Anita Sarkeesian

[Spice_Weasel]

@Bricker

If this is so, can someone explain why we seem to now entertain the notion that “rescue the female” video games DO have a significant effect on real-life attitudes with respect to women being objects of rescue?

Real life aside, what do you think it’s like as a gamer to see a trope over and over where your gender is relegated to a prop for someone else’s fantasy?

I’m serious. I pay my $50 same as anyone else, when does it get to be my fantasy?

Why is saying, ‘‘I’d like my goddamn $50 worth’’ so controversial? Some Gamergate dudes whine about women taking over, but we make up anywhere between 40-50% of the market share depending on what platform you’re talking about, and no, it’s not because we’re playing different types of games.

Do you know how many times I’ve seen gamers whine about not getting their way? Shit, I remember when Diablo 3 did an anniversary XP/Gold Bonus for at least a solid 7 days and people still took the time to log into Blizzard and whine about how the totally free and apropos of nothing thing could have been so much better.

But god forbid a woman asks for more strong characters to play in the games we shell out money for! We’re taking over! Waaaahh!

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Great_Antibob

I didn’t really say that (or at least I didn’t mean to), but nuance is really hard to express online.

I stated that violent games don’t create violence. And that’s true. The evidence is solid on that. But they can bring expression to what violence is already there to begin with.

I’m not entirely clear on what you mean by this.

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I understand and respect women?

The point I was trying to make is not that games or media create these attitudes but they perpetuate attitudes that are already there.

It doesn’t shock us when the hero of a game has to save his girl from the bad guys. But it’s considered a subversion of the genre if a female character (non-sexualized at that) does the same for a man. It feels wrong at some level to many people. That means the attitude exists, even if we can’t express just why.

And I don’t find that attitude applies to me. What’s more, who’s to say how many people find it effective?

@Frylock

But as you say in your description of the link, she’s not critiquing the game, she’s critiquing the ad campaign. Since gameplay isn’t an element of the campaign, how is it relevant to the validity of her criticisms?

Because if that had been Zelda, or Samus, or Peach, or one of the DOA Volleyball chicks, the message and the campaign would have been different. This is Bayonetta we’re talking about here. This is a woman who wields her sexuality like a cudgel. It would be easy to make this predatory with other characters, but everything about Bayonetta tells us that this is something she would probably do, and be into. Calling that an invitation to molest women or whatever she said (I should go rewatch the video) is beyond stupid. Yes, we’re being invited to strip this woman. The context heavily implies that the one inviting it is the woman. That’s hardly rape.

Or is she saying things about the game itself and not just the campaign?

At the start of the video. It’s quite phenomenally stupid.

I am not clear about the meaning of this. What would be an example of a work that tries to rock this angle and fails to do so in a way that invites valid feminist critique?

I’m not sure of another example that tries, tbh. I hear Lollipop Chainsaw comes close… An example that fails would be one where they fail to characterize the protagonist and just fall into sheer pandering.

But there is more than one context that applies. With an ad campaign, for example, lots and lots and lots of people who see the campaign are never going to play the game (probably the majority fits this description).

That’s fair, I guess.

@YogSosoth

Somewhere in her videos, she does have a short animation about what would constitute a strong female character. Its a game about a princess who waits for a rescue that doesn’t come, then breaks out herself and tracks down the people who imprisoned her. She subverts many of the sexist tropes by explaining that male characters are usually empowered as the instrument of their own agency, as this princess would show by breaking out of imprisonment herself, and takes into her own hands the responsibility for her freedom and security. This wouldn’t be controversial with a male character, but not enough games have a female character do this.

Huh. See, if I apply her own critique of things like True Grit to that situation, I see exactly the same thing: a female character adopting “male traits” to seem righteous.

Do you disagree that traits are gender-disparate inherently or disagree that people see them as such? Because I can agree with the former but not the latter. Strong, aggressive, assertive, etc. are often cited as masculine traits, its no great controversy to state that. I do not see what she says as wrong, perhaps I’ve misunderstood you?

