So after reading that link, I find the distinction between feminist factions silly. I don't adhere to any set of rules to determine how I should feel about inequality.
I think whether you're a traditional feminist or an ifeminist or whatever else is irelevant to this discussion of inequality in the video games industry.
Well, the similarities between ifem and Libfem is striking, so I got those confused. Thing is, the classes of fems do a few good things:
1. You noticed how a few people rushed to make sure that they didn't come into play. Way harder to bring up the "concern troll" label once you define what type of fem you are in contrast to the person in the spotlight.
2. You then have an easier time defining what your definitions of gender equality, oppression, goals, and actions to achieve those goals are in comparison to spotlighted fem. In this case, Anita might have the same idea, but what she sees as gender inequality in the cases she presented I might see differently because of how we both interpret a particular scene. The Marian one, for example, can be interpreted differently. You see it as a gender role scene, but I interpreted it differently. Nothing wrong with this, as I made clear, because that's the nature of the beast when you get issues like this come out. You SHOULD have an open mind and difference of opinions, and shouldn't just label people. The "camps" have been around for years and feminists use them freely, so they are not detrimental by themselves (your opinions on what they believe, though, might change that), so those shouldn't count in that equation. But yeah, this is how we see where everyone stands. Some people just don't agree on what should be called out and what is just "crying wolf", but we all want gender equality in some form or fashion.
You can argue that portraying women that want to dress in as little clothing as possible or women who choose to be weak and put themselves in capturable situations is a realistic portrayal of choice.
But I would say that is a disingenuous argument. There is no reason to create women that make these choices in such vast numbers. Especially when you consider the male counterparts and their portrayals.
I do agree that we can OD, and in some part
have ODed, on using certain tropes so much that they become cliche (the right term for this trope the way Anita is bringing it up as). However, I just think we should be careful to not OD the other way and just make things for the sake of having them.
For instance, we've been going on about wanting more female playables. That's cool, and I would be all for it. But I want it to be done in such a way that makes devs want to do more of them because they are in games that don't suck, and they aren't just put in there to please a demographic or to get some cheap sales figures for a game that people would otherwise pass up. I'm not just going to buy a game just because there's a female protagonist in there, but if the game is ALSO done well (as in, I'm going to have fun PLAYING the game as much as I like playing as the "chick"), then that'll change the scene because it'll encourage the production of more games like that.
More to YOUR point, though, we should make both genders equal to each other and not define things based on gender roles but rather roles that a certain character to be in. I think game designers should be free to make characters that would make their game more interesting, and who we can relate to. This is why I try to examine all the circumstances surrounding a kidnapping before I go calling it demoralizing to women. It's because there are some circumstances (like the numbers game that I eluded to in the DD scenario) that I wouldn't expect anyone to have a chance against.
It is basically an argument that realism only applies to women. Men are allowed to have fantastical abilities and despite making terrible choices, their superhuman strength/intelligence/whatever gets them out of trouble. Meanwhile the women's abilities, no matter how amazing the author claims they are, leave them in vulnerable states - left to await their male saviours. Like Zelda for the majority of that series.
The Zelda stuff does bother me...not you bringing it up, but Zelda as an example at all. Before anyone freaks out over that, this is because...has anyone ever known anything about what the timeline for Zelda actually is? More to the point, Zelda 2's manual brought up that every princess was named Zelda, so in theory, you could be saving a different Zelda every single game (and more to THAT point, you could not even be in the same timeline from one game to the next). I don't know. Zelda's case is a weird one for that.
However, on the males always being "macho" part, I would agree with you there, and thank God they've gotten more believable, as well. Nathan Drake, for example, I would call one because he seemed to be one that knew he was in something deep. The characters in Heavy Rain (ALL of them) were very well done and provided for some really deep storyline and dialogue that made you immersed in the story.
Your views do apply to some real life situations. For example, you brought up Jessica Nigri in the last thread. She should be able to dress as she pleases and should not be discriminated against if there are men in costumes just as sexy/scanty.
And if I understand it right, in some ways, I agree with some principles of this faction. I used to post in GirlGAF but I had to step out permanently when I was told people like me do not deserve any respect because we are fine with being housewives.
First off, I'm sorry that had to happen. In all fairness, some women are just fine being one. Some women aren't. I don't think you should be forced into a certain role, however.
I have a deep seeded hatred for that whole Jessica incident. Things got condoned when they shouldn't have, and I even got on Daily Kos about it (rarely do I post a gaming diary entry there).
But I do not find it applicable here. In fictional worlds where creators use very different rule sets in their definitions of "woman" and "man".
This is...where I can say I agree and disagree. I love immersion. If a story is good and well done, and if what happens to any one character somehow breaks that immersion, or it breaks a sort of gender blindness that you could have when playing a game, then you've done something wrong with it. If, however, I could see a person reasonably getting in over their head and getting what's coming to them as a result, and it's within their character and within the bounds of reason for something in the universe to actually happen in terms of action and reaction, then they've done their job, and I'm immersed. Even if someone is captured (and more to the point, if it's a female), if it's within the bounds of reason in that environment, character, story, circumstance, and sanity, then chances are that'll just increase the immersion because you care about those characters.
