-

He's talking about third wave feminist extremists that rant on tumblr/youtube/twitter with ill conceived opinions and nothing to back up their arguments that spout rape culture etc. It's more of a shorthand since it'd be insulting to a lot of people to call them feminists and would further misrepresent and/or harm real feminism.

 

It's up to you if you'd like to find it offensive. But he never said the opinions of "Feminazis" were wrong, but merely that they were unusual. Our human brains freak out when we see something unusual, which is why game designers like to stick to more well defined stereotypes about women. They want their players to feel comfortable and satisfied, not to question what is right or wrong.

 

I don't think I ever mentioned door opening. But now that you mentioned it...I like it when a man opens a door for me. However, in college I dated a guy from the south. Now, I am a Midwesterner and things are a bit different there. I was lucky to get a guy open the door for me and in fact, in college, I remember the first person who arrived at the door would open it and hold it open for others. Not in the south though. This particular guy HAD to open the door for me. In fact, if I got out of the car before he could open the door, he made me get back in the car. It was funny and cute, but really annoying!

Consideration and respect go both ways. Certainly, open the door for a woman. But if she jumps out of the car before you get a chance or she opens the door for you, go through it. Seems simple, but I live in the south now and there are still times I have door wars with perfect strangers, men that won't go through the door and insist on taking it from me. On a good note, my son does open the door for people, men and women. However my husband rarely opens the door for me. I still love him.

While I agree gender roles have changed over times, medieval women were not the damsels everyone thinks they were. In fact, they were pretty tough. The Victorians later created the medieval damsel who waited for the man to rescue her to suit their own particular cultural norms. Medieval women often owned businesses, especially ones like brewers and innkeepers. They ran castles in their husband's absences, and were in charge of entire towns, commanding the towns and castles during sieges since their husbands often had multiple castles or were off fighting somewhere. There were more laws protecting women during medieval times than during Victorian times. Yes, they had little choice in who they married, but they certainly took advantage of what they had. They were not subservient, they were instead living in a different time. We need to see it through a different lens.

And let us not forget the historical women who did wield great power, such as Queen Matilda (Maud), Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen Elizabeth, even Queen Emma, wife of Cnute. While these women may not have been physically fighting or wearing armor, they did have huge influence over their husbands and even more so, over their sons. Power lies in politics as much as in physical brawn.

Watch Terry Jones' Medieval Lives. If you making a game in a historical context, it is a great reference and a hoot. It destroys myths we have of those medieval people based on research. I have read other books that say pretty much the same thing and I find all that fascinating. Just like King Arthur came out of a different time than he supposedly lived, so did those subservient medieval women.

 

And yet they weren't able to vote until the 20th century ...

 

No, don't make games like Tetris and whatever. Make games that do make a statement. You can do that, and people will buy them.

I do agree that there are some that are derailing this thread and sorry if I am adding to it. I personally would love to see more games that would appeal to those niches of people who are not served well by the gaming community.

A couple of examples...I worked on a game that had a culture of people with dark skin. I happened to be the one who was developing that particular culture. I was surprised when an African American blogger wrote an article about my culture and how refreshing it was to see dark skinned people represented who were not evil drows or other bad guys. That meant a lot to me.

My daughters play very few games. One is a Minecraft addict and that is pretty much all she plays. That is a game that is very gender neutral. The game is inspiring her to learn Java so she can mod herself. Now that is the sort of game that young girls need.

My other daughter has tried a few games, one of the an MMO. Her first time playing, a group of guys started battling her and using a lot of really offensive language, I mean VERY offensive. She left the game and now has no desire to play MMOs. Yes, those are a few individuals and do not represent the entire game, but that is a problem in games today. Sometimes it is the players who create the issues with race and gender and not the game developer.

And finally, Star Wars Galaxies was a game that appealed very strongly to men and women, more than likely because it included both combat and non-combat roles. Rather than focus on gender, the game recognized that gamers enjoy different ways of playing games and it allowed them to take on roles such as dancer, image designer and cook along with combat roles. It made those roles crucial to the game as well so they were important.

It can be done.

 

A bewildering and hot topic with good arguments all round and some silly ones (from me included). I think that what we can take away from this is, that it's very easy to get the wrong idea about what someone else is trying to express.

