Gaming and Sexism

[Koh]

So this currently seems to be a hot topic lately...mostly due to the (recentish?) rise of Anita Sarkeesian's videos. Quick links!

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs
Video 3 (very recent, as in yesterday): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjImnqH_KwM

What's your stance on the matter? Do you complely agree with, slightly agree with, are neutral towards, slightly disagree with, or disagree completely with Anita's stances and responses on the matter as a feminist?

I know those are long videos, but I found myself watching the whole thing for the latest one (only one I've seen, yet so far). I agree to an extent, but I also think they're quite biased and are only focusing on the negative, as damsels aren't always negative figure heads. This is a response video that I like, as it addresses some of the points she talked about and how there are positive examples as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

[Koopaul]

I guess you weren't around, but let's just walk away from this one. Nothing good can come from this discussion.

[BullockDS]

There are legitimate issues with objectification of women in media (including video games), and it'd be hard (probably even asinine) to deny that. However, I think Sarkeesian totally misses those real issues. Instead, she's focusing mainly on appraising these cases at face value (i.e. as tropes) when the devil's in the details; she rejects the positive aspects of characters like Peach and Zelda either by ignoring them or debunking them on arbitrary grounds, and reduces them to the basic "Damsel in Distress" trope instead of what makes them great characters (the vid Koh linked to at the end of his post brilliantly explains this in further detail). Now, this is a bit of a stretch, but doesn't reducing female characters to a soundbite and trying to remove most/all of their positive aspects... sort of objectify these women characters? Seems Anita's doing more harm than good in this regard.

EDIT: when she talks about how Dinosaur Planet/Starfox Adventures was originally going to be Krystal's game, she entirely edits out and ignores any trace of the male protagonist Sabre from DP both in terms of gameplay footage and concept art. Frankly, considering how deliberate the removal of Sabre's presence was, this is something that serves to hurt her credibility in my eyes.

I really think this sort of mindset hinders the equality movement, as Anita tries to keep the aforementioned "damsel" characters in as much of a negative light as possible in lieu of embracing their empowering characteristics, and (at least so far) ignoring many of the "outwardly" empowered characters (e.g. Samus). In fact, I daresay she's achieved more polarity than equality/understanding of issues.

EDIT2: In her third vid, Anita tries to use Earthworm Jim and Castle Crashers as serious examples of sexism (when both series CLEARLY used the damsel trope in a parodic manner), and further saying that this is a conspiracy amongst devs that enables them to further objectification under a veil of comedy. Also, more of her arguments as of late boil down to "because I said so" (women dying in games is not sexist in and of itself and you just saying it is doesn't make it different), and has more often neglected attempts to use any evidence for her claims. Also, she's now trying to absolutely destroy outright empowered damsel characters like Marian in Double Dragon Neon, who end up accomplishing/finishing the protagonist's work (in DDNeon's case, Marian deals the death blow to the final boss).

Oh, and the blocked comments dealie: having thought on it, I'm fine with it, since sexism is a controversial topic (but maybe she could've kept the ratings enabled). What I don't like is her and some of her supporters cherry-picking the worst of the (admittedly) horrid comments made against her and using them to portray EVERYONE who disagrees with her as an evil misogynist/troll. Instead of being the better person and addressing legitimate criticisms, she and the supporters who follow suit in these actions are simply trying to generate more polarity and thus more attention and support by labeling all her dissenters as sexist pigs. Conclusion: Anita Sarkeesian's series has led me to believe that she doesn't give a shit about equality or actual sexism, but rather to stroke her own ego, and the worst part for me: the series is built off the backs of (mostly) women who wanted a chance to give power to a voice to address the real issues. Considering she was doing this sort of shit beforehand for free (and even recycling material from old videos in Tropes vs Women), I find it disgraceful that she got over $150k for this operation, especially since the series has not adequately reflected the use of this money.

[Gors]

I guess you weren't around, but let's just walk away from this one. Nothing good can come from this discussion.

