Gender Issue Discussion

I know we're trying to talk about the game but I had to sleep a little last night and thought this perspective would be interesting:

From a daddy of a little girl:

My daughter loves cartoons. Like most 3.5 year olds. I try not to pigeonhole what she's allowed to watch unless it's something flagrantly inappropriate. She likes Bratz Babyz. I cringe every time she asks for it. Baby character models wearing the equivalent of lingerie is not something I personally promote. This cartoon is considered completely acceptable by the majority of parents. It's a major backstep from Barbie in my opinion. They both focus on fashion and self image = beauty to the exclusion of much else. Barbie if you can believe it is less overt about sexuality.

She likes Ninja Turtles now too. This made me extremely happy. Not that I want her running around kicking things but I want her to know it's ok to be interested in martial arts or toy guns if she wants. Or more simply put:

It's ok to like things targeted for boys. Every person I mention this too replies that I must like it because it's what I grew up with. The implication is immediately that the show somehow makes my daughter and I relate to each other better since it's my daughter watching a "boy thing." I admit I don't "Have a passion for fashion" (Bratz tagline) but that doesn't mean I won't relate to my daughter (or try to anyway) if she doesn't love Ninja Turtles.

A few months ago it was Powerpuff girls. I also tend to approve of this show. The females are generally portrayed as powerful. While they portray stereotypes there's options shown if you're a girl. You can be intelligent and a leader. You can love playing in the dirt and mud and be "the toughest fighter." And if you want, it's ok to love stuffed animals, lace and tea parties. They're all good options. The key being "options." There's one episode that still bothers me though.

The RowdyRuff boys episode where male counterparts are made and are of course the villains. In usual storytelling mode the villain takes an early lead. After regrouping, our heroes save the day. Here's the problem.....they win with sex in this episode. I know that's exaggerating to some degree but the only way to beat the RowdyRuff boys is to smooch them since little boys think romance is "icky" while of course little girls should already be thinking about it. It's an old message. From an early age, girls should start worrying about boys. Boys should continue playing.

To say this has no effect is short sighted. My daughter loves this episode and has insisted we watch it many many times. After a few viewings I noticed she stopped pretending to be Buttercup (the Toughest Fighter). Instead, she wanted to be "Boy Buttercup." Whenever she played Powerpuff Girls she'd say, "Daddy, I'm Boy Buttercup."

Why did she suddenly change who she loved? She always liked Buttercup's style which is why I think she also loves Ninja Turtles and Adventure Time. So why Boy Buttercup? He's supposed to be the same concept as the female just a boy. What's the difference?

Buttercup ISN'T the toughest fighter. They never beat the RowdyRuff boys in a fight. They had to compromise. They didn't win the fight. They changed the rules. To romance. My daughter wants to be the tough one. The boys beat the girls in the fight. Boy Buttercup is the toughest via personality. Hence, now she loves Boy Buttercup. It doesn't matter that her gender isn't the same as his. It doesn't matter that he's the villain. She values toughness. He has the most. She values him. She's willing to ignore her gender to be more like him. That's great now, she can pretend to be any gender at three while she's playing pretend. But what about when she gets to school? Is it going to be ok for her to pretend she's "Boy Buttercup" then? What about High School? Etc. etc.

From a very early age she's being told all things being equal, girls beat boys through romance, not because they can be tougher.

So for anyone who doubts the impact of these messages just remember: It only took one episode of one cartoon for my daughter to internalize that "boys are tougher."

