Harassment in gaming

[Caliburn101]

All 'image' based industries and associated advertising and media prey on the insecurities (much of it exaggerated or even generated BY the same industries) we have about our appearance.

Humans judge on appearance, and form a judgement within the first few seconds based on that. That's basic human psychology - not just something limited to women.

Both sexes indulge at some point or other, some individuals more than others, in arranging their appearance to be sexually appealing. The idea that this isn't true is one entirely based on self-deception.

Look at the digitally enhanced six-pack on the inevitable shirtless and oiled body builder on the cover of a men's 'health' magazine or the perfect shape, hair and photo-shopped unblemished skin of a woman on the front of a fashion magazine and join the dots...

The industries in question want us to feel inadequate unless we use their products and/or socially inferior if we can't sport a particular clothes label, designer look or trending hairstyle.

Nobody should be fooled by the representatives of such companies who spend vast sums re-spinning this as something 'positive and affirming'.

As for what this says about people who choose a career in it - anyone working in the fashion or related industries who doesn't know what a morally hollow occupation they are in is fooling themselves.

How 'beautiful' or 'masculine' do you think the vast number of wage slaves in the sweatshops employed at the ugly end of the glamour business feel?

Of course such companies always complain that 'they didn't know' and it's all so well hidden - but every time an investigative reporter goes to find out what is really happening, they find immoral and illegal all over the place within mere days.

The idea that the trained CSR auditors of such industries 'missed it' every time they did an audit is a insult to anyone's intelligence.

The idea that at a board room level the people running these industries don't see their customers in very much the same way as the wage-slaves they exploit is equally naïve.

Which brings me back to the point.

Being a 'fashion victim' isn't some kind of 'women only' label. Men are just as susceptible and in some cases less aware of their own weakness in this regard.

Anyway - I have to admit this development on this thread is somewhat tangential, but just about still relevant I guess.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wrong thread.

 

[MechaPilot]

This is not just true. I encourage you to research the subject. Heck, watch Downtown Abbey or the Devil Wear's Prada to get a sense of how what you are saying has no relation to reality.

You know that women are strongly represented in the beauty industry, right? Do you appreciate what you are saying about a woman who chooses a career in beauty or fashion?

If I want to be further educated about a topic, I cannot say that I would choose non-educational programming as my go-to source. Nova is a good place to learn the broad strokes of things (and they usually direct you to other more detailed sources at the end of the program). Downtown Abbey? Eh, not so much. To be perfectly blunt, I probably would not choose a television source at all.

Now it's not like I'm saying that people in the beauty industry are some kind of monsters. I'm sure some are, there's always some in every industry, but most are probably just average people. However, when your product's purpose is to enhance the beauty of the user, the best and easiest way to create demand for that product is to play on the natural insecurity people have about their appearance.

And it's not just the cosmetics and fashion industries. Look at gyms. They engage in the same marketing game of playing on our insecurities to sell memberships to men and women. They make men feel insecure about not having big muscles or not being completely ripped, and women feel bad about not being a size zero or not having a thigh gap you could drive a truck through. There's a gym in my area that specifically sells butt-enhancing training routines to women: they have posters split down the middle showing one cottage cheese butt cheek on the left, and one tight firm butt cheek on the right, and slogans like "what would you rather see in the mirror" and "don't let your booty be a bummer."

 

[Ancalagon]

My point upthread was that the moral obligation we have to fight against the harassment of women dwarfs that of making games more appealing to women, and one can support the first fight while actually having little interest in the latter.

I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that the vast majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to change that. You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a constitution.

I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.

I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them. I also support the creation of games that are unabashedly masculine in orientation and theme. I'm interested in playing those.

I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQIs. Especially when disagreeing with these changes is automatically considered tantamount to bigotry. That would be Social Justice Warfare in the original Gamergate context, for those unclear on what that phrase means.

I don't believe that reducing some of the sexism in the game would make it less appealing to men. Women like conquest and exploration and intrigue and combat too.

 

[MechaPilot]

My point upthread was that the moral obligation we have to fight against the harassment of women dwarfs that of making games more appealing to women, and one can support the first fight while actually having little interest in the latter.

I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that the vast majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to change that. You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a constitution.

