Print

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

[scrdest]

@Sappho

Re: Male

What you mentioned is quite often the case anyhow. Male characters are 1-dimensional stereotypes, female character are 1-dimensional stereotypes. Especially in some genres, like FPSs, which are often either not very sophisticated story-wise 'You are, uh, a guy. Go kill stuff.' or a deliberate throwback to the more gung-ho genres like pulp fiction.

I can't think of a single FPS with a serious story (so not a parody or anything) where the male protagonist is anything BUT a walking steroid for Ubermenschen ad. Or with any interest in anything aside from killing and fucking their way through the world.

It's probably tied to how simple the genre is in itself, similar to, say, movies or literature - if you watch an action movie or a dime a dozen novel, you're not expecting well-rounded, psychologically believable characters.

Re: White

Again, in most of the games, you *are* fighting white people even if the writers have to make it slightly contrived. Look at Far Cry 2, for example - it's explicitly set in an African warzone, but your average enemy is actually a white South African merc for either side of the conflict. And they are all EBIIIIIL. And in 3, the Big Bad is, again, a rich white Afrikaner (by the way, did the FC writers' families got murdered by an Afrikaner or something?). Your argument would actually make more sense if EVERYONE, including the bad guy, was not white.

[MDFification]

A good point about video game racism; it's partly a design choice. It wasn't an issue so much when graphics were more primitive, but the player is supposed to be easily able to tell friend from foe. Other than flamboyant color-coding, one of the more effective ways to allow a player to quickly identify a hostile is to use their innate ability to create 'us' and 'them'. Seeing as the majority of video game players are white, the protagonists are thus white and 'them' are not.

Really, it's not necessary. It's laziness. It's cutting a corner that wouldn't have to exist if you were willing to experiment with graphical style rather than shoot for drab realism. Also, it's not entirely what I've just described; look at movies, table-top games and books. They're all full of white dudes too, to the point that you start to suspect a global genocide went on in the backstory and nobody told you.
Also, look at Japan; we tend to imagine their characters are white, but the Japanese see their characters as Japanese. This explains it well. Basically, all groups view themselves as the default human being, and when asked to create an imaginary human being proceed to use the human beings they know the best - themselves.

[Neonivek]

I don’t think people who say “games don’t need more diversity” are calling for ignorance or racism or sexism or any of that

No one is exactly saying that. For the most part I think the groups that I can surmise are:
1) People who think that creators have a social responsibility and should increase diversity
and
2) People who think that phoned in diversity is worse then not having it at all
3) People who think that companies shouldn't be dictated the contents of their products so long as they aren't doing anything illegal.

which aren't directly opposing views mind you...

but I don't know anyone here who is saying that the diversity in videogames is fine.

I mean I guess I could see an argument being made that really games should match the demographics so long as it is also respectful of a potential audience... but no one has made that argument yet.

Men don't tend to understand the difference between sexual objectifying and sexual desire, so when women object to constant sexualized imagery crafted for the male gaze they dismiss such concerns based on not ever experiencing that dehumanizing influence.

They tend to understand quite a bit better then you give them credit for. The problem really lays in trying to get a guy to separate the difference between a sexy female character and a sexy female character who is being objectified... yet even then most can point out the difference.

Men are not so black and white.

What you mentioned is quite often the case anyhow. Male characters are 1-dimensional stereotypes, female character are 1-dimensional stereotypes. Especially in some genres, like FPSs, which are often either not very sophisticated story-wise 'You are, uh, a guy. Go kill stuff.' or a deliberate throwback to the more gung-ho genres like pulp fiction

Mostly it is because the guy is mostly a supposed to be a male power fantasy and how men should solve all their problems through violence. Usually with rippling muscles and plenty of guns.

Just look at Alexander from Kings Quest 6. He is a soft spoken, mostly non-violent individual, who is a romantic, likes poetry, is an intellectual, and is rather non-violent... and people either like him or hate him.

