Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

[TheFeniX]

Yup, that's definitely the case. There's no differing gender standards at all or anything. It's just moralizing about sexuality, which is why when a male character is sexualized, male gamers are perfectly fine with it.

There's nothing about that picture that makes me uncomfortable. I'd have no issues playing a game with that as the lead, then again I don't view characters I play as some kind of avatar for myself. Kaim from Lost Odyssey is one of my favorite characters, but that has more to do with personalization than looks. To claim that character is sexualized and more beefcake (even though that guy is pretty ripped) guys aren't is weird.

Muscle-bound men are a staple of what women find attractive, at least in America. My mom read Romance Novels and left them lying around the house. I saw the covers. Arnold was a huge deal with men and women in his prime. My wife swoons any time Michael Fassbender is on-screen, and even I have to admit (like she does with Selma Hayek: "hot is hot." Though just as all women don't have the same taste in men, men don't always have the same taste in women. But there's some general points designers hit on to find a "safe zone" for attractive to hit as many members in a given demographic. Muscly chisled-jawed dudes and voluptuous hour-glass women, for just 2 examples.

[Kane Starkiller]

It's not about the stereotypes (although that's part of it, too) either. It's a gender disparity. Same thing as the pay disparity issue. It's not right that women are consistently paid less than men for the same level of employment. Are you going to say that's a problem too?

Also, do note that there aren't as many women gamers out there as there are men (although those numbers are increasing). Regardless of that, though, it's not the fault of women gamers that there aren't as many non-sexualized women in games; that's the fault of developers pandering to what they view as the 'gamer' demographic and gamers that do fit into that demographic (young, male, hetero d-bag).

What is a non-sexualized woman anyway? I mean human beings are sexual, we tend to be sexually attracted to other people. Some people like female bodybuilders, some like obese women, some are attracted fit skinny types etc. It seems to me that when you say "non-sexualized" you mean "not dressing like a slut".
But this is all beside the point. If I want to see beautiful women and there are games that provide that how am I hurting women? Are they paid less? What? Unless we are back at the original point that it's simply intrinsically wrong to show "sexualized" (read:slutty) woman.

[mr friendly guy]

Kane has short of raised what bugs me about the subject object dichotomy.

1. At what point is it treating a loved one as an object when you rescue them?

After the first time, second time, what?
Why is this explanation the more correct one over the obvious one they're trying to say to the player, ie you loved this person and you have to rescue them? Isn't rescuing someone because you see them as an object you have to possess, rather than because you love them, bordering on sociopathy?

Can you not see how the response to this claim about men objectifying women for rescuing loved ones ranges from laughing at, to being offended.

2. Does this mean that if a male character is rescued, then he is objectified?

Lets use television examples instead. If say Wonder Woman rescues Steve Trevor (continuously in the television series), or She Ra rescues Bow (continuously) or Jamie Sommers (the bionic woman in the classic version, not the modern one) continues to rescue her boss Oscar Goldman (several times), is this objectifying these male characters?

When Mary Sue Clara Oswald rescue the Doctor, is that objectifying. I had many words and phrases to describe the stories, such as Clara being a Mary Sue, but I have never once thought objectifying male character was one of them.

3. Is it objectifying only because it happens mainly it happens to one gender?

In which case it seems less of objectifying and more a case of double standards.

[Kane Starkiller]

Can you not see how the response to this claim about men objectifying women for rescuing loved ones ranges from laughing at, to being offended.

I believe that's kind of the point: turn something that comes to any decent person naturally like sex or saving a loved one and turn it into a problem. If this was about equality than they could simply say "we want to see more dicks and women rescuing men in games". Instead we get Subject-Object dichotomy, robbing women of agency, sexualization, male gaze yadda yadda.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What is a non-sexualized woman anyway? I mean human beings are sexual, we tend to be sexually attracted to other people. Some people like female bodybuilders, some like obese women, some are attracted fit skinny types etc. It seems to me that when you say "non-sexualized" you mean "not dressing like a slut".
But this is all beside the point. If I want to see beautiful women and there are games that provide that how am I hurting women? Are they paid less? What? Unless we are back at the original point that it's simply intrinsically wrong to show "sexualized" (read:slutty) woman.

Think of it from a narrative point of view. Does the woman in question contribute anything to the plot and story other than her sexiness and need to be fetched? In other words, can she be replaced by an inanimate object in the plot, and have the plot still work? If so, then she is being objectified.

Does she have her own character development, story arc, and have objectives and goals of her own? If yes, then she is not being objectified.

1. At what point is it treating a loved one as an object when you rescue them?

When it is all or almost all that she manages to do. Take Princess Leia as a counter-example. Sure in the first movie she needs to be rescued, but in the course of that film she is characterized fully, has goals of her own, helps rescue herself (as opposed to being passively rescued) and is generally badass.

Contrast this with Princess Zelda, where she can be fully replaced with a McGuffin.

Lets use television examples instead. If say Wonder Woman rescues Steve Trevor (continuously in the television series), or She Ra rescues Bow (continuously) or Jamie Sommers (the bionic woman in the classic version, not the modern one) continues to rescue her boss Oscar Goldman (several times), is this objectifying these male characters?

The devil is in the details. Can they be replaced with an inanimate object within the plots of these comics? Do they exist merely as narrative extensions of the main character and objects of titilation, or do they get development of their own?

In which case it seems less of objectifying and more a case of double standards.

