Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that (so long as it doesn't lead to "so we should ignore women who enjoy it" or "we should prevent women from participating in it" or "and that's why men are better" or what have you).
I agree, and I'd also add that people have to separate how people think things are from how people think they should be in an idealized society or whatever. Even if a gender-neutral society might see an equal number of female and male hunters, it's still entirely possible that most people who enjoy hunting in our society are men. That's not necessarily making a value judgement on anyone's gender, it might just be observing a fact that could have any number of causes, including cultural pressures or whatever.
So you can think that men and women are equally capable as hunters, while also observing that the majority of people in our society with an interest in hunting are men. Those aren't contradictory positions.
Where it gets complicated (for me) is when you start asking people to create products for the idealized society instead of the one we live in. Should stores be required to give equal shelf space to men's makeup as they do to women's makeup, even if they lose a lot of money on it? To what extent should companies be required to market towards a demo that isn't interested in their product for the sake of some universal fairness?
Why on earth would men and women wear different makeup? Foundation is foundation and eyeliner is eyeliner.
True story. Means I don't have to go shopping, I can just steal my girlfriends. You dont really need to have "male" and "female" make up.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Another side of it is that if you watched the GDC panel at all, almost all the commentors had stories to tell about people being surprised that they were game developers. Women don't like games, women don't like to program, are also seemingly innocuous things that are making women's lives difficult in very real ways.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Phone trapped again, but you might want to look into how long it took major makeup companies to cater to anybody but white women within America, Squidget. Likewise, video game companies aren't representing or catering to the society we live in, just the portion of it they care to acknowledge.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
So you can think that men and women are equally capable as hunters, while also observing that the majority of people in our society with an interest in hunting are men. Those aren't contradictory positions.
Where it gets complicated (for me) is when you start asking people to create products for the idealized society instead of the one we live in. Should stores be required to give equal shelf space to men's makeup as they do to women's makeup, even if they lose a lot of money on it? To what extent should companies be required to market towards a demo that isn't interested in their product for the sake of some universal fairness?
Part of this is to just not be deliberately offensive to the other gender. You don't always have to focus on a gender you think likes this product less, but if makeup commercials contained a lot of making fun of men for putting on the makeup, some people would begin to wonder why companies were deliberately shutting down a potential demographic.
A lot of what is wrong in games is not just that they are focusing on one demographic, but they are focusing in a way that is ugly towards women. You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones. You can put clothes on female characters that matches their role in the game, instead of acting as if stripper outfits are the only thing male gamers will be able to handle. Creating more balanced portrayals of women in games is not just about getting more female gamers, its about making the industry less of a cesspool of female indignity. Removing booth babes from E3 isn't going to destroy the industry, but it definitely will make the female professionals that attend a lot less likely to feel harassed.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
It's not so much that the definition of sexism has changed, but rather that we've realized a wider spectrum of behavior than thought is harmful to disadvantaged classes, in this case women.
You don't have to be saying, "Hey toots, nice gams" to women on the street to be hurting women.
I understand, but as someone who's actually included a whole lot more in this "new" term (in the sense of being "protected" by it), I still don't think I'm comfortable with it.
Like, the word's understood, by and large, to be an insult. And there are people out there who really do think their sex is superior. And they deserve the label, the insult.
This broader thing? I dunno, it seems like it should be another term. I know it's semantics, but it seems really important. Words that have bite should keep them.
Like, if someone says "women belong in the kitchen" then they're being sexist, should be called out on it, and the word should bring some eyebrow-raising along. But if someone works off an assumption of "men tend to enjoy hunting more than women" then they're technically being sexist too, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders at that (so long as it doesn't lead to "so we should ignore women who enjoy it" or "we should prevent women from participating in it" or "and that's why men are better" or what have you).
I know that you feel that way. Unfortunately, it's incorrect to say, "This thing I does which is fundamentally harmful to an underpriveleged class isn't ____ist (in this case sexist)." I know that kind of sucks. No one likes being wrong. Doesn't really change it, though. It's sexism.
Why on earth would men and women wear different makeup? Foundation is foundation and eyeliner is eyeliner.
The same reason they wear different clothes and have different hairstyles. Because branding and identity is what sells a product, not the product itself.
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Well, no, these discussions have largely been about changing the products in the hopes that that will somehow change the culture.
To your point though, society requires quite a lot of things that it doesn't enshrine into law, but if you want to read it as "expected" that's okay too.
