I have another test: if the game or movie is about space travel in the future, at least some of the characters should not be Americans (or at least have names which do not look like "common american name").That's a great point, especially when the space crew is supposed to be representing the population of Earth as a whole, it comes across as weird when everybody is coded as English/American.
I mean, they could do it with Jean Luc Picard :).
... and also the woman politician from "Expanse" (whom I subjectively found the only likeable character in the series lol)
I have another test: if the game or movie is about space travel in the future, at least some of the characters should not be Americans (or at least have names which do not look like "common american name").This is true also for european sci-fi movies, for example in Luc Besson's the characters are americans. Despite the fact that Europe have its Space Agency since 1975.
I just felt so tired and angry at not being able to just see an exciting story without constantly having to worry about seeing gross and nasty scenes of misogynistic violence
Weird, I don't remember ever having this issue. I feel like there have always been plenty of stories around where men get treated at least as badly as women. Maybe you watch too much anime? :)I really hope you didn't mean to come across as so arrogant as you sound like in your reply, but I've literally seen exactly the same arguments coming from different guys almost a hundred times by now, and it's galling to have to explain this over and over again.
I like George R. R. Martin's take: just write women as if they were people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGmctvlITtI&ab_channel=AegonTargaryen). Controversial, I know.
I really hope you didn't mean to come across as so arrogant as you sound like in your reply, but I've literally seen exactly the same arguments coming from different guys almost a hundred times by now, and it's galling to have to explain this over and over again.
Yeah, I see how that could have come across as arrogant - and it was a little bit, but towards anime fans (sorry! ;)). I genuinely tried to recall any misogynistic rape/torture scenes I've seen and struggled to do so, while scenes of people (mostly men) being murdered in various ways popped up in my head one after another, and so I felt you were exaggerating. Although to be fair, it's pretty much always men committing the violence, regardless of the gender of the victim. Which mirrors real-world statistics I'm afraid.Yeah, I'm really not surprised, like I've said before, lot's of men don't get it, and I've seen dozens of other guys do exactly the same mistake before. Men being killed in action scenes is not the same as a helpless victim being raped, I know several men who are perfectly fine watching James Bond movies and films like Saving Private Ryan but visibly recoil at the mere suggestion of watching Pulp fiction or Deliverance, not because they are more violent, but because they show men being raped, and it's frustrating how many men get this when it comes to male viewers but can't understand women feel the same on depictions of female characters. Like, I'm fine watching Lara Croft and similar female action heroes get shot at, risk death in ancient death traps, and fight female opponents, but this article pissed me off (https://kotaku.com/youll-want-to-protect-the-new-less-curvy-lara-croft-5917400).
In any case, I could be wrong. If you want, I can try to list the last 10 movies / TV shows I've watched and you point out the violence against women that you see in those.Well, I think searching their titles on Unconsenting Media (https://www.unconsentingmedia.org/) might be a better idea. Granted, not all movies and TV-series has been added to their database, but most mainstream works can be found there. From my experience, their statistics are a pretty good representation of mainstream TV.
Maybe just one question: is the implication supposed to be that Martin is a misogynist?Personally, no, I don't think Martin intended to be misogynistic, however, I think he makes a common mistake lots of male writers do in thinking that merely showing tons of gruesome violent acts against women counts as a good criticism of misogyny and woman-hating. However, firstly, many men fail to understand that sexual violence isn't the same as fantasy violence, as author Chuck Wendig (http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/05/21/your-defense-of-that-rape-scene-makes-you-sound-kinda-gross/) puts it;
If I were to sit in a room full of 100 people, how many of them do you think have been beheaded, cock-chopped, throat-slit, war-murdered, skull-asploded, and so on, and so forth?Secondly, more often than not, throwing in scenes of sexual violence normalizes it to the viewers, and rather than thinking it's wrong, many viewers start thinking it's normal, and looking at the Game of Thrones discourse, I've seen an alarming number of people defend the rape scenes using similar arguments used against real-life victims! There have even been scientific studies showing rather disturbing connections between watching films with sexist violence on screen, and increased victim-blaming in the audience. (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/28/science/violence-against-women-in-films.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all)
Probably none.
Except Gary. Poor Gary.
But how many do you think might’ve undergone sexual assault or rape?
That’s a higher number, innit?
EDIT: This might be hard to believe, but I didn't realize you were a woman until your last post - for some reason, "Blondbraid" made me think of a Viking beard or something :). So here's a question: is it wrong if that changes how I read your posts on this topic? Because I have to admit it does a bit, which makes my whole "gender isn't important" spiel sound somewhat hypocritical ;). I'm conflicted!Okay, this is actually the first thing you've written here that did surprise me! Years ago, when I first discussed different ideas for a username with my mom, she told me "Blondbraid" was rather feminine and it might risk getting associated with bimbo /barbie stereotypes, so I didn't think of it that way. As for your question, I'd say it's complicated because as much as I'd like to be judged as a person rather than being judged for my gender, I think it's wrong to deny one's sex and gender strongly colors one's experiences and outlook on the world, because I certainly read your replies seeing you as a man and with the perspective that many men never have to think about such matters unless someone brings it up to them, and while I think that the advice to write women as people isn't wrong per sé, I've seen plenty of male writers fall into the trap of writing women like men who just look like women, because in their eyes, a well-rounded human being = man. It's similar to video games where you can choose the gender of the hero, but if you choose to play as a woman you get a female hero who visits strip clubs, participates in all-male sports tournaments, and has a bunch of female NPCs otherwise portrayed as straight suddenly fawn over her, none of which is particularly relatable to most women. :-\
Years ago, when I first discussed different ideas for a username with my mom, she told me "Blondbraid" was rather feminine and it might risk getting associated with bimbo /barbie stereotypes, so I didn't think of it that way.
Well, you proabably should think over how you treat men in that case! :-\QuoteYears ago, when I first discussed different ideas for a username with my mom, she told me "Blondbraid" was rather feminine and it might risk getting associated with bimbo /barbie stereotypes, so I didn't think of it that way.
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious in hindsight. But I swear, that "arrogant" post, that was you being treated like a man ;). I guess because it rhymes with Bluebeard? It's a captain's name!
This might be hard to believe, but I didn't realize you were a woman until your last post - for some reason, "Blondbraid" made me think of a Viking beard or something :).Heh, same here. I remember when I first figured out Blondbraid was a woman. (laugh)
Heh, same here. I remember when I first figured out Blondbraid was a woman. (laugh)
The username really does make you think of a viking beard. Or maybe a viking ponytail. (nod)
Also, I have a question somewhat based on this discussion.
Why do males have to be displayed as masculine and females have to be displayed as feminine, for it to count as those genders being properly represented?
Why can't a man be feminine and a woman be masculine? What even constitutes as being masculine and feminine anyway? Aren't those purely cultural concepts? Aren't we forcing genders into stereotypes by "properly" representing them in this way?
Also, why do people feel the need for a character to share either their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation for them to be relatable? I can think of countless media where I relate to a character that's nothing like me, either because their personality is similar to mine, their goals, or the situations they've found themselves in. To be honest, I can't think of a single character that I've found relatable simply because he's a straight white male.
Lastly, why do people feel the need to relate to a character in order to enjoy them? Plenty of people seem to enjoy Kirby, yet I highly doubt anyone relates to Kirby. (laugh)
Well, Mulan was my favourite Disney princess growing up. (roll)This might be hard to believe, but I didn't realize you were a woman until your last post - for some reason, "Blondbraid" made me think of a Viking beard or something :).Heh, same here. I remember when I first figured out Blondbraid was a woman. (laugh)
The username really does make you think of a viking beard. Or maybe a viking ponytail. (nod)
Also, I have a question somewhat based on this discussion.Well, I think there is a misunderstanding in this discussion because I certainly think you can write a female character without any surface trappings of femininity (like feminine clothes or doing feminine jobs) and still make her a believable character. I think the problem is that even if a woman chooses not to conform to femininity, you're still socialized as a woman and has a woman's body will approach several situations differently from a man. For example, when I was growing up, I was the only girl in my class who played video games, and even when I played alone in my room, I could feel weird for wanting to try Call of Duty, and only seeing men in that game, I constantly felt reminded that it wasn't made for me and I was some random anomaly for liking it, so even when I've done things not typically associated with femininity, I've still been aware that I'm a woman and that a man's experience of the same thing would be different.
Why do males have to be displayed as masculine and females have to be displayed as feminine, for it to count as those genders being properly represented?
Why can't a man be feminine and a woman be masculine? What even constitutes as being masculine and feminine anyway? Aren't those purely cultural concepts? Aren't we forcing genders into stereotypes by "properly" representing them in this way?
And I don't think characters have to be relatable in the sense that they have the same personality like me, but they do need to be relatable in the sense that you can tell why they are feeling the feelings they feel or take different actions throughout their story.I'm the same. (nod)
It sounds like the overall answer to my questions, is that because some people are unable to see things from another person's perspective, they assume that others can't see things from their perspective.Well, I find this hard to explain too, but there is an entire subreddit dedicated to men writing women poorly (https://www.reddit.com/r/menwritingwomen/). Not that there aren't bad female authors, but I've never heard of a female author who wrote okay female characters but struggled writing a believable male character, or skipped out on writing male characters altogether.
Also, for the record, my sister also grew up with games, and I asked her, and she really didn't give a crap about the male orientation in them back then or even now.
I'm not sure whether my sister's experience or Blondbraid's experience is the norm. If I had to take a guess, probably Blondbraid's. But it's all anecdotal anyway.
That all being said, I can't help but feel as though there's something incorrect about this whole discussion. :-\
But I gotta say that's a pretty awesome illustration! 8-0
There have even been scientific studies showing rather disturbing connections between watching films with sexist violence on screen, and increased victim-blaming in the audience. (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/28/science/violence-against-women-in-films.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all)
How nice of you, would it be OK if I put it in my banner?But I gotta say that's a pretty awesome illustration! 8-0
Then take it as a peace offering. I see your points, especially this is interesting:
Are there studies post 1984 replicating the results? Metastudies comparing it to the influence of other types of violence in media and desensitization to violence in general? I would never have imagined that a significant number of men (30%?!) get aroused by slashers of all things. I'd also assume that if rape is used for shock value or to make a villain particularly disgusting, it must be because it's seen as horrible, not that it makes it look less horrible. What the... ?!I'm afraid I don't have any similar studies I've read in full on hand, but I do know one of the researchers conducting the study, Neil Malamuth, did a lot of reasearch in the same field after the 1980s study; https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DJ7AWaoAAAAJ&hl=en
I don't think you can compare rape with murder/violence. No one is traumatised by an Agatha Christie, or disturbed by a Jackie Chan film. Murder can be a subject for light-hearted, lurid fun in a way that sexual crimes can't (at least, responsibly).
For example, when I was growing up, I was the only girl in my class who played video games, and even when I played alone in my room, I could feel weird for wanting to try Call of Duty, and only seeing men in that game
How nice of you, would it be OK if I put it in my banner?
I don't think you can compare rape with murder/violence. No one is traumatised by an Agatha Christie, or disturbed by a Jackie Chan film.
Murder can be a subject for light-hearted, lurid fun in a way that sexual crimes can't (at least, responsibly).
Not in general, but men being raped is sometimes played for laughs. You have your soap-dropping jokes, and then there are things like Hangover 2.
I'm not sure if this refers to what I was saying earlier, but I wasn't exactly thinking of Agatha Christie when I mentioned men also being treated badly. If there was a way to somehow quantify characters' suffering (humiliation being a subcategory of that) as a result of violence in movies, would your guess be that women would rank higher per capita?
By the way, speaking of comparison between people getting killed and people getting sexually or otherwise humiliated, I wanted to add this example that a lot of young boys, at least of my generation, were not opposed to the idea of "dying heroically" for whatever cause seem just, or withstand a "torture" where they ofcourse won't break and tell enemy any information. Assuming the "torture" is something like beating ofcourse. On another hand I doubt anyone would be excited of this idea if the "torture" was rape. Innocent kids don't realize that may be a possibility, and those of older age tend to switch it out from imagination unconsciously.I think you hit the nail on the head, and I think that this is why, in war propaganda, they are fine depicting all other sorts of violence and they are fine showing or implying women being threatened by sexual violence because it's a way to rally men into acition by going "look what they're going to do to our women!", but the sexual violence and rape men suffer in war is kept secret, because while you can die heroically in battle, or be a brave symbol whilst being tortured/executed (the film Braveheart springs to mind), you can't portray suffering rape as something heroic, because that crime is all about humiliating and depowering the victim and the perpetrator taking enjoyment from doing it. I remember being absolutely shocked when I read this article (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men) and seeing just how prevalent wartime rape against men was, because it's virtually never brought up in any media, documentary or fiction, and I think a big reason for it is that it would be immensely harder for men to fantasize about going to war if they considered it to be a risk they themselves would have to risk.
Not in general, but men being raped is sometimes played for laughs. You have your soap-dropping jokes, and then there are things like Hangover 2. It's a bizarre one - the guy is raped on his wedding day and the actor plays it more or less straight, no goofiness, you can see he's genuinely devastated. But the whole thing is framed as just one of those craaaaazy shenanigans the guys go through and the main issue ends up being how he's gonna hide it from his bride-to-be. The weird tonal mismatch almost makes the movie interesting :).I strongly recommend you watch this video by Pop Culture Detective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nheskbsU5g), which explains why this trope happens pretty well. I don't like it either. >:(
So far I find the studies Blondbraid linked to be most compelling here. There are a lot of different assumptions being made about how people interpret and react to scenes of sexual violence, so I'd be curious what actually happens in people's heads, in relation to which aspects of the scene, and all the different factors that play into it. That's also why I find attempts like the Unconsenting Media database potentially misleading - it tries to bundle a vast array of differently framed and executed scenes into a handful of categories, which may not be representative of how people perceive those scenes in context.I should have added that Unconsenting media isn't meant to be a scientific database, it's man purpose is to give people a chance to look up weather a film depicts sexual abuse beforehand and decide if they want to watch it. If you have depression, anxiety or PTSD, such sites are a lifesaver.
That all being said, I can't help but feel as though there's something incorrect about this whole discussion. :-\
(sorry if my first reply in this thread started a separate discussion and sidetracked the initial question) :-[
That all being said, I can't help but feel as though there's something incorrect about this whole discussion. :-\
Right. We were talking about discrimination tests in the first place.
Are really useful in videogaming?
_
(sorry if my first reply in this thread started a separate discussion and sidetracked the initial question) :-[
That all being said, I can't help but feel as though there's something incorrect about this whole discussion. :-\
Right. We were talking about discrimination tests in the first place.
Are really useful in videogaming?
_
As for tests, I can agree that the Bechdel test isn't too useful when it comes to video games, due to many games not featuring conversations between npc's in the first place (everybody just hanging out waiting for the player to interact with them being an old standard in gaming),
but that doesn't mean other forms of discrimination tests don't matter. As I mentioned previously, as a girl, only seeing boys in video game marketing and only seeing burly men with guns on the covers made me feel alienated as a kid, and it was seeing cool female game protagonists like Lara Croft, April Ryan and Zoe Castillo that got me into gaming, and eventually made me want to try more different games (including those with burly gunmen on the cover). So yeah, I think representation matters in gaming because I've experienced the effects of it firsthand, and I think having media tests can be useful in discerning broad trends and help people start to think and discuss the matter.
Maybe an alternative to the Bechdel test more adapted to video game-style narratives would be to ask if a game has;
1. A named female character (with an actual name, not a title)
2. Who has a full conversation with the player character/protagonist (more than two sentences),
3. And her conversation isn't about a romantic or sexual relationship with the player character
Any thoughts on this?
Both lice and turds are difficult to illustrate, of course. Difficult to model in a game. And in most war stories, there would be little point. In a Big Serious War is Hell picture, most certainly worth trying to bring across. Less so in Where Eagles Dare, for instance. Or indeed Call of Duty. War as entertainment is a different question all together.
An interesting list, although as all such lists, it needs to remain somewhat open. Sunless Skies fulfills the second and third most easily, but it fails the first. This is simply because with the exception of the chosen player name and Her Renewed Majesty, Empress Victoria of Albion, Slayer of Suns, there are no names, only titles. 'Repentant Devil', 'Incognito Princess', 'Indurate Veteran', 'Inadvisably Big Dog', and so forth. They are all characters, but the Sunless games do not often 'do' proper names. It works better than it sounds, believe me.
That was unexpectedly poetic Reiter, you wouldn't happen to write prose and essays for fancy magazines as your day job?
Also, I'm surprised that there was a Nicole Kidman film based on Gertrude Bell, I might just see it from curiosity. I'm not a super fan of Werner Herzog's films or his methods, but my mother adores his works
and he's an acclaimed filmmaker among "culture-cardigans" who consider any mainstream audience critiquing it for being boring to be a badge of honor. (roll)
Plus I guess in my opinion, I'd rather have a boring than an unpleasant and malicious film when it comes to portraying real people.
Both lice and turds are difficult to illustrate, of course. Difficult to model in a game. And in most war stories, there would be little point. In a Big Serious War is Hell picture, most certainly worth trying to bring across. Less so in Where Eagles Dare, for instance. Or indeed Call of Duty. War as entertainment is a different question all together.
I don't know where or when it began, but it's not uncommon to see soldiers vomiting of stress and fear in contemporary movies. Which was not shown in the XX century films, I believe.
An interesting list, although as all such lists, it needs to remain somewhat open. Sunless Skies fulfills the second and third most easily, but it fails the first. This is simply because with the exception of the chosen player name and Her Renewed Majesty, Empress Victoria of Albion, Slayer of Suns, there are no names, only titles. 'Repentant Devil', 'Incognito Princess', 'Indurate Veteran', 'Inadvisably Big Dog', and so forth. They are all characters, but the Sunless games do not often 'do' proper names. It works better than it sounds, believe me.
True for most of the game, but there are exceptions in Fallen London and Sunless Sea: the three sisters at Hunter's Keep are Phoebe, Cyntia and Lucy; there's also Virginia, the deviless, F.F. Gebrandt, the chemist, and at some point, you can find out that Mrs. Plenty's first name is Miriam.
Well, I think Blackadder goes forth had several jokes about both lice and all the other poor hygiene in the trenches.Both lice and turds are difficult to illustrate, of course. Difficult to model in a game. And in most war stories, there would be little point. In a Big Serious War is Hell picture, most certainly worth trying to bring across. Less so in Where Eagles Dare, for instance. Or indeed Call of Duty. War as entertainment is a different question all together.
I don't know where or when it began, but it's not uncommon to see soldiers vomiting of stress and fear in contemporary movies. Which was not shown in the XX century films, I believe.
ow! Pertinent to the topic, I just thought of something. I recently fell in mad love with the game ArmA III. However, it fails the test quite severely as it does not seem to feature any women at all, which is a most curious absence now that I see it.Yeah, I think it says something about how society views women when I can think of many high-budget and high profile games that lack women entirely, but I can't really think of any games that feature a lot of women but no men unless it's some low budget waifu game aimed at straight guys. Even the games aimed exclusively at little girls I played as a kid used to feature men, often in the role of a mentor/father figure guiding the player.
Yeah, I think it says something about how society views women when I can think of many high-budget and high profile games that lack women entirely, but I can't really think of any games that feature a lot of women but no men unless it's some low budget waifu game aimed at straight guys. Even the games aimed exclusively at little girls I played as a kid used to feature men, often in the role of a mentor/father figure guiding the player.
Women are not excluded to spite them, but because it feels alien to many writers of stories to place them in such peril.That's RIDICULOUS. I saw gamergate unfold when it started, and there were tons of guys complaining that games included female soldiers, even when they were in historically accurate situations, like female Russian scouts in Battlefield 1, or in contemporary/near-future settings like Call of Duty: Ghosts. Meanwhile, the exact same audience was fine with women portrayed as damsels who were kidnapped, murdered or violated to motivate male heroes to go on a revenge quest, or sometimes not even that, but just used as gritty set dressing, Red Deads Redemption even has an achievement for tying a female NPC to the railroad track.
1. You should seriously stop bringing up reductive Evo-psych theories into every thread that brings up gender, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in many cultures, women were forbidden from carrying arms or learning how to fight, not as a sign of privilege but as a sign of their subordination, as oppressed groups like slaves, Jews, and serfs weren't allowed to carry arms either. And similar to arguments surrounding black and Jewish people, this kind of theorizing has been used to justify societal oppression and mask it as biology. Please just stop, and also, I suggest reading Klaus Theweleits's writings (https://timeline.com/male-fantasies-fascism-study-efe0a2773d1f) on male anxieties over fighting women and the pathological need to keep their women "pure".
Right from the start of video games, there have been games that aren't about war and fighting, but sports, exploration, and different kinds of job simulators. Plus in the 1980s, when gaming really started to take off, there were female action heroines like Ripley, Sarah Connor, various Bond girls, and Valeria from the Conan the Barbarian movie, so it's not like female soldiers or action heroes were unheard of or unacceptable to a mainstream audience.
..there were tons of guys complaining that games included female soldiers, even when they were in historically accurate situations, like female Russian scouts in Battlefield 1, or in contemporary/near-future settings like Call of Duty: Ghosts. Meanwhile, the exact same audience was fine with women portrayed as damsels who were kidnapped, murdered or violated to motivate male heroes to go on a revenge quest, or sometimes not even that, but just used as gritty set dressing, Red Deads Redemption even has an achievement for tying a female NPC to the railroad track.
1. Because the "protect the females" mentality is non-existent in the animal kingdom. In some species, males will fight off other males, but it has nothing to do with protecting the lives of the females and is only about preventing other males from mating with them. I've yet to come across any example of a male animal protecting female animals from say, being eaten by a predator, or any similar danger. Some male animals will even straight-up fight any female animals of the same species just like they would a male outside the mating season. Seriously, where are these white-knight animals you bring up?1. You should seriously stop bringing up reductive Evo-psych theories into every thread that brings up gender, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in many cultures, women were forbidden from carrying arms or learning how to fight, not as a sign of privilege but as a sign of their subordination, as oppressed groups like slaves, Jews, and serfs weren't allowed to carry arms either. And similar to arguments surrounding black and Jewish people, this kind of theorizing has been used to justify societal oppression and mask it as biology. Please just stop, and also, I suggest reading Klaus Theweleits's writings (https://timeline.com/male-fantasies-fascism-study-efe0a2773d1f) on male anxieties over fighting women and the pathological need to keep their women "pure".
If it smells like it makes sense, tastes like it makes sense, and looks like it makes sense: it probably makes sense. From the point of view of biology and evolution, preserving the females makes a lot of sense, and is a pattern we see all over the animal kingdom to this day. Why would you think humans are exempt from such basic rules?
Blondbraid - Are you suggesting that all entertainment (books, tv, movies, games, etc) should have to meet these standards you (and others) have created? Or are you saying they don't have to; you just wish more of them did so you, personally, could enjoy them more?I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.
(forgive me if you've made this clear already but there's a lot of long posts in here and I have read things to suggest both answers)
If it smells like it makes sense, tastes like it makes sense, and looks like it makes sense: it probably makes sense. From the point of view of biology and evolution, preserving the females makes a lot of sense, and is a pattern we see all over the animal kingdom to this day. Why would you think humans are exempt from such basic rules?
I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.
So they aren't required to pass the test but they must have a good reason for failing it?
The people talking about the Bechdel test are critics, not cultural dictators.
I think Hollywood should stop making so many superhero films.
Like Ali said, I'm not a censor, and I think this is a stupid and reductionist take. Likewise, coming with suggestions on what would be better is not the same as forcing people to conform to your standards.I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.
So they aren't required to pass the test but they must have a good reason for failing it?
Who decides what constitutes a "good" reason for failing the test?
I've yet to come across any example of a male animal protecting female animals from say, being eaten by a predator, or any similar danger.
I don't want to talk for Blondbraid, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, what she's saying is like when a humble vegan explains why they don't eat animal products.I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.
So they aren't required to pass the test but they must have a good reason for failing it?
Who decides what constitutes a "good" reason for failing the test?
Isn't everyone always trying to dictate culture?The people talking about the Bechdel test are critics, not cultural dictators.
Interesting choice of words.
When a critic says that some form of entertainment should pass a (or any) test to be acceptable are they not, in a way, attempting to dictate culture?
Isn't everyone always trying to dictate culture?
I'm fairly sure that's how culture comes into existence.
Like Ali said, I'm not a censor, and I think this is a stupid and reductionist take.
Likewise, coming with suggestions on what would be better is not the same as forcing people to conform to your standards.
How can you have any real discussion on anything culture-related if every personal statement of opinion is treated as some absolute law proposal?