Feminism simply means equality. That's probably why I don't think the word is a good one. If it means equality, why not say equality? because logically, you'll need manism and childism, and gayism and transism and all sorts of other isms. It's driving a wedge between us all by labelling us all.

So we are all human and respect tells us to treat one another equally, even if in many places we aren't equal. Therefore I think it boils down to common sense and trying to attack games or any other medium for portraying a fictional scenario that isn't exactly equal is damaging itself, because if everything is equal, nothing changes.

Treat each other with respect equally, but be as diverse as common sense allows with expression.

 

During medieval times, very few people could vote and most had no power at all.

As for later, yeah, men really did try to stop us from voting, didn't they? Do you know how women got the right to vote in the US? I highly recommend Iron Jawed Angels. It is a movie that illustrates the road to the vote for women in this country. I never knew how hard women fought or what they sacrificed. Wow. Watch it. It wasn't the weakness or subservience of women that took away their vote, but the fear of men during that time.

Prohibition was very much driven by women. So women took power from men by supporting politicians who supported prohibition and they won. That is a scary thing, a bunch of women with little education and who cared little about business and making money able to make decisions for men? And remember, women were a big part of the population at the time, just as they are now. I can understand that fear even if I don't agree with it.

People in power always try to hold on to their power, no matter who they step on. Look at the treatment of people in African and India during historical times. Power and fear....that is a huge part of the problem.

 

Cognitive dissonance overthrowing baked in notions is no reason to leave in a huff. Examine your reaction. Are you entrained to react the way you do or have you put a modicum of intellectual analysis into exactly why a descriptive metaphor of an extreme and vocal group who have hijacked the equality of females and which social trend was denoted through the slightly off base term feminism (as spoken to by hippocoder). You will find that this movement was funded by Rockefeller. Now ask yourself why would a patriarch of patriarchs use millions of his own money to establish a social trend, give it much media space, publish books that tell women to do their boss and forsake their husband to kick it off in the mid sixties.. Then note the wage trends whilst adjusting for inflation since then and the at least in America and Britain, the social and moral rot and the accompanying proxy wars for corporate commodities and you may ask yourself..have they duped us by turning the sexes against each other? What do they have against a family? Is a family's loyalty not to the state but to their blood perhaps? Why is it OK to start a twitter campaign #KillAllMen? If men did that they would be crucified publicly and your type of mindset would assist whilst nary a bark would come from your camp to crucify the feminazi's in that twitter bashfest. There were many good women chiming in who understand men who defended our sex and many young women are onto the plot. There is hope.

 

Just use aliens and it should be fine

 

I think that while some of Sarkeesian's points are valid, that you should remember that Feminist Frequency does have a, well, feminist slant. As a rule, it's more aggressive in positively portraying women than 90% of our audience even conciously considers. That doesn't mean the criticisms have no value, just that it's worth taking them with a grain of salt.

If you really wanted to make Sarkeesian's day you could make a game with a matriarchal society, similar to the Drow in R.A. Salvatore's Forgotten Realm works (namely, The Legend of Drizzt.) And, the idea has some merits, because I know a lot of people who find the Drow to be extremely interesting as a society (and not just because they're a race of villains who worship a super-demon.)

Ultimately, though, you're worrying about it too much. Start with a story, and pitch it to some of the women in your life, and ask them in what ways it can be improved. If they feel that a female character is too cliche, or is in too secondary of a position, they'll let you know. In fact, many men might say something like, "the Princess gets kidnapped again? Isn't that a little overdone by now?"

TL;DR - Seek feedback from many people if you want something to appeal to more people. Also, critically think about things you see on the Internet, and be mindful of biases. Everyone has one.

 

There are extremists in any group. The vast majority of women are not extreme feminists. When people focus on the extremists and use them as an example of a group's agenda, they are missing the point. Besides, this isn't about understanding men, it is about equality for all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity or race. It is a political and socioeconomic issue, not a psychological one. I feel sorry for people who feel the need to attack one group to somehow make themselves feel powerful. It is NOT okay to start a Twitter campaign #KillAllMen and I doubt many think it is okay. Just cause it happens doesn't mean it is condoned by the majority of people. These women who are condoning this are probably a very small number compared to the number of women over all. Hyperbole just gives these small minorities more power than they deserve.

