Women as Reward

[IMPress Polly]

Alright, I'm going to cheat with this one and do a bunch of mentions because, unlike the typical gaming-related subjects we discuss here in the Geek Out Zone, this is the kind that generates news stories even outside the game-O-sphere and there are a number of people's input (both hardcore gamers and not) that I'd like on this subject if I can collect them: PolWatch The Xl Chloe William AeonPax silvereyes kilgram Green Arrow Hal Jordan

In 2009, a college student named Anita Sarkeesian started a web site called Feminist Frequency for the purposes of relaying casual gender analysis of pop culture in general. Early videos that went up on the site included spirit-filled commentaries on the gender relations and roles in movies, TV shows, commercials, and a particularly well-crafted two-part mini-series on Legos. Over time, the level of analysis got deeper and the material more professional in feel. In May of 2012, she launched a Kickstarter fund to create a web video series on five common female tropes in video games, requesting $6,000. To her great surprise, the obscure feminist site's Kickstarter on this subject took in that much in less than 24 hours and wound up raising some $159,000 from nearly 7,000 backers. In view of all these additional resources, they delayed the release of the first videos in the series until the following year because the additional funds allowed them to considerably expand the scope and scale of the project.

As soon as the aforementioned Kickstarter began drawing in funds, Anita became famous in gaming circles and a sustained, large-scale harassment and intimidation movement began to stop the project from ever being completed. This movement drew the attention of the national press, which in turn ensured that the release of the first mini-series in the Tropes vs. Women series, Damsel in Distress, would draw hundreds of thousands of viewers. The material contained therein and in the video covering the second of the referenced five female tropes, The Ms. Male Character, was described by multiple mainstream press outlets (such as The New York Times, for example) as "essential viewing" and Anita went on to win the industry's Ambassador award the following year for her work. Then came the mini-series on trope number three, Women as Background Decoration, last summer, which a new network of conservative gamers and men's rights activists called GamerGate responded to with the kind of unprecedented vitriol that only sustains headlines. Some of the subsequent death threats against her and her family were considered so credible by the FBI that she had to flee her home. And so we arrive at today.

Over the last year, GamerGate has lapsed into relative obscurity, but not before compelling the game industry to recognize that it does indeed have a major problem with women that needs to be addressed, to which the fact that this year's E3 trade show a couple months back was the first in history in which most of the upcoming releases showcased at minimum offered players the option of using a female character. Nothing even close to that has ever happened before. Such has been the impact of Anita Sarkeesian's work on the world of games. It's not ALL been her, of course, but she is considered the leading voice of the women's movement in the gaming world. Thus it is of major cultural significance when she releases new material, and she just has.

The video below, released two days ago, covers the fourth trope on the list: Women as Reward. Even at this early stage, it already has more than 260,000 views. Expect there to be news items on it and expect this to be a major topic in gaming communities everywhere in the coming period. But what I want first are your thoughts. Please check it out if you will and share your thoughts and opinions on the material discussed because lots of people are going to be talking about it in the coming period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC6oxBLXtkU

[Captain Obvious]

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

[The Xl]

I can't watch the video right now, I'll give you my thoughts a little later when I'm able to watch it.

[Green Arrow]

Subscribed. I'll get back to this when I'm on my laptop.

[IMPress Polly]

Think I'll add Howey and Adelaide .

[The Xl]

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 :wink:)

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.

[William]

Thanks IMPress Polly, the video is too long for me to watch right now (I'm in class) but I will look at it later. Also I can't understand what that woman is saying - I sometimes have trouble with the American accent, and she speaks too quickly. :smiley:

[Hal Jordan]

It's really not surprising that gaming culture has a problem with females, considering that geek culture as a whole does. I'll get into that when I'm more awake,though... This is the first video of hers that I've watched, and good points were made...

[Dr. Who]

Alright, I'm going to cheat with this one and do a bunch of mentions because, unlike the typical gaming-related subjects we discuss here in the Geek Out Zone, this is the kind that generates news stories even outside the game-O-sphere and there are a number of people's input (both hardcore gamers and not) that I'd like on this subject if I can collect them: @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @William (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1351) @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Hal Jordan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=994)

In 2009, a college student named Anita Sarkeesian started a web site called Feminist Frequency for the purposes of relaying casual gender analysis of pop culture in general. Early videos that went up on the site included spirit-filled commentaries on the gender relations and roles in movies, TV shows, commercials, and a particularly well-crafted two-part mini-series on Legos. Over time, the level of analysis got deeper and the material more professional in feel. In May of 2012, she launched a Kickstarter fund to create a web video series on five common female tropes in video games, requesting $6,000. To her great surprise, the obscure feminist site's Kickstarter on this subject took in that much in less than 24 hours and wound up raising some $159,000 from nearly 7,000 backers. In view of all these additional resources, they delayed the release of the first videos in the series until the following year because the additional funds allowed them to considerably expand the scope and scale of the project.

As soon as the aforementioned Kickstarter began drawing in funds, Anita became famous in gaming circles and a sustained, large-scale harassment and intimidation movement began to stop the project from ever being completed. This movement drew the attention of the national press, which in turn ensured that the release of the first mini-series in the Tropes vs. Women series, Damsel in Distress, would draw hundreds of thousands of viewers. The material contained therein and in the video covering the second of the referenced five female tropes, The Ms. Male Character, was described by multiple mainstream press outlets (such as The New York Times, for example) as "essential viewing" and Anita went on to win the industry's Ambassador award the following year for her work. Then came the mini-series on trope number three, Women as Background Decoration, last summer, which a new network of conservative gamers and men's rights activists called GamerGate responded to with the kind of unprecedented vitriol that only sustains headlines. Some of the subsequent death threats against her and her family were considered so credible by the FBI that she had to flee her home. And so we arrive at today.

Over the last year, GamerGate has lapsed into relative obscurity, but not before compelling the game industry to recognize that it does indeed have a major problem with women that needs to be addressed, to which the fact that this year's E3 trade show a couple months back was the first in history in which most of the upcoming releases showcased at minimum offered players the option of using a female character. Nothing even close to that has ever happened before. Such has been the impact of Anita Sarkeesian's work on the world of games. It's not ALL been her, of course, but she is considered the leading voice of the women's movement in the gaming world. Thus it is of major cultural significance when she releases new material, and she just has.

