He was active in the 1980's campaigning against obscenity and violence in video games and movies. He got disbarred for lying about things... and it turns out that pretty much everything he said was disproven.
i.e. there's no correlation between fake violence and real violence.
Anyone else reminded of the current hysteria around "sexist games are making us sexist?" Which has a similar level of scientific support. i.e. none.
I don't think any serious person is arguing that sexist games are making people sexist who wouldn't be otherwise. Certainly nobody is arguing that sexism is mostly caused by video games.
Sexist games are a problem because they are a space in our culture where women are inferior, or are only sex objects, etc.
In a similar way, there was a time in America when a white person could safely make derogatory jokes about black people to his white friends with little risk of social blowback. Thankfully, anti-racism eventually took that cultural space away. It's not that those conversations were directly doing black people harm, but rather they were part and parcel of a culture in which it was okay to do black people harm in general, a culture that is hopefully being further eroded.
Similarly, I would expect to see the amount of sexist games reduced over time because I hope we are eroding the culture in which it is acceptable to see and treat women the way they are portrayed in these games. That's why speaking out against sexism in games is important--because it is part of the project to make sexist attitudes in general unacceptable in our society, something I hope we all agree is desirable and necessary.
Is it wrong to have female characters in games which are e.g. damsels in distress, vapid, submissive, or simply eye candy in the same way that the game "Ethnic Cleansing" by Resistance Records is wrong?
Frankly most game characters - male or female - seem to fall into blatant gendered stereotypes. I think "sexism" is assumed to only be in regards to stereotypes about women though.
For what it's worth, I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled bro types who constantly degrade women, also reflect sexist attitudes. Sexism stifles and limits men and encourages men to be toxic--as a result it harms men, and these portrayals are a part of that.
It surely is. People actually have trouble framing anything as sexist against men. All the men in a hostage holdup can get shot, and someone will talk about how it's sexist against women.
When no woman is involved at all, it's often called homophobia. But the hint there is that if no LGBT person or LGBT attribute is involved in any way, it's not homophobia either. It's just sexism. Against men.
I didn't say anything about classes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. There is, obviously, a long history of men oppressing women. Men used to own their wives and have the legal right to beat and rape them. Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology. There are any number of uncontroversial historical statements along the lines "group X did Y to group Z" which would be assented to by people of all ideological stripes.
I'm saying "men oppressing women" is the same BS as "the bourgoise oppress the proletariat"
> Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology
Of course it doesn't.
What I am saying is that I find parallels in many, many, ideologies. If the only difference between the ideologies is the names of the "bad" and "good" people, then I call the ideologies the same.
As far as I can tell, you're saying that it's not true that men have historically oppressed women because it's not true that the bourgeoisie (note spelling) oppress the proletariat. That's clearly a non sequitur.
Women earned the right to vote in 1919; women have been historically oppressed in at least that sense for more than half of the lifetime of the US. Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world.
That's a bit of a complicated question in the case of the USA, but the passing of the fifteenth amendment in 1870 guaranteed the right to vote for a large segment of the male population at a time when no women whatsoever had the right to vote. And of course, at least some men had the right to vote right from the foundation of the US.
For a very long time most countries, including the USA, had laws that forced men to go into wars and die. In the roman empire, voting was a privilege only for those that made the sacrifice to serve in the military.
The US stopped forcing men into war in 1973, 54 years after women got the right to vote. I can't think of many things more oppressive then being force to go to a war and fight against your will. What would you pick between forced conscription during war time (before 1919, so consider medical care and death rate during world war 1) or no right to vote? I know what I would prefer in 1917.
Conscription is male only because most men thought that women weren't suitable as soldiers. It's men who decided not to conscript women, and it's also men who decided whether or not women should be allowed to vote. So whatever you think about male only conscription, it's clearly not an instance of women oppressing men.
So... the men who couldn't vote weren't oppressed?
Or... women are oppressed today because your great-grandmother didn't have the right to vote?
