Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 277

Author Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'  (Read 303447 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1680 on: June 03, 2013, 05:44:01 pm »

One, when was sociology mentioned? I mentioned neuro-psych, but nothing else (well, besides ragging on evo psych, but yeah.). The post you just made is actually the first time the word sociology is mentioned in this thread at all :-\

Two. Plus the bits before it. Sociology has its issues, but it has a place. Evo psych, well...
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1681 on: June 03, 2013, 05:47:28 pm »

Well I for one am glad you solved the age-old nature vs nurture question. Will you be coming in person to claim your Nobel prize, or would you like it mailed to you?
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1682 on: June 03, 2013, 05:52:01 pm »

Mentioning individual things that have biological indicators isn't claiming to have "solved the age-old nature vs nurture question".

I mentioned Sociology, because social / psych is the main contender to E.P. theories.

90% of E.P theories could be rubbish. That doesn't mean they all are. After all, at some deeper level, everything is put together by DNA. Any "final theory" will have to be one taking DNA into account. If it's neuro-psych, then how did the DNA assemble things?

EDIT: Sorry DJ
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 05:56:10 pm by Reelya »
Logged

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1683 on: June 03, 2013, 05:53:03 pm »

It's Frumple's Nobel.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1684 on: June 03, 2013, 06:03:58 pm »

That's a different field of study, DJ :P

Questions like that are stuff you want to ask neuro-psych or some of the better parts of developmental psychology (likely especially if those two are working together), s'far as I can recall (and there's some interesting answers on the topic! There's a reason I referred to "learned behavior" a few times through this derail. There's plenty of synergies going on between biological and environmental factors). Just... not evo psych.

The parts of evo psych that aren't rubbish (all two bits of it, if that) are accidental. The theory is fundamentally flawed on a few levels. S'working in the wrong direction, iirc, among other things. Literally can't gather the data it needs to to be able to make the sorts of claims it does. Might be able to at some point in the future, but... right now, "Just-so Bullshit" is kinda' exactly what the field is. It's not just bad science, it's not science. Or was two or three years ago, anyway. And hey, if it's improved... good on them, but I haven't heard anything to that effect recently :-\
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1685 on: June 03, 2013, 06:05:41 pm »

It's Frumple's Nobel.

Because saying a science is based on animal tests and hasn't been shown to predict human behavior is the same as claiming it definitely doesn't predict human behavior.

Questioning something is the same as claiming it's always wrong!  Suddenly this thread makes complete sense, thanks.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1686 on: June 03, 2013, 06:08:55 pm »

The parts of evo psych that aren't rubbish (all two bits of it, if that) are accidental. The theory is fundamentally flawed on a few levels. S'working in the wrong direction, iirc, among other things. Literally can't gather the data it needs to to be able to make the sorts of claims it does. Might be able to at some point in the future, but... right now, "Just-so Bullshit" is kinda' exactly what the field is. It's not just bad science, it's not science. Or was two or three years ago, anyway. And hey, if it's improved... good on them, but I haven't heard anything to that effect recently :-\

Well, you pull out Ev-Psych as a blanket dismissal of the science article I linked. In that case, there was a hypothesis, that hypothesis made actual testable predictions, and those tests were carried out in a controlled trial. That's a bit beyond the level of a "just-so" story, which wouldn't make any testable predictions. To reiterate this is the exact original quote i made mentioning Ev-Psych:

Quote from: me
If there's one thing that can be clearly said to have an explanation in the realm of evolutionary psychology (regardless of how the specifics work out), it's sexual attraction

That's hardly a blanket acceptance of current Ev-Psych theories, now is it? Saying that "one thing" would have an evolutionary explanation. Which you turned into the straw man than I'm some ev-psych koolaid drinking junkie. Pulling a couple of words out of context to try and discredit what I'm saying without even addressing the specifics is bad form.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:15:48 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1687 on: June 03, 2013, 06:09:45 pm »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Your position could be completely true and your contribution would still be completely irrelevant!  I could argue your position so much better!  Maybe you keep seeing the same arguments because you're completely incapable of refuting them!

