« I Have Met the Enemy And He Is Me | Home | Two More Stories »
How Do We Beat the Bitch?
By Corvus | December 5, 2007
From the American Heritage Dictionary
bitch(bĭch)
n.
1. A female canine animal, especially a dog.
2. Offensive.
1. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
2. A lewd woman.
3. A man considered to be weak or contemptible.
From Wikipedia
Bitch is a term for the female of a canine species in general. It is also frequently used as a derogatory term for a woman, taken to mean that she is malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, or unpleasant. This second meaning has been in use since around 1400. When used to describe a male, it confers the meaning of “subordinate”, especially to another male (as in prison). More recent variants of bitch are bitchy, ill-tempered (1925), and to bitch, to complain (1930).
I recently played a DRPG in which the protagonist was incapable of procreation, immune to all diseases and suffering from amnesia. The game was set in a fantasy world in which an intolerant, women-hating religion held sway among the poorer classes. After playing a portion of the game, I found I could no longer stomach the manner in which women were treated within it, not only by the game’s antagonists, not only by the protagonist, but by the game designers themselves.
The protagonist interacted with four female characters at the onset of the game (five if you include a princess turned monster that the protagonist is fighting in the opening pre-rendered animation). One of the characters was a powerful sorceress. The second an alchemist. The third, a waitress. The fourth, an herbalist and witch. The first two were dressed as you would expect from a fantasy game–inappropriately to the climate and their lifestyles. Fine. I’m used to that and tend to ignore the clumsy presentation of cleavage.
But when the protagonist sleeps with the sorceress (whom he clearly has a history with), the player is presented with a pin-up card as if she were some sort of trophy. Furthermore, the player is offered clumsy and juvenile “come on” dialog for each of the women he meets subsequently. A waitress who rebuffs his eager fumbling, suddenly changes her mind when he saves her from a gang of peasants who are planning on raping her and offers to have sex with him. Then, at the close of the first chapter, the witch who has ignored his hints previously, offers herself to him in exchange for his protection.
…and with each conquest, the player is treated to a diffuse sex scene and a pin-up card of the women he has sex with.
Admittedly, the player is given the option to not sleep with these women, but the constant presence of sexually predatory dialog from the character I was controlling was a bit much to deal with. There was no option to forge strong non-sexual relationships with these women. There was no option to be supportive of them in a platonic fashion. Only sex or disregard for our hero. What sort of message about women is that?
I’ve been informed by the game’s fans that this is part of the dark world in which the game is set. That it is meant as commentary on real world issues. Yet there was no hint of homosexuality present in the game, which would certainly deserve to be present in any commentary on human sexuality. In fact, there was clearly the option of giving presents you found specifically to women and women only. These weren’t items which spoke to the power of the women or their accomplishments either, but pretty scarves and clothes.
Of course, those game’s fans are the same people who responded to my comments with such choice comments as:
Cruel facts of life for the emotionally delicate:
* Men frequently consider women from a purely sexual viewpoint.
* The vast majority of women, at least at some point in their lives, will exploit this fact for their own benefit.
That’s a blatantly misogynistic view of women and completely underlines my point. This is how women are presented, at least during the first chapter, within this game–manipulative and exploitive. How convenient that our hero is able to provide them 100% consequence-free sex then, eh? He’s the prefect target for their machinations.
But as much as the game’s unflattering and shallow portrayal of women bother me, there have been things over the last few months that have bothered me more. Ubisoft’s enthusiastic display of Jade Raymond, the producer of Assassin’s Creed, for example. Everything I have seen of Ms. Raymond indicates that she is an intelligent, creative and driven person. But those aren’t the reasons she was put in the limelight. She was put in the limelight because certain segments of the gaming press respond very enthusiastically to the existence of an attractive women and frequently led off their articles about the game with comment’s about Jade’s appearance. This casual and disrespectful approach to a person’s gender is harmful and irresponsible.
Then, of course, we’re shocked when someone goes too far.
