Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games - General

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45127174]you honestly undermine the issues by complaining about fantasy "misogyny" something I havent actually personally seen, I have never seen a single game express true misogyny as being the hatred of women, I actually only hear that word used as a parroted label actually, the word has sadly lost its weight to most people, just like racist/sexist have[/QUOTE] Misogyny isn't necessarily "hatred" of women, as in "rawr i hate women >:(" Misogyny, the hatred of women, is used to describe not just red-faced boiling angry hate... but also the belief that women are inferior to men. Saying that "A woman's place is in the home" in a soothing, Morgan Freeman tone of voice may not sound [I]hateful[/I]... it may even sound loving and appreciative, but the underlying assumption supporting that statement is that women do not belong in the public sphere. Women should not be making decisions in politics or the courtroom, and good grief keep that woman away from a laboratory because she's incapable of making rational decisions and she's going to screw up our data. These beliefs formed social and legal structures that prevented women from getting educations, fulfilling their dreams, voting (remember that?), and even entering in to contracts or owning property because of coverture laws. If it helps to think of it this way, consider a slave owner. Some slave owners reported loving their slaves and believed they were doing the right thing because dark skinned people were savages who were genetically incapable of serious education and higher thought. By feeding, housing, and working them, these slave owners believed they were doing the right thing - not a hateful thing. But I think we can all agree that even though the slave owner may not have felt a furious, red-faced hate in his heart, this kind of belief in inherent inferiority is a very real kind of hate. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45127174]You seem so bent on whatever you argue against, why arent you more active in the feminist community or whatever? You seem to focus a lot on video games, which is art and shouldnt be controlled by anyone[/QUOTE] This discussion is not about what [B]I[/B] do, man. Also, of course art shouldn't be controlled by anyone. It's obvious. But that doesn't mean it's immune from criticism. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45127174]I mean being an active member of shitredditsays and thebluepill are not actually ways to improve your cause, or arguing about fantasy women in video games(while apparently ignoring all the muscle bound 8 pack men in every game) you could be out in the streets making an actual difference in the serious real life issues.[/QUOTE] It's the good old "but there's more important stuff elsewhere" argument... For the record I have participated to demonstrations and protests. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45127174]I really want you too think about this and put your hot love for me behind and honestly think what you are doing, you are trying to argue and complain to devs that there games are not fit enough for what you think, please tell me why you are right and they are in the wrong when they are trying to make art and tell a story or create some fantasy world? Its like going to Quentin Tarantino and telling him that he shouldnt use racism as a focus of in his movie. You are telling an artists work that they are wrong, yet its there creation so obviously its right on its own.[/QUOTE] Cinema is a much more mature medium and Quentin Tarantino is 100x more apt at actually passing along an effective message with his movies. People would like for gaming to evolve this way as a medium as well. Also, once again: art works are not exempt from criticism, and this isn't about "right or wrong". It's not a binary status. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45127174]You try to make this more about women and act like people are angry because its women and shit, but if you wanna know why people hate you and people like you, its because you are the type of people that hold shit back, you want shit the way you want instead of the way the actual creators want, the worst part is, you hold your wishes above others and hide behind things like feminism and calling people things like sexist/misogynistic. I always see AAA being the example for this yet AAA are a very small fraction of the game industry, you only hear of a few big ones, generally already well established series, while nothing else, most shit I see now are indies. Im done with this thread, its gonna just keep going on and on, but honestly I wouldnt be surprised you got removed from a certain project because of your attitude and outlook, because you are a detriment to video games, you telling people what they should and shouldnt do in an artistic medium, you are the type of people who hold it back, not the ones who put in stuff that offends you, its the people who whine for change in something like this. You can cry about equal rights or whatever, but art has no time or place for that, its up to the creators and they shouldnt be harrased to be persuaded otherwise. Hopefully you change someday and can actually enjoy and critique all games for what they are and do, instead of complaining about mundane shit in make believe.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-words.gif[/IMG] [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;45128305]I think it'd be okay, yes, because it's a video game, not a fucking life lesson. If having racist stereotypes and a hateful main character/side characters can make a game better, then go for it. Do you think Hotline Miami would have been as impactful if the game wasn't so filled with stereotypes pushed to the extreme ? [/QUOTE] Hotline Miami's plot was rather minimal and was making a point about violence, not stereotypes. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Bread_Baron;45127463]I'm not Max and can't speak for him or respond to much of what you said, but I can throw in my two cents. Personally, I step into these discussions because if an opinion is left unvoiced then the opposing viewpoint becomes the majority opinion and people start believing it. The people who take the time to discuss these things tend to be the most passionate, they want change because they appreciate games as an art form and take them seriously. Anita Sarkeesian isn't one of these people, although she can throw out an okay point every now and then she's not a gamer and is generally full of shit. When people say games and other media are "sexist" they don't usually mean overtly. Patriarchal culture was created through subtle means that suggest male supremacy and female subordination, and it rubs off in real life. That's why feminist literature exists, it's a way of influencing our culture and the way people think. Feminism is a [I]progressive[/I] movement, it aims for social [I]progress[/I]. That doesn't mean holding art back, it means moving it forward by addressing any inequalities presented. You're right though, developers don't hold a grudge against society. However, the content of their games are about as influential as any other media so games can be treated as "sexist" even when they're not intended to be - same as all media. Saying "art has no time or place for [equal rights]" is laughable. Labelling something as "art" doesn't make it immune to criticism, it makes it subject to it. All in all I think you underestimate how much art and media does shape our real world lives. It's blatantly obvious that the issue goes past any media and you're foolish if you think we don't know that, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the issues in media entirely.[/QUOTE] This is an excellent post [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;45128329]My point is, you can't blame a game for being racist/hateful/sexist/whatever when that's used by the game to improve the story and the message it conveys.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between using bigotry to drive a point home (something a lot of movies execute with brio, look at Gran Torino, excellent film), and just passively regurgitating harmful stereotypes, not doing anything with them past that (what most video games do).