Argue away:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What irritates me most about her is her insistence that "the men only come to get the women because they want to give her the dick." Not even in detail is this explained, it's as superficial as that. She doesn't talk about how game developers try to invest the player into the relationships the characters share, or why female characters need a special aegis over male characters, or why characters already in a relationship shouldn't go rescue those close to them [because it would be sexist objectification], despite for some of the examples she had given that sexual objectification would have to be between family members and so on.

Her videos are all puritanical rants and an example of how to analyze subjects in the most shallow, skin-deep way possible. She makes no attempt to understand the underlying issues that cause the problem nor does she tackle the task of how they can be improved, she turns the problem of the gaming industry in its inability to experiment and make new risks into an issue of gender.

The renaissance was a movement that improved art and liberated it from many social stigmas, new materials and methods became readily available and were in the most part implemented with great success but the themes continued to be few in number; mainly portraits and representations of ideas associated with Christianity. Video games in a way are a similar reflection and technology has all improved the creativity, but the themes and story telling remain stale, with the majority of the 300,000 games being copies of the successful darers.
She feeds off this fact but twists it to match her perspective and what she intends to portray dishonestly, and she makes no effort to improve the medium, only point out cliches and say "men did this."

This all reminds me of Crying Freeman in which the husband and wife make a pact not to save each other if they get in trouble, for they believed that if they truly love one another, they would want their loved one not to risk their life for their sake and would rather die than for that to happen. Generally in a character driven story, you would expect loved ones to come for one another. She says that a character who loses everything is on a journey to recover their masculinity because they are a man, not that he is trying to rediscover his lost worth. A man is out to acquire something so trivial as an object - be willing to kill and die for an object, because he is a man, while she completely misses the actual point of why he holds such importance. A man wouldn't want his wife to suffer just because she has to be a strong independent woman and get out of it herself, because even if he was weaker than her - she is still worth risking his life for. That is what it is about, finding someone you hold higher than the world, because they have become your world, and defending it to all your ability. This is a universal romantic notion.

I like playing a girl, and I like the damsel in distress trope. It's not like guys are defecating on the corpses of women or disregarding them at all, the girls are important enough to risk their life for. It's a tragic experience when a girl dies, the male characters are usually horrified when they die; yet none of this is exclusive to female characters.
She talks of the kinesthetic violence orientated games, completely oblivious of just how the violence doesn't stand on its own - it factors into the setting and the characters themselves. The characters who are famous for their rage like Kratos and Asura are questioned along the entire journey of their story, "What do you live for?"
Treat your characters as people, and enjoy media.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1688 on: June 03, 2013, 06:30:11 pm »

Seriously, in Azura's Wrath he kills seven male Gods, and one female one, and that one is held up as an example "promoting violence against women"? Jesus. And then they gripe that there aren't more female antagonists. Well, antagonists have a habit of being killed violently. So make your mind up on that one. Do you want "less violence against women" in action games or "more female antagonists"? Can't have both! Can we possibly see a reason here why main-stream game companies might be just a little reluctant to plaster females all the way through violent shooters? You can see a totally different feminist campaign then, complaining about all the women who get shot in those games. Equal representation, after all. For the same reason, shooters aren't full of many little kids you can shoot.

I just saw the front page of Anita's new video, with a warning "This video contains a handful of graphic scenes involving violence against women. Parents should preview the video first before sharing with young children." Rampant violence against men, that's all well and good and needs no warning.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:35:39 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Soadreqm

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm okay with this. I'm okay with a lot of things.
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1689 on: June 03, 2013, 06:46:27 pm »

Could you medicate homosexuality?
Yes, exactly! :D Maybe there wouldn't be a large market for changing your sexual preferences at will, but I'm sure some would do it. Either to conform to what society expects of them, or actively rebel against it.

