Support NeoGAF

[zeldablue]

I, along with most others here, were raised on violent video games.

No one should be advocating censorship. Just better representation.

Like, leave the sexual violence in, but don't use it to incentivize violence on a bad guy. Just an example: in Majora's Mask, a king gets so angry about his daughter being taken from him he tortures a suspect (who was innocent) in boiling water for 3 days...all while not even bothering to find and help his daughter. He completely lost track of the actual problem because he got hung up on revenge and punishment. If you use women as an incentive for violence, you turn every player into the angry Deku King. The stupid, foolish hate-filled deku king. You tell the player that killing the bad people is more important than the actual victimization of someone else. The girl's life isn't even part of the equation, she could easily be swapped out with any other form of the king's property.

Games don't make people violent, but games when added with other forms of media keep painful stereotypes deep-seated into everyone's minds.

 

[Brakke]

^^^ avatar quote, agreement

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

I, along with most others here, were raised on violent video games.

No one should be advocating censorship. Just better representation.

Like, leave the sexual violence in, but don't use it to incentivize violence on a bad guy. Just an example: in Majora's Mask, a king gets so angry about his daughter being taken from him he tortures a suspect (who was innocent) in boiling water for 3 days...all while not even bothering to find and help his daughter. He completely lost track of the actual problem because he got hung up on revenge and punishment. If you use women as an incentive for violence, you turn every player into the angry Deku King. The stupid, foolish hate-filled deku king. You tell the player that killing the bad people is more important than the actual victimization of someone else. The girl's life isn't even part of the equation, she could easily be swapped out with any other form of the king's property.

Games don't make people violent, but games when added with other forms of media keep painful stereotypes deep-seated into everyone's minds.

You read way too much into that game.

 

[zeldablue]

You read way too much into that game.

Hahaha,

I compare everything to Zelda. It's just a thing I do. Majora's Mask is just especially good at showing the different emotional defense mechanisms of human psychology when faced with loss, doubt or rejection.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I mean in terms of facetime Bonnie is by far the female character who shows up the most. I think this is part of my problem with Sarkeesian's methodology: to me it matters if a given game on the whole is doing an OK job or not, so I view it as misleading when she talks about a super minor mechanic like random prostitute knifings and then totally ignores a strong female character in the narrative. To her it only seems to matter that the industry as a whole is doing a bad job, so it's irrelevant to bring up examples of what the games she talks about are doing right.

But the topic in this video isn't Side Character Women in Specific Games. It's Women as Background Decoration. Bonnie isn't an example of background decoration. You are a historian who apparently grades papers. If the assignment was a report on the French Revolution but instead discussed the French's actions in WW2, you'd probably fail them.
She is showing how these tropes are prevalent in the gaming industry. She's not even saying these games all suck for having them in it. Just that this is a trend that is common and it sends a negative message. Bonnie existing doesn't vanish away the random prostitute knifings. And as she says, "remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects."

I don't know, that's certainly not my style when grading student papers, you know? And I'm glad it's not my advisor's style when going over my work. To me it's just as important to tell someone what they're doing right as it is to tell them what they're doing wrong.

So what is she doing right? You certainly seem to be focusing on what you think she's doing wrong, yourself.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

But the topic in this video isn't Side Character Women in Specific Games. It's Women as Background Decoration. Bonnie isn't an example of background decoration. You are a historian who apparently grades papers. If the assignment was a report on the French Revolution but instead discussed the French's actions in WW2, you'd probably fail them.

But she was the one who chose to make her series a trope parade in the first place. She could have chosen to do something more ambitious and more meaningful. If I had a student who gave me a paper that was literally just a bunch of examples of tropes with no argument beyond "negative tropes exist and are common" I'd fail the fuck out of it. And if the argument was "women are portrayed negatively in literature from this period" (already the question is: compared to what?? compared to movies from this period?) and the evidence was just a bunch of examples of negative tropes without any attempt to account for counterexamples I'd probably give the student a stern talking to for being intellectually dishonest.

So what is she doing right? You certainly seem to be focusing on what you think she's doing wrong, yourself.

Honestly? I just don't think she's doing a very good job. I find her methodology to be shallow and kind of pointless. The only thing I can say that she's doing well is that she's talking about an important issue, but that's an incredibly low bar that I don't really feel warrants praise. There's no insight, there's no nuance, there's no problematization of her own thesis. This sort of stuff is only tolerable because gaming is so woefully underanalyzed.

 

[blankempathy]

I never really played Red Dead, just watched my roommate play it a bunch. Were there ladies in the canon fodder / goon posses? I know you fight Mexican Army goons for a while, so those wouldn't be women, but what about just generic member-of-gang? That was super weak in The Last of Us that all the goons were dudes.
on some level (It's parody! It's purposely a trope! It's historically accurate!) there's no context in which the sum total makes sense. When there are so many examples it looks a little fishy.