It's a really interesting observation skare, but I'd be more hesitant with the step from "She likes the strongest fighter" to "Boys are tougher". I think the fact she loves ninja turtles too shows she just thinks kicking *** is awesome from a young age (though it's kinda inescapable biology that the majority of the time boys >toughness> girls)

Serious_Much wrote:It's a really interesting observation skare, but I'd be more hesitant with the step from "She likes the strongest fighter" to "Boys are tougher". I think the fact she loves ninja turtles too shows she just thinks kicking *** is awesome from a young age (though it's kinda inescapable biology that the majority of the time boys >toughness> girls)

 The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Facetiousness aside, Skare's example just shows how even shows aimed at young girls can indulge in inadvertent sexism and how this can affect the viewers and their perceptions of themselves and those around them. The show is supposed to be about powerful girls who beat the enemies up, and it ended up being about girls kissing boys because women's only power is, once more, sex.

Funny story my young kid is writing a story, and he has come up with the scenario of how he turns the hero: he must rescue someone! So who did he chose? His best friend ofc. At this young age he would not think to go rescue some girl or princess, he has not had that "imprinted" yet. And I'm not planning on letting it get there either

I've been reading some of this, but not all, so forgive me if I'm making a point that's redundant, but I think you just hit the nail on the head Fex, at least for me.

FexDS wrote:Funny story my young kid is writing a story, and he has come up with the scenario of how he turns the hero: he must rescue someone! So who did he chose? His best friend ofc. At this young age he would not think to go rescue some girl or princess, he has not had that "imprinted" yet. And I'm not planning on letting it get there either

Bad influences are everywhere in this day age, be that those portraying overt violence, racism, sexism, and what have you. I think it's much more realistic that if some of those influences appear in media that our young impressionable children are exposed to it's more their parents job to either keep away what they feel their children should be kept away from on an individual basis, while at the same time, more importantly, teaching them to think for themselves, as opposed to being so heavily influenced by the things that fall through the cracks that they become slaves to concepts, as opposed to trying to change every source of media that presents a possibly negative influencing factor. On one hand I'm not sure how fair it is to tell someone they need to change their "art," a term I use loosely because in some cases it'd certainly be a tough sell as art, because it could be construed as offensive on an individual basis, which comes back to the fact that I think labeling something offensive is a poor use of the language, because it's all so subjective I think it'd be more correct to say that you're offended, as opposed to it's offensive. What's offensive to you isn't necessarily offensive to me, because we're different people in different social situations. You change the world based on what one group of people finds offensive and suddenly the new one is offensive to someone else. It's just the way the world works. On the other hand I feel it's just a more winnable battle to focus on things directly in your power to change, like the way you're kid sees the world, as opposed to the world itself. To quote Stuart Smalley: "it's easier to put on slippers than carpet the world."


That's not to say that I'm defending sexism. I'm not. I just think when someone creates something it's their right to create it however they want, the same way it's our right to like or not like it, to buy it or not buy it.

Unfortunately modern media and communications really limit parent's control of children's consumption. When I grew up my parents checked out the parents of my friends and compared values and said yes or no. Nowadays I have to wonder if they are savvy enough to keep their kids off the internet, and find out who they've been talking to online or where, and how kids are being marketed to in the phones they now carry because it's the "norm" in big cities to have a gps enabled phone in case of emergency etc. As such you must build their character but in many aspects you cannot block out society and its strong messages.

Equally, grown ups can be influenced by these things as well. I look at myself in the mirror and notice wrinkles. Why? Because everywhere I go there's posters of women, and none of them have any pores even, and that is the most prevalent point of comparison available. Do you never stop by the mirror and tuck your belly in? Why? Because you're constantly exposed to images of no-belly.

Stuff gets to everyone through repetition and reinforcement, and thus the current criticism on games that fall to these lame tactics (that are said were sad not offensive) are a welcome thing. The developers are in their right to create something sexist as much as I'm in my right to call them out for it and tell them that's uncool.

FexDS wrote:

 The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Lol good point. To be fair women have better ability to cope with long term pain.. Mostly due to the pain in the *** known as male kind (I bet you were thinking I was gonna say something else there )

But to be fair I think any kid would rescue his best friend. When you say you're not gonna let it get there images come into my mind-->  

That be some tough parenting.