It is analogous to racism. An individual black person can be a racist. But racism against whites by black people in the US is not a systemic problem. It negatively affects the white people they interact with, but does not negatively impact white people as a whole. While the opposite condition does due to the unconscious acceptance of racist stereotypes by large portions of the population

Objectification of women in media contributes to the broad scale acceptance of misogynistic attitudes and beliefs that are often held unconsciously. People are not aware, by and large, that they hold certain attitudes and beliefs about women that are bad. But they do, and this hurts women. Reinforcing this is bad.

The same is not true with men, and comics in which men are objectified in this way does not negatively affect men generally.

If society does start to shift toward actually being misandrist by act of Q, the this situation will change.

[Kane Starkiller]

Think of it from a narrative point of view. Does the woman in question contribute anything to the plot and story other than her sexiness and need to be fetched? In other words, can she be replaced by an inanimate object in the plot, and have the plot still work? If so, then she is being objectified.

Does she have her own character development, story arc, and have objectives and goals of her own? If yes, then she is not being objectified.

If she can be replaced by an inanimate object what difference does it make whether she is sexy or not? What is the moral difference between a sexy woman that serves no purpose to the story, an "ugly" woman that serves no purpose to the story and a man that serves no purpose to the story?
Is there any justification needed for putting a sexy woman in a game that doesn't serve a story above and beyond putting an unattractive woman that doesn't serve a story?

I reject the claim that "needing a rescue" is the same as "needing to be fetched". Maybe it's the same for you for me the emotional response is simply not the same even if its a game.

[Vendetta]

Are you saying that historically most players weren't male? No excuse? What makes you think game makers owe you any excuses or explanations for what kind of main characters they make unless they are breaking the law?
Lazy? Lazy has nothing to do with sexism.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Videogames were not always a male dominant medium in advertising or consumption, and they are not currently male dominated (currently more women than men regularly play videogames, and it is not necessarily the gameplay of "mainstream" games that put them off playing those). Therefore pandering exclusively to a regressive male viewpoint is not justified by the market. Your argument that it is is wrong.

Who ignores the desires and opinions of the female character? The bad guy. That's what makes him the bad guy. If she gets herself free without help then there is no story.

The author of the story dipshit. They are presenting a woman as an objective for a male character not as a character in their own right. If she gets herself free without help then that is a fucking story you moron, it's the story of how that woman escaped without help from captivity. You have literally just made the assumption that a woman cannot be the protagonist of that story. Now, you're only sexist because you're a dipshit not out of malice, but you're still a dipshit.

See above. People (even if they are women) who need help are not objects and making stories where you help them is not sexism.

The point, dipshit, is that the damsel in distress is represented in no other way as a person. They are literally only an object to be collected at some point. There's no personality, no representation of them as a human being with opinions, no agency. If at any point the story is unchanged by the character being replaced by a cardboard cutout, then they have been reduced to an object. This will vastly more frequently happen to female than male characters.

Agency has been a major issue in gaming for a long time. The problem isn't so much that women lack agency, it's that generally only the player has agency. And when you have a female character with no agency and you rely on the go-to female stereotypes, they are rightfully offended. I'm offended because considering technology, that shit should not play in anything but the most brain-dead of shooter games.

You've confused ludic agency (ability of the player to perform actions at will in the mechanics of the game) with narrative agency. Characters can have narrative agency without being player controlled. Every time an NPC does something to advance their own goals or in line with their own desires as part of the story they are displaying narrative agency. There is a strong tendency in videogames especially to remove this from female characters in order to motivate or pander to the player (agency is demonstrable in a lot of ways, even in character design, if you look at a female character and think "nobody would choose to wear that in that situation" she's not been designed as a character but as fanservice, and that's also a poor representation of agency. The ultimate example is Ivy from Soul Calibur, the problem is not necessarily with the way she dresses in isolation but that it stands in conflict with what we are otherwise supposed to believe about her character. She's allegedly taken a vow of celibacy but she dresses like a dominatrix stripper).

1. At what point is it treating a loved one as an object when you rescue them?

[/quote]

If you had a brain, you'd have been able to understand that I was talking about the construction fo the story. It's treating a female character as an object when you the author write a story in which she exists solely to be rescued.

Videogame authors do this a lot because they are lazy and stupid.

People on this forum apparently do not understand that when I say that videogame authors do this I am talking about videogame authors because they are also lazy and stupid.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If she can be replaced by an inanimate object what difference does it make whether she is sexy or not? What is the moral difference between a sexy woman that serves no purpose to the story, an "ugly" woman that serves no purpose to the story and a man that serves no purpose to the story?

Thank you for not actually reading. Go back and read what I actually wrote. Then we will see if we can make it stick in your head.

*Taps foot*

Ok.

It matters because then she is a sexual object. Take a ten year old who plays lots of these games. Keep in mind too that the ways in which we act toward other people are socially learned. They are learned through example taught explicitly by others, and through the various cultural portrayals that serve as examples.

Now, take a series of games in which a sexy woman who can be narratively replaced with an inanimate object and still have the plot work are used as primary character motivations for the protagonist. Where the affections of said sexy woman are used as narrative rewards (he gets the girl at the end, basically). What do you think this is going to teach that 10 year old about the role of women in society and sexual entitlement?

Do you think it is going to be good?

Just the objectification is bad enough. Adding in the sexual entitlement just makes it worse.

I reject the claim that "needing a rescue" is the same as "needing to be fetched". Maybe it's the same for you for me the emotional response is simply not the same even if its a game.

Dont be a pedantic moron. Princess Leia did not need to be fetched. Her escape needed to be facilitated. Her rescue is fine, because she is most certainly not a passive individual. Princess Zelda needs fetching, because she can be replaced with a magical gem and the plot will not be meaningfully changed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What makes you think game makers owe you any excuses or explanations for what kind of main characters they make unless they are breaking the law?

