Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-impossible-takes-a-little-longer dept.

lhsi writes:

"The Atlantic looked at a recent update from the developers of the game Desktop Dungeons to discuss problems with gender bias in gaming, asking 'can a work be racist or sexist if its creator doesn't mean for it to be?'

The developers of the game had recently been adding female character art to their game with the intention that they would be "adventurers first and runway models second." While actively trying to avoid doing everything the 'simple' way, they came into some problems due to subconscious shorthands creeping in.

"This adjustment turned out to be startlingly non-trivial - you'd think that a bunch of supposedly conscious, mindful individuals would instantly be able to nail a 'good female look' (bonus points for having a woman on our crew, right?), but huge swathes of our artistic language tended to be informed by sexist and one-dimensional portrayals. We regularly surprised ourselves with how much we took for granted.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:30PM

    by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:30PM (#16893) Homepage Journal

    The problem is stated plainly in the second linked article (emphasis added):

    Quite frankly, we wanted the women in DD's universe to be adventurers first and runway models second.

    So, if they're saying they had trouble creating female characters that weren't burdened with sexist stereotypes, maybe they should have picked a different starting point?

    --
    I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:41PM

      by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:41PM (#16897) Homepage Journal

      Arg... and if I had read the summary thoroughly instead of skimming, I would have seen that this very point was pretty much captured already. So now, I am in the unenviable position of seeing that my own post is redundant, and realizing that I probably would have been better off just saying "First p0st!" or "In Soviet Russia, sexist stereotype draws you!"

      --
      I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
      • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:43PM

        by crutchy (179) on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:43PM (#16994) Homepage Journal

        i rarely read tfa or tfs... usually only the title.

        first thing that came to mind after reading tft... "non-sexist art in games = boooooooooring!"

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:05PM (#16902)

      Right and they're going to make orcs look not so stereotypically orcish either? That's racist after all right? ;)

      FWIW I'm a sexist male who tends to play female characters in MMOs cause they look better to me - if I'm gonna have a some character on my screen for hours it might as well be a pretty girl ;). Plus their clothing/costume options are either at least the same or better (usually better)

      Are these Dungeon bunch really targeting girls or are they targeting something else? Check out what they said:

      shorthands for the feminine kept crawling into our work when we weren't paying attention - smooth skin, homogenised facial structures, evidence of makeup, you name it. Even characters who we thought would easily sidestep trouble (like the female wizard) simply looked like young, pretty women in grunge costume rather than hardboiled dungeoneers.

      If women are really like what they think why do tons of them keep buying women magazines that are full of pictures of smooth skinned, young pretty women with make up? Where are the massive boycotts from the masses of offended women? FWIW guys buy magazines that are full of pictures of cars/bikes/guns/etc often with pictures of young pretty women ;).

      I think plenty of girls were rather happy to play The Sims: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/women-click- sims-article-1.283191 [nydailynews.com]
      Plenty of smooth skin and make up there... And accessories, and more accessories...

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:29PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:29PM (#16912)

        If women are really like what they think why do tons of them keep buying women magazines that are full of pictures of smooth skinned, young pretty women with make up? Where are the massive boycotts from the masses of offended women?

        You make the error of assuming that no one who is ever oppressed accepts the culture of their own oppression, when in fact it is nearly always the case that they do. As if muslim women who think that wearing the hijab and never driving or leaving their home without the company of a male relative are not oppressed. Or when those women in those tribes in africa force their own daughters to be circumcised, that means its perfectly fine.

        BTW, the difference between fashion magazines and magazines about cars/bikes/guns/etc is that cars/bikes/guns/etc are objects, women are not.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:34AM (#17019)

          You make the error of assuming that no one who is ever oppressed accepts the culture of their own oppression, when in fact it is nearly always the case that they do

          Citation please for your first and second assumptions?

