Gender Issue Discussion

Well said Fex!

I have been reading this discussion since it started in the other thread. There have been many good posts. Some quite insightful and knowledgeable.
But I have also seen a good deal of circular logic utilized and personal stories being used as some kind of statistical meta and have chosen to not post for that reason.

Please note that I am not diminishing the impact or importance of one's personal life experiences but we all do tend to view the world through the "lens" of those experiences.

It would seem (to me) that this thread has done more harm then good. But not all good things have a good start. And it is the rough start that can sometimes give depth and meaning further on down the way.

It really depends on how people are using their personal stories.  For instance Skare's first story was to highlight how sexism in media can effect a child.  My personal stories have generally about how a person can end up feeling due to the words of others or enforcement of gender roles.  Fex has also talked about how it can effect children or a woman.  

The issue is when others have used their personal experiences as "evidence" saying it proves something rather than simply giving a perspective to show how a person can be effected.

Tolvo wrote:
The issue is when others have used their personal experiences as "evidence" saying it proves something rather than simply giving a perspective to show how a person can be effected.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

And, to the topic of men opening doors for women, I have done it, and will still do it. I did it to impress my date. Trying anything I could to leave a good image in her mind. Calling that sexist is absurd.

Ironically, I still open doors for people, of all genders. I do it for people who are going to the same place at the same time. I do it for people who have their hands full or have children. Kinda a very small "pay it forward" gesture.

I also don't see that ordering food for your date is automatically sexist. But, assuming they need you to order for them is sexist. I can think of many reasons for people to order for their dates. Maybe this is a new restaurant where their date is a regular customer. Maybe the menu is in a foreign language (or the wine list). Maybe the date has so many options, they can't decide. To be honest, all of those have happened to me and I was glad the other person helped me make the decision.

IMO, sexism is often about context. There are crystal clear sexist claims. But, many are murky, grey ones. That is where context comes in, and the honest intent of the action.

Genders are different. The differences are as wonderful as the commonalities. Sometimes, people take it to extremes (on both sides) - oppression (X gender is inferior and needs to be controlled) vs compression (we should all go gender neutral, therefore no sexism will exist). Both are ignorant reactions. So, let us celebrate both our commonalities and our differences.

Just for the record my entire post about that was a joke. I'd have hoped that was obvious, but

http://www.destructoid.com/lightning-returns-director-ordered-bigger-jiggling-boobs-258934.phtml

"Since everyone can decide what costume she’ll wear, you can make sure it does (laughs). By the way, since Lightning swings her arm when you change her weapon in the menu screen, that’s a recommended action for sure-fire jiggling! To see it even better it could be useful to equip a small shield. Look forward to it!" - Character Model Designer Nobuhiro Goto




So I know it is old news, but isn't it a bit strange that after establishing a female character something like this gets done?  It reminds me a bit of the whole Zero Suit Samus thing, Samus typically wearing full body armor suddenly going around in a skin tight body sheath(Though to be fair something like that would actually be useful worn under such armor), seemingly parading around in just the tights without her typical armor.




In the case of Lightning though you can't really say it isn't sexualizing a character since that is really the only reason to do such a thing, and since they even go into detail of how to get a good look.  It's pretty weird coming from an actual part of the development team along with the fact that the higher ups requested her breasts to be enlarged.  




Now I don't play Final Fantasy games, but I do have to say to the women that play it must feel like a real middle finger to have a female lead character you can enjoy have to have her breasts buffed to attract more people to the game.

 

I've never played a FF game since FF 7 for PS1. But coming from a female perspective i've played a lot of games where they seem to of spent way too much time on 'jiggle physics', for me personal its very off putting and almost destroys a lot of credibility they are trying to get the female character with said physics to betray, just because the silly or over-distracting jiggle physics overpowers most of what the character is saying or doing in my opinion.

I think there's a nice piece of irony in there due to the fact that the team wanted lightning to be a literal and metaphorical female cloud- a strong, independent leader with a bit of a secretive military past...

Now she's been reduced to breast enlargements and skimpy outfits...

In fairness it's not the first time it's happened. FFX-2 took two leads that were fine and just dressed them up in crazily skimpy clothing just for the hell of it.. the most drastic change being to yuna- who had spent the whole of FFX running around in a floor length dress and pretty much being an image of innocence throughout..