[Glowcat]

Men don't tend to understand the difference between sexual objectifying and sexual desire, so when women object to constant sexualized imagery crafted for the male gaze they dismiss such concerns based on not ever experiencing that dehumanizing influence.

They tend to understand quite a bit better then you give them credit for. The problem really lays in trying to get a guy to separate the difference between a sexy female character and a sexy female character who is being objectified... yet even then most can point out the difference.

I'm not sure which metric you're using to say that most men don't have issues understanding the difference. I'm using the frequency of how often those categories get conflated in discussions of sexual objectification where dudes loudly protest that they don't see the problem. No need to use a "not all men" rebuttal when I'm talking about a noticeable trend rather than universal.

[Neonivek]

Sorry Glowcat your statement just left it open to that interpretation.

So how many men have that issue?

[MDFification]

Men don't tend to understand the difference between sexual objectifying and sexual desire, so when women object to constant sexualized imagery crafted for the male gaze they dismiss such concerns based on not ever experiencing that dehumanizing influence.

They tend to understand quite a bit better then you give them credit for. The problem really lays in trying to get a guy to separate the difference between a sexy female character and a sexy female character who is being objectified... yet even then most can point out the difference.

I have considerable experience being male. Acknowledging a character as objectified is an entirely learned reaction for men - at least I hope it's not just me who has no innate ability to spot the lack of two whole dimensions when it's not obvious.
There is some ambiguity though in that depictions of people in general in society that don't objectify them are very rare.
On a philosophical level, you can't understand really anyone who isn't you. So you could say that everyone objectifies everyone, and that we're actually personifying people as best that we can - we're starting on an instinctual level with everyone objectified, and working our way towards viewing them as another person. We as a species really put on airs, IMO. Please don't confuse my misanthropic tendancies for misogyny. 

... the 'men are violent' bias is probably the worst thing we men have done to ourselves running this society.

[Redzephyr01]

Why is it that male characters being oversexualized just brushed off as a "male power fantasy"? Do people seriously think that all men want to play as super-muscular people?

[DeKaFu]

(Wrote this earlier but only decided to post it now)

Going back tangentally to a previous topic, I was thinking earlier about the idea people brought up that characters are assumed to be heterosexual until evidence is given to the contrary, and had an interesting realization about myself.

I'm... I guess you would say asexual. Don't often think about it and prefer not to because the whole thing squicks me out. It occurred to me that I tend to assume every character in everything is also asexual (as in, completely disinterested in sex with anybody, period) until proven otherwise. Considering romantic/sexual stuff can be independant from eachother and referring to sex is a no-no in a lot of media, this actually goes unchallenged a lot of the time.

I know logically that this is a bizarre assumption to make, but it certainly makes characters a lot more relatable for me until it's challenged. Also sometimes extremely jarring when it is challenged (Altair in AC2 comes to mind).

Suppose this doesn't really add much to the discussion besides a different perspective. Just thought it was interesting, a minority viewpoint that can be successfully subjectively projected onto the majority due to social conventions.

[Mr. Strange]

snip

I think that's pretty common to everyone, to relate and assume that characters are "like me" untill proven otherwise. I know I do it too.

[scriver]

Why is it that male characters being oversexualized just brushed off as a "male power fantasy"? Do people seriously think that all men want to play as super-muscular people?

It's because of who makes the games, and the reasons those men look like that. It isn't to titillate women. And yeah, the assumption isn't that "all men want to play as super-muscular people", it's that their target audience do in fact want to play as that.

[Redzephyr01]

Why is it that male characters being oversexualized just brushed off as a "male power fantasy"? Do people seriously think that all men want to play as super-muscular people?

It's because of who makes the games, and the reasons those men look like that. It isn't to titillate women. And yeah, the assumption isn't that "all men want to play as super-muscular people", it's that their target audience do in fact want to play as that.

I highly doubt that no video game has ever made fanservice to appeal to women. And even if no video game has, then how is oversexualizing male characters any less bad? Also, not all game developers are men.

