• Given that she came first, why is it that we're ok calling her FemShep (that is, something derived from the somehow more "authentic" male Shep) -- why is he not known as manShep or something similarly derivative instead?

He is. I know quite a few people who refer to the male Shepard as "BroShep." I think this is quite appropriate given the context and the use of "bro" to denote someone (or something) sexualized in the direction of "traditional masculinity."

The fact remains that Sarkeesian and others were threatened (and we're not going to entertain the lunatic conspiracy theories that they faked it themselves).

Not saying that I do or do not believe it, but how do you know it's some "lunatic conspiracy theory"? Or does considering this just make you qualify for the label of a "lunatic conspiracy theorist"? I'm asking because I don't know any better, and yet sifting though all of the bias.

Shogun.

I have seen the claim made that Sarkeesian faked, lied about, or vastly overstated threats against her as a tactic to generate publicity for her work. This tends to show up in conjunction with the term "professional victim", which is part of the narrative this thread's OP has intermittently mentioned. I'm describing this as a "lunatic conspiracy theory" which is not credible to even consider. You may take that as you will. I feel that going into the depths of that conversation will lead us precisely where we don't want to go - the 'GG' related back and forth drama. Hopefully that clarifies my position, but I'm not interested in having a debate about it. For the purposes of this thread, we're not going to be accusing people of lying.

I don't doubt that its true that some do -- I also would wager that at least some of those who do so, might be doing it out of a kind of tounge-in-cheek nod towards the use/controversy of FemShep, rather than an attempt to genuinely contrast or balance that bad karma. In other words, that some people call him BroShep only makes it a second-order derivative of the same problem that FemShep is the first-order derivative of. The only other use I can imagine is when actively contrasting the two Sheps, in which case either name is apolitical.

But even if they were all being genuine and BroShep were used in equal measure to FemShip, it wouldn't do anything to restore balance because the fact remains that in the marketing and promotion of Mass Effect, and in popular culture, BroShep is the *real* Commander Shephard, despite the fact that it is he who was tacked on -- If I say to you "Who is the protagonist of Mass Effect?", the image that comes to mind is BroShep, even though it is unclear whether BroShep would ever have existed at all if it weren't for the heavy hand of the publisher.

For the record, I don't think that the studio behind mass effect wouldn't have come to include a male Shephard on their own, if nothing else makes perfect sense in the kind of roleplay that Mass Effect is. I don't think the publisher had to twist their arm very hard for them to include BroShep, nor do I think the studio particularly cared to fight over which version would be presented as the real commander Shephard. But I do think it was the publisher and their marketing and business departments that made the call to make BroShep the face of Mass Effect, for all the bad reasons we're discussing here.

I also realize that, at least to popular measure, its not realistic for them to split their marketing campaign among two faces for practical reasons. I'm not advocating for separate and equal as the means of achieving balance, or indeed any means at all. The problem I think this whole thing points out is essentially this: Why must it continue to be that when all things are equal, we conform to stereotypes and tropes by default? I'm not really satisfied with the answer that when all things are equal, its best to choose the path of least resistance -- at the very least an argument in favor of simple variety would see more non-conforming characterizations sooner or later, yet we do not, so I can only come to conclude that the path-of-least-resistance decays into laziness too readily.

For the record, I don't think that the studio behind mass effect wouldn't have come to include a male Shephard on their own, if nothing else makes perfect sense in the kind of roleplay that Mass Effect is. I don't think the publisher had to twist their arm very hard for them to include BroShep, nor do I think the studio particularly cared to fight over which version would be presented as the real commander Shephard. But I do think it was the publisher and their marketing and business departments that made the call to make BroShep the face of Mass Effect, for all the bad reasons we're discussing here.

I mean... this is not an abstract conversation. We're talking about Bioware, who have always allowed gender selection in their games regardless of what canon or design issues might crop up. We have a pretty clear history of a studio that has always put the work in to let people play as either despite what the analytics or market surveys or marketing focus groups said. I think that stands in pretty stark contrast to Ubisoft's "women would have been too hard to animate".

Yes, and thanks for bringing up that pedigree -- I'm not a big BioWare fan TBH so I wasn't really placing it within the context of what they've done historically, but its important to make that clear. From what little I do know of them, they have a reputation of treating all their characters well, which one would expect from a role-playing Studio. Mostly I think I just wanted to make clear that I didn't think they had some grand statement to make about equality, and then the big, bad publisher came in and started tearing up scripts.

