Support NeoGAF

[ChawlieTheFair]

First of all, "the I don't see it" argument was never a compelling one. Yes, you don't. You are the one in power. Furthermore, yes the sexualization of men is bad and it has negative effects. But its based on being in power. You, because you are a male, are supposed to be in power. In power over the women. Women want to overcome that. As a result, the sexualization of men as power fantasies might get changed. That is called feminism.

Yes I'm aware of the cause, but there is the reality and fiction. The "power" is mostly unachievable for both average Joe and Jane, and the fact that Superman comes in to save the day does nigh to affect that, especially now with such hightened awareness of it. If anything, the male sexualization is worse. If we are assuming that media like wrestling or superheroes is going to have that sort of mental affect, then teaching males to be power hungry and to reach for that power is in the end shittier, as you teach them to want to be alpha. So the argument of only looking at and removing female sexualization is essentially useless, as then we have the same alpha problem no? Nobody is on a team together, it's all about being in power.

 

[zeldablue]

I just want to make it clear that it doesn't have to do with sexualization.

It has to do with women inherently being tied to sex, while men aren't inherently tied to sex.

What I mean is: a man can be sexual but that is only a part of who he is. He can also be a list of other things that define him more as a person.

However with women, especially in games, they are tied to their function as a sexual person. That is there key defining feature. It's really reaaally hard for us to do anything without still being seen somewhere, somehow as a sexual entity. At home, we're sexual. At work, sexual. We could be wearing hoddies, or anything else and it wouldn't even matter! On the street, sexual. At the bar, sexual. It doesn't matter where we are people still read us just the same. Essentially, we are pinned to that stereotype. And it is extremely frustrating as a human being to be tied to a stereotype of any form.

Take being a black male for instance. They have the unfortunate label of all being "thugs" or potential thugs. This is harmful because in a lot of situations they are tied to that stereotype in awful ways that they can't exactly defend against. In Ferguson, you're starting to see what that frustration does to people. It's aggravating. Don't tie people down to one function. That is a form of "othering" and it is dangerous in an incredible amount of ways that most people are blind to.

When Anita says "This women is sexualized" at the base of it, she's saying. This women is completely tied to the perception that women are here for sexual or sensual release.

I know that can be confusing to understand, but basically when you "other" someone, you actively ignore all human attributes from a person and only see them for one or two distinct things. For women, it's sex and nurture. Those are the attributes that predominantly shine on her and her character. This is extremely limiting and frustrating.

Men can be for sex and nurture...but they are not limited by those two potential attributes. People don't look at men and inherently pin him to that role. Men don't exactly have to worry about someone grabbing their a** in the middle of the street. Same as how I don't have to worry about being shot dead by policemen...because I am a woman (And we are perceived as pretty non-threatening. )

Please tell me that makes sense!

 

[Azoth]

Being successful and competent in killing people (the most common 'talent' that male protagonist in games posses) is not a stereotypical trait that attracts women. Can you define any other credible way in which they are successful and competent that is desirable for women?

Male protagonists are are designed by male developers with a male public in mind. Yet you think they are coincidentally 'hyper sexualized' for women? You will have to be way more specific to be even slightly convincing with this argument.

1.) I'm referring to media as a whole. If we're simply talking about Game Development, the fact is that it's a male dominated demographic, and making AAA content designed primarily for female demographics would be sales suicide. (cue somebody linking the ridiculous ESA survey telling us how many middle aged women play zinga games) Expecting equal representation in that market is ridiculous, just like expecting fair and equal representation in the adult section of Kindle eBooks is ridiculous. One is dominated by a male demographic, the other by a female demographic, and both will be skewed in favor of appealing to their particular audience.

2.) Male protagonists are stereotypically excessively competent in all things, not just in "killing people". I'm sorry that you think you can eliminate that fact by saying "well gee men are competent in X a lot and I don't think that's exactly nice." You'd be wrong anyway. Yes, being competent in killing people is more attractive to women than being incompetent at killing people. Case in point, a skilled soldier that chooses not to kill people is infinitely more attractive to women than an unskilled soldier that chooses not to kill people, purely because the competence is there. For the same instinctual reasons that men are attracted to proportions and boobs(re: reproductive success), women are attracted to said competence(re: success of said reproductions). By comparison, men really don't care if the object of their affection is successful/competent; it's not a turn off if they are, it's not a turn off if they're not. The supposed perception of female helplessness in contrast to how men are portrayed in media, is just as much a symptom of female desire for men to be not helpless, as it is some silly infatuation men have with helpless women.

Everything Kratos does, he does well. Killing people included. Even as a hulking tyrant, he wins his conversational ripostes, and then proceeds to kill them. As a lover, his lovers are enthralled and excessively pleased with his performance. GoW is a crap game in terms of character development to begin with, and doesn't provide much depth in any thing, but you can look at a large amount of AAA games and draw the same required-for-men-to-be-attractive tropes. Just because men have their shirts torn off less often than women does not make them less sexualized, if the genders have different preferences when it comes to attraction.

 

[Azoth]

I just want to make it clear that it doesn't have to do with sexualization.

