The video series is not about genocide or male stereotypes or racial stereotyping either, it's about women. Asking 'but what about these other, even worse problems' is just shifting the goal posts. I don't think anyone is under the impression that there aren't lots of problems with stereotyping in media that go beyond feminist issues.
Our world is not going to become some kind of entertainment wasteland because women are critiquing video game babes. It certainly doesn't deserve the overwhelming vitriolic response it's getting on the internet. (Not saying it's here, I'm actually really nicely surprised at most of this discussion so far.) They are not advocating for censorship as far as I can tell are they?
I grew up convinced all women were stupid and bad at all the "cool" stuff that guys did. I wanted to be 'one of the guys'. I didn't have friends who were girls and looked down on them well into my teenage years. No girl should have to feel that way, that they aren't good enough on the basis of their gender and that they need to be 'more like a man' to be more valuable. I know this is a common phenomenon and I can recognize that it hurts people. Fortunately, I outgrew it, but not everyone has such an easy time. I think having strong female protagonists in ANY media is a very good thing, especially for kids and teenagers. Not to say that a critique of ALL the stereotypes in games isn't a really good idea too.
man, i put these aside because I was expecting them to be really insightful, however I was pretty disappointed. All her arguments seem to just be angry hyperbole based on very specific examples, often from ridicuous sources, like talking for about 5 minutes on how an episode of the powerpuff girls oversimplifies female equality.
And why can't female characters fill the roles she has a problem with? I see no issue with female characters being the manic pixie girls in the films she describes, they're not demeening roles, they're likable interesting characters even if they are supporting characters and act to move the male lead along in his story arc. If you switched the two characters genders and had a manic pixie boy, the film would still work in the exact same way, is the problem just because the character is a girl?
As for games, I think the issue is not one of poor treatment of female characters, but more poor treatment of characters in general. Most male game characters are the most two-dimensional clich
The video series is not about genocide or male stereotypes or racial stereotyping either, it's about women. Asking 'but what about these other, even worse problems' is just shifting the goal posts. I don't think anyone is under the impression that there aren't lots of problems with stereotyping in media that go beyond feminist issues.
It is, but the bigger misfortune with Anita is that she easily gets mistracked with her videos into the things that are wrong with males when it comes to women, which isn't all false, but hurts the purpose of the thing. Or stuff that just aren't big issues, but rather things she herself doesn't enjoy.
Our world is not going to become some kind of entertainment wasteland because women are critiquing video game babes. It certainly doesn't deserve the overwhelming vitriolic response it's getting on the internet. (Not saying it's here, I'm actually really nicely surprised at most of this discussion so far.) They are not advocating for censorship as far as I can tell are they?
Very true, the internet can be a very foul place though, which is why I believe it's possible to critique her without having to result to that foul tactic, I just did wish she would receive the critique in a less one-sided ways in her videos, especially with what I said about her being able to visit studios and talk to people, and meet the women that work there.
I grew up convinced all women were stupid and bad at all the "cool" stuff that guys did. I wanted to be 'one of the guys'. I didn't have friends who were girls and looked down on them well into my teenage years. No girl should have to feel that way, that they aren't good enough on the basis of their gender and that they need to be 'more like a man' to be more valuable. I know this is a common phenomenon and I can recognize that it hurts people. Fortunately, I outgrew it, but not everyone has such an easy time. I think having strong female protagonists in ANY media is a very good thing, especially for kids and teenagers. Not to say that a critique of ALL the stereotypes in games isn't a really good idea too.
I do have a feeling the characters in game is a symptom of a bigger issue, and not really the issue itself, even in an ideal character wasteland we'll still have traditional "lookin down" at women, as it is sadly a heritary genetic trait we should've overcome by now, much like violence.
Good thread with lots of ideas and opinions - but please remember to be respectful to one another, whether you've a difference of opinion or not. It'll keep the conversation going, which so far its been a good one to have read along with. Unfortunately I haven't much to chime in with on the topic that hasn't already been mentioned
Cool thread. I think it's important that people who get into discussions like this one on marginalisation have a quick read of Derailing for Dummies, particularly if you're a comfortable, straight white male (like me).
More on topic, there are other issues with women in media as well as over-sexualisation. There's faceism (men's faces are shown larger to emphasize their intelligence, women are shown from a distance to show their bodies more) and the default male (think Bechdel test). You can say, yeah games are targeted at men and that's what they want, but 1. it mirrors other media fairly consistently, only more extremely and 2. I'm a male and I don't want it.
Wow, that derailing for dummies page is rad. Biting but educational. I think EVERYONE is guilty of doing at least one of those sometimes. Thanks for sharing!
Cool thread. I think it's important that people who get into discussions like this one on marginalisation have a quick read of Derailing for Dummies, particularly if you're a comfortable, straight white male (like me).
Good stuff, but ruined by elements of one-sidedness.
For example, people of African descent often express outrage and irritation at the fact many white people believe they can freely touch their hair. This invasion of their personal space is dressed up as flattery - oh, what beautiful hair you have! and permission is not sought or granted before the action is taken. That happens to everyone! you must exclaim. My child has beautiful white-blonde hair and people are always touching it!
Everyone deserves personal space, race has no place in it.
If you are speaking to a fat person who is complaining about the lack of fashion-forward and beautiful clothing made in their size, try something like: The fashion industry sucks! They just do not make clothes for real bodies - I mean, just because I am a size four doesnt mean Im short! Jeans are always too short on me!
Has some reversed consequences, It becomes okay to look down at thin girls as they do not possess the more natural "full" beauty, and their clothing-issues are non-existant even though clothing-sizes have increased over the years due to obesity.
Without a doubt, one of the most powerful tactics to use here is comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation. In any discussion around FGM, make sure you quickly leap in and say: "But why is it ok for little boys to be mutilated? Why isn't anyone talking about that?" Because the removal of a tiny flap of skin is entirely comparable to the crippling mutilation many young girls are subjected to.
Good point, you don't use one important issue to defeat another, but saying one issue outdoes the other enables one type of genital mutilation to become a norm, not a light issue.
What this demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of what othering means in a practical sense. Youre ignoring the way your life is otherwise entirely immersed in a state of _absolute privilege_ and revealing the fact you fail to comprehend the process of objectification and marginalising they go through all the time. When you are _Privileged®_, similar experiences simply do not happen on an equal footing because they do not otherwise reflect marginalisation. This obliviousness is highly insensitive and trivialising and will definitely cause them to grind their teeth!
Downright silly, we had a thread about this, priviligue isn't a one dimensional bar where one person is on one end and one is on another, "you are priviligued" is as bad of an argument as "I also have it bad!".
Oh shit, I DID derail
But okay, more on track, some subjects of discussion:
1) Fantastic games where the tropes are central: Ico, Shadow of the colossus, Max payne, Zelda series.
2) Fantastic tv series or movies where tropes are central: Game of thrones
3) The tropes women do enjoy, odin sphere, guilty gear, that adorable piece of equipment that just dropped in 'insert your mmo here'.
4) Half-related: Makeup. Isn't this one of the biggest female-damaging elements there is?, even to the point where females are often seen as hideous and ugly without their makeup on but males can go out as they wake up and still look fantastic.