The problem with sexism is specifics. I've noticed that a lot of the claims just say sexism in the game industry, but doesn't elaborate any further. Is it sexism from co-workers? Gamers? Publishers? Journalists? Event coordinators? Can't combat it without specifics due to how large and inclusive the term "game industry" is.

I don't think Anita is faking nor lying, but the more I look the more I wonder if all the things Anita is saying are actually her opinions or McIntosh's opinions and she is just the public figure presented for the cameras. I do question if she is truly critiquing games to bring about change or if this is her study she claimed she wanted to do about online harassment.

Can't combat it without specifics due to how large and inclusive the term "game industry" is.

Sure you can. That is not the actual problem here. You can:

1) Not act sexist yourself.

2) Call out others who are acting sexist when you see it.

3) Make it clear to everyone, even those who are not being sexist right now, that it is not okay to act sexist and make the workplace a terrible place to be for women, or for any other minority for that matter.

You don't need to know who in the industry is being sexist at this particular moment to do things that combat sexism in the industry as a whole. I may be one person, just a programmer lost in a sea of faces in the game industry, but I can still take the stand that no matter who I work for, what I build, or why, I refuse to knowingly perpetuate sexism in my workplace. If sexism or bigotry of any sort in my world survives, it will not be because of me.

The problem is that not enough people take that stand.

I don't think Anita is faking nor lying, but the more I look the more I wonder if all the things Anita is saying are actually her opinions or McIntosh's opinions and she is just the public figure presented for the cameras.

What you're basically saying here is, "I don't think Anita is faking, but I wonder if she's faking?"

I do question if she is truly critiquing games to bring about change or if this is her study she claimed she wanted to do about online harassment.

Without fully understanding what it is exactly that you're referring to, there are two possibilities I see.

If this isn't a study of online harassment and is in fact critiquing games to bring about change, then I think what she's doing is a good idea.

If this IS a study of online harassment, given that I think online harassment is a phenomenon that needs to be recognized and studied, then I think what she's doing is also a good idea.

If you agree that both of these things are good ideas, and one (or even both) are happening, then why bring up this point at all?

The fact remains that Sarkeesian and others were threatened (and we're not going to entertain the lunatic conspiracy theories that they faked it themselves).

Not saying that I do or do not believe it, but how do you know it's some "lunatic conspiracy theory"? Or does considering this just make you qualify for the label of a "lunatic conspiracy theorist"? I'm asking because I don't know any better, and yet sifting though all of the bias.

Shogun.

I have seen the claim made that Sarkeesian faked, lied about, or vastly overstated threats against her as a tactic to generate publicity for her work. This tends to show up in conjunction with the term "professional victim", which is part of the narrative this thread's OP has intermittently mentioned. I'm describing this as a "lunatic conspiracy theory" which is not credible to even consider. You may take that as you will. I feel that going into the depths of that conversation will lead us precisely where we don't want to go - the 'GG' related back and forth drama. Hopefully that clarifies my position, but I'm not interested in having a debate about it. For the purposes of this thread, we're not going to be accusing people of lying.

Well, since you are the moderator, I'll trust in your judgement and leave it alone for the sake of this thread's sanity (for lack of a better word). I am obviously very interested in this subject, but I doubt that either side has sufficient evidence to make a claim as to whether it is or isn't true. I'm not saying that Sarkeesian and others didn't receive threats from the GG crowd because an angry mass of haters is hard to fake, but I say that making up specific threats for publicity is not too farfetched since it has been done by others before.

Now, I don't like Sarkeesian's journalism tactics or her ideologies, but even I wouldn't go as far as making death/rape threats to her, even for the sake of trolling. Nor would I immediately claim that all of those threats are exaggerated.

Shogun.

I'm not saying that Sarkeesian's way is right, nor that it makes sense (asking devs to change their games? I don't think that's really going to help.

I'm inclined to think that this depends on quite what you mean: are you saying that developers aren't in a position to change their games, or that changing games won't help? The former is perhaps at least partially correct--as Promit points out, in AAA companies the developers aren't always in a position to dictate policy. (That said, perhaps some sort of large-scale activism from developers might help... But that's speculation, and not educated speculation, at that.) If the latter, then I'm not convinced: after all, as I pointed out, I do think that media portrayals can affect perceptions; while changes in portrayals might not solve the problem alone, they may assist other pressures (such as direct activism).

Well I guess it's a combination of both. Developers aren't really in a position to change the games much because of the culture already out there. No one wants to take the risk to change the games.

Yea I think most of us here agree that it's not censorship. It can lead to censorship, but after more thought, I think that this is unlikely. After more thought, I think it's more likely for games to be censored due to violence or something rather than sexism or stereotyping. That's how comics first fell under the Code earlier.

