They knew they might get a paddlin' for saying "SJW" but that's what the post implies, IMO.
DA and ME games are the first games I've played that you can romance men as a female lead.
THIS. I love the lore and the world so much! And I can play as a women! And the games fun! And DRAGONS! It's all winGladly.
Not all women are into romance.
The fact that Dragon Age is popular with women is ignoring the fact that the game allows you to role play as a fully characterized and badass woman. It's ignoring that they gave women armor options that didn't expose her tits and ass. It's ignoring that women can't fall in love with the world or the lore or the characters and their story arcs. It's ignoring that the game was well made and a woman can't get into the gameplay or enjoy it as a game.
"Hur dur women only want to kiss boys"
Don't be so daft.
Taking sexualized designs out of video games where the sexualization is out of place for the character would MAKE WOMEN FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE PLAYING GAMES. Therefore it's a reasonable thing to discuss on a video game focused forum. While nobody expects video games to be the sole source of correcting entire cultural problems, there is nothing wrong with requesting the makers of said games to consider whether they want to be part of REINFORCING STEREOTYPES WITHOUT THOUGHT. And some of those makers, on personal reflection, realize that they do NOT want to, and then they adjust how they create female characters.Seems to me like society has always valued women's beauty more than men's, and that this is the reason why we see more sexualised designs of women in the media. It feels like a symptom of our cultural relationship between male sexuality and female beauty, not a cause. Would taking sexualised designs out of all video games really change the different way we see and judge male and females bodies? I can't see it. I don't think this is something you can actually legislate out of the human condition, to be honest.
I have no idea what you're even saying.gave my opinion based on what I have seen growing up and am not defending either point I just feel more open communication would get things in a better place. I do not have the answer to your question, I think it is part of my point. They are not openly speaking to each other is my point. They are speaking but it seems in almost every case one tries to speak over the other to push their point instead of reaching a happy medium.
Many times either the journalist/critic speaks over the dev and tries to make him change his work with words and humiliation and other times the dev are the ones being pieces of shit. Women have gotten the worse of it for sure, but it is still an issue for both ends.
Women who inherently "wouldn't post on a gaming forum" can hardly be a significant portion of "women who play video games". Why do you think we are talking about women "who wouldn't post on a gaming forum"?While it's great to have input from women here, it would be kind of foolish to think that they speak for all women. That's something that goes both ways, if a woman would post here that she's not bothered by it it wouldn't be representative either. Add to that, that the women who we're talking about are the ones who wouldn't post on a gaming forum. The opinion of the general audience is something you can only really back up with studies or surveys which I haven't seen so far (but good chance that I missed it)
This. The idea that the vast numbers of women that play an rpg do so because of something so simplistic as romance rather than a combination of the same factors anyone else does is ridiculous. Maybe they really like the combat system, or the choices, or the story, or the characters, or the costumes, or all of the above. You wouldn't describe a male fan base of an rpg as only in it for a singular aspect like killing orcs or whatever.Again with the nerd gatekeeping. Women have to constantly prove that they're "real fans," how is this any different? Do you want all of the women on ResetERA to come in here and tell you what their gaming habits are? I don't think any of us on this forum should have to justify why we play the video games we do.
So... you're so far removed from anything resembling empathy with your fellow human beings (who happen to be women) that you can't even fathom the idea that unequivocally disrespecting an entire gender is fundamentally unappealing to members of that gender?While it's great to have input from women here, it would be kind of foolish to think that they speak for all women. That's something that goes both ways, if a woman would post here that she's not bothered by it it wouldn't be representative either. Add to that, that the women who we're talking about are the ones who wouldn't post on a gaming forum. The opinion of the general audience is something you can only really back up with studies or surveys which I haven't seen so far (but good chance that I missed it)
Ad a
As a western male the FFXV cast was, well.. tolerable. A bunch of little pretty boys with big swords. They were typical anime stereotypes. I didn't really have an opinion of them either way but I definitely wouldn't classify them as male power fantasy. At least not in the west. I fully understand women's stance on this issue though exemplified by my unease when Max had romantic options in Life is Strange. It must be like that all the time for women in most games.
Men are evaluated as aesthetically less pleasing than women in research using male and female raters of pictures. This suggests that physical appeal was not selected so strongly for men as for women in our evolutionary past (1).
