Body Types and video games

[Meshugger]

Pfffft, a philosopher king doesn't intermingle with, nor encourage the thoughts of the imaginary enemies that materialize from the common pleb.

 

*tips fedora*

[Orogun01]

[Euphoria intensifies]

[213374U]

Heh, missed this.

 

 

For the physical description part I'm not sure it's even possible to do that. There isn't really a happy medium between 36-24-36 blonde 19yo triplet and a robotic litany of mathematical formula that literally objectifies, because whatever you say the implication is that you'd be unhappy and reject the brunette 19 yo triplet because her elbows are too pointy she isn't blonde or because her hip to waist ratio isn't 1.414:1 and that mole means she doesn't have excellent symmetry- and you are listing a bunch of physical characteristics as if they are important.

 

But then you are simply offering a description of extrinsic qualities and magnitudes gathered by observation (albeit with the mind's eye), rather than applying qualities by association with objects. Here, the objectification allegation cannot stand beyond the acknowledgment that the physical form of a human being is, much like any other matter aggregate, a parcel of reality and therefore susceptible to description. I'm trying, but I don't see how rejecting (implicitly or not) a specific physical trait from the mental image that is the physique of your ideal woman could conceivably constitute objectification, in the strict sense. It's also worth noting that an ideal image is not an actual, real person and hence, no possible objectification of real women can occur as a result of its description.

 

 

 

I do agree that people gonna people but that has to be accepted, you cannot exclude human nature in a discussion about, essentially, human nature. And especially so when there's argument here about what constitutes objectification in the first place. Unfortunately, one cannot rigorously apply objectivity to something that relies on subjectivity- Bruce purports to find things to be offensive objectification that others purport not to, there is no rigorous approach to that because where the line is drawn on objectification and idealisation is dependant on personal opinion.

 

I'm not excluding it—I'm dismissing it as irrelevant. If only because the opposite argument is also possible and it also adds nothing. Describe any woman in the most abjectly demeaning terms you can, and there's bound to be "some" that will be pleased, for whatever reasons. That's why I was asking for a bit more rigor, as anyone can have a poorly formulated, badly grounded, and grossly misinformed opinion, but when it comes to defending it before others (and, more to the point, expect to change how other people view the world), one needs a solid bedrock of clearly defined ideas upon which to build the discourse. I'm not flat out dismissing it either, I simply see no reason to accept that it should be acknowledged simply because it comes from humans. I'm trying to get to the crux, without getting bogged down in the minefield that is "opinion", because an opinion is born out of a combination of feeling and reasoning. Discussing feelings is frankly mad and, ideally, a perfectly informed opinion that rests on flawless reasoning is actually a theorem.

 

 

 

I'd apply it to pretty much anything that is (a) subject to opinion and (b) where objectification is appropriate as a concept.

 

Conceptually, I make the distinction of being 'objectivised' similarly to the earlier distinction between character and caricature. If all you're saying about a person is their role, or just a physical description then you might as well be describing an object, it's bereft of nuance. By that measure, idealisation is just saying specifically positive things without nuance. Detail and knowing the person ('characterisation') is the enemy of both objectification and idealisation because it adds that nuance.

 

Meh, don't really know if I'm doing a good job of describing it. Take Mother Teresa as an example. The idealised view is that she was a great woman who lessened suffering and lived a life of selflessness- to my mind that isn't describing her though, it's describing her role, without nuance, and you might as well be describing a light bulb for all you know about her from that. Once you get more detail though you start seeing her more as a human, and the 'Mother Theresa' ideal image starts to fray at exactly the same time you stop describing her by her role only.

 

Yes, I suppose I see how describing an actual someone by the role they play in human society could be construed as objectification. I'm not sure I agree on the point that idealization must necessarily ascribe only "positive" (whatever that means in the context, and that may be the source of the contention) qualities—my perspective may be warped by a strict or out-of-context definition of idealization (as in, an ideal gas).

 

Regardless, I'd contend that, going by the way you describe idealization, objectification may result from a specific choice of qualities or properties in the construction of the archetype, but it's not the necessary result of describing an ideal concept, where applicable. To use your own example, I could modify your description of Mother Teresa to simply the quintessential old, pious, selfless woman. That fulfills your requirements of a total lack of nuance for the character and focus on positive qualities. However it says nothing of her role and is otherwise not objectifying in any way I can see.

 

Thanks for the mental gymnastics, btw. Maybe once this is clear, the next point is the central role of sex in this whole objectification debate.