I'm not saying makeup is wrong in any way, I'm certain most of us are smart enough to see beyond it and are able to wake up next to our better halfs in their worst time of day and still love what we see, but isn't this a paralel to the sexy tropes we have in games, it causes damage but we enjoy it and hopefully most of us know better!
Yep, I think there's been a couple of ladies dropping by. It just gets a little hard to stay motivated to be in a discussion when the cat macros get busted out.
As for games, I think the issue is not one of poor treatment of female characters, but more poor treatment of characters in general. Most male game characters are the most two-dimensional clich
It's relative to past experiences and history, male tropes overall doesn't cause the same kind of damage due to not having the same weight or history behind them, but then there are localized exceptions.
A woman 'privileged' enough to have grown up in a place which is quite equal can enjoy something like lollipop chainsaw without feeling any issues with it.
And a male having struggled with with something like weight for all his life might have big issues with a game featuring "the overweight funny sidekick or evil boss".
Most negative male tropes would be solved at the same time as negative female tropes. If you're writer/designer doesn't feel like all women should be weak, they also won't feel the need to turn the male into an unemotional ultra beast with no feelings, bullet-proof pecs, and a disregard for women.
Almost every negative male trope (wants sex all the time with no need for emotions, a relationship, or caring about the woman giving it) has an even more negative female counterpart (all women are sluts and should be sexually available at least visually at all times). Solving them happens at the same time. The reason female tropes are often times focused on is because they actually are the more harmful. Male stereotypes cause all types of psychological problems, and even bullying (though mostly before the age of 20). Whereas harmful female portrayal in advertising/film/media *edit* contributes *edit* to a society where 1 in 6 US women having been sexually assaulted. That is a huge problem and one that does deserve to be addressed.
Male stereotypes cause all types of psychological problems, and even bullying (though mostly before the age of 20). Whereas harmful female portrayal in advertising/film/media results in 1 in 6 US women having been sexually assaulted. That is a huge problem and one that does deserve to be addressed.
Doesn't it start to border the violent games discussion then?
I'm not denying the problem at all, I'm just saying the problem exists even without the portrayals.
If you don't see any sexism in society or problems with the treatment of women in games, but you do think that false rape accusations are an important issue, then yes, you are indeed a bad person.
People keep bringing up Beyond Good and Evil as a game with a strong female protagonist, but is it REALLY a good example of that? Didn't that game have a mission where you had to rescue her? And she depends on others for progression (men give her money and build her vehicles for her etc) oh and she takes care of orphans, pretty cliche "mother" stuff there right
I'm trying not to get caught up in this thread but this comment is irking me.
There is no mission where you have to rescue Jade. Jade is the protagonist whom you play throughout the game. You do rescue both of the male co-stars at different points though.
Men do not give Jade money, in fact the first battle of in game takes place because her orphanage has fallen behind with its bill payments and the power gets shut off, resulting in the Domz getting through the building's protective force shield. Jade then has to earn the money to make payment, as she does throughout the rest of the game, using her camera to photograph the wildlife of Hillys for a scientific researcher who is cataloguing the planet's ecosystem.
You could arguably say that the vehicles Jade interacts with - the hovercraft and another that appears late in the game were, given to her by a man as they're both inherited from her late father, but any upgrades have to be bought from Mammago Garage, which is incidentally owned by a Rhino lady.
She does take care of orphans in part because of some maternal instinct. Far from any kind of stereotyping, that makes her a well developed female character instead of one simply plunked into a role that could have been filled by a man if they swapped out the model and voice actor. I'm not sure cliche is exactly the word you'd be looking for either given that you'd be extremely hard pressed to find any kind of character role represented in any other video game.
And thus covers all the ways in which you are wrong. I hope this had been an enlightening experience.
dont you think contributes would be a fairer statement here, rather that saying that rape is primarily the result of media representation.
Yes, much more accurate wording, "contributes" rather than results. Poor choice on my part.
And I agree with you Eld that it borders on the violence in videogames issue, but while I know that is a hotly contested issue, and separate from this thread, I do think it's fair to say it's not a decided issue, many people fall on both sides of the fence on whether violence in media contributes to violence in real life, so an appeal to the similarities of that issue isn't going to just decide it to be moot.
And a male having struggled with with something like weight for all his life might have big issues with a game featuring "the overweight funny sidekick or evil boss".
Aha, yes! I agree with this a lot, and I think it may be part of the difficulty a community like polycount has in being understanding/respectful of sexism as an issue. Clearly nobody here is a misogynist or hates women or wants women to suffer, but there's been a LOT of actual backlash (not just disagreement) against the notion of women's portrayal being worth discussing, or worth changing in the first place.
Communities of (pardon the stereotype:) nerdy males tend to experience a lot of marginalization and abuse due to their gender and the expectations of it in western society. Not to paint with too broad of a brush, but I bet a sizeable amount of polycounters and gamers in general have been dismissed or bullied by women at some point in their youth, or were bullied or derided a little school, just because they dont fit some highly specific male archetype.
This kind of experience really muddies the waters and makes it harder to be understanding of other people -- "if women are so subjugated, and need better treatment, why are women so quick to deride and ostracize nerdy/dorky/geeky guys?"
After some examination, though, it's DEFINITELY a more damaging thing for women. Expectations are MUCH deeper seated -- Anuximoon posted this quote early and it bears repeating:
I don't think it's terribly controversial to note that women, from a young age, are required to consider the reality of the opposite gender's consciousness in a way that men aren't. This isn't to say that women don't often misunderstand, mistreat, and stereotype men, both in literature and in life.
But on a basic level, functioning in society requires that women register that men are fully conscious; it is not really possible for a woman to throw up her hands and write men off as eternally unknowable space aliens and even if she says she has, she cannot really behave as though she has. Every element of her life from reading books about boys and men to writing papers about the motivations of male characters to being attentive to her own safety to navigating most any institutional or professional or economic sphere demands an ironclad familiarity with, and belief in, the idea that men really are fully human entities. And no matter how many men come to the same conclusions about women, the structure of society simply does not demand so strenuously that they do so.
If you didn't really deep down believe that women were, in general, exactly as conscious as you, you could probably still get by in life. You could probably still get a book deal. You could probably still get elected to office.
(emphasis added)
curious people with women in your lives: investigate this claim. At least from the dozens of women ive known, it's universally true. And that's a powerful divide in cultural expectations, and no amount of 'men are from mars women are from venus' bullshit will justify the effects of it.
curious people with women in your lives: investigate this claim. At least from the dozens of women ive known, it's universally true. And that's a powerful divide in cultural expectations, and no amount of 'men are from mars women are from venus' bullshit will justify the effects of it.
Just be careful you don't fall into the problem of expecting a single individual to speak for all members of whatever minority they belong. To make it really clear, it's like asking a gay man "what do gay people think of...?" or a black person, "what do black people think of...?". I can't speak for all gay people because we are just as diverse as straight people in our desires, dislikes, likes, etc. The same is true of women. Many of us have female friends similar to ourselves. I know most women I have worked with have been more of the tomboyish type that know how to hang with the guys and not rock the boat with any issues regarding gender. Going to someone like this to have your opinion reaffirmed does not give you an insight into what women as a whole think, because no one person can speak for them.