Isn't everyone always trying to dictate culture?
I'm fairly sure that's how culture comes into existence.
They [critics] are still trying to dictate culture.
I don't want to talk for Blondbraid, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, what she's saying is like when a humble vegan explains why they don't eat animal products.Well, that's a fairly good explanation for what I've been trying to say.
She's not telling you to adopt her belief, but she's hoping that by explaining it, others will gain a better understanding and at the very least consider adopting it.
So to answer your question, the person who constitutes a "good" reason for failing the test, would be the person watching the movie or TV show at that time.
I am assuming you mean "would be better" for you personally?It's not just about me personally, I speak for a lot of women feeling the same way, and I think many minorities feel similar to their representation as I do with women.
And again, comparing humans to animals in your manner is offensive because it's been part of justifying real oppression, in several European countries women couldn't vote or have their own bank accounts far into the 20th century, and this was justified exactly with the sort of bullshit evo-psych you've been spreading, that women aren't biologically suited to do men's work, they should be relegated to the home because they're so much more nurturing/emotional and programmed to take care of babies.
You are justifying it by presenting it as a legitimate scientific theory, and not a hodge-podge cobbled together from lazy and simplistic generalizations of animals, and presenting patriarchal oppression as a logical evolutionary outcome instead of the choices and culture of people running society, and by presenting this as somehow programmed into human nature, you are in fact implying that any attempts to challenge female oppression is futile and foolish. and the phrasing;And again, comparing humans to animals in your manner is offensive because it's been part of justifying real oppression, in several European countries women couldn't vote or have their own bank accounts far into the 20th century, and this was justified exactly with the sort of bullshit evo-psych you've been spreading, that women aren't biologically suited to do men's work, they should be relegated to the home because they're so much more nurturing/emotional and programmed to take care of babies.
The difference is that I don't justify anything. I merely observe history and culture and evolution and biology as it exists around us, and you seem to take my observation to mean I somehow support or condone these traditions, for some reason. Just because examples exist of one thing that explain things around us in the way, at least over here, we are taught these things in schools, doesn't mean that other ways exist in the broad diversity of animalia across the planet.
no matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak...basically implies that you think it was better back when a man's worth was based on his ability to dominate and subdue anyone weaker than him.
Quoteno matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak...basically implies that you think it was better back when a man's worth was based on his ability to dominate and subdue anyone weaker than him.
Would you seriously say that denying half the population to vote or own their own money, and putting them into forced marriages before that, or marital rape and beating your spouse being legal for centuries, or girl babies being left to die in the wilderness just because they were girls, were just some stupid mistake that came about by accident? By that logic, was the trans-Atlantic slave trade just a big misunderstanding, or the Soviet gulags just a well-intentioned but slightly mismanaged attempt to educate people into loving citizens?Quoteno matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak...basically implies that you think it was better back when a man's worth was based on his ability to dominate and subdue anyone weaker than him.
Are you saying modern society does not enable people to be far more lazy, obese and weak than past societies?
I'm also not arguing against your points because I agree with them, I've no reason to argue against them for the most part, save for the difference of you calling it "patriarchal oppression" and me calling it "mostly well intentioned foolishness combined with outdated modes of thought".
After all: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Would you seriously say that denying half the population to vote or own their own money, and putting them into forced marriages before that, or marital rape and beating your spouse being legal for centuries, or girl babies being left to die in the wilderness just because they were girls, were just some stupid mistake that came about by accident? By that logic, was the trans-Atlantic slave trade just a big misunderstanding, or the Soviet gulags just a well-intentioned but slightly mismanaged attempt to educate people into loving citizens?
From this we seem to somehow found the false conclusion that I approve of all aspects of that history or somehow oppose change? ???
I know from seeing it in action that trying to force change too rapidly on people who aren't ready for it will only result in a backlash.
No. When did we get from women being depicted in media being based on history, which is based on earlier history, to women being forcibly married again? I seem to be confused on the topic of the conversation here.Because of cause and effect, and me trying to show you that patriarchal oppression isn't the result of men wishing to protect women, it's oppression of women disguised under rhetoric of it being to protect them and for their own good, you keep painting these limitations of women as some idyllic past where they were sheltered by big strong men, I come up with counterexamples to show that it wasn't how it was back then, and this tied back to how you claim not featuring female soldiers in games was
I posed, based on observations of evolution, biology, history and culture, that the most common ways women are depicted are based on all of those things, and that new ways are rising to the fore, though they will take time and effort to become mainstream. From this we seem to somehow found the false conclusion that I approve of all aspects of that history or somehow oppose change? ???
And yes, I do think that much of the accomplishments of modern western societies have damaged those societies. Hell, the very Gamergate event Blondbraid mentioned before is a prime example of people who have no real problems in life, on both sides of the issues discussed therein, venting their lack of meaningful existence into petty arguments with strangers and screaming into the void that is the uncaring internet. It leads to people who lack a cause and purpose to adopt imaginary causes, to live fantasy lives fueled by various forms of media and the internet, and to attack anyone they perceive as threatening that way of life.Gamergate was NOT two equal sides. All the death threats, rape threats, and graphic descriptions of how they'd harm their opponents came from the Gamergate side, whereas the only thing people like Anita Sarkeesian and those siding with her did was highlighting the sexism in the industry and suggesting how to improve it.
What I mean by that is the exact kind of moral policing, calling out movies or games for failing to meet some kind of unwritten standard as if doing so were a crime unto itself, which we keep seeing now spread from the online world into the real world.Did you seriously miss the part where repeatedly I said not all media has to meet all the criteria I set up?
True words, there is no human right we have today that wasn't fought tooth and nail by the proponents of the status quo.I know from seeing it in action that trying to force change too rapidly on people who aren't ready for it will only result in a backlash.
Can you think of an historical example of advocates for progressive change not incurring a backlash, and yet succeeding? I'm struggling to think of one. But I think it's a topsy-turvy line of thinking that can turn the people saying, "I want to be treated fairly," into oppressors and the people saying "Hell, no!" into victims.
I must say, I'm particularly repulsed by the contempt you seem to have for the weak, the stupid, the obese, the lazy... your world seems to be full of inferior specimens.
Also:Then be your best self and start using empathy and stop using strawman arguments.
"It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."
I think we should apply the same kind of thinking to learning and critical thinking, too, rather than encourage people to be their worst selves just because they can afford it at this moment. I fear society, before long, won't be able to afford it. Feel free to differ on this, of course. I feel you might be obligated to do so by principle at this point. :-D
I never said the gamergate situation had two equal sides, but there were still idiots on both sides making thins worse. More so on one side than the other, sure, but still. Stones and glass houses.I could say the same, you started this conversation claiming video games not depicting female soldiers, and historical societies not allowing female soldiers were due to men wanting to protect women and not see women die,
And just because I point out that moral policing exists is not saying that is what you are doing, nor do I believe I have said at any point that you were doing such. It's a wider phenomenon that is appearing more and more, creeping into newspapers, columns and editorials. Opinion dressed as the one truth.
It's starting to feel like I'm talking into a broken radio. I keep saying I agree with nearly all of your points and you keep acting like I'm attacking you or accusing you of something, somehow?
I merely observe history and culture and evolution and biology as it exists around us
I could say the same, you started this conversation claiming video games not depicting female soldiers, and historical societies not allowing female soldiers were due to men wanting to protect women and not see women die,
what I've been trying to say this whole time is that that argument is basically painting oppression as some benevolent misunderstanding, and that is pretty insulting to those being oppressed.
Then you brought up a bunch of evo-psych talking points about animals and ignored my and Ali's arguments on why that was offensive.
I haven't really seen any evidence whatsoever of you reading or thinking about any of the links I posted with factual sources countering your theories,
if you want to show you're arguing in good faith, I suggest you'd try to actually think about what people are telling you rather than just repeat your pet theories
pretending cultural roles are biological inevitabilities. Read the link with the baboons I sent you and ponder that.
If I come across as aggressive in my replies, well, what do you expect when someone posting theories imply that I'm biologically programmed to need to be protected by a group that has historically enacted oppressive laws on people like me,
and that any attempts by my group to gain equal human rights is basically a weird recent human experiment that might have gotten overboard and also be responsible for half the species going flabby and lazy?
Let me ask you this; if you'd told an African-American that slavery was instituted to protect black people from the harshness of the world, that they were naturally wired to be subservient and want to help other people,
and that civil rights were a recent fluke experiment that might have gone too far, would you expect them to take it kindly?
You seriously sound like a 70 year old pre-Trump Republican who just opposes any social progress reflexively, without even understanding or caring what's actually going on, let alone listening to the people fed up with being told to "behave, and we'll all get along".
Just mindlessly both sides-ing BLM and Q, Gamergaters and feminists, anybody who's stepping on your lawn.
Then why can't you see you hypocrisy in rightfully recognizing racist theories as made-up claims by slave-owners who wanted to justify their enslavement of other people, but you treat the exact same aruguments, only with the word "black person" replaced with the word "woman"Let me ask you this; if you'd told an African-American that slavery was instituted to protect black people from the harshness of the world, that they were naturally wired to be subservient and want to help other people,
and that civil rights were a recent fluke experiment that might have gone too far, would you expect them to take it kindly?
That was a claim used by slave owners. It was incorrect then, a meritless excuse to try and justify their actions, and remains so now.
No, I really can't see, since it looks to me like you're comparing apples to oranges. Sorry.If that's how you see it it just goes to show you can get injustices and dehumanization when it's situations that happen to men, but you don't see women as fully human,
I'm starting to think we might be speaking different languages here, where the same words have different meanings, since again you keep telling me I've said things I have most certainly not said.1. I haven't seen you actually engage with any of the fact or links I posted refuting your ideas of patriarchy being biological and evo-psych using animal examples to justify opression of human women. You could have just said "I didn't realize that sounded offensive" and dropped the evo-pcych sthick from the discussion after my first reply, but you continued to regurgitate it in every single reply you've made.
At no point have I said anything of the nature that women were not full human beings, I've said exactly the opposite: they are. I've never justified any kind of abuse of women, either, and I've said I consider myself an egalitarian, as I believe all human beings are equal and deserve the same rights. I specifically pointed out that different cultures have come to different conclusions based on the same shared heritage, which just goes to show that nurture, time and societal development can bring about meaningful change, which is the exact same point you keep making as well.
You seem to be arguing against some kind of imaginary ideas that you keep seeing written between the lines I actually write, that do not correspond with what I am actually saying. I very much understand how draining it is, as it's just as draining for me to try my hardest to explain my beliefs and understanding of the world, agreeing with you, only to have it thrown back in my face as if I'd said the exact opposite.
it probably makes sense. From the point of view of biology and evolution, preserving the females makes a lot of sense, and is a pattern we see all over the animal kingdom to this day. Why would you think humans are exempt from such basic rules?
Humans are quite obviously not birds, but human biology and evolution still equips the female for the role of nurture, and the male for providing, hard labour and combat, no matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak, while providing women the opportunities to live more free and independent lives. Whether someone embraces this new reality as a grand victory over biology, or views it as some horrid corruption that ruins the species, is up to the person making the interpretation. Human is, as far as I can tell, the only animal on the planet with very much direct control over its own evolution, so this seems to be a pretty new experiment, and future generations will be the ones to see the final outcome.
save for the difference of you calling it "patriarchal oppression" and me calling it "mostly well intentioned foolishness combined with outdated modes of thought".
I posed, based on observations of evolution, biology, history and culture, that the most common ways women are depicted are based on all of those things,
Hell, the very Gamergate event Blondbraid mentioned before is a prime example of people who have no real problems in life, on both sides of the issues discussed therein, venting their lack of meaningful existence into petty arguments with strangers and screaming into the void that is the uncaring internet. It leads to people who lack a cause and purpose to adopt imaginary causes, to live fantasy lives fueled by various forms of media and the internet, and to attack anyone they perceive as threatening that way of life.
There are always those who resist change. Sometimes they are fools holding us back, sometimes they are wiser than we might have known. The only way to find out is to see things through, so future generations can find out what the outcome was. My point is that by trying too hard, you will once again just push people away from your way of thinking rather than help guide them into the fold.
And again, this is not at all what I have been saying, save for the part that: yes, modern society provides women with far more opportunities to be more independent and free, and it remains too be seen if this is 100% a positive thing, or if it might have some negative impact on wider society through the standard, normal family unit that was part of developing and stabilizing western cultures and societies becoming less common and popular.If you truly agreed with me, you wouldn't keep saying that gender roles are biological or keep implying that feminism might be good, but it just might also be a horrible mistake that will destroy families and make men and women miserable and regretful, and you'd stop adding "but maybe feminism is also bad" at the end of every post after being called out on it the first time.
This freedom to focus on oneself is being widely viewed as a good thing as it seems to answer a core part of feminism, seemingly providing women the same equal opportunity to not settle down and start a family and to have their own career and way of life. However, both men and women are biologically wired to want to have a family at some point, and women have the biological disadvantage here of their ability to have offspring decreasing over time at a much faster rate than men. We already see ex-feminists dropping out of the movement and saying that maybe some aspects of that movement, its tearing up of traditional family structures, may have been a mistake after all. For some individuals, at least, that independence has brought serious regrets later in life as women find themselves at an age where having children is increasingly difficult or impossible, but have not settled down to have a family, and now find it increasingly difficult. Whether those women are a freak exception among a grand liberation movement, or a sign of an issue that will become more prevalent in the future, time will tell.
I do not think feminism has gone too far, nor do I think there is any remote possibility that it will make tons of women unhappy or destroy families if allowed to continue.
I do not believe human males are biologically programmed to want to protect and preserve women, and I do not believe human women are biologically programmed to have child-rearing as their foremost goal in life.
You have continuously argued against both these points I'm making.
It's hard not to feel this talk on how you're really agreeing with me is just you trying to save face after writing yourself into a rhetorical corner.
So me pointing out basic evolution and biology and pointing out that we have no way to know that current societal trends are good or bad, and that the value judgement is likely to be finally made by future generations, is somehow bad? That by failing to unilaterally agree with you while ignoring any possibility that the future might prove the current trend harmful, I am somehow anti-women? And are you really saying you're one of those people who deny the theory of evolution now?I have heard racist say the exact same thing, that if you deny that non-white people are biologically superior, you are denying evolution. I am well aware women reproduce differently than males, however, none of the sex differences have justified any of the oppression women have been put through in history, like not being allowed to learn how to fight, not having their own money, or having a say in who they marry, denied education, denied the right to birth control, all serving to keep them subordinate and all of which men have justified by pointing to their biology.
I think in western societies feminism has gone far enough, and in some areas has led to legal precedent that is swinging towards being unfair toward men (see: Finnish conscription laws and police standard procedure for handling domestic disturbances, for starters), which seems to be an unintended side effect of feminism and tradition colliding.This is a classic anti-women talking point, when forced marriage was outlawed, men said feminism had gone far enough, when women got the vote, men said feminism had gone far enough, when women got their own bank accounts,
I do believe males are biologically programmed to want to produce offspring, and part of that for humans is ensuring the well-being of the mother of that offspring. I also believe that modern western society and culture has eroded those roles over time, likely as a result of the abundance of resources in those societies giving people the option of not having to worry about their offspring starving to death like their ancestors, and that the final outcome of that will be seen by future generations beyond our lifetime.Then ponder why there are several tribal societies where the father has no input or influence over his offspring at all, the child-rearing being done entirely by the mother and her relatives, maternal uncles being treated as the "real dads" of the kids,
A different perspective on some evo-bio data:It is fairly reasonable on the most part, however, on part of men occupying the most hazardous and harshest jobs, in most countries, hazardous work like mining and similar is higher paid exactly because it is hazardous and unpleasant, whereas the jobs with less obvious hazards (like cleaning etc) are much lower paid. I just feel like that was a rather skewered generalization.
a feminist biologist discusses gender differences in the animal kingdom (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/13/a-feminist-biologist-discusses-gender-differences-in-the-animal-kingdom/?sh=13ed419919b5)
I personally find it quite reasonable.
Thanks for the link, Honza. Forbes REALLY wanted to fight my adblocker on trying to read the article, but I managed it in the end, and it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.Curious how WHAM ignored every link with facts I posted, but immediately commented on this one, isn't it?
it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.
It is fairly reasonable on the most part
If only it was that easy. I agreed with the reasoning that animals are different than humans and humans have no significant sex differences in brains,it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.It is fairly reasonable on the most part
Is it just me or could there be some common ground emerging? :)
I didn't ignore your links, I just preferred to respond to what you actually wrote since you wrote quite a bit, whereas Honza just provided a link and not much else at this time, so it would have been rude to just ignore that input entirely. I also said before that I found nothing to argue about those links you posted, nor did I really disagree with anything therein.Then do you agree with this text (https://www.culture-of-peace.info/instinct/chapter5-6.html) explaining that banning women from bearing arms and learning to fight in earlier cultures has nothing to do with men wanting to protect women?
Then do you agree with this text (https://www.culture-of-peace.info/instinct/chapter5-6.html) explaining that banning women from bearing arms and learning to fight in earlier cultures has nothing to do with men wanting to protect women?
So me pointing out basic evolution and biology
The fact that people have used, and still use, biology and science as basis for false claims does not make the biology and science false.
human biology and evolution still equips the female for the role of nurture, and the male for providing, hard labour and combat
I never said the gamergate situation had two equal sides, but there were still idiots on both sides making thins worse. More so on one side than the other, sure, but still. Stones and glass houses.In other words, some Gamergaters made valid points about... ethics in gaming journalism, I guess?
Did you just unironically compare caring for children and doing housework with having mandatory vasectomies? Or am I reading this wrong?Because forced marriages and domestic violence was used to impose those things on women.
EDIT: I realised my statement above is a bit too rosy for reality. Even in Finland there are both religious minority group and immigrant communities that have forms of near-enough forced marriages and outdated gender roles that are still strictly enforced. I think religious freedom laws trump gender equality laws in some areas.Oh yeah, the classic "only those bad immigrant men are misogynists " shtick.
Well, since Sweden is so close to Finland I'd expect the crime rate to be similar: can you find cases where forced marriage takes place among native Swedes outside of fringe religious communities?Forced marriage may be mostly within immigrant groups in Sweden, but I assure you that domestic abuse, sexual assault, and men murdering their wives are not.
Where's the injustice that has formed here? Doesn't biology dictate that the man is always the abuser, since he's stronger and more combat ready than the feee-male?
Now if only we had a movement to point out that biology doesn't say that and you should rethink all your naive assumptions about topics you know nothing about.
This has been pointed out to online anti-feminists for years now: feminism also helps men.
Like I said, you're making the point for us.
Also, yes, let's erase humanity as a concept (?? ?) what the fuck are you even talking about? And have you ever heard the phrase that "perfect is the enemy of good"? Just word salad at this point.
I had folk laughing at me in 2016 when I said Trump might well win the presidency, but as we are in an election year again...
* clears throat *
FOUR - MORE - YEARS!
Where's the injustice that has formed here? Doesn't biology dictate that the man is always the abuser, since he's stronger and more combat ready than the feee-male?Indeed, I'm sick and tired of men who think they get to have it both ways. If you spout a bunch of stereotypes masked as "science" claiming men are not only naturally built for strength and protecting women, but also disposable and mostly OK with giving up their lives to protect women, and berate modern society for allowing men to grow flabby and weak, you can't be surprised when these stereotypes backfire on men and male victims of female violence get laughed at and treated as a ridiculous role-reversal.
Now if only we had a movement to point out that biology doesn't say that and you should rethink all your naive assumptions about topics you know nothing about.
This has been pointed out to online anti-feminists for years now: feminism also helps men.
Like I said, you're making the point for us.
Ah, yes, I see the name calling is on the menu once more.I have spent several paragraphs in my replies for days now explaining why your claims are sexist, as have several other forum members,
I have no idea why you would think I am sexist, so I'll just have to deduce it's some sort of defensive mechanism on your part.
I have no idea why you would think I am sexistAnd how could you, given that you have zero capacity for self-reflection.
It really amazes me that, with Covid19 still on the rampage, certain people still spend every waking hour
analysing the written word, or other media, to pick up on anything that might cause offence. (i.e sexism,
racism and any other 'ism' you can think of)
Be excellent to each other
No it's not, Ali. However, if you read through the replies to TheFrighters first post, they have very little bearing on the subject matter.
Going by a later post, from him, it seems he was surprised at the reaction. When it gets into the realms of who should do the housework etc.
it has nothing to do with the main topic. As I said in an earlier post it would be nice if we could all just get on with one another :)
I also think it would be nice if we could get along and have an interesting conversation about the Bechdel test. From my point of view, what's made that difficult is people who seem to be uncomfortable with media criticism in general, or otherwise determined to minimise sexism.Indeed, I thought this thread was perfectly decent until creepy evo-psych crap and alt-right rhetoric painting sexism as biological was brought up.
No it's not, Ali. However, if you read through the replies to TheFrighters first post, they have very little bearing on the subject matter.
Going by a later post, from him, it seems he was surprised at the reaction. When it gets into the realms of who should do the housework etc.
it has nothing to do with the main topic. As I said in an earlier post it would be nice if we could all just get on with one another :)
As a moderator, I will remind people that as soon as we enter into aggressive/personal insults (regardless of position), or posts that are intended to simply provoke, action will be taken. There is a way to disagree with someone that doesn't involve belittling that person, or their beliefs, regardless of how passionate (or right) you feel in your disagreement.
Or in Hollywood, two non-Americans speaking about something that doesn't involve Americans. It draws attention to the way even self-consciously progressive shows like Star Trek implicitly place certain people at the centre of the universe.Indeed, I remember somebody pointing out that several "Oscar-bait" films, despite trying to show racism is wrong, like The Green mile, still failed to show people of color talk to each other about something that wasn't a white person.
Indeed, I remember somebody pointing out that several "Oscar-bait" films, despite trying to show racism is wrong, like The Green mile, still failed to show people of color talk to each other about something that wasn't a white person.
Not directly related, but I remember in one of the Knights of the Old republic games, one of the first missions/levels had you (a bunch of jedis) in an apartment complex on some random planet. At one point, one of the jedi was discussing local rebels who were attacking the apartment or something, and referred to them as "aliens".(laugh) (laugh)
I thought that was pretty funny. Humans gonna hume, and even the Jedi can't help being subliminally racist.
It certainly wasn't my intention to provoke or belittle anyone.
Indeed, I remember somebody pointing out that several "Oscar-bait" films, despite trying to show racism is wrong, like The Green mile, still failed to show people of color talk to each other about something that wasn't a white person.
Indeed, it's one thing when movies that only try to be middle-of-the-road entertainment follow trite conventions and fail to represent non-white people, but when films that really try hard to depict an important message against racism and prejudice yet still fail to show people of color as having any lives outside centering white people... (wrong)Indeed, I remember somebody pointing out that several "Oscar-bait" films, despite trying to show racism is wrong, like The Green mile, still failed to show people of color talk to each other about something that wasn't a white person.
Yes, it seems to be a long standing belief in Hollywood than the ongoing struggles of black people are only palatable to general audiences when filtered through a white prism (eg. The Help, Hidden Figures, Green Book, etc).
As a moderator, I will remind people that as soon as we enter into aggressive/personal insults (regardless of position), or posts that are intended to simply provoke, action will be taken. There is a way to disagree with someone that doesn't involve belittling that person, or their beliefs, regardless of how passionate (or right) you feel in your disagreement.
It certainly wasn't my intention to provoke or belittle anyone. In the spirit of debate, I'll address TheFrighter's original question:
I think the Bechdel Test, like any critical tool, can be very useful as long as it isn't applied with a pedantic rigidity. What I find interesting about it is that it's a neat little way of testing how rounded the female characters in a story are. Do they have their own interests and concerns, or are they there to serve a male character's narrative arc? As Crimson Wizard said, I think similar tests are instructive in different contexts. Even in science fiction, how frequently do we see two aliens talking about something that doesn't involve humans? Or in Hollywood, two non-Americans speaking about something that doesn't involve Americans. It draws attention to the way even self-consciously progressive shows like Star Trek implicitly place certain people at the centre of the universe.
Usually in literature you get a majority of characters being there for purposes of juxtaposition to the main character(s). For example, someone may be hideous, to allow for the protagonist to be identified as more decent. It's in essence the same trick that (supposedly) was used to lure a girl, by paying someone to attack her and then defeating him (I mean I never used it, but maybe some people are into capitalist planning :P ).I think I speak for the vast majority of women when I say the "paying another dude to fake-attack the girl so you can play the hero" is less romantic and more of a huge red flag showing the guy is willing to lie and manipulate people if it benefits him, and there are outright predators who stalk women and insist of walking after them even when they've said no under the guise of "following her home to keep her safe", and the fact that so many men still don't get how this might be creepy or immoral or treat it as harmless fun just proves that we need more stories that can help men learn to see women as people like themselves and not prizes to be won or fought over.