Or maybe we aren’t shocked. Maybe we’re secretly pleased. I saw a somewhat smug “that’s what you get” sentiment in reaction to the tasteless Jade comic that made the rounds. “Happens to men too,” some said. But, the thing is, it doesn’t really. And if it does, it doesn’t have the same affect. Men don’t have a long history of being told that being the victims of rape and abuse is their fault somehow. Men don’t get regularly harassed when walking down the street. Men don’t get turned into the media-darling producer of a game based primarily upon their gender. Why would we dismiss the valid concerns about a social cancer running through our culture in such a manner? Why would we try and blame Jade for such a comic being produced? Or for Ubisoft’s subsequent threat of a law suit? We shouldn’t. It’s wrong.
And lest you think I have some hang up on sex (I don’t), let me show you that this issue runs deeper than the portrayal of women as sexual objects:
This ad for a test tracking software ran in a recent GameDeveloper magazine. The women are marginalized, on the sidelines. They are not capable of competing with the men who are the superstars and do the real work (which appears to be… clothed greco-roman wrestling, perhaps?). Instead, they stand on the sidelines and cheer. This perfectly illustrates the underlying themes of misogyny and oppression that make me so angry.
Don’t get me wrong–I know that the issue, this disrespectful attitude about women, goes far deeper than the game industry. If a potential world leader, presidential candidate John MacCain, from the supposedly enlightened western world can’t even appropriately address the issue when a supporter asks, “How do we beat the bitch?” on national television, where are we then?*
I’d like to close with an answer to that question for you, Mr. John MacCain. It’s an answer the rest of us should take to heart as well…
How do we beat “the bitch”? Well, first of all we have to accept that women are equally capable of filling the office of the presidency. Secondly we have to realize that the term you just used to describe her has layered connotations, none of which are very flattering. “Bitch” is a term originally used for female dogs capable of breeding. Men started using it for women when they would take their rightful place as equals within a culture. More and more as women rose above their ‘traditional’ stations, men reminded them of their status as “breeder.” Now, I know you’ll argue that in the modern world men are now called ‘bitches’ as well. But this isn’t equality in action. When men are called ‘bitches’ they are being assigned a subordinate role. By extension, the role of a woman. The fact is, that women are not second class citizens, nor should they be. We must stop holding women to a separate standard. We must always treat them respectfully as equals in all things. Then, and only then, will we have beaten “the bitch.”
*Huffinton Post: Debra Condren
Tagged:gender roles, Industry, misogyny, Round Table, social responsibility. |
December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Nice catch on the GDMag ad.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Very nice article. I agree with you. What always annoys the hell out of me is how women are dressed in games. The guy who came up with the belly-top knight armor deserves to be executed. Or maybe we should postpone that execution until somebody comes up with the belly-top space suit.
However as far as sex goes that is a complicated subject because morally, sex is a high assymetrical subject. If a guy has sex frequently, he’s a stud and a winner. If a woman has sex frequently, she’s a whore. Also the other way around: a guy who seldom has sex is considered a looser. If abstinence is for woman a virtue.
I’m not saying that this is how it is SUPPOSED to be but even in our modern times, this subtext is somehow always there and it might lead us hit the alarm button too quickly when sex is depicted in games.
But then again, game designers don’t even try to anticipate that.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Not to mention cross cultural difficulties. In the US, audiences tend to have a very different reaction to sexual content due to the more… puritanical influences on our culture.
I’m all for sex in games. I just would like to see it handled in a mature and non-gratuitous fashion.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
That’s sweet that you’re attacking poorly portrayed women in games, though I think your motivation stems more from a desire to tie in with this month’s theme of “gender in games” than a deep-set commitment to overcoming it. Feel free to prove me wrong with more posts and calls to action on how to fix this problem (see below). Yet, as you know, the games you describe are part of a long line of products from both sides of the pond that paint women as objects — from Tomb Raider to God of War.
Interestingly, the game you describe at first, which I won’t name if you won’t, was developed in Poland and had huge problems even getting published in the US because of those very issues you mention. The pin-up cards were eventually censored in the US version. The same game was nearly censored in Europe not for the sex, but for its violent content. I don’t think censorship is the answer, but maybe you suffer from the same puritanical influences?