Because they are human beings who have social and ethical responsibilities.

[biostem]

What makes you think game makers owe you any excuses or explanations for what kind of main characters they make unless they are breaking the law?

Because they are human beings who have social and ethical responsibilities.

The only responsibilities that game makers have is to the company they work for and/or its shareholders. It is up to the players to "vote with their wallets" by buying or not buying said games, and if they feel that said company has made a product that is unacceptable, (in either its content or other related aspects), then don't buy it, thus sending a message to the company.

Now, don't get me wrong - I personally don't approve of certain types of games, but just because I or others don't, doesn't necessarily mean that no one should be able to make a game with a particular theme or type of content.

That being said, I'd also like to point out that portraying women need not be in a hateful or spiteful way, but at the same time, if a game is trying to depict a realistic locale - one which has prostitutes, drug addicts, strippers, and the like, then those types of portrayals are to be expected.

At the same time, wasn't the whole scandal about a game developer or reviewer allegedly using sex to garner positive reviews and thus further their interests? This point, at least to my eyes, appears to be where most of the misogyny is directed - the hatred at this woman allegedly using sex to further her interests in the gaming industry.

Again, this is my take-away from this, and I make no affirmation of guilt to the parties involved - it's just a lot of allegations until more concrete evidence is provided, (which is unlikely IMO).

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only responsibilities that game makers have is to the company they work for and/or its shareholders.

Um. No. Unless you want to claim that so long as the effect on the bottom line is positive ANYTHING goes. And while a company has no legal responsibility to not be tremendous douchebags, that does not mean that the people who control that company are ethically absolved for whatever it is they create.

It is up to the players to "vote with their wallets" by buying or not buying said games, and if they feel that said company has made a product that is unacceptable, (in either its content or other related aspects), then don't buy it, thus sending a message to the company.

And here is where your argument falls apart. I am after all voting with my wallet and encouraging others to do so based on my belief that the persons in control of companies should take responsibility for their creations.

Now, don't get me wrong - I personally don't approve of certain types of games, but just because I or others don't, doesn't necessarily mean that no one should be able to make a game with a particular theme or type of content.

Holy Strawman, Batman!

Where have I said that these games should not be permitted? Oh. That is right. Absolutely nowhere.

That being said, I'd also like to point out that portraying women need not be in a hateful or spiteful way, but at the same time, if a game is trying to depict a realistic locale - one which has prostitutes, drug addicts, strippers, and the like, then those types of portrayals are to be expected.

Yeah, they should be. But making the prostitutes punching bags who drop loot when you execute them is pretty fucked up. There are ways of having prostitutes in games that does not demean actual prostitutes, or send the message that it is OK to rob and kill them.

This point, at least to my eyes, appears to be where most of the misogyny is directed - the hatred at this woman allegedly using sex to further her interests in the gaming industry.

Even if she did do that (which is unproven, and to my knowledge no review of her game was written), that is no justification to start harassing Anita Sarkeesian or engaging in any misogyny whatsoever.

Zoe Quinn has been subjected to more rancid shit than the Minerals Management Service regulators who BP plied with meth and hookers in order to create the Deepwater Horizon rig. For an indie game that review or no review was going to make very little if any money.

Just let that sink in.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Videogames were not always a male dominant medium in advertising or consumption, and they are not currently male dominated (currently more women than men regularly play videogames, and it is not necessarily the gameplay of "mainstream" games that put them off playing those). Therefore pandering exclusively to a regressive male viewpoint is not justified by the market. Your argument that it is is wrong.

But which video games? Solitaire and Candy Crusher and Tetris are also video games. Are you saying that more women play action games, action RPG-s and such where this whole "controversy" comes from? Justify your claim that wanting to see sexy women is regressive.
Not to mention that there are plenty of female characters in these games: Lara Croft, Sarah Kerrigan, female Shepard in Mass Effect games, female option for Dragon Age and so on. Or female sidekicks like Anna Grimsdottir in Splinter Cell series. As more women are drawn to these games more female characters appear. Not that you need women gamers for there to be female characters. No one had any qualms about playing Tomb Raider all those decades ago except that too was a problem since she had "big boobs".

The author of the story dipshit. They are presenting a woman as an objective for a male character not as a character in their own right. If she gets herself free without help then that is a fucking story you moron, it's the story of how that woman escaped without help from captivity. You have literally just made the assumption that a woman cannot be the protagonist of that story. Now, you're only sexist because you're a dipshit not out of malice, but you're still a dipshit.

The author of the story has an obligation not to ignore the desires and wishes of the nonexistent fictional character he is creating? What desires and wishes does a fictional character have beyond what it is given by its creator? Furthermore fictional characters are routinely subjected to horrible experiences as helpless objects in fiction. What moral imperative are these authors breaking? Are they sabotaging the revolution? Should they be sent to gulag?
It's also pretty hilarious you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse yet at the same time pretending not to understand that my statement that the "story is over if woman escapes" applies to the games told from the perspective of the rescuer. Clearly if the story is told from the perspective of the captive it's a different matter.

The point, dipshit, is that the damsel in distress is represented in no other way as a person. They are literally only an object to be collected at some point. There's no personality, no representation of them as a human being with opinions, no agency. If at any point the story is unchanged by the character being replaced by a cardboard cutout, then they have been reduced to an object. This will vastly more frequently happen to female than male characters.

