Is the women in games debate good or bad for women in games?

The only true online game I've played was Diablo II. Yeah D3 is now out, and D2 is mostly dead. I play for the Pvp though. I came back recently after like a year or so of quitting, still loving it haha. Not so much into the newer games.

People(guys) would pose as women to get free items and stuff which was pretty sad and pathetic. They'd get photos from their sis or gf or somewhere and send those when people asked to see. It really is redic. I have played with some chicks, and I haven't doubted them at all, but it really is just downright horrible. People would treat many of them as fake, just guys posing as I have mentioned, that the genuine ones would just be so embarassed/offended.

People say "there are no girls on the internet" which is completely false. There are people of all walks of life, Male or Female.. Inb4 trolls

 

its the only tool or path that will change things for the better.

another aid to the industry would be to round up the mainstream media and ship them all to germany or australia. and the fake femi "gamer girls* along with them.

 

A real feminist is someone who fights for equality among both genders. Feminists like Anita don't want equality, they want power. They want everything to be made for them personally and to be held to their radical standards. Feminists like Anita will never be pleased with video games until every game stars a strong female protagonist out to save her weak boyfriend. Until then, she will always find something to complain about.

The entire reason Raiden was created was to appeal to Japanese schoolgirls. It didn't work.

As for the others I suppose so, but that can't be the case for every male character. It seems unfair to say perfect looking sexualized men are male power fantasies, but perfect looking sexualized women are sexist. Either they're both sexist, or they're both eye candy.

Either way, it's $100,000 (or rather $158,992) more than she deserves. She has nothing relevant or interesting to say about the subject more than any of us here. And her constantly playing the victim doesn't sit well with me either.

I have seen the video, and I do agree with the premise that the 'damsel in distress' trope is lazy and well overdone, but that doesn't mean every game that uses it is sexist and trying to target women. What, from now on is every game that has a kidnapping plot supposed to make the victim always male to avoid offending angry feminists like her? Does every game need to star a strong, masculine female and a weak, effeminate male so women can feel more comfortable when playing?

If I want to make a game where the main character is a tough as nails female on an adventure to save her younger brother, I'll do that. But if I want to make a game where the main character is a badass male on an adventure to save his younger sister, I should be able to do that as well without a feminist breathing down my neck. Nobody should have any say in how I design my story, especially when there is nothing remotely sexist or offensive about it.

People like her want to censor creativity and that is something I strongly oppose. I'm not a fan of those ridiculous drawings in Dragon's Crown, and I'll gladly tell the artist how ridiculous they are, but I don't think I have any place to call the artist a sexist pig because of it. He wanted to create an attractive and well endowed female and that's what came out. It's goofy and absurd, and it makes us gamers look like immature teenagers, but he should have every right to do so. If a female artist wants to make a character that features a man with an extremely large package holding a 20 inch dong, she should be able to without angry men demanding she change it. I'll laugh and call it stupid, but again, she has every right to.

Long story short, I don't like Anita.

 

That's what i really HATE about feminist, gay/lesbian/national minority-whatever so-called "activists". They don't want equality (it's obvious because they already got it), they want to have way more rights than the rest. Every time i hear them, all i want is to find a flamethrower. And i hate all that political correctness shit.

 

As a very liberal, very pro-equality, feminist-friendly man, I will say:

When gender and gender roles are ignored, and a story is simply told, and a game is simply played - not politicised for censorship, nor force shaped through intimidation and outrage into a model of radical anti-male control.

Simply put: When it's not a confrontation of man and woman, but simply a game. If a game has shitty objectification, like Soul Calibur 5 or whatnot, then it is society's role to criticise it and everyone offended should not buy or play it. This means we can say it is shit, but we should not have it banned or shame those who do choose to make, play or even like it.

I should add, about the Kamitani art:

Kotaku guy could have said "This art is horrible. The proportions are wrong. And it really is laughable. I do not like it".

Not "Kamitani is a horny 14 year old. Shame on him for exaggerating the female form. SHAME! Look at how feminist I am now! SHAME! Ban this sick filth!"

 

Ignored by who? The developers, the consumers or the media? Games are not created in a void, and sometimes gender roles (as well as other view points) are included in any work of fiction, even if the creators themselves are not aware of it. It also does not mean the people behind the work have bad intentions. For instance, Kamitani's comment had a different effect on a Gamasutra writer.

What the writer at kotaku actually said was...

Not defending Jason Schreier, tough, just making sure we understand what actually happened there. There was no call at censorship, banning or shaming involved at all.

 

So they want more games like Mischief Makers to be made? I can get behind that!

Gay people still can't marry each other in most countries, so I wouldn't be saying they've "already got" equality. Women on the other hand have it a bit better, stuff that they previously weren't allowed to do (i.e vote) they can now do. There's still problems when it comes to other subjects (i.e they're allowed to become the CEO of a big company, but people seem to never choose them, opting for male CEO instead) but we're getting there. There's a few occasions where they get an advantage, such as in child custody cases, which I guess slightly helps even the playing field.

