Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[Melbu Frahma]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/publishers-said-you-cant-have-a-female-character-says-remember-me-dev-6405550?tag=Topslot;LatestGamingHeadlines;PublishersSaid039you

see this is the type of thing that is problematic and needs to be addressed.

Yeah, that's pretty messed up. Funny fact, if given a choice between a male or female create-your-own character, I usually pick the female, because I find the dialogue options tend to be more interesting.

[Gollgagh]

I'll admit that if I choose to play a female character in that scenario, she's generally celibate if I can help it

all of my femSheps were like that

[Annie Felis]

Honestly, Kickstarter has always seemed to me like a way for folks to get free money from naive people. We'll see how this goes.

That can be a bad thing and it can be a good thing. If a indie game studio gets more money than the expected amount, they tend to up the quality of their products and even set aside some cash for the next project. The thing is you can always see how much money is already donated when you get to a kickstartger page. It's not like somebody gets to a 100k goal and all donations immediately stop. Sometimes people want to give money for whatever reason, even if it's past a goal.

Anyway I don't know what to say about this one video of a series. So far it's a big fat stating the obvious, but it's one video. This one could suck while future ones could be better. They all could suck, I don't know. In any case I think it's a little early to pass judgement on something that's meant to be a documentive series.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

Unfortunately that isn't the first time a publisher has said the same thing, with Activision(or rather a former employee) making that statement circa 2010.

Ultimately it goes back to the point about the industry being respondent to trends that sell. Want games featuring realistic female protagonists? Enough people need to actually buy them, and judging from a lot of comments on that article, I'd wager that won't be happening any time soon, but I'm not going to sit around and blame the industry for that.

[Vilecat]

The article sounds like it's just a shitty excuse because their game is gonna be crap.

Many of the article's comments are very depressing (sexist and borderline chauvinist for some).

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

Here is another really shitty thing as far as women and gaming go: http://corp.ign.com/

[RealFolkBlues]

Here is another really shitty thing as far as women and gaming go: http://corp.ign.com/

Wow. That is...wow. Douchebaggery ahoy!

[The Derrit]

did i miss something here? if you go to ign.com it's not like their articles are geared towards men. they review/preview games, comics, movies and tv shows. being able to recognize that 75% of their users are male and market it to advertisers attempting to reach a male population doesn't strike me as discriminatory. i mean really. should they be trying to sell ad space to pintrest or victoria's secret?

though some of the 'put hair on your chest' sound bytes were pretty stupid

also i'm not sure what that cheap shot at remember me was about by all accounts it's a game with a fair amount of promise.

Edited March 20, 2013 by The Derrit

[Vilecat]

75%? I'd like to see where that number came from.

Also gotta love your logic of women ads = lingerie. Really?

It's just another case of "No Girls Allowed Club" circlejerking with that page.

I personally don't like going to IGN because I find their reviews biaised. Not the place for me to see if a game is worth it or not.

[The Derrit]

75%? I'd like to see where that number came from.

Also gotta love your logic of women ads = lingerie. Really?

It's just another case of "No Girls Allowed Club" circlejerking with that page.

I personally don't like going to IGN because I find their reviews biaised. Not the place for me to see if a game is worth it or not.

it came from their rap sheet *on that site you just posted.* let's just doubt analytics because we don't like what they say.

and let's be fucking real for a second. according to feminist bullshit men and women are the same and should be allowed have the same interests. so what does it matter to you if they're trying to advertise to men? technically we're all the same so they're advertising to women too.

and it's lingerie because that's literally the only thing that women buy that men wouldn't buy for themselves other than feminine hygiene products. and i'm thinking advertisements for tampons wouldn't really do it.

the difference between 'no girls allowed club' and 'hey no women come to this website, let's not attempt to target advertisements at women' is worlds apart.

if you HONESTLY think them saying "hey, a quarter of the males between 18-34 on the internet come to our site from time to time. that's 75% of our user base. we should advertise to them!" is 'no girls allowed club' then i don't even know what to say.

Edited March 20, 2013 by The Derrit

[Bleck]

should they be trying to sell ad space to pintrest or victoria's secret?

ha ha ha wow

[Annie Felis]

I dunno, that ign page still seems sexist to me. It's sexist against men though, because it's shouting a bunch of gender stereotypes from the top of its lungs instead of just saying "hey, you guys like video games right?".

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

I dunno, that ign page still seems sexist to me. It's sexist against men though, because it's shouting a bunch of gender stereotypes from the top of its lungs instead of just saying "hey, you guys like video games right?".

Why is it only sexist against one gender and not both? As a man, I'm offended at the idea that a man in tights is somehow less of a man than one wearing a utility belt. However, I wouldn't deny that the whole page basically leaves women out of the equation entirely, as though women cannot be gamers.