Helpless people are literally only an object if you are a psychopath. If you are actual human being no amount of helplessness will make you see another human being as an object. Instead the more this person is victimized the more you will sympathize with the person. The fact that this happens more often to female characters than to male characters doesn't change the fact that being helpless is not the same as being turned into an object. Unless you are a psychopath.

Thank you for not actually reading. Go back and read what I actually wrote. Then we will see if we can make it stick in your head.

*Taps foot*

Ok.

It matters because then she is a sexual object. Take a ten year old who plays lots of these games. Keep in mind too that the ways in which we act toward other people are socially learned. They are learned through example taught explicitly by others, and through the various cultural portrayals that serve as examples.

Now, take a series of games in which a sexy woman who can be narratively replaced with an inanimate object and still have the plot work are used as primary character motivations for the protagonist. Where the affections of said sexy woman are used as narrative rewards (he gets the girl at the end, basically). What do you think this is going to teach that 10 year old about the role of women in society and sexual entitlement?

Do you think it is going to be good?

Just the objectification is bad enough. Adding in the sexual entitlement just makes it worse.

Do you have a shred of data showing an uptick of sexual violence against women in recent decades and how it correlates to showing sexy women in games which have a limited contribution to the story? Or are you talking out of your ass?

Dont be a pedantic moron. Princess Leia did not need to be fetched. Her escape needed to be facilitated. Her rescue is fine, because she is most certainly not a passive individual. Princess Zelda needs fetching, because she can be replaced with a magical gem and the plot will not be meaningfully changed.

It has nothing to do with being overly pedantic. You are claiming that if a woman is helpless until rescued she is reduced to an object. As in she is no longer valued as a human being. Again: do you have a shred of evidence for this, are you a telepath? Who appointed you to be the arbiter of what is "fine" and "not fine" in a rescue story?

What makes you think game makers owe you any excuses or explanations for what kind of main characters they make unless they are breaking the law?

Because they are human beings who have social and ethical responsibilities.

Appeasing Alyrium Denryle is not a social or an ethical responsibility.

[mr friendly guy]

Can you not see how the response to this claim about men objectifying women for rescuing loved ones ranges from laughing at, to being offended.

I believe that's kind of the point: turn something that comes to any decent person naturally like sex or saving a loved one and turn it into a problem. If this was about equality than they could simply say "we want to see more dicks and women rescuing men in games". Instead we get Subject-Object dichotomy, robbing women of agency, sexualization, male gaze yadda yadda.

Yeah. If they said we want more people of <insert demographic here> involved because there is a market for it, or it better reflects the demographics of society etc I would go, yeah agree. Going on, it would be boring if the heroes were all from one demographic. Variety is good and all that.

If people said, why don't we have more stories where the characters free themselves, ala Prince of Persia, I would have said, "sure why not."

However with the "treating women as objects by rescuing them", its the feminist equivalent of "you atheists don't believe in God because you just want to sin." Or similarly that psychologist on Batman ?dark knight returns who said that supervillains only exist because of super-heroes to fight them, ie blaming the hero for doing the right thing.

When it is all or almost all that she manages to do. Take Princess Leia as a counter-example. Sure in the first movie she needs to be rescued, but in the course of that film she is characterized fully, has goals of her own, helps rescue herself (as opposed to being passively rescued) and is generally badass.

Contrast this with Princess Zelda, where she can be fully replaced with a McGuffin.

That's certainly an example of lazy or limited writing, but how do you differentiate that as objectifying in rescuing her, as opposed to rescuing her because the character loves her. Or do you consider those two situations not mutually exclusive?

The devil is in the details. Can they be replaced with an inanimate object within the plots of these comics? Do they exist merely as narrative extensions of the main character and objects of titilation, or do they get development of their own?

That depends. Do you consider Lyle Waggoner (Steve Trevor) in American military uniform titilating? I wouldn't know. But there is an episode where he literally gets captured twice requiring Wonder Woman to rescue him and going back to Nazi Germany after literally escaping there. From what I recall Steve Trevor existed so he could update the audience about what the Nazi's are doing.

Bow - well this is a children's cartoon. So his development was mainly a braggant and not much more. Although he did have his moments. But if we apply that to say Zelda, does that mean if Zelda saved Link once, she is now a developed character? Or not? Because that's what I remember of Bow. Most of the time She Ra would rescue him.

Oscar Goldman - ok, this guy is more developed. But as the feminists put it, just because he has a gun / <insert powerful thing here> doesn't mean he has agency. This guy got captured by Fembots for example. Does the fact he runs the OSI count for him?

That leads to my next point. Is it objectification of men if a FPS game has the player killing male henchmen? Is it objectification of men if you have a male victim being killed by a serial killer for the sole purpose of driving the main character, in a thriller, eg the Bone Collector starring Denzel Washington?

It is analogous to racism. An individual black person can be a racist. But racism against whites by black people in the US is not a systemic problem. It negatively affects the white people they interact with, but does not negatively impact white people as a whole. While the opposite condition does due to the unconscious acceptance of racist stereotypes by large portions of the population

Objectification of women in media contributes to the broad scale acceptance of misogynistic attitudes and beliefs that are often held unconsciously. People are not aware, by and large, that they hold certain attitudes and beliefs about women that are bad. But they do, and this hurts women. Reinforcing this is bad.

The same is not true with men, and comics in which men are objectified in this way does not negatively affect men generally.

If society does start to shift toward actually being misandrist by act of Q, the this situation will change.

