Misogyny and Media

[Deathcon7]

Misogyny is a systematic problem. As an aspiring writer, I aim to create female characters that are more than just two dimensional, sexual center pieces. Unfortunately, not everyone with the capacity for creation is as progressively minded as I am. The mass consumption of such material; of such blatantly misogynistic, narrow-minded, and ignorant media; by creators whose intellectual reach is stunted by laziness, mass appeal, and traditional business sense (vis-a-vis sex); must stop. I look forward to the day when heroines can safely retire the leather bodysuit and high-heeled combat boots.

I know of a lot of writers that gripe when it comes to writing women as their story's lead. To this I ask, why? If you have capacity enough to write female supporting characters, then surely you have the capacity to write a female lead. I think the issue is with the traditional, inbred ideas of women in our culture. It's okay to make a woman the damsel in distress, but try to make her the knight in shining armor and suddenly society devolves into savagery.

As a growing group I think this is something we should strongly encourage. The fair treatment of women in fiction. As exciting as it originally was, Mass Effect 2 really let me down in this regard, and I was extremely disappointed with Bioware. They usually do a good job, but ME2 was packed full of outlining camera pans and zooms that focused in, on and around the female casts' body. This was especially the case with Miranda.

Anyway, that's my rant. Discuss and appease my ego.

[EKublai]

At 6/20/12 07:39 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: Misogyny is a systematic problem. As an aspiring writer, I aim to create female characters that are more than just two dimensional, sexual center pieces. Unfortunately, not everyone with the capacity for creation is as progressively minded as I am. The mass consumption of such material; of such blatantly misogynistic, narrow-minded, and ignorant media; by creators whose intellectual reach is stunted by laziness, mass appeal, and traditional business sense (vis-a-vis sex); must stop. I look forward to the day when heroines can safely retire the leather bodysuit and high-heeled combat boots.

I know of a lot of writers that gripe when it comes to writing women as their story's lead. To this I ask, why? If you have capacity enough to write female supporting characters, then surely you have the capacity to write a female lead. I think the issue is with the traditional, inbred ideas of women in our culture. It's okay to make a woman the damsel in distress, but try to make her the knight in shining armor and suddenly society devolves into savagery.

As a growing group I think this is something we should strongly encourage. The fair treatment of women in fiction. As exciting as it originally was, Mass Effect 2 really let me down in this regard, and I was extremely disappointed with Bioware. They usually do a good job, but ME2 was packed full of outlining camera pans and zooms that focused in, on and around the female casts' body. This was especially the case with Miranda.

Anyway, that's my rant. Discuss and appease my ego.

Well, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with accentuating and emphasizing a characters' good looks as part of the narrative. In your example case of Miranda in particular, I have to disagree because not only is her beauty a part a character strength of hers, it's also a vulnerability. As someone genetically engineered to be superior in all areas (including looks) Miranda realizes she has awesome advantages, but is plagued by the knowledge that her life is part of someone else's design. It's part of what makes the relationship between her and her sister interesting. Rather than try to figure how to make her sister more like her "superior, more beautiful self" she wants her sister to lead a normal life, by her own terms.

I will not deny, however, that misogyny, is occasionally rampant in media (videogames is a huge culprit). But I think we need to make sure that there is a distinction between misogeny and conveying the sexuality of women as a part of culture. Women enjoy seeing beautiful women be badasses in movies, even if at the same time they are admired by men for their tits and asses. Those same women would love to be admired for their bodies as well. But what misogeny is, such as the recent controversial Hitman trailer, is the debasement of women through what can also be considered their character strength. In the trailer, the women are not only badass assassins, but they're also hot. But as the trailer plays out, Hitman defeats them in both avenues. Notice how the trailer seems to send the message that the violence against women is what is ultimately sexy about the scene.

[mhzinski]

So you want modern and progressive thinkers like yourself to create new female characters with no distinct sexual identity from men? You can say that's not what you meant to write, but in making "the knight in shining armor" but not "sexual center pieces", you are saying why can't the female characters act exactly like male characters and just happen to be women. Or even better, women who are not aware of their sexual identity.

Because that's unbelievably stupid. That doesn't add any characterization. The fact that Samus is a girl changes nothing about the original Metroid game, it's just a teaser or bonus or whatever you want to call it. If Samus was a male character the game play experience would be identical until that very moment at the end credits screen. That's not true of a story with interpersonal relationships. People act differently to people of different genders, you act differently to women then you do to men. If you want to be ashamed and guilty about it that's your own issue but it's not a systematic problem. It's the nature of organisms with different genders to behave differently towards those different genders.

Women are evaluated by males visually much more so then men are evaluated by women visually. If you actually need that to be validated, men consume infinitely more visual porn than women, and women consume infinitely many more "romance novels" than men. So incorporating feminine physical sexuality into art seems to be realistic instead of misogynistic. There are overly sexual female characters in video games (Laura Croft comes to mind) but that's a character being the knight in shining armor while also being sexy. Even the characters that are admittedly non-dimensional are not at all meant to serve as a referendum on the female gender. If that were the case every time I saw a ludicrously male figure in a game I would criticized all those female writers in the gaming industry for wanting their sweet sweet man candy. If you were writing an ideal female lead and she wasn't attractive I'd say you have a pretty awful idea of what an ideal female lead is.