          If they were trying to make lots of money from women (whether oppressed or not) they really should take a look at The Sims and try to understand why it sells.
          If they were trying to fix the sexist oppression problem, they wouldn't be making games with characters that look like "runway models" (even as second priority).

          They don't seem to know what they are doing.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @05:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @05:06PM (#17210)

          Places like Saudi Arabia (and various "Talibanistans") oppress women. The western world, not really. You really call stuff like women's magazines oppression?

          You know what's the real reason why more men are top CEOs, leaders, dictators, serial killers? It's because while men may complain about stuff too, far more do something about it and don't dwell too much on what others think about it (as long as they get what they want). Most of them faced obstacles along the way.

          Margaret Thatcher would never have got where she did if she kept focusing on the obstacles.

          Look at what the Whatsapp guy said and did after he got turned down by Facebook:

          Facebook turned me down. It was a great opportunity to connect with some fantastic people. Looking forward to life's next adventure.

          Or Twitter:

          Got denied by Twitter HQ. That's ok. Would have been a long commute.

          He didn't whine about oppression or other shit.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:38PM

        by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:38PM (#16917) Homepage Journal

        Don't get me wrong, I had no agenda in my post other than to point out that if they were trying to create non-sexist character art, they probably shouldn't have targeted "runway model" appearance at all, even as second or lower priority.

        This all brings up an interesting point though... what percentage of gamers (male, female, or other) would actually choose a seriously ugly female character? I bet that percentage would be very small, no matter how you sliced up the demographics, and that even grotesquely ugly male characters would be chosen more often.

        Look at Hollywood, for instance (just as an example). Show me one actress comparable to Steve Buscemi in both level of physical beauty and level of success? I can't think of any. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in general, people (of any gender) are much more accepting of "ugliness" in men than in women.

        --
        I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by chromas on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:35PM

          by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:35PM (#16944) Journal

          Sarah Jessica Parker? Oh wait; you said success.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:57PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:57PM (#16949) Homepage

            Sarah Jessica Parker would actually be a perfect character-model for addressing the concerns outlined in TFA: She would very convincingly be a witch or goblin in a video game, even with digital makeup applied.

            • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:30AM

              by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:30AM (#17014) Journal

              Sarah Jessica Parker would actually be a perfect character-model for addressing the concerns outlined in TFA: She would very convincingly be a witch or goblin in a video game, even with digital makeup applied.

              Or she could play a horse. [sarahjessi...ahorse.com]

            • (Score: 1) by Taibhsear on Tuesday March 18 2014, @06:25PM

              by Taibhsear (1464) on Tuesday March 18 2014, @06:25PM (#18198)

              Sarah Jessica Parker would actually be a perfect character-model for addressing the concerns outlined in TFA: She would very convincingly be a witch or goblin in a video game, even with digital makeup applied.

              Funny that you should say that... [imdb.com]
              AMOK AMOK AMOK AMOK

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Yow on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:53PM

          by Yow (1637) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:53PM (#16948)

          I think a key point is there are seriously "attractive" women in between the binary you spoke of: runway models or ugly. I'd choose a warrior woman or "plain" crypt keeper - and, the benefit of female characters are the costumes/accessories that go along - FWIW the male characters don't seem to spectacular nor ugly - but what do I know

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @02:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @02:02AM (#17035)

          > Show me one actress comparable to Steve Buscemi in both level of physical beauty and level of success?

          Kathy Bates
          Melissa McCarthy
          Toni Collette
          Mary Lynn Rajskub

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @06:44PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @06:44PM (#17233)

            Melissa McCarthy isn't ugly, she's fat.

        • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday March 17 2014, @08:44AM

          by mojo chan (266) on Monday March 17 2014, @08:44AM (#17455)

          To be fair I think the "runway model" comment could just have been poor choice of words. What they probably meant was that they didn't want them to be runway models. At least that's the impression I got from the rest of the article.

