Support NeoGAF

[SocksForWoks]

Read my post right above you. That doesn't mean masculinity is toxic. It means there are some aspects of masculinity that are toxic, that are being referred to.

Do you believe some aspects of feminisity are toxic?

 

[More_Badass]

She blames mass shootings on 'toxic masculinity'

Yes.

It doesn't mean what you think it means

Toxic masculinity is just a way to say men don't seek out help due to how likely they are to be singled out as weak, and less manly, for it. It's a real factor for males who needs counseling but don't get it. One of biggest example being PTSD in military vets.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Do you believe some aspects of feminisity are toxic?

In terms of the expectations society places on people as part of the concept of femininity? Absolutely.

 

[stump sock]

She blames mass shootings on 'toxic masculinity'

Yes.

According to this article from 2012, "62 mass shootings — defined as a single spree that killed at least four people — have been carried out in the U.S. since 1982. Only one was perpetrated by a female."

Sounds to me like there might be something worth investigating there, huh?

 

[The Technomancer]

Do you believe some aspects of feminisity are toxic?

Sure. I can't detail it too much, as its not something I've put a lot of thought into, but I don't think any woman doesn't think that there aren't some really nasty values women (or society in general) try to force onto each other either.

There were some great quotes I was reading from the author of Gone Girl recently on what she considered "female violence" that I could see argued as manifestations of "toxic femininety"

 

[zeldablue]

Do you believe some aspects of feminisity are toxic?

Yes.

There are women who rip there faces apart to look like something else. o____o

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Shit people, stop womansplaining and recognise my amazing pun.

 

[The Technomancer]

Shit people, stop womansplaining and recognise my amazing pun.

It was okay

Spoiler

it was pretty good

 

[Kinyou]

Yeah, and I get that. I still think I disagree, though.

Those women characters in Hitman are actually more than background decoration. They are characters that you can interact with... but your only interaction is seemingly to kill (or not to kill) them. In this sense, the game does have a clearly defined role for them, especially once they are dead and their only role, then, is to act as an object that can be manipulated.

In this sense, I guess it comes down to what does "encourage" mean. We can get into specifics, but I'll just say that I can see your point for sure, and I won't argue against it. I just think that the game presents specific intent on what the player can actually "do" with the women, and that provides the possibility (and perhaps even the incentive) to carry out those (perverse) functions.

Yeah, it pretty much hinges on what you define as encouragement. I can just say that if I were to make a video about racism in videogames I wouldn't point to GTA and say how the player can only shoot black people pedestrians if he wants to, is a racist aspect of the game that's encouraged by the devs

I also find it kind of funny when people bring up the "but you're punished for it!" counterpoint, since she addresses that exact point in literally the next sentence. The point is that the "punishment", such as it is, is trivial, and besides, the core "critical path", mechanically optimized playthrough is not the be-all, end-all in terms of what's worthy of analysis.

But wouldn't you say that an optimized playthrough would show what the players are meant to do and which behavior is encouraged?

 

[stump sock]

Shit people, stop womansplaining and recognise my amazing pun.

Someone in another thread pointed out that they might have not included women enemies because it would have been really uncomfortable to watch Joel smash their faces into goo.

I find it weird that it DIDN'T gross people out when it was men. that game was pretty fucked up in that regard.

 

[Brakke]

Shit people, stop womansplaining and recognise my amazing pun.

I loved it.

 

[ampere]

Surprised to see so many people surprised by salary/wages being such a large part of the cost.

It's common in industry that labor is the biggest cost. Particularly software, documentation or media development. The biggest part of every budget for every project I have worked on has by far been salary/wages. The type of work I do is software testing/documentation writing.

That being said, the amount of money she has gotten is not worth the harassment she gets. I wouldn't want to trade places with her.

 

[zeldablue]

Someone in another thread pointed out that they might have not included women enemies because it would have been really uncomfortable to watch Joel smash their faces into goo.

I find it weird that it DIDN'T gross people out when it was men. that game was pretty fucked up in that regard.

Yeah...

They should've just gone for it. The game was brutal enough to handle it.

 

[SocksForWoks]

Someone in another thread pointed out that they might have not included women enemies because it would have been really uncomfortable to watch Joel smash their faces into goo.

I find it weird that it DIDN'T gross people out when it was men. that game was pretty fucked up in that regard.

I saw that thread and am glad we can agree on something. If you're willing to do videogame violence to a man, it shouldn't matter if you do the same to a woman.

 

[hotnheavyload]

It would really depend on how much agency the female characters have and how sexualized the women are. :\

I'm pretty sure having the women being treated like the dudes is kind of what the point is. Though I don't think Anita likes violence in general.

Sexuality will always be a prevailing characteristic in males and females in character building. We are humans; we attract sex, we solicit sex, we have sex and we've had sex for aeons. Sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of or shy away from when amongst adults (though yes, I am a big believer in decorum and 'time and place'). Anyhow, before I spiral off topic any further:

It's all in the execution, I've rolled my eyes at many a bikini-wearing, doe-eyed woman as much as I have with the overtly muscular and masculine male.

