Print

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

[moocowmoo]

If the goal is to eradicate stereotypes that are harmful to women, why is the target then not the cosmetic and fashion industries, which hugely affect women's self perception, instead of the gaming industry, which relatively few women even participate in? I suspect that because to go after those two, you would face violent opposition from women themselves. In that case, how can you wave the banner of women's rights when it is women who are opposing you most violently? So, it is easier to target things like gaming and pornography, even though their effects on women are far less than cosmetics, fashion, vicious celebrity gossip etc.

[Putnam]

Because appeal to worse problems is fallacious and we should start with a much more commonly consumed product?

[Vector]

Social justice is not a zero sum game, and women have been going after the cosmetics and fashion industries for years and years and years.  For example, here's a nice package around a study on stereotype threat.

And it's not about "the effects are far less."  Do you think that fashion mags would have the effect they do if women got an opportunity to imagine themselves as something other than a target of bangability in their video games?

[penguinofhonor]

I believe Anita chose video games because she likes video games, and I'm having trouble seeing this argument as anything more than "Stay out of my video games and go deal with girlier stuff."

[Kansa]

Because just because in some area it is worse doesn't mean you should completely ignore it everywhere else

[GlyphGryph]

why is the target then not the cosmetic and fashion industries

Uh... these are actually a far more common target than video games, in feminist circles. But people are allowed to have (and almost required to have) more than one target when attempting to reach a specific goal. Anita doesn't seem to have much of herself invested in that sphere, though, and it seems sensible to target the bits that are within a subculture you actually identify with first.

Calling entire literary effects sexist is just mind numbing.

I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. I suspect I'm missing something.

[Levi]

As a avid gamer I just want better games, so I'm all for these videos.  Don't care about the rest of the arguments, because I can only see people making an effort to make better characters as a result of this.

I find it a bit weird that so many gamers are mad about these videos when I can't see any bad result coming from them.

Anyway, that is all I have to say about that.

[Mephansteras]

I agree that it has been changing recently, but it has only been changing because now there are a bunch of people trying to actively point it out.

To say so would be completely ignorant of the fact that consumers find the exact strawman you present distasteful. Consumers are not idiots that have to have some enlightened soapboxer pointing out the obvious.

You give the average consumer waaaaay too much credit. Also, you underestimate the ability cultural norms to keep people from thinking about things. Humans simply don't pay attention to things that are 'normal'. They just don't.

Sure, some stuff that's sexist in games everyone notices even if they don't see it as a problem. I don't think anyone ever thought that skimpy metal bikinis is actually good protection. That's not the sexist part that people are glossing over. It's the fact that women are so often portrayed as sexualized in games and fantasy art that seeing a woman in a metal bikini doesn't get much much notice by many gamers.

Take armor in World of Warcraft. A suit of armor that, on the guys, is shown as large bulky plate mail that leaves nothing but the face exposed shows up on women as a skimpy bit of metal that doesn't even cover the midriff. And I personally know some very intelligent people who did not even register the sexism of that until it was pointed out. They knew it was sexier armor, yes, but they were so used to the women wearing skimpy clothing in games that the fact that it was Sexist didn't even cross their minds.

So I don't buy your assertion at all. Some consumers recognize all of this just fine, yes, but a lot of people need it pointed it.

[penguinofhonor]

Consumers aren't idiots, they're human. And humans tend to act illogically.

[Putnam]

Most people don't even know what "cognitive dissonance" means, much less how to avoid it.

This is not a sign of idiocy, just one of... not reading about cognitive dissonance enough, hehe.

[GlyphGryph]

Consumers aren't idiots, they're human. And humans tend to act illogically.

Well, they tend to act heuristically, which means unconsciously ignoring a lot of information because experience has shown it to be off low value to notice it.

[Loud Whispers]

If the goal is to eradicate stereotypes that are harmful to women, why is the target then not the cosmetic and fashion industries, which hugely affect women's self perception, instead of the gaming industry, which relatively few women even participate in? I suspect that because to go after those two, you would face violent opposition from women themselves. In that case, how can you wave the banner of women's rights when it is women who are opposing you most violently? So, it is easier to target things like gaming and pornography, even though their effects on women are far less than cosmetics, fashion, vicious celebrity gossip etc.

Really? Starving children in Africa?

I find it a bit weird that so many gamers are mad about these videos when I can't see any bad result coming from them.

Creating a barrier between males and females by dividing noble characteristics into female and male characteristics, making money off of generating flak and stirring the internet hate machine and pushing for a stifling of tropes because apparently now they're sexist?

She's taking egalitarianism the wrong way.

As a avid gamer I just want better games, so I'm all for these videos.  Don't care about the rest of the arguments, because I can only see people making an effort to make better characters as a result of this.

If you disregard other people's arguments you end up narrow minded. It's kind of the reason why bigoted views persist in the first place, they only see their argument.

