#Sexism in Games
29 messages in this thread
What do you mean by sexism? If you mean that software company's have
recognized that their audience is by vast majority male and have marketed
their games accordingly, then yes it does exist. But if you mean that
their is a bias against the female consumer, then I disagree with you.
Later, Jim
Jim,
What's the difference between "marketing games toward a predominantly
male audience" and "a bias against the female consumer"? It's true that I
have never known a game company to turn down my money; if I want to buy
their games, whether or not they're "intended" for women, they won't stop
me. But to answer your question: Neither of those examples you offered is
sexism. Sexism (you asked what *I* meant by it) has to do with the way
males and females are portrayed in a game. If all females are macho and
all males are dishrags, that's sexist. This has nothing to do with whether
games should be biased toward one gender or the other; the original
question was "what do you prefer?"
— Mary
Hi Mary –
I submit that they're marketing games TO a predominately male audience (in
other words, that's the market… you make the games to fit).
That's why it can't be called "a bias against the female consumer". OTOH,
if suddenly a large part of the computer game market became composed of
females, then you can bet companies would be scrambling to market to them.
Actually, most would like to do that now… but no one's figured out the
key to likeable games for women/girls.
I totally agree with you however, that a game with ALL males acting one
way, and ALL female characters acting another…. can be dull. Depending on
the game. best – kev
Kevin,
It seems to me that a bias *toward* one pole is a bias *against* its
opposite. But then, that subsumes that there are only two poles. How many
sexes is the human race alleged to have now? Five? Seven? Depends upon
whom one believes, I suppose….
— Mary
Mary,
I dunno. I like salty foods one day, sugary the next. Bias towards one at
certain times doesn't always entail bias against the other… I might even
want sweet and salty at the same time <grin>.
Or to put it another way: bias towards one pole does not mean malice
towards the other.
best – kev
Kevin,
My message didn't imply "malice", either.
— Mary
Hmmmmm. I detect a peculiar two valued logic system here. "bias
*toward* one pole is a bias *against* its opposite". Maybe, but ONLY if
the word 'opposite' is correct.
If I admit a bias *toward* males make me *against* women? I think not.
Suppose I add a simple word 'human'. Suppose I admit a bias *toward*
_human_ males. Maybe I'm just xenophobic? Nah, that's not (intellectually)
likely…dunno haven't met any 'aliens' in the flesh yet.
I'm astonished that you still consider man/woman as "opposites". Yeah,
I know, common usage 'opposite sex' and all that. But don't you see, it's
phrases like "opposite sex" that have us all confused.
I should point out that for many years I used the phrase, and it wasn't
until a young lady pointed out that 'other sex' was perhaps more
appropriate that I started using it…and probably got away from the
semantic trap of the phrase 'opposite sex'.
_We_ (males, females) DO have a lot more in common than differences…
opposite is just NOT the right word.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Vic,
I think I implied that "male" and "female" are not the only two sexes in
the human race. Let's stay out of semantics, shall we?
— Mary
Well, ok, but if the meanings (both denotive and connotive) of the words
we use aren't of interest, how are we going to know what the other is
saying?
I think what I was trying to say in that message is that perhaps the
connotive meaning of 'opposite sex' is, in fact, the root cause of a lot of
the problems you were addressing (yes, I agree there _are_ problems…just
in case I forgot to make myself pelucidly clear).
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Vic,
Okay, that does make sense (and it beats being sniped at). And I'm in
tentative agreement with your second paragraph. Perhaps "opposite" in this
case denotes the other half of a whole, though I'm aware that this is not
its historical meaning.
— Mary
I'm in complete agreement that 'opposite' _in this case_ denotes other
half. A _problem_ is that 'opposite' _normally_ means….well, opposite,
opposed, etc. Such that if we're 'for A' we're against 'opposite of A'.
When we stop to think about it (and recognize that 'opposite' has a special
meaning here) we don't have a problem. Unfortunately the normal connotive
meaning of 'opposite' goes right past the cognitive process and straight to
the 'gut'…and we get reactions based on the 'gut'. I _have_ noticed that
when I use the phrase 'other sex' people generally stop to think about what
I said (no automatic response to the phrase)….and I think that is
probably good (i.e. thinking before reacting).
For more along these lines there is: A.E. vanVogt (Null-A series
(cortical-thalamic pause, etc.) (light SciFi)), Count Korzibsky (sp) (Non
Aristotolian thinking (a VERY tough read, IMHO)) and Hiakawa (also sp)
(General Semantics (very readable)).
Reading (and even mostly understanding) these books hasn't kept me from
reacting without thinking to words, but they _have_ helped me recognize how
much of a fool I've been right AFTER I've made a complete * out of myself
<smmiiille>.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Vic,
Personally, I like to communicate with people without having to explain
the process by which I communicate.
— Mary
Not to argue at all on this point, I'd just like to call to attention a
mistake we commonly make in our language that helps add to the
'confusion'…. "…the only two sexes in the human race…" you of course
mean "… the only two sexes in the human _species_…".