[Zoraptor]

Well, I would make a very significant practical differentiation between your/ my/ anyone's 'ideal' woman and their 'idealised' woman. You do have the potential to meet your ideal woman because, ultimately, the ideal woman in real life is the one who makes you happy. The idealised woman on the other hand cannot really exist precisely because she's idealised, perfect, designed by you to, ultimately, please you. Her, you are never going to meet, she will always be on the pedestal of imagination, a perfectly formed object.

 

Also, I'd happily concede that you could have something like an idealised orc if they actually existed, or similar, where the traits would only be positive From a Certain Point of View, it's just that I cannot think of anything in the real world that isn't a facile example or about something that is an object and thus not subject to objectification.

 

On the MT description "old, pious, selfless woman" is itself, imo, a cliche and caricature. In this sense I'm certainly using 'role' as mental shorthand for a classification/ archetype system, and most cultures do have a 'pious old woman' stereotype, ie it's a bit more than just her literal role, hence not using the literal descriptor 'nun' in my description. If you use that description too there will be a large set of preconceptions based on the expectations of the archetype.

 

And yeah, there's a fair bit of mental gymnastics being performed. It's more trying to communicate the philosophic reasons why I think that way rather than attempting to get at a set formal debate style argument.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

how you're raping women without even knowing it.

 

This seems appropriate.

 

PIV is always rape, ok? | radical wind

 

Quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever read.

[Meshugger]

That is some quality trolling.

[alanschu]

@Alan: I just like the picture and the quote I wasn't actually directing a comment to anyone in particular. 

Not everything is about you.

No, not everything is about me, but unfortunately nothing exists in a vacuum. While you may enjoy the picture and quote, I see it used enough in contexts that I don't like. When I see it used, it's typically used in a dismissive fashion and often comes with an implication that "everyone should just drop the issue because all we're doing is whining.

 

The primary reason why I respond to a post like that from a personal perspective, however, is to drive home the notion that people being dismissive to a group includes being dismissive towards me, even if that may not be the intent. I believe I've done so with Ghost of Anakin and Nephenthe on this particular topic, in part because I think people generalize a bit too much (myself included) and when I see a comment that is "seems all I see is <extreme position that I don't feel I represent>" it's done to point out that perhaps someone is being selective in their observations.

 

 

I've done the same with people on BSN that would post about how EA is trash and needs to die and so forth, and I basically respond with "Thanks." I often get responses that are "well I don't mean you." If that's the case, it's really helpful to be more specific.

 

 

I have been brewing a thought, what if the feminist argument over the representation of fictional females began not due to actual concern but just out of novelty? Most trends seem to follow the modernist ideal of "make it new", so instead of joining their effort towards an already existing noteworthy feminist cause this new group seeking notoriety made an entirely new one and put forth an otherwise banal argument with a sense of urgency and fatalism.

I'll openly admit that I support it, in part, on grounds of being novel. I also support it on the belief that it'll help introduce more people into gaming, which will create additional markets and more novel content. I am perfectly okay if the AAA industry were to move away from a strong sequel bias. More from Activision than Call of Duty is a good thing.

 

 

Can anyone honestly tell me how pixelated breast size is hurting the real world without using a maybe, a perhaps, or just speculation?

Well, there's studies about this sort of stuff, but smart people are often pretty good at creating barriers and defense mechanisms to protect their world views. Do you consider it speculation simply because you don't agree with it, or because safe language is used as determining causal relationships with human beings is a very, very challenging thing to do (yay ethics).

 

If you require a complete and definitive study, you'll probably never find it. But I find this is an unfalsifiable position. Since the likelihood of us ever finding anything 100% unequivocally definitive, you can rely on this as a defensive in perpetuity.

Edited January 31, 2014 by alanschu

[Malcador]

PIV is always rape, ok? | radical wind

 

Quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever read.

Hah, that was great.

[Orogun01]

No, not everything is about me, but unfortunately nothing exists in a vacuum. While you may enjoy the picture and quote, I see it used enough in contexts that I don't like. When I see it used, it's typically used in a dismissive fashion and often comes with an implication that "everyone should just drop the issue because all we're doing is whining.

 

The primary reason why I respond to a post like that from a personal perspective, however, is to drive home the notion that people being dismissive to a group includes being dismissive towards me, even if that may not be the intent. I believe I've done so with Ghost of Anakin and Nephenthe on this particular topic, in part because I think people generalize a bit too much (myself included) and when I see a comment that is "seems all I see is <extreme position that I don't feel I represent>" it's done to point out that perhaps someone is being selective in their observations.

