Originally posted by Yamota Do men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.
The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.
Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?
Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.
No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
Originally posted by Yamota Do men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.
The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.
Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?
Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.
No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
The nail has been hit, getting confirmation now that it was on the head.
You know, Indiana Jones, James Bond, John McClane, in those movies the Men weren't muscle bound demi-gods & they were pretty freaking bad-assed heroes. They also had the more human side shown, those guys got hurt after all.
If games took a page out of those movies approach to male heroism, instead of the Conan the Barbarian, Commando, book things would at least be a bit better.
One of the reasons I was such a big fan of Gordon Freeman was his vulnerability, he was no hulk.
Originally posted by Yamota Do men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.
The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.
Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?
Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.
No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.
My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
Unfortunately, Video Games, et al, are businesses, not moral compasses. What sells is sex and violence. It is what the public wants. It is what sells.
It is also the prevailing "sexual role concept" in the world today: "Man = Protector" and "Woman = Nurturer". It will be a long, long while before that changes, if ever. A few "enlightened folk" will not change that very fast, or well.
Then, again, look at "Why" people partake in these activities. Is it so that they can be mundane, everyday people? For some, maybe, but the majority look to be something different, possibly better than what they are in real life. Would a man create a fat, slovenly,emotionally wrought, sly character? Possibly. But not many would. I don't see a lot of clamor to be an Ogrim in TES:O. Same with women. I don't not know of many women who desire to make their characters obese, wart-faced objects of desire. Are there many who want to play Hagravens in the TES universe?
Could games make games like you suggest? Certainly. Would they sell? No.
Well yes and no.
Yes, Video games are a business first and no social reform program.
Buuuut... come on, we have 2013. Men are less stereotypical in reality as games make us want to belief. I mean, ok, what do I know, but I am not so sure all men today identify with buffed up square shoulder types with "Die Hard" mentality. Even men are more complex these days! ^^
I mean, many people loved Simon the Sorcerer, or Guybrush Threepwood!
All I am saying is, even manly can contain more than buffed up supermen.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by RohnOriginally posted by YamotaDo men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.
My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
If it's just a game, it should be fine to portray such things as mass murdering children for fun, yes? Let your imagination run wild, since it's just a game. Don't let things like age get in the way of good game play. That's sarcasm, by the way. There are things that are offensive, and that's why they don't show up in video games for mass consumption. The idea that things shouldn't be offensive because they are in video games is false. "It's only a book" or "It's only a movie" are equally false statements.
I took the point of the article to be that most of the male stereotypes play to male fantasies. Strong, heroic, honorable and able to save the world. The bad guys are at least intelligent or capable. They is never a "Knight In Distress". It's always a "Knight In Shining Armor" off to rescue a "Damsel In Distress". What possible reason would a man have to take issue with the representation of men in video games?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by YamotaDo men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.
My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
If it's just a game, it should be fine to portray such things as mass murdering children for fun, yes? Let your imagination run wild, since it's just a game. Don't let things like age get in the way of good game play. That's sarcasm, by the way. There are things that are offensive, and that's why they don't show up in video games for mass consumption. The idea that things shouldn't be offensive because they are in video games is false. "It's only a book" or "It's only a movie" are equally false statements.
I took the point of the article to be that most of the male stereotypes play to male fantasies. Strong, heroic, honorable and able to save the world. The bad guys are at least intelligent or capable. They is never a "Knight In Distress". It's always a "Knight In Shining Armor" off to rescue a "Damsel In Distress". What possible reason would a man have to take issue with the representation of men in video games?
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
I'm sure games will eventually catch up to Tv advertising wher emost men are portrayed as mentally challenged misanthropes who would probably forget to breathe if it wasn't for their far superior and intelligent female counterparts.Then the feminists will be happy.
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
It's true but sadly say it often enough and people will believe it. Look at advertisements in magazines. Being exposed to a constant barrage of metrosexual males has changed what sexy is. When was the last time you saw a guy in a movie with hair on his chest ? Have you ever considered shaving yours ?
20 years ago we wouldn't even call those people in the magazines men. Now people want to look like them. All it took was years of being told this is how you want to look and people change. This is no different.
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
It's true but sadly say it often enough and people will believe it. Look at advertisements in magazines. Being exposed to a constant barrage of metrosexual males has changed what sexy is. When was the last time you saw a guy in a movie with hair on his chest ? Have you ever considered shaving yours ?
20 years ago we wouldn't even call those people in the magazines men. Now people want to look like them. All it took was years of being told this is how you want to look and people change. This is no different.
This has rapidly become my favorite column on MMORPG.
First of all, you are absolutely correct about how the stereotyping of masculinity diminishes the gaming industry as a whole. Sure, the hyper-masculine Kratos style protagonist will always sell games to a certain subset of gamer, and so it will never go away, but having options is always a selling point for people like me.