0
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I have often advocated that reasonable armor/clothing should ship with the main game, and that the sexualized outfits be made available as day 1 DLC. Guys who like boobs can still ogle, girls aren't immediately disgusted by the character design, and game companies can rack up more bucks selling their DLC. Everyone wins.
This is literally all I want. The option for my character to be or not be sexy as I choose.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Why on earth would men and women wear different makeup? Foundation is foundation and eyeliner is eyeliner.
The same reason they wear different clothes and have different hairstyles. Because branding and identity is what sells a product, not the product itself.
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Well, no, these discussions have largely been about changing the products in the hopes that that will somehow change the culture.
To your point though, society requires quite a lot of things that it doesn't enshrine into law, but if you want to read it as "expected" that's okay too.
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Squidget's argument - as I understand it - is one that has some merit. It's basically SKFM's argument but not as concisely worded. A corporation's goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible in the short term, no matter how destructive those practices are to business in the long term. The reason being that shareholders don't care about the next generation of shareholders and can just sell their stake when it looks like it's running out of steam.
So how do we get corporations to act contrary to their one and only goal of short term profit?
The only solutions I had were make as much of the ridiculous sexy armor as possible optional DLC/FTP options. Also, to equip the ESRB with a "sexism" descriptor to make companies think long and hard about what such a toxic word stamped on their products might do to their brand. Negative press is also a good way to do it too.
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Well, no, these discussions have largely been about changing the products in the hopes that that will somehow change the culture.
To your point though, society requires quite a lot of things that it doesn't enshrine into law, but if you want to read it as "expected" that's okay too.
Since when? Give examples of people trying to change products, with them obviously talking to the creators of products, in this thread or the previous thread.
You might be confused here, this thread is hear to discuss the issue. Discussing the issue doesn't change the products, it changes the culture. The culture then changes the product by demanding that changes be made.
This is only a requirement as far as, yes, as a business you are required to meet the demands of your market if you like staying in business.
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Squidget's argument - as I understand it - is one that has some merit. It's basically SKFM's argument but not as concisely worded. A corporation's goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible in the short term, no matter how destructive those practices are to business in the long term. The reason being that shareholders don't care about the next generation of shareholders and can just sell their stake when it looks like it's running out of steam.
So how do we get corporations to act contrary to their one and only goal of short term profit?
The only solutions I had were make as much of the ridiculous sexy armor as possible optional DLC/FTP options. Also, to equip the ESRB with a "sexism" descriptor to make companies think long and hard about what such a toxic word stamped on their products might do to their brand. Negative press is also a good way to do it too.
The thing is the "we must do what sells" idea is a smokescreen.
You create your own market. Insisting that they can't affect the market because they came to the population of earth, asked "VIDEO GAMES?" and then were approached by only straight white men aged 18-30 ignores that the industry can and has changed in the pursuit of short-term profits many times before and will many times more. Women make a sizable share of the market, and are treated as a "maybe" only because people in the industry are genuinely ignorant.
Do what you can to elect Harris/Walz and downticket Dem candidates in your area by doorknocking, phonebanking, or postcarding: https://www.mobilize.us/
Phone trapped again, but you might want to look into how long it took major makeup companies to cater to anybody but white women within America, Squidget.
Kind of like band-aids. "It's flesh colored!" Whose flesh?
I have often advocated that reasonable armor/clothing should ship with the main game, and that the sexualized outfits be made available as day 1 DLC. Guys who like boobs can still ogle, girls aren't immediately disgusted by the character design, and game companies can rack up more bucks selling their DLC. Everyone wins.
This is literally all I want. The option for my character to be or not be sexy as I choose.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
That's an interesting point of view. Could you expound more on the bolded part? To me, it seems like including sexy skins in the default game is selling you sex anyway.
Though I was thinking that sexy times DLC doesn't even have to be paid. It could still help a company's bottom line by requiring people to buy a game new if they want the skimpy outfits.
Why on earth would men and women wear different makeup? Foundation is foundation and eyeliner is eyeliner.
The same reason they wear different clothes and have different hairstyles. Because branding and identity is what sells a product, not the product itself.
This is a total tangent, and I want to get back to more discussions about structural discussions of sexism, but here we go. I'm a man. I wear the same brands of makeup as women. I bet that the other man who said he wears makeup is also wearing the same brands as a lot of women he knows. (In fact, he said he wore his girlfriend's makeup.) Please stop talking about something you have no understanding of.
0
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Well, no, these discussions have largely been about changing the products in the hopes that that will somehow change the culture.
To your point though, society requires quite a lot of things that it doesn't enshrine into law, but if you want to read it as "expected" that's okay too.