Regardless, I would like to see you point to a real and practical solution to this problem: get more women hired and promoted in the game development industry. Now we may have little influence about who gets hired in Poland, but do what you can to mentor, support, and hire women in the industry. Once women have more power in game development, you won’t see design choices that “bother” and “anger” you, because, believe me, they are far more harmful to us.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Anne, your tone is of someone who is on the edge of anger and I apologize if my post was upsetting to you. My primary intent was to point out that the harmful and dismissive attitudes go deeper in our society than just in our games, they are in our industry and in our social institutions. I chose the theme of this month’s Round Table in order to foster discussion on an important topic across multiple blogs and wrote this post to open up topics for people to run with. I’m glad that your reaction is to point out steps we can take to correct the issue with game design, i.e. hiring more women. I’d be honored if you wanted to post on your own blog with a full response to my post and submitted it to the Round Table.
Silence benefits no one.
Absolutely hiring more women is a huge step we can take to address the issues with the portrayal of women in games. Perhaps exposure to more women in a professional setting will also go a long way to helping men think of them as real and complex people.
I believe that while these issue hurt women more than men, they aren’t doing men any favors either. Society as a whole suffers from hateful behavior. The fact that I am a man ought not diminish my anger over the treatment of women. If it did, would we all really be equal?
December 6th, 2007 at 7:29 am
This topic would be more interesting to me if you’d mention which game you’re talking about, so I could have some context upon which to drape the discussion. Thanks.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Fair enough, peterb. I thought it might be obvious due to last week’s hullabaloo, but the game in question is The Witcher.
I didn’t reference it directly in the post, as I felt it was pretty representative of an entire genre and my point is more one of underlying themes than specific instances.
But, as I specifically referenced Jade Raymond, the GDmag ad and John MacCain, I suppose it was a rather uneven approach, eh?
December 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I had just gone back through your posts from last week and figured that out, but thanks for being explicit. I tend to get snowed under at work, and then I start reading blogs backwards in time.
First off, on an unrelated note, congratulations on your first paid article! The number of angry comments you got on that article indicate that you did a good job. For what it’s worth, my first paid article, in which I panned Civ IV, drew a similar amount of ire. If you upset people, you’re doing it right. Keep on.
Responding to Anne, your solution of “get more women hired and promoted in game development” seems to me to be the antithesis of “practical.” The belief that women won’t product games that are just as misogynistic and puerile as those produced today is, in addition to being a hopelessly sexist in and of itself, also completely wrong. Just ask the woman who asked the question “How can we beat the bitch?”
The driving force in software design is the urge to produce a succesful product that sells well. What drives the market isn’t the gender of software producers, but _demand_. If the market was such that games where you rape hookers flopped on the shelves, I guarantee you that the people that made Grand Theft Auto would have found something else to do by now. Now, there _is_ a feedback loop where gamers (foolishly) decide to become game designers, artists, programmers, and producers, but that’s a seperable issue, because that feedback loop isn’t responsible for the ongoing popularity of chicks-in-chainmail games. It’s a symptom, not a cause.
Essentially, we still live in a world where the publishers believe that the primary market for games is as toys for adolescent boys. As long as that belief persists, games will continue to have adolescent portrayals of women, and they would do so even if every producer and programmer was a woman, because nobody, _nobody_ wants to make a product that doesn’t sell. The best way to minimize — not eliminate — this sort of garbage portrayal of women is to expand the definition of the market such that anyone who puts a chick in a chainmail bra on the box cover of their game is limiting its appeal to a fringe market sector.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
You can’t rape hookers in GTA.
“Essentially, we still live in a world where the publishers believe that the primary market for games is as toys for adolescent boys.”
There is a difference between games made FOR adolescent boys and games BY adolescent boys. Adolescent boys might be into a lot of stuff. It is the responsibility of game designers to care about the morality of their games.
Also, I believe your model of the market is a bit too simple. To objectify women might seem attractive to some adolescent boys but it is not the exclusive main selling point of any game. No potential game buyer out there will say “I can’t tread women like crap in this game so it sucks and I won’t buy it.”
December 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
peterb, you bring up a chicken/egg theory - You seem to believe that it’s an unending cycle - that currently, the men and women of the game industry cannot make games that appeal to women. Therefore, publishers following the money will not care to pay attention to women gamers since it is not a substantial part of the current market. Is that a correct summation?
