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

More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Iamthecheese]

I personally won't care a whit about this one but more detailed ratings can only be a good thing. I envision an ecosystem of metadata ranging from "suitability for playing in a car on a laptop" to "power usage profile" It's not like the world is short on disk space.

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

[Noah Haders]

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.

Yeah, we need to back up on this. The /. headline was horribly misleading. A better way to put it, a private advocacy group won a one-time govt grant to explore this. Govts and universities and NSF give out all sorts of grants for all weird topics. So don't flip out about the guvt angle

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:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the test should be gender-neutral.

There are many women-centred films that do not feature at least two men talking about a topic other than women.

They should also be considered sexist.

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...

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[nedlohs]

Minecraft fails it.
Bayonetta passes it.

Maybe using a test created in a comic strip isn't going to produce the desired results.

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[iluvcapra]

It certainly couldn't be any worse than the MPAA.

Ironically, the solution to the MPAA "problem" that many people propose, including Kirby Dick in This Film is Not Yet Rated, is film ratings by a government agency! I remember in that documentary in particular the British (government) film rating system is held up as an exemplar of the way it's "supposed" to work.

Most European countries have government film ratings, that's pretty par for the course over there. That a European state government agency would do video game ratings is natural. (Setting aside the question of wether or not rating "sexism" is an advisable thing.)

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Penguinisto]

Ever read a credit card agreement, insurance contract, or mortgage agreement?

There's a huge difference between a private contract you willingly enter into, and a government edict that you are forced into and cannot opt out of.

"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

I agree, and my agreement to your point does not invalidate what I wrote. ;)

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Trepidity]

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.)

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Penguinisto]

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).

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[dryeo]

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Blue Stone]

>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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[tnk1]

While what you say is true, and calling this a "government-funded agency" is a bit vague, we should remember that money can cause certain barriers to be overcome that otherwise were intended to remain intact.

In the United States, the Federal government has a number of limitations. For instance, education is firmly in the realm of the states. So what about the Department of Education then? It derives all its real authority from the ability to grant or withhold federal funds from the state or other educational institutions if they ignore the Education Department. The Federal government knows that government in general is addicted to Other People's Money, so that kind of willpower rarely happens.

The same mechanism works for other parts of the Federal system, and any government can influence private institutions with money as well. If a particular line of research tends to show evidence for a politically useful hypothesis, funding a group of researchers who are proceeding down a sympathetic path can provide go-to facts and legitimacy for that politics. Even if science eventually discovers the opposite of what its political backers believe, in the process, it can go a great distance down paths that are not proven before anyone ever establishes good theories. Even for scientists with completely pure intentions and rigorous experimentation and reporting ethics, there is the possibility of premature pronouncements that sound like the Word of God to laypeople and politicians.

Consider here, a small amount of money provides a study which could be used in source material for legislation. When someone asks for a citation on Slashdot, this study can then be provided. Would that study have happened without out the $37k? What attitudes on the grant approval board make that considered to be a worthwhile use of money?

I am not trying to suggest that anyone acted improperly in this case. In fact, I see no direct evidence of that at all. The point is merely that, by funding research, you can select a direction that it goes in by selecting who gets what money and that is a very real factor. There is often a lot more science than there is money. It then becomes a value judgement on behalf of some other party who gets that money.

The power to confer money can get around constitutional limitations, and provide useful material for politics. Overlooking the targets of money, just because they get "small grants" is not always wise. While individual grants are small, the overall current of grants may show that there are trends in how that money is apportioned. We need to understand that funding anything gives it power, and whether the intention is good or not, it can serve to reinforce a particular perspective.

It may not be a good thing for the government to closely involve itself with shaping the facts that voters and lawmakers use to make decisions with.

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[clarkkent09]

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.

Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing

[Pseudonym]

If crime has been rising constantly on a per capita basis for the last 40 years (and I don't know that this is the case), it's probably because the definition of what constitutes a "crime" is changing, or possibly that you're counting arrests and convictions rather than crimes.

At any rate, all criminologists agree that the rate of violent crime has been steadily decreasing since colonial times.