Since when? Give examples of people trying to change products, with them obviously talking to the creators of products, in this thread or the previous thread.
You might be confused here, this thread is hear to discuss the issue. Discussing the issue doesn't change the products, it changes the culture. The culture then changes the product by demanding that changes be made.
This is only a requirement as far as, yes, as a business you are required to meet the demands of your market if you like staying in business.
I had a post at the end of the last thread about individuals and agency, and what an individual can do to impact the culture and make things better. I'd be curious if anyone who has considered this more than I have has some ideas about agency, regarding (1) what individuals can do to affect the culture and (2) what kind of agency does the culture have to "demand" changes? What kind of platform does a culture have do to this? Or is #1reasonwhy just looking for some kind of organic response from the creators?
This really isn't the greatest analogy to draw, but bear with me. When blacks and women wanted the right to vote in the 60's, there was political dissent and it changed things. Gay marriage is a topic now, you can write your senator or rep, and courts looking at the issue too, often in terms of natural rights. What kind of "push" can there be for something like this?
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I, too, used to have this implicit faith that if there was demand for something, then the market would provide it. Once I got out into the world and actually made a career in business, I soon discovered that no, that's not really true. Business very often ignores potential goldmines waiting to be exploited, due to a "this is the way it's always been done" mentality. I can't even consider it a fear of risk as so many people have called it - more than anything it's like an entrenched laziness.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones.
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
Phone trapped again, but you might want to look into how long it took major makeup companies to cater to anybody but white women within America, Squidget.
Kind of like band-aids. "It's flesh colored!" Whose flesh?
Absolutely part of it, but it goes even further. Band-aids, discriminatory in their definition of flesh or not, still function to stop a cut from bleeding. There were tremendous numbers of non-white women for whom the 1970's makeup standard simply didn't work, at least not without significant alterations.
I don't want to drag this too far into racism parallels, but Squidget brought up makeup and it's actually a really good example. Makeup for women of color is a huge industry now, and it was a boom when it first became a product of interest (referring to interest from a major producer). There wasn't a market for it, by the definition most seem to be using, but when the product was offered the market was already there, because they'd been waiting god knows how long.
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones.
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
It depends. If it's the sort of game where that makes sense - and I'm going to assume you don't mean stereotype in the same sense I do - and nobody is hurt by the portrayals, it's fine
If it's the sort of game where character matters you have failed
Wait a second... who's drumming for anything to be required?
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Squidget's argument - as I understand it - is one that has some merit. It's basically SKFM's argument but not as concisely worded. A corporation's goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible in the short term, no matter how destructive those practices are to business in the long term. The reason being that shareholders don't care about the next generation of shareholders and can just sell their stake when it looks like it's running out of steam.
So how do we get corporations to act contrary to their one and only goal of short term profit?
The only solutions I had were make as much of the ridiculous sexy armor as possible optional DLC/FTP options. Also, to equip the ESRB with a "sexism" descriptor to make companies think long and hard about what such a toxic word stamped on their products might do to their brand. Negative press is also a good way to do it too.
The thing is the "we must do what sells" idea is a smokescreen.
You create your own market. Insisting that they can't affect the market because they came to the population of earth, asked "VIDEO GAMES?" and then were approached by only straight white men aged 18-30 ignores that the industry can and has changed in the pursuit of short-term profits many times before and will many times more. Women make a sizable share of the market, and are treated as a "maybe" only because people in the industry are genuinely ignorant.
I'm referring to the video about the controversy about Bioshock's cover art compared to The Last of Us. Two high priced marketing firms said that the companies would lose money if the put a girl on the cover. So even if it's not true, this is what marketing firms are telling large developers: market towards men or lose money.
I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure creating a new market, or trying to alter your market is a long term investment. One that is entirely possible, but that corporations - for whatever reason - are hesitant to take.
I'm not condoning the idea in any way shape or form. It's just an unfortunate thing about corporations. It's what makes indie game development so cool. Games made by individuals are beholden to the traditional moral compass of doing what's right, or making what they want to make.
0
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I have often advocated that reasonable armor/clothing should ship with the main game, and that the sexualized outfits be made available as day 1 DLC. Guys who like boobs can still ogle, girls aren't immediately disgusted by the character design, and game companies can rack up more bucks selling their DLC. Everyone wins.
This is literally all I want. The option for my character to be or not be sexy as I choose.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
That's an interesting point of view. Could you expound more on the bolded part? To me, it seems like including sexy skins in the default game is selling you sex anyway.