It’s been the goal of WIGI and related groups to promote female involvement in the production process. This is not to say that men cannot make games that appeal to women, but that by having a more diverse workforce, you have a multitude of influences which will tend to lead to a broadening of the market. It was women who noticed that their friends used printers for making patterns - now HP caters to those sewing groups.
The casual game market has shown the power of women gamers’ purchasing power. In fact, women often influence greatly decisions made in the household, from what electronics to buy for the living room to what food is being placed on the table. The casual game developers actively want more women in their production teams. Years ago at GDC (not now, perhaps, since female attendance at GDC has risen dramatically over the years), there were panels on What do women players want and how do we think like them? I saw such a panel at SXSW last year…
GiG’s roundtables led to much discussion on many topics regarding women in the industry. Diversity initiatives have been proven to help company’s profits. There are very cogent, economic reasons to promote diversity in game production.
However, it is this attitude of “Girls don’t play games anyway so why should we care?” that makes people complacent.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I really liked your article Corvus and I think the comments bear out the value of raising the issue, even if your perspective wasn’t fully satisfying to some.
I work for a casual game studio and we have tried to do exactly what the posters have suggested in terms of recruiting, hiring and mentoring women. But honestly, it’s a tough decision to bring on less experienced (sometimes completely unexperienced) candidates based on the hope that their gender will somehow offset the lack of experience by creating a more diverse team dynamic.
My experience has been that the women who are interested in working in games often share the same predispositions about how (casual) games should work (perhaps because they share the same culture and love of games) and don’t ultimately change that much about how we work or the creative decisions we make (which isn’t to say that they don’t have an impact or a positive contribution).
Ultimately, I’m not as interested in someone’s gender as I am in their ability to contribute and execute. Finding talented people who have the skills to be good game designers is very, very difficult.
On a few occasions we have hired women who’s resumes would have not even garnered an interview were they men, and with mixed results that turned out to have nothing to do with their gender at all.
For those who argue there needs to be more aggressive recruiting of women in the games business, how do you propose we balance the need to manage risk in our business with the fact that, although there are some talented women in the industry, for the most part this kind of recruiting requires reaching out to people who may not have any track record making games?
December 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Sande,
No, you are misunderstanding my point completely. The emotional maturity of those developing games is completely beside the point. Games are made with sexist imagery _not_ because the producers are sexist, but because there is a financial incentive to produce them. If there was a widespread belief among game creators that including sexist imagery in a game would reduce its market appeal, such imagery would be much more rare. Conversely, if the market _required_ sexist imagery to sell games, then I am quite sure that there would be (and, to be frank, are) female producers, developers, artists, and musicians producing such content.
The proclivities or beliefs of the designers and developers are quite immaterial here: a racist housepainter is perfectly capable of not painting swastikas on a house that she works on.
My point is that claiming that a “practical” solution to sexist imagery in games is to promote more women entering the industry is analogous to the claim that one can reduce the number of auto accidents by encouraging people to use more olive oil instead of saturated fats in cooking, thus reducing their risk of a heart attack while driving. Certainly it’s a laudable change in and of itself, but “practical” is the last word I would use to describe it.
The practical ways to combat such imagery involve a number of steps, including but not limited to: encouraging people to speak out against such tripe when they see it (rather than, as Anne oes, adopt a condescending and paternalistic stance — “It’s sweet that…”) and (2) Expand the market so that, eventually, games that don’t use such imagery sell better than games that do. I agree that the casual games industry is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, and I expect that to continue over time.
(1) is important because it sets the tone of the debate and frames the sorts of games that will get more (or less) attention than others. (2) is important because without a real financial incentive to create games that appeal to humans, instead of teenagers, the lions’ share of publishers will (rationally) continue on the same path.
I hope this clarifies my position.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Maybe I’m biased because I’m a long-time reader, but I think it’s a bit much to attack Corvus over exploiting gender issues as a convienent topic. I’m sure with a little searching this will not be the first example of him addressing gender issues. This is actually an issue that figures quite heavily in the mind of more mature gamers.