Before someone jumps in to claim this is what Anita is doing with her videos, keep in mind she did her master's thesis on women's portrayal in media, and was in fact at Bungie, invited to speak on these topics when the idea for this video series came to her. So she is not using her personal opinion alone to form these videos, as they have research behind them. She can of course still be wrong, but this is not her sole opinion in the same way asking your best female friend what she thinks would be.
The idea that men are somehow the "default" is incredibly pervasive in our culture. Take the phrase 'guys' or 'dudes' that is used to refer to a group of people regardless of whether or not they are male, female or mixed. Do you think that everyone would (should?) be equally as comfortable being referred to as 'gals' or 'ladies' in a mixed gendered group? Sure, that example seems pretty innocuous, but it points out how deeply seated the idea is. If I go around calling all my male coworkers 'gals' instead of 'guys' they're probably going to think I'm insulting them.
We're sitting on top of thousands of years of patriarchal society, it's not something that just disappears regardless of laws, and a lot of things that are deeply a part of our cultural experience (religion, myth, literature) are from a time that men were unquestionably more important.
Just be careful you don't fall into the problem of expecting a single individual to speak for all members of whatever minority they belong. To make it really clear, it's like asking a gay man "what do gay people think of...?" or a black person, "what do black people think of...?". I can't speak for all gay people because we are just as diverse as straight people in our desires, dislikes, likes, etc. The same is true of women. Many of us have female friends similar to ourselves. I know most women I have worked with have been more of the tomboyish type that know how to hang with the guys and not rock the boat with any issues regarding gender. Going to someone like this to have your opinion reaffirmed does not give you an insight into what women as a whole think, because no one person can speak for them.
Exactly, women aren't a homogenous hive mind, just like any group, which is part of why tropes and stereotypes can be so harmful and why people need to pay attention to them and not just brush them off as 'oh well it's just a video game don't take it so seriously gosh guys'. Clearly enough people feel strongly about it to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a video series dedicated to discussing it.
Be careful not to confuse gender in language with physical gender; they are not the same thing. English doesn't have a broad set of genders as a language, but they do exist. The modern usage of 'guys' or 'dudes' is an example of a word that is shifting gender; this does happen.
Be careful not to confuse gender in language with physical gender; they are not the same thing. English doesn't have a broad set of genders as a language, but they do exist. The modern usage of 'guys' or 'dudes' is an example of a word that is shifting gender; this does happen.
Gender is conceptual. It isn't the same as physical sex. That's why there are transgendered people. But that's probably a can of worms.
And it's more the idea that the opposite is somehow sensibly offensive to people. I.e. calling guys 'gals'. And if women are offended by being referred to as 'guys', it's not sensible because that word in common usage is intended to be neutral.
Oh man that True Blood video was annoying as shit. They're "Evil, manipulative, blood-sucking monsters"... right... try immortal, powerful, awesome people.
Come'on, who watches those types of movies and doesn't think "man I hope I get converted"? I just hope they give me like a couple of months to get in shape before I become one. I don't want to be an out of shape vampire forever.
Gender is conceptual. It isn't the same as physical sex. That's why there are transgendered people. But that's probably a can of worms.
And it's more the idea that the opposite is somehow sensibly offensive to people. I.e. calling guys 'gals'. And if women are offended by being referred to as 'guys', it's not sensible because that word in common usage is intended to be neutral.
Of course, things like this also result in the term "bad guy" being the default.
I wonder what's worse, being the default object of desire, or the default villain? Typically viewed as needing to subject...or being typically viewed as the oppressor?
If you don't have time to watch, two major points:
While harmful male stereotypes exist, there are still plenty of ugly, overweight, or nerdy male characters portrayed positively. The most popular character of all time is a fat, short, hairy plumber. Conversely there are few (none?) ugly women that are still positive characters, certainly none that are main characters.
Second, while male characters are created to be over the top, they aren't made that way for women to ogle, they are made as fantasy images for *you* (a guy) to want to emulate/be. Women might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the character/concept artist artist. So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male.
On the last point, I used to joke with superostrich about the difference between "straight guy abs" and "gay guy abs". There is a certain look to abs that straight men make on guys, the epitome being frazetta's paintings, or Arnold Schwarzenegar in the height of his body building days. Conversely the type of abs that gay men tend to be attracted to (and are also used in advertising targeting gay men in magazines) tend to be a bit flatter, more concave overall (whereas straight guy abs tend to be convex). Think Brad Pitt in fight club, or almost any swimmer or gymnast's build. This is a very subjective followup to the idea of most muscle bound men being made to target a straight male's fantasies (what they wish they looked like) vs made to titillate (what a person attracted to males would want to touch and run their hands over).
Second, while male characters are created to be over the top, they aren't made that way for women to ogle, they are made as fantasy images for *you* (a guy) to want to emulate/be. Women might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the character/concept artist artist. So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male.
While it's true that female models in Victoria's Secret ads and other media might be over the top, they aren't made that way for men to ogle. They are made as fantasy images for women to want to emulate/be. Men might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the model/company. Obviously, these depictions are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual female.
...does it work for me to? Or am I going to get yelled at for how I can't possibly understand what straight women want because I'm not one?
(Just for the record, I understand that there are some guys out there who want to look like Kratos, just like there are some women who want to look like various over the top female characters. But I sure as shit do not, and making such convenient global assumptions as to the intention of pretty much every character/concept artist ever is flat out ridiculous.)
While it's true that female models in Victoria's Secret ads and other media might be over the top,
That's quite a jump from "victoria secret" to "other media". One *might* be able to argue that victoria secret ads are made primarily for women, though that would be a specious argument since we all know very well that plenty of men shop for their girlfriends/wives there and enjoy not only the catalogs but the in-store images as well, but "other media" is a huge catchall that most certainly includes a vast amount more of "women for men to ogle" than it does "women for women to emulate". I mean, "other media" includes mainstream porn and playboy magazines, which is definitely for men. Not to mention Victoria secret is a *genre* of stores/magazines, whereas "videogames" is an entire medium.
Awkwardly shoehorning in a switch in the genders doesn't work and doesn't make it fit as a rebuttal.
Of course, things like this also result in the term "bad guy" being the default.
I wonder what's worse, being the default object of desire, or the default villain? Typically viewed as needing to subject...or being typically viewed as the oppressor?
Uh oh.
I don't think either is objectively worse. And I don't think most people think men are intentionally oppressing women? It's a systematic prejudice that's built into our society and into our worldviews and many people never have that challenged and don't even realize it. There are probably extreme feminists who blame it all on men but it's everyone's problem and everyone contributes to it. It's really not as black and white as some people think it is, and there's no one clear solution, either. But that's why discussing it is important.
While it's true that female models in Victoria's Secret ads and other media might be over the top, they aren't made that way for men to ogle. They are made as fantasy images for women to want to emulate/be. Men might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the model/company. Obviously, these depictions are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual female.
...does it work for me to? Or am I going to get yelled at for how I can't possibly understand what straight women want because I'm not one?
Well I'm pretty sure the entire point of sexy lingerie is for the benefit of (impressing) men. I really can't say I've ever met a woman who wants to wear lingerie around on a day to day basis or for really any purpose besides taking their clothes off with someone else. I dunno maybe some people do.