Though I was thinking that sexy times DLC doesn't even have to be paid. It could still help a company's bottom line by requiring people to buy a game new if they want the skimpy outfits.
The bolded part is just an application of my hypo about Dragon's Crown, I suppose.
There's a couple of different permutations about how this can work. I don't know how familiar you are with League of Legends, but, first off, it's free to play, so no initial cost.
The first character I can think of in League that has a "sexy" look in her default skin is called Ahri - breasts spilling over the top of her gown unnecessarily. Now, if I liked to play mid, which is the position where Ahri is played, I might purchase her as a character because I like playing mid, and I like the way Ahri plays at mid (since every character has a different set of abilities). She's sexy, but I'm not buying her for that. Her premium skins (requiring real money instead of game money) are actually less sexy than her plain skin.
There's another character, Akali. Her stock skin isn't really that sexy. Premium skins include sexy Nurse Akali, sexy Soccer Referee Akali, probably others. If I want to play her, I don't have to pay money, but I CAN pay money just for a cheesecake skin.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones.
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
It depends. If it's the sort of game where that makes sense - and I'm going to assume you don't mean stereotype in the same sense I do - and nobody is hurt by the portrayals, it's fine
If it's the sort of game where character matters you have failed
When I say stereotypes I'm talking about stock characters, basically. "The grizzled space marine." "The sexy ninja lady." "The wacky animal sidekick."
For whatever reason (either bad writing or apathy), most games don't go beyond those stereotypes. Well-realized characters are the exception, not the rule.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones.
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
It depends. If it's the sort of game where that makes sense - and I'm going to assume you don't mean stereotype in the same sense I do - and nobody is hurt by the portrayals, it's fine
If it's the sort of game where character matters you have failed
When I say stereotypes I'm talking about stock characters, basically. "The grizzled space marine." "The sexy ninja lady." "The wacky animal sidekick."
For whatever reason (either bad writing or apathy), most games don't go beyond those stereotypes. Well-realized characters are the exception, not the rule.
If you're just doing stereotypes, and your male stereotypes are: "The grizzled space marine", "The scientist/doctor", "The older mentor", "The young hotshot", "the warrior monk" etc., but all your female stereotypes are "The girlfriend/sex prize", "The sexy space marine", "The sexy doctor", "the sexy archer," "the sexy monk", etc. Then yes, you are still perpetuating a problem.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gamers" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
I have often advocated that reasonable armor/clothing should ship with the main game, and that the sexualized outfits be made available as day 1 DLC. Guys who like boobs can still ogle, girls aren't immediately disgusted by the character design, and game companies can rack up more bucks selling their DLC. Everyone wins.
This is literally all I want. The option for my character to be or not be sexy as I choose.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
That's an interesting point of view. Could you expound more on the bolded part? To me, it seems like including sexy skins in the default game is selling you sex anyway.
Though I was thinking that sexy times DLC doesn't even have to be paid. It could still help a company's bottom line by requiring people to buy a game new if they want the skimpy outfits.
The bolded part is just an application of my hypo about Dragon's Crown, I suppose.
There's a couple of different permutations about how this can work. I don't know how familiar you are with League of Legends, but, first off, it's free to play, so no initial cost.
The first character I can think of in League that has a "sexy" look in her default skin is called Ahri - breasts spilling over the top of her gown unnecessarily. Now, if I liked to play mid, which is the position where Ahri is played, I might purchase her as a character because I like playing mid, and I like the way Ahri plays at mid (since every character has a different set of abilities). She's sexy, but I'm not buying her for that. Her premium skins (requiring real money instead of game money) are actually less sexy than her plain skin.
There's another character, Akali. Her stock skin isn't really that sexy. Premium skins include sexy Nurse Akali, sexy Soccer Referee Akali, probably others. If I want to play her, I don't have to pay money, but I CAN pay money just for a cheesecake skin.
@SummaryJudgment : I'm curious as to why you would find the latter situation more objectionable than the former.
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gameres" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
The manly Diet Dr. Pepper commercials are a great example of trying to re-brand something as THIS IS FOR MEN.
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gameres" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
The manly Diet Dr. Pepper commercials are a great example of trying to re-brand something as THIS IS FOR MEN.
The most bizarre instance of gendered marketing I've ever seen was a package of organic salad mix labeled under the brand name "Organic Girl".
IT'S FUCKING SALAD MIX FOR CHRISSAKES. WHY IS THIS GENDERED?