I mean, games are educating people right now. Anything put out in mass media educates at least one person. Probably a bunch.

And theres nothing wrong with that. My point is video games aren't a proper substitute for proper parenting. Censoring games because children aren't being properly taught right from wrong just says that its ok to be a crappy parent.

 

[zeldablue]

And theres nothing wrong with that. My point is video games aren't a proper substitute for proper parenting. Censoring games because children aren't being properly taught right from wrong just says that its ok to be a crappy parent.

Honestly, if I had a kid that was 12 or 13 and wanted to play GTA10 because his friends would make fun of him if he didn't, I'd buy the game for him. :/

I don't think that's bad parenting, my parents let me and my brother play anything and we turned out fine.

Yes, kids are impressionable and parrot everything they see. But whatever, if it doesn't happen from games or TV, they'll get there hands on whatever online. As long as you give them a decent list of values and make sure they are happy, they won't echo the terrifying sentiment of the terrifying games they play.

Maybe that's just me?

But she was the one who chose to make her series a trope parade in the first place. She could have chosen to do something more ambitious and more meaningful. If I had a student who gave me a paper that was literally just a bunch of examples of tropes with no argument beyond "negative tropes exist and are common" I'd fail the fuck out of it. And if the argument was "women are portrayed negatively in literature from this period" (already the question is: compared to what?? compared to movies from this period?) and the evidence was just a bunch of examples of negative tropes without any attempt to account for counterexamples I'd probably give the student a stern talking to for being intellectually dishonest.



Honestly? I just don't think she's doing a very good job. I find her methodology to be shallow and kind of pointless. The only thing I can say that she's doing well is that she's talking about an important issue, but that's an incredibly low bar that I don't really feel warrants praise. There's no insight, there's no nuance, there's no problematization of her own thesis. This sort of stuff is only tolerable because gaming is so woefully underanalyzed.

I had zero understanding of gender studies before she popped up, so I guess she's been teaching me a few things I never thought about before. But overall, yeah. It's all very shallow, but I feel as though it at least gets people talking and thinking a bit more on the subject.

 

[lord pie]

Having just watched these two videos I'm not entirely sure what to think.

I understand the message clearly, and I do agree with it; however I feel it could have presented the argument in a better way. And in a few cases I feel things were presented in a deceptive way. But that's not really the point.

I completely agree that the hyper sexualized nature of how women are depicted has gotten way past the point of parody, no question there. However my main issue is that I feel the argument is too focused on there being a problem of treatment and depiction of women, and not the more important issue of treatment of gender.

It's become something of cliché in the gaming world that women are victims and men are physical aggressors. I personally see both as equally bad problems, with the second being glossed over in the videos.
In games it's all physical violence by men and it's all exaggerated to the point of parody and desensitization.
Yet there is never really a depiction of emotional violence or violence by women.

My point is I actually am more upset about how it seems most men in video games are hyper aggressive and physically violent, often with few consequences (both physically or psychologically). The treatment of women feels like a byproduct of this, as talked about in the videos (becoming a cheap plot device to show how horrible the men are)

True emotional impact doesn't require this hyper violent over the top representation. It doesn't require hyper sexualized women being victimized.
I'm really struggling to put into words what I'm thinking.... arg

 

[zeldablue]

I think ideally we'd want more female aggressors and male victims in the future to cast aside the idea that genders are meant to be one thing or the other.

The males still have a lot more agency, or you know, power over their own circumstances. The females are more like overgrown babies with no ability to take care of themselves. It's as if one gender has the capacity to think and act while the other one doesn't.

Males being violent is a major selling point for games targeting a male audience...

 

[Drinkel]

Very effective video, when clips from moments in games that are usually considered minor or insignificant are placed in rapid succession the new context becomes a much more disturbing picture. It certainly highlights how little though are put into most of these decisions. It becomes the default "we need a shady part of town here, add some whores. that's what everybody does", a decision made almost unconsciously since where so used to seeing it. And decisions made without careful consideration are very rarely interesting. These moments have almost nothing to say other than "you should feel ok killing these badguys" and that seems like the main problem. Anything interesting that could come out of these moments is removed because that is not why they are there in the first placed. It's trivializing very real things by making them black and white. Only performed buy people who are evil and deserve to die towards people who are waiting for a savior. It's not a problem in itself that games are so violent that the worlds the take place in need to be even more violent to not create disconnect. It's a problem when most of this violence has nothing to say in a medium that strives to be taken seriously in all other aspects. I want better games.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

But she was the one who chose to make her series a trope parade in the first place. She could have chosen to do something more ambitious and more meaningful. If I had a student who gave me a paper that was literally just a bunch of examples of tropes with no argument beyond "negative tropes exist and are common" I'd fail the fuck out of it. And if the argument was "women are portrayed negatively in literature from this period" (already the question is: compared to what?? compared to movies from this period?) and the evidence was just a bunch of examples of negative tropes without any attempt to account for counterexamples I'd probably give the student a stern talking to for being intellectually dishonest.



