Just so I get this straight, you guys think that romance novels are a problem, just like gaming?
To clarify, I don't think either romance novels or gaming are "a problem," but they're both products of their culture, and as such contain and reinforce the values of that culture. I've never read romance novels, but I suspect their gender representation is pretty reductive and shouldn't be blindly consumed. I personally care more about this stuff in video games, though, because I actually play video games.
Do you also think that the depiction of males in media is a problem? If so, why are these groups (GG/Anti-GG) only worried about females?
Do you want these problematic depictions of women being removed completely, or just want it to be a small minority of characters with these problematic depictions?
What are your stances on GTA V and Hatred being removed from marketplaces because of their "violence towards women" issues?
To jump in with my responses:
1) Yes. I think 'anti-gg' (a group I don't think really exists) is more concerned with the depiction of women because women are more obviously disadvantaged by the sexist institutions of our society. GG, I've been told, is about ethics in gaming journalism, so if you've noticed that they talk about women and their proper role in society an awful lot, I don't know what to tell you.
2) Neither. I don't want anything removed, though I admit that over time, as people think about those things and our culture evolves, I hope there will be fewer and fewer portrayals we would consider problematic.
3) I don't have a strong opinion about this. These games should be allowed to be made, and people should be allowed to play them, but if a vendor doesn't want to stock a product, it can't be forced to do so. I can understand why these parties might not want to be associated with graphic scenes of brutality and don't think they did anything wrong.
I could understand if these vendors did so with sweeping changes and removal of all instances of graphic scenes of brutality, but it was just GTA V. They also did it, to my knowledge of reading the situations, because they were inundated with people calling for them to remove it because of the "violence towards women". Isn't calling for its removal in some ways censorship?
There is a notable discussion of women in these GG articles/videos/etc, but I don't know if it started like that or it is discussion the shifting narrative of the opposition. Could be either one, I would imagine.
I don't really disagree with your responses, and I want to thank you for giving me your opinion on my questions. However, from what I have seen and read from others, you seem to be in the minority with how to act towards these "problematic" depictions.
I don't mean the concept of romance novels, I mean you find that problems in gaming with the depiction of women are problems that other media, specifically romance novels. Sorry about that if I confused you.
Do you also think that the depiction of males in media is a problem? If so, why are these groups (GG/Anti-GG) only worried about females?
Do you want these problematic depictions of women being removed completely, or just want it to be a small minority of characters with these problematic depictions?
What are your stances on GTA V and Hatred being removed from marketplaces because of their "violence towards women" issues?
Yes, other media do have problems with the depiction of women.
I think that, overall, the depiction of women in media is worse than the depiction of men. But that doesn't mean that it's the ONLY issue, or even the most important issue.
Well, problematic depictions shouldn't happen at all, but part of what makes them problematic is that they're so common. Crude example: A game with a women who gets kidnapped isn't necessarily a problem on its own. The problem happens when most women who appear in games are just getting kidnapped and then have to be saved by men.
On GTA V: I can see why Target Australia wouldn't want to carry it, and it's within their rights to not carry a game that they don't agree with (or that their customers don't agree with). There are other retailers who sell games, so it's not like they're preventing the game from being sold at all. I don't know that much about GTA V, but it does seem to have some problematic elements.
On Hatred: I heard it was pulled from Steam Greenlight and then put back up. I don't know whether it was violence towards women specifically that got it pulled in the first place. Either way, I agree with what shinquickman said about it:
It's offensive for the sake of being offensive. I stopped playing Manhunt past the second objective because I didn't find any joy with killing innocent victims in torturous ways. I doubt I'd like this game any better.
The community surrounding the game doesn't seem much better. While I doubt that it's going to cause any mass shootings itself, there's a definite sense of "I want to offend people because I can!" attitude around it.
I don't mean the concept of romance novels, I mean you find that problems in gaming with the depiction of women are problems that other media, specifically romance novels. Sorry about that if I confused you.
Do you also think that the depiction of males in media is a problem? If so, why are these groups (GG/Anti-GG) only worried about females?
Do you want these problematic depictions of women being removed completely, or just want it to be a small minority of characters with these problematic depictions?
What are your stances on GTA V and Hatred being removed from marketplaces because of their "violence towards women" issues?
Yes, other media do have problems with the depiction of women.
I think that, overall, the depiction of women in media is worse than the depiction of men. But that doesn't mean that it's the ONLY issue, or even the most important issue.
Well, problematic depictions shouldn't happen at all, but part of what makes them problematic is that they're so common. Crude example: A game with a women who gets kidnapped isn't necessarily a problem on its own. The problem happens when most women who appear in games are just getting kidnapped and then have to be saved by men.
On GTA V: I can see why Target Australia wouldn't want to carry it, and it's within their rights to not carry a game that they don't agree with (or that their customers don't agree with). There are other retailers who sell games, so it's not like they're preventing the game from being sold at all. I don't know that much about GTA V, but it does seem to have some problematic elements.
On Hatred: I heard it was pulled from Steam Greenlight and then put back up. I don't know whether it was violence towards women specifically that got it pulled in the first place. Either way, I agree with what shinquickman said about it:
It's offensive for the sake of being offensive. I stopped playing Manhunt past the second objective because I didn't find any joy with killing innocent victims in torturous ways. I doubt I'd like this game any better.
The community surrounding the game doesn't seem much better. While I doubt that it's going to cause any mass shootings itself, there's a definite sense of "I want to offend people because I can!" attitude around it.
"I want to offend people because I can" is acceptable in other avenues (Art, Comedy, etc), why would it not be acceptable in a gaming medium? There are too many comedians to list that made their bones doing stand up trying to be outrageous and offensive.
There is no reason to do this. If women already play games then there is no need for any change. If women don't play games then gaming just isn't for women.
Everytime a publisher/dev says "we are trying reach a broaader audience" it means that the game is going to suck. This doesn't just apply to games but to everything.
Do you remember how good that pg-13 robocop was? I wish I didn't.
A fair number of people seem to think "better representations of women in video games" means "developers will only be able to make clones of Gone Home". Which isn't true at all.
I mean, look at Portal. It's not a bad game. Feminist Frequency recommends it. Look at Duke Nukem Forever. It doesn't try to appeal to women. It also... was not a good game.
Feminist frequency also says mirror's edge had difficult controls. The game has like 7 buttons and 4 of them are the wasd. If you remove one of those 3 non-movement controls you have "Gone Home".
Duke Nukem's problem was that it tried to appeal the larger audience.
Portal did not try to appeal to women.
"I want to offend people because I can" is acceptable in other avenues (Art, Comedy, etc), why would it not be acceptable in a gaming medium? There are too many comedians to list that made their bones doing stand up trying to be outrageous and offensive.
I don't agree with offending people for the sake of offending people. If you're making a political statement ("Yes, this offends people, but should it?"), then there's a point behind it. If it's trying to be funny, it might not be acceptable but at least there's some reasoning behind it. But this game doesn't seem to have any reason to exist other than to offend people, and appeal to people who like to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.
There's a difference between things that bring up bigger questions ("Why is this offensive? Should people be offended by it?") and things that just exist to say "Look at me, I'm so edgy!". I think Hatred is very much in the latter category.
Feminist frequency also says mirror's edge had difficult controls. The game has like 7 buttons and 4 of them are the wasd. If you remove one of those 3 non-movement controls you have "Gone Home".
Duke Nukem's problem was that it tried to appeal the larger audience.
Portal did not try to appeal to women.
A) [citation needed]. There seems to be a rumor going around that Anita Sarkeesian got on the dev team for Mirror's Edge 2 and is actually going to make the controls easier "for women". None of this is true. And: The difference between Mirror's Edge and Gone Home is one button? Seriously?
B) Duke Nukem Forever's problem is that it was a 14-year development trainwreck. And if they were trying to appeal to women, they seriously messed that up.
C) No, but it also doesn't contain any of the elements that people would consider "problematic". It's not trying to appeal to women specifically, but it also doesn't do anything to alienate them (like, say, Duke Nukem Forever) and is a good game that lots of people enjoyed.
Ok, I'm with you so far. Critical thinking is the name of the game. You and Tiax have me worked up into a full-blown critical thinking frenzy.
So let's think critically about what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying it's better to let people have as many degrees of freedom as possible when it comes to their identity and self-expression. We should remove boxes or "partitions" from our society that prevent people from being who they want to be. If we could somehow remove the height and weight partition and let people pick these things for themsleves, we should. Since we can remove the "gender" partition, we should. Let people make as many choices as possible about how they want to express themselves, and don't condemn them for deviating from their partition.
