|
Post by Nut on Feb 9, 2012 15:09:43 GMT -5
Right, I'm not saying that there isn't a legitimate complaint here. But in some ways it seems like there's combining topics between sexism in general, or media portrayal of women across the board, or what have you instead of just sexism in geekdom (and also the separate but related topic of why people are unkind in online gaming scenarios) So out of curiosity, what would you consider an example of sexism in geekdom? I've been assuming that encountering generally sexist attitudes in media or fanbases typically considered "geeky" would count as sexism in "geekdom". Maybe it's the word "geekdom" that's the problem, since there have been debates over the definition of "geek" before. Also, CoD may be considered mainstream for guys, but I can't imagine a girl playing CoD not being labeled a geek at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 15:31:54 GMT -5
Just so you know, I think it's unfair to say all female characters are oversexualized. First of all, Barbie Explorer (which isn't the best example because most of you haven't played that game, or if you have, not in years). Nothing remotely sexual about her.
If you look at Neopets, you'll find plot characters like Cylara and Brynn, who are really strong and resourceful.
And in my Dragon Quest 9 game, I have 3 girls and one boy in my party. The girls' breasts are in no way exaggerated, there are only a few clothing items that really expose cleavage. Also, female characters are all sorts of people: you have a princess, a fisherman's daughter, and a scholar's wife. Not one of them is submissive.
And as said before, Hermione in the Harry Potter games isn't sexist at ALL. The only thing I could see that's "girly" is she can turn rabbit statues into rabbits in one of the games.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Feb 9, 2012 15:45:03 GMT -5
Nut: obvious geek niches. Comics portrayal, for example, is a huge one. MMOs tend to be, too. I'm not saying "all examples cited aren't geekdom." I'm saying, if something is less geekdom and more people, perhaps the focus should change from the geek culture consideration to the wider implications.
Sae: actually, Barbie herself is considered by many to be a matter of sexism (which goes back to portrayal of women, ideal woman, etc). And Hermione wouldn't count as she's a tie-in from another media franchise. Barbie's kind of the same. They're video games, but the franchise wasn't created in geek culture or video games itself.
I'm not familiar enough with the others you've cited. But I don't think anyone is trying to be unfair or decry all video games. I think they're trying to have a dialogue about a genuine problem in the culture, even if it may not be 100% saturation, even 80% is pretty high (and I'm just tossing a number out)
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Feb 9, 2012 16:26:19 GMT -5
God forbid that girls take ANY interest in comics and video games that involve fighting and violence and lots of "guy" geared things instead of cutesy, magical sweetie cake puppy dog things
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Feb 9, 2012 16:50:58 GMT -5
Sae: Barbie's from a toy (and she's still very involved in the sexism issue, but that's a whole other debate), Hermione's from a book, and Neopets is both child-geared and anthropomorphic, which cuts down on its ability to be sexualized, unless you're aiming for the furry culture (yet another topic).
Stal: Well, of course sexism isn't restricted solely to geek culture. So some outside sexism will obviously creep its way geekdom. But I'd argue it's more rampant within the culture than outside of it. And it's easier to try keep a debate topic as broad as sexism narrowed into one facet of the problem, or else this would just be too hard to have a conversation about it, at least on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 17:03:21 GMT -5
First of all, could there please be a day when people don't see what I wrote and decide to bluntly disagree for whatever reason? I feel like I'm being talked to like a child. Whatever happened to "From my perspective"?
As a counterpoint, I'm talking about the game itself. Yes, there's a pretty girl who's based off a doll. But this pretty girl is running through jungles and temples like Indiana Jones (whose movies I haven't watched but I've heard things about). She's swinging on ropes, jumping over pits, and braving rivers with crocodiles in them to find treasures.
The point I was trying to make was that just because there are women in a game doesn't mean they're there for the sex appeal. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying that it's not infecting everything, for which we should be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 17:10:22 GMT -5
People disagree with what you said because they disagree with what you said. It's no different from how they'd act towards other people. Also, it's kinda implied that what they're saying is their perspective.
