Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

[Kane Starkiller]

Thing is, there is a very significant difference between having your games criticized because of:
1) A dearth of plausible female characters, and a plethora of bosomy damsel-as-wish-fulfillment characters.
2) The fanbase having rapidly escalated to stalkerish and misogynistic tactics when they feel threatened.

...and having your games criticized because of:
1) Portrayals of violence will make people into serial killers, and
2) The fanbase is being subverted by Satanic messages!

Really? What exactly is the difference? If there was no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that large breasted women would affect people negatively?
And why does anyone owe anyone else any explanations for what kind of games they like to play and whether those games fulfill the nebulous criteria for "plausible" female characters?

[Xess]

Whoever made up that cartoon Joun linked to, I must assume, doesn't know the difference. Which tends to reinforce the "massive disconnect with reality" aspect of the gamer stereotype.

The guy goes by Gaf on Memecenter and has a long list of (in my opinion) misogynistic and anti-feminist comics to his name. Take a look for for yourself.

[Eleas]

Really? What exactly is the difference? If there was no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that large breasted women would affect people negatively?

That is not the issue. Breast size is not the issue. One-sided depictions that objectify and dehumanize are the issue. Allow me to Godwinize:



Now, if there is no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that a constant barrage of depictions of jews as subhuman would affect people negatively during the 1930s? In both cases, it was "just a matter of depictions and giving people what they want and expect to see," surely?

Or... it could be that this constant barrage reinforces and sanctions behavior that otherwise would not be so sanctioned.

[Joun_Lord]

Thing is, there is a very significant difference between having your games criticized because of:
1) A dearth of plausible female characters, and a plethora of bosomy damsel-as-wish-fulfillment characters.
2) The fanbase having rapidly escalated to stalkerish and misogynistic tactics when they feel threatened.

...and having your games criticized because of:
1) Portrayals of violence will make people into serial killers, and
2) The fanbase is being subverted by Satanic messages!

There is a difference if the big boobed bimbos compared to strong female characters is what is being criticized (and maybe not making accusation of misogyny by just having bosomy characters ala shirtgate) rather then criticizing people for being bad people for playing and not being offended. If its full on Jack Thompson where if you play a video game you are a violent person but instead if you play a game that may not have the best representation of a woman you are a misogynist.

I can't speak for shit gamers are railing against like Feminist Frequency as I have no intention of watching it (because I'm not really a gamer and can't work up enough of a shit one way or the other to sit through them) but someone is more likely to take offense of them and respond harshly towards them if they are taking a piss at gamers being bad, bad people rather then criticizing games (though I'm sure plenty would get their panties twisted over just game criticism too as they do for any bad mouthing of some games by anyone). Though even if Anita was attacking gamers it doesn't excuse the "stalkerish and misogynistic tactics" that even actual enemies of gamers like Jack Thompson, Hitlery Clinton, and Liberman never received to my knowledge.

Most gamers would probably like more well rounded characters, male or female or space monster from the 5th dimension with 7 genders that are all rape, compared to just cardboard cut-outs with some abs or balloons stapled to them. But nobody wants to be called a bad person for playing the games with the cardboard cut-outs and enjoying them and will automatically goes all defensive when such happens .

Super fucked up the response to Day. Yeah I was a bit offended she started acting little scared little white boys do when they are walking down the street around minorities because some douchebags on the internet acted like douchebags on the internet but attacking her because she is a bit scared around gamers sure is the dumbest fucking thing people can do.

The guy goes by Gaf on Memecenter and has a long list of (in my opinion) misogynistic and anti-feminist comics to his name. Take a look for for yourself.

I just pulled the image of google without knowing who it came from but yeah some of the comics in your link are a bit effed up.

Though I am ashamed to admit I did lol at the "tipping intensifies" one despite its fucked up nature.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is a difference if the big boobed bimbos compared to strong female characters is what is being criticized (and maybe not making accusation of misogyny by just having bosomy characters ala shirtgate) rather then criticizing people for being bad people for playing and not being offended. If its full on Jack Thompson where if you play a video game you are a violent person but instead if you play a game that may not have the best representation of a woman you are a misogynist.

Well, playing a game, no. Refusing to recognize that there are issues with portrayals of women, and becoming very angry when someone points this issues out...yeah. I am not offended by games that dont have gay characters, but I would like to see more gay characters.

Someone who becomes angry when gay characters are introduced, or when someone merely says there ought be more, is pretty obviously a homophobic douche.

Its that sort of distinction.

I can't speak for shit gamers are railing against like Feminist Frequency as I have no intention of watching it (because I'm not really a gamer and can't work up enough of a shit one way or the other to sit through them) but someone is more likely to take offense of them and respond harshly towards them if they are taking a piss at gamers being bad, bad people rather then criticizing games

And there you would be wrong. I have watched the entire series, and Anita does not rip into gamers, but discusses games themselves as literature from a feminist perspective. And people respond... very negatively. It is hard to get worse than her reaction without actual physical violence.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Really? What exactly is the difference? If there was no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that large breasted women would affect people negatively?
And why does anyone owe anyone else any explanations for what kind of games they like to play and whether those games fulfill the nebulous criteria for "plausible" female characters?

For what it's worth, I don't think the main line of argument is necessarily that "games are sexist and make gamers sexist". The real argument being made by Anita Sarkeesian and some of the other outspoken critics at the center of GamerGate is not that "sexist games->sexist gamers" but rather that there is an underlying misogynist streak within the gaming culture and one MANIFESTATION of that side of the culture is that games are so prone to having sexist imagery or having weak female characters and everything. Essentially, "sexist gamers->sexist games."