Is that a fair characterization of what you're advocating, or do I have that wrong?
Sounds fine, though I should point out that gender is something that is biologically determined before birth. Otherwise, it sounds good.
There's a difference between things that bring up bigger questions ("Why is this offensive? Should people be offended by it?") and things that just exist to say "Look at me, I'm so edgy!". I think Hatred is very much in the latter category.
All offensive things ask those questions, it's just that sometimes the answer is "yes."
Sounds fine, though I should point out that gender is something that is biologically determined before birth. Otherwise, it sounds good.
I don't speak postmodern as fluently as I used to when I was in college, but I believe it's "sex" that's determined before birth, and "gender" that's ostensibly determined by society.
Awesome, we're still on the same page. I'm also a huge fan of personal freedom, but exactly what "personal freedom" means can vary from person to person, so I want to ask another question to see if my critical thinking is still on the right track here.
Let's say I decide to express myself in some particular way "X" (e.g. as a man, I decide to walk down the street wearing a dress). You're not just saying this should be legally allowed, you're also saying that people shouldn't use social pressures, like ostracism or ridicule, to try to force me to act differently, right? People shouldn't tell me that it's wrong to express myself in way "X" and that I should express myself in culturally-acceptable way "Y" instead (e.g. dressing in traditionally male clothes).
This is all with the understanding that we still need to maintain people's safety and sanity, so letting people express themselves by, say, running around stark naked and screaming might not fit as "X" above. But non-violent, non-disruptive forms of expression would.
Do I still have this right?
Sorry, I didn't see this for a bit. Generally, yes, I think an ideal society would allow you to express your opinions and behave however you'd like, as long as you aren't causing anyone harm.
If this is leading to the rhetorical trap I think it is, I'm already bored.
All offensive things ask those questions, it's just that sometimes the answer is "yes."
I guess, but it's more that some things want to make you ask yourself those questions and think about the answers. They exist to make people think about the nature of offensive things and maybe change peoples' minds about what should and shouldn't be offensive. Hatred just exists to offend.
Awesome, we're still on the same page. I'm also a huge fan of personal freedom, but exactly what "personal freedom" means can vary from person to person, so I want to ask another question to see if my critical thinking is still on the right track here.
Let's say I decide to express myself in some particular way "X" (e.g. as a man, I decide to walk down the street wearing a dress). You're not just saying this should be legally allowed, you're also saying that people shouldn't use social pressures, like ostracism or ridicule, to try to force me to act differently, right? People shouldn't tell me that it's wrong to express myself in way "X" and that I should express myself in culturally-acceptable way "Y" instead (e.g. dressing in traditionally male clothes).
This is all with the understanding that we still need to maintain people's safety and sanity, so letting people express themselves by, say, running around stark naked and screaming might not fit as "X" above. But non-violent, non-disruptive forms of expression would.
Do I still have this right?
Sorry, I didn't see this for a bit. Generally, yes, I think an ideal society would allow you to express your opinions and behave however you'd like, as long as you aren't causing anyone harm.
If this is leading to the rhetorical trap I think it is, I'm already bored.
I don't think it's a rhetorical trap, I think it's a valid criticism of the substance of your position.
Just so we're on the same page:
X = I want to express myself by making art/games with vapid, sexualized females.
Y = The "correct" way to make games, with well-rounded female characters.
Why are you ok with social coercion here, but not in the case of X = wearing a dress?
"I want to offend people because I can" is acceptable in other avenues (Art, Comedy, etc), why would it not be acceptable in a gaming medium? There are too many comedians to list that made their bones doing stand up trying to be outrageous and offensive.
I don't agree with offending people for the sake of offending people. If you're making a political statement ("Yes, this offends people, but should it?"), then there's a point behind it. If it's trying to be funny, it might not be acceptable but at least there's some reasoning behind it. But this game doesn't seem to have any reason to exist other than to offend people, and appeal to people who like to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.
There's a difference between things that bring up bigger questions ("Why is this offensive? Should people be offended by it?") and things that just exist to say "Look at me, I'm so edgy!". I think Hatred is very much in the latter category.
Feminist frequency also says mirror's edge had difficult controls. The game has like 7 buttons and 4 of them are the wasd. If you remove one of those 3 non-movement controls you have "Gone Home".
Duke Nukem's problem was that it tried to appeal the larger audience.
Portal did not try to appeal to women.
A) [citation needed]. There seems to be a rumor going around that Anita Sarkeesian got on the dev team for Mirror's Edge 2 and is actually going to make the controls easier "for women". None of this is true. And: The difference between Mirror's Edge and Gone Home is one button? Seriously?
B) Duke Nukem Forever's problem is that it was a 14-year development trainwreck. And if they were trying to appeal to women, they seriously messed that up.
C) No, but it also doesn't contain any of the elements that people would consider "problematic". It's not trying to appeal to women specifically, but it also doesn't do anything to alienate them (like, say, Duke Nukem Forever) and is a good game that lots of people enjoyed.
I don't disagree with your opinions on this, however, to say there is a reason behind comedy and not this game seems a bit silly. They made this game with the reasoning that its they game they thought people would like to play, just like a comedian makes his jokes because he thinks the audience will laugh.
Also, you may disagree with it, but it seems to be socially acceptable in some avenues and disdainful in others.
I don't think it's a rhetorical trap, I think it's a valid criticism of the substance of your position.
Just so we're on the same page:
X = I want to express myself by making art/games with vapid, sexualized females.
Y = The "correct" way to make games, with well-rounded female characters.
Why are you ok with social coercion here, but not in the case of X = wearing a dress?
Are you attacking a position I've stated, or just a position you think I hold?
As formulated, I'm not okay with this. If you, as an individual, want to make a game with sexualized female characters, people shouldn't use social pressures like ostracism and ridicule to try to make you stop. I see nothing wrong with others analyzing your work and discussing its themes, though, or saying it sucks. Admittedly, the line between criticizing a work and criticizing its author can get blurry, which is why I personally don't like social-justice-type criticism that's too concerned with calling people evil.
If you're referring to boycotts or letter campaigns, which I've previously said are okay, I believe there's a distinction between the private world of individuals and the public world of businesses and states; I don't consider telling Intel to quit advertising on Gawker to be the same thing as telling you to quit wearing a dress.
Honestly, I think this conversation is likely pointless. If you haven't seen that there's a difference in the way men and women are depicted in our media, nothing I can say is going to open your eyes.
If you are trying to change my mind, then yes that is likely pointless, you likely won't change it with a few posts - just as I'm sure it's likely I will not change your mind. The conversation itself however, is not pointless. There's a good discussion to be had here, but if we're going to have this conversation we need to have it honestly and carefully examine the claims being made.
I can see that there are differences in how men and women are depicted in our media, but this does not mean sexism and I am not convinced of any harmful effects.
Quote from awheywood »
A) Our culture as a whole believes that men and women are fundamentally different in many ways and judges them by different standards. Men are thought to be stoic, aggressive, disposable, etc., and are judged by their strength and ability to provide. Women are thought to be fragile, emotional, empathetic, etc., and are judged by their sexual attractiveness/chastity. (These are by no means meant to be exhaustive lists.)
B) Because these are our cultural values, they are repeated in characters created by our culture.
C) Because these values are implicitly present in characters created by our culture, those values are internalized by the consumers of our culture and remain cultural values. The cycle repeats.
This is bad because real humans do not naturally adhere to these cultural gender norms, and the friction between an individual's desires and cultural expectations can be harmful. Emotional boys are told they are wusses for crying. Sexually aggressive women are called ****s. In this thread, a poster claimed that a prominent female critic is a man's intellectual puppet. Another called a woman a whore. Men get mocked for being virgins. Boys and girls are steered into different career paths from the first time they open a Christmas present. These gender norms are irrationally held cultural artifacts that cause actual people actual pain. At the very least, we should be paying attention to them.
Okay, so we have some premises which are:
A. American Culture believes that men and women are fundamentally different and judge each by different sets of standards. These standards are how we judge all men and women generally speaking.
B. Because A, these same standards are reflected in our media; comics, movies, games, books, etc.
C. Because B, these same standards make actual humans who read, play, and watch them - play out in real life which creates a cycle and reinforces premise A.
Therefore, media causes real people actual pain in their daily lives in the sense that they create unrealistic ideals for each gender to try and uphold.
Is this about accurate?
Quote from awheywood »
FoxBlade, do you believe that men and women are equally well-portrayed in the media? Why or why not?