The video below, released two days ago, covers the fourth trope on the list: Women as Reward. Even at this early stage, it already has more than 260,000 views. Expect there to be news items on it and expect this to be a major topic in gaming communities everywhere in the coming period. But what I want first are your thoughts. Please check it out if you will and share your thoughts and opinions on the material discussed because lots of people are going to be talking about it in the coming period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC6oxBLXtkU
I wasn't called out on this, but video games tend to represent human culturalized fiction. By that I mean that there are thousands of years of history of female as reward for brave warrior from the simplest of fables like Rapunzel, to our most complicated movies and TV series. Both males and females tend to support this phenomenon. While not all women offer themselves to the most macho guy around, macho guys get a lot of play from women. Women are often attracted to a guy in uniform - why? Women are often attracted to men with muscles - why? Women are often happy to have two men fight over them - why? As much as we have moved beyond our prehistoric activities, women still see men as a protector and men still see women as a reward for being successful, whether it be in battle or in business. We have evolved in many ways, but some aspects of humanity are still basic to our origins and are somewhat hardwired. So notwithstanding the fact that most video games are ultimately a teenage boy's wet dream, they still accurately represent our society to a degree. A female as a warrior heroine is not all that popular, unless she has a male protagonist who occasionally saves her or helps her with the bad guys.

[Cthulhu]

Thunderf00t did a video on this. Long but fairly informative.

https://youtu.be/t6tD_RxtoY0

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[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 :wink:)

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.

[Mister D]

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.

I dare say this is one of the most incisive comments I've seen in quite some time.

[Mister D]

Thanks @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), the video is too long for me to watch right now (I'm in class) but I will look at it later. Also I can't understand what that woman is saying - I sometimes have trouble with the American accent, and she speaks too quickly. :smiley:

Son, why are you reading posts here while you're in class?


Then again, who am I to talk? I do this at work sometimes. :tongue:

[Captain Obvious]

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.

Sex sells to novices.

Bores the rest of us.

[Dr. Who]

Sex sells to novices.

Bores the rest of us.
Unfortunately you are not the target market.

[Captain Obvious]

Unfortunately you are not the target market.

Agreed, but to be honest even when I was 20-something, even late teens I wasn't in that target market either. I never paid much attention to the sale of sex, it never impacted me in any material way. I felt stupid if I would let myself be drawn into that because I knew it was fake.

Never bought designer clothes, colognes, games or whatever but I think I was an oddball in a lot of senses too.

[GrassrootsConservative]

It's not a video game trope. It's a reflection of reality. Women make themselves a "reward" all the time, to be won with an unspecified amount of tribute, be it cash or deeds or gifts or compliments or whatever. It's always a give and take.

Women even directly sell themselves for money all the time, which is a way of offering "women as a reward."

But go ahead and demonize the video game industry, their games haven't hurt a single woman, unlike the prostitution some (like myself) are for (in the name of freedom) and others are against (even though they may have committed such acts of prostitution in the past :wave:).

[Captain Obvious]

It's not a video game trope. It's a reflection of reality. Women make themselves a "reward" all the time, to be won with an unspecified amount of tribute, be it cash or deeds or gifts or compliments or whatever. It's always a give and take.

Women even directly sell themselves for money all the time, which is a way of offering "women as a reward."

But go ahead and demonize the video game industry, their games haven't hurt a single woman, unlike the prostitution some (like myself) are for (in the name of freedom) and others are against (even though they may have committed such acts of prostitution in the past :wave:).

Works for me.

I provide my wife protection against predators, food and shelter and she rewards me with sex.

Hooray for evolution!

[GrassrootsConservative]

Works for me.

I provide my wife protection against predators, food and shelter and she rewards me with sex.

Hooray for evolution!

That's fine, I'm just wondering why the OP has a problem with it being portrayed in the media, as if it's some fantastical absurdity rather than being one of the foundations for survival as a species. Men compete in life almost exclusively for the sole reward of women being at their disposal for mating and the like upon their arrival at success.

Women reciprocate by making themselves the rewards for such successes. "Sucky sucky 5 dolla." (You make 5 "dolla," get rewarded with "sucky sucky.")

That's life and most of us accept it without denial.

[Captain Obvious]

That's fine, I'm just wondering why the OP has a problem with it being portrayed in the media, as if it's some fantastical absurdity rather than being one of the foundations for survival as a species. Men compete in life almost exclusively for the sole reward of women being at their disposal for mating and the like upon their arrival at success.

Women reciprocate by making themselves the rewards for such successes. "Sucky sucky 5 dolla." (You make 5 "dolla," get rewarded with "sucky sucky."

That's life and most of us accept it without denial.

We - men, women are still biologically driven. People who expect an entire society to just flip a switch and turn that part of our biological system off are really kind of kidding themselves.

[GrassrootsConservative]

We - men, women are still biologically driven. People who expect an entire society to just flip a switch and turn that part of our biological system off are really kind of kidding themselves.

Yep. Occasionally I do see a very attractive woman and I think to myself just for a moment "I wonder how much I would have to pay her to sleep with me." But I've never done that and I don't think I could. Feels like an insult to me as a man. Luckily I've always (well, since high school) had girls/women that were interested in sex. I hope that continues and believe it will. I've heard it said on average females are attracted to middle-age men most.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Which isn't to say I don't "pay for it" in other ways, obviously, I've just never had to exchange for it at face value (or tits value, or ass value, or whatever).

[Captain Obvious]

Yep. Occasionally I do see a very attractive woman and I think to myself just for a moment "I wonder how much I would have to pay her to sleep with me." But I've never done that and I don't think I could. Feels like an insult to me as a man. Luckily I've always (well, since high school) had girls/women that were interested in sex. I hope that continues and believe it will. I've heard it said on average females are attracted to middle-age men most.

Middle aged men are probably more attractive to younger women for this reason, more than say younger men being attracted to middle aged women, but there's a lot to be said about cougars.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Middle aged men are probably more attractive to younger women for this reason, more than say younger men being attracted to middle aged women, but there's a lot to be said about cougars.

Cougars are more experienced and more likely to have their stuff together. Also women have a higher sex drive into their "cougar" years so it's not as much about this reward system the OP is so much against. I've delved into the cougar thing a couple times. It's nice to not have to worry about your bank account draining because of the current piece of ass you're tapping.

[PolWatch]

Men who think of and treat women like nothing more than a piece of meat usually end up being treated as nothing but a bank account. Minimum wagers need not apply for USDA Prime.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Men who think of and treat women like nothing more than a piece of meat usually end up being treated as nothing but a bank account. Minimum wagers need not apply for USDA Prime.

That's an interesting opinion. I don't know any men who think of and treat women like nothing more than a piece of mat though. Women are a good bit more nagging and demanding than any piece of meat I've ever known.

[Common]

Women are marketed, everywhere in most everything. Most any movie the heros reward is he gets the girl. A guy goes through living hell through 2 hrs of movie, in the end hes in the arms of a beautiful woman and all he went through disappears. HE GOT THE REWARD. Polly is right.