Whether that argument is correct is a different story. I just don't think your characterization of the argument is entirely fair, when I think there's really a different argument being made. It seems highly unlikely that sexist games are actively causing gamers to become sexist; but I think it is at least worth discussing the possibility that these sexist games are simply representative of a deeper and broader trend. Do you understand the distinction (not sure I explained it well, I'm super exhausted)?

[Joun_Lord]

There is a difference if the big boobed bimbos compared to strong female characters is what is being criticized (and maybe not making accusation of misogyny by just having bosomy characters ala shirtgate) rather then criticizing people for being bad people for playing and not being offended. If its full on Jack Thompson where if you play a video game you are a violent person but instead if you play a game that may not have the best representation of a woman you are a misogynist.

Well, playing a game, no. Refusing to recognize that there are issues with portrayals of women, and becoming very angry when someone points this issues out...yeah. I am not offended by games that dont have gay characters, but I would like to see more gay characters.

Someone who becomes angry when gay characters are introduced, or when someone merely says there ought be more, is pretty obviously a homophobic douche.

Its that sort of distinction.

I think (most) everyone can agree with that. Someone offended by the mere site of gay people or throws a shit-fit when someone says without being insulting or demeaning that characterization of most female characters in games is not even close to ideal is just an irrational immature piece of shit.

I can see people being uncomfortable about say the Hepler style graphic gay relations, not because they hate gay people but because they just don't want to see two dudes making out which I suppose is a bit immature (though for me personally I'm uncomfortable seeing any display of graphic display of PDA but I'll admit I'm a bit immature and highly repressed in my outlook), but that is considerably different from popping a full rage boner about some character in a video games just happening to be gay.

I can't speak for shit gamers are railing against like Feminist Frequency as I have no intention of watching it (because I'm not really a gamer and can't work up enough of a shit one way or the other to sit through them) but someone is more likely to take offense of them and respond harshly towards them if they are taking a piss at gamers being bad, bad people rather then criticizing games

And there you would be wrong. I have watched the entire series, and Anita does not rip into gamers, but discusses games themselves as literature from a feminist perspective. And people respond... very negatively. It is hard to get worse than her reaction without actual physical violence.[/quote]

Like I said I don't watch it. Most of my information comes from second hand sources such as this thread. I've heard that Anita has a pretty caustic personality and misrepresents certain facts or outright lies (I think maybe the FF thread in G&C someone compared her to a more palpable version of Red Letter Media and his review of the prequels).

But I don't care if she was actually insulting gamers straight up, calling them all women haters or mircro-peens, doesn't excuse the straight up harassment and threats against her.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, there is a very significant difference between having your games criticized because of:
1) A dearth of plausible female characters, and a plethora of bosomy damsel-as-wish-fulfillment characters.
2) The fanbase having rapidly escalated to stalkerish and misogynistic tactics when they feel threatened.

...and having your games criticized because of:
1) Portrayals of violence will make people into serial killers, and
2) The fanbase is being subverted by Satanic messages!

Really? What exactly is the difference? If there was no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that large breasted women would affect people negatively?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

You're literally saying "if there's no evidence X affects people negatively, how would there be any evidence Y affects people negatively?" I could think of dozens of examples off the top of my head that could be mad-libbed in for X and Y to make that sound very silly indeed.

So as a logical argument, that fails. Now, to elaborate on the situation, and to answer the other part of your post:

And why does anyone owe anyone else any explanations for what kind of games they like to play and whether those games fulfill the nebulous criteria for "plausible" female characters?

Have you ever heard of "art criticism?"

It is common, indeed routine for people to review and analyze art based on how good it is. To notice disturbing subtext and hidden messages in a work of art. To make recommendations or requests of the artistic community that they start sending desirable messages to society at large.

So as soon as video games started getting taken seriously as art, it was inevitable that people would start looking at them seriously and asking "what messages do these games, these works of art, contain?" Just as previously they did for comic books, television, movies, and so on.

And part of the role of the critic is that, when a work of art shows disturbing features like being misogynistic or racist, the critic tells people about this. Publicly. That's normal. That's okay.

If you disagree, fine. If you plug your ears and refuse to listen, not so fine... but you're within your rights.

If you start demanding that critics shut up and threatening them with rape and murder because they said your favorite artwork was misogynistic... Not fine. Not fine at all. And indeed, when this is persistently happening to women, and only to women, it tends to suggest that they were right all along to say that the artwork was misogynistic. Because if it's not creating fans who like to hate, stalk, harass, and possibly harm women... it's certainly attracting fans who like to do those things.

There is a difference if the big boobed bimbos compared to strong female characters is what is being criticized (and maybe not making accusation of misogyny by just having bosomy characters ala shirtgate)... rather then criticizing people for being bad people for playing and not being offended. If its full on Jack Thompson where if you play a video game you are a violent person but instead if you play a game that may not have the best representation of a woman you are a misogynist.

When is it full-on Jack Thompson?

There is a moderate amount of criticism aimed at video games that accuses various video games of being oversexualized, of using unrealistic and derogatory portrayals of women as a tool to increase sales with male players. That is not the same as the Jack Thompson "these games should sicken you and if they don't you're evil and the game will turn you into a serial killer! BAN THIS FILTH!"

And yet, of late, with Gamergate, this feminist-based criticism has earned a level of public harassment that Jack Thompson rarely received. And when he did, he called the FBI, who investigated- and rightly so. Because that's outright criminal activity.