Furthermore, a book where every character is their own thing, simply does not work. It's why art isn't a mimesis of life, but something inherently more poetic, and also why the more realistically-inclined authors rarely get to become famous or stand the test of time. Dickens>Collins etc.
So has anyone here actually used the Bechdel test or any similar rule? What changes did it bring to your story?Well, I've pondered the Behdel test when writing some of the dialogues for my games, but as I've mentioned before, with the nature of video game storytelling being different from film, it's harder to apply to video games where you play as a male protagonist because it's rare to feature two npc's talk to each other in a part integral to the story in most games, especially if you make a small indie adventure with a limited cast and cutscenes, hence why I think this test I posted would be more relevant to games;
Also when you think of a new character, do they come with a fixed gender right away, or do you sometimes change characters' genders later?
Fwiww, the "paying someone to attack a girl so you could save her" was a joke :=I know, but it's not something I've seen women joke about in such a manner, and most women don't think guys treating them as objects to manipulate is particularly funny, because if you're a woman, a guy lying to you to get your attention is too often a very real concern, not to mention having a guy pretend to be a would-be attacker would be absolutely terrifying to most women, especially considering many people can and do get PTSD from being assaulted, even if the attacker was fought off.
I read about the rift that began in SNCC during Freedom Summer, when during a training video on voter suppression, white workers started giggling at the fat Southern white dude on the screen. To them, he was a stereotypical representation of a laughable and ridiculous Southern character. To the black workers, he was a very real and very brutal enemy.
Also, as a writer I can tell you that while everyone who writes has his/her own style, you very rarely will see a story that has real-life autonomous characters, and even if you do chances are it won't be a good story. Unlike the real world, a story has a specific plot, climax, planning, deliberate diversion of the reader's attention so they don't see what is going to happen and a load of other literary elements. If you just focus on the characters being their own thing, you are highly unlikely to end up with something worth reading, imo :)Again, there is a difference between writing "real life", and treating female character with the same depths as male characters.
It's not hard to understand, it is just (imo) the wrong way to look at literature. Now if we are talking about some movie/tv show, it is more realistic to achieve that without ruining everything. But in literature you simply cannot prioritize autonomy of characters.Really? From my experience, in books, you have more time and pages to flesh out the characters, and a character doesn't have to be the protagonist to be an interesting and fleshed out character.
It's even relatively rare to see any decent book that has more than two protagonists; the rest are there for plot reasons or juxtaposition.
It's not hard to understand, it is just (imo) the wrong way to look at literature. Now if we are talking about some movie/tv show, it is more realistic to achieve that without ruining everything. But in literature you simply cannot prioritize autonomy of characters.Really? From my experience, in books, you have more time and pages to flesh out the characters, and a character doesn't have to be the protagonist to be an interesting and fleshed out character.
It's even relatively rare to see any decent book that has more than two protagonists; the rest are there for plot reasons or juxtaposition.
Take the Harry Potter books, whilst Harry is the protagonist, there are still several diverse and nuanced female characters in them, like Hermionie, Professor McGonagall etc, or if you want a classic example, Lady McBeth in Shakespeare's play McBeth
is a supporting character in a play with a male protagonist and a very limited number of characters, yet she's still praised as an interesting role with her own motivations and character arc.
If an author can't write nuanced or diverse characters for 50% of the population, that's a limitation on the author, not a limitation of literature.
So has anyone here actually used the Bechdel test or any similar rule? What changes did it bring to your story?I've often thought about doing a jokey little easter egg in one of my games where 2 female background character discuss someone called "Bechdel" or the like, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a game or two do that exact same thing.
Also when you think of a new character, do they come with a fixed gender right away, or do you sometimes change characters' genders later?
Edit2: I really am not seeing what you are going on about "a limitation of the author". You can't be of the view that the major writers were that interested or even able to be socialites. I already alluded to the rather blatant (because they lived in the same era, and even knew each other) Dickens vs Collins thing: Collins is internationally almost an unknown, while Dickens is probably one of the two most famous writers of the UK.I don't know if this analogy is better or worse for you, but I liken it to a game where you meet a guard whose two lines of dialogue are "Grumble Grumble, I am hungry, when is my replacement coming?!" and "Oh wow, thank you for the lunch buffet pass, can you keep an eye on my post while I go make use of it?!", compared to a game where you meet a guard character who is just sullen and snappy at you, who has a short angry dialogue with a pizza delivery lady when he can't pay her, who the butcher tells you used to come almost weekly to get a big juicy steak, but is coming less often now, who the banker tells you has an overdraft, and whose wife tells is always whittling horses for his kid.
Usually in literature you get a majority of characters being there for purposes of juxtaposition to the main character(s). For example, someone may be hideous, to allow for the protagonist to be identified as more decent. It's in essence the same trick that (supposedly) was used to lure a girl, by paying someone to attack her and then defeating him (I mean I never used it, but maybe some people are into capitalist planning :P ).
Furthermore, a book where every character is their own thing, simply does not work. It's why art isn't a mimesis of life, but something inherently more poetic, and also why the more realistically-inclined authors rarely get to become famous or stand the test of time. Dickens>Collins etc.
but Lady McBeth isn't there as a fleshed out character; McBeth himself isn't fleshed out either. LMcB serves very specific purposes in the plot, namely to push McBeth to take the place of the king. Later on she becomes mad, but it's not like any specific personality was there to wash out along with the damned spot.
Well, Lady McBeth isn't a realistic character, however, as Ali put it, she does have her own goals and concerns, she has a distinct personality and you can tell what her motivations are and why she does what she does.but Lady McBeth isn't there as a fleshed out character; McBeth himself isn't fleshed out either. LMcB serves very specific purposes in the plot, namely to push McBeth to take the place of the king. Later on she becomes mad, but it's not like any specific personality was there to wash out along with the damned spot.
I agree that Shakespeare isn't doing psychological realism - but it hadn't been invented. Moving the story forward and being a rounded character aren't mutually exclusive. Lady MacBeth has her own goals and concerns.
If I can contrast that with a very badly written character: Madison Paige keeps trying to help the protagonist of Heavy Rain even though he seems disturbed and violent and she has every reason to suspect he's a serial killer. She stays in his motel room and bandages his wounds and takes huge risks for him. Why? They just met and he's awful. But the story has only been thought through from the protagonist's perspective.
(I think, later on, it explains explain that she has some journalistic interest. But the game is happy to rely upon the players' assumption that she has simply fallen in love with Sketchy Joe.)
Ok :) I certainly don't mean to antagonize (that has a place in writing, not forum posting :D ).Well, from my perspective, if you only tell one type of story, centering on one character, there is a big risk that one's writings become samey, for lack of a better word, and some authors fall into the trap of only writing characters who comes across as self-inserts, but I've always been partial to stories focusing on several different characters, and I'd find it hard to write a compelling protagonist if the side characters around them were static and didn't have enough characterization to leave room for them too to change alongside the protagonist.
On my part, I view anything in literature as interlinking relations anyway, so in that sense, there is really only ever one character, and that one character is supposed to be a vehicle to carry the reader to some avenues of thought and/or emotion.
I mean that even if there are many characters, they are all one vehicle - they don't exist in the first place; they are symbols to allow you to travel in your own world of thought.Well, personally, I've seen plenty of live-action TV with less realistic characters than some of the greatest animated films.
Which is also why I mentioned that having fleshed-out characters is more realistic a goal in movies/tv shows ^_^ (because then you start with actual people anyway; those playing the roles)
I mean that even if there are many characters, they are all one vehicle - they don't exist in the first place; they are symbols to allow you to travel in your own world of thought.
Which is also why I mentioned that having fleshed-out characters is more realistic a goal in movies/tv shows ^_^ (because then you start with actual people anyway; those playing the roles)
So, ageism isn't high on your list of subjects worth holding forth on, Blondbraid. You say you know several 'old' people,
who evidently don't know what they are talking about. I suppose in your view they are dribbling idiots who should be
shut away in a home. Mind you, after being subjected to your self opinionated views they would no doubt find it a
blessed release. :)
It is now becoming a personal attack on me, if you hadn't noticed. I don't need to justify my posts to you ...so I won't.I am, and I ask, whatever did I do to you? It just feels like you are trying to start an argument with me even after I said that I wanted to stop arguing in this thread.
I'm sure Blondbraid is quite capable of answering me, if she wants to, without you sticking your oar in. Enough said.
Well, it wasn't my intention to make it sound like all older persons only like melodramatic dramas, I'm well aware that there are diverse tastes in all age groups.
Why not? I quite enjoy our exchanges. It helps pass the time :-D
Seriously, though, you have done nothing to me, and I'm not normally an argumentative person.
I am simply saying it is wrong to presume that older people prefer melodramatic dramas. I am no longer in the first flush of youth, myself,
but I like Sci-fi, action packed thrillers and basically any film with a well written script that doesn't contain the F word over and over again.
In my mind this does nothing for the production. I also like hacking and slashing games. A great way to combat stress.
It is nice that you have friends willing to speak up for you. I will leave you alone now, and make no further comments in this thread :X
It is nice that you have friends willing to speak up for you. I will leave you alone now, and make no further comments in this thread :X
It is now becoming a personal attack on me, if you hadn't noticed. I don't need to justify my posts to you ...so I won't.
I'm sure Blondbraid is quite capable of answering me, if she wants to, without you sticking your oar in. Enough said.
It's a long time since I read Metamorphosis, but I have to say that your summary of the characters makes it sound a great deal more dull than I remembered. If the characters are merely there to mechanically perform narrative functions, why bother? I admit, I have a particular dislike for self-conscious symbolism, and narratives in which everyone apart from the protagonist is a sort of puppet.
But still, there's no reason realist literature should be better than symbolist writing when it comes to including women. There's no rule that says symbolist protagonists must be men. The bar for being 'fleshed out' is low. To pass the Bechdel test, you only need two female characters to be interested in something other than a man. It's funny because it's incredibly banal, and also surprisingly rare.
One example of a game created by just one person (apart from the main music) is, of course, Another World. And there the main character was also something vague, let alone that there was just the one protagonist. But the game did have style and affected a lot of people - myself included :)I agree that not all stories need a protagonist with a detailed backstory, however, there is a difference between making the protagonist a blank slate in order to focus on gameplay and/or worldbuilding,
Usually the more specific traits a character has, the more people won't be identifying with them. There are ways to go around this, of course, but they mostly involve the character reacting to something more central (say Big Brother, in 1984; Winston is just a cog in the machine and a reaction to it; most readers would tend to react in a similar way)
Usually the more specific traits a character has, the more people won't be identifying with them. There are ways to go around this, of course, but they mostly involve the character reacting to something more central (say Big Brother, in 1984; Winston is just a cog in the machine and a reaction to it; most readers would tend to react in a similar way)
I appreciate that, but what I'm getting at is that "being a woman" or "being black" are seen as specific character traits, with which fewer people can identify. The white male protagonist is often treated as neutral and universal, which clearly reflects a social bias.
Yeah, it's pretty much the only sci fi film I can think of that portrays 100% gender equality, with women with practical clothes in all kinds of societal positions and none of them being questioned for it,
It come in my mind that the closest movie to pass the Flintenweiber test could be Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers ... but in the end is not a WWII movie.
_
Well, it seems a lot of straight white guys can empathize with women and minorities just fine if they want to, the problem is that so many media creators never treat them as characters that could be empathized with in the first place.Usually the more specific traits a character has, the more people won't be identifying with them. There are ways to go around this, of course, but they mostly involve the character reacting to something more central (say Big Brother, in 1984; Winston is just a cog in the machine and a reaction to it; most readers would tend to react in a similar way)
I appreciate that, but what I'm getting at is that "being a woman" or "being black" are seen as specific character traits, with which fewer people can identify. The white male protagonist is often treated as neutral and universal, which clearly reflects a social bias.
Maybe this is so. I'd like to think that if the protagonist is black/female I'd just read the story the same way, as long as the writer presents them in a neutral manner (as with the generic male protagonist, who tends to be an avatar of the writer if they are male too anyway) :)
That said, I had no problem identifying with the (female) protagonist of The Yellow Wallpaper, by Perkins-Gilman. It is a great story.
For that matter, an arguably great character like Batman is considered great because there are good stories about him, but there are just as many stories that are terrible. But the success of Batman will then spawn similar characters that try to outdo the original in some way, like using guns, being more violent or any of the other boxes you could check. These other characters will most likely not be as interesting.I think a pretty apt illustration of the double standard is that when Batman and Robin bombed, executives decided it was simply because it was a badly made film and made a more serious reboot of Batman a short time later, but when Halle Berry's Catwoman flopped, Hollywood decided it was because audiences didn't want to see black or female superheroes, and it took decades before we got a female and a black superhero in Wonder Woman and Black Panther respectively, and they were both treated as a big political statement on equality when they came out.
I think a pretty apt illustration of the double standard is that when Batman and Robin bombed, executives decided it was simply because it was a badly made film
It really bothered me as a child in the 90s to see that all mainstream kid's movies at the time had male protagonists, and the story was always told from their point of view, the exception being the Disney princess movies, but the only Disney heroine I could really relate to was Mulan,
because she was the only female protagonist I could remember from my childhood who got to be goofy, get dirty and messed up, and had her own story that wasn't centered on romance.
I think a pretty apt illustration of the double standard is that when Batman and Robin bombed, executives decided it was simply because it was a badly made film and made a more serious reboot of Batman a short time later, but when Halle Berry's Catwoman flopped, Hollywood decided it was because audiences didn't want to see black or female superheroes, and it took decades before we got a female and a black superhero in Wonder Woman and Black Panther respectively, and they were both treated as a big political statement on equality when they came out.That may well be the case. But I also believe that it was of importance that the Batman franchise already had some successful movies (and a lot of classic comics) before the Batman and Robin-flop. I don't remember much about the Halle Berry catwoman film, except that the character had some catlike powers and wasn't much like the comics character (who is a cat burglar). Halle Berry was a great Storm in the X-Men films, but sadly underused.
True that, though I was older when I started to watch Xena. :)It really bothered me as a child in the 90s to see that all mainstream kid's movies at the time had male protagonists, and the story was always told from their point of view, the exception being the Disney princess movies, but the only Disney heroine I could really relate to was Mulan,
because she was the only female protagonist I could remember from my childhood who got to be goofy, get dirty and messed up, and had her own story that wasn't centered on romance.
There also was "Xena Warrior Princess", but ofcourse it was much more dirty, messy and bloody compared to Disney standards :D.
I can't say if the norm for males was to actually like the action characters. I certainly didn't - I wouldn't identify with He-man or similar ^_^ I almost always supported the "evil" characters anyway, and was more interested in the japanimation of the era (not as much because I was a proto-hipster, but probably more due to my own megalomaniac ideas at the time).I can't speak for what men think of the heroes they grew up with, though I know a lot of kids of both sexes identify with or cheer on cartoon villains, partially because it can be fun to rebel, but also, at least with Disney, they make the vilains much more expressive and varied than the heroes, they're allowed to be much more distinct and memorable when they aren't constrained by ideas of being handsome/pretty and "good role models".
And, between Another World and Hitman there are a lot of blank canvas protagonists in games.
I don't think Dr Lester (the main character in Another World) is a blank canvas... I'd also challenge that Tintin was a blank canvas.
Where does Tintin live? Who are his parents? It's not really important
(http://www.retroyak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kahi4p.jpg)Seems like a pretty apt (and cringey) example on how to alienate female players form the narrator. (roll)
Hmmmmmmm :=
(from the game It Came from the Desert)
"We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.'"And so, while Remember me got to keep a female protagonist, they did remove any reference to any romantic feelings she may have had in the final game.
Indeed, though I'd also argue a good way to tell how well defined a character is is asking weather you can tell something they do is out of character.Where does Tintin live? Who are his parents? It's not really important
I don't disagree with the overall point, but where Tintin lives is fairly well established: in most stories he lives in an apartment—regularly shown—in a city that is explicitly or implicitly identified as Brussels (though Hergé sometimes takes liberties with the geography, for example giving the city a port in The Crab with the Golden Claws). In the later stories he appears to have moved in with Haddock at the Château de Moulinsart (Marlinspike Hall) as a more or less permanent houseguest.
Seems like a pretty apt (and cringey) example on how to alienate female players form the narrator. (roll)
Well, a straight woman will have a hard time empathizing with a man describing how much he's into girls, so when it's written in such a cringey manner that effect is multipled tenfold.Seems like a pretty apt (and cringey) example on how to alienate female players form the narrator. (roll)
I can see the cringe factor, sure, (I know from experience that, when waking up in a hospital, the sexiness of nurses is the last thing on your mind) but not really how this would alienate women any more than men. I hear the women I know regularly refer to other women as "lovely" or other variations of "hot", whether they be straight, bi or gay, so this off-hand remark of someone looking pretty doesn't seem all that gendered to me.
(http://www.retroyak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kahi4p.jpg)Seems like a pretty apt (and cringey) example on how to alienate female players form the narrator. (roll)
Hmmmmmmm :=
(from the game It Came from the Desert)
Meanwhile, compare to when the developers behind Remember me wanted their female protagonist to have a male love interest, and was for real met with this response from their publishers (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-19-dontnod-publishers-said-you-cant-have-a-female-character):Quote"We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.'"And so, while Remember me got to keep a female protagonist, they did remove any reference to any romantic feelings she may have had in the final game.
:= :=
(https://i.imgur.com/N9xJ7xy.png)
Although even while making it, I realised that although I never played the game (so I can't tell if the nurse's loveliness was played for laughs or whether it was supposed to be subverted when she later turns into an insectoid alien or something), I don't even need to do the change to feel it is offputting and alienating. I mean, what exactly did the developers think of me?
Yes and no, it's not that in general women are less attracted to bare abs than men are to revealing outfits on women, it's that women are more aware of how silly it would look if men wore such outfits to work with a straight face! :P
:-D Good one!
Although women tend to be a little more sophisticated when it comes to drooling over medical staff ;)
Although one of the most memorable (for all the bad reasons) was the introduction of one of the characters in the grimdark sequel to the lovely Sands of Time game
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/53/e5/f953e551808b3a0ed0581c132c5d2dc8.gif)
I can't remember something that annoyed me more with how little the developers obviously thought of me. She was a major antagonist character (might have joined the protagonist at some point, I didn't play long enough to find out), and she was supposed to be this super bad-ass ( :tongue: ) warrior rogue woman.
Uh! I never played this game, but this scene seems the most audacious in the games industry! :-\Leather? It was made of metal! :grin:
And obviusly a leather t-string is extremly unconfortable if you have to fight, so it's really gratuit.
_
Is it known what percentage of players are female by now?I believe women now make a slight majority of all gamers (i.e. the populations match overall populations of women and men).
Obviously in the old days it was negligible - I am sure it isn't negligible now, but possibly it's still a small minority :(
Is it known what percentage of players are female by now?You ought to read this article on how games started out gender-neutral but became marketed as boy toys. (https://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed)
Obviously in the old days it was negligible - I am sure it isn't negligible now, but possibly it's still a small minority :(
So just to be clear, the issue here isn't with objectification and sleaze, it's the objectification and sleaze being one-sided?If you want my personal opinion, no, I don't want a world where men are equally objectified because treating humans like meat sucks.
Imagine a world where for every game that exists now, a gender-swapped version (with t-strings turning into loincloths, cleavage into abs, and so on) is also available. Is everything ok in that world?
If you want my personal opinion, no, I don't want a world where men are equally objectified because treating humans like meat sucks.
However, as things are decidedly NOT equal today and so many men will defend degrading portraits of women without question, making gender-swapped counter examples of men in the same position
serves as a way to cast light on the double standard and and attempt to show straight men just how ridiculous much of the objectification is.
For example, I liked the first Metro 2033 game, and I looked forward to it's sequel, but when I read that there was going to be a mandatory cutscene where you saw the male protagonist have sex from a first-person view,
and the player would be encouraged to visit brothels and pay for lap dances, I immediately lost all interest and decided I do not want to play the game ever.
Well, I'm not against all forms of sex scenes if the characters are portrayed respectfully, I thought Bioware made an OK job with the romances between crewmates in Mass Effect for example, and the sims series portray it as a natural part of romantic relationships for all parties involved, but from what I've seen of the Metro 2034 scenes, people complained that it came out of nowhere, and there weren't any women in the game who weren't sex objects.If you want my personal opinion, no, I don't want a world where men are equally objectified because treating humans like meat sucks.
However, as things are decidedly NOT equal today and so many men will defend degrading portraits of women without question, making gender-swapped counter examples of men in the same position
serves as a way to cast light on the double standard and and attempt to show straight men just how ridiculous much of the objectification is.
So when you wrote this,For example, I liked the first Metro 2033 game, and I looked forward to it's sequel, but when I read that there was going to be a mandatory cutscene where you saw the male protagonist have sex from a first-person view,
and the player would be encouraged to visit brothels and pay for lap dances, I immediately lost all interest and decided I do not want to play the game ever.
there are actually two different issues you take with the game? It's not wrong for a game to feature a POV sex scene, but you are annoyed that such scenes only cater to men and you never get to play one from a woman's perspective. Meanwhile, brothels and lap dances are just wrong and shouldn't exist, regardless of gender. Do I understand your perspective correctly?
Prostitution is organized (also taxed) and legal in most european countries (although not all). It's not far-fetched to view it as another part of the world, and afaik most prostitutes do that difficult job because they want to get a considerable amount of money fast and then never look back.1. Most of the video games I'm talking about do not take place in countries with a sound legal system and protections for the vulnerable, they explicitly take place in violent medieval societies or post-apocalyptic hellscapes.
Of course it is entirely different if you have illegal prostitution and trafficking rings...
As for games, specifically, I don't know if prostitution makes sense there. If it is targeted at male teens, all kinds of wild ideas about sex will find a fanbase :)Well, I personally wold say portraying prostitution in a dark medieval/post apocalyptic setting as fun and sexy makes about as much sense as if a WW2 game would portray a German POW camp as a wild summer camp full of fun and games. (wrong)
Hi fellow agsers. 'Tis I BarbWireThen how about instead of trolling people in this forum, you go back to troll the traditional way and go sit under a bridge? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff)
I said, a while ago, that I would refrain from posting on this subject, but I just couldn't resist the temptation.
I've got a brilliant idea. Why don't we all stop playing games and watching movies (basically anything that gives us pleasure) and do
away with entertainment in general. This way there will be nothing to complain about (laugh)
but from what I've seen of the Metro 2034 scenes, people complained that it came out of nowhere, and there weren't any women in the game who weren't sex objects.
Is it known what percentage of players are female by now?
Obviously in the old days it was negligible - I am sure it isn't negligible now, but possibly it's still a small minority :(
Wow, that really just made it worse in context.but from what I've seen of the Metro 2034 scenes, people complained that it came out of nowhere, and there weren't any women in the game who weren't sex objects.
I would agree that that scene in metro comes out of nowhere; and it actually kind of shocked me, not in sexual way, but rather as a very dumb and character and immersion breaking thing. To elaborate, it came right after two characters escape from what was practically a massive war crime location where lots of people died of a virus or were finished of by a "cleaning" team. They then are placed under a carantine, in one small room corner together, even though they are of separate genders and not related in any way. Latter alone looked pretty weird.
But I find the second statement unjust, there are alot of women in Metro series who are not sex objects, in fact I barely remember anything behind that infamous brothel scene. The brothel was 1 scene in 1 location, which may take around 20 seconds of player time if you don't stick around purposedly.Well, I only played the first game, and you're right that there were many female npc's who weren't sex objects, however, they were all extras in the first game who stood around in some crowded areas but never had any effect on the story, and from what I've heard, Angry Joe may have excaggerated the comment about "all the women" in his review, but I still got the impression that even if some women in metro 2034 isn't sex objects, they are just insignificant extras instead.
As for the "It's just one scene/just one location" argument in regards to the strip club scene however, I'll counter with saying that it only takes one booger on you plate to ruin your dining experience.
Well, that's a fair point.As for the "It's just one scene/just one location" argument in regards to the strip club scene however, I'll counter with saying that it only takes one booger on you plate to ruin your dining experience.
This sentence of mine was in regards to the claim that "there weren't any women in the game who weren't sex objects", not to whether this may or not ruin a game. Hence I wanted to give more perspective of the game content.