[Gatleos]

Men don't tend to understand the difference between sexual objectifying and sexual desire

You already know this, but I feel it has to be stated:

People are defensive by nature. When I first read this, my very first gut reaction was "OH GREAT ANOTHER FUCKING STEREOTYPE". A reaction along these lines is something that everyone experiences whenever any criticism is leveled at them, explicitly or implicitly. Some people then override this with a more level-headed, intellectual reaction that fairly assesses the meaning of the offending phrase. Unfortunately, most don't.

That knee-jerk response is due to immediately looking at the phrase like you said "Men don't understand". And while I agree with what you said afterward, that stupid emotional response can easily convince me (or anyone) that it was a personal attack of some kind. And I immediately want to come up with some kind of rebuttal.

But in the end, all I can say is... I don't think that way. I find myself very frustrated with the female characters in games, the fact that they never get to be characters, that they exist purely to be looked at as sex objects. But sometimes it feels like I can't win with anyone. One side of the debate would call me a "white knight" (whatever the fuck that means in this context), and that stupid knee-jerk response to comments like yours (as well as occasional legitimate sexist generalizations of men*) makes me feel like the other side has prejudged me as some horny neanderthal.

Obviously I know that's not what you're saying. But I think a lot of people come to that incorrect conclusion, and allies end up alienating each other without realizing it.

*not by you or anyone in this thread of course

[Glowcat]

That knee-jerk response is due to immediately looking at the phrase like you said "Men don't understand". And while I agree with what you said afterward, that stupid emotional response can easily convince me (or anyone) that it was a personal attack of some kind. And I immediately want to come up with some kind of rebuttal.

I know this well but it's not like I didn't have to get over the same thing whenever a person of color talks about "White people" and the issues they have with us. We can't redirect every problem so that it's about ourselves and a part of listening to marginalized groups is to suppress those instinctive responses when they discuss issues they have when relating to the dominant groups on a social level, rather than think in terms of individuals who might not fit into a mold.

Which brings up the issue when the problem is described as "Some Men" versus a generalized form. When people read it that way it comes across as something that just an individual-level problem rather than something embedded in cultural practices which cause us to unconsciously favor one group over others. I still struggle with recognizing these influences and it's incredibly unhelpful if I insist that people of color acknowledge my "ally status" (i.e. saying that I'm not like the rest) when doing such only distracts from whatever argument they were trying to make.

[Redzephyr01]

That knee-jerk response is due to immediately looking at the phrase like you said "Men don't understand". And while I agree with what you said afterward, that stupid emotional response can easily convince me (or anyone) that it was a personal attack of some kind. And I immediately want to come up with some kind of rebuttal.

I know this well but it's not like I didn't have to get over the same thing whenever a person of color talks about "White people" and the issues they have with us. We can't redirect every problem so that it's about ourselves and a part of listening to marginalized groups is to suppress those instinctive responses when they discuss issues they have when relating to the dominant groups on a social level, rather than think in terms of individuals who might not fit into a mold.

Which brings up the issue when the problem is described as "Some Men" versus a generalized form. When people read it that way it comes across as something that just an individual-level problem rather than something embedded in cultural practices which cause us to unconsciously favor one group over others. I still struggle with recognizing these influences and it's incredibly unhelpful if I insist that people of color acknowledge my "ally status" (i.e. saying that I'm not like the rest) when doing such only distracts from whatever argument they were trying to make.

But if you say "all men do X", then that actually is sexist because you're generalizing all men. The only thing all men have in common is that they identify as men. If you don't actually mean all men, then don't say all men. People are much less likely to listen to you if you group them in with bigots. It is inherently bigoted to say that all members of a certain gender or ethnicity act similar.

[Playergamer]

Answers to the questions:

Companies have no obligations but to make a profit.

Gamers are responsible for playing their game and enjoying it. If they want to advance social progress or report bugs at the same time, more power to them.

It all depends.

Now then, PTW.