That would be kind of funny, if in the Empire everyone assumes the really masculine, military, warrior type guys must be gay.

Is that why I only got a one-night stand with Pierce? Damn it.

Edit: Also, you wouldn't end up with a lot of the feminine=bad basis. You'd probably see straight men (if your words are true, CopperJack) taking up feminine traits to make themselves look more "straight" And your straight-acting-gays? Totes feminine men.

That would be kind of funny, if in the Empire everyone assumes the really masculine, military, warrior type guys must be gay.

Which is one of the more prevalent stereotypes out there. Masculine men who love to hang out at the gym all the time

Oddly, growing up, I thought masculine men were all gay and feminine men were all straight

Which is one of the more prevalent stereotypes out there. Masculine men who love to hang out at the gym all the time

 

Oddly, growing up, I thought masculine men were all gay and feminine men were all straight

Have you seen the video of the woman wearing a watermelon bikini and dancing to Epic Sax?

The question she was asked was "If you're a lesbian, why don't you dress like a woman?"

And that's such geniuos logic. Straight men dress like women to show they're straight. Straight women dress like straight men to show they're straight. Lesbians dress like women. Gay men dress like men. Bisexuals wear both types of clothes, pansexuals wear everything, and aces run around naked.

I think that, if we're going along the military theme, any man with an obsession for guns and swords would be "assumed" gay, as they're very phallic objects. Straight men would like... grenades?*

*cissexist, yes, but we're dealing with stereotypes, not reality.

Edit:

Hey sexy, want to help me service my grenade?

Um... I prefer... guns? e.e

Oh well, that's a shame.

OR

Grenades rock my world.

Shall we service our grenades together?

Sounds like we're in for a hell of night

My brain just went somewhere really, really scary

Maybe we shouldn't be using explosives in place of genitals XD

Maybe we shouldn't be using explosives in place of genitals XD

actually, the thought involved lightsabers.

actually, the thought involved lightsabers.

>.>

<.<

Yeah I can see how that might be bad.

>.>

<.<

Yeah I can see how that might be bad.

More like right out of Spaceballs

Which is one of the more prevalent stereotypes out there. Masculine men who love to hang out at the gym all the time

Do you mean like this? :3 (Warning, man-muscles.)

If we assume that sexuality, for the most part, isn't such a big deal in the Empire, there probably wouldn't be much in the way of stereotypes or slang-descriptors (the latter wouldn't have been necessary, I'd think), which could make for interesting conversations if the two exist in the Republic.

"So... you one those dual-action lightsaber wielders?"

"No? Only Sith are permitted to have lightsabres."

"You know what I mean... do you grapple with vines?"

"The jungles of Dromund Kaas are a dangerous place..."

"Do you prefer guns or grenades?"

"Well, hand grenades have limited uses, but they are very good at what they do. Guns are a staple of combat, but do have their faults..."

"No. Do you like dudes or not?"

"Is that seriously what you've been trying to ask me for the past five minutes?"

":mad:... yes."

I am imagine even the most simple of cultural differences would quite possibly be enormous. More so than the UK and US, who are divided by a common language

The closest you might get would be slang terms picked up from the independent regions, which, I'd expect, most Imperials would be disdainful of (and also, you'd find that they'd be II or Military working in those regions.)

"If you look at the advertisements for games in the 1980s, you not only had an obvious assumption on the part of the marketers that video games were going to resonate more with young men, you also had them casting young men in the lead roles. They're cast in a way that perpetuates that stereotype — the belief that young men are the audience."

~

No Girls Allowed - a brief, but informative, article on how gaming went from "something for everyone" to an all-out "boys club" and how it can be turned around. It also discusses why people view certain games as "GAMES" and not others - something that often comes up when talking about women as gamers.

"If you look at the advertisements for games in the 1980s, you not only had an obvious assumption on the part of the marketers that video games were going to resonate more with young men, you also had them casting young men in the lead roles. They're cast in a way that perpetuates that stereotype — the belief that young men are the audience."

 

~

 

No Girls Allowed - a brief, but informative, article on how gaming went from "something for everyone" to an all-out "boys club" and how it can be turned around. It also discusses why people view certain games as "GAMES" and not others - something that often comes up when talking about women as gamers.

Interesting read. I think both you and the writer of the article are missing a possible angle, though.

I don't think anybody markets directly to 4-year olds, and very seldom to those under 10. Marketers are targeting the *parents* of those children -- the people who decide whether or not to purchase the product. That is, marketers are targeting the parents' desires for their daughters to be precious princesses and their sons to be victorious warriors.

Interesting read. I think both you and the writer of the article are missing a possible angle, though.

 

I don't think anybody markets directly to 4-year olds, and very seldom to those under 10. Marketers are targeting the *parents* of those children -- the people who decide whether or not to purchase the product. That is, marketers are targeting the parents' desires for their daughters to be precious princesses and their sons to be victorious warriors.