Yes I wholeheartedly agree that there is a common trend of dressing women provocatively and amping up their sexuality with no distinct impact on the narrative - it's "just because it looks good". For example, I always cringe when I see a fighting game with a woman wearing little more than a g-string, even if it's for the fact that it's wholly impractical. Why would a female mage need to have her chest exposed? etc etc.

This shallow expression of femininity is barraged upon the gaming industry continuously, but that's not to say that it doesn't exist in the real world - some men and women want to look sexy purely for the sake of it - but yes, we did reach a 'critical mass' a while back which I feel has improved since, with more well-rounded female characters in games. They might not be the majority, but it's a good indication to where this medium is heading.

I watched that linked video with the 'women as window dressing' (i.e. the example of the trafficking ring/strip club), okay, I get what they're trying to do, yet such scenes would hold much less gravitas if it were men being auctioned off or gogo boys in the strip club - but who's to say it shouldn't be tried, I think it certainly should, but it would most likely be met with more mockery and derision.

There is certainly more of a problem with the portrayal of female sexuality in Japanese video games, at least from my own experience.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

But wouldn't you say that an optimized playthrough would show what the players are meant to do and which behavior is encouraged?

Nope.

I hope this isn't derailing, but let me use a parallel example from the game: guns.

The game generally penalizes you for using guns (especially non-silenced ones). If you want the max score, you'll usually kill with the fiber wire or maybe a few of the particularly sneaky environmental kills.

And yet...there are a lot of guns in the game. That's a lot of art assets, animations, sound effects, etc. There's even an entire mechanic that lets you tag enemies and then pop up to execute them from cover.

In other words, it's pretty clear that the developers intended for players to use the guns, even if they understood that a player going for a 100% stealthy playthrough wouldn't do so.

The argument Sarkeesian is making is that games are basically spaces for exploration. You're encouraged, by the very nature of the game, to explore what the game will and won't let you do. All the things in the game are basically toys in a toybox that you get to experiment with.

In that context, putting a bunch of barely-dressed, vulnerable women in a game where your only modes of interaction are "sneak past" and "murder" (or at least, knock out) is encouraging the player to do pretty much what she says.

 

[More_Badass]

I saw that thread and am glad we can agree on something. If you're willing to do videogame violence to a man, it shouldn't matter if you do the same to a woman.

So...not to be rude, but are you going to comment on all the responses explaining what toxic masculinity actually means, or just ignore them and shift to a new discussion?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It was okay

Spoiler

it was pretty good

I loved it.

Someone in another thread pointed out that they might have not included women enemies because it would have been really uncomfortable to watch Joel smash their faces into goo.

I find it weird that it DIDN'T gross people out when it was men. that game was pretty fucked up in that regard.

I haven't actually played it, but that sounds about right. If Manhunt had included female hunters it wouldn't have made the game more disturbing, it had already pretty much reached peak fucked-up.

 

[zeldablue]

Sexuality will always be a prevailing characteristic in males and females in character building. We are humans; we attract sex, we solicit sex, we have sex and we've had sex for aeons. Sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of or shy away from when amongst adults (though yes, I am a big believer in decorum and 'time and place'). Anyhow, before I spiral off topic any further:

It's all in the execution, I've rolled my eyes at many a bikini-wearing, doe-eyed woman as much as I have with the overtly muscular and masculine male.

Yes I wholeheartedly agree that there is a common trend of dressing women provocatively and amping up their sexuality with no distinct impact on the narrative - it's "just because it looks good". For example, I always cringe when I see a fighting game with a woman wearing little more than a g-string, even if it's for the fact that it's wholly impractical. Why would a female mage need to have her chest exposed? etc etc.

This shallow expression of femininity is barraged upon the gaming industry continuously, but that's not to say that it doesn't exist in the real world - some men and women want to look sexy purely for the sake of it - but yes, we did reach a 'critical mass' a while back which I feel has improved since, with more well-rounded female characters in games. They might not be the majority, but it's a good indication to where this medium is heading.

I watched that linked video with the 'women as window dressing' (i.e. the example of the trafficking ring/strip club), okay, I get what they're trying to do, yet such scenes would hold much less gravitas if it were men being auctioned off or gogo boys in the strip club - but who's to say it shouldn't be tried, I think it certainly should, but it would most likely be met with more mockery and derision.

There is certainly more of a problem with the portrayal of female sexuality in Japanese video games, at least from my own experience.

Hmm...
Well male rape victims are largely in the dark and extremely stigmatized by most of society. They can't speak because the weight of shame it would bring to them is too overbearing. Men who reveal their plight end up losing their wives and having their families and friends abandon them in many countries. Mostly because of the stigma.

So maybe representing something like that in the media would be more helpful than harmful. Just so people realize that it is prevalent for men in all countries and especially in wartime scenarios.

Though. I feel that it's too dark and I'm way to immature to even discuss this. :\

I don't think we'd be socially prepared for that in a game.

 

[Nanashrew]

She blames mass shootings on 'toxic masculinity'

Yes.

You're really going there, huh?