And it's criminal activity with a very sinister subtext. If you criticize games for violence and a gamer says "stop calling me violent or I'll kill you!" it validates your message. If you criticize games for sexism and many gamers respond by saying primarily to women "stop calling me sexist or I'll rape you!" it validates your message even harder.

I can't speak for shit gamers are railing against like Feminist Frequency as I have no intention of watching it (because I'm not really a gamer and can't work up enough of a shit one way or the other to sit through them) but someone is more likely to take offense of them and respond harshly towards them if they are taking a piss at gamers being bad, bad people rather then criticizing games (though I'm sure plenty would get their panties twisted over just game criticism too as they do for any bad mouthing of some games by anyone)...

I will observe that Felicia Day got doxxed, despite having excellent credentials as a positive, pro-gaming celebrity (indeed, she is a celebrity ONLY in the gaming community). And she got doxxed literally just for saying "I have been afraid of the Gamergate gamer community, afraid to speak out on this issue because I thought they were hostile and would try to hurt me." Which they immediately did.

So the shit-gamers here are acting in a way that totally validates every criticism targeted against them personally. Meanwhile, the bulk of the actual criticism, that which is not directed against the shit-gamers personally, is not directed against any gamers. It is directed against the games themselves, and we'd have a better video game industry if people listened to it.

[For example, think of Lara Croft. She was an implant-toting, pistol-packing, "look at my butt while I shimmy through caves" character in earlier installments. She turned in the most recent game into a more humanized character who struggles and bleeds and has at least some actual depth... less about wish fulfillment, more about being the female version of Indiana Jones. That was good. That was the kind of direction I suspect most people criticizing games for sexism would like to see more of.]

Most gamers would probably like more well rounded characters, male or female or space monster from the 5th dimension with 7 genders that are all rape, compared to just cardboard cut-outs with some abs or balloons stapled to them. But nobody wants to be called a bad person for playing the games with the cardboard cut-outs and enjoying them and will automatically goes all defensive when such happens .

But if your reaction to being called a bad person is to act like exactly the sort of bad person you were just called... that's not being defensive. That's showing your true colors. It's like, if I say "you're the sort of person who strangles people when he gets mad," and you get mad and strangle me, you've proven something very dark about yourself.

Super fucked up the response to Day. Yeah I was a bit offended she started acting little scared little white boys do when they are walking down the street around minorities because some douchebags on the internet acted like douchebags on the internet but attacking her because she is a bit scared around gamers sure is the dumbest fucking thing people can do.

Uh... just by virtue of being a female with Internet exposure she's gotten stalkers and weird threats. And, in all probability, hundreds if not thousands of guys somewhere in the developed world who fantasize about her sexually, and some of whom don't really know right from wrong.

Hell yes she has something to be afraid of from an Internet community

And 'gamers' as a whole? That's her fanbase. This is the woman who starred in The Guild. She is the last person I'd expect to show an unwarranted fear of gamers as a whole.

But at the same time, she HAS stalkers. People have already threatened to hurt her, or shown that they have this weird lunatic attraction to her and won't take "no" for an answer. And now, those people know where she lives.

You tell me if that's a good reason to be afraid. I sure think it is.

[TheFeniX]

[For example, think of Lara Croft. She was an implant-toting, pistol-packing, "look at my butt while I shimmy through caves" character in earlier installments. She turned in the most recent game into a more humanized character who struggles and bleeds and has at least some actual depth... less about wish fulfillment, more about being the female version of Indiana Jones. That was good. That was the kind of direction I suspect most people criticizing games for sexism would like to see more of.]

The original Tomb Raider hit a bar so high in 3rd-person exploration and puzzle solving, labeling the game as some kind of PG-13 porn game does it a huge disservice. As the games progressed and the developers seemed more interested in portraying Croft as this Indiana Jones with tits, moving away from the core platform and puzzle sections into an action-girl in tight spandex, the series cratered and barely kept making money.

The idea that Tomb Raider was popular because Croft was some kind of sex symbol is some weird revisionist stuff born out of the idiotic "CROFT IS HAWT" marketing EIDOS went through when they couldn't understand why their own game was popular. I almost wish Croft had been a man because then gaming rags couldn't have pushed tits in my face and we might have been able to play more than 1 or 2 good Tomb Raider games in the past 15 years.

For a counter-example, if gamers hate women so much why had Metroid sold so damn well over the years? Why did Other M crater when it showed Samus as a weak and barely effectual character? Gamers love weak women right? Why was Perfect Dark a big deal on N64, but was instantly forgettable on 360? Why isn't there a huge backlash in the FFXIV community when women are, literally, in charge of everything? X-Blades had it all: a hot chick with tits barely contained slashing through boring dungeons: it sold great, right? No, no it didn't.

"Gamers" don't mind women and minorities when the game is fun and doesn't feel like a cheap cash-in. But, they don't make the games. They can only chose what to play. And if developers won't give them options, then they either don't play your game or buy it anyways because it's all they got to work with.

[Joun_Lord]

There is a difference if the big boobed bimbos compared to strong female characters is what is being criticized (and maybe not making accusation of misogyny by just having bosomy characters ala shirtgate)... rather then criticizing people for being bad people for playing and not being offended. If its full on Jack Thompson where if you play a video game you are a violent person but instead if you play a game that may not have the best representation of a woman you are a misogynist.

When is it full-on Jack Thompson?

There is a moderate amount of criticism aimed at video games that accuses various video games of being oversexualized, of using unrealistic and derogatory portrayals of women as a tool to increase sales with male players. That is not the same as the Jack Thompson "these games should sicken you and if they don't you're evil and the game will turn you into a serial killer! BAN THIS FILTH!"