Something ruining a game is pretty subjective imho, guess it also depends on whether you found the rest of the game enjoyable enough or not (or at least tolerable). In "metro" games I was personally offended by some other things in the past (less today though). In COD1, for another example, I was not offended but outright insulted by one of the scenes, to the point where I was considering writing a letter to developers (although later realized that would be a silly idea); yet I still think it's not a bad game overall.Yes and no, some things are bound to make groups of people more uncomfortable than other things.
When it comes to number of gamers, I think the main Finnish gaming magazine "Pelit" had an article about that a while back. Off the top of my head I think the statistics were basically: There are more female gamers than male gamers in general.I think it's in a huge part thanks to marketing. For example, CoD and Battlefield used to be pretty agressively marketed towards teenage boys exclusively, to the point many women, myself included, felt alienated from such games, meanwhile, Overwatch has made a point of showcasing diverse characters in all their marketing, with the added implication that they are aiming for an equally diverse playerbase.
However, this was only true when one looked at all genres combined, and when it came to specific genres the numbers varied wildly. Women dominated player counts in puzzle games and mobile games and other non-or-less-violent genres, whereas males dominated the numbers in wargames and sports games. Certain shooters, such as Overwatch, have increased female participation in that genre, and there is definitely room for such expansion in most other genres as well. It just takes a game that suits the tastes of those female gamers to come out, since it's quite clear that females tend to like different things in games than male players, thematically speaking. And as we kind of saw before, a lot of publishers are still stuck in the mindset that they need to cater to teenage male gamers, which is why a lot of genres remain stuck with that demographic.
There was no breakdown for each specific genre, but based on that broad generalization I'd imagine stuff like point'n'click adventure games would have a somewhat higher female player percentage than male, as they tend toward the thinky and character/story driven.
I think it's in a huge part thanks to marketing. For example, CoD and Battlefield used to be pretty agressively marketed towards teenage boys exclusively, to the point many women, myself included, felt alienated from such games, meanwhile, Overwatch has made a point of showcasing diverse characters in all their marketing, with the added implication that they are aiming for an equally diverse playerbase.
I suppose Artiom is having a lucky day, but even so, I feel more like a peeping Tom trapped in his head.This so perfectly summarizes my problem with 90% of games trying to portray sex and undressed women.
That said, I don't find it morally reprehensible for the same reasons I don't find excessive (sometimes outright sadistic) violence in games reprehensible. Personally it's not my thing and it's fine to criticize it as a piece of "art", but some posts here feel a tad too judgmental to me. From my experience, most people seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between campy fiction, heightened reality and the real world. I haven't yet looked into that "objectification changes the brain" study, there might be something to that.It's hard for me to see it as harmless when female critics have received graphic death threats for criticizing the portrayal of women in video games.
Oh, and another thing! That Bioshock Infinite cover-art is indeed one of the most stupid things I have seen. Of all the evocative things they could have put on the box, marketing chose that. I understand that box-art is of declining importance, but it pays to make it a neat summary of the game or the mood it inhabits. The 'man-in-game-on-box' design philosophy use so very little to tell you so much nothing, and it is a pity.And Bioshock isn't the only game I nearly missed out on thanks to this idiotic tactic, it was the same with Remnant: from the ashes too; it's a game where you travel to other dimensions and explore fantastic and colorful fantasy worlds,
KeyStatistics
80,000+ monthly unique visitors
73% male / 27% female
94% of visitors aged above 20 (70% between 20 and 35)
A primarily pan-Atlantic readership, with a roughly 50/50 split between North America and Europe
https://adventuregamers.com/about/advertiseInteresting statistics, though it'd be interesting to compare different sites.QuoteKeyStatistics
80,000+ monthly unique visitors
73% male / 27% female
94% of visitors aged above 20 (70% between 20 and 35)
A primarily pan-Atlantic readership, with a roughly 50/50 split between North America and Europe
I shall confess that I do not at all mind some physique on display. Many things benefit from a pleasant view. However, my condition is that this should be evenly spread. To take the obvious example, armour should be of equal consequence to both sexes present. If it is of little importance, then let it be so, but do spare me the tin canned gentlemen if the ladies can deflect shot and sword with nought but their magnificent abdominals. The other way around is a most rare beast, but equally unwelcome. One could make a stand in defence for sensible designs, but what is sensible depends on the setting and the tone.
Of course, it helps to ensure that these characters are indeed characters, rather than furniture. Even palace guards, that are the closest thing to live furniture, could have a moment in the sun. Not to mention, clothes and gear that passes for practical can make a character look terribly pretty all the same.
Is in an old chestnut, I admit, but I am fond of it – it has never let me down in conkers yet. A better man than I would reject titillating impracticality outright, no doubt, but Gunga Din is not available at present. All that I require a clear and equal rules on the matter, and a consistency in how this imagined world's sensibility differs from ours.
Not to mention, there is a time and place for everything. What-ever the woman in the provided picture is doing, I imagine it is not the correct place. Unless, I suppose, the world that character inhabit works like that. I cannot say, but it is not exactly what I think of when I think of Prince of Persia. Goodness me, chaps, what is wrong with flowing shawls of silk? It would be perfect!
As for chaps being uncomfortable with revealed male physique, I simply say humbug! It is a both or neither situation, gentlemen, and that is that. Frankly, beginning to enjoy male physique is not going to do wretched things to you. If anything, it will enrich your views. Wrapping them up in plate and pouches even though armour seems to be entirely optional just to serve those sentiments seems exceptionally silly.
Then again, I was always a wretched old sinner.
Now, on what happens in Metro: Last Light. What happens is, the player arrives (after a wild boat ride) at a flooded station called Venice. It is a rather seedy pleasure palace sort of station. You visit a show, featuring trained giant rats and can-can girls, and then follow the chap you want to get a hold of.
I seem to recall that you almost get spotted by the man you are following, and have to duck into a dancing girl's room to hide.
At that occasion, you can pay her a few bullets for a lap-dance, if you wish. It is about as far as it goes, and she mostly just... Ambles around, frankly. It is a stupid thing to do right then, since you are under time pressure in the story to catch up with the villains. Then again, Artiom was always a few generals short of a stavka, perhaps. It is mostly just there, and it is not very good. I am unsure if it came with a karma penalty, but I imagine it did. You could hardly blow your nose in that game without getting a 'bad' ending. It was a nice respite from giant spiders for me, at least, but if the intent was arousal, the scene was a failure. I appreciate that the villains decided to wait so that I could catch up... Time and place. It would have been fun under different circumstances (and indeed a different tone), but the circumstances just made it rather dumb, instead.
They could make a Leisure Suit Lavrov game instead, I suppose. Or perhaps I could. Hmm.
The only sex scene I recall occurs later, when Artiom and Anna (Expert sniper, initially dismissive romantic interest and superb kidnapping victim, recently rescued by our mute hero, because of course) are held in quarantine together (the villain has released a disease on the metro, because of course he would), and since they have developed feelings for each other (because of course they have), they pass the time. It is supposed to be romantic, I suppose, but it is not. Now, video game characters porking is always a difficult thing to model. 3D characters do not have mass, and it is never as clear as when two models need to closely interact. They solve it by going into Artiom's POV, but that method does not really help. Even a few text boxes would have been more evocative. It is quite amusing, particularly since the game takes the scene quite seriously.
I cannot say that I object to the scene (only that it could have been done so much better), but the circumstances around it are so stupid that I cannot help to laugh. I care little for originality, but it is all so terribly stock and uninvolved that it becomes utterly boring. And making such things boring to an established sinner like myself speaks of greater problems. Chief among which is that I care so little for Artiom and less for Anna. I do not know her, what there may be to know. The game did not spend much time to get us acquainted. I suppose Artiom is having a lucky day, but even so, I feel more like a peeping Tom trapped in his head. Artiom is a mute vessel of a man, and it feels more like riding inside the most accident-prone man in Moscow than it does playing as him. Partly because of constant POV-shots where you are not in control. Such as when he is porking.
Metro is one of those games where you need a yo-yo on hand for when it decides you are done controlling it for a bit.
As you can see, I cannot say I recall that game very fondly. The story was particularly idiotic, even beyond my pain threshold. Artiom's visit to the elephant was only part of its problems. It is simply a stupid, basic game, which would not be a problem if it did not insist otherwise and made itself even dumber by being blind to it. Mr Gluchovskij must have had a rather bad day.
There is a time and place for everything, but if you wish to include a sex scene, it is particularly important that it fits in. Since it is such a naked scene (Ha! Ha!), there is very little you can hide it behind if it does not work.
Oh, and another thing! That Bioshock Infinite cover-art is indeed one of the most stupid things I have seen. Of all the evocative things they could have put on the box, marketing chose that. I understand that box-art is of declining importance, but it pays to make it a neat summary of the game or the mood it inhabits. The 'man-in-game-on-box' design philosophy use so very little to tell you so much nothing, and it is a pity.
No one wants to see Lavrov in a sex game.I googled him and I can only agree. :-X
It would be even worse than Larry :=
I get to talk to a lot of "regular" people for a living and sometimes I bring up games. Most women I've spoken to play the occasional casual mobile game, but seem almost embarrassed about it because they see it as lazy and childish (and they give me this "maybe you should grow up" look when I say I'm into games :)). Other than that, they would recall a game or two they have tried in the past, but they don't play regularly. I only personally know three women who play bigger games on a regular basis, some games they say they've enjoyed include The Sims, Witcher 3, the Fallout series, Factorio, Last of Us.I think it's worth pondering whether that is because many women still are expected to do more of the daily household chores, like doing the dishes, cooking, looking after children. It's more socially acceptable for men and boys to shut themself away in their room and spend an hour on their hobby than for a woman to do it, especially if she's a mother, and will be labeled a "bad mom" if she leaves the kids alone for too long.
I think it's worth pondering whether that is because many women still are expected to do more of the daily household chores, like doing the dishes, cooking, looking after children. It's more socially acceptable for men and boys to shut themself away in their room and spend an hour on their hobby than for a woman to do it, especially if she's a mother, and will be labeled a "bad mom" if she leaves the kids alone for too long.
I had time to play video games when I came home from school when I grew up, but I also have a dad who did a fair share of the housework.
Btw, even the aforementioned Another World has some female nudity. Although it is alien women (I think there was no alien male nudity).
That's a good point, though I think a factor to consider is that books and Netflix shows can be easily paused and put down, wheras many computer games can't be paused and saved at any time without being penalized with lost progress.I think it's worth pondering whether that is because many women still are expected to do more of the daily household chores, like doing the dishes, cooking, looking after children. It's more socially acceptable for men and boys to shut themself away in their room and spend an hour on their hobby than for a woman to do it, especially if she's a mother, and will be labeled a "bad mom" if she leaves the kids alone for too long.
I had time to play video games when I came home from school when I grew up, but I also have a dad who did a fair share of the housework.
The same women who frown upon games are usually fine with binging Netflix shows and reading books. It's more about the whole "computers are for boys" thing. Two of the three women I mentioned are technical types, one is a data analyst and is somewhat geeky overall, the other one is a math/physics high school teacher (she's in her fifties and really likes The Witcher 3 and Factorio - pretty cool lady :)).
As for the GTA5 image, even without having Reiter's context, I know the series history well enough to easily see it's well in line with what the series is trying to do. It's a game series about bad people doing bad things and being unpleasant to everyone. It's a game series in which you are encouraged to beat up prostitutes, sell drugs from an ice cream van and "Kill X ethnic minorities in Y minutes". I'm pretty sure its advertisements aren't supposed to make people relate to the setting or characters all that closely.Well, that still presents a pretty nasty and unpleasant picture of gamers, as troglodytes who only want wanton violence, prostitutes, and wanton violence against prostitutes in their entertainment.
As for box arts, I do think that they matter. Of course, it is more about the general marketing material, I suppose. That stupid man on the Cyberpunk box would have been less tired if he had not also featured on so many advert splashes and what-not.Well, while physical video game boxes on the store shelves may not be as common today, digital store thumbnails are, and there are way more games out there than what I can keep track of through reviews alone,
No, I still think that box art does matter. It is, or could be, an encapsulation of your game. Even if the prospective player is not so reliant on the box now as we once were, it is just a waste to make it the most dull thing your marketing squad could come up with. Not to mention that the box art is generally the same art that features in advert splashes, and on the icons you click in the digital game shelf these days. If anything, it should be an invitation to think even more on the matter, as it will make so many different appearances. It is not vital, and I do not think that bad box art has ever made me decide against buying a game, but it does matter. If nothing else, it tells you how deep the fingers of the marketing board goes, I suppose.
Well, that still presents a pretty nasty and unpleasant picture of gamers, as troglodytes who only want wanton violence, prostitutes, and wanton violence against prostitutes in their entertainment.
Going back to sex/nudity in games, there's a dilemma I've been having with my own game, so maybe this is the right thread to bite the bullet and ask what people think. Relatively minor (but not negligible) spoilers for Truth be Trolled (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=58102.0) follow, if you want to play that when it comes out 10 years from now, read at your own risk :).From the screenshot, and the context you've given,
Ok, thanks for the input. Maybe it would be better if you put your response in a spoiler tab though? Not that I think people care that much, but just in case :).Glad to be of help, and I've already edited my comment.
That's a good point, though I think a factor to consider is that books and Netflix shows can be easily paused and put down, wheras many computer games can't be paused and saved at any time without being penalized with lost progress.I think it's worth pondering whether that is because many women still are expected to do more of the daily household chores, like doing the dishes, cooking, looking after children. It's more socially acceptable for men and boys to shut themself away in their room and spend an hour on their hobby than for a woman to do it
The same women who frown upon games are usually fine with binging Netflix shows and reading books. It's more about the whole "computers are for boys" thing.
How about The Death of Marat? :)I say it is a shitty thing to just post random nude paintings with smiley emojis next to them into a discussion on media sexism. I don't want to attribute your particular comment to intentional maliciousness,
[img ]https://lh5.ggpht.com/-d5RlDp2ZxTrQx-THUFQxjBFvGWF5PD6Ro4Sg1C4CVqostkhrM2J0ZrVeBjf=s1200[/img]
Although it has to be said that this painting by Munch (which iirc is titled thus) is very clearly just inspired by the actual death of Marat.
Glad to be of help, and I've already edited my comment.
How about The Death of Marat? :)I say it is a shitty thing to just post random nude paintings with smiley emojis next to them into a discussion on media sexism. I don't want to attribute your particular comment to intentional maliciousness,
[img ]https://lh5.ggpht.com/-d5RlDp2ZxTrQx-THUFQxjBFvGWF5PD6Ro4Sg1C4CVqostkhrM2J0ZrVeBjf=s1200[/img]
Although it has to be said that this painting by Munch (which iirc is titled thus) is very clearly just inspired by the actual death of Marat.
but I will say there is no shortage of men online who will deliberately post explicit nude pictures in forums to harass and provoke women who dare to criticize sexist images,
and I find it hard to imagine how you could fail to see how blatantly inappropriate this is in the context of this discussion.
As for the painting itself, I think it's unambiguosly sexist of dudes to take a historical woman who never was naked in public during her life and go "but I wanna see her naked anyway".
(for the record, Marat didn't exactly look like the man in the painting either, and died in very different circumstances; pretty sure Munch used the known murder case as a symbol; of tension between lovers)
EDIT: We-hell, that could explain it, I suppose. If it is inspired, I would say it is one thing. If it is her likeness, however, then that is rather poor form on Eddie's part.
I didn't know Munch had a fiancee :) Tbh I wouldn't have been surprised if he was celibate.
Although there is at least one other version of Munch's "the Death of Marat", where the girl looks very different.
EDIT: We-hell, that could explain it, I suppose. If it is inspired, I would say it is one thing. If it is her likeness, however, then that is rather poor form on Eddie's part.
The face is her likeness apparently. To the extent a vague, unrealistic painting like this can be. I was joking, I sincerely hope nobody would seriously consider calling a piece of expressionist art "revenge porn".I didn't know Munch had a fiancee :) Tbh I wouldn't have been surprised if he was celibate.
Although there is at least one other version of Munch's "the Death of Marat", where the girl looks very different.
See here (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-death-of-marat-ii/AgHihh4p4aGqNw?hl=en) :).
I still think it is jolly poor form, I must say. Falling out takes a certain grace. Like a cat.
Going back to sex/nudity in games, there's a dilemma I've been having with my own game, so maybe this is the right thread to bite the bullet and ask what people think. Relatively minor (but not negligible) spoilers for Truth be Trolled (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=58102.0) follow, if you want to play that when it comes out 10 years from now, read at your own risk :).
I feel sorry for the troll used as a table... :-\
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?
I still think there's a difference between say, Fransisco Goya painting terrifying paintings to deal with the horrors of the wars and Spanish inquisition he'd witnessed in his homeland, and Munch painting his fiance as a murderer because he couldn't handle a bad breakup.I still think it is jolly poor form, I must say. Falling out takes a certain grace. Like a cat.
It's an expression of strong emotion. Those tend to be "poor form". It's what artsy people do.
Well, seeing that context, I personally thinkGlad to be of help, and I've already edited my comment.
Thanks! On second thought, maybe some more context (medium-to-big spoilers this time):
(sorry for making this about me and my game btw, I think it's somewhat relevant to the topic, but feel free to ignore me :))
I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.Agreed.
I still think there's a difference between say, Fransisco Goya painting terrifying paintings to deal with the horrors of the wars and Spanish inquisition he'd witnessed in his homeland, and Munch painting his fiance as a murderer because he couldn't handle a bad breakup.
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?
I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
If you'd have posted it in a thread on art history, that had been one thing, but this is a thread where people have specifically complained about gratuitous inclusions of naked women in media,
and your answer is to post a giant picture of a naked woman in it? What answer did you expect?
You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
I think my whole answer is off-topic.
Well, not only is the man's sensitive area mostly covered up by the naked woman (her sensitive areas painted rather detailed in comparison), but the painting casts the man as a sympathetic victim and the woman as a murderer,Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/Let me get this straight, you're asking for ME to be civil, yet you simultaneously go "Maybe you're the pervert for calling out my inappropriate post"?
I never said the painting was pornographic, what I am trying to say it that it's really inappropriate for this discussion.
If you'd have posted it in a thread on art history, that had been one thing, but this is a thread where people have specifically complained about gratuitous inclusions of naked women in media,
and your answer is to post a giant picture of a naked woman in it? What answer did you expect?
You probably didn't notice, but the man in that painting is also naked.
He is, moreover, dead.
Hardly a case of treating women differently in media :P
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
Of course Munch could have painted something less emotional - in fact he could have done this with every other work of his, the price would just be that we wouldn't know of him today.I only see it as on-topic in the sense that it looks like it could become an example of Lewis's Law (https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/lewiss-law/) if you're going to keep using strawman arguments.
In this way, this is very much on-topic. Art isn't tv celebrity politics, and important artists have their subject matter, always from personal issues.
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
This kind of conservatism can be universal, of course. Pope Pius IX actually had statues' genitals removed. But I think you're missing the point Blondbraid has been making. No one is taking offense at nudity per se - I like Munch and I like that painting. But the thread is about sexist representation of women. No one is saying all depictions of women are sexist, so just posting 'good art' of a naked woman doesn't say anything particularly meaningful. I can see why Blondbraid would read it as a cheap joke at her expense, though it sounds like that wasn't your intention.
That said, it's impossible to argue that the man and woman in Munch's painting are represented in the same way just because they're both naked - the woman is standing upright and facing the camera, blocking our view of his genitals. This follows the same pattern as the argument that male and female superheroes are both 'idealised'.
Well put!I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..
This kind of conservatism can be universal, of course. Pope Pius IX actually had statues' genitals removed. But I think you're missing the point Blondbraid has been making. No one is taking offense at nudity per se - I like Munch and I like that painting. But the thread is about sexist representation of women. No one is saying all depictions of women are sexist, so just posting 'good art' of a naked woman doesn't say anything particularly meaningful. I can see why Blondbraid would read it as a cheap joke at her expense, though it sounds like that wasn't your intention.
That said, it's impossible to argue that the man and woman in Munch's painting are represented in the same way just because they're both naked - the woman is standing upright and facing the camera, blocking our view of his genitals. This follows the same pattern as the argument that male and female superheroes are both 'idealised'.
I wasn't aware of the girl in the painting being tied to Munch's fiancee. I suppose this ties to myself not caring about Munch's love life, but caring about nice paintings :)And what about my point about the man being drawn without much detail and having his private parts obscured by the naked woman, while the woman's naked body being in full view and the most detailed thing in the painting?
Also I don't think you have a point regarding the stance of the models. I am sure one could project weakness to the person lying down on the bed, and power to the one standing up and looking at the audience in a defiant manner. Furthermore, usually if you are dead you are the weak party by default ^_^
And, for the record, of course I wasn't "making at joke" at Blondbraid's expense; I was posting a nice painting.
Sorry, Blondbraid, but in my view you are the one who jumped at me, when the painting I posted had nothing to do with you and wasn't against you. Of course you are free to react to it as you wish, but you shouldn't be quick to attack others.If that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?
Furthermore, I am not sure if you are seriously asking me to defend Munch to you. Don't you think this is a little bit surreal? (instead of the apt, which would be expressionistic)
Hm, I think you should try to be civil. The painting I posted is famous and elegant, not some material of pornography. Maybe you are the one who is filled with such views, and can't help attributing them to others? :/And compared me to an Islamist fundamentalist ruler;
I am reminded of those cool and feminist arabian princes, who always cover up ancient statues so that the genitals aren't visible. A serious ability to appreciate high art..I have tried to give you the benefit of a doubt, but you've kept putting words in my mouth.
Yeah, I think the issue is not that there's anything wrong with that painting in its own terms - you don't need to defend Munch. Even if you'd found the perfect example of a naked woman portrayed without the tiniest hint of sexism - it still wouldn't have made sense to present it as a 'gotcha' or counterpoint, if that's how you intended it.Exactly.
If that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?
You keep using words like "attack" and "jumped at" as if I was physically lunging at you and you only had a split-second to defend yourself from injury,Quote from: BlondbraidIf that was the case, why didn't you explain that from the start?
In doesn't work that way; you don't "explain" when you are jumped at; it's not like I magically owe other posters here better treatment than they give :P
That said, time to move on ;)
As for the bubble bath in the screenshot, did you watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVN21gYm30) Robin Hood: Men in tights scene for inspiration?
You keep using words like "attack" and "jumped at" as if I was physically lunging at you and you only had a split-second to defend yourself from injury,
but in reality, the text is still there for everyone to go back to look at
I'm sorry, but I have to say I also read your first reaction to Kyriakos as aggressive and condescending.
I'm sorry, but I have to say I also read your first reaction to Kyriakos as aggressive and condescending.If I came across as angry, it was because I've already seen a ton of nudes posted in feminist discussions as "jokes" by sexist dudes in other forums.
I just don't know what you expect. I repeatedly stated I had no intention to post something against you; the thread has more people than just you anyway. I also noted that I don't have anything against you :)I didn't think the first image of the painting was meant for me specifically, but I did see it as a bad joke trying to derail and be contrarian in the context of this discussion.
I just don't know what you expect. I repeatedly stated I had no intention to post something against you; the thread has more people than just you anyway. I also noted that I don't have anything against you :)I feel like I've already said this a bunch of times before, but it is common knowledge emojis are used to show somebody is joking in online comments, and if you want to make a sincere attempt to send out an olive branch,
Maybe I felt frightened and had to bring the claws out - in such a case, please respect my safe space :-D (and, in reality, I was just surprised you'd be in attack mode without any reason, but obviously everyone has their own views, including me and you - let's be/stay friends in the forum, and if not, let's move on ;-D )
I am reposting this because Honza can be used as an attack target instead of myself from now on :DI really hope you're not going to try and go "don't pick me, pick him instead" on Honza here.
It will be interesting to see it play out in the full game, best of luck with it!
Thanks, also starting to lean towards that option. It's "safer", makes sense and can work just as well.
I guess that's convergent evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) in action!As for the bubble bath in the screenshot, did you watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVN21gYm30) Robin Hood: Men in tights scene for inspiration?
I didn't! I've never seen that. And I felt so clever for coming up with that :).
I'm sorry, but I have to say I also read your first reaction to Kyriakos as aggressive and condescending.If I came across as angry, it was because I've already seen a ton of nudes posted in feminist discussions as "jokes" by sexist dudes in other forums.
I've tried my best to explain my initial reaction, and maybe I was too brash in the way I said it, but I still think KyriakosCH's answers were far ruder.I just don't know what you expect. I repeatedly stated I had no intention to post something against you; the thread has more people than just you anyway. I also noted that I don't have anything against you :)I didn't think the first image of the painting was meant for me specifically, but I did see it as a bad joke trying to derail and be contrarian in the context of this discussion.