Swedish video games tagged 'sexist'

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, that might not be a deterrent to sales...

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 !

[Fusselwurm]

Just for women ? That's really sexist !

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.

Still: women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive (strength, power, etc). So the problem of sexism against females should get priority imho.

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 !

[codebonobo]

Just for women ? That's really sexist !

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.

Still: women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive (strength, power, etc). So the problem of sexism against females should get priority imho.

Portraying men as sex addicted, killing machine simpletons is degrading to the male gender. Many feminists would disagree with you and suggest that female sexuality if empowering.

Re:Horribly sexist !

[ceoyoyo]

Are they? I recently read an article by a prominent feminist writer talking about the media and female body image. She included a throwaway sentence about this being the result of the "patriarchy" suppressing women. I then took a scroll through my Facebook feed, where every fourth item was an advertisement urging me to take some sort of drug to increase my muscle mass.

People are portrayed in degrading ways in modern media, but I'm not sure it's quite as one sided as generally presented. GTA had prostitutes, but it also had psychotic gangsters who were invariably male.

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.

Re:Horribly sexist !

[Pablew Nopl]

Why does this site allow hateful bigots such as you to post?

Because the ability to not have your comment outright deleted is one of Slashdot's positive points.

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

[jedidiah]

Also, this kind of ventures into the territory of "you can be smart or you can be pretty". It helps perpetrate the idea that you have to make yourself a pariah from the majority of women in order to actually be anything you want to be. That's because the missing bit of information here is that women are as sexist as anyone else and will impose their sense of orthodoxy quite readily.

A genuinely liberated "taking care of business" type of woman may find herself shunned by both the homemaker and the "feminist" crowd.

Both will want to control your choices equally.

That's what this "sexism" rating is all about: feminists want to act like church ladies and impose their neo-victorian attitudes on everyone.

Feminists are Tea Baggers without the biblical references.

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:Whoa whoa whoa

[Tyr07]

There's a 100 things you can say at a work place and kiss your ass out the door.

It also helps that HR usually has it's roles filled by women who will have no problem gutting you for anything that defends a man, period.
Men won't hire you because they understand the social impacts and what people do in these situations, my god defense of a man, and you HIRED HIM you're JUST AS BAD!

I don't say any of this in the real world, except privately with people that are logical., I'm a man and I know I'm not allowed to say it. I know my place in the office, it's to shutup and agree with what women say are wrong about what men do in all ways that they say so.

Says something on it's own, doesn't it?

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[neoritter]

Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate.

Yes it is, in today's society sexism is inappropriate. Therefore, saying that game A is incredibly sexist is telling you that it is incredibly inappropriate.

It's about portraying women with degrading properties, when men are not.

You have not been paying attention to games or any other form of creative media. Every anti-hero in any game is a character given degrading properties. You have ignorant buffoon male characters in numerous games. Take the blinders off please. The only reason you don't recognize it when it comes up is because men can be given any quality and it not be considered some statement about men in real life (e.g. oh he's just a lazy alcoholic, not all men are alcoholics). But if it's a woman, then it somehow morphs into a statement about all women, instead of that one, individual character in the story. You can't have it both ways, if characters in games are a reflection of their labels in real life, then it applies to both sexes.

And while we're on the subject of degrading properties, this is irrelevant to the above point but. Most gamers who had played the older Metroid games, were annoyed to pissed that Samus was neutered to be a dependent know nothing in some of the recent Metroid games.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

[serviscope_minor]

Why do you think I have to support the goals of a campaign that works against men and have my own campaign to try and get support for it?

Huh? I don't exactly follow. Would you care to rephrase?

I can just fucking drop support and dismiss the campaign that isn't about equality, I don't have to "leave it alone". I can tell you right now every feminist group in the world would be on my ass in a second if I started a campaign about equality for men, saying it hurt their cause, in fact it's been done my friend.

"every" sounds very much like hyperbole to me. So, what was this campaign by your friend that got jumped all over?