Now for the caveat, most women dont "seem" to mind.

[PolWatch]

'piece of mat'? Freudian slip? mat = as in rug to walk on? Sigmund would be soooo interested

[GrassrootsConservative]

Women are marketed, everywhere in most everything. Most any movie the heros reward is he gets the girl. A guy goes through living hell through 2 hrs of movie, in the end hes in the arms of a beautiful woman and all he went through disappears. HE GOT THE REWARD. Polly is right.

Now for the caveat, most women dont "seem" to mind.

That's the way the world works, but Polly isn't right, she's treating this "video game trope" like something that doesn't happen in real life, as if it's fantasy, but I've shown that it does, and what's more, that's what drives our species.

[GrassrootsConservative]

'piece of mat'? Freudian slip? mat = as in rug to walk on? Sigmund would be soooo interested

Typo. How come whenever I call someone on a spelling or grammatical error it's a typo but you have the audacity to call it a Freudian slip?

Annoying and arrogant.

/Edit: And I even spelled it right the second time.

[Common]

That's the way the world works, but Polly isn't right, she's treating this "video game trope" like something that doesn't happen in real life, as if it's fantasy, but I've shown that it does, and what's more, that's what drives our species.

I wasnt commenting on the game or pollys point of view of the game to be honest.

[IMPress Polly]

Dr. Who wrote:
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.

This is 100% nonsense. The survey data we have suggests that the exact OPPOSITE of this is true! What our current polling data on this subject suggests is that about 80% of male players don't care about the gender of their protagonist, where about 70% of women prefer to play as a female character. IN OTHER WORDS, if we reversed the current gender ratios of playable avatars in games (currently 85% of playable game characters are male, but if we instead had a situation where they were 85% female), the rate at which women purchase games would probably multiply, while the industry would probably only sacrifice about 20% of its existing male player base in the process. In this sense, there is no marketing rationale to the current gender representation in games at all, but rather simply a human wariness of taking risks...and a nearly 90% male developer core. (Currently, only 11% of game industry employees in this country are women, and it's worse still in Europe and Japan.)


Dr. Who wrote:
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.


The XI wrote:
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.

The simple truth of the matter is that women DON'T buy "those games", or at least not very many of them. Women mostly acquire other games. Casual games. You know why? Because they're not like that!

The logical problem with this situation is that those (casual games) are also very cheap games, which ensures that men wind up spending more MONEY on games than women do...which in turn ensures them disproportionate influence over the industry's decisions concerning contents, since developers are more apt to follow the money trail when investing in big-budget projects than they are to listen to the opinions of people who spend perhaps 10% as much money on video games per year.

The bottom line is that developers need to take more risks and start marketing more games to women or at least more equitably. But first they need to know what women find so off-putting about most mainstream, big-budget games. Therein lies one of the core purposes of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series.

[Peter1469]

I think the developers are more worried about their income. :smiley:


This is 100% nonsense. The survey data we have suggests that the exact OPPOSITE of this is true! What our current polling data on this subject suggests is that about 80% of male players don't care about the gender of their protagonist, where about 70% of women prefer to play as a female character. IN OTHER WORDS, if we reversed the current gender ratios of playable avatars in games (currently 85% of playable game characters are male, but if we instead had a situation where they were 85% female), the rate at which women purchase games would probably multiply, while the industry would probably only sacrifice about 20% of its existing male player base in the process. In this sense, there is no marketing rationale to the current gender representation in games at all, but rather simply a human wariness of taking risks...and a nearly 90% male developer core. (Currently, only 11% of game industry employees in this country are women, and it's worse still in Europe and Japan.)





The simple truth of the matter is that women DON'T buy "those games", or at least not very many of them. Women mostly acquire other games. Casual games. You know why? Because they're not like that!

The logical problem with this situation is that those (casual games) are also very cheap games, which ensures that men wind up spending more MONEY on games than women do...which in turn ensures them disproportionate influence over the industry's decisions concerning contents, since developers are more apt to follow the money trail when investing in big-budget projects than they are to listen to the opinions of people who spend perhaps 10% as much money on video games per year.

The bottom line is that developers need to take more risks and start marketing more games to women or at least more equitably. But first they need to know what women find so off-putting about most mainstream, big-budget games. Therein lies one of the core purposes of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series.

[The Xl]

This is 100% nonsense. The survey data we have suggests that the exact OPPOSITE of this is true! What our current polling data on this subject suggests is that about 80% of male players don't care about the gender of their protagonist, where about 70% of women prefer to play as a female character. IN OTHER WORDS, if we reversed the current gender ratios of playable avatars in games (currently 85% of playable game characters are male, but if we instead had a situation where they were 85% female), the rate at which women purchase games would probably multiply, while the industry would probably only sacrifice about 20% of its existing male player base in the process. In this sense, there is no marketing rationale to the current gender representation in games at all, but rather simply a human wariness of taking risks...and a nearly 90% male developer core. (Currently, only 11% of game industry employees in this country are women, and it's worse still in Europe and Japan.)





The simple truth of the matter is that women DON'T buy "those games", or at least not very many of them. Women mostly acquire other games. Casual games. You know why? Because they're not like that!

The logical problem with this situation is that those (casual games) are also very cheap games, which ensures that men wind up spending more MONEY on games than women do...which in turn ensures them disproportionate influence over the industry's decisions concerning contents, since developers are more apt to follow the money trail when investing in big-budget projects than they are to listen to the opinions of people who spend perhaps 10% as much money on video games per year.

The bottom line is that developers need to take more risks and start marketing more games to women or at least more equitably. But first they need to know what women find so off-putting about most mainstream, big-budget games. Therein lies one of the core purposes of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series.

This is precisely why they operate the way they do, it's not personal, it's business. They're out to make money, this isn't charity.

[PolWatch]

It is nothing but business. Until women use their wallets to voice their opinions, nothing will change. The videos seem to be a good start on making female gamers really LOOK at what they are spending their money on. I saw similar problems in the early 70's women's movement....women were so used to accepting the image that Madison Avenue used, they never realized that it was not a true picture. They didn't know they could demand and get new, more realistic images of women.

Just think of how shocking it was in 1970 for a woman to be told that she had options other than marriage and motherhood. Fast forward to 2015....most (if not all) games portray women in overly sexual images. If a female wants to play games she accepts what is available. Its a lot like the 'can't fight city hall' mindset. Until women decide if they are willing to demand something different, nothing will change. Its not that the industry is sexist, they just have no reason to change. Until women use the power of the wallet to demand change, the industry will continue to produce what sells.