          --
          const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 1) by iNaya on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:31PM

      by iNaya (176) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:31PM (#16914)

      What different starting point would you suggest?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:59PM

        by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:59PM (#16928) Homepage Journal

        Oh, I don't actually care what they choose as their starting point. I was merely saying they might have chosen the wrong one if they were trying to be non-sexist. However, if I had been part of that team, and if that had been my goal, I would have said "female adventurers and explorers" and sent them to this URL as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_advent urers [wikipedia.org].

        --
        I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
        • (Score: 1) by ZombieBait on Monday March 17 2014, @10:25PM

          by ZombieBait (3100) on Monday March 17 2014, @10:25PM (#17815)

          Interestingly, the majority of the women on that list are, at least, not unattractive. I also suspect that probably comes with the job. To be an "adventurer" you most likely need to be fit, healthy, confident and relatively wealthy (at least enough so that you could afford basic hygiene and corrective medical procedures (dentistry, optometry, etc.)). It's certainly possible for someone unattractive to have success in the field, but there seems to be at least some overlap in traits between the groups of "adventurers" and "attractive people".

    • (Score: 1) by krishnoid on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:45AM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:45AM (#17025)

      I quickly read through the article, but couldn't determine -- incidentally, what is the gender distribution for Desktop Dungeon's developers/artists/decision makers?

      • (Score: 2) by lhsi on Sunday March 16 2014, @09:01AM

        by lhsi (711) on Sunday March 16 2014, @09:01AM (#17130) Journal

        For the group that was trying to create the art, they said they had "a woman", so I think that is just one. I don't know how big the group is though.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by n1 on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:38PM

    by n1 (993) on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:38PM (#16895) Journal

    I'm not so sure you can avoid being 'sexist' to both males and females, by the time you acknowledge there are differences, that will be enough to be considered sexist by some people. There are male stereotypes all over games and other media, which are just as damaging as the female stereotypes.

    I don't know the solution, but it the only way to be clear of it is to not sexualize or give characters gender at all. Maybe that is a solution, but it probably wouldnt be very engaging to us, the billions of people in the world that have the gender stereotypes well ingrained into our psychology.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:23PM

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:23PM (#16909)
      Perhaps if you start by taking some typical statistical measurements to define the maquette. Want a realistic Lara Croft? Look up the average proportions of physically active British upper-class women (such things must exist to enable high street store to purchase clothing, I would assume) and start from there.

      I suspect there is also more to it than that though. So many game characters these days are motion captured, which means that you need a real human to do the capture. Where do you get such humans from? Modelling agencies, of course, so you are automatically limiting the selection to those humans that are, by definition, models. That's not to say that you can't find models in all shapes and sizes, but you are going to have do more than just pick a random agency from the phone book and find one that has more average proportioned characters.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:37PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:37PM (#16915)

        I don't think that realism is the right approach. Stereotypically the male characters are exaggerated for physical strength and the female characters are exaggerate for sexuality. Neither are realistic, but strength is a frequently a useful attribute for a character in a game, while sexuality is not.

        I say tone down the sexualization and bring the physicality to proportionally the same level as the male characters. I'm not saying make the female characters look like they take so many steroids that they have mustaches and adam's apples, but something closer to Venus Williams rather than Barbie.

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:55PM (#16925)

          ...strength is a frequently a useful attribute for a character in a game, while sexuality is not.

          Yeah I agree, we need better games!

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:06PM

          by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:06PM (#16933)
          But that brings you right back to the initial problem; the subconcious kicks in and you start tweaking the proportions based on sterotypes. Even if you are conciously reigning in the impulses to produce something as unrealistic as a Barbie doll, you are still likely to end up with a hybrid that's still "off", just not by quite so much. As an example, consider Lara Croft. The maquette is actually fairly realistically proportioned, especially in the later games, with the exceptions of her breast and waist sizes. To be closer to more typical norms for a highly athletic woman, you'd need to decrease the former and increase the latter.