Toxic masculinity is a problem and is about the negative sides of masculinity that is often taught to children through parents, friends and media. Men are more often depicted and raised on the idea that men cannot do so and so or like this or that because it's not what "real men" should do or like. That real men should always be aggressive even when unnecessary. That they are entitled to own a woman, that women are beneath them and should cater to them.

To sum up. With the toxic side of masculinity and all of its restrictions in place, a man is not allowed to feel emotion outside of anger and lust. Period. Not even allowed to ask for help.

 

[Kinyou]

Nope.

I hope this isn't derailing, but let me use a parallel example from the game: guns.

The game generally penalizes you for using guns (especially non-silenced ones). If you want the max score, you'll usually kill with the fiber wire or maybe a few of the particularly sneaky environmental kills.

And yet...there are a lot of guns in the game. That's a lot of art assets, animations, sound effects, etc. There's even an entire mechanic that lets you tag enemies and then pop up to execute them from cover.

In other words, it's pretty clear that the developers intended for players to use the guns, even if they understood that a player going for a 100% stealthy playthrough wouldn't do so.

The argument Sarkeesian is making is that games are basically spaces for exploration. You're encouraged, by the very nature of the game, to explore what the game will and won't let you do. All the things in the game are basically toys in a toybox that you get to experiment with.

In that context, putting a bunch of barely-dressed, vulnerable women in a game where your only modes of interaction are "sneak past" and "murder" (or at least, knock out) is encouraging the player to do pretty much what she says.

So how comes that you find scenario A: "Player sneaks past the strippers" a lot more on youtube than scenario B: "Players knocksout/kills the strippers" ? The only reason I can think of for that is that scenario A is encouraged while scenario B is not.

The argument that just because it is in the game, it's encouraged simply doesn't work for me. Like, does the game also encourage you to be "misandrist" because you can decide to only kill men? It is a toybox that allows the player to approach the game's levels as they want, but what they encourage is clearly defined.

 

[SocksForWoks]

True, in Hitman you get the highest score by making all the 'targets' die by what look to be accidents. Its even canon in the story, that's part of why its so hard for the authorities and main antogonists to deal with Agent 47. Your 'targets' are well deserving of their deaths too, each mission gives the backstory of the horrible things they did to earn the very expensive assassination. In other words, they aren't innocent at all. Of course like GTA you can pretty much play however you wish.

 

[Bleepey]

I want to see this. It's one of the reasons why I feel Naughty Dog made the wrong decision by not including female human enemies in The Last of Us.

In fiction, "men do, women are." The generic male enemies the player kills in scores are all action and no identity, while the females killed for cheap shock effect are all identity and no action. Letting both sexes fill those roles helps to get rid of that problem.

Remember that Last of Us video of the guy pleading for his life before being shot in the head? Gamers may see it as relevant to the story, but the Daily Mail and Australian and German censors probably won't.

 

[kingdoug87]

I saw that thread and am glad we can agree on something. If you're willing to do videogame violence to a man, it shouldn't matter if you do the same to a woman.

If you're willing to do videogame anything to a man, it shouldn't matter if you do the same to a woman?

 

[stump sock]

If you're willing to do videogame anything to a man, it shouldn't matter if you do the same to a woman?

whoa whoa whoa, let's not get crazy here. let's test the water with violence and see how that works out.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

So how comes that you find scenario A: "Player sneaks past the strippers" a lot more on youtube than scenario B: "Players knocksout/kills the strippers" ? The only reason I can think of for that is that scenario A is encouraged while scenario B is not.

Because people on Youtube are often doing "optimized" playthroughs. Again, you also won't see most of them shooting their way through everything, either.

A big part of the Hitman series is just playing around with the simulation. That's been the case since the very first game. Hell, Absolution has actual in-game accomplishments for each level that require you to do exactly that, playing sub-optimally in order to do weird or funny or particularly impressive stuff.

It's like saying that GTA "discourages" players from running over pedestrians because doing so increases your wanted level and makes cops come after you. That is a thing that happens, yes, but anyone actually trying to argue that running over pedestrians isn't a huge part of what people do in GTA would be laughed at.

The argument that just because it is in the game, it's encouraged simply doesn't work for me. Like, does the game also encourage you to be "misandrist" because you can decide to only kill men?

No? But the thing is, those men aren't generally helpless, sexualized victims, either. There are innocent male bystanders, but you don't get the weird, kind of creepy mix of sexualization, vulnerability, and violence that you do with the specific example she uses.

 

[Toxi]

Sexuality will always be a prevailing characteristic in males and females in character building.

Is it really? The majority of male video game characters I know of do not have sexuality as a prevailing characteristic in their design or character.

Hell, you can see the difference in Monster Hunter with the male and female armors. It's rare to find a G-rank male armor that doesn't cover the face and most of the body, and it's rare to find a G-rank female armor that covers the face and thighs.

It's all in the execution, I've rolled my eyes at many a bikini-wearing, doe-eyed woman as much as I have with the overtly muscular and masculine male.