I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.

I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them. I also support the creation of games that are unabashedly masculine in orientation and theme. I'm interested in playing those.

I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQIs. Especially when disagreeing with these changes is automatically considered tantamount to bigotry. That would be Social Justice Warfare in the original Gamergate context, for those unclear on what that phrase means.

Forgive me, but because you mentioned changes to the game itself, I have to ask what changes we're talking about.

Are we talking about the mechanics of the game? The last time that D&D changed a mechanic that specifically appealed to me as a woman and not just as a gamer with my own individual preferences was when they removed the Strength limitation on female characters.

Are we talking about the game explicitly mentioning that you can play transgendered or non-heterosexual characters? While I openly support the game making these welcoming and inclusive statements, I have to say that no DM is in any way forced by those statements to allow transgendered or non-heterosexual characters at her table; in the same way that no DM is required to allow an elf character to have green hair or gold eyes, despite that being mentioned as possibilities in the description of the elf race.

Beyond those two things, I am having difficulty coming up with parts of the game itself that seem like they were altered or added to appeal to specific audiences.

 

[Umbran]

I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that the vast majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to change that. You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a constitution.

Okay, so, you don't need to make a game appeal to women (or members of the LGBTQ community). How about other entertainments? TV? Movies? At what point does the failure to represent and appeal to women become, in effect, a message that women are not a group we should care about, which is in turn a statement that women (or others) are *less*?

This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary. Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?

 

[MechaPilot]

This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary. Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?

Putting even just a little more clothing on women in the art has, at least in my experience, made it easier to try to share my interest in the game with other women.

Back when I was playing AD&D 2e, I'd occasionally get into a conversation with another woman where I'd bring up having fun playing D&D with some friends, and then she'd be curious and ask me about it. Back then, there was a significant amount of art that included scantily-clad women. Frankly, it was kind of embarrassing to show the books to other women, and I always felt like I had to go the extra mile to justify why I liked the game.

 

[Hussar]

((Gack, step away from En World for a couple of days, wade through 60 pages in the other harassment thread only to find it locked at the end. LOL))

I find it absolutely baffling to be honest to think that anyone would think that not making your product more appealing to more people is a good idea. It's just good business. Is anyone going to stop buying D&D books because they have less chainmail bikinis it them? Maybe. But, I'm pretty willing to bet that the primary motivation for buying a PHB isn't to look at pinup art. That might be a reason, but, hardly the main one.

Yet, removing the pinup art, while maybe making the book less attractive to some potential customers, but still attractive since it is a D&D rule book, and making the book more attractive to people who may be far less likely to buy a book with a chainmail bikini on the cover, is just good business. Why wouldn't you do it?

This has little to do with pushing any sort of agenda and far more about bottom line. Companies want to make money. They will make more money removing pinup art than they will lose. That's the full argument in a nutshell. There aren't any other considerations really, not from a corporate point of view.

it's no different than coffee shops going non-smoking. Yup, you might lose the smokers. But, as history has nicely shown, the increase in volume (non-smokers don't stay as long as smokers, thus freeing up tables) more than makes up for it. So, virtually every coffee shop has gone non-smoking. Sure, you can paint it as a social issue all you like, but, the biggest reason all the restaurants have gone along with it is because they make a bucket full more money going non-smoking.

 

[dd.stevenson]

This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary. Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?

I think you may have previously banned this person from the thread?

This has little to do with pushing any sort of agenda and far more about bottom line. Companies want to make money. They will make more money removing pinup art than they will lose. That's the full argument in a nutshell. There aren't any other considerations really, not from a corporate point of view.

I think there's a bit more to it than that--most consumer-facing companies today are betting that their brands will benefit by adopting some of the trappings of progressivism, and wotc is certainly not an exception. Surely some companies see this as a localization issue, but I'd bet cold, hard cash that others--especially ones HQ'd in coastal US cities--are sincere to the point where they'd willingly deny themselves a reasonable amount of profit to stick with their ideals.

AFAIK, which camp WotC falls into is anybody's guess.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There have always been businesses willing to sacrifice money in order to stay true to their ideals, and there always will be. Make no mistake, though, they're not all "progressive" ideals.