You give the average consumer waaaaay too much credit. Also, you underestimate the ability cultural norms to keep people from thinking about things. Humans simply don't pay attention to things that are 'normal'. They just don't.

Then perhaps you should also consider we do not all live in countries where the nuclear unit is normal?

It's the fact that women are so often portrayed as sexualized in games and fantasy art that seeing a woman in a metal bikini doesn't get much much notice by many gamers.
Take armor in World of Warcraft. A suit of armor that, on the guys, is shown as large bulky plate mail that leaves nothing but the face exposed shows up on women as a skimpy bit of metal that doesn't even cover the midriff. And I personally know some very intelligent people who did not even register the sexism of that until it was pointed out. They knew it was sexier armor, yes, but they were so used to the women wearing skimpy clothing in games that the fact that it was Sexist didn't even cross their minds.

Larger thighs, more (very nicely defined) muscle mass, larger stature, larger hands, defined bones, larger heads with squarer faces, broad shoulders with narrow waists e.t.c. are all secondary male sexual characteristics. How many would games would you find where the males tick every single one of those boxes? And that's not even including those bulges.
This is not sexist. Relegating any gender to the status of sex objects purely because they are said gender would be sexist. Difference.

[Flying Dice]

Calling entire literary effects sexist is just mind numbing.

I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. I suspect I'm missing something.

I'm taking something of a blind stab here, but I think what LW was getting at is that tropes themselves are not inherently sexist, but can be used in sexist ways. I neither agree nor disagree; there are literary devices that do directly derive from sexist stereotypes and gender roles, but there are also ones which are sex-linked without necessarily being inherently sexist. It's very much a grey area, which is why it's a better idea to first tackle the machine that churns out products which do use tropes in inherently sexist ways (e.g. using the Damsel in Distress archetype to paint female characters as trophies rather than people, versus the meta-concept of the Damsel in Distress [note that the word "damsel" derives from the diminutive of "dominus", or "head of house", and was in fact gender-neutral], in which a captive character the audience likes and identifies with is the focal point of a plot arc; simplifying that archetype into a sex object is something that only has net positive appeal to individuals just looking for their jollies, as objectifying a sympathetic character distances just about everyone in the audience except the people tripping on the lust-killing-power trifecta).

pre-e ninja'd

[Mephansteras]

Maybe I should clarify to say that I'm not calling consumers idiots, I'm just saying that people do in fact need 'obvious' stuff pointed out to them.

It's the fact that women are so often portrayed as sexualized in games and fantasy art that seeing a woman in a metal bikini doesn't get much much notice by many gamers.
Take armor in World of Warcraft. A suit of armor that, on the guys, is shown as large bulky plate mail that leaves nothing but the face exposed shows up on women as a skimpy bit of metal that doesn't even cover the midriff. And I personally know some very intelligent people who did not even register the sexism of that until it was pointed out. They knew it was sexier armor, yes, but they were so used to the women wearing skimpy clothing in games that the fact that it was Sexist didn't even cross their minds.

Larger thighs, more (very nicely defined) muscle mass, larger stature, larger hands, defined bones, larger heads with squarer faces, broad shoulders with narrow waists e.t.c. are all secondary male sexual characteristics. How many would games would you find where the males tick every single one of those boxes? And that's not even including those bulges.
This is not sexist. Relegating any gender to the status of sex objects purely because they are said gender would be sexist. Difference.

That's exactly my point about the armor. They guy's armor hides their physique (which, yes, is big and muscular and idealized) while the female armor shows theirs off. That is reducing the women down to sex objects. The guys get nice protective armor but the women don't because they assume the male gamers want to see skin on the girls. How is that not sexist??

[GlyphGryph]

Creating a barrier between males and females by dividing noble characteristics into female and male characteristics, making money off of generating flak and stirring the internet hate machine and pushing for a stifling of tropes because apparently now they're sexist?

Because, as we've already discussed, the kind of tropes she's talking about and the specific examples thereof ARE sexist. You said yourself that this was trivially true.

If we are simply referring to the belief that a character has to embody and be defined by their cultural gender role (i.e. Damsel = weak, passive woman), well then yes isn't that the very definition of sexist? Rather quick discussion if it ends there.

When we are talking about tropes (as we've already discussed), we are talking about this belief, and the prevalence of such beliefs in the industry, and the extent to which such beliefs are subjected, and the pressure companies are put under to follow them. (Though there's no been much talk so far of those pressures, explicitly. I plan on changing that soon. Specifically, the situation with Remember Me, where the game was turned down by a large number of publishers by refusing to break with some common sexist tropes.)

FlyingDice:
The problem is, everything you are saying is invalid for reasons we already discussed, specifically because no one is talking about literary devices. We are talking about resonant tropes - genre/industry motifs. I was under the impression we'd moved on from that - I don't understand why it's coming back.