And yet, of late, with Gamergate, this feminist-based criticism has earned a level of public harassment that Jack Thompson rarely received. And when he did, he called the FBI, who investigated- and rightly so. Because that's outright criminal activity.

And it's criminal activity with a very sinister subtext. If you criticize games for violence and a gamer says "stop calling me violent or I'll kill you!" it validates your message. If you criticize games for sexism and many gamers respond by saying primarily to women "stop calling me sexist or I'll rape you!" it validates your message even harder.

I wasn't really meaning the "moderate amount of criticism" of games unfairly characterizing women but the hardcore criticism of gamers similar to Jack Thompson where if you play sexualized games you are a misogynist. Thats considerably different from saying "this game is all boobs and butts and can be considered misogynist or atleast demeaning towards women".

You won't get an argument from me though on how the feminists talking about video games are getting worse treatment then Jack Thompson or how they are essentially rendering the cries of not being creepy misogynistic freaks moot when they act like creepy misogynistic freaks

I can't speak for shit gamers are railing against like Feminist Frequency as I have no intention of watching it (because I'm not really a gamer and can't work up enough of a shit one way or the other to sit through them) but someone is more likely to take offense of them and respond harshly towards them if they are taking a piss at gamers being bad, bad people rather then criticizing games (though I'm sure plenty would get their panties twisted over just game criticism too as they do for any bad mouthing of some games by anyone)...

I will observe that Felicia Day got doxxed, despite having excellent credentials as a positive, pro-gaming celebrity (indeed, she is a celebrity ONLY in the gaming community). And she got doxxed literally just for saying "I have been afraid of the Gamergate gamer community, afraid to speak out on this issue because I thought they were hostile and would try to hurt me." Which they immediately did.[/quote]

Actually, and this by no means excuses the reaction she garned, she said she was afraid of the gamer community because of Gamergate and walked across the street to avoid some dudes in Captain King and Carl on Duty shirts just walking down the street minding their own business. She was doxxed only after posting that. Again that doesn't excuse attacking her but its easy to see how some would be offended by that, like a black man getting rightfully offended when some little old white lady clutches her purse when he gets in an elevator.

So the shit-gamers here are acting in a way that totally validates every criticism targeted against them personally. Meanwhile, the bulk of the actual criticism, that which is not directed against the shit-gamers personally, is not directed against any gamers. It is directed against the games themselves, and we'd have a better video game industry if people listened to it.

As well the shit slingers should be targeted for criticism like a horde of disappointed mother in laws who thought their baby should have married better. But its not just the douches being hit with vast waves of pointed fingers, the two gamer shirted dudes Day mentioned "clutching her purse" away from and everyone else who plays games lumped in with the shitbags sending dead animals and needles to people.

Most gamers would probably like more well rounded characters, male or female or space monster from the 5th dimension with 7 genders that are all rape, compared to just cardboard cut-outs with some abs or balloons stapled to them. But nobody wants to be called a bad person for playing the games with the cardboard cut-outs and enjoying them and will automatically goes all defensive when such happens .

But if your reaction to being called a bad person is to act like exactly the sort of bad person you were just called... that's not being defensive. That's showing your true colors. It's like, if I say "you're the sort of person who strangles people when he gets mad," and you get mad and strangle me, you've proven something very dark about yourself.[/quote]

Most gamers probably wouldn't act that way, they haven't in all the time gaming has existed. My eternal fallback position of "become an old man and blame the internet" is probably for once correct. The douches and cunts in this twitter and Faceclip age are given a far louder voice then ages past, helped along by gaming media looking to spin a story. Probably. But those cunts still do exist whether or not they are a small minority given power through the evils of national socialist media and gaming media who apparently hates their audience.

Which is why gamers should be pissed at the cunts making a mockery of gaming journalism but they should be equally pissed at the cunts acting like cunts.

Super fucked up the response to Day. Yeah I was a bit offended she started acting little scared little white boys do when they are walking down the street around minorities because some douchebags on the internet acted like douchebags on the internet but attacking her because she is a bit scared around gamers sure is the dumbest fucking thing people can do.

Uh... just by virtue of being a female with Internet exposure she's gotten stalkers and weird threats. And, in all probability, hundreds if not thousands of guys somewhere in the developed world who fantasize about her sexually, and some of whom don't really know right from wrong.

Hell yes she has something to be afraid of from an Internet community[/quote]

She wasn't saying she was afraid of an internet community when she first spoke of the GG. She was afraid of some random ass possible gamer dudes on the street physically there and doing the things normally done on streets (break dancing). She had a reason to be afraid of physical stuff considering she had literal stalkers showing up her doorstep but she wasn't talking about that, she was talking about interwebseriesoftube douchebags saying crap on the internet.

And 'gamers' as a whole? That's her fanbase. This is the woman who starred in The Guild. She is the last person I'd expect to show an unwarranted fear of gamers as a whole.

And yet she did. She expressed fear of some random guys over the simple fact they were wearing shirts that said they enjoyed video games.

But at the same time, she HAS stalkers. People have already threatened to hurt her, or shown that they have this weird lunatic attraction to her and won't take "no" for an answer. And now, those people know where she lives.

You tell me if that's a good reason to be afraid. I sure think it is.

Yes she has stalkers and she seemed to show less fear towards these physical sick fucks who follow and harass her physically compared to internet drama queens. She crossed the street to avoid people because of the internet asshole, not because of her stalkers. Stalkers completely unrelated to Gamergate, existing well before this cluster was a twinkle in some trolls eyes, and definitely unrelated to the Halo and Cod boys

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Gamers" don't mind women and minorities when the game is fun and doesn't feel like a cheap cash-in. But, they don't make the games. They can only chose what to play. And if developers won't give them options, then they either don't play your game or buy it anyways because it's all they got to work with.