I think they are different, but not nearly to the degree people ascribe them. And yes, they are seen as such. But the solution to this is for more female characters “adopting “male traits””, not less. It’s to shout to the hilltops, “This disparity is bullshit!”. Especially when you consider how harmful these prejudices are.

What is your objection to this video?

By and large? The way the objections to the ad campaign hinge at least partially on a complete lack of interest in Bayonetta as a character, for one. The way she basically writes off the game and the character at the start of the video, as if we were talking about a ditzy blank slate bimbo and a DOA beach volleyball clone, rather than a complex, multifaceted, empowered character and a really solid action-adventure “spectacle fighter”. It shows a complete lack of interest in the media in question.

[MyFootsZZZ]

@Bridget_Burke

I’m not in any way a gamer, but just being on the 'net has let me read some of the threats Sarkeesian (& Zoe Quinn) received from those mouth breathing misogynists. Surely they don’t represent all (or even most) male gamers, but I’d like to hear what the OP has to say about* them*. (Not those “feminist” critics he’s mentioned. And, not, I’m not going to click on random YouTube links.)

Hey, I do know Felicia Day:

What does this mean to somebody so eager to emphasize that women tend to be physically weaker than men?

I only emphasized that because it’s factually wrong… THAT’S *IF *SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL STRENGTH. Anyone threatening anyone who’s using their freedom to say what they want, with physical violence is scum. Of course that’s more important than Sarkeesian’s videos themselves. I thought it was covered in the gamergate thread.

[MyFootsZZZ]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I think the biggest question I have is, does Anita ever describe what she would consider to be a “good female character”? I’m not entirely convinced that such a character could exist.

See this is where I suck at this type of thing; I was wondering the same exact thing. I should have said this, but I just didn’t think of it.

I agree games are sexist, but I would love to hear of a female game character that she does approve of.

I also liked the articles linked.

I do credit her with dialog about sexism in games.

Edit. I’m about to watch the videos again right now, using Feminist Frequency. I will keep an open mind.

[YogSothoth]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I think they are different, but not nearly to the degree people ascribe them. And yes, they are seen as such. But the solution to this is for more female characters “adopting “male traits””, not less. It’s to shout to the hilltops, “This disparity is bullshit!”. Especially when you consider how harmful these prejudices are.

Don’t you think its a problem that people see them as such, and even you admit they are seen as different? Shouldn’t “aggressive” be gender-neutral? Shouldn’t “strong” be equally applied to both men and women? The only way people don’t see it neutrally is because of existing societal mores, which are reflected in and reinforced by portrayals of men and women in games.

You say your solution is more females adopting male characteristics, why not the other way around?

@Budget_Player_Cadet

By and large? The way the objections to the ad campaign hinge at least partially on a complete lack of interest in Bayonetta as a character, for one. The way she basically writes off the game and the character at the start of the video, as if we were talking about a ditzy blank slate bimbo and a DOA beach volleyball clone, rather than a complex, multifaceted, empowered character and a really solid action-adventure “spectacle fighter”. It shows a complete lack of interest in the media in question.

I won’t disagree that the character of Bayonetta as envisioned by her creators is a hypersexualized but active and willing participant in her sexuality. But to attribute that to the character, which is basically a creation, is wrong. Instead, people should be asking what is the character Bayonetta’s purpose in being created as such an object of sexuality? Why can’t her creators have made her less sexualized? Why did they make her the way she is?

Anita doesn’t ignore the media to criticize her. In fact, I don’t think she’s technically criticizing Bayonetta at all, she criticizing her creators for making her that way. That’s why her story and action figure status means nothing, these were all carefully crafted by those (presumably) men for a specific purpose. The ad in the subway? Yeah, maybe the character Bayonetta would be fine with that if she were real. But she’s not, all we know is that her creators are fine if people see her that way. Is it because they want real women to feel its ok to use their bodies like that? Is it because they think real women should use their bodies like that? Or influence women to do that with that bodies? I don’t know, but it would be weird to see Kratos or even Duke Nukem like that wouldn’t it?

[Zebra]

@Great_Antibob

Didn’t read much of the thread at all, did you?