Even if sexy appearance is less important for men, it still matters a lot. In many cases, women react more strongly to negative traits than to positive ones. Some are turned off by baldness, some reject short men, and others are most put off by a protruding stomach (2).
Reading between the lines, most women are attracted to strong, healthy, physically fit specimens who project confidence and are more likely to succeed in surviving, reproducing, and prospering in any society.
Physical attractiveness is more critical early in a relationship—presumably because it colors first impressions so much—and women who are interested in a short-term relationship are likely to have their fling with someone who is above average in physical appeal.
Once a man passes the first screen of physical attractiveness, a woman is likely to pay more attention to personality characteristics, intelligence, and general suitability for a relationship.
Evolutionary standards of attraction work both ways: Women are drawn to physical characteristics indicating good health and a likely ability to provide and protect—broad shoulders with narrower hips, athleticism, a strong jawline, and a deep voice.
In my case, that translates into attraction to men who are swarthy, soulful, and, in some cases, hairy. I first spotted the man I'll call "Joshua" standing across a courtyard at a synagogue, his biceps evident beneath his dress shirt. As he glanced toward me with eyes that were big and brown, intelligent and sensitive, searing yet slightly hurt, a message shot through my heart: "I must have sex with this man!" Or, to quote Rainer Maria Rilke, "Look, that is how, if you do not come, I shall crawl to my ending."
Joshua was successful in a highly competitive creative field, which heightened his appeal, just as evolutionary psychology would predict. "Every marker of creativity seems to play into mating," Geher says, "Being attracted to someone creative means that person's creativity could help you and your offspring and that those genes could pass on to your offspring. We're also attracted to resources—today, money—and to kindness."
The notion that our partner preferences are driven by ancient biological demands can be infuriating. But "even if we consciously say, 'I'm not going to do these things you say I'm evolved to do,' it's hard to get away from them. They've been sculpted over so many thousands of generations," Geher says. "In spite of how much the environment has changed, our evolved mindset is based on ancestral conditions."
Not saying every character needs to be Bayonetta, but if they are going to make em sexy they should do it right, instead of "Iunno take a completely serious and otherwise non-sexual character and just rip their pants off cuz idgaf".You need to expand your Overton window on female characters a fair bit.
The cynic in me imagined a Fox news report along the lines of: "Female opinions originate in the vagina: Should vaginas be banned? More at 11".I thought the romances were boring and dumb
This opinion brought to you by my vagina
The discussion chain was about women who aren't into gaming and why that's the case. I highly doubt that women who aren't into gaming post on an exclusive board like this.Women who inherently "wouldn't post on a gaming forum" can hardly be a significant portion of "women who play video games". Why do you think we are talking about women "who wouldn't post on a gaming forum"?
So, which part of "all women" are you protecting from being spoken over by those women who DO post on a gaming forum? I am agog.
I can very much fathom the idea but I also see women cosplaying as Quiet or other characters that you'd regard as disrespecting an entire gender, so I don't know how all women feel about it.So... you're so far removed from anything resembling empathy with your fellow human beings (who happen to be women) that you can't even fathom the idea that unequivocally disrespecting an entire gender is fundamentally unappealing to members of that gender?
Okay.
I don't quite understand this linear continuum you're establishing, but alright.Not saying every character needs to be Bayonetta, but if they are going to make em sexy they should do it right, instead of "Iunno take a completely serious and otherwise non-sexual character and just rip their pants off cuz idgaf".
To add, I also think we need a lot more just good female characters to begin with. So 75% "Just a great character all around" Ellie, 25% "Sexy in a sensible and bad ass way" Bayonetta, and 0% "lol what are pants" Quiet.
This sounds like a long-winded way of saying "women should just play other games".The point is to have a diversity of media such that each party partaking in the media have options that represent their interests. You don't need to remove one option to enable another option. They are not mutually exclusive. It's about making the pool bigger, not eliminating parts of it.
You can't please all audiences with singular products. It's not possible, and attempts at doing so are usually poorly designed.
What about the women who game that want to escape from being objectified in the real world? Who are "realistic and respectful all day long" but still have to endure an unending litany of sexists and sexism and then have to deal with it all over again in their favorite game(s)? Being sensitive to gender issues isn't mutually exclusive with games that entertain or titillate.