It's pretty narrow-minded to assume that there is some complete and utter philosophical divide between game producers and gamers such that trends in one CAN'T POSSIBLY be related to or reflective of trends in the others. That there are a handful of games that don't portray women negatively is besides the point; nobody has made the argument that every single video game and video gamer ever is misogynist, it's a complete strawman. There is a long-standing tradition of video games under-representing female characters (the most recent headline-attracting example was the recent refusal of the "Assassin's Creed" programmers to make a female playable character for dubious reasons) or portraying demeaning stereotypes of women (e.g. "Grand Theft Auto"). These things don't just materialize out of the aether: unless you think that all the millions of dollars spent on marketing research for developing video games, a type of research only made easier by the general hyperactivity of the gaming community on the Internet and social media compared to other demographics, is just making it up as they go? The reason the games are made the way they are is because the gaming industry has reason to believe that it represents the interests of the gaming community; interests that, if not outright hostile, are highly ambivalent and uninterested in female inclusion. That's EXACTLY the problem we are talking about, and that GamerGate is a manifestation of.

And you know what? The gaming companies are on to something. Let's go back to this part of your post?

The original Tomb Raider hit a bar so high in 3rd-person exploration and puzzle solving, labeling the game as some kind of PG-13 porn game does it a huge disservice. As the games progressed and the developers seemed more interested in portraying Croft as this Indiana Jones with tits, moving away from the core platform and puzzle sections into an action-girl in tight spandex, the series cratered and barely kept making money.

I'm curious to where you are drawing your lines with respect to the franchise. In terms of the sales information on Wikipedia, it appears that, out of the 9 main installments in the Tomb Raider franchise (excluding the most recent reboot, that Simon had been referencing), 7 of them were considered commercial successes. Even the 2 that weren't sold over a million copies, and one of them was just a sloppy re-release of the original game anyway. So it seems that reality disagrees with your notion that the series was barely making money when they started capitalizing on the action-girl in tight spandex look; and this isn't even getting into the 2 movies (combined gross $430 million).

[TheFeniX]

It's pretty narrow-minded to assume that there is some complete and utter philosophical divide between game producers and gamers such that trends in one CAN'T POSSIBLY be related to or reflective of trends in the others. That there are a handful of games that don't portray women negatively is besides the point;

There's a handful of games that don't portray women negatively that sell/sold extremely well. And those games that tried to cash in solely on TnA tend to flounder. If the market was actually that hostile to positive female themes, why is that possible?

The community is hostile towards ACTUAL females with an opinion or who do things they don't agree with. Society itself has a huge love/hate relationship with women. You mention the Tomb Raider movies later in your post. Did people really go "Movie was good/bad because of Angelina Jolie?" Women leads can sell a movie. Kate Beckinsale and Milla Jovovich are just two examples. But God forbid Jolie has a preemptive double-mastectomy, which leads to Facebook being lousy with posts like "RIP those glorious breasts, only talent she really had" because people, not just gamers, are shitbags when a living breathing woman has an opinion or does something they don't agree with.

nobody has made the argument that every single video game and video gamer ever is misogynist, it's a complete strawman. There is a long-standing tradition of video games under-representing female characters (the most recent headline-attracting example was the recent refusal of the "Assassin's Creed" programmers to make a female playable character for dubious reasons) or portraying demeaning stereotypes of women (e.g. "Grand Theft Auto").

Which has everything to do with Ubisoft being a lazy, shit publisher. And don't look to GTA for positive themes. We're talking a series where the one group of black people you interact has a leader who brain-washes you with Voodoo to get you to do missions for her. Now, I do grant that they make bucks on releasing tired cliches that may or may not function when you install them. So, when you need to flop something like that out, where do you go? Maybe to the same place everyone else goes to in fiction: "30-something white dude who doesn't have time for all this bullshit."

These things don't just materialize out of the aether: unless you think that all the millions of dollars spent on marketing research for developing video games, a type of research only made easier by the general hyperactivity of the gaming community on the Internet and social media compared to other demographics, is just making it up as they go? The reason the games are made the way they are is because the gaming industry has reason to believe that it represents the interests of the gaming community; interests that, if not outright hostile, are highly ambivalent and uninterested in female inclusion. That's EXACTLY the problem we are talking about, and that GamerGate is a manifestation of.

Are we talking about the same market research teams like when Microsoft greenlit Kameo because they thought it could compete with Legend of Zelda? The same marketing teams that summarized the failure of "Remember Me" as "women leads don't sell" when they should have learned "releasing bad games is not a good idea if you don't have an established series fanbase to defraud for sale?"

Cheap shots aside, your comment is also telling of television and Hollywood. They generally only bother with female leads in shows/movies targeted towards women even when it's been shown they can make money on them with a general audience. This is not something special to video games.

I'm curious to where you are drawing your lines with respect to the franchise. In terms of the sales information on Wikipedia, it appears that, out of the 9 main installments in the Tomb Raider franchise (excluding the most recent reboot, that Simon had been referencing), 7 of them were considered commercial successes. Even the 2 that weren't sold over a million copies, and one of them was just a sloppy re-release of the original game anyway. So it seems that reality disagrees with your notion that the series was barely making money when they started capitalizing on the action-girl in tight spandex look; and this isn't even getting into the 2 movies (combined gross $430 million).

