[Classic drama] User suggests in /r/MensRights that women should be better portrayed in video games. MR users disagree: "I don't interfere with your romcoms and soap operas, why must you interfere with my games about shooting aliens?" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
68 ups - 0 downs = 68 votes
508 comments submitted at 04:17:51 on Aug 17, 2014 by I_post_reddit_drama
What confuses me about this "debate" is the fact that there are a lot of women (and men) who have a problem with how women are represented in games. If a lot of people don't like something, there is an issue there whether you care about it or not. Seems pretty simple?
And yet the main argument against improving the representation of women in videogames is "there isn't actually a problem, because I checked and I'm a man so I know."
That is not the counterargument being given.
>That being said unless gender is actually informing a character's story it doesn't really matter what you play as.
"there is not actually a problem."
Because that is in no way more nuanced then "because im a man and say so"...
It's almost like I was exaggerating for humour or something.
But generally, it's not that different is it. "it doesn't really matter what you play as" is easy to say when 90% of games are played as a character quite like you.
And it still erases the complaints magically without addressing their point at all.
More like you were simplifying or misrepresenting.
Sorta like you still are. You know, where you glossed over the part about the characteristic not being a key component of the gameplay eithef way, and the resulting impact that would or wouldn't have.
If its not a key characteristic then why the big resistance to changing it?
They never have an answer to this question.
What I don't understand is, if it doesn't matter then why people are so invested in keeping the status quo? "It doesn't matter", "it matters a lot and should cater to my needs", choose one.
> the characteristic not being a key component of the gameplay
Let's not pretend that "gameplay" is the end-all be-all of video gaming. There's a reason Bioware's RPGs are held in such high regard, and a large part of that has nothing to do with the (often clunky) game mechanics - people love the world building and characterization that comprise their universes. These are areas that representation does actually matter.
It's not a key component of gameplay, no, but clearly for some people the character they play matters to them. Should they be ignored just because this guy thinks it doesn't matter?
Absolutely no one has raved about the story in Mass Effect or The Witcher. Definitely no praise for the beautiful aesthetics in FEZ. And certainly not an ounce of energy has been put into a mod to make a game look better, let alone many for many games.
What?
Pointing out things that are not gameplay that got massive praise
I don't think that they are anywhere near a majority though. iirc, although some games like the sims have a majority of female players and there is a rough equality in some mmo games, most 'AAA' console and PC games have a female player base that is in the region of 20 something percent, is that enough to warrant changes to things that probably a majority of people like, like storylines centred on guys, sexy girls etc. Also, do the actual wishes of women match up with Anita Sarkesian, themarysue etc? I'm not so sure, the mmo's like warcraft that have a high female player base have tons of sexy fantasy girl characters that Sarkesian etc seem not to like, but the player base seem to like them fine.
Does this also apply to stuff aimed at girls aswell, should there be less abs and other fanservice in teenwolf if there are 20 or so percent boys watching it; A good example of this, you remember the other week when somebody suggested that 'orange is the new black' has a poor presentation of men in prison (i.e. the majority of them are presented as psychos) and got massive vitriol from it.
I think you have to take into account the target and primary audience and balance what is wanted by a minority with making something more inclusive.
Women may not be the majority of gamers, sure, but I think it's clear that they are under-represented based on the proportion of women who play games.
And also, if "it doesn't matter who you play as" then how would it hurt to throw in a few women? If these men really don't care it won't affect them, and it would make a fairly large group of people happier.
Well then this sounds like a gap in the market. Surely anyone not catering to this demand will be left behind by the innovative companies that do.
I'd rather listen to 100 stories of indy game developers making games which fill this need than one more piece of deconstructionist blather about how darn unfair it all is.
Everybody reading this from a desktop/laptop already has all the equipment they need. There are countless free game engines and art tools - I say go for it.
I'm sure some people are making their own games and I wish them luck.
I certainly think there is a market gap, I wouldn't say it's quite so big as you suggest. As has been made abundantly clear to me today there are a lot of people who just don't give the slightest fuck.
I don't think all the people talking about this as a problem are necessarily just complaining about how unfair things are though. It's kind of hard to have an effect on large industries, and one way to start off is by talking about it.
I think the single best thing anyone who cares about this can do is to support indies who are making this kind of stuff or even get involved with a project themselves. Talking about it is all well and good, but it will be people actually making and buying these games that will cause any kind of change.