Muscular does not mean sexual. Ryu from Street Fighter is made of muscle and is a completely asexual character that is never portrayed in a particularly sexual manner in the games. Marcus Fenix is basically made of muscle and I don't think he's ever been portrayed as attractive or sexual. The majority of muscular generic enemies aren't sexual at all.

There are muscular men portrayed in a sexual manner in video games, but they're not exactly the norm.

 

[Agremont]

Sexuality will always be a prevailing characteristic in males and females in character building.

For female characters maybe. And it makes me sad.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

(Comes into thread)

Oh I see we're discussing how vile thunderfoot is. (Looks at watch) what time is the the TotalBiscuit discussion?

Srsly One of the many reasons I can't take Gamergate seriously is that most of their advocates are just plain bad human beings.


More on topic i watched a thunderfoot video about anita once. The first five minutes were about how video games don't cause violence so obviously they can't cause misogyny cos they are totally equatable. Can't take him seriously.

Lol...Regular scheduling. Someone needs to do a Tropes Versus Gamergate video. Go kickstart that.

Caught by the Thunderfoot, slipped and fell should be a trope by now.

 

[Kinyou]

Because people on Youtube are often doing "optimized" playthroughs. Again, you also won't see most of them shooting their way through everything, either.

A big part of the Hitman series is just playing around with the simulation. That's been the case since the very first game. Hell, Absolution has actual in-game accomplishments for each level that require you to do exactly that, playing sub-optimally in order to do weird or funny or particularly impressive stuff.

It's like saying that GTA "discourages" players from running over pedestrians because doing so increases your wanted level and makes cops come after you. That is a thing that happens, yes, but anyone actually trying to argue that running over pedestrians isn't a huge part of what people do in GTA would be laughed at.

Well, I'd actually say that the game discourages you through that. If you spend the whole time killing pedestrians you'll have a hard time getting to the next story mission...

No? But the thing is, those men aren't generally helpless, sexualized victims, either. There are innocent male bystanders, but you don't get the weird, kind of creepy mix of sexualization, vulnerability, and violence that you do with the specific example she uses.

Why wouldn't it actually make the game "misandrist" if you only choose to kill men? (insert any other type of gender/race if you like) You didn't really answer that part. Unless you mean that the player is encouraged to kill the strippers because they're half naked, and that doesn't really make sense to me.
I feel like you can twist the argument "because it's in the game it's encouraged" to every angle you like. Does Mario allow players to jump into bottomless pits? That means it encourages suicidal behavior! Does Bayonetta allow the player to put the controller away and watch Bayonetta helplessly die? That means it encourages the player to watch violence against women!

 

[stump sock]

.

this is all just diluting the original argument that there are NPCs in the game who exist for two reasons:

- to have sex with
- to kill

while your only interactions with most NPCs boil down to "kill or ignore," there's something more disturbing when you add that additional option. Smarter people than me have discussed it better than I can.

 

[foltzie1]

Well, I'd actually say that the game discourages you through that. If you spend the whole time killing pedestrians you'll have a hard time getting to the next story mission...


Why wouldn't it actually make the game "misandrist" if you only choose to kill men? (insert any other type of gender/race if you like) You didn't really answer that part. Unless you mean that the player is encouraged to kill the strippers because they're half naked, and that doesn't really make sense to me.
I feel like you can twist the argument "because it's in the game it's encouraged" to every angle you like. Does Mario allow players to jump into bottomless pits? That means it encourages suicidal behavior! Does Bayonetta allow the player to put the controller away and watch Bayonetta helplessly die? That means it encourages the player to watch violence against women!

I see we arent yet prepared to participate seriously. Alas. I'll quote myself again

Adult topics deserve adult consideration, not the mewling of the immature.

But just in case someone is reading, there are many games (see the relevant FF video for examples) where you are in fact rewarded for attacking/killing scantily clad women. Since it is common enough to have a patter, this is what is called a trope. Whether a trope is bad in itself is a different discussion, though in this case it isnt positive. This does not mean the game having said trope should not be played, but at least the trope should be acknowledged for what it is, and hopefully the next game designer will think twice before using the trope.

Why the confusion? Well, because of posts like the above that suggest that because Mario has pits, he is encouraged to jump in them, or because some games penalize for harming some women, it "balances" out the ones that actively reward you for going out of your way to harm women specifically.

Mario isnt rewarded for jumping in a pit, and Bayonetta isnt rewarded for standing around and absorbing damage.

Regarding Mario, a more reasonable suggestion would be to ask if the game encourages violence to animals given that Mario seems to spend his games killing turtles.

 

[Kinyou]

this is all just diluting the original argument that there are NPCs in the game who exist for two reasons:

- to have sex with
- to kill

while your only interactions with most NPCs boil down to "kill or ignore," there's something more disturbing when you add that additional option. Smarter people than me have discussed it better than I can.

The original argument is actually about Hitman. And in Hitman you can't have sex with any of the women. And while the only player interaction with them is knocking out/killing, the reason they are there is to serve as obstacles, because, like all the other NPCs in the game, they might discover you and ring alarm. And the game encourages a stealthy approach over a confrontational one, and that's why I take issue when she says in the video "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female characters"

I see we arent yet prepared to participate seriously. Alas.

