Take a Woman's Studies course. It's one of the best things you can do for yourself. PROTIP: The vast, overwhelming majority of feminism consists of women (and men) who believe that men and women should be treated equally. They take hard stances on issues of gender/sex discrimination and often struggle to get their point across to people who condemn them as "femi-nazis." If you see someone saying they're a feminist and that they actually hate men, I'd be very surprised. The term "SJW" is a derogatory, dismissive term coined by people who believe that there is nothing to criticize in the gaming industry, especially when it comes to the treatment of women and minorities in the industry. Calling someone an SJW is akin to saying you're ignoring their entire point, regardless of what it actually is, because you believe they're out to convince everyone that you're a racist homophobe or whatever. It's really no better than what you're accusing them of doing to you. 99.9% of the time I see someone labeled as an SJW, it's because the person who they're arguing with really does not understand the point they are attempting to make, on the most basic level. Does that make them some awful misogynist? No, not at all. It does make them willfully ignorant of someone's views. By labeling someone an SJW off-hand, you're no better than the people who want to label you a misogynist for disagreeing with them. I think you've got your arguments mixed up. I'll try to explain. In the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, people who are labeled "SJWs" are those who find issues in a given form of media, make complaints about that form of media, and are labeled "SJWs" by people who don't understand the problem, don't think there is a problem, or are just stupid. Let me give you a very good example. This is the avatar for the Dragon's Crown sorceress character. It is ridiculous. Her boobs are way too big and floppy, I feel like if someone like that actually existed they'd have scoliosis. This portrayal of a woman is, frankly, absurd and awful, and probably at least a little bit sexist. No woman wants to be portrayed in a videogame this way. And you would never see a man portrayed in a game in this way either: if there was just some skinny dude walking around with a huge bulge in his pants, people would have a lot of issues with it. But when people complained, legitimately, about the way the sorceress was portrayed, they were shouted down as "SJWs". People didn't understand that the sorceress is a gross example of the objectification of women in the gaming industry. They didn't understand this objectification is harmful to both men and women. They didn't understand that many women, who are gamers, actually found the sorceress extremely offensive. They just accused the "SJWs" of not being free thinkers, of not respecting the game creator's artistic license. They were, to be perfectly honest, ignorant of a real, actual problem that exists, still, in the gaming industry. This, right here, is why the SJW label is profoundly stupid. When you assume the "SJW" has no legitimate complaint, when you assume that there's no real issue, that whatever they're saying is just a way to label you as an awful person, when you think they're the ones trying to make people conform, you're making a very big mistake. There is no forced conformity. There is no thought police. There is no "SJW" attempt to mold gaming into something that it isn't. People who think that there is need to get educated on the real issues facing gaming right now. This example (one of many, let me tell you) is indicative of how legitimate complaints can be overruled by the "SJW" label, and have been time and again. Objectification of women in the industry is a huge problem, that is a long way from being solved. Here's proof if you don't believe me. It harms womens' self image, it harms mens' perceptions of women, it turns many potential gamers off the market by relegating their entire demographic to eye-candy, and it is, frankly, an archaic view of women that doesn't belong in this day and age. But still, whenever someone complains, they're automatically an "SJW" out to label everyone as a misogynist. They don't have real complaints, they're probably not even an actual gamer, they're just some "SJW" thought police out to take our games away. The "SJWs" just want to make all the developers and gamers conform to them, instead of being free to have problematic, ignorant views that do much more harm than good. Right.
I don't think anyone is accusing you of being oppressive for being a white man. I'm a white man, and no one has accused me of being oppressive. Just existing and liking games doesn't make someone an awful person. And I don't think anyone is claiming that "If you're not agreeing with me you're a misogynist," because if they did say that then it's the wrong thing to say. Not agreeing/having no opinion on social issues like these is fine, it's really just fine. The issue comes from arguing that there is no problem at all, when there actually is, or labeling an entire group of people as "crazy SJWs" just because they have progressive social views and are complaining about legitimate problems in the industry. As long as you keep an open mind and don't say problematic things like "THERE SHOULD BE NO WOMEN IN GAMES EVER AND GAYS ARE BAD" then you can be safely assured that no one will be calling you an awful person. Or if they do, they're dumb.
Well most women dont find skinne dudes with Big dongs sexy, so thats a pretty bad argument from the dragons Crown thing, also look at the dwaf and knight, they are pretty much giant roid bombs.
You must have missed an entire week worth of articles and several on sided arguments and podcast doing that. The funny thing is that I agree on a lot of points but I strongly disagree on how they aproach them (as I said the "with me or against me" just blew my mind). I usually just care about the quality of a video game, if is fun to play the rest is mostly irrelevant, but I don't want to see developers forced to add something because they are scared of bad press is they don't agree, correct me if I'm wrong but I think Kingdom Come Deliverance got black listed from several gaming websites after they said NO when some people asked/demanded them to add black characters... they are trying to make the most realistic medieval european game ever, it just doesn't fit in the game, why should be forced?
