Tropes vs Women in video games

[Skykid]

Women aren't predestined by their genes to be subservient to men, do housework and be materialistic airhead parasites

Sorry Hagane, no-one said anything of the sort. You've taken the argument light years out of context and returned it in a rude and accusatory envelope. By discussing core instincts of both men and women, no-one implied women belong in sexist gender roles. You should take that back, frankly.

Also, Christianity can be considered a cause of social pressure and indoctrination that affects both sexes equally - the point being there are a myriad of different archetypes we're all conditioned to fit into in our daily lives, it's not a singular global issue that solely affects women (the very notion of which would be sexist.)

[Hagane]

no-one implied women belong in sexist gender roles.

Sorry, but saying that women naturally need the "protection" of men and that they are genetically predisposed to be materialistic, for example, is exactly that. Not that I blame you or system11 and maybe you don't realize it as that kind of reasoning is firmly ingrained in our society, but it's insulting (and false).

Also, Christianity can be considered a cause of social pressure and indoctrination that affects both sexes equally - the point being there are a myriad of different archetypes we're all conditioned to fit into in our daily lives, it's not a singular global issue that solely affects women (the very notion of which would be sexist.)

Of course, men are also conditioned by social pressure. That's why we are supposed to provide for our family (it's OK for a woman to not work, but if a man doesn't work he's lazy), we are supposed to get laid a lot (otherwise you are either a loser and / or not masculine; if a woman gets laid a lot she's a slut) and so on. That doesn't mean that those behaviors are OK, natural or a genetic predisposition, it's just what society thinks it's common or desirable at a certain time frame.

Just like it was common to think that women didn't really need education since they were inferior to men and only needed to do housework and have babies, or that blacks were inferior for genetic reasons and thus destined to serve whites. Do you see what this kind of naturalization leads us to?

[Squire Grooktook]

I don't think genes are really strong enough to "drive" anyone. I think with genes it's more a matter of being "inclined" or "influenced", but not beyond being able to turn out a completely different way through upbringing or personal experience and conviction.

Only thing I'd call a drive are the more tangible, hormone and sex drive related things. But still, just being a man doesn't mean you have to be a sex fiend, and just being a woman doesn't mean you have to crave motherhood. There are lots of men who are celibate/waiting for marriage, and lots of woman who have no interest in having children.

[Minzoku]

Thought I was gonna avoid this discussion, but then I saw the last odd posts and figured I should contribute [possibly to no benefit, but I tried]...

The components are ill thought-out: Why Zelda, of all examples to choose? She's always been a female character of strength and personality, unlike your average Princess floozy, and an exception to the rule.

Actually, I was in a chat where they were discussing the opposite: Zelda is merely a princess to be rescued, until she becomes Sheik and can slip out of the castle... but only as long as she's Sheik/Tetra/whatever other aliases. After the costume's off, it's back to comparable uselessness. [This was in a chat for a dude Livestreaming his Link/Zelda gender-swapped video game idea, fwiw]

And where's Final Fight? You can take a dig at Mario and Zelda, but when it comes to Jessica's hostage plea, stripped to her bra and paraded in-front of her father, insinuating that she's been the victim of some sexual molestation or even rape, it doesn't even register.

I find it interesting that you* complain about her poor writing and research, complain about her campaign where she asks for money to do better research, then complain that she misses something in the course of her decision to buy a thousand games AND play them all AND make a video series a year later. Why are you not acting as a consultant if you're so concerned about improving the quality of her videos?

*I kinda breezed through this thread, so it's more a collective you than you specifically, SkyKid

Finally, the theme itself - damsels in distress - really feels like a moot point in 2013, and a moot point full stop, primarily because the argument ignores its simplicity as a plot device, and the fact the chivalrous behaviours - protecting the safety, honour and wellbeing of a female victim - is a component that has helped women's rights to be liberated to the point they're at today.

Simplicity was more of a valid excuse back in the Donkey Kong era where there just wasn't space for a billion cut scenes. Why should you bother chasing this giant gorilla up a partially-constructed building? To rescue Pauline. Okay. What's the excuse for Super Mario Bros. Wii? Instead of the SMB2 formula where you have Mario, Luigi, Toad, and Peach, why two Toads? "The Mushroom Kingdom is in danger!" is enough if you want to Keep It Simple, Stupid--why the regressive relegation of Peach to needing rescue?

I don't really understand how you think it's a moot point when it's clear that this kind of dismissive sexism is still occurring, and for really no reason except laziness and/or to satisfy some [possibly subconscious, but still lazy] male supremacist instinct. A good line about this comes from an unrelated article, 5 Ways You're Accidentally Making Everyone Hate You:

You didn't perceive yourself as being in a position of power because that is the main advantage of power -- that you don't have to think about it. You don't think about money when you're eating at a restaurant. But you sure as fuck think about it when you're too poor to eat.

When you aren't the one whose demographic is being constantly portrayed as useless/moe, of course you might think that it's Not A Thing anymore, just like how racism is totally Not A Thing anymore [FILTHY LIES].