Here's a note you can collect in Keira Metz's hut:If there is a relevant explanation as to WHY she wears makeup that exists in the story, then I concede. I didn't know that. But if it just randomly exists on women and not men, especially coupled with some of the shit that I've PERSONALLY experienced in the game itself (ie shots that linger on a woman's ass while she's leaning in a sexualized position, coming on to the player who literally just walked through the door), then I think it's a problem in that the creators feel like they NEED to put makeup on women for the sake of making them more attractive for male players. If there's more information that I'm missing out of the story that provides a decent explanation for why Ciri and other women wear makeup, then I apologize for not having all of the context.
I didn't mean to assert that makeup exists, in all context, to please men. That was not at all my intention. I was referring to the context of TW3, which I may not have all the context for.
But like I said, there were multiple camera angles and blatantly sexualized moments that turned me away from the game. I will do my best to find them as this was a couple years ago. And this isn't some new phenomenon for this developer. This shit has existed since TW1, which had even more instances and far more blatant than what we see in the third title.
Hmmmmm I should make a point of that I don't really think of Bayonetta as being "sexy". Nor do, anecdotally, any of the several female friends that I've introduced the game to. She's not attractive, really, though she is, quite intensely, sexual.I don't quite understand this linear continuum you're establishing, but alright.
I think instead developers should focus on depicting women realistically and not to treat 'sexiness' as some kind of slider they apply after the fact.
Shh don't give them any ideas!The cynic in me imagined a Fox news report along the lines of: "Female opinions originate in the vagina: Should vaginas be banned? More at 11".
Thankfully it's still a satirical thought.
I thought the romances were boring and dumb
This opinion brought to you by my vagina
The point I was trying to make is that it's strange seeing a bunch of guys looking warn/beat up from the world they live in and then seeing some women presented in a way that feels out of place, where they're presented to the player instead of being a PART of that world. Makeup/eyeliner is only one of those components that factors into that perception. If we were just talking about makeup alone it wouldn't be an issue.. but it's about a sum of things that equates to a shitty representation of women in comparison to their male counterparts in the game.Here's a note you can collect in Keira Metz's hut:
Black eyeliner in a pinch
When deprived of professional products, one can mix up black eyeliner from crushed medicinal charcoal mixed with (fresh!) egg yolk and a drop of lavender oil (to keep contaminants at bay). Store the eyeliner in a cool place for at most 3 days, then make a new batch, because the old one has surely rotted. Ingest the remaining medicinal charcoal, for it can only do you good.
Woman in the witcher 3 wear makeup for the same reasons women in the real world wear it.
Yeah. Interesting how your example is hypothetical, and I got a dozen women that aren't who are largely agreeing.While it's great to have input from women here, it would be kind of foolish to think that they speak for all women. That's something that goes both ways, if a woman would post here that she's not bothered by it it wouldn't be representative either.
Ciri for sure gets beat up pretty good.The point I was trying to make is that it's strange seeing a bunch of guys looking warn/beat up from the world they live in and then seeing some women presented in a way that feels out of place, where they're presented to the player instead of being a PART of that world. Makeup/eyeliner is only one of those components that factors into that perception. If we were just talking about makeup alone it wouldn't be an issue.. but it's about a sum of things that equates to a shitty representation of women in comparison to their male counterparts in the game.
Like I said, the way some women in TW3 are framed, their body language, their physical appearance in comparison to males, it often paints a really strange/out of place image of women.
At least that was my experience.
I'm not saying women are incapable of wearing makeup for themselves.
This is a whole 'nother ball of wax and gets into the many complex and varied reasons someone might cosplay such a character, up to and including:I can very much fathom the idea but I also see women cosplaying as Quiet or other characters that you'd regard as disrespecting an entire gender, so I don't know how all women feel about it.
I was responding to the idea that this post: https://www.resetera.com/posts/696892/ is mansplaining because it didn't engage the issues women brought up here. I never said don't listen, but the issue as to what exactly doesn't appeal to women who aren't into gaming is up to debate.Yeah. Interesting how your example is hypothetical, and I got a dozen women that aren't who are largely agreeing.