Most kids today don't even know who He-Man is. He also wasn't around for very long. Barbie is very old and very pervasive in our culture. That being said, the ideas behind He-Man are just as important the gender studies as the ideas behind Barbie. It's a gender binary that is being enforced. Two extremes who exist together. To destabilize one is to destabilize the other. The argument about Dragon's Crown is sound because you recognize how ridiculous it is. The male equivalent is so out of touch with reality that we don't even see it as a possible outcome. That is why this an issue. Women are portrayed in such a ridiculous way and it's become normalized. Darnath, I'm very glad to here your stance on gender equality. I think there may be some confusion though. While you may seek out blogs (not all feminists are politically liberal, by the way. Feminism in itself has no inherent political side) to stay informed, you're still getting a warped idea of feminism. It is not one cohesive group and this is a very common misconception. A lot of people, some of my close friends included, don't consider themselves feminists, even though they espouse all the ideals of certain branches, because of the image media has created. It is not seem as a true field of study or philosophy with multiple legitimate branches because most people see it as something that came about in the last few decades. These ideas have been in literature since the 1800's and some of those are seminal texts for gender studies. You can have multiple branches of feminism who are almost completely opposite. That means that there will be many outspoken feminists that go against what you might think it's all about. Hell, one of the most influential modern feminists, Audry Lorde, was so influential because she pointed out blatant hypocrisy and took a different route. My point is that I really appreciate your effort to understand. It seems like a rare thing recently. I highly recommend you to seek out the more academic side of feminism. Many of the people I encounter who casually throw around misogyny at the drop of a hate are the ones who follow the ideals of feminism but never had it tempered by hard information. They're outraged by what it all exposes in our society but surround themselves with equally uninformed people. I've seen a ton of these people who are perfectly reasonable and contribute a lot of good stuff. I've also seen a ton of not so reasonable people. The not so reasonable people are most often misinformed to the point where they think feminism is this unified thing. Either against all evils or for some misguided agenda. I think there are branches of feminism that honestly oppose men in many ways. There are also branches that strongly support males issues as much as female issues, and there are much more of the latter branch. It's not an 'us against them' issue. People want that too much. They want a clear defined group to oppose. This is about discourse. Discussion. Analysis. No weird online group bent on domination through social media. They probably have very similar views to you but neither of you know how to articulate it in a way the other understands. ^Joram, just because there are feminists who say all white men are oppressive doesn't mean they're right. They're still feminist but they may not have a sound argument. I think the patriarchal structure is oppressive and race is in there as well but those are systems. Patriarchy oppresses men and women, and women can contribute to it just as much. This is the sign of someone who is caught up in anger. Leveling the systematic issues at the individual. Think of it like the Matrix. You can't escape it, even reduce it, until you're aware that you participate. Awareness, not accusation, is what I see as the best course of action.
As I said, if any person actually considers you awful just for being a white man, I'd be really surprised. If you can show me some of the articles and podcasts you're talking about, I'd be happy to look at them as proof. But if that's the message they're trying to get across, then it's a bad message. Most of the methods I see people complaining about issues in videogames use are little more than social media campaigns, forum discussions, and comments on articles. People used the same methods to complain when Bioware included queer romance options in DA2 and ME3, and no one batted an eyelash. But when someone says "Hey that female character is poorly designed and is basically walking boobs" suddenly everyone is up in arms, throwing around labels like "SJW" and "thought-police." I am one to agree, the quality of the game should come first. But this isn't an issue of quality. When a developer wants to make a woman a protagonist, their superiors will literally tell them not to do it because the game will not sell, and they will not be given any money for marketing the game. This has happened many times, and is a well documented issue in the industry. It almost happened with Naughty Dog's game Last of Us, with some senior marketing directors actually fighting to remove Ellie's sections of the game entirely. Literally for no other reason than because they thought no one would want the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with a game including just white dudes. I think it's boring, personally, but whatever floats your boat. The issue comes from context: Is it a game about Africa? Why are there no black men? Is it a Civ V esq world leader game? Why are there no options for female world leaders? Or, if you want to pull an Ubisoft: "Women are just to expensive to put into games. But look at these shiny graphics!" Don't just assume people are whining about nothing. Race, gender, sex, class, they all matter. They're subtle, but they matter. If a game isn't being inclusive, and they're using problematic reasoning, then they should be called out on it.