To the idea that sexual attraction itself is a social construct, i just say "pfft" to such absolutist theories. The theory makes no scientific sense whatsoever - considering that we are descended from animals, we are still animals, and all the things people are predominantly attracted to aid in the biological survival, or are indicators of sexual maturity. If there's one thing that can be clearly said to have an explanation in the realm of evolutionary psychology (regardless of how the specifics work out), it's sexual attraction. Any other species, if you were to say sexual attraction was a social construct, you'd be laughed out of town. Just because it's politically correct doesn't make it scientifically correct for our species. We should apply the same rigor and objectivity to studying our own species that we do to others, without sociopolitical baggage coloring our findings.

Well, according to Harry Harlow's monkey torture experiments, rhesus macaques grown in complete isolation are too emotionally broken to have sex. It was hardly an exhaustive study, and only tangentially related to what we are talking about, but it showed that at least for rhesus macaques, social contact is kind of a big deal, and they can't really become functioning rhesus macaques without it. >:]

Neonivek: What are these "Equality Olympics" you keep alluding to?
Logged

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1690 on: June 03, 2013, 07:07:12 pm »

It's Frumple's Nobel.

Because saying a science is based on animal tests and hasn't been shown to predict human behavior is the same as claiming it definitely doesn't predict human behavior.
OK, so any science about humans in particular isn't actual science? Send the memo to psychology, sociology and economics departments of universities worldwide.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1691 on: June 03, 2013, 07:07:40 pm »

Quote from: me
If there's one thing that can be clearly said to have an explanation in the realm of evolutionary psychology (regardless of how the specifics work out), it's sexual attraction
That's hardly a blanket acceptance of current Ev-Psych theories, now is it? Saying that "one thing" would have an evolutionary explanation. Which you turned into the straw man than I'm some ev-psych koolaid drinking junkie. Pulling a couple of words out of context to try and discredit what I'm saying without even addressing the specifics is bad form.
"Having an evolutionary explanation" and being an "Ev-Psych theory" are two completely different things, is what you seem to be failing to understand. It's like arguing that causing damage can help people get better (example: Surgery helps people get better all the time!) so acupuncture isn't totally bullshit - after all, surgery involves some puncturing! Or that dog breeding is a methodology of the science of Intelligent Design.

It's just... not a valid analogy.

And Jung (not Yung?) is probably even more pseudo-science than evo-psych is (which is saying something). He is only really notable compared to his even less scientific peers.

Seriously, there are fields that work on teasing out the scientific, evolutionary components to neurology - EvoPsych is NOT one of them. Psychology in general is pretty bad at being scientific (there's a reason that recent reports indicate 80% of psychiatric studies should be thrown out due to poor methodology, and psych NEWS is even worse), and evo psych is even worse.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 07:11:16 pm by GlyphGryph »
Logged

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1692 on: June 03, 2013, 07:26:32 pm »

Because of all this, I think its ridiculous that romance novels be part of this conversation.  If I linked you to "Two Girls One Cup" as an example of how women are objectified, you would similarly dismiss my argument.
The argument was not 'you also.' It was that the idea of what women find makes a woman sexy is also what men find makes a woman sexy, and vice versa.

First of all, the point I was making in that quote was that romance novels and video games are not equivalent because one is mostly smut and one is mostly not.  I don't even know where you're getting "also you" from.  Secondly, well...

the idea of what women find makes a woman sexy is also what men find makes a woman sexy, and vice versa.

Let me google that for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bishonen&l=1

Spoiler: To be explicit (click to show/hide)
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1693 on: June 03, 2013, 07:28:12 pm »

1: Talk about misrepresentation.  She didn't say all gamers were trolls, and she didn't say all Halo players were trolls.  Am I wrong, or are you using specificness to back up a bullshit implication?
No, I'm using your own bullshit generalizations to show how bullshit your bullshit implications were bullshit.