The problem is narrow minded self interest groups don't impress me, if they want to start a campaign about equality for everyone, I'll support that

Well, you've managed to create a hypothetical thing that is impossible to create. So you would avoid all quality campaigns because they don't also support and advocate equality for those poor sods living in North Korea? There's too many problems in the world for people to care about them all. But caring about a small subset and trying to improve that doesn't detract from any of the others, nor does it stop other people from acting.

Is it not good enough until all women have millions of dollars, then maybe men can stop being treated like disposable garbage that should serve them?

I'm afraid you've lost me on this particular point.

And games are FINE the way they are.

Not everyone agrees.

I don't want you fucking with them that's the issue,

Well, you should have no expectation that I'll pay the blindest bit of attention to you when you demand I spend my time in certain ways. Heck since you're making absolute demands on my time, I almost feel like fucking with games just to spite you.

and sure I can not buy their products, but you know what? If people are too afraid their games will be judged "Sexist" so they lose profits, games will suffer. Why? Because it doesn't have to be a blonde bimbo for someone to label it sexist, someone can be pissed off that there is a pretty face in it.

really? I'm not sure I'e heard of that happening.

I shouldn't have to start a campaign for sexism against me

You should if you care about it. Why do you expect other people to do all the legwork for you?

it should be just a campaign against sexism, period. If you think they need to be separate, you're saying, there needs to be a fight over it where men and women aren't supporting each other. Which means campaigns about sexism about women are just one sided.

Nope. They can be together or separate. I see no reason why you get to decide that some cause is "big enough" to be worthy and why smaller causes are therefore not. People fight for causes close to their heart. Sometimes those are small, sometimes they are large. There are more isms than sexism anyway. Why don't you demand that any campaign basically includes every injustice ever?

You don't seem to understand that someone fighting for one corner of a large cause does not detract from either that corner or the cause as a whole.

How do you expect men to support one sided campaigns?

You seem to view the world entirely through the lens of conflicts and sides. I'm not enturely sure why.

If you care so much, why not start a campaign against all forms of sexism. Or, try to create an umbrella organisation to unite all the sub organisations. It would surely do more good than whining on the internet about how people aren't spending their valuable time promoting your pet cause when not even you are apparently prepared to put time into it.

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.

Good, get that Ms. Pacman

[will_die]

Time to get that dot eatting trollop. Running around with none thing else but a pink bow tie, not even strategically placed.
Not to mention the various displays she allowed of herself on the arcade cabinet.

"Swedish Video Game."

[kamapuaa]

Well it's about time...the vast cultural influence of Swedish video games here in the United States has just been too much. My brother got hooked on "Lutefisk Avenger," like he just can't stop playing it. I thought it was a bad sign when he re-designed his kitchen to look more like an IKEA showroom. Then he put mayonnaise in a toothpaste tube! If he starts becoming a computer hacker who fights Nazis I am going to have to take away his Super Nintendo.

Counterproductive

[Thanshin]

1 - Label to specify what games contain sexy women.
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 - ... Slow clap?

Re:Awesome :)

[DavidCBillen]

Can we work systemd into the discussion?

Be a man

[ranton]

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

Boys are certainly negatively impacted by macho ideals such as the importance of "being a man." Any claim that girls are negatively affected by big breasted meek women in video games must also concede that boys are negatively affected by buff macho men who can solve all problems by shooting or beating up their opponents. I think both claims are a bit over the top, but making one claim and not the other is quite hypocritical.

Re:Be a man

[serviscope_minor]

Boys are certainly negatively impacted by macho ideals such as the importance of "being a man." Any claim that girls are negatively affected by big breasted meek women in video games must also concede that boys are negatively affected by buff macho men who can solve all problems by shooting or beating up their opponents. I think both claims are a bit over the top,

Does anyone deny that? Personally I think the two are closely related. The attitude that women are worse than men means that men being more like women makes them an object of derision. This is deeply harmful to a large number of men who don't fit into the insane steroetypes that many people try to live by.

Sexism (in this case assuming women are worse) is the cause, but the victims are both women and men.

but making one claim and not the other is quite hypocritical.

