Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[Hachimitsu]

Nice to see a thread on this. I had been following Anita's videos before her kickstarter and saw the harassment as it happened when she started her kickstarter. Someone even made up a game where a player could beat her up.
For people who aren't familiar with her work, her Lego series is excellent.

I have started to watch her new stuff and it's all very intelligently done. I also like how she covers some of the history of gaming and certain character types.
EDIT:
About how well games will sell, if things are changed; around 45% of gamers are female but the the way games are made and marketed does not reflect that. Also there is a much older market in some PC type games. So teenaged and young adult males are not the only ones keeping the industry profitable.

[Frelga]

Here's another really good article. This one was written by a guy. It references events in the original post, but speaks more to the publishing industry.

language warning. (what is it with otherwise intelligent and well-spoken people who think profanity will somehow make them sound funnier and edgier?)

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/06 ... ublishing/

The Problem With Chainmail Bikinis

Isn’t just that they’re impractical (uhh, which they are). It’s that, it looks like this is how we see women — as foolish, impractical objects with gravitationally-irrational kickball-bosoms that are in fact the only thing on the woman worth defending from blade or arrow.

[yovargas]

This little comic illustrates a big problem about discussion and pondering these topics. It's the reason why some people think "PC police" are just looking for stuff to complain about. And why those of us who are really actively concerned about this kind of stuff (eg. me) can get caught in an over-analytical death spiral where it's hard to tell what matters from what doesn't.

[Impenitent]

[Inanna]

Yov, that pic is spot on. I've had these internal discussions with myself!

[axordil]

Here's another really good article. This one was written by a guy. It references events in the original post, but speaks more to the publishing industry.

language warning. (what is it with otherwise intelligent and well-spoken people who think profanity will somehow make them sound funnier and edgier?)

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/06 ... ublishing/

The Problem With Chainmail Bikinis

Isn’t just that they’re impractical (uhh, which they are). It’s that, it looks like this is how we see women — as foolish, impractical objects with gravitationally-irrational kickball-bosoms that are in fact the only thing on the woman worth defending from blade or arrow.

That's not just a guy. That's Chuck Wendig. Profanity is just another drill bit in his tool belt. He's a really, really good writer.

[axordil]

The comic sort of points up the underlying problem: looking at one side and making all the judgments based on appearance/competence/attractiveness there, and not questioning broader assumptions equally across the board.

I remember a panel at a Bouchercon (mystery and crime writers convention) I went to where the topic was strong female characters. The question I didn't get to ask--but asked one of the authors later, when she noted I'd not been called on--was what do we mean by strong? Physically tough? Mentally? Emotionally? Is it different from a strong male character? Or are we talking about the strength and depth of the depiction, not the kick-assery?

I'm in favor of templates as long as I can subvert them.

[Impenitent]

Have you seen Jim Hines fabulous (and hilarious!) spotlighting of the sexualization of women on book covers?

In case anyone isn't familiar with this project, link to his Flickr album: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41225422@N ... 676570479/

[WampusCat]

That never fails to make me laugh.

[River]

I did not fully appreciate the idiocy of those covers until I flipped through that album. Hilarious and eye-opening.

[Frelga]

The comic sort of points up the underlying problem: looking at one side and making all the judgments based on appearance/competence/attractiveness there, and not questioning broader assumptions equally across the board.

I remember a panel at a Bouchercon (mystery and crime writers convention) I went to where the topic was strong female characters. The question I didn't get to ask--but asked one of the authors later, when she noted I'd not been called on--was what do we mean by strong? Physically tough? Mentally? Emotionally? Is it different from a strong male character? Or are we talking about the strength and depth of the depiction, not the kick-assery?

I'm in favor of templates as long as I can subvert them.

I expect you would get many answers as "strength" means different things to different people. Which is good! We want different kinds of characters, right? There is not one correct way to write a strong female character, or a strong male character, although we could have quite an enjoyable argument over that.

I think on the whole what we really want is to have active female characters. An active characters makes choices, and when faced with a challenge, takes steps to overcome it. A passive character is just there for other characters to attack and rescue and have sex with. Disney's Cinderella is a passive character. Mulan is an active one but so is Lizzy Bennet.

[Impenitent]

To follow up on the original post made by Al, the maker of those videos, Anita Sarkeesian, recently attended the XBox press conference unveiling new games. As a person involved in the industry and a Games critic, she posted about it, and the responses to her have been unbelievably vicious and sexist.

Warning that the link below leads to some very horrible language:

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/52673540 ... ideo-games

This situation shocks me, mainly because I simply am not personally acquainted with ANY men who think that way, so this kind of response blind-sided me.

[Túrin Turambar]

It seems to me that things like that may reflect more on the poor state of internet commentary in general than sexism in the video gaming community in particular (although the latter certainly exists). The appalling threads that follow many Youtube videos are another example, and I've been addressed in that manner on messageboards less refined than this one. Not having to address someone's face lets the pusillanimous say whatever they want.

[axordil]

I would say that sexism and misogyny are not limited to any one community, but that they are more readily apparent in communities where isolation allows them to build up, like slime in a backwater.

[Dave_LF]

And among preteen/teen boys who like to talk sh*t and don't always exactly mean what they say.

[axordil]

Some preteen boys are eligible for AARP membership.

[River]

This is true. Also, I think the "boys will be boys" school of socialization ends up excusing a lot of behavior that might be endearing or tolerable in a kid but is downright anti-social in an adult.

[Sunsilver]

To add a little humor to this thread: female dissatisfied with chainmail bikini 'armour'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

Probably not work safe, but gets the point across very well!

The comments are also interesting, and although foul language isn't allowed, they are along the same lines as those I've read above.

And since I'm not into the Twilight series, I didn't realize some men are upset at that series for sexualizing men in the same way video games, fantasy book covers, etc. sexualize women! Sauce for the goose, guys...

My thanks to whoever it was who originally posted this. I'm not sure where I got it from, but it might have been from elsewhere on this board. Or it might have been from Elizabeth Moon's SFF newsgroup. (Elizabeth fences on a regular basis, and I think she's also an SCA member.)

The original links also contained an SCA armourer's explanation as to why a breastplate with actual breasts on it is a very Bad Idea. It directs the force of blows to the sternum, with possible fatal consequences.

[narya]

Thanks for giving us those links, Alatar. I liked Anita's videos but was appalled at some of the rebuttal videos that popped up.

I raised my kids in the game environment of the 80s and 90s. We never had Play Stations or X boxes, just games on the computer. I tried to stress non-tropish games and found that my kids preferred them as well - Civilization, King's Bounty, Myst, Railroad Tychoon, Warcraft, and other world building/exploring games, rather than first person shooters. Super-feminizing women into helpless sex objects is a poor choice, but so is super-masculinizing men as heartless killing machines. Fortunately, my kids couldn't relate to either, and given the choice, tended to pick the character that could achieve the goal non-violently, even in the games that required periodic battles.

I spent rather too much time on a 4-dimensional version of Tetris.

[Frelga]

The reason I don't play video games is that they require investing too much time (more than 10 seconds) into perfecting mechanical skills that are not applicable to anything else, not even other games. I just don't have that kind of patience. My son sometimes lets me have the remote when he plays Halo just to watch the havoc I cause as I try to maneuver the hapless character around.