That depends on what you mean by equally well-portrayed. Are we talking about the number of men and women who are protagonists? Are we talking about quality of male and female characters?
Well that depends on what media we’re talking about and the ability of the writer(s). For example, if we talk about Marvel, their on screen portrayals of their female characters is way underused and none of them are reaching their full potential, they’re completely wasted. This is true of a lot of their male characters too, but it is more noticeable for the female characters.
I want to see a solo movie with Black Widow and Wonder Woman. I want to see an X-Men where characters other than wolverine are featured, I want to see characters like X-23, Psylocke, Storm, Blink, Kitty Pride, Magik, Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-woman, etc. have bigger roles and solo films. The same is true with X-men’s male characters too, just tons of wasted characters; Cyclops, deadpool, colossus, iceman, warpath, bishop, Angel, etc.
Honestly, I really hated X-men 3 because it wasted Jean Grey/the phoenix most of all. There was such a huge potential there, Jean should have been a world breaker but you never get that sense at all.
That being said though, Black Widow was portrayed well in terms of quality. I think she needs her own film to really shine through though. In X-men though, no character other than wolverine is really utilized.
In the comics, all of these characters are used very well and portrayed pretty well. If you want to complain about their costumes, well I don’t mind seeing women who are scantily clad. Women, both real and imaginary can wear what they want to – I’m not big on policing women’s bodies and I don’t have any problems distinguishing reality from the fictional worlds that media portrays.
I don't disagree with your opinions on this, however, to say there is a reason behind comedy and not this game seems a bit silly. They made this game with the reasoning that its they game they thought people would like to play, just like a comedian makes his jokes because he thinks the audience will laugh.
Also, you may disagree with it, but it seems to be socially acceptable in some avenues and disdainful in others.
Well, it depends on the comedian. There are some who tell jokes that are meant to make you laugh but then make you think. That can be good. Then there are some comedians whose jokes are just offensive with no deeper meaning. I don't support that.
That said, I don't think they're as bad as Hatred, which seems to be actively glorifying spree-shooters.
A) Our culture as a whole believes that men and women are fundamentally different in many ways and judges them by different standards. Men are thought to be stoic, aggressive, disposable, etc., and are judged by their strength and ability to provide. Women are thought to be fragile, emotional, empathetic, etc., and are judged by their sexual attractiveness/chastity. (These are by no means meant to be exhaustive lists.)
B) Because these are our cultural values, they are repeated in characters created by our culture.
C) Because these values are implicitly present in characters created by our culture, those values are internalized by the consumers of our culture and remain cultural values. The cycle repeats.
This is bad because real humans do not naturally adhere to these cultural gender norms, and the friction between an individual's desires and cultural expectations can be harmful. Emotional boys are told they are wusses for crying. Sexually aggressive women are called ****s. In this thread, a poster claimed that a prominent female critic is a man's intellectual puppet. Another called a woman a whore. Men get mocked for being virgins. Boys and girls are steered into different career paths from the first time they open a Christmas present. These gender norms are irrationally held cultural artifacts that cause actual people actual pain. At the very least, we should be paying attention to them.
Well at any rate, I'm going to respond more to this and explain why I do not except these premises - which are as I understand them to be:
A. American Culture believes that men and women are fundamentally different and judge each by different sets of standards. These standards are how we judge all men and women generally speaking.
B. Because A, these same standards are reflected in our media; comics, movies, games, books, etc.
C. Because B, these same standards make actual humans who read, play, and watch them - play out in real life which creates a cycle and reinforces premise A.
Therefore, media causes real people actual pain in their daily lives in the sense that they create unrealistic ideals for each gender to try and uphold.
To start with, I have no problem with premise B - but I reject both premise A and C and the resulting conclusion. Overall the main problem that I have with your argument is that you are painting our society with a very broad, vague, generalized brush and I don't think it properly explains anything, does very little to point out where the problems are, and makes several assumptions with no real evidence. This is especially true of premise A and C.
Let's start with premise A.
Certainly, I agree with that we do have different sets of standards for both men and women as far as "gender norms" are concerned, but I think the term "gender norms" is vague and ambiguous, far too much for that term to be helpful for anything useful.
Secondly, you've named a couple of standards for gender norms - but I don't agree that those are the standards that is generally used to judge people, male or female. I'm not sure how you even came up with those standards, as such they are simply assumptions of what standards you think our society judges people. Well, how did you even come up with those standards? If I had to guess what your explanation for how you came up with those standards, I'd guess it was personal observations.
How do you even know that these are the standards that most other people use? American culture is a melting pot of different cultures mixing together and those certainly play a role in how we interact with each other. In other words, someone growing up with a Chinese-American culture isn't necessarily going to view women or men in the same way that something with an African-American culture is going to view women or men. What about Geographical location? I'm sure that in cities or states where we have one that may lean towards conservative beliefs vs. more liberal beliefs, there are going to be differences in how men and women are viewed.
Once again, as I mentioned above, you're painting with far too broad a brush and generalizing far too much. If we start to get even slightly specific, your premise A is as sturdy as a soap bubble. So I think we have to reject it based on this alone.
Moving on to premise C
This is by far the easiest I think to dismiss. While I do agree that media can influence people, it's not the only thing that influences people. People argue, they have personal observations, religious beliefs, cultural upbringings, far too many variables have influences on how people come to view the world and form opinions. People also generally like things that already adhere to their own world views - so I would guess that media influences aren't as strong as you might expect them to be. Liberals for example aren't going to be influenced by Fox News - because they are unlikely to watch Fox News and even if they did watch Fox News, they are unlikely to change their minds on any issue they feel strongly about.
People also generally know the difference between fantasy and reality. We don't like watching superman because he's strong, can beat the snot out of everyone, and he's completely emotionless. He upholds ideals that we strive for, certainly - but the ideals that he strives for is using his great powers to protect people, especially those he loves, he's self sacrificing, brave in the face of danger, and he's been shown crying both in comics and in the movies. We don't call him a wuss for that, we empathize with his pain because if the writing is good that we can feel his sense of loss, sorrow, or whatever emotions the writers are trying to convey to their audience.
Not only that, but again you're painting with a very broad and general brush here.
Damsels in distress isn't the only trope that exists, people love strong female characters - even those that are emotionally stunted - X-23, Black Widow, Raven, and Samus from Metroid - Samus in particular I bring up because in Metroid other M - fans of the series were pissed at what they did to the character in that game, male players too.
We accept strong male characters crying all the time and don't refer to them as wusses, I can literally name so many counter examples to the standards you named that are popular that I think it fails and fails terribly - even more so if you're going to generalize about all media.
I also don't think that really holds in real life, either. If someone is being called a wuss or a whore by someone else, it's probably not by someone who genuinely cares about that person. What you're talking about is bullying and that's not a gender issue, that's a human issue.
And finally, if you're going to say that the media influences people and causes them real pain, you need to provide evidence. Without any, all you've given us is a bunch of assertions.
While I do agree that media can influence people,[...]
And finally, if you're going to say that the media influences people and causes them real pain, you need to provide evidence. Without any, all you've given us is a bunch of assertions.
Mysticake, it does influence people, but I don't think it influences people to the degree that is being talked about in his premises.
For one thing as I said above, people generally like things that already adhere to their world view. Liberals for example, aren't likely to watch Fox News and even if they did it's unlikely to change any deeply held beliefs that they hold - despite the conservative slant of Fox News. A Marine biologist isn't likely to start believing that the megalodon shark isn't extinct by the discovery channel airing a documentary about how the megalodon shark may still exist and probably won't watch it anyway. A theist isn't likely to start disbelieving in god by watching a show produced by Richard Dawkins and is unlikely to watch it anyway, etc. etc. ad naseaum.
Once again, there are many things that influence people, media is one of them. Again, remember that awheywood is painting with a very broad and generalized brush when he says media and not all media is equal in terms of influence.
News media is more influential than sitcoms, when it comes to books non-fiction is more influential than fiction, documentaries are more influential than summer block busters, etc.
You can't just lump all media into one melting pot and expect anything tangible come out. You also most certainly can not boil the question down to a black and white answer like you're doing here. It's not a simple yes or no.
You can't just lump all media into one melting pot and expect anything tangible come out. You also most certainly can not boil the question down to a black and white answer like you're doing here. It's not a simple yes or no.
My question was just whether media influenced people at all. I'd say it does to some degree. It seems you do too.
I'm not sure what degree awheywood thinks media affects behavior, but I'd say it does to a notable degree. Not so much that a single movie will totally change someone's beliefs, or that playing Doom a lot will cause someone to go on a shooting spree. But if someone is constantly bombarded with one idea or image from a wide variety of media, then it'll stay in their thoughts.