If the big players think there's a buck to be made they will inevitably follow.
Male protagonist, female protagonist, bird protagonist, falling-tile protagonist - they don't care, but this is an advantage. They are not ideological, they are market driven. Show them there's a market.
I couldn't agree more with that.
Please cite a study/statistic for women being underrepresented in video games.
Look up the "Just-world hypothesis" it is fully within the power of any specific group to make a video game for $0 using free software online with tutorials, just because none are made doesn't mean they are being oppressed, but that they haven't made any games.
Did you just cite the "just world hypothesis" as an explanation of how the world actually works?? It's a cognitive bias. I have never in my life seen someone actually cite the "just world hypothesis" as a scientific theory.
No, I'm lost and confused and giving myself a headache. Too much SRD today.
No I stated it as the structure of your argument, and it is called the hypothesis not theory. You should look up the definitions of the word hypothesis and theory, then see how the just world hypothesis applies to your argument.
It's actually a form of fallacious reasoning. It's a cognitive bias that affects both how people tend to think the world works (theory) and what they believe will or should happen according to that understanding (hypothesis). But the point is that it's illogical and wrong. My confusion is that you have heard of it but never noticed it's a fallacy.
I know its a fallacy, the exact fallacy being used in the comment I was replying to. It isn't a response to their argument, it's a criticism/flaw/fallacy used.
No, wait, you are the one who employed the just world fallacy, here:
> it is fully within the power of any specific group to make a video game for $0 using free software online with tutorials, just because none are made doesn't mean they are being oppressed, but that they haven't made any games.
I read this as saying that things are as they should be with regard to female representation in video games because all "any specific group" has to do to change that is just make their own games. This is definitely an argument that things are fair, just, with results distributed according to what people deserve (due to the efforts they choose or choose not to make) and not caused by external forces that make situations unfair or constrain people. So your argument is an example of the just world fallacy because your premise is that things happen as they should be. I don't see this argument from the person you responded to.
But I wouldn't have bothered pointing that out because I don't really care about this argument, it's just that you tell them to "look up the just world hypothesis" and then follow that with your own argument which sure seems like "just world" to me. And I was and am confused, because if you know enough about it to name it, it's weird that you would use a just world argument right after saying "look up the just world hypothesis." It looks like you're arguing that the world is just, at least in terms of video game representation, and that this is the "just world hypothesis". I'm going in circles now because this still makes no sense.
Under-represented as protagonists, sure. I don't feel it's radical to say that most video game protagonists are male, and I'm not sure you need a study to prove that.
"Under-represented" was probably lazy terminology on my part though. I was thinking of there being a lack as protagonists, of women who are real characters, more than just fanservice, treated in the same way as male characters...
You realize that the just world hypothesis is a fallacy, right?
Its exactly the structure of the argument I am responding to. The argument that either gender needs to be represented more relies on the fallacy that representation needs to be equal to be just.
No it's not, that's not even remotely how the just world fallacy works. You must be a troll; no human could be this blatantly stupid by accident, especially with the Wikipedia article staring them right in the face.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. It isn't the argument I am making, it is the fallacy being used in by the person I am responding to. Do you know what a fallacy is? Well they wrote them down and named them so when someone uses one, people can link them and say, "this is the fallacy you are using; that argument doesn't work."
Except they weren't using that fallacy, not even close.
TotallyWizard's argument: Women are under-represented, even taking proportions into account, and besides, if gender isn't important then there's no reason not to make more characters female.
Just World Fallacy/Hypothesis: "the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions always bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, so that all noble actions are eventually rewarded and all evil actions are eventually punished."
There's exactly 0 connection between these two: the original comment is pointing out a fact they believe to be true and a flaw in someone else's logic, the fallacy governs misconceptions about the nature of justice in the universe.
And to be honest, the context you originally cited the fallacy in:
> Look up the "Just-world hypothesis" it is fully within the power of any specific group to make a video game for $0 using free software online with tutorials, just because none are made doesn't mean they are being oppressed, but that they haven't made any games.
sounds like you were trying to use the fallacy as a proven hypothesis; that is, the world is just, ergo consequences perfectly mirror actions, ergo if people aren't being represented it's their own fault for not making their own games (which is totally an easy and cheap thing, you guys!). Which is, you know, kind of the opposite of what you're supposed to do with fallacies. So, either you, an actual human being, are too stupid to read three lines of a Wikipedia page, or you're trolling, and rather poorly I might add.