About Mass Effect, Shepard is supposed to be THE TIGER WOODS OF SPACE! Your job is to be awesome, kill everything, and score every babe in the the galaxy. The fact that you find it surprising that a female character is portrayed too sexually is almost as shocking as the fact that you don't think ALL the female characters are portrayed too sexually. Short of bending over with their bottoms in the air very little else could have been done to portray them as women that desired how awesome Shepard is. They have a relationship with you because you are the ideal organism in the galaxy, the most competent thing in all of known existence. If you go through that game without being hit on by people I would be extremely disappointed and find it more unrealistic than if I were casually going about by business saving the universe without a girl so much as sighing wistfully as I walked past.

You know what the best part about that is, it in no way detracts from the characters history and personalities. There is not a single moment of game play where you Miranda or Tali or Jack ends up looking like an empty-headed bimbo. They look like women and they act like women, not like men. Strong women make men look at them. They are sexual objects and their sexuality doesn't detract from their individual strength. Women are visually and outwardly sexual. Men are much more behaviorally sexual ...usually.

So....

a.) You're not unique, enlightened, progressive or any of that other crap you called yourself, it just seems like you don't understand women. If I were a girl who played video games I'd want to smack you with a sack of flaming bras for wanting everything that makes females feminine out of art and media.

b.) Women are treated fairly in fiction and art and have been since they started making art themselves. I would be more inclined to agree with your plight if after I finished typing this I untied my woman from her post in the basement and hit her 50 times to make me feel big; but the "mass consumer" is not as irrationally barbaric as you wish they were.

[batveggies]

There are a lot of problems with the way women are portrayed in the media sometimes but especially now its a fantastic time for strong beautiful female characters. In mass effect 2, there are numerous smart and beautiful female characters who are not just objects of the desire but are strong, righteous, and smart. For instance, the new tomb raider is showing characterization from a young college grad to a strong woman ready to take on armies of men. This is a fantastic time for strong female characters.

[Deathcon7]

Yay I'm getting attention! Today has been a really great day, so far.

At 6/20/12 09:56 PM, EKublai wrote: Well, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with accentuating and emphasizing a characters' good looks as part of the narrative. In your example case of Miranda in particular...

I agree with you, and I can see where the camera would try to push that part of her visually, but why couldn't it have been a perfect man? Why not push the sensuality of a man? From a certain point of view, I can agree. Given the currently established gender roles, I can even understand. But I still feel like it perpetuates an existing problem. When you have a company as good as Bioware set the standard for good narrative in a story, setting these kinds of examples can be a pretty dangerous habit. I think that gender roles are great, because men and women are two completely different halves of the same species, but I just don't like it when women are relagated to being sugar to a male character's steak.

But I think we need to make sure that there is a distinction between misogeny and conveying the sexuality of women as a part of culture. Women enjoy seeing beautiful women be badasses in movies, even if at the same time they are admired by men for their tits and asses. Those same women would love to be admired for their bodies as well. But what misogeny is, such as the recent controversial Hitman trailer, is the debasement of women through what can also be considered their character strength.

On this I agree with you. On the one point, however, I do not, and that is how lightly you use the word debasement. It doesn't have to be the downing and subsequent kicking to be debasement. It can be the subversive as well. I think a lot of female characters, proportionally most, are just after thoughts. As much as I appreciate Joss Whedan, Black Widow was a pretty weak character. She's Mata Hari in a leather suit. I never realized tits were a super power. At least Hawkeye can shoot arrows really well.

In the trailer, the women are not only badass assassins, but they're also hot. But as the trailer plays out, Hitman defeats them in both avenues. Notice how the trailer seems to send the message that the violence against women is what is ultimately sexy about the scene.

That is pretty bad. Have you also seen the subway ads that ran a while back in Japan? They were for Bayonetta, and essentially people would have to peel off pieces of the ad to reveal her underneath. When taken with a grain of salt, I mean, it's not different than a scratch off. But when you take a step back and think about it, it's pretty bad.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that women should be just the same as men, but that female characters in popular media need a lot more diversity. As it stands, with characters like Black Widow, for example, the stereotype will only perpetuate. Men have such a wide gamut of characterizations compared to women. It is within this fact that lies the debasement. The assumption that women cannot be as versatile as men. I'm a fan of writing femme fatale, hell there's one in my current manuscript, but I'm taking great pains to elevate her, and even greatyu pains to balance her with her female protagonist counterpart.

At 6/21/12 12:12 AM, mhzinski wrote: So you want modern and progressive thinkers like yourself to create new female characters with no distinct sexual identity from men? You can say that's not what you meant to write, but in making "the knight in shining armor" but not "sexual center pieces", you are saying why can't the female characters act exactly like male characters and just happen to be women. Or even better, women who are not aware of their sexual identity.

"That's not what [I] meant to [say]..." arguments are weak, so no, that's not what I'm going to say. Note, however, that jumping to conclusions is also not a viable argument. And, on behalf of women, I find your argument very insulting. You must not have heard of Brienne of Tarth from A Song of Ice and Fire. Being a "knight in shining armor" archetype does not preclude being a female. You do, however, have me on a semantic level, as a female knight would probably be referred to as a dame.

Because that's unbelievably stupid. That doesn't add any characterization. The fact that Samus is a girl changes nothing about the original Metroid game, it's just a teaser or bonus or whatever you want to call it. If Samus was a male character the game play experience would be identical until that very moment at the end credits screen.