I'll admit, I haven't kept up with the series since around 4 (I think it was Revelation). EIDOS was in a perpetual shit-storm of "we're about to sink, quick do something, ok we're not sinking anymore, wait shit, is that more water?" They took TR into a weird direction with 3 and I don't recall the game doing much to bail them out. All I remember about 4 is they didn't do much and the game only gained traction in the UK. It was basically dead to me at that point and American reviewers and players at the time were in agreement it was mediocre at best. And none of it had to do with "well, women don't sell video games."

[Thanas]

portraying demeaning stereotypes of women (e.g. "Grand Theft Auto").

Actually, the recent GTA has done a very clever thing with sex workers - sure you can still murder them like you can everybody in the game, but what they did was introduce conversations that happen when you walk near them which feature them talking about how they did this kind of stuff because of college debt or abusive boyfriends or because they were poor. A good deal of them also feature visible signs of abuse. If you are not some kind of psychopath that stuff will impact you.

Now one can argue whether this is a fair portrayal to the sex industry but it is a far cry from how the earlier GTAs handled that.

EDIT: Screenshot and another one.

[mr friendly guy]

Now, if there is no evidence to be found that gory non stop violence in games affects people negatively how would there be any evidence that a constant barrage of depictions of jews as subhuman would affect people negatively during the 1930s? In both cases, it was "just a matter of depictions and giving people what they want and expect to see," surely?

Or... it could be that this constant barrage reinforces and sanctions behavior that otherwise would not be so sanctioned.

I don't think either side on the anti-semite issue disagrees that it helps reinforce behaviour (since its kind of deliberate on the part of the racists), the disagreement would be the racists think its ok to reinforce these behaviours and their opponents don't. With gaming where the reinforcement of negative stereotypes is arguably secondary to selling the game, its not clear cut. Which brings me to my next point. If there is disagreement, the onus is on those who make a claim to show it.

Using Jack Thompson's claim about game violence, various studies (including articles posted here) showed there was no association between violence in real life and video games. If someone (and I am speaking generally here) wants to show either
a) video games make someone more misogynist, or
b) reinforces that behaviour (presumably it means they are less likely to change their views),

then find some statistics or study to back the empirical claim.

[Purple]

then find some statistics or study to back the empirical claim.

Until that happens I am going to propose an argument to the contrary that maybe, just maybe is worth thinking about.

Mentally healthy human beings have the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

[Alyrium Denryle]

then find some statistics or study to back the empirical claim.

Very few studies have been done with games, but I am reasonably certain that we can generalize from other media such as television.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/28/12/1615.short

Consuming Images: How Television Commercials that Elicit Stereotype Threat Can Restrain Women Academically and Professionally

Women in quantitative fields risk being personally reduced to negative stereotypes that allege a sex-based math inability. This situational predicament, termed stereotype threat, can undermine women’s performance and aspirations in all quantitative domains. Gender-stereotypic television commercials were employed in three studies to elicit the female stereotype among both men and women. Study 1 revealed that only women for whom the activated stereotype was self-relevant underperformed on a subsequent math test. Exposure to the stereotypic commercials led women taking an aptitude test in Study 2 to avoid math items in favor of verbal items. In Study 3, women who viewed the stereotypic commercials indicated less interest in educational/vocational options in which they were susceptible to stereotype threat (i.e., quantitative domains) and more interest in fields in which they were immune to stereotype threat (i.e., verbal domains).

http://ross.mayfirst.org/files/sex-role ... ames_0.pdf

Big lit review, Full Text At Link

Video Game Characters and the Socialization of Gender
Roles: Young People’s Perceptions Mirror Sexist Media
Depictions

Video game characters are icons in youth popular
culture, but research on their role in gender socialization is
rare. A content analysis of images of video game characters
from top-selling American gaming magazines showed male
characters (83%) are more likely than female characters
(62%) to be portrayed as aggressive. Female characters are
more likely than male characters to be portrayed as
sexualized (60% versus 1%), scantily clad (39% versus
8%) and as showing a mix of sex and aggression (39 versus
1%). A survey of teens confirmed that stereotypes of male
characters as aggressive and female characters as sexually
objectified physical specimens are held even by nongamers.
Studies are discussed

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3108001005

Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment

The violent video game literature has previously not extended to the domain of violence against women. The current investigation tested the effects of exposure to sex-typed video game characters versus images of professional men and women on judgments and attitudes supporting aggression against women. Results showed experimental effects of short-term exposure to stereotypical media content on sexual harassment judgments but not on rape myth acceptance. A significant interaction indicated that men exposed to stereotypical content made judgments that were more tolerant of a real-life instance of sexual harassment compared to controls. Long-term exposure to video game violence was correlated with greater tolerance of sexual harassment and greater rape myth acceptance. This data contributes to our understanding of mass media’s role in socialization that supports violence against women.

Until that happens I am going to propose an argument to the contrary that maybe, just maybe is worth thinking about.
Human beings have the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality unless they deliberately chose not to.

The problem is that TV and Games operate like literature, but with much higher Involvement and Relevance (basically, the mind of the person is more actively involved with audio-visual material than it is with written material, so it is retained and incorporated more efficiently). They help us form our social attitudes. Murder is different. There is a psychological barrier to killing that is actually really hard to overcome and requires either a massive emotional shock or systematic abuse/conditioning. A game wont do that. A drill sergeant will, or incandescent rage.

When you have an adolescent who's brain is trying to figure out how to make its way in the world, what social expectations are etc, very subtle messages get picked up.

X is Beauty
Y is your Gender Role
N is how you go about finding a mate

etc.