But just in case someone is reading, there are many games (see the relevant FF video for examples) where you are in fact rewarded for attacking/killing scantily clad women. Since it is common enough to have a patter, this is what is called a trope. Whether a trope is bad in itself is a different discussion, though in this case it isnt positive. This does not mean the game having said trope should not be played, but at least the trope should be acknowledged for what it is, and hopefully the next game designer will think twice before using the trope.

Why the confusion? Well, because of posts like the above that suggest that because Mario has pits, he is encouraged to jump in them, or because some games penalize for harming some women, it "balances" out the ones that actively reward you for going out of your way to harm women specifically.

Mario isnt rewarded for jumping in a pit, and Bayonetta is rewarded for standing around and absorbing damage.

Regarding Mario, a more reasonable suggestion would be to ask if the game encourages violence to animals given that Mario seems to spend his games killing turtles.

And in Hitman the player isn't rewarded for killing the strippers either. Frankly I find it confusing how hard it seems for some people to comprehend that someone might take issue with that specific part of the video. I'm not saying that this devaluates everything else she says, I'm just saying that this is a bad example and a misrepresentation of the game.

And when you mention that there's a FF game where you actually get rewarded for attacking barely dressed women, then that would have made a good example for the video. This one didn't. That's my whole point. But just keep continuing with your holier than thouh attitude. It clearly shows how interested you are in a normal discussion.

 

[Veelk]

She blames mass shootings on 'toxic masculinity'

Yes.

Wow.

Anyway I'm definitely not feeling safe with all this hostility towards me right now.

Do you believe some aspects of feminisity are toxic?

Without meaning to offend, I feel you are a very good representation of anti-feminist proponents in that you don't really seem to understand what feminism actually is about. You take comments you obviously aren't familiar with at face value, get offended by them and decry the speaker as crazy for speaking them. Then, when you are engaged in a perfectly civil manner, you interpret that as hostility. The fact that you even have to ask if people believed feminisity has it's own toxicity implies that you think they didn't. Of course feminisity can be toxic. Anything can be, potentially.

And this is the kind of behavior I see by just about anyone against feminism. I've yet to ever see anyone actually disagree with feminism on principle, because to do that, you literally have to sat "I believe women do not deserve the same rights as men.", because while there are many layers of depth and perspectives, that's all feminism amounts to in the end. Because that mindset is obviously wrong, but all the same, feminism has plenty of opponents and virtually all of them either think or intentionally misconstrue feminism into something it's not like some kind of agenda where females take over the world or have more rights than men or think themselves superior. While this is true for some misandrogynistic feminists they are an extreme minority and the vast majority of feminism is not about that at all.

Honestly, the most frustrating thing about all this is not any actual debates being had. It's the fact that the other side is merely uneducated or willfully ignorant to seeing feminism for what it is. Because I can't imagine a rational reason for why, with an accurate representation of feminism, anyone would be against it. Socks, my advise to you is to not be like that and truly get informed. Read some books, watch feminism 101, talk to the people here and look with a clear mind what kind of issues they are talking about and why they are bad. Then tell say if feminism is extremist.

 

[tonysidaway]

And while the only player interaction with them is knocking out/killing, the reason they are there is to serve as obstacles, because, like all the other NPCs in the game, they might discover you and ring alarm. And the game encourages a stealthy approach over a confrontational one, and that's why I take issue when she says in the video "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female characters"

The more I see people trying to explain away Hitman 2, the more I wonder if there's some basic limitation that prevents them from reading back their own words before posting.

 

[CapHarlock]

Man I gotta start a KS sometime. Free money...

It's not that easy. Most KS fail

 

[chaobreaker]

Warning for those engaging SocksForWoks: He's doing the exact same obtuse JAQing off dance-and-number he did in the previous Gamergate threads. Pretty sure he's coming to this thread with the exact same intentions.

EDIT: Spoke too late, it seems.

 

[Gummb]

Without meaning to offend, I feel you are a very good representation of anti-feminist proponents in that you don't really seem to understand what feminism actually is about. You take comments you obviously aren't familiar with at face value, get offended by them and decry the speaker as crazy for speaking them. Then, when you are engaged in a perfectly civil manner, you interpret that as hostility. The fact that you even have to ask if people believed feminisity has it's own toxicity implies that you think they didn't. Of course feminisity can be toxic. Anything can be, potentially.

And this is the kind of behavior I see by just about anyone against feminism. I've yet to ever see anyone actually disagree with feminism on principle, because to do that, you literally have to sat "I believe women do not deserve the same rights as men.", because while there are many layers of depth and perspectives, that's all feminism amounts to in the end. Because that mindset is obviously wrong, but all the same, feminism has plenty of opponents and virtually all of them either think or intentionally misconstrue feminism into something it's not like some kind of agenda where females take over the world or have more rights than men or think themselves superior. While this is true for some misandrogynistic feminists they are an extreme minority and the vast majority of feminism is not about that at all.