So again, what is the point of saying "you don't speak for all women" (of course we don't, no one speaks for ~all women~) other than trying to shut us down? Do you not realize how insulting and frustrating this is for us who ARE speaking out?
At the end of the day it feels like some men don't think enough of us are complaining, so those of us who do say something don't count. Honestly, it reminds me of conversations about how women wanting to get rid of catcalling are hurting women who feel appreciated/empowered/whatever from it.Yeah. Interesting how your example is hypothetical, and I got a dozen women that aren't who are largely agreeing.
So again, what is the point of saying "you don't speak for all women" (of course we don't, no one speaks for ~all women~) other than trying to shut us down? Do you not realize how insulting and frustrating this is for us who ARE speaking out?
Whoa whoa there, I am not angry and don't get why you seem to try to get an emotional reaction from my posts when there is none.I have no idea what you're even saying.
You seem angry if anyone criticizes a dev. Critics who don't like content are not inherently using "humiliation" as a tactic to open a conversaton with devs. Perhaps you could post an example of "humiliating" conversation so I can understand what you're getting at?
But there are plenty of women of all ages and different body types presented in the game.The point I was trying to make is that it's strange seeing a bunch of guys looking warn/beat up from the world they live in and then seeing some women presented in a way that feels out of place, where they're presented to the player instead of being a PART of that world. Makeup/eyeliner is only one of those components that factors into that perception. If we were just talking about makeup alone it wouldn't be an issue.. but it's about a sum of things that equates to a shitty representation of women in comparison to their male counterparts in the game.
Like I said, the way some women in TW3 are framed, their body language and their physical appearance in comparison to males, often paints a really strange/out of place image of women.
At least that was my experience.
I'm not saying women are incapable of wearing makeup for themselves.
Art is art. Some people get befuddled at others admiring certain things because it doesnt appeal to them on an artistic level.
Art is art. Some people get befuddled at others admiring certain things because it doesnt appeal to them on an artistic level.
Art is art. Some people get befuddled at others admiring certain things because it doesnt appeal to them on an artistic level.
You have taken a nintendo survey specifiying "the most excited household member to purchase a nintendo switch", and jumped to the conclusion that that means women don't own a switch, and then jumped to the further conclusion that women don't play games on the switch.Unless you believe that other consoles also have that same gender divide the Switch is currently an outlier. It's true that it's perhaps too early to make a call, but it then at least tells us that Nintendos tamer image has no effect on early adopters. And the point was less about why women don't buy a switch, it's more that Nintendo largely avoiding fan service heavy games doesn't seem to have a positive effect, which makes you question where exactly that lies on the list of priorities when buying games
I was not angry.Whoa whoa there, I am not angry and don't get why you seem to try to get an emotional reaction from my posts when there is none.
I just gave my point of view of the situation as I have seen it from growing up being a gamer. A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
It all boils down to:
"Instead of trying to see my point you attacked it."
You attacked my point because you didn't understand it instead of asking about it you falsely made an assumption to criticize that point ( I am mad a people criticizing devs?) you failed to understand.
I guess you kind of prove my point that you got angry focusing on one thing I said you didn't agree with, instead of having a conversation to understand it. It is what happens with critics a lot.
Criticism is contributing. There are actually quite a few developers who have stated that her work helped them rein in some of their more subconscious design choices. Critique is an essential part of every development cycle.I just gave my point of view of the situation as I have seen it from growing up being a gamer. A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
Marry me. Let's be in lesbians together.Women's opinions are women's opinions. Some people get befuddled at women criticizing certain things because it doesn't appeal to them on a meaningful level.
Criticism is contribution. Criticizing a work for having sexist elements is not the same thing as criticizing a designer for being a sexist.Whoa whoa there, I am not angry and don't get why you seem to try to get an emotional reaction from my posts when there is none.
I just gave my point of view of the situation as I have seen it from growing up being a gamer. A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
I wasn't trying to say that all women in the game fall into this category. Just that there were enough shitty/unrealistic representations early in the game to get me to stop playing, even after multiple attempts.But there are plenty of women of all ages and different body types presented in the game.
I guess my final word would be this:
- I get conflicted between the fact that I don't think a sexualised character design designed to appeal to men is in and of itself sexist vs the fact that I do think the excessive proliferation of them in certain genres when the same never happens to men is.