While they consciously know that Family Matters is fantasy, the parts of their brain that squirrel away that information does not operate on the conscious level, higher cognitive function got tacked on on top of the much older systems being used to gather this information. They are watching what is for all intents and purposes, real people engaging in social interactions.

[Eleas]

I don't think either side on the anti-semite issue disagrees that it helps reinforce behaviour (since its kind of deliberate on the part of the racists), the disagreement would be the racists think its ok to reinforce these behaviours and their opponents don't.

That's a fair point.

With gaming where the reinforcement of negative stereotypes is arguably secondary to selling the game, its not clear cut.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that the issue of whether it reinforces behavior at all is in doubt because it is not deliberate?

Which brings me to my next point. If there is disagreement, the onus is on those who make a claim to show it.

To show their disagreement? I don't want to be obtuse here, but this seems unclear.

Using Jack Thompson's claim about game violence, various studies (including articles posted here) showed there was no association between violence in real life and video games. If someone (and I am speaking generally here) wants to show either
a) video games make someone more misogynist, or
b) reinforces that behaviour (presumably it means they are less likely to change their views),

then find some statistics or study to back the empirical claim.

I had this conversation online not long ago. Someone asked something rather similar, i.e. what evidence is there for objectification at all. I then quoted my wife (who holds a Masters in gender studies), "objectification is part of the self-evident explanatory models for gendered violence, so basic science done in that area is so old that it's only referred to in passing or part of the framework.

The only thing I find is case studies where theories touching on objectification are _used_, so not a source you can use in discussion. In social-anthropological terms, right now you're sitting there discussing whether or not gravity exists."

Me: "Would you mind if I use this, then?"

Her: "If you want. I doubt it'll help. They'll only see it as yet another sign of conspiring feminists who 'don't have proof'.

"I don't know if there are clear studies that show people looking at made-up women and then go home to beat their partners. However, there are loads of studies that show a connection between violence in a close relationship, and viewing the victimized party as a "commodity", that is a thing that exists for the perpetrator and not themselves."

In the same discussion, this study also came up. It suggests that, yes, sexual objectification of women in video games did in fact "result[..] in statistically significant increased rape myths acceptance (rape-supportive attitudes) for male study participants but not for female participants."

[mr friendly guy]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that the issue of whether it reinforces behavior at all is in doubt because it is not deliberate?

Not quite. I am saying if it does reinforce behaviour its not as obvious as a case where its blatantly deliberate because the propagandists are metaphorically shouting it at our face. With the video game issue, frankly it doesn't seem so obvious because it would be a side effect of the primary goal (selling games).

To show their disagreement? I don't want to be obtuse here, but this seems unclear.

I am saying that in the case of video games, its not as clear because of the above reason. So one way to settle the issue is to do the studies.

I had this conversation online not long ago. Someone asked something rather similar, i.e. what evidence is there for objectification at all. I then quoted my wife (who holds a Masters in gender studies), "objectification is part of the self-evident explanatory models for gendered violence, so basic science done in that area is so old that it's only referred to in passing or part of the framework.

The only thing I find is case studies where theories touching on objectification are _used_, so not a source you can use in discussion. In social-anthropological terms, right now you're sitting there discussing whether or not gravity exists."

Me: "Would you mind if I use this, then?"

Her: "If you want. I doubt it'll help. They'll only see it as yet another sign of conspiring feminists who 'don't have proof'.

"I don't know if there are clear studies that show people looking at made-up women and then go home to beat their partners. However, there are loads of studies that show a connection between violence in a close relationship, and viewing the victimized party as a "commodity", that is a thing that exists for the perpetrator and not themselves."

In the same discussion, this study also came up. It suggests that, yes, sexual objectification of women in video games did in fact "result[..] in statistically significant increased rape myths acceptance (rape-supportive attitudes) for male study participants but not for female participants."

I think AD made a good point. There so far isn't a lot of studies done. Obviously I can't read the whole study linked so I am not sure exactly what they consider a "rape myth". I am guessing its the attitudes like "she asked for it" or some other misogynistic bullshit.

etc.

While they consciously know that Family Matters is fantasy, the parts of their brain that squirrel away that information does not operate on the conscious level, higher cognitive function got tacked on on top of the much older systems being used to gather this information. They are watching what is for all intents and purposes, real people engaging in social interactions.

Don't have time to read everything you posted, but from what you're saying, the solution is simply to have higher age ratings so that people who are more mature and consequently can tell fantasy from reality get to play these games. Isn't the stereotypical gamer an adult?

[AniThyng]

Don't have time to read everything you posted, but from what you're saying, the solution is simply to have higher age ratings so that people who are more mature and consequently can tell fantasy from reality get to play these games. Isn't the stereotypical gamer an adult?

The stereotypical "gamer" is an adult, but I'm pretty sure the actual demographics of people who play games and subsequently would be influenced by them are primarily people who are still impressionable and learning about their place in the world so short of making the age limit 30, no it won't help...

[Vendetta]

People who doubt that media influences attitudes and behaviours should wonder why the advertising industry makes and spends upwards of a hundred billion dollars a year, every year, doing exactly that to people of all ages...

There's a massive amount of empirical evidence that media does affect attitudes and behaviours, not in the direct causal sense of "played a violent videogame therefore more violent*" but in the more subtle "consumed a lot of media portraying violence as a viable solution to given problems therefore more likely to believe violent solutions are appropriate in those situations".

Just look at the attitude towards smoking and how that changed not particularly because smoking was proved to be a health hazard but because of the rules about how & where it could be advertised.