There are things to worry about that affects us as a whole rather than dividing us into parts.

 

The problem is that not many people are calling them out on it. There's not a whole lot of giant media circles condemning it...and when you get real feminists that call them out on it like Christina Sommers they're harassed.

Flip it around and the situation would be very different, no doubt.

These people are ruining feminism, why haven't they been shut out yet?

 

ha... ha... ha... no. If you think human gender issues are a clusterfuck, just wait until you sink into the quagmire that is an alien species with seven sexes.

 

Most people are ignoring them. They are really not doing that much damage, just talking and ranting. Honestly, the more attention you give to attention-seeking groups, the more important they become. So what? They make some nasty Twitter accounts? A few videos? Some PhD. Thesis here or there?

It is so easy to ignore Twitter and Facebook and all that stuff. I do it every day. I ignore my ranting Liberal and Conservative friends who find danger in every conspiracy theory out there. I have feminist friends, but none of them are extreme and most of them ignore the angry "man haters". I don't even know any man haters myself. In fact, most of the women I know are married, were married, or are dating someone....or looking to date someone, so I don't think they hate men.

Most of the men I know could care less about these groups and in fact many of them call themselves feminist, but not because they agree with your Twitter making gals, but because they promote equality.

Why are you afraid? They are just words and ideas and in a free society, we exchange ideas. They have no power. If they did, we would have equal pay for women. Date rape would not be something politicians debate. We would have no need to fight for health care for women. Viagra would be attacked as much as birth control. Breastfeeding in public would be common and not surprising. Domestic violence would not be hidden and ignored. The military would not need to be investigated for sexual assaults.

And if they really had power, you guys would already be the submissive damsels, not us. LOL Because you know, there are more women in the US than men.

 

Still don't know why the term feminist exists. Isn't it really just equality? That's my understanding of feminism. If it's more then please help me understand it

 

That's not the worst of it. You're going to need to explain said alien biology to viewers, especially how the birds and the bees (or, since this is aliens, the Qxirnab'l and the Veq'uiz'erei) work.

As defined in the Wikipedia, Feminism is about obtaining equal rights for women.

This can be easily confused with isolated aspects of Feminist Theory, some of which consider men's societal roles, and the stigmas that exist against men exhibiting more traditionally feminine traits, and establish that women's social equality could be more easily achieved by allowing men to not be as confined to typical masculine traits/qualities, thus reducing some of the resistance of "the patriarchy" to women achieving greater rights.

(For a time, I actually attempted to debate with more hardcore feminists, which is why I explored these things. Of course, partway through, I hit upon the realization that reasonble argument cannot succeed against someone who is reasonably extreme, for the same reasons that reasonable argument cannot succeed against an idiot - they can't and won't admit that any of their arguments or ideas are flawed. This is why I refuse to directly engage a hardcore feminist in debate, it won't go anywhere. It's unwise, and leads to flame wars. So, we should really get back to working on our games.)

 

Hippocoder, don't forget that when the word came into fashion, women were woefully behind men. It was actually coined by a man in 1837.

It began in the 19th century, women fought for the promotion of equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women, issues that most men would support today. Later, the term was used for the Suffragettes, who fought for the right to vote. Do you realize that in some countries that right was not won until the mid-20th century? Swiss women did not get the right to vote until 1971! I come from Swiss descent and have relatives there! Amazing.

You must realize that during the early part of the 20th century, women had few rights. Men had more rights than they did when it came to their children and husbands even had rape exemptions! A man could abuse his wife and the law would side with him. So those early feminists were amazing women who really did help make life better for me and my daughters.

There is still much to achieve such as equal pay and more protection for abused women (and other abused segments of our society), and in women health care which is woefully behind men, so the word feminism is still relevant. However, the extremists have given feminism a bad name. I consider myself a feminist as way of honoring the people who fought for our basic rights. Because of them, I can vote, I can divorce my husband (not that I want to do that), I can make decisions about my children, I can own property, I can hold pretty much any job a man has if I am qualified, and there are laws that protect me if my husband abuses me (which he doesn't.)

