Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[Blackthorne]

Good point.  No one's forcing you to get those items, but there obviously is a market for it.  Yeah, they bother you - but you aren't buying them.  A lot of products bother me, but I'm not buying them.  Of course, I think no one should buy them, but that's my opinion and if I wanna force that on the world, I'm just a dictator.

The pens are redonk, though.  I tried using one once, and it lept out of my hands as I tried to grasp it, and it ran across the floor crying "MAN HANDS!  MAN HANDS!"

As for the "girl" emergency kit - yeah.  Funny, though.  I know several women to whom that kit would be more helpful than one that would contain any tools to help repair a car.  If a person wants to wait to get rescued, they can do it - if they want to try and fix it themselves and go about their day, they can.  You just have to be a secure man to admit you want "The Girls" emergency kit, is all.


Bt

[stika]

Honestly, I feel like a number of us have made it clear why the products (and tropes, stereotypes, etc) bother us, regardless of 'do they sell?' (which isn't the question at hand). I'm not sure what else can be said to make that more clear or to explain it further.

See, but this is what I don't understand.

Are these products mainly targetted at women? yes
Do these products sell?                                       Yes
Are these products mainly  bought by women?  I think it's safe to assume that 'yes' is the right answer

... So, if women buy it and most likely enjoy it... how is this offensive to women again? To me, the sexist argument of these products boils down to: 'Stop liking things I don't like'



(Posted on: December 10, 2012, 02:40:06 PM)

Good point.  No one's forcing you to get those items, but there obviously is a market for it.  Yeah, they bother you - but you aren't buying them.  A lot of products bother me, but I'm not buying them.  Of course, I think no one should buy them, but that's my opinion and if I wanna force that on the world, I'm just a dictator.

The pens are redonk, though.  I tried using one once, and it lept out of my hands as I tried to grasp it, and it ran across the floor crying "MAN HANDS!  MAN HANDS!"

As for the "girl" emergency kit - yeah.  Funny, though.  I know several women to whom that kit would be more helpful than one that would contain any tools to help repair a car.  If a person wants to wait to get rescued, they can do it - if they want to try and fix it themselves and go about their day, they can.  You just have to be a secure man to admit you want "The Girls" emergency kit, is all.


Bt

exactly, people use and buy those products because they like it. Why should we judge them or the products?The Only thing we should judge is the marketing team for calling it a product 'for girls', but as you as you said, it's not like a man couldn't go to the store and buy it anyway... so I really don't see the issue here

I would go as far as to say: If you consider these products offensive, then say they are offensive to you, not to women.

[KatieHal]

Anita goes into this topic exactly in her Lego videos, but those have been linked, so I'll link instead to one of the sources she gives on her blog who can perhaps explain this better than I.

"Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?"

At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature: the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them. So blithely indulging — let alone exploiting — stereotypically gendered play patterns may have a more negative long-term impact on kids' potential than parents imagine. And promoting, without forcing, cross-sex friendships as well as a breadth of play styles may be more beneficial. There is even evidence that children who have opposite-sex friendships during their early years have healthier romantic relationships as teenagers.

(This being but one quote that gets into the topic in the article)

[crayauchtin]

and yet those products exist because they sell

so again: why does their existence bother you so much? Nobody is forcing you to get them, but if they do exist then it's because there is a market for it

Are you serious, Stika?
Did you miss the part where each and every one of those products is roughly twice as expensive versus it's "male" counterpart? Because it is pink and because it is marketed to females.

If that doesn't strike you as sexist, I'm going to give you a newsflash: you are being blinded by your own privilege. Take. The. Blinders. Off.

Now, on to other reasons why it's sexist to market something exclusively to girls and something else exclusively to boys:
-what happens if a boy likes the girl product?
-what happens if a girl likes the boy product?
If you answered "nothing", congratulations, you've built an impenetrable bubble for yourself. If you answered, "ridicule, even in adulthood", congratulations, you're paying attention. But not quite enough attention.

Let me tell you a short, true story about someone named Willie Houston. Willie's fiance asked him to hold her purse while she entered a restroom. At about the same time, his blind friend, Melvin, asked if he could be escorted to the men's restroom. Willie obliged.
And for this, Willie was shot dead at point blank range by someone who thought he was too effeminate to be a real man.