In my opinion, the masculine stereotype problem will never be as egregious as the feminine stereotype because of all the gamers-who-happen-to-be-girls I know, none would choose to play the overtly sexualized damsels in distress tropes we are constantly fed. Everyone, when playing a story-based game, wants to feel like they are the hero.
At no point in this column did I feel like masculinity itself was being attacked, and the bizarre defensiveness of the commentary is baffling.
As a whole, Men and Women gamers have always been stereotyped. If you play a computer gamer, your a nerd. If you play Xbox or another console then your normal. If your a male or female gamer your fat. If your a male gamer you live in your mom's basement. If your a female gamer then your really a male gamer. If your a female gamer you don't exist, because girls don't play games. If your a male gamer your unemployed.
These are just a few that come to mind. There are always going to be stereotypes in the world, gaming or otherwise.
Just because I'm a gamer doesn't mean I drive a Honda.
Originally posted by Rohn Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by YamotaOriginally posted by RohnOriginally posted by YamotaDo men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life. If it's just a game, it should be fine to portray such things as mass murdering children for fun, yes? Let your imagination run wild, since it's just a game. Don't let things like age get in the way of good game play. That's sarcasm, by the way. There are things that are offensive, and that's why they don't show up in video games for mass consumption. The idea that things shouldn't be offensive because they are in video games is false. "It's only a book" or "It's only a movie" are equally false statements. I took the point of the article to be that most of the male stereotypes play to male fantasies. Strong, heroic, honorable and able to save the world. The bad guys are at least intelligent or capable. They is never a "Knight In Distress". It's always a "Knight In Shining Armor" off to rescue a "Damsel In Distress". What possible reason would a man have to take issue with the representation of men in video games?
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
Are you sure about that? The article doesn't seem to be much of an attack piece. I would call it a decent mocking, but certainly not an attack piece. To be honest, I'm surprised that Sarkeesian's videos would inspire such a defensive stance. I am really surprised that this article could inspire such a stance.
What exactly are people afraid of with articles like this that requires such a defensive stance? I mean, really. What's the point of having a point of view if it's so delicate that the slightest nudge is seen as an all out attack?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In the words of Phillip J. Fry: "Bender and I are guys, and guys don't have feelings."
As silly as this statement is, there is a nugget of truth in it. Men tend to either feel a smaller breadth of emotion than do women, or they tend to let their feelings through when no one is looking. Could it be that these game characters only feel when off camera? Maybe they know when we are watching are screwing with us, the bastards. Anyway, the part about the man vs man dominance struggle is pretty much 100% accurate. We males are dumb that way, if the current state of male-dominated global politics is any indicator. As over-hyped as men tend to be in games, there is still a good portion of it that can attributed to real sociological and psychological phenomena observed in our world, which, let's face it, is world where men are far better off than women.
Originally posted by Yamota Do men really care about this kind of stuff? I doubt it, we play games to have fun and dont give a hoot about gender stereotyping. I havent even thought about it before reading this article. Talk about first world problems...
That's not the point of the article, though.
The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.
Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?
Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.
No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
The Leftist extremist are the ones being allowed in gaming to push their propaganda. Most in due by support of your local game writers. This is all simply politics and gaining territory and what better territory to gain than the flippy floppy gamers who are easily pushed by emotion? Games cost money to make, and earn money after sells. A politically agenda group wants games to cater to <their> ways and standards rather than leaving up the design and imagination to the developers and the enjoyment of the game to the players. Rather than leaving games freely to be what they are design <stereotypes or not, tasteful or not> all games must fit what these groups <want> them to fit as.
For one in particular that Anita one I wonder how much money she has made simply to make a few Adobe Flash videos and a one sided <lecture> on gaming? How many backers have backed her up and have given her thousands for her lectures? How much attention has that one lady received and ended up boosting her resumes and page hits thanks to gamers and tickled ears?
Game characters are <real> people in west world<yet they are not citizens, not real, and do not pay taxes like real people do>! Apparently too the cartoons must be people's role models because all games are surely politically correct in general. Majority aren't. Ironically if this was an article actually <concern> for men, there would be links provided for such concerns. Except Anita's links are there instead of course.
This is not about concerns. This is about a political agendas which will end up pushing for more restrictions and enforcements in the creation of gaming.
Not to place too fine a point on this, but games are meant to be a fun, entertaining pass time. They shouldn't be looked at as some "social experiment" or means to "empower" this, that or the other. I know that its difficult for some to understand that, given their ideology that places The Cause first and foremost in their minds, but this entire soul searching routine, gets really annoying after a few decades of seeing it in operation.