One of the theses involved is that pre-existing attitudes towards women contribute to gamemakers creating “damsel in distress” situations in the first place.

Rather than the games creating the situation, the argument is that these already existing attitudes are reflected in games and aid in normalizing such attitudes going forward.

They don’t create misogynist attitudes. But they can reinforce pre-existing misogynist attitudes in society, particularly in young men and women to consider it “normal”, just as violent games don’t create violence but can, in the minds of psychologically troubled people, reinforce what’s already there. Few people consider physically violent attacks to be “normal” but we’re inundated with “damsel in distress” stories all our lives, from fairy tales onwards. That’s “normal” to us, though we’re recognizing that maybe it shouldn’t be so normal.

Why is it the duty of games to change society into the way that Sarkeesian, or anybody else, wants it to be?

These are products. Products are designed for their consumers. If their consumers are sexist, then the product must be sexist. Like Hooters or Playboy, they play to their audience. Fortunately the ‘gamer’ audience is a wide one. Some of them enjoy games that don’t have sexism as an element. And there are games that reflect this world view. Parents of young children should be careful in what their children play to make sure they games reflect the values they want their children to have. And if that value is that they think men are smarter, stronger and braver than women, well, that’s their right.

[Great_Antibob]

@Zebra

Why is it the duty of games to change society into the way that Sarkeesian, or anybody else, wants it to be?

And who said it should be?

The claim is that games reflect existing underlying misogynist attitudes. And they do.

@Zebra

These are products. Products are designed for their consumers. If their consumers are sexist, then the product must be sexist.

Bullshit of the first stripe.

And if their target consumers were raging racists who advocated lynching all blacks from the nearest tree, their products can acceptably reflect this view?

Or if their target consumers were neo-Nazis, they could express any/all antisemitic content they want?

Bullshit again.

Their targets are not misogynists. Their target consumers are gamers, who reflect a wide swath of society. And that wide swath is not especially racist or misogynist or anything else. Some subset may be, but those guys are assholes who deserve to have whole pineapples repeated shoved in uncomfortable places.

Worse, it’s backwards. Once again, my argument isn’t that products are designed around a deliberately misogynist message but that misogynist attitudes are easily expressed and perpetuated by people who don’t actually know or think they’re doing so.

@Zebra

Like Hooters or Playboy, they play to their audience.

Bullshit, again.

If you want to make “Misogyny the Game”, no problem. At least put it out there. You are making it clear what’s up.

For every Playboy or Hooters, there are a hundred “Time” or “Life” or “Reader’s Digest” or “McDonald’s” or “Chili’s” or whatever. If those magazines and restaurants suddenly featured scantily clad women, I imagine you’d see a pretty big backlash, too.

The point of Playboy and Hooters is that they don’t hide their design.

@Zebra

And if that value is that they think men are smarter, stronger and braver than women, well, that’s their right.

Except they don’t, at least publicly.

What does it say that you have to create out of whole cloth these game developers who are out and out misogynists? The actual game developers aren’t. They just have hidden assumptions and attitudes they may not have adequately considered. And that’s a problem.

Race was and is similar. A lot of older people are racists who don’t think they’re particularly racist and would be horrified to be considered so.

Likewise, a lot of game developers and gamers don’t think their attitudes and behaviors are particularly misogynist and would be horrified to be considered so, even if they actually are.

[Merneith]

@Bricker

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex issue…

…do we generally agree that violent video games do not have any significant effect on real-life violence?

If this is so, can someone explain why we seem to now entertain the notion that “rescue the female” video games DO have a significant effect on real-life attitudes with respect to women being objects of rescue?

It’s the same as with sexist and racist jokes. Telling racist jokes or laughing at racist jokes does cause non-racist people to become racists. However, standing idly by while racists tell racist jokes contributes to a society in which racism is normalized and allowed to flourish unchecked.

If the game world was rife with racist imagery - if all the brothels and stripper bars used as background settings were swapped for black slave markets, and the only females you encounter were sex workers or Mammies - people would rightly wonder what the hell was going on and maybe it would be nice to branch out a bit.

