Although many video games are sexist, many people focus on how they are sexist towards women and not how the sexism found in video games questions an individual’s femininity and masculinity in general. The idea surrounding that the world of gamers consists of only males was true years ago but as of recent studies, that idea has been entirely shattered due to a change in demographics. Despite this change in demographics, this idea still plagues our generations today. These changes in gaming demographics (specifically consoles, computer gaming included) will be a much needed push to develop more people friendly video games.

Games of many types are sexist and gendered. However, before I continue into why this topic grew into such an importance that it drove me to write about it, I suggest watching the video of four year old Riley on Marketing. Gender as a social construct had become so blatant that even a four year old was aware that she had a limited amount of options because of the gender norms tied to her sex. Sometimes it isn’t as conspicuous as colored coded toys assigned to each gender, but appear in more innocuous forms. For example, many people have played the games from Super Mario franchise. A harmless, animated game that a player can easily become engrossed in just playing the game and dodging shells and grabbing mushrooms that the object of the game which is to save the damsel in distress, Princess Peach becomes easily forgettable.

Though we may think World of Warcraft is for the man in his mother’s basement, that’s not true. At least not anymore. Games are—or at least should be—for everyone, but there are many games that undermine that sentiment. There’s a perception that those who own the gamer culture are straight, white men. This perception makes sense, seeing as video game companies have marketed to white males for decades now, and everything that they see in games says ‘women are here for your visual pleasure.’ Playing games is not gendered! But at some point during the earlier stages of gaming, it was lost and this space has since been marketed as a men’s space, and now that’s changing.

Grasping the sexism and gender inequality that exists in video games did not really sink into my brain until I was a teenager. I have   been a gamer since I was about six years old. I would watch my cousins and my older brother play their violent fighting games or first person shooter games without realizing any of the subtext within the game and its characters. At the time, if I wanted to play, I simply could without any hostile comments towards my gender.

As I got older and encountered the online platform of gaming through consoles, my gender became a problem and it was as my friends and I were harassed online that it truly clicked for me. Truth be told, I avoided the online platform just to avoid any kind of harassment from other players. Many women choose gender neutral usernames online or play with their headset off so that players cannot hear whether or not they are female. They try to avoid calling attention to themselves because what we will hear resembles comments like this, ‘get back in the kitchen,’ which compared to what most female users hear, is among some of the less harsh remarks.

Sexist depictions of women, objectification and lack of diversity of the female form as depicted in the previous images are just some of the abundant ways video games discriminate against women. Objectification, fetishism, a hostility toward female gamers, sexual harassment, gendered games, and the overall assumption that female gamers are incompetent and lack skill make the gaming world an unwelcoming place for females. It’s not hard to see why this is so after scrolling through the comments in Jenny Haniver’s website, looking at a couple of gameplays and game advertisements. Ubisoft, a game company goes as far as saying that “women are just too difficult to animate,” in response to questions regarding an abandoned attempt to provide a female character option for one of their most recent Assassin’s Creed games, Assassin’s Creed: Unity despite others coming out and saying that their claim was rather exaggerated. Ubisoft really enjoys holding onto their white, male protagonists.

The video game series of Grand Theft Auto.  Among many of the discriminatory choices you can execute, you can pick up a female sex worker and after vigorous love-making in your car, instead of the awkward one-night stand exit or if you cannot afford to pay her fee, you have the option of murdering her. Lollipop Chainsaw, another provocative example of sexism out of many, where even though there is a female protagonist, she has flat dialogue and fights zombies in a rather “aerodynamic” outfit (see first image). She’s the epitome of what people think many gamers want.

A survey from Pew Research Center that covers the issues around the gamer realm suggests that of the men surveyed, 50 % identified as gamers and of the women surveyed, 48 % identified as gamers. Super Data designed a gamer breakdown, their research cracked down on gaming  preferences for each gender. Some types of video games do not have much of a gap in interest at all while others are slightly dominated by one gender. However, while there are differences in taste, a balanced interest from both genders in gaming exists. The gap between genders that make video games out to be male dominated is an imagined one, or at least as of recent research. A study done by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) shows that of the gamers studied, 53 % were male and 47% were female. The demographics have been changing and each time, the imagined chasm keeps closing and closing.