If you think we're using bad arguments, point out the bad arguments.  Don't copy what you think are bad arguments and then wait to claim parody when we call you out.  That isn't a valid argument.
Also you weren't even replying to me in what I quoted... Lumping us all together, huh?

2: Have they sent YOU rape threats and made face-smashing flash games of YOUR image?
Not infamous enough, but every internet personality faces these things. Some, much worse, and for less. This isn't some specific thing that only came around with the advent of our saviour Anita. And I would go into detail on my personal life...

BUT IT ALMOST SEEMS AS IF THIS IS AN APPEAL TO EMOTION

Fine, the first part was an appeal to emotion.  The second part is still valid and here's evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialNerdCubed A popular channel with a host who does video game LPs and live-action skits.  775,468 subscribers.  Has no punch-in-the-face game, public rape or death threats, or even much ill will at all.

http://www.youtube.com/user/feministfrequency  A woman claiming that sexism is a problem in the games industry.  88,614 subscribers.  http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598591 (was taken down, but you can see pictures)

So clearly your assertion is wrong.  Not all internet personalities suffer this harassment.  Even ones much more successful are not targeted, as long as they aren't offensive to certain hateful groups.

  Have they done so to *most* of the thousands of people more popular than her?  No, they targeted her because her views disturb them.
Yes, thousands of people are one people.

No, I... what?
I was saying there are thousands of internet personas more popular than Anita who don't face this level of harassment.  Was that actually unclear to you?

3: "This is known" to you, maybe.  And even if it's true, fair fucking game!  They're *trolls*.  Their disgusting efforts did cause a backlash in favor of Anita, and probably did help her raise money.  That's not her fault, that's terrorism backfiring.  If she helped it backfire, great.
No. Just fucking no. Trolling is not terrorism. Don't even have the cheek to conflate the two.

Death threats, rape threats, and graphical depictions of assault on a person's image are attempts to instill terror.  It was done for ideological reasons, as I demonstrated above.

So because you get to play as a woman for one half of one of the three campaigns in a 2004 CONSOLE-ONLY game, we aren't allowed to say there's a lack of meaningful female PCs in video games?
No, 'go buy the games that interest you' means support the studios that do exactly what you want to see.

Okay, so you mentioned that game for no reason whatsoever?
You can't just imply stuff and not get called on it.  You provided a shitty example for an argument you didn't make.

Yes, there are cases where video games are literally smut.  Thanks Captain Irrelevant.  This is true of books, movies, comics, sculpture, and every other art form.  To answer your question: Some video games should not be smut for the same reasons not all books, movies, comics, and sculptures should be smut.
[What are the reasons that any form of media cannot portray said characters however way they feel, even if the end result is cheap smut].
They call me Captain Irrelevant because I seek the relevant answers.

I think you're moving the goalposts.  You asked why there should be video games that aren't smut.  Your question is irrelevant.

But romance novels contain sensitive men with flowing hair who spend all their time paying attention to the main character, a woman.
Oh shock horror. Being a man is more to do with decency than your projected brutishness.

Oh, I see.  No, I'm not complaining that smut exists.  Smut is GREAT!  Romance novels can be fun, I certainly don't mind that they exist.  I think I misunderstood you, it sounded like you were implying that it would be fine for all or most video games to be smutty, when that isn't the case for other media.

  Most male characters in video games are musclebound, emotionless, and focused on kicking ass.
[Musclebound] [check]
[Emotionless] [falls short just about every story driver story, ever]
[Focused on kicking ass] [is present in just about every kinesthetic game because it is the only way to progress forwards, yet very few characters are only ever two dimensional ass kicking machines].

The only character who even comes close to that description is Gordon Freeman, and he's hardly the muscly guy.

This is a hard thing to demonstrate, as we're talking about trends in a very large amount of video games.  I could point out that Jade in Beyond Good and Evil takes care of orphans, photographs animals, and expresses much more actual emotion than, say, Master Chief.