- I get conflicted between the fact that when you look at the top 10 grossing games on mobile, handheld, console and PC of 2016 there's very few games with explicit sexual designs or fanservice so most of the popular games these days are actually very female friendly vs the fact that entire major genres on console aren't female-friendly at all.
- I get conflicted between the fact that I like fanservice in games, it's a selling point to me and I buy games that have it vs the fact that I don't want women to be excluded from certain genres of games or the hobby as a whole.
- I get conflicted because I can see the harm that female stereotyping can have on women but I find it tough to pin sexual content in games as any kind of concrete cause of those stereotypes and thus struggle to see a specific causal link to specific harm done.
- I get conflicted because when a game story is worth taking seriously then I absolutely don't want fanservice or sexual designs (at least not out of proper context) vs the fact that I so rarely find that to be the case in games, which leads me to still wanting to defend sexualised designs in general.
I guess I'm just conflicted between these two broad viewpoints:
"I like it, people like making it, it sells, no one has to play or like these games, there are plenty of other games & it doesn't cause and contribute to sexism in any meaningful way" and
"I can see how it would be alienating and oppressive seeing sexualised depictions of your gender all the time, how it would reinforce the idea that this entertainment is not for you and how feeling excluded from great games you'd otherwise enjoy would suck"
I also feel like stronger representation of women in the gaming industry would fix a lot of these issues.
Anyway, cheers to everyone who took part in this discussion. I know that for many of you it's frustrating when someone like me reads your posts and doesn't agree with something you feel is very basic or obvious, or when it takes time to get to grips with the main point being made. I have to admit that I read the OP over 10 times just trying to understand it, honestly. It comes from such a different point of view than mine that I genuinely struggled to understand the basis of the points it was making.
I think it's pretty telling that some gamers saw the honestly superficial, low-level, 101 media studies criticism from Anita as an attack. There's probably a few things at play:Whoa whoa there, I am not angry and don't get why you seem to try to get an emotional reaction from my posts when there is none.
I just gave my point of view of the situation as I have seen it from growing up being a gamer. A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
It all boils down to:
"Instead of trying to see my point you attacked it."
You attacked my point because you didn't understand it instead of asking about it you falsely made an assumption to criticize that point ( I am mad a people criticizing devs?) you failed to understand.
I guess you kind of prove my point that you got angry focusing on one thing I said you didn't agree with, instead of having a conversation to understand it. It is what happens with critics a lot.
I guess my final word would be this:
- I get conflicted between the fact that I don't think a sexualised character design designed to appeal to men is in and of itself sexist vs the fact that I do think the excessive proliferation of them in certain genres when the same never happens to men is.
- I get conflicted between the fact that when you look at the top 10 grossing games on mobile, handheld, console and PC of 2016 there's very few games with explicit sexual designs or fanservice so most of the popular games these days are actually very female friendly vs the fact that entire major genres on console aren't female-friendly at all.
- I get conflicted between the fact that I like fanservice in games, it's a selling point to me and I buy games that have it vs the fact that I don't want women to be excluded from certain genres of games or the hobby as a whole.
- I get conflicted because I can see the harm that female stereotyping can have on women but I find it tough to pin sexual content in games as any kind of concrete cause of those stereotypes and thus struggle to see a specific causal link to specific harm done.
- I get conflicted because when a game story is worth taking seriously then I absolutely don't want fanservice or sexual designs (at least not out of proper context) vs the fact that I so rarely find that to be the case in games, which leads me to still wanting to defend sexualised designs in general.
I guess I'm just conflicted between these two broad viewpoints:
"I like it, people like making it, it sells, no one has to play or like these games, there are plenty of other games & it doesn't cause and contribute to sexism in any meaningful way" and
"I can see how it would be alienating and oppressive seeing sexualised depictions of your gender all the time, how it would reinforce the idea that this entertainment is not for you and how feeling excluded from great games you'd otherwise enjoy would suck"
I also feel like stronger representation of women in the gaming industry would fix a lot of these issues.
Anyway, cheers to everyone who took part in this discussion. I know that for many of you it's frustrating when someone like me reads your posts and doesn't agree with something you feel is very basic or obvious, or when it takes time to get to grips with the main point being made. I have to admit that I read the OP over 10 times just trying to understand it, honestly. It comes from such a different point of view than mine that I genuinely struggled to understand the basis of the points it was making.