+4
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I have often advocated that reasonable armor/clothing should ship with the main game, and that the sexualized outfits be made available as day 1 DLC. Guys who like boobs can still ogle, girls aren't immediately disgusted by the character design, and game companies can rack up more bucks selling their DLC. Everyone wins.
This is literally all I want. The option for my character to be or not be sexy as I choose.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
That's an interesting point of view. Could you expound more on the bolded part? To me, it seems like including sexy skins in the default game is selling you sex anyway.
Though I was thinking that sexy times DLC doesn't even have to be paid. It could still help a company's bottom line by requiring people to buy a game new if they want the skimpy outfits.
The bolded part is just an application of my hypo about Dragon's Crown, I suppose.
There's a couple of different permutations about how this can work. I don't know how familiar you are with League of Legends, but, first off, it's free to play, so no initial cost.
The first character I can think of in League that has a "sexy" look in her default skin is called Ahri - breasts spilling over the top of her gown unnecessarily. Now, if I liked to play mid, which is the position where Ahri is played, I might purchase her as a character because I like playing mid, and I like the way Ahri plays at mid (since every character has a different set of abilities). She's sexy, but I'm not buying her for that. Her premium skins (requiring real money instead of game money) are actually less sexy than her plain skin.
There's another character, Akali. Her stock skin isn't really that sexy. Premium skins include sexy Nurse Akali, sexy Soccer Referee Akali, probably others. If I want to play her, I don't have to pay money, but I CAN pay money just for a cheesecake skin.
@SummaryJudgment : I'm curious as to why you would find the latter situation more objectionable than the former.
Between the Ahri and Akali hypo, just so I make sure I'm addressing the right point?
EDIT: If that is indeed what you're referring to -
Looking back, I think I worded the post wrong, somewhere.
I find the idea of paying for a premium skin objectionable if the only point of the premium skin is cheesecake - you're literally not going any more utility out of your purchase than the cheesecake. I find it doubly objectionable if the character is available without even purchasing the cheesecake skin in the first place - i.e. if I wanted to spend real money to unlock Ahri or Akali instead of grinding wins for them, I'd either purchase the cheaper stock skin, or I'd purchase a non-cheesecake skin that has more work put into it (a lot of them have different sounds, effects, etc)
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gameres" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
The manly Diet Dr. Pepper commercials are a great example of trying to re-brand something as THIS IS FOR MEN.
And it's interesting to note that they have ever so slowly backed away from their initial "IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN!" pitch. First they had some radio spots talking about Dr. Pepper 10 as a "balance"- because it had things girls and guys like! Like romantic comedies and sci-fi movies! And now the latest TV spot says nothing about excluding women, but is just a goof on the "rugged mountain man" image. It's still targeting men but now in a way that doesn't specifically tell women to get lost.
You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones.
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
It depends. If it's the sort of game where that makes sense - and I'm going to assume you don't mean stereotype in the same sense I do - and nobody is hurt by the portrayals, it's fine
If it's the sort of game where character matters you have failed
When I say stereotypes I'm talking about stock characters, basically. "The grizzled space marine." "The sexy ninja lady." "The wacky animal sidekick."
For whatever reason (either bad writing or apathy), most games don't go beyond those stereotypes. Well-realized characters are the exception, not the rule.
If you're just doing stereotypes, and your male stereotypes are: "The grizzled space marine", "The scientist/doctor", "The older mentor", "The young hotshot", "the warrior monk" etc., but all your female stereotypes are "The girlfriend/sex prize", "The sexy space marine", "The sexy doctor", "the sexy archer," "the sexy monk", etc. Then yes, you are still perpetuating a problem.
On this point, and hopefully this isn't too far off track, I've been re-reading the Ciaphas Cain novels (Warhammer 40K universe, so still tangentially related to games), and I'm struck much more now than I was the first time at how often the gender makes no difference in what stereotype the author is employing.
It's as if the author said: "Over-eager, patriotic young soldier? High powered, clever spy? Mature and reliable top ranked officer? Planetary governor? Tech wizard? Explosives expert? Mechsuited super soldier? Is there any reason these all have to be male? Guess not, I'll make half of them female." Perhaps even more refreshingly, not every female character is treated as a potential sexual partner for the main character.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gameres" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
The manly Diet Dr. Pepper commercials are a great example of trying to re-brand something as THIS IS FOR MEN.
I'm not gonna lie. It's almost shocking to find out that Dr. Pepper seriously meant that advertising push. I always thought it was supposed to be just dumb, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Which doesn't really help matters, but still. Really?