          I also wonder also how much of this subconciously ties into the uncanny valley. Perhaps we currently need the maquette to be slightly out of kilter in order to keep us firmly pegged on the "fake" side of the valley. Once we have the capability to do truly realistic characters in real-time on the desktop or console, then that might mark the point where it becomes necessary to start using more realistic proportions.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:08PM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:08PM (#16952)

            But that brings you right back to the initial problem; the subconcious kicks in and you start tweaking the proportions based on sterotypes.

            You are mistaken. The problem is sexism, not stereotyping in general. Video games are inherently over-simplifications, the very word avatar is practically a synonym for stereotype.

            • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:45PM

              by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:45PM (#16966)
              Umm. That's what I said. The very act of "tweaking the proportions base on stereotypes" would be an example of sexism, it's actually the first definition of the term at dictionary.com: "...behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles."
              --
              UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:25PM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:25PM (#16975)

                So your position is that it is impossible to not be sexist. Not useful.

                • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:50PM

                  by zocalo (302) on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:50PM (#16983)
                  Boy, are you ever misinterpreting what I'm saying - I just said I agreed with you and your response is that comment "isn't useful".

                  My position is that if someone has problems with sexism, whether conciously or unconciously as implied by the article, then starting with a realistic baseline drawn from the real world might be a good means to avoid the issue. For instance, if they are trying to create a maquette for a given role (muscular male, athletic female, or whatever), then maybe they could use the dimensions of actual human who *is* a muscular male, athletic female, or whatever as their base. That doesn't prevent any subsequent tweaking, of course, but it does at least ensure they would have a plausible set of proportions to begin with.
                  --
                  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
                  • (Score: 0) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:16PM

                    by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:16PM (#16990)

                    I don't see why starting from realistic proportions and then amping them up is any less likely to reduce the subconscious expression of sexism than any other method. If the problem is the subconscious affecting the end result, then as long at there is a subconscious involved in making decisions, its going to come out in the end result.

        • (Score: 1) by mister_playboy on Sunday March 16 2014, @01:39AM

          by mister_playboy (2664) on Sunday March 16 2014, @01:39AM (#17032)

          strength is a frequently a useful attribute for a character in a game, while sexuality is not

          This quip made me think of Jessica [gamesretrospect.com] from DQVIII and her "Sex Appeal" skill tree.

          She blows kisses, bashes enemies with her butt, gives puff-puffs, and causing foes to waste their turn ogling her. Maybe not the most powerful choice of skills, but certainly the most fun.

          And how would Dragon Quest Sorceress [wikia.com] animate the dead without her heaving bosom? :3

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @10:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16 2014, @10:07PM (#17299)

          I'm sure I've 'objectified' venus williams a time or two before bed. I'll grant that she is completely devoid of generic sorts of beauty though.

          My fear is that the most vocal segment of the female/feminist population that hates this stuff just won't be happy with characters that aren't ugly. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a variety of characters that are nice to look at as well as a handful that shouldn't be attractive by the nature of their character would suffice.

          That's pretty much how it is for male characters, they look generally attractive but you have your steve buchemis too.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:50PM

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:50PM (#16924) Journal

      Agreed, spending too much time getting rid of any sexual stereotypes is ultimately to deny our own humanism.

      Men are pretty much what women want them to be, and vise versa.
      Men behave pretty much the way women want them to. And vise versa.

      The cliches we see in games, movies, books, TV aren't all that inventive, they spring from real life. Every mass murder has his ardent female followers who will marry him while he's in jail. (Hybristophilia). Every man will admire a beautiful body.

      Trying to get rid of this in games is a pointless exercise, as nonsense as getting rid of weapons in a combat game, or fast cars in a GTA game. Thought control isn't going to work, it never has.
       