Sometimes when it comes to modern feminism (or at least the Internet variety) I feel like I'm caught between angry assholes and angry assholettes. You wouldn't believe some of the ill-concieved garbage my acquaintances post on Facebook sometimes. And that's being pretty charitable.

How Internet Fighting Works

the problem with this woman is that she's using a bunch of "assholettes" as someone said here to scam the majority of feminists on the internet.

If that wasn't enough, she's scamming so much people by presenting videogames in a biased and incomplete view. This will be seen not only by gamers but also by non-gamers and the consequences will bunpredictable but probably negative for gaming.

I also dislike that she received over 150 thousand dollars to produce a show of comparable quality to other programs that are done out-of-pocket by other youtube personalities. Why does she need this much money to point out an obvious, ongoing weakness of the gaming industry? What is all of that money being used for, besides making Sarkeesian wealthy?

Kickstarter is totally transparent. No one is FORCED to give her money when she's already made goal--they've CHOSEN to back her out of spite. If there hadn't been this backlash of morons trying to silence her, she might have had a handful of people disinterestedly give money, she might not have made goal, and another project fails, who cares. As it is, the silencing backlash has proven to supporters that there IS a problem, and while she might not be the best medium for getting the overarching message across, she's actively trying not to be part of the problem, so why dismiss that? Maybe she's getting $160k-whatever-minus-KS-fees-and-taxes to be a target, but a target that nonetheless promotes an active discussion on the subject vs. a continued sweeping under the rug, and it shows other women [including men and intersex people who identify as women] that they aren't alone in feeling discriminated against.

She doesn't NEED it. People gave it to her ANYWAY. That's the beauty of Kickstarter--people can give money to a project they couldn't possibly care any less whether it gets finished, just to piss off some angry misogynist Internet trolls.

Regarding Sarkeesian, I dislike her because she seems unwilling to engage in dialog with her critics. Commentary is disabled on all of her videos. It conveys an arrogant attitude that her opinions are above criticism. This is not the correct route to equality. Open dialog and frank discussion is.

Have you followed any of the backlash? Her videos were originally COMPLETELY open to commentary, and the overwhelming majority of it was the stuff of rape culture, which would be stupid to allow further. Even after putting down a large portion of the funds she earned toward improving security on her website as protection against vandalism, you can be damned sure there are still trolls out there fighting to break in. If all she'd ever gotten was intelligent [or even semi-intelligent] sentiment merely expressing disagreement, that's one thing, but history has proven otherwise.

She's done plenty of interviews, however!

Why is it the men go to war? It has *always* been the men who go to war.

I just wanted to note that men go to war because the population hurts less when men die than when women do [compare how humanity would fare if there was only one man left in the world among millions of women vs. only one woman left in the world among millions of men]. "Oh, misandry!" Yeah, well, complain to biology about that, but it's part of how sexism hurts men, too.

Why so interested in switching gender classifications? Why is it important to do so? Women's rights, yes, a worthwhile pursuit; gender equality, likewise - but it's perturbing that people don't realise that gender classification is less formed by outside influences as it is from X&Y genetics. The outside influences are just utilising genetic patterns to generate cash flow, and doing a horribly good job of it.

It's not about "switching" gender classification so much as REMOVING them. If a little boy wants to play with Hot Wheels AND Barbie, WHO CARES. If a little girl wants to design an app at age 7 [like my co-worker's daughter does], WHO CARES. Female CEOs and stay-at-home-dads should be able to exist without anyone questioning it or trying to pull "slept her way to the top/is pussy-whipped" cards on them. It's about being able to go to work without what's under my clothes having any significance.

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt.

Works for me! I have always HATED the white dress, and if that was a requirement for marriage, I guess I would never getting hitched. I don't even wear dresses to the office, and I absolutely DESPISE clothes that reveal any more than what my male counterparts are required to wear.

Now, I recall actually PREFERRING dresses as a child, so part of my current revulsion may be from certain undesirable behaviours [read: groping and generally being treated as someone else's property], but I also recall an unrelated love of gender-inspecific entertainment. I was a "grunge-y" tomboy in middle through high school, and where male and female characters weren't treated equally in games, I did end up preferring the males [and, of those, the more generic than the stereotypical buff power fantasy ones], so whether that colours my argument above is up to you. However, I know a number of transgendered women [m-to-f] and crossdressers, who all seem to contradict the notion of genes telling you who you are, particularly in light of a transgendered half of identical twins. You might argue that a few people do not negate the rule, but certainly you can't excuse "THIS IS THE RULE" as the reason why "Men are only allowed to X, and women are only allowed to Y, and this is why our media has to enforce that divide." Women aren't asking for complete gender-swaps, just for the opportunity to be accepted as more than just biological assets. I mean, would YOU feel comfortable if your junk was used as the measure of your workplace value?

[If yes, then I hate you]

I really find it hard to believe that anyone can find a new Mario game somehow sexist because it doesn't switch out the roles of its plumber protagonists for women. That's asinine, if anything, and just ludicrously unnecessary.