Has anyone who has attempted to say that this particular comic is some flavour of 'horseshit' ever figured out that Willis chose Batman for his example because he's all but admitted he'd go gay for the Dark Knight?
It's practically his fallback character when lampooning comics in anyway.
And anyway, I think people aren't seeing the forest for the trees with that one.
I was shaving today and looking at my face in the mirror and suddenly thought, "Holy shit; I look like that Batman." I have like the biggest eyes and most full lips of any guy I know.
Not only that, but according to this recent Jezebel article, the kind of facial hair I have is scientifically proven to be the hotness.
Come to think of it, male player characters with facial hair less than a fill beard aren't terribly common.
Posts
I agree, and I'd also add that people have to separate how people think things are from how people think they should be in an idealized society or whatever. Even if a gender-neutral society might see an equal number of female and male hunters, it's still entirely possible that most people who enjoy hunting in our society are men. That's not necessarily making a value judgement on anyone's gender, it might just be observing a fact that could have any number of causes, including cultural pressures or whatever.
So you can think that men and women are equally capable as hunters, while also observing that the majority of people in our society with an interest in hunting are men. Those aren't contradictory positions.
Where it gets complicated (for me) is when you start asking people to create products for the idealized society instead of the one we live in. Should stores be required to give equal shelf space to men's makeup as they do to women's makeup, even if they lose a lot of money on it? To what extent should companies be required to market towards a demo that isn't interested in their product for the sake of some universal fairness?
True story. Means I don't have to go shopping, I can just steal my girlfriends. You dont really need to have "male" and "female" make up.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
This sounds like a fancy way of saying censored without saying censored, Squidget. Do I have to remind you that no one is trying to censor anything, and that these conversations are about changing the culture, which will in turn change the products?
Part of this is to just not be deliberately offensive to the other gender. You don't always have to focus on a gender you think likes this product less, but if makeup commercials contained a lot of making fun of men for putting on the makeup, some people would begin to wonder why companies were deliberately shutting down a potential demographic.
A lot of what is wrong in games is not just that they are focusing on one demographic, but they are focusing in a way that is ugly towards women. You can make a game that mostly only men will play and still make the female characters in the game into just as fully realized characters as the male ones. You can put clothes on female characters that matches their role in the game, instead of acting as if stripper outfits are the only thing male gamers will be able to handle. Creating more balanced portrayals of women in games is not just about getting more female gamers, its about making the industry less of a cesspool of female indignity. Removing booth babes from E3 isn't going to destroy the industry, but it definitely will make the female professionals that attend a lot less likely to feel harassed.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I know that you feel that way. Unfortunately, it's incorrect to say, "This thing I does which is fundamentally harmful to an underpriveleged class isn't ____ist (in this case sexist)." I know that kind of sucks. No one likes being wrong. Doesn't really change it, though. It's sexism.
The same reason they wear different clothes and have different hairstyles. Because branding and identity is what sells a product, not the product itself.
Well, no, these discussions have largely been about changing the products in the hopes that that will somehow change the culture.
To your point though, society requires quite a lot of things that it doesn't enshrine into law, but if you want to read it as "expected" that's okay too.
See, this is weird to me. I'm definitely on the "swing-voter" side of the the whole #1reasonwhy movement, whereas you two are confirmed advocates. Yet, to me, someone just getting used to looking at things through this lens, I've always though what Riot does with selling cheesecake skins that do just that is pretty much the most repugnant thing I can think of in terms of character design. Like, worse than having a just having a sexy character to begin with, regardless of whether or not that sexiness is balanced out by good characterization elsewhere.
Am I alone in feeling this way? I mean, you can conceivably buy Dragon's Crown because you appreciate the rest of the art in the game (and people have noted, it's remarkable art) and the sorceress you just kind of take the bad with the good. But a micro-transaction with the sole purpose of selling sex, where it doesn't belong?
Who knows, Playboy Bunny Riven sold like fucking hotcakes, though.
You meant "criticizing", right?
Squidget's argument - as I understand it - is one that has some merit. It's basically SKFM's argument but not as concisely worded. A corporation's goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible in the short term, no matter how destructive those practices are to business in the long term. The reason being that shareholders don't care about the next generation of shareholders and can just sell their stake when it looks like it's running out of steam.
So how do we get corporations to act contrary to their one and only goal of short term profit?
The only solutions I had were make as much of the ridiculous sexy armor as possible optional DLC/FTP options. Also, to equip the ESRB with a "sexism" descriptor to make companies think long and hard about what such a toxic word stamped on their products might do to their brand. Negative press is also a good way to do it too.