It can come, as long as no one flings shit into each other. You're free to discuss anything related to games here, but beware that this is a touchy subject and might cause some stir.

If things get out of control, expect to have measures taken.

[Phantom Killah]

The worst part is, she blocks comments on her videos, destroying a decent chance of dialog to address these issues.

I think she blocks comments on her videos because a lot of the comments people give her are appallingly nasty and mean spirited.
There is no real dialog when most of the comments are just people calling her mean names

[Kriven]

The problem with Samus as the figurehead of gender equality in gaming is that, while throughout the game she is typically a stonecold badass, by the end of it she's reduced to a pinup.

Not that I actually have any problem with that, really. But I can see where it might switch off some female players. There isn't a reward for them at the end of that journey, just for dudes (orientation not considered).

But there are a large number of powerful female characters who don't end up reduced to sex appeal. Right now I'm thinking of Midna (keeping in mind I haven't actually seen her true form in anything but fan art), who actually empowers Link and without her he wouldn't be able to get very far.

Generally I'm of the opinion that marketing towards guys isn't really a bad thing, and that there's plenty of room for developers to make games with less male-oriented sex appeal without pushing those other games off the market. We've even seen these games become successful and garner large (if somewhat cult) followings, such as with Drill Dozer and Mighty Flip Champs (another game I haven't played but which seems pretty popular). I guess Mischief Makers counts despite Marina being the target of the perverted professor on occassion?

Really, I just don't like the attitude that established characters and franchises need to change as opposed to being joined by newer franchises with less of a focus on the male demographic?

ETA: I also tend not to like strong female characters (Samus) being reduced in canon to out-of-character sex appeal, but I am fine with specific merchandise dolling them up to appeal to the male demographic. If that makes sense.

[Koh]

Does it not also happen to male characters though? Think about it... The over-feminine looking guys for the fangirls to go wild over, guys that hardly wear much of anything as well, and etc. I'm aware that the role reversal of that is far more prominent, but this is an additional point that bothers me; many activists make it sound like it doesn't happen to male characters at all, which would be untrue. The thing is, though, even when games like that are made, they probably don't sell as well as the reversal. The most important thing to remember is that, above anything else, the gaming industry is a business designed to make a lot of money. They're obviously going to choose the route that nets them the most income.

[Kriven]

I didn't know overly-feminized male characters were pandering to a female audience?
I don't really think they are?

[Mutsukki]

Does it not also happen to male characters though? Think about it... The over-feminine looking guys for the fangirls to go wild over, guys that hardly wear much of anything as well, and etc. I'm aware that the role reversal of that is far more prominent, but this is an additional point that bothers me; many activists make it sound like it doesn't happen to male characters at all, which would be untrue. The thing is, though, even when games like that are made, they probably don't sell as well as the reversal. The most important thing to remember is that, above anything else, the gaming industry is a business designed to make a lot of money. They're obviously going to choose the route that nets them the most income.

So you're saying that it's alright to continue with this conservative view and backwards market because it "makes money"? I know it's the reality, which is why Anita is making these videos and trying to change things, so we don't have this horrible type of thinking that shouldn't be enforced at all and people would be more comfortable with female leads and stuff.

The point of complaining that "oh but there are male characters that suffer that too" is completely irrelevant, as because of now, there's no balance in stuff focused for man that put women in a powerless role than the opposite. A few examples do not make the injury less important, actually, if anything, it makes it worse, because there are fewer than it should. The thing is, the damsel archetype is only negative and awful because there's nothing to counter-balance it. It enforces values that can keep being repeated over and over. If you closely watch the videos, you'll see that it also shows a HUGE lack of creativity in games development and plot. It's the same story over and over and that's horrible not only for women but for basically everyone.

As far as I know she really likes Peach and Zelda, but these traits given to them, prevent them from being fully enjoyable characters, because they're bound to cultural stereotypes that (rightfully) offend her. She as a gamer has all the more reason to complain and want change on this. I'm not relating each actions but, I think that Peach now being playable in the new Super Mario 3D World game and Britanny being marketed as an interesting character in Pikmin 3 are some results of this experiment.