I just remembered that Mario Party/Mario Golf handles this quite well--Peach and Daisy are both playable characters [even if they wear short shorts, but that's a secondary point]. It's not about switching out as much as it is PROVIDING OPTIONS. Of course it's not a "Mario" game without Mario, but if you say Mario games will no longer ever be allowed to have Peach and/or Daisy as playable characters even though Nintendo has demonstrated there's no reason they can't, THAT'S sexist.

All the "natural" female behaviors Skykid and system11 mention come in fact from social pressure and indoctrination. Women aren't predestined by their genes to be subservient to men, do housework and be materialistic airhead parasites; they are taught to be that way since they are little by the games they play and their social environment. If all the toys you get prepare you for birthing and housework and society enforces that living off a wealthy husband and being a children factory is preferable over a career and economic independence, women are mostly going to be subservient.

But since we know there are also lots of independent, intelligent women who can perform as well as men in most fields (anything where physical strength isn't involved, basically) and there's no reason they should be "protected" by men, we should realize that sort of thinking is bullshit and harmful. Not that different from the reasoning that left women out of education in the past.

I wanted to add this: 15-Minute Writing Exercise Closes the Gender Gap in University-Level Physics

Of course, men are also conditioned by social pressure. That's why we are supposed to provide for our family (it's OK for a woman to not work, but if a man doesn't work he's lazy), we are supposed to get laid a lot (otherwise you are either a loser and / or not masculine; if a woman gets laid a lot she's a slut) and so on. That doesn't mean that those behaviors are OK, natural or a genetic predisposition, it's just what society thinks it's common or desirable at a certain time frame.

Just like it was common to think that women didn't really need education since they were inferior to men and only needed to do housework and have babies, or that blacks were inferior for genetic reasons and thus destined to serve whites. Do you see what this kind of naturalization leads us to?

Just wanted to add this: The Distress of the Privileged

I think that's about the extend of my meaningful contribution. Adding another few hours of research time to preach to the choir and the brick wall behind them isn't a particularly good investment of time, unfortunately. =/ Cheers!

[Squire Grooktook]

Well said, Minzoku. There's just one thing I take issue with.

Simplicity was more of a valid excuse back in the Donkey Kong era where there just wasn't space for a billion cut scenes. Why should you bother chasing this giant gorilla up a partially-constructed building? To rescue Pauline. Okay. What's the excuse for Super Mario Bros. Wii? Instead of the SMB2 formula where you have Mario, Luigi, Toad, and Peach, why two Toads? "The Mushroom Kingdom is in danger!" is enough if you want to Keep It Simple, Stupid--why the regressive relegation of Peach to needing rescue?

Part of the reason why Mario is still rescuing Peach is because of the nostalgia factor. If Mario no longer rescued Peach, then it would feel like the Mario formula, at least aesthetically, would have changed. Mario is supposed to be more or less the same nostalgic "ahhh, the good old days" kind of experience year after year. That's the real reason that the majority of Mario games have the same rescue Peach formula IMO.

Really, older franchises like Mario and Zelda aren't really a good example IMO, even if they do persist into the current day. I think it would be better to look at newer, original franchises and analyze the damsel in distress cliche there. I still feel that people here, for and against it, are still greatly exaggerating its importance. Don't get me wrong, that cliche is still in existence, but it's not really that widespread IMO even for excuse plot games. Most of the games I see it in are games that are deliberately trying to seem "retro" like super meat boy and utilize those cliches as part of the presentation, other then that there's still a few, but it's pretty rare to me and seems to get lost in the crowd of "YOU'RE A SPACE MARINE REPULSE THE ALIENS" type stories.

Of course, again this takes into the account that I'm merely talking from experience of the types of games I play (fighters, rpg, adventure, shmup, rts, arcade, etc.) so I may be biased simply for having missed games where this cliche is really thrown in your face, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[Mortificator]

Simplicity was more of a valid excuse back in the Donkey Kong era where there just wasn't space for a billion cut scenes. Why should you bother chasing this giant gorilla up a partially-constructed building? To rescue Pauline. Okay. What's the excuse for Super Mario Bros. Wii? Instead of the SMB2 formula where you have Mario, Luigi, Toad, and Peach, why two Toads? "The Mushroom Kingdom is in danger!" is enough if you want to Keep It Simple, Stupid--why the regressive relegation of Peach to needing rescue?

Don't you see any selective highlighting of instances in support of the Tropes vs. Women thesis, while ignoring of those against it? Sure, the original Donkey Kong is about rescuing a female... and then the very next game, Donkey Kong Jr., is about rescuing a male. Anita talks about the one damsel in distress in Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 3, but not the multiple Toad dudes and transformed kings.

I agree about the two Toads in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, though, that was lame.

[Skykid]

no-one implied women belong in sexist gender roles.

Sorry, but saying that women naturally need the "protection" of men and that they are genetically predisposed to be materialistic, for example, is exactly that. Not that I blame you or system11 and maybe you don't realize it as that kind of reasoning is firmly ingrained in our society, but it's insulting (and false).