Now, imagine for a moment: you're a man, and you would like to drive a pink car. What do you think happens to you? I'm not saying you'll get shot for it -- but I guarantee, guarantee your car will get keyed within a week of owning it. Tires will probably end up slashed. Did I mention the general ridicule?

The products aren't the problem, stika. The marketing is what's sexist.

[Blackthorne]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hillaryreinsberg/steakhouse-offers-womens-cuts-of-beef

Ah, Brazil!


Sure, the marketing is sexist - but they're selling the stuff.  Ladies LOVE it.

Bt

[KatieHal]

I also want to add that this is obviously a topic that can get heated and divisive and, obviously, can be offensive to some people (even while others think it may not be). So for one and all, take this gentle reminder to be respectful in the discourse here.

[stika]

Anita goes into this topic exactly in her Lego videos, but those have been linked, so I'll link instead to one of the sources she gives on her blog who can perhaps explain this better than I.

"Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?"

At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature: the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them. So blithely indulging — let alone exploiting — stereotypically gendered play patterns may have a more negative long-term impact on kids' potential than parents imagine. And promoting, without forcing, cross-sex friendships as well as a breadth of play styles may be more beneficial. There is even evidence that children who have opposite-sex friendships during their early years have healthier romantic relationships as teenagers.

I think the problem with these sort of studies is the lack of certainty.
As for your link's main question: No, I don't think toys should be gender free, I think there should be gender toys, but I also think both kids and parents should have the right to choose what sort of toys they want to give to their children

Are you serious, Stika?
Did you miss the part where each and every one of those products is roughly twice as expensive versus it's "male" counterpart? Because it is pink and because it is marketed to females.

what about it?

If that doesn't strike you as sexist, I'm going to give you a newsflash: you are being blinded by your own privilege. Take. The. Blinders. Off.

Cute

Now, on to other reasons why it's sexist to market something exclusively to girls and something else exclusively to boys:
-what happens if a boy likes the girl product?

He buys it, what else?

-what happens if a girl likes the boy product?

She buys it, what else?

If you answered "nothing", congratulations, you've built an impenetrable bubble for yourself. If you answered, "ridicule, even in adulthood", congratulations, you're paying attention. But not quite enough attention.

really? I had male friends who had barbies, we didn't ridicule them.
My girlfriend practically grew up with 'boys' toys, she never told me anything about being ridiculed about it, in fact, guys thought she was awesome because she played DnD and because she loved games like Half-life

Maybe you're the blind one?

Let me tell you a short, true story about someone named Willie Houston. Willie's fiance asked him to hold her purse while she entered a restroom. At about the same time, his blind friend, Melvin, asked if he could be escorted to the men's restroom. Willie obliged.
And for this, Willie was shot dead at point blank range by someone who thought he was too effeminate to be a real man.

Now, imagine for a moment: you're a man, and you would like to drive a pink car. What do you think happens to you? I'm not saying you'll get shot for it -- but I guarantee, guarantee your car will get keyed within a week of owning it. Tires will probably end up slashed. Did I mention the general ridicule?

The products aren't the problem, stika. The marketing is what's sexist.

First example: I blame the guy who killed him, not the produacts or the marketing
Second example: what evidence do you have to support this? just a few years ago pink polo shirts were all the rage with men in my country, I didn't hear about anyone getting shanked for it

[Blackthorne]

True.  I know a lot of dudes who rock the pink polo shirts, with the collars "popped".

They're douchebags, yeah, but it's a popular "dude" thing, nonetheless, and no-one's calling these guys "sissies" or "ladies" for it.  They're just calling them douchebags, because they're generally useless, greasy doosh*-y dudes.


Bt

* originally bowdlerized by the forum filter.  Changed to reflect that, because having "d*****" in a sentence looks stupid.

[stika]

True.  I know a lot of dudes who rock the pink polo shirts, with the collars "popped".

They're douchebags, yeah, but it's a popular "dude" thing, nonetheless, and no-one's calling these guys "sissies" or "ladies" for it.  They're just calling them douchebags, because they're generally useless, greasy d*****-y dudes.


Bt

Bingo

[Deloria]

It does perhaps bear mentioning that Portugal likely does not have the same social problems or issues as a result of a hugely culturally and politically diverging population that much of the US is currently dealing with.

