Slashdot Mirror
Sexism Still a Problem At E3
An anonymous reader writes "Now that E3 has wound down and the big product announcements are out of the way, its time to take a step back and look at the culture represented by the giant gaming show. 'The presence of scantily clad women hawking games and gizmos seemed in particular contrast to a report released this week by the Entertainment Software Association, which organizes the gaming industry's annual trade show. It found that 45 percent of the entire gaming population is now women, and women make up 46 percent of the most frequent game buyers.' While there are fewer 'booth babes' than in earlier shows (and while some are trying to bring balance by adding 'booth bros'), the conference organizers are happy to let exhibitors make their own policy. By contrast, the Penny Arcade Expo forbids 'booth babes,' a controversial but widely lauded stance. A recent article in Kotaku about this year's E3 notes, 'For every confident cosplayer who might do the job at a con, I am seeing dozens of companies trying to sell me hundreds of women. They are not drawing my attention to the content of their games, or to their tactics or techniques. They are drawing my attention to thigh-high boots, to low-cut shirts, and, frankly, to the hard work of a really expensive bra. So much of what I see here at E3 is aimed directly at the lizard hindbrain of a 13-year-old boy. But you have to be 18 to get into the show, and it's nominally for industry professionals. Perhaps someday we—men and women alike—can all be treated like the grown-ups we theoretically are, and be trusted to judge a game by its content... not its double-D cover.'"
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Every industry does the same thing, it's just the gaming industry folk live in caves and don't have any clue what happens outside their cave.
They are just pandering to the target audience. Maybe you are very mature, but let's face it, most gamers do act like 13 year old boys. It's all in good fun. E3 exists to show off games and try to get people into the idea of buying them, not to pander to feminist sensibilities.
I have no problem with scantily clad women. I know many women who have no problem (and rather enjoy) scantily clad women. Just cause it's a problem to you doesn't mean it's a problem to everyone else.
"Perhaps someday we—men and women alike—can all be treated like the grown-ups we theoretically are." Men and women who spend enormous amounts of time living vicariously through a video screen. Grown up? Not my any definition I know of.
They're just buying Fallout or Modern Warfare for their boyfriends.
While there are fewer 'booth babes' than in earlier shows (and while some are trying to bring balance by adding 'booth bros')
Now that is a solution I can get behind. I'm not a hot guy. But I'm not full of shit either -- I know that straight women like hot guys, just like straight men like hot women. There's a hundred thousand years of evolution behind it. Pretending it is not true is stupid. Women are naturally drawn to men with a pronounced V shape from their waist to their shoulders -- a trait I do not posess. And men are naturally drawn to big chests. That is reality.
You can argue that it is not sound economic policy, because it directs consumer spending in ways that are not reflective of product quality. Fine, let's talk about that, and maybe start by making advertising not count as a business expense for tax purposes. But if you are upset because it is objectification (or, more realistically, because you are, like me, not hot) -- you've got to get over it. Pretending it is not true is just lying to yourself. It will not change reality.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's a perfect match. Tweaking the libido is entertainment. Games are entertainment. The age group here is largely young adult, sexually aware.
So, several things. First, the idea that the female psyche isn't tweaked by up front sexuality? That's dead at the door. It's a social thing right now to pretend that sexuality is "mommy magic" and shouldn't be in play, but that is, and has been for decades, just a toxic result of radical women's lib propaganda. Now that is not saying that women shouldn't have equal opportunity in jobs, salary, medical care, marriage, etc -- not at all. Equal opportunity in matters that are not themselves tied to one's sexuality is good (I don't need equal access to an obstetrician, women don't need equal access to a dick doctor. Few will hire a fellow to strip for other fellows, likewise few would hire women to strip for other women. Etc.) But it is saying that the sexes are different, and that's a good thing, and an interesting thing, and altogether something to be celebrated, elevated, emphasized and above all enjoyed.
Next, and standing all by itself, there's *nothing* wrong with marketing one's natural advantages. We do it with minds that are able to wrap around programming and engineering. Athletes do it with bodies that are able to excel under the stresses of sports, pro and amateur. Actors and models do it with looks that please the audience. And so on, ad infinitum. What's absolutely disgusting is when some idiot steps in and decides that some characteristic, sensuality and looks being perfect examples, isn't "appropriate" for someone to use, either personally, or by employing a third party to "bring" it.
Do people with natural advantages have an easier time going down various roads in life? Yes, they do. Do we have *any* right to say that they should not, or cannot, use those advantages to travel those roads? No, we don't -- there's nowhere to derive such a right from.
Here's an important tip on the term "liberation": When you find yourself saying "sure, you can choose to do that if you like", most probably, you're engaged in something along the lines of liberation. However, when you find yourself saying "you can't do that", you really need to look hard at what you're saying because most likely, what you're engaged in is repression, probably direct and senseless repression at that.