I am going to disagree slightly with the racism analogy. Because racism is considered bad in both situations (ie a black person being racist or a white person being racist). Its clearly worse when one side does it due to imbalance of power. I am not convince having underdeveloped characters which need rescuing is bad from a sexism perspective in and of itself. Certainly its bad from a writing perspective. It would be bad if it was predominantly one way, and that would be because of reasons of equality, which is why I think the racism analogy is a little off.

To use an example in the opposite direction, lets have a gay white character being a hero, eg Captain Jack Harkness from Doctor Who/ Torchwood. There is nothing wrong with that as an individual case from an ethical perspective. But if every main protagonist ever was a gay white male (even if the market is not predominantly gay, white and male), I would say there is something wrong with that from an equality perspective as a whole (ie all cases). As far as I can tell, people who talk about subject /object dichotomy aren't just focussing on the whole, they are actually arguing the individual case is problematic because of objectification.

I think if people argue there should be more heroes / protagonists of <insert certain demographic here> I would have agreed.

If you had a brain, you'd have been able to understand that I was talking about the construction fo the story. It's treating a female character as an object when you the author write a story in which she exists solely to be rescued.

Videogame authors do this a lot because they are lazy and stupid.

People on this forum apparently do not understand that when I say that videogame authors do this I am talking about videogame authors because they are also lazy and stupid.

Well I was speaking to Kane, and about subject / object blah blah as sprouted out online rather than your point per se.
Someone on this forum doesn't seem to realise that logic can be extrapolated to outside video games, and when I give examples from outside video games, I can do so because that argument still applies. But then that person is stupid.

Hey this is fun, lets try it again.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's certainly an example of lazy or limited writing, but how do you differentiate that as objectifying in rescuing her, as opposed to rescuing her because the character loves her. Or do you consider those two situations not mutually exclusive?

They are not mutually exclusive. She can be loved AND objectified. Take the classic Disney fairytales Sleeping Beauty and Snow White as examples. Both women are rescued out of some odd romantic period version of love, but it is merely taken for granted that OF COURSE they will love their rescuer back.

Contrast this with Hunchback of Notre Dame (disney version, because the original is just depressing). Quasimodo rescues her because he loves her. But at no point until she is on that pyre is she helpless and she is NEVER passive. She has her own character arc distinct from that of Quasimodo. Love interests of her own. And in the end, Quasimodo cares enough for her that he is willing to let her go romantically.

But if we apply that to say Zelda, does that mean if Zelda saved Link once, she is now a developed character?

Not necessarily. At best it would mean there are games where she is less objectified or not objectified, out of a game franchise that is how big, exactly? These games are, as far as I know, almost entirely episodic.

As for the rest, I simply cannot comment because I am not nearly as familiar with the details of comics as I am with say, disney films.

Is it objectification of men if a FPS game has the player killing male henchmen? Is it objectification of men if you have a male victim being killed by a serial killer for the sole purpose of driving the main character, in a thriller, eg the Bone Collector starring Denzel Washington?

I am going to have come down on "i dont know" with the killing of random bystanders. You cannot have a murder mystery without people being murdered. I will hazard this. It is a bit of a 4th Wall Issue.

A murderer inside a story (for example The Bone Collector) is almost always objectifying their victims, but we are not intended to identify with the antagonist, but with the victim. Take the first victims in The Bone Collector as an example. They get enough characterization that we care about them as people for their own sake, NOT because of how it affects Denzel.

So while the murder objectifies them, the narration itself is not constructed in such a way that we do.

It would be bad if it was predominantly one way, and that would be because of reasons of equality, which is why I think the racism analogy is a little off.

It is both. Objectification is Bad. But the power differential and the inequality in application just makes it worse. And it makes it worse because A) inequality is bad, but also because B) it sets up an emergent phenomenon with respect to the effect of stereotypes that arise from frequent objectification and a power imbalance.

Any bad thing is bad in itself. But the unequal distribution of that bad thing can make matters worse than the sum total of the individual events of the bad thing, because it can affect people's unconsciously held attitudes and beliefs, and lead to negative consequences that extent to the culture itself. Objectification of women in games is creepy in itself, but because it is done so often, it reinforces ideas about sexual entitlement etc that make it more likely that women will be harassed at work, raped, denied employment etc.

As far as I can tell, people who talk about subject /object dichotomy aren't just focussing on the whole, they are actually arguing the individual case is problematic because of objectification.

Mostly because something is determined as being objectification on a case by case basis.

But let me ask you this. Sexism is Always Bad. We can both agree here. But on the whole, it negatively impacts women far more than it does men. So, do we devote equal effort to combating the negative effects of sexism on both sexes, or do we concentrate most of the effort on women?

I think if people argue there should be more heroes / protagonists of <insert certain demographic here> I would have agreed.

Nothing saying we cant do both. I for one welcome any and all improvements in the writing of games movies and comics.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you have a shred of data showing an uptick of sexual violence against women in recent decades and how it correlates to showing sexy women in games which have a limited contribution to the story? Or are you talking out of your ass?

Yes Jackass. Read the thread, i posted several studies showing increases in rape myth acceptance and tolerance for sexual harassment that arise directly out of experimental exposure to female objectification.

Appeasing Alyrium Denryle is not a social or an ethical responsibility.

No. But not contributing to vile sexist bullshit is.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes Jackass. Read the thread, i posted several studies showing increases in rape myth acceptance and tolerance for sexual harassment that arise directly out of experimental exposure to female objectification.

That's not what I asked. I asked you to provide evidence that mere existence of sexy women in games which may or may not contribute to the story caused an objectively measurable uptick of rape and other sexual assault on women.

No. But not contributing to vile sexist bullshit is.