 

 

I've done the same with people on BSN that would post about how EA is trash and needs to die and so forth, and I basically respond with "Thanks." I often get responses that are "well I don't mean you." If that's the case, it's really helpful to be more specific.

I can't tell but from your tone it seems that I'm getting a rise out of you, I assure that is not my intention and I apologize.

 

If what I understand from your post is right then we should analyze the context of modern feminist philosophy which can be summarized as: Women are being oppressed by a system that devalues them while simultaneously promoting aggression towards them (aka. the Patriarchy, rape Culture).

Even if you ignore the fact that those two concepts could be the result of a conspiracy nut delusions, those notions have an effect of radicalizing feminists who take the concept to heart. I can't take someone who presents those concepts as self evident proof of the oppression of women (which they aren't) seriously. The reason why I brought that picture and quote forward is because there is no solid evidence on either side that there is a conspiracy against them. So it amount to nothing more that opinions rather than facts.

 

I have thought of the importance of a re-branding of feminism who don't subscribe to the same philosophy that those fringe elements; which it has somewhat occurred with the Sex Positive Feminists. Otherwise any genuinely rational idea that comes from it would be regarded as fruit of the poisonous tree and dismissed. 

 

I'll openly admit that I support it, in part, on grounds of being novel. I also support it on the belief that it'll help introduce more people into gaming, which will create additional markets and more novel content. I am perfectly okay if the AAA industry were to move away from a strong sequel bias. More from Activision than Call of Duty is a good thing.

I am totally OK with that, as I said before I believe that the industry should grow. It is just that I see that particular market heading in no direction since no one seems to know how to approach it, myself included. But as long as the rhetoric remains blaming publishers for targeting male demographics and shaming men for their enjoyment I doubt anyone is going to figure it out. Which is the problem with the whole affair, their rhetoric is confrontational and seeks to antagonize rather than cooperate and contribute to the growth of the industry.

IMO this is due to the aformentioned concepts which create a divide between feminists and the systems that are perceived to oppress them.

Well, there's studies about this sort of stuff, but smart people are often pretty good at creating barriers and defense mechanisms to protect their world views. Do you consider it speculation simply because you don't agree with it, or because safe language is used as determining causal relationships with human beings is a very, very challenging thing to do (yay ethics).

 

If you require a complete and definitive study, you'll probably never find it. But I find this is an unfalsifiable position. Since the likelihood of us ever finding anything 100% unequivocally definitive, you can rely on this as a defensive in perpetuity.

I just see a lot of people throwing that study as concrete proof of a female gaming audience which could turn out to be the new COD crowd; which is a mass of people that just buys a few games a year, or it could possibly be the result of an overlap in demographics. Either way it couldn't be replicated and it spawned a series of COD clones.

The case could be that there are women who are active in social sites that enjoy playing those game while browsing but aren't necessarily interested in gaming. I don't require a study just proof that there is a demographic, which is hard to say since there hasn't been a game solely targeting women. Instead publishers opt for the token character as a means of attracting said group. Which is really counterproductive as it is the equivalent of asking for a seat at the table and instead getting scraps.

 

I don't believe that a study that is directed specifically to figuring out the buying habits of female gamers counts as a defensive perpetuity, that's the study I would like to see. It would give a more clear direction on how to tap said market and in turn it would be proof that said market exists.

[BruceVC]

 

No, not everything is about me, but unfortunately nothing exists in a vacuum. While you may enjoy the picture and quote, I see it used enough in contexts that I don't like. When I see it used, it's typically used in a dismissive fashion and often comes with an implication that "everyone should just drop the issue because all we're doing is whining.

 

The primary reason why I respond to a post like that from a personal perspective, however, is to drive home the notion that people being dismissive to a group includes being dismissive towards me, even if that may not be the intent. I believe I've done so with Ghost of Anakin and Nephenthe on this particular topic, in part because I think people generalize a bit too much (myself included) and when I see a comment that is "seems all I see is <extreme position that I don't feel I represent>" it's done to point out that perhaps someone is being selective in their observations.

 

 

I've done the same with people on BSN that would post about how EA is trash and needs to die and so forth, and I basically respond with "Thanks." I often get responses that are "well I don't mean you." If that's the case, it's really helpful to be more specific.