And, of course, Anita Sarkeesian would still be getting death threats from people for challenging the status quo.

Which brings us to Zebra - the point is twofold.

1. The audience, as a whole, is not sexist. They are certainly sexists who play games but there’s no reason all the games have to cater to them. Non-sexists enjoy games, too.

2. All Sarkeesian and others are saying is that it’s appropriate to consider and challenge the artistic merits of games in the same way we do other art forms.

[MyFootsZZZ]

Ok, right away she talks about Dinosaur Planet.

This is taken from the site:

A Critique of “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”

Which says it a lot better than I could.

**"The first game she spoke about was Dinosaur Planet, a game that was later cancelled and turned into Starfox Adventures. Anita uses this as one of the largest examples in her first video, claiming that “the tale of how Krystal went from protagonist of her own epic adventure illustrates how the Damsel-in-Distress trope disempowers female characters and robs them of the chance to be heroes in their own right.” When speaking of how Dinosaur Planet was transformed into Starfox Adventures, Anita mentions that Miyamoto “joked about how he thought it should be the third installment in his Star Fox franchise.” If you do a bit of research and you find the exact interview that she’s referencing, however, the relevant point in the interview where they are discussing the game makes it appear as though Miyamoto is more interested in how visually similar the game is to Star Fox, rather than just wanting to take over a completely unrelated game for no reason and turn it into another Star Fox game. To be fair to Miyamoto, it’s easy to see the resemblance between Sabre and Fox McCloud. It’s also much less risky from an investor standpoint to reinvest in currently existing and successful intellectual property rather than to launch a completely new title. All that being said, I don’t think it’s fair to use this as a prime example of a woman being “robbed” of her ability to star in a game, rather it was a prudent business decision to sell more video games by continuing the Star Fox franchise.

Another point in Star Fox Adventures that she criticized was how Fox McCloud ogled the now “Damsel in Distress.” While I agree that this part is pretty cringe-worthy, I take issue with two things. Firstly, she edited the video clip to make it look worse than it actually is (here it is in its entirety). If you’re going to be criticizing something, especially in regards to a topic as controversial as sexism, editing your videos to strengthen your argument is usually a bad idea. Regardless, even the unedited video is pretty bad. Secondly, however, the reason why this video is objectionable has more to do with the ogling/objectification of Krystal as a character rather than her being a “Damsel in Distress,” which makes her rather irrelevant to this topic."**

Here is a link to the interview mentioned:

Interview: Miyamoto and Aonuma - IGN

“Miyamoto: It looks really nice, doesn’t it? I wish they would Star Fox characters so that they could use the title Star Fox Adventures. Maybe I should call the team and talk about it [laughs].”

This is a link to the video she showed on her Youtube in it’s entirety:

- YouTube

It’s not a BIG deal, no. She didn’t say anything technically “wrong”, but she didn’t really present the WHOLE story. It’s as if she thinks they took Crystal out as a playable character BECAUSE she was a woman, when it was really a decision to make the game utilize an existing popular franchise. I don’t know if I agree with the part that says:

“Secondly, however, the reason why this video is objectionable has more to do with the ogling/objectification of Krystal as a character rather than her being a “Damsel in Distress,” which makes her rather irrelevant to this topic.”

That part of this person’s argument I don’t care about so much. This is the FIRST game she mentions. I’ll keep watching…

She mentions Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA), which she claims Peach or Princess Toadstool is a playable character by accident. This may be true, it should be noted though that the game it came from, (Doki Doki Panic in Japan) had two female characters to play from. The other female character turned into Luigi. And this was also a game that Miamoto was involved in. It should also be noted, (not attacking her videos here, just a random fact), shortly after these videos were made, Nintendo released Super Mario 3D World that has two female playable characters; Peach and Rosalina.