>Women may not be the majority of gamers, sure, but I think it's clear that they are under-represented based on the proportion of women who play games.
Implies that if a gender is a specific percentage of gamers that the gender should be equally represented in video games, hence the fallacy I mentioned. Good thing 90% of your comment is irrelevant to my point.
>trolling, and rather poorly I might add.
I got you to write a pretty big response. If I were trolling I would think I'm doing pretty decent.
I'm not sure if it doesn't matter who you play as, I think that people want to see interesting/memorable/etc characters, but it certainly seems to matter that things aimed at a certain audience have people representative of them as the protagonist or 'front and centre' in some way, this seems mostly true of every genre of media I can think of. I'm not sure they are under-represented aswell in this respect, how many popular (best selling etc) 'genre' romance/'chick lit' novels have you read where the protagonist is a guy, or teen girl dramas/soaps/etc.
>how would it hurt to throw in a few women? If these men really don't care it won't affect them, and it would make a fairly large group of people happier.
~~Did anyone say they didn't care~~(edit: got that one wrong), a decent amount of people clearly do care given the reaction this provokes, and I don't think it is 'a few women' either it's women that fit into a specific set of very stringent standards (that are often not applied to male characters anywhere). Also I'm not sure how many girls these people are representing, most girls I know who play games like sexy characters and don't really mind the male focused narratives, I think it works the same way that 'the notebook' is aimed at girls but has a cross over male audience.
> That being said unless gender is actually informing a character's story it doesn't really matter what you play as.
This quote was the top response to the thread OP links to. So yeah, someone said they didn't care.
> most girls I know who play games like sexy characters and don't really mind the male focused narrative
Oh cool, since you know a couple of people who don't care the large number of people who do care suddenly aren't important!
Fair enough, I was wrong about that, they said they didn't care, but they obviously do care and people overall do care I think. >Oh cool, since you know a couple of people...
Yes maybe that wasn't the best way to describe that, here's a different way of explaining it, look at a lot of mainstream stuff aimed at (and popular with) girls, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus etc, etc, they all have an image/persona that is super sexy, with them not always 'in control' etc. My guess (based on this and my anecdotal experience) is that there might be a lot of girls who are ok with sexy costumes that may or may not be designed with guys in mind in WoW etc (and generally) that Sarkesian/themaysue take umbridge at sometimes. A gender reversed version of this might be stuff like 300 having male fantasy characters that also appeal to women, it became a hit with girls because it was a love letter to abs and shouty, macho guys and stuff.
>Fair enough, I was wrong about that, they said they didn't care, but they obviously do care and people overall do care I think.
Exactly, what I was criticising that guy for was the dishonesty. It's annoying that someone would say "I don't care, but don't you go changing anything because secretly I do care". Don't lie about your motivations, if you didn't care you just wouldn't comment.
I've seen that argument a bunch and I hate it.
Anyway, on to the real conversation, of course there are girls who like all that stuff! And they're welcome to like whatever they want, just like anyone else is.
But there clearly is a significant group of people who are women and care, and I don't see why it's so hard to accomodate their wishes and why some people are SO opposed to it.
I agree about hypocrisy but, attitudes like that come from within a social context, I think it's not as socially acceptable for guys to say something like, 'I want there to still be stuff aimed at guys, with guy protagonists', as it would be with stuff aimed at girls, (maybe?) because of the historical context that argument was used, with doctors etc saying 'no girls allowed', so people are saying stuff like the OP.
My problem is with the extreme rhetorical framing of themarysue/sarkesian side, (i.e. not 'we would like to see x stuff' but 'this is harmful to women'), with how many people they actually represent (generally on any mainstream games site this kind of stuff doesn't seem to go down well at all) and the balance of people who want to see that stuff, with the existing audience who wants it to be the same; there is nuance there and I've seen no acknowledgement of this from the sarkesian/themarysue side. I'm not sure if the difference between this and male watchers of stuff aimed mostly at girls isn't just these social contexts and existing media that allow for some girls to be more vocal.
I don't think so, because I think people like Anita Sarkeesian do have a point. They're not saying "ban videogames without women in" or anything, but there is a huge proportion of videogames that feature poor portrayals of women that aren't simply aimed at men but use and further negative stereotypes and attitudes about women.