Since when? Give examples of people trying to change products, with them obviously talking to the creators of products, in this thread or the previous thread.
You might be confused here, this thread is hear to discuss the issue. Discussing the issue doesn't change the products, it changes the culture. The culture then changes the product by demanding that changes be made.
This is only a requirement as far as, yes, as a business you are required to meet the demands of your market if you like staying in business.
The thing is the "we must do what sells" idea is a smokescreen.
You create your own market. Insisting that they can't affect the market because they came to the population of earth, asked "VIDEO GAMES?" and then were approached by only straight white men aged 18-30 ignores that the industry can and has changed in the pursuit of short-term profits many times before and will many times more. Women make a sizable share of the market, and are treated as a "maybe" only because people in the industry are genuinely ignorant.
Kind of like band-aids. "It's flesh colored!" Whose flesh?
That's an interesting point of view. Could you expound more on the bolded part? To me, it seems like including sexy skins in the default game is selling you sex anyway.
Though I was thinking that sexy times DLC doesn't even have to be paid. It could still help a company's bottom line by requiring people to buy a game new if they want the skimpy outfits.
This is a total tangent, and I want to get back to more discussions about structural discussions of sexism, but here we go. I'm a man. I wear the same brands of makeup as women. I bet that the other man who said he wears makeup is also wearing the same brands as a lot of women he knows. (In fact, he said he wore his girlfriend's makeup.) Please stop talking about something you have no understanding of.
I had a post at the end of the last thread about individuals and agency, and what an individual can do to impact the culture and make things better. I'd be curious if anyone who has considered this more than I have has some ideas about agency, regarding (1) what individuals can do to affect the culture and (2) what kind of agency does the culture have to "demand" changes? What kind of platform does a culture have do to this? Or is #1reasonwhy just looking for some kind of organic response from the creators?
This really isn't the greatest analogy to draw, but bear with me. When blacks and women wanted the right to vote in the 60's, there was political dissent and it changed things. Gay marriage is a topic now, you can write your senator or rep, and courts looking at the issue too, often in terms of natural rights. What kind of "push" can there be for something like this?
On my sleeve, let the runway start
What if nobody in the game is a fully realized character? What if everyone is a stereotype, like in most games?
Absolutely part of it, but it goes even further. Band-aids, discriminatory in their definition of flesh or not, still function to stop a cut from bleeding. There were tremendous numbers of non-white women for whom the 1970's makeup standard simply didn't work, at least not without significant alterations.
I don't want to drag this too far into racism parallels, but Squidget brought up makeup and it's actually a really good example. Makeup for women of color is a huge industry now, and it was a boom when it first became a product of interest (referring to interest from a major producer). There wasn't a market for it, by the definition most seem to be using, but when the product was offered the market was already there, because they'd been waiting god knows how long.
Discriminatory views aren't just offensive and harmful to individuals and society, but companies coffers as well. The 'but we'll lose money!' argument is historically bullshit.
It depends. If it's the sort of game where that makes sense - and I'm going to assume you don't mean stereotype in the same sense I do - and nobody is hurt by the portrayals, it's fine
If it's the sort of game where character matters you have failed
I'm referring to the video about the controversy about Bioshock's cover art compared to The Last of Us. Two high priced marketing firms said that the companies would lose money if the put a girl on the cover. So even if it's not true, this is what marketing firms are telling large developers: market towards men or lose money.
I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure creating a new market, or trying to alter your market is a long term investment. One that is entirely possible, but that corporations - for whatever reason - are hesitant to take.
I'm not condoning the idea in any way shape or form. It's just an unfortunate thing about corporations. It's what makes indie game development so cool. Games made by individuals are beholden to the traditional moral compass of doing what's right, or making what they want to make.
The bolded part is just an application of my hypo about Dragon's Crown, I suppose.
There's a couple of different permutations about how this can work. I don't know how familiar you are with League of Legends, but, first off, it's free to play, so no initial cost.
The first character I can think of in League that has a "sexy" look in her default skin is called Ahri - breasts spilling over the top of her gown unnecessarily. Now, if I liked to play mid, which is the position where Ahri is played, I might purchase her as a character because I like playing mid, and I like the way Ahri plays at mid (since every character has a different set of abilities). She's sexy, but I'm not buying her for that. Her premium skins (requiring real money instead of game money) are actually less sexy than her plain skin.