"Art isn't immune from criticism" There's a difference between criticizing art and dictating what should be in it. You and the rest of your armchair feminist circlejerk has done nothing but tell everyone what they should or shouldn't want in their games.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129028]"Art isn't immune from criticism" There's a difference between criticizing art and dictating what should be in it. You and the rest of your armchair feminist circlejerk has done nothing but tell everyone what they should or shouldn't want in their games.[/QUOTE] yea ok give me an example of an "armchair feminist" in this thread "dictating" what should be in a game

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129028]"Art isn't immune from criticism" There's a difference between criticizing art and dictating what should be in it. You and the rest of your armchair feminist circlejerk has done nothing but tell everyone what they should or shouldn't want in their games.[/QUOTE] If that's your reaction to "maybe we could have better writing in games" then it tells a lot to be honest. You can love games and still criticise them. I do. The games industry and its bad practices aren't there to be justified or excused, they're there to be criticised and improved so games can be better for everyone involved.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129039]yea ok give me an example of an "armchair feminist" in this thread "dictating" what should be in a game[/QUOTE] Sure [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45128826]racism isn't about taste though. you can portray a race as objectively inferior, and, imo, it wouldn't be wrong to censor that under the banner of hate speech[/QUOTE] There we go.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129070]Sure There we go.[/QUOTE] that's like saying "people are telling other people what to do" then giving a post that says "don't kill other people" as an example

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129070]There we go.[/QUOTE] Like we've said before, there's a difference between straight up regurgitating racist stereotypes and doing something actually productive with them. Have you seen [I]Gran Turino[/I] by Clint Eastwood? Video games (edit: MOST) are like this except they stop at 30 minutes into the movie and never show how the racist old man comes to understanding tolerance or other people that aren't like him.

well, looks like Gane's statement is pretty valid.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129028]"Art isn't immune from criticism" There's a difference between criticizing art and dictating what should be in it. You and the rest of your armchair feminist circlejerk has done nothing but tell everyone what they should or shouldn't want in their games.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this gets brought up a lot and every time it does, I swear Max or someone else states for the hundredth time that they do not want every game to be one way, they just want variety.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129079]that's like saying "people are telling other people what to do" then giving a post that says "don't kill other people" as an example[/QUOTE] the fact that you think offensive material is equal to murder says a lot your standard would have R Crumb comics banned [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129083]Like we've said before, there's a difference between straight up regurgitating racist stereotypes and doing something actually productive with them. Have you seen [I]Gran Turino[/I] by Clint Eastwood? Video games are like this except they stop at 30 minutes into the movie and never show how the racist old man comes to understanding tolerance or other people that aren't like him.[/QUOTE] so racist stereotypes are fine so long as they're used in a way you find agreeable