I think it's pretty telling that some gamers saw the honestly superficial, low-level, 101 media studies criticism from Anita as an attack. There's probably a few things at play:
- Tying your identity to your consumption of corporate-made media so that any criticism of the media becomes a criticism of you
- Not leaving the video game bubble and seeing the similar, and frankly more scathing, criticism applied to all forms of media
- Being unable to reconcile or recognize being a victim in some ways (bullying) and a perpetrator in others
- Going back to #1, being called sexist/racist/etc. is seen as worse than actually holding and exposing such views
- Criticism is contribution. Neil Druckmann himself said Anita's criticisms helped him improve the stories in his games.A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
Life is all about being conflicted at times, welcome to debate, learning and growing. You also won't line up with people's opinions all the time, so unless you're actually thinking or doing anything objectively bad/sinister/mean/degrading and so on you don't need to beat yourself up even if 20 people disagree with you. This isn't that simple a debate, even although to some it's over with one sentence. Human life and behaviour are often very complex, especially around sex and sexual behaviour. It's actually healthy you said "I get conflicted" multiple times, as it means you are actually thinking and challenging yourself, not just wanting to seek out reinforcement.
Have confidence in yourself to work things out, share your thoughts, and as long as you aren't actually a shitty person, enjoy trying to articulate your thoughts. If you know you are a decent person, treat others well and are confident about that, allow yourself to speak, learn and debate without fear. You may well change your mind on some things, it does happen from time to time even although most adults think by 20 they have the whole world sussed out and their opinions are 100% set in stone. People in their 30s and 40s can still be learning, and in some regards I'd say adults never stop learning. I just hope most manage to progress on from being literal children in an adults body, as that is one thing that aids towards soo much anti-social behaviour these days.
I can appreciate this, since you are acknowledging that you are conflicted between your (selfish, but I don't mean that in a negative sense) personal desires, and the constrasting option, which would be beneficial to others but not inherently to yourself. That's understandable, because it means you would be "giving" your support, if you do, to another party.
Showing the causal harm can be difficult because this stuff IS pervasive, but harm is evident. I don't have the studies on hand just now, but huge percentages of girls under the age of 11 have already started dieting. Women draw themselves as fatter than their male partners draw them. Things like this are very prevalent.
I wasn't trying to say that all women in the game fall into this category. Just that there were enough shitty/unrealistic representations early in the game to get me to stop playing, even after multiple attempts.
I had this same experience with TW1.
Well that's part of it right? Improving yourself implies there's something wrong with you in the first place.I find people like that struggle to acknowledge critique of anything they have some form of investment in, even when that critique is intended to help them improve themselves (or their work). I guess that's what leads to point two: to avoid criticism/rejection/change they surround themselves with like-minded individuals who never seek to challenge them. This, in turn, makes them more intolerant to criticism, and so the cycle repeats...
I'm not sure how, or even if, you can break people out of that cycle. It usually has a lifetime of momentum behind it, for a start :/
Speaking of points of view based on the history of those who liked games a long time ago, I was a 12-year-old boy in 1990. I grew up engrossed in computer games, comics and Warhammer, found sanctuary from a rough school life in fantasy worlds, was as 'geeky' as humanly possible and yet at no point did I find myself feeling 'called out', 'humilated', told what to think or condescended to by Feminist Frequency. Mainly because at the point it came out I was in my thirties and used to hearing things from different perspectives. I agreed with large chunks of it, disagreed with others, found it entertaining and engaging and original considering we had rarely seen a feminist view of the industry at the time, and different viewpoints have value. The reaction to it was ridiculously out of proportion to one youtuber talking about things in games she found problematic, which then only gave it a wider audience in the industry similar to the Streisand Effect. If 'gamers' hadn't taken a single bloody opinion so personally to the point of being up in arms about it and issuing death threats it would never have had the influence it did. On my list of 'least constructive things in games' that sits about a gajillion entries higher than youtubers talking about tropes in computer games.I just gave my point of view of the situation as I have seen it from growing up being a gamer. A lot of the geeks that thought/think themselves as rejects of society used to be the main audience for gaming in the 80s/90s and when gaming became mainstream they started getting called out and even humiliated by people like Anita Sarkeesian that came in to criticize and not contribute. Instead of having a conversation is was basically her and some other people like her telling them to be ashamed of their work because of sexualized characters.