Honestly, the most frustrating thing about all this is not any actual debates being had. It's the fact that the other side is merely uneducated or willfully ignorant to seeing feminism for what it is. Because I can't imagine a rational reason for why, with an accurate representation of feminism, anyone would be against it. Socks, my advise to you is to not be like that and truly get informed. Read some books, watch feminism 101, talk to the people here and look with a clear mind what kind of issues they are talking about and why they are bad. Then tell say if feminism is extremist.

I would say that feminism actually is pretty extremist, even for today. Topics like these make that clear to me - it is still not common to practice equality toward men and women.

As for rational reasons why someone would be against feminism, there is always the argument that men do not want to change the power dynamic between genders and are happy with the social norms of treatment toward women. Feminism is a challenge to those social norms. It's much more difficult than legal equality in my opinion. We're dealing with hundreds of years of ingrained behavior.

Anyway, I would say that is a "rational" reason - in the case of self interest.

 

[hotnheavyload]

Is it really? The majority of male video game characters I know of do not have sexuality as a prevailing characteristic in their design or character.

Motivation can also be an expression of sexuality, it is not always strictly physical.

In the many instances where the "damsel in distress" needs rescuing, it can also be construed as a male character's desire for the opposite sex. Romantic love is an expression of human sexuality, in video games, male sexuality is just far more nuanced than the awkward display of woman with large breasts sashaying around in a thong.

Would a heterosexual male like Mario want to rescue a less sexually desirable princess than Peach? Does this assume that men are incapable of being proactive about anything that doesn't involve their penis? This trivializes both male and female sexuality (I am by no means suggesting that people read more into Mario games than need be, this is just an example, lol).

But as with most modern media, the creator/s only have so much time to present their characters and world to the audience, so we are left with a very loose impression of a characters wants and needs outside of the superficial.

The problem with female sexuality in games is almost only based on physical expression. Sometimes this works (Bayonetta imo), often it doesn't and comes off as juvenile fantasy - which isn't to be unexpected given the nature of the medium (i.e. it's not real).

Muscular does not mean sexual. Ryu from Street Fighter is made of muscle and is a completely asexual character that is never portrayed in a particularly sexual manner in the games. Marcus Fenix is basically made of muscle and I don't think he's ever been portrayed as attractive or sexual. The majority of muscular generic enemies aren't sexual at all.

There are muscular men portrayed in a sexual manner in video games, but they're not exactly the norm.

Neither Marcus nor Anya are sexualised due to the context of the game.

Yet there is a perception that strength = male which itself can be an assumption of sexual prowess, it is just appealing to an audience in more ways than the one dimensional displays of female sexual expression, which is usually only communicated through the exaggeration of femininity and physical sexual cues (lips, hips, thighs, breasts).

As such, a the depiction of the rugged, muscular, physically capable male is also in part pandering to an audience using their sexuality. Context, however, mostly skews the reality away from that (muscles on a man in fighting game = makes sense, a thong and full makeup on a woman in a fighting game = made to appeal).

You're right about it not being the norm, and while there are precedences of overt physical examples of male sexuality in games, it is nowhere near as common as aggressive display female physical sexuality.

Would you like to see more sexualised depictions of men in video games? I would.

I totally acknowledge the disparity between physically sexualised males and females in games, and I also acknowledge that the one-dimensional expression of sexuality it's a much bigger issue for females, but sometimes it's just nice to look at beautiful things, I am a gay man and yet I also appreciate looking at beautiful women. That isn't a bad thing, it's just the sheer amount of female game characters created to appeal to sexual appetites is quite distasteful.

 

[Kinyou]

The more I see people trying to explain away Hitman 2, the more I wonder if there's some basic limitation that prevents them from reading back their own words before posting.

In case it wasn't clear, by "stealthy approach" i meant sneaking past. If that's the part that bothered you. But I don't know if that was it because you didn't bother to explain but rather made a snarky remark. It's that kind of attitude that just makes these discussions insufferable. But I guess you reached your goal, because I'm done with this now.

Have a nice day.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Ugh, god, the Hitman example again. If thunderf00t were right about literally everything else he'd ever said, he'd still have a ton to answer for as a result of that disingenuous, misleading argument alone.

It's a textbook case of misrepresenting/oversimplifying an argument to have a convenient straw man to rail against, which is pretty much his M.O. from start to finish.

I also find it kind of funny when people bring up the "but you're punished for it!" counterpoint, since she addresses that exact point in literally the next sentence. The point is that the "punishment", such as it is, is trivial, and besides, the core "critical path", mechanically optimized playthrough is not the be-all, end-all in terms of what's worthy of analysis.

EDIT: Tfoot seems to be one of those "If it's not a STEM field, it's not sufficiently rigorous or worthy of consideration as a legitimate discipline" people. He also seems to think that being educated in a STEM field automatically means you get to act like an expert on any other non-STEM field (such as media criticism) while dismissing people who actually are experts on the subject.

It's been a while, but I remember in one of her videos she talked about getting "bonuses" and cash off of the dead bodies of strippers/hookers in GTA. Tiny amounts of cash and bonuses that I wasn't even aware of, trivial stuff, like brief sprint increase or something like that. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but it seems both are so little and trivial that they hardly contributed to points she was making.