Samus Aran being female is not only lazy, but was a deliberate attempt at exploiting her being a female. Recall that what you kindly refer to as a teaser or bonus, was for a while a sort of dog-treat for anyone who bought the game and beat it. This can otherwise be known as conditioning. Also, the fact that she's female is moot because the game is driven by the story. She's not a character at all. She could have been an amorphous blob like Howard Tayler's Schlock from Schlock Mercenary. I find it unbelievably stupid you included this part of this paragraph. :)

That's not true of a story with interpersonal relationships. People act differently to people of different genders, you act differently to women then you do to men. If you want to be ashamed and guilty about it that's your own issue but it's not a systematic problem. It's the nature of organisms with different genders to behave differently towards those different genders.

I'm not arguing a difference in gender, I'm arguing against misogyny, which is the hatred or dislike of females. Note that recognizing the differences in gender is a healthy habit most everyone exhibits. When you get into the real of denigration, descrimination, OBJECTIFICATION; this is when things go wrong. Turning a female character into a trophy for the story's male character is objectifying. Trying to pass a single male character as being able to kill eight female characters (without harm, mind you) is slightly, nay, largely descriminatory. Here's a kicker for you: having a poster of a woman you "undress" by peeling because guess what? She's naked underneath! That is both objectifying and denigrating to women. It's also the premise of the aforementioned Bayonetta ad.

Women are evaluated by males visually much more so then men are evaluated by women visually.

Please, be not serious. PLEASE! Women evaluate men just as much as men evaluate women. The difference is that according to modern gender roles it is more proper for men to make sport of it than for women to. This statement treads dangerously close to the Player/Whore paradigm.

If you actually need that to be validated, men consume infinitely more visual porn than women, and women consume infinitely many more "romance novels" than men.

That's a very ignorant thing to say. Recall that demographic is based on census, not fact.

So incorporating feminine physical sexuality into art seems to be realistic instead of misogynistic.

Realistic in what way? Incorporating the female form into art is effective in art. Incorporating their sexuality? You have to be more specific there. I can concede the femme fatale or lolita, but you're being a bit too obscure to make a viable point.

:There are overly sexual female characters in video games (Laura Croft comes to mind)...

Laura Croft is not a sexual character in any way. Note that in the video games she didn't have any sex scenes, or exhibit any sort of proclivity toward sex. The word you're looking for is objectified.

[Deathcon7]

At 6/21/12 12:12 AM, mhzinski wrote: ...but that's a character being the knight in shining armor while also being sexy.

:(

Even the characters that are admittedly non-dimensional are not at all meant to serve as a referendum on the female gender. If that were the case every time I saw a ludicrously male figure in a game I would criticized all those female writers in the gaming industry for wanting their sweet sweet man candy.

Why? Because me wouldn't objectify other men? Why would you blame it on female writers? Aside from Karen Taviss, cite any other female video game writers who could possible come close to some way justifying your statement.

If you were writing an ideal female lead and she wasn't attractive I'd say you have a pretty awful idea of what an ideal female lead is.

If you have such a singular minded idea of what female lead characters should be, I'd say you have a pretty awful idea of what a female lead is.

About Mass Effect, Shepard is supposed to be THE TIGER WOODS OF SPACE! Your job is to be awesome, kill everything, and score every babe in the the galaxy.

No, the purpose of the game and series is to save everyone from the Reapers. The fact that Shepard can also be female kinda precludes the Tiger Woods reference. That it's an optional gameplay element makes it a primary objective insomuch as routinely checking into the medbay is vitally important to keeping Shepard from catching a cold.

The fact that you find it surprising that a female character is portrayed too sexually is almost as shocking as the fact that you don't think ALL the female characters are portrayed too sexually.

The problem is not that I'm surprised, the problem is that I'm not. But as I said, the issue is systemic. There's not much we can do about it now, but going forward encouraging healthier media would be great.

Short of bending over with their bottoms in the air very little else could have been done to portray them as women that desired how awesome Shepard is.

I'm not sure how to take this statement. Are you saying the only way to know a woman is attracted to a man is by the negative differential between the height of her head and posterior?

They have a relationship with you because you are the ideal organism in the galaxy, the most competent thing in all of known existence.

I feel like I'm line editing. Anyway, a relationship with Shepard forms when values and perspectives are shared. You're missing the entire interpersonal exchange if you believe the only reason is some perceived galactic dominance; a sort of cosmic alpha dog.

If you go through that game without being hit on by people I would be extremely disappointed and find it more unrealistic than if I were casually going about by business saving the universe without a girl so much as sighing wistfully as I walked past.

Judging by your argument, I'm sure the sight would be due to relief.

They are sexual objects and their sexuality doesn't detract from their individual strength. Women are visually and outwardly sexual. Men are much more behaviorally sexual ...usually.

That is probably the most tragically horrible argument I've ever heard, but I thank you for it because you have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven my point. This statement alone precludes any possible defence you could have constructed. I'm sorry, but I sincerely hope you do not have any sisters; not with that mentality.

a.) You're not unique, enlightened, progressive or any of that other crap you called yourself, it just seems like you don't understand women. If I were a girl who played video games I'd want to smack you with a sack of flaming bras for wanting everything that makes females feminine out of art and media.

That I am "unique, enlightened, progressive" is still up for debate. That you assert I'm not holds about as much levity as does being attacked by a single ant.

b.) Women are treated fairly in fiction and art and have been since they started making art themselves. I would be more inclined to agree with your plight if after I finished typing this I untied my woman from her post in the basement and hit her 50 times to make me feel big; but the "mass consumer" is not as irrationally barbaric as you wish they were.