It's not the only element that influences people, but it has enough of an effect that we should consider it.
You can't just lump all media into one melting pot and expect anything tangible come out. You also most certainly can not boil the question down to a black and white answer like you're doing here. It's not a simple yes or no.
My question was just whether media influenced people at all. I'd say it does to some degree. It seems you do too.
I'm not sure what degree awheywood thinks media affects behavior, but I'd say it does to a notable degree. Not so much that a single movie will totally change someone's beliefs, or that playing Doom a lot will cause someone to go on a shooting spree. But if someone is constantly bombarded with one idea or image from a wide variety of media, then it'll stay in their thoughts.
It's not the only element that influences people, but it has enough of an effect that we should consider it.
Fair enough and I think I agree with most of what you're saying. How do we consider it in regards to this topic or if not to the degree that awheywood suggests, to what degree does it affect a person?
Well at any rate, I'm going to respond more to this and explain why I do not except these premises - which are as I understand them to be:
A. American Culture believes that men and women are fundamentally different and judge each by different sets of standards. These standards are how we judge all men and women generally speaking.
B. Because A, these same standards are reflected in our media; comics, movies, games, books, etc.
C. Because B, these same standards make actual humans who read, play, and watch them - play out in real life which creates a cycle and reinforces premise A.
Therefore, media causes real people actual pain in their daily lives in the sense that they create unrealistic ideals for each gender to try and uphold.
To start with, I have no problem with premise B - but I reject both premise A and C and the resulting conclusion. Overall the main problem that I have with your argument is that you are painting our society with a very broad, vague, generalized brush and I don't think it properly explains anything, does very little to point out where the problems are, and makes several assumptions with no real evidence. This is especially true of premise A and C.
I would first clarify that for C, I assert not that the consumers "play out" roles, exactly, but that they internalize cultural norms. The harm to humans comes from expectations placed upon them due to those values, both by others and by themselves. I'd also point out that I'm not limiting this line of reasoning to things traditionally known as "the media," but to all cultural production, including religion and a lot of other peripheral stuff like jokes, toys, etc. I don't just think people should examine the depictions of gender (and a bunch of other things) they receive from Big Bang Theory, but also from LEGO and the Bible.
Certainly, I agree with that we do have different sets of standards for both men and women as far as "gender norms" are concerned, but I think the term "gender norms" is vague and ambiguous, far too much for that term to be helpful for anything useful.
Secondly, you've named a couple of standards for gender norms - but I don't agree that those are the standards that is generally used to judge people, male or female. I'm not sure how you even came up with those standards, as such they are simply assumptions of what standards you think our society judges people. Well, how did you even come up with those standards? If I had to guess what your explanation for how you came up with those standards, I'd guess it was personal observations.
How do you even know that these are the standards that most other people use? American culture is a melting pot of different cultures mixing together and those certainly play a role in how we interact with each other. In other words, someone growing up with a Chinese-American culture isn't necessarily going to view women or men in the same way that something with an African-American culture is going to view women or men. What about Geographical location? I'm sure that in cities or states where we have one that may lean towards conservative beliefs vs. more liberal beliefs, there are going to be differences in how men and women are viewed.
Once again, as I mentioned above, you're painting with far too broad a brush and generalizing far too much. If we start to get even slightly specific, your premise A is as sturdy as a soap bubble. So I think we have to reject it based on this alone.
It's not materially relevant to my argument what exactly the gender norms being discussed are. As you say, we have different sets of standards for men and women--there's no need for me to justify the ones I've observed. Regardless of what those norms are, they are repeated in cultural products and absorbed by their consumers, and regardless of what they are, I think they exert a negative influence on human lives (as they arbitrarily partition human experience). Yes, that means I think every possible gender norm is a bad thing, and that none should exist at all.
And I agree that American society is by no means monolithic--of course different people are going to have different opinions, and much of that will be influenced by their social milieux. So what? The fact that there are other influences doesn't mean that the influence of cultural products isn't real.
(I believe my assessment of US cultural norms is pretty accurate, though I think it's not necessary for this argument. I'm curious, which of these claims do you think is untrue? This is part of what I think makes this conversation essentially pointless; since obtaining data on the sum of all cultural representation is impossible, there's no solid evidence, and any participant can claim any other is projecting their attitudes or just flat out wrong. I would note, though, that in your description of Superman, you refer to him as strong, brave (stoic), and self-sacrificing (disposable), and you refer to him defending those he loves, which I presume you admit includes with violence (aggression). The only thing unmentioned is Superman's ability to provide, which is usually not a part of plots involving the character but is never in question.)
This is by far the easiest I think to dismiss. While I do agree that media can influence people, it's not the only thing that influences people. People argue, they have personal observations, religious beliefs, cultural upbringings, far too many variables have influences on how people come to view the world and form opinions. People also generally like things that already adhere to their own world views - so I would guess that media influences aren't as strong as you might expect them to be. Liberals for example aren't going to be influenced by Fox News - because they are unlikely to watch Fox News and even if they did watch Fox News, they are unlikely to change their minds on any issue they feel strongly about.
I'm glad you agree that media (and other cultural stuff) influences people. That is the crux of the argument--I've never claimed that it was the only thing that influenced people. Again, the existence of other forces on people does not neutralize the power of cultural products. As to your Fox News example, this study from Stockholm University has a different take on the political malleability of media consumers: "We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News. Fox News also affected the Republican vote share in the Senate and voter turnout. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure." I make no claims as to the exact extent of the media's power to influence its consumers' attitudes, but it clearly exists.
I find it funny that you call this claim the easiest to dismiss, because there's a monumental body of research done over decades showing how the media we consume affect our attitudes.
People also generally know the difference between fantasy and reality. We don't like watching superman because he's strong, can beat the snot out of everyone, and he's completely emotionless. He upholds ideals that we strive for, certainly - but the ideals that he strives for is using his great powers to protect people, especially those he loves, he's self sacrificing, brave in the face of danger, and he's been shown crying both in comics and in the movies. We don't call him a wuss for that, we empathize with his pain because if the writing is good that we can feel his sense of loss, sorrow, or whatever emotions the writers are trying to convey to their audience.
I don't really know what you're getting at here--of course people consciously know the difference between reality and fantasy. How is that relevant to this discussion? Are you saying that scenes you know are fantasy can't affect you? Than how do you empathize with Superman? Fiction affects people.
Not only that, but again you're painting with a very broad and general brush here.
Damsels in distress isn't the only trope that exists, people love strong female characters - even those that are emotionally stunted - X-23, Black Widow, Raven, and Samus from Metroid - Samus in particular I bring up because in Metroid other M - fans of the series were pissed at what they did to the character in that game, male players too.
We accept strong male characters crying all the time and don't refer to them as wusses, I can literally name so many counter examples to the standards you named that are popular that I think it fails and fails terribly - even more so if you're going to generalize about all media.
I also don't think that really holds in real life, either. If someone is being called a wuss or a whore by someone else, it's probably not by someone who genuinely cares about that person. What you're talking about is bullying and that's not a gender issue, that's a human issue.
I am not painting with nearly as broad a brush as you seem to think. I never claimed that there were only weak female characters, or that no strong male characters cried, and the existence of individual counterexamples does not refute the trend. As mentioned before, fewer than 30% of all leaders depicted in film are female. Here is one of the studies referenced by the infographic I listed earlier. Its key findings, as summarized by Geena Davis: "The basics are that for every one female-speaking character in family-rated films (G, PG and PG-13), there are roughly three male characters; that crowd and group scenes in these films — live-action and animated — contain only 17 percent female characters; and that the ratio of male-female characters has been exactly the same since 1946." The study also notes that roughly 30% of these female characters are sexualized--wearing skimpy attire or partially naked--versus less than 10% of male characters. This is not an issue of individual characters or works, but of a subtle and pervasive trend. Men are more present and more powerful in our fiction; women are more sexually presented.
I'm a little confused by this last paragraph; why does it matter that the people throwing these insults don't genuinely care about the target (I should hope they don't)? How often are girls called wusses? How often are men called whores? The relative prevalence of these insults reveals the attitudes held by those who wield them. Do you genuinely believe that society doesn't hold men to a higher standard of toughness, or women to a higher standard of sexual purity, or are you trying to score some kind of weird debate points by demanding I produce some evidence of patently obvious social trends?
And finally, if you're going to say that the media influences people and causes them real pain, you need to provide evidence. Without any, all you've given us is a bunch of assertions.