I can't tell but from your tone it seems that I'm getting a rise out of you, I assure that is not my intention and I apologize.

 

If what I understand from your post is right then we should analyze the context of modern feminist philosophy which can be summarized as: Women are being oppressed by a system that devalues them while simultaneously promoting aggression towards them (aka. the Patriarchy, rape Culture).

Even if you ignore the fact that those two concepts could be the result of a conspiracy nut delusions, those notions have an effect of radicalizing feminists who take the concept to heart. I can't take someone who presents those concepts as self evident proof of the oppression of women (which they aren't) seriously. The reason why I brought that picture and quote forward is because there is no solid evidence on either side that there is a conspiracy against them. So it amount to nothing more that opinions rather than facts.

 

I have thought of the importance of a re-branding of feminism who don't subscribe to the same philosophy that those fringe elements; which it has somewhat occurred with the Sex Positive Feminists. Otherwise any genuinely rational idea that comes from it would be regarded as fruit of the poisonous tree and dismissed. 

 

I'll openly admit that I support it, in part, on grounds of being novel. I also support it on the belief that it'll help introduce more people into gaming, which will create additional markets and more novel content. I am perfectly okay if the AAA industry were to move away from a strong sequel bias. More from Activision than Call of Duty is a good thing.

I am totally OK with that, as I said before I believe that the industry should grow. It is just that I see that particular market heading in no direction since no one seems to know how to approach it, myself included. But as long as the rhetoric remains blaming publishers for targeting male demographics and shaming men for their enjoyment I doubt anyone is going to figure it out. Which is the problem with the whole affair, their rhetoric is confrontational and seeks to antagonize rather than cooperate and contribute to the growth of the industry.

IMO this is due to the aformentioned concepts which create a divide between feminists and the systems that are perceived to oppress them.

Well, there's studies about this sort of stuff, but smart people are often pretty good at creating barriers and defense mechanisms to protect their world views. Do you consider it speculation simply because you don't agree with it, or because safe language is used as determining causal relationships with human beings is a very, very challenging thing to do (yay ethics).

 

If you require a complete and definitive study, you'll probably never find it. But I find this is an unfalsifiable position. Since the likelihood of us ever finding anything 100% unequivocally definitive, you can rely on this as a defensive in perpetuity.

I just see a lot of people throwing that study as concrete proof of a female gaming audience which could turn out to be the new COD crowd; which is a mass of people that just buys a few games a year, or it could possibly be the result of an overlap in demographics. Either way it couldn't be replicated and it spawned a series of COD clones.

The case could be that there are women who are active in social sites that enjoy playing those game while browsing but aren't necessarily interested in gaming. I don't require a study just proof that there is a demographic, which is hard to say since there hasn't been a game solely targeting women. Instead publishers opt for the token character as a means of attracting said group. Which is really counterproductive as it is the equivalent of asking for a seat at the table and instead getting scraps.

 

I don't believe that a study that is directed specifically to figuring out the buying habits of female gamers counts as a defensive perpetuity, that's the study I would like to see. It would give a more clear direction on how to tap said market and in turn it would be proof that said market exists.

 

 

That's a good post and I can appreciate the fact you have taken the time to articulate your point in detail. I agree with several things you've said

 

But one thing you need to realize is that sexism and discrimination against women  is not some fantasy made up by bored liberals, its real and exists all around us. Sometimes its surreptitious and underhanded but it is real. I can tell you stories about living in South Africa that will shock you

 

You can often see the true views of people when it comes to discussions of social justice not so much by what they say but rather what they don't say.

For me end of the day what I don't get is that you can make certain changes to some games without impacting the gaming experience, so if we know that some things people object to why not just make those changes? Now I'm not suggesting every change that every person demands should be considered but I think you get my point

[alanschu]

 

how you're raping women without even knowing it.

 

This seems appropriate.

 

PIV is always rape, ok? | radical wind

 

Quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever read.

 

There's definitely extreme perspectives on all accounts. There was a Men's Rights Activist Councillor candidate in the most recent Edmonton mayoral election, and stated that his inability to win the election was proof that there was no "patriarchy" as he represented the manifestation of status quo for them, and they should have voted for him. Which is mostly facepalm worthy.

 

The person in the link (a perspective that I absolutely do not support. It's an unfalsifiable perspective in that anyone that doesn't agree with her is just brainwashed by the patriarchy) has one perspective, but there's also the idea of the sex-positive feminist that is pretty fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of the wordpress post.