If that were the case, there wouldn't be any complaints. If that were the case, there wouldn't be the clear and undeniable proof of such. If that were the case, saying "bitches and hoes" in a song would imply it's about dogs and agriculture. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and I wouldn't have had to read your.... post. So trust me when I say, I wish it were so. Regretably, it's not.

At 6/22/12 02:13 AM, batveggies wrote: For instance, the new tomb raider is showing characterization from a young college grad to a strong woman ready to take on armies of men. This is a fantastic time for strong female characters.

You've obviously not done any research on the new Tomb Raider reboot. It is not the authoritative, pro-feminist work of entertainment art it's being cracked up to be. I once thought the same thing, but then I read more about it.

I'd highly recommend watching this video: http://www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-int ernet-you-need-to-see-this-video?g=3

It's outside the context of this discussion, but paints a painful portrait of reality.

[mhzinski]

At 6/22/12 09:18 PM, Deathcon7 wrote:

Everything you try to argue and make a valid point for is wrong because of semantics or because I think it's wrong and everything I say is right to the point that I do not even need to defend its perfection with real world evidence.

See that's all good and well and whatever, I'm definitely not going to convince you of anything because you see no common ground with anyone except yourself and people who agree with you. That'll get you far and stuff.

However:

Saying that Intelligent Systems or Nintendo had the foresight to know that Metroid would be successful enough as a franchise that it would continue to the point were game consoles were developed enough for a character being female to actually impact the game visually AND being smart enough to condition their customers that long is a long shot. A hell of a lot longer than saying they did it to change things up from all their male protagonists. I mean I guess you could say they made her a woman because the developers' wives hit them with rolling pins until they said so. That just seems like it's contrived also.

There is evidence women don't like looking at men as much as men like looking at women. I'm not making it up because I want to be right, it's part of our species and I would wager to say it isn't a cultural or systematic issue but biological one. Plenty of women watch porn and I assure you more of them do every day but men still win this race and will until the end of time.

The thing I said about objectified men which was pretty clearly sarcastic apparently went unnoticed. Spoiler alert that was sarcasm meant to point out that there are plenty of extreme examples that you can make of both genders being caricatured by games. It does not make it the norm or the tradition or even the model by which future developers will aspire to. If anything it would be the opposite.

I guess you are upset most players care about looks and personality because most games don't have the story arc that can carry a character exclusively on personality. Any game that gets you that invested in a character male or female is a little bit ridiculous. The appearance of the character has to be part of the way the are evaluated because that's an artistic decision made by the developer. It's impossible to make a game where visual appearance doesn't factor into how we judge a character. You are looking from this far too aggressively. It's like saying Nintendo hates Italians. I mean if you want to look that far into it you might be taking it more seriously than the people making the games themselves are.

[Deathcon7]

At 6/23/12 06:28 PM, mhzinski wrote:

At 6/22/12 09:18 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: Everything you try to argue and make a valid point for is wrong because of semantics or because I think it's wrong and everything I say is right to the point that I do not even need to defend its perfection with real world evidence.

See that's all good and well and whatever, I'm definitely not going to convince you of anything because you see no common ground with anyone except yourself and people who agree with you. That'll get you far and stuff.

Your paraphrasing is spot on. I am quite entirely a closed minded, arrogant individual. You should have seen how I tore into Ekublai for not agreeing with me 100%. But now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and respond to this post, and if you'd like you can reduce my argument into a handful of generalizations. It worked really well just now, I'm sure it will again!

Saying that Intelligent Systems or Nintendo had the foresight to know that Metroid would be successful enough as a franchise that it would continue to the point were game consoles were developed enough for a character being female to actually impact the game visually AND being smart enough to condition their customers that long is a long shot. A hell of a lot longer than saying they did it to change things up from all their male protagonists. I mean I guess you could say they made her a woman because the developers' wives hit them with rolling pins until they said so. That just seems like it's contrived also.

If I came off as arguing they're psychics, I'm sorry. I'll try to restate my argument. What I'm trying to say is, in order to reveal Samus is a woman, you have to beat the game within a certain time frame. If this is done, she'll then strip down into a bikini. The player is rewarded for sinking so many hours into the game to allow them to accomplish this feat. Ergo objectifying Samus by turning her (via her gender) into a trophy. This reward system is the conditioning to which I referred to. Also note that this reward system has been maintained in each subsequent Metroid.

Considering that the aforementioned reward is an easter egg, it's probably very likely that the game would have fared just as well as it had, had Samus been male, female, a child, or an amorphous blob. That she is female, and that she subsequently strips down to reward the player, is gratuitous and objectifying.

There is evidence women don't like looking at men as much as men like looking at women. I'm not making it up because I want to be right, it's part of our species and I would wager to say it isn't a cultural or systematic issue but biological one.

What real world evidence do you have to support this ludicrous claim? In the case of someone like Britney Spears, how many screaming male fans did you find at her concert? In the case of Backstreet Boy or N*SYNC, how many screaming female fans did you find at they're concert? Be real, women DO check men out, it's a part of biology. Whether men do it more than women, that's unknowable, as is the inverse. It's safe to assume that both genders do it. Generalizations beyond that are refutable on the basis of insubstantial evidence.

Plenty of women watch porn and I assure you more of them do every day but men still win this race and will until the end of time.

The consumption of pornography is male dominated, because porn is currently a male-oriented product. It's like arguing more men buy GQ magazine. And to assert this will be the case "until the end of time" is erroneous on multiple accounts. First, you're making the assumption that humanity will survive until the end of "time". Second, time as a construct of our civilization will become extinct with us (on the front of semantics you win), but time as in the idea it represents will possibly continue into infinity. The nature of existence is unknowable. Perhaps it will cease with the last human being. Perhaps not. Third, you don't know the shape of things to come to assure me of anything; unless you're asserting you're a psychic. This type of argument is invalid.