No, to make one and DENY the other would be hypocritical. Merely failing to make the claim is not enough. One doesn't have to explore every corollary in order to avoid being a hypocrite.

SJW Infection

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:SJW Infection

[serviscope_minor]

Another example of feminism trying to impose its will upon every facet of life.

Wow looks like we have a butthurt gater dudebro here.

Apparently someone giving a small grant to study whether simply labelling some games would be a good idea is "feminism trying to impose its will upon every facet of life".

No one's forcing "your" games to change. No one's even labelling them. Someone somewhere is investigating whether it may or may not be a good idea. If you think that's a massive grand conspiracy against the dudebro way of life, then, well, frankly you have problems.

Whole list of possibly offensive content?

[DumbSwede]

I would give Negative grades for each of the following:

Violence
Nudity
Sexism
Racism/Stereotyping (including slights to LGBT society)
Culturally insensitive
Religiously Intolerant
Religious Indoctrination
Politically Driven Agenda
Historically Inaccurate

Positive Grades for These:

Educational
Social Responsible
Mentally Stimulating
Historically Accurate

And an overall aggregate score

Granted things like Politically Driven Agenda would be hotly contested every time and couldn’t possibly work in the real world, but this would be a near ideal list. As long as it isn’t censorship what’s wrong with full disclosure. If a game would be embarrassed to be labeled Sexism Level 4, then maybe they need to dial back the bikini babes at the race start. I wouldn't want to get too carried away with categories, others may suggest a few more, but if we keep it to under 20 that shouldn't be too over the top, more like a list of ingredients in prepackaged food.

Because....

[Libertarian_Geek]

Tell me again what this label is supposed to accomplish: Warning - Sexist Content

Tell me again what this label actually accomplished: Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics

hmmmm

#gamergate

[emblemparade]

OK, my fellow gamergaters, it's time to dox Sweden!

She lives just east of Norway and west of Finland. Make sure to visit that feminazi every day and teach her the consequences of trying to censor all games and force us to play Depression Quest!

Together we will fight to guarantee better ethics in game journalism.

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:Sexism = Sexy these days

[Penguinisto]

Damn - where are mod points where you need them?

Now if that scientists had looked dead into the camera and said "Yeah, it's a nice shirt a ladyfriend of mine designed, and I wore it as a favor to her. Don't like it? Get the sand outta yer vag and shut the fuck up", I think I would have fell out of my chair in trying to get up and cheer... and so would most other men.

Re:Let's see the ESRB get on board

[Tyr07]

I hope true equality hits so I can see all the women complaining more than men do and somehow still call it unbalanced unless they're on top. Even feminist that have reason and want real equality don't want to identify as a 'feminist' for the bad name given to them from the loudest ones who aren't asking for equality but preferred treatment.

Re:feminism

[XxtraLarGe]

it's time we tell them to man up and stop complaining about perceived sexism.

Irony? :-D

It's a stupid test

[DCFC]

Imagine that we believe that "two women talking about something other than men" was a good test, we'd therefore lose:

Colonel Samantha Carter, PhD Physicist, intergalactic heroine, smarter than God. Can program, fly fighter jets & alien spaceships, shoot and do things that they don't bother to explain because they are simply beyond us poor males to understand. So that's Stargate gone.

Lt Uhura: Dr Martin Luther King who *some people* see as quite into rights loudly praised her character, but I can't recall her talking to women much, except maybe some of the aliens might have been female, so that's Star Trek gone.

ST in it's various forms look remarkably feminist (usually) women commanded warships in ST long before the US Navy let them, they are engineers, scientists, doctors and of course inexplicable nexus of unknown forces.

Ripley from Alien, Aliens, Alien3, Return of the Alien, The Alien strikes back, Alien Resuscitation. Smart, hard, no bimbo, the Aliens are apparently female, she kills them, conversation with them is rare. The men are a) weak, b) stupid, c) dishonest, d) weak, stupid and dishonest

X-Files : Scully is smart and hardly ever talks to women.