I've made these assertions: there are gender norms; those norms are recreated in the cultural products made by their adherents; those cultural products influence their consumers. I might rephrase the first and third as
As I see it, you already agree with my argument. But here are some studies which I think provide backup for my claims. First, some studies supporting the (to my mind, self-evident) assertion that the cultural products we consume affect our attitudes (there are literally thousands of these).
-Here's a meta-analysis of experimental and correlative studies on how media exposure increases women's dissatisfaction with their bodies. Its conclusion: "We can see that media exposure appears to be related to women’s body image negatively regardless of assessment technique, individual difference variables, media type, age, or other idiosyncratic study characteristics."
-Here's a study that found that women who played Tomb Raider with Lara Croft wearing a ripped evening gown reported lower assessments of women's physical and mental abilities than women who play with Lara Croft wearing winter gear.
-Here's a discussion of of a study on how perceived publication in "lads mags" like Maxim makes extreme misogynistic views (as stated by convicted rapists) seem more normal to their consumers.
-Here's a correlative study on how playing sexist video games increased male players' benevolent sexism.
-Here's a meta-analysis of studies showing (amongst other things), in the authors' words, "In sum, this much larger meta-analysis, with over 50 independent effects involving over 12,000 participants from multiple countries, ages, and cultures, yielded strong evidence that playing violent video games increases aggressive cognition in both short- and long-term contexts." I almost didn't include this, because I know the knee-jerk reaction of gamers to this research, which I share.
Now, a couple studies showing how those attitudes can have a negative effect on human lives.
-Here's an interesting study about how cultural stereotypes can affect individual performance on a math test (Asian-American women were sometimes asked about their life as a woman, sometimes about their life as an Asian; those asked about being Asian scored significantly higher than the control, who scored higher than those asked about being female; repeated in Canada, where there is not the same stereotype of Asians being good at math, Asians did not ourperform the control group).
-Here's a longitudinal study of how gender-nonconforming youth suffer more abuse and are at greater risk of PTSD than gender-conforming youth.
I feel you argued against a substantially more extreme position than I've advocated, and mostly ended up agreeing with me. You accept that there are gender norms, that they find their way into the cultural products of their adherents, and that those products affect their consumers. What is your point of contention?
Nobody's saying that you can't like Ms. Pac-Man or any other game. The point is that, overall, games should represent women better. But that doesn't mean that the people playing or making these games are misogynists or anything.
There is no reason to do this. If women already play games then there is no need for any change. If women don't play games then gaming just isn't for women.
Everytime a publisher/dev says "we are trying reach a broaader audience" it means that the game is going to suck. This doesn't just apply to games but to everything.
Do you remember how good that pg-13 robocop was? I wish I didn't.
</blockquote>
DA and Mass Effect reached a broader audience and they most definitely did not suck. I count them among the best games produced in the history of gaming. You can play as a gay, bisexual, or pansexual male or female. I know a lot of females that liked Mass Effect because they could play as a badass female character that didn't put up with nonsense. One of my transgender friends made a genderqueer Shepard. The levels of customization appeal to broad segments of all audiences.
Because a game doesn't exclusively pander to one segment of the population doesn't mean it's bad. The writing, the gameplay, and varied outcomes all count towards a game being good.
As for movies that appeal to broad segments of the audience, that's not a bad thing. The Lion King is an example of a movie that is great for people of all ages, genders, and ethnicities. Adults can appreciate the movie for a Disney take on a Shakespearean theme of revenge and justice. Children like it because it's easy to understand and has good music.
The goal of marketing is to get as many people to buy your product as possible at a price they are willing to pay and with you making a profit. If you say that you're only going to appeal to white males between the ages of 18-35, that's going to limit your market share. You can still make money or breakeven, but you're going to need a quality product to make up for exclusion.
As I see it, you already agree with my argument. But here are some studies which I think provide backup for my claims. First, some studies supporting the (to my mind, self-evident) assertion that the cultural products we consume affect our attitudes (there are literally thousands of these).
Just scanning these, but the level of researcher bias on display is really disappointing. Here's a quote from your fourth study:
From their inception, video games have consistently portrayed women in sexist ways. Oftentimes, this portrayal comes in the form of the “damsel in distress.” In one of the earliest arcade video games (Donkey Kong, 1981), players were charged with rescuing Mario’s girlfriend, Pauline, from her primate kidnapper. Thirty years later, not much has changed in terms of how women are portrayed in the gaming world. For instance, in the most recent Mortal Kombat game (2011), Princess Kitana requires assistance from the male leaders, and despite her fighting abilities, she is portrayed as reliant on the male characters. Despite this consistent trend, little research has examined whether regular exposure to sexist video game portrayals is related to real world attitudes toward women.
This isn't scientific curiosity. This is a Mission Statement. In fact, I'd argue that it's bad practice for scientists to use a term as broad and loaded as "sexist" at all. You want to be precise and dispassionate as you possibly can about the properties you're studying. Quantify the agency of male vs. female characters on a seven-point scale or something.
On the general issue of video game violence and the problems with scientific studies thereof, Vox did a pretty good article. The most important point is also the most obvious: real-world violent crime is steadily declining.
The goal of marketing is to get as many people to buy your product as possible at a price they are willing to pay and with you making a profit. If you say that you're only going to appeal to white males between the ages of 18-35, that's going to limit your market share. You can still make money or breakeven, but you're going to need a quality product to make up for exclusion.
I'm sure you know that marketing is a little more complicated than that, and it's not always an effective strategy to aim at a general audience. Generalist products can easily become uninteresting to buyers looking for products tailored specifically for their interests. You mentioned The Lion King - a good family movie, but it probably didn't capture nearly as much of the while-male-18-to-35 dollar as, say, Top Gun. Or, hell, look at M:tG. Aimed squarely at gamer nerds. Making the game less nerdy and giving it more family appeal would be a disastrous marketing move for WotC - both in the short term, because they'd lose much of their existing audience, and in the long term, because M:tG is by design a "lifestyle" game and they're probably not going to get the same kind of devotion from a general market.
So no, I don't think there's anything financially or morally misguided about making a "guy movie" or a "girl movie" or a "kids' movie" or an "adult movie". It's great when a movie manages to capture many demographics, of course, but not every movie can or ought to do this, and that's just fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm sure you know that marketing is a little more complicated than that, and it's not always an effective strategy to aim at a general audience. Generalist products can easily become uninteresting to buyers looking for products tailored specifically for their interests. You mentioned The Lion King - a good family movie, but it probably didn't capture nearly as much of the while-male-18-to-35 dollar as, say, Top Gun. Or, hell, look at M:tG. Aimed squarely at gamer nerds. Making the game less nerdy and giving it more family appeal would be a disastrous marketing move for WotC - both in the short term, because they'd lose much of their existing audience, and in the long term, because M:tG is by design a "lifestyle" game and they're probably not going to get the same kind of devotion from a general market.
So no, I don't think there's anything financially or morally misguided about making a "guy movie" or a "girl movie" or a "kids' movie" or an "adult movie". It's great when a movie manages to capture many demographics, of course, but not every movie can or ought to do this, and that's just fine.
I find it odd that people mention Top Gun as a prime example of marketing to white males age 18-35 because it is possibly the most homoerotic mainstream action movie I've ever laid my eyes on. Something that would be more suitable would be something like The Terminator, Red Dawn (80s), or Die Hard...basically any movie bankrolled by the DOD. And a lot of action movies are bankrolled by the DOD, and I'm not quite sure that without these subsidies from the government they'd be as successful. Because it costs a lot of money to blow up a MiG fighter, and the audience they're aiming at wants explosions.
MTG is already family friendly enough. I think the product is 13+ but you'll still see kids at tournaments playing with their families. The definition of "family friendly" has changed a lot. I remember in the 90s "family friendly" was stuff like Full House or Step by Step, and now it is stuff that would be PG-13 by comparison. And MTG is roughly PG-13. You won't see kids at a Grand Prix, but they'll be at small tournaments. Perhaps my tournament is more diverse by comparison (and this is totally anecdata), but there's an assortment of females, POC, kids, and transwomen.
The point is that you have to make the product quality to make a profit if you're not expanding your audience. The Incredible Hulk (released in 2003ish I think) was an example of a movie that had a niche audience and was utter crap. The studio was so reluctant to release another Hulk movie because the 2003 movie was Schlockish in quality with terrible CGI. The opposite of this is My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which manages to have an interesting assortment of demographics that it appeals to and has profitable product sales. My Little Pony NEVER had that type of fan base in the late 80s and early 90s. I haven't watched the show since I was a kid but SOMETHING about the new series is appealing enough to young adult males.