That's a good point. Still, Barbie Explorer has a much different demographic from some of the video games people are talking about here. It makes sense for that particular game to have little in the way of sex appeal--after all, it's aimed at young girls. ^^; So it's not entirely relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Feb 9, 2012 17:16:00 GMT -5
(and also the separate but related topic of why people are unkind in online gaming scenarios) Just to clarify, are you saying that women in games get equal harassment to men? That's the only reason I can think of that you'd say it was an unrelated issue. But is that even true? Are we getting the equal brunt of verbal abuse from frustrated players? Well, let's look at that at face value. That's a tempting excuse, and if it were true I'd sure feel a lot better. I invite you to read fat, ugly, or slutty. Not linking due to language and sexual content, obviously. (It's based on something that was said to the founder: "All women who play video games are either fat, ugly, or slutty. So which are you?") Go through and read some entries. Drink it in. Now completely ignore any report from a woman who received harassment after doing well or poorly in a game. Look at all the entries out of nowhere from people they didn't even play with. Requests for sex, nude pics, etc. Multiple requests for fellatio followed by threats of physical violence for not complying. How do these fall under the realm of normal trash talk? Also (again with World of Warcraft, but I used to be in a top raiding guild so I have a loooot of experience) there are multiple bleeding edge, world class raiding guilds that explicitly forbid female applicants. Vanquish being the most famous on that front, but far from the only. How great is that? Yeah, you have great gear, know the fights, and perform well. You have a vagina though, so get out. Really enjoying the fact that one of the examples of a non-sexual female video game character had their design based off of a German prostitute.
|
|
|
Post by Tam on Feb 9, 2012 17:24:01 GMT -5
Also, female characters are all sorts of people: you have a princess, a fisherman's daughter, and a scholar's wife. Not one of them is submissive. There's still something to be careful of here, though, that doesn't have as much to do with whether or not a character is submissive so much as how much she leans on a male character to validate her role. In at least two of the three examples you listed, the woman is described in terms of her relationship with a male character: the fisherman's daughter, the scholar's wife. Whether or not "princess" also implies such a relationship could probably be debated, but there's a rather annoying trend in media to portray female characters as the offshoots of male ones. I don't mean to make you feel guilty for describing them that way, and a lot of the time I know it's completely subconscious (I've done it in my own writing without realizing it), but when it's done as frequently as it is in modern media, it starts to erase the idea that women are free agents capable of making their own choices and following their own ambitions — they're reduced to a sort of helper or supplementary class whose lives and roles in a story are shaped and defined by men. I mean, obviously women can, are, and should be allowed to be shaped and defined, in part, by the men who mean something to them (just like how men can be shaped and defined in part by women), but it bugs me when women are summarized in terms of that relationship as if it's their most important or distinctive trait. ...Sort of went off on a tangent there. >_> Sorry, just wanted to point that out.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Feb 9, 2012 17:33:31 GMT -5
(and also the separate but related topic of why people are unkind in online gaming scenarios) Just to clarify, are you saying that women in games get equal harassment to men? That's the only reason I can think of that you'd say it was an unrelated issue. But is that even true? Are we getting the equal brunt of verbal abuse from frustrated players? Well, let's look at that at face value. That's a tempting excuse, and if it were true I'd sure feel a lot better. I invite you to read fat, ugly, or slutty. Not linking due to language and sexual content, obviously. (It's based on something that was said to the founder: "All women who play video games are either fat, ugly, or slutty. So which are you?") Go through and read some entries. Drink it in. Now completely ignore any report from a woman who received harassment after doing well or poorly in a game. Look at all the entries out of nowhere from people they didn't even play with. Requests for sex, nude pics, etc. Multiple requests for fellatio followed by threats of physical violence for not complying. How do these fall under the realm of normal trash talk? Also (again with World of Warcraft, but I used to be in a top raiding guild so I have a loooot of experience) there are multiple bleeding edge, world class raiding guilds that explicitly forbid female applicants. Vanquish being the most famous on that front, but far from the only. How great is that? Yeah, you have great gear, know the fights, and perform well. You have a vagina though, so get out. Really enjoying the fact that one of the examples of a non-sexual female video game character had their design based off of a German prostitute. Not in the least what I'm saying. Komo hit on it earlier. Staying focused on the one concept. And while there is bleed over, this kind of verbal abuse is not isolated to geekdom. It's a pervasive internet issue. So it's a related topic to sexism in geekdom, but separate in that it's pervasive and does involve more than just sexism. Sure, you can isolate the sexism aspects, but that doesn't suddenly turn it into a geek thing only. Yes, it happens in MMOs and geekdom. But it happens outside it. Is it a good example of geekdom sexism? So Komo remade my point (though she didn't realize). Some topics can be a bit too broad and expand beyond the point of what the discussion was. Best to separate out what is a geekdom issue to pervasive cultural issues. Sae, I didn't put anything bluntly or talk down to you there. You cited some examples as to why this was not an issue. I pointed out those two examples fall apart because of what happens with them. It's not that you didn't bring up a valid point of "non sexualized" females in games. It's that the games in question (at least Harry Potter and Barbie) are apples and oranges to things like Bayonetta or old school Lara Croft. Heck, I even agreed that you're right on the hyperbole of "all games", but that the good examples barely stack to the bad
