Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

Nope. You can have a different opinion which you can, respectfully, state and you can have a discussion but you can't argue or try to explain to them that they're wrong.

Why? Because they are always going to have more experience of this stuff, at a more personal and meaningful level, and they simply have more at stake than you.

TERRIBLE ANALOGY KLAXON

Imagine you were having an argument with someone who was designing and building a house. You may be convinced that the way they were building the house was completely wrong, utterly terrible and destined to fall down after five years. You may be right and they may be terribly, terribly wrong.

But if they're a qualified architect and builder (and you're not), who's built many houses in the past (and you haven't), and they're building the house for themselves, then you're just going to come across as an unqualified chump by arguing with them.

By all means ask why they are doing it like that. Ask if they have considered doing it a different way. Respectfully point out what you consider the possible consequences of their plans. But actually arguing with them and trying to prove them wrong is just going to make you look like a dick who likes having arguments they know they can't win.

Ultimately, it's their house, let them build it.

Which, when it comes to being a male feminist, is the most important thing. Listen to women, hear what they say, support them when you think they may need it and, most importantly, don't talk over them or their experiences and opinions.

tl;dr Have you ever seen white people trying to explain racism to black people on twitter? It's not a good look.

[Anne Summers]

I guess there is a fine line between "don't get" and "choose to disregard as they have vested interests in the status quo" and "disagree with". I'm not sure we can assume that all women who take roles that seem to endorse a regressive position just need a bit of education and they'll come round to feminism.

Not all, certainly, but in general, I think education is a good go-to solution for people with regressive views. I definitely wouldn't want to totally dismiss it as an option simply because, as the Duke of Earlsfield suggests I should, the person with regressive views happens to be a woman, and the issue on which she is espousing these regressive views is feminism or gender-related.

[SqueakyG]

1) There are certainly situations where women can feel more at risk, not denying that. Anita said all the time though, perhaps she certainly didn't mean that literally.

It goes for men as well, we'd just as much be feeling blarg walking around in the dark.

You simply cannot know because you're not female, and it's profoundly ignorant to dismiss the claim. I can't know either. But I've heard some very eye-opening descriptions from women about how they always consider their safety, in a way that I, as a man, do not.

I've heard women say that when they go on a date with a new guy, they have an arrangement to call a good friend afterwards to confirm that they got home safely. Do you feel the need to do that? I've heard women say that they must always remember not to leave their drink unattended, and not accept drinks that they haven't seen poured into the glass. Do you feel the need to do that?

I've heard women describe their "This is it, this is my rape" moment, when the guy they are talking to gets aggressive and corners them alone in a room and gets handsy, and won't take no for an answer. The situation usually diffuses. Nevertheless, she describes the feeling of panic being accompanied by a feeling of inevitability she's been half-expecting for all of her adult life: "This is it, this is my rape. This is the guy who rapes me."

Argh, I'm sure there are some great links online where you can read/hear women talking about this stuff far better than I can. I've heard women say that when they go on a date with a new guy, their first thoughts are, "Would this man try to rape me? Am I safe? Does he show indications of becoming sexually aggressive?" Basically, women must do a risk assessment in the back of their mind for every situation in which they are alone with a man.

It might be very deep in the back of their mind, and some women would probably disagree and say it's feminist nonsense. Nevertheless, these are risks that you as a male simply don't have. You may be spiked, you may be mugged, you may be jumped... but you walk around the world in the safety of knowing that nobody wants to sexually assault you.

2) Doesn't sound like a good test, honestly. At least in terms of 'does a woman talk about anything but males' as Anita put it. Measuring a film as a good film, is, well, better.

The Bechdel test is NOT meant to be any indication of the quality of a film. Great great films can fail the Bechdel test. Even films with a great strong female character can fail... if she doesn't have other female characters to talk to. It's an observation that works in sheer quantity: when so many films fail to have two or more substantial female characters - who talk to each other - about something other than relationships with men - it says something about how the entertainment generated by this culture doesn't portray women as important... as 'real people' in society.

51% of this society is female. Women work with each other, have friendships and relationships with each other, and they consume the entertainment made by this culture. So isn't it funny that nearly every major Hollywood film is about men working and doing stuff... with one female as the 'romantic interest'? Isn't it funny that most films have the one girl in them... maybe it's Emily Blunt.. maybe it's Rosamund Pike... maybe it's Scarlett Johansson. But when she isn't shown interacting with any other substantial female characters, it means she probably exists to serve the male characters.