Agents of SHIELD: Loads of women programming, analysing and occasionally shooting at people. The inter-female dialog is rare.

Babylon 5: Strong women, being heads of security, scientists, highly cultured aliens.

Torchwood : Strong female lead, again almost no inter-female dialog.

Under the Dome : The main character is a strong woman, all the weak bad people are men

Terminator 1,2,3, Sarah Connor : Oh look ! what a surprise a strong woman in a world of defective men

I've not yet seen Interstellar, but let me guess, the women in it are smart and honest and whoever is screwing things up is a man ?

I can't be the only person who's noticed that in many SciFi and action films a dumb American male is accompanied by a highly educated woman who actually understands what is going on, whilst he shoots at it.

Re:It's a stupid test

[Zembar]

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.

Re:It's a stupid test

[TimboJones]

Don't forget that you're also introducing the concept of "losing" media that doesn't pass this test. Literally no-one is advocating for bans on sexist media, except perhaps folks as thick-headed and fringe as the ones who don't think sexism is a problem.

Re:It's a stupid test

[AmiMoJo]

Colonel Samantha Carter

She had conversations with numerous other women about things other than men, notably with the female doctor about the health of other female staff and aliens.

Lt Uhura

The original was a pioneer in her time, but that doesn't mean she was perfect. The new one is terrible, basically just there to provide comedy and strife for Spock and no story/personality of her own.

Scully is smart and hardly ever talks to women.

True, there was definitely a lack of female characters in the X-Files.

Babylon 5

Similar to the X-Files, the few noteworthy female characters suffered from only having men to talk to.

Terminator 1,2,3, Sarah Connor : Oh look ! what a surprise a strong woman in a world of defective men

Maybe you are noticing a trend? It's rarely the one strong guy, there are usually plenty of men with things to talk about other than women. Sarah Connor is a strong female character, but she rarely gets to interact with other strong female characters.

What century is this?

[argStyopa]

Wait, are women independent self-aware creatures fully capable of being anything and doing anything they want, or are they hothouse flowers who need rigorous and pervasive government protections (and of course ample funding) to ensure that their delicate sensibilities aren't offended by coarse language?

Maybe their message of "don't treat me as a sexual object all the time" would be more persuasive if the internet wasn't full of 8 million new pictures EVERY DAY day of ducklipped skanks' selfies of their tits, ass, or other body parts?

Hey, I DO get it: just because millions of women are ho's, doesn't ipso facto mean ALL women are ho's - that's obvious. But to then castigate men for not immediately recognizing which are which seems a wee bit unfair, no?

The boundary line is pretty fucking gray, and constantly shifting, especially when there seem to be many many women who aren't ACTUALLY ho's but want to seem like they are for the attention?

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:Sexism only cuts one way.

[rebelwarlock]

What's frightening about your comment is that it's hard to tell if you're joking or not.

Re:feminism

[geekoid]

This is people trying to do something productive about it.
Are you seriously that stupid?

Re:What about the male stereotypes?

[serviscope_minor]

Well, if they had your attidude, then where does it end? There's more bigorty than just sexism so why not study racism too? And other isms and everything. Basically it seems you might only be happy if the grant was to study everything ever and at that point it's far too big to contemplate.

There is nothing wrong with focussing on one aspect and studying that. If you think that there's a problem with sexist portrayal of men in video games, then make your case for studying it and write a grant.

Them studying the portray of women does not prevent you or anyone else from studing the portrayal of women, men, or small blue furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

The Beschdel test is a strange starting point.

[91degrees]

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.

Re:What about the male stereotypes?

[jabuzz]

Princess Elsa. Tick for Princess (though I admit she does become a queen in the movie), Tick for Disney. Please find one single second in Frozen when Elsa is even interested in a man let alone mindlessly chasing one. So the all of them fails and I only had to think about it for like 30 seconds.

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.