Honestly? I just don't think she's doing a very good job. I find her methodology to be shallow and kind of pointless. The only thing I can say that she's doing well is that she's talking about an important issue, but that's an incredibly low bar that I don't really feel warrants praise. There's no insight, there's no nuance, there's no problematization of her own thesis. This sort of stuff is only tolerable because gaming is so woefully underanalyzed.

Thank God you're not a teacher. You couldn't even write that paragraph coherently.

Of course she's talking about negative portrayals of women in games. That's the entire point! She won't present counter points to her own arguments in her own video! And if you want her talking about positive portrayals (which some games, like RDR, have both good and bad examples on the same game) she has schedules a video all about positive examples of women in games. But for the time being yes, she'll keep mentioning negative tropes. A whole bunch of 'em with tons of examples.

 

[Galactic Fork]

But she was the one who chose to make her series a trope parade in the first place. She could have chosen to do something more ambitious and more meaningful.

Like what? What in your opinion would have been a more useful method of showing a systemic problem in the industry as a whole?

If I had a student who gave me a paper that was literally just a bunch of examples of tropes with no argument beyond "negative tropes exist and are common" I'd fail the fuck out of it. And if the argument was "women are portrayed negatively in literature from this period" (already the question is: compared to what?? compared to movies from this period?) and the evidence was just a bunch of examples of negative tropes without any attempt to account for counterexamples I'd probably give the student a stern talking to for being intellectually dishonest.

It's not simply "negative tropes exist and are common," it's more like "women are most often portrayed in video games using a series of negative tropes, here the tropes, the games that use them, and what messages the abundance of these tropes send from the industry as a whole."

She will have positive examples, but this video isn't the only one. Each video has a specific topic, or is part of a series of video on one topic (the Damsel in Distress had 3 videos). Don't take each video as one specific entity. It's a small part of a larger project. That's why you can't expect her to stop in the middle of a video about background decoration to discuss some game's side character you like.

And it's not compared to movies, or tv, it's more compared to men. If you notice in each video she gave examples of how men are treated. The DiD showed men are usually expected to rescue themselves, the Mrs. Male character had the bit about the koopalings, the boys were all based on different aspect of their personality, while Wendy was based on the fact she was a girl. She wasn't the smart one, or the sporty one, or the musical one. She was... The girl. And the women as decoration explained how in Watch Dogs, the counter to the woman being beaten by her boyfriend was the two guys fighting each other. The woman was the passive victim, the man was a participant. She talked about how often that happens, while more men are mowed down, they're almost always active participants, where women are usually passive.

Plus showing many examples shows the prevalence of these tropes, the poster JackAubrey had an interesting line in another thread.

And she showed example after example after example of exactly this sort of thing. As thought devs just have a "brutalised woman" brush they lazily paint across levels to give them the kind of gritty excitement they are after.

I think ideally we'd want more female aggressors and male victims in the future to cast aside the idea that genders are meant to be one thing or the other.

The males still have a lot more agency, or you know, power over their own circumstances. The females are more like overgrown babies with no ability to take care of themselves. It's as if one gender has the capacity to think and act while the other one doesn't.

Males being violent is a major selling point for games targeting a male audience...

I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now, and i'm annoyed at the general lack of female enemies. In sanctuary there are many women of all different shapes and sizes (which is awesome), and some even talk about formerly being (or becoming) bandits, but none out in the world. This is a distant planet in the future where guns are everywhere. Animals drop guns and force shields when you kill them. There would totally be female bandits.
Here's hoping they'll be in the pre-sequel.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Thank God you're not a teacher. You couldn't even write that paragraph coherently.

The fuck.

 

[Panajev2001a]

an example: in Majora's Mask, a king gets so angry about his daughter being taken from him


girl's life isn't even part of the equation, she could easily be swapped out with any other form of the king's property.

The second statement does not really mesh well with your earlier one. Unless you suggest that the King Deku would get that angry about anything, a rock or a cup, taken away from him and the game meant to say that which I doubt.

 

[Panajev2001a]

In an individual instance, sure. But when women are frequently used a props that suffer sexual violence from a perpetrator simply to show he's really bad, it becomes sexist for the reasons Technomancer has already stated.

That's why it's a trope - it makes it as if women are mostly good as background decoration for a male subject to play off of.

It might be fine to follow and try to affect the trend, but the day each and every game is subjected to the kind of a bit biased scrutiny that we seem to be talking about in this thread, you will be designing each scene by a PC protection committee...

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Soooo, to those of you who are criticizing her methodology, how could anyone highlight the prevalent problematic representation of women and women's figures in videogames better in your terms of video analysis / essay / format?