I have written on this issue a number of times myself. I once noted in regards to a respected woman in my field that I was not attracted to her but wanted to be like her. Not that she isn’t an attractive woman, but my admiration of her stems from her ability to, frankly, think in a way that I don’t see myself ever being able to do.
I think, as someone has already touched on, that there is something to be said for games being made by adolescent boys. While I have enjoyed the Baldur’s Gate and Knights of the Old Republic series, I couldn’t help but think that the romantic relationships couldn’t be more obviously written by a bunch of geeks with social issues. Baldur’s Gate II in particular had the full range of how many geeks seem to portray women. There was the “good girl”, the “slut”, and the “harpy”. The only romantic interest available for female characters was a guy who as a bit of a whiner. Hmmm…. I can’t say Knights of the Old Republic got any better, and certainly Knights of the Old Republic II was even worse in this regard despite being developed by a different company.
To be honest, and don’t hate me for admitting this, I don’t mind a little escapist fantasy every now and again. Certainly I have met quite a few women in the real world whose attitudes and manner of dress do not scream “Respect me as a person!” That said, I am all about taking people on an individual basis, and so I have a problem with essentially painting all women as sexually repressed vixens waiting for just the right man to come along and release them from their inhibitions. Along those same lines, I have never been able to adjust the fantasy depictions of women, particularly in video games. They portrayal of women in fantasy has been the zenith of misogyny. I find it very odd that the “good girls” and the stereotypical damsels in distress are still often portrayed as fully clothed and virtuous, but any woman who wants to actively participate in adventuring or is any kind of antagonist takes their fashion tips from prostitutes who have a metal and leather fetish.
I actually don’t want to be pounded over the head with sexuality. It just loses its effect after awhile. On an immature mind I can see the appeal, but for me I actually do get tired of having it shoved in my face, believe it or not. Maybe it’s because I’d like to think that these women I could go adventuring with or may have a conflict with would seem more worthy to me if they were given more characterization than just a pair of breasts. I’m male, I have no objections to eye candy, but my intellectual side wants more than the usual two-dimensional characterization of the a three-dimensional rendering if you know what I mean.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
@Peterb: I believe I did understand your point correctly. Again, I just think your explanation is too simple.
“Games are made with sexist imagery _not_ because the producers are sexist, but because there is a financial incentive to produce them.”
Yes, that is the motivation (obviously) but that’s not the end of the story. First of all you have to separate what producers BELIEVE makes a game sell and what reasons customers have to buy them. There is a widespread belief that being sexist improves sales and I doubt it is true.
Producers might not be intensionally sexist but then again, they are not completely appealed by it either. That’s what I mean when I said “games made BY adolescent boys”. I agree with you that they totally believe that it is part of what makes a good game. Anything else is speculation.
And yes, a racist housepainter is perfectly capable of not painting swastikas on a house but if you give him an unpainted house and some paint and encourage him to be creative and come up with what he thinks is an attractive design, his bias will inevitably show trough.
Your solutions I find rather inconsequent. If sexist game really sell well among adolescent boys because of their sexist content (which I don’t believe), speaking out against sexism won’t affect anybody. The adolescent audience has the tendency to resist any direct efforts to impose any kind of moralization in them. The developers won’t abandon part of their revenue just because somebody tells them “it’s bad”. And “Expanding the Market” is somewhat a fuzzy term - how exactly would you do that? And who?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:18 am
I’m in agreement with you here, but I do find your stance toward Jade Raymond a little puzzling. Should Ubisoft NOT have put her forward as the spokesperson?
What it comes down to is that she was a producer, and if she had a been a man (attractive or not) it wouldn’t have been an issue. There was nothing at all wrong with putting her out there, since that’s standard practice in the industry. The producer steers the overall vision of the game and so should be best qualified to discuss it in larger terms. Every time I saw Jade Raymond talk about the game that’s exactly what she did.
The real problem is that the gaming press is often as juvenile as its readership. And its readership skews toward the infantile.
The sad part, to me, is the effect on women in the industry. Who wants to work in an industry where your audience reeks of misogyny? Even if it’s a small percentage, it’s a vocal and hateful percentage.