[Annie Felis]

Why is it only sexist against one gender and not both? As a man, I'm offended at the idea that a man in tights is somehow less of a man than one wearing a utility belt. However, I wouldn't deny that the whole page basically leaves women out of the equation entirely, as though women cannot be gamers.

Well yeah, the "sausage fest" thing is sexist too because it excludes anybody female. I didn't spot on the page where it said "NO GIRLS GO AWAY YOU HAVE COOTIES" though, it was more subtext. I spotted more male stereotypes that made me eyeroll hard enough to see my own optic nerve. A man is not masculine due to a predetermined set of tropes, and it's damned irking to see things try to push said tropes and stereotypes on us.

[Vilecat]

Derrit, I didn't post any site.

And it does matter, because this isn't just part 1 of a bigger campaign, it's the whole thing. They say it's a site for men and their banners are filled with awful stereotypes that hurt both genders. They could've done it easily without the gender biais. But the way they did it, it's basically like more or less subtly putting on a "no girls" sign up.

Lingerie isn't something only women buy, even if it's for them to wear (which falls into something else about sexism in society, but that'd be for the PPR thread). It's also pieces of clothing they'll buy with their mate in mind, which is, in the majority of cases, male. That's how I find your suggestion offensive. It's also just falling for the same trap IGN did with that page.

Why make such publicity when it could alienate part of it AND the demographic you're purposefully rejecting?

[djpretzel]

Why make such publicity when it could alienate part of it AND the demographic you're purposefully rejecting?

You do need to understand what you're looking at, and who it's geared to. The audience for that page, at http://corp.ign.com/, isn't customers or even visitors, it's advertisers. IGN has determined that advertisers interested in advertising on their site want to reach a young male demographic, and so they are catering to that audience, specifically. Because they want to make money.

It's really not THAT much more complicated. You've got a chicken-and-egg problem, and overanalyzing it is counter-productive. Will advertisers start wanting to target females more when there are more statistics to back up that's who they will actually be reaching? Yes. If you can count on one thing, it's that these folks want to make money. That's almost your only given. They like money. They don't care about agendas, rights, dreams, hopes, wishes, or hurt feelings. They aren't the ones you're going to persuade, or who will even take the time to care.

Don't expect advertisers to turn the sway or effect social change; they follow the money, they are reactionary, and they deal in cold metrics and hard numbers. To expect advertisers in the video game industry to exhibit behavior in any way different from advertisers in other industries to me is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. I don't disagree with most aspects of the overall argument, and I want to see some sort of change effected, but it would never start with advertisers, and misinterpreting content like this weakens more legitimate arguments.

Edited March 20, 2013 by djpretzel

[Annie Felis]

Don't expect advertisers to turn the sway or effect social change; they follow the money, they are reactionary, and they deal in cold metrics and hard numbers. To expect advertisers in the video game industry to exhibit behavior in any way different from advertisers in other industries to me is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. I don't disagree with most aspects of the overall argument, and I want to see some sort of change effected, but it would never start with advertisers, and misinterpreting content like this weakens more legitimate arguments.

Then what about Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty that they started a while back? They decided that they would not use photoshopped models with unrealistic proportions/faces, and that they would use ordinary yet still beautiful women in their ads (albeit still level-adjusted/airbrushed women). I mean even now they're running this, and have a new ad out with a photoshop action they made, that's pointedly going after advertisers and the photomanipulation they use: clicky.

Kind of looks like a PR stunt, though. I mean this isn't going to affect the beauty companies that demand photomanipulation in their ads, and it's not going to stop the photoshop artists who have to edit the photos for a job, because they're still going to do what their job is so they can get their paycheck.

I mean you could argue that Dove is just trying to advertise to the people who are fed up with the unrealistic standard of beauty set by the beauty industry, and I'm sure there's some of that in there. But it also seems like Dove is trying to start some change, and then be ahead as that change happens so they can be in a better position in the public's eyes. They're trying to say "hey, some people may be like that, but we're not like that, okay?".

Edited March 20, 2013 by Annie Felis

[Vilecat]

Basically what Annie Felis said. Big companies have a great opportunity to have an impact on society, because they reach a ton of people. IGN could have done the same, they could have shoved these stereotypes and clichés aside to show how they care about their readers more.

But they didn't. They stuck to the same mentality that plagues a big part of the videogame community as a whole.

We're getting rather off-topic now, though.

[Brandon Strader]

IGN could do this, IGN could do that

IGN announces Battlefield 4 Game of the Year

IGN rakes in cash. IGN happy. That all IGN ever wanted.

(IGN speak like caveman. Is easy.)