I’ll keep watching…

Likening Princess Peach to a ball, (not the opposing team), she claims that both Mario and Bowser are trying to take “possession of the ball”. That’s pretty presumptuous to speculate what Bowser and (especially) Mario see women as a possession. She also says that bad guys take girlfriends, sisters and wives, and the hero must then retrieve their “possession”. That’s like saying; “Someone STOLE my girlfriend, and she BELONGS to me”… that’s also reading into what a main male hero is thinking way too much, as if the HEROS of these games see women as “the ball”. Are they supposed to say; “Well, my girlfriend got kidnapped, she’s an individual so I’m going to wait until she escapes from the clutches of the bad guy”.

That said; Saving the princess IS getting old, and IS sexist. So is the game Princess Peach stars in, which Sarkeesian says she will talk about later. Though I know what she’s going to say about the game, and I did the first time I watched her videos… I remember buying the game and thinking it was sexist…

I’m still watching…

If anyone has anything to add to what I’ve already said; feel free… I’m keeping an open mind here, and I know I’m not perfect.

It’s just that when she only gives you part of the story, it makes people who are familiar with these games say:

“HEY! YOU’RE NOT BEING 100% HONEST.”

IMHO, it doesn’t matter if she got some things wrong, or perhaps didn’t tell the whole story. She’s right in her opinion, (at least, So far), but it just leaves room for anti-feminists and MRA’s to nitpick all the things that she left out.

[Bricker]

@Spice_Weasel

Oh, fuck. Here I go. I know this is a losing battle, but… just…

There are two extremist ways of thinking about violence in video games.

1. Violence in video games causes violence in reality, and is a horrible, awful thing that should be banned.
2. Nothing we see or do in the mainstream media has any effect on any of us whatsoever, and all concerns raised are hysterical hand-wringing.

Can we not understand that there’s an excluded middle here?

Full disclosure: my husband and I are both enthusiastic gamers.

My husband used to work in the aggression lab at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. During that time he assisted in a longitudinal study on the effects of violent media on juvenile offenders.

To quote the abstract:
This was many years ago, but the gist is that children in violent environments have a higher chance of aggressive and/or violent behavior if they are exposed to violent media. That is not to say that violence in video games is a direct cause, absent any other factors, of violent behavior, but that it is a critical factor for children who are already at risk.

Ok. That’s one study. I have seen or heard referenced at least 15 studies off the top of my head that show a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior, particularly in children. Notice I did not say ‘‘violent’’ behavior. Playing a violent video game may increase the odds that you will act like a bully or an asshole, particularly if your aggression is retaliatory (in response to a perceived slight.) And in most cases these are controlled laboratory environments so standard caveats apply.

Among the things we generally seem to understand based on this research:

1. The more a person identifies with the character, the more pronounced the impact on aggressive behavior. So, something like GTA may have a higher impact than an RPG where you are a half-orc mage or something.
2. Children say they understand that things aren’t real, but their behavior contradicts that supposed understanding.
3. Our society has a major problem with retaliatory aggression. When we perceive that we have been wronged, we are more likely than ever to significantly escalate aggressive behavior. See: Gamergate. See: Road rage.

Incidentally, I have another friend whose study found that women who play violent video games engage in more pro-social behavior - which would be a surprising reversal, no? Her theory is women are overcompensating for violating social norms by behaving more nicely IRL. I’m not sure I agree with the theory.

Now, as I understand it there are plenty of studies that don’t indicate a link and I am not familiar enough with them to critique their methodology, but my point is, people need to stop acting like this is a totally stupid obvious foregone conclusion that violent media doesn’t contribute in some way to human attitudes and behaviors in the social environment.

There is nothing in the history of social research or the study of human behavior that would suggest that people are not influenced by the things they see and hear in the broader social context. The exact opposite is the case. For violence in media, for depictions of race, for idealized body images, for stereotypes, for anything. That video games would merit some kind of special exclusion from the general rule is really the truly bizarre argument here.

Ok. Provisionally accepting this, isn’t this a good reason to impose more stringent limits on violence in video games?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Ok. Provisionally accepting this, isn’t this a good reason to impose more stringent limits on violence in video games?

Doesn’t the first amendment prevent this? Unless you’re talking about voluntary rules.

[Zebra]

@Great_Antibob

And who said it should be?

The claim is that games reflect existing underlying misogynist attitudes. And they do.