It has to do with women inherently being tied to sex, while men aren't inherently tied to sex.

What I mean is: a man can be sexual but that is only a part of who he is. He can also be a list of other things that define him more as a person.

However with women, especially in games, they are tied to their function as a sexual person. That is there key defining feature. It's really reaaally hard for us to do anything without still being seen somewhere, somehow as a sexual entity. Essentially, we are pinned to that stereotype. And it is extremely frustrating as a human being to be tied to a stereotype of any form.

Take being a black male for instance. They have the unfortunate label of all being "thugs" or potential thugs. This is harmful because in a lot of situations they are tied to their stereotype in awful ways that they can't exactly defend against. In Ferguson, you're starting to see what that frustration does to people. It's aggravating. Don't tie people down to one function. That is a form of othering and it is dangerous in an incredible amount of ways that most people are blind to.

When Anita says "This women is sexualized" at the base of it, she's saying. This women is completely tied to the perception that women are here for sexual or sensual release.

I know that can be confusing to understand, but basically when you "other" someone, you actively ignore all human attributes from a person and only see them for one or two things. For women, it's sex and nurture.

Men can be for sex and nurture...but they are not limited by those two potential attributes. People don't look at men and inherently pin him to that role.

Please tell me that makes sense!

It does not make sense.

A man is not "able to be more things that define him as a person".

He is "required" to be more things that define him as a Successful Person, to satisfy female attraction stereotypes and ensure instinctual desires for protection and success of offspring.

For the exact same reasons that men like women with proportions inclined to successful child birth/rearing.

Thinking female values are more meaningful is where the fault lies. Twilight and 50 Shades are not superior to Brazzers, I'm sorry. They're all tripe promoting ridiculous expectations.

 

[Daffy Duck]

I don't understand where she has got the idea from that if games are created without sexualisation/violence against women etc then they are totally unvelievable.

When has this been claimed by people?

 

[Karkador]

That's because you don't see how BBC Sherlock is being sexualised, probably because the sexualisation doesn't register with you. All the women i've talked to about this show is positively drooling over Cumberbatch, and I don't think it is because he is really really smart. And that's ok. Because that means i get to drool over Christina Hendricks in Mad Men. Fair's fair.
And yeah just the other day i got "can wee see this episode pls, i've heard that we get to see Sherlock naked in this one".

So using Sherlock was probably a really poor example on your part.

I was talking more about the general Sherlock mythos than the TV show in specific.

 

[zeldablue]

It does not make sense.

A man is not "able to be more things that define him as a person".

He is "required" to be more things that define him as a Successful Person, to satisfy female attraction stereotypes and ensure instinctual desires for protection and success of offspring.

For the exact same reasons that men like women with proportions inclined to successful child birth/rearing.

Thinking female values are more meaningful is where the fault lies. Twilight and 50 Shades are not superior to Brazzers, I'm sorry. They're all tripe promoting ridiculous expectations.

We're not cavemen anymore. =/

I'm an egalitarian and that means, I'd like to treat everyone the same. That means stripping off stereotypes from any disadvantaged group. Even the masculine forms, since it's honestly, the most crippling. Perceptions create our reality.

Like, woah! I hope you don't actually believe what you just said....

 

[atr0cious]

That's because you don't see how BBC Sherlock is being sexualised, probably because the sexualisation doesn't register with you. All the women i've talked to about this show is positively drooling over Cumberbatch, and I don't think it is because he is really really smart. And that's ok. Because that means i get to drool over Christina Hendricks in Mad Men. Fair's fair.
And yeah just the other day i got "can wee see this episode pls, i've heard that we get to see Sherlock naked in this one".

So using Sherlock was probably a really poor example on your part.

This makes no sense at all. Cumberbatch is never sexualised in the show, except for when he uses his wits.

What a shameful post.

 

[Azoth]

We're not cavemen anymore. =/

I'm an egalitarian and that means, I'd like to treat everyone the same. That means stripping off stereotypes from any disadvantaged group. Especially the masculine form, since it's the most crippling.

Sadly, your beliefs are not the norm.

Make a 20-30 something male profile and a 20-30 something female profile on any internet dating site, and start chatting people up. See how long it takes women to ask What You Do, and how long it takes men to ask What You Do. Because Men don't really care if you have a sweet job, and women do.

That, of course, would be anecdotal evidence. Strong anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal all the same. For objective data, you can check the youtube source I linked, where Ogi Ogas talks about the millions of datapoints gathered from what men and women are interested in, etc.

Stereotypes for attraction manifest in different ways, and frankly, I'm kind of tired of people being up in arms about what superficial things Men like, while ignoring what superficial things Women like. Damaging perceptions and stereotypes exist in both playing fields.

#NotAllWomen #SorryNotSorry
(opinions expressed herein solely represent this poster, etc)

 

[Kensuke]

1.) I'm referring to media as a whole. If we're simply talking about Game Development, the fact is that it's a male dominated demographic, and making AAA content designed primarily for female demographics would be sales suicide. (cue somebody linking the ridiculous ESA survey telling us how many middle aged women play zinga games) Expecting equal representation in that market is ridiculous, just like expecting fair and equal representation in the adult section of Kindle eBooks is ridiculous. One is dominated by a male demographic, the other by a female demographic, and both will be skewed in favor of appealing to their particular audience.