You have yet to provide a shred of proof that portraying sexy women that are saved by the main protagonist regardless of how much they contribute to the story is vile sexist bullshit.

[Simon_Jester]

Not necessarily. At best it would mean there are games where she is less objectified or not objectified, out of a game franchise that is how big, exactly? These games are, as far as I know, almost entirely episodic.

There are a few. Like, one where she's reimagined as a pirate queen and the final battle involves you keeping the villain occupied with swordplay while she riddles him with arrows. Although in the next installment where the same character appears, I gather she spends most of the game trapped in an even more passive captivity than usual.

I think Nintendo tried to accomplish a little more with Zelda after the old 8 and 16-bit games, because she's one of like two recognizable recurring characters in the franchise. The criticism that "the helpless princess doesn't do much" in video games arguably sticks more effectively to Princess Peach of the Mario games.

Peach spends games wandering around in a big poofy pink dress and being menaced by monsters. Zelda will at least sometimes do something fancy like dress up as a ninja and try to help Our Hero in his quest.

[Kane Starkiller]

It's one thing to desire more responsive and fleshed out NPCs be they man or woman. Who wouldn't want games to be richer and more accurate representation of the real world? This has nothing to do with ascribing malicious intent or negative psychological impact on innoccuous plot points like saving a loved one.

[Metahive]

There are a few. Like, one where she's reimagined as a pirate queen and the final battle involves you keeping the villain occupied with swordplay while she riddles him with arrows. Although in the next installment where the same character appears, I gather she spends most of the game trapped in an even more passive captivity than usual.

I think Nintendo tried to accomplish a little more with Zelda after the old 8 and 16-bit games, because she's one of like two recognizable recurring characters in the franchise. The criticism that "the helpless princess doesn't do much" in video games arguably sticks more effectively to Princess Peach of the Mario games.

Peach spends games wandering around in a big poofy pink dress and being menaced by monsters. Zelda will at least sometimes do something fancy like dress up as a ninja and try to help Our Hero in his quest.

In the latest game of the franchise, Hyrule Warriors (OK, it's a spin-off, but whatever), Zelda not only never assumes the position of a distressed damsel, female playable characters outnumber male characters by quite a margin and most male playable characters are villains to boot. Zelda is also clearly the leader of the good guy forces who's fully trusted in her ability to lead and there's none of that Other M bullshit.

Of course, there's still the somewhat impractical and showy armors that some of the female characters wear, but hey, it's still better than the deal LoZ's female characters got before.

[mr friendly guy]

They are not mutually exclusive. She can be loved AND objectified. Take the classic Disney fairytales Sleeping Beauty and Snow White as examples. Both women are rescued out of some odd romantic period version of love, but it is merely taken for granted that OF COURSE they will love their rescuer back.

Contrast this with Hunchback of Notre Dame (disney version, because the original is just depressing). Quasimodo rescues her because he loves her. But at no point until she is on that pyre is she helpless and she is NEVER passive. She has her own character arc distinct from that of Quasimodo. Love interests of her own. And in the end, Quasimodo cares enough for her that he is willing to let her go romantically.

Hmm. Lets try this then. I would argue the love portrayed in popular media isn't the exactly the Fatal Attraction type love. That is we are bombarded by the message that "you love someone so much that you let them go." In this case that if the player's character is supposed to have that type of love, it would be contradictory to what objectification does. That is you are no longer treating them as an object.

I am going to have come down on "i dont know" with the killing of random bystanders. You cannot have a murder mystery without people being murdered. I will hazard this. It is a bit of a 4th Wall Issue.

A murderer inside a story (for example The Bone Collector) is almost always objectifying their victims, but we are not intended to identify with the antagonist, but with the victim. Take the first victims in The Bone Collector as an example. They get enough characterization that we care about them as people for their own sake, NOT because of how it affects Denzel.

So while the murder objectifies them, the narration itself is not constructed in such a way that we do.

But the point of the murders was for the Antagonist to prove he was smarter than Denzel Washington's characters was it not? These characters are dying to advance the story of another character, and barely have any personality. The couple murdered in the opening minutes of the Bone Collector have hardly any personality displayed before they are killed. Granted its more than say Princess Peach, but not much.

Now if you say that its hard to identify with some character which isn't shown to have personality then
a. Why do people complain about objectifying these characters and

b. I think when we hear about a natural disaster where lots of people die, we as humans can identify with their suffering even if all we know about their personality is as much as Nintendo displays for Peach. In other words just because a character is poorly written, does not mean we can't identify that they are in distress when an event in the story shows them like that and react appropriately. That is not react like they are some possession to simply be won.

It is both. Objectification is Bad. But the power differential and the inequality in application just makes it worse. And it makes it worse because A) inequality is bad, but also because B) it sets up an emergent phenomenon with respect to the effect of stereotypes that arise from frequent objectification and a power imbalance.

Any bad thing is bad in itself. But the unequal distribution of that bad thing can make matters worse than the sum total of the individual events of the bad thing, because it can affect people's unconsciously held attitudes and beliefs, and lead to negative consequences that extent to the culture itself. Objectification of women in games is creepy in itself, but because it is done so often, it reinforces ideas about sexual entitlement etc that make it more likely that women will be harassed at work, raped, denied employment etc.

*******************************************************


Mostly because something is determined as being objectification on a case by case basis.

I don't think I am communicating my point well, so I will try again.

Using an extreme example, if one demographic (lets say a white male) was consistently the protagonist rescuing others, and another demographic consistently the villain and another consistently the people being rescued (eg a female), then there would be an ethical problem with that on equality grounds. In fiction where people have magical powers there is really no reason why a person from another demographic group could not be the hero. One would have to suspect some bias within our culture and that's certainly something to correct.