I didn't say anything about 'protection', that was system11's view. I also didn't say women were predisposed to be materialistic, I said both sexes were predisposed to be materialistic because both sexes naturally and subconsciously attempt to mate with one another and therefore don't want to walk around looking like they just crawled out of a dumpster.

I'd much prefer, before someone takes issue with a sentence, to read what was written properly and not gloss over it, or we end up with this kind of timesink.

Also, Christianity can be considered a cause of social pressure and indoctrination that affects both sexes equally - the point being there are a myriad of different archetypes we're all conditioned to fit into in our daily lives, it's not a singular global issue that solely affects women (the very notion of which would be sexist.)

Of course, men are also conditioned by social pressure. That's why we are supposed to provide for our family (it's OK for a woman to not work, but if a man doesn't work he's lazy), we are supposed to get laid a lot (otherwise you are either a loser and / or not masculine; if a woman gets laid a lot she's a slut) and so on. That doesn't mean that those behaviors are OK, natural or a genetic predisposition, it's just what society thinks it's common or desirable at a certain time frame.

Just like it was common to think that women didn't really need education since they were inferior to men and only needed to do housework and have babies, or that blacks were inferior for genetic reasons and thus destined to serve whites. Do you see what this kind of naturalization leads us to?

No.

You're talking about extremities I haven't been anywhere near, you're taking what I said and reading from a different book. I'm talking about the basic innate characteristics of the sexes, not what society suggests that those innate characteristics should be funnelled into to suit their own whims and enterprises.

Unless you're suggesting that men and women have no differing genetic characteristics or dispositions and would be carbon equals of each other if it weren't for social conditioning? To that I'd have to suggest a serious rethink about how nature actually works.

[Squire Grooktook]

I think Hagane over-reacted, but I can understand why he'd be a bit touchy on the subject. Genes and whatnot might subtly influence who you are, but they sure as hell don't determine or decide it. No two people are alike, genes be damned, and everybody can be whoever they want to be.

Deep down everyone's the same anyway. Cmon, let's all join hands and sing.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I agree about the two Toads in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, though, that was lame.

The game in general was shit. No support for the classic controller? Who the fuck wants to hold a Wii remote on the side, it feels fucking terrible. Shake the controller like you're having a seizure to spinjump, great idea Nintendo. Two generic Toads when they coulda used something like Daisy from the GB games, or one of the characters from the various RPGs, etc? Lame. One Toad woulda been plenty.

Part of the reason why Mario is still rescuing Peach is because of the nostalgia factor.

Probably the same reason why Zelda always needs rescuing, Mega Man always beat up 'male' robots (ignoring the whole robots are genderless thing and one minor deviation). People are scared of change, and nostalgia/retro sell, so people in the business of games love winning formulas.

[Skykid]

I think Hagane over-reacted, but I can understand why he'd be a bit touchy on the subject. Genes and whatnot might subtly influence who you are, but they sure as hell don't determine or decide it. No two people are alike, genes be damned, and everybody can be whoever they want to be.

Yeearrrrgh! :holds ears, runs screaming:

What do I have to do to get such a simple point understood?

Not genes like you have your mom's fat nose or your dad's fat ass: genes like you're man, she's a woman, X&Y chromasomes, the fucking building blocks of life!

Why men can't stop jacking off to hardcore porn, why women have a prevalence for reading sex fiction, why there's a large female market for Twilight, why one group is masculine and one is feminine, why both appreciate attention, the rituals of courtship, how they respond to romance, why women and men cite different priorities in a partner, why you don't meet friends that are girls and punch them in the stomach for a laugh or shave their eyebrows off while they're sleeping, why baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls (let me guess, that's three years of hardcore social conditioning?) and little boys like to play with machine guns and monster trucks that reflect a form of masculinity. If I had a kid who wanted to switch any of this round and play with the other sexes toys, no problem, whatever you're happy with - but the natural predisposition of these things tends to settle with the masculine and feminine attributes: totally normal.

It's a fucking species designed to mate and procreate. Fuck all this capitalism, commercialism, materialism and strip it back to cave people: opposites attract, women are drawn to a masculinity they don't possess, men are drawn to a femininity they don't possess. That's why Sarkeesian's arguments are so god-damned up the trail and round the fucking garden path!

I'm starting to get irritated now.

[Squire Grooktook]

The problem is, even if unintentionally, your posts seem to imply that these things are set in stones. When they aren't. What I keep trying to say is that genetics are just an influence. Who you ultimately are is up to you, and neither society (assuming you won't get stoned) or genetics should be able to stand in your way.

Why men can't stop jacking off to hardcore porn

I don't.

why women have a prevalence for reading sex fiction,

Never met a woman, irl or on the internet, who reads sex fiction. Well, my Grandma liked romance novels, but not of the smutty sort.

why both appreciate attention

Not genetics, just feels nice.

why women and men cite different priorities in a partner

They do? I've always been raised to believe that men and women look for pretty much the same thing in partners (Good person who treats you well, smart and attractive is preferable as well).

why you don't meet friends that are girls and punch them in the stomach for a laugh or shave their eyebrows off while they're sleeping

You don't do that to anyone at all.

why baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls (let me guess, that's three years of hardcore social conditioning?) and little boys like to play with machine guns and monster trucks that reflect a form of masculinity.