What is an even worse decision are the decisions that studios and corporations make when they are expecting to maintain key demographics when those demographics have grown older or different, but are still a fan base. Clarissa Explains It All is a good example of Nickelodeon deciding to cancel the show when the actress playing Clarissa grew "too old" for Nick audiences, but the show probably could have continued if the writing continued to be good and appeal to tweens as well as teens and adults.
I find it odd that people mention Top Gun as a prime example of marketing to white males age 18-35 because it is possibly the most homoerotic mainstream action movie I've ever laid my eyes on. Something that would be more suitable would be something like The Terminator, Red Dawn (80s), or Die Hard...basically any movie bankrolled by the DOD. And a lot of action movies are bankrolled by the DOD, and I'm not quite sure that without these subsidies from the government they'd be as successful. Because it costs a lot of money to blow up a MiG fighter, and the audience they're aiming at wants explosions.
If we're going to nitpick irrelevancies, I should remind you that no actual MiGs were harmed in the production of Top Gun (or any other aviation movie I'm aware of). Firstly, because the aircraft "playing" MiGs were really Northrop F-5 Tigers; and secondly, because all explosion shots were of course accomplished with miniatures.
Also, the military didn't have anything to do with The Terminator or Die Hard, and I'm not even sure about Red Dawn.
But you haven't addressed my real point, which is that targeting a specific demographic is a viable marketing strategy. Regardless of how homoerotic you found Top Gun, it was undeniably targeted at the male demographic and equally undeniably played very well in that demographic, because its subject matter and presentation (i.e. badasses in supersonic fighter jets) played directly to the particular interests of that demographic. It got dudebros excited to go see it. I don't think they were nearly as excited to go see The Lion King.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I could understand if these vendors did so with sweeping changes and removal of all instances of graphic scenes of brutality, but it was just GTA V. They also did it, to my knowledge of reading the situations, because they were inundated with people calling for them to remove it because of the "violence towards women". Isn't calling for its removal in some ways censorship?
There is a notable discussion of women in these GG articles/videos/etc, but I don't know if it started like that or it is discussion the shifting narrative of the opposition. Could be either one, I would imagine.
I don't really disagree with your responses, and I want to thank you for giving me your opinion on my questions. However, from what I have seen and read from others, you seem to be in the minority with how to act towards these "problematic" depictions.
I think that, overall, the depiction of women in media is worse than the depiction of men. But that doesn't mean that it's the ONLY issue, or even the most important issue.
Well, problematic depictions shouldn't happen at all, but part of what makes them problematic is that they're so common. Crude example: A game with a women who gets kidnapped isn't necessarily a problem on its own. The problem happens when most women who appear in games are just getting kidnapped and then have to be saved by men.
On GTA V: I can see why Target Australia wouldn't want to carry it, and it's within their rights to not carry a game that they don't agree with (or that their customers don't agree with). There are other retailers who sell games, so it's not like they're preventing the game from being sold at all. I don't know that much about GTA V, but it does seem to have some problematic elements.
On Hatred: I heard it was pulled from Steam Greenlight and then put back up. I don't know whether it was violence towards women specifically that got it pulled in the first place. Either way, I agree with what shinquickman said about it: The community surrounding the game doesn't seem much better. While I doubt that it's going to cause any mass shootings itself, there's a definite sense of "I want to offend people because I can!" attitude around it.
"I want to offend people because I can" is acceptable in other avenues (Art, Comedy, etc), why would it not be acceptable in a gaming medium? There are too many comedians to list that made their bones doing stand up trying to be outrageous and offensive.
Feminist frequency also says mirror's edge had difficult controls. The game has like 7 buttons and 4 of them are the wasd. If you remove one of those 3 non-movement controls you have "Gone Home".
Duke Nukem's problem was that it tried to appeal the larger audience.
Portal did not try to appeal to women.
There's a difference between things that bring up bigger questions ("Why is this offensive? Should people be offended by it?") and things that just exist to say "Look at me, I'm so edgy!". I think Hatred is very much in the latter category.
EDIT: A) [citation needed]. There seems to be a rumor going around that Anita Sarkeesian got on the dev team for Mirror's Edge 2 and is actually going to make the controls easier "for women". None of this is true. And: The difference between Mirror's Edge and Gone Home is one button? Seriously?
B) Duke Nukem Forever's problem is that it was a 14-year development trainwreck. And if they were trying to appeal to women, they seriously messed that up.
C) No, but it also doesn't contain any of the elements that people would consider "problematic". It's not trying to appeal to women specifically, but it also doesn't do anything to alienate them (like, say, Duke Nukem Forever) and is a good game that lots of people enjoyed.
Sounds fine, though I should point out that gender is something that is biologically determined before birth. Otherwise, it sounds good.
All offensive things ask those questions, it's just that sometimes the answer is "yes."
I don't speak postmodern as fluently as I used to when I was in college, but I believe it's "sex" that's determined before birth, and "gender" that's ostensibly determined by society.
Sorry, I didn't see this for a bit. Generally, yes, I think an ideal society would allow you to express your opinions and behave however you'd like, as long as you aren't causing anyone harm.
If this is leading to the rhetorical trap I think it is, I'm already bored.
I don't think it's a rhetorical trap, I think it's a valid criticism of the substance of your position.
Just so we're on the same page:
X = I want to express myself by making art/games with vapid, sexualized females.
Y = The "correct" way to make games, with well-rounded female characters.
Why are you ok with social coercion here, but not in the case of X = wearing a dress?
I don't disagree with your opinions on this, however, to say there is a reason behind comedy and not this game seems a bit silly. They made this game with the reasoning that its they game they thought people would like to play, just like a comedian makes his jokes because he thinks the audience will laugh.
Also, you may disagree with it, but it seems to be socially acceptable in some avenues and disdainful in others.
Are you attacking a position I've stated, or just a position you think I hold?
As formulated, I'm not okay with this. If you, as an individual, want to make a game with sexualized female characters, people shouldn't use social pressures like ostracism and ridicule to try to make you stop. I see nothing wrong with others analyzing your work and discussing its themes, though, or saying it sucks. Admittedly, the line between criticizing a work and criticizing its author can get blurry, which is why I personally don't like social-justice-type criticism that's too concerned with calling people evil.
If you're referring to boycotts or letter campaigns, which I've previously said are okay, I believe there's a distinction between the private world of individuals and the public world of businesses and states; I don't consider telling Intel to quit advertising on Gawker to be the same thing as telling you to quit wearing a dress.
If you are trying to change my mind, then yes that is likely pointless, you likely won't change it with a few posts - just as I'm sure it's likely I will not change your mind. The conversation itself however, is not pointless. There's a good discussion to be had here, but if we're going to have this conversation we need to have it honestly and carefully examine the claims being made.
I can see that there are differences in how men and women are depicted in our media, but this does not mean sexism and I am not convinced of any harmful effects.
Okay, so we have some premises which are:
A. American Culture believes that men and women are fundamentally different and judge each by different sets of standards. These standards are how we judge all men and women generally speaking.
B. Because A, these same standards are reflected in our media; comics, movies, games, books, etc.
C. Because B, these same standards make actual humans who read, play, and watch them - play out in real life which creates a cycle and reinforces premise A.
Therefore, media causes real people actual pain in their daily lives in the sense that they create unrealistic ideals for each gender to try and uphold.
Is this about accurate?
That depends on what you mean by equally well-portrayed. Are we talking about the number of men and women who are protagonists? Are we talking about quality of male and female characters?
Well that depends on what media we’re talking about and the ability of the writer(s). For example, if we talk about Marvel, their on screen portrayals of their female characters is way underused and none of them are reaching their full potential, they’re completely wasted. This is true of a lot of their male characters too, but it is more noticeable for the female characters.
I want to see a solo movie with Black Widow and Wonder Woman. I want to see an X-Men where characters other than wolverine are featured, I want to see characters like X-23, Psylocke, Storm, Blink, Kitty Pride, Magik, Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-woman, etc. have bigger roles and solo films. The same is true with X-men’s male characters too, just tons of wasted characters; Cyclops, deadpool, colossus, iceman, warpath, bishop, Angel, etc.
Honestly, I really hated X-men 3 because it wasted Jean Grey/the phoenix most of all. There was such a huge potential there, Jean should have been a world breaker but you never get that sense at all.