There's another character, Akali. Her stock skin isn't really that sexy. Premium skins include sexy Nurse Akali, sexy Soccer Referee Akali, probably others. If I want to play her, I don't have to pay money, but I CAN pay money just for a cheesecake skin.
When I say stereotypes I'm talking about stock characters, basically. "The grizzled space marine." "The sexy ninja lady." "The wacky animal sidekick."
For whatever reason (either bad writing or apathy), most games don't go beyond those stereotypes. Well-realized characters are the exception, not the rule.
If you're just doing stereotypes, and your male stereotypes are: "The grizzled space marine", "The scientist/doctor", "The older mentor", "The young hotshot", "the warrior monk" etc., but all your female stereotypes are "The girlfriend/sex prize", "The sexy space marine", "The sexy doctor", "the sexy archer," "the sexy monk", etc. Then yes, you are still perpetuating a problem.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
That would be confirmation bias, since the only companies history remembers are the successful ones. Lots of companies try to do something different, or reach a different market, and they find that the market isn't there. You just don't hear about them.
Don't get me wrong, I think you could have some success with a men's makeup brand right now, it would just take very different branding and associations than there are with women's makeup. Look at the advertising campaigns for Axe Body Spray against the ones that are made to sell makeup to women. Why do you think they're so different?
Similarly, the video game market has had a lot of success marketing to women other groups that don't consider themselves "gamers" over the last few years, primarily by branding their products in a different way. Hence the Wii, the Kinect, and the whole mobile/social gaming scene.
@SummaryJudgment : I'm curious as to why you would find the latter situation more objectionable than the former.
The manly Diet Dr. Pepper commercials are a great example of trying to re-brand something as THIS IS FOR MEN.
The most bizarre instance of gendered marketing I've ever seen was a package of organic salad mix labeled under the brand name "Organic Girl".
IT'S FUCKING SALAD MIX FOR CHRISSAKES. WHY IS THIS GENDERED?
Between the Ahri and Akali hypo, just so I make sure I'm addressing the right point?
EDIT: If that is indeed what you're referring to -
Looking back, I think I worded the post wrong, somewhere.
I find the idea of paying for a premium skin objectionable if the only point of the premium skin is cheesecake - you're literally not going any more utility out of your purchase than the cheesecake. I find it doubly objectionable if the character is available without even purchasing the cheesecake skin in the first place - i.e. if I wanted to spend real money to unlock Ahri or Akali instead of grinding wins for them, I'd either purchase the cheaper stock skin, or I'd purchase a non-cheesecake skin that has more work put into it (a lot of them have different sounds, effects, etc)
And it's interesting to note that they have ever so slowly backed away from their initial "IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN!" pitch. First they had some radio spots talking about Dr. Pepper 10 as a "balance"- because it had things girls and guys like! Like romantic comedies and sci-fi movies! And now the latest TV spot says nothing about excluding women, but is just a goof on the "rugged mountain man" image. It's still targeting men but now in a way that doesn't specifically tell women to get lost.
Here's a good example of that:
That's the original illustration of Zuggtmoy, Demon Queen of Fungi. And here's the later, currently accepted design:
I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the more humanoid design better, but it's still a clear example of what the earlier poster was talking about.
On this point, and hopefully this isn't too far off track, I've been re-reading the Ciaphas Cain novels (Warhammer 40K universe, so still tangentially related to games), and I'm struck much more now than I was the first time at how often the gender makes no difference in what stereotype the author is employing.
It's as if the author said: "Over-eager, patriotic young soldier? High powered, clever spy? Mature and reliable top ranked officer? Planetary governor? Tech wizard? Explosives expert? Mechsuited super soldier? Is there any reason these all have to be male? Guess not, I'll make half of them female." Perhaps even more refreshingly, not every female character is treated as a potential sexual partner for the main character.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
ALPHA NAIL
Because ideally I should be able to just waltz on down to the Walgreens and pick up some nail polish if I want to
But oh no
I must get men's nail polish, not that scrub tier lady's stuff
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
i was skeptical until i read this part
ok now that is a sales pitch
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Has anyone who has attempted to say that this particular comic is some flavour of 'horseshit' ever figured out that Willis chose Batman for his example because he's all but admitted he'd go gay for the Dark Knight?
It's practically his fallback character when lampooning comics in anyway.
And anyway, I think people aren't seeing the forest for the trees with that one.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Not only that, but according to this recent Jezebel article, the kind of facial hair I have is scientifically proven to be the hotness.
Come to think of it, male player characters with facial hair less than a fill beard aren't terribly common.