What I did take personally, however, was you basically calling me a pervert and then comparing me to a Saudi fundamentalist in your replies,
and if you want to prove to me that you don't have anything against me I want you to acknowledge this and apologize for it if you expect me to forgive your comments.I just don't know what you expect. I repeatedly stated I had no intention to post something against you; the thread has more people than just you anyway. I also noted that I don't have anything against you :)I feel like I've already said this a bunch of times before, but it is common knowledge emojis are used to show somebody is joking in online comments, and if you want to make a sincere attempt to send out an olive branch,
Maybe I felt frightened and had to bring the claws out - in such a case, please respect my safe space :-D (and, in reality, I was just surprised you'd be in attack mode without any reason, but obviously everyone has their own views, including me and you - let's be/stay friends in the forum, and if not, let's move on ;-D )
you really shouldn't joke about it or present a smirk while doing so. Also, don't pretend I'm arguing for no reason and stop treating everything I say as an attack on you, and then I'd be willing to move on.I am reposting this because Honza can be used as an attack target instead of myself from now on :DI really hope you're not going to try and go "don't pick me, pick him instead" on Honza here.
In case you've missed it, I don't go around attacking random people for no reason, no matter how much you try to paint me in that light.
Look, if you are looking for an apology, reflect on yourself starting this with your rather strange response.And what's so strange about it?
Either way, as I said, I won't bother more with this.
Some people is useless to argue with, they just focus on their views and are unable to see it from someone elses view point. I feel like you are wasting your energy Blondbraid, but I admire your persistence in trying to explain.I'm glad to see at least someone else read my replies.
Good job on finding Cassie to help - it's not like there has been any bad blood there :PI'm not in control of Cassie, she speaks for herself.
Anyway, Blondbraid, sorry that you felt insulted by what I wrote. I also felt surprised and insulted by what you wrote. I hope we can now move on :)
Btw, Honza, your game looks seriously cool 8-)
I guess it's just been one of these days where you desperately wish the point of view gun was real. (roll)
Holy sh*t, I was thinking of exactly the same scene in relation to this thread about two hours ago! 8-0Well, it is a pretty great scene. :)
Some AGS-made games had memorable female protagonists.Fran Bow was one of the few games I've played that dealt with dark things such as child abuse and mental disorders, and pulled it off rather well, though I think the game took a lot of visual and thematic inspiration from Alice: Madness Returns.
Two I have played are Fran Bow and The Cat Lady 8-)
Just a little correction if I may, but Fran Bow was not made with AGS, they had their homebrew engine afaik.Do you mean the film-grain like flickering effect on the screen?
(I still was not able to play it because it has a fullscreen effect during the mental hospital scenes that gives me nausea, and no way to turn it off. Maybe I will try again later)
Do you mean the film-grain like flickering effect on the screen?
Just a little correction if I may, but Fran Bow was not made with AGS, they had their homebrew engine afaik.
(I still was not able to play it because it has a fullscreen effect during the mental hospital scenes that gives me nausea, and no way to turn it off. Maybe I will try again later)
Just a little correction if I may, but Fran Bow was not made with AGS, they had their homebrew engine afaik.
That's a shame.Do you mean the film-grain like flickering effect on the screen?
I mean what happens when you take the pills: the reddish overlay with shaking and blurring (https://youtu.be/Lp2wPSWEC3Q?t=1077).
Last time I tried I felt so sick that had to stop playing. :-X
Grace (Nakamura, iirc) was a cool female character in the game Gabriel Knight. I have only played 1 and 3. Gabriel, on the other hand, was really ridiculous and a stereotype - but a female friend of mine was in love with him, and he was written by a woman in the first place 8-)Haven't played the game, but I've read a blog post by Jane Jensen (https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JaneJensen/20140414/215473/WRITING_HOT_MEN_FOR_GAMES_Yes_please.php) on her thoughts on writing Gabriel and her other characters, and specifically writing men she would want to fall in love with.
Grace (Nakamura, iirc) was a cool female character in the game Gabriel Knight. I have only played 1 and 3. Gabriel, on the other hand, was really ridiculous and a stereotype - but a female friend of mine was in love with him, and he was written by a woman in the first place 8-)
That said, I don't know if Gabriel Knight is a stereotype - a stereotype of what? He may be the archetypal vain heart-throb and I'm sure he's popular with some female players, but he's not written in a way that insults the intelligence of male players.Perhaps except that he's not good with languages. It's been too long since I played these games, but I remember knowing a lot more than the character, simply because he couldn't understand a word of German. I didn't really mind, as I tend not to identify with the player character.
I'm sure you don't mean it like this, but I'm not sure why you're listing good female characters and (supposedly) bad male characters as if they offer a counterpoint? It's good that there are well written women, but for as long as there's a demonstrable imbalance in the ways men and women are portrayed in the media, it's worth talking about the kind of tools we can use as writers and critics to tackle biases.Yeah, KyriakosCH, I'm not trying to dissuade you from this discussion, but I would hope that in your future replies here, rather than just throwing out examples on a conveyor belt, if you want to bring up a female character you like in this discussion, try adding some thoughts on why you think they are a well-written character or a positive example in your reply. This isn't a competition where whoever namedrops the most positive examples win.
That said, I don't know if Gabriel Knight is a stereotype - a stereotype of what? He may be the archetypal vain heart-throb and I'm sure he's popular with some female players, but he's not written in a way that insults the intelligence of male players.I haven't played the game, so I couldn't say, but I haven't seen any other men complain about Gabriel before.
I also think Fran Bow is excellent, and made in Gamemaker as far as I remember. (And, though the moment has long passed - I accept that Tintin has an apartment, I just don't think that many specifics are particularly important to his character.)Grace (Nakamura, iirc) was a cool female character in the game Gabriel Knight. I have only played 1 and 3. Gabriel, on the other hand, was really ridiculous and a stereotype - but a female friend of mine was in love with him, and he was written by a woman in the first place 8-)
I'm sure you don't mean it like this, but I'm not sure why you're listing good female characters and (supposedly) bad male characters as if they offer a counterpoint? It's good that there are well written women, but for as long as there's a demonstrable imbalance in the ways men and women are portrayed in the media, it's worth talking about the kind of tools we can use as writers and critics to tackle biases.
That said, I don't know if Gabriel Knight is a stereotype - a stereotype of what? He may be the archetypal vain heart-throb and I'm sure he's popular with some female players, but he's not written in a way that insults the intelligence of male players.
By contrast, Heavy Rain's Madison Paige (from a game 20 years later) is an absurdly underwritten character. But Heavy Rain was critically acclaimed - it won 3 BAFTAS here in the UK - and I think it matters when big 'serious' games fail so badly to represent anyone other than deeply incurious (white) men. (I don't want to bang on about how bad Heavy Rain is. But on the other hand, I do, because it's extraordinarily bad.)I remember thinking Heavy Rain was deep the first time it came out, in part because I was young and stupid and still an edgy teen, but also because I'd been "taught" by media and reviewers that overtly showing a bunch of emotional things on the screen in a "realistic" fashion automatically makes it deep, and I think David Cage, the writer of Heavy rain, very much plays on this. I already wrote in my previous comment here (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=58758.msg636631568#msg636631568) on how I thought Madison was a badly written character drawing on sexist tropes, but I've come to feel David Cage is a huge hack in general, using cliched emotional imagery to trick people into thinking that provoking emotions is the same as being deep, and relying on the fact that video games have yet to utilize the cliches he's using to the same extent as bad movie dramas and soap operas to make gamers think he's novel and daring.
Though I can accept this thread is about problematic presentation of females, so perhaps there's nothing of use I can contribute, given I don't feel strongly about the subject and am pessimistic about the results of any rules forced to bring about meaningful change.If you don't feel strongly about the subject, why do you keep posting here then? Also, NO ONE is forcing a bunch of universal rules on writers, all people have done here is discussing media trends and tried to raise awareness,
I didn't know of that game (Heavy Rain), and looking at youtube thumbnails I am not inclined to learn more... I am biased against this style of graphics :)I phrased it as "a white man brooding about how depressed he is" because David Cage keeps including scenes of white men brooding, something he's never done in any larger capacity for his female and non-white male characters. I commented on a pattern in David Cage games on which kind of characters he keeps putting in which kind of situations, and I also noted that he keeps putting white women in damsel positions and none-white men and women in the role of inspirational helpers, and I'm not sure why it's the generalisation of white men brooding that you took umbrage with.
As for "incurious white men", I am not seeing how formatting this to include "white men" as if it is a block, helps with anything - incurious or not. In the US it seems to be a distinction ("white men" or xyz "white men") that exists specifically because of the very numerous black and also "hispanic" (which imo are mostly white too, fwiw) minorities, but it makes little to no sense in most of Europe (only a couple of european countries actually have significant number-wise "non-white" minorities).
Of course, to note the obvious, no two people are the same. Let alone whatever groups "white men" is supposed to gather and pack together. As someone who lived in London in his late teens-early 20s (due to university studies), I can tell you that there isn't that much in common between the average english person and a south european, regardless of terming any group as "white".
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/170/696/cfc.jpg)
(and more than one of these characters is from a David Cage game)
^Hey, buying different models costs money, so they may as well use the same model for all "white men" ^_^Well, that's what happened (more or less) with regards to paintings of Christ.
I get why a poor village church 200 years before the internet would copy paintings, but I don't get why a modern multi-million dollar company^Hey, buying different models costs money, so they may as well use the same model for all "white men" ^_^Well, that's what happened (more or less) with regards to paintings of Christ.
Also: when did this thread become about white men being a problem again? I thought we were talking about gender equality?It's not white men in and on themselves that's the problem, it's how a specific character archetype is massively over-represented and used as a "default" that's the problem.
Am I the only one who looks at that list of "generic white dudes" and can't find two who are really all that alike? Is this just a reverse case of the "all asians look the same to westerners" trope? That image alone hosts a wide array of different nationalities, facial structures, archetypes, hairstyles, skin colours and more, and thus seems to already represent a wide array of different races where one might well argue several of them aren't even all that white.
Also: when did this thread become about white men being a problem again? I thought we were talking about gender equality?
What's this? Can it be?Am I the only one who looks at that list of "generic white dudes" and can't find two who are really all that alike? Is this just a reverse case of the "all asians look the same to westerners" trope? That image alone hosts a wide array of different nationalities, facial structures, archetypes, hairstyles, skin colours and more, and thus seems to already represent a wide array of different races where one might well argue several of them aren't even all that white.
Also: when did this thread become about white men being a problem again? I thought we were talking about gender equality?
I think that if you are watching too carefully images of white men, you are committing a hate crime :=
Just buy a random model and use for all - can't afford more when minorities or the relative majority of the other gender are the focus.
Bad writing seems to be universal - it's just that female protagonists are rarer than male, most likely because currently the majority of game writers are male. With female writers becoming a majority, we will see more bad writing from them too.I'm not saying there aren't bad female writers, because there sure are, but unlike several bad male writers, at least there's no one pretending their bad writing is deep and high art.
Writing is a solitary work
Anyway, thank you for not reading each post of mine as directed at you, or as deadly serious despite bothering to even add the "trolling" smiley: := := := := := := := :=I get your implications, but I doubt you got mine. (roll)
Some of the most terrible books of all time were written by authors sitting alone and refusing any form of input, constructive critique or even basic quality control by other people.Writing is a solitary work
This, famously, is the reason that there are no good American sitcoms or long-form dramas. Writers rooms simply don't work, and that's why The Wire was so terrible.
I think one of the reasons I find it difficult to discuss this with you, KyriakosCH, is that you have an extremely fixed idea of what writing is, or ought to be, and anything that falls outside of that can just be brushed aside as "bad writing".
And what have you faced in this thread exactly?I think one of the reasons I find it difficult to discuss this with you, KyriakosCH, is that you have an extremely fixed idea of what writing is, or ought to be, and anything that falls outside of that can just be brushed aside as "bad writing".
Still you might agree that this is a luxury (your own problem with discussing with me) when compared to what I am facing in this thread :-D
Anyway, I am done here, I fear some people think I think very highly of them and that's why I stay civil.
And what have you faced in this thread exactly?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/22a7493c466ac65146764dc9d59d7be5/tenor.gif)And what have you faced in this thread exactly?
A computer screen.
Is this just a reverse case of the "all asians look the same to westerners" trope?Bizarre thing is, in manga and anime the charachter are usually japanese but are draw in full pink skin and even with blonde hair and blue eyes. And even in videogames.
I got the impression the "default" anime skin color was a more neutral white (and much of Asia too has a pale skin ideal, not necessarily western), and as for blonde hair, there's also a lot of pink and blue hair. From what I've seen, since so many characters have generic anime faces, the animators use exotic hair colors to discern them instead.Is this just a reverse case of the "all asians look the same to westerners" trope?Bizarre thing is, in manga and anime the charachter are usually japanese but are draw in full pink skin and even with blonde hair and blue eyes. And even in videogames.
_
It should hardly need to be said that there's no comparison between the racist assertion that a particular ethnic group look alike, and the correct observation that characters created for AAA games look similar.True that, real people don't choose the racial traits they're born with, but AAA game developers choose to give all white male protagonists square jawlines, short dark brown hair and constipated facial expressions.
More importantly, saying "women need to make more good games" risks placing the responsibility for fixing inequality on the people who are disadvantaged.
1. Most women in this forum already are making their own indie games, myself included, but my most popular game has about a 1000 downloads, a drop in the ocean compared to AAA games.More importantly, saying "women need to make more good games" risks placing the responsibility for fixing inequality on the people who are disadvantaged.
True, but telling male devs who want to make the kinds of games they like that "you need to make these other kinds of games despite not wanting to" isn't likely to produce quality games either, and will just end up leaving all parties unsatisfied. It happens already, it's called having a crap job, and it is exactly how games like Barbie Horse Adventures and such come to be.
A thousand downloads is nothing to be scoffed at, and comparing yourself to AAA titles with millions of funding is senseless.As inspiring as you sound, I want you to know the reason I got into gaming in the first place was exactly because I was able to find a mainstream AAA heroine, Lara Croft, to relate to and show me games
The whole game industry started from small, and grew up over time. Now we need to grow a new branch of it, if we want to see a new kind of audience catered to, and a thousand downloads is a damn fine start!
That's kind of funny. It seems that, like most icons, Lara is many things depending on who you ask. She's either a sex icon driving women away from games with her polygonal titties and short shorts, while male gamers drool over her, or she's a strong, inspiring female protagonist.The fact that you think you can boil her down to those stereotypes so easily just goes to show how little you understand.
I got the impression the "default" anime skin color was a more neutral white (and much of Asia too has a pale skin ideal, not necessarily western), and as for blonde hair, there's also a lot of pink and blue hair. From what I've seen, since so many characters have generic anime faces, the animators use exotic hair colors to discern them instead.Is this just a reverse case of the "all asians look the same to westerners" trope?Bizarre thing is, in manga and anime the charachter are usually japanese but are draw in full pink skin and even with blonde hair and blue eyes. And even in videogames.
_
2. How many of the men in the AAA industry do you think truly want to make yet another bro-dude shooter, and how many are made to do so by executives?
Toby Gard has stated himself that making Lara Croft a woman had nothing to do with developers making him, but because all their earlier concepts making the Tomb Raider a man only led to lesser copies of Indiana Jones,
and on the flipside, the developers behind Remember me said that they had to fight tooth and nail to get to make a game with a female protagonist (https://www.polygon.com/2013/3/18/4120694/remember-me-publishers-balked-at-female-lead-character), but it was publishers and executives from above that tried to force them
to make her a man, and Naughty Dog had to remove the female co-lead Ellie from the front of the cover of The Last of Us for a similar reason.
deliberately promoting American values and, perhaps inevitably, western aesthetics.
The Villalobos Test focuses on representation for Latina women and fighting common stereotypes. Firstly, there must be a Latina lead, and subsequently the lead — or another Latina character — must be shown as professional or college educated, as well as speaking unaccented English, and must not be sexualised (as a key character trait).
Oh, come on. The guy makes a fair point that Lara Croft has been viewed both ways. Don't go "how little you understand" because of his opinions in another thread. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Lara Croft at first was criticized for being eye candy for male players, but then it turned out that the games attracted more female players, presumably because they liked being able to play as a woman. And the games were good, so the boys didn't mind either. Anyway, in later years, the breast proportions seem to be scaled down without anyone thinking that's a bad move.That's kind of funny. It seems that, like most icons, Lara is many things depending on who you ask. She's either a sex icon driving women away from games with her polygonal titties and short shorts, while male gamers drool over her, or she's a strong, inspiring female protagonist.The fact that you think you can boil her down to those stereotypes so easily just goes to show how little you understand.
No, Lara isn't a perfect unifying icon, she's what got me personally into gaming, and at that time, she was the best representation I had access to.
All I know is that I'm infinitely tired of constantly having to justify myself just for wanting to female heroes to be just as diverse and respected as male heroes.You don't have to. I think most of the people here want that. But showing how and why white males dominate as protagonists, is useful by drawing a larger picture.
But that's because the test you posted here is solely for the satisfaction of Anglophones. It disregards what us people would think about it. And they do not realize we have to speak that language only because it is forced into us.
And what have you faced in this thread exactly?
A computer screen.
On topic, Blondbraid isn't the first woman I've met who absolutely loved Lara Croft. But that doesn't mean Croft wasn't designed to be sexually objectified. We don't have to take the binary view that everything is either good or bad.
I totally agree. I speak English with a heavy accent and that should be fine. Native Anglophones should be more tolerant with people speaking with an accent. The fact that a character speak with an accent means they can speak several languages so they are not intellectually inferior. A "non-white" should not have to be a perfect Anglophone to be seen as successfu - neither should a "white" from a non english speaking country.
My reply was based on what he'd previously written in this thread. And while I can agree that there is a point to be had about Lara Croft being a divisive character, I felt on edge because the way the reply was said felt like Wham was trying to pull a "gotcha" with his wording, and I felt that he didn't understood was I was trying to say.Oh, come on. The guy makes a fair point that Lara Croft has been viewed both ways. Don't go "how little you understand" because of his opinions in another thread. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Lara Croft at first was criticized for being eye candy for male players, but then it turned out that the games attracted more female players, presumably because they liked being able to play as a woman. And the games were good, so the boys didn't mind either. Anyway, in later years, the breast proportions seem to be scaled down without anyone thinking that's a bad move.That's kind of funny. It seems that, like most icons, Lara is many things depending on who you ask. She's either a sex icon driving women away from games with her polygonal titties and short shorts, while male gamers drool over her, or she's a strong, inspiring female protagonist.The fact that you think you can boil her down to those stereotypes so easily just goes to show how little you understand.
Everyone has preferences, but that in itself doesn't objectify the character more, rather, objectification is about distilling someone down to only the things you find attractive to you to the point you can't see them as a full human being anymore.On topic, Blondbraid isn't the first woman I've met who absolutely loved Lara Croft. But that doesn't mean Croft wasn't designed to be sexually objectified. We don't have to take the binary view that everything is either good or bad.
I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on the line where physical attractiveness becomes objectification. I find the new Lara better-looking than the original one (not only because of polygon count). Does this mean that I "objectify" her more?
^I think that the goal is to have the audience (reader,player etc) form attachments to the lead/other. This isn't something which can only (or even best) be done through sexuality, but due to laziness this is the norm.That's a good point, tough I will add that trying to create an attachment and identification to the character through sexuality as the main line is near impossible due to what I mentioned on objectification.
There are a tonne of other ways to feel invested in what is going on, but we are talking about media, which most of the time are into using the simplest things either out of time/money concerns or lack of talent.
(of course there are times when sexuality is a main theme of the work anyway - don't know about the new Lara Croft games; the old ones certainly used that angle, indirectly at first, then rather directly with box art. But I never played any LC game, so can't comment about the story or gameplay itself)
Well, damn.I agree, and I think it's a huge problem when nearly all modern fantasy either fall in the category of "Tolkien derivative" or "Tolkien derivative, but with tons of boobs and gore added into the mix", and I say this as somebody who love LoTR.
I became a fantasy maniac in the 90-ies when the post-soviet market became fully open for western media, have read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi novels, predominantly from mid-XX century USA. Then around late 90-ies got so dissatisfied with the whole genre that stopped reading it completely for the next 15 or so years (even missed now super popular things like "Witcher" and "Song of Ice and Fire").
The reason was that they were sooo same - in everything - from protagonist type to their relationships, to plot twists, to the fantasy world inhabitants.
This may sound silly, but around early 2000 I was pondering over writing my our RPG games, and set a rule for myself that if I ever do one, in my games there will be more different characters and more different races. Heck, in my program I even did not hardcode "biological sex types" but made a customizable list of sexes per species lol. And that was long before learning about all the contemporary social discussions (Internet was not much a thing for me until mid-2000ies).
Sorry if this is not directly relevant to the discussion, I just had to say this, because that's what also was bugging me all those years :).
Everyone has preferences, but that in itself doesn't objectify the character more, rather, objectification is about distilling someone down to only the things you find attractive to you to the point you can't see them as a full human being anymore.You have to remember, players doing this regardless MIGHT be a thing, but the more important and problematic aspect is when the author intends for that to be done.
For what I remember a similar situation is also in Disney's Mulan.
2. Give her a serious and somewhat realistic appearance, but give her some stereotypical feminine trauma, like molestation or daddy issues, severe enough to make her have a hysterical breakdown
whenever the story feels like it and she needs a man to bail her out, as if to say "don't worry, she might pretend to be a badass, but she's secretly super vulnerable to dudes beneath that".
I have no recollection of Mulan having a hysterical emotional breakdown, especially not in an important situation when she needed to focus. She made mistakes and needed help sometimes, sure, but not in situations where a man wouldn't.For what I remember a similar situation is also in Disney's Mulan.
2. Give her a serious and somewhat realistic appearance, but give her some stereotypical feminine trauma, like molestation or daddy issues, severe enough to make her have a hysterical breakdown
whenever the story feels like it and she needs a man to bail her out, as if to say "don't worry, she might pretend to be a badass, but she's secretly super vulnerable to dudes beneath that".
_
Hilarious video, but you're definitely right about media creators being the bigger fish here.Everyone has preferences, but that in itself doesn't objectify the character more, rather, objectification is about distilling someone down to only the things you find attractive to you to the point you can't see them as a full human being anymore.You have to remember, players doing this regardless MIGHT be a thing, but the more important and problematic aspect is when the author intends for that to be done.
I remember someone did a Batman and Catwoman swap in one of the Arkham games, but this is the best I can still find. Still, it makes it INCREDIBLY obvious what the developer's intent was, in an incredibly hilarious way. There could be an argument made that Catwoman's character is one where she makes use of her sexuality as a weapon, but whether or not that is true, it's DEFINITELY true that the game devs wanted to provide a "treat" to certain male players:
Everyone has preferences, but that in itself doesn't objectify the character more, rather, objectification is about distilling someone down to only the things you find attractive to you to the point you can't see them as a full human being anymore.You have to remember, players doing this regardless MIGHT be a thing, but the more important and problematic aspect is when the author intends for that to be done.
I remember someone did a Batman and Catwoman swap in one of the Arkham games, but this is the best I can still find. Still, it makes it INCREDIBLY obvious what the developer's intent was, in an incredibly hilarious way. There could be an argument made that Catwoman's character is one where she makes use of her sexuality as a weapon, but whether or not that is true, it's DEFINITELY true that the game devs wanted to provide a "treat" to certain male players:
The Batman/Catwoman video is funny, but mostly because men and women have different body language, so it looks silly when you swap the models.
There are plenty of women who walk the way catwoman walks in that video, and I've literally never seen anyone walk the way batman walks in the clip. It's extremely exaggerated, highly sexualised, and by no means a reflection of the way men and women walk.
I'm not sure if you understand what I've been trying to say, but it's not designing characters to be attractive in and on itself that's the problem, it's designing characters that are so sexualized they become ridiculous, as well as having characters who only exist to be pretty that's the problem.Everyone has preferences, but that in itself doesn't objectify the character more, rather, objectification is about distilling someone down to only the things you find attractive to you to the point you can't see them as a full human being anymore.You have to remember, players doing this regardless MIGHT be a thing, but the more important and problematic aspect is when the author intends for that to be done.
I remember someone did a Batman and Catwoman swap in one of the Arkham games, but this is the best I can still find. Still, it makes it INCREDIBLY obvious what the developer's intent was, in an incredibly hilarious way. There could be an argument made that Catwoman's character is one where she makes use of her sexuality as a weapon, but whether or not that is true, it's DEFINITELY true that the game devs wanted to provide a "treat" to certain male players:
I added an edit to my post, but it was probably too late. I was trying to point out that people don't seem to judge a character being a "treat" as bad on principle (as evidenced by the Jane Jensen interview some time back) - they just don't want the sexualization to be too blatant, and the line is sometimes not very clear. If Lara Croft is a badass hero, is it "objectification" that she is also sexy? Isn't that the intention with most action heroes anyway? How much would you need to change her design to make her acceptable?