It’s important to note that video games do not exempt men from sexist portrayals. Characters like Duke Nukem depict negative, and hyper-masculine images. I mean, who would not want to be a brawny, muscular strapping man with his fabulously attired ladies? Hopefully no one, because this is a terrible depiction of masculinity. Unfortunately enough, many games avoid developing their male characters any further than the stereotypical white muscular male protagonist who is slightly rough around the edges. Companies like Ubisoft produce many games with the same recycled male protagonist where the hardest decision that burdens them is simply, to have facial hair or not? Many stereotypes exist for male characters and male gamers. Negative characteristics include, Misogyny, chauvinism, basement dwelling, hostility. These are only a few. This in turn stigmatizes the male demographic just as much as female gamers. It shortens the player pool so men who don’t specifically identify themselves with hyper masculinity feel intimidated. Therefore they become more transparent and irrelevant when it comes to designing games for male gamers.

On the bright side, game franchises like Mass Effect and Resident Evil are more inclusive and diverse. These games provide more customizable characters, choices, and promote more positive images especially the image of women. Bioware, is a company that produces Mass Effect and other people friendly games like Dragon Age. These games display women who are dressed appropriately for their action packed scenarios and their knowledge surpasses their physical attributes and use of a gun.  These women are leaders and of course, in games like Mass Effect you create the personality around your character depending on the decisions you have them make. Resident Evil: Code Veronica, obligates you to play the first half of the game as the character Claire Redfield until you find her brother Chris Redfield. Claire is entirely capable and not just there to be aesthetically pleasing, or temptation to the male protagonist. She has brains, sense and braveness. These are some examples of franchises and games that have responded and are continuing to respond to the demands for games with better content but there are still many improvements to be made.

Why does any of this matter?  Even though we’re talking about games, they affect us in real life. The way we treat each other and the way we treat sexism is not a game. Video games, like any other form of entertainment, influence our culture especially the younger generations and they help shape the people that they are going to become. Younger males are the primary audience of this platform of entertainment, and they’re given these types of games because that is what creators think they want but they are taught to desire content that demeans women, and defines masculinity in destructive ways.
No one is born wanting these things. Creating a ‘how to play’ guide and sliding it in between a variety of texts and forms of entertainment actually attributes how society relates to you and you to yourself. We can teach them to want better. We might think the games are a break from learning but they like, all other forms of entertainment, teach us something. We cannot think so little of people to imagine that they are not intelligent or empathetic enough to handle or desire forms of entertainment that handle the topic of gender in a positive and inclusive manner. We are truly missing out on a very good learning opportunity. Video games didn’t originate as “Gamer guys only” entertainment and were made with the intentions of being a source of entertainment for many people of many types. Somewhere along the way that has been lost and “no girls allowed” image was produced and swelled the gaming community. Games are and should be for everyone and we should work on bringing that back.

Elizabeth Quezada

WRT 205

Professor Phillips

February 22nd 2016

Conversation on Food Politics & Safety: Choices

You can very easily go onto today’s favorite search engine and type in, “Are GMOs harmful?” or “Is organic food really that much better?” into the search bar and pull up some quick and dirty answers to those questions. Really though, you are just a concerned consumer being tossed into the large, messy bowl of food politics and safety. You’ll find a mesh of articles telling you what the author thinks and a healthy dose of statistics thrown your way if you’re lucky. Believe it or not,  food safety and politics does not just pertain to the consumers health based needs! Money, the environment are a huge portion of food safety and the political sphere represents delicious three course meal you can’t pull your eyes from. When it comes to food safety, I belong to the team that’s pro-labeling. I believe that despite the benefits of either side, consumers deserve the right to know what they choose to put in their system.