Oh I totally walk past the mirror that do things like that, and occasionally become self-conscious because of societal pressures, but at the same time I was taught to think for myself, and be comfortable with who I am as an individual, so I'd like to think more often than not that's what I do, despite the pressures of our media driven society. It's so unbelievably true that not everything can be blocked out or looked away from, but we can be taught to not be so easily influenced, I think even more so if it's started at a young age.

It very well may be true that for every game with a strong, positive, non-sexualized female lead, there's 8 that present the complete opposite, large breasted, over-sexualized, stereotyped female character, but it's still our choice which to buy, and which to buy into.

Last night when I saw this conversation going on I started to try to look for games that present the latter, just for my own gratification, and it was pointedly difficult to do. It is undoubtedly a shame that that's the case in our society, but it still doesn't mean I don't have a choice to see women in ways that differ.

I've become a bit melancholy to social pressure now. Yeah I don't wanna be fat, but a little bit of chub around the edges doesn't matter

The way models are used just annoys me now. The whole "Plus size" thing which basically encourages accepting being overweight (for the most part). I don't get it. Either we have models that are too skinny or too fat (medically speaking, obviously), and it's ridiculous in my opinion. The fact these messages are EVERYWHERE also really doesn't help..

Also the whole encouraging men to do weights and get 'massive' annoys me. I never have nor will I ever be inclined to look like a walking muscle farm. It's ridiculous to be honest

@Plastic you grew up in a very different time too. Either way, not everyone's parents are as enlightened and many people, young and old, are constantly bombarded with these messages. We then not only have the choice to say "this won't affect who I am" we also have the choice to say "hey you, doing that, I don't like it and here is why" - In this case I continue to hope developers get the message that they can do better in the portrayal of females.

@ Serious: to be hones that bugs me too. Model skinny is unhealthy and obese is unhealthy - unhealthy should not be present as beauty nor encouraged as a life choice or "accept me as I am". On the guy side, besides the lack of attractiveness of a walking muscle bundle, I hate how primal brute force is being proposed as a desirable trait when it has little to no place in our society. "Must be powerful so big muscles rawr" is just so lame. You only need one click to lift the and down the banhammer, what's that musclemass gonna do for you besides eat nutrients your brain needed?

Serious_Much wrote:

FexDS wrote:

 The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Lol good point. To be fair women have better ability to cope with long term pain.. Mostly due to the pain in the *** known as male kind (I bet you were thinking I was gonna say something else there )

That's not a healthy point to make either, as it only furthers the rift between men and women. The reason these discussions are being held are to make it smaller, not bigger, so when someone contributes with "My opinion as a male is probably lesser" or "Men are x, women are y" and so forth, you're only making this issue bigger.

Maybe you should quote the entire thing to get the "point"? We were not being literal.

FexDS wrote:The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Facetiousness aside [...]

I wouldn't dream of arguing that you don't have the right to voice your opinion in that way. That's one of things I think is great about our society, and our ability to communicate through mass media. I just think one of those battles is more of an uphill battle than the other, almost to the point of being counter productive. To use universally offensive language as an example, say someone uses the N word, and everyone around them freaks out and gets upset. My god you can't use that word, it's horrible and offensive. Of course it's horrible and offensive. It's meant to be horrible and offensive, and by everyone freaking out and getting upset and making a big deal about it when it's used it becomes even more horrible and offensive, and those who use it, with the intention of it being horrible and offensive win, because they've offended everyone, and are empowered by the fact that it was upsetting. Now say someone uses the N word and nobody cares because they were taught that they're individuals. The people who were targeted by it don't care, because they know that they're not characterized by that word. It doesn't make them who they are, and it doesn't say anything about them. The word loses its power because it's no longer upsetting anyone. I just think if it's an issue that someone finds upsetting, like using the N word, their time is better spent educating people that they're not any of the connotations the N word implies, as opposed to telling the people who're using the N word that they shouldn't, because after you leave they're probably going to keep doing it anyway.