Films that substantially show female lifestyles and have a substantial number of female characters? "Chick flicks". Want to see a mother's relationship with her daughter? It's a chick flick. Want to see female workers performing at their job? It's a chick flick. But fathers and sons... buddies... men performing at their jobs... those aren't "man flicks", they are just films. Default films.

You don't have to agree completely, and the Bechdel test is not some kind of law. It was an observation designed to make you think. Did it make you think at all?

[NEG]

On the the mobile now, but points well made Squeaky. Both the 'phone a friend' and 'guy flick' examples are great in their respective matters.

There are guy flicks, but they certainly don't get labelled as such as often.

The phone a friend thing, along with 'not just the thought of being mugged' are both obvious if I thought about the 'constant fear of violence' term deeper I suppose. Sorry, and thanks.

[jon_cybernet]

Not really, some critically-lauded slasher films have done that. I didn't personally care much for Cabin in the Woods for example, though I enjoyed Tucker and Dale vs Evil. You still get films like Cabin Fever or straight-faced slashers like the Maniac, Friday 13th & Texas Chainsaw remakes, plus a ton of indie films. It's not a stretch to suspect if FF was around in the 80's they would be campaigning Whitehouse-style for the censorship of these films.

The TvsWiVG videos are identical to that Twilight video in that they are essentially a list of demands: a list of how games are wrong, and what we need to change to re-align with Sarkeesian's world view.

As for the abuse and MRA/GG labels, please fuck off with that, cretin.

a) No-one's trying to censor anything now

b) There's actually quite a lot of feminist writing on slasher movies, most notably Carol J. Clover's excellent Men, Women and Chainsaws. Interestingly, she wasn't SWATT'ed, DOX'd or otherwise harassed for having the temerity to write it.

[Danster]

I'm trying so hard not to just virtual slap you, but your dissonance is actually unreal. Do you honestly think that as a man walking at night you have any idea whatsoever how this might be a little more risky for a woman? I'm beyond asking you to use your brain at this point. I remember being in my first ever job at 15 and talking with a girl about a nice walk I found on my break and she was all like mate, I'm a girl, nice off the beaten path walks are a no go. That point made sense to me at 15 Neg. A guy thinks nothing of popping to an all night garage at midnight, and most women would never consider it for a second. That you don't get that as an adult just tells me you have turned your brain to blancmange with fucking Sonic games.

This is a decent short film that reverses the roles.

EDIT: spoilered because of NSFW thumbnail

[PaB]

It goes for men as well, we'd just as much be feeling blarg walking around in the dark.

You don't half talk some shite, mate.

[squirtle]

Still find it amazing that some of the guys in this thread think it's acceptable to mansplain feminism and/or sexism to geekette. If you're male and you think you have the right to tell a woman what is or isn't sexist/feminist then you've just failed Feminism 101.

Also, you're wrong. Sexism doesn't have to be intentional. Christ knows where you got your interpretation from.

Edit: Oh god, I've just realised it's gone midnight and I'm replying to people who don't even understand the Bechdel Test.

I understand the Bechdel Test fine, thanks, and I'm not explaining anything to Geekette. I'm just offering my opinion that her point was something I disagreed with, for, you know, discussion purposes. Geekette's reply to my post was far better than this nonsense you felt the need to write. If you read that I was "mansplaining" something to her, then you read my post incorrectly.

[squirtle]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think it takes intent to be prejudiced, in fact I suspect most people who are prejudiced don't know it or don't acknowledge it. If 90% of films show male characters with agency and don't show female characters with agency then that reflects unequal treatment of the genders in the film industry. I'd say that meets the dictionary definition:

Definition of SEXISM

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

I think I disagree with this. You can't tell me about my experience of sexism unless you are me. You can't tell me about women's experience of sexism unless you are a woman. But you can tell me about theory or fact or challenge my interpretations, opinions or conclusions. To not do so because I am a woman would be kind of patronising.

It also makes gender assumptions we can't be sure of online. I assume you are male, but I've never met you. I assume Minkee is female but I've never met her either. Either of you could be the opposite gender, or transgender, I'm not sure that would alter the value of your opinions. Likewise, I've met enough people from this forum for people to know I'm female, but if I'd not chosen a name ending in ette, and never said, I'd hope I'd still be treated with the same level of respect/contempt as I am now!

I guess there is a fine line between "don't get" and "choose to disregard as they have vested interests in the status quo" and "disagree with". I'm not sure we can assume that all women who take roles that seem to endorse a regressive position just need a bit of education and they'll come round to feminism.