 

[blankempathy]

Soooo, to those of you who are criticizing her methodology, how could anyone highlight the prevalent problematic representation of women and women's figures in videogames better in your terms of video analysis / essay / format?

Let me kickstart a campaign and I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Carcetti]

Let me kickstart a campaign and I'll get back to you on that.

You'll get us a link to the campaign in a week or so, right?

 

[Fafalada]

It might be fine to follow and try to affect the trend

It wouldn't do squat - mainstream games (or AAA as industry likes to call them) are a mirror of mainstream media in general, and THAT has all the problems highlighted in these videos and more, and hasn't shown signs of changing for all the efforts against it (beyond changes that are just a reflection of society changing as a whole, which again, reflects on games as well).
While it's nice to see a summary of just how bad these products are, it's kind of stating the obvious - mainstream products are designed to hit certain checkboxes that marketing/monetization groups have confirmed work for main target audiences, and the rest is just tuning the dials around them.
Every counter example mentioned is pretty much an example of niche or games designed to be disruptive on purpose, which again, is different for obvious reasons.

The problem IMO is that censoring the media isn't likely to remove those behavioral patterns from the society. Maybe given enough time it might, but good luck running the Orwellian censorship for 100s of years needed to get there - and you'd have to do it across the board - not just targeting one media-subset.

 

[DigitalDevilSummoner]

I had this conversation earlier...

It was about how Kratos should be actively presuing and having sex with young boys and men ages 12 to 16 because pederasty was a big part of Grecian societal culture and religion.

Why doesn't Kratos have sex with sexy young boys instead of topless women? Is it because we don't actually care about accuracy?

Yes.

Historic analysis by itself is a bit off topic I know but I made a couple of comments on your claims earlier.

I think homosexuality was illegal in ancient Greece. The fact that it (pederasty) was a well documented fact does not mean it was institutionalized.

Lycurgus, a notable lawgiver of Sparta made the correlation between men seeking sexual relations with minors and incest (both abominable). (Lakedaimonion politeia by Athenian historian Xenophone)

A common misconception about sexuality in Ancient Greece and the relations of grown men and their pupils comes the inept translation of the term "εραστής"/"Erastês" meaning lover in modern greek, whereas in ancient texts it indicated an instructor or a trainer who had to passionately to pass on his expertise.

Maximus of Tyre (Greek philosopher) notes in his Dissertations that a Spartan man can admire the body a teenage Lacon (the greater area of Sparta) but admire him as we admire a sculpture. Because physical pleasure steaming from hubris is not allowed.

In Athens, according to the Solonian Constitution, there were severe political reprecautions for a gay man.

According to Aeschines (a statesman and one of the ten Attic orators). The teachers/ instructors/ trainers were instructed not allow any man older than the pupils entrance to the wrestling training grounds (Palaestra) and not to allow minors coming to contact with adults during Hermaea (celebrations in honor of Hermes/ Mercury). But should such a relation come to fruition (between an adult and a student) he who has custody of the child can sue the man for lewdness and corruption punishable by death. (source: Against Timarchus).



The terminology of "Pederasty" in the wiki link is categorically wrong as it essentially equates to it pedophilia. The term "pederasty" as well as "erômenos" both have the same root, the ancient verb "ἔραμαι" (eramai) which means "love with a passion" and refers to a certain act or craft, denoting absolute devotion and NOT -at the time- physical relations.

Having sex with older men was by no means not an institutionalized "rite of passage" and prohibited by a plethora of laws. It was nevertheless a documented practice.

In naruto terms: Jiraya-sensei, in the ancient greek meaning of the term could also be characterized as the "erastês" of Naruto because of his passion (that's where the root of the word "ἔραμαι" comes in play) for the skills he was to pass on to his pupil and certainly not because of sexual relations between the two.

If you want more on the matter and the essence of erastes & eromenos (not the law related aspect of gay relations) , you should look into Symposium by Plato. (and stay away from wiki)

 

[Curufinwe]

The fuck.

It was perfectly coherent. He or she just didn't have a good response to it so he or she insulted you instead.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Let me kickstart a campaign and I'll get back to you on that.

Okay ! Be waiting for the link !

 

[jon bones]

Having just watched these two videos I'm not entirely sure what to think.

I understand the message clearly, and I do agree with it; however I feel it could have presented the argument in a better way. And in a few cases I feel things were presented in a deceptive way. But that's not really the point.

I completely agree that the hyper sexualized nature of how women are depicted has gotten way past the point of parody, no question there. However my main issue is that I feel the argument is too focused on there being a problem of treatment and depiction of women, and not the more important issue of treatment of gender.

It's become something of cliché in the gaming world that women are victims and men are physical aggressors. I personally see both as equally bad problems, with the second being glossed over in the videos.
In games it's all physical violence by men and it's all exaggerated to the point of parody and desensitization.
Yet there is never really a depiction of emotional violence or violence by women.