2.) Male protagonists are stereotypically excessively competent in all things, not just in "killing people". I'm sorry that you think you can eliminate that fact by saying "well gee men are competent in X a lot and I don't think that's exactly nice." You'd be wrong anyway. Yes, being competent in killing people is more attractive to women than being incompetent at killing people. Case in point, a skilled soldier that chooses not to kill people is infinitely more attractive to women than an unskilled soldier that chooses not to kill people, purely because the competence is there. For the same instinctual reasons that men are attracted to proportions and boobs(re: reproductive success), women are attracted to said competence(re: success of said reproductions). By comparison, men really don't care if the object of their affection is successful/competent; it's not a turn off if they are, it's not a turn off if they're not. The supposed perception of female helplessness in contrast to how men are portrayed in media, is just as much a symptom of female desire for men to be not helpless, as it is some silly infatuation men have with helpless women.

Everything Kratos does, he does well. Killing people included. Even as a hulking tyrant, he wins his conversational ripostes, and then proceeds to kill them. As a lover, his lovers are enthralled and excessively pleased with his performance. GoW is a crap game in terms of character development to begin with, and doesn't provide much depth in any thing, but you can look at a large amount of AAA games and draw the same required-for-men-to-be-attractive tropes. Just because men have their shirts torn off less often than women does not make them less sexualized, if the genders have different preferences when it comes to attraction.

1. The stuff you say about game development is absolutely true, but you don't actually address the point I made. Namely that this characters are, according to you, coincidentally hyper sexualized for women. Even though they are designed for completely different purposes. That alone is a huge stretch.

2. It seems most of your argument hinges on competence. If we take Kratos as an example, I could just as well argue he is a very incompetent person. He's extremely incompetent in dealing with his emotions, for example.

Honestly, I don't have any prove to back it up, but I'm sure most women in the real world don't find Kratos desirable. He sure as hell isn't the stereotypical attractive male you find in most media designed with women in mind. I think you're forcing this so-called 'required-for-men-to-be-attractive tropes' into characters that don't fit them at all.

 

[atr0cious]

Sadly, your beliefs are not the norm.

Make a 20-30 something male profile and a 20-30 something female profile on any internet dating site, and start chatting people up. See how long it takes women to ask What You Do, and how long it takes men to ask What You Do. Because Men don't really care if you have a sweet job, and women do.

That, of course, would be anecdotal evidence. Strong anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal all the same. For objective data, you can check the youtube source I linked, where Ogi Ogas talks about the millions of datapoints gathered from what men and women are interested in, etc.

Stereotypes for attraction manifest in different ways, and frankly, I'm kind of tired of people being up in arms about what superficial things Men like, while ignoring what superficial things Women like. Damaging perceptions and stereotypes exist in both playing fields.

#NotAllWomen #SorryNotSorry
(opinions expressed herein solely represent this poster, etc)

Wait, so people who have been treated as sexual objects and literal possessions for generations should be worried about those in power's well being? Or have somehow been catered to equally?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

C'mon guys. "But men too" is the most useless. Pretty sure Sarkeesian's never going to claim "these men are such admirable, well-drawn characters". She just doesn't care. Depictions of men aren't her project. Scientific method: she picked her hypothesis, now she's exploring it.

She's not exploring a hypothesis. She's quite clearly engaged in polemic. She's going out of her way not to explore her hypothesis.

 

[Azoth]

Wait, so people who have been treated as sexual objects and literal possessions for generations should be worried about those in power's well being? Or have somehow been catered to equally?

lol

 

[zeldablue]

Sadly, your beliefs are not the norm.

Make a 20-30 something male profile and a 20-30 something female profile on any internet dating site, and start chatting people up. See how long it takes women to ask What You Do, and how long it takes men to ask What You Do. Because Men don't really care if you have a sweet job, and women do.

That, of course, would be anecdotal evidence. Strong anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal all the same. For objective data, you can check the youtube source I linked, where Ogi Ogas talks about the millions of datapoints gathered from what men and women are interested in, etc.

Stereotypes for attraction manifest in different ways, and frankly, I'm kind of tired of people being up in arms about what superficial things Men like, while ignoring what superficial things Women like. Damaging perceptions and stereotypes exist in both playing fields.

#NotAllWomen #SorryNotSorry
(opinions expressed herein solely represent this poster, etc)

You would be completely right! Lol, but that's exactly what we're trying to fix here, right?

Guys don't care about my dreams in life. But I care about there's! Guys care about how pretty I am, but I don't always care about their looks. That's the toss up we stick to when we have gendered roles.

Also note, guys care more about their benevolent sexism (money, muscles, power) much more than women do. And likewise women care much more about their benevolent sexism (pretty, polite, prudness) more than men do. Sooo, it's pretty hilarious in a way. In fact, winning over the acceptance and envy of our same sex, is often more important to us that capturing the other sex. Just keep that in mind.