It is not the word that is bad. It is how you interpret the word. There are people who see the words god, patriot, teenager, and a myriad of other words as negative but that is just semantics. Best to think about the history behind a word rather than just dismiss it outright because of culturally attached negatives.

 

Also, feminism is a really broad movement and getting two feminists to agree on anything can be really hard. Arguing about the whole of feminism because some feminists hold really stupid views means you really build yourself a nice strawman.

That's one of the reasons why I have trouble with terms like "Feminazi" (other reasons being, obviously, that comparing other people to Nazis is a really bad way of doing discussions).

 

Feminism is (mostly) about equal rights for women, not other ethnic/gender/social/religious groups. So no, it's not really just equality. There are other movements for other matters that are in need of equality: to each its own, and that's the only way.

Let me derail and exaggerate a little... To tip a scale and reach equality you can't add an equal weight: first you have to push heavy on the opposite side, then and only then you can try to find some balance. Take the French revolution: it was about freedom fraternity and equality, but it was full of assholes, not much equality, not much fraternity and went to great extremes. Still, it was the only way to tip the scale and find the modern balance (kindof )

 

Also, you can not talk about achieving equality without talking about which groups are not treated equal.

 

I have tried for years to nail down that slippery definition. First it is this..then this is compared in a logical analogy and it becomes that, then it morphs again once the principle format is applied to other scenarios that paint the latest morph in a not too equalistic light. It often reaks of a manifesto for the chosen dis-including approximately 50% of the population. Feminism as a conceptual social movement engineered and propagandized by the elite patriarchs is part a Hegelian Dialect gambit. Females are the equals of males like the yin is equal to the yang. They are not the equivalent. It takes two to tango..The purpose is obscured but some good ole Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple detective work we can sniff out the plot by the results at the crime scene..so to speak..

 

I agree, but each group has their own issues. Women have a great deal more equality than some ethnic groups, yet women in those ethnic groups are also dealing with gender inequality. Women who who are not heterosexual deal with issues that a heterosexual woman does not, such as the right to her children if her partner dies. Equally important but different.

 

Ironically, the man who coined the word feminism was a French Utopian and philosopher. He was a supporter of women's rights. I am intrigued and would like to find out more about him.

 

Reinforce stereotypes that women are inferior to men? That would depend on your value system and why most people, men or women, do find plenty of nice activities that don't involve TV or computers. As typically the weaker sex, women have long tried to solve problems without violence but with creativity. With modern weapons physical strength doesn't matter much anymore so maybe it's best to reevaluate value systems and what is inferior and superior. Nothing reveals how lame hyper masculine behavior is then a woman exhibiting such behavior. Of course, in war, rational men don't behave in the way they are portrayed in Hollywood because it isn't anything to be happy about.

Traditionally men have been treated as unnecessary if you have one, the others aren't needed and so sent off to die in wars so that 'one superior male' can assert his supremacy over other men and women they don't rule over yet. Can you say greed and narcissism?

The big lie is that those men sent off in wars are made superior to women by virtue of having been sent off to war or virtue of suffering. Suffering is not a virtue and isn't something should ever be willfully created. No, that's what you're told so you'll go off raiding to steal the resources and land of others for that one superior male. They are promised things like 72 virgins in heaven, immortality of heroism, and so on.

Uh, right. How about this one superior male just give justice and good morals like the type they proclaim to be the law of the land, like, right now, and for the rest of our lives? They don't even have to make new laws they just have to enforce the ones on the books in the here and now and treat people within the confines of those laws. Why ask of any of us to violate the morals that they proclaim to be law of the land with a promise we'll get those morals later? Uh, no, we want good morals with each and every decision, now. Every step of the way for everybody. The end.

 

Do we really need to go down the rabbit hole of bad/defunct terminology? It's bad enough that there are arguments about what "game" means/should mean as far as a genre/medium debate goes, do we need to throw in feminist to the pot?

I don't think I would go that far, but I don't think most would disagree that the casual usage of feminism has been co-opted to include more female supremacist overtones and is much less about equality and empowerment. It's much easier to rile people up for a cause like equality when you have an entire mountain to climb, but not when it's more like getting to the top of a hill when you are already two-thirds up it.