[Common]

World of warcraft many males play females me included and females play males.

Most every mmo Ive played gives you full choice to be male or female with no limitations. These games are.

Rift, GuildWars2, Aion, Tera, The Secret World, World of Warcraft. Maybe polly isnt talking about mmos.

[Common]

This is precisely why they operate the way they do, it's not personal, it's business. They're out to make money, this isn't charity.

Busines markets Sex and Women from clothiers to retail stores, to sports to everything else.

The women that profit by it have absolutely no problem with it at all. Women that dont profit by it seem to take it very personally.

[IMPress Polly]

Well it has been a week now and I think that's enough time to assess what the general response to Women as Reward has been. It depends where you go, but so far the responses in aggregate seem to be more positive and receptive than those to past videos in the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series. Predictably enough, feminists and social justice activists everywhere think it's right on and conservative-minded gamers, as always, feel that any social critique of video games is an attack on video games as a medium and on every person who plays them. (Guess which assessment I find more rational. :wink:) What's perhaps the most notable this time around is the general absence of commentary, or perhaps even notice, by average gamers; the majority who last year took a neutral position in the conflict between Feminist Frequency and GamerGate. They were forced by events to take notice of the conflict last year. Not so this time. The result is that the people who care are the ones paying attention at this point, and it seems like most of the people who care are on Sarkeesian's side now.

Well anyway, I've been pretty busy this last week, but have more time this week, one result of which is that I now have the opportunity to formally respond to some of the earlier remarks for the first time. I'm not going to waste my time engaging with our resident belligerents in the debate like Cthulhu and GC because they will not listen. However, I feel that my favorite fence-sitter @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) deserves a more complete response to some of his points from yours truly:


The XI wrote:
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.

I agree with you here, but just want to add one point: I want to make it clear here that I'm NOT against video games including sex as a topic they engage with! I think that maybe people are getting that impression. It's not the case. No, video games are an artistic medium and, as such, no topic should be off-limits for engagement therein. There have been enough attempts at censoring games in the past that I think this needs to be said. I am NOT one of these conservative "family values" crusaders, so don't mistake me for that! I find nothing wrong with the inclusion of sexual content in games as such. But there is a difference between that and the systematic sexualization of women; between games engaging the topic of sex on the one hand and engaging in sexual objectification on the other. What we need vis-a-vis the topic of sex in video games is the ability to find it presented in a way that reflects the humanity of its participants, not as a prize or decor or something of this nature. Just to make that clear!


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.

This I wanted to engage with in particular because I think it probably represents the way the average gamer thinks of these things.

Let's start off with the case of Metroid. As you've probably noticed by now, I'm kind of a Metroid fan myself. Sarkeesian seems to be as well, to judge by some of her remarks leading up to the critique of Metroid. That's because you're right when you point out that, in the context of the 1980s, Metroid was a highly unusual game just for having a female action hero as a lead character. That phenomenon is still remarkably rare today, but it was practically non-existent back then! But while we can see the classic Metroid games as progressive in their historical context, nearly 30 years later it's time to acknowledge that it's not a perfect franchise. I know you're thinking "Perspective!", but if this video only criticized the women as reward trope selectively rather than categorically, I think you can see how it would weaken the case. The Metroid franchise DOES ultimately treat Samus, or at least her body, as a prize. That's why she appears in various states of undress at the end of the game depending on how quickly one finishes. Now think: Would a typical woman consider that a reward for their efforts? No. Would a typical man? Yes. Implied there is the fact that this franchise is actually designed with male players in mind, not women, even though it has engaged many women (including yours truly). What makes this specifically sexist though can be answered in whether or not such a fate would ever befall an analogous male hero character: that would never happen. No game would reward the player with scenes of the lead male character in various states of undress depending on their exhibited skill level, or at least I've never seen a case of that happening before. You see what I'm saying? Games do not treat men, or their bodies, as prizes.

(I was actually hoping that Sarkeesian would speak to a more subtle case like that of the Metroid games at some point in this series for precisely this reason. It's not that, in aggregate, Metroid is a terrible franchise. It's that it does have flaws that need to be spoken to, particularly since it's so often cited as this leading example of feminism in the world of games.)

Now the Super Mario games I will offer less defense of when it comes to matters of gender. While it would be absurd to compare the level of degradation involved in Mario saving the princess from Bowser's clutches for the billionth time or so and receiving a kiss of victory for his efforts to that of say the reward sex and Playboy foldout collectibles that one finds in franchises like The Witcher and Metal Gear Solid, nevertheless the core point remains in the case of the former. There is absolutely no question that Nintendo's classic franchise has a long-running tradition of treating women as prizes for victory. The cartoony presentation, if anything, helps make that line of thinking accessible to the youngest audiences. It may not be as offensive as (rather incredulously) getting reward sex for fondling strippers in Grand Theft Auto, but it's harmful enough to merit criticism nonetheless. The franchise has proven in more recent years (e.g. Super Mario 3D World) that is IS capable of doing better on the gender question even though it certainly hasn't "arrived". We can like games without agreeing with everything in them.


Watching a couple of her other videos, she seems to have a problem with individualism as well.

Anita Sarkeesian subscribes to a particular branch of feminist thinking that's not the prevailing one. She is among those who argue that patriarchy does not just relegate women themselves, but also the values commonly associated with women, to a second-class status. For example, not only are women offered far fewer opportunities for social advancement (e.g. more than 90% of American working women work in one of five fields, most all logically corresponding to traditional household duties) and paid at lower rates in every field except for sex work, but additionally, society considers "feminine" values like empathy and cooperation inferior to "masculine" values like independence, courage, and assertiveness. For Sarkeesian, feminism then means challenging both of those expressions of patriarchy, not just one or the other. In this way, she distinguishes herself from the more commonplace "girl power" feminists who only want women to have the same options that men currently do. Where the "girl power" feminist envisions stoicism as a universal value that all should aspire to -- women as well as men -- Sarkeesian contends that a truly gender-equal society should instead value the full humanity and multi-dimensionality of all rather than consigning all to a male archetype.

One illustration of this distinction was seen in her tweets about the film Mad Max: Fury Road earlier this year (https://storify.com/wire2k/anita-sarkeesian-on-mad-max-fury-road), wherein, as you can see, she argued that though it is, thematically speaking, a film very much about women's liberation, nonetheless it doesn't qualify as feminist in her mind because the characters are stoic rather than fully human in quality and because the violent content is stylized (i.e. glorified) rather than presented in a plausibly horrifying way. In other words, the film doesn't qualify as feminist for her because even though it promotes an unconventional and courageous view of women and revolves around attacking certain forms and motives of misogyny, it nonetheless falls into the trap of belittling the values commonly associated with women, basically turning women into carbon copies of uncomplicated, emotionally detached male warrior archetypes rather than challenging those archetypes conceptually.