Like I said, I'm not denying that genetics influence people. There are obviously predispositions at work. But it's subtle and just another of the many things that influence a person. If you raise a boy and he has nothing better to do then learn to cook, then yeah he'll (probably) eventually learn to love cooking as an art form. If you raise a girl and she has nothing better to do then participate in sports, then she'll eventually (probably) come to appreciate athleticism and the release of endorphin's it causes.

Men can be just as motherly as women. Little boys might not grow up fantasizing about raising a child or anything, but if a guy ends up in the same single father situation, then he can and probably will end up experiencing the same love and caring that a mother would feel.

Ps: The only thing opposites really attract is divorce.

[Skykid]

Ps: The only thing opposites really attract is divorce.

That's the only thing I agree with.

I'm off to shoot myself in the head because of a forum that can't understand science.

[Squire Grooktook]

See, right now, you're over-reacting and misinterpreting my post to be more radical then it is, just like Hagane did to your post.

Like I said. I'm fully aware there are differences in both genetics and even to some degree how the different sexes brains work, and that these have an influence on how people develop. If there wasn't, there would be no such thing as heterosexuality and everyone would just like whatever. Neither am I arguing that the physical and mental differences between the sexes haven't helped to influence the way society and its gender roles have developed, because it seems pretty logical that they have.

But like I said, these things that influence personality are just that: Influences. It's not fate is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that genetics don't play a role in how people develop.

Some studies have apparently shown that some people are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of addiction. Does that mean all people with these genetics are pre-destined to become addicted, be unable to shake these addictions, or otherwise live the life that is associated with these addictions? No, absolutely not. Is it more likely in general? Yes, but only to the degree which it implies.

*edit*

So wait, you don't agree that it's possible for a single father to love and care for his child like a mother would? Or that it's wrong to shave your friends eyebrows while they sleep?

Like seriously, I don't see what's so radical about this standpoint. I think that most (not counting transexuals or anything like that) men and women are born differently, both physically and mentally, but each person is different and can develop in a myriad of ways that is not limited to any one gender. I'm taking a pretty middle of the road stance here, I don't see how you could see this as so radical or offensive.

[Skykid]

The only thing that's radical or offensive in all this is not being able to make clear an extremely simple point. Don't want to talk about it anymore at the moment, I'm annoyed.

I intend to respond to Minzoku at some point.

[Edmond Dantes]

I think Squire Grooktank is making perfect sense. Genetics are a guideline, not a hard rule.

Not sure what part you're having a problem with, SkyKid. I can only assume you're seeing something that isn't there.

[DocHauser]

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her.

I'm off to shoot myself in the head because of a forum that can't understand science.

Er, oh dear. You're not doing yourself any favours with that argument. The ideas of wedding dresses and Barbies are products of culture and upbringing, not genetics. What you've actually described is what Richard Dawkins originally defined as a 'meme' in his book The Selfish Gene. To simplify it greatly, if a gene is a unit of your genetic make-up, then a meme would be a unit of your cultural make-up.

A meme is a term employed in certain theories of culture to refer to "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena.

[Squire Grooktook]

Er, oh dear. You're not doing yourself any favours with that argument. The ideas of wedding dresses and Barbies are products of culture and upbringing, not genetics. What you've actually described is what Richard Dawkins originally defined as a 'meme' in his book The Selfish Gene. To simplify it greatly, if a gene is a unit of your genetic make-up, then a meme would be a unit of your cultural make-up.

To be fair to Skykid, while the wedding dress is a bad example (that's just a part of a desire to look good, which is universal and shared by both genders), the Barbie one is not referring to Barbie in particular. You could substitute Barbie in that example for any doll or toy which is meant to be cared after or whatever. I think what he was trying to say is that little girls are generally inclined to toys that can be cared for, while little boys are more generally inclined toward toys that are more about action.

[Skykid]

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her.

I'm off to shoot myself in the head because of a forum that can't understand science.

Er, oh dear. You're not doing yourself any favours with that argument. The ideas of wedding dresses and Barbies are products of culture and upbringing, not genetics. What you've actually described is what Richard Dawkins originally defined as a 'meme' in his book The Selfish Gene. To simplify it greatly, if a gene is a unit of your genetic make-up, then a meme would be a unit of your cultural make-up.

A meme is a term employed in certain theories of culture to refer to "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena.

Yes, it was a bad example and I can see the contradiction. The point I was making about natural sexual/animal predispositions between the feminine and masculine is not confined to that one example, however, and I feel I've done plenty to clarify the point. Enough to chamber a round, at least.

EDIT: S.Grooktook to the rescue before I had time to finish the post! Thanking you.