Sarkeesian certainly has merit in some of her criticism. There are many games that rely heavily on overt sexualization of women. I do agree that some games could benefit from less of this. There are a lot of things that are nitpicking or things that I honestly don't think really make much sense. I think it's the second part that makes the argument less constructive than it can be. Here's something about the Mass Effect trilogy from the tropes vs women transcript of an episode on the Ms. Male Character:

"Everything we have discussed in this episode thus far has been related to visual design or narrative connection. But there is another way that the Ms. Male Character trope can manifest itself, and that is through marketing and promotional materials. A great illustration of this trend can be found in Bioware’s highly regarded Mass Effect series. The games offer players a choice between a male or female version of the protagonist Commander Shepard (each with a range of cosmetic customizable options). The female option is well designed and her overall narrative is also nearly indistinguishable from her male counterpart’s, aside from some of the romance options.
However, if we take a step back from the game experience itself and look at the marketing campaigns for the trilogy, we see that the female variant of Shepard is practically non-existent. In mainstream advertising of the franchise, the male commander is used almost exclusively. His image is front and center on the box covers for all releases including the special editions. He is the one featured in the TV commercials, teasers, trailers, web banners, street posters and print ads and his face appears on most of the magazine covers. All of this positions the male Commander Shepard as the default protagonist of the series.
Clip- Mass Effect Trilogy Trailer
“One man, one very specific man, might be all that stands between humanity and the greatest threat of our brief existence.”
That is how Bioware is selling the Mass Effect experience. Nearly everything about the advertising campaign explicitly tells players that Commander Shepard is a man and by extension associates the official storyline with the male version of the hero. This marketing strategy contributes to the fact that only 18-20% of players choose the female option (despite the fact that Jennifer Hale’s voice acting is widely praised as being far superior).
Clip- Mass Effect 3
“You brought me here to confirm what you already know: The reapers are here.”
Still, the female version has a dedicated fanbase who frequently refers to her as “FemShep”. And although this is meant as an affectionate nickname, it does further highlight her designation as a Ms. Male Character. She is the one with the qualifier attached to her name. She is “Female Shepard” whereas the male version simply gets to be, “Shepard”.
During the advertising of Mass Effect 3, Bioware made a little more effort to include female Shepard with items like an alternate reversible slip cover for the game box (which features the male version by default) as well as a special web only trailer but these gestures feel like an afterthought or niche specialty marketing and hardly what I would call a substantial or equitable inclusion.
While Mass Effect’s advertising strategy might not undermine the story or gameplay, it is a glaring example of how the Ms. Male Character trope can be perpetuated by marketing departments unless careful consideration is given to how gender is represented when advertising games that do offer players a choice."

I'm curious what people think of this excerpt. In my opinion, I don't think this argument has merit. I encourage people to read the rest of the transcript of the episode as well at this link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/11/ms-male-character-tropes-vs-women/

On the contrary, if you ask me, that exemplifies precisely what's wrong with the male-protagonist bias -- I believe it was Servant who said earlier that in his opinion FemShep was actually the stronger performance, and that FemShep herself actually was relatively free of suffering the usual female tropes. This is not the first time I've heard such an oppinion expressed from those who have either played both characters or played FemShep.

And while that's all well and good, it also begs some questions:

• Since Femshep was the sole protagonist as originally designed, and is a character/performance that matches, and some say exceeds, MaleShep, what does it say about the industry that MaleShep usurped her place in the spotlight?
• Given that she came first, why is it that we're ok calling her FemShep (that is, something derived from the somehow more "authentic" male Shep) -- why is he not known as manShep or something similarly derivative instead?

Now, many of you are saying that you thought Anita's criticism of Mass Effect was too aggressive, and if hear you correctly there seems to be two broader categories of your dissent-- firstly is the argument that she is picking nits and making a big deal about things you think of as inconsequential, and secondly is the argument that Mass Effect wasn't given due credit for making a strong female protagonist available as a choice.