However I see no ethical problems with a male saving a female character who is poorly written. I cannot see something unethical in and of itself. No more than I can see anything unethical if a straight white man gets a job over other equally qualified candidates, but I can see a problem if every other similar job just so happened to be awarded to white men even though there are equally qualified individuals in comparable numbers. That's the crux of the disagreement and I suspect that's where Kane Starkiller also disagrees.

The reason a male saving a female in those games is considered bad, is because of the subject / object dichotomy. Which if we apply their "logic" consistently, I can make a case that men are objectified more. Why? Because most of the nameless henchmen or underlings you kill in games are men. These henchmen do have personality, you don't care for them. Heck, you're asked to care for them less than Princess Peach, because you're actually trying to kill them instead of rescuing them like with Peach. They exist purely to advance the plot of another character (the player). Frankly it seems to me that people are starting off with the preconceived notion that a lot of games are bad and misogynist, and then working backwards with ginormous mental gymnastics to "show" that conclusion all the while ignoring obvious parts which invalidate their hypothesis. And before someone (speaking generally here now, not just to you AD) jumps in and says, "ah, but they are still advancing the plot of a man, so it doesn't count," think very carefully about the implication of that.

But let me ask you this. Sexism is Always Bad. We can both agree here. But on the whole, it negatively impacts women far more than it does men. So, do we devote equal effort to combating the negative effects of sexism on both sexes, or do we concentrate most of the effort on women?

Not sure if you want to go down this route. Because than a smartarse can say, shouldn't we spend more effort countering Islamic State or some other religious misogyny than worrying about video games.

[Metahive]

Not sure if you want to go down this route. Because than a smartarse can say, shouldn't we spend more effort countering Islamic State or some other religious misogyny than worrying about video games.

...and an even bigger smartarse could then say that we should fix our own problems first before we try fixing anyone else's, especially when "fixing" other nations' social issues has such a poor track record.

[Civil War Man]

I don't think I am communicating my point well, so I will try again.

Using an extreme example, if one demographic (lets say a white male) was consistently the protagonist rescuing others, and another demographic consistently the villain and another consistently the people being rescued (eg a female), then there would be an ethical problem with that on equality grounds. In fiction where people have magical powers there is really no reason why a person from another demographic group could not be the hero. One would have to suspect some bias within our culture and that's certainly something to correct.

However I see no ethical problems with a male saving a female character who is poorly written. I cannot see something unethical in and of itself. No more than I can see anything unethical if a straight white man gets a job over other equally qualified candidates, but I can see a problem if every other similar job just so happened to be awarded to white men even though there are equally qualified individuals in comparable numbers. That's the crux of the disagreement and I suspect that's where Kane Starkiller also disagrees.

The reason a male saving a female in those games is considered bad, is because of the subject / object dichotomy. Which if we apply their "logic" consistently, I can make a case that men are objectified more. Why? Because most of the nameless henchmen or underlings you kill in games are men. These henchmen do have personality, you don't care for them. Heck, you're asked to care for them less than Princess Peach, because you're actually trying to kill them instead of rescuing them like with Peach. They exist purely to advance the plot of another character (the player). Frankly it seems to me that people are starting off with the preconceived notion that a lot of games are bad and misogynist, and then working backwards with ginormous mental gymnastics to "show" that conclusion all the while ignoring obvious parts which invalidate their hypothesis. And before someone (speaking generally here now, not just to you AD) jumps in and says, "ah, but they are still advancing the plot of a man, so it doesn't count," think very carefully about the implication of that.

The objectification of men through the nameless faceless henchman isn't really men being objectified more, but objectified differently. Women are objectified by being portrayed as conquests or rewards. They are a valuable thing that is stolen and you need to recover, or something gifted to you for achieving your goal. Men are objectified by being portrayed as disposable items. They are obstacles that must be cleared, usually violently, in order to achieve your goal.

It is a problem, and leads to very real negative consequences for boys. Unfortunately, it is hard to have a meaningful discussion about the objectification of men because 1) all other things being equal, we still have it easier because the reins of power are disproportionately still held by other men, and 2) points about male objectification are usually not brought up to start a discussion, but to end one. People seem to treat oppression as a zero-sum game, one that they can win if they prove that their side has it harder. When an MRA, for example, mentions how men are typically at a disadvantage in child custody cases or are sometimes treated with suspicion if they show interest in pursuing a career that involves frequent interaction with young children, they are not doing it to call for the destruction of a toxic masculine identity (which has very little definition beyond aggressive, hypersexual, and "not feminine"), but to tell a feminist, "Men are oppressed, therefore I think you are not, so I want you to stop talking."

In terms of pop culture (particularly movies, TV, and video games), I fully support any efforts to change the typical 30-something brown haired white straight male protagonist saves the world and gets the girl dynamic if only for variety's sake. It is, quite frankly, insane that the list of prominent female video game main characters is largely still limited to Samus Aran and Lara Croft. There are obviously exceptions, of course, but it seems like most of them come from the same people. I think Saints Row and the various Bioware properties probably have the right idea by having a "build your own protagonist and lead a widely diverse group of misfits" model.

[Ziggy Stardust]

(Note: I am quoting Kane Starkiller in this post, but this isn't really directed directly at him. A bunch of people in this thread have made a similar argument; I just chose his arbitrarily. I am just responding to the general point that lazy writing is not sexist)

Lazy? Lazy has nothing to do with sexism.