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129095]the fact that you think offensive material is equal to murder says a lot your standard would have R Crumb comics banned[/QUOTE] i said that because murder and hate speech are similar in that they're both against the law, not because i think they're comparable in any other way

[QUOTE=NiandraLades;45129087]Yeah, this gets brought up a lot and every time it does, I swear Max or someone else states for the hundredth time that they do not want every game to be one way, they just want variety.[/QUOTE] Except that really isn't what they're saying. They say "No no, we don't want to ban free speech! We just want to ban disgusting things that no one should produce! It's doubletalk bullshit and it's getting real old. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129109]i said that because murder and hate speech are similar in that they're both against the law, not because i think they're comparable in any other way[/QUOTE] I think you'll find that your definition of hate speech and the law's definition of hate speech don't line up all that closely.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129111]"No no, we don't want to ban free speech! We just want to ban disgusting things that no one should produce![/QUOTE] ???? what does this even mean [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129111]I think you'll find that your definition of hate speech and the law's definition of hate speech don't line up all that closely.[/QUOTE] please enlighten me

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129111]Except that really isn't what they're saying. They say "No no, we don't want to ban free speech! We just want to ban disgusting things that no one should produce![/QUOTE] No one wants to [B]ban [/B]things for god's sake. Expressing disapproval of bad trends in media that are getting really old doesn't mean wanting to ban them. Believe it or not, the point is to make people realize WHY what they're doing is bad, to make them stop doing this on their own. You know, it's a good thing that gaming is basically the one place where these discussions are happening and developers are actually responsive to it there. Mature adults notice when they've upset someone and strive to stop doing it, especially when it requires basically no effort on their part. This isn't censorship, and it doesn't mean that controversial issues aren't being tackled. In fact, it means the opposite of this when there's a healthy, free exchange of ideas and beliefs. By saying that people's opinions should be dismissed just because they're offended, you're the one advocating for censorship.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129124]???? what does this even mean[/QUOTE] You can't say you're not advocating censorship and then immediately turn around and say that things you find personally offensive should be censored.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129083]Like we've said before, there's a difference between straight up regurgitating racist stereotypes and doing something actually productive with them. Have you seen [I]Gran Turino[/I] by Clint Eastwood? Video games are like this except they stop at 30 minutes into the movie and never show how the racist old man comes to understanding tolerance or other people that aren't like him.[/QUOTE] The Walking Dead. Lee Everett starts out as an outsider and progressively takes the head of the group. Kenny's mildly racist at first (he believes Lee is good at picking locks because he's black) and then grows to like the guy, as long as you don't fuck up. The Last of Us has Joel start really cold and distant from Ellie and then progressively get closer to her, going from rejecting her to considering her a second daughter. It's not about racism, but it's still a strong story about changing your mind on some important things. GTA V's protagonists hate each other's guts at first then are best buddies by the end of the game, or at the very least they're in better terms than if they had done nothing. Just three examples.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129135]You can't say you're not advocating censorship and then immediately turn around and say that things you find personally offensive should be censored.[/QUOTE] no i'm saying that something that could be labeled as hate speech (not something i personally find offensive) should be censored