 

I have asked a question, not rendered any judgement. I believe the answers would help me learn what feminism is actually supposed to be. So far, a lot of feminists online have said it merely means equality. But others aren't saying that.

Regardless, I feel a woman is best positioned to answer these questions, so that is why I ask instead of assume.

 

Feminism is supposed to be a movement that fights for the rights of women. Easy as that.

And yeah, those rights include equality (in the political system, in the system of justice et cetera) and it's quite an important point, I guess.

 

If someone saying "angry white dude" offends you so greatly, you should thank the high heavens that you're not one of the many groups that angry white dudes have oppressed throughout the centuries. Trust me, they generally use much nastier words than "angry white dude".

 

In theory. But if you re-read the first post, I think you'll find that the author is most definitely not saying he wants to create a game that will help give Anita Sarkeesian more power while taking away his own.

 

I still fell like this is a strawman discussion about how it is supposedly impossible to make good games that still are "sarkeesian-compliant".

 

I just don't think entertainment is where energy should be focussed when there's real issues of women being oppressed. If anything, it's the last place to worry when there's women being beaten, burned and killed for being second-class citizens. I'd rather spend my money and time on awareness of real issues like that.

 

To draw parallels to a subject I am much more qualified to speak on, people's use of the term feminist isn't that far off from people's use of the term anarchist.

If I grab any schmuck off the street and ask what they think anarchists are like, chances are their definition will pretty much be a synonym for terrorist. Feminism would more than likely yield opinions more along the lines of a female supremacist, putting women ahead of men.
Now ask an anarchist what he views anarchism as, and chances are they will view it as establishing a world in which people are free and independent with collectives established purely for the betterment of man, where the goal of life isn't to toil and get by but to self-empower yourself and others into beings worthy of the term human, in essence becoming (to use another highly co-opted and misunderstood word) an ubermensch. Chances are a self-identifying feminist will see parallels to that statement, as they should, because the feminist movement started from a perversion of the anarchist movement/philosophy.

 

I agree. I sense 95% feminist-bashing and bro-hugs, 5% interest in figuring out how to get people to agree that current games are "neutral", and 0% interest in making a game that feminists might actually like.

As must always be pointed out in every discussion about everything ever, people can care about multiple things at the same time.

 

He was asking about making gender neutral games, not about solving women's issues through games. Somehow, we were derailed. I think feminism is the cause of derailment. Those pesky women!

 

Also, hippocoder, if you actually want to learn what the word feminism means, I'd suggest starting with wikipedia rather than asking a bunch of mostly male game developers in a thread about how dumb feminists are.

 

I would think the whole point of a "gender-neutral" game would be that people who are NOT 14 year old hetero males would like it, rather than making a 14 year old hetero male feel like he is playing a game that supports equality.

 

Exactly. Why not leave out the rescuing the damsel in distress? It has been done a million times. In fact, while rescuing the princes is fine in a game, are there not newer ideas? How about rescuing a princess who is not really helpless and doesn't need to be rescued? How would she react? What if the damsel rescues the knight? How about a female knight who rescues the male scholar in distress? Or even better, forget the rescuing and put in some interesting story that is fresh and exciting.

You don't need to make a game that "supports equality" whatever that would look like....hmmm. Instead think about taking out some of the stereotypes of men, women, races, etc., and turning them around. Again, fresh and original.

 

I'd bet Sarkeesian already knows about drow and probably isn't that huge a fan. The drow are basically set up to be the embodiment of everything men fear about feminism: the women take over and turn men into slaves and all of society become a living hell. They're interesting villains, but they are definitely not the poster children for feminism. Feminists spend most of their time trying to prove that they are not a bunch of drow matrons.

This I agree with 100% though. You need to figure out if you want to design a game that appeals to women, or whether you're trying to design women that your game appeals to.

 

Despite the abundance of naked women, Game of Thrones seems to me to be something of a model of inclusiveness in terms of diversity of characters in major roles, many non-stereotypical relationships, and general complexity and ambiguity. It appeals to a very wide audience too.

 

I absolutely agree, Christina. I read the books but am much more impressed by the TV show.