Sweeden

[donscarletti]

As far as I know, the Swedish game industry consists of DiCE (Battlefield series: faceless men with guns + bugs. Mirror's Edge: slightly poorly thought out controls + bugs), Arrowhead (faceless mages + bugs) and Coffee Stain Studios (goats + bugs). It seems like Swedish game developers have a huge struggle against writing code that actually does what it is supposed to, not in its representation of female characters. It has gotten to the point that until you see a Swedish game in the "bargain bin" at your games retailer that it is guaranteed that won't be patched to a playable state yet.

It seems that since King Gustavus Adolphus or whoever the hell it was convinced the vikings to stop going on voyages to rape remote villages and settle down to do "civilized" work that entire country has been writing code the way that IKIA builds furniture, by which I mean that it is good for the first ten iterations and then crashes hard thereafter. I have yet to play a Swedish game that has remained stable for long enough to degrade women before it runs out of memory, reads from/writes to a null pointer, totally screws up the render state or overwrites a vertex buffer with random garbage.

Seriously, look at your supposed "retard cousin" next door Finland, does Trine crash? Does Angry Birds crash? How about Crayon Physics, Super Stardust or Clash of Clans? No, they run beautifully and smoothly. And does anyone give a shit that the Theif in Trine covers her face and not her legs? No, not even Germaine Grier, Simone de Beauvoir or any of your feminist type authors would pick a deeply nuanced female character over one that actually runs for 10 minutes without crashing. I mean, how could you be a female role model while accessing a null pointer.

Seriously Sweden, you have to learn to code before you get all preachy on us all.

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[Anonymous Coward]

You and your ilk are ** morons. The shirt was a birthday present from a FEMALE friend that made design herself. If you have an issue with it, find the nearest bridge and jump from it because this world is too dangerous for hypersensitive idiots like you.

I found pretty amusing that your prudes take insult in the shirt when the guy was IN SHORTS and proudly showing his $@$# tattoos. As for discouragement of women.. the whole ordeal is an study ion hypocrisy. One of the lead scientists in the project was a FEMALE and instead of focusing in her achievements as a role model for females in STEM, the retarded idiot doing the interview focused in his shirt and uh. the patriarchy and how it discourages delicate flowers from entering the field.

For the rest of you, if someone is interested in support the guy:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist

PC refers to the platform, not the rating

[liquid_schwartz]

PC gaming used to mean that it was played on computers as opposed to consoles. Now PC gaming has taken on a whole new meaning...

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[neoritter]

I give a shit to the people who assume misogyny. Maybe it's my pedantic nature, but displaying sexy women on a shirt at work is at worse sexual harassment, not misogyny.

Is Tomb Raider sexist?

[LordNimon]

Some people would say the Tomb Raider games are sexist, because of the way Lara Croft is modeled. But she's a strong, indepedent, intelligent, and very capable individual. I think she's a great role model for my 12-year-old daughter. If I buy the next Tomb Raider game for her, will I be labeled sexist?

Re:Is Tomb Raider sexist?

[serviscope_minor]

Well, unless the Tomb Raider games have improved: don't.

Run down the corridor haha! You've been killed by the invisible spike pit.

OK. Reload.

Run down the corridor jump the invisible spike pit haha you've been killed by a bolder dropping on your head you had no chance of ever seeing.

OK fine. Reload

Run down the corridor, jump the invisible spike pit. Stop and back up 3mm to avoid the boulder. Go forward and round the corner and bam you've just been splatted by the very well hidden spike hurling machine.

etc.

The best thing about Tomb Raider was in TR2, where when you fell from a height, Lara died with a richly satisfying crunch.

Re:What about the male stereotypes?

[jabuzz]

Yeah Elsa in that aforementioned Frozen. I would add that in my random sampling (aka my nieces) and the speed at which Elsa merchandising sells out young children (probably mostly girls) are way more into the totally uninterested in men Elsa than Anna.

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:Sexism = Sexy these days

[Penguinisto]

I actually went and asked a female physicist about it. Her response if she'd been at this lab when younger (older academics develop a very, very thick skin it seems) then yes she would have found it (a lab head with a shirt emblazoned with nearly naked women on it) very off putting probably to the point of not going there.