Color me unconvinced. If the best argument you have is to go back 100 years, it shows that you know that women aren't oppressed by men today.
See, I've looked into this. Pretty much every talking point (i.e. slogan repeated ad nauseaum) is either half of the truth, or an outright lie.
And there are massive parallels between certain ideologies. The idea that people are "oppressed" as a class is originally Marxist, and has been co-opted by other ideologies. Who (wink wink) aren't Marxist. Despite sharing ideologies, coordinating protests together, etc.
I don't follow your ideology for the same reason I'm not a Marxist. Both are lies.
> I haven't expressed any particular ideology in any of my posts.
The idea that women are oppressed by men is an ideology. Because it's based on ideas, and not on reality. If it was based on reality, it would be called "science". Or maybe "facts".
Instead, it's based on "just so" stories that people tell each other. Like "the Jews are rich because they stole from the white people". It's a lie.
All of these ideologies are the same. They use the same talking points. The same BS rhetoric about "oppressors" and "oppressed". The only things that change are the names of the oppressors (men / jews / the rich) and the names of the oppressed (women / white people / the poor). The ideologies are otherwise substantially similar.
Since you're arguing over this. Let's talk details:
* men in the US do not have the right to vote.
Huh? How can I say this? That sounds crazy!
Well... because they have historically not had the right to vote unless the registered for selective services. So men in the US did not have the unrestricted right to vote. The selective service act was fought in court, and men lost.
The court held that the draft was an obligation citizens had, in return for the right to vote.
Women, of course, have had no restrictions on their right to vote.
And who gave women the right to vote? The evil, patriarchal, oppressive, misogynistic... men. Yes, the men who "oppress" women gave them the right to vote. Without asking them to take on the social burdens that were demanded of men.
So who's oppressed, really? The people who got conscripted, and died without having the vote? Or the people sitting at home, secure in the knowledge they'll never have to break a nail supporting their country?
>And who gave women the right to vote? The evil, patriarchal, oppressive, misogynistic... men.
Yes. Women were not able to get the vote until men assented to it. That is a textbook example of men oppressing women. You might as well argue that slaves weren't oppressed because they were eventually "given" their freedom by white men.
> I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled bro types who constantly degrade women, also reflect sexist attitudes.
Ehhh... I think its more important to see characters in the general sense rather than focusing in on particular characters.
Trevor Philips (Grand Theft Auto 5) for example is clearly a sociopathic machismo-fueled nutjob. But he's also clearly evil to the point of parody. He's an anti-hero protagonist.
Another "Machismo-fueled" character is Kratos from "God of War". A man who goes on a hate-filled killing spree where he one-by-one kills every God and Goddess in the Greek Pantheon (while having lots of sex in between) until the world is a ruin. Despite being the main character for the game, I think its pretty clear that Kratos is a morally "bad" person, and the 3rd game's conclusion (with the seas out of control with the death of Neptune / Zeus / etc. etc.) makes it clear that Kratos's rage basically went nowhere as far as bringing back his family.
When people are "machismo-fueled dude-bro" types, the storyline usually takes a deeper and more philosophical turn. For the most part, mainstream video games seem to be about Greek-style tragedy if a character goes down that route.
-------------
I mean, I personally didn't like either of the games. But I recognize that these characters (and the stories that contain these characters) are deeper than the typical person would expect.
IE: Did you kill Trevor (GTA 5)? Does Trevor deserve to die after what he has done? The game encourages philosophical thought and brings the decision directly to the player in a way that no other medium can do or accomplish.
All the violence and agony that Trevor does throughout the game (under the player's control nonetheless!) is really just a vehicle to a deeper question that exists within the great scope of the plot.
Sexist games don't affect people's sex/gender attitudes? Then what does?
> Thankfully, anti-racism eventually took that cultural space away.
I can appreciate the hope that the culture is changing, but the "there was a time in America" statement seems unlikely to be true. Maybe America is too broad a country to make that generalization.