I sort of agree with this, in the sense that respect is key to any debate and all the more necessary when the other party has lived experience that you don't. However, I'd also want to be treated just like anyone else regardless of my gender. I'm not a fragile little flower, I hate sycophants, and I learn most by being challenged. Beyond a few very personal attacks that have their own specific motivations, I've always felt like this forum has been pretty fair to me and not made my gender feel like an issue. I've positively liked the way other members are able to bring me to account when I've said something silly. Conversation here has made me think about, justify and better understand my opinions on various topics over the last five years, and I'd hate to think that feminism was a topic on which this same culture would not apply.

Thanks for this reasoned response to my post. I guess I was coming at it from point 1, which does seem to imply a conscious decision on the part of the person being sexist... Didn't consider point 2. My bad. Oh, and for the record, I wasn't attempting to explain shit in my post. Just disagreeing with something. I hope the difference was clear.

[smac]

1) There are certainly situations where women can feel more at risk, not denying that. Anita said all the time though, perhaps she certainly didn't mean that literally.

All the time, mate. I remember chatting with some friends at college and was fucking horrified to find out that the women expected to be approached, hassled or kerb-crawled on their way home; not occasionally, but at least one unwanted incident every journey. And not just after dark.

We had a long chat, but I was incredulous - didn't seem they were inhabiting the same world as me. Completely different set of experiences.

And I suspect that's your problem, too.

[Graham S]

Not specifically about personal safety, but if you want a sampling of how sexism still regularly directly affects women in modern life, it's worth taking a look at http://everydaysexism.com(or the book or follow the twitter account). I certainly found it eye opening, and quite different from my own experience.

[DirkCrisis]

That video S0L posted was a shocker from the perspective of condensing some of the most awful scenes from the last 10 years, which really made me feel bad. I guess with the exception of GTA I hadn't really played many of them and assumed that sort of objectification existed in borderline illegal Japanese games and fighters.

NEG, if you haven't already done so, just forget about replying to anything else, watch that video and think about the ideas she's trying to get across.

[Unofficial Who]

Not specifically about personal safety, but if you want a sampling of how sexism still regularly directly affects women in modern life, it's worth taking a look at http://everydaysexism.com(or the book or follow the twitter account). I certainly found it eye opening, and quite different from my own experience.

I had an awful example the other night at a gig when a yuppie my friend was ignoring while he was trying to flirt with her leaned and said "I could slit your throat right now and no-one could do anything about it."

Then again our country has a problem with violence against women. 79 dead this year at the hands of men, most known to them.

[Anne Summers]

I hope you or your friend made sure he regretted making that comment in some way. Not advocating violence of course but there is no way I would let that stand.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

Not really, some critically-lauded slasher films have done that. I didn't personally care much for Cabin in the Woods for example, though I enjoyed Tucker and Dale vs Evil. You still get films like Cabin Fever or straight-faced slashers like the Maniac, Friday 13th & Texas Chainsaw remakes, plus a ton of indie films. It's not a stretch to suspect if FF was around in the 80's they would be campaigning Whitehouse-style for the censorship of these films.

The TvsWiVG videos are identical to that Twilight video in that they are essentially a list of demands: a list of how games are wrong, and what we need to change to re-align with Sarkeesian's world view.

As for the abuse and MRA/GG labels, please fuck off with that, cretin.

It has been pointed out over and over and over again in this thread, practically on every single page, that Anita Sarkeesian does not argue for or advocate censorship. And that criticism and analysis does not equate to a desire to control or restrict. And yet here you are making the same basic mistake. You know who else makes the same mistake, time after time after time? No matter how many times it's pointed out to them? GamerGaters.

If you're using the same language and the same arguments based on the same mis-conceptions that they are then don't get angry at me for pointing it out.

[NEG]

I'm not at the Tropes videos yet but she certainly doesn't seem demanding yet. Opinionated on what is 'right' and 'how it could be', but not demanding.

[robdood]

Just skip straight to that one. If you don't get the message after watching it, then, well, it's probably not worth your time watching anything else..

[robdood]

I had an awful example the other night at a gig when a yuppie my friend was ignoring while he was trying to flirt with her leaned and said "I could slit your throat right now and no-one could do anything about it."

Then again our country has a problem with violence against women. 79 dead this year at the hands of men, most known to them.

Fucking hell. Nice. What does anyone that says something like this hope to achieve, other than looking like Patrick Bateman?