If there's something to question about the marketing here, it might be raised as, "Where are the handsome guys as marketing tweaks for the ladies"? If the buying audience is truly equally distributed between the sexes, then if the game companies have any sense (debatable, where's my new MechAssault?) then they'll hit the women in the same nerve centers. You think they don't enjoy interacting with hunky guys? Oh, silly, silly you. :)
And of course, if good looking people, highly sexual people, or people with moles offend ye, then avoid them, by all means. Just don't tell the rest of us what it is we can, should, or will enjoy.
I raise my glass to those who make personal, informed choices.
I raise my middle finger to those who would interfere with them.
Now, let the politically correct bunk commence.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Pardon my ignorance, by why is it repulsive to see attractive people at product promotion booths? As a man, I buy products all the time with attractive, often partially clad men advertising them all the time. Personal grooming products, cars, clothing, sports equipment etc.. all promoted by over idealized men. Why are women so offended when they see over idealized, attractive women advertising products?
I don't hear cries of sexist when Wendy's advertises their latest salad offering with a shirtless man at poolside on national TV. Pick one ladies, you cant be both "equal" and more-than-equal at the same time.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Sex sells. The adage holds because it's true.
It's not always true. In something relevant, like deodorant, perfume, or alcohol; yes, sex definitely sells.
In something less relevant, like hotdogs, sex doesn't sell so well. It can actually be a turnoff. Advertising books have entire sections about this topic.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Apparently, it's sexist when hired female sales staff ("booth babes") wear T-shirts, makeup, and big hair. But apparently it is OK to use your feminine wiles if you declare yourself a feminist and a female technologist (and apparently, you don't actually need to know much about technology to do so). Can someone who is well versed in the intricacies of sexism and political correctness please explain who is allowed to wear revealing clothes under what circumstances, and who is not?
Judging by women's magazines, women like looking at pretty women too. There also an element of schadenfreude, criticizing celebrities' "plastic surgery" and "anorexia", playing to women's envy. Which is what is really going on here. The women aren't demanding the addition of "booth studs" or appearances by Justin Bieber, they want the women who look better than them to lose their jobs.
Microsoft's little rape joke and the fact that this ever even saw the light of day shows a lot about gaming culture...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Why are women so offended when they see over idealized, attractive women advertising products?
First of all, it contributes to the objectification of women. The pervasive idea in our society that women are pretty things to parade around, and if you're really successful, then you'll get one of your very own to show off to your friends. This hurts men too, by the way -- it pushes the idea that your value as a man is directly proportional to your ability to attract a beautiful woman.
Your analogy to using attractive men to sell, e.g., clothing doesn't work. In those cases, the message is "Buy our product, and look like this!" Booth babes aren't promoting that sort of message. They're just eye candy for the straight men.
Which brings me to the second point: even if a woman isn't offended, she still gets the message that she's not really wanted. When you so blatantly target your marketing towards men, it sends the message that your product isn't for women. (Yes, lesbians might enjoy the booth babes too, but they still know that they're not the target demographic.)
Pardon my ignorance, by why is it repulsive to see attractive people at product promotion booths?
It's not, and as one of the linked articles pointed out, the ban on booth babes at PAX didn't stop some companies having attractive women there to sell stuff -- the difference being that said women were dressed normally, and actually knew all about what they were selling (that is, they were regular salespeople for the company that happened to be women). If you can't see the difference between that and booth babes then you are part of the problem.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Male or female, makes no difference. Women's magazines sell with pictures of women. Men's magazines sell with pictures of women.
Feminist ideology says people are sinful for being attracted to women, and capitalists are especially sinful for capitalizing on this fact. But if you don't happen to share their religion, there's nothing to see here but a brute fact of human preferences that no one needs to feel shame over.
Does your advanced thought process keep you uninterested in women? Because if it does and you are straight, you might have a testosterone deficit and you should see a doctor.
Otherwise, you might know better than to hit on every busty 20 year old you see, but you still would want to.
Feminism has never been about equality. Equal Rights Movements were about equal rights. The two aren't the same.
Some 45% of gamers are women. They don't care. This is a small vocal minority that is complaining. You can (and should) ignore them.
I believe in equal rights for all. No special rights for anyone.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Why would I want to hit on every busty 20-year-old? Attraction among advanced creatures like humans is based on considerably more than mere first-physical-sight. There are women I'm attracted to and those I'm not, and this is not usually based on randomly pointing to people I pass on the street...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Look at what those statistics actually say.
The first says women make up "45% of the entire gaming community." This includes mobile games like Candy Crush Saga and Words with Friends that aren't represented at E3. Women play video games. It doesn't mean they're playing the same video games as men. In fact, I know women who would be shocked if the label "gamer" was applied to them, despite them spending more time playing "video games" than I play. To them, Borderland, Skyrim, and other titles more likely to be represented at E3 are "video games" and what they play are not video games.
The second says women make up 46% of the most frequent game buyers. I know that I buy a hell of a lot more games for my mobile device than I buy for my PC, because the games are so much less expensive on my mobile device and I always have my mobile device with me. I also know that when I buy a game it is sometimes a gift, or a game for my kid. How does my purchase reflect *me* as the target audience? It doesn't. To put some context on this: even though I've spent WAY more time playing Civilization V, I only purchased it once, versus the many, many purchases I've spent LESS time playing on my phone. Using your logic this would make me more of a "mobile gamer" than a "PC gamer", but the opposite is actually true.