I think they are using rhetorical framing to kind of shame people into having the types of stuff they want to see, I don't think there is any evidence that video game characters (or most other media) have much of any effect on gender relations, for example pretty much the same games are played in the US and Sweden, with very different attitudes to gender etc. And if that if that's her point, you could say the same about negative attitudes to men in stuff aimed at girls but I haven't seen any of them ever do this.
If you, or anyone reading this thinks she makes a point you should watch thunderf00ts videos on her she is a scammer and a hack. If you don't believe me watch the video "White Sarkeesian- BUSTED!" Where she clearly demonstrates her ignorance (and blatantly lies) about Hitman.
>not always in control.
Way to use a music video directed by a known abuser, who's a man, to be indicative of women wanting to be sexually compromised.
Ok, (apart from those allegations against Terry Richardson) I didn't even know who that video was directed by, I could've chosen tons of others, I was meaning it to be more about the theme of 'do what you want with my body' etc. Also she wrote the song and I'm pretty sure that Lady Gaga had not insignificant input to the video, she seems to have tight control over her creative process usually. I think you are agreeing with me but I'm probably mistaken. What does him being a man have to do with anything.
"Do what you want with my body" seems pretty consensual.
Him being a man has to do with your claim that women present themselves are sexual objects who want to be taken advantage of. If it is a man who is presenting women as such, they're not presenting themselves as that are they?
I'm not agreeing with you.
Ok, I think this is a misunderstanding, sort of my fault and I should've been more clear; by 'in control' I was meaning that they are presented as the ones in control of the relationships or sexual encounters etc in their songs, that video and a whole bunch of others, present, in various ways, singers being supplicatory to a partner and 'not in control' of the situation. That kind of thing.
One of the criticisms of sexy girl characters aimed at boys I've often heard is that they don't 'own' their sexuality or aren't 'in control' like stuff they are in stuff aimed at girls (like lady gaga and katy perry etc), and I used the song to show that sometimes this isn't the case, the way they're presented is often not that different from each other and can often be indistinguishable. Like the lavish descriptions of rippling biceps and straining torsos etc in some romance novels are sometimes not all that different from the way men in Warhammer books (.e.g) are described, or my 300 example above. I was using this to illustrate how lots of girls could find the sexy (etc, etc) outfits that girl characters wear in mmo's (where there are maybe 50% women players) fun and attractive. Make sense now?
Also, him being a man has nothing to do with it, as well as writing the song, she is obviously the one that signs off on pretty much everything that happens, I'm a fan of her and I've heard this a million times. She is 'in control' of her 'not being in control' here.
Um...that's because Orange is the New Black is a show based around a women's prison.
I don't necessarily agree with his argument, but it is basically the gender reversed version of some of the stuff Sarkesian/themarysue/etc come out with. Here it is summed up. >The problem is that the ways in which OITNB focuses on women rather than men seem to be linked to stereotypically gendered ideas about who can be a victim and who can't.
>The few male prisoners who are shown on OITNB are presented in almost aggressively stereotypical ways. Early in the second season, when Piper (Taylor Schilling) is being moved to Chicago to testify in a drug trial, we're shown a number of male inmates being transported as well. They are presented as a threatening, uniform mass. The one prisoner who is given a more substantial role is a black man who makes frightening sexual verbal advances towards Piper; he's a contract killer and refers to himself, apparently without irony, as a "super-predator." He eventually delivers a message for Piper in exchange for her dirty panties. The one male prisoner we meet, then, is violent and abusive, with a sexual kink that is presented as laughable and repulsive. He deviant, dangerous, and the show seems to think that he is exactly where he belongs—behind bars.
>Female prisoners on the show are treated very differently. They may be violent and may be queer, but they are, for the most part, presented as sympathetic. This seems like a feminist move, on the surface. But the inability to extend that sympathy to male inmates, raises a disturbing possibility: that the show is condescending to women while reinforcing old and destructive attitudes about men.
Actually, I could see that something as mainstream as oitnb, aimed at men and featuring equivalent depictions of women would be criticised way more than one article.
>If a lot of people don't like something, there is an issue there whether you care about it or not.
a lot of people don't like that they have to get a job to pay the bills.