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Feb 9, 2012 17:37:41 GMT -5
Also, female characters are all sorts of people: you have a princess, a fisherman's daughter, and a scholar's wife. Not one of them is submissive. There's still something to be careful of here, though, that doesn't have as much to do with whether or not a character is submissive so much as how much she leans on a male character to validate her role. In at least two of the three examples you listed, the woman is described in terms of her relationship with a male character: the fisherman's daughter, the scholar's wife. Whether or not "princess" also implies such a relationship could probably be debated, but there's a rather annoying trend in media to portray female characters as the offshoots of male ones. I don't mean to make you feel guilty for describing them that way, and a lot of the time I know it's completely subconscious (I've done it in my own writing without realizing it), but when it's done as frequently as it is in modern media, it starts to erase the idea that women are free agents capable of making their own choices and following their own ambitions — they're reduced to a sort of helper or supplementary class whose lives and roles in a story are shaped and defined by men. I mean, obviously women can, are, and should be allowed to be shaped and defined, in part, by the men who mean something to them (just like how men can be shaped and defined in part by women), but it bugs me when women are summarized in terms of that relationship as if it's their most important or distinctive trait. ...Sort of went off on a tangent there. >_> Sorry, just wanted to point that out. Tamia, you articulated what I was unable to say (so didn't) earlier about the descriptors. And it's a valid point. Why can't the Scholar's wife be a scholar herself. Or a fisherman's daughter be a fisher? Or farmer? Or warrior? Or simple merchant trying to make her way in the world? Often, just as people in today's society tend to describe themselves based on their jobs, women in media tend to be described based on their male relations.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Feb 9, 2012 17:42:59 GMT -5
Once I asked on youtube why Anime villains are always male and have many female minions, and someone replied "maybe because in the japanese culture, women a submissive?" And lately, the Japanese culture has been spreading really quickly, maybe it made it look natural to boys that women are to serve? *shrugs* Weird theories. O_e But besides that, we're always watching stuff with stereotyped families. And the mother is most of the time smaller and the maid of the house. Sae: I think most people are referring to stuff like this... XD See the sexism here? I think Barbie is sort of sexist because she is super pink and girly and in her world, all girls are girly as well. And when Ken is with them, he's the one driving.. ^_^;
|
|
|
Post by Tam on Feb 9, 2012 17:49:49 GMT -5
Tamia, you articulated what I was unable to say (so didn't) earlier about the descriptors. And it's a valid point. Why can't the Scholar's wife be a scholar herself. Or a fisherman's daughter be a fisher? Or farmer? Or warrior? Or simple merchant trying to make her way in the world? Often, just as people in today's society tend to describe themselves based on their jobs, women in media tend to be described based on their male relations. That's very much what I was getting at, yeah. Heck, I'd be happy if she could be described as a baker or a seamstress or a nurse. A female character doesn't even need to have an unconventional or inherently interesting job to be an interesting character, but I do think she needs to be seen in terms of her own virtue, not the virtue of others.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2012 17:57:59 GMT -5
After skimming through, I'd like to bring up a couple of questions: Why do you consider designing characters with sex appeal a negative thing? Most are still treated just as well as other characters so why is fanservice considered a negative trait? And even with characters that are treated solely as fanservice to attract gamers to the game, why is that considered a problem as well when there are other characters to make up for it?
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Feb 9, 2012 18:00:36 GMT -5
After skimming through, I'd like to bring up a couple of questions: Why do you consider designing characters with sex appeal a negative thing? Most are still treated just as well as other characters so why is fanservice considered a negative trait? And even with characters that are treated solely as fanservice to attract gamers to the game, why is that considered a problem as well when there are other characters to make up for it? I don't really have a problem with sex appeal in general. There's a certain amount of it in any 'attractive' character. I think the problem is designing them solely with fanservice in mind. Male characters in games (not all, but there's a general trend) tend to have their own characters, whereas the woman may be there... just to be a woman. TVTropes describes it pretty well, actually, in their description of the five-man band. There is the Hero, the Lancer, two others, and the Chick. The fact that the Chick is there just because she's a woman says something about stereotypes in general fantasy and fiction. Also, female characters are all sorts of people: you have a princess, a fisherman's daughter, and a scholar's wife. Not one of them is submissive. There's still something to be careful of here, though, that doesn't have as much to do with whether or not a character is submissive so much as how much she leans on a male character to validate her role. In at least two of the three examples you listed, the woman is described in terms of her relationship with a male character: the fisherman's daughter, the scholar's wife. Whether or not "princess" also implies such a relationship could probably be debated, but there's a rather annoying trend in media to portray female characters as the offshoots of male ones. While that's true, you might want to take into account that the fantasy world Sae is describing does seem to be of the more 'medieval' sort. What does a fisherman's daughter (or son) do, anyway, assuming she's fairly young? Help her dad fish? In that case, 'fisher' might be a misleading adjective. Of course, the scholar's wife might well be a person and scholar in her own right, so that's a pretty valid example. I'm just not sure if there's any better way to describe 'fisherman's daughter' than 'fisherman's daughter'.
|
|