But yeah, there are things that objectify men for the benefit of women. Like all the terrible romance novels ever. But do men really feel as pressured into being like The Highlander That Loved Me or Her Sexy Werewolf, or super jacked hunky god of war the same way girls feel pressured into being under 100 lbs with disproportionately big boobs and flawless skin? I know that men feel pressured into looking good to impress women, but is it to the same extent? I mean if breast implant and anorexia statistics are any indicator, it would lead me to believe that women do actually seek to change their bodies into unrealistic cartoon characters much more than men do.
Poop - see...I made my version a lot more reasonable by making it about underwear models - and afterwards had to add that in there for it to be as much of a generalization as your statement. Another possible post was:
Second, while male characters are created to be over the top, they aren't made that way for women to ogle, they are made as fantasy images for *you* (a guy) to want to emulate/be. Women might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the character/concept artist artist. So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male.
Yes, because so many men fantasize about being a fat, short, hairy plumber.
And when you realize how ridiculous that is, we're pretty much at, "So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male, except for when they aren't. Which happens a lot, such as with the most popular character of all time."
You're using silly blanket statements that completely contradict one of your primary points, when reversed. Just because some people might want to look like these over the top, disproportionate characters - that doesn't mean having so many ridiculous, unrealistic or flat out unachievable portrayals isn't potentially harmful to people faced with these images and isn't something that needs balanced out across the board. Isn't that the whole point?
shoes - You and I see pretty much eye to eye on this. That's the main reason I'd be totally fine with swapping genders, I've never seen anything real special about being a guy. I think it'd just be the same shit in a different way as a girl. I think the reason you don't see a lot of guys going out to get surgeries to improve there look is because...well, there aren't as many that guys can get. I guess they could take steroids to look muscular, but given some uh...side effects, that can be a little self defeating. It might also be because guys are pretty much told from day 1 that they need to suck it up. Do I feel super depressed because I weigh 110lbs and am not Vin Diesel? No. Do I have a difficult time making a character I enjoy in various MMOs and other games, because I'm not interested in being "super badass" meat? Yes.
Yes, because so many men fantasize about being a fat, short, hairy plumber.
And when you realize how ridiculous that is, we're pretty much at, "So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male, except for when they aren't.
The point of the physically flawled (always male) heroes is still to appeal to men, it is showing that you don't even have to be flawless to be the hero. You can be a dumb fat dude and still get the girl/gold/win. That doesn't contradict that the design decisions are made to appeal to men.
The point of the physically flawled (always male) heroes is still to appeal to men
That's the problem with your argumentation right there Ben. One doesn't have or need to be attracted by a given hero in order to enjoy a story or a game, and such heroes are not all designed to be the mirror reflection of a target audience.
"I like this story because I can relate to character XX" has become one of these dumb things that we say without really thinking about them, but really, it's just bull. (at least from my perspective.)
For instance. I love the stories of District9, Lola Rennt, and The Fall. I can in no way relate to a NATO paper pusher, a slum refugee (alien or not), an unwanted broke german chick, a 5 year-old immigrant field worker or a hollywood stuntman - yet these 5 are my favorite characters of all.
I find it a bit naive to simply claim that (especially today) people only enjoy stuff that "is like them", and that's my problem with the idea of the "strong, modern, male or female character" being that ultimate relatable character empowering the audience.
Now of course, in some cases some audiences DO go for the directly relatable characters or contextes - like athletes playing Madden, troops playing Call of Duty, or army vets (or enthousiasts) with a strong interest in historical pieces. But the spectrum of story telling and entertainment is much wider than that ...
So, sure, Mario is a guy and Miyamoto is a guy too. So be it! If a woman game designer is working on a 2D platformer she can freely build it around a female character if she wants. If it's a good game, I'll play it. Shouldn't I ?
Jade from BGaE was certainly not created to please feminists - I am pretty convinced that she was constructed in contrast with the other cool characters of the story and that made her what she is. Simple good character construction! Bayonetta surely wasn't designed with the purposes of giving boners to evil men and making women wish they could wrap themselves in a spandex suit made of hair - she is just the character she is because ... she is!
I guess I am just saying that you are trying to put too much meaning into trivial things. All it comes down to is about us being a decent human beings, humanists really - male or female. Add good writing and good game design on top of that and bam, we get cool games enjoyable by everybody, regardless of crotch style
It's up to us to not support the idiotic sexist crap out there. And the best way to do that is by support the good stuff that's out there, sharing it with friends, and not being douches!
Yeah ben i really think visual design runs off into a tangent that's a lot harder to argue. Im not sure i can think of a single female visual design which is objectively degrading, or objectively more degrading than equivalent men, or whatever...
Whereas there are tons of female characters where, no matter how you cut it, they're written as powerless inferiors.
Personally, maybe it's cause im a straight man, but I really dont think how women LOOK in games is that big of a deal. Maybe sometimes symptomatic of the real problem, but it seems like snobbery to judge a girl just because she has big tits, or because she likes to dress slutty, whether she's real or not.
That's all well and good, but you're all three glossing over the simple fact that there haven't been any physically ugly but positively portrayed and important female characters in games. Why do you think that is?
Why is it ok to have ugly men as heroes in games, but not ugly women? Whose tastes would that offend?
Why is there no physically ugly yet positively portrayed female character in games ? Well, because ... no one wrote or designed one ? That doesn't mean that there is a hard rule about it ... And the fact that there are none ... doesn't mean that it's not okay to create some.
It's like asking why the ideal in classical sculpture is not an ugly deformed woman figure. Wondering why doesn't really achieve anything - but actually sitting down and writing/drawing/imagining such a character is the proactive way to look at the issue, I think ! Like Egon Schiele did, for instance. As a matter of fact his raw, unrefined art is much more honest than the sexual voyeurism of Klimt - but ironically Klimt is the "politically correct" one, while Schiele is often considered too crass hehe. Something to think about !
Actually dissecting choices can tell us a lot. Or we could throw up our hands and just claim "oh that's just how it is". I would have thought an artist would understand the psychological aspects of design.
Your assertions that games (or anything) works based on perfect market principles, and that we can get better stuff just by buying and supporting it is proven to be flawed. I agree that we should support well designed games, and shun offense ones, but to posit that we can actually affect the market through these choices is ultra wrong. Anita will have far more success with her videos (and her already happened trips to developers like Bungie to give talks) than any amount of 10 people trying to make smart buying choices vs the hordes of consumers who buy according to successful/failed marketing.
And are you seriously claiming that if someone made a short fat female character with a hairy upper lip and malformed tits, the game could still do well? Even if the game design itself was the best ever, you would have hordes of people slamming the character design, whereas no one ever has a problem with Mario's physique. You are honestly stretching on this point, or haven't thought it through.
Oh yup i agree - it won't change the market at all, very true. I am more talking about the word of mouth aspect of it, like, recommending a good game or movie to a friend. Much less achieving at a big scale than the trope videos (for sure) but I find it more constructive at a "tight circle" level.
In passing, and for the sake of clear and concise arguments : there is no need to throw implied personal attacks (real or just for fun ...) in discussions like these. It's not about scoring points and winning, but really about having an interesting discussion. It removes a lot of weight to your points when you adopt that kind of snarky attitude - just though I'd mention it bud !)
Plus, let's imagine your imaginary "well designed and fun game with ugly female character". Demo is made, now we are shopping for a publisher. Do you honestly think that any of them would provide funding without asking she be hotted up? Or funded at all?