Right, and there's an issue there I suppose. They're lazy, they can't get a job they don't hate, I dunno what else. There's clearly some sort of problem, I just don't care that much about it. See how this works?
they're entitled and lazy is the problem.
same problem with the peanut gallery of unemployed sociology majors who demand everyone else work overtime to fulfill their ideological demands, when they could instead be making a video game themselves.
when you have to actually get realistic about it, the decisions AAA studios are making suddenly don't seem so weird anymore.
I enjoyed your completely irrelevant attack on the study of sociology and the baseless accusation that anyone who talks about this is unemployed (as if that would invalidate their point somehow?).
Some people are making their own games.
Some might want to but find it hard to get a foot in the door of big games companies, or not want to! If the representation of women in some games reflects their attitudes, I'm not sure I'd want to work there as a woman!
But I don't think that people at games companies are all sexists or something. I just think it's kinda lazy to use cardboard cutout characters, male and female, and I think it's insulting to the audience to suggest they'd stop buying games if they contained realistic and interesting female characters who wear clothes.
>anyone who talks about this is unemployed
True, most of them are employed: as writers for click bait sites, or for their own blog. Or maybe they work as professional twitterers. Just not in real jobs.
>Some people are making their own games.
cool.
> I just think it's kinda lazy to use cardboard cutout characters, [...]
It's lazy in the same way big budget movies are.
I'm pretty sure that companies like Rockstar, spending billions and making billions with games, probably have a better insight into what content will sell than the complainers on the sidelines, who seem to consider fact-checking a form of patriarchal oppression.
The condescension really makes your point more valid, good job there.
>It's lazy in the same way big budget movies are.
I'm pretty sure that companies like Rockstar, spending billions and making billions with games, probably have a better insight into what content will sell than the complainers on the sidelines
Yeah, probably. I guess we'll see where this discussion takes gaming, see if the market sees a gap and does something about it.
Absolutely.
The problem I have with these "gaming journalists" and tumblrinas is that they don't really want to believe that it's the market. It must be white cis male oppressors who sit in their boardroom/dungeon/fraternity and decide to not make HAES protagonists just out of some kind of sadism that's somehow rooted in their toxic masculinity.
You do realise that people talking about these issues don't think that the men who run games companies do this on purpose to put down women, right?
AFAICT the SJW claims are:
40% of people who play GTA V are women. ^(aka: lying for feminism, the few who took the time to research it do know only by including farmville and sudoku can you arrive at 40% of women gamers)
therefore 40% of AAA titles should cater to women. And to SJWs "women" is code for feminist ideology. Ignoring the 80% of American women don't agree with that ideology.
since they don't, the people in charge of those game companies are evil cishetwhitemale soggy knees oppressors.
So, let's get this right. You're just really salty about critical analysis of any medium, given that it's done by people that aren't exactly like you and don't think exactly like you.
You are aware that more people exist in the universe than you, right? And that more people than just you consume media properties, correct? It would logically follow that these people that aren't you have opinions that are not exactly like yours.
I suggest you stop being "entitled and lazy" and start tolerating a world full of people that don't agree with you.
are you stalking my comment history?
make a game with poc furry protagonists if you think it will sell better than hot women in bikinis or swole guys with oversized guns.
>are you stalking my comment history?
Are you too stupid to realize you've been posting all the fuck over this thread?
Also, why is 'it sells' your sacred cow? If games that were massively racist sold well, would that make racism in games okay?
>Also, why is 'it sells' your sacred cow? If games that were massively racist sold well, would that make racism in games okay?
Of course, it's the free market and the free market's always right, stop questioning the free market, money money money, all my decisions are based on capitalistic demands etc.
/s
Beanfiddler replied to my comments in a two day old thread. 10 minutes later replied to my comments here.
> If games that were massively racist sold well, would that make racism in games okay?
No.
But even if that was the case, the causality would still go in the other direction. Game creators wouldn't put racism in the games because they want to make people racist, but because their audience wants to buy racism.
Movie producers don't brainwash guys into liking perky tits, fashion magazines don't brainwash women into liking ultra-thin models, instead women buy more clothes if they've seen them worn by ultra-thin models, and guys like perky tits and that's why they appear in movies.
Cool.
There's another question I asked. You may have seen the post before I edited it
No, you're just saying a lot of shit I don't agree with in the two subredditdrama threads I've checked out this morning. You're on a roll.