However things are changing, and perceptions have everything to do with it. I mean...years ago the common perception was that girls were bad at math. But when the stereotypes left they became really good at math. It turns out they were bad at math because they weren't getting the same equal treatment. Who knew, right?

If women were given better opportunities for work, they wouldn't be creeping on your wallet. Female entitlement to your s*** is just as bad as male entitlement to my body.

 

[Erevador]

I just want to make it clear that it doesn't have to do with sexualization.

It has to do with women inherently being tied to sex, while men aren't inherently tied to sex.

What I mean is: a man can be sexual but that is only a part of who he is. He can also be a list of other things that define him more as a person.

However with women, especially in games, they are tied to their function as a sexual person. That is there key defining feature. It's really reaaally hard for us to do anything without still being seen somewhere, somehow as a sexual entity. At home, we're sexual. At work, sexual. We could be wearing hoddies, or anything else and it wouldn't even matter! On the street, sexual. At the bar, sexual. It doesn't matter where we are people still read us just the same. Essentially, we are pinned to that stereotype. And it is extremely frustrating as a human being to be tied to a stereotype of any form.

Take being a black male for instance. They have the unfortunate label of all being "thugs" or potential thugs. This is harmful because in a lot of situations they are tied to that stereotype in awful ways that they can't exactly defend against. In Ferguson, you're starting to see what that frustration does to people. It's aggravating. Don't tie people down to one function. That is a form of "othering" and it is dangerous in an incredible amount of ways that most people are blind to.

When Anita says "This women is sexualized" at the base of it, she's saying. This women is completely tied to the perception that women are here for sexual or sensual release.

I know that can be confusing to understand, but basically when you "other" someone, you actively ignore all human attributes from a person and only see them for one or two distinct things. For women, it's sex and nurture. Those are the attributes that predominantly shine on her and her character. This is extremely limiting and frustrating.

Men can be for sex and nurture...but they are not limited by those two potential attributes. People don't look at men and inherently pin him to that role. Men don't exactly have to worry about someone grabbing their a** in the middle of the street. Same as how I don't have to worry about being shot dead by policemen...because I am a woman (And we are perceived as pretty non-threatening. )

Please tell me that makes sense!

This is a thoughtful and intelligent post, but will inevitably be greeted with stupid responses that miss the very simple point you are making. I suggest deserting the thread now before you completely lose all faith in humanity.

I already regret opening this thread, looking at some of the posts on this page alone.

 

[Lunchbillion]

Wow. This was a great video. I think disabling the comments was a great idea because I can't even imagine the kind of braindead crap we'd be seeing there, haha.

 

[JackDT]

GAMES ARE REAL ART, GAME JOURNALISM SHOULD BE MORE RIGOROUS"

"OK here's feminist criticism, like every single artistic medium has"

"WTF"

https://twitter.com/ShayMakesGames/status/504111995776692224

 

[atr0cious]

lol

The totemic white male has lived for generations as the top of the social ladder with all others catering to them. So much so, that now tradition itself says that women and people of color are inferior to him. Hell it wasn't until the 60s(?) that the Mormons 'found' out that blacks weren't inferior, and dark skin is still equated to this day as evil, especially in video games.

Anita is simply pointing out all the shit present in games today, so that when devs make another game, they will remember why they should toss out the ol tried and true filler, that 'gamers' 'tolerate' to play with their toys. I had issues with her earlier videos when she had no arguments and just examples, but the last couple topics must've been like shooting fish in a barrel for her. The industry dumps this shit out by the truckload, and people just shrug, and the cycle continues. If we talk about it now, maybe we can stop devs from thinking about it later, and maybe just maybe even stop it from being appealing in the first place.

 

[zeldablue]

https://twitter.com/ShayMakesGames/status/504111995776692224

Yikes! Lol...

Yeah, I guess that's the truth. Artistic criticism of any kind is a complete b*tch.

 

[Azoth]

Also note, guys care more about their benevolent sexism (money, muscles, power) much more than women do. And likewise women care much more about their benevolent sexism (pretty, polite, prudness) more than men do. Sooo, it's pretty hilarious in a way.

This is kind of ridiculous. The primary reason men care about Money, Muscles, and Success(a better term than "Power), is to impress women. For every man at the gym busting out weights to be more healthy, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive. So saying that guys care more about female attraction triggers than women do is nonsensical, because A only exists due to B.

I can't speak to women's obsession with beauty as much.

If women were given better opportunities for work, they wouldn't be creeping on your wallet. Female entitlement to your s*** is just as bad as male entitlement to my body.

That's a fallacy. You have nothing to prove that women would stop expecting men to be successful if they could overcome the wage gap. Women expecting men to be successful is cultural and social engineering, a result of stereotypes and expectations that have existed since their grandmothers were expecting men to be successful. Fixing your wages wouldn't remove that damaging stereotype.

 

[Brakke]

You can't compare Rambo/Arnold to Kratos. Rambo was fighting to free innocent people. Arnold was fighting for survival. I'm not saying that they weren't meant to affect the player - just that Kratos wasn't meant to be identified with. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made him the a-hole he is.

