Discuss this post in our forums

From our forums

  1. Brainspore

    You left out "the muscle-bound dudes in video games are just as unrealistic as the half-naked women with huge breasts, so it's not really sexist."

  2. Franko

    i love this series, and even as a gamer i found this particular segment shocking and quite hard to watch. i'm not a fan of FPS games, so most of the games exhibited in this one were familiar to me only by name. she lays out a very damning case, and makes it clear that she's endeavoring to point out the problem, not condemning the games as a whole.

    as for the argument that a player can just choose not to play the content that one finds objectionable (which i initially agreed with), she points out that "a toaster is still designed for and capable of making toast, whether or not you use it to make toast." -- the problem is that designers are still putting this sort of thing in games to begin with. avoiding the content doesn't help... it shouldn't be there in the first place. i felt that was well said.

  3. EcholocateChoco

    Oh by the way, since I'm already talking way too much. A good personal and professional friend of mine has vouched that the next game his studio develops will have playable male and female characters, as a direct result of discussions that started because of Sarkeesian's videos.

    So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, haters.

  4. euchronos

    I'm gay. I've never enjoyed the representation of women as sex objects in games. When I was younger I was very much in denial about my sexual orientation. I had internalized a lot of negative feeling about being gay, and deeply hated myself. In order to survive through a lot of emotional suffering and self-hatred, I turned to video games. It was a bit of escapism, yes, but it was also a survival mechanism. School was a nightmare. Life was hell. Games were the only egress I had from myself and the caustic world I lived in.

    But when I encountered the ubiquitous presence of sexualized women in games, it only served to remind me of my own inability to conform to the heterosexual norm. This reminder (in aggregate) was, in fact, traumatic. I tried, for years, to have any kind of attraction to women. And here, in the throes of denial, closeted, and profoundly depressed, my only mechanism of release was reminding me again that I was different, inadequate, and -- in some deeply constituted way -- broken.

    Now I am openly gay and quite happy, but I still find the way women are depicted to be insufferable. I just don't understand it. I don't see what value it adds. Is it really pleasurable to witness women depicted as sex objects? Can a heterosexual man jump in and explain it to me? I'm not being deliberately naive here. I genuinely do not understand the appeal. Why is this even an argument? Why is this a thing we have to continue to argue to preserve? It's awful. We know it is a problem. We know it sucks for everyone. So why are we still defending it?

    There is a tremendous diversity of human experience. We owe it to ourselves to explore new narratives. This is not a weakness or a sacrifice. It is a gift. Tropes do not empower us: they are crutches and shorthand in place of actual creativity and imagination. I see nothing at stake here except the reluctance of a community to trade something old and familiar for something new and unknown. But let me tell you, sometimes change is good.

  5. beschizza

    And yet by my adding to it, all know that radical subtraction from it may be on the cards. Funny, that!

Continue the discussion at bbs.boingboing.net

188 more replies