 

...which only goes to show that inclusiveness does not mean we can't have good-looking women in scanty clothing anymore but rather that we might have to look at scantily clad men from time to time in exchange. Doesn't seem too bad to me.

 

Sort of like how Link got a shirtless scene in Twilight Princess, or Kaim Argonar in Lost Odyssey had backless armor. The ladies need fanservice just as much as we guys do.

 

Actually, that's the plot in the other brothers. The damsel you're supposedly rescuing isn't actually even female (or male).

 

You can do that, but the pay back won't be as big as the scantily clad females. You won't draw as many women to a game avatar without a shirt as you will a man to a game with big bazookas in a bikini. My male gamer friends tell me that if they have to play a game, they want to look at something nice. My female friends tell me...my boyfriend plays, or my husband, or my kid, or I can decorate my house, or I can play a tough brawny fighter woman/man with powerful armor, or I can be a mage, or whatever. Or the most common...I have lots of friends that play (if it is an MMO or multiplayer).

One big mistake people make is assuming that one can market to women the same way as men, just change around the object of attraction. But that isn't the case really. While Daheb's young Aussie girls might like that, I doubt it will have a big impact when choosing a game over other features.

Watch some ads on TV. Commercials market to women by playing up family, beautiful women in nice clothes and make-up (because we all want to be beautiful and thin), independence (the powerful successful woman), relaxation (time away from the kids), and romance (knight sweeping us away, not rescuing us, but...well, use your imagination.). Now, maybe that knight has his shirt off but it isn't the body that makes us go "Awww!", it is the romance, the magic, the fantasy.

I will tell you that I played Morrowind for a while and the only reason I stayed with it is because I found a bunch of romance mods made by a female modder. They were amazing and I loved them. They were not about physical sex, but about a guy (you play the guy) who meets a young woman with a mystery. He does everything for her to win her affection. The mods were very popular...and honestly, I am embarrassed to say I enjoyed them! Can't find a blushing smiley.

Lots of women like the same thing men like, excitement, unexpected results, interaction, community, challenge, pretty graphics, using words and pictures to make puzzles, stories, etc.

 

Teila, I can't tell you how long I've been looking for advice on things that women typically like in games, to the extent that you've written. Thank you, so much. I feel this to be incredibly useful advice.

 

Wow, my first point I guess I totally missed the direction of this topic. I thought it was a just sort of a design challenge experiment.
@Teila makes some great points. A friend of mine is an advocate for women in games and is on the board of one the largest of those organizations. As designer, she is often asked "what do women want in games?" or "what would make games more attractive to women?" Her response is usually the same... "Quality." I love it.
--
Our game has a Princess. But she was already rescued in events leading up to the time our game takes place. And she in charge, and one of the powerful heroes in the game.

Of course, our Princess is a badass.

 

Not nearly as long as I waited for someone to ask! Thank you!

No problem, glad to help.

BTW, my favorite game of all time is The Longest Journey. I was so immersed in that game and was sad when it was over. No other game, not even the sequel held me enraptured like that one did. Not only did it let me have some influence over the character and her interaction with the other characters in the game, but it told an amazing story. I would give it to my girls but it doesn't play well on modern computers. I think they would love it too.

I hope you make lovely games.

 

Really?? You'd be surprised how many average untrained guys think they could beat Ronda Rousey (the current women's UFC champ who weighs 135 lbs) in a fight. If you don't believe me, ask your male circle of friends (in a serious way, so you get a serious answer) and see what they say.

Anyway, the whole point of my post was that there is no reason to think that putting a kick-ass female protagonist in a game is in any way "pandering" or unrealistic compared to having a kick-ass male protagonist.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Some (perhaps extremist) feminists seem to want to elevate the rights of females even at the expense of males. In other words, have their cake and eat it too. Here are a couple of trivial examples, but it's just to make a point:

Feminists who want equal pay for women (which is equality) but at the same time expect the man to pay on first dates or be called cheap (which isn't equality).

Or feminists who want to be able to sign up as a combat soldier, IF they choose (which is equality), yet not require all women to have to sign up for conscription, as men do (which isn't equality).