My point is I actually am more upset about how it seems most men in video games are hyper aggressive and physically violent, often with few consequences (both physically or psychologically). The treatment of women feels like a byproduct of this, as talked about in the videos (becoming a cheap plot device to show how horrible the men are)

True emotional impact doesn't require this hyper violent over the top representation. It doesn't require hyper sexualized women being victimized.
I'm really struggling to put into words what I'm thinking.... arg

as had been said over and over again, her videos are about representation of women in gaming.

i'm not sure why she should acknowledge male representation in gaming, nor is that what this thread is about.

Thats why I said is it up to the devs to educate people now? Because parents have failed their role so now we must keep all "bad stuff" like women being treated badly while leaving in the violence and murder of men that routinely happens in most AAA games? Censorship for all because hey you parents can't do your jobs.

as had been said over and over again, no one is advocating censorship for our precious toys. better representation of women in gaming != removing content from call of duty 10 or whatever.

 

[The Technomancer]

But she was the one who chose to make her series a trope parade in the first place. She could have chosen to do something more ambitious and more meaningful. If I had a student who gave me a paper that was literally just a bunch of examples of tropes with no argument beyond "negative tropes exist and are common" I'd fail the fuck out of it. And if the argument was "women are portrayed negatively in literature from this period" (already the question is: compared to what?? compared to movies from this period?) and the evidence was just a bunch of examples of negative tropes without any attempt to account for counterexamples I'd probably give the student a stern talking to for being intellectually dishonest.

Okay, a. she has included counter examples, b. I don't think any of my film studies classes required that in a discussion of a subsection of film I contrast it to the literature of the time or whatever. There were cases where it was relevant to the analysis, but its not like a requirement was "and in every paper you must also discuss the relationship to literatire", and c. I still don't even think that this particular video series should be viewed through the lens of artistic criticism since as others have mentioned they're really more about media studies. They're not about any one particular game or even handful of games, they're about a perceived trend. And since she probably, rightfully, feels that her target audience isn't interested in a series of twenty page papers she goes for videos instead.

You say she could have done something ambitious and more meaningful, which gets to the heart of it right there: you disagree with her goal from the outset. Her goal isn't to be one of the first of a series of in depth artistic critics of video games, her goal is to highlight a series of trends that she finds problematic in hopes that putting the spotlight on it will start a conversation, and as some developers have already responded positively it seems like she's doing exactly that

 

[Dugna]

k I've never spoken in one of these threads since I view a lot of her videos to be badly made, but I agree on the good of pointing out tropes and such and helping improve upon them.

Anyway can some one explain to me why after years of disproving that things that are shown in games don't influence us to commit said acts. Going to huge lengths to proclaim this at every newstation and every political person trying to blame us for things. That we then years later accept this same thought process we so profoundly fought against, because the message is being not agressive?

Because from my point of view accepting anything past the fact that the tropes she's picking out are bad and they should be approved on, is then agreeing that those newstations and poltical figures who have been vilifying us for years are correct.

so like I ask can someone try to explain that to me?

 

[zkylon]

k I've never spoken in one of these threads since I view a lot of her videos to be badly made, but I agree on the good of pointing out tropes and such and helping improve upon them.

Anyway can some one explain to me why after years of disproving that things that are shown in games don't influence us to commit said acts. Going to huge lengths to proclaim this at every newstation and every political person trying to blame us for things. That we then years later accept this same thought process we so profoundly fought against, because the message is being not agressive?

Because from my point of view accepting anything past the fact that the tropes she's picking out are bad and they should be approved on, is then agreeing that those newstations and poltical figures who have been vilifying us for years are correct.

so like I ask can someone try to explain that to me?

that alone for me is enough tho

games shouldn't feel super awkward for women. or women shouldn't have to get used to how games treat em

also games can do better and not take the easy way out with many of these things.

like the point of these videos imo shouldn't fix violence and hate against women overall (too much to ask of em i think lol), just make the gaming world a bit more inclusive and get developers to think of how they make their games

 

[Dugna]

that alone for me is enough tho

games shouldn't feel super awkward for women. or women shouldn't have to get used to how games treat em

also games can do better and not take the easy way out with many of these things.

like the point of these videos imo shouldn't fix violence and hate against women overall, just make the gaming world a bit more inclusive and get developers to think of how they make their games

I'm all for everything and I mean everything you just said, sounds pretty damn awesome.
I guess my above post is just my only reason I never like her videos is because she has that thought process.

 

[The Technomancer]

k I've never spoken in one of these threads since I view a lot of her videos to be badly made, but I agree on the good of pointing out tropes and such and helping improve upon them.