The thing I said about objectified men which was pretty clearly sarcastic apparently went unnoticed. Spoiler alert that was sarcasm meant to point out that there are plenty of extreme examples that you can make of both genders being caricatured by games. It does not make it the norm or the tradition or even the model by which future developers will aspire to. If anything it would be the opposite.

Your argument here is unclear. Men and women are both objectified, yes. Men and women both have two dimensional character representations in popular media, yes. But arguing against women being objectified, or by attempting to justify it, by saying that men are also objectified, is like arguing that murder is okay because lions murder zebras every day. If you're going to argue that women are treated fairly in popular culture, then you need to cite something credible that says as much. Ekublai and I have both given evidence of misogynistic tendencies in popular culture; if these are happenstance outliers, then by all means give some concrete evidence that supports your position.

I guess you are upset most players care about looks and personality because most games don't have the story arc that can carry a character exclusively on personality.

You really don't need to try to figure me out to participate in this argument. Yes, I do believe that appearance should not be a pertinent quality to make a viable character. As an attractive man myself, the only thing being attractive has afforded me is confidence, and even that is shaken from time to time. That it is a necessity for a successful character is a shame and is a clear indicator of the superficial nature of the mass consuming audience. Brent Weeks' The Black Prism, begins a series focused on a hero that isn't supposed to be typically handsome, but counter to that stereotype. It actually opens the character up to a lot more obstacles, and deeper character development.

Any game that gets you that invested in a character male or female is a little bit ridiculous. The appearance of the character has to be part of the way the are evaluated because that's an artistic decision made by the developer.

Not necessarily. You're lumping everything in together and labeling it "artistic decision". Realize that you're referring to commercial products, and most decisions made are fiscal. If a character has to be made attractive to make money, then they will be, story be damned.

It's impossible to make a game where visual appearance doesn't factor into how we judge a character.

You are correct, and in fact visual appearance can help to characterize a character. Does this mean that the character has to be traditionally attractive/beautiful? No.

You are looking from this far too aggressively.

How so?

It's like saying Nintendo hates Italians.

Um, no. No, it's not. I have no qualms with how the Mario character is portrayed. In fact, Mario is always portrayed as very selfless and heroic. I would counter argue that if the Mario franchise were an accurate depiction of Nintendo's aggregate opinion of Italians, Nintendo loves Italians.

I mean if you want to look that far into it you might be taking it more seriously than the people making the games themselves are.

Are you insinuating that I'm arguing conspiracy? And I'm very sure game makers take their products very seriously. After all, it's only their livelihood...

[Deathcon7]

At 6/23/12 11:03 PM, Deathcon7 wrote:

At 6/23/12 06:28 PM, mhzinski wrote: There is evidence women don't like looking at men as much as men like looking at women. I'm not making it up because I want to be right, it's part of our species and I would wager to say it isn't a cultural or systematic issue but biological one.

What real world evidence do you have to support this ludicrous claim? In the case of someone like Britney Spears, how many screaming male fans did you find at her concert? In the case of Backstreet Boy or N*SYNC, how many screaming female fans did you find at they're concert? Be real, women DO check men out, it's a part of biology. Whether men do it more than women, that's unknowable, as is the inverse. It's safe to assume that both genders do it. Generalizations beyond that are refutable on the basis of insubstantial evidence.

I'll revisit this because I missed the link the first time around.

While I do appreciate your attempt to find some sort of evidence to back your claim, unfortunately I think you've over stated the significance of the article. Let's proceed with the assumption that the article is irrefutable. It determined that men experience greater "reward" than women do when viewing images of physically attractive members of the opposite sex. This is to the extent that men are willing to go to greater lengths to view images of physically attractive women, including paying for the opportunity.

What can be concluded is that woman do not derive as much pleasure from viewing images as men do. The study does not, however, examine real life applicability. If women do not experience "reward" from viewing images of physically attractive men, do they experience "reward" when meeting or encountering a physically attractive man? From my experience I can conclude the answer is yes. How could this be proven? Consider that physically attractive men garner more attention from women than do less attractive men. Something else to consider is that, at least in my experience, women seem to more easily overlook a lack of physical appeal when the personality of the male coincides with her ideals of a mate (or in other words, corresponds with her on an emotional level).

What really needs to be taken from this is not that women don't enjoy "checking out" men, but that they do not receive a significant "reward" from viewing images. It seems the actual objective of the investigation was to "shed light on why men are much greater consumers of pornography than women and why sales of Playboy have always exceeded those of Playgirl..." This digresses from the argument posed in the original post regarding misogyny in mass media.

[Chapter11]

The same way people say there's no problem with an attractive female character, then whats wrong with an average or completely unattractive female character?

The fact of the matter is, while there are male stereotypes, its much worse for women. The muscular beef cake guy exists as a power fantasy for men, what they hope to be, while the hot damsel in distress exists as a reward for them saving the day. Everything else is basically a play on that. Not to mention there are fewer female stereotypes, and those are constantly repeated: the damsel in distress, and the eye candy. There's nothing more. There might be some variation on that like a hot female side kick or what have you, but that's it.

Its a lot like the issue of violence in video games. Its okay on its own, the problem is there is nothing but hyper violent games. Having those kinds of women only hurt the final product, because the stereotypes have been so over done it makes for a boring story overall.