Stereotypes and archetypes exist as a form of mental short hand. That they get woven into stories, games and other such human activities is hardly surprising. Can they cause problems? Obviously. One has only to look at society at large to see any number of such consequences. But I'm LONG past weary of dealing with zealots and crusaders, who seize upon such things, to advance their social and political agendas.
Let games be games. Everyone has a different perspective on what fun is. If a given game isn't fun to you, or happens to offend you, go find another game that suits your tastes.
Comments
That's not the point of the article, though.
The article exhibits no real concern for the welfare of men.
Feminists have been denouncing stereotypical or traditional male behavior for decades, attempting to paint it as evil and wrong for years. This article targets games that perpetuate the masculine ideals and behavior that feminists have been demonizing (unless the behavior is exhibited by a female, then it is lauded). How dare men act in a way natural to them, or in a way not sanctioned by women!?
Had its purpose been to show how the use of these stereotypes are harmful to men, the article would have been no doubt filled with links and discussions pointing to actual research showing the purported effects. Yet, nothing more that allusion is given.
No, the overwhelming tone of the article does not seek to protect or help men. It simply vilifies the masculine behavior that feminists hate, and that some games seem to reinforce. In short, it follows the "men would be better if they acted like women" line of thinking.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
The nail has been hit, getting confirmation now that it was on the head.
+1 internet to you good sir.
You know, Indiana Jones, James Bond, John McClane, in those movies the Men weren't muscle bound demi-gods & they were pretty freaking bad-assed heroes. They also had the more human side shown, those guys got hurt after all.
If games took a page out of those movies approach to male heroism, instead of the Conan the Barbarian, Commando, book things would at least be a bit better.
One of the reasons I was such a big fan of Gordon Freeman was his vulnerability, he was no hulk.
Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.
My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
My gaming blog
Well yes and no.
Yes, Video games are a business first and no social reform program.
Buuuut... come on, we have 2013. Men are less stereotypical in reality as games make us want to belief. I mean, ok, what do I know, but I am not so sure all men today identify with buffed up square shoulder types with "Die Hard" mentality. Even men are more complex these days! ^^
I mean, many people loved Simon the Sorcerer, or Guybrush Threepwood!
All I am saying is, even manly can contain more than buffed up supermen.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking.
My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
If it's just a game, it should be fine to portray such things as mass murdering children for fun, yes? Let your imagination run wild, since it's just a game. Don't let things like age get in the way of good game play. That's sarcasm, by the way. There are things that are offensive, and that's why they don't show up in video games for mass consumption. The idea that things shouldn't be offensive because they are in video games is false. "It's only a book" or "It's only a movie" are equally false statements.
I took the point of the article to be that most of the male stereotypes play to male fantasies. Strong, heroic, honorable and able to save the world. The bad guys are at least intelligent or capable. They is never a "Knight In Distress". It's always a "Knight In Shining Armor" off to rescue a "Damsel In Distress". What possible reason would a man have to take issue with the representation of men in video games?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
It's true but sadly say it often enough and people will believe it. Look at advertisements in magazines. Being exposed to a constant barrage of metrosexual males has changed what sexy is. When was the last time you saw a guy in a movie with hair on his chest ? Have you ever considered shaving yours ?
20 years ago we wouldn't even call those people in the magazines men. Now people want to look like them. All it took was years of being told this is how you want to look and people change. This is no different.
I like my hairy chest, feels like a hamster.
This has rapidly become my favorite column on MMORPG.
First of all, you are absolutely correct about how the stereotyping of masculinity diminishes the gaming industry as a whole. Sure, the hyper-masculine Kratos style protagonist will always sell games to a certain subset of gamer, and so it will never go away, but having options is always a selling point for people like me.
In my opinion, the masculine stereotype problem will never be as egregious as the feminine stereotype because of all the gamers-who-happen-to-be-girls I know, none would choose to play the overtly sexualized damsels in distress tropes we are constantly fed. Everyone, when playing a story-based game, wants to feel like they are the hero.
At no point in this column did I feel like masculinity itself was being attacked, and the bizarre defensiveness of the commentary is baffling.
As a whole, Men and Women gamers have always been stereotyped.
If you play a computer gamer, your a nerd.
If you play Xbox or another console then your normal.
If your a male or female gamer your fat.
If your a male gamer you live in your mom's basement.
If your a female gamer then your really a male gamer.
If your a female gamer you don't exist, because girls don't play games.
If your a male gamer your unemployed.
These are just a few that come to mind. There are always going to be stereotypes in the world, gaming or otherwise.