See I don't find anything inherently wrong with breast physics.  It is improving engine and graphical fidelity of a game, except generally breast physics are completely unrealistic and more mephasis is put upon them than other much needed areas like hair or skin hang.  I wouldn't mind as much if there was also a physics for the male counterpart in games, that moves around when you walk etc.  Depending on your clothing it would actually be noticable its just people generally aren't looking down there since the eye isn't drawn to it.  One game actually sort of brings that to the comedic idea,  

That is Mount Your Friends, the previous sentence alone should be enough warning about what is in the video.  

If breast physics were more realistic and were just for subtle movements and not just "Time for them to just bounce everywhere" I probably wouldn't focus on them and just note that the game has nice animation quality.

Solution to over the done breast physics, over done male crotch physics.

It could work!

Also mount your friends is pretty funny/disturbing game, i have not chosen which yet.

The FF thing was facepalm worthy, for all the reasons we've discussed before... Le sigh. I'm not surprised about the direction though.

Japanese games are often designed in a "benevolent dictatorship" - meaning the Director's vision is paramount to how the game is conceived and realized. Unlike Western style of development that has countless educated hires and large teams working for individual heads that then brainstorm, Japanese traditional development hires people with little to no experience, and trains small teams from the ground up based on the experiences of seniors and all under heavy capitaneering from a director. I personally think that is what gave us the Demon's Souls and Dark Souls that we loved: Miyazaki's insistence on his code being respected and an overall unwillingness to compromised pushed through many concepts that would have never made it past "marketing" on another setting.

So, the way I see it, FF director decided that in order to make the lead more appealing he should cater to what gamers are weak to... sex. Cause ya know that's the reason u buy games and the reason u like Lara Croft right? :/

Lame

 --

On the jiggle engine. Tolvo those things are designed to be unrealistic and its "obsession" about it in certain Japanese media is rooted on a very deep and specific Japanese obsession with breast bouncing - Japanese girls are mostly small breasted so it is a cultural "thing" to say they "bounce" because normally A cups hardly move.

The extremism of how these movements are applied is why jiggle physics should stay out of videogame breasts and has no explanation in reality: if we want to be realistic, no woman with over a C would ever be doing any sort of movement like that without a rather stiff sports bra, and if she had nothing but a small bikini you would note her breasts sag from gravity, and her shoulders bend forward from the weight.

To give you a comparison, imagine males were designed with penises that reach down to half their upper leg, and were portrayed running around doing heavy sports without any support and in a miniskirt so that they would wildly swing - additionally they wouldn't hang but be erect constantly...I can't imagine many males wouldn't find the whole situation uncomfortable simply from an "ouch" perspective.

And the answer to sexualization is not really more sexualization of the opposite gender but rather a tonedown on the whole "sex must be the promotional aspect" front.

Was it DOA2 that introduced the option to turn off jiggle? That was cringey because it just brought more attention to the jiggles in the game.

SarahCassandra wrote:over done male crotch physics.

 10/10,would buy.

From a logical standpoint, men do jiggle a lot too so why not?
I'd be a bit uncomfortable but women have had to deal with the same thing and the whole sex appeal thing isn't likely going to disappear from games anytime soon.

Gender equality doesn't just mean one side only gets to see what they like,it means compromise.

I suppose I don't mean jiggle physics being more acceptable, just simple animation fidelity.  For instance depending on if you are knocked back there would be subtle movement, but that same sort of change would be seen in your face when you tilt your head forwards or backwards.  That's the sort of thing I mean, not breasts going crazy but simple things like hang being considered and as just an aside thing rather than an extreme focus.  To the point of where it is realistic in that you don't notice it because it is like real life so you don't even think about it.  

Kind of like how when you breath your chest moves.  In games that do it well it's just a slight thing to notice if you focus on it but otherwise you wouldn't be thinking about it.  Some games go really crazy and characters basically pulsate or constantly inflate then deflate to try and simulate breathing.