Another thing I'd like to put up for some thought: Think about how many times you bought this awesome new game and the protag did not resemble you in vague terms. Sex, race, and sexual orientation. Now think about how many times it did. Regardless of where you fall in those categories, there will be a huge amount of of bias toward one side. I'm a straight, white dude. An overwhelming amount of video games to appeal to my demographic. That is wrong. Now think about the fact that tons of people have grown up almost never playing video games where the protag looked like them. It's almost hard for me to imagine because it's such a common things in game for the protag to be straight, white and male. Not only does this make players disenfranchised, it limits creativity. Last of Us is a perfect example. Tomb Raider as well. Naughty Dog had to fight to keep Ellie the way she was and look at that game. It feels fresh. Sure, they're both white but it's not about making everything fit some perfectly equal utopia. Last of Us feels organic. We all know strong men and women who are like Ellie and Joel. Tomb Raider has gone from a chick with big boobs to a realistic, strong protag who happens to be a women. The new Tomb Raider was great and I've never been in to that series. Not only does it make for an enjoyable game, it adds variety. Even stuff like Portal does its own thing. Portal 1 actually has no male characters in it. Portal 2 is half and half pretty much. And then stuff like Mass Effect where you can choose. Pretty much every female gamer I know likes or loves Mass Effect. Maybe because you can make Shepard look just like you and they're still the same character? I actually prefer femShep now, after doing a playthrough just to see what it was like. When the gaming business caters to your demographic, it's tough to get outside of that and look at what could be
All the "gamer are dead" articles that coincidentally came out at the same time on gamasutra, polygon, ars technica and all the other shitty "gaming" websites, not going to look through their websites to find the articles, I refuse to give them a single click. Also webs like Verge, VICE and huffingtonpost reports have also been 100% biased and one sided, same thing with every single piece of mainstream media on the issue. That's what I can agree with them, there are a lot of female characters with the only purpose to be a damisel on distress waiting to be saved, as Murtag says if you have a game where the gender/race of the main character doesn't affect the story (specially important on games based on movies/books) you should give people choices. If is their superiors fault (publishers or CEOs from studios and not designers) why are they attacking white males gamers for it? is my fault to be the biggest demographic for video games? is there any study that I say I will refuse to buy a game if it has a female character? They are aiming their weapons at the wrong side, if they really want a female character on AC:U why they don't call for a boycott instead of blaming the demographic the game is aimed at? I'm gonna guess that's because DICE will not pay you for give them a speech of how you should represent woman on video games if you go against the companies .
I agree with that but it is a complicated situation. The gaming community has a lot of toxic practices. I always remember hearing about girls who played games for attention but weren't "real" gamers. My female friends have all experience some seriously creepy dudes just because they're girls and playing games. It's a matter of opinion. Some people feel that an in-your-face approach works best. Confront the demographic with what they overwhelmingly commit. There's a good chance that all of us have participated in or enabled this behavior. The issue is that people get defensive. They hear "straight white gamers cause many of these problems" and immediately say "Well I didn't do any of that!" That's not the point. Personally, I have never raped anyone but my demographic is most likely to do it. There is a clear issue that needs to be resolved within that demographic, regardless of the fact that I have not done that. People immediately make it about themselves. This is a broad issue, about groups of people. The thing is that the very publishers and CEOs you mentioned also fall in the same demographic as all the consumers where there's an issue. An overwhelming amount. This isn't a blame game; this is a numbers game. You can look at the numbers and see an obvious issue. How you confront the issue is up to you but people don't blindly go into this. They've studied their evidence and worked to get into a position where people listen to them. You may disagree with their argument but you need to remove your personal feeling from some of the situation and look at it analytically. These people have logically based assumptions. Look at how much press this is generating. Even if it's negative press, people are talking. We're talking. We're trading ideas and creating discourse. I disagree with some of the recent methods but I can't disagree with the results. These issues are out in the open, or more so than before. There's a concept called visibility. It's why you see more gay couples in media now. It's affirming their existence against the popular culture that tries to hide it. Gay people were rarely in media but they always existed. Media supplants the real in many cases; what see can sometimes become more real than what is. Look at the stereotypes attached to gamers that are spread through media. Visibility is ridiculously important and right now these gender issues are gaining visibility.
I don't have a problem with the Dragon's Crown Sorceress, or any other avatar someone wants to make. I think people should be able to make the game they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't play it. My problem is when you don't like something and try shutting it down so no one can enjoy it. The gaming industry should not revolve around one person or one group of people. If you are trying to dictate what everyone can play or make then you are why the "SJW" label was made. Finding "issues in a given form of media" is fine and shouldn't get you labeled as a SJW. Plenty of people have issues with various forms of media. It's when you try suppressing what you don't like so that other people can't enjoy what they like that it becomes an issue. Even though we know controlling what people can do is always for the greater good . The truth is that there is zero reason for any of this. Regardless of what you would like to see (Gay male hero, transgender hero, plus size female hero, etc) we have the technology to make it! The more diversity we have the more options we have, and that is good! People that try shutting down gay games (or whatever game someone wants to make) are just as bad as people that want to delete the Dragon's Crown Sorceress. There is room for both. Instead of trying to ban things people should try making things. If you think there is not enough diversity I would agree with you. If you think the way to become more diverse is to ban things I would disagree. I think the more creative people are actually doing this and that we will continue to see a greater variety of protagonist and storylines. More variety, not less, will make the gaming industry better.