Rambo was not fighting for anything for himself. Rambo didn't make any choices. He is a fictional character. Some dudes put Rambo on a screen. Rambo was fighting "for" our enjoyment of explosions and dominance, and he was fighting so we could reflect on the Vietnam War.

"Is this guy a good guy or a bad guy" is the most vapid lens. Rambo is a Bad Guy! He kills a helicopter in "self defense", but it's his own damn fault he was in a position where he had to defend himself. You know, like soldiers in Vietnam.

Kratos is nothing. He is fighting for and exclusively for the titillation of men. Obviously players are supposed to identify with Kratos--he's the one you control. Kratos is not a way to examine anything.

I was just thinking about this after watching Winter Soldier but I realized that recent Marvel movies do a good job of being inclusive as far as fair fan-service for both sexes. There's been a huge increase of female friends who became die-hard fans of Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc -- never thought I'd see that day. It'd be cool to see AAA games follow its example too. The closest to that I can see in games is the Uncharted series (though it's mild on both fronts).

Yeah Marvel's doing ok. I just got back from catching Guardians a second time before it's out of theatres. There's lots of shots of shirtless dudes posing and flexing, shot from below.

But also everybody singles out Gamora with gendered insults and misogynistic bullshit. Drax calls her "whore", Rocket tells her to sex up an inmate... Marvel's not really "there" yet.

It does not make sense.

A man is not "able to be more things that define him as a person".

He is "required" to be more things that define him as a Successful Person, to satisfy female attraction stereotypes and ensure instinctual desires for protection and success of offspring.

For the exact same reasons that men like women with proportions inclined to successful child birth/rearing.

Thinking female values are more meaningful is where the fault lies. Twilight and 50 Shades are not superior to Brazzers, I'm sorry. They're all tripe promoting ridiculous expectations.

This is you.

 

[Azoth]

The totemic white male has lived for generations as the top of the social ladder with all others catering to them. So much so, that now tradition itself says that women and people of color are inferior to him. Hell it wasn't until the 60s(?) that the Mormons 'found' out that blacks weren't inferior, and dark skin is still equated to this day as evil, especially in video games.

Anita is simply pointing out all the shit present in games today, so that when devs make another game, they will remember why they should toss out the ol tried and true filler, that 'gamers' 'tolerate' to play with their toys. I had issues with her earlier videos when she had no arguments and just examples, but the last couple topics must've been like shooting fish in a barrel for her. The industry dumps this shit out by the truckload, and people just shrug, and the cycle continues. If we talk about it now, maybe we can stop devs from thinking about it later, and maybe just maybe even stop it from being appealing in the first place.

This is a topic about sexism, not racism. They are entirely distinct, and if you're planning on turning it into some engine against "while male supremacy", SJWbro, I'm going to go ahead and

lol

Let me know when you stop quoting examples from 50 years ago.

 

[Erevador]

This is kind of ridiculous. The primary reason men care about Money, Muscles, and Success(a better term than "Power), is to impress women. For every man at the gym busting out weights to be more healthy, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive. So saying that guys care more about female attraction triggers than women do is nonsensical, because A only exists due to B.

I can't speak to women's obsession with beauty as much.

That's a fallacy. You have nothing to prove that women would stop expecting men to be successful if they could overcome the wage gap. Women expecting men to be successful is cultural and social engineering, a result of stereotypes and expectations that have existed since their grandmothers were expecting men to be successful. Fixing your wages wouldn't remove that damaging stereotype.

All of your posts in this thread are poorly thought out, overly broad, largely off-topic, and just so all around terribly argued that it is a waste of time trying to engage with them.

 

[atr0cious]

That's a fallacy. You have nothing to prove that women would stop expecting men to be successful if they could overcome the wage gap. Women expecting men to be successful is cultural and social engineering, a result of stereotypes and expectations that have existed since their grandmothers were expecting men to be successful. Fixing your wages wouldn't remove that damaging stereotype.

This is exactly what they want to change.

Who do you know that is like this? It reads like you're projecting a bit.

This is a topic about sexism, not racism. They are entirely distinct, and if you're planning on turning it into some engine against "while male supremacy", SJWbro, I'm going to go ahead and

lol

Let me know when you stop quoting examples from 50 years ago.

So Hyrule Warriors having a dark skinned Cia be the evil side of a sexualised white woman means nothing?

 

[JackDT]

This conversation has gone off the rails just a bit...

 

[Azoth]

Rambo was not fighting for anything for himself. Rambo

This is you.

I sourced my examples of female attraction, and the ways games and media cater to those attractions, in studies designed to explore it.

Did you? :]

 

[jorma]

I was talking more about the general Sherlock mythos than the TV show in specific.

Fair enough, but doesn't it indicate that sexualisation in media goes both ways now, when modern Sherlock is being sexualised while OG Sherlock isn't?

 

[Azoth]

This is exactly what they want to change.

Who do you know that is like this? It reads like you're projecting a bit.