Anyway can some one explain to me why after years of disproving that things that are shown in games don't influence us to commit said acts. Going to huge lengths to proclaim this at every newstation and every political person trying to blame us for things. That we then years later accept this same thought process we so profoundly fought against, because the message is being not agressive?

Because from my point of view accepting anything past the fact that the tropes she's picking out are bad and they should be approved on, is then agreeing that those newstations and poltical figures who have been vilifying us for years are correct.

so like I ask can someone try to explain that to me?

Okay this isn't academic because I'm not sure how much this has been studied, but the difference between violence and sexism is that violence is easy to understand, so even if games glorify violence the cultural countermessage of "violence is bad, mmkay" is pretty unambiguous. But sexism, sexual assault, these various things are very well less defined in our culture, and we still have trouble even identifying them.

Its easy not to run someone over with your car in real life even though its fun in GTA because the line there is pretty well defined. But when most people don't even know what rape technically is, when there's blatant sexism evident not just in the media but in real life and there's not nearly such an unambiguous real life line between what is acceptable and what isn't, I think there's more of a case to be made for how media does influence people's thinking

Our actual understanding of what is unacceptable with regards to sexism is less well developed than our understanding of what's unacceptable with regards to violence, is I guess how I would summarize it

 

[zkylon]

I'm all for everything and I mean everything you just said, sounds pretty damn awesome.
I guess my above post is just my only reason I never like her videos is because she has that thought process.

i very much doubt that she's making a direct culpability connection between games and violence/sexism but you can probably see how this shit adds up

we soak in all the media we consume and some of it sticks, shaping how we behave

playing tons of gta won't turn you into a rapist or anything but when you see these kinds of tropes get repeated over and over you can tell the public image of women must be pretty close to them. women aren't the only victims of this as black, hispanic, gay, poor, whatever, often end up getting the same treatement

i'm personally not a big fan of the way she does her videos either but i appreciate the issue being raised, at least as vocally as she does it. if anything it should help make videogames be a bit less stupid, which imo is a big win for everyone

 

[Dugna]

Okay this isn't academic because I'm not sure how much this has been studied, but the difference between violence and sexism is that violence is easy to understand, so even if games glorify violence the cultural countermessage of "violence is bad, mmkay" is pretty unambiguous. But sexism, sexual assault, these various things are very well less defined in our culture, and we still have trouble even identifying them.

Its easy not to run someone over with your car in real life even though its fun in GTA because the line there is pretty well defined. But when most people don't even know what rape technically is, when there's blatant sexism evident not just in the media but in real life and there's not nearly such an unambiguous real life line between what is acceptable and what isn't, I think there's more of a case to be made for how media does influence people's thinking

So since the lines of what's being shown in video games and what's shown in real life is so blurred that's the reason these select images effect us correct?

If that's the case then what about a man who's fully against abusing women degrading women and everything else bad. Let us say this man who in the real world is like I said very respecting to women doesn't do anything bad neither subconsciously and such, then plays one of these games with these examples of sexism. Should then those images or sexism still have an effect on him?

 

[Dugna]

i'm personally not a big fan of the way she does her videos either but i appreciate the issue being raised, at least as vocally as she does it. if anything it should help make videogames be a bit less stupid, which imo is a big win for everyone

Definitely agree on that

 

[The Technomancer]

So since the lines of what's being shown in video games and what's shown in real life is so blurred that's the reason these select images effect us?

If that's the case then what about a man who's fully against abusing women degrading women and everything else bad. Let us say this man who in the real world is like I said very respecting to women doesn't do anything bad neither subconsciously and such, then plays one of these games with these examples of sexism. Should then those images or sexism still have an effect on him?

If they're consciously aware of it? Probably not. But that's basically my point: tons of people aren't consciously aware of sexism, or united in a definition of whats "bad" or not. Hell, I certainly wasn't five years ago, not beyond "beating women is bad" and "discrimination is bad", and there are people who will honestly make arguments in favor of both of those things.

 

[zkylon]

So since the lines of what's being shown in video games and what's shown in real life is so blurred that's the reason these select images effect us correct?

If that's the case then what about a man who's fully against abusing women degrading women and everything else bad. Let us say this man who in the real world is like I said very respecting to women doesn't do anything bad neither subconsciously and such, then plays one of these games with these examples of sexism. Should then those images or sexism still have an effect on him?

the problem i think is that sexism isn't a problem for people that are conscious about it

like unless you're a pretty evil motherfucker most ppl are sexist/racist/whatever in an unconscious way. basically they're prejudiced because of a plethora of things, how they were raised, life experiences, personal beliefs and ofc what they were exposed to via tv/videogames/movies/etc

 

[Dugna]

If they're consciously aware of it? Probably not. But that's basically my point: tons of people aren't consciously aware of sexism, or united in a definition of whats "bad" or not. Hell, I certainly wasn't five years ago, not beyond "beating women is bad" and "discrimination is bad", and there are people who will honestly make arguments in favor of both of those things.

