain. In that game, the player, in part of the game, takes on the role of a woman who becomes a sex worker in order provide for the needs of her family, which is a far less comfortable experience and one that presents workers in that field as real, complex human beings, not just as products to be consumed for experience points or health boosts. That relationship to her encourages empathy rather than callousness. You see the difference? It's not that the subject matter should be off limits, but that these workers should be treated as multi-dimensional human beings because that's what they are in the real world.

I could go through Erik Klain's article (which I've already read before) pointing out lots of similar things, but I find it too disingenuous really to be worth that kind of investment, so I'll just highlight a couple of the more absurd "points" he makes:

Mr. Klain criticizes John McIntosh's argument that Geralt is "emotionally deficient" in a way that reinforces the uncomplicated stoic warrior male archetype rather than challenging it by pointing out, for example, that "He's...incapable of crying because of his mutations...". Somehow it never dawns on Mr. Klain that said mutation doesn't exist in real life and is instead a convenient, arbitrary plot device calculated to further toughen up our protagonist to a degree that is literally inhuman. And then he spends pretty much the rest of the article justifying the routine sexual harassment of Ciri (criticized by Anita Sarkeesian in tweets) by arguing that it's there because the game is all about realism. Certainly no double-standard there!

The Witcher franchise is a fantasy series filled with ghouls, wraiths, etc. There is nothing especially realistic about it. Such games can either challenge or reinforce existing stereotypes and prejudices. The Witcher franchise, both as a novel series and a game series, does a little bit of both, but mostly the latter. It's not that one can't appreciate the game in aggregate or anything, but I firmly believe that if we can't criticize those things therein that are obviously about reinforcing sexist attitudes, then I think we do not only women everywhere, but also video games as a medium, a disservice because we hinder the further development of the medium as an art form by limiting the range of stories that it's okay to tell to ones that fit within the ideological framework of patriarchy.

I remember you that comes from the books. That is not a decision of the developers. I don't remember that Geralt gets rewards for using prostitution.

It is more, he gets penalized if the player makes Geralt too womanizer.

The Witcher is a realistic world. Even you have fantasy items. It is like Game of Thrones or other fantasy stories that they are pretty realistic even in a fantastic setting.

The harassment of Ciri is a constant in the books, too. But that makes the character stronger. I don't see the problem of portraying the evil characters as that.

And if the world is sexist and everything that is different is discriminated. I remember that is a cruel world where women are prosecuted for witchery, dwarves and elves live in ghetto and suffer continuous racism.

In a sexist world I expect troubles for the main female characters. But, they are portrayed as a strong characters that fight against that discrimination.

At least it is my analysis, considering that I've read the books and played the games. And you know that I am pretty feminist, maybe I can be blinded respect to the Witcher because I like it a lot, but I don't see the sexism that you are indicating.

Ah, and Geralt has feelings, like happiness, love,... And it is portrayed during the song of Priscilla. Look the video and you will see how he is close to cry.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[kilgram]

I want to add, that the behaviour of some characters in the story against another character cannot make to conclude that the game is sexist.

If we do that, we must conclude that the game is racist and sexist.

And, the reality is that topics are discussed in the game, but the game itself is pretty neutral, even I would say the opposite, it reports those attitudes and is pretty against it.

Also, how is possible to a game be sexist when the women in the game are the strongest characters, most independent that you can find. And they are not the damisel in distress that you can find in other games. And above that, if the game is sexist, Ciri should not be stronger than Geralt, and she is.

No, the Witcher series are not sexist. And more when we consider the overall of how the characters behave and fight the challenges.

If the only sexist thing can be mentioned about the game is how the enemies talk to Ciri, sorry but that is not sexism. $#@!, they are enemies and they hate her. Obviously I expect that she will be treated poorly as Geralt is with his own enemies. Geralt is called freak for being different.

And going to the topic of prostitution. In the Witcher, prostitution is not a prize. You don't get anything from it.

A world setting can be very realistic even with fantasy items like ghouls... And the game and books create a history in a cruel world. A world with many problems like racism, sexism,... That is the point. The characters don't follow any sterotype like weak, defenseless women that need to be saved. As I said, women in the game are very independent and fight for their place in the world.

Is that sexist?

Is the game racist?

I want to say, that I agree in most of the points you previously said, but here I disagree.

[CreepyOldDude]

I thank you for watching! In return, I will watch the reply video you posted.

Aaah, Liana K! A favorite of the GamerGate people! I remember her! Well alright, for those who aren't willing to watch her video, I've taken the opportunity to list the basic arguments she presents below in the order in which they're made in the video:


-There's nothing sexually objectifying about the way Playboy magazines depict women.

-Chivalry (as in the damsel in distress narrative) is empowering to women in a 21st century context because the rescue is not motivated specifically by sex.

-Sex is not a form of reward for the player when they get experience points and/or enhanced abilities as a result.

-Metroid players should think of their relationship to Samus Aran as a romantic one. (Really? Even a heterosexual woman like me?)

-Receiving in-game Achievements for sexist behavior deters said behavior.

-Criticizing sexist content in video games is tantamount to attacking video games as a medium and everyone who plays them.


Incidentally, I'm not using sarcasm in the above point descriptions: those are her actual arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like I need to respond to any of them because their complete denialism and obscurantist stupidity I think is made self-evident enough just in presenting them. However, there is one line late in the video that I do want to respond to specifically:

"Saying it's okay to like these games isn't enough. Anita and friends aren't showing nearly enough sensitivity to the fact that gamers feel far more strongly about these games than just 'like'."

What I find particularly obnoxious about this statement is it's sheer hypocrisy. After all, she just spent her whole video up to that point -- the preceding 26 minutes -- complaining about the evils of "Anita and friends" ostensibly using standards of "political correctness" and then turns right around and demands even more politeness of them. Does one not see any self-serving double-standard here at all? Seriously?! I mean frankly Anita Sarkeesian's video is far more polite and respectful than Liana K's profanity-laced, mostly-sarcastic reply video. *sigh* In any event, the issues that Sarkeesian raises, as her video points out, are not simply matters of rudeness. Rather, the way women are portrayed in games can have, and does have, real-world consequences SUCH AS the routine sexual harassment and threats that women really do receive in a great many online gaming communities for example. Entitlement mentality begets entitled behavior. Liana K. attempts to separate these things as if they were two unrelated phenomena, each occurring in a vacuum. No. They occur in a social and cultural context and we need to be able to criticize that context! And yes, video games can DEFINITELY be part of that context!

I'll take your word for it about Liana K being a gamergate favorite. I never took part in gamergate, and I've never heard of her before I saw this video. While I don't agree with everything she said, I have to agree with most of it. I agree that Sarkeesian makes some points, but she's off base on some of her points.

Getting to a couple of your highlights:

- I must have missed it. Could you point out the timecode in the video where she says there's nothing sexually objectifying in the way Playboy depicts women? I saw the part where she mentions that she doesn't think that using a Playboy to distract a guard in Metal Gear Solid is going to damage the way men think about women. Which isn't the same thing at all.

- Could you explain how having whether or not a man has proven himself worthy to a woman be entirely up to the woman to decide is objectifying to women?

I'll try to get back sometime this weekend to see your response, and respond to your other points.

In the meantime, have an excellent weekend.

[OGIS]

The one thing the Islamowhacks got right is - they're not rewards unless they're virgins.

An obsession with virgins says more about a man's self-confidence (vis-a-vis his performance in comparison with other males) than it does about the relative merits of virgins -vs- experienced women.

IOW, there are a lot of tiny limp dicks in ISIS.

Experienced women know better how to please a man. But they also expect more.