Then what are we arguing about? Is Sarkeesian merely stating that water is wet? Is she not advocating some sort of change take place?

And if their target consumers were raging racists who advocated lynching all blacks from the nearest tree, their products can acceptably reflect this view?

Or if their target consumers were neo-Nazis, they could express any/all antisemitic content they want?

Well, actually they can, freedom of speech and all that. I doubt that it would sell very well.

Their targets are not misogynists. Their target consumers are gamers, who reflect a wide swath of society. And that wide swath is not especially racist or misogynist or anything else. Some subset may be, but those guys are assholes who deserve to have whole pineapples repeated shoved in uncomfortable places.

Then GAMERS need to stop buying this sort of game. Then the industry will change. So long as they are willing to plunk down $50 for something, that thing will be made again and again.

Worse, it’s backwards. Once again, my argument isn’t that products are designed around a deliberately misogynist message but that misogynist attitudes are easily expressed and perpetuated by people who don’t actually know or think they’re doing so.
(edited)

For every Playboy or Hooters, there are a hundred “Time” or “Life” or “Reader’s Digest” or “McDonald’s” or “Chili’s” or whatever. If those magazines and restaurants suddenly featured scantily clad women, I imagine you’d see a pretty big backlash, too.

The point of Playboy and Hooters is that they don’t hide their design.

Except they don’t, at least publicly.

What does it say that you have to create out of whole cloth these game developers who are out and out misogynists? The actual game developers aren’t. They just have hidden assumptions and attitudes they may not have adequately considered. And that’s a problem.

Race was and is similar. A lot of older people are racists who don’t think they’re particularly racist and would be horrified to be considered so.

Likewise, a lot of game developers and gamers don’t think their attitudes and behaviors are particularly misogynist and would be horrified to be considered so, even if they actually are.

misogynist by your and Ms. Sarkeesian’s standards.

I’m not creating anything. So what are we arguing now. That the misogyny in the games is all sub-conscious. It’s not their fault? It’s just there? Again what is the point of her videos.

Is she just discussing ‘games’ like any other form of media? The thing with that, when you look at art and you start to talk about it, sometimes, most times, you end up only talking about yourself. Not the art at all. Is there sexism everywhere she looks or does she see sexism everywhere because of something in her.

For example, Princess saving. Why does the hero look at the Princess as a possession. The Villain does. Why can’t the hero’s motivation simply be, “Ummm Kidnapping is bad m’kay. And I’m not going to let that stand.” Sarkeesian doesn’t think so. She doesn’t seem to think that maybe, just maybe, the hero is being, you know, heroic. Putting the needs of others before his own.

Now if Bowser would kidnap some male would Mario go help that guy? Would people play that game.
Again, if GAMERS don’t want this in games anymore, then stop buying them. There are all kinds of games out there. Some don’t even have GENDER in them.

[Zebra]

@Merneith

Which brings us to Zebra - the point is twofold.

1. The audience, as a whole, is not sexist. They are certainly sexists who play games but there’s no reason all the games have to cater to them. Non-sexists enjoy games, too.

2. All Sarkeesian and others are saying is that it’s appropriate to consider and challenge the artistic merits of games in the same way we do other art forms.

I fully agree with both points. If the audience doesn’t want it, they should not buy it. Nobody forces this on anyone.

Again, any art criticism has the problem of the critics own personal point of view being illustrated and not the artist.
I’ve watched many of her videos. They are interesting and I think she is a very intelligent woman. I’m a very casual gamer so I haven’t played most of the games she has talked about. Maybe a few sessions at a friends house for some of the games. There is a reason I don’t play games, I don’t like them. (especially the sexist ones) Plus they are expensive and really time consuming.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I have no beef with her second video. I don’t think I saw it the first time I watched her videos, but it’s quite disturbing that video games have gotten so violent, let alone the fact that they are sexist as well. I looked up some sites that try to pick apart this video entry, but all I found were arguments that I don’t agree to.

I’m going to stop watching now, but I will pick up where I left off at a later date.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Bricker

Ok. Provisionally accepting this, isn’t this a good reason to impose more stringent limits on violence in video games?