Do I fully agree with this view? Mmm...mostly. I think she's an advance guard feminist who is ahead of her time to the point of being ahead of most of today's feminists. But though I can see what she's saying, I don't think I'd characterize Mad Max: Fury Road as anything other than a feminist movie, personally. While Sarkeesian may be right about the relatively low level of value the film places on empathy, I think it undeniable that the film manages to strongly promote other values considered feminine in general, like cooperation for example, and I don't see that acknowledged in Sarkeesian's tweets. (Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my two favorite movies of the year to date, incidentally. :grin: However, my absolute favorite, When Marnie Was There, could be described as feminist in the way that Sarkeesian defines it.)

This aspect of her thinking, however, hasn't really been a defining quality of her series on video games as yet unless you look at the Positive Female Characters mini-series wherein she provides some examples she considers ideal and explains at length why she feels they are exemplary. Theeeen you can see her line of thinking more specifically as it applies to video game characters. The proper Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series though focuses on more basic and obvious forms of gender discrimination though overwhelmingly.

[The Xl]

A lot of that is fair. But it should be noted that, it made complete sense in the 80s especially, for programmers and developers to operate in that manner. Back then, the audience they were catering too was a lot younger and made up of a lot more males when compared to today. The fact that they even made Metroid a game with a female lead character was something they didn't really need to do at all, when you consider the demographics, so yeah, while they wound up giving an ending that catered to male tastes and interests, it was still a nice gesture and on the cutting edge of females being portrayed in an important and strong light to even go and make it a female based game. I still believe that, even in catering to mostly male taste with the ending, it was still reasonably tame and not really disrespectful. It portrayed her as a beauty and a beast, so to speak, and yes, the beauty part is something that was for the male audience, but remember the demographics at play in video games in the 80s. Nowadays, it would be a little different.

As far as Sarkeesian goes with her views on individualism, isn't it anti feminist to tell a woman that she needs to act and think a certain way? That's forcing someone to think in a box and essentially become a stereotype, which is what I think a lot of women would accuse male society of doing over the years. I think she's a smart lady and makes a lot of good points, but there is something about her that strikes me as somewhat opportunistic and disingenuous at times. I think a lot of the more unnecessary and needlessly controversial views are more detrimental to 'the cause,' so to speak, but benefit her in terms on visibility, popularity, and monetary worth.

[IMPress Polly]

Just to address one point:


The Xl wrote:
As far as Sarkeesian goes with her views on individualism, isn't it anti feminist to tell a woman that she needs to act and think a certain way? That's forcing someone to think in a box and essentially become a stereotype, which is what I think a lot of women would accuse male society of doing over the years. I think she's a smart lady and makes a lot of good points, but there is something about her that strikes me as somewhat opportunistic and disingenuous at times. I think a lot of the more unnecessary and needlessly controversial views are more detrimental to 'the cause,' so to speak, but benefit her in terms on visibility, popularity, and monetary worth.

I don't see these as "needlessly controversial views", I guess, but maybe that's just because, well, I think she's right.

(And Feminist Frequency is a non-profit, incidentally, and they don't exactly use the tactics of PETA.)

I mean I'll grant you that she's somewhat more of a glass is half-empty kind of person about these things than I am, but I think that's just a personality difference. For example, Feminist Frequency's article on this year's E3 focused mostly on what they felt were the shortcomings, only passingly acknowledging progress on the gender issue, where I felt that the fact that this was the first E3 in which most of the games previewed at least include a playable female character to constitute massive progress, even though the situation remains far from equitable. But she's also someone who lives with depression and gets harassed and threatened by tons and tons of people (mostly gamers) on a daily basis, and, being at least familiar with what depression is like, I can definitely understand how that can make one rather pessimistic. She was also responding to the self-congratulatory tone of the official gaming press on that development, which yeah I too couldn't help but noticed seemed to convince itself that this was the final step needed to rectify gender relations in the world of games and that sex discrimination in games has, as a result, now officially been rendered a thing of the past. So yeah, I can understand the want of focusing on the shortcomings in that context.

[kilgram]

That's an interesting opinion. I don't know any men who think of and treat women like nothing more than a piece of mat though. Women are a good bit more nagging and demanding than any piece of meat I've ever known.
I know a few who populate these forums :)

[AeonPax]

.....
`
`
I'm impressed by your dissertations. You have a fan.

[The Xl]

Just to address one point:



I don't see these as "needlessly controversial views", I guess, but maybe that's just because, well, I think she's right.

(And Feminist Frequency is a non-profit, incidentally, and they don't exactly use the tactics of PETA.)

I mean I'll grant you that she's somewhat more of a glass is half-empty kind of person about these things than I am, but I think that's just a personality difference. For example, Feminist Frequency's article on this year's E3 focused mostly on what they felt were the shortcomings, only passingly acknowledging progress on the gender issue, where I felt that the fact that this was the first E3 in which most of the games previewed at least include a playable female character to constitute massive progress, even though the situation remains far from equitable. But she's also someone who lives with depression and gets harassed and threatened by tons and tons of people (mostly gamers) on a daily basis, and, being at least familiar with what depression is like, I can definitely understand how that can make one rather pessimistic. She was also responding to the self-congratulatory tone of the official gaming press on that development, which yeah I too couldn't help but noticed seemed to convince itself that this was the final step needed to rectify gender relations in the world of games and that sex discrimination in games has, as a result, now officially been rendered a thing of the past. So yeah, I can understand the want of focusing on the shortcomings in that context.

While feminist frequency may be non profit, that doesn't mean she can't use that platform as a means to get herself more popular and notorious, her increased popularity and visibility could increase her net worth in the future during other endeavors, including but certainly not included to, speaking engagements. Not saying that's what is happening for sure, but it's a possibility, and the way she goes about some things raises my eyebrows a little bit.

I think lead females and strong female characters in general is certainly something to strive and fight for, and just as importantly, if not more so, is accurate and fair representation of women, not always using them as props, or as eye candy, or male playthings, etc. But at the end of the day, as of now, while females may make up for half or so of gamers, males still play games more, spend a lot more money, and so, are still the bigger and more impactful demographic, so developers will continue to cater to them to some degree. It's unrealistic to expect and fight for a 50/50 split on the matter, the market simply doesn't dictate that, it wouldn't be as profitable. You don't see female driven industries catering to male tastes over female ones, which also makes complete sense, the market has and will continue to dictate these things.