To be fair to Skykid, while the wedding dress is a bad example (that's just a part of a desire to look good, which is universal and shared by both genders), the Barbie one is not referring to Barbie in particular. You could substitute Barbie in that example for any doll or toy which is meant to be cared after or whatever. I think what he was trying to say is that little girls are generally inclined to toys that can be cared for, while little boys are more generally inclined toward toys that are more about action.

[MX7]

Strange how people are getting so anguished over such an inoffensive video. I feel it's pitched a little south of most of our forum members level of education (while it's a good source for an A Level essay on representation in video games, I certainly wouldn't cite it in a 1st year UG paper). I don't think it's a great video to be honest, but I dislike the medium anyway. A YouTube video is hardly a substitute for an article in a respected journal, so let's stop pretending it's anything but a bit of pop lit crit.

Minzoku said a lot of awesome things that I'm not going to reiterate, but just a couple of points from Skykid's paragraph;

why baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls (let me guess, that's three years of hardcore social conditioning?)

The problem here is that 3 year olds don't buy toys; parents do. The first three years of a child's life are incredibly important for language acquisition, cognitive development, and gender socialization. Parents dress their child in a gender specific way from birth, give them toys which are believed to embody gender specificity, television adverts for toys reinforce a gender binary.

Why men can't stop jacking off to hardcore porn, why women have a prevalence for reading sex fiction

I don't know any women who don't masturbate to hardcore pornography on the internet. I also don't know any women who read romance novels. I also know a few guys who are asexual. Women like porn, horror films and one night stands. You don't need a Y chromosome for that.

[Squire Grooktook]

The problem here is that 3 year olds don't buy toys; parents do. The first three years of a child's life are incredibly important for language acquisition, cognitive development, and gender socialization. Parents dress their child in a gender specific way from birth, give them toys which are believed to embody gender specificity, television adverts for toys reinforce a gender binary.

Gotta admit, I never thought of that. I feel like I'm learning stuff here.

[Skykid]

I don't know any women who don't masturbate to hardcore pornography on the internet.

I know several who have no interest in pornography whatsoever. Besides that, neither of our specific encounters with feminine masturbatory habits have anything to do with statistical analysis and research.

In a recent study on sexual attraction, Ogi Ogas PHD and Sai Gaddam PHD used the internet as a source to collate information regarding the underlying psychological triggers for different types of sexual arousal.

To paraphrase, core attraction begins with procreation; that males desire healthy looking females because they can bear healthy children, and females desire males who possess the faculties of supportive providers for their offspring.

The number of females actively watching hardcore porn for stimulus on the net was about 5% compared to 95% of men, because most men only require visual triggers for sexual stimulation. They don't even need to find the girl attractive per se, perhaps just one single asset to achieve orgasm. Sex fiction on the other hand was found to be unbelievably popular among women, and almost completely unpopular with men. The research revealed women enjoy scenario, feeling and detail of sexual encounters far more than the crass visual bonking that men get off on so easily.

To not-paraphrase:

Their breakdown is simple. Men like pornography. Women like romance novels. “Men’s brains are designed to objectify females,” Ogas and Gaddam write. Since men’s only concern is with the biological fitness of women for child­bearing, everything they need to know to feel desire is visible to the naked eye: “The shapely curves of female ornamentation indicate how many years of healthy childbearing remain across a woman’s entire lifetime.” Male desire is “solitary, quick to arouse, goal-targeted, driven to hunt.” That’s why there was a nearly perfect concordance between male reports of sexual arousal and evidence of physical arousal measured by a device attached to participants’ genitals in a well-known study by the sex researcher Meredith Chivers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/books ... d=all&_r=0

Women like porn, horror films and one night stands. You don't need a Y chromosome for that.

That's pretty obvious. No-one at any point suggested women don't like porn, scary movies or having sex because they're not men.

The problem here is that 3 year olds don't buy toys; parents do. The first three years of a child's life are incredibly important for language acquisition, cognitive development, and gender socialization. Parents dress their child in a gender specific way from birth, give them toys which are believed to embody gender specificity, television adverts for toys reinforce a gender binary.

No. This is the long term standpoint of *some* sociologists. Sociologists aren't genetic scientists though, they're casual behavioural observers forming theories based on activity, and they had the stage for a while until Melissa Alexander and Gerianne Hines conducted a study where male and female monkeys were provided with stereotypical masculine and feminine toys. Convincingly enough, the male adopted the masculine toys as his own, the female the feminine. Since a scientific study like this needs replicating to prove valuable, it was done again by Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, who "replicate the sex preferences in toys among members of another primate species" with the same results.

You can give a little boy a doll, and he might want to dress it up. He may also end up drawing on its face and ripping its head off because he doesn't possess a will to nurture during that stage of infancy. That has nothing to do with the idea of gender socialization, which attempts to unravel inherent male and female characteristics for the sake of gender classification argument. No-one is saying a boy shouldn't wear a dress if he wants to, but at the same time you shouldn't be surprised if he throws it in the fire if you bring it home instead of the Nerf sub machine gun he asked for.