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:08PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:08PM (#16935)

        Natural Selection 2 did a good job with their female marine: http://unknownworlds.com/ns2/the-female-marine/ [unknownworlds.com]
        Armor looks actually usable and not just a metal bra. I do enjoy fan service but it can easily break the character and story. Awesome in absurd fantasy games. Not so awesome in "realistic" games. Just so people don't think i'm sexist. I like it as a caricature of reality in a fantasy setting. Not just gratuitous.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:10PM

        by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:10PM (#16936) Homepage Journal

        Ummm...

        Men are pretty much what women want them to be, and vise versa.
        Men behave pretty much the way women want them to. And vise versa.

        You ever been married, 'cause that ain't my experience?! (And judging by my daily interactions with my wife, I think she'd laugh her ass off if you said that to her with a straight face.)

        --
        I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:28PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:28PM (#16942) Journal

          She married you, didn't she? QED.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:35PM

            by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:35PM (#16943) Homepage Journal

            Hmmm. I've tried expressing that sentiment before, as in "well, you knew this and you still married me!" It usually doesn't go down very well. :)

            (I actually agree with you... those statements just struck me as funny.)

            --
            I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
            • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:41PM

              by Vanderhoth (61) on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:41PM (#16963)

              The old adage. "A man marries a women because he wants her to stay the same, a women marries a man because she sees a challenge in changing him."

              I'm in the same boat, my wife is always nagging me to get off the computer because I'm spending too much time (programming|watching anime|playing video games). I met my wife playing Dark Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28video_g ame%29), which her male friend (not BF) talked her into playing. We found out we only lived a few blocks from each other and just hit it off, 17 years ago. She was interested in all the things I liked at the time, then we got married, 6 years ago, and all the sudden I'm spending too much time. Doesn't matter, I still lover her and when she's not nagging me, which I just filter out, we have a great relationship.

              I always pull the "I though you married me because you liked that about me, huh, go figure." Then go back to whatever I was doing while she mutters to herself ;)

              --
              "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:13PM (#16937)

      I know the solution. Stop giving a damn.

      Announce that all characters, male, female, neuter, and tri-sexual alien, will be sexualized. Anyone who doesn't like it should feel free to blow their own brains out.

      And then move on with doing what you want to do, and if anyone whines and cries about it, ignore them.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @08:58PM (#16950)

        This. I'm laughing at the article, because they're so terrified of putting females in a box of labels that they've created their own special little box to throw women into.

        Some women are idiots. Some women could kill you with their brain. Some women have a basic understanding of how armor works. Some women like to show off skin.

        This is really easy, guys. You know how you design male characters?

        Do the same fucking thing for women.

        Protip: They're people, too. They're not a separate species. They're especially not a retarded fantasy race where every last one of them is homogenous in thought, word and deed.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:41PM (#16962)

          I agree with most things but are you absolutely sure they're the same species? 'Cause sometime....

        • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Sunday March 16 2014, @05:48PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Sunday March 16 2014, @05:48PM (#17218)

          This is really easy, guys. You know how you design male characters?

          Do the same fucking thing for women.

          I think the entire point of TFA is that they tried exactly that, and found out it is easy to say and real goddamn difficult to do.

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by naubol on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:25PM

    by naubol (1918) on Saturday March 15 2014, @09:25PM (#16956)

    So, I once wrote a post on LOL forums about how every female was either hot, curvaceous, or close to appearing to be hot, and highly sexualized in the poses on the cards. This is not done for the men.

    Once, when walking down a avenue in New York City, my companion, a heterosexual male, reacted with disgust to an ad that showed an attractive man who was heavily sexualized. The ad was obviously aimed at gay men. He said "why do they have to put it in our faces?". I exploded with derisive laughter and, all of a sudden on the defensive, he asks me aggressively, "What?!" I said, "Look around you." This being New York, there were tens of ads within visible sight that were sexualizing women. "We live in your world, and it seems like your world is a heterosexual male's wet dream. And you have the temerity to get mad that there might be something not aimed at you put in your line of sight?"