That being said though, Black Widow was portrayed well in terms of quality. I think she needs her own film to really shine through though. In X-men though, no character other than wolverine is really utilized.
In the comics, all of these characters are used very well and portrayed pretty well. If you want to complain about their costumes, well I don’t mind seeing women who are scantily clad. Women, both real and imaginary can wear what they want to – I’m not big on policing women’s bodies and I don’t have any problems distinguishing reality from the fictional worlds that media portrays.
That said, I don't think they're as bad as Hatred, which seems to be actively glorifying spree-shooters.
Well at any rate, I'm going to respond more to this and explain why I do not except these premises - which are as I understand them to be:
A. American Culture believes that men and women are fundamentally different and judge each by different sets of standards. These standards are how we judge all men and women generally speaking.
B. Because A, these same standards are reflected in our media; comics, movies, games, books, etc.
C. Because B, these same standards make actual humans who read, play, and watch them - play out in real life which creates a cycle and reinforces premise A.
Therefore, media causes real people actual pain in their daily lives in the sense that they create unrealistic ideals for each gender to try and uphold.
To start with, I have no problem with premise B - but I reject both premise A and C and the resulting conclusion. Overall the main problem that I have with your argument is that you are painting our society with a very broad, vague, generalized brush and I don't think it properly explains anything, does very little to point out where the problems are, and makes several assumptions with no real evidence. This is especially true of premise A and C.
Let's start with premise A.
Certainly, I agree with that we do have different sets of standards for both men and women as far as "gender norms" are concerned, but I think the term "gender norms" is vague and ambiguous, far too much for that term to be helpful for anything useful.
Secondly, you've named a couple of standards for gender norms - but I don't agree that those are the standards that is generally used to judge people, male or female. I'm not sure how you even came up with those standards, as such they are simply assumptions of what standards you think our society judges people. Well, how did you even come up with those standards? If I had to guess what your explanation for how you came up with those standards, I'd guess it was personal observations.
How do you even know that these are the standards that most other people use? American culture is a melting pot of different cultures mixing together and those certainly play a role in how we interact with each other. In other words, someone growing up with a Chinese-American culture isn't necessarily going to view women or men in the same way that something with an African-American culture is going to view women or men. What about Geographical location? I'm sure that in cities or states where we have one that may lean towards conservative beliefs vs. more liberal beliefs, there are going to be differences in how men and women are viewed.
Once again, as I mentioned above, you're painting with far too broad a brush and generalizing far too much. If we start to get even slightly specific, your premise A is as sturdy as a soap bubble. So I think we have to reject it based on this alone.
Moving on to premise C
This is by far the easiest I think to dismiss. While I do agree that media can influence people, it's not the only thing that influences people. People argue, they have personal observations, religious beliefs, cultural upbringings, far too many variables have influences on how people come to view the world and form opinions. People also generally like things that already adhere to their own world views - so I would guess that media influences aren't as strong as you might expect them to be. Liberals for example aren't going to be influenced by Fox News - because they are unlikely to watch Fox News and even if they did watch Fox News, they are unlikely to change their minds on any issue they feel strongly about.
People also generally know the difference between fantasy and reality. We don't like watching superman because he's strong, can beat the snot out of everyone, and he's completely emotionless. He upholds ideals that we strive for, certainly - but the ideals that he strives for is using his great powers to protect people, especially those he loves, he's self sacrificing, brave in the face of danger, and he's been shown crying both in comics and in the movies. We don't call him a wuss for that, we empathize with his pain because if the writing is good that we can feel his sense of loss, sorrow, or whatever emotions the writers are trying to convey to their audience.
Not only that, but again you're painting with a very broad and general brush here.
Damsels in distress isn't the only trope that exists, people love strong female characters - even those that are emotionally stunted - X-23, Black Widow, Raven, and Samus from Metroid - Samus in particular I bring up because in Metroid other M - fans of the series were pissed at what they did to the character in that game, male players too.
We accept strong male characters crying all the time and don't refer to them as wusses, I can literally name so many counter examples to the standards you named that are popular that I think it fails and fails terribly - even more so if you're going to generalize about all media.
I also don't think that really holds in real life, either. If someone is being called a wuss or a whore by someone else, it's probably not by someone who genuinely cares about that person. What you're talking about is bullying and that's not a gender issue, that's a human issue.
And finally, if you're going to say that the media influences people and causes them real pain, you need to provide evidence. Without any, all you've given us is a bunch of assertions.
Mysticake, it does influence people, but I don't think it influences people to the degree that is being talked about in his premises.
For one thing as I said above, people generally like things that already adhere to their world view. Liberals for example, aren't likely to watch Fox News and even if they did it's unlikely to change any deeply held beliefs that they hold - despite the conservative slant of Fox News. A Marine biologist isn't likely to start believing that the megalodon shark isn't extinct by the discovery channel airing a documentary about how the megalodon shark may still exist and probably won't watch it anyway. A theist isn't likely to start disbelieving in god by watching a show produced by Richard Dawkins and is unlikely to watch it anyway, etc. etc. ad naseaum.
Once again, there are many things that influence people, media is one of them. Again, remember that awheywood is painting with a very broad and generalized brush when he says media and not all media is equal in terms of influence.
News media is more influential than sitcoms, when it comes to books non-fiction is more influential than fiction, documentaries are more influential than summer block busters, etc.
You can't just lump all media into one melting pot and expect anything tangible come out. You also most certainly can not boil the question down to a black and white answer like you're doing here. It's not a simple yes or no.
I'm not sure what degree awheywood thinks media affects behavior, but I'd say it does to a notable degree. Not so much that a single movie will totally change someone's beliefs, or that playing Doom a lot will cause someone to go on a shooting spree. But if someone is constantly bombarded with one idea or image from a wide variety of media, then it'll stay in their thoughts.
It's not the only element that influences people, but it has enough of an effect that we should consider it.
Fair enough and I think I agree with most of what you're saying. How do we consider it in regards to this topic or if not to the degree that awheywood suggests, to what degree does it affect a person?
I would first clarify that for C, I assert not that the consumers "play out" roles, exactly, but that they internalize cultural norms. The harm to humans comes from expectations placed upon them due to those values, both by others and by themselves. I'd also point out that I'm not limiting this line of reasoning to things traditionally known as "the media," but to all cultural production, including religion and a lot of other peripheral stuff like jokes, toys, etc. I don't just think people should examine the depictions of gender (and a bunch of other things) they receive from Big Bang Theory, but also from LEGO and the Bible.
It's not materially relevant to my argument what exactly the gender norms being discussed are. As you say, we have different sets of standards for men and women--there's no need for me to justify the ones I've observed. Regardless of what those norms are, they are repeated in cultural products and absorbed by their consumers, and regardless of what they are, I think they exert a negative influence on human lives (as they arbitrarily partition human experience). Yes, that means I think every possible gender norm is a bad thing, and that none should exist at all.
And I agree that American society is by no means monolithic--of course different people are going to have different opinions, and much of that will be influenced by their social milieux. So what? The fact that there are other influences doesn't mean that the influence of cultural products isn't real.
(I believe my assessment of US cultural norms is pretty accurate, though I think it's not necessary for this argument. I'm curious, which of these claims do you think is untrue? This is part of what I think makes this conversation essentially pointless; since obtaining data on the sum of all cultural representation is impossible, there's no solid evidence, and any participant can claim any other is projecting their attitudes or just flat out wrong. I would note, though, that in your description of Superman, you refer to him as strong, brave (stoic), and self-sacrificing (disposable), and you refer to him defending those he loves, which I presume you admit includes with violence (aggression). The only thing unmentioned is Superman's ability to provide, which is usually not a part of plots involving the character but is never in question.)
I'm glad you agree that media (and other cultural stuff) influences people. That is the crux of the argument--I've never claimed that it was the only thing that influenced people. Again, the existence of other forces on people does not neutralize the power of cultural products. As to your Fox News example, this study from Stockholm University has a different take on the political malleability of media consumers: "We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News. Fox News also affected the Republican vote share in the Senate and voter turnout. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure." I make no claims as to the exact extent of the media's power to influence its consumers' attitudes, but it clearly exists.
I find it funny that you call this claim the easiest to dismiss, because there's a monumental body of research done over decades showing how the media we consume affect our attitudes.
I don't really know what you're getting at here--of course people consciously know the difference between reality and fantasy. How is that relevant to this discussion? Are you saying that scenes you know are fantasy can't affect you? Than how do you empathize with Superman? Fiction affects people.
