Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games
An anonymous reader writes A government-funded agency in Sweden is considering creating special labels for video games based on whether or not the games' portrayals of women are sexist. From the article: "Avoiding sexism and gender stereotypes in video games produced in Sweden will become a key goal for the association, which has been given a 272,000 kronor ($36,672) grant by Sweden's government-funded innovation agency, Vinnova. Inspired by the Bechdel test, which looks at whether fictional films or books feature at least two women talking about a topic other than men, Dataspelsbranchen will work with several game developers to analyze how Swedish video games portray female characters and gender issues.
Hmm, that might not be a deterrent to sales...
>based on whether or not the games' portrayals of women are sexist.
Just for women ? That's really sexist !
How about dropping the pretense and going with 'sexy' instead?
Let's see you sell them games as "free of any sexy", "does not contain sexy", or the R rated "may contain traces of sexy".
Sexist is just for fucking women now? Fuck you. Avoid gender stereotypes? Fine, I'm okay if you want to label it, but what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
Take out sexism and gender stereo types for men too. If there is anyone in beefy 8 packs, with blowing everything up, that's unrealistic for men, so put a rating on it. We need to protect women and men from unrealistic views.
Here is what you're really doing and where my problem lies, it's not that you're trying to protect women from the games, you are trying to label men.
Oh, you buy sexist video games, you must be sexist. Yeah, better stop anyone from liking things you don't desire with social manipulation, sounds about right.
Equality - Men are no better than women, and vice versa, you know how many of my female friends gush over fabio, the lean body with tone and beautiful hair? It's not realistic, most men do not look that way.
But that's fine. However if men do the same thing, whooboy, sexist.
But the problem is when it is coming from a government-funded agency. Is it appropriate for the government to determine what is considered sexist? Is the nature of sexism black and white, where it's easily to tell very easily if something is sexist or not? I'd rather have ratings done by a non-government funded agency.
I'd rather have ratings done by a non-government funded agency.
Wat. How will having a private entity help with non-biased labeling?
Because sexualised women is a male sexual fantasy. Big beefy player characters is a male power fantasy.
You don't honestly think they're targeting women with the "muscles and guns" thing, do you?
1 - Label to specify what games contain sexy women. ... Slow clap?
2 - Sell labelled games more, because sex sells (news at 11).
3 - More and more games introduce sexist content just to get the label.
4 -
Wat. How will having a private entity help with non-biased labeling?
A private entity cannot enforce anything upon the populace, nor can they promulgate laws based on their ratings.
Government has a very limited range of things that they do as well or better than the public at large (war/defense, money, basic law enforcement, etc) - governmental action beyond that range invariably becomes incompetent, expensive, dangerous, or worse.
Never give government more power than the worst-case scenario you would be willing to live under.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Another example of feminism trying to impose its will upon every facet of life. And they feel completely entitled in doing so because they believe their narrative is the only valid worldview. And if you don't agree in every way you are a bigot and they will bully and shame you into oblivion until you capitulate under the social pressure. Like they did with the poor guy on the comet lander team.
And, of course, this label will be evaluated entirely upon the sexist depictions of only women, because we all know(as they've hammered into our brains) "men can't be victims of sexism because it has not been institutionalized against them".
This bullshit has to end. It must be fought fiercely at every opportunity.
Yes, and everything that happens is fault of patriarchy. It must be nice to have a worldview where everything is so clear-case and explainable.
Don't you see that "males are at fault for male stereotypes" is a clear-case of victim blaming?
Considering that Sweden needs to close down public prisons due to lack of criminals,
and United States have overpopulated private prisons, I wonder which government leads to a more free society...
Welcome to double standards. It's OK for women to be sexist. Nobody is going after entertainment women enjoy like fashion gossip magazines, and trashy novels where men physically and mentally abuse women.
"A private entity cannot enforce anything upon the populace, nor can they promulgate laws based on their ratings."
Ever read a credit card agreement, insurance contract, or mortgage agreement?
The dual of what you posted above: ... - business action beyond that range invariably becomes incompetent, expensive, dangerous, or worse.", and
"Business has a very limited range of things that they do as well or better than the public at large
"Never give businessgovernment more power than the worst-case scenario you would be willing to live under."
Live free, of either government or corporation shackles, or die.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
They are doing something productive about it, but people like you refuse to understand (or are incapable of understanding) it. Yes, life is sometimes unfair, but when it's systematically unfair because of one's genetic lottery ticket, and to such a large proportion of the world, it's worth addressing. The fact you seem to be claiming that guys don't complain about sexism against men (in a sentence which is doing just that) hints that your argument is not born from evidence, but some knee-jerk reaction you've concocted all on your own because of some fear you have about women. Weird, huh?
I'm not really sure basing your criteria on a setup to a joke in a comic strip is the best mechanism. Epecially since it's a test that Run Lola Run, and Gravity both fail, and Flash Gordon and Twilight both pass.
Possibly the one with the more prisons, if you're not able to buy anything without the stigma of feminist thoughtcrime.
Just because you have more people considered to be "good citizens" doesn't make your country "more free".
In fact, it probably just means that you're a small country with a mostly homogeneous ethnic and racial population mix. Aside from the self-censorship and the over-the-top feminism, there is a reason the Nazis wanted everyone to look and act "Nordic" and "Aryan".
Actually, in the sense of a homogeneous population being more harmonious, that sentiment made sense. It's just the method that they decided to go about getting there.
Since any portrayal whatsoever of women, or no portrayal at all, can be deemed "sexist", and that same portrayal or lack of portrayal can be deemed "not sexist", depending entirely on who made the game, it will be a very simple rating -- 100% sexist if made by a man or a woman who is not a third-wave feminist. 0% sexist if made by exclusively by third-wave feminists.