I want to see this. It's one of the reasons why I feel Naughty Dog made the wrong decision by not including female human enemies in The Last of Us.

In fiction, "men do, women are." The generic male enemies the player kills in scores are all action and no identity, while the females killed for cheap shock effect are all identity and no action. Letting both sexes fill those roles helps to get rid of that problem.

it's even more baffling considering you do the same nasty executions you do in the SP to female models in the MP. At least from a pure violence/gore perspective, it was already in the game, so I can only assume some sort of character development reason cut it out.

 

[Veelk]

I would say that feminism actually is pretty extremist, even for today. Topics like these make that clear to me - it is still not common to practice equality toward men and women.

As for rational reasons why someone would be against feminism, there is always the argument that men do not want to change the power dynamic between genders and are happy with the social norms of treatment toward women. Feminism is a challenge to those social norms. It's much more difficult than legal equality in my opinion. We're dealing with hundreds of years of ingrained behavior.

Anyway, I would say that is a "rational" reason - in the case of self interest.

When I say rational, I don't mean one can't do it for reasons that are externally rational, such as self interest. Obviously, no one who has power wants to give up power.

But what I'm talking about is rational disagreement on the principle. Assuming that a hypothetical person has no corruptive factors that influence his philosophy and is tackling feminism in all sincerity because he truly believes that feminism is an ideology that will make the world a worse place to live for everyone, I can't think of a rational argument he could make without strawmanning the fuck out of it.

And what I meant by extreme is not in that the subject is far from the norm, but that feminists want to go too far with their ideology and make a matriarchal world. Very few feminists actually have that as their goal.

 

[zeldablue]

I would say that feminism actually is pretty extremist, even for today. Topics like these make that clear to me - it is still not common to practice equality toward men and women.

As for rational reasons why someone would be against feminism, there is always the argument that men do not want to change the power dynamic between genders and are happy with the social norms of treatment toward women. Feminism is a challenge to those social norms. It's much more difficult than legal equality in my opinion. We're dealing with hundreds of years of ingrained behavior.

Anyway, I would say that is a "rational" reason - in the case of self interest.

Yeah...I would consider it a worldview threat. Feminism tends to interrupt what many people would consider the natural order of things. Thooough, what's natural to them is actually just society ingraining a list of rules and expectations on us from an early age. We feel safety from the certainty of our beliefs, which means people who shake that belief tend to attract a lot of hate.

When I was learning Modern Art History, we went over the feminist art movement. Some of my friends were atheists, and they were fuming mad over some of the art pieces from the 70's. (They were balls to the walls.) But after class they sat down and said they respected those feminists because they had to challenge so many things the same way atheists do. There's a lot of thinking and "letting go" when it comes to these topics. The discomfort comes from questioning something one feels false certainty towards. I think they attract dirt because it is basically a worldview threat. Something that challenges the very meaning of life. :0

 

[Gummb]

When I say rational, I don't mean one can't do it for reasons that are externally rational, such as self interest. Obviously, no one who has power wants to give up power.

But what I'm talking about is rational disagreement on the principle. Assuming that a hypothetical person has no corruptive factors that influence his philosophy and is tackling feminism in all sincerity because he truly believes that feminism is an ideology that will make the world a worse place to live for everyone, I can't think of a rational argument he could make without strawmanning the fuck out of his opponent.

And what I meant by extreme is not in that the subject is far from the norm, but that feminists want to go too far with their ideology and make a matriarchal world. Very few feminists actually have that as their goal.

Ah, that makes sense. It's good to clarify that, because I agree.

Also, I just want to say that it's fun seeing GAF become incredibly articulate. It's amazing what can come out when this stuff happens.

 

[zeldablue]

Motivation can also be an expression of sexuality, it is not always strictly physical.

In the many instances where the "damsel in distress" needs rescuing, it can also be construed as a male character's desire for the opposite sex. Romantic love is an expression of human sexuality, in video games, male sexuality is just far more nuanced than the awkward display of woman with large breasts sashaying around in a thong.

Would a heterosexual male like Mario want to rescue a less sexually desirable princess than Peach? Does this assume that men are incapable of being proactive about anything that doesn't involve their penis? This trivializes both male and female sexuality (I am by no means suggesting that people read more into Mario games than need be, this is just an example, lol).

But as with most modern media, the creator/s only have so much time to present their characters and world to the audience, so we are left with a very loose impression of a characters wants and needs outside of the superficial.

The problem with female sexuality in games is almost only based on physical expression. Sometimes this works (Bayonetta imo), often it doesn't and comes off as juvenile fantasy - which isn't to be unexpected given the nature of the medium (i.e. it's not real).



Neither Marcus nor Anya are sexualised due to the context of the game.

Yet there is a perception that strength = male which itself can be an assumption of sexual prowess, it is just appealing to an audience in more ways than the one dimensional displays of female sexual expression, which is usually only communicated through the exaggeration of femininity and physical sexual cues (lips, hips, thighs, breasts).