Point taken, but it gets incredibly frustrating when you try to make the same point over and over ignoring very obvious aspects. For example claiming choices just happened (to be 99% one sided) when you *should* as an artist understand that choices have meaning behind them, even if they are subconscious. It feels like you're either ignoring what you actually know deep down, or just refuse to self examine because you don't like the topic.
Well, I honestly don't think I'm doing either ...
To dig into the mechanics of polite debate further, for the sake of clear argumentation and discussion the straightforward way to go is to assume that the expressed opinions are sincere, and work from there. And yeah, it can be frustrating
I'd play this! Deformed tits, hairy lips, and overweight
It's an interesting point. Outside of Quake 3 which probably doesn't really count, the only one coming to mind is Sister Hannah in Fable 2 who was overweight with big powerful arms and shoulders from having spent most of her life lugging heavy buckets of water about. She definitely falls into the "positively portrayed character important to the game she appears in" category. I don't know that I'd call her "ugly" per se, but certainly not your average videogame heroine.
Even if the game design itself was the best ever, you would have hordes of people slamming the character design, whereas no one ever has a problem with Mario's physique.
speculation much?
also, you keep bringing up mario. mario is stylized as hell and he has a cute appeal that he most likely wouldn't have if he was portrayed as a realistic fat dude with mustache. he was made in times when size of sprites didn't even allow making sexy characters and only thing you could do was to make them characteristic.
if there are any modern mainstream games with an average looking or ugly protagonist, i'd be interested in knowing their names, since i can't recall any. granted that i don't play too many modern games at all. This guy is about the only one that comes to my mind.
Mario looks the way he does because his original sprite was 16 pixels tall. Sonic the Hedgehog also suffered the same issue to a lesser extent on the megadrive. You'll notice however that both characters have evolved to be taller and thinner.
It's a pretty poor example to pick upon given it's age.
You gals can't honestly ignore that there's a lot more diversity in male physics in games than females, even in modern games. You've got the muscle men (Kratos), old guys (Solid Snake, Bill in L4D), some chubby guys (coach in L4D2), effeminate types (mostly in Japanese games), then lots of generic every day types... I can't really see that type of diversity in female roles (I'm sure you can find some though, but rarely in very important roles).
Unfortunately I doubt this will change much until we have more women in the industry with power, and that will be slow coming considering how society does its best to fit genders into their obsolete historical roles, guys are strong soldiers, girls are fragile princesses (seriously, go to a toy store for example and compare the toys, it's disgusting).
Unfortunately I doubt this will change much until we have more women in the industry with power, and that will be slow coming considering how society does its best to fit genders into their obsolete historical roles, guys are strong soldiers, girls are fragile princesses (seriously, go to a toy store for example and compare the toys, it's disgusting).
Side-effect rather, toy stores don't try to force things on genders, they just sell what sells, and even in the most gender-equal family you might often have the girl play with the dolls. Again: gender-roles have gone so long back it's impossible to see who started it, society just does what it does best to grow and earn money, it has no evil or good purpose, it just wants to grow.
The important thing is: don't automatically force equality on children, but don't automatically force them to play with gender-specific toys either, if a girl wants to play with space or pirate lego, let them, I know my sisters would, but that wouldn't stop them from going for the girly stuff either.
I can see the frustration though of a child who does want something out of the ordinary and seeing that stores go default.
Anyhow, the industry and workplaces should always be inviting and encouraging towards women, and women should also be encouraged as much as often to play many different games without infusing the nerd-stigma. The more women get into games in a deep way, the more get interested in game-design, and then we'll have more future female industry workers.
Again: gender-roles have gone so long back it's impossible to see who started it
Here's some real fuel for the fire and some slight offtopic - gender roles exist in the vast majority of species on the planet. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that the same predispositions exist in people (and perhaps suggests a partial cause in gender differences in academic interests)?
Side-effect rather, toy stores don't try to force things on genders, they just sell what sells, and even in the most gender-equal family you might often have the girl play with the dolls. Again: gender-roles have gone so long back it's impossible to see who started it, society just does what it does best to grow and earn money, it has no evil or good purpose, it just wants to grow.
What? this isn't true at all. Toy stores absolutely enforce gender roles. See the wall of pink down the "girl's isle" and the guns/race-cars/war-toys of the boy's isles. Anita even did a video on this. And, in it, she explains that in 1900, pink was a boy color, and blue was a girl color. You can look it up. These things are not "oh just the way it's always been". Marketing loves having very easy, clear, narrow roles to market things, and they absolutely force gender into as young as the kids going to McDonald's where the toys are obnoxiously gendered into pink/blue, cars/dolls.
...These things are not "oh just the way it's always been". Marketing loves having very easy, clear, narrow roles to market things, and they absolutely force gender into as young as the kids going to McDonald's where the toys are obnoxiously gendered into pink/blue, cars/dolls.
So you mean back in the days the roles were reversed but evil corporations wanted to twist things around because of: I don't really know why at all.
They try to figure things out, they pull all the tricks they can to sell things, very clear defined toys makes it easier for them to sell stuff and the way the world works currently makes it easy for the. They didn't put the system into place, they just abuse the fact that it's there.
I can't argue with you on the colors, they can definitely change, I'd even say pink has been a trending manly color recently, it just doesn't go to well on the toys themselves, not now, and not back in the days.
Here's some real fuel for the fire and some slight offtopic - gender roles exist in the vast majority of species on the planet. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that the same predispositions exist in people (and perhaps suggests a partial cause in gender differences in academic interests)?
There are things deep in our DNA and what makes us man and woman, there are differences, but modern society should give everyone the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want to do, enjoy, or become.
Now this is a bit of a dangerous area:
No matter how important a child is for both parents, and without saying that males cannot be sole parents or are not as good parents as mothers, females do have genetic differences which means they have built in systems to nurture a child,
Males most often do have a whole other system in place to be able to act out in violence and strength.
These are real things, but should not be the defining factor of our gender or persona, but they might pop up and affect our preference with things.
No matter how important a child is for both parents, and without saying that males cannot be sole parents or are not as good parents as mothers, females do have genetic differences which means they have built in systems to nurture a child,
While I do believe that the ideal setup is a traditional man/woman family with exposure to both sexes from an early age, there are just way too many people with mommy issues or deadbeat dads to pretend that it really matters. The quality of parenting is ultimately more important than the genitals mom and dad are packing.
Replies
Our world is not going to become some kind of entertainment wasteland because women are critiquing video game babes. It certainly doesn't deserve the overwhelming vitriolic response it's getting on the internet. (Not saying it's here, I'm actually really nicely surprised at most of this discussion so far.) They are not advocating for censorship as far as I can tell are they?
I grew up convinced all women were stupid and bad at all the "cool" stuff that guys did. I wanted to be 'one of the guys'. I didn't have friends who were girls and looked down on them well into my teenage years. No girl should have to feel that way, that they aren't good enough on the basis of their gender and that they need to be 'more like a man' to be more valuable. I know this is a common phenomenon and I can recognize that it hurts people. Fortunately, I outgrew it, but not everyone has such an easy time. I think having strong female protagonists in ANY media is a very good thing, especially for kids and teenagers. Not to say that a critique of ALL the stereotypes in games isn't a really good idea too.