 

Is there a site where I can see where Sarkeesian asked for those things?

Okay, here's another way to look at it. This is just like in american superhero comic books. Spider-man isn't muscular and strong to be eye candy for women.

She was a victim:

I don't think censorship has been actually mentioned by Sarkeesian at all.

 

She never did (as far as I know), but she represents a loud, vocal, angry, and just plain unlikeable side of feminism that hold that belief. They won't admit to it, but they won't be pleased until men are treated the same way women were in the US prior to the 1970's.

Of course it wasn't mentioned by her. She's supposed to be the victim, remember?

She disables comments and ratings, which given how obnoxious the typical YouTube comments in a video are, I can't really blame her for disabling comments (ratings should stay enabled, unless she knows she's full of shit and wants to pretend she's always right). She intentionally left comments open one video, knowing how retarded and blunt the typical YouTube comment is, and tried to use that as evidence for being unfairly targeted.

She's a lying, manipulative, ebegging, cherry picking, pseudo-intellectual bitch. I'm sorry, but I just don't like her.

There she goes playing the victim again. I'm assuming Anita has never been on the internet before.

Emails getting raped by video game characters is excessive, but given how much she stretches the truth I'm not sure just how vulgar the images were.

Twitter account hacking? Beat her up flash game? Doctored images being posted online? DoS attacks? Obtaining and distributing her personal info? Her Wikipedia page being vandalized?

Does she seriously think all of that was done because misogynistic assholes hate women? It's not because she's a woman, it's because they don't like her. Internet "celebrities" have to deal with that kind of stuff all the time. If anything she's a victim of bullying, not misogyny. If it bothers her that much, she should be rallying for support against cyber-bullying. Oh wait, but I guess it doesn't matter if a boy get's bullied online, fuck him he's not being oppressed like poor old Anita.

 

If she did not say those things then how can she represent that?

Don't see the connection between one thing and the other. She was a victim, tough, and coverage in mainstream media certainly back that assumption.

No one is obligated to like a person, that is for sure. But so much of what you say regarding Sarkeesian can't really be proved since there is no factual evidence for it.

I disagree, mainly because this started with her Kickstarter campaign.

I do not believe that Sarkeesian is an evil master manipulator that somehow fooled Kickstarter, The New York Times, The Guardian and became rich in the process. But I guess some people on the net feel more comfortable believing that story instead of letting a woman create a series of videos critical about the content of video games.

The silly concept of "women being manipulators of poor innocent men and because of that they must be punished" is an idea that seems very common on this hobby, sadly. It's root is based on exclusion. It's declaring the other "not worthy" of a hobby.

 

Knowing the general maturity level of gamers on the internet, I'd say in the case of the people attacking Anita, a lot of them did it because they're under the impression that "the mean ol' feminist is going to take away our big boy games and replace them GIRLY games!"

 

The only issue I have with this is that games seem to be getting called out exclusively as problematic, when that isn't the case at all. You can say the same thing about movies. You can pick a handful of movies, even out of a pool of Oscar nominated films and represent the whole medium as either ignoring women at best or being sexist at worst.

Don't ignore the countless works that aren't sexist & don't use tired cliches in storytelling. Focus on the good, not the bad. Don't ignore the indie shops that are trying to create [games, movies, etc] that ANYONE can be proud to call among their favorites.

It should also be noted that the same goes in the female dominated industries like nursing & teaching, where men are often marginalized.

All that said, this isn't a problem with games, it is much larger than that. It's not "sexism on the game industry", it is "sexism in society". Putting a bandage over only videogames is not going to solve the problem, but it will help.

 

This simply isn't true. Also, please don't murder people for having different opinions or sexual orientations from you.

 

This is true, sadly. And i don't like things like this one.
And it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but rather with some so-called "activists" forcing other people to teach children about it. I studied biology and can say there's two kinds of homosexuality. One - caused by genes, other - by pure psychological factors, someone who was born heterosexual can become homosexual.
That's why i'm strongly against adoption of children by homosexual people. And in fact most people are.
Also i don't understand why homosexual people want church to accept gay marriage ? Church is an organization with it's own set of rules. It's like an army (you don't expect civilian laws and rules in army, right ?) or other closed society, like some club that doesn't allow jeans. If you like jeans just don't go there, and if you desperately want to go there - buy pants, that's all.

 

I can't read that so I used a translator, sorry if I misunderstand something in the article.

So an activist group in Europe wants to ban books depicting traditional families? Wow, how asinine.

What is so wrong with homosexual couples adopting children? They won't magically turn them gay (unless they were born with homosexual preferences to begin with), if anything I'd think it would make them more open minded and understanding of homosexuality in general. (i.e. they won't feel uncomfortable in the presence of a homosexual)

And even if they do hypothetically turn their adopted kids gay, so what? Does that make the kid any less of a person? How would it be any different from a religious family adopting a kid and making them religious even if the kid didn't believe in a god to begin with?

Because we live in the year 2013? Because it's a form of discrimination? Because gays have a right to believe in God just like everyone else?