In other words, have equality when it benefits them, and inequality when it benefits them. True equality means both men and women treated exactly the same, and have the same expectations. But even that is problematic, because, as many have pointed out on this thread, men and women are physiologically different -- men are larger and stronger on average, and women get pregnant and men don't.

So... is there a way for both to be treated differently in terms of roles and expectations, yet still have the exact same level of respect accorded to them? "Same level of respect" would cover things like equal pay for equal work, but the recognition of gender differences would allow for men having different things expected of them than women.

Sigh. Anyway, it's a complicated issue, lol.

 

considering the game "link to the past" .. the zelda game for SNES...
in the dark world, you go around rescuing like.. 7? 8? women from dungeons...
they are not sexualized, they are not a love interest..
... and actually.. zelda isnt even a love interest in that game is she? i dont think so... maybe she kisses link for a second? but its like a sign of gratuity.. not sure...i think shes just some girl you save because "its the right thing to do in the situation portrayed" .. i cant recall her ever being a real love interest..

i had always thought that it was giving the impression that a man should protect women, should respect women.... honestly, as a child playing the game, i think it Did influence me to desire to protect/respect women..... i understood the value of the game in that regard even as a child..
actually.. i will say, had i not played such games, id likely be .. at least a little less respectful of women

for the game to give the impression to males to protect women, it is really fighting the problem that feminism aims to fight aswell..

really.. the way to give equality to women, is to appeal to men in a way that portrays you should protect and respect women. .. right?

.. now... i dont understand how portraying a woman as a "damsel in distress" is exclusively a negative thing??
.. only that a girl gamer would prefer to be a girl rescuing men?? .. or collecting riches instead maybe??.. that, girls should be the hero more often?, sure!! .. but.. i think the value i said above outweighs the negatives...
----
as for neutrality... animal protagonists?
games where you can pick what the protagonist is/ looks like... like morrowind/ skyrim

 

Wow...

You can respect women without "protecting" them. Protecting some one from harm should be something you do for everyone, regardless of gender. You take the keys away from a friend after he/she has been drinking too much regardless of whether it a gal or a guy, right? You are there for your friends if they need you. Right?

What is not respectful is assuming that women need protection, that we can't take care of ourselves. Most of us can't beat up a guy unless we are well trained, but hey, we have other ways to keep ourselves safe. Like everyone else, we could use the helping hand of a friend. But we don't like to be considered weak and in need of protection. Most of us don't need they guy to step in and fight our battles for us. I have been in that situation, and trust me, it was neither respectful or pleasant.

As for equating equal pay to paying for a first date? What? LOL Sorry, but the person who asks should pay for the date. So if a girl asks you out, she should pay. If you don't want to pay, wait until she asks you out. Besides, if she is paid fairly maybe she won't mind paying for the date and she might take you to a nice restaurant! If a guy always pays for the date, that is his choice. If the girl expects it, it is because the guy always pays for the date. Easy one.

ALWAYS portraying females as helpless is a bad thing. Young girls should be brought up to be strong and independent with the ability to take care of themselves emotionally and financially. They should have that security in case things change in life. I think most dads' would agree with me on that one. So by portraying strong confident young women, we send a message to these young girls. We also send a message to young men.

If the girls portrayed in games, TV, and films are always helpless, then it is very disrespectful to women. We are not all helpless and we don't have to be helpless to appeal to men. This is important in a society where our media helps to shape how one sees themselves. Just as we don't want our girls to think they have to be super thin to be attractive, we don't want them to think they have to resemble that damsel in distress. Have your damsels if that is important to you but balance it with a strong female character that isn't evil in the game.

As for conscription into the army, well, that shouldn't happen anyway, right? And if it does, yes women should be conscripted. Might be a good thing actually. How many dads will be eager for their daughters to fight wars? Actually, it is coming, I am sure. In the US women can go into combat now and my guess is that will change even more eventually. Culturally, women didn't fight. They stayed home and had babies to re-populate the world with the remaining men after the war. But that isn't so much an issue anymore and there are plenty of women who want the benefits of the military life. Not this woman...but those that want it should share the dangers with the men. Remember though, in our wars and between wars there were plenty of women who put their lives in danger, as nurses in combat areas, as intelligent agents, and at home as police officers and Federal agents. There are a lot of women who feel as you do.