And if parents are told this game is for boys and this game is for girls, they're generally going to go along with it - that's part of the advertising. You'll see that places like Harrods are moving towards gender-neutral toy areas, and there's Sweden's Toy R Us has a gender neutral catalogue, and the company itself is becoming more gender neutral. Why is that important? Because parents are told the gender roles of their children, and they do enforce those. Little boys are told not to play with dolls, little girls are not encouraged to play dirty games (though, it's not as villainised if they do - being a tomboy is fine, being feminine-boy is not.)

Also, girls often do more household chores than boys do, they also get paid more. So boys get more disposable income, and more time in which to spend and enjoy it.

So, part of it would be changing the marketing, in exactly how it's said. Games aimed at boys won't suddenly see advertising suddenly aimed at both little boys and girls, if that's not what the marketers think will work - adverts telling parents the game is suitable for their son and daughter, that's different.

And if parents are told this game is for boys and this game is for girls, they're generally going to go along with it - that's part of the advertising. You'll see that places like Harrods are moving towards gender-neutral toy areas, and there's Sweden's Toy R Us has a gender neutral catalogue, and the company itself is becoming more gender neutral. Why is that important? Because parents are told the gender roles of their children, and they do enforce those. Little boys are told not to play with dolls, little girls are not encouraged to play dirty games (though, it's not as villainised if they do - being a tomboy is fine, being feminine-boy is not.)

 

Also, girls often do more household chores than boys do, they also get paid more. So boys get more disposable income, and more time in which to spend and enjoy it.

 

So, part of it would be changing the marketing, in exactly how it's said. Games aimed at boys won't suddenly see advertising suddenly aimed at both little boys and girls, if that's not what the marketers think will work - adverts telling parents the game is suitable for their son and daughter, that's different.

Fortunately for the children in my extended family, if I don't know for sure that a given person would like, I just give cash. Not a gift card at a place I shop or wish it would shop, straight up cash.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to counter points made in the article, I was trying to expand the discussion by bringing up an angle that occurred to me while reading. Since (at least at early ages), all purchases are being made by the [parents], I assume that what the children like is *a* factor, but not the only one. This doesn't just apply to parents/children, it also applies to ads targeting other purchasers (say men) for items intended for others (say, women). Like

So, I guess you could say that my point is that parents have to show marketers that they don't need to have a "pink aisle" to know where to find what they want for their daughter. (And from what you said, it sounds like some stores are starting to cater to parents who don't want/need the sales manager to tell them which toys go to which children).

I'm curious to see if the nag factor* and preconceived notions of gender coincide towards the games (and toys, and clothes) that are bought for children. Because, as much as nag factor may be influenced by television and advertising, I'd assume there's also a certain amount of peer-pressure (or peer-aspirations, more likely), that influences both the child (I want to be like my friends) and the parents (I want other parents to think I'm a good parent.)

*yes, the article refers to food, but come on, like it doesn't happen with literally everything else (the number of kids who simply want to "go upstairs" where I work...)

I'm curious to see if the nag factor* and preconceived notions of gender coincide towards the games (and toys, and clothes) that are bought for children. Because, as much as nag factor may be influenced by television and advertising, I'd assume there's also a certain amount of peer-pressure (or peer-aspirations, more likely), that influences both the child (I want to be like my friends) and the parents (I want other parents to think I'm a good parent.)

 

 

 

 

*yes, the article refers to food, but come on, like it doesn't happen with literally everything else (the number of kids who simply want to "go upstairs" where I work...)

Very interesting.

IMO, the results of that study constitute a valid argument for disallowing any commercials during programs targeted to certain audiences (such as children). [Not that most [children's] programs themselves aren't arguably bad enough to deserve being banned for other reasons]

According to http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm, shows rated TV-Y are designed for:

All Children

This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.

I would expect that commercials shown during a TV-Y program should meet the same criteria as the program itself, so unless it's agreed that children aged 2-6 are reasonably expected to be possessing and spending money, I don't see how it's appropriate to advertise products requiring money (pretty much everything) to these children. Savvy marketers should spend their time determining which shows people with children watch (without their children present) and advertise products intended for use with children aged 2-6 (example only) to the actual potential purchasers.

Actually, in this country, the UK (I think it was brought up during Prime Minister's Question Time?), we've had reports that children have been scared of their parents losing their house, and trying to get jobs and such, because debt companies have been advertising during cartoons, and kids were picking up on that. Kids seem to get a influenced and affected a lot by adverts - doesn't help they're so much louder than actual programmes.

Before you ask - a lot of advertising space was freed up after junk food ads were more strictly regulated during "children hours".

Actually, in this country, the UK (I think it was brought up during Prime Minister's Question Time?), we've had reports that children have been scared of their parents losing their house, and trying to get jobs and such, because debt companies have been advertising during cartoons, and kids were picking up on that. Kids seem to get a influenced and affected a lot by adverts - doesn't help they're so much louder than actual programmes.

 

Before you ask - a lot of advertising space was freed up after junk food ads were more strictly regulated during "children hours".

Ouch.

In case I haven't been clear, btw, I'd be fine if the government (U.S. here) said that only audience-appropriate ads were allowed, and if that means no commercials during "children's shows" because children [aged 2-6 at least] aren't consumers, I think I could live. Although (as long as specific products weren't named), things like "brush your teeth before bed', "do your homework", and "good kids don't swear like sailors" would be acceptable to me.