Fiction is weird because in one way, you want it to, in a sense, mirror reality because you get more relation, but you also want to break from reality from time to time, which makes it a hard balance to achieve. The goal is to give characters their own strengths and weaknesses in order to give them challenges to overcome, fears to conquer and/or to hamper them, etc. Doing that makes for better immersion. You don't want for gender roles to play a part, but you can't let yourself become dictated by the fear that something you do to make a woman weak in a certain area (like, say, her handling a gun, something that would freak many out and that gender wouldn't dictate if you have that fear) would make someone call you a sexist. They should be allowed to make compelling characters.
Of course, some might be saying I'm talking out of my ass there, but this is my opinion about how I think game characters should be made. I want compelling characters that I can relate to and that I can get behind, care about, and make me more immersed into the story because that will be part of what will want me to continue to play the game.
Note that my argument is not so much to change franchises that exist if it doesn't fit. Perhaps Mario should remain as it is and Zelda as it is.
1. Need to bring this up, but when I brought up this on MMO Champion, someone responded that they were a Peach/Bowser shipper growing up. I...don't have anything else to say about that, really. Whatever floats their boat!
2. Like I said, Zelda is a weird case because of how dizzy the canon's timeline can make us. That and I would LOVE a Zelda game where she's the main character. Do it well, and make her like she was in the comic I discussed, and holy fuck, that'll move copies.
3. I've always had a thought about a story in which Mario is about to fight Bowser to save Peach, but then Peach turns evil in such a way that she's found a way to "pussy whip" Bowser to kneel to her, and then capture Mario, challenging him to escape and face her (because she's tired of being abducted, so she decided to show him how it feels to be the abducted). I wouldn't mind that at all. Thinking of writing something like that, actually.
My fight is for future titles, whether they be in existing franchises or new IPs, to have better quality and quantity of female representatives. Spend more time working on her character/in-game portrayal as a human being and less time determining how big her breasts should be, whether she's wearing too much clothing to be titillating enough, and how low the camera should be whenever it pans behind her.
Well, new IPs are always a plus. As long as it's compelling, its a game I want to play, the characters are not bland and boring, and it's done well, then I'd be all for it. But I'd also be all for characters like, say, Bayonetta because in that game's case, her demeanor fit well with the story arc, setting, and environment they wanted. Again, this is fine as long as it's not cheesy and they didn't just do it because of a few laughs or "because they could". I guess I'm more of a liberal mind like that.
It is my belief that these are harmful portrayals that help to perpetuate the myth that it is okay to treat women as objects or simply as the lesser gender. And that leads us to the industry as it is today. Rampant with sexism and with a huge barrier to overcome for any woman interested in entering. She must be prepared to sacrifice her dignity.
Yeah, I think the real world is where we should actually start. How we treat female gamers is a good start. In Anita's case, I just think she's educated far beyond her intelligence, but if you notice, I'm arguing against her not because she's a woman, but by the merits of her argument. This is how gamers SHOULD debate topics. The other thread became a troll breeding ground, and that's usually how things end up anymore. That culture needs to change for us to debate ANY sensitive topic seriously. Can't do that if we have several people making the "u mad bro" types of posts or dismissing things as someone "concern trolling".
Edit: Also note that I believe it is simply not true that the vast majority of feminists want superiority rather than equality. As many "individual feminists" claim. I think the disconnect is that many of these "individual feminists" believe we are closer to equality than we actually are. And so they take that we ask for such huge improvements to mean we want significantly more than equality. It's a disagreement on the current status of women and equality.
Actually, I don't think we should ignore the specific camps because I think it's important to understand the mindset of how people view gender equality and what they believe would be such. Some are proud to call themselves radicals, some are proud to be liberals (like myself).
And again, it's VERY good to have disagreements on how we should define and tackle such issues. Makes us more aware about how others perceive things. I don't necessarily agree with you (and I'm sure you probably don't agree with a good bit of what I've said), but I think those that are tossing around this "concern troll" stuff so carelessly are doing an injustice to those that want to have that civil debate and want to hear what other kinds of feminists have to say about topics such as this, and it just reeks of a bullying tactic.
It's good that the topic is brought up, but I don't like HOW Anita brought it up because I believe (again, this is my opinion here) that she didn't provide a fair representation of the topic based upon what my knowledge of the games she brought up are in comparison to what she said about them. I think a better job could've been done to represent the topic (and personally, I think she should've saved this topic for later on in the series and brought up who she feels are positive female characters in games as an intro).
Oh, and to the others in this thread and who posted in the other one, THIS is how you properly debate about topics in games. Let it be known that you debate things like THIS, you'll be taken a LOT more seriously than if you go for silly labels that are used too freely, and you act like you're twelve or whining because you can't handle an opinion that's different than your own. GG, Freq!