I am not painting with nearly as broad a brush as you seem to think. I never claimed that there were only weak female characters, or that no strong male characters cried, and the existence of individual counterexamples does not refute the trend. As mentioned before, fewer than 30% of all leaders depicted in film are female. Here is one of the studies referenced by the infographic I listed earlier. Its key findings, as summarized by Geena Davis: "The basics are that for every one female-speaking character in family-rated films (G, PG and PG-13), there are roughly three male characters; that crowd and group scenes in these films — live-action and animated — contain only 17 percent female characters; and that the ratio of male-female characters has been exactly the same since 1946." The study also notes that roughly 30% of these female characters are sexualized--wearing skimpy attire or partially naked--versus less than 10% of male characters. This is not an issue of individual characters or works, but of a subtle and pervasive trend. Men are more present and more powerful in our fiction; women are more sexually presented.
I'm a little confused by this last paragraph; why does it matter that the people throwing these insults don't genuinely care about the target (I should hope they don't)? How often are girls called wusses? How often are men called whores? The relative prevalence of these insults reveals the attitudes held by those who wield them. Do you genuinely believe that society doesn't hold men to a higher standard of toughness, or women to a higher standard of sexual purity, or are you trying to score some kind of weird debate points by demanding I produce some evidence of patently obvious social trends?
I've made these assertions: there are gender norms; those norms are recreated in the cultural products made by their adherents; those cultural products influence their consumers. I might rephrase the first and third as
As I see it, you already agree with my argument. But here are some studies which I think provide backup for my claims. First, some studies supporting the (to my mind, self-evident) assertion that the cultural products we consume affect our attitudes (there are literally thousands of these).
-Here's a meta-analysis of experimental and correlative studies on how media exposure increases women's dissatisfaction with their bodies. Its conclusion: "We can see that media exposure appears to be related to women’s body image negatively regardless of assessment technique, individual difference variables, media type, age, or other idiosyncratic study characteristics."
-Here's a study that found that women who played Tomb Raider with Lara Croft wearing a ripped evening gown reported lower assessments of women's physical and mental abilities than women who play with Lara Croft wearing winter gear.
-Here's a discussion of of a study on how perceived publication in "lads mags" like Maxim makes extreme misogynistic views (as stated by convicted rapists) seem more normal to their consumers.
-Here's a correlative study on how playing sexist video games increased male players' benevolent sexism.
-Here's a meta-analysis of studies showing (amongst other things), in the authors' words, "In sum, this much larger meta-analysis, with over 50 independent effects involving over 12,000 participants from multiple countries, ages, and cultures, yielded strong evidence that playing violent video games increases aggressive cognition in both short- and long-term contexts." I almost didn't include this, because I know the knee-jerk reaction of gamers to this research, which I share.
Now, a couple studies showing how those attitudes can have a negative effect on human lives.
-Here's an interesting study about how cultural stereotypes can affect individual performance on a math test (Asian-American women were sometimes asked about their life as a woman, sometimes about their life as an Asian; those asked about being Asian scored significantly higher than the control, who scored higher than those asked about being female; repeated in Canada, where there is not the same stereotype of Asians being good at math, Asians did not ourperform the control group).
-Here's a longitudinal study of how gender-nonconforming youth suffer more abuse and are at greater risk of PTSD than gender-conforming youth.
I feel you argued against a substantially more extreme position than I've advocated, and mostly ended up agreeing with me. You accept that there are gender norms, that they find their way into the cultural products of their adherents, and that those products affect their consumers. What is your point of contention?
DA and Mass Effect reached a broader audience and they most definitely did not suck. I count them among the best games produced in the history of gaming. You can play as a gay, bisexual, or pansexual male or female. I know a lot of females that liked Mass Effect because they could play as a badass female character that didn't put up with nonsense. One of my transgender friends made a genderqueer Shepard. The levels of customization appeal to broad segments of all audiences.
Because a game doesn't exclusively pander to one segment of the population doesn't mean it's bad. The writing, the gameplay, and varied outcomes all count towards a game being good.
As for movies that appeal to broad segments of the audience, that's not a bad thing. The Lion King is an example of a movie that is great for people of all ages, genders, and ethnicities. Adults can appreciate the movie for a Disney take on a Shakespearean theme of revenge and justice. Children like it because it's easy to understand and has good music.
The goal of marketing is to get as many people to buy your product as possible at a price they are willing to pay and with you making a profit. If you say that you're only going to appeal to white males between the ages of 18-35, that's going to limit your market share. You can still make money or breakeven, but you're going to need a quality product to make up for exclusion.
On the general issue of video game violence and the problems with scientific studies thereof, Vox did a pretty good article. The most important point is also the most obvious: real-world violent crime is steadily declining.
I'm sure you know that marketing is a little more complicated than that, and it's not always an effective strategy to aim at a general audience. Generalist products can easily become uninteresting to buyers looking for products tailored specifically for their interests. You mentioned The Lion King - a good family movie, but it probably didn't capture nearly as much of the while-male-18-to-35 dollar as, say, Top Gun. Or, hell, look at M:tG. Aimed squarely at gamer nerds. Making the game less nerdy and giving it more family appeal would be a disastrous marketing move for WotC - both in the short term, because they'd lose much of their existing audience, and in the long term, because M:tG is by design a "lifestyle" game and they're probably not going to get the same kind of devotion from a general market.
So no, I don't think there's anything financially or morally misguided about making a "guy movie" or a "girl movie" or a "kids' movie" or an "adult movie". It's great when a movie manages to capture many demographics, of course, but not every movie can or ought to do this, and that's just fine.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I find it odd that people mention Top Gun as a prime example of marketing to white males age 18-35 because it is possibly the most homoerotic mainstream action movie I've ever laid my eyes on. Something that would be more suitable would be something like The Terminator, Red Dawn (80s), or Die Hard...basically any movie bankrolled by the DOD. And a lot of action movies are bankrolled by the DOD, and I'm not quite sure that without these subsidies from the government they'd be as successful. Because it costs a lot of money to blow up a MiG fighter, and the audience they're aiming at wants explosions.
MTG is already family friendly enough. I think the product is 13+ but you'll still see kids at tournaments playing with their families. The definition of "family friendly" has changed a lot. I remember in the 90s "family friendly" was stuff like Full House or Step by Step, and now it is stuff that would be PG-13 by comparison. And MTG is roughly PG-13. You won't see kids at a Grand Prix, but they'll be at small tournaments. Perhaps my tournament is more diverse by comparison (and this is totally anecdata), but there's an assortment of females, POC, kids, and transwomen.
The point is that you have to make the product quality to make a profit if you're not expanding your audience. The Incredible Hulk (released in 2003ish I think) was an example of a movie that had a niche audience and was utter crap. The studio was so reluctant to release another Hulk movie because the 2003 movie was Schlockish in quality with terrible CGI. The opposite of this is My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which manages to have an interesting assortment of demographics that it appeals to and has profitable product sales. My Little Pony NEVER had that type of fan base in the late 80s and early 90s. I haven't watched the show since I was a kid but SOMETHING about the new series is appealing enough to young adult males.
What is an even worse decision are the decisions that studios and corporations make when they are expecting to maintain key demographics when those demographics have grown older or different, but are still a fan base. Clarissa Explains It All is a good example of Nickelodeon deciding to cancel the show when the actress playing Clarissa grew "too old" for Nick audiences, but the show probably could have continued if the writing continued to be good and appeal to tweens as well as teens and adults.
Demons
People making pacts with demons
People using demonic magic on others
People using necromancy on others
People using necromancy on themselves
Burying people alive
Torture
Racism
Setting people on fire
Horrific deformities
Hatred
Pestilence
Monsters
Horrific mutations
Persecution
Genocide
People eaten alive by rats
Mutilation
The killing and eating of holy creatures
Forced lobotomies
Cannibalism
More horrific deformities
Dismemberment
Things dismembering themselves
Things being dismembered and then eaten by insects
Things made to dismember other things
Things made of things that have been dismembered and then put back together and then reanimated
More forced lobotomies
Rape by forced anal insertion of a foreign object
Whatever the hell this is
More horrific deformities
Also, the military didn't have anything to do with The Terminator or Die Hard, and I'm not even sure about Red Dawn.
But you haven't addressed my real point, which is that targeting a specific demographic is a viable marketing strategy. Regardless of how homoerotic you found Top Gun, it was undeniably targeted at the male demographic and equally undeniably played very well in that demographic, because its subject matter and presentation (i.e. badasses in supersonic fighter jets) played directly to the particular interests of that demographic. It got dudebros excited to go see it. I don't think they were nearly as excited to go see The Lion King.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.