[Unofficial Who]

I hope you or your friend made sure he regretted making that comment in some way. Not advocating violence of course but there is no way I would let that stand.

She handled it by de-esculating the situation, she'd overheard him earlier talking about his partner so she asked to see a photo of her and it immediately threw him off and made him feel uncomfortable. She reacted faster than I did but we both realised after a moment of shock that 'our people' outnumbered him by a factor of ten. So she took great pleasure making him squirm and I sat back and let her do it. It was obvious he was outclassed, and it was so loud he only lost his pride in front of us.

Her and I exchanged notes later about various encounters, near misses and not so near misses.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

I sort of agree with this, in the sense that respect is key to any debate and all the more necessary when the other party has lived experience that you don't. However, I'd also want to be treated just like anyone else regardless of my gender. I'm not a fragile little flower, I hate sycophants, and I learn most by being challenged. Beyond a few very personal attacks that have their own specific motivations, I've always felt like this forum has been pretty fair to me and not made my gender feel like an issue. I've positively liked the way other members are able to bring me to account when I've said something silly. Conversation here has made me think about, justify and better understand my opinions on various topics over the last five years, and I'd hate to think that feminism was a topic on which this same culture would not apply.

I think we're broadly on the same page. I'm not trying to say that women should get special treatment. I'm just have the belief that the people who are most affected by an issue, have the most knowledge of it and have the most at stake should have the loudest voice. And if that voice is speaking then you should probably quite down a bit and listen to it. Even if, especially if, you disagree with it.

So when talking about racism: listen to people of colour. Dealing with homophobia: listen to gay people. Trying to improve accessibility for disabled people: ask disabled people. Discussing whether to bomb Syria: listen to Syrians. It's sounds so ridiculously simple, and it is. But it's so, so difficult.

Because as a straight, white, heterosexual, able-bodied, (mostly) middle class male the world that I live in is massively skewed towards serving me the opinions of other people like me and rarely punishes me for standing up and speaking out. The end result is that I, and other people like me, feel massively entitled to loudly hold forth our opinions even if that means talking over other people with more experience than us.

I do it regularly in real life. Lots of times I'll be having a conversation with someone and then five minutes later I'll realise that whilst speaking to them, instead of asking them to elaborate on their opinions, I've just picked up the conversational ball and ran with it. Telling them what I think rather listen to their thoughts.

And this definitely happens more with women and disabled people because A. the world around me has subtly conditioned me to believe my opinions are worth more than theirs. and B. (massive generalisation and personal opinion here) the world has subtly conditioned them that either their opinions are worth less than mine or that I'm so invested in point A. that it'd be too much hassle to push back against it.

Obviously these are small, tiny things but over time they mount up. It's basically where this meme comes from

[Liquid Myth]

I had an awful example the other night at a gig when a yuppie my friend was ignoring while he was trying to flirt with her leaned and said "I could slit your throat right now and no-one could do anything about it."

Then again our country has a problem with violence against women. 79 dead this year at the hands of men, most known to them.

EDIT: eat the rich

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

I understand the Bechdel Test fine,

Really?

I'm not sure that half the films that fail the test are inherently sexist, nor the product of a sexist set of individuals.

Because that looks like you think that's the point of the 'test'. Or, if I'm being kind, you think you're discussing this with people who think it's the point of the test. Neither of which are the case.

[Graham S]

lord-grant-me-the-confidence-of-a-mediocre-white-man-80a41.png

Look how confident NEG is to write a long post about a load of movies and TV shows he hasn't even seen, knows anything about, or even has an idea or coherent thought about! But he's a trier, prepared to have a go, how hard could it be? Best not leave it to one of those "opinionated" women who has at least watched them before expressing an opinion, as then where would we be?

(I realise this is a bit unfair, as NEG is trying harder to engage and doing more homework than me on the subject lately, and I haven't seen all the tropes videos myself, yet I'm happy to chip in in this thread).

[Rowan Morrison]

It's not a stretch to suspect if FF was around in the 80's they would be campaigning Whitehouse-style for the censorship of these films.

As definitions of 'stretch' go, that's pretty much worthy of Webster's. In fact if you stretched it any further there'd be a very real risk of taking someone's eye out.

I mean I don't like to take the Lord's name in vain any more than the next commenter, but CHRIST ON CRUTCHES, MAN, WHAT THE FUCK? This is why you see GG and MRA labels bandied about, because this is exactly the kind of thought-free, knee-jerk shit on toast that they specialise in. It is 100% the undisputed stretch of Stretch Armstrong's lifetime to assume that someone who criticizes something is likely to call for it to be censored.