That's just the way I see it. I may have been brought up in a different time, by a strong individual woman who taught me that men and women are equal. That's all true, but it doesn't mean that the same lessons can't continue to be taught.

I'll weigh in on this.  As a degreed and trained social scientist I have read, discussed and participated in research that touches on these social issues.  It's not an issue of buy or not buy.  It's about being able to take an honest look of what is being placed out there for us and our children to consume.  It's messy and takes effort but this is not just one game.

The repeated bombardment of sexual images and symbols are troubling for both genders and at best require vigilant and conscious choices to resist internalization.  No human is immune to the phenomena of the "looking glass self".  Societal edifices and the imagery they portray are mirrored reflections of the populace and the direction it moves in.  That said, when imagery evokes a strong emotion, it is our duty to give it the same attention that we would when we feel physically off or ill.

Sexism is real and it's a part of the world's society and it has very real ramifications.  It's presence in conventional story telling, art and media does not mean that it does not exist or that it is harmless.  Despite it being woven into much of what humanity has consumed over the years, and the difficulty inherent in scouring it out of society, it is a convention that has to change.  Complacency is the enemy of progress and silence is no different than tacit approval.  

Furthermore art is not a sufficient excuse for sexist imagery.  Art can be sexist, and although it is free expression of someone's inner thoughts we must be able to call a spade a spade and say when a composition marginalizes segments of the population. 

We must also move past the notion that socialized individuals can operate in vacuums.  The moment an individual interacts with another individual or individuals, no thing, action or interaction can be termed innocuous.  Unfortunately something cannot simply be fun.  Intentional or not, the things we do have sociologically proven impacts on others, both profound and subtle.  What seems palatable to one taste may be bitter to another and there are very real socialized elements that have combined with an individual's inherent nature to create unique perspectives.  We must give weight to the collective experiences others have, no matter how uncomfortable they make us.  It is not oversensitivity to notice something distorted in imagery any more than it is to screen oneself for physical illness when symptoms present themselves.

The bottom line is the artist, intentional or not, made choices in design that had very real sexist tonality.  Looking at it objectively, I would say that point is the least defensible element of this.  A better discussion would actually be whether he meant it or not, because the presented reality is very much squarely in a patriarchal paradigm.  Further discussion points could also revolve around apathetic and conventional approach to story telling by both the creators and consumers.

PlasticandRage wrote:
I just think one of those battles is more of an uphill battle than the other, almost to the point of being counter productive.

I don't think that is the case here.

PlasticandRage wrote:
To use universally offensive language as an example, say someone uses the N word, and everyone around them freaks out and gets upset. My god you can't use that word, it's horrible and offensive. Of course it's horrible and offensive. It's meant to be horrible and offensive, and by everyone freaking out and getting upset and making a big deal about it when it's used it becomes even more horrible and offensive, and those who use it, with the intention of it being horrible and offensive win, because they've offended everyone, and are empowered by the fact that it was upsetting. Now say someone uses the N word and nobody cares because they were taught that they're individuals. The people who were targeted by it don't care, because they know that they're not characterized by that word. It doesn't make them who they are, and it doesn't say anything about them.

So you are proposing we should allow insults as a society and simply expect people to shudder them off because they should know better of themselves? Does civility hold no meaning then? Does society have no power to say this isn't acceptable?

PlasticandRage wrote:
The word loses its power because it's no longer upsetting anyone. I just think if it's an issue that someone finds upsetting, like using the N word, their time is better spent educating people that they're not any of the connotations the N word implies, as opposed to telling the people who're using the N word that they shouldn't, because after you leave they're probably going to keep doing it anyway.

Yet this is not and can never be the case with sexism, because sexism is not a self perception is something forced onto you. Objectifying women is not something that I take offense to or that I talk myself into, is something that the world does to me. The guy on the street who thinks he is entitled to tried to get a feel of my breasts. The guys online who tell me show me tits or gtfo. Yes I can ignore those instances, but why should I? What's next, are you going to tell me I should dress in a Burka to avoid men trying to **** me? That it is within my power and self perception and I should not speak out and call out and make people aware this is uncool?