In fairness it's not the first time it's happened. FFX-2 took two leads that were fine

I thought Rikku pretty much always went that route, and X-2 just did it more so.  To be fair I'm not sure X-2 could accurate describe its target audience as anyone.  We're talking about combining "fan service" with "pretty princess dress-up" and "girl power" type stuff, with most of the game being comically easy and an absolutely brutal optional dungeon.  That thing was a mess.

SOME of Yuna's change makes sense.  Maybe not the outfit, but given the story of X and how it ended, a major personal change in terms of both how she sees the world and her motivations (especially in the direction of caring much less for traditional behaviors or attire relative to before) is a completely rational plot choice.  Now, if only X-2 had bothered with a plot of any significance...

Solution to over the done breast physics, over done male crotch physics.

It could work!

I could do without either, and having the dev team put that money into functional controls and UI.  **** sake, more games than not need that, and badly.  This kind of bullcrap detracts from the gameplay, and while such "physics" won't draw me to a game, non-functional controls will do the opposite very easily.

I wish I wasn't in a minority.  I want my strategy/RTS/TBS/RPG/Shooters all to have functional, consistent controls and not be marred by horrid programming when it comes to the direct functionality of the game.  Why is that so hard to ask? 

Even Dark Souls does it, to an extent, with its net code.  These "parry timings" are solid evidence of fake latency.  If I've a 50ms ping to the host and nobody else is in the game, it should be realistic to sight-parry anything in the game.

But oh no...most games?  Most games would rather put $$$ into jiggle physics or other stupid crap than putting it into "unimportant" areas like pressing a button having consistent results and its options being balanced.  "sigh" indeed.

Some games go really crazy and characters basically pulsate or constantly inflate then deflate to try and simulate breathing.

I was always amused that Capcom made Megaman X do this when damaged enough.  I didn't know robots needed to breath.  Apparently, X does...but apparently he can also breath air or water interchangeably ^_^.

TheMeInTeam wrote:

Solution to over the done breast physics, over done male crotch physics.

It could work!

I could do without either, and having the dev team put that money into functional controls and UI.  **** sake, more games than not need that, and badly.  This kind of bullcrap detracts from the gameplay, and while such "physics" won't draw me to a game, non-functional controls will do the opposite very easily.

I wish I wasn't in a minority.  I want my strategy/RTS/TBS/RPG/Shooters all to have functional, consistent controls and not be marred by horrid programming when it comes to the direct functionality of the game.  Why is that so hard to ask?

 +1 This is just sooooo true xD

Have you guys ever seen the final boss in Dante's Inferno? Those are some male crotch physics right there.

Actually platinumed that game :)and yes Satan knows no modesty. Now imagine that look on 100s of male characters both playable an unplayable, with camera panning specifically around that area to give it "airtime" and movesets designed to highlight it... yep, waste of developer time.

Well that would depend on what you are making, just like how there is erotica and pornagraphy, if you were making a game that is basically for porn intents with a hetero female and homosexual male option, that's not really a waste of development time.  Though then again that is also really stretching the definition of what a game is.  

I should also mention that form of Satan is based off of the Greek Satyr, and that is what all Satyr looked like.  I shouldn't have to mention what they would do to men and women they captured in forests.

But back onto the sort of topic, I think it sexualization in a game literally based off of sex wouldn't be as bothersome since you know, that's the only intent.  It isn't trying to pretend to be anything other than basically porn through another medium.  As long as it isn't something like Custer's Revenge I don't really see any harm in it.

I think erotic and pornographic games are pretty exempt from our "sexualization" discussion since they aren't sexualizing a character but characterizing sex.

So something I've always wondered was do you think there is any way to deal with the sort of Silent Majority, vocal Minority issue?  For instance some people will meet others and end up having various sorts of issues.  A man ends up being accosted multiple times by Man-Hating Extreme Feminists and ends up thinking that is what Feminism is about, when he doesn't realize that he has met many Feminists but they just haven't said anything about it since while there were many due to their lack of extreme attitudes they saw no reason to bring it up.  Or the other way around, a woman deals with some men harassing her and telling her she can't do something when perhaps a decent amount of men she talks with regularly believe in equality except it just never comes up because they aren't hateful and aren't spurred to talk about it.