[mhzinski]

At 6/22/12 9:18 PM, Deathcon7 wrote:

Women evaluate men just as much as men evaluate women.

At 6/23/12 11:23 PM, Deathcon7 wrote:

Something else to consider is that, at least in my experience, women seem to more easily overlook a lack of physical appeal when the personality of the male coincides with her ideals of a mate (or in other words, corresponds with her on an emotional level).

I um... what...

I guess I apologize that scientists don't have a carousel of models to use to convey these tests at their leisure. I'm sure they'll fix that soon enough. Because think link doesn't mention pictures just find something else trivial to attack it's credibility.

To make the argument actually about misogyny and sexual objectification. I would say the norm, or at least the critically accepted level of good video games doesn't objectify women. This is a lot easier in a medium like gaming than it is in something like advertising. To objectify a character you need to discount their internal abilities. Any self-reliance, strength, intelligence or personality the character has. Your first example was Miranda from Mass Effect and that obviously doesn't work. Her personality is not discounted to make her attractive for the male player. Her role in the game is not to be there for stimulating pleasure. Her role is to interact with the environment in a way the developers think a character like her would. Which is why I make the claim that what you want is not a lack of objectification but a lack of sexuality in games.

[Deathcon7]

At 6/24/12 10:08 AM, mhzinski wrote: I guess I apologize that scientists don't have a carousel of models to use to convey these tests at their leisure. I'm sure they'll fix that soon enough. Because think link doesn't mention pictures just find something else trivial to attack it's credibility.

I never attacked the credibility of your previously posted article; hell, I don't have the credentials to do that. What I was pointing out is the lack of applicability of the article within the scope of this discussion. This, by no means is trivial; unless, of course, you want to trivialize this argument, in which case, it may be best for both of us if you refrain from responding. With this thread I was hoping to get people with serious opinions to discuss a serious issue.

To make the argument actually about misogyny and sexual objectification.

The argument is already about misogyny.

I would say the norm, or at least the critically accepted level of good video games doesn't objectify women.

Between Bayonetta and the Hitman franchise, the two examples cited in this thread, you have a gross estimated sales figure of 10 million units. These are high ranking games both critically and with consumers. You may want to believe that women are treated fairly, and that the video game industry (as one example of popular media) is this progressive, pure industry, but the truth of the matter is, it's not. As a matter of fact, go to a video game convention and tell me what the "booth babes" look like.

This is a lot easier in a medium like gaming than it is in something like advertising. To objectify a character you need to discount their internal abilities.

Samus Aran is undoubtedly a capable character, but she's still objectified by merit of the combined attributes of being female and being poised in the game as part of a reward system.

Any self-reliance, strength, intelligence or personality the character has. Your first example was Miranda from Mass Effect and that obviously doesn't work. Her personality is not discounted to make her attractive for the male player. Her role in the game is not to be there for stimulating pleasure. Her role is to interact with the environment in a way the developers think a character like her would. Which is why I make the claim that what you want is not a lack of objectification but a lack of sexuality in games.

Sexuality is a normal part of human existence and features in most of my work. As one example, refer to my submission for May's writing contest: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1302894. Jumping to conclusions on the source of my argument is making you appear ignorant. What you really need to consider is the source of your own argument and how to better portray it. I've conceded to Ekublai that Miranda may not have been the best example, because with that character at least Bioware attempts to build something credible.

To be as concise as possible with my argument, and to avoid any further confusion, my argument pertains to Misogyny in popular media. I am not focusing specifically on video games, although this is where a good portion of the conversation has lead to. Another example from a separate industry is rap and its artists' blatant misogynistic lyrics. Rapper Gucci Mane makes my point painfully clear in the lyrics for I'm A Dog:

"I'm a treat [her] like a dog,
Feed [her] like a dog,
Beat [her] like a dog,
Then pass [her] to my dog..."

I can come up with many more examples if you're not familiar with this issue, if you'd like.

Look, I have nothing against you personally. Given your presence in this forum I can only assume you have an interest in writing, and possibly even doing so on a professional level. But this is just one of MANY issues that plague our society, and as artists we hold the responsibility of molding future culture. If we're unaware of the issues occurring now, how are we going to work toward a solution?

If you really don't think my argument is valid, why don't you bring it up to some of your female friends? Let them read through our responses, and let them help you draw a conclusion. As men, we're not as intimately aware of these types of issues as women are, who ultimately suffer. But because I have a mother, and sisters, and a god daughter, I've chosen to make this my business.

I have been very snarky with you, and I apologize; that really isn't any way to argue a point, and it's something that I've learned long ago but in my passion ignored. My recommendation is that you work with me to reduce the combative nature of this discussion. Going forward, let's avoid using inflammatory language and have a genial debate on the topic at hand. Besides, I really like helping my fellow artists out, and I like to operate under the assumption that my opinion within this forum, in regards to writing, is highly valued. I would hate for us to have bad blood, because anyone that can hold a conversation as long as you have, could quite possibly produce some pretty fantastic fiction. And I'd hate to miss the opportunity to offer my critique and encouragement.

[mhzinski]

I'll stop responding then if you made a thread to state an opinion and disagree with the viewpoints of any generated discussion.

If you care to simplify your argument I will conclude with my simplification so anyone who intends to read in the future can skip everything all my... posts. You can quote me on this. I'm done.

disclaimer: all of this is wrong in someone else's perspective

Misogyny is not a systematic problem. Media, Art, and any other institutions in general do not attempt to objectify women. Any statement in support of that is sensationalist. Any creative media that is made with the intent of objectifying women would receive a remarkable amount of negative press by the mainstream media and it would be very difficult to invoke and apply that message to a culture that is conscious of other people's rights.