And why can't female characters fill the roles she has a problem with? I see no issue with female characters being the manic pixie girls in the films she describes, they're not demeening roles, they're likable interesting characters even if they are supporting characters and act to move the male lead along in his story arc. If you switched the two characters genders and had a manic pixie boy, the film would still work in the exact same way, is the problem just because the character is a girl?
As for games, I think the issue is not one of poor treatment of female characters, but more poor treatment of characters in general. Most male game characters are the most two-dimensional clich
It is, but the bigger misfortune with Anita is that she easily gets mistracked with her videos into the things that are wrong with males when it comes to women, which isn't all false, but hurts the purpose of the thing. Or stuff that just aren't big issues, but rather things she herself doesn't enjoy.
Very true, the internet can be a very foul place though, which is why I believe it's possible to critique her without having to result to that foul tactic, I just did wish she would receive the critique in a less one-sided ways in her videos, especially with what I said about her being able to visit studios and talk to people, and meet the women that work there.
I do have a feeling the characters in game is a symptom of a bigger issue, and not really the issue itself, even in an ideal character wasteland we'll still have traditional "lookin down" at women, as it is sadly a heritary genetic trait we should've overcome by now, much like violence.
More on topic, there are other issues with women in media as well as over-sexualisation. There's faceism (men's faces are shown larger to emphasize their intelligence, women are shown from a distance to show their bodies more) and the default male (think Bechdel test). You can say, yeah games are targeted at men and that's what they want, but 1. it mirrors other media fairly consistently, only more extremely and 2. I'm a male and I don't want it.
Just asking.
Good stuff, but ruined by elements of one-sidedness.
Everyone deserves personal space, race has no place in it.
Has some reversed consequences, It becomes okay to look down at thin girls as they do not possess the more natural "full" beauty, and their clothing-issues are non-existant even though clothing-sizes have increased over the years due to obesity.
Good point, you don't use one important issue to defeat another, but saying one issue outdoes the other enables one type of genital mutilation to become a norm, not a light issue.
Downright silly, we had a thread about this, priviligue isn't a one dimensional bar where one person is on one end and one is on another, "you are priviligued" is as bad of an argument as "I also have it bad!".
Oh shit, I DID derail
But okay, more on track, some subjects of discussion:
1) Fantastic games where the tropes are central: Ico, Shadow of the colossus, Max payne, Zelda series.
2) Fantastic tv series or movies where tropes are central: Game of thrones
3) The tropes women do enjoy, odin sphere, guilty gear, that adorable piece of equipment that just dropped in 'insert your mmo here'.
4) Half-related: Makeup. Isn't this one of the biggest female-damaging elements there is?, even to the point where females are often seen as hideous and ugly without their makeup on but males can go out as they wake up and still look fantastic.
I'm not saying makeup is wrong in any way, I'm certain most of us are smart enough to see beyond it and are able to wake up next to our better halfs in their worst time of day and still love what we see, but isn't this a paralel to the sexy tropes we have in games, it causes damage but we enjoy it and hopefully most of us know better!
Yep, I think there's been a couple of ladies dropping by. It just gets a little hard to stay motivated to be in a discussion when the cat macros get busted out.
A woman 'privileged' enough to have grown up in a place which is quite equal can enjoy something like lollipop chainsaw without feeling any issues with it.
And a male having struggled with with something like weight for all his life might have big issues with a game featuring "the overweight funny sidekick or evil boss".
Almost every negative male trope (wants sex all the time with no need for emotions, a relationship, or caring about the woman giving it) has an even more negative female counterpart (all women are sluts and should be sexually available at least visually at all times). Solving them happens at the same time. The reason female tropes are often times focused on is because they actually are the more harmful. Male stereotypes cause all types of psychological problems, and even bullying (though mostly before the age of 20). Whereas harmful female portrayal in advertising/film/media *edit* contributes *edit* to a society where 1 in 6 US women having been sexually assaulted. That is a huge problem and one that does deserve to be addressed.
Doesn't it start to border the violent games discussion then?
I'm not denying the problem at all, I'm just saying the problem exists even without the portrayals.
dont you think contributes would be a fairer statement here, rather that saying that rape is primarily the result of media representation.
that statement isn't even provable...
sorry... what?
There is no mission where you have to rescue Jade. Jade is the protagonist whom you play throughout the game. You do rescue both of the male co-stars at different points though.
Men do not give Jade money, in fact the first battle of in game takes place because her orphanage has fallen behind with its bill payments and the power gets shut off, resulting in the Domz getting through the building's protective force shield. Jade then has to earn the money to make payment, as she does throughout the rest of the game, using her camera to photograph the wildlife of Hillys for a scientific researcher who is cataloguing the planet's ecosystem.
You could arguably say that the vehicles Jade interacts with - the hovercraft and another that appears late in the game were, given to her by a man as they're both inherited from her late father, but any upgrades have to be bought from Mammago Garage, which is incidentally owned by a Rhino lady.
She does take care of orphans in part because of some maternal instinct. Far from any kind of stereotyping, that makes her a well developed female character instead of one simply plunked into a role that could have been filled by a man if they swapped out the model and voice actor. I'm not sure cliche is exactly the word you'd be looking for either given that you'd be extremely hard pressed to find any kind of character role represented in any other video game.
And thus covers all the ways in which you are wrong. I hope this had been an enlightening experience.
Yes, much more accurate wording, "contributes" rather than results. Poor choice on my part.
And I agree with you Eld that it borders on the violence in videogames issue, but while I know that is a hotly contested issue, and separate from this thread, I do think it's fair to say it's not a decided issue, many people fall on both sides of the fence on whether violence in media contributes to violence in real life, so an appeal to the similarities of that issue isn't going to just decide it to be moot.
Aha, yes! I agree with this a lot, and I think it may be part of the difficulty a community like polycount has in being understanding/respectful of sexism as an issue. Clearly nobody here is a misogynist or hates women or wants women to suffer, but there's been a LOT of actual backlash (not just disagreement) against the notion of women's portrayal being worth discussing, or worth changing in the first place.
Communities of (pardon the stereotype:) nerdy males tend to experience a lot of marginalization and abuse due to their gender and the expectations of it in western society. Not to paint with too broad of a brush, but I bet a sizeable amount of polycounters and gamers in general have been dismissed or bullied by women at some point in their youth, or were bullied or derided a little school, just because they dont fit some highly specific male archetype.
This kind of experience really muddies the waters and makes it harder to be understanding of other people -- "if women are so subjugated, and need better treatment, why are women so quick to deride and ostracize nerdy/dorky/geeky guys?"
After some examination, though, it's DEFINITELY a more damaging thing for women. Expectations are MUCH deeper seated -- Anuximoon posted this quote early and it bears repeating:
(emphasis added)
curious people with women in your lives: investigate this claim. At least from the dozens of women ive known, it's universally true. And that's a powerful divide in cultural expectations, and no amount of 'men are from mars women are from venus' bullshit will justify the effects of it.
Just be careful you don't fall into the problem of expecting a single individual to speak for all members of whatever minority they belong. To make it really clear, it's like asking a gay man "what do gay people think of...?" or a black person, "what do black people think of...?". I can't speak for all gay people because we are just as diverse as straight people in our desires, dislikes, likes, etc. The same is true of women. Many of us have female friends similar to ourselves. I know most women I have worked with have been more of the tomboyish type that know how to hang with the guys and not rock the boat with any issues regarding gender. Going to someone like this to have your opinion reaffirmed does not give you an insight into what women as a whole think, because no one person can speak for them.