    I don't think the answer is to stop sexualizing or objectifying women. Rather, I think the problem is that there are many straight men do not know how to gracefully handle sexual aggression or deal with the kind of sexuality that doesn't turn them on. Consequently, they also don't understand just how bad what they're doing is. So, I say, let us objectify them more. Let this game make more of the male characters hot, beautiful, sexually interesting... This can be done while still showing an appreciation for the person's intangible talents.

    In real life, this also works. Once men feel the bite of being treated as nothing but a sex toy whose opinions and emotions are treated as meaningless and annoying, they seem to get better at not quite doing that to women. I'm also not saying there isn't space for ugly characters, but rather that this objectification really should be occurring both ways as it does in real life, whether men know it or not.

    Let's face it, if we try to desexualize everything, what a boring world and a ludicrous impossibility! What we should hope for is a world that maturely acknowledges that we're both lizard and primate, both about the shape and the mind behind it, and stop castigating people for being drawn to something that sexually turns them on. The real castigation should be reserved for people who only treat other people like objects.

    My post on LOL ended with the request that they make a lot more super hot male cards. Some people seemed to agree.

    • (Score: 1) by ButchDeLoria on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:19PM

      by ButchDeLoria (583) on Saturday March 15 2014, @10:19PM (#16973)

      The proper method is to corrupt them into homosexuality, of course.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @11:52PM (#16996)

      I see plenty of advertising aimed at all walks of life.

      I don't know whether this relates to your point at all, but it annoys me - the advertising, not what it contains. Cheesecake? Don't care. Beefcake? Don't care. Neither? Still don't care. It annoys me. It's a distraction.

      However, I will note that I have seen women playing games in which they get to tweak the appearance of their characters. The results are usually attractive, stylish, and have moderate to exaggerated sexual features - the one exception I can call to mind was a militant nonegalitarian feminist, who deliberately made an ugly male.

      What a lot of people ignore is that the typical hero of these games, when male, represents an idealised male regardless of appearance - competent, strong, physically resilient, dominant, independent ... and the objectification doesn't bother me either despite the equipment dangling between my legs.

      Most of the people whining about this crap need a big steaming cup of Get Over It.

      • (Score: 2) by hatta on Sunday March 16 2014, @01:35AM

        by hatta (879) on Sunday March 16 2014, @01:35AM (#17031)

        However, I will note that I have seen women playing games in which they get to tweak the appearance of their characters.

        They generally spend more time doing that than playing the game.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:34AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday March 16 2014, @12:34AM (#17020) Journal

    Is my avatar sexist because it's taller and thinner, with more muscles and hair? Do most people psychologically prefer to see themselves as better than they may currently look?

    • (Score: 1) by NezSez on Sunday March 16 2014, @09:20PM

      by NezSez (961) on Sunday March 16 2014, @09:20PM (#17282) Journal

      Your question is very good, and I'm sure some phd students or faculty members have actually studied this, but i'm TLTLU (Too Lazy To LookUp).

        FTR, myself, on Second Life, since you can have multiple skins and change to them reasonably quickly, created my normal one to look as close to myself as possible and then created a second one that was exactly the same except for the dimensions for the derriere which were set to the max value possible (tallest, widest, etc). Then, smack dab in da middle of chatting with a group of ppl, I'd switch to the second avatar and then say "Does this avatar make my ass look big?"

      Some of us are just in it for the LULZ!

      --
      No Sig to see here, move along, move along...
  • (Score: 1) by cybro on Monday March 17 2014, @12:53AM

    by cybro (1144) on Monday March 17 2014, @12:53AM (#17332)

    From the summary: 'can a work be racist or sexist if its creator doesn't mean for it to be?'

    Of course it can, it always can. The interpretation of a work is in the eye of a beholder. So it always could be, you might just have to employ various levels of delusion and pull on your own self-important biases to color it the way you see fit.

    You can make a porcelain toilet seem racist if you try hard enough.