The Batman/Catwoman video is funny, but mostly because men and women have different body language, so it looks silly when you swap the models. I can easily imagine a plausible flirty batman/restrained catwoman scene - you'd need to change a few things (starting with the characters' personalities of course), but not that much. Just like with the previous nurse gender swap that you posted, by the way - your version is funny and would look silly in a game, but I can easily imagine my Clooney version in a generic rom-com.
I thought Ali explained this pretty well, and Catwoman's moves are still exaggerated in a way no real woman acts.The Batman/Catwoman video is funny, but mostly because men and women have different body language, so it looks silly when you swap the models.
There are plenty of women who walk the way catwoman walks in that video, and I've honestly never seen anyone walk the way batman walks in the clip. It's extremely exaggerated, highly sexualised, and by no means a reflection of the way men and women walk.
There's a difference between being sexy/sexual on the one hand and sexualised/objectified on the other. An obvious example would be the way players mod games to make Lara Croft and other female characters naked, or more sexually appealing to them. I'm sure we're all aware of jokes about female characters' skimpy armour. These are aesthetic choices that make no sense if you treat the character as an individual.
it's not designing characters to be attractive in and on itself that's the problem, it's designing characters that are so sexualized they become ridiculous, as well as having characters who only exist to be pretty that's the problem.
These are aesthetic choices that make no sense if you treat the character as an individual.
^Japan :)I think that kind of imagery is due to to combining two popular things, action and coll fight-scenes with typical anime girls.
I personally don't find guns to be sexual in the slightest, and that image of the strangely smiling gunner-girl seems bizarre to me :D
Yeah, I used the image of Lara from Tomb Raider: Anniversary as my go-to example, because I'm most familiar with the ps2 era Tomb Raider games, but it's true that her looks have varied and I agree some of her iterations crosses the line for me too, and I definitively would describe a lot of the early marketing as sleazy, I supposed I should have posted a visual example earlier of her typical game look I was referring to earlier, but for everyone else, here's a lineup of her different in-game looks;it's not designing characters to be attractive in and on itself that's the problem, it's designing characters that are so sexualized they become ridiculous, as well as having characters who only exist to be pretty that's the problem.These are aesthetic choices that make no sense if you treat the character as an individual.
Yes, I think it's clear, I was probably getting too technical/abstract about it. The thing is, Lara Croft seems to be right on the line between what you describe as sexy and sexualised, both with the outfit and exaggerated anatomy. Which might have been what led me down this line of thinking.
I added an edit to my post, but it was probably too late. I was trying to point out that people don't seem to judge a character being a "treat" as bad on principle (as evidenced by the Jane Jensen interview some time back) - they just don't want the sexualization to be too blatant, and the line is sometimes not very clear. If Lara Croft is a badass hero, is it "objectification" that she is also sexy? Isn't that the intention with most action heroes anyway? How much would you need to change her design to make her acceptable?As I said, I don't think it is simply down to "This character looks sexy to me, bad, this character doesn't, ok. Or "The level of sexiness in this character has crossed the vague line!". While looking for the Batman clip earlier, I first came across one of Anita Sarkeesian's old Tropes vs Women videos that illustrates this pretty well:
The Batman/Catwoman video is funny, but mostly because men and women have different body language, so it looks silly when you swap the models. I can easily imagine a plausible flirty batman/restrained catwoman scene - you'd need to change a few things (starting with the characters' personalities of course), but not that much. Just like with the previous nurse gender swap that you posted, by the way - your version is funny and would look silly in a game, but I can easily imagine my Clooney version in a generic rom-com.
Oh Gods, we've fallen to the Anita Sarkeesian level of nonsense! Abort! ABORT!Did you expect her not to come up in a discussion about sexual discrimination in video games?
As for how women need to dress in videogames to appease everyone, there isn't a solution to be had. If you have any sliver of bare skin visible, some tier of feminist will complain it's titillating for men and thus wrong, and if you cover women up another tier of feminist will complain we are hiding women from sight and thus nullifying their presence.
As for guys, aside from that loud and obnoxious "muh hobby muscht be kept pure of the cootiesch" -crowd, they are usually just happy to have female characters around.
Oh Gods, we've fallen to the Anita Sarkeesian level of nonsense! Abort! ABORT!
As I said, I don't think it is simply down to "This character looks sexy to me, bad, this character doesn't, ok. Or "The level of sexiness in this character has crossed the vague line!". While looking for the Batman clip earlier, I first came across one of Anita Sarkeesian's old Tropes vs Women videos that illustrates this pretty well:
As I said, I don't think it is simply down to "This character looks sexy to me, bad, this character doesn't, ok. Or "The level of sexiness in this character has crossed the vague line!". While looking for the Batman clip earlier, I first came across one of Anita Sarkeesian's old Tropes vs Women videos that illustrates this pretty well:
I'm not disputing the overall point that female characters are often designed as eye-candy for men and that it can get distasteful and ridiculous. But I also repeat again that the sort of one-to-one comparisons between male and female characters that Sarkeesian makes in that video are highly demagogical. A big butt and swaying hips isn't a representation of a stereotypically sexy man, exaggerated V-shape and swagger is. This (https://i.imgur.com/N9xJ7xy.png) isn't a fair gender-swap of this (http://www.retroyak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kahi4p.jpg), this (https://i.ibb.co/t8RPRwf/clooney.png) is. This (https://gamasutra.com/db_area/images/blog/215473/jjhotchars_gk.jpg) is an actual example of a character designed as eye-candy for women (apparently (https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JaneJensen/20140414/215473/WRITING_HOT_MEN_FOR_GAMES_Yes_please.php)).
I'm not disputing the overall point that female characters are often designed as eye-candy for men and that it can get distasteful and ridiculous. But I also repeat again that the sort of one-to-one comparisons between male and female characters that Sarkeesian makes in that video are highly demagogical. A big butt and swaying hips isn't a representation of a stereotypically sexy man, exaggerated V-shape and swagger is. This (https://i.imgur.com/N9xJ7xy.png) isn't a fair gender-swap of this (http://www.retroyak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kahi4p.jpg), this (https://i.ibb.co/t8RPRwf/clooney.png) is. This (https://gamasutra.com/db_area/images/blog/215473/jjhotchars_gk.jpg) is an actual example of a character designed as eye-candy for women (apparently (https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JaneJensen/20140414/215473/WRITING_HOT_MEN_FOR_GAMES_Yes_please.php)).I think it is more accurate to say that is the example you gave is an example of character designed as eye-candy for women that is also palatable to men. I'm certainly not an expert, or a woman, or anything other than mostly straight, so I can't speak to this with any great level of detail (hopefully someone better suited will pipe in), but the level of uncomfortableness a woman (and non-teenage men) might feel at overtly sexualised women such as the Prince of Persia character I posted earlier, imagine that, but gender-swapped. I'm having a hard time finding examples, because even searching "hot guy" and "sexy guy" on the net focuses more on what is so for gay men rather than women. The reason I used that specific nurse picture is because that's the best example of it I could find.
I'm certainly not an expert, or a woman, or anything other than mostly straight, so I can't speak to this with any great level of detail (hopefully someone better suited will pipe in), but the level of uncomfortableness a woman (and non-teenage men) might feel at overtly sexualised women such as the Prince of Persia character I posted earlier, imagine that, but gender-swapped. I'm having a hard time finding examples, because even searching "hot guy" and "sexy guy" on the net focuses more on what is so for gay men rather than women. The reason I used that specific nurse picture is because that's the best example of it I could find.
I think it is more accurate to say that is the example you gave is an example of character designed as eye-candy for women that is also palatable to men.
My exact reaction.Oh Gods, we've fallen to the Anita Sarkeesian level of nonsense! Abort! ABORT!
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CookedConcernedCoati-max-1mb.gif)
Oh Gods, we've fallen to the Anita Sarkeesian level of nonsense! Abort! ABORT!That is a strawman so big the director of the Wickerman is asking for his film prop back.
As for how women need to dress in videogames to appease everyone, there isn't a solution to be had. If you have any sliver of bare skin visible, some tier of feminist will complain it's titillating for men and thus wrong, and if you cover women up another tier of feminist will complain we are hiding women from sight and thus nullifying their presence.
As for guys, aside from that loud and obnoxious "muh hobby muscht be kept pure of the cootiesch" -crowd, they are usually just happy to have female characters around.
PewDiePie is as good an example as any, about media-driven success in gaming (related) stuff. You can't say he is talented or intelligent. But he looked good :)This video is not about his looks, it's about what his behavior does. You should watch before commenting on it.
PewDiePie is as good an example as any, about media-driven success in gaming (related) stuff. You can't say he is talented or intelligent. But he looked good :)This video is not about his looks, it's about what his behavior does. You should watch before commenting on it.
If you're not gonna watch it, I find it futile of you to comment on it. It's not a bunch of clips of him, the video is about analyzing what views he spreads and normalizes to his audience.PewDiePie is as good an example as any, about media-driven success in gaming (related) stuff. You can't say he is talented or intelligent. But he looked good :)This video is not about his looks, it's about what his behavior does. You should watch before commenting on it.
Sorry, it's a matter of principle for me to not watch anything having to do with your famous countryman (nod)
I mean, sure, people (if they have some talent) can think of a story and attract attention. It takes time. Presenting a hot girl (or a hot guy, for females) takes no time, and you don't need to create or even second-guess the ability to focus on such... I think it's about being a hack, not as much about being sexist.
At least in literature it is not as common, because it's not really a visual genre (although, as far as I know, women actually are into books with such descriptions; men are far more visual-based for a book to have this effect: an anecdote, a female friend of mine has read thousands of serious books, but from time to time reads love stories for this effect) - but in movies or games... :)
(also, worth noting that if your buyers are primarily people who just reached puberty, you really can't market the same product that you would to adults)
In movies, particularly, you almost never see average-looking people in lead roles (unless it is a very cerebral movie).
I think the idea that women are less visually stimulated than men is nonsense, the main reason there are more romantic books aimed towards women than movies and games is because female sexuality has been banned, punished and pathologized for centuries, meanwhile straight male sexuality has been celebrated and enshrined as God's Will withing marriage, and an all-powerful urge that must be sated with protitutes least men go insane when outside of marriage. So when when women started gaining more rights, including their right to their own sexuality in the 1960s, men had already used the film and printing technology to build an industry catering to pleasing men, and had the money to hire women to pose for photo shoots. Meanwhile, media pandering to women was mainly relegated to books, because books and writings are one of the few mediums available to people with little money or technical education, plus the very act of a woman asking a man to pose undressed for money is still considered impossibly obscene to the point of being unthinkable in most places, and hence why this divide was created.I'm certainly not an expert, or a woman, or anything other than mostly straight, so I can't speak to this with any great level of detail (hopefully someone better suited will pipe in), but the level of uncomfortableness a woman (and non-teenage men) might feel at overtly sexualised women such as the Prince of Persia character I posted earlier, imagine that, but gender-swapped. I'm having a hard time finding examples, because even searching "hot guy" and "sexy guy" on the net focuses more on what is so for gay men rather than women. The reason I used that specific nurse picture is because that's the best example of it I could find.
Well, I was a lazy student, so I don't have any real academic credentials to throw around, but I do have a degree in human ethology and have been around some sexual preferences research, so I might have some vague idea :). Treating male and female sexual behavior as identical is bound to produce ridiculous conclusions. The fact that direct gender swaps lead you to gay porn tells you as much.
EDIT: I agree with this:I think it is more accurate to say that is the example you gave is an example of character designed as eye-candy for women that is also palatable to men.
I think the idea that women are less visually stimulated than men is nonsense
Today on: "Every opinion I don't like is a strawman."But it IS a strawman argument to claim that feminists need every female character to be covered head to toe and wear costumes pleasing everyone.
It's like talking to a wall, and so I shall now cease for the time being.
It's a sign of how infantile conversations around video games are that Sarkeesian's unsensational, entry-level feminist takes on the medium cause people to flip their lid. Feminists have been writing like this about media for decades, and society has not collapsed, but macho crybabies can't handle a woman making mild observations on YouTube.Indeed, I don't think anyone claiming Sarkeesian is an insane fanatic has actually watched any of her videos.
I don't feel like getting back into an argument about evolutionary psychology either, but I will say it's safe to say that men and boys have received far more visual training in objectifying women than vice versa.I think the idea that women are less visually stimulated than men is nonsense
Women certainly are visually stimulated, and the differences from men might be completely negligible if observed by some alien species (let alone used as justification for oppression of one gender by the other - I'm definitely not trying to do that). They may, however, be enough to make ridiculously exaggerated sexual features more appealing to one gender than to the other. I'm not going to get into the whole "biological vs cultural theory" argument with you, but I think this is a reasonable enough possibility to at least consider.
This thread is going places :DI was mainly replying to Honza, though as for your female friends, if they are really into books and reading, I'd say they're a rather biased source. :P
Anyway, I wasn't expressing my own view of how women react to romance books - I was going by what female friends say, who are into books in the first place.
I really doubt that women by and large are less into sexual matters or less into looks or more refined on average than men. The sad reality is that the large majority of both genders is rather not very refined* :)
*also, one can be refined and still be into looks.
This thread is going places :DI was mainly replying to Honza, though as for your female friends, if they are really into books and reading, I'd say they're a rather biased source. :P
Anyway, I wasn't expressing my own view of how women react to romance books - I was going by what female friends say, who are into books in the first place.
I really doubt that women by and large are less into sexual matters or less into looks or more refined on average than men. The sad reality is that the large majority of both genders is rather not very refined* :)
*also, one can be refined and still be into looks.
While in games with good-looking male protagonists, you play as that "type" (Broken Sword is another example, although it tried to copy Gabriel Knight anyway), in games like Tomb Raider the protagonist also has to wear sexy clothes... I think it would be far more difficult for male players to play as Gabriel Knight if he was walking around shirtless or with much more skin showing (laugh)Depends on the author's intention and what they wish to evoke. Conan the Barbarian would be a lot more palatable than Conan the Stud-muffin.
While in games with good-looking male protagonists, you play as that "type" (Broken Sword is another example, although it tried to copy Gabriel Knight anyway), in games like Tomb Raider the protagonist also has to wear sexy clothes... I think it would be far more difficult for male players to play as Gabriel Knight if he was walking around shirtless or with much more skin showing (laugh)Depends on the author's intention and what they wish to evoke. Conan the Barbarian would be a lot more palatable than Conan the Stud-muffin.
While in games with good-looking male protagonists, you play as that "type" (Broken Sword is another example, although it tried to copy Gabriel Knight anyway), in games like Tomb Raider the protagonist also has to wear sexy clothes... I think it would be far more difficult for male players to play as Gabriel Knight if he was walking around shirtless or with much more skin showing (laugh)That's pretty much what happened with Mevius from Final Fantasy (https://www.usgamer.net/articles/mobius-mevius-final-fantasy-hero-too-sexy), they had to redesign him because male players complained that his character design made them uncomfortable.
At least male game protagonists get to have a bit more variety, Super Mario, Guybrush Threepwood, Ezio Auditore, Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid 4 excetera are all a pretty far cry from He-man. Meanwhile, I can't think of a single female game protagonist that isn't super slim and in her 20s or younger.While in games with good-looking male protagonists, you play as that "type" (Broken Sword is another example, although it tried to copy Gabriel Knight anyway), in games like Tomb Raider the protagonist also has to wear sexy clothes... I think it would be far more difficult for male players to play as Gabriel Knight if he was walking around shirtless or with much more skin showing (laugh)Depends on the author's intention and what they wish to evoke. Conan the Barbarian would be a lot more palatable than Conan the Stud-muffin.
True... But I personally never liked the He-Man type in the first place :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/b6/51/8fb65122be3045d5797d193553ebc868.jpg)Can I say that I find the "sex-appeal" of Lara Croft overrated? More: intentionally overrated? Real girls cosplayers could be sexy in that outfit, but a 3-D avatar just look functional to me.
Can I say that I find the "sex-appeal" of Lara Croft overrated? More: intentionally overrated? Real girls cosplayers could be sexy in that outfit, but a 3-D avatar just look functional to me.As I said, my experience with Lara was that the worst objectification was in the promo art surrounding the game, especially in the first three games, but as for the reboot making people take her seriously and not see Lara as sex symbol,
_
No one old enough to play the games think Lara Croft is a real person, but fiction affects how we see the world. Just look what Black Beauty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Beauty#Reception) did for animal rights.
Well said, TheFrighter, I couldn't agree more. They are pixelated, drawn, computer graphics. Not to be confused with real life.
Did you see my post, a few hundred pages back, where I quoted what Alison Bechdel said about the test. It makes interesting reading.
The early LC games were also a bit of a novelty, since back then you didn't have large world games in 3d; only some shooters and Alone in the Dark (which was ridiculously more clunky than LC).Indeed, I think it's a shame that the pioneering the Tomb Raider series did for 3D platforming games is so often overlooked in discussions of game history.
That's quite right, Cassiebsg. However, I don't seem to be getting any. Whatever I say is wrong.
That's quite right, Cassiebsg. However, I don't seem to be getting any. Whatever I say is wrong.You said yourself that not everyone will agree with everyone, and I've disagreed with some things you've said, but I've tried my best to voice this respectfully towards you.
I remember Darth saying, a while back, that he was concerned that new members may be put off of joining the site because ofAs for putting members off the site, I'm not sure what I've said in response that would be worse than any of the other people I've argued against have posted.
the biterness towards certain people. I can certainly see where he was coming from.
I have simply tried to make light of heated exchanges that have taken place between members of the community. It is not my fault
that nobody on here has a sense of humour.
I have simply tried to make light of heated exchanges that have taken place between members of the community. It is not my fault
that nobody on here has a sense of humour.
I don't want to set myself up as a comedy expert, but when you keep making the same joke ("You people shouldn't take this serious issue so seriously!") over and over again and people don't laugh - it might not be a great joke.
I dunno, Ali. I've had a few good laughs here! (laugh)This whole discussion is about how entertainment affects our views on human rights, criminal justice and politics,
We're talking about entertainment products here, about things made to amuse and entertain and distract, not human rights or criminal justice or politics.
What you seem to be saying is, "Well WE thought it was funny to diminish Blondbraid and other feminists' experience, and repeatedly derail a potentially interesting conversation about the gender politics of games."If I may use an allegory, let's just say that antelopes aren't exactly known for being amused by lions making jokes about having steak for dinner.
Of course humour is subjective, but when your jokes target other people and only amuse you and your mates - you're a bully.
This whole discussion is about how entertainment affects our views on human rights, criminal justice and politics,
and if it didn't have this effect, there wouldn't be so many guys so ardently fighting to preserve the status quo.
KyriakosCH has repeatedly given examples of female characters who he doesn't think are sexualised and male characters who he thinks are sexualised. The point he's making, I think, is that stereotyping and objectification are bad writing and affect both men and women. Deliberately or not, this rejects the reality the Bechdel test is based on - that male and female characters are not equal victims of stereotypical and sexist representation.
The Bechdel test is premised on the idea that political critique of media is valid. So when you insists that videogames are mere fripperies "made to amuse and entertain and distract", you reject that premise. That's something you're entitled to do, but it turns a conversation about the Bechdel test into a tiresome argument about the necessity of feminist critiques in general.
This is what seems to me to be a determination to defend the status quo - arguing either that the problem does not exist ("men are sexualised too!"), or that attempts to address the issue are themselves worse ("Oh noes! Anita Sarkeesian").
KyriakosCH has repeatedly given examples of female characters who he doesn't think are sexualised and male characters who he thinks are sexualised. The point he's making, I think, is that stereotyping and objectification are bad writing and affect both men and women. Deliberately or not, this rejects the reality the Bechdel test is based on - that male and female characters are not equal victims of stereotypical and sexist representation.My thoughts exactly.
The Bechdel test is premised on the idea that political critique of media is valid. So when you insists that videogames are mere fripperies "made to amuse and entertain and distract", you reject that premise. That's something you're entitled to do, but it turns a conversation about the Bechdel test into a tiresome argument about the necessity of feminist critiques in general.
This is what seems to me to be a determination to defend the status quo - arguing either that the problem does not exist ("men are sexualised too!"), or that attempts to address the issue are themselves worse ("Oh noes! Anita Sarkeesian").
This is what seems to me to be a determination to defend the status quo - arguing either that the problem does not exist ("men are sexualised too!"), or that attempts to address the issue are themselves worse ("Oh noes! Anita Sarkeesian").
Well, I am sure you agree that it isn't good to present another person's views as different than they are (as Ali did, I am sure without meaning to).If I mention strawman arguments a lot, that's because they keep showing up.
For the record: I am not in favor of sexualized females in games/media, and if a media has such it won't score points with me.
edit: and since you mentioned "strawman arguments" for the thousandth time, you should be aware that your own arguments don't come across as great either; it is just that some are more polite in conversation (because they are angels, no doubt) (nod)
Well, I am sure you agree that it isn't good to present another person's views as different than they are (as Ali did, I am sure without meaning to).If I mention strawman arguments a lot, that's because they keep showing up.
For the record: I am not in favor of sexualized females in games/media, and if a media has such it won't score points with me.
edit: and since you mentioned "strawman arguments" for the thousandth time, you should be aware that your own arguments don't come across as great either; it is just that some are more polite in conversation (because they are angels, no doubt) (nod)
And even if you aren't in favour of sexualized women in media (and please don't call women "females", I know English isn't your first language, but calling women females makes it sound like you're talking about animals, which I don't think was the intention),
bringing up any random examples you can find on the few women in games that aren't too sexualized doesn't really solve or address the issue. It's like offering up a pack of band-aids to people discussing the horrible US healthcare,
and I think that's what Ali was arguing about.
Hey, I don't recall ever saying that female characters aren't sexualized. I said that this seems to usually be due to bad/lazy writing. Lara Croft, for example, obviously was sexualized in the game's box art :)
I also don't care about sexualized male characters - I played Gabriel Knight 1 and 3. I never claimed that such (Gabriel) are sexualized to comparable degree to female ones. Are you actually reading my posts? :=
Hey, I don't recall ever saying that female characters aren't sexualized. I said that this seems to usually be due to bad/lazy writing. Lara Croft, for example, obviously was sexualized in the game's box art :)
I also don't care about sexualized male characters - I played Gabriel Knight 1 and 3. I never claimed that such (Gabriel) are sexualized to comparable degree to female ones. Are you actually reading my posts? :=
In the spirit of actually reading what the other person posted - I said you gave examples of female characters who you felt weren't sexualised (Grace Nakimura, and the Munch painting). I didn't accuse you of saying that female characters - in general - were not sexualised.
As I've said several times by now, my objection was that you seemed to be presenting cherry-picked examples as some kind of counterpoint, rebuttal or gotcha. If that wasn't your intention, I sincerely don't understand what point you've been making. It's convenient to dismiss sexist writing as bad, but that obscures the fact that what you consider bad writing is popular and influential, and that lots of good writing reproduces sexist tropes.
I will stop calling women "females", because you project into that that it is somehow connoted as "animals", yet I think it's only fair that you stop using "strawman" because I due to equally respectable personal reasons find it to be bad posting :)When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as males
I will stop calling women "females", because you project into that that it is somehow connoted as "animals", yet I think it's only fair that you stop using "strawman" because I due to equally respectable personal reasons find it to be bad posting :)When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as males
to distinguish the fact that they're talking about animals and not human persons. Here's a list of reasons not to use the word "female" as a noun. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/stop-calling-women-females) This isn't some random personal issue I made up on the spot.
Fair enough. I respect your woman point of view.
Fair enough. I respect your woman point of view.
Afaik, "woman" is a noun, not adjective. That probably would be "woman's point of view" at least.
KyriakosCH, you are becoming more obnoxious with each single post you make here.
I don't get why you think I'm not allowing you to use the word "female" as a descriptor, using descriptions like female posters is fine, it's using female as a noun that's the problem, it's basic grammar.KyriakosCH, you are becoming more obnoxious with each single post you make here.
Ok, I've had enough of this trash, bye.
When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as malesWow, this is the first time I've ever heard of this.
to distinguish the fact that they're talking about animals and not human persons. Here's a list of reasons not to use the word "female" as a noun. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/stop-calling-women-females) This isn't some random personal issue I made up on the spot.