I go by the definition of sexual objectification which requires ignoring the subject's personality and subsequently dehumanizing them. When doing this to destroy a subject or spread a message of misogyny instead of for artistic effect I find it difficult to believe you could get people to buy into it. I will honestly and deliberately sacrifice my credibility to assume you could not get a large group of people, much less an entire culture to believe that it is the proper way to behave; to treat women as nothing but objects for sexual pleasure. If it is done, it is done as a purposeful offense to irritate or subvert a different meaning but the majority of people do not see it as a proper or correct behavioral tendency.

The entirety of the initial post in this thread is full of self-aggrandizing, "I'm better and brighter and know more than you", phrases and ideas. You are not special because you have these feelings of equality, almost everyone does. If you were to ask the vast majority of sane people of this culture if they believe in using women only as objects of sexual satisfaction, discounting their humanity, they would say they do not. Women are treated as people not objects more often and more emphatically by credible media then they are not.

Our collective treatment of women does not need to improve across future generations. The people who are do not currently agree with a pretty well established modern consensus that all human beings have humanity and personality should be brought up to that standard, and we need to maintain that standard to future generations. However, there is not an existent inequality between the treatment genders receive by the media. Both are treated fairly and unfairly, kindly and unkindly, each has its own archetypes and each has been cliched to such a capacity that we are conditionally numbed to any extremes and they do not affect our modes of thinking.

The only other alternative I can think of is that I am advanced in my social awareness beyond a large percentage of my peers to the capacity that I am in a minority that sees things this way. I don't believe that. A person is smart. Almost all of them are smarter than me. This is not a complex idea to grasp and the contrary is not systemically embedded in our society.

thatsit.

[Deathcon7]

At 6/25/12 12:25 AM, mhzinski wrote: I'll stop responding then if you made a thread to state an opinion and disagree with the viewpoints of any generated discussion.

I guess I was wrong. I guess your only intention of posting was to display some sort of logical pre-birth; ideas pushed forward on the momentum of a single mouse click. My intention with this thread is very clear: discuss in an intelligent fashion, an opinion in favor or in contradiction of the thesis forwarded in my original post. All you've done is pout, and stomp, and proclaim. I'm sorry, but if that is your idea of an intelligent conversation, then please peddle your puerile impulses elsewhere.

disclaimer: all of this is wrong in someone else's perspective

There's no need to be petty, or antagonizing, or combative. Your entire approach to this argument is embodied within this single, snarky statement. If you want to throw in the towel, fine. But this is the coward's way out. Of course everyone has differing opinions. The point of a discussion is to put forth opinion supported by relevant fact. All you've done is make proclamations of how "things are" as if your limited life experience has suddenly become law. I'll even quote you on it:

Women are evaluated by males visually much more so then men are evaluated by women visually.

I still can't wrap my head around this assumption. Are you actually saying you've NEVER caught a woman checking you out? And if so, are you saying you're someone a singular case? And that woman was somehow a freak of nature?

... I would criticized all those female writers in the gaming industry for wanting their sweet sweet man candy.

Which female writers are culprit? Do you think it's fair to toss them all into a pot and roast them? Seems very male-chauvinistic to me.

...Shepard is supposed to be THE TIGER WOODS OF SPACE! Your job is to be awesome, kill everything, and score every babe in the the galaxy.

The fact that you adulate Tiger Woods in the way that caps lock betrays you do, is evident that you still retain an infant, malnourished sense of respect for the opposite gender. Tiger Woods has gone into rehabilitation, he has issued public apologies, and yet his behavior is still something you seem to idolize. That, in itself, is telling of your mentality.

... it just seems like you don't understand women.

So ironic I just had to point it out, because I'm beginning to perceive that your understanding of women is so under developed as to be only one accidental misstep ahead of neanderthal.

Women are treated fairly in fiction and art and have been since they started making art themselves.

I would like dates and references. I'd settle for a single two-paragraph wikipedia article.

There is evidence women don't like looking at men as much as men like looking at women.

I applaud you for your attempt, but in context you're only referring to women looking at images of physically attractive men. This does not, in any way, support that men admire women more so than the inverse. It also does nothing to sway the argument of misogyny in popular culture.

I would say the norm, or at least the critically accepted level of good video games doesn't objectify women.

What gives you the authority to "say"? And what is defined as "norm"? Plenty of time playing video games? Because, honestly, I would be willing to concede the point if that were the case. I'm easily beat in that department. Unless you're one of those guys that "just plays Madden."

Media, Art, and any other institutions in general do not attempt to objectify women. Any statement in support of that is sensationalist.

Seriously? Did your eyes simply glass over during the part of the my post where I clearly quoted rapper Gucci Mane saying he'd treat, feed, beat, and pass a woman (to his "dog") like a dog?

Any creative media that is made with the intent of objectifying women would receive a remarkable amount of negative press by the mainstream media and it would be very difficult to invoke and apply that message to a culture that is conscious of other people's rights.

Do you really think so? Do you really believe that humanity, as a whole, is that advanced? Again, here I am citing the Bayonetta campaign which, if you didn't realize, was widely acknowledged as "good campaigning."

I will honestly and deliberately sacrifice my credibility to assume you could not get a large group of people, much less an entire culture to believe that it is the proper way to behave...