Do you think there really is any way to deal with the Silent Majority and Loud Minority issue?  Because generally when I meet people that are sexist that is one of the most common ways they justify their views, due to altercations with the other gender.

I would say that people who form their views on issues based on few shocking asessments would do well to re-think their conclusions. When I think of something, I usually look it up, because I want more information before I arrive at a conclusion, and sexism is no different

I have never, once, in my entire personal life and professional career met (face to face) even one extreme feminist that thinks men should be slaves or are inferior beings. I have, however, met dozens and I could say hundreds of males who believe they are superior to women at the workplace, logical thinking, hobbyist activities and knowledge of the world, and as such they *should* be in the position to call all the shots simply because women are weak and inferior. They can be loved and admired too of course. I admire my cat's gymnastics and love it very much. It's still just my pet.

So by this personal experience were I to deduct that all males are MRAs I would be doing all males in the world a huge injustice. I can instead inform myself on how those "superiority" views come to be so engrained and I then come to realize that these are all absorbed ideas from our surroundings that are simply being reinforced by the human mind. We learn from imitation and cheer the familiar. We find comfort in the known. So what we tell each other becomes familiar and comforting even when twisted, which is how mob mentality works.

These external pressures on how "the world is" and how the genders fit within it does not hold water under scrutiny. So just like you would have been mislead to think black people barbaric back in slavery days because they had no access to education, modern stereotypes tell males and females to behave in a certain way and that reinforces them and feeds back into the circle. You can easily break away and take a higher view if you stop and analyze what you see and read on the subject you want to form an opinion on.

I did something like that though I took a bit of a different route when I was confronted with man hating women, I just asked female friends that I knew about it.  Asking if it was a common view, found out some were feminists and all of them pretty much just said "Those are the loud ones, the rest of us just want equality for everyone."  Though researching online and via the local library the actual topic as well as seeking out the ideas of groups as a whole rather than just what is presented to you is likely a better idea than what I did.  

Though it is sort of human nature to just base it off of what you experience, I don't know if we'll ever reach a properly enlightened age where people remove the concept of assumptions and just try to educate themselves more.  Maybe just education on the subject in schools could help though it is often touched upon in a historical context at least in America in regards to women's suffrage.  Though it also becomes a question of whether or not we can balance all of the subjects we really need to have taught, as well I imagine some parents will reject such a class.  It is also difficult to find a teacher that could even teach such a class without bias.  

But in general I think most can agree a way to solve a lot of the issues is simply via education, whether taught in a school or sought out personally.

FexDS wrote:Sorry males have as much of a drive as females. Society tells females to repress it.

That's complete bullcrap and you know it. Everyone here doesn't have to look far in society to find women liberating with sex. TV reality shows of women going on sex conquests on holiday, women being praised for sleeping with footballers and selling their stories to the newspapers, Ann Summers parties where women openly promote selling of sex toys and discussion of using them, music videos promoting the power of female sex and they are all doing it willing with no one forcing them to do it.

Men are the ones that are told to repress it. How many politicians have had their careers ruined for sleeping with some young girl, men told not to sleep with their wives and girlfriends because they have a big game coming up in the next month (IIRC a recent rugby match), get ridiculed for owning a sex toy and get slammed by society when they pay for the company of a women which may also mean sex.

So no, you are so wrong on this. I tell you I have never see a show on TV where men talk openly about sex with other men yet with women, I only have to turn the TV on at 12pm and watch Loose Women talk and giggle about sex 5 days a week an hour each day.

I kinda agree about some of the points steve is making. I mean I've never seen a mens mag talk about "Position of the week" or other tat about sex, yet theres a lot of women's mags such as cosmo who are rife with the stuff.

steveswede wrote:
 That's complete bullcrap and you know it.

I disagree. Your sources please?

steveswede wrote: Everyone here doesn't have to look far in society to find women liberating with sex.

What do you mean by this? That women are finding more "liberation" in sex? That modern standards are less prude than they used to be?

steveswede wrote:TV reality shows of women going on sex conquests on holiday, women being praised for sleeping with footballers and selling their stories to the newspapers, Ann Summers parties where women openly promote selling of sex toys and discussion of using them, music videos promoting the power of female sex and they are all doing it willing with no one forcing them to do it.