Europeans tend to believe the opposite. They would rather the government does stuff because it tends to be cheaper and better run than when private companies get involved. They see the state of US healthcare, or what happened to the UK's railways and energy supply after privatization.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, by this criterion anything that most private companies do is actually done by a "government-funded agency". Your company got a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration grant? It's now a "government-funded agency"!
A more accurate description of this case: a third-party private organization wants to publish information about videogame sexism, and they got a small grant ($37k, i.e. enough to pay an intern) to investigate the possibility. That does not sound to me like The State mandating anything. Especially in Sweden, these kinds of small exploratory grants are given out to a really broad range of organizations. Your local badminton team can probably qualify for one! (Not a joke. There is a specific budget in Sweden for small grants to community sports organizations.)
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They would rather the government does stuff because it tends to be cheaper and better run than when private companies get involved.
As a blanket statement, I disagree vehemently. See also NIS (WRT healthcare rationing), overburdening the taxpayer, the insane EU rules governing everything from gasoline to what constitutes an actual croissant, etc.
Note that private companies are not an end-all be-all answer either. Both government and private corporations are limited in what they can do well. In the case of the article, I suspect a non-profit organization would serve the purpose better (ironically, see also the MPAA's original role as to ratings).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This is people trying to do something productive about it.
No, this is government (TFS says this is a government funded agency) trying to force people to pay for something that government thinks is productive... which almost always turn out to be not very productive at all. Counterproductive even.
The most productive thing one can do in regards to government is to get it out of the way.
This is what separates earlier feminist movements and modern feminism. Early feminists dealt with getting government out of women's way to vote, to get a job, etc. It was against the idea of women being damsels in distress.
Modern feminism on the other hand is more about getting government involved. It reinforces the idea that women can't help themselves.
We wouldn't lose these things.
Ripley talks to several women, and not about men or sex either. Mostly it's about killing monsters. For obvious reasons.
Amanda Carter talks to several women, about science and whatnot.
Babylon 5, where Talia Winters and Susan Ivanova spend much time debating the ethic of Psi-Corps, later hinting that they've begun some sort of relationship.
Torchwood: Everyone in that series talks almost incessantly about sex and stuff, I think those bits are juvenile, to be honest.
Agents of SHIELD, where Melina and Skye talk about their missions, training, Skye's childhood etc, etc
I could go through all your examples, but there are beers that need drinking.
A private entity cannot enforce anything upon the populace...
Care to place a wager on that? Private enterprises force things on the public all the time. Sometimes with the blessing of government, sometimes without. Government can override a private enterprise but in the absence of government action private entities can largely do whatever they want. If they are powerful they can even influence government to do their bidding at times. See regulatory capture.
Government has a very limited range of things that they do as well or better than the public at large (war/defense, money, basic law enforcement, etc) - governmental action beyond that range invariably becomes incompetent, expensive, dangerous, or worse.
The range of things government does competently is a fair bit wider than most people give credit for. There is some truth in what you say but government is often the least worst way to do quite a lot of things. Health care, social safety nets, infrastructure, contracts enforcement, basic research funding, and more are often better handled by governments than private enterprise. Furthermore just because some people in the US have an apparently allergy against government doing anything doesn't mean they are correct in their assertion that government is always bad. Lots of countries utilize governments for much more than the US does (notably for health care) with great success. Doesn't mean we have to do it that way but just because we don't do something a certain way doesn't mean it cannot be done. I'm not overly trusting of government myself but I also don't axiomatically assume government to be incompetent.
Never give government more power than the worst-case scenario you would be willing to live under.
That I would agree with. The problem is that we may have an honest disagreement about what constitutes a worst case scenario. Ask a libertarian or a conservative or a democrat and you'll generally get rather different answers.
The MPAA is a good example of a private monopoly being the gatekeeper being a bad thing. 50+ years of stifling the movie industry, without their favour, a movie couldn't succeed as they couldn't play in most theaters. No way to appeal or even vote with your feet besides just not having anything to do with movies.
This also allowed them to require enough power that even today they can and do ruin many lives.
Private only works well when there is lots of real competition and private always aims for monopoly.
The problem is Americas dysfunctional democracy where government exists to please donors instead of the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
>A private entity cannot enforce anything upon the populace
You need to watch This Film Has Not Been Rated, buddy, and learn all about that private, non-governmental ratings board from the MPAA that ABSOLUTELY controls what films get seen and made and how.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
See also NIS (WRT healthcare rationing), overburdening the taxpayer, the insane EU rules governing everything from gasoline to what constitutes an actual croissant, etc.
Healthcare rationing by government run schemes tends to be a lot better than nothing at all when private schemes won't cover expensive treatment. Healthcare costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.
People are happy to pay taxes when they get a lot in return, like good free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare.
The "insane" EU rules are not insane, they are very helpful. Most of them are not even new, for example the famous "straight bananas" rules which were actually just making existing rules in most European states an EU wide standard and didn't change anything for most people. Having the same rules everywhere means I can fill my car up on a trip to France or Germany without worrying that the petrol might not be up to standard or suitable for my car, or that the nozzle on the pump won't fit my tank.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And you missed my point. It seems pretty obvious to me that cultural differences play much bigger part in incarceration rates than laws or government policy. To take another example, Japanese Americans have the lowest crime rate of any ethnic group in the US, and is very similar to the crime rate in Japan itself. Surely if your theory is correct you would see a much higher crime rate among Japanese Americans than among Japanese in Japan, since they also live under "idiotic" US laws.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.