That said, all of that doesn't mean their should be no female leads, antagonists, supporting characters, etc. Their should be, and probably at a higher rate than what we're getting. But I think to expect it on an equal basis at this point is a pipe dream simply because the support isn't there for it.

[IMPress Polly]

The Xl wrote:
While feminist frequency may be non profit, that doesn't mean she can't use that platform as a means to get herself more popular and notorious, her increased popularity and visibility could increase her net worth in the future during other endeavors, including but certainly not included to, speaking engagements. Not saying that's what is happening for sure, but it's a possibility, and the way she goes about some things raises my eyebrows a little bit.

Yeah that OR this could just be a ridiculous conspiracy theory you made up because you disliked the video. :wink:


I think lead females and strong female characters in general is certainly something to strive and fight for, and just as importantly, if not more so, is accurate and fair representation of women, not always using them as props, or as eye candy, or male playthings, etc.

Well good! We agree on the substance and that's the main thing.


But at the end of the day, as of now, while females may make up for half or so of gamers, males still play games more, spend a lot more money, and so, are still the bigger and more impactful demographic, so developers will continue to cater to them to some degree. It's unrealistic to expect and fight for a 50/50 split on the matter, the market simply doesn't dictate that, it wouldn't be as profitable. You don't see female driven industries catering to male tastes over female ones, which also makes complete sense, the market has and will continue to dictate these things.

That said, all of that doesn't mean their should be no female leads, antagonists, supporting characters, etc. Their should be, and probably at a higher rate than what we're getting. But I think to expect it on an equal basis at this point is a pipe dream simply because the support isn't there for it.

There are no "female driven industries". The world is not fair.

Anyway, why does it matter so much what the present big-spending gamer base is? Isn't there a natural financial incentive to expand that base, even though that involves taking some risks? I mean I think that's exactly what you see starting to happen, and it's precisely because you're seeing more and more developers start to draw the conclusion that the negative publicity they'll get from continuing to cater only to male consumers today carries MORE risk (i.e. an even higher probability of losing customers) than just doing what you know you should have all along. Take a look at the Assassin's Creed franchise for example. At last year's E3, the creators were asked whether the next installment, Assassin's Creed: Unity, due out later that year, would include the option to choose the gender of the protagonist. They didn't seem prepared for that question, having never encountered such a proposition before, and had to answer in the negative. A lot of negative publicity ensued, considering that the franchise doesn't exactly involve a lot of character development (i.e. the gender of the player character shouldn't matter logically, considering that it's just a blank slate character with no personality). Assassin's Creed: Unity went on to become the worst-selling installment in the franchise, partially as a result. So at THIS year's E3, they came prepared for that question vis-a-vis this year's Assassin's Creed game and you can bet what the answer was this time. THAT is how these changes come about! It doesn't happen by the industry just continuing to adhere to the rules of the same consumer base always and forever. It comes through the forced recognition that the times have changed and people have higher expectations today. They would not have gotten that question in a different cultural context. There had to first be a strong women's movement in the gaming scene demanding that change. And you can see how Anita Sarkeesian's popular web video series has played an enormous role in both enlarging and emboldening that movement. It's been a crucial ingredient in creating the cultural situation in which developers and publishers now get asked questions like that and suffer real consequences if they answer wrong. The industry needs to know that women have expectations today and that their bottom line will be hurt if they don't start treating us with more consideration and respect! You see what I'm saying? THAT's how these things change! There's a lot more insurrection than commercialism to the nature of progress.

I have to say this because look, I've been a gamer since the early 1990s and, from that experience, I can tell you that the arguments against the progress that we're finally starting to see now on the gender question have always been pretty much the same. Want an illustration? Let's go back 20 years in gaming history for a moment. Back in 1995, there weren't many girls and women writing into Nintendo Power (the official Nintendo magazine in this country at the time), but when they weren't responding to a specific prompting (and sometimes even when they were), their letters regularly took on a certain tone that I think illustrated WHY their weren't too many female readers. Going back to my three oldest (surviving :tongue:) issues of Nintendo Power, which date back to 1995, five letters by female writers made it to print therein. Three discussed either specific games or career aspirations, as prompted. Here are the other two that weren't prompted:

"I'm referring to the letter in volume 77 from Sarah LaBrie. I totally agree with you Sarah. Girls don't enjoy prancing around in bikinis and our favorite color isn't pink! I am getting sick of these stupid games where women are wimpy, dumb sex objects. At my school I'm known as the Queen of Nintendo. Every boy knows that I can kick his butt at any game. Way to go Sarah for standing up and speaking the truth!" --Audrew W. from Eyota, Minnesota

"I would like Tank Girl to become a game on the Super NES because the idea of a woman super-action hero who's pro-feminist is appealing to many women and men. Why should women keep taking a back seat to men? Arnold, Sly and Jean-Claude get very nauseating after their 10th macho man film made into a video game." --Robin Orlanori from Katy, Texas

The former of these and Sarah LaBrie's original letter (which is in a non-surviving NP issue :tongue:) prompted a letter battle that went on for nearly a year. (This was pre-Internet for most people.) All female writers sided with LaBrie. However, they were overwhelmed by male writers who offered letters that read like this example:

"Quit printing these stupid letters about the portrayal of women in video games. I would like to put this issue to rest right now by saying three things: 1. There are a heck of a lot more male video game players out there than female ones. Therefore, companies try to make games more appealing to guys by making the hero male and all the girls very attractive. 2. I don't know where the idea that the captured princess is any sort of wimp came from. So what if she got captured by a giant turtle. That could happen to anyone. 3. Finally, there's always a complaint that all the girls in games have perfect bodies and don't wear much. Have you ever noticed what the guys look like?" --Colin Wahlert from Rutherford, New Jersey

Sound like familiar arguments? That's because they're the same ones being applied today, 20 years later, right here on this thread! Things are changing not because we listened to the prevailing, entitled voices and conveniently commercial logic of the likes of Mr. Wahlert, but because we didn't; because we're demanding that they change or else we won't buy your games anymore. THAT is the fundamental difference between then and now on this issue. There has always been a certain insurgent quality to the women's movement in the gaming scene. We've always been outsiders to this scene and told to shut up (sometimes more politely than on other occasions) when we raise questions and start developing expectations, so...I think you can understand why my visceral reaction to hearing the same convenient arguments recited yet again is to become a little frustrated. :wink:

So I say that equality and nothing less should be the goal.