Age limits are not the answer because adults are just as susceptible to advertising as children and teenagers.

* It's actually competitive videogames which have a link to short term increase in aggression, no matter whether they're violent or not.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think AD made a good point. There so far isn't a lot of studies done.

Oh there are plenty. Just not on video games per se. Though there are a few. The simple fact is, we dont need them to draw conclusions. The same patterns hold true for print media, television etc, with the effect sizes getting bigger the more audience involvement goes up (the greater the degree of social and sensory integration, basically). It is not as if video games are going to feature some sort of inexplicable dividing point where this no longer applies.

I am guessing its the attitudes like "she asked for it" or some other misogynistic bullshit.

Nail-->Head

Don't have time to read everything you posted, but from what you're saying, the solution is simply to have higher age ratings so that people who are more mature and consequently can tell fantasy from reality get to play these games. Isn't the stereotypical gamer an adult?

Legally? Yes. Neurologically... not until the early to mid 20s, and it is not as if most gamers first pick up their first controller or obtain their first ever PC game when they are 25. Plus, it does not end there. The effect is just larger prior to neurological adulthood.

There are other issues too. The more a human hears statements that are not immediately recognized as false (not restricted to hear either, but also demonstration and what those statements and demonstrations imply), the more likely they are to weigh them strongly when making decisions or formulating positions and attitudes. This is, for example, why politicians repeat the same discredited talking points over and over again (death panels etc). So if you have stories about a rugged 30-something bestubbled man who must rescue the helpless damsel archetype over and over again, it is going to start imparting certain attitudes about female passivity into the brain, without any conscious awareness on the part of the player.

They know it is fantasy. But the whole reason we can even grasp the concept of fantasy is so we can simulate possible futures in our brains and teach ourselves to react to the situations presented (or situations that parallel them).

When you watch a movie and see a fictional child suffer, you feel bad for the fictional kid, to the point that your brain does a dry run of the fictional kids suffering that activates most of the regions that would respond if you were actually in a similar state. You know it is fiction, but your left amygdala and mirror neurons dont give a shit about that. When you see the Hero Archetype become angry at the suffering, you become angry too, and this reinforces the notion that the child suffering should make you angry.

This is a good thing.

But the same process can lead to bad outcomes if the implementation is...poor. Like in cases where female characters in a game or on television exist purely for the pleasure/interest of men and are uncharacterized/humanized, with no independent (albeit fictional) agency.

Honestly, a great deal of the problem could be solved with better writing

[Thanas]

Proving correlation is a bit iffy. I do believe there is one, but the evidence is circumstantial.

From this study

For the Bush Administrations in particular, it could be argued that the role played by programmes like 24 has been to align public opinion behind legal and military actions that had already been permitted, even though at the time they were permitted, US public opinion was more opposed to torture than supportive of it. It has done this by keeping interrogational torture in the public conscience, something that would otherwise not have happened if American public opinion was only shaped by news events. For the military, it acted to inspire responses to the need for information and filled in the gaps for those on the ground subject to situational pressures.

There is strong circumstantial evidence linking ‘spytainment’ viewing to opinion formation and convergence of public opinion with 24’s most popular and torturous season 7 in 2009, the year when public support for interrogational torture overtook opposition to it. But the greatest limitation of the research is the inability to prove a causal link between the two. The same could be said of creating a causal link between entertainment and the actions of the military, although again there is strong circumstantial evidence linking the two. It is therefore likely that there is a strong and compelling link between public opinion, practitioner action and televised interrogational torture as entertainment as one amongst a number of influences.

It should however be noted that the producer of Homeland has come out in public and said that they deliberately toned down the show because they felt that their depiction mattered in changing or modulating public perception.

[Eleas]

I think I'm doing a worse job of making my point compared to AD, who's said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

(When understanding the point mr friendly guy wanted to make is hard not because of incoherence on his part but due to sleep deprivation on mine, that's the signal for taking a break, so I will.)

[Purple]

I always thought that the reason why mass media effect people is that we have learned to see them, television in particular as authority figures to be trusted. After all, up until a few years ago TV was how we got all of our news. So to see something on TV that looks official and informative means our brains will think it is. But that's just wild speculation on my part.

[Civil War Man]

For a counter-example, if gamers hate women so much why had Metroid sold so damn well over the years? Why did Other M crater when it showed Samus as a weak and barely effectual character? Gamers love weak women right? Why was Perfect Dark a big deal on N64, but was instantly forgettable on 360? Why isn't there a huge backlash in the FFXIV community when women are, literally, in charge of everything? X-Blades had it all: a hot chick with tits barely contained slashing through boring dungeons: it sold great, right? No, no it didn't.

Regarding Other M, part of the backlash could also be credited to Samus being the protagonist. Her actions are controlled by the player, so when she is weak and ineffectual, then by extension so is the player. It also helps that Samus has been around for decades, and that she's one of the oldest female video game protagonists ever. Metroid sold well because the games were well-made and the main character was groundbreaking, and Other M attempted to do a complete 180 on all of her characterization up to that point.

It's also inaccurate to say that the Gamergate gamers love weak women. It's more that they love sexual women, and while the helpless damsel in distress or submissive ornament is one type of sexualization, it's certainly not the only type. Gameplay does usually trump that (see your X-Blades example), but they do mobilize when someone speaks out against it. See, for example, the bile directed at the reviewer who committed the sin of not giving Bayonetta 2 a perfect score because the comical levels of sexualization turned him off, which included at least one attempted campaign to get Nintendo to blacklist him as punishment (because, you know, ethics in video game journalism).