See my above post. :]

I know some women that superficially value a man's occupation and wealth as a measure for attraction, and some that don't. I don't think I know any men that superficially value a woman's. At least, as far as people I'd go so far as to say I "know". That would be anecdotal, though, and I don't base my cultural critiques on anecdotal evidence. So no, I'm not projecting anything.

So Hyrule Warriors having a dark skinned Cia be the evil side of a sexualised white woman means nothing?

I didn't discredit your modern arguments. I laughed at your audacity for including 50-year-old examples, as if they had any relevance.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

If women were given better opportunities for work, they wouldn't be creeping on your wallet. Female entitlement to your s*** is just as bad as male entitlement to my body.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of your points, but this one I'm not so sure about. The reasons why women value social standing in their mates go way, way back, and they're not going to disappear all of a sudden once women start getting paid 20% more than they currently do or whatever the wage gap is. Our society has about as much of a chance of successfully retraining women to no longer value prestige, wealth, intellect, etc as we do of successfully retraining men to no longer value beauty, youth, waist to hip ratio, etc. That is to say: it's not gonna happen.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

https://twitter.com/ShayMakesGames/status/504111995776692224

What a dumb post - it's assuming that the same group of people says both.

 

[atr0cious]

Fair enough, but doesn't it indicate that sexualisation in media goes both ways now, when modern Sherlock is being sexualised while OG Sherlock isn't?

How many times has Sherlock been sexualised on the show, compared to any other character in the show? They go out of their way to show him as a wife of Watson, and you're calling it sexualisation.

 

[JBourne]

Please tell me that makes sense!

It does. Good post.

 

[JackDT]

What a dumb post - it's assuming that the same group of people says both.

I've been reading the MS Paint screenshot manifestos -- plenty do.

 

[Brakke]

She's not exploring a hypothesis. She's quite clearly engaged in polemic. She's going out of her way not to explore her hypothesis.

You sure have said "polemic" a lot of times.

How has she gone out of her way not to explore her hypothesis? The claim is "these are pervasive" and the evidence is "look at all these examples from a diverse slice of games".

I sourced my examples of female attraction, and the ways games and media cater to those attractions, in studies designed to explore it.

Did you? :]

"instinctual desires ..."

"men like women with proportions inclined to successful child birth/rearing."

This is sourcing? You're simply claiming "nature over nurture".

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Rambo was not fighting for anything for himself. Rambo didn't make any choices. He is a fictional character. Some dudes put Rambo on a screen. Rambo was fighting "for" our enjoyment of explosions and dominance, and he was fighting so we could reflect on the Vietnam War.

"Is this guy a good guy or a bad guy" is the most vapid lens. Rambo is a Bad Guy! He kills a helicopter in "self defense", but it's his own damn fault he was in a position where he had to defend himself. You know, like soldiers in Vietnam.

Kratos is nothing. He is fighting for and exclusively for the titillation of men. Obviously players are supposed to identify with Kratos--he's the one you control. Kratos is not a way to examine anything.

Nopes, you're not supposed to identify with Kratos. Just because you're playing as him doesn't mean you're him. Same thing with Joel in The Last of Us. Same thing with the characters from GTA or Saints Row. It's similar to how women aren't meant to identify with Bayonetta.

 

[zeldablue]

This is kind of ridiculous. The primary reason men care about Money, Muscles, and Success(a better term than "Power), is to impress women. For every man at the gym busting out weights to be more healthy, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive. So saying that guys care more about female attraction triggers than women do is nonsensical, because A only exists due to B.

I can't speak to women's obsession with beauty as much.



That's a fallacy. You have nothing to prove that women would stop expecting men to be successful if they could overcome the wage gap. Women expecting men to be successful is cultural and social engineering, a result of stereotypes and expectations that have existed since their grandmothers were expecting men to be successful. Fixing your wages wouldn't remove that damaging stereotype.

My God.

I am on your side. I want to help get rid of negative stereotypes. What about that do you not understand? :C

Here's how it works...I guess.

For men you have these benevolent attributes: Power, Wealth, Intelligence, Dominance, Attraction to women.

Whenever a list of benevolent values are made...a "shadow" of hostile attributes come forth. Hostile attributes are: Weakness (Physical and emotional), Poorness, Stupidity, "girliness" (The feminine) and gays.

This means throughout your life you aim for the benevolent parts of yourself while repressing the negative things. By going for the ideal attributes you are rewarded by society for fitting in correctly. And this is what we desire more than anything, really. You don't want "women" per say, you want "belonging!" While repressing those negative things, you begin to project hostile attributes onto others. For instance, when you are angry with someone you call them "gay" or "p*ssy", or something of that form. Whenever you do that, or someone does that to you...you continue to repress those negative attributes more thoroughly.

What does that do? Well. It causes men to actively punish and harm men they see as weak, poor, stupid, girly or gay. Men have a collective conscious, as do women. In fact every culture has a pretty distinct "hive mind." They take those repressed feelings and channel it towards the people who they see as having bad attributes. This creates "isms." Racism, sexism, nationalism...(Blacks are poor, gays are gay, girls are inferior, Foreign Countries are evil!) This is basically what happens when people see their "shadow." They can see it everywhere except within themselves.