Also, she says something really important that I think everyone should take into consideration: that it's very important to enjoy things, while being able to criticize them for their faults (and cultural impacts).

---

I didn't know overly-feminized male characters were pandering to a female audience?
I don't really think they are?

Also, while this is besides the point, they actually are ahahah. Girls tend to like overly-feminine guys in media, manga and anime that have that proeminentely are a huge hit with women. Women authors (in manga and anime at least) tend to draw overly-feminine guys too.

[Kriven]

I kind of think it's being looked at backwards.

The argument above (and the one demonstrated by Sarkeesian) is that weak female characters create a societal mind that females are weak, but I don't find that anymore true than violent video games creating violent people. Isn't it more likely that females are portrayed as weak (although in a lot of examples this is excessively exaggerated) being a reflection of that creator's thoughts and their perceived opinions of society's thoughts?

In my opinion, you have to change the thinking, not the product. It doesn't do much good to complain about the media, because the media will shift to sell to the popular ideal. That's where the market is. The media doesn't create the stereotypes, it just reacts to them. We can see this in the way that a lot of AAA media producers are scrambling to incorporate references to popular Internet memes in a good portion of their products.

I also fail to see how many of the supposedly "damaging" tropes (such as Damsel in Distress) are actually damaging to women at all. Actually, one of Sarkeesian's biggest complaints is when a female character falls victim for the purpose of pushing the male protagonist's development as a character, and really... that's just how stories work. All other characters are accessories to the protagonist, and anything that happens to them is solely in the interest of the protagonist. It just so happens that most protagonists are male, but so are most game creators. Instead of putting so much money into essentially creating one-sided reviews, why not put that money into creating a game which reflects upon the kind of merits you (second-person, non-specific) would like to see more widely reflected in the industry?

[Mutsukki]

I kind of think it's being looked at backwards.

The argument above (and the one demonstrated by Sarkeesian) is that weak female characters create a societal mind that females are weak, but I don't find that anymore true than violent video games creating violent people. Isn't it more likely that females are portrayed as weak (although in a lot of examples this is excessively exaggerated) being a reflection of that creator's thoughts and their perceived opinions of society's thoughts?

In my opinion, you have to change the thinking, not the product. It doesn't do much good to complain about the media, because the media will shift to sell to the popular ideal. That's where the market is. The media doesn't create the stereotypes, it just reacts to them. We can see this in the way that a lot of AAA media producers are scrambling to incorporate references to popular Internet memes in a good portion of their products.

I also fail to see how many of the supposedly "damaging" tropes (such as Damsel in Distress) are actually damaging to women at all. Actually, one of Sarkeesian's biggest complaints is when a female character falls victim for the purpose of pushing the male protagonist's development as a character, and really... that's just how stories work. All other characters are accessories to the protagonist, and anything that happens to them is solely in the interest of the protagonist. It just so happens that most protagonists are male, but so are most game creators. Instead of putting so much money into essentially creating one-sided reviews, why not put that money into creating a game which reflects upon the kind of merits you (second-person, non-specific) would like to see more widely reflected in the industry?

Because, believe it or not, art mediums actually reflect society in a way. The thing about making violence irrelevant with CoD and violent games is less of a cultural issue than sexism and women being rendered as useless.

"That's just how story works" is what she's going on about! Trying to change this type of thinking. Didn't you just say that the important thing was to change the creator's mind? Well, if he thinks like that, it's a big problem. As a content creator, you do have to be aware of what will be taken from your game. It's fine that damsel in distress games still exist if there is the balance I spoke off. Imagine if you were a women that couldn't relate to any of the characters in the games you love so much, because the male driven comunity and developers refuse to acknowledge you at all? I would say that's pretty bad.

Also the media most definitely creates stereotypes, it's naive to think it doesn't, really.

[Kriven]

No no, you misunderstood a lot of what I meant.

Art reflecting society was kind of my whole point.