Of course, there's no actual understanding of how the evolutionary process has instilled these characteristic elements or why, but there are plenty of theories:

"According to Alexander, one possibility is that girls have evolved to perceive social stimuli, such as people, as very important, while the perceived worth of social stimuli (and thus, dolls that look like people) is weaker in boys.

Boys, meanwhile, tend to develop superior spatial navigation abilities. "Multiple studies in humans and primates shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind," Wallen said. "It could be that manipulating objects like balls and wheels in space is one way this mental rotation gets more fully developed.""

Here's some more information on the studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643016/

And an excerpt from the Scientific Fundamentalist's article on the same studies:

"We do not yet know exactly why males of different primate species prefer wheeled toys and other vehicles, or why females of different primate species prefer plush toys and other dolls (except for their vague resemblance to babies, for which females are evolutionarily designed to care). However, it is becoming less and less likely that “gender socialization” is the reason why boys and girls prefer different toys, and more and more likely that there are some genetic, hormonal, and other biological reasons for the observed sex differences in toy preference."

Blessed be to Mr Kanazawa [Edit: actually it turns out he's an asshole. Strike his comments from the record!]

(while it's a good source for an A Level essay on representation in video games, I certainly wouldn't cite it in a 1st year UG paper). I don't think it's a great video to be honest, but I dislike the medium anyway. A YouTube video is hardly a substitute for an article in a respected journal, so let's stop pretending it's anything but a bit of pop lit crit.

Yes, my point on several counts! And certainly not an argument built to the tune of $150k, but like minzoku mentioned, kickstarter is kickstarter, in all its idiotic glory.

[MX7]

Regarding primate toy preference: So from an evolutionary perspective, what is inherently masculine about a toy truck given that it has only existed as a concept for around a century? Going to need to do some more research here as I can't find much beyond the articles themselves. Remaining dubious: giving non-human animals human constructs and then applying observations to humans seems problematic, to say the least. *edit - Mentioned the article to my biology teacher housemate who was similarly dubious. As he pointed out "you can't ask a male infant chimp "would you rather be a fireman or a ballerina when you grow up"

This Satoshi Kanazawa guy sounds like bad news altogether. "“Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”"? Really? http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... tement.pdf That's just bad science. Doesn't seem like he's very popular with the evolutionary psychology community anyway (i.e completely discounted) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa What a shit...

Regarding porn and women, seems that more and more women are accessing pornography online. Interestingly, immediacy of the medium is listed as a particularly attractive draw http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/ ... ornography

In the review you posted for that A Billion Wicked Thoughts book:

"But there is no sense in scrutinizing for consistency a farrago like this book"

[Skykid]

"But there is no sense in scrutinizing for consistency a farrago like this book"

I disagree with that to some extent, its only a farrago if it lacks concentration. I read quite a lot of A Billion Wicked Thoughts while on the plane and it's extremely thorough and in-depth. I also watched Ogas's student lecture on the subject (posted by a member here) and the findings of the studies are absolutely fascinating. I recommend both the book and the lecture (should be easily found on youtube.) Also touches upon the success of manga pornography over other types of illustrated porn, during the Q&A.

As for absolute consistency, who knows - that's a tough one to call: so I agree scrutinizing is unnecessary. The overarching picture from studying the world's largest ever wank bank is quite conclusive when it comes to patterns, however.

But surely you're not going to take amusing (and terrible) filler articles -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/ ... ornography

- over the results of years worth of scientific study by two respected neuroscientists?

EDIT: I dug out Ogas's student lecture for you. Definitely worth watching, and notes shemale porn as one of the most popular on the internet. Don't get too much more relaxed about breaking down gender classification than chicks with dicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-A8GvUehq4

Regarding primate toy preference: So from an evolutionary perspective, what is inherently masculine about a toy truck given that it has only existed as a concept for around a century?

From above:

Of course, there's no actual understanding of how the evolutionary process has instilled these characteristic elements or why, but there are plenty of theories:

"According to Alexander, one possibility is that girls have evolved to perceive social stimuli, such as people, as very important, while the perceived worth of social stimuli (and thus, dolls that look like people) is weaker in boys.

Boys, meanwhile, tend to develop superior spatial navigation abilities. "Multiple studies in humans and primates shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind," Wallen said. "It could be that manipulating objects like balls and wheels in space is one way this mental rotation gets more fully developed.""

As he pointed out "you can't ask a male infant chimp "would you rather be a fireman or a ballerina when you grow up"

That's completely beside the point. The experiment isn't trying to figure out whether or not they bear masculine or feminine characteristics: nature has already decided those attributes. It's to try to figure out whether or not gender socialisation is the root cause of how we come to perceive the sexes in adult life. Since a chimp doesn't have a mother going to Debenhams to buy her a frock and a baby doll at 2 years old, or any other external influences, it's left to genetic instruction to decide whether the feminine or masculine toys are more appealing.

This Satoshi Kanazawa guy sounds like bad news altogether.

Ha ha, indeed! Holy crap, what a shocking resume. In defence, I had no idea of his background when citing this particular article: but the studies aren't his, they belong to other groups in the scientific field.
I'm happy to strike his comment from the court record.