Every time I think progress has been made the ugliness rears up. It’s sickening, really.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:37 am
I absolutely think Ubisoft should put every intelligent, driven and creative producer forward as the spokesperson of their game. But I don’t feel those are the reasons Ubisoft put Jade in the limelight. I suspect Ubisoft made Jade the spokesperson for Assassin’s Creed precisely to generate the sort of juvenile attention that she got. This makes Ubisoft just as complicit in her harassment as the news sites which created an atmosphere of, “OMG, bobbies!”
…and you’re right. Every time I saw Jade she was professional, engaging, courteous an clearly worthy of both her position and being the public face of the game. I’m proud that I’m involved in an industry that hires people like her.
But the industry could use more personalities and less publisher recognition. I’d like to see more producers asked to be in the limelight, regardless of their gender or physical attractiveness.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
In the past, when designers, producers, developers or whatever have come front and center it’s often because they have something of a “rockstar” personality. I think a lot of times the reason why we don’t see more of the people involved in creating games is simply because they tend to be your typical awkward techno-geek.
Regardless of the reason, from what I’ve seen of Ms. Raymond is that while she can speak quite competently about her product, she is not the “rockstar” type. I feel pretty secure in saying that if she were a man she likely would NOT have been put out there the way she is. I’m not beating her up or anything, she’s enthusiastic about the game and that’s good. She’s also a fairly competent speaker, so there is nothing I can say about her as a person that is bad, I’m just saying the exact same kind of person sans boobs and with a penis would likely be kept in whatever closet Ubisoft keeps their development teams.
It’s a pretty shallow attention grab. I guess it’s been some years since the days of Stevie “Killcreek” Case, who was hired as a “level designer” for Daikatana while dating John Romero. Not exactly the proudest moment for gender equality in gaming. Unfortunately, it’s those events that gamers seem to recall. Anytime a company throughs a rep out there that is female and even mildly attractive I don’t think it produces the most positive reaction. Why would it? For the longest time the epitomy of game marketing was booth babes at E3.
I don’t think we can just simply lay the blame that “sex sells” or that a more even-handed portrayal of female characters won’t sell well. I think it’s quite clear that a certain air of misogyny continues to linger around videogames. Until more gamers are willing to quit defending it I don’t think it will go away anytime soon.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Corvus said:
“Well, first of all we have to accept that women are equally capable of filling the office of the presidency.”
Absolutely. Just not the one currently running. She is pro-censorship and I wouldn’t support anyone who held the kinds of beliefs she does about video games.
We have short memories, and forget she is best buddies with Tipper Gore who attempted to ban rap music in the early 90s, and got instated the Lyrics Advisory Warning which, unfortunately for poor Tipper, only grew to cultural significance as “This music is f-in cool!”
Now, I’m not talking about rap music’s attitude towards women of course, or the respectable idea that children should be protected from certain things at a young age.
My problem is that these politicians attack the artists and the mediums themselves, and make freedom of speech and artistic expression some kind of public enemy number one.
I withhold my vote from a female candidate in this next election, not because of what gender she is, but because of what she believes. More importantly, that she doesn’t believe video games should share the same freedom of speech that other mediums do.
That raises a much more tricky point which I’m a bit reluctant to pose, but will so anyway for the sake of interesting discussion…
At what point does the attack against misogynist expression begin to infringe upon freedom of speech?
We do not have to approve of the pornographic cartoon circulating that features Jade Raymond. But some people will go so far as to say, people shouldn’t be allowed to create that kind of thing?
I find these things offensive myself, but have to draw the line at freedom of speech. The point at which we begin to dictate what a person can or cannot create, is the point at which we are no longer a free country.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I don’t think anyone is actually suggesting we curtail the freedom of speech. I’m certainly not advocating any such thing. I’m suggesting there’s a problem which underlies the misogynistic expression and that we ought to seek solutions to those social imbalances, not the expression of them.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Yeah, I see this argument all the time: “Criticizing people who say hateful things infringes on their freedom of speech!”
Huh?