Okay, playing the devil's advocate, speaking out against sexism important, but what does that accomplish? A sound bite in the news media? Trending social media posts/comments? And let's say that it does have an impact. Why would speaking out have an impact on sexist attitudes and video games not have an impact?
> Sexist games don't affect people's sex/gender attitudes? Then what does?
People you grow up with. Parents mostly, later peers. Basically people that could have opinion on you that you care about. You tend to share their values eventually.
And considering how many female players kinda like games like Final Fantasy X (where Tidus was a somewhat cute male main character), or Zelda (Link is also cute), I think that "bringing sexy boys" into games would make the overall game industry better in general.
In essence: there's nothing wrong with "the male gaze", as long as there's an equivalent amount of "female gaze" going on. We're not at that point yet, but there's definitely more and more games being developed with a "sexy boy" with the female player in mind.
Much as Laura Croft is primarily played by male players who find her sexy. Or a more modern example would probably be Nier: Automata's 2B. Its a game more or less designed for the male audience with a sexy female lead. As long as there's enough studs like Nathan Drake (Uncharted) for female players to also gaze upon, I don't think there's anything wrong with sexy.
For a "mainstream" example... the Bikini Armor of "Xena: Warrior Princess" is contrasted against the perfect abs and pecs of "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Beastmaster". As long as things are fair for both genders to enjoy, I don't think its a bad thing.
----------
Similarly, "Damsel in Distress" isn't innately a sexist trope if there are enough "Dudesels in Distress" to compensate. That "Super Princess Peach" video game where Bowser steals Mario and then Princess Peach rescues Mario is a good example of this inversion.
I agree that most "people in rescue" today still are female, so its a female trope in general. But there's really no reason it has to be locked to the female role.
--------------
Its hard for me to fully understand what's wrong and whats right, especially when I start talking to female gamers and learn which games they play. I mean hell, I've met female gamers who actually play the crap out of "obviously sexist" games like Senran Kagura.
So what is and isn't "sexist" is a very confusing subject to me. Mostly because even feminists don't agree on what is and isn't "sexist".
First Generation Feminists would argue that "sexy" representations of women is sexist for example. But a 3rd Wave Feminist would argue that sex-negativity is sexist, and that positive portrayal of sex is better for the feminist cause.
----------------
I think Nintendo managed to hit a good spot with their new female characters this generation. The Squid-Boy and Squid-girls have universally been accepted as positive character portrayals.
Pokemon's "Male" protagonist and "Female" protagonists is quite inclusive, even if its quite simple. And while the male "Red" is undoubtedly the strongest NPC of the in-game universe, strong female characters like "Cynthia" are remembered by the fanbase.
And finally, the "ARMs" characters have some degree of sexiness built in but nothing as outrageous as say, DoA. And as far as I can tell, "ARMs" is getting a positive reception overall.
But maybe these games are just too new, so there isn't much analysis on them yet.
Objectifying women is bad. OK... sure. Objectifying men? Woo! Let's do it!
> I hope we are eroding the culture in which it is acceptable to see and treat women the way they are portrayed in these games.
Here's a question: what happens to the average male in a video game or movie?
Answer: killed by the dozens, if not by the thousands.
Even kids movies aren't immune. The average movie has henchmen getting killed or injured by the dozens. But if one woman is objectified, that's a crisis.
So yes, I'm somewhat cynical about this whole process.
There was a TV movie starring Daniel Radcliffe made about this called 'The Gamechangers' [1]. The movie was awful, but it featured the legal dispute and the activism over the 'hot coffee' mod/easter egg front and centre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)
He was active in the 1980's campaigning against obscenity and violence in video games and movies. He got disbarred for lying about things... and it turns out that pretty much everything he said was disproven.
i.e. there's no correlation between fake violence and real violence.
Anyone else reminded of the current hysteria around "sexist games are making us sexist?" Which has a similar level of scientific support. i.e. none.