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

Is the argument here that IGN is immune from criticism because it's appealing to advertisers to make a profit? Because I wouldn't allow them to get off that easy. They should come under even greater scrutiny to the point where it becomes unprofitable to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[djpretzel]

Kind of looks like a PR stunt, though. I mean this isn't going to affect the beauty companies that demand photomanipulation in their ads, and it's not going to stop the photoshop artists who have to edit the photos for a job, because they're still going to do what their job is so they can get their paycheck.

Right well... who knows. Might be legit, permanent change of heart and campaign for public good, might be an attempt to get out ahead of an issue and appeal to a new demographic, might be both. They're still a single advertiser, though, and the IGN page caters to numerous advertisers. I think they could have taken a higher road, if not THE high road, but I also imagine that many of their potential advertisers are inquiring - repeatedly - about the young male demographic, and so they've created a page that caters to what they perceive - based on their actual interactions with advertisers - is the topic of greatest interest.

Is the argument here that IGN is immune from criticism because it's appealing to advertisers to make a profit? Because I wouldn't allow them to get off that easy. They should come under even greater scrutiny to the point where it becomes unprofitable to cater to the lowest common denominator.

No one's immune, no one gets a free pass, but if you want to change the world, it's one of the absolute worst places to start. Your own statement almost contradicts itself - the lowest common denominator is what it is because it is common, i.e. ubiquitous. If everyone somehow makes catering to it unprofitable, you've already accomplished the sea change, and the LCD isn't even the LCD anymore, and so you've won the game. Mentioning things like this IGN page betrays the vagaries and nebulous targets causes like this end up latching on to, rather than anything constructive. Build your solution, or contribute directly to those building it... deconstructing & demonizing easy, relatively meaningless targets like this never got anyone anywhere.

Well, it probably generated a lot of BS thesis papers, I take that back.

Edited March 21, 2013 by djpretzel

[The Derrit]

Lingerie isn't something only women buy, even if it's for them to wear (which falls into something else about sexism in society, but that'd be for the PPR thread). It's also pieces of clothing they'll buy with their mate in mind, which is, in the majority of cases, male. That's how I find your suggestion offensive. It's also just falling for the same trap IGN did with that page.

you didn't read my post. i said it's pretty much the only thing that men can't buy *for themselves.* nearly anything else can feasibly be construed as gender neutral. and if you're really going to go the route of 'well lingerie is actually for men' then women might as well stop buying it. right?

everything else djpretzel has already said, and pretty much been spot on about. and his reaction has been pretty congruent to my entire reaction to the arguments in this thread: that there are valid points and improvements to be made, but you're flipping out over *THAT*?

Edited March 21, 2013 by The Derrit

[Vilecat]

There is lingerie/sexy underwear for men. You just don't see stores in malls carrying only that stuff with swim suits and pajamas though. "What would people say if a man walked in one of those!"

I never said lingerie is for men. I just said that a majority of men end up enjoying the product. There are some men that will buy such things for their partner to wear, or will go shopping with them for such items. I'm pretty sure there are same-gender couples enjoying lingerie and sexy underwear, but since the % of same-sex couples isn't nearly as high as the one for opposite-sex couples, they're a minority.

We're not "flipping out", we just have a very different view on this than you.

[sphexic]

I agree with DJP about advertisers being in it for the money. IGN has a dominantly male viewership, and they're trying to sell that to advertisers for all it's worth. Selling your strong points makes financial sense. As for why IGN's demographic is mostly male, that's up for debate. The only game site I regularly read is Gamasutra, so I can't say. That site is more about game design, and the readers seem better informed. In fact, there have been some articles cropping up in the last few days about women's roles in video games.

After skimming through some IGN articles, though, I can say the comments sections are generally hostile. That said, I'm interested to know whether that's something promoted by the site's design and layout, or whether it's a reflection of the "mainstream gamers" who read IGN.

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

Mentioning things like this IGN page betrays the vagaries and nebulous targets causes like this end up latching on to, rather than anything constructive. Build your solution, or contribute directly to those building it... deconstructing & demonizing easy, relatively meaningless targets like this never got anyone anywhere.

I agree that the IGN page is more of a symptom that reinforces the problem rather than a root cause of pervasive patriarchy, though I don't think anyone said otherwise. I'm really not sure how mentioning this IGN page on some random Internet discussion forum as an example of how bad this problem is would actually harm any progress. Personally, I think it's especially important to point out examples like that when we seem to have so many people here who don't think there is a problem in the first place, or seriously disagree as to the scope of it.

If a solution to the root problem is born, it's not going to be born on OCReMix forums. Now if Anita Sarkeesian, who has the public's attention and a wide audience, were to start attacking advertisers, I would be more inclined to agree. But she hasn't been prescribing solutions yet.