[MX7]

Cheers for the link Skykid, just finished watching it. Very engaging and approachable.

I have reservations about the methodology used in the study. Even though two million subjects seems like a huge and infallible sample size, the fact that 2/3s of them are sourced from the US means that it’s already not a study about the intrinsic universal sexual preferences of men and women, but mainly American men and women who have access to the internet. Therefore it’s more of a (very interesting!) canvassing of contemporary American online sexual predilection. It seems to be more confirming western cultural stereotypes regarding sexuality. And I’m not denying that these exist (obviously they do!). I think our opinions differ in that I believe these online identities, even in anonymity are still culturally constructed.

Really interesting (though hardly surprising) regarding the phallocentrism of pornography aimed at straight men. Especially fascinating about the allure of transsexuals for heterosexual male audiences. The fluidity of sexual preference is an interesting concept.

[BIL]

"Ah, ladyboys..."

[MX7]

The amount of Alan Partridge on these boards makes me very happy indeed

[Skykid]

Cheers for the link Skykid, just finished watching it. Very engaging and approachable.

I have reservations about the methodology used in the study. Even though two million subjects seems like a huge and infallible sample size, the fact that 2/3s of them are sourced from the US means that it’s already not a study about the intrinsic universal sexual preferences of men and women, but mainly American men and women who have access to the internet. Therefore it’s more of a (very interesting!) canvassing of contemporary American online sexual predilection. It seems to be more confirming western cultural stereotypes regarding sexuality. And I’m not denying that these exist (obviously they do!). I think our opinions differ in that I believe these online identities, even in anonymity are still culturally constructed.

Really interesting (though hardly surprising) regarding the phallocentrism of pornography aimed at straight men. Especially fascinating about the allure of transsexuals for heterosexual male audiences. The fluidity of sexual preference is an interesting concept.

No probs, glad you enjoyed it! I don't personally consider the US demographic to be a particularly limiting factor in the research, since it happens to be broadly effective userbase to assess in terms of both size and Internet accessibility, and a ripe template to apply to the average porno going net denizen.

Of course this type of research isn't utterly conclusive, but hopefully he did enough to convince that the endeavour wasn't completely pie in the sky (and that women perhaps require a different type of stimuli - or so it seems - to the average male.)

As long as you don't disagree with all my points and I don't disagree with of all yours (which I don't) I'm happy to agree to disagree to a point. I stand by natural genetic influence in behavioural attributes, but I certainly wouldn't deny strong elements of social influence either.

[Squire Grooktook]

Well, that was all pretty interesting.

(don't mind me, I'm just spectating the debates)

[Hagane]

I'm talking about the basic innate characteristics of the sexes, not what society suggests that those innate characteristics should be funnelled into to suit their own whims and enterprises.

The point is that you aren't. For example, this list:

Why men can't stop jacking off to hardcore porn, why women have a prevalence for reading sex fiction, why there's a large female market for Twilight, why one group is masculine and one is feminine, why both appreciate attention, the rituals of courtship, how they respond to romance, why women and men cite different priorities in a partner, why you don't meet friends that are girls and punch them in the stomach for a laugh or shave their eyebrows off while they're sleeping, why baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls (let me guess, that's three years of hardcore social conditioning?) and little boys like to play with machine guns and monster trucks that reflect a form of masculinity. If I had a kid who wanted to switch any of this round and play with the other sexes toys, no problem, whatever you're happy with - but the natural predisposition of these things tends to settle with the masculine and feminine attributes: totally normal.

Normal because that how society raises us to be. For example, baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls because that's what their parents, the people in charge of their education at that time, buy them. Because that's what they are supposed to give them. Give them machine guns, videogames, chess sets, footballs or monster trucks and they'll have fun with them, and their personality will most likely change in the future. But oh, that will make them UN-feminine!

Just read Minzoku's excellent post.

[louisg]

Normal because that how society raises us to be. For example, baby toys sell by the truckload to 3 year old girls because that's what their parents, the people in charge of their education at that time, buy them. Because that's what they are supposed to give them. Give them machine guns, videogames, chess sets, footballs or monster trucks and they'll have fun with them, and their personality will most likely change in the future. But oh, that will make them UN-feminine!

Just read Minzoku's excellent post.

I've read articles which, granted were pop-science articles, talked about a family trying to raise "gender-neutral" kids in the 70s, and people who grew up identifying with the opposite gender. There's some degree of natural gravitation towards these "gender-stereotypical" things (for lack of another term); it's not all cultural. But, as always, it's hard to tell nature from nurture since nobody can truly be raised in a vacuum. I never thought of Chess as being gender-specific, though. That's the kind of thing which certainly must vary by culture.

Onto an old topic.... Not letting you play as Peach in NSMB Wii? That IS bullshit It actually stuck out at me as being sorta out-of-place when I played it, maybe in part because the select screen brought back memories of SMB2. I mean, two toads? Come on. Nobody wants that. But back to the topic of gender, I guess one of them is supposed to be a Toadette according to a quick Google search.