I know that's semantics, I don't want to argue about it, it's just that I
have this quirk about keeping species/race separate.
–Eet–
Jim,
You said you didn't want to argue, so I won't.
— Mary
Gee, and I thought *I* was picky! <grin>. – kev
If males and females are portrayed in a certain stereotypical manner that
is NOT sexism. There is no exploitation or degradation of women, by having
a game in which the Hero rescues a Princess. Get Real. If men are
portrayed as warriors and women as Damsels, what you're saying is that the
women should have equal opportunity to be warriors as well. Sorry but that
simply Was not an option in the Middle Ages.
Simply because women have started to break out of traditional societal
Norms in the past 25 years, does not change the history of mankind! Women
have been subserviant to men since time began, right or wrong, and no
amount of accusations of "Unfair" will change that fact, or the differences
in men and women which caused the traditional roles to shape.
Later, Jim
Uh, Jim. Sexism is *precisely* about stereotypes. And why in the world
should a *fantasy* game have to be bound by so-called history? As for "get
real"… I'm trying to describe the kind of game *I* would spend my 'real'
bucks on. I am not even attempting to define what all games 'should' be.
There are zillions of very successful games that I personally do not care
to play. That's as should be. — Mary
Mary,
Probably not too happy with "Liesure Suite Larry" right?
…Dave
Dave,
I don't see any reason why I should shell out that much money for a game
I can only play once.
— Mary
Mary,
Hopefully not too many shelled out anything for it.
…Dave
Hmmn… (I'm about to defend Leisure Suit Larry… Oh well, so much for
credibility…) Me, I bought both the original LSL and LSL III, and
enjoyed both of them immensely. Were they sexist? Definately. On
purpose. But that wasn't the point of the games. They made fun of sex,
and sexism, and male-female relationships in general. And did a wonderful
job of it, IMHO.
I've shelled out quite a bit of money for innumerable games, and most of
them weren't worth it. But LSL (and even moreso, LSL III) was more than
worth it, IMHO. (Oh, and who says you can't play them more than once? It
took me about 30 hours of playing to finish LSL III, after which I ran
through the whole thing again just for the fun of it, which took about 5
hours…) (I've spent far less time, total, with most games which are
*designed* to be played over and over again…)
–>Steve Bennett
Steve,
I think LSL is a chuckle! Haven't seen III. Actually I'm a person who
takes shots at everyone, consider homosexuals, women, honkies, Jews,
everyone is fare game. I think if they want to play they should take thier
lumps like everyone else.
…Dave
Uh, Mary. Sexism is *precisely* about HARMFUL, EXPLOITIVE stereotypes. As
for your "only trying to describe the kind of games you want to
play"…does labeling current successful games "SEXIST" constitute your
personal, fallible opinion? I see it more as a direct attempt to dictate
the future of the gaming for the rest of us. Let your boycott of these
wrongfully labeled "SEXIST" games, speak for itself.
Later, Jim
Excuse me, Jim. I haven't labeled *any* games "sexist". Nor have I said
that "sexism" would necessarily stop me from buying — or enjoying — a
particular game. I have offered nothing but my *own* preferences, and I
have said this repeatedly. My preferences *do* speak for myself, and
whether you agree with my preferences or not means nothing to me. — Mary
_somebody_ in this thread made a description of a supposedly 'sexist' game,
and the description fit DotC to a tee. If it wasn't you, I apologize for
mistakenly thinking it was you. I certainly would expect to disagree with
your preferences, even if only a little. We're two different people <grin>.
However, I shall defend to your death your right to state your preferences
🙂 –Eet–
Defender of the Crown was not about fantasy, tho. No magick. No Elves. No
Giants. No Fairies. No Grues. No wands, amulets, spells or other
accutrements associated with fantasy worlds. The game was based on an
historical theme. Oversimplified, I grant you. However, I see your point
about describing the kind of game you _would_ play. (I think the
history/fantasy argument grew out of you (?) stating an example that was
obviously DotC.) –Eet–
Jim,
Me? I neither own, nor have I ever played, Defender of the Crown.
— Mary
This whole thread sounds very familiar to me. Fantasy books started about
where the games are today. In the late 70's and early 80's there were many
backlash books writen by feminist which were equaly bad in the opposite
direction. Now a large number of the stories have outgrown both view, and
provide much better stories allowing variability of humans, but not aimed
near as much at a specific gender as an audience.
As to why the state of the games is as it is now. 1. The majority of
the programers are male. 2. The majority of the game players are male. 3.
Because the most of the games are male oriented, more men than women will
enjoy them, and therfore buy them, causing 2 to be self-perpetuating.
The future probably will involve the same path as fantasy books.
Gary
Uhm… no, there have been times in the past when women achieved (near)
social 'equality' with men… usually just before the collapse of the given
society. One of the objections I have to the new Star Trek series is that
everyone there seems to be some sort of stereotype. Most people don't fit
entirely within their given (chosen?) stereotypes in real life.
–Eet–