As a general rule I don’t think ‘‘there is some evidence that this may affect certain attitudes and behaviors’’ is a good enough reason for censorship. Social psych can suggest some very broad stroke theories about human behavior, but the number of potentially mitigating factors in the real world application of said theories is enormous.

It’s certainly a good enough reason to talk about it though. Awareness not just of the broad themes of violence that saturate our culture, but of the complexities involved, will no doubt shape our decisions about the types of media we support and consume.

I can’t see how that’s not a good thing.

And of course I’m making this argument because you want to draw a parallel between violence in video games and women in video games. If discussing violence in video games is worthwhile then by your logic it would stand to reason that discussing women in video games is also worthwhile.

[QUOTE=Zebra]
I fully agree with both points. If the audience doesn’t want it, they should not buy it. Nobody forces this on anyone.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s not forget that roughly half of the people buying these games are, in fact, women. I don’t think it’s quite so simple as ‘‘if women don’t want so many games with weak women, they shouldn’t buy them’’ because for a lot of us that means choosing to play an otherwise awesome game with themes we may find uninspiring or to not play anything at all. It’s not like there’s an abundance of variety within sub genres of games.

Take my favorite genre, RPGs. I promise you, if you buy an RPG, there is a 99% chance you are going to spend some time slaying rats and smashing cardboard crates. Gameplay or storyline might vary but by and large there are themes recycled over and over and over with a few notable exceptions (that I can’t even think of right now.) As irritating as it is to slay rats and smash crates in every single goddamn RPG game I play, it’s not so irritating that it doesn’t make playing the game worthwhile, given those are my only option if I want to play an RPG. Obviously I would jump all over the chance to play something more original, were it available to me. Do you see what I mean? My choice is to play something with a tired theme or play nothing at all.

The only game in which I found the portrayal of women repugnant enough to cease gameplay was The Witcher, because you got to collect cards for having sex with the women NPCs and it was creepy and awful.

I’m still pretty pissed off about that because I was enjoying all other aspects of the game.

Honestly I think this whole ‘‘feminist deconstruction of video games’’ thing might be better expressed as ‘‘I’m a gamer who isn’t having as much fun as I could be having.’’

Seems like that’s a thing the gaming community might understand.

[Spice_Weasel]

Oh, I should also add, you can do a fair amount of research into a game before you buy it, but ultimately it’s caveat emptor. There’s no reasonable way of knowing before you buy most games whether it may or may not have certain sexist tropes in it, or the extent to which those tropes will affect your enjoyment of the game.

[Zebra]

And have you ever dashed on an email to a game company saying Loved the game, but I hate smashing crates or I hate the collecting cards for having sex with NPC women?

How do you think change will come about, if in fact, you want change?

[Guinastasia]

@MyFootsZZZ

I would call myself a feminist. That’s the best I can do for you. I’m not in the gaming business. So…

I would call you retarded. But I’m not in the diagnosing business.

[The_Hamster_King]

Making a game involves making 10,000 little creative choices. Sometimes these choices are artistically significant: “We really want the game to be about X, so it’s crucially important to include Y.” But most of the time they aren’t. The game has to be *some *way, but it often doesn’t have to be one *particular *way. There are lots of different ways it could be that would be equally effective at getting the job done. You could just as easily pick something else without compromising your creative vision.

When people like Sarkeesian make a public stink about sexist tropes, that exerts subtle pressure on devs to make different decisions. If someone *really *wants to make a game about rescuing princesses, they’re still free to do so. But if all you’re looking for is a flimsy rationale for the player to storm the castle, then maybe you should choose something else instead. Why risk catching shit for doing something that’s only tangentially related to the game you’re trying to make?

[MyFootsZZZ]

@Guinastasia

I would call you retarded. But I’m not in the diagnosing business.

That’s pretty offensive. Not to me, but retarded people. (I know, I’m just asking for you to say something along the lines of; “that’s right, you’re worse/less capable/more idiotic, than the retarded”)

You couldn’t choose a more PC insult?