Your credibility has already shot to hell. In fact, it's lounging in a chaise lounge with lava streaming all everywhere, and, like, tons of gouts of fire and steam, and Lucifer is there, all licking his lips and breathing putrid breath, rank with decay and the tormented cries of children. And he says to your credibility, he says, "Hey! Hey you! Did it hurt?" And your credibility is like, "Did what hurt?" And Lucifer is all, snickering and then guffawing, his eyes steaming with tears of mirth, and then, when he finally masters his laughter, he says, get this: "When you fell from grace!" And then, suddenly, there's demon's everywhere and they're all laughing, and pointing, and jeering with their slitted eyes and forked, snaking tongues, and your crediblity is like-- T____T

But just in case you were unaware, there is a trend whereby men have sex with as many women as they want and are considered alpha-male machismos. If women were to do the same, they would be considered second rate, dirty, skanky whores. A majority of rap music (as distinguished from hip-hop as a whole) invokes this same perspective in its portrayal of women as bitches, hoes, sex-objects, chicken-heads, etc. To draw from my previous example, Gucci Man alone has sold close to a million records.

The entirety of the initial post in this thread is full of self-aggrandizing, "I'm better and brighter and know more than you", phrases and ideas.

Full by merit of a single statement? What is it about me that intimidates you, that a simple statement of opinion has suddenly turned my entire post into an ego trip? And, let's say I am exaggerating my own state of mental progress, let's say I'm actually a disguised bigot. By what right or ownership of knowledge would you be capable of proving otherwise? Don't base your dislike, or grievance, or any other sort of butt-hurt, solely on your perceived dislike of a person. Because trust me, if you stick around here, you and I will eventually become good friends.

Women are treated as people not objects more often and more emphatically by credible media then they are not.

Really? Where are the statistics? You're make a grand, sweeping statement here akin to saying women have ALWAYS been treated fairly, and have NEVER been objectified and denigrated. #suffragemuch

A person is smart. Almost all of them are smarter than me.

To argue your case, no. If this were true, there would be no wars. If this were true, there would be no crimes of passion, because people would be smart enough to know they'd be caught. If this were true, we would all be driving "alternative" vehicles because the energy tycoons are smart enough to know it's better for our planet and civilization. No, the average person is a bundle of irrational emotion. It's why people make decision with their emotions. Even important ones, like voting, or whether misogyny in popular media really does exist.

thatsit.

If you can't restrain from rebutting, I won't hold this against you.

[neoander]

At 6/20/12 07:39 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: Misogyny is a systematic problem. As an aspiring writer, I aim to create female characters that are more than just two dimensional, sexual center pieces. Unfortunately, not everyone with the capacity for creation is as progressively minded as I am. The mass consumption of such material; of such blatantly misogynistic, narrow-minded, and ignorant media; by creators whose intellectual reach is stunted by laziness, mass appeal, and traditional business sense (vis-a-vis sex); must stop. I look forward to the day when heroines can safely retire the leather bodysuit and high-heeled combat boots.

I know of a lot of writers that gripe when it comes to writing women as their story's lead. To this I ask, why? If you have capacity enough to write female supporting characters, then surely you have the capacity to write a female lead. I think the issue is with the traditional, inbred ideas of women in our culture. It's okay to make a woman the damsel in distress, but try to make her the knight in shining armor and suddenly society devolves into savagery.

As a growing group I think this is something we should strongly encourage. The fair treatment of women in fiction. As exciting as it originally was, Mass Effect 2 really let me down in this regard, and I was extremely disappointed with Bioware. They usually do a good job, but ME2 was packed full of outlining camera pans and zooms that focused in, on and around the female casts' body. This was especially the case with Miranda.

Anyway, that's my rant. Discuss and appease my ego.

Haha that got me, 'appease my ego'. Well the market of animation, games, movie, and most media isn't as you say misogynyst. The independent writers and idea creators that come up with these works of art and fiction, have there own reasons for creating what they create. Debasement of women, is completely different from misogyny. The people who make this stuff, do not blatantly hate women, but they are put at beck and call of society's wants. It's not their fault that things like this is what the people demand. While women gamers are on the rise, a large majority of games are created by men. While women may be on the development teams, they focus more on developing the story than worrying about wether or not it's sexist, or misogynyst. Movies that don't have a little sexism in them aren't realistic. The world that we live in is like that. In my opinion the movies and games are at least sugarcoating that fact. Humankind are advancing forth to show woment as sexual powerhouses not just objects of want or desire i.e. (lost girl, true blood, game of thrones, ect.) In truth when you get down to the point I guess society mostly revolves around sex, wether it's secretly or publicly known. Just about anything has something sexual at it's roots, that's just the way society has evolved mankind into what it is today. I do believe in equal treatment, (not importance of women put over males or males over women), but regardless of my beliefs that doesn't change society. The members of socity has the outstanding memebers, the outcasts, and the general population. Once moral decay and decadence set in there is not much to be done. Obviously though women can hate men as much as men hate women, there's not much can be done about that.... Also knowing these things, or realizing a problem in society don't make you an enlightened individual anymore that anyone else. Wisdom and knowlege are two separate things. In the end you can choose to agree that women maintain sexual freedom and independence, working with men only to maintain natural order of procreation. Or that men are the dominate members of society. In either case it's a matter of opinion. Even years before all this talk of inequality women were considered dangerous and revered for certain aspects of their gender*cough* and they were aware of it, just look at lysistrata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

I have no idea how to end this so I bid you long life, happy years, and a good day.