PlasticandRage wrote:That's just the way I see it. I may have been brought up in a different time, by a strong individual woman who taught me that men and women are equal. That's all true, but it doesn't mean that the same lessons can't continue to be taught.

What you see is not reality and just because you are comfortable with your person does not mean that women all over the world should continued to be subjected to sexism and quietly endure their media portrayals to be associated primarily with sex. I honestly have no idea what it is you are trying to say here because it sounds as if you believe that shutting up and dealing with it "on my own" would fix sexism, and that is a rather preposterous proposition.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't think it's something we all should be doing on our own, nor do I think we should be ignoring it as a society. I think in our distaste for it we should be educating ourselves in ways that take away its potency as opposed to throwing stones at it.

Clearly you don't believe that you personally represent these sexist images of women. You know as an individual that you're more than that, because you know yourself and because you were taught that your more than that. I think those of us that have that understanding and the will to confront concepts that oppose it should be using it to educate others and give them the same understanding, as opposed to trying to fight society as a whole, which in a lot of ways is a big destructive deaf blind machine that's unchanged by the disagreement of the individual.

Calling it out is a way to educate. How many people on these forums are now thinking about this and the things I and others have mentioned and brought up. That is the point of criticism, and that is the point of the many lengthy follow up responses I have typed out.

This stuff is lame, and it got called out, and through these threads are the reasons and arguments. People who have read this now have been made aware. They can choose to ignore it or they can choose to delve deeper and find more and start noticing and demand change as I do. We wouldn't be talking about this if Kotaku hadn't called it out before release, which dominoed to Juutas comment and this whole discussion. Gender issues need talking just like any other issues that are deeply engrained in society and will take decades of push and give to resolve. Without dialogue there is no change and every individual speaking out about issues is what triggers thought, responses, and change.

Yes, but right now we're having this discussion together, educating each other. You're not talking to the developer right now, we're talking to each other. Educating each other. I'd argue that what we're doing is more productive than what they did. What they did may have been the catalyst of what we're doing, but it's not always the case.


I just can't help picturing Kyle's mother in South Park at the headquarters of the company that broadcasts Travis and Phillip, outside yelling at the building through a bullhorn, while her son as at home unattended doing exactly what she's out fighting against. It just makes more sense to spend the time educating each other than it does being out there yelling at the building with a bullhorn.

And you don't think the developer has seen or heard these messages even after the "backlash" they got from media? You honestly think none of them care about the perceptions and takes of this? The artist may think hey it's what I like but in the end criticism will reach levels where these things are not acceptable and stop being the norm. They are to be educated on the changes in their audience as much as the audience is to be educated on how these issues are a problem. We are all in this together so we all have to and do "talk" even if not through direct methods.

I think they probably are hearing the messages, but my point is even if this one developer we're to change their minds, and as a result change the images, that still doesn't necessarily change the issue as a whole, whereas educating women that they aren't simply characterized by these sexist images does. It may be on a smaller individual scale, but I think as individuals that's the biggest thing we're capable of doing that has the largest impact. Especially if the people we're choosing to educate are our children.

And at the same time, again, what offends one person isn't necessary what offends everyone. Sexism happens to be something that offends a lot of people, and I think to most reasonable standards should offend everyone, I just don't know how fair it is to tell other people what they can and can't do, like tell an artist that they can't draw a character with large breasts because it could be interpreted as a sexist image. It just makes more sense to me to educate and show people that they have a choice to pick and choose when it comes to what they can be, and what they think they should be.


I guess I should also add that I don't really know a ton about this specific case. I haven't really watched any of the videos, and I don't really know much more about the game than the basic mechanics and that there's characters in it that are offending people. I'm talking more on a broad spectrum than this specific case.