Before someone jumps in to claim this is what Anita is doing with her videos, keep in mind she did her master's thesis on women's portrayal in media, and was in fact at Bungie, invited to speak on these topics when the idea for this video series came to her. So she is not using her personal opinion alone to form these videos, as they have research behind them. She can of course still be wrong, but this is not her sole opinion in the same way asking your best female friend what she thinks would be.
The idea that men are somehow the "default" is incredibly pervasive in our culture. Take the phrase 'guys' or 'dudes' that is used to refer to a group of people regardless of whether or not they are male, female or mixed. Do you think that everyone would (should?) be equally as comfortable being referred to as 'gals' or 'ladies' in a mixed gendered group? Sure, that example seems pretty innocuous, but it points out how deeply seated the idea is. If I go around calling all my male coworkers 'gals' instead of 'guys' they're probably going to think I'm insulting them.
We're sitting on top of thousands of years of patriarchal society, it's not something that just disappears regardless of laws, and a lot of things that are deeply a part of our cultural experience (religion, myth, literature) are from a time that men were unquestionably more important.
Exactly, women aren't a homogenous hive mind, just like any group, which is part of why tropes and stereotypes can be so harmful and why people need to pay attention to them and not just brush them off as 'oh well it's just a video game don't take it so seriously gosh guys'. Clearly enough people feel strongly about it to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a video series dedicated to discussing it.
Gender is conceptual. It isn't the same as physical sex. That's why there are transgendered people. But that's probably a can of worms.
And it's more the idea that the opposite is somehow sensibly offensive to people. I.e. calling guys 'gals'. And if women are offended by being referred to as 'guys', it's not sensible because that word in common usage is intended to be neutral.
Come'on, who watches those types of movies and doesn't think "man I hope I get converted"? I just hope they give me like a couple of months to get in shape before I become one. I don't want to be an out of shape vampire forever.
Sorry I probably should have made it clear I was playing devils advocate with that post :P
Just to see how deep you can dig before something is offensive or bad.
Of course, things like this also result in the term "bad guy" being the default.
I wonder what's worse, being the default object of desire, or the default villain? Typically viewed as needing to subject...or being typically viewed as the oppressor?
Uh oh.
If you don't have time to watch, two major points:
While harmful male stereotypes exist, there are still plenty of ugly, overweight, or nerdy male characters portrayed positively. The most popular character of all time is a fat, short, hairy plumber. Conversely there are few (none?) ugly women that are still positive characters, certainly none that are main characters.
Second, while male characters are created to be over the top, they aren't made that way for women to ogle, they are made as fantasy images for *you* (a guy) to want to emulate/be. Women might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the character/concept artist artist. So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male.
While it's true that female models in Victoria's Secret ads and other media might be over the top, they aren't made that way for men to ogle. They are made as fantasy images for women to want to emulate/be. Men might enjoy looking at them, but that was not the goal of the model/company. Obviously, these depictions are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual female.
...does it work for me to? Or am I going to get yelled at for how I can't possibly understand what straight women want because I'm not one?
(Just for the record, I understand that there are some guys out there who want to look like Kratos, just like there are some women who want to look like various over the top female characters. But I sure as shit do not, and making such convenient global assumptions as to the intention of pretty much every character/concept artist ever is flat out ridiculous.)
That's quite a jump from "victoria secret" to "other media". One *might* be able to argue that victoria secret ads are made primarily for women, though that would be a specious argument since we all know very well that plenty of men shop for their girlfriends/wives there and enjoy not only the catalogs but the in-store images as well, but "other media" is a huge catchall that most certainly includes a vast amount more of "women for men to ogle" than it does "women for women to emulate". I mean, "other media" includes mainstream porn and playboy magazines, which is definitely for men. Not to mention Victoria secret is a *genre* of stores/magazines, whereas "videogames" is an entire medium.
Awkwardly shoehorning in a switch in the genders doesn't work and doesn't make it fit as a rebuttal.
I don't think either is objectively worse. And I don't think most people think men are intentionally oppressing women? It's a systematic prejudice that's built into our society and into our worldviews and many people never have that challenged and don't even realize it. There are probably extreme feminists who blame it all on men but it's everyone's problem and everyone contributes to it. It's really not as black and white as some people think it is, and there's no one clear solution, either. But that's why discussing it is important.
Well I'm pretty sure the entire point of sexy lingerie is for the benefit of (impressing) men. I really can't say I've ever met a woman who wants to wear lingerie around on a day to day basis or for really any purpose besides taking their clothes off with someone else. I dunno maybe some people do.
But yeah, there are things that objectify men for the benefit of women. Like all the terrible romance novels ever. But do men really feel as pressured into being like The Highlander That Loved Me or Her Sexy Werewolf, or super jacked hunky god of war the same way girls feel pressured into being under 100 lbs with disproportionately big boobs and flawless skin? I know that men feel pressured into looking good to impress women, but is it to the same extent? I mean if breast implant and anorexia statistics are any indicator, it would lead me to believe that women do actually seek to change their bodies into unrealistic cartoon characters much more than men do.
Yes, because so many men fantasize about being a fat, short, hairy plumber.
And when you realize how ridiculous that is, we're pretty much at, "So both male and female characters are made to fit the tastes of the heterosexual male, except for when they aren't. Which happens a lot, such as with the most popular character of all time."
You're using silly blanket statements that completely contradict one of your primary points, when reversed. Just because some people might want to look like these over the top, disproportionate characters - that doesn't mean having so many ridiculous, unrealistic or flat out unachievable portrayals isn't potentially harmful to people faced with these images and isn't something that needs balanced out across the board. Isn't that the whole point?
shoes - You and I see pretty much eye to eye on this. That's the main reason I'd be totally fine with swapping genders, I've never seen anything real special about being a guy. I think it'd just be the same shit in a different way as a girl. I think the reason you don't see a lot of guys going out to get surgeries to improve there look is because...well, there aren't as many that guys can get. I guess they could take steroids to look muscular, but given some uh...side effects, that can be a little self defeating. It might also be because guys are pretty much told from day 1 that they need to suck it up. Do I feel super depressed because I weigh 110lbs and am not Vin Diesel? No. Do I have a difficult time making a character I enjoy in various MMOs and other games, because I'm not interested in being "super badass" meat? Yes.
The point of the physically flawled (always male) heroes is still to appeal to men, it is showing that you don't even have to be flawless to be the hero. You can be a dumb fat dude and still get the girl/gold/win. That doesn't contradict that the design decisions are made to appeal to men.
Fixed that for you.
That's the problem with your argumentation right there Ben. One doesn't have or need to be attracted by a given hero in order to enjoy a story or a game, and such heroes are not all designed to be the mirror reflection of a target audience.
"I like this story because I can relate to character XX" has become one of these dumb things that we say without really thinking about them, but really, it's just bull. (at least from my perspective.)
For instance. I love the stories of District9, Lola Rennt, and The Fall. I can in no way relate to a NATO paper pusher, a slum refugee (alien or not), an unwanted broke german chick, a 5 year-old immigrant field worker or a hollywood stuntman - yet these 5 are my favorite characters of all.