.
This sounds like a long-winded way of saying "women should just play other games".
Well, I can happily say that I'm a decent dude. Have never harmed or harassed a woman in my life, in person or online. And the only fight I was ever in was on a sports field.
I'm in my 30s but I'm still reassessing my opinions every day, which is all you can do. I do feel like my age and nationality put me well out of touch with the younger, american progressives on here. I'm very much a socialist dude, but I grew up without any of the socially progressive stuff at all, even in uni. So these conversations don't come naturally to me. I'm also a single, sports-watching, golf playing guys' guy, so the female perspective on certain issues can be a bit alien as well.
That's fair enough.
I totally agree about the way young women see their bodies being a crisis, I just don't know what the main cause of it is. That's the kind of thing where I'd need to see some studies. I've never thought that a sexualised gaming character could contribute to that, but maybe I've been mistaken. I read the Guardian daily and I've seen articles like this which show that 36% of girls believe looks to be paramount but I'm not exactly educated about it.
But there are clearly individual differences or dispositional factors associated with change. Some people seem to embrace change, indeed thrive on it, more than others. The young seem happier to change than the old, no doubt because they have fewer habitual responses or less to lose.
Psychologists have found several sorts of personality factors that they believe relate to change.
1. Neuroticism/Adjustment. Neurotics are prone to anxiety and depression; they see threat and danger everywhere; they are hyper vigilant for possible threats. To survive the stressful workplace they need manifold and effective coping strategies. Change inevitably stresses them more because they worry more about what it means, what they need to do, to learn and how they will cope. The resistant, hardy, and stable do better.
2. Self-Efficacy and Control. Some people believe they are captains of their own ship, masters of their fate. They (mostly) control their destiny and they are personally efficacious. They are contrasted with fatalists who believe that chance, fate and powerful others influence everything. Those who believe they have control exercise it and cope better.
3.Tolerant of Ambiguity. Some people feel significantly threatened by lack of clarity and uncertainty. They like things to be open, clear, predictable and orderly. Even in a capricious, unstable work environment they strive to avoid uncertainty through the use of rules, regulation and rituals that dictate low behavior: the more comfortable people are around ambiguity the easier it is for them to accept and embrace change.
Recently two Israeli psychologists have worked on a simple measure of personal resistance to change (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010). They found four factors that predicted an individual's resistance to (imposed) change at work:
1. Routine Seeking. Many people like a stable routine. They would rather be bored than surprised. They take comfort in their little daily rituals which change threatens to destabilize.
2. Stress and Tension. Any threat to stability can make some individuals experience great discomfort. Any change at work can signal danger, which leads to worry which can, in time, lead to a drop in performance. This again could necessitate more change.
3. Short-Term Thinking. Here people focus on immediate inconvenience and discomfort even if they are aware of long-term benefits; it's the "jam today" response. The short-term focus is somewhat irrational
4. Cognitive Rigidity. This was used pejoratively to be called dogmatism. It is a profound dislike of changing one's mind and view.
Most people are (quite rightly) ambivalent about change. Much depends on one's experience of change and the extent to which it is imposed from above. Equally, possibly even more important, is the person's attitude to the 'change agent'—usually senior management. The worst combination is having someone dispositionally resistant to change who also fundamentally distrusts the change agent. But if the messenger is trusted then even the most change-o-phobic person will go along with the new rules and regulations.
The moral of the story? Target the resistors of change; work on them and get their trust. It will more negativity and resistance through ambivalence and indifference to the possibility that they will embrace change happily and effectively.
It all comes down to effort.
When you are arguing about something you already believe, you don't have to work that hard to convince yourself. If you think tuition should be lowered, you aren't going to try that hard to convince yourself of it, because you already believe it. If you are trying to convince someone else, though, you will work harder and generate better arguments. As a result, you end up convincing yourself even more strongly.
When you are arguing about something you don't currently believe, though, you have to work harder to convince yourself. In this case, you end up being more effective when you try to convince yourself than when you try to convince someone else.
In the end, then, if you are truly trying to change your mind, you need to argue with yourself rather than with someone else.