December 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Since my spouse started working for GameSatan a while back, I’ve been surprised by the number of people right in the thick of game development don’t understand the need to rethink some aspects of game design–both visual and conceptual–to hook women and gamers in general who don’t want misogyny or the rest of the same old same old. I am a woman who loves games and has really a lot of disposable income, and I rarely find games worth buying. I want long-playing games based around building and improving something, rather than burning crap down. I want game logic that is hard to crack in the first hour of play. I want cleverness and wit and decent copy writing. I don’t go in for shooter games at all (it’s a carsickness thing for me), and I’m not rewarding the heaving-bosom style developers unless they come up with something truly revolutionary that makes up for the lazy visual design. And when I try to explain that to folks at GameSatan (other than my spouse), they get blank looks on their faces and just encourage me to try the games I hate again and ignore what bugs me. Noooooooo! Not the point, fellahs. Put down the beer and actually listen to someone who is telling you how to please a grossly underserved, cash-rich section of the market. Even if they lack the philosophical sense, they should get that Civ 4 and Black and White aren’t enough to keep people like me sated. Grumble grumble.
Not that I have an opinion or anything.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Thanks for the article.
I’m not personally “militant” about these issues, even though they do annoy me somewhat. The funny thing is, I always get accused of being a “militant feminist” whenever I hint at it in a general gaming forum. The feeling I get from male gamers in general is that I should either shut up and accept it, or I’m being a complete bitch. I’ve even been told to “go back to kitchen” when I’ve brought it up that I don’t like characters like BloodRayne. The person who said this to me was not punished in any way in a moderated group.
If you’d tell a black person to “go back to play basketball” in a moderated forum, I am betting you’d be banned. But for a woman you can say anything.
And BTW, the things you mentioned above are the reason why I will not be playing The Witcher.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:38 am
The choice to sleep with them is a choice solely made by the player and the player alone. When given a choice, players will ALWAYS take the choice that benefits them the most (in this case — a girl/woman would do the same thing). It is also lighthearted (which doesn’t make it less vulgar but still) so in a way whether or not you like it — you made the decision to sleep with the women, not the designers, no?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Paula, I’ve witnessed such aggressive and hateful reaction to women in the gaming community and for some reason I am almost always shocked by it. The “shut up” message is also very strong whenever gay people talk about their concerns as well.
Bjorn, read this bit again:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
It has been my unfortunate experience to realize that men who attack you and call you a “feminist” or a “bitch” are more often than not using the words to deter you from exposing their own misguided mindset or behavior. As far as I am concerned these issues are not about Feminism or Mens Activism they are about basic human decency.
I do not think there is anything wrong with women being beautiful or tastefully sexy. The problem in my opinion is the idea of “sexual social exchange” that is being propagated. The social issue seems to be integrity and self control. If a man saves a woman from a gang rape he should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. He should not feel entitled to sex, nor should she feel obligated to give it. Any decent upstanding man protects a woman from violence or harm because it is morally right, not for the “payment” of getting his rocks off. If I see a man beating up another man I will step in because the violence shouldn’t be occurring. I do not “expect payment”, certainly not sex. This being said, women need not offer themselves either, as women have so often been conditioned to do. If a man can’t do acts of kindness for a woman without expecting payment of sex, he is neither a man nor a hero.
“Only sex, or disregard for our hero. What sort of message about women is that?”
What sort of message about men is that?
There is a mens movement that self servingly believe that if they buy a gift for a woman they are engaged in a social exchange of prostitution. If you consider the implications of this you should be scared. I am sad to say that these demented cretins do exist.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I correct my previous assertion. The men who unfortunately buy into this belief are not themselves demented cretins, they are misguided. Their belief and behavior may lean toward the definition but belief and behavior can change.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
God!! this is some serious whining from some psycho feminist or someone toeing their lines.
Lets face it!! Women are weak and pathetic. No way in this world(or any world for that matter) can they compete with a man on equal grounds. This equality nonsense is a sham, purposely done to give women an upper hand the unfair way with absurd laws. Can any women tell me how the f**k can a person be both strong and independent as well as a victim??? Huh!!!
The feminist peddling this crap for years now.
I am happy the game this lunatic is talking about has portrayed women the right way. SEXUAL RECREATIONAL OBJECTS!!! Thats the only reason a man would need a women in the first place….rest are all BS