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.

Comments

Horribly sexist !

[Anonymous Coward]

>based on whether or not the games' portrayals of women are sexist.

Just for women ? That's really sexist !

Re:Horribly sexist !

[Penguinisto]

The notion that "portraying men as muscled killing machines" is a kind of sexism has not yet arrived in the mainstream.
Which tells you interesting things about our society.

Yeah - it basically means that male humans aren't generally hung up on that kind of 'OMG impossible body-image expectations for boys to reach!!111!' bullshit.

Re:Horribly sexist !

[XxtraLarGe]

Make a game with only female lead roles who are portrayed in a very positive manner and have all the men in the game be bumbling idiots who are constantly causing problems.

So basically, like most American sitcoms.

Whoa whoa whoa

[Tyr07]

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.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[Tyr07]

It depends in what respect, I've played video games my entire life, and I respect women, I believe any women can just as capable as any man, or just as incapable as any man.

What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. I /like/ my games, I like their creativity, I love Starcraft 2, but I'm just waiting for someone who is jealous of the female protganist in SC2 the swarm, and start altering the creative art that goes into video games with their agendas, ruining my games.

Men are treated as disposable in games, as a previous poster pointed out 90% of the people who die in games are men, but women find that acceptable so it's not a big deal. Equality for fuck sake, get with it.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be disingenuous to suggest that sexism does not primarily impact women negatively.

The problem is that this statement is often used as an excuse to dismiss or deny any negative impacts upon men. Which kinda comes across as: "Sexism only hurts women, and if you say otherwise then you're a dirty misogynist!". That is to say, it stifles discussion which may lead to fair, equal solutions.

The thing about equality is that minorities matter. So, despite the belief that sexism primarily impacts women negatively, the impact on men must also be considered. After all, while when making rules we consider entire populations yet when applying them we are dealing with individuals. To be told that your situation is unimportant because you are only in the minority of victims is against the whole notion of equality.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[serviscope_minor]

What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The thig about free speech is the right to offend, and the people saying these things are apparently exercising their right to offend you. No one's forcing you to listen. No one's forcing you to buy from publishers who pay attention. And no one's stepping into your games at all. You already own a copy of your games. And the games that are being made now, they sure as hell aren't yours. These people are free to talk to game developers and the game developers are free to listen.

If you don't like it perhaps you should start a campaign to get games to be however you want them to be.

Men are treated as disposable in games, as a previous poster pointed out 90% of the people who die in games are men.

Campaigns are not mutually exclusive. Think the portrayal of men is sexist? Then start a campaing to end it. But don't attack a campaign to attack people who think the portrayal of women is sexist because (a) that's not the same thing and (b) you'll look silly so no one will listen to your message.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[fey000]

It would be disingenuous to suggest that sexism does not primarily impact women negatively.

In war? Men get killed in combat, women stay at home.
In crime? Women get lower sentences, in some cases skipping prison time entirely.
In trouble? Heard about support groups for women? I sure have. A man's support from society when in trouble can be summarized as "walk it off and man up".
In court? Women win custody cases by default.

I'm not suggesting that being a woman is all peaches and cream, but get some perspective please. Life isn't black and white, and the gender debate isn't either.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[iluvcapra]

What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas.

This is a consequence of believing that video games are Art. When people claim that video games are creative works, they're saying that people have control over what's in them and that they express things, and that the people who enjoy video games receive this expression. When we talk about video games, granting that they are creative artworks, we can no longer say that they are "merely fun" or just "make money" and don't "have to stand for anything."

People who do media crit "step into" music, TV, films, books and everything else and try to tell people what's "appropriate," because art is all about cultural authority, laying down a marker and saying "this is what we are, this is what we believe in, this is what the artist and the viewer value." I don't think I've heard anyone since the 1960s call for censorship of anything, and if people are allowed to make whatever they want, in whatever medium, anyone else is allowed to say it's crap and state their reasons. That's cultural discourse.

I think most of the "gamer" counterarguments in the whole GamerGate fiasco are sophistic BS, but the one that's particularly egregious is the claim that video games simply are made to "make money," and the only reason trope or gameplay element X is in a video game is because that's what the Market wants, or that's the "only way" it could work. If you say that, that means that video games aren't creative, they have no redeeming value, they just waste time.

I'm really sorry if gamer-types thought video games were supposed to be some kind of "safe space" where they didn't have to worry about politics, or redeeming value, or what other people think. Nobody gets the privilege of operating is such a world, the only people who get "safe spaces" are the ignorant.

Re:Sexism = Sexy these days

[halivar]

It's not feminism anymore; it's puritanism. Another case: we landed a probe on a comet and all we can talk about is a fucking shirt.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Fusselwurm]

I'd rather have ratings done by a non-government funded agency.

Wat. How will having a private entity help with non-biased labeling?

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re: What about the male stereotypes?

[sinij]

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?

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Horribly sexist !

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[plopez]

"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 has a very limited range of things that they do as well or better than the public at large ... - business action beyond that range invariably becomes incompetent, expensive, dangerous, or worse.", and

"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.

Having seen what passes for sexism nowadays...

[russotto]

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Government competence

[sjbe]

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[AmiMoJo]

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.