How are TV instances of females doing sexual things ultimate proof that society does not tell women they should not sleep with many guys?

steveswede wrote:Men are the ones that are told to repress it.

What? Men are often characterized as having an all high libido that is almost uncontrollable, and "think about sex all the time"

steveswede wrote:How many politicians have had their careers ruined for sleeping with some young girl, men told not to sleep with their wives and girlfriends because they have a big game coming up in the next month (IIRC a recent rugby match), get ridiculed for owning a sex toy and get slammed by society when they pay for the company of a women which may also mean sex.

I believe you are misunderstanding what those issues are about. Politician sleeping with a young intern is seen as abusing a position of power and the supposed "innocence" of the young woman (which is not relevant to this discussion). Males told not to have sex before a match are told so based on the belief testosterone fuels better games, and society has a down view on masturbation and and prostitution as a whole, not based on gender.

steveswede wrote:So no, you are so wrong on this.

I don't think so. I think you are just throwing around personal and narrow observation as fact.

steveswede wrote: I tell you I have never see a show on TV where men talk openly about sex with other men yet with women, I only have to turn the TV on at 12pm and watch Loose Women talk and giggle about sex 5 days a week an hour each day.

So yes, you are throwing around personal and narrow observation as fact.

Ok, so to clarify here, the issue we are referring to is the ongoing and misconstrued societal notion that males have an everlasting, uncontrollable libido and that women do not and generally don't like sex. I should also point out that not long ago we had things like "how females don't enjoy sex because they can't orgasm" (proven bs) and "penis envy" as the go-to arguments on this field.

The reality is that:

In a study of North American English, Stanley (1977, cited by Graddol & Swann, 1989, p. 110) identified 220 words for a sexually promiscuous woman but only 20 for a sexually promiscuous man.

[Sandra McKay and Nancy H. Hornberger (Cambridge University Press, 1995.): Sociolingüistics and language teaching, p. 226]

and

[Terms for women who “sleep around” include] fast woman, hussy, doll, inamorata, siren, gypsy, minx, vamp, wench, trollop, coquette, bint, crumpet, floozy, scrubber, slag, groupie, nympho, and slut.
[...]
The comparatively small field devoted to male promiscuity reinforces the notion of the double standard alluded to previously. The tenor of the terms is also entirely different: Casanova, Romeo, Lothario, and Don Juan derive status from their literary and historical pedigrees, while ladies’ man, lady-killer, gigolo, stud, and sugar daddy obviously do not have the same condemnatory overtones as most of the female terms. They embody machismo notions of power and conquest. The sole exception is roué. The invocation of great lovers of the past, real and fictional, serves to provide role models suggesting respectability.

Online Encyclopedia britannica

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships wrote:
Extensive research demonstrates the general undesirability of permissiveness. Sexual experience in a friend or a partner is invariably rated as less desirable than sexual restraint, and often as one of the least desirable traits (Bleske & Shackelford, 2001; Coutinho, Hartnett, &Sagarin, 2007; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher, Regan, McKinney, Maxwell, & Wazienski, 1997). Inschool-based sociometric studies, permissive adolescents, particularly girls, are often nominated as less liked and popular (Kreager & Staff, 2009; Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, 2003).Hypothetical permissive targets are judged as less desirable friends, dating partners, and spouses,and are viewed as less moral, likeable, intelligent, trustworthy, and adjusted than nonpermissive targets (Bleske & Shackelford, 2001; Gentry, 1998; Mark & Miller, 1986; Marks & Fraley,2005; O’Sullivan, 1995; Sprecher, McKinney, & Orbuch, 1991; Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011).

J Sex Res. 2011 September; 48(5): 437–449. wrote:Sections of the narratives focusing on the double standard suggest that these gendered normative standards survive on many levels, and even those young women who report a relatively large number of sexual partners do not fully reject its basic tenets. Yet differences across various reference points are important to consider. Thus, while young women spoke eloquently about the general existence of two standards of sexual comportment, they reserve more harsh attributions for unknown or little known others who casually violate these standards.

If you would like to argue that your private observations of realtime TV are superior to studies and encyclopedic entries, then you probably won't be enjoying this discussion. Just so you are aware, these are well known issues and even considered tv tropes.