Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

This discussion is really going past everyone's heads when we're picking apart semantics as to whether "bikinis" "intentionally" objectify women as in they're thinking "ha! you're totally objectified now, bitch! I'm objectifying you like a motherfucker!".

Clearly "intentional" did not mean that. They intentionally add the bikinis for hetero guys to gawk at. This is intentional, and it objectifies women whether or not they have a checklist of project goals with a big tick next to "objectifying women".

The behavior that is objectifying is a deliberate decision, whereas someone does not set out to create "bad writing" unless it's a parody, and in that case it's not by definition "bad" because there should be a hidden layer of subtextual meaning - i.e. a specifically coded set of formalized "bad writing" techniques.

The same with really weird, but technically correct redefinitions of "pander". I know, and most sensible people know that someone means something specific when they say "pandering". Pointing out that literally everything could be considered "pandering" is not a helpful or interesting debate.

[Neonivek]

These debates do tend to demean women who actually like to show some sexuality or fashion.

Since the default of a woman in a bikini is objectification...

Instead of... I don't know... contextualizing.

There is just this under current that a woman's looks is for men to ogle and should instead be covered up.

[Reelya]

The MC in just about any game is objectified by this standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification

According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:[1]
    as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
    as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
    as if owned by another (ownership);
    as if interchangeable (fungibility);
    as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
    as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).

The MC is a tool for me, owned by me, and if they started showing "self determination" I'd shut the game off in disgust. Do what I tell ya, worm.

And with multiple lives they're interchangeable. And with Save/restore and health packs they're "permissible to damage or destroy". Also I have never shown concern for their feelings and experiences. Hell, if the MC suffering gains a few more gold coins, bring on the pain.

[Neonivek]

You are right Reelya...

It is kind of what gets to me whenever someone tries to argue objectification because of gaming convention (For example... A Shop Keeper could easily be replaced by a Vending machine... So you could say that Shop Keepers are dehumanized in videogames...)

It is why I could only groan when Anita gave the "She could be replaced by a dog" example... because of course she can... just about anyone could in videogames (Heck Twilight Princess replaced a shop keeper with a sign and a bird). There are better examples...

Objectification for videogames needs to be... more significant. Something that doesn't stem naturally from being in a videogame.

[Reelya]

Case in point: when Lara Croft dies in a game, they said that was "objectifying" her death, even though she's the main character. But when a male character suffers the same fate, it's not objectifying them because they main character is meant to represent the self, and of course wouldn't it be silly to say you objectified yourself? Prince of Persia deaths would be the example here.

So is the main character (the players avatar) of a series objectified in this way or not? They seem to be just bringing up examples to suit themselves and ignoring when it happens to characters in a way that doesn't sell the theory.

Hell, in Heretic 2 you can explode into meaty gibbets. Much more disgusting deaths than Tomb Raider, but I've never heard anyone say that that objectifies men ... it's the switch from 1st person to 3rd person which raised the gore levels for the MC, not the fact that Lara is a woman. Tomb Raider just came along about the time it became practical to have an animated 3PS game.

[Neonivek]

It is because the hidden premise Reelya is that Lara Croft is there to be ogled at by men... but a male character is not.

So anytime there is a female lead, she is there to be "The chick" rather then to be a character in her own right.

Because "Games are for men"

[Rolepgeek]

*sigh*

Yes, and I see it just as often used against the 'games are objectifying' side of things, too.

My view on it? Laura Croft has become objectified. If a character is there to be ogled, they are objectified, in some degree. And to a certain point, it's alright to objectify characters in a game. It's a game. However, the issue with this sort of thing is when a great deal of women in games tend to be objectified, or seem like they might be. It's not about the semantics of it. Nobody gives a shit about the semantics of it except for those few people with neuroses that do. What people care about, is that that objectification(for lack of a better word) can, in fact, tint the way you think. It reinforces the objectification our culture already has for women. You may think you're just enjoying a view, and to a point, you know, I'm okay with it. Look, don't touch. Long as you don't get creepy about it, it should be fine. But on the other hand, there's the Gaze effect.

