The story of Ruby Underboob
I thought this was pretty classy:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-15-hawken-art-prank-changes-ceos-mind-about-scantily-clad-women
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-15-hawken-art-prank-changes-ceos-mind-about-scantily-clad-women
Comments
I'm usually not one for debate but, who feels that "hyper-sexualising" men to the equal extent as women currently are, would balance out the currently obvious imbalance? It just occurs to me that the end result of the article is that they hung two equally pervy pictures next to each other and everyone was happier(I know that's not the point of the article).
Would you say its the duty of the industry to make games in general less unnecessarily scantily clad outside of M-rated games, or shouldn't there be a industry wide reduction (or censorship) on the exaggerated and fantastic portrayal of humans (particularly in a sexualised context)?
I think whatever action happens that makes the one side aware of the other side is great, although that's a fair point - is the point to get everyone comfortable with everything - not because the one is dominant over the other - but because both sides are equally exposed and conscious and conscientious, or is it to undermine and remove the supposed imbalance?
The end result of the affair was that they hung one picture of a scantily clad woman up (that had originally been put up as a kind of motivation poster) next to a protest poster that was done as a reaction to the first poster by one of their staff.
So the context isn't "underboobs and banana hammocks are awesome just like Hawken"...
But something like "we work in an environment with lots of different people with different points of view and we want to get to know each other, and we all love Hawken".
I'd be very wary of suggesting whether games in generalshould get more scantily clad or less scantily clad. Obviously in Hawken, a game about robots, presenting titillating women to entice teenage boys to play their game, while alienating others, is a little silly. I think context is very important and I imagine that Hawken (a game about robots) doesn't have the context to portray those mature themes in a mature way (in other words I imagine it's just ham-fisted fan service).
What I think was good about this Hawken incident was that the CEO (and probably others) left the incident having learnt to think about how the portrayal of women (and men perhaps) affects different people.
Also, next up: Robots in undercarriage spanner hammocks.
I agree about not suggesting that all games in general should change, especially with limiting artistic freedom etc. but I do think certain things should be commonly taboo and left for an older audience (well it probably is already). I was just thinking about games that aren't rated mature that portray people in ways that should not be open to a younger crowd (this is probably quite subjective). Should we as developers not try harder to make distinct boundaries of what is "ok"? It just seems to me the media and mainstream games tend to blur the boundaries further and further. Maybe its just me :/
Sorry I'm not assuming anyone disagrees, I'm more just thinking out aloud so that I can formulate my own opinions about these topics (which I generally tend to ignore) and make sure my thinking isn't flawed.
And we can be a part of educating our players and critics by making games that approach these subjects, games that set better expectations and standards. And we can support other developers and the journalists who strive to teach through critique or to improve things by example.
I guess I'd like for the ratings boards to consider things like racism and sexism, but it's such tricky territory, I don't really think those institutions are capable of navigating it.
And then they did that and I was happy ;)
NYPD declares topless women not breaking the law.
That declaration was made because there was a protest with people touting "Free free free your breasts" on the streets of NY.
So, what do you think?
(NSFW) http://www.policymic.com/articles/42359/topless-women-in-public-not-breaking-the-law-says-nypd
As I wrote in my previous post, I'm not exactly for paternalistic government intervention in shaping behavior (in the case of issues that can be really complicated). But I don't exactly know what the ramification of allowing women (and men I presume) to walk around New York topless without legal punishment. I'd expect the ramifications are pretty much nothing, except for women being less discriminated against (which is what the ruling basically said, and the article made the point that the parity in gender treatment was unconstitutional anyway and in practice it allowed some nasty situations to occur).
Though I'm no legal boff, and I know very little about governing large populations, on the face of it the new ruling seems to be a good thing?
But really the only relation to the Hawken incident is that both events involve partially clad women. One is an issue of representation of women in a game studio that teaches the CEO (and the studio) a lesson, the other is about upholding the American constitution for actual women who choose to be topless in New York.
At the end of the day, they're both steps in the direction of equality, but that step is far ahead of the curve of the normal perceptions. Which begs the question: Are we are all generally *wrong* in our perceptions? Is complete and utter equality the right thing?
And if pateranlistic legislation shouldn't be used to enforce equality, how would human nature eventually arrive at a desired outcome that is probably derived from culture, as opposed to nature?
I'm just wondering out loud, I don't have any answers... -_-
Nor would I say that the Hawken incident is "far ahead" of the curve of "normal" perceptions. Scantily clad promotional posters of women aren't placed in most sexually integrated workplaces. That this could be seen as "normal" in the games industry is precisely the problem the Hawken incident was addressing.
While it is extremely simplistic, it does offer a good introduction to the general theory of the male gaze. While I find the conclusion somewhat reductionist it explains the concept clearly.
A conflation that happens, and I see happening here, is that of equality and sexual liberation to objectification. The purpose is fundamentally different. One is about ownership and agency over one's own body, the other is about loss of agency over the body, display and gratification.