In short, both these statistics are absolutely meaningless in this context. Women don't make up even close to half of the market for the games and systems at E3.
So much of what I see here at E3 is aimed directly at the lizard hindbrain of a 13-year-old boy.
Is that some new, clever, more-polite way of saying "aimed at men, who think with their dicks?" 1)Men don't think about sex any more than women do. 2)Men are not interested in promiscuous sex, by and large. 3)Men are not only interested in sex, either. 4)We have agency, and that agency is not controlled any more by our dicks than your agency is controlled by your vagina, thank you very much.
All of the above has been proven with research and studies, which stand in stark face to the crap that just falls out of the mouth of many a feminist in the same breath as complaints about sexism. It's perfectly acceptable to say men think with their genitals and to call them pigs for being interested in sex while calling women interested in sex "empowered." Female nudity is celebrated; male nudity is controversial and rarely if ever portrayed or shown. We're told that women's sexual feature are beautiful, and men's genitals are gross, disgusting, etc.
Furthermore, I am not responsible for content or marketing aimed at my demographic any more than women would be held responsible for content or marketing aimed at them. This is particularly true given that any time this subject comes up with other men, the responses are that it is: cheesy, annoying, eye-roll inducing, and in many cases, not what any of us consider attractive. I don't find blonds with giant breasts to be attractive. Sorry. Don't. Tell that to a bunch of women on a "sexism in the game industry" panel and the response will be some strong variant of "You don't know what you're talking about." Actually, we fuckin' well do. We know better than you are. But it's not convenient to your little rant; what's convenient is to portray us all as drooling over booth babes with hard dicks.
You want equality? Great. So do we. Stop insulting us. Stop repeating sexist, made up bullshit. Stop dismissing us when we tell you you're wrong about prevailing attitudes.
Please help metamoderate.
Just like people with homosexual tendencies are often the loudest homophobes, I suspect people with sexist tendencies are often the loudest crusaders against sexism. So don't generalize from your own dysfunctions to the rest of society.
Besides, weird as that may seem to you, people actually enjoy being objectified occasionally, and they have control over it by how they dress. Revealing dress = please objectify me, conservative dress = relate to me as a person. Works for both men and women. You should try it sometime, it's fun.
Yes, that's often the intended message. As for many other products, people create different products for men and women, not because they are sexist, but because men and women actually have different preferences. Imagine that, companies giving people what they want. What is the world coming to?
Almost all sales/trade shows are like this. Car shows, tools, sporting goods, or even pet supplies; they are are all pretty much the same with model/actress/whatever standing around using sex to promote a product. I don't see why electronics/computers should be different. But it seems to be acceptable to bad mouth the "industry" about it. If this offends stop going to the shows, most major companies stream their events. Also pressure your suppliers and business associates not to go as well. But remember, the "booth babes" were banned before and E3 almost went under because no one went.
"If you walked up and grabbed my ass, you'd get slapped with sexual harassment "
No. Not with me. You'd just smile and follow me.
You hair looks great, by the way.
Why would I want to hit on every busty 20-year-old? Attraction among advanced creatures like humans is based on considerably more than mere first-physical-sight. There are women I'm attracted to and those I'm not, and this is not usually based on randomly pointing to people I pass on the street...
So you're just full of shit and you think the white knight routine will get you laid. Gotcha.
Absolutely. I will consider feminism to be valid when I see them protesting because a woman's domestic violence court case did not result in the same amount of time that a man would have received. For the record, however, topless women are perfectly legal in my state as are topless men.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If the booth babes thought it was sexist they would not be there. IMO saying booth babes should not exist, is saying that women can't be expected to make wise choices about their own lives - and THAT is much more sexist.
There are plenty of men who ALREADY complain about even the slightest inclusion of something considered woman-friendly in games. Frankly, I'm unable to imagine a world in which women as the majority of gamers are having our preferences dictate ANYTHING, simply because men complain so quickly and loudly the instant they fear something they consider "theirs" may be finally changing to recognize that they haven't owned it for a long time, if ever. It isn't about being heterosexual (as though this is some kind of marker of pride) or liking women's bodies. The problem with the booth babe phenomenon has nothing to do with whether or not people enjoy looking at women's bodies, and I think you know that and are simply trying to derail the discussion so you don't have to address the REAL issue, namely: is it really professionally appropriate to use barely-dressed women as objects of advertisement at a trade show for a product consumed by a diverse user base? It's not about whether anyone "likes" it. Don't worry, boys; no one is questioning your sexuality. It's about what a professional environment is in 2013. You can't seriously suggest that straight men are so blinded by their sexual desires that they are unable to function in a professional environment without having scantily-clad women hawking products to them. I know many straight men who understand that there's a time and a place for everything. Maybe the critical distinction is that I only spend my time around people who are adults, though - which sadly isn't directly tied to age.