So then you agree that to make it easier for these tropes to improve, is to fix the outlying real world? Then that means the real world effects the video games more then video games effect the user. So then the discussion of whatever is shown in the video game effects the gamer is wrong because the image that they're seeing actually comes from the real world.

 

[Dugna]

the problem i think is that sexism isn't a problem for people that are conscious about it

like unless you're a pretty evil motherfucker most ppl are sexist/racist/whatever in an unconscious way. basically they're prejudiced because of a plethora of things, how they were raised, life experiences, personal beliefs and ofc what they were exposed to via tv/videogames/movies/etc

Ohh I know and I agree, people are casually sexist a lot. But is it the world around them that affects them with this or the images they're seeing in the video game?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

If that's the case then what about a man who's fully against abusing women degrading women and everything else bad. Let us say this man who in the real world is like I said very respecting to women doesn't do anything bad neither subconsciously and such, then plays one of these games with these examples of sexism. Should then those images or sexism still have an effect on him?

I don't think you could pin point any *one* thing that would have a guaranteed effect like you describe, be it media portrayal, religion, social interactions, parental influence, culture or genetics.
They all attribute to our behaviors in a million of ways that all affect eachother in subtle and less subtle ways.


As far as I understand this entire story isn't so much about "x causes y".
(e.g. violent games lead to shootings)

This is about a medium perpetuating questionable social views, bad tropes and stereotypes. And examining why they could be bad or harmful.

In what you said the bolded is important: how does a person know what's bad if they're not critical about their own actions and beliefs? There's plenty of people who have fairly narrow and harmful definitions of things like abuse & see themselves as the person you described.

Ohh I know and I agree, people are casually sexist a lot. But is it the world around them that affects them with this or the images they're seeing in the video game?

The answer is most likely: both.

 

[jordisok]

Ohh I know and I agree, people are casually sexist a lot. But is it the world around them that affects them with this or the images they're seeing in the video game?

Both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[Dugna]

Both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because if we accept that video games influence us then we sorta owe an apology to many people.

 

[zkylon]

Ohh I know and I agree, people are casually sexist a lot. But is it the world around them that affects them with this or the images they're seeing in the video game?

both of course, culture is an ever growing thing

our culture being sexist is both symptom and source of it

Because if we accept that video games influence us then we sorta owe an apology to many people.

not really, no one ever denied that media has an effect on people. that's as extreme and silly as what crazy whatshisname lawyer was peddling

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Because if we accept that video games influence us then we sorta owe an apology to many people.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that..

 

[Dugna]

You're gonna have to elaborate on that..

Like I said if we as gamers accept that video games influence us to think or do things then we owe an apology to many other people in the world.

 

[Azure Wolf]

Man made the chips, to make the games sing,

Man made Super Mario, and just about everything,

Man made the pads, to let us run, jump and play,

Man made pretty much all, that makes gaming what it is today,

This is a man's, man's, maaaan's world!

But we're nothing!

Nothing!

Without a woman telling us we're all wrong



Note: I'm just being snarky, she has a fair point, though I feel that increasingly realistic portrayals of extreme violence becoming mandatory in many games is a far greater moral concern at present.

 

[The Technomancer]

Because if we accept that video games influence us then we sorta owe an apology to many people.

Not necessarily. Acknowledging that violence in media doesn't cause a statistical increase in real life violence doesn't mean the same thing as saying that media does not or can not influence people at all. As for why we don't just fix the real world instead of worrying about the media, well, why can't changing the media help the real world? If we acknowledge that our media can reinforce certain attitudes, wouldn't reducing reinforcement for them make it easier for other real world influences to push things in the other direction?

I'll admit this wasn't known at the outset, but now that we're several videos in we know for a fact: there are multiple game developers who watch these, and not only do they not feel "censored" or even particularly "attacked" but they're responding positively and considering the issue when developing future games

 

[zkylon]

Like I said if we as gamers accept that video games influence us to think or do things then we owe an apology to many other people in the world.

it's not that simple dude

there's nothing to accept, if you were thinking that what you watch on tv doesn't influence at all the way you think you were prolly either in denial or just ignorant

which is fine because you can now be critical about it, which is the whole point of this shit

Not necessarily. Acknowledging that violence in media doesn't cause a statistical increase in real life violence doesn't mean the same thing as saying that media does not or can not influence people at all. As for why we don't just fix the real world instead of worrying about the media, well, why can't changing the media help the real world? If we acknowledge that our media can reinforce certain attitudes, wouldn't reducing reinforcement for them make it easier for other real world influences to push things in the other direction?