Anecdotes mean nothing, and here's why: My wife's favorite t-shirt has an almost-nude Bettie Page in full dominatrix gear, and she happily wore it to work when we first met (albeit she's not a physicist or in academia, but she does work in the tech realm.) The difference? She's completely secure in her self-image, and in her femininity - enough that she doesn't give a damn about what some guy wears.

...at making a group feel completely excluded.

What group - militant feministas who are so insecure in their self-image that they have to lash out at the planet? In all honesty, fuck them. I get the whole professional attire business, but I refuse to attenuate my life or attire out of fear that I might somehow offend the perpetually-offended.

If the group you refer to is simply 'women in general'? Sorry, but that group is way too damned diverse to be put into a container, and the dude's shirt wasn't pornographic, so what the hell?

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[Mr. Shotgun]

His friend that made the shirt tweeted about it soon after the controversy erupted:https://twitter.com/ellyprizeman/status/532927131098300416
Quite frankly I am pretty sure the guy did what every one else does when they get up in the morning to go to work, grab a shirt and some pants and go. He had more important things on his mind than a shirt like, I dunno, landing a probe on a comet.

feminism

[The_AV8R]

It's because of bigots like you that guys like me feel feminism still needs to exist. Same goes for affirmative action.

The simple rule is to treat others as you'd want to be treated. Period. How often do you hear about women having too much power? Never by sane people. How many females are on boards of directors? Way too few. Do women have way more obstacles to overcome just to do well at work? You bet your ass they do. Of course men "don't talk and bitch about it" because they have no idea how poorly women can be treated.

I know women to this day who are seen more as sex objects than colleagues and never taken seriously at work, even though they happen to be smarter than many of the others in the room. They are often ignored or 'mansplained to' (Wikipedia). Women (and men) actually ARE doing something productive about it by informing the ignorant that women generally have it rougher than men.

As for life being unfair, I agree with you, but not with the word 'sometimes'. Being a woman on earth means 'almost every time' life is unfair, and I don't see why that should be the status quo nor why we shouldn't set a high standard of conduct for ourselves to resolve that.

By the way, why is calling a locker room full of guys 'ladies' or something based on the feminine like 'bitching' derogatory , while telling women to 'man up' supposed to mean to strive for better?

I don't see why the burden of action should be on those who are subjugated to unfair behaviour. Why isn't it up to men to stop being jerks?

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[Pablew Nopl]

It's not sexual harassment, and it's not misogyny.

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[aevan]

https://twitter.com/ellypriZeM... Of course, she's just clearly internalised her misogyny.

Re: Sexism = Sexy these days

[Kythe]

Unfortunately, no. I've had to mute several people on my Twitter feed (from whom I normally enjoy seeing updates) because the controversy has not yet died.

Re:feminism

[denzacar]

This is people trying to do something productive about it.

No.
This is people trying to do something they BELIEVE will be favorable to their PERSONAL idea of a solution to their PERSONAL idea and PERCEPTION of a problem they PERCEIVE.

I.e. It is about as productive as me buying a large quantity of mice traps and positioning them at "strategic locations" around my home because I believe that my neighbor is spying on me with the help of trained mice. Which I know cause I've noticed that he does not particularly like cats.

An obsessive-compulsive action performed because "something has to be done" to fix a PERCEIVED aspect of a potential problem.
Which, even should the problem turn out to be real, is still a mere case of "ANY action is better than inaction".
Be it that my neighbor really is spying on me - or that Sweden has a clear and present problem of rampant sexism which requires warning labels on works of fiction, entertainment and art.

After all, "parental advisory" stickers on works of fiction, entertainment and art REALLY were necessary AND they have both reduced the exposure of youth to "inappropriate material" AND have either reduced or completely eliminated whatever it was that was poisoning the minds of the youth.
Which is clearly visible in the higher quality of humans born and raised since 1990.
They are simply better.

Assange would disagree

[Zynder]

What! Sweden doesn't criminalize trivial things? Like maybe having sex without a condom....ask Julian Assange how that worked out for him. Oh wait, you can't because he's in hiding.