 

Reading through this thread I began with the notion that you were a reasonable person & seemed to want equality for all instead of fixed sets of individuals, & then you display a mindset as disgusting as this.

First of all, you say someone can become homosexual two different ways, & then you say, "That's why i'm strongly against adoption of children by homosexual people." What kind of reasoning is that? You've got to be fucking kidding me. The fact that you think having homosexual parents will make it more likely that the child would be too is baffling. Even if it did have some random variable of influence, I don't see the problem whatsoever. Sadly, most people are against it, but if those studies come from the US then most are religious too with words in an old fairy tale book that say it is wrong.

Every argument against gay marriage & the right for them to adopt kids has been stomped into the ground, continuously. & to be honest, the only gay couple I've met that are in my neighborhood are my new next door neighbors. Guess what? They adopted a son & he is straight! Both parents work & their house is very up-kept, nice cars, but I guess they too are unfit to raise this kid according to you.

They want gay marriage because along with marriage comes benefits. The fact that you don't understand this is painful, not because I am gay, but because I support everybody with every preference & prefix to have equal rights, & I hate people who really don't take the time to think before fighting against someone else's way of life, one of which has absolutely 0 effect on you. I think that is the key point as to why I hate that I am living in a time where you can access all of this amazing information using the internet from anywhere, yet people still support stone age ideas like what religion has to offer, & we are still fighting about gay marriage and not focusing on actual issues or things we could be doing as a collective.

As as note for the actual topic, I say drop feminism & just start working towards equal rights for everyone, but still address the problems that are happening between both genders, all races, sexual preference, etc etc. As long as it doesn't harm another person, I fail to see the problem. You have the right to not like something or not want to do it yourself, but that is all you have. You don't have the right to stop what you don't personally like. The problem with all these different collectives working towards equal rights have nut-jobs displaying themselves because they are the most entertaining to listen to just because they come out with outrageous ideas.

 

Its far less complex than that, in fact people like anita don't want "the problem" to be solved, since if that happens then whats left for her? she would be less than useless.

On the other hand she made a ton of money by making a poor excuse for a show based on what even us male gamers have been saying for years, nothing new here.

Charities have become a huge business in most of the first world, you have directors making half a million a year, employees at peta make an average $60k a year, they aren't pro-bono vegans and to be honest you would have to pay me that much to live off shitty ass soy food.

Before this anita was literally a nobody, she was the very definition of irrelevant, but now? now she's rich and famous, she has her cake and ate it too. People with actual careers that have studied and worked their entire lives to get where they are now don't get as much money or fame as anita does from her retarded rants.

And that's my problem: I never been a fan of exploitation, I believe its plain wrong and immoral for someone to exploit social issues for the sake of profit like anita and many others do.

The fact is that fake geek girls are indeed fakes, and much like anita they do so because in one way or another there is a money in it for them: some are failed actresses/models and thanks to a few desperate basement dwellers they get their 15min of fame despite their lack of talent and looks. Others go straight for the greenbacks and do bullshit online to get paid, either way both types only care about money.

The moment the "geek chic" goes out of fashion these types will disappear, you can count on that, and the moment nobody pays her to "talk" anita will stop being a feminist and revert to whatever becomes profitable.

If being a housewife went back in style I can see anita asking for money to make a blog about house cleaning, nuff said.

 

Hey, don't blame her, she was called here by HUMANS who wish to pay HER tribute. Blame the fools who so easily parted with their money only so they could hear what they want to hear.

It's impossible to argue intent here. One person's power fantasy is another person's sexual fantasy. Also, women aren't the only people who generally find men appealing...

Also also, even if it's not a "sexual fantasy", that doesn't mean it doesn't damage a young boy's self worth. If all the heroes a young boy sees are tall and square-jawed with overly developed muscles, then how does that make a "normally" shaped boy feel? I know this point in particular is treading a little off topic, but it is important to note that there are way more factors involved here than just how women see themselves in games.

 

Was going to post this in the E3 thread but I didn't want to derail the topic.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...-e3-gaming-event/story-e6frfrt9-1226662462228

Un-fucking-believable. Lets forget about our privacy and consumer rights being tossed aside, lets get angry about some goddamn improv "rape" joke and a lack of positive female representation.

Feminist Frequency @femfreq
Thanks #XboxOne #E3 press conference for revealing to us exactly zero games featuring a female protagonist for the next generation.



She's mad at Microsoft because none of the games shown had female lead characters? Really? THAT's her biggest complaint about the Microsoft conference? THAT's why she watched E3? Does she even play ga- oh, wait, what am I thinking, of course not.

Why do you people worship this hypocritical, blatantly misandric dunce?

Oh, and kudos to the author of the article for cherry picking an obvious sexist joke from some random twitter user like it somehow proves that women are all oppressed in the game industry.

 

Thank god boys can still speak their minds online. Men are being marginalized and trained to go against their nature. Thats why they are lashing out even if they don't know why. The feminist moment has done nothing but lower the price of labor by half and destroy the family.