But here is where you are wrong.

A lot of the defenders of video game gender roles in this thread seem to have this idea that what Alyrium and others are talking about is a bunch of game designers sitting around villainously finding ways to oppress women or portray them negatively in video games. But that's not what anybody is actually arguing. Generally, these "damsels in distress" paradigms are not done out of malice, but indeed out of laziness. It's falling back on a standard fictional stereotype/trope.

But that's exactly what the problem is! The fact that the "default" setting for lazy writing is to have a women as a meek, powerless object that only exists to be saved. It's not so much that the exact scenario is sexist in and of itself; though it CAN be, as in the case with some of the Legend of Zelda games; as people have pointed out in this thread, there are examples, like Princess Leia, where the trope is subverted by giving the female a character arc. The problem isn't in the specifics of the exact scenario, but with the problem that it is the most basic way game designers can THINK about female characters. It is indicative of an underlying objectification of women; if anything, it is representative of current cultural norms, rather than any stand-out instance of blatant sexism.

The argument that "it's just lazy, so it's fine!" is, I think, completely missing the point. The fact that the most basic storytelling apparatus used is to portray a woman as essentially a passive object is a problem. Not because that scenario is so horrible in and of itself it can never be used (it can in fact be used quite effectively), but rather that there is a latent misogynist streak in society that makes that apparatus seem so reasonable and robust.

Also, as a side note, I also find it a bit disingenuous when people say something along the lines of, "Video games can't be sexist! Look at [random reference to a single specific game]!" Just pointing out an example of a game that isn't sexist is completely besides the point, and a red herring, because nobody has ever made the argument that every single video game is sexist or that the medium itself is inherently sexist. The argument is rather that wider trends within the industry are reflective of societal attitudes towards women, which are far from equitable.

[Kane Starkiller]

Women are objectified by being portrayed as conquests or rewards. They are a valuable thing that is stolen and you need to recover, or something gifted to you for achieving your goal.

Can you name a few examples of these games were you conquer a woman or get her as a reward without game even mentioning how she feels about it or even over her protestations and what percentage of all games they comprise? Or is this how these women personally come across to you and now you presume to speak for the rest of men?

It is a problem, and leads to very real negative consequences for boys.

Then I don't suppose it would be a problem to show crime or gender inequality statistic that shows how such games negatively impact society.

But that's exactly what the problem is! The fact that the "default" setting for lazy writing is to have a women as a meek, powerless object that only exists to be saved.

I only quoted this since I think it is the core of the argument. Feel free to point out if I missed something crucial.
The "default" setting is that the player is the hero and everything around him needs help whether that is a woman, a male friend, Middle Earth or the entire Milky Way Galaxy. Does Mass Effect portray the Milky Way galaxy as meek when it needs you to protect it from the Reapers? You insist on certain interpretation of the motivation and cause behind the "default" storyline but at the end of the day none have managed to show a shred of evidence that such stories have negative impact on relations between men and women.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The "default" setting is that the player is the hero and everything around him needs help whether that is a woman, a male friend, Middle Earth or the entire Milky Way Galaxy. Does Mass Effect portray the Milky Way galaxy as meek when it needs you to protect it from the Reapers?

No, it portrays the Milky Way galaxy as an inanimate object with no development arc. That's the entire point. And again, as I said in my last post, I am not saying that the "X needs to be saved" meme is INHERENTLY demeaning. But rather that the fact that the default option is an objectified woman is indicative of societal attitudes towards women. These are very different arguments.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the "damsel in distress" structure to a story. It's easy to construct, relatable to the audience, and generally gives the protagonist motivation. I have never made the claim that simply the act of making something an object to be saved is derogatory in and of itself. And, in fact, it's trivially easy to give a breath of humanity to the damsel (e.g. Princess Leia, etc.). But the fact is, in a lot of games, they don't make this effort to give the female character any particular development of her own and essentially treat her as an inanimate object, like the Milky Way or whatever. And you are right, sometimes they do this with male characters. However, the point I am making is that the fact that the "default" option is for a female character to be objectified in this way is indicative of underlying social attitudes towards gender roles.

If you want an analogy, think about the way men will refer to picking up or having sex with women as "scoring". There is nothing inherently wrong with using that phrase; saying it does not immediately make one a misogynist. However, the fact that, in our language, one of the basic options for describing the situation is to use a phrase that objectifies the woman involved is indicative of our cultural attitudes. That is, the person saying it is not necessarily objectifying the woman himself, but he is using a phrase that entered our cultural lexicon as a result of people objectifying women.

Do you understand the argument I am making? It is not causal or even necessarily condemnatory in nature. I am simply positing that the issue we are discussing is REFLECTIVE of social mores. If our society did not have a history of objectification in this way, it would be extremely unlikely for a phrase like "scoring" to have developed with reference to picking up women, and it would also be unlikely for a story arc like "damsel in distress" to have become so predominant.

You insist on certain interpretation of the motivation and cause behind the "default" storyline

I never appealed to motivation. I said as much in my last post.

but at the end of the day none have managed to show a shred of evidence that such stories have negative impact on relations between men and women.

But I never claimed that these stories DID have such a negative impact. Are you sure you read my post? I don't think you quite understand the argument I made.

I didn't say these stories have a negative impact on relations between men and women, but rather that the use of these stories is representative of broader societal attitudes on that relationship. In general, masculine culture has a tendency to objectify women, one potential consequence of this tendency is the degree to which lazy storytelling falls back on generic tropes based on this objectification, like the "damsel in distress". That's a VERY different claim than the one you are addressing.