I'll admit this wasn't known at the outset, but now that we're several videos in we know for a fact: there are multiple game developers who watch these, and not only do they not feel "censored" or even particularly "attacked" but they're responding positively and considering the issue when developing future games

exactly

the hotline miami 2 devs are rethinking their rape scene based on things like this

it doesn't mean they'll take it out, but there's one thing having a rape scene to make commentary on rape and having a rape scene for shock value

having people criticize videogames is always a win and will always turn up with videogames getting better, not worse

Note: I'm just being snarky, she has a fair point, though I feel that increasingly realistic portrayals of extreme violence becoming mandatory in many games is a far greater moral concern at present.

i find this is an interesting "complaint" that i think has been raised before

there are other issues than this and probably of more importance and this series of videos won't fix everything that's wrong of videogames but that is just a ridiculous thing to expect from her

she's making an essay on this precise thing, maybe there are things more important but she's interested in this and focused on this, her work isn't any less valuable only because there are other more important things to fix in the gaming world

that being said i completely agree with you and i think violence not only in videogames is getting to scary levels with the whole anti-hero liam neeson thing of torturing ppl with car batteries and shit

 

[EdibleKnife]

Because if we accept that video games influence us then we sorta owe an apology to many people.

Human existence isn't a total vacuum. Perceptions that people have can be influenced or reinforced slightly or majorly by what they read, play, watch, and their encounters in real life. Play one game where women are framed as inferior it won't automatically change your world view. Play a lot though and couple that with how you may already see your world through all of the additive influences of your life, you may not ever feel the need to challenge your perceptions.

 

[Dugna]

Not necessarily. Acknowledging that violence in media doesn't cause a statistical increase in real life violence doesn't mean the same thing as saying that media does not or can not influence people at all. As for why we don't just fix the real world instead of worrying about the media, well, why can't changing the media help the real world? If we acknowledge that our media can reinforce certain attitudes, wouldn't reducing reinforcement for them make it easier for other real world influences to push things in the other direction?

I'll admit this wasn't known at the outset, but now that we're several videos in we know for a fact: there are multiple game developers who watch these, and not only do they not feel "censored" or even particularly "attacked" but they're responding positively and considering the issue when developing future games

Then why did we as gamers/comic book readers/readers and other media shout from the rooftops for close to 20+ years that media does not influence your behavior or you mind?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Like I said if we as gamers accept that video games influence us to think or do things then we owe an apology to many other people in the world.

It's not much about video games though, that just happens to be the focus of this video series.

You could make the same argument about stereotypes and tropes perpetuated on television, in books and any other type of medium.

(I know a few places that have criticism far harsher than Anita regarding stereotypes & negative tropes in books and novels for example. It's not unique to gaming.)

hen why did we as gamers/comic book readers/readers and other media shout from the rooftops for close to 20+ years that media does not influence your behavior or you mind?

Honestly? Because the people claiming that were questionable figures like Jack Thompson who tried to directly correlate video games as the causing factor behind brutal murder.
(with no real evidence to support these claims iirc)

 

[danthefan]

This thread is fairly lengthy so I haven't read it all, but did see a video having a go at her over the way she portrayed Hitman in one of her videos.

Was that critique of her fair? Does she try and misrepresent the games she uses as examples?

 

[Lime]

Regarding the current discussion on media representation and "influence":

Richard Dyer writes

"How social groups are treated in cultural representation is part and parcel of how they are treated in life, that poverty, harassment, self-hate and discrimination […] are shored up and instituted by representation.”

Iris Marion Young writes

Some groups have exclusive or primary access to what Nancy Fraser (1987b) calls the means of interpretation and communication in a society. As a consequence, the dominant cultural products of the society, that is, those most widely disseminated, express the experience, values, goals, and achievements of these groups.

Given the normality of its own cultural expressions and identity, the dominant group constructs the differences which some groups ehibit as lack and negation. These groups become marked as Other.

The culturally dominated undergo a paradoxical oppression, in that they are both marked out by stereotypes and at the same time rendered invisible. As remarkable, deviant beings, the culturally imperialized are stamped with an essence. The stereotypes confine them to a nature which is often attached in some way to their bodies, and which thus cannot easily be denied.

While the subject desires recognition as human, capable of activity, full of hope and possibility, she receives from the dominant culture only the judgment that she is different, marked, or inferior.

The group is defined by the dominant culture as deviant, as a stereotyped Other, is culturally different from the dominant group, because the status of Otherness creates specific experiences not shared by the dominant group, and because culturally oppressed groups also are often socially segregated and occupy specific positions in the social division of labor.

And most importantly:

Cultural imperialism involves the paradox of experiencing oneself as invisible at the same time that one is marked out as different. The invisibility at the same time that one is marked out as different. The invisibility comes about when dominant groups fail to recognize the perspective embodied in their cultural expression as a perspective. […] This, then, is the injustice of cultural imperialism: that the oppressed group's own experience and interpretation of social life finds little expression that touches the dominant culture, while that same culture imposes on the oppressed group its experience and interpretation of social life.'