 

Though we have to be careful to generalize from extremes. I can take a look at the guy that filed an FCC complaint against EA/BioWare for the Mass Effect 3 ending, and believe that most people are that extreme and use that as a justification that their concerns are maybe less warranted. But I don't think that that would be a good idea. Just like how I don't assume that any person that disagrees with my perspective is some extreme MRA member that says and does awful things.

Edited January 31, 2014 by alanschu

[Orogun01]

That's a good post and I can appreciate the fact you have taken the time to articulate your point in detail. I agree with several things you've said

 

But one thing you need to realize is that sexism and discrimination against women  is not some fantasy made up by bored liberals, its real and exists all around us. Sometimes its surreptitious and underhanded but it is real. I can tell you stories about living in South Africa that will shock you

 

You can often see the true views of people when it comes to discussions of social justice not so much by what they say but rather what they don't say.

For me end of the day what I don't get is that you can make certain changes to some games without impacting the gaming experience, so if we know that some things people object to why not just make those changes? Now I'm not suggesting every change that every person demands should be considered but I think you get my point

I've heard some stories about South Africa, particularly the ones about the myth of virgin blood being the cure for aids and what ensued after. Not pleasant tales.

 

I do realize that sexism, discrimination, and aggression towards women exists but there is a world of difference between some third world country village where the chief orders the rape of woman and someone saying that Dragon's Crown is bad cause is sexist. The thing about the changes is that some of those things are part of the visual style of the game, Frazetta created a style that explored sex and fantasy; what if he had compromised his vision to quell malcontents? There is a difference between art and taste which is something that a lot of people have trouble separating.

 

PS; you seem to like a lot of posts from this thread and from both sides of the argument. What gives man, pick a side?  

[BruceVC]

 

That's a good post and I can appreciate the fact you have taken the time to articulate your point in detail. I agree with several things you've said

 

But one thing you need to realize is that sexism and discrimination against women  is not some fantasy made up by bored liberals, its real and exists all around us. Sometimes its surreptitious and underhanded but it is real. I can tell you stories about living in South Africa that will shock you

 

You can often see the true views of people when it comes to discussions of social justice not so much by what they say but rather what they don't say.

For me end of the day what I don't get is that you can make certain changes to some games without impacting the gaming experience, so if we know that some things people object to why not just make those changes? Now I'm not suggesting every change that every person demands should be considered but I think you get my point

I've heard some stories about South Africa, particularly the ones about the myth of virgin blood being the cure for aids and what ensued after. Not pleasant tales.

 

I do realize that sexism, discrimination, and aggression towards women exists but there is a world of difference between some third world country village where the chief orders the rape of woman and someone saying that Dragon's Crown is bad cause is sexist. The thing about the changes is that some of those things are part of the visual style of the game, Frazetta created a style that explored sex and fantasy; what if he had compromised his vision to quell malcontents? There is a difference between art and taste which is something that a lot of people have trouble separating.

 

PS; you seem to like a lot of posts from this thread and from both sides of the argument. What gives man, pick a side?

 

 

 

 

Well I try to not let emotion, or the fact I stand by what I say, cloud my recognition of a valid point even if that person typically disagrees with the sentiment of what I believe

Edited January 31, 2014 by BruceVC

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Well I try to not let emotion, or the fact I stand by what I say, cloud my recognition of a valid point even if that person typically disagrees with the sentiment of what I believe

 

 

We need more people like you on these forums, BruceVC!

I really think this is a great candidate for the post of the year! This is exactly how I feel.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Well I try to not let emotion, or the fact I stand by what I say, cloud my recognition of a valid point even if that person typically disagrees with the sentiment of what I believe

 

 

We need more people like you on these forums, BruceVC!

I really think this is a great candidate for the post of the year! This is exactly how I feel.

 

 

That's a nice thing to say, thanks Indira

 

I also want to say you haven't typically been involved in too many complex Off Topic discussions and I'm really enjoying your perspective and insight into various topics. Keep up the good work.

[Fighter]

Can't have those mens have their sexual fantasies in their games. Change and remove all of it.

[NOK222]

Can't have those mens have their sexual fantasies in their games. Change and remove all of it.

 

Empower da ladies

[Maria Caliban]

Oh hey, it’s a thread about body types and video game, I’ll just skim through the first page and see…

 

 

 

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it.

 

 

 

You know what? I'm good.

 

I think I'm going to just go to the Old Republic thread and see what people think of Galactic Starfighter.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Maria Caliban