What do people have to say about this discourse?

Some individuals argue between the efficiency and benefits of either organic or conventional farming while others argues that consumers should have a choice within the food system. Food Inc., a documentary that argues against GMOs, questions the food system attacks the opaqueness of the system. “Do you know where your food comes from?” This documentary attempts to bring forth information for their audience to process while ultimately trying to get you on their side of the argument. The director of the film, Robert Kenner does a fantastic job at distributing information and using the medium of film to their advantage and he also really stretches out the conversation that finds its way to our dinner tables every night. While the film does give their viewers a mouthful of information, it is heavily biased in arguing more for one side instead of bringing out the facts and letting you decide what side you want to eat grass from. One of my favorite pieces to read in regards to the issues around food safety and politics,  “Organic Illusions,” written by a farmer, Blake Hurst, suggests that though the government cannot afford a form of organic agriculture, they can afford to provide a system with choices. However, he does not present his claim in a helpful or resourceful manner. Carrying a heavily sarcastic tone and providing a much more entertaining read that can be read throughout the masses, Hurst maintains a “Who cares about organic or conventional farming?” attitude and suggests without any real traceable sources, that what really matters in this complex food system is not a romanticized “version of agriculture”(Hurst) but “a food system that provides lots of choices,” (Hurst). Unfortunately, as entertaining as he may be, he does not provide enough credible information to really let his audience decide the importance of conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture. He attacks organic farming more than he complains about farming in general.

Although I do understand the benefits of either side, I think the two styles of agriculture can exist together but the government could afford to be a little more transparent, less sketchy when it came to interviews (Food Inc.) Truthfully, labeling the food at your local grocery store is more about allowing the consumer to be more aware and informed of their decisions. Nearly 50 nations worldwide require that all GE foods be labeled as such (Dahl), so what’s the big deal? California tried to pass the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act back in November of 2012 (Dahl) and had it been passed, California would have been the first state to require the labeling of food products. The bill sounds pretty until you know what it really does and then you wonder, what’s the point? The bill would have exempted “meat, dairy, and other products from animals that were themselves genetically engineered. It would have also exempted food sold in restaurants and alcohol,” (Dahl). Though it wouldn’t have proved as effective as it could have been, this was considered a step forwards in the food revolution. Consumers are getting more fed up as “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal,” (Nestle). Only 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations (Nestle). That number seems incredibly low for a population as large as the American population. The statistics speak for themselves here, how safe do you really think your food really is? Go ahead, type in E Coli and Salmonella outbreaks in your search bar and determine just how frequent they are. Consumer safety should always be the government’s priority but money allows illness and corruption to really slip through the cracks,  just ask your local farmer.

While many like Hurst believe that a romanticized version of farming would be too costly, I do agree that labeling for consumer health reasons proves to be a solution everyone could be happier with. There’s evidence according to Dahl and his source, Hansen,  to suggest a connection between GE Crops and allergenicity, which provides more than enough reason to label foods. Data from the Centers of Disease control and Prevention show an 18% increase in reported food allergy cases among children between 1997 and 2007 (Dahl), that alone proves to be alarming as a consumer myself. Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, suggests a theoretical example of how tracking health risks would work: “If you take a gene from the kiwifruit, put it into a tomato and the tomato gets turned into sauce for your pizza, and there’s an allergic reaction…this is not like [allergy concerns associated with] conventional foods because the problem is going to for one particular [bio-engineered modification]. How are you going to figure out unless it’s labeled? You can’t and that’s why so many countries have labeling,” (Hansen), except us of course. There should always be a choice presented for consumers, for health–for ethical reasons, our government after all is supposed to be for the people and we made that choice, didn’t we?

Sources:

• “You are what they eat,” Consumer Reports, 2005

• Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. The American, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

• Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: U of California, 2010. Print.

• Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Movie One, 2008.

• Dahl, Richard. “To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods.” Environ Health Perspect Environmental Health Perspectives 120.9 (2012). Jstor. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.