Unfortunately, gay men and trans women get the most projected physical and emotional hatred. (Lesbians are fine though!) These people are hated because they represent something that may or may not be repressed within you. This also means an excessive amount of shame for the self when you feel vulnerable. Which prevents you from seeking help and understanding during times of hardship. This also means other men will see your weakness in an unempathetic light. Women, are more empathetic because there is nothing shameful about a weak woman.

In general, all the great amazing things about being a man...also creates a large shadow of why it can be bad to be a man. The harder the negative is repressed...the more severe the hatred towards women, gays and disadvantaged groups.

...I hope that makes sense.

All of that is purely masculine. A lot of women aren't really thinking about men the same way men do. I prefer softer guys myself. =/

I think a strong guy is someone who is true and accepting to himself and to others. Buuuut, maybe my words mean nothing.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of your points, but this one I'm not so sure about. The reasons why women value social standing in their mates go way, way back, and they're not going to disappear all of a sudden once women start getting paid 20% more than they currently do or whatever the wage gap is. Our society has about as much of a chance of successfully retraining women to no longer value prestige, wealth, intellect, etc as we do of successfully retraining men to no longer value beauty, youth, waist to hip ratio, etc. That is to say: it's not gonna happen.

That would be when male rights would have to go in and give "men vs. tropes" to women obsessed with romance novels. Teach them why it's not fair. =/

Scratch that. I recognize that point was rather idealistic. The real goal is to make both men and women more open to other ways of doing things, and not relying on Disney stereotypes for the 50's.

 

[JackDT]

You can argue whether Twighlight and Brazzers are two sides of the same coin -- as a video game player I'd prefer neither thanks. People making youtube vidoes and tweets complaining about lazy gender stereotypes as opposed to good writing -- that IS the market working and correcting.

 

[Azoth]

You sure have said "polemic" a lot of times.

How has she gone out of her way not to explore her hypothesis? The claim is "these are pervasive" and the evidence is "look at all these examples from a diverse slice of games".



"instinctual desires ..."

"men like women with proportions inclined to successful child birth/rearing."

This is sourcing? You're simply claiming "nature over nurture".

That is not the youtube link to a study/source I provided, no. :]

And "Make Claim -> Provide pointed examples to support that claim" is not exploring a hypothesis.

When that claim is an attack on something, it is the definition of polemic.

"Make Claim -> Examine all data -> Provide all relevant examples, whether they support the claim or not -> conclusion" is how you explore a hypothesis. That is not what she does.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

I've been reading the MS Paint screenshot manifestos -- plenty do.

Don't know what those manifestos are but please provide links.

 

[Brakke]

Nopes, you're not supposed to identify with Kratos. Just because you're playing as him doesn't mean you're him. Same thing with Joel in The Last of Us. Same thing with the characters from GTA or Saints Row. It's similar to how women aren't meant to identify with Bayonetta.

Ok then read the text for me. Why do they put you in control of a heinous monster. What reason do they give anyone to not walk away in disgust?

 

[atr0cious]

See my above post. :]

I know some women that superficially value a man's occupation and wealth as a measure for attraction, and some that don't. I don't think I know any men that superficially value a woman's. At least, as far as people I'd go so far as to say I "know". That would be anecdotal, though, and I don't base my cultural critiques on anecdotal evidence. So no, I'm not projecting anything.



I didn't discredit your modern arguments. I laughed at your audacity for including 50-year-old examples, as if they had any relevance.

They do have relevance as it's only been 50 years of 'equality' compared to the generations of just straight out not giving a fuck about anything not white and male. It's why you are so wrong in trying to play that every one gets it game. If you count the last 50 years maybe, but if we want to talk the real score, no. Along with that time comes tradition, which includes what people think is 'right' or 'ok', in this case, how women and people of color are viewed in society. That you think a guy looking super cool when he's slaughtering loads of dudfes is some how titillating to the people it's not at all trying to titillate is really reaching.

Do you not remember all the earlier arguments hurled at Anita, mainly that video games is a male driven industry? There is a reason the characters aren't fully expressing their feelings before sheathing their sword in another mans spine, it's because you'd just skip past it and cut to the awesome QTE.

It's similar to how women aren't meant to identify with Bayonetta.

I don't think this is true. I'd consider it the first true female power fantasy. A woman using everything a man 'gave' her, complete and utter control over him because of her perceived beauty, and fucking up the establishment that holds thoughts like Azoth does.

 

[Brakke]

These videos are never "attacks". That's y'all getting defensive. She's never angry, she's always sad. She never once says "this game shouldn't exist" or "these creators are evil". It's always "let's examine these things from a perspective different than the creator's".

 

[jorma]

How many times has Sherlock been sexualised on the show, compared to any other character in the show? They go out of their way to show him as a wife of Watson, and you're calling it sexualisation.

I'm calling it sexualisation because that's how i see women react to him.

 

[Vodh]

This is kind of ridiculous. The primary reason men care about Money, Muscles, and Success(a better term than "Power), is to impress women. For every man at the gym busting out weights to be more healthy, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive. So saying that guys care more about female attraction triggers than women do is nonsensical, because A only exists due to B.