Lets see your Battle Stations /r/battlestations
Battle Station
Interesting. Did think it was a bit odd that a female author expressed some sort of concern for well being of men. That was because it had nothing to do with it. It is yet another post about how video games are not catering to female ideals. So not only do these feminists want females to be portrayed like they want but also men. Gees, I guess they will want the whole world to change to their liking. My original point stands though. I dont think men in general care about this crap. We play to have fun and as long as the game is fun, we dont give a crap about female or male stereotyping. I just hope this nonsense does not turn into some sort of crusade of turning men in video games into sissy, girly boys who rather talks rather than fights. That would ruin the fun of the game. Which seems to be lost on these people. It is after all a G A M E, not real life.
If it's just a game, it should be fine to portray such things as mass murdering children for fun, yes? Let your imagination run wild, since it's just a game. Don't let things like age get in the way of good game play. That's sarcasm, by the way. There are things that are offensive, and that's why they don't show up in video games for mass consumption. The idea that things shouldn't be offensive because they are in video games is false. "It's only a book" or "It's only a movie" are equally false statements. I took the point of the article to be that most of the male stereotypes play to male fantasies. Strong, heroic, honorable and able to save the world. The bad guys are at least intelligent or capable. They is never a "Knight In Distress". It's always a "Knight In Shining Armor" off to rescue a "Damsel In Distress". What possible reason would a man have to take issue with the representation of men in video games?
The point of the article (other than the shameless plug for Sarkeesian's biased and shallow crap) is that we're supposed to be "offended" by traditional male behavior and ideals, and men should embrace whatever feminists have decided would make men better. Yes, it's self-serving and hypocritical, in that feminists believe that men should have no say in defining female behavior, but should have the final say in defining the behavior, attitudes, and ideals of men.
Testosterone is not a poison. Men aren't "damaged" because they act differently from women, or in ways that women don't understand because it doesn't fit their experience. There is a very distinct and fundamental disdain for all things traditionally masculine that resonates throughout this article.
Are you sure about that? The article doesn't seem to be much of an attack piece. I would call it a decent mocking, but certainly not an attack piece. To be honest, I'm surprised that Sarkeesian's videos would inspire such a defensive stance. I am really surprised that this article could inspire such a stance.
What exactly are people afraid of with articles like this that requires such a defensive stance? I mean, really. What's the point of having a point of view if it's so delicate that the slightest nudge is seen as an all out attack?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In the words of Phillip J. Fry: "Bender and I are guys, and guys don't have feelings."
As silly as this statement is, there is a nugget of truth in it. Men tend to either feel a smaller breadth of emotion than do women, or they tend to let their feelings through when no one is looking. Could it be that these game characters only feel when off camera? Maybe they know when we are watching are screwing with us, the bastards. Anyway, the part about the man vs man dominance struggle is pretty much 100% accurate. We males are dumb that way, if the current state of male-dominated global politics is any indicator. As over-hyped as men tend to be in games, there is still a good portion of it that can attributed to real sociological and psychological phenomena observed in our world, which, let's face it, is world where men are far better off than women.
The Leftist extremist are the ones being allowed in gaming to push their propaganda. Most in due by support of your local game writers. This is all simply politics and gaining territory and what better territory to gain than the flippy floppy gamers who are easily pushed by emotion? Games cost money to make, and earn money after sells. A politically agenda group wants games to cater to <their> ways and standards rather than leaving up the design and imagination to the developers and the enjoyment of the game to the players. Rather than leaving games freely to be what they are design <stereotypes or not, tasteful or not> all games must fit what these groups <want> them to fit as.
For one in particular that Anita one I wonder how much money she has made simply to make a few Adobe Flash videos and a one sided <lecture> on gaming? How many backers have backed her up and have given her thousands for her lectures? How much attention has that one lady received and ended up boosting her resumes and page hits thanks to gamers and tickled ears?
Game characters are <real> people in west world<yet they are not citizens, not real, and do not pay taxes like real people do>! Apparently too the cartoons must be people's role models because all games are surely politically correct in general. Majority aren't. Ironically if this was an article actually <concern> for men, there would be links provided for such concerns. Except Anita's links are there instead of course.
This is not about concerns. This is about a political agendas which will end up pushing for more restrictions and enforcements in the creation of gaming.
Not to place too fine a point on this, but games are meant to be a fun, entertaining pass time. They shouldn't be looked at as some "social experiment" or means to "empower" this, that or the other. I know that its difficult for some to understand that, given their ideology that places The Cause first and foremost in their minds, but this entire soul searching routine, gets really annoying after a few decades of seeing it in operation.
Stereotypes and archetypes exist as a form of mental short hand. That they get woven into stories, games and other such human activities is hardly surprising. Can they cause problems? Obviously. One has only to look at society at large to see any number of such consequences. But I'm LONG past weary of dealing with zealots and crusaders, who seize upon such things, to advance their social and political agendas.
Let games be games. Everyone has a different perspective on what fun is. If a given game isn't fun to you, or happens to offend you, go find another game that suits your tastes.