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129130]No one wants to [B]ban [/B]things for god's sake. Expressing disapproval of bad trends in media that are getting really old doesn't mean wanting to ban them. Believe it or not, the point is to make people realize WHY what they're doing is bad, to make them stop doing this on their own. You know, it's a good thing that gaming is basically the one place where these discussions are happening and developers are actually responsive to it there. Mature adults notice when they've upset someone and strive to stop doing it, especially when it requires basically no effort on their part. This isn't censorship, and it doesn't mean that controversial issues aren't being tackled. In fact, it means the opposite of this when there's a healthy, free exchange of ideas and beliefs. By saying that people's opinions should be dismissed just because they're offended, you're the one advocating for censorship.[/QUOTE] "it wouldn't be wrong to censor that under the banner of hate speech" This is what I'm talking about. This. Not whatever finger wagging you want to engage in, this. Seriously, work with me here a little.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129139]The Walking Dead. Lee Everett starts out as an outsider and progressively takes the head of the group. Kenny's mildly racist at first (he believes Lee is good at picking locks because he's black) and then grows to like the guy, as long as you don't fuck up. The Last of Us has Joel start really cold and distant from Ellie and then progressively get closer to her, going from rejecting her to considering her a second daughter. It's not about racism, but it's still a strong story about changing your mind on some important things. GTA V's protagonists hate each other's guts at first then are best buddies by the end of the game, or at the very least they're in better terms than if they had done nothing. Just three examples.[/QUOTE] The first two games have excellent writing and I'm sure everyone wants to see more like them. I personally don't agree with GTA V but (disclaimer) I haven't had the chance to play more than 4/5 hours of it. Considering it's such a huge game I would argue that even if GTA V's underlying message is "don't be like these guys, even if they realize the error of their ways at the end", it ends up getting very diluted — something that doesn't happen with The Last Of Us and The Walking Dead as they are much more linear stories.

also the "that" in "to censor that" is referring to my hypothetical, racist, white supremacist game btw

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129154]The first two games have excellent writing and I'm sure everyone wants to see more like them. I personally don't agree with GTA V but (disclaimer) I haven't had the chance to play more than 4/5 hours of it. Considering it's such a huge game I would argue that even if GTA V's underlying message is "don't be like these guys, even if they realize the error of their ways at the end", it ends up getting very diluted — something that doesn't happen with The Last Of Us and The Walking Dead as they are much more linear stories.[/QUOTE] GTA V's story takes a really long time to settle in, and it actually goes somewhere. Also Silent Hill is entirely about people coping with their dark past and trying to accept their own past deeds.

The footage of the prostituted in New Vegas is so retarded, like seriously, the prostitutes were handled very well in the game. It makes sense for them to be there because of the theme of "New Vegas", and also the post-apocalyptic and currently war-torn theme leading to many of the women becoming prostitutes to survive. There is even a quest where you [sp]smuggle a forced prostitute out of the casino to escape with her boyfriend, and the prostitute talks about how she is being used and how empty she feels.[/sp] Not only that, but there are many other prostitutes in the game as well, such as male prostitutes, ghoul prostitutes and even [sp]robot fisting prostitutes[/sp], which also make sense. Old Ben's story of being a male prostitute gives a nice window into how bad the prostitution industry is in New Vegas, and helps you to sympathise with the Prostitutes on the Strip. And he is one of the last people you see before entering the Strip, so it clearly gives you the opportunity to talk to him, which you should be doing if you're playing Fallout anyway.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129147]no i'm saying that something that could be labeled as hate speech (not something i personally find offensive) should be censored[/QUOTE] The moment you take a work of art and say, "this is racist hate speech", you're censoring based on your own personal views. Lets take a look at something that should be cut and dry, shall we? [thumb]http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/classic/images/crumb/Image%20No%203.jpg[/thumb] Would you say this is racist enough to be censored? Honest question.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129176]The moment you take a work of art and say, "this is racist hate speech", you're censoring based on your own personal views. Lets take a look at something that should be cut and dry, shall we? [thumb]http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/classic/images/crumb/Image%20No%203.jpg[/thumb] Would you say this is racist enough to be censored? Honest question.[/QUOTE] I would personally say yes