I find it a bit naive to simply claim that (especially today) people only enjoy stuff that "is like them", and that's my problem with the idea of the "strong, modern, male or female character" being that ultimate relatable character empowering the audience.
Now of course, in some cases some audiences DO go for the directly relatable characters or contextes - like athletes playing Madden, troops playing Call of Duty, or army vets (or enthousiasts) with a strong interest in historical pieces. But the spectrum of story telling and entertainment is much wider than that ...
So, sure, Mario is a guy and Miyamoto is a guy too. So be it! If a woman game designer is working on a 2D platformer she can freely build it around a female character if she wants. If it's a good game, I'll play it. Shouldn't I ?
Jade from BGaE was certainly not created to please feminists - I am pretty convinced that she was constructed in contrast with the other cool characters of the story and that made her what she is. Simple good character construction! Bayonetta surely wasn't designed with the purposes of giving boners to evil men and making women wish they could wrap themselves in a spandex suit made of hair - she is just the character she is because ... she is!
I guess I am just saying that you are trying to put too much meaning into trivial things. All it comes down to is about us being a decent human beings, humanists really - male or female. Add good writing and good game design on top of that and bam, we get cool games enjoyable by everybody, regardless of crotch style
It's up to us to not support the idiotic sexist crap out there. And the best way to do that is by support the good stuff that's out there, sharing it with friends, and not being douches!
Whereas there are tons of female characters where, no matter how you cut it, they're written as powerless inferiors.
Personally, maybe it's cause im a straight man, but I really dont think how women LOOK in games is that big of a deal. Maybe sometimes symptomatic of the real problem, but it seems like snobbery to judge a girl just because she has big tits, or because she likes to dress slutty, whether she's real or not.
Why is it ok to have ugly men as heroes in games, but not ugly women? Whose tastes would that offend?
It's like asking why the ideal in classical sculpture is not an ugly deformed woman figure. Wondering why doesn't really achieve anything - but actually sitting down and writing/drawing/imagining such a character is the proactive way to look at the issue, I think ! Like Egon Schiele did, for instance. As a matter of fact his raw, unrefined art is much more honest than the sexual voyeurism of Klimt - but ironically Klimt is the "politically correct" one, while Schiele is often considered too crass hehe. Something to think about !
Your assertions that games (or anything) works based on perfect market principles, and that we can get better stuff just by buying and supporting it is proven to be flawed. I agree that we should support well designed games, and shun offense ones, but to posit that we can actually affect the market through these choices is ultra wrong. Anita will have far more success with her videos (and her already happened trips to developers like Bungie to give talks) than any amount of 10 people trying to make smart buying choices vs the hordes of consumers who buy according to successful/failed marketing.
And are you seriously claiming that if someone made a short fat female character with a hairy upper lip and malformed tits, the game could still do well? Even if the game design itself was the best ever, you would have hordes of people slamming the character design, whereas no one ever has a problem with Mario's physique. You are honestly stretching on this point, or haven't thought it through.
In passing, and for the sake of clear and concise arguments : there is no need to throw implied personal attacks (real or just for fun ...) in discussions like these. It's not about scoring points and winning, but really about having an interesting discussion. It removes a lot of weight to your points when you adopt that kind of snarky attitude - just though I'd mention it bud !)
Point taken, but it gets incredibly frustrating when you try to make the same point over and over ignoring very obvious aspects. For example claiming choices just happened (to be 99% one sided) when you *should* as an artist understand that choices have meaning behind them, even if they are subconscious. It feels like you're either ignoring what you actually know deep down, or just refuse to self examine because you don't like the topic.
To dig into the mechanics of polite debate further, for the sake of clear argumentation and discussion the straightforward way to go is to assume that the expressed opinions are sincere, and work from there. And yeah, it can be frustrating
I'd play this! Deformed tits, hairy lips, and overweight
also, you keep bringing up mario. mario is stylized as hell and he has a cute appeal that he most likely wouldn't have if he was portrayed as a realistic fat dude with mustache. he was made in times when size of sprites didn't even allow making sexy characters and only thing you could do was to make them characteristic.
if there are any modern mainstream games with an average looking or ugly protagonist, i'd be interested in knowing their names, since i can't recall any. granted that i don't play too many modern games at all.
This guy is about the only one that comes to my mind.
It's a pretty poor example to pick upon given it's age.
Unfortunately I doubt this will change much until we have more women in the industry with power, and that will be slow coming considering how society does its best to fit genders into their obsolete historical roles, guys are strong soldiers, girls are fragile princesses (seriously, go to a toy store for example and compare the toys, it's disgusting).
Side-effect rather, toy stores don't try to force things on genders, they just sell what sells, and even in the most gender-equal family you might often have the girl play with the dolls. Again: gender-roles have gone so long back it's impossible to see who started it, society just does what it does best to grow and earn money, it has no evil or good purpose, it just wants to grow.
The important thing is: don't automatically force equality on children, but don't automatically force them to play with gender-specific toys either, if a girl wants to play with space or pirate lego, let them, I know my sisters would, but that wouldn't stop them from going for the girly stuff either.
I can see the frustration though of a child who does want something out of the ordinary and seeing that stores go default.
Anyhow, the industry and workplaces should always be inviting and encouraging towards women, and women should also be encouraged as much as often to play many different games without infusing the nerd-stigma. The more women get into games in a deep way, the more get interested in game-design, and then we'll have more future female industry workers.
Here's some real fuel for the fire and some slight offtopic - gender roles exist in the vast majority of species on the planet. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that the same predispositions exist in people (and perhaps suggests a partial cause in gender differences in academic interests)?
What? this isn't true at all. Toy stores absolutely enforce gender roles. See the wall of pink down the "girl's isle" and the guns/race-cars/war-toys of the boy's isles. Anita even did a video on this. And, in it, she explains that in 1900, pink was a boy color, and blue was a girl color. You can look it up. These things are not "oh just the way it's always been". Marketing loves having very easy, clear, narrow roles to market things, and they absolutely force gender into as young as the kids going to McDonald's where the toys are obnoxiously gendered into pink/blue, cars/dolls.
So you mean back in the days the roles were reversed but evil corporations wanted to twist things around because of: I don't really know why at all.
They try to figure things out, they pull all the tricks they can to sell things, very clear defined toys makes it easier for them to sell stuff and the way the world works currently makes it easy for the. They didn't put the system into place, they just abuse the fact that it's there.
I can't argue with you on the colors, they can definitely change, I'd even say pink has been a trending manly color recently, it just doesn't go to well on the toys themselves, not now, and not back in the days.
There are things deep in our DNA and what makes us man and woman, there are differences, but modern society should give everyone the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want to do, enjoy, or become.
Now this is a bit of a dangerous area:
No matter how important a child is for both parents, and without saying that males cannot be sole parents or are not as good parents as mothers, females do have genetic differences which means they have built in systems to nurture a child,
Males most often do have a whole other system in place to be able to act out in violence and strength.
These are real things, but should not be the defining factor of our gender or persona, but they might pop up and affect our preference with things.
While I do believe that the ideal setup is a traditional man/woman family with exposure to both sexes from an early age, there are just way too many people with mommy issues or deadbeat dads to pretend that it really matters. The quality of parenting is ultimately more important than the genitals mom and dad are packing.