[CreepyOldDude]

Alright, I'm going to cheat with this one and do a bunch of mentions because, unlike the typical gaming-related subjects we discuss here in the Geek Out Zone, this is the kind that generates news stories even outside the game-O-sphere and there are a number of people's input (both hardcore gamers and not) that I'd like on this subject if I can collect them: @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @William (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1351) @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Hal Jordan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=994)

In 2009, a college student named Anita Sarkeesian started a web site called Feminist Frequency for the purposes of relaying casual gender analysis of pop culture in general. Early videos that went up on the site included spirit-filled commentaries on the gender relations and roles in movies, TV shows, commercials, and a particularly well-crafted two-part mini-series on Legos. Over time, the level of analysis got deeper and the material more professional in feel. In May of 2012, she launched a Kickstarter fund to create a web video series on five common female tropes in video games, requesting $6,000. To her great surprise, the obscure feminist site's Kickstarter on this subject took in that much in less than 24 hours and wound up raising some $159,000 from nearly 7,000 backers. In view of all these additional resources, they delayed the release of the first videos in the series until the following year because the additional funds allowed them to considerably expand the scope and scale of the project.

As soon as the aforementioned Kickstarter began drawing in funds, Anita became famous in gaming circles and a sustained, large-scale harassment and intimidation movement began to stop the project from ever being completed. This movement drew the attention of the national press, which in turn ensured that the release of the first mini-series in the Tropes vs. Women series, Damsel in Distress, would draw hundreds of thousands of viewers. The material contained therein and in the video covering the second of the referenced five female tropes, The Ms. Male Character, was described by multiple mainstream press outlets (such as The New York Times, for example) as "essential viewing" and Anita went on to win the industry's Ambassador award the following year for her work. Then came the mini-series on trope number three, Women as Background Decoration, last summer, which a new network of conservative gamers and men's rights activists called GamerGate responded to with the kind of unprecedented vitriol that only sustains headlines. Some of the subsequent death threats against her and her family were considered so credible by the FBI that she had to flee her home. And so we arrive at today.

Over the last year, GamerGate has lapsed into relative obscurity, but not before compelling the game industry to recognize that it does indeed have a major problem with women that needs to be addressed, to which the fact that this year's E3 trade show a couple months back was the first in history in which most of the upcoming releases showcased at minimum offered players the option of using a female character. Nothing even close to that has ever happened before. Such has been the impact of Anita Sarkeesian's work on the world of games. It's not ALL been her, of course, but she is considered the leading voice of the women's movement in the gaming world. Thus it is of major cultural significance when she releases new material, and she just has.

The video below, released two days ago, covers the fourth trope on the list: Women as Reward. Even at this early stage, it already has more than 260,000 views. Expect there to be news items on it and expect this to be a major topic in gaming communities everywhere in the coming period. But what I want first are your thoughts. Please check it out if you will and share your thoughts and opinions on the material discussed because lots of people are going to be talking about it in the coming period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC6oxBLXtkU

I watched the video, and the video response below sums up a lot of my thoughts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFLgAQ1Nv8

[Safety]

I agree that women are treated like rewards in games, but on the flip side, they do get a lot of perks that males don't receive.... :grin:


https://youtu.be/u0_5yDxqcZk

[IMPress Polly]

CreepyOldDude wrote:
I watched the video, and the video response below sums up a lot of my thoughts.

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

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!

[The Xl]

Yeah that OR this could just be a ridiculous conspiracy theory you made up because you disliked the video. :wink:



Well good! We agree on the substance and that's the main thing.



There are no "female driven industries". The world is not fair.

Anyway, why does it matter so much what the present big-spending gamer base is? Isn't there a natural financial incentive to expand that base, even though that involves taking some risks? I mean I think that's exactly what you see starting to happen, and it's precisely because you're seeing more and more developers start to draw the conclusion that the negative publicity they'll get from continuing to cater only to male consumers today carries MORE risk (i.e. an even higher probability of losing customers) than just doing what you know you should have all along. Take a look at the Assassin's Creed franchise for example. At last year's E3, the creators were asked whether the next installment, Assassin's Creed: Unity, due out later that year, would include the option to choose the gender of the protagonist. They didn't seem prepared for that question, having never encountered such a proposition before, and had to answer in the negative. A lot of negative publicity ensued, considering that the franchise doesn't exactly involve a lot of character development (i.e. the gender of the player character shouldn't matter logically, considering that it's just a blank slate character with no personality). Assassin's Creed: Unity went on to become the worst-selling installment in the franchise, partially as a result. So at THIS year's E3, they came prepared for that question vis-a-vis this year's Assassin's Creed game and you can bet what the answer was this time. THAT is how these changes come about! It doesn't happen by the industry just continuing to adhere to the rules of the same consumer base always and forever. It comes through the forced recognition that the times have changed and people have higher expectations today. They would not have gotten that question in a different cultural context. There had to first be a strong women's movement in the gaming scene demanding that change. And you can see how Anita Sarkeesian's popular web video series has played an enormous role in both enlarging and emboldening that movement. It's been a crucial ingredient in creating the cultural situation in which developers and publishers now get asked questions like that and suffer real consequences if they answer wrong. The industry needs to know that women have expectations today and that their bottom line will be hurt if they don't start treating us with more consideration and respect! You see what I'm saying? THAT's how these things change! There's a lot more insurrection than commercialism to the nature of progress.

I have to say this because look, I've been a gamer since the early 1990s and, from that experience, I can tell you that the arguments against the progress that we're finally starting to see now on the gender question have always been pretty much the same. Want an illustration? Let's go back 20 years in gaming history for a moment. Back in 1995, there weren't many girls and women writing into Nintendo Power (the official Nintendo magazine in this country at the time), but when they weren't responding to a specific prompting (and sometimes even when they were), their letters regularly took on a certain tone that I think illustrated WHY their weren't too many female readers. Going back to my three oldest (surviving :tongue:) issues of Nintendo Power, which date back to 1995, five letters by female writers made it to print therein. Three discussed either specific games or career aspirations, as prompted. Here are the other two that weren't prompted:

"I'm referring to the letter in volume 77 from Sarah LaBrie. I totally agree with you Sarah. Girls don't enjoy prancing around in bikinis and our favorite color isn't pink! I am getting sick of these stupid games where women are wimpy, dumb sex objects. At my school I'm known as the Queen of Nintendo. Every boy knows that I can kick his butt at any game. Way to go Sarah for standing up and speaking the truth!" --Audrew W. from Eyota, Minnesota

"I would like Tank Girl to become a game on the Super NES because the idea of a woman super-action hero who's pro-feminist is appealing to many women and men. Why should women keep taking a back seat to men? Arnold, Sly and Jean-Claude get very nauseating after their 10th macho man film made into a video game." --Robin Orlanori from Katy, Texas