I don't get why you think I'm not allowing you to use the word "female" as a descriptor, using descriptions like female posters is fine, it's using female as a noun that's the problem, it's basic grammar.In my experience it's more offensive to say "a black person" than to say "blacks".
It's like the difference between saying "a black person", and referring to all black people as "blacks". Why do you find this hard to understand?
It feels like I have to explain everything twice to you.
And to add to that, I would personally find it offensive if someone used "male" as a descriptor for me, and used a description such as a "male poster".Perhaps that example was clunky and poorly explained, but if you were to compare these two sentences;
In my experience it's more offensive to say "a black person" than to say "blacks".
"Female" can definitely be used derogatory. But there will also be cases where the term seems more neutral, mainly where it can't easily be replaced with "woman". For instance "The magazine is aimed at 18–25-year-old females" or "The number of females competing in college sports has increased" would probably not be rude, because the females in question are both girls and women. These sentences would work equally fine with "males", which I believe should be the real test. (Examples from dictionary.cambridge.org) [/language nerd filter]
It's so easy not to noun someone, it's generally more respectful. Besides which, calling women "females" makes you 100% sound like a ferengi.(laugh) (laugh) Oh, I agree. The examples are from the dictionary, not mine. In these cases, I would think the writer cuts the noun because it is implied. (Male/Female readers.)
It's so easy not to noun someone, it's generally more respectful. Besides which, calling women "females" makes you 100% sound like a ferengi.I couldn't have come up with a better example myself!
But what if it was aged 15-20? In my native tongue, referring to grown women as "girls" is quite common, and in my opinion, often derogatory. But where should this line go? Norwegians would most often refer to themselves as girls/boys until they graduate from the school level below university (aged about 18-19). Are there huge cultural differences here?As a Swede, referring to women over 20 as girls would be considered weird and infantilizing in my native tongue, but I'm aware that native English speakers sometimes do that in English, considering it flattering to empathize the women's youth.
I think everyone ought to see this discussion video on Red Dawn, and the fact that entertainment will reflect the creator's politics, but at 9:15 in the video, the narrator also
discusses how fiction isn't real, and exactly because it isn't real, but a creation of the author, we ought to look critically on why they are telling a story in this way.
As for The inner world and Guard Duty, I only saw the screenshots and thought they looked nice but never got around to playing the games because there have been so many other games I'd rather play, but this sounds disappointing yet not surprising
Wow, most of it just sounds like your bad garden variety of bad sitcom stereotypes paired with bad romantic comedy stereotypes, but the fourth and the last points on the list really jumped out at me with how crude they were in their sexism.As for The inner world and Guard Duty, I only saw the screenshots and thought they looked nice but never got around to playing the games because there have been so many other games I'd rather play, but this sounds disappointing yet not surprising
As for the Inner World, it really is a pity. Despite the sexism the game is rather charming, but that alone stopped me from even trying out the second part. Here's a bad review that illustrates the portrayal of women in the game:
I think this paragraph (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl) should be required reading for every man trying to write a female love interest, this sentence in particular;Having read that paragraph, all I can say is that no guy wants a girl like that. Except those jocks who you always see playing the bully in 80s movies. (laugh)
You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them.With a quote like that, I thought it was going to be about anime girls (I've heard similar things being said in lots of reviews for bad anime). Instead it's about "Cool Girls". :-X
As I said before, I think that the first game that could pass the test is Maniac Mansion.I've thought about that since you said it the first time, and I honestly can't think of a moment in the game where two female characters speak to each other about something other than a man in Maniac Mansion.
As I said before, I think that the first game that could pass the test is Maniac Mansion.I've thought about that since you said it the first time, and I honestly can't think of a moment in the game where two female characters speak to each other about something other than a man in Maniac Mansion.
There are four female characters in Maniac Mansion. Wendy, Razor, Edna, and Sandy.
There's no talk function, so Wendy and Razor can never talk to each other. (So that doesn't pass it.)
Edna will only talk to you when she captures you, where she then mentions that it's a good thing you're not a boy. (So that doesn't pass it either.)
And Razor will only talk to someone other than Dave, after you complete the game with Dave dead, where obviously she talks about dave. (So even that doesn't pass it.)
So seriously, where does Maniac Mansion pass the Bechdel test? Because I can't figure it out. :-\
Oh, if only...I think this paragraph (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl) should be required reading for every man trying to write a female love interest, this sentence in particular;Having read that paragraph, all I can say is that no guy wants a girl like that. Except those jocks who you always see playing the bully in 80s movies. (laugh)You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them.With a quote like that, I thought it was going to be about anime girls (I've heard similar things being said in lots of reviews for bad anime). Instead it's about "Cool Girls". :-X
Which are obviously girls that only exist in the mind of a teenage frat boy. You know, the kind of guy everybody (and I do mean everybody) hates. (roll)
Completely random, but I think that formally this game passes Bechdel test in the very first minute, because there are two women talking about their life situation during introduction:Yeah, the Bechdel test isn't a test on how feminist a story is or how good role models the characters are (also, where I'm from at least, "whore" is considered a severe slur, so well, not the greatest title...),
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=45593.0
Yeah, the game title is... lol. I think it's a dark comedy, but I never played it through. It was a part of a Bake Sale (or similar event), and it is not in AGS database sadly, and I dont know where exactly to get it now :/.
Also, "The Cat Lady".
But then again, it's kind of a random way to test games too, more suitable for statistics rather than anything imo.
Oh, if only...I would absolutely love to get you in the same room as my sister. She'd probably turn your entire worldview upside down. (laugh)
But for every awful jock, there are just as many guys who think they are so much better than those jocks, yet still think they deserve a girlfriend who will bend over backward to curl for them anyway, and the quote I cited mentions several other types too;
It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics.
This is a very extreme example, but I think this really showcases how it feels to a lot of women when a lot of guys will be so quick to say "oh sure it's awful, but it's only those kind of guys who do it and I'm obviously and visibly not that kind of guy"."oh sure it's awful, but it's only those kind of guys who do it and I'm obviously and visibly not that kind of guy", well I'd hate to break it to you, but people like to defend themselves.
I once had the misfortune to work in a place where there were a diverse set of men working, Swedes and immigrants from various nations, guys of all ages and with varied interests and levels of education, and they were all laughing along at the same sexist and homophobic jokes. There is no "magic bullet" that will make you immune to being a jerk, all you can do is just to keep being on your best behavior and be ready to call others out on it if you want to avoid being one.
Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent here, but this is something I've been thinking of for a while and think more people ought to consider.
I would absolutely love to get you in the same room as my sister. She'd probably turn your entire worldview upside down. (laugh)Well, it'd be interesting to hear her point of view, but I will say that it's not exactly news to me that there are women who like divisive comics and similar media too,
For instance, look up Lady Death comics. That's what my sister likes. (nod)
And trust me, she does not give a crap about what any man thinks. She likes what she likes, because she likes them.
"oh sure it's awful, but it's only those kind of guys who do it and I'm obviously and visibly not that kind of guy", well I'd hate to break it to you, but people like to defend themselves.I wasn't trying to call you out personally, and I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I really wanted to comment on a pattern I've seen for quite a while now.
If someone called you one of those straw-man argument man-hating feminists, you would probably be quick to point out that those types of people are awful, but you're not one of those types of people.
Don't paint everyone with the same brush, and don't complain when someone tells you not to.
That being said, I am a little bit sexist and a little bit racist (I'm probably even a little bit homophobic). It's ingrained into me through cultural osmosis. You probably are too. :-D The question is, are you more than me?
At least I'm willing to question that what I believe might be wrong. You on the other hand, based on what I've read on this thread, seem quite adamant that nothing you believe in is wrong.
You need to question yourself more, re-evaluate your beliefs, and most importantly, stop going to articles written by people who think the same way as you. Diversify and question things more!
That's why I love talk to you. You're my way of doing exactly that. :-D
Also, of course they were all laughing at the same sexist and homophobic jokes, it's called reading the room. Trust me, you don't want to be the one guy to point out that this joke (or comment) is sexist, homophobic, or racist, in the middle of a friendly conversation. You aren't going to change them, you're just going to piss them off, and probably even make them worse (I'm not kidding, it's a psychological effect that happens).I don't want to replicate any of the jokes I've heard there, but I will say that those jokes at the place I mentioned were really, really bad.
I mean sure, if it goes too far, step in, but otherwise keep your mouth shut. (roll)
You don't stop that stuff by highlighting it every chance you get.
I'm not in the habit of plugging podcasts, but I think a prime example of this is in this episode from the loremen podcast (http://www.loremenpodcast.com/episode-10-s2), wherein 1800s London, a number of women on the streets were non-fatally stabbed by a man who'd run away afterward, nicknamed "the London monster" by the public.
Just goes to show not everything has to pass the test in order to be a good commentary! :)I'm not in the habit of plugging podcasts, but I think a prime example of this is in this episode from the loremen podcast (http://www.loremenpodcast.com/episode-10-s2), wherein 1800s London, a number of women on the streets were non-fatally stabbed by a man who'd run away afterward, nicknamed "the London monster" by the public.
Thank you for the plug. One of the most revealing things about that story is how ready people were to believe a single monster, or a co-ordinated team of monsters were responsible for a spate of attacks. Because the unpalatable alternative was that men - in general - were in the habit of harassing and assaulting women in the street. (Of course, the podcast doesn't pass the Bechdel test, unfortunately.)
Also, of course they were all laughing at the same sexist and homophobic jokes, it's called reading the room. Trust me, you don't want to be the one guy to point out that this joke (or comment) is sexist, homophobic, or racist, in the middle of a friendly conversation. You aren't going to change them, you're just going to piss them off, and probably even make them worse (I'm not kidding, it's a psychological effect that happens).You don't need to do it every chance you get. Most people are normal enough that if you say it once, they won't repeat it in front of you specifically. And if just a second person from the same group says it again, then they'll usually be "Oh, I guess I shouldn't publicly make these sort of jokes".
I mean sure, if it goes too far, step in, but otherwise keep your mouth shut. (roll)
You don't stop that stuff by highlighting it every chance you get.
I say this is why standing up for others is the most important thing you can do in your daily life, because if somebody is willing to risk ruining the mood and be labeled a killjoy prude for calling out a mean joke,Also, of course they were all laughing at the same sexist and homophobic jokes, it's called reading the room. Trust me, you don't want to be the one guy to point out that this joke (or comment) is sexist, homophobic, or racist, in the middle of a friendly conversation. You aren't going to change them, you're just going to piss them off, and probably even make them worse (I'm not kidding, it's a psychological effect that happens).You don't need to do it every chance you get. Most people are normal enough that if you say it once, they won't repeat it in front of you specifically. And if just a second person from the same group says it again, then they'll usually be "Oh, I guess I shouldn't publicly make these sort of jokes".
I mean sure, if it goes too far, step in, but otherwise keep your mouth shut. (roll)
You don't stop that stuff by highlighting it every chance you get.
Agreed.Plus it's not just validating bad guys, if you don't see anyone else speaking out, you have zero way of telling the gross bigots apart from "nice guys" who don't want to be bigoted but just don't want to "kill the vibes",
Keeping your mouth shut or even laughing at said jokes you're supporting that kind of behavior. Those guys just feel reassured and validated, because they'll never be confronted about their sexist or racist views. If anything they need to keep their mouthes shut.
I think this paragraph (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl) should be required reading for every man trying to write a female love interest
Having read that paragraph, all I can say is that no guy wants a girl like that.
I think this paragraph (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl) should be required reading for every man trying to write a female love interest
Funnily enough I watched Gone Girl very recently (great movie), and this scene / passage from the book just confused me.
What is its purpose? I understand that the monologue has become iconic for some feminists (see here (https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/gone-girl-no-cool-girl) and here (https://www.salon.com/2019/12/26/how-the-scathing-gone-girl-rant-about-being-the-cool-girl-defined-the-decade)).
But to my mind it is just the words of a character in a novel (an extraordinarily evil and vengeful character). This interview with Flynn (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/01/gillian-flynn-bestseller-gone-girl-misogyny) in The Guardian suggests to me the evilness of Amy was the primary feminist motivation of the book. Flynn says that feminism is 'also the ability to have women who are bad characters… the one thing that really frustrates me is this idea that women are innately good, innately nurturing'.
For me, the 'Cool Girl' monologue is owned entirely by Amy's character, and it certainly does not reveal any real-life wisdom on how 'men' actually think, or how 'women' perceive they should be. Flynn's 'lurid plots make no claim to social realism: to interpret her evil female characters as somehow representative of their real-life gender, you must willfully overlook hundreds of pages of other people and events that you'd almost certainly never encounter in reality, either.'
Good discussion everybody.Well, plenty of authors have used their villains as a way to highlight faults in society for ages (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainHasAPoint), and as for whether men who want a girl like the dialogue describes exists,I think this paragraph (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl) should be required reading for every man trying to write a female love interest
Funnily enough I watched Gone Girl very recently (great movie), and this scene / passage from the book just confused me.
What is its purpose? I understand that the monologue has become iconic for some feminists (see here (https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/gone-girl-no-cool-girl) and here (https://www.salon.com/2019/12/26/how-the-scathing-gone-girl-rant-about-being-the-cool-girl-defined-the-decade)).
But to my mind it is just the words of a character in a novel (an extraordinarily evil and vengeful character). This interview with Flynn (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/01/gillian-flynn-bestseller-gone-girl-misogyny) in The Guardian suggests to me the evilness of Amy was the primary feminist motivation of the book. Flynn says that feminism is 'also the ability to have women who are bad characters… the one thing that really frustrates me is this idea that women are innately good, innately nurturing'.
For me, the 'Cool Girl' monologue is owned entirely by Amy's character, and it certainly does not reveal any real-life wisdom on how 'men' actually think, or how 'women' perceive they should be. Flynn's 'lurid plots make no claim to social realism: to interpret her evil female characters as somehow representative of their real-life gender, you must willfully overlook hundreds of pages of other people and events that you'd almost certainly never encounter in reality, either.'
So I am absolutely on the same page as Danvzare here:Having read that paragraph, all I can say is that no guy wants a girl like that.
I will add that some men probably do, but at least no man I've ever met in my life.
My overall point is that I don't need to read the Cool Girl monologue in order to write a female love interest. It is a monologue that is a work of fiction in itself.
I'm also confused by how the "cool girl" trope can be interpreted as sexist. I can read it uncharitably it as a self-serving fantasy of guys who expect a woman to cater to their selfish needs without having needs of her own. I can also read it charitably as wanting a partner who shares your hobbies and interests. I can even read it as a statement that a woman acting masculine (eating chilly hot dogs, playing videogames) is cool. I don't think any of this is gendered - women have shallow and selfish fantasies too, and they also create tropes which frame partners as service-providers rather than real human beings. It's a general human tendency that's hardly exclusive to relationships and gender. It's dumb, but I'm failing to see the sexism in it.Not that there aren't a lot of unhealthy fantasies to criticize in female-centered romances, but the difference to me is that such things tend to be confined within the "trashy romance book" genre, and widely mocked from all parts of the spectrum (most people I know of either think they're trash, or a guilty pleasure but acknowledge they're still bad and unrealistic), whereas the shallow female love interests by male authors exist in every genre, and some of them even in works that are considered great classics.
this is what lots of men fantasize about
I'm also confused by how the "cool girl" trope can be interpreted as sexist... I can also read it charitably as wanting a partner who shares your hobbies and interests... I don't think any of this is gendered... It's a general human tendency that's hardly exclusive to relationships and gender. It's dumb, but I'm failing to see the sexism in it.
If you are not a woman, it seems very unwise to risk treading into the territory of even trying to write female characters, for no matter how hard you try.
I'm not saying every man wants that, but I think everyone should read the quote because it's a good and thought-provoking quote.this is what lots of men fantasize about
That is absolutely fair enough, Blondbraid. I'm sure there are (but certainly nobody I would associate with long enough to become my friends).
With respect, however, you are proceeding from 'lots of men fantasise about this' to 'every man must read this to check their fantasies'.
Well put! If you could only write about what you have lived through, no one would be able to write any historical novels ever for a start.If you are not a woman, it seems very unwise to risk treading into the territory of even trying to write female characters, for no matter how hard you try.
By this logic, authors would be limited only to writing about themselves. It's an absurdly reductive interpretation of "write what you know".
Women have been writing novels for as long as the medium has existed. If pervasive sexist tropes persist, it's not because female writers aren't trying hard enough.
All of this seems to come back to the basic concept: women should create more, and be the change they want to see, rather than try to squeeze water from stone in the form of forcing established male writers to write outside of what they know.I've already spoken about this in this thread before; most women here already are telling their own stories in AGS games or the Fortnightly writing competition, but that still can't be compared with the vast entertainment networks that dominate the public and the broad market, all of which are strongly male-dominated. Heck, just buying a full computer plus most of the Adobe and Autodesk licenses that AAA game developers use costs more than I make in a month!
But alas, what is a fun trope or stereotype to one, can be disgusting to another. Like most jokes that target a type of people, whether it be blacks, whites, gay, motorcyclists, gingers or cat owners, it's often the least entertaining to the people who are the butt of the joke, or in this case, the subject of the trope or stereotype.You've actually hit the nail solidly on the head there.
The thing is that when you don't know about the subject, you do research, and find what people who have lived through those things say about it.
Good historical authors read history books, people writing war stories read testimonies of veterans, etcetera.
And what does it say about an author's view of women when they think 50% of humanity isn't worth speaking in depth to, empathize with, or learning enough about to portray believably?
I've already spoken about this in this thread before; most women here already are telling their own stories in AGS games or the Fortnightly writing competition, but that still can't be compared with the vast entertainment networks that dominate the public and the broad market, all of which are strongly male-dominated. Heck, just buying a full computer plus most of the Adobe and Autodesk licenses that AAA game developers use costs more than I make in a month!
Plus you shouldn't have to be a chef in order to be allowed to say if the food tastes bad, should you?
Simply put, it resonates with a lot of women because men keep writing and idealizing such characters in fiction and commercials, not to mention all the memes and social media posts.
(I still remember how popular this post (https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/5708467_700b_v1.jpg) got.)
Well, there are plenty of examples of male authors who fail to write any good female characters and still considered good authors,The thing is that when you don't know about the subject, you do research, and find what people who have lived through those things say about it.
Good historical authors read history books, people writing war stories read testimonies of veterans, etcetera.
And what does it say about an author's view of women when they think 50% of humanity isn't worth speaking in depth to, empathize with, or learning enough about to portray believably?
Precisely, you do research if you want to portray something in an accurate and realistic manner. Or you don't, and you work on well known stereotypes to make something less serious. The latter is, obviously, also far easier to do, and thus more popular.
You also seem to portray this as purely a male problem, the failure to know how to write characters of the opposite sex well. I do wonder if that really is the case, though.
Again, you should be able to criticize societal trends without having an expert solution on hand.I've already spoken about this in this thread before; most women here already are telling their own stories in AGS games or the Fortnightly writing competition, but that still can't be compared with the vast entertainment networks that dominate the public and the broad market, all of which are strongly male-dominated. Heck, just buying a full computer plus most of the Adobe and Autodesk licenses that AAA game developers use costs more than I make in a month!
Plus you shouldn't have to be a chef in order to be allowed to say if the food tastes bad, should you?
So what do you propose, then? Some kind of government mandated balancing of power in the media industry, slashing male jobs until we have 50-50 representation? Or forced education of male artists, to ensure they create art with the correct balance of genders in a manner that accurately depicts the lived experience of women? I'm sure you're a smarter person than that, so I am genuinely curious: what do you, Blondbraid, personally believe should be done?
I suggested before that we need a slow and steady change over time, but you rejected than and demanded a faster change.
I suggest that women should create more, even on the small scale, and await for their eventual breakout successes that allow them to hit it big in the mainstream, but you shot that down as well.
All I can see is a demand: "I want change and I want it now!", but I cannot recall seeing any concrete suggestions on steps that could be taken to correct the issue, and I can't really think of any that wouldn't trample all over the freedom of artists to create what they want, how they want.
I personally think culture would benefit from ... school curriculums requiring students to read books of an equal number of male and female authors...
Also: Critique isn't censorship. Stop treating people criticizing bad writing as equal to a book ban.
How is it that? I don't get it.I personally think culture would benefit from ... school curriculums requiring students to read books of an equal number of male and female authors...
Also: Critique isn't censorship. Stop treating people criticizing bad writing as equal to a book ban.
Your suggestion is, in effect, pretty much equal to a book ban.
There is also a difference between criticising something, and nagging about something.Well, some guys will interpret anything a woman says as nagging. Not pointing any fingers, just putting it out there.
> The roof is leaking.
< I know, but we have no ladder and the roofing company won't open until Monday. I put a bucket under the leak.
> Well that's not good enough. This is all taking far too long!
< Nothing we can do at this very moment.
- 10 minutes pass.
> The roof is leaking.
< Well what do you want to do about it!?
> I'm just pointing out the issue! I can do that without suggesting a fix, right?
< ...yes
- 10 minutes pass
> The roof is leaking.
< !!!!!!
---
Still, though. Critique away! I think you have every right to point out these issues and talk about them, just like I have the right to critique your critique and, occasionally, disagree with portions of it, or challenge some of your views.
I just tend to be the practical sort, and I feel that there is a point where repeatedly complaining about an issue while not being able to suggest any concrete actions that might actually resolve the issue, becomes counterproductive. Thus I try to challenge you on the topic, to try and see if we can think of concrete actions that could resolve the matter and put an end to the need to point out these issues, as they become resolved.
> The roof is leaking.
< I know, but we have no ladder and the roofing company won't open until Monday. I put a bucket under the leak.
> Well that's not good enough. This is all taking far too long!
< Nothing we can do at this very moment.
How is it that? I don't get it.
Putting one book on the school curriculum instead of another book is not the same thing as banning a book and actively preventing people from reading it. It's already been discussed in this thread. (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=58692.0)
Well, I may have overstated that a little bit :). You are not suggesting banning books, you are just actively discouraging children from reading some of them.
I feel like we're re-treading the argument Blondbraid linked to about "banning" books, but I honestly find this baffling. Curriculums are limited by necessity, so anyone advocating for any book is calling for that book to be studied at the expense of roughly 129 million books. It's bizarre and wrong to compare it to banning books. The standard conservative stance seems to be that a highly selective reading list is perfectly acceptable - unless someone suggests an addition - at which point a selective reading list becomes an unconscionable Orwellian nightmare.
Well, some guys will interpret anything a woman says as nagging. Not pointing any fingers, just putting it out there.
And secondly, glasshouses and all that. You're the one who's kept saying " but why don't women make your own games/books" several times now despite me and several others point out that even if more women do that,
they still won't have the money and resources as giant companies who have the money and manpower to mass-market their stories and reach a worldwide audience most can never dream of, and you keep painting any suggestion
of how to improve anything as a fool's errand, and seemingly keep arguing for the status quo for the sake of it.
Well, the problem is that people already are favoring men because of their gender, not consciously, but if somebody is setting up a school curriculum meant to represent a wide selection of perspectives, and all of them are male authors,I feel like we're re-treading the argument Blondbraid linked to about "banning" books, but I honestly find this baffling. Curriculums are limited by necessity, so anyone advocating for any book is calling for that book to be studied at the expense of roughly 129 million books. It's bizarre and wrong to compare it to banning books. The standard conservative stance seems to be that a highly selective reading list is perfectly acceptable - unless someone suggests an addition - at which point a selective reading list becomes an unconscionable Orwellian nightmare.
This wasn't about anyone suggesting a book, it was about (hypothetically) judging and selecting all books based on the gender of their author, and I tried to explain why I think that's a bad idea. Let's not dwell on the hyperbole - I already conceded nobody is banning books and I'm not "outraged".
Well, I can't recall the last time I've ever heard a man being told he nags too much when complaining about something.Well, some guys will interpret anything a woman says as nagging. Not pointing any fingers, just putting it out there.
Funny you think nagging, and pointing it out, are both gendered actions. I consider both acts gender neutral.
Well, Sweden has been perfectly capable of starting several of the things I suggested without devolving into whatever dystopia you think would appear.And secondly, glasshouses and all that. You're the one who's kept saying " but why don't women make your own games/books" several times now despite me and several others point out that even if more women do that,
they still won't have the money and resources as giant companies who have the money and manpower to mass-market their stories and reach a worldwide audience most can never dream of, and you keep painting any suggestion
of how to improve anything as a fool's errand, and seemingly keep arguing for the status quo for the sake of it.