I actually love the Halo series and storyline, it's just that Master Chief is an example of a tough male hero who bottles up his emotions.  In fact I love it because Master Chief is a badass, a male fantasy.  It caters to me.

I could say all that, but it wouldn't prove anything because those are just two game series.  I think we're just going to have to disagree, or someone's going to have to do a *lot* of research on how "emotional" various characters are.  Which sounds doomed to failure.

  The only real similarity is that they're muscular on the cover, but as someone else said, the publishers make the cover art - so it's more based on what men find sexy.
The publishers don't make the cover art, the illustrators do. And again, generally speaking both sexes are both able to identify what is vanilla sexy. We've already done this.

No, you did not already convince everybody that women and men have the same idea of male attractiveness.  I don't think you convinced anybody.

So no, what men find makes a man sexy is not what women find makes a man sexy.
You're going to have to prove 6 billion people wrong.

No... neither gender is wrong.  They just find different male qualities attractive.  To grossly generalize, women are attracted to sensitive men while men consider tough, muscular men attractive.  Men are generally thought to be more visual.  Again, generalizations, but it matches what we see in male-targeted and female-targeted entertainment.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #1694 on: June 03, 2013, 07:40:17 pm »

Well, you pull out Ev-Psych as a blanket dismissal of the science article I linked. In that case, there was a hypothesis, that hypothesis made actual testable predictions, and those tests were carried out in a controlled trial. That's a bit beyond the level of a "just-so" story, which wouldn't make any testable predictions. To reiterate this is the exact original quote i made mentioning Ev-Psych:
Nah... I said if that article was representative of what evo psych's doing, then it's still got the same problems it used to have. The study itself (Check it.) doesn't make nearly as sweeping or as unfounded claims. There's definitely some stuff in it I'd call on justification issues (the blazes do we know if the effect is caused by environmental adaptation? What part of the study supports that claim? Stuff like that.), but that definitely isn't primarily an evo-psych study. Tainted by it a bit, though, sure.

Quote
Quote
If there's one thing that can be clearly said to have an explanation in the realm of evolutionary psychology (regardless of how the specifics work out), it's sexual attraction

That's hardly a blanket acceptance of current Ev-Psych theories, now is it? Saying that "one thing" would have an evolutionary explanation. Which you turned into the straw man than I'm some ev-psych koolaid drinking junkie. Pulling a couple of words out of context to try and discredit what I'm saying without even addressing the specifics is bad form.
I didn't say you had a blanket acceptance of evo-psych as "always right", or that you were some kind of evo-psych koolaid drinking junkie. I said, in slightly less direct words, that evo-psych itself is bupkis (and again... at least the last time I ran into it. Maybe the actual studies have improved, but if that article is representative of the sort of claims the studies themselves are making... and the article wasn't, really.). You want science that supports coming at the issue from a biological imperative angle, you go to psychology that's actually worth the name (or maybe straight to biological studies), not something that's trying to pull stuff out of its arse about the ancestral condition or the effects of evolution on the psychological process (it's irrelevant and we can't measure it at this point, y'ken?).

Love a'Zeus man, I never said there wasn't a biological aspect. I didn't even say that the triggering aspect wasn't biologically programmed! I said jack shit about the validity of the claim you made, or the extent you do or do not cleave to evo psych. I said that the primary factors in determining what was attractive are environmental. Th'same bloody study you were linking in the vague direction of said more or less the same thing, that environmental factors have a notable effect on what's considered attractive. It also addressed only a single aspect of attractiveness, and you better believe most aspects of what's considered attractive are societally defined (clothing, many behavioral patterns, etc.). And then I went on a bit about evo-psych, because evo-psych is a field of psychology (or claims to be one, anyway) that has fundamental epistemological issues and yeah, I'm going to poke at it when it shows up.

You're going off on me for stuff I haven't said, Ree.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.
Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 277