If you've ever watched children's television then you know it's not marketed at the parents, but at the children. Every couple of minutes there is a commercial with a pink hue with a little girl playing with a baby doll, followed by a blue hue commercial with a boy playing with a soldier action figure or a racing vehicle. These commercials are targetted at children, and we are supposed to take this with us while we grow up. You'll also see snack and candy commercials targetted at different genders, cheesy and salty snacks at boys, and lollipops and sweets at girls.

Toy adverts are the most insufferable of all, next to the old Go Compare "operatics". Aren't the the mini cheddars, or whatever, also "extreme" or "awesome" or some equal such nonsense?

Parents may have the money, but it's still children, for the most part, who have the power. Or at least the nag factor. Why do you think such crushing stories come about five year-olds playing the GTA series? "Video games are for kids"

(Not sure if I've posted this before, probably have, but it's relevant to the current discussion as well - well, to the "boys play video games, girls don't" not the nag factor.)

I get “fake geek girl” BS in job interviews. I have skipped applying for programming jobs because the ads promote the “bro-centric company culture,” where it is common to drink beer and no one complains about your naughty sense of humor. I have applied at companies that won’t interview me for the position that I’m qualified for because the type of programming that I do is more typical for guys and this other type over here that I don’t do is more typical for girls; in order to show how inclusive of women they are, they strongly encourage me to apply for [girl job] despite me being grossly overqualified for [boy job that I can’t be interviewed for]. I have gone to interviews where it is made clear to me that I’m the affirmative action candidate, that they were intrigued by my claim to play video games [which I was tested on], and then had the technical interviewer act astounded because during my whiteboarding exercise, I followed a coding standard that prevents a security breach and no other applicants did— and then not gotten the job. I have had jobs where my opinion was dismissed by my superiors who were less qualified than me, who repeatedly interrupted me during demos to tell me that I’m doing the demo wrong on a product that the interrupter has never used— and then gotten fired for calmly standing up to him.

 

So let me tell you why there are so few games with strong female protagonists and so few games with characters that women can identify with as idealized heroes: games are made by men for themselves.

~Petticoat Despot

I know they have some women working in Austin, but somehow I doubt there's many (if any) working on the programming team, the PvP Dev team, the PvE Dev team, or within a position of authority in or over any of those teams, and that's based on my admittedly not first-hand beliefs of what the whole industry is like. Because I doubt Gearbox would have said "girlfriend spec" about Gaige if they'd had a more female-friendly environment. I doubt Austin would have gender-limited armour sets if the environment was more female- and LGBT-friendly.

That article had some really good points but was unfortunately written in a bit of an obnoxious manner. I did like what they said about how a few good examples don't mean things aren't an issue, because that's a point that often comes up. BG&E and Mirror's Edge were excellent games, but I can name way more than four or five excellent games with male protagonists.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with Gaige. From what I've seen Borderlands is actually very good about having diverse characters and not being offensive.

Jezebel is not the best source for feminist news, it's fairly... white-middle-class and has a huge range of problems, including some of its guest columnists. The important thing is really that one comment.

Best Friends Forever aka "Girlfriend Mode" of the Mechromancer, a skill tree that has "Anarchy", a skill which allows your bullets to ricochet with an almost 100% hit chance, regardless of where you're aiming. The ideology behind the name "Girlfriend Mode" is: women don't play video games! Women are bad at shooters! Get your girlfriend to play BFF and she'll feel like she's doing something! Yay! (Yeah, the guy may not have been "intentionally" sexist, but that's not the kind of thing that sprouts out of the mouth of someone who's self-aware of their privilege and gender stereotypes.)

And Borderlands and Gearbox are pretty good - I believe it was brought up here, the response to them being including in the "Fridged Damsel" trope. That doesn't change that there's still some problematic attitudes within the company, and the industry at large is still really ******: racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia (god, just look at the GTA series, that's nothing but beating up women for fun and then driving cars around; GTAV has incredibly grotesque transphobic and transmisogynist moments, which it passes off as "fun".)

I don't think that's quite the idea behind that tree. It sounded to me more like the guy was talking specifically about his girlfriend not playing video games and wanting to share the game with her, but the tree actually being designed for anyone not used to that type of game or games in general. I think he just worded it poorly. If I want to get a friend that doesn't play games into something then giving them a class with a lot of complicated things to manage isn't the best way to do it. I dislike the culture that's developing of jumping down the throats of anyone that tries to do things right and doesn't quite meet standards while ignoring people who don't make the effort at all. Borderlands includes several characters that aren't straight white men but it seems people focus more on them possibly being sexist.

GTAV is kind of a weird example in that it's pretty offensive and violent towards everyone. I don't think it's particularly singling out any one group, so that tends to make it more of an "all in good fun" sort of thing for a lot of people. If it's the type of game you enjoy you're going to enjoy it regardless of how insulting it is and if it's not your thing then all you'll see is how offensive it is. Or at least, that's my experience of it.