The former of these and Sarah LaBrie's original letter (which is in a non-surviving NP issue :tongue:) prompted a letter battle that went on for nearly a year. (This was pre-Internet for most people.) All female writers sided with LaBrie. However, they were overwhelmed by male writers who offered letters that read like this example:

"Quit printing these stupid letters about the portrayal of women in video games. I would like to put this issue to rest right now by saying three things: 1. There are a heck of a lot more male video game players out there than female ones. Therefore, companies try to make games more appealing to guys by making the hero male and all the girls very attractive. 2. I don't know where the idea that the captured princess is any sort of wimp came from. So what if she got captured by a giant turtle. That could happen to anyone. 3. Finally, there's always a complaint that all the girls in games have perfect bodies and don't wear much. Have you ever noticed what the guys look like?" --Colin Wahlert from Rutherford, New Jersey

Sound like familiar arguments? That's because they're the same ones being applied today, 20 years later, right here on this thread! Things are changing not because we listened to the prevailing, entitled voices and conveniently commercial logic of the likes of Mr. Wahlert, but because we didn't; because we're demanding that they change or else we won't buy your games anymore. THAT is the fundamental difference between then and now on this issue. There has always been a certain insurgent quality to the women's movement in the gaming scene. We've always been outsiders to this scene and told to shut up (sometimes more politely than on other occasions) when we raise questions and start developing expectations, so...I think you can understand why my visceral reaction to hearing the same convenient arguments recited yet again is to become a little frustrated. :wink:

So I say that equality and nothing less should be the goal.

I didn't dislike the video and it made some good points, but I did take issue with some things, and believe it or not, in this world, people do act for the benefit of their own interests at times.

You have to understand that since the female demographic isn't as likely to spend big money, there is some level of risk involved in catering to that base. And if you're a programmer looking to cash in big, it may be more worth your while to go with the safe and proven route and make games that fit the interests of the market that is known to sell well. That's not to say that women should be shut out, they should not, but I think it's harsh to blame them, and it's certainly nothing personal, in most cases anyway. We both agree that there are some games that take it too far.

The Assassins Creed example is a wonderful example of how this should be gone about. Females and even males that aren't happy with anything regarding women in games, be it lack of representation or disrespectful portrayal of women, to whatever else, should make their voices heard by voting with their wallets. That's exactly what seems to have happened in that situation, and it wound up working out for the cause, not a damn thing wrong with that. Boycott games you feel are insulting and support games that you feel are empowering and change in the industry will be well on its way. That won't happen overnight though, and until then, games will be biased towards male interests because that's what happens to sell the most at this point in time.

[IMPress Polly]

The Xl wrote:
The Assassins Creed example is a wonderful example of how this should be gone about. Females and even males that aren't happy with anything regarding women in games, be it lack of representation or disrespectful portrayal of women, to whatever else, should make their voices heard by voting with their wallets. That's exactly what seems to have happened in that situation, and it wound up working out for the cause, not a damn thing wrong with that. Boycott games you feel are insulting and support games that you feel are empowering and change in the industry will be well on its way. That won't happen overnight though, and until then, games will be biased towards male interests because that's what happens to sell the most at this point in time.

Well good, I think we pretty well agree then actually! I was under the impression that you were saying something different and more conservative: That only the majority of the existing market for major, retail games matters.

Now on the other hand, sometimes you encounter people who argue that one doesn't have the right to criticize a game's contents if they haven't played the game for themselves. You can see how that argument runs in the face of things like boycott propositions. In general, I try to apply this solution these days: If it's a game who's gender politics I know I'm going to find particularly irksome (because I do check out game summaries, reviews, play footage, and sometimes full playthroughs beforehand), my policy is to rent it, not buy it. For example, I rented Assassin's Creed: Unity, Grand Theft Auto V, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, etc. Never bought them. That's my personal approach. That way I'm knowledgeable enough to talk about them with credibility, but also offering them minimal financial support at the same time.

[The Xl]

Well good, I think we pretty well agree then actually! I was under the impression that you were saying something different and more conservative: That only the majority of the existing market for major, retail games matters.

Now on the other hand, sometimes you encounter people who argue that one doesn't have the right to criticize a game's contents if they haven't played the game for themselves. You can see how that argument runs in the face of things like boycott propositions. In general, I try to apply this solution these days: If it's a game who's gender politics I know I'm going to find particularly irksome (because I do check out game summaries, reviews, play footage, and sometimes full playthroughs beforehand), my policy is to rent it, not buy it. For example, I rented Assassin's Creed: Unity, Grand Theft Auto V, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, etc. Never bought them. That's my personal approach. That way I'm knowledgeable enough to talk about them with credibility, but also offering them minimal financial support at the same time.

Right, I think it's fine to criticize games you haven't played, or at least, played extensively, as long as you're knowledgeable about them in some way. But I don't agree that one should criticize a game with no other knowledge other than a few sceenshots and vague secondhand opinions from elsewhere, but sure, if you've watched or read about it, it's fine imo.

[kilgram]

Well good, I think we pretty well agree then actually! I was under the impression that you were saying something different and more conservative: That only the majority of the existing market for major, retail games matters.

Now on the other hand, sometimes you encounter people who argue that one doesn't have the right to criticize a game's contents if they haven't played the game for themselves. You can see how that argument runs in the face of things like boycott propositions. In general, I try to apply this solution these days: If it's a game who's gender politics I know I'm going to find particularly irksome (because I do check out game summaries, reviews, play footage, and sometimes full playthroughs beforehand), my policy is to rent it, not buy it. For example, I rented Assassin's Creed: Unity, Grand Theft Auto V, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, etc. Never bought them. That's my personal approach. That way I'm knowledgeable enough to talk about them with credibility, but also offering them minimal financial support at the same time.
I want to point a few things about two mentioned games, Grand Theft Auto and the Witcher.

Grand Theft Auto is a cruel game in every way. It is based in a criminal world. Therefore, I would expect non correct behaviour in every aspect of the game, from how the characters behave with women to the extreme violence.

The Witcher: I don't see how the characters are sexualized. Starting that it is based in serie of books written in the 90s. And if you want to critizise the sexism of that series, you would have to attack the books, too. I want to point, that for example in the case of Triss and her Playboy fits in some way in the character and how she is. Again, The Witcher I would say it has a very good treatment of the women. There they are strong characters and they are the most powerful beings in the story.

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/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/

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

Now, I believe that is more sexist the thing of the damisel in distress (Mario for example) than how are considered the women in GTA (not for being sexist the world in GTA that it is, but it is done purposely and not inherent to the society).

[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/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-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. Shit, 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. :smiley:

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.