[crayauchtin]

Alright, I'mma try to be respectful but especially on this issue it's a little difficult for me.

So, let's see.
Your evidence is that you, personally, did not mock someone who had a Barbie as a child.
My evidence, aside from my personal experience, is a huge variety of news stories because I make a concerted effort to pay attention to human rights news.

I'm not saying, let's not charge the advertisers with Willie's murder. I'm saying, we have a society that is so engrained with misogyny that people literally die because of it. This video, for example, is only *some* of the people who died in 2011 and early 2012 because of the blatant misogyny of our society. And these are just people who died -- did you know in the same span of time, eight people were set on fire while alive for being gay or transgender?

Whether or not you personally buy into the stereotypes being shoved at us by advertisers in these examples, some people do. Enough people that, obviously, it's a serious problem. Any guy perceived as "effeminate" is bullied, at best -- even in adulthood. And while obviously people are responsible for their own actions, advertising that says "boys like this and girls like this" keeps that engrained in us.

Instead of having the "Floral Kiss" you could just add pink and white and brown to the colors the Ultrabook is available in. Instead of the Honda Fit She's (with a heart, not an apostrophe), they could just make the Honda Fit available in more colors. Instead of the "Bic for Her" they could just have a package with pink and purple pens and call it "Bic: Pink and Purple". That's not sexist -- and I can almost guarantee, the people who would buy them would probably be women primarily simply because of the sexism in our culture already. But at least it wouldn't be being contributed to.

[Say]

In your example, it's clear that the character is a woman simply because of the non-gender-ambiguous name "Linda."  What if the character's name was Chris or something else similar?  Would it not be prudent to let the reader or viewer know that the character is a woman when she is introduced?  Would that still be sexist?

If you must use "she" you automatically know the gender. And as someone with a name that nobody in any country I have ever been (4 so far), can EVER say correctly, just by looking at me they identify me as female. That is absolutely not a problem. So it doesn't even apply to real life.

When I've worked online, it has happened around 80% of the time with anyone that has met me that way, they call me Mister / Sir, and it happens only with english, because you've got no male/female words in a first person speech. But when someone else introduces me, there is absolutely no need to explain that "she" is "female", therefore there is absolutely no point or relevance in that whatsoever either.

I work in business and I think having a pool of 10k users and 100 employees on my team all over the country, sort of gives me confidence to say It has never been an issue in real life, either the states or other countries I've been.

This discussion reminds me of those people who are afraid to mention a person's skin color in a verbal description.  It's clearly an important detail in terms of recognizing the person (oftentimes the easiest way to recognize them), and yet for some reason, people are terrified to be seen as saying anything that might be taboo.  It's silly.

I can say Lambonius is a guy at POS forums. That is the most vague way to recognize you at all. Yet, if you say in person "He's the guy standing over there" that's not sexist, and it's crazy you'd even think it would be. Also, it's not a character description, that isn't even relevant to who you are.

"Lambonious. The guy standing over there"

This is just not as useful in most of everyday situations.

[crayauchtin]

True.  I know a lot of dudes who rock the pink polo shirts, with the collars "popped".

They're douchebags, yeah, but it's a popular "dude" thing, nonetheless, and no-one's calling these guys "sissies" or "ladies" for it.  They're just calling them douchebags, because they're generally useless, greasy doosh*-y dudes.


Bt

* originally bowdlerized by the forum filter.  Changed to reflect that, because having "d*****" in a sentence looks stupid.

But let me ask you this: who were those pink polos marketed at? Guys or gals?

Guys.

And so, again, I say the problem is not the product. The problem is the marketing.

[stika]

It does perhaps bear mentioning that Portugal likely does not have the same social problems or issues as a result of a hugely culturally and politically diverging population that much of the US is currently dealing with.

I'm afraid that's something I can't comment on.

As far as society in the US goes, I only know what the media (movies, TV, newscasts, etc.)

If I were to take everything at face value, I would likely end up with a  misrepresentation of what's it like to being American.

But let me ask you this: who were those pink polos marketed at? Guys or gals?

Guys.

And so, again, I say the problem is not the product. The problem is the marketing.

In this regard we agree, the marketing is the problem and if you were to call the marketing for the products you posted (the pink laptop, pen and whatnot) sexist, I would wholeheartedly agree with you

[Say]

* originally bowdlerized by the forum filter.  Changed to reflect that, because having "d*****" in a sentence looks stupid.