And I didn't mean changing the individual creator's way of thinking, but rather society itself. Art reflects society was my point, so if you change the way society views women, you change the way women appear in the art. My point was to put in new creators with new thoughts instead of demanding that other people change.

Does the media create stereotypes or reflect the stereotypes believed by the largest potential market? Make up your mind.

Edit: Also, that is how story works. Stories work to evolve the protagonist. Maybe there are multiple protagonists, maybe just one, it doesn't matter. The stories work to develop the protagonist, all other characters are accessories. Gender is irrelevent here.

[Mutsukki]

No no, you misunderstood a lot of what I meant.

Art reflecting society was kind of my whole point.

And I didn't mean changing the individual creator's way of thinking, but rather society itself. Art reflects society was my point, so if you change the way society views women, you change the way women appear in the art. My point was to put in new creators with new thoughts instead of demanding that other people change.

Does the media create stereotypes or reflect the stereotypes believed by the largest potential market? Make up your mind.

Edit: Also, that is how story works. Stories work to evolve the protagonist. Maybe there are multiple protagonists, maybe just one, it doesn't matter. The stories work to develop the protagonist, all other characters are accessories. Gender is irrelevent here.

Ah, yes, I understand now. The problem is that changin society itself is kinda utopic, and if you think about it, as a rising medium as gaming is, this could be a good step into that. I believe both cases are right, but if I would correct my wording up there, it doesn't exactly create, per se, more like reinforce.

Also, the bit about story is true, I know, and I know that gender is supposed to be irrelevant, but it's not. When you have developers that have to fight with the publishers so their lead can be female, because the publisher thinks it won't sell, I would say there's a pretty strong problem in all of this. Having more female leads, that have male characters that work just like that, to develop the protagonist, would make the issue a lot better. Altough, just changing roles isn't exactly the most ideal, it could be seen as "revenge", but it's a way.

[Kriven]

Gender is irrelevent on the topic of the progression of a story. It's just not irrelevent when discussing what kind of stories are created. (ETA: This isn't very clear, give me some minutes to think of a better wording.) I suppose I'm trying to get at the difference between "These stories are bad because this..." as opposed to "We need more stories like this..."

I'm having a really hard time making this point tangible because the topic is partially abstract.


I agree that having more female protagonists, or more female supporting characters, in successful titles would lead to a more accepting market for strong female characters. And we're seeing that with some of the games mentioned upthread, a lot of which are from smaller studios. With the ever-increasing opportunities for indie developers to get their games notice, I think we'll probably see a lot of more powerful female characters showing up in gaming.

[Helmo]

There are legitimate issues with objectification of women in media (including video games), and it'd be hard (probably even asinine) to deny that. However, I think Sarkeesian totally misses those real issues. Instead, she's focusing mainly on appraising these cases at face value (i.e. as tropes) when the devil's in the details; she rejects the positive aspects of characters like Peach and Zelda either by ignoring them or debunking them on arbitrary grounds, and reduces them to the basic "Damsel in Distress" trope instead of what makes them great characters (the vid Koh linked to at the end of his post brilliantly explains this in further detail). Now, this is a bit of a stretch, but doesn't reducing female characters to a soundbite and trying to remove most/all of their positive aspects... sort of objectify these women characters? Seems Anita's doing more harm than good in this regard.

EDIT: when she talks about how Dinosaur Planet/Starfox Adventures was originally going to be Krystal's game, she entirely edits out and ignores any trace of the male protagonist Sabre from DP both in terms of gameplay footage and concept art. Frankly, considering how deliberate the removal of Sabre's presence was, this is something that serves to hurt her credibility in my eyes.

I really think this sort of mindset hinders the equality movement, as Anita tries to keep the aforementioned "damsel" characters in as much of a negative light as possible in lieu of embracing their empowering characteristics, and (at least so far) ignoring many of the "outwardly" empowered characters (e.g. Samus). In fact, I daresay she's achieved more polarity than equality/understanding of issues.

Didn't she make some Bayonetta video

and it was apparent that she didn't research at all?