Other fields don't have this problem, do they? Literary criticism is, you know, fairly well established, we can discuss films critically without anyone bursting into tears, you'll find countless critical texts on popular music in your local Waterstone's, and the door won't be barricaded by hysterical Directioners. But with video games, we get this kind of specious bollocks all the time. Christ alone knows why, but it's not a stretch to suspect that men who play video games suffer from epic castration anxiety, is it?

The door flew open, in she ran

Antia Sarkeesian

[Alex W.]

The TvsWiVG videos are identical to that Twilight video in that they are essentially a list of demands: a list of how games are wrong, and what we need to change to re-align with Sarkeesian's world view.

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that she's saying those things should change just because it suits her. She's saying those things should change in order to solve the problems with the representation of women that she outlines.

I know that doesn't sound like much of a distinction, but it's the difference between "we're being asked to reduce our energy usage because Liberals prefer a world with low energy usage" and "we're being asked to reduce our energy usage to avoid environmental problems X, Y, and Z".

And to paraphrase an old climate change joke, what happens if we get more varied plots and active characters in our games for nothing?

[Spacehost]

It's not a stretch to suspect if FF was around in the 80's they would be campaigning Whitehouse-style for the censorship of these films.

Because, obviously, a group of people who have never called for censorship at all are definitely, as a result of time travel, going to become for rhetorical reasons, proof of a slippery slope that I require to exist for my argument to hold up. It's a watertight argument. I'm convinced.

It's not like edgy media critics in the 1980s did a lot of intelligent analysis of violent movies and the Video Nasty culture without ever calling on censorship, those people wouldn't make a better comparison at all. I mean it's not like those people went on to develop the sort of rich vocabulary on the subject of horror movies that helped validate the genre and drive its acceptance or anything. They didn't do anything like review I Spit On Your Grave, a rape-revenge movie, on the basis of things like feminism at all.

[Alex W.]

You have got to be shitting me. Much of the best slasher/horror films of the past few years have either ignored age-old gender tropes or have taken great delight and pleasure in subverting or exploring them. You are also dismissing how many of the best slasher/horror movies of the past also did the same.

In other words, the horror films that are the most aware of the stupid gender stereotypes that exist in movies tend to be the best ones.

Not really, some critically-lauded slasher films have done that. I didn't personally care much for Cabin in the Woods for example, though I enjoyed Tucker and Dale vs Evil. You still get films like Cabin Fever or straight-faced slashers like the Maniac, Friday 13th & Texas Chainsaw remakes, plus a ton of indie films. It's not a stretch to suspect if FF was around in the 80's they would be campaigning Whitehouse-style for the censorship of these films.

I think it's worth pointing out at this stage that the reason why we have a diverse range of horror films from unreconstructed slasher nonsense to postmodern and self-aware features for genre buffs is because there were Sarkeesian-alikes in the 1980s criticising horror movies for their often terrible attitude to women. Not only did horror films somehow survive that, they flourished and diversified. The Mary Winehouse-alikes protesting about video nasties were a completely separate group of people.

We've got both Anita Sarkeesians and Jack Thompsons in today's gaming climate. If Sarkeesian was pushing for censorship rather than awareness and change, she wouldn't be making these lengthy readings of games and other media. The people who are repulsed by games and want them eliminated aren't interested in that sort of depth; only game players and creators are. Censors, like Thompson, work on the superficial, visceral, and emotive.

[NEG]

Noticed this on BBC today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34968467

[Alex W.]

Wonder Woman - the world's most prominent female hero - is also not immune. She once disappeared from a set of Justice League sheets, ironically replaced by notorious bed wetter Aquaman.

...?

[jon_cybernet]

Noticed this on BBC today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34968467

The Toy industry has always been incredibly resistant to female characters in boys toy ranges. It's also the reason there's been so much internal resistance to solo female superheroes at Marvel - For a long time, Ike Perlmutter was in control of Marvel, and he personally blocked development of female-led superhero movies, based on the fact that he used to run Toy Biz, and the prevailing theory was that you couldn't sell action figures to girls. Which meant no merchandising, which meant no movie.

This was a big part of the struggle between Ike and Kevin Feige for creative control of the Marvel movies division. Feige ultimately won, and now we have a Captain Marvel movie on the way.

Despite her popularity, it is incredible that you still can't really get Black Widow merch that isn't horrifically sexualised and aimed at nerdy guys.