Maybe there's a reason why it's filtered, I believe 'douchebags' is still just as strong and offensive. I can understand you may disagree with the whole trend, however that doesn't give you the right to put it down just because you wouldn't buy it or use it.

[Blackthorne]

* originally bowdlerized by the forum filter.  Changed to reflect that, because having "d*****" in a sentence looks stupid.

Maybe there's a reason why it's filtered, I believe 'douchebags' is still just as strong and offensive. I can understand you may disagree with the whole trend, however that doesn't give you the right to put it down just because you wouldn't buy it or use it.

It has nothing to do with the shirt.  It has to do with the douchebags who wear them.  They could be wearing fuzzy hand-crocheted turtle sweaters.  They're still douchebags who happen to be wearing pink polos with collars popped.


Bt

[KatieHal]

If I were to take everything at face value, I would likely end up with a  misrepresentation of what's it like to being American.

That's exactly what we're saying happens with this 'for girls' marketing. Just take that sentence there and switch the word "American" for "woman."

[stika]

Alright, I'mma try to be respectful but especially on this issue it's a little difficult for me.

So, let's see.
Your evidence is that you, personally, did not mock someone who had a Barbie as a child.
My evidence, aside from my personal experience, is a huge variety of news stories because I make a concerted effort to pay attention to human rights news.

I'm not saying, let's not charge the advertisers with Willie's murder. I'm saying, we have a society that is so engrained with misogyny that people literally die because of it. This video, for example, is only *some* of the people who died in 2011 and early 2012 because of the blatant misogyny of our society. And these are just people who died -- did you know in the same span of time, eight people were set on fire while alive for being gay or transgender?

Whether or not you personally buy into the stereotypes being shoved at us by advertisers in these examples, some people do. Enough people that, obviously, it's a serious problem. Any guy perceived as "effeminate" is bullied, at best -- even in adulthood. And while obviously people are responsible for their own actions, advertising that says "boys like this and girls like this" keeps that engrained in us.

Instead of having the "Floral Kiss" you could just add pink and white and brown to the colors the Ultrabook is available in. Instead of the Honda Fit She's (with a heart, not an apostrophe), they could just make the Honda Fit available in more colors. Instead of the "Bic for Her" they could just have a package with pink and purple pens and call it "Bic: Pink and Purple". That's not sexist -- and I can almost guarantee, the people who would buy them would probably be women primarily simply because of the sexism in our culture already. But at least it wouldn't be being contributed to.

See, here's the thing. I'm not going to pretend that the world isn't sexist or racist, obviously it is and I am sad that this sort of thing can happen.

And, I do believe that the marketing for these products needs to be addressed as more often then not it turns out to be sexist, but I don't believe we should say... make all children's toys gender neutral, I also don't believe we should stop selling that pink mostly useless roadkit.

The moment you start taking away products in the name of gender equality, it'll most likely lead to resentment from those who enjoyed said products.

If my parents suddenly stopped buying me Batman toys (I was a huge batman as a kid... hell I still am) and instead only bought me gender neutral toys, chances are I'd end up resenting them... heck I'd might have even ended up blaming girls.

One last point: charging extra for a pink colored pen, honestly, if that is the color that sells the most and if I were the CEO of the pen company, I'd probably do the same, that's just smart business, I wouldn't call it sexy (though again, the same can't be said for the marketing)

[crayauchtin]

In this regard we agree, the marketing is the problem and if you were to call the marketing for the products you posted (the pink laptop, pen and whatnot) sexist, I would wholeheartedly agree with you

......that IS what I said, stika. I have not, at any point, been trying to say a product is sexist. I've only been saying the marketing is.

Having a pink hair salon LEGO set is not sexist. Advertising it as a set "for girls" is.

[stika]

If I were to take everything at face value, I would likely end up with a  misrepresentation of what's it like to being American.

That's exactly what we're saying happens with this 'for girls' marketing. Just take that sentence there and switch the word "American" for "woman."

there's a difference though, I see and meet women everyday and most people have lived with at least one woman in their lives be it their mothers, wives, sisters, grandmothers, etc.

As a Portuguese citizen I only 'meet' Americans when talking to them on the forums, which is hardly the same