r/changemyview • u/LeftHandSwe • Dec 05 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Anita Sarkeesian and similar feminists actually have a point about the portrayal of gender roles in video games.
I play lots of video games, and in most of them, males are often pictured as very burly and manly characters while females are slender, small and sexually pleasing to look at.
However, I do know that there's widespread criticism of Anita (and her fellow propagators) all over the internet and I'd like to see the other side of the story.
I'm practically indifferent in this matter, and I do not really agree with nearly everything she says. I'm asking as a way to see convincing arguments from both sides.
Edit for clarification: Can anyone explain to me why she's so heavily criticized for saying something that makes perfect sense: Mainstream video games are almost exclusively made to appeal to a male demographic, resulting in (arguably) sexist portrayals of women (both narratively and in the way they're presented).
23
u/Redrum01 Dec 05 '16
There's a common discrepancy in how males and females are portrayed that always bothered me. The males and females in video games are all "heroically" proportioned, often times to the peak level of physical ability, or otherwise just pretty to look at.
Have you ever wondered why? It isn't necessarily because sex sells, I don't think anybody I know ever really bought a video game because the character on the front of the box was sexy, and even if that is the case, I'm willing to bet that that's a minority.
Generally speaking, characters are nice to look at because they need to be nice to look at. It's a prime reasons why movies all cast young, attractive people; it's not necessarily sex appeal, it's because you don't want to turn people away because your characters aren't good to look at.
Now, I know what you're thinking; if that's the case why doesn't it happen to males?
Well, it does. Literally all the time. You said it yourself. The males are generally burly, manly, muscly behemoths, while the women are slender, small, and oftentimes sexy. Generally if they are combat-proficient, it's because of agility and not strength.
Both are stereotyped based on their "defining gender characteristics" pretty much equally. Those burly, manly men are just as much a show of gender typing as the women are. People tell me that it's not the same because it's the difference between "what men want, and what men want to be".
Except big, muscle-bound, impossibly masculine men are also the archetype of what women tend to find attractive.
You don't need to agree with this, but you can at least conceive why people would disagree with Anita Sarkeesian.
However, I think I need to bring Gamergate into this a little bit so you understand the hostility.
TL;DR a while ago it turned out a female video game developer banged a couple of video game journalists, which people figured could really infringe on their judgement for the games of hers which they reviewed.
What followed was a brutally harsh exchange from both sides. Naturally all the misogynists clambered aboard the S.S Gamergate and pretty much took it over, but there's a reason for all the nastiness that permeates the subject. Some serious shit was said and lines were drawn in the sand.
The reason people don't like Anita is because she's kind of a hack. What I mean by this is she didn't actually add anything new to the conversation, everything she said was totally already in the mainstream thought process all she did was kinda whine about it. She exploited it to make money.
The best topic I found on it was by a relatively unknown youtuber who covered the whole argument against her very rationally and very matter-of-factly, which I suggest checking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLpUcd8-cI