This is exactly why I asked the question of what you suggest, and the sad outcome of that is that you, just like every other person I've talked to about the topic, has found themselves in the same dead end. No concrete actions that could be taken, so all people can do is nag other people around them and hope that SOMEONE comes up with a solution. Your only suggested action was dictating more closely what books children are made to read as part of their education based on a non-educational criteria, which does seem to be along the lines of ideas I've seen other feminists have in other areas, so that checks out.
To me it seems the only paths to solving this issue are:
1) A harsh authoritarian regime that strictly controls what kinds of entertainment, and most importantly created by whom, are permitted for public consumption and in what amounts.
2) A natural change of attitudes over time, as audiences change and grow and generational changes bring about changes in demographics and interests, much like we've seen in the whole LGBTTQQPPAA+ movements success in becoming mainstream in most of the civilized world in a few short decades.
And as for natural changes over time, the idea that people just naturally started accepting LGBT people is laughable. In my homeland, lauded as one of the most progressive countries, homosexuality was forbidden by law until the 1940s,
and legally defined as a disease until the 1970s, and it only became acceptable and legal because people actively fought to make people accept it as something healthy and normal, and constant activism, which was often met by the exact same
arguments you're been making against feminism in this very thread.
And what do you think changed the minds of the new generations? If it was just a natural shift happening every generation, there wouldn't be any oppression lasting for centuries or even millenia. Homosexuality was seen as a sin sinceAnd as for natural changes over time, the idea that people just naturally started accepting LGBT people is laughable. In my homeland, lauded as one of the most progressive countries, homosexuality was forbidden by law until the 1940s,
and legally defined as a disease until the 1970s, and it only became acceptable and legal because people actively fought to make people accept it as something healthy and normal, and constant activism, which was often met by the exact same
arguments you're been making against feminism in this very thread.
Same timeline in Finland. Why do you think those classifications changed over time? That funny 30 year time skip between the shifts in attitude? It's the natural change I'm talking about in action. New generations and new ideas replacing the old.
Well, the problem is that people already are favoring men because of their gender, not consciously, but if somebody is setting up a school curriculum meant to represent a wide selection of perspectives, and all of them are male authors,
that is a bias in favour of men. And it's not like I'm suggesting we should replace great male authors with any female hack writing harlequin novels, you'd still have to choose female authors based on their talent in writing, having gender equality
in the school curriculum would merely mean replacing an proabably unintended bias with awareness and actively working to give students a chance to read a fair amount from both halves of the population instead of just one.
This wasn't about anyone suggesting a book, it was about (hypothetically) judging and selecting all books based on the gender of their author, and I tried to explain why I think that's a bad idea. Let's not dwell on the hyperbole - I already conceded nobody is banning books and I'm not "outraged".
Women who create entertainment aren't being locked up for daring to act outside of their assigned gender roles (well, except by other women who think they did it wrong. Hi, J.K. Rowling!)
Pretty much. I think many people have a blind spot on this because society treats men as the default in lots of situations, for example, an all-female cast with only one token guy in a film or book is exceptionally rare,Well, the problem is that people already are favoring men because of their gender, not consciously, but if somebody is setting up a school curriculum meant to represent a wide selection of perspectives, and all of them are male authors,
that is a bias in favour of men. And it's not like I'm suggesting we should replace great male authors with any female hack writing harlequin novels, you'd still have to choose female authors based on their talent in writing, having gender equality
in the school curriculum would merely mean replacing an proabably unintended bias with awareness and actively working to give students a chance to read a fair amount from both halves of the population instead of just one.
This looks like a whole new can of worms I'm not sure I want to get into (mostly because I haven't made up my mind - I can see your perspective but I'm not as convinced of it), but at least it seems we can agree on the core concern. You're not saying books should be picked based on the author's gender (maybe with some exceptions where it's directly relevant to the content), you believe that it's already happening and want to correct that. Do I get it?
Yes, Ali, I was making a hyperbolic joke. Well done for pointing that out. Good job.
Ah, so you seem to advocate for either some expansion of current law so it can control people more strictly, stripping them of freedoms to make personal decisions, or some other kind of extra-legal manner in which equality is enforced.
Also: did Sweden ever actually pass that one law where they threatened the government would seize assets of private corporations if they failed to fulfill gender quotas in their board of directors? I recall that being a pretty major news piece over in Finland several years back, as it was painted as "those wacky Swedes being at it again" over here. Since I haven't heard of it since, I'm guessing no.As a Swede, I've never heard of such a law, but beware that there's been plenty of right-wing blogs spreading fake news about Sweden.
Indeed, some of this debate on feminism is starting to look a lot like those conservative Americans who'll equate any politics left of Reagan as pure Stalinism.Ah, so you seem to advocate for either some expansion of current law so it can control people more strictly, stripping them of freedoms to make personal decisions, or some other kind of extra-legal manner in which equality is enforced.
For the record: No. Thinking the Bechdel test is a useful critical tool != advocating for government mind control. This is the kind of hyperbole I'm talking about.
Also, saying than argument is bad because it can be used to justify terrible thing is not the same as saying that an argument is bad because it's used by bad people. Good people use bad arguments, and vice versa. I believe Blondbraid is saying that argument is bad in itself, because the same chain of reasoning has been used to justify things we all agree are unacceptable.
It was a cost-cutting measure they would have done either way, dressed up in some progressive language in a failed bid for popularity points, largely derided and then fading into obscurity.
It's pretty ridiculous that it got traction abroad because politicians painting cost-cutting as a principled stance exists everywhere, they just use different rhetoric to fit different nations.
Basically, it's not a great idea to use third-hand accounts with clickbait headlines when talking about Sweden to native Swedes.
That sound precisely like what I figured it was. They could have just done the normal thing and said the changes were made to improve efficiency and better serve the most people with available resources, but as we keep seeing Sweden has some weird fetish about appearing to be the most progressive nation on the Earth, which gives the Finnish media plenty to laugh about! Don't worry, Swedes: we love you for it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg).Really, you think caring about equality is, in your own words, "some weird fetish"? This really says it all about where you stand, doesn't it?
I don't understand the issue, unless we believe that men have written better books than women, and that equal representation would mean replacing good books with worse books. Which, I think, is what people are actually afraid of.
Really, you think caring about equality is, in your own words, "some weird fetish"? This really says it all about where you stand, doesn't it?
As I've said, I am an egalitarian, and I care about equality.The way I've seen it used in practice, the phrase "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanitarian/equalist" virtually always means that you think the status quo is fine and any oppression western women face is made-up.
There is a difference between caring about something and doing what you can to promote it, and trying to paint every mundane action you take as being some grand crusade for equality and making a massive show out of it in order to get more attention.Again, are politicians 100% honest in Finland? Has no Finnish politician ever dressed up cost-saving as something more palatable to the masses? And also, a great deal of cost-cutting is done in idiotic ways that just wind up more expensive in the
It's great that you've found a research text on the study, I'll check it out when I find the time! (nod)I don't understand the issue, unless we believe that men have written better books than women, and that equal representation would mean replacing good books with worse books. Which, I think, is what people are actually afraid of.
My issue was choosing books based on anything else than their actual content. I can't fully speak for my biased subconscious, but I like to think I would be saying the same if the imbalance was reversed. I'd find it weird if I was given a book to read because it was written by a man, or denied a book because it was written by a woman - as if having a Y chromosome was some unique quality with intrinsic worth.
But I realize that's not the full picture. The imbalance seems to be bigger than I imagined, I'll be the first to agree that seeing the world through many different sets of eyes is important, and it's true that there are other arbitrary criteria which I take for granted (nationality). A quick google search gave me this: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/206631137.pdf (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/206631137.pdf), I'll probably check it out sooner or later. I'm in a place where I could easily be swayed to your side.
This discussion reminds me of this article (https://inthesetimes.com/article/our-feminized-society), citing a study showing that if there are 17 percent women in a crowd, the men in the audience think it’s 50 – 50, and if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
This discussion reminds me of this article (https://inthesetimes.com/article/our-feminized-society), citing a study showing that if there are 17 percent women in a crowd, the men in the audience think it’s 50 – 50, and if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
I'd say it's a pretty clear illustration of unconscious bias, and worth pondering on how it affects other views on women.
In my field and social bubble, it's genuinely about 60 - 70% women. Most of my teachers have been women,
Or if you truly did care for equality, could you name and acknowledge any gendered injustice western women face or name anything you've done to further gender equality?
I bet there is, just from the top of my head, I remember people complaining that the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast was too unrealistic, because in their words, "Half the villagers were black!,This discussion reminds me of this article (https://inthesetimes.com/article/our-feminized-society), citing a study showing that if there are 17 percent women in a crowd, the men in the audience think it’s 50 – 50, and if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
I'd say it's a pretty clear illustration of unconscious bias, and worth pondering on how it affects other views on women.
Never heard of this before, but what I immediately wonder, is this only gender related thing or more generic psychological effect regarding anyone who a group of people see "different"? In other words, will the same happen with the groups of noticeably different ethniticies for instance.
It's similar in Sweden, I had many male teachers in the higher classes, teaching children is a female-dominated job, but it's also a very low-paying job here in Sweden, in large part due to being female-dominated.In my field and social bubble, it's genuinely about 60 - 70% women. Most of my teachers have been women,
I think over 90% teachers in my school were women (and all or most of the head staff) :). In fact, I can barely remember seeing more than 3 male teachers same year.
Things were much different in university, however.
Funny how this turned into "WHAM, prove your egalitarian credentials" somehow, but here we go.Because you keep saying that you are all for equality and women's rights, but then keep saying things directly antithetical to exactly that.
And you can say sexism (in the west) doesn't exist and then a moment later imply that men ought to have rights over an embryo inside a woman's body. This is incomprehensible to me, and seems totally incompatible with egalitarianism.
Equal rights between parents is a great idea, but an embryo inside a woman is not the same as a child.
bringing gender into the matter seems extraneous to me.
A woman is just as much a full human being as a man and women's human right's should not be up for debate, so don't treat it as one.
much like we've seen in the whole LGBTTQQPPAA+ movements success in becoming mainstream in most of the civilized world in a few short decades.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always give a feminist an excuse to be offended."Also this, doing the ole "feminists are shrill and irrational in their complaints" bit.
So the argument for "women are treated unjustly by western society" boils down to "individual artists don't create art in the way we like it".I've been clear from the start that women are still discriminated against even in the west, AND it's made worse by the fact sexist media stereotypes makes the discrimination seem more acceptable to audiences,
Exactly, it's a bullying tactic as old as time. You insult and belittle someone, and ignore everything they say about why they are insulted about it,Quote"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always give a feminist an excuse to be offended."Also this, doing the ole "feminists are shrill and irrational in their complaints" bit.
How are equal rights between parents incompatible with egalitarianism? As there is a continued and increasing push to turn the process of raising children into an equal effort in order to free women from that particular burden and give them a fully equal footing in life, it seems to me that this should extend to all parts of a child's life.
WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.
At the risk of kindling an inflammatory subject - I can't think of any real-life situation where a man's claim to an unborn child overruling a woman's wouldn't lead to inhumane consequences. It's true that some men can develop an emotional connection to an unborn child and suffer from the loss, and women should be aware of this when making a decision. But it must be their decision.
I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.
You've basically spent all your time here trying to steer the conversation into inflammatory subjects and demanding proof that oppression exists whilst ignoring all links and explanations given to you.WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.
If you're looking for a private bubble where everyone blindly agrees with all you say and never challenges your views or ideas, then an open forum with everyone free to speak is probably not the right place.
I find the thread interesting, educating and in some parts most entertaining, and will be around if I see anything worth commenting on.
Exactly. Plus note how WHAM was huge on using "biological" arguments when it suited his stereotypes (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=ttbe07oi020ugsgoadgi3frg6k&topic=58758.msg636631330#msg636631330), but now, when there is a clear biological difference that weighs against his ideas, he ignores it. A woman has to gestate a fetus for months within her own body in order to carry a pregnancy to term, all a man has to do in order to conceive a child is to have sex; therefore it's absurd to argue that the father and mother should have equal say in the issue when only one of them is risking their life and health in a painful and risky process.I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.
Wait a minute, are we talking about effectively forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will? Because that's pretty much what I meant by "inhumane consequences".
This all comes back around to the whole legality-of-abortion question, to which there are varied different answers around the world, and thus no single right answer. The easy answer would be to just say "the mother has 100% control" and that's that, but it shuts out both the rights of the father to their mutually conceived child, as well as the rights of the child itself, if handled so simplistically. I used to be open to the idea of unrestricted abortion for women when I was younger, but have since read up more on the matter and now find it a far less simple a matter, and thus am no longer quite so open to the idea.Again, my right to my body should not be up for debate. And in countries where women's rights are taken away, the rights of LGBT people and other minorities often follow alongside them.
Cause I mean, why doesn't a man get a paternity leave, lol, be serious.
If this is your actual belief, I find it terrifying and appalling. If it's not, then you're a disingenuous troll.
At the risk of kindling an inflammatory subject -
I think many people have a blind spot on this because society treats men as the default in lots of situations, for example, an all-female cast with only one token guy in a film or book is exceptionally rare,
but stories with an all-male cast and just one woman are a dime a dozen and not treated as weird.
Is there an image missing in your reply? ???
Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.
I don't see the Smurf picture. I don't know if anyone else sees it either.Is there an image missing in your reply? ???
I see all of them... it's supposed to be Rescue Rangers, Spaceship Sagittarius, Ninja Turtles, Smurfs.
That's a great point, though I also think the need of many animators to make all main female characters pretty plays a role too, similar to how an animated guy supposed to be an "everyman" will be drawn to look different than a typical Disney prince, but animated girls and women meant to be regular people still look like typical Disney princesses, to the point even female animals will share the same facial shape as the princesses.Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.
I suppose that's because the man being the default, it's somewhat asexual. When you then want to build on that default to make it more feminine, there are no "masculine" features to remove... you just add "feminine" ones, making it look more like a human woman.
Fun thing there are a lot of italian old jokes about jews that talking with their hands!
(I guess Italians do tend to talk with their hands...)
I guess Jessica Rabbit is a bit of a have-your-cake-and-eat it ironic take on sexual objectification - she's not bad, she's "just drawn that way."She's one of the few examples that I think work, because she still comes across as a fully realized character, and her relationship to Roger Rabbitt feels genuinely heartwarming.
That's a great point, though I also think the need of many animators to make all main female characters pretty plays a role too, similar to how an animated guy supposed to be an "everyman" will be drawn to look different than a typical Disney prince, but animated girls and women meant to be regular people still look like typical Disney princesses, to the point even female animals will share the same facial shape as the princesses.
What you're talking about is particularly noticeable in The Animator's Survival Kit. If anyone hasn't got it, it's a marvellous and incredibly useful guide to character animation by Richard Williams (the animation director of Who Framed Roger Rabbit).
As a contrast, too many animated comedies has female characters that are nothing but crude fanservice, but tries to pretend it's parody, pretty much Poe's Law in action.
You already seem to be doing well in that regard! :)That's a great point, though I also think the need of many animators to make all main female characters pretty plays a role too, similar to how an animated guy supposed to be an "everyman" will be drawn to look different than a typical Disney prince, but animated girls and women meant to be regular people still look like typical Disney princesses, to the point even female animals will share the same facial shape as the princesses.
Yeah, I try to vary the types of women I draw and steer clear of blatant stereotypes, but it's true that I also have the tendency to make men more goofy and heavily caricatured, while women are more often at least *somewhat* pretty. It's something I'm happy to avoid though (note to self: make more ugly, silly-looking women :)). I wonder if female artists also do this - it seems to me that they do.
Tommy Wiseau claiming that "The Room" was
meant to be a comedy all along when people were laughing at the bad acting and weird script in his drama film.
But it's true that female artists do this too, since nearly all cartoons and animated media features women with a very narrow set of facial features and a Disney princess look, many people sadly seem to think that's the only way to draw women.
This blog post (https://turbomun.tumblr.com/post/80012362197/in-october-of-2012-i-was-enrolled-in-one-of-my) has a pretty well-written analysis about a female artist who realized she was doing it when pointed out to her, and goes on to explore why that is.
Well, the Disney villains have different nose shapes, jaw shapes and overall head shapes, and I don't see any big similarities outside of their "evil grin" facial expression. You gotta admit you could still tell them apart if they swapped costumes, right?But it's true that female artists do this too, since nearly all cartoons and animated media features women with a very narrow set of facial features and a Disney princess look, many people sadly seem to think that's the only way to draw women.
This blog post (https://turbomun.tumblr.com/post/80012362197/in-october-of-2012-i-was-enrolled-in-one-of-my) has a pretty well-written analysis about a female artist who realized she was doing it when pointed out to her, and goes on to explore why that is.
This is kind of funny, because when blog author compares villains and sais that they are more diverse, I on contrary see that they have mostly similar facial features (eye shape, mouth, facial expression), different mostly in fatness and skin colour; only exception is Frollo from "Notre Dame" (but then maybe it's a matter of finding a different scene where he looks more in tone with others).
And when she sais that "two male leads of Frozen look quite different", they look pretty similar to me. I mean, their eyes, chins, and facial expressions are practically copy/paste; maybe it's only that one has rounder face and wider nose?
On another hand seeing the comparison of early "frozen" character sketches to their final look makes me sad.
Disney surely love sticking to the stock character looks.
(But then, the last Disney "princess" cartoon I've seen was "Tangled" probably)
I was not arguing with your point, but made a casual observation on how these Disney characters look similar in general. Yes, they look pretty similar to me; it may be a subjective impression too. Don't know whether or not I could tell them apart in other circumstances, besides I don't know these characters very well. But that's not really important.Ok, I still don't really see how you think they are that visually similar apart from the typical evil smile and half-closed eyes. The red queen and Ursula both have chubby chins, but that's about the only thing those two have in common.
Ok, I still don't really see how you think they are that visually similar apart from the typical evil smile and half-closed eyes. The red queen and Ursula both have chubby chins, but that's about the only thing those two have in common.
What would you consider a good example of clearly different character designs?
Disney characters look similar because they are only interested in making money. So if Elsa is successful in bringing money, they will make every character look like Elsa because that's how they will make more money. And if there are similarities between villains it is because they identified those are the villains that are making money.Well, Disney also used to make a lot of money on films featuring racial caricatures, but stopped including those designs in their later films when enough people called them out on it.
Disney doesn't worth the conversations people have about them. They're just an awful and toxic organization that would do anything and its contrary for the sole purpose of making money. Don't talk about them like they are anything else than a big money machine. Everything they do has the same explanation: it was the best way to make money. Everything else about Disney is irrelevant.
Well, Disney also used to make a lot of money on films featuring racial caricatures, but stopped including those designs in their later films when enough people called them out on it.
No, they stopped doing racial caricatures because racial caricatures stopped bringing money and could actually cost money.
Indeed.No, they stopped doing racial caricatures because racial caricatures stopped bringing money and could actually cost money.
I don't know that this is accurate. Aladdin had several edits after it's release in response to criticism. (Not in terms of character design, which obviously, wouldn't be possible.) Similarly, no longer releasing Song of the South can't be said to have made them any money, but it has saved them from (I would say, valid) criticism. No one's praising Disney for doing the bare minimum, here.
They are filthy and should not be granted so much attention in the first place. The way we will stop looking at them as if they were some sort of important cultural landmark we will have done a great progress in humanity.Even if you think so, ignoring Disney will not make it go away, and it has had a huge cultural impact on western society whether you want it or not, and right now the best we can do as individuals is to call them out on problematic depictions to make them improve, even if Disney's just improving that stuff in order to avoid criticism.
Crimson Wizard: I think there's a difference in having similar expressions and similar faces. And the villains do change expressions in their respective films, if anything, they're often having more different expressions than the heroes.
Even if you think so, ignoring Disney will not make it go away, and it has had a huge cultural impact on western society whether you want it or not,
and right now the best we can do as individuals is to call them out on problematic depictions to make them improve, even if Disney's just improving that stuff in order to avoid criticism.
You are giving Disney way too much credit. And probably too much attention as well. Disney does not have the bravery to create trends, they follow them once they are deemed profitable enough. If you ever see Disney doing something progressive it is not because they genuinely support it, it is because it has become a better way to make money. Thus it means that trend is already established by other people who were more brave and less greedy than them. These should receive praise and attention, not Disney.
You are giving Disney way too much credit. And probably too much attention as well. Disney does not have the bravery to create trends, they follow them once they are deemed profitable enough. If you ever see Disney doing something progressive it is not because they genuinely support it, it is because it has become a better way to make money. Thus it means that trend is already established by other people who were more brave and less greedy than them. These should receive praise and attention, not Disney.
I don't know much about Disney's agenda (I just keep hearing they're evil, mostly from youtube critics), but you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. However power-hungry they may be, they still employ some genuinely talented, creative people. I loved The Lion King as a kid and I think they took some risks with that one, the death scene especially. I still have a soft spot for it, it's one of the things that got me into animation. Also Aladdin by the way, especially the platformer based on it - I would constantly pause it to see each animation frame :).
I'm sorry if any of my replies came off as confrontational, I didn't mean it to be. I was merely curious as to what similarities you saw and trying to elaborate my point, and I have no problem with anything you've said here.Crimson Wizard: I think there's a difference in having similar expressions and similar faces. And the villains do change expressions in their respective films, if anything, they're often having more different expressions than the heroes.
Sure thing. But I can assure you that there's no need to tell me this. I even feel akward having to discuss this, so much this is silly.
Speaking freely, it often seems like you think people are arguing with you unless they explicitly state they agree in their post. But I've already said before that was not arguing with your point. Of course I saw these princess characters are same (maybe using same 3D model).
I made a casual observation on how other Disney characters look similar, which seemed funny to me, in general and in context of that article. I tried to explain why, but that is really irrelevant, and in retrospect was not necessary. You are discussing serious things here and guess my comment was out of place. So, I apologize if this caused distraction.
There is no such thing as "western world". Your use of this term is cultural appropriation and ethnocentrism. This "western world" you are talking about includes plenty of rich and independent cultures that have nothing to do whatsoever with Anglo/Nordic/Protestant people and it is not appropriate of you to speak in their name. If you actually knew about these cultures you would know that in most of them, my opinion of Disney being a tacky entertainment of secondary importance is often the norm, and they do not see Disney as so omnipotent.Really?
And that's why, to me, I'd rather get people to set higher standards for their Disney entertainment to try and get them to go back to the artistic ideas that made them create timeless classics than do away with Disney entirely.You are giving Disney way too much credit. And probably too much attention as well. Disney does not have the bravery to create trends, they follow them once they are deemed profitable enough. If you ever see Disney doing something progressive it is not because they genuinely support it, it is because it has become a better way to make money. Thus it means that trend is already established by other people who were more brave and less greedy than them. These should receive praise and attention, not Disney.
I don't know much about Disney's agenda (I just keep hearing they're evil, mostly from youtube critics), but you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. However power-hungry they may be, they still employ some genuinely talented, creative people. I loved The Lion King as a kid and I think they took some risks with that one, the death scene especially. I still have a soft spot for it, it's one of the things that got me into animation. Also Aladdin by the way, especially the platformer based on it - I would constantly pause it to see each animation frame :).
true but sadly that was a long time ago :( Walt Disney himself was a great person and he was actually very daring and willing to experiment. That's how he was successful in the first place. But he is long gone. Disney as we know it today, 25 years after the Lion King, is much different.
Look at the last time they experimented with something new: the design of Hercules or the whole Treasure Planet thing. They made less money, so they stopped. Now everything they do smells like analytics and marketing. They had a strong commercial streak for a long time but now that's all they are about.
There is no such thing as "western world". Your use of this term is cultural appropriation and ethnocentrism. This "western world" you are talking about includes plenty of rich and independent cultures that have nothing to do whatsoever with Anglo/Nordic/Protestant people and it is not appropriate of you to speak in their name. If you actually knew about these cultures you would know that in most of them, my opinion of Disney being a tacky entertainment of secondary importance is often the norm, and they do not see Disney as so omnipotent.Really?
This is literally the first time ever that I had heard anyone having a problem with "the western world". It's a pretty well-established concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture), but also, I'd say that when I've travelled to different countries,
I did see more cultural similarities in Spain, Germany and the USA than I did between India, Thailand and Nepal, especially in terms of what media was consumed and advertised.
I have family who live in both Germany and Spain (and some who have lived both places), and of course there are cultural similarities. There are aspects of German culture (in some regions, anyway) that are more similar to Spanish culture than to, say, Scandinavian culture. (I'm thinking of things like Catholicism, aspects of academia and the role of public intellectuals in media discourse, and lots of small things like even the sort of magazines that are sold.)
That's not to say that there aren't also differences, but these things are all relative. Is German and Spanish culture as different as German and Bangladeshi culture, for example? Do you think you face as much discrimination as an immigrant from outside "the western world"?