I'll start with the second point first -- I think there's merit to the argument that Mass Effect could have been held up as an exemplar of a strong, non-stereotyped female protagonist, I think in many people's minds and probably expressed in other popular outlets this has actually happened. But regardless of whether it is (or isn't), this fact doesn't behoove Anita or any other critic to even address the character traits of FemShep at all -- She is not game critic or even a media critic; her focus and the topic of her videos is "In what ways does the industry do wrong by how they represent women", not more-broadly "In what ways does the industry represent women", she is under no compunction to present for "the other side", and has done no wrong unless she's actively misrepresented it. And if I'm being cheeky, I might point out that the only way you could ever have confused the two messages in the first place is only because the industry represents women poorly so much more frequently than not, that it might actually have seemed to you that Sarkeesian had been addressing the latter rather than the former. There may also be some sentiment among those who's opinion dissents from Anita's critique of Mass Effect that Mass Effect should be given a break over what its done wrong because of what it might have done right -- That a strong FemShep somehow makes up for the fact that she was treated as a second-class protagonist. And I say that this is *not* the case -- If a local man or woman is accused of shoplifting, it makes no difference towards their guilt whether they also lead the local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or are a church decon. Good and bad can be treated distinctly, they do not have to be put on scales to balance out and one does not excuse or obscure the other. I would have loved, and would still would love, for Anita to do a video discussing the ways in which FemShep was a good female protagonist, but the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't detract from the other points she's made.

On the first point, that she and others are picking nits and making mountains out of molehills, I think the very premise of that being somehow fraudulent is false. The argument being made, essentially, is that these "small" issues can't or shouldn't be addressed as long as there are "more important" or "more apparent" issues to be resolved. Its the argument that there are bigger fish yet to be fried. What this attitude fails to realize, IMO, is that there's an ecology at play that has allowed, and indeed fed, those big fish to have grown to the size they have, and its actually those "little fish" issues that they feed upon. Its the small idea that women are to be protected that feeds the medium-sized fish of the valiant male protagonist, that in turn feeds the big fish of almost all games having a male protagonist. Without these small ideas to justify them, all that the big ideas have in their favor is "well, its the way its always been done." To critique the small problems is not just picking nits, its a way of attacking the big problems from the bottom up, and its just as important as attacking them directly and from the top. I think part of the reason people reject attacks on the "small stuff" as invalid is that this critique usually hits closer to home -- You and I aren't behind the machinations that conspire to keep thoughtful female protagonists under-represented, but you and I probably have played and enjoyed games that these critics have rightly pointed out the flaws in, and without ever giving their gendered stereotypes a second thought or care.

You mentioned that Sarkeesian doesn't have to look at the good being done in the industry. That's true, but she's not picking a very good example of sexism if this is a game that doesn't really promote much of it. This leads me to your second point. The nitpicking. It's true that attacking small problems can very much lead to a bottom up approach. The thing is that there can be any number of reasons for why marketing chose to use the male Shepard for marketing, none of which are necessarily sexist. They might just be incompetent. More likely than not, as you mentioned before, they just wanted to use one version for marketing. After all, there can't be two versions of the game cover right? Why the male version as opposed to the female? Perhaps incompetence? Maybe some fool literally flipped a coin and it just happened to be heads. I personally saw plenty of posters with the female version of Shepard as well, but maybe that's just me. I personally don't think that the female version was nonexistent. Moreover, I don't agree that this marketing campaign contributes to sexism/sexist perceptions.

Why is it that the version of Shepard that comes up when people think of Mass Effect is the male version? I'm not sure if that's entirely true. There is no 'protagonist' that BioWare created. The entire point is that you create the protagonist. If you play the game, the image that comes to mind is the one you created. I think of the guy I designed to look like me. Someone else might think of a female version. Someone who never played the game would think of the male version, that is true. But here's my point: it's not necessarily a sexist perception. It's more like someone being misinformed. Again this is just my opinion.

More likely than not, as you mentioned before, they just wanted to use one version for marketing. After all, there can't be two versions of the game cover right? Why the male version as opposed to the female? Perhaps incompetence? Maybe some fool literally flipped a coin and it just happened to be heads. I personally saw plenty of posters with the female version of Shepard as well, but maybe that's just me. I personally don't think that the female version was nonexistent. Moreover, I don't agree that this marketing campaign contributes to sexism/sexist perceptions.

There are a number of games that have shipped with different covers available. As it happens, they literally shipped both gender covers for Mass Effect 3. Go ahead and image search them, don't want to embed inline. You'll notice that the characters are posed identically. Now here's the slightly awkward part - the covers were printed back to back for every copy of the game. So in order to have a female Shepard cover, you had to buy the game, pull the cover out of the plastic sleeving, flip it around, and push it back in to see the female side. This, of course, involves knowing it was printed two sided in the first place which meant you were the sort of person to pay attention to this sort of thing.

My question is this: given that the cover was already double-printed, it would've been pretty trivial to simply ship some percentage of the games with the female Shepard side on the front. So why didn't they?