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129028]"Art isn't immune from criticism" There's a difference between criticizing art and dictating what should be in it. You and the rest of your armchair feminist circlejerk has done nothing but tell everyone what they should or shouldn't want in their games.[/QUOTE] not even the biggest ~armchair feminists~ are telling develops what to do. not even i am doing that and i'm pretty sure i'm the biggest one here. literally, and i mean it this time this isn't my slang speaking, LITERALLY nobody here is saying we should overthrow videogames and FORCE or DICTATE developers to do anything. they can keep making their garbage same-ey games, and i'll keep not buying them or calling them out on forums and twitter and shit. and just think for a second. would your games really be any different if shooter #1343287423 has a not-white guy, or if developers put more detail into female characters? right now if devs went back and [I]retroactively[/I] added female characters to games, it'd cost money, sure, but it wouldn't cost any extra if [I]female characters were a priority from the start of development.[/I] these developers are fucking adults, they should realize this.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129176]The moment you take a work of art and say, "this is racist hate speech", you're censoring based on your own personal views. Lets take a look at something that should be cut and dry, shall we? [thumb]http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/classic/images/crumb/Image%20No%203.jpg[/thumb] Would you say this is racist enough to be censored? Honest question.[/QUOTE] I'd say that, a real life setting, if that was a real ad, it should be censored if someone sued the company and it was decided in a courtroom that it did, in fact, fall under the definition of hate speech. Same thing for my hypothetical game.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129185]I would personally say yes[/QUOTE] Hate speech is defined legally as "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group". You could very well interpret that as pure hate speech. That's a valid interpretation. But it isn't the only interpretation. See, the guy who made that comic, R Crumb, grew up in a fucked up family, in a fucked up town, in a fucked up period of time. He eeked out a living making those comics on the underground. His brother was a recluse who committed suicide, most likely because of his repressed homosexuality. His other brother is a schizophrenic who spends his time praying on a bed of nails in the middle of downtown. What I'm getting at is, The Crumb brothers are fucked up, and for him, art is probably the only thing keeping him from going just as nuts. Your interpretation is that it's a message of hate. My interpretation is that it's an unfiltered reflection of the hate present in the author's culture. The way I see it, to censor it would be to censor history. Neither of our interpretations are "right". The difference is that you think you have the right to legislate based on your interpretation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129224]Hate speech is defined legally as "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group". You could very well interpret that as pure hate speech. That's a valid interpretation. But it isn't the only interpretation. See, the guy who made that comic, R Crumb, grew up in a fucked up family, in a fucked up town, in a fucked up period of time. He eeked out a living making those comics on the underground. His brother was a recluse who committed suicide, most likely because of his repressed homosexuality. His other brother is a schizophrenic who spends his time praying on a bed of nails in the middle of downtown. What I'm getting at is, The Crumb brothers are fucked up, and for him, art is probably the only thing keeping him from going just as nuts. Your interpretation is that it's a message of hate. My interpretation is that it's an unfiltered reflection of the hate present in the author's culture. The way I see it, to censor it would be to censor history. Neither of our interpretations are "right". The difference is that you think you have the right to legislate based on your interpretation.[/QUOTE] So would it be alright for him to beat up african-americans as an outlet for his feelings?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129224]Hate speech is defined legally as "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group". You could very well interpret that as pure hate speech. That's a valid interpretation. But it isn't the only interpretation. See, the guy who made that comic, R Crumb, grew up in a fucked up family, in a fucked up town, in a fucked up period of time. He eeked out a living making those comics on the underground. His brother was a recluse who committed suicide, most likely because of his repressed homosexuality. His other brother is a schizophrenic who spends his time praying on a bed of nails in the middle of downtown. What I'm getting at is, The Crumb brothers are fucked up, and for him, art is probably the only thing keeping him from going just as nuts. Your interpretation is that it's a message of hate. My interpretation is that it's an unfiltered reflection of the hate present in the author's culture. The way I see it, to censor it would be to censor history. Neither of our interpretations are "right". The difference is that you think you have the right to legislate based on your interpretation.[/QUOTE] I see what you're getting at, but I'm in no way suggesting to censor history. I'm saying that if this ad was published TODAY (that's what I got from your question) then yes it should be censored.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129234]So would it be alright for him to beat up african-americans as an outlet for his feelings?[/QUOTE] Physical assault and being offensive [I]are not equal crimes.[/I] The guy didn't go around beating up people, he never called for the removal of the foreign hordes, he just drew whatever came to mind and sold it to survive. That's it. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129237]I see what you're getting at, but I'm in no way suggesting to censor history. I'm saying that if this ad was published TODAY (that's what I got from your question) then yes it should be censored.[/QUOTE] It is. R Crumb is still alive, he still needs to pay the rent. Should we start tearing up his books? Delete the pdfs? He's making money off of illustrations equally and far more offensive than that.