As well, I would argue that since you're trying to avoid getting killed, that's not objectifying. So if the whole reason they're saying Laura Croft is being objectified is the fact that she dies, that's total bullshit. If it's due to the death animations, that might be something else. But just because she dies? Yeah no. There's a whole other reason for her being objectifying.

Also, don't forget false equivalencies/false dichotomies. The same thing applied to men and women does not have the same result or the same implications, because it does not exist in a vacuum. It is tinted by the lens of culture and society.

[Neonivek]

If a character is there to be ogled, they are objectified, in some degree.

There you go... If you are a woman in a videogame... You are objectified.

Unless of course you are in a non-violent game, and wearing thick padded clothing, and are not attractive in any sense.

Then your safe.

Honestly Rolepgeek if that is what it takes to be "objectified" then why care about objectification?

And before you say that I am putting words in your mouth, may I add that you had no words...

Laura Croft is a independent character in her own right, with her own personality, goals, and abilities with sensible clothing and toned down sexual appearance. The "Way the game was advertised" was entirely separate from how the game was played.

But since she can get gruesomely injured, like a any other character, she is objectified.

Then I put it to you Rolepgeek... ALL female main characters should STRIVE to be as objectified as Laura Croft and we should despise female characters who are not.

Mind you I do prefer the old Laura Croft. She was much more of a in control, action oriented, adventurous character... While the new one is a cover based more down to earth character who is basically the main character from the Hunger Games... I mean say what you will about "Character depth always being superior" I just kind of like strong characters in action roles over ones who seem like they are perpetually overwhelmed. The new one makes everything look REALLY hard, while the old one made it look like another day in the park.

[penguinofhonor]

Did you read a word past the sentence you quoted?

[Rolepgeek]

...

So you're saying woman are in video games only to be ogled. Not to be characters in their own right or to be realistic because a setting isn't entirely made of women. But the only purpose for women, in your mind, is fanservice, in video games. That's what I'm reading from your tone and words. If you disagree, please say so.

Laura Croft is by no means a 'toned down sexual appearance'? What the hell do you think of as 'toned down'? That she isn't actually shown having sex? Jeezus. I mean, regardless of how the game was advertised, which is it's own problem, there's the issue of the origin of Laura Croft, the reason for her tremendous cup size, and worse, the reason they kept it.

Being gruesomely injured has nothing to do with being objectified. I literally said that last post, or close enough to make no difference. That's not why she's objectified. Being able to die is simply a fact. That doesn't have anything to do with objectification. In NPCs, it's the surrounding context for it that makes it objectification. If there's no consequence for murder? If you can get away with it all the time, and there's even incentive to do so?  That's objectification. It makes them into toys, rewards, containers to be opened(with your sword!).

To your last paragraph: Meh. I prefer realism, at least to a degree, and while the power fantasies and escapism are nice too, I feel like if a character has to actually try, it's more interesting. Maybe that's just me, though.

[Reelya]

reminding people it's Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. Laura Croft is a playboy model.

Not getting the main characters name right for by far the most well-known franchise with a female lead, in a thread about women in videos games is quite ironic, right?

I'm off to play some Luke Nukem now.

[Rolan7]

Luke and Duke aren't homophones

Neonivek you're kinda arguing against yourself, there.  Talking about "hidden premises" and arguing against silly things which nobody else mentioned...

[Reelya]

Neither are Lara and Laura. "Same consonants" doesn't make something a homophone.

Lara rhymes with Car, Laura rhymes with Law.

I'm not American but I know for a fact people don't say "I was drivin' my caw down the road" or "Obey the lar"

[Rolepgeek]

Really?

Then I've been pronouncing it wrong this whole time.

In any case, I've never played the game. That isn't to say I don't know the surrounding pieces about it because of it's famousness/notoriety, but as long as we know who we're talking about, I don't anyone cares. It's words. Semantics.

[Reelya]

Well, I was thinking that is kind of an odd point of view that getting the name right of the best-known female game MC is just semantics is kind of an odd sort of attitude to take when we're in a thread talking about taking women seriously in games.