Why only women? why arent men to be educated and why do you think that one developer changing is not a starting point to more? You continue to call this offensive. Sexism isnt offensive, it is harmful. It is not a self perception it is something imposed on females. I do not see myself as a sex object but if men see me that way no amount of not taking offense to it is going to change the fact they should not be societally allowed to do so. 
Nobody is telling the artist he can't draw that. We are telling the artist we don't like seeing it and that he is propagating something harmful to society. He then has a choice to stop and think about it or not.

Anyway, you sound defeatist and like you rather retreat than call stuff out. I'm different and I am happy to be how I am and I will continue to call out what I dislike regardless of how entitled the person making what I don't like is. So, if that was all your point, goodnight

FexDS wrote:Why only women? why arent men to be educated

That's putting words in my mouth. I didn't say only women should be educated, we just happen to be talking about a case that surrounds the images of women, so I've been speaking in that context.


I don't think of myself as a defeatist. I'd like to think as individuals we do have the power to promote change, I just think we have a tendency to get caught up in a mob mentality, and that we can do more as individuals affecting change within our own spheres. I don't think it's wrong to call these things out at all. Not in the slightest. I just think it's more productive to add knowledge than it is to subtract freedom. I'm not even necessarily arguing against you. I think what you're doing is fine, good, necessary even. I don't think by calling it out you're challenging liberties to freely create at all. I'm just openly stating how I feel about all this.

Artists are free to create what they like. I don't feel however that it is subtracting freedom to label it appropriately and it is everyone's responsibility, from publishers of content down to the consumers to label it accordingly. The imagery is sexist and must be acknowledged as so. That is the only way tropes will disappear. They must be given proper and accurate declaration when they are presented.

FexDS wrote:Maybe you should quote the entire thing to get the "point"? We were not being literal.

FexDS wrote:The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Facetiousness aside [...]

And maybe you should double check to see that my quote was around what Serious said, not you.

Emergence wrote:Artists are free to create what they like.  I don't feel however that it is subtracting freedom to label it appropriately and it is everyone's responsibility, from publishers of content down to the consumers to label it accordingly.  The imagery is sexist and must be acknowledged as so.  That is the only way tropes will disappear.  They must be given proper and accurate declaration when they are presented.  

I'm not arguing with that at all. I think all of that falls into the category of adding knowledge. It's attacking the developer/artist for it that I have a problem with, and I think by getting into saying things like "this is right and this is wrong," in absolutes you can unintentionally get into that spectrum of thought. It's all subjective. You posed the question of intention in one of your last posts, and I think that's an important question when it comes to labeling also. If it was done intentionally than right and wrong are easier things to discern, but if it wasn't then it remains subjective, and I think in that case it's better for the individual to have to the tools necessary to make up their own minds about these things than it is to have others label them for them.

Granted there are things that are universal stereotypes that communicate things like sexism, or racism, or what have you, and it's everyone's right react to them however they see fit, but there's a fine line when it comes to attempting to label things as black or white for everyone, while most things in our world are not black or white.

densetsushun wrote:

FexDS wrote:Maybe you should quote the entire thing to get the "point"? We were not being literal.

FexDS wrote:The day that boys can grow a human being and then push it out of themselves, and on top of the exhaustion feed it and care for it, you can tell me they are tougher.

Facetiousness aside [...]

And maybe you should double check to see that my quote was around what Serious said, not you.

We were riffing with each other.. You might call it a string of humourous statements and ripostes. Despite whatever I call it though, I fail to see the issue with a bit of non-serious joking on the matter.

That is unless you honestly belief that I think as a male we are simply a thorn in the sides of women and are the reason they have greater long term tolerance for pain, of course. I don't consider myself wholly informed on everything regarding the subtleties of gender issue, but I'm certainly not an ignorant fool, which you believing what I said as a serious statement implies.

As Fex said, we weren't being literal.