As such, a the depiction of the rugged, muscular, physically capable male is also in part pandering to an audience using their sexuality. Context, however, mostly skews the reality away from that (muscles on a man in fighting game = makes sense, a thong and full makeup on a woman in a fighting game = made to appeal).

You're right about it not being the norm, and while there are precedences of overt physical examples of male sexuality in games, it is nowhere near as common as aggressive display female physical sexuality.

Would you like to see more sexualised depictions of men in video games? I would.

I totally acknowledge the disparity between physically sexualised males and females in games, and I also acknowledge that the one-dimensional expression of sexuality it's a much bigger issue for females, but sometimes it's just nice to look at beautiful things, I am a gay man and yet I also appreciate looking at beautiful women. That isn't a bad thing, it's just the sheer amount of female game characters created to appeal to sexual appetites is quite distasteful.

When I see Kratos smacking his own ass and making constant moaning sounds and flirting noises...

that's when I'll believe that men and women are equal. >__>

 

[Gummb]

Yeah...I would consider it a worldview threat. Feminism tends to interrupt what many people would consider the natural order of things. Thooough, what's natural to them is actually just society ingraining a list of rules and expectations on us from an early age. We feel safety from the certainty of our beliefs, which means people who shake that belief tend to attract a lot of hate.

When I was learning Modern Art History, we went over the feminist art movement. Some of my friends were atheists, and they were fuming mad over some of the art pieces from the 70's. But after class they sat down and said they respected those feminists because they had to challenge so many things the same way atheists do. There's a lot of thinking and "letting go" when it comes to these topics. I think they attract dirt because it is basically a worldview threat. Something that challenges the very meaning of life. :0

Dude, I wanna see some of this feminist art. Care to link some and tell me about it?

I also like how feminist studies has also taken gender, race, sexuality, and all social identifiers under its wing of study. I wish there was a better name to talk about all of these things, but for now, feminism and the equality of gender will have to come first.

About the worldview threat... I'm fascinated by some of the philosophy of the utility of our current social norms. For example, the creation of the nuclear family unit as a triumph of the civil society and that without it, our nation's achievements might begin to crumble. Or that gender norms help to inspire and motivate progress through certain objectifications - the woman as achievement. It's all super messed up.

Anyway, yeah... Go Anita!

 

[hotnheavyload]

When I see Kratos smacking his own ass and making constant moaning sounds and flirting noises...

that's when I'll believe that men and women are equal. >__>

Haha, I hope I live to see the day.

As a side note, the discussion on video game sexuality needs more context, which I feel also depends on where the game is developed, hence my bringing up Japanese-developed games before.

There are very distinct differences in the representation of women in games based on the culture from where they're derived in a general sense. I feel like Western developers are much more progressive in this area. Possibly not for this thread, but it's a valid topic of discussion.

 

[Riposte]

With some imagination, it's fairly easy to build misogynistic-necrophiliac sand castles within a sandbox that dares to include both "murder" and sexually-themed "women" game objects, amongst whatever other elements. The real questions though are why those pushing that interpretation hardly acknowledging the lengths that must go through to build them and to what end?

 

[scoobidoo112]

Good on Anita for letting the public know how the money is being spent. The more transparency the better, so I applaud her for it.

 

[zeldablue]

Dude, I wanna see some of this feminist art. Care to link some and tell me about it?

Hmm, a lot of the art was basically a big "F you" to its audience. There was one woman who did performance art where she ran around naked breaking things on a table. And then pulled out a huge list of complaints from critics out of her vagina and then screamed them aloud as she read. Most of the complaints were about her being an attention whore. It was weeeeeeeeird. (I'm not searching for it...)

Imagine Anita doing that!

Aside from that, their complaints were that they couldn't gain recognition without having a male figure (husband, father, brother etc) be placed by their name. They had to be addressed as daughter or wife of. That pissed them off because they wanted to stand alone and be respected without a man to prop them up. They couldn't even be looked at if they didn't have a famous guy behind them. The elitism was very...well, sexist.

They were denied the ability to do high art, like Minimalism and Abstract Expressionism. It was deemed too logical or rational for their tiny brains or something. They were only allowed to do soft arts like knitting, stitching and ceramics. So they made a lot of floral patterns that looked like vaginas. The Dinner Party is a huge table filled with vagina plates that are dedicated to all the historic women omitted in history. Womanhouse was a project where college women took a house and put all of their grievances about feminine constraints into it. They weren't taught much about construction or handyman work, so the house was a way to learn that while expressing themselves. The bathroom is filled with period blood, and they asked families to tour the house.The skits they do in front of men and children are just...woaaah. (This one is tame.)

In general, it was a lot of vaginas and boobs and parodies and mockery of sexism stuff. At the time I was pretty anti-feminist, so the whole thing was a cringe. But an intriguing cringe. Like a I-can't-look-away-cringe. But there was a slight tinge of respect with it as well. I realize people had to do stupid things in order to spell out the absurdity and contradictory nature of sexism.

I don't really consider myself anti-feminist or feminist. I'm just here to hang out and see where things go. I do feel more cultured for being open though.