"For every man asking his boss for a raise just to get richer, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive."

"For every man at a firing range practicing because he thinks guns are cool or wants to educate himself, there's three guys doing it to be more attractive."

Sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? Sure, everything people proactively do has some effect on their social status, but arguing men want power and money mostly to get women is a statement that fits only in a stand-up comedy show.

2 out of 3 of the things used here as the example that 'make men sexy' are desirable on their own. And no one is denying these standards create pressure on men. The problem is that if you want to be successful and powerful as a man you're already attractive, whereas in the same social context if you have power and money as a woman then it's nice and all, but now you also have to try and be attractive.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Ok then read the text for me. Why do they put you in control of a heinous monster. What reason do they give anyone to not walk away in disgust?

Here's the reason for me not walking away, and I presume plenty of others don't - the gameplay is fun. Why do they put you in control of a monster? Because characters need to come in all shades and hues. Not everyone can be a Nathan Drake or mute character.

 

[Azoth]

They do have relevance as it's only been 50 years of 'equality' compared to the generations of just straight out not giving a fuck about anything not white and male. It's why you are so wrong in trying to play that every one gets it game. If you count the last 50 years maybe, but if we want to talk the real score, no. Along with that time comes tradition, which includes what people think is 'right' or 'ok', in this case, how women and people of color are viewed in society.

1.) This sounds like you're preaching for Reparations for prior gender discrimination. That's pretty laughable, and sincerely out of line with Original Feminism / Egalitarianism.

2.) Tradition is what caused mormons to have those beliefs 50 years ago. 50 years ago, you could have made the argument that tradition caused an unfair perception in race, with that example. 50 years later, you cannot make that claim with that example. You'll need to find a new example to support your rhetoric, and if the most convincing example you've got is "the bad guy in this game has darker-shaded skin", you've got a pretty small soapbox.

 

[atr0cious]

I'm calling it sexualisation because that's how i see women react to him.

So a woman is attracted to a man's wit means it's fair game for you to stare at tits? How does this equate? This is what these videos are talking about. You cannot equate a woman thinking a man is attractive because he proved his worth to a man attracted to a woman just because her hair is red.

 

[wsippel]

1. The stuff you say about game development is absolutely true, but you don't actually address the point I made. Namely that this characters are, according to you, coincidentally hyper sexualized for women. Even though they are designed for completely different purposes. That alone is a huge stretch.

2. It seems most of your argument hinges on competence. If we take Kratos as an example, I could just as well argue he is a very incompetent person. He's extremely incompetent in dealing with his emotions, for example.

Honestly, I don't have any prove to back it up, but I'm sure most women in the real world don't find Kratos desirable. He sure as hell isn't the stereotypical attractive male you find in most media designed with women in mind. I think you're forcing this so-called 'required-for-men-to-be-attractive tropes' into characters that don't fit them at all.

Which is one incompetence quite a few women seem to find attractive for some weird reason.

 

[Brakke]

"Make Claim -> Examine all data -> Provide all relevant examples, whether they support the claim or not -> conclusion" is how you explore a hypothesis. That is not what she does.

She's provided a preponderance of relevant examples. It's not like there's some huge opus out there of All Other Games which contradict the framework of her criticism. It's not like she's cherrypicked games here, these are the biggest and most popular and highest profile games that don't involve driving a kart around a track silently or throwing a football silently.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You sure have said "polemic" a lot of times.

It's the appropriate term for what she's doing.

How has she gone out of her way not to explore her hypothesis? The claim is "these are pervasive" and the evidence is "look at all these examples from a diverse slice of games"

What she's doing is the equivalent of saying "negative tropes about women exist in literature" and then copypasting a bunch of individual sentences that contain language demeaning to women from a bunch of different books. A lot of those sentences will indeed be reflective of the tenor of the books she copies them from, but some of them won't be. We have no way of knowing which video games she's misrepresenting without having played the games ourselves, which entirely defeats the purpose of what she's doing. The existence of tropes means nothing in itself, what matters is how those tropes are used. When my undergrads learn what a trope is and turn in the inevitable "TROPES ARE A THING HERE ARE A BUNCH OF TROPES" papers I'm disappointed in them, but Sarkeesian is a grown-ass woman with an MA who should know better.

There's no effort at depth or nuance here. There's no discussion of varied degrees of acceptability, no discussion of whether the tropes she cites might be doing different things in different games. It's literally just a bunch of snippets ripped from context and paraded before her audience to prove the validity of a profoundly inane thesis.

You'll argue that it's not her job to be deep or nuanced or intellectually honest or faithful to her sources, her job is just to spam us with snippets that support her argument and to ignore snippets that don't and to elide all distinctions between the contexts of the different snippets. That she apparently feels this way is precisely why this series is so disappointing. It's also why I keep referring to her as a polemicist.

The only reason it's possible to say that she's doing good work is because the state of games criticism is so pathetically shallow that even someone as deeply unambitious and sloppy as Sarkeesian is raising the bar.