Stereotypes in Video Games

I found a couple youtube videos which someone made that dealt with stereotypes in video games. The person who made them can be found at www.myspace.com/stereotypesinvideogames
Stereotypical African American in Video Games


Asian and Latino Male Character Roles


Gender Stereotypes in Video Games


Although the creator of these didn't have too many video game sources, they still got their point out there. Video games have many stereotypes and misrepresent genders and ethnicities. This fantasy world can be dangerous and tell the younger generations that our world is really like that.

Abstract for Final Project

Gender Images in Video Games
In video games, a man is displayed as the big strong dominant figure, while the woman is seen as the damsel in distress. In my final project, I want to touch on how video games display gender roles. These roles and images influence the people that play them, especially the younger generations. I feel the way genders are displayed influence younger generations and make them believe that the way men and women act are norms.
When it comes to genders, the man is the main character most of the time. Most games display men as tough guys, while women needing help or flaunting their sexuality. There is also the damsel in distress scenario in games. For example in the games: Mario Brothers and Zelda, you are a male character who is trying to save a princess. Both show a strong white heterosexual male completing many tasks and fighting their way to save the women. Women are shown as skinny, model-like females who flaunt their sexuality. Games where you get to play as female characters, such as Tomb Raider and Resident Evil, you will notice that they wear clothes that appeal to a mostly male audience.
In my final project, I will include explanations on video games and relate how they display their gender roles. I want to show how a media device like video games use their fantasy worlds to influence our society. In these games, it is established that a hero is a muscular white male, so men must try to be like this. Women flaunt and act a certain way, so it pressures females to become more like these fantasy women.
I will use references from the movies Tough Guise and Dreamworlds 2. I will also use references from background stories of the games and any pictures or youtube videos that show how genders are displayed.

Just some random post

So I happened to stumble across a game trailer which caught my eye. The name of the game is Resident Evil 5. It is part of the Resident Evil series for game console, where you play a character in a 3rd person shooter view. The series has to to deal with zombies and you, they player, killing these zombies. Now what was interesting about this trailer was that the story line takes place in Africa; where apparently the zombie virus "originated".


The main hero is a white heterosexual male, running around killing Africans infected with the virus. They also portray African cities as wastelands and try to make it scary or dangerous. Apparently it is okay to kill these "zombies" because they are not people, they are monsters. I never really took into consideration how the media and gaming industries portray violence against others as a norm until I took this class. While watching the trailer, I felt that the game was racist, and that they were emphasizing the gender portrayals (the man being muscular and the female being skinny and wearing "the outfit"); so I looked for any discussion on the game in a game forum.
Forum Link

In that forum, I was pretty shocked at what some people said. One person said that it was not racist because it did not blatantly say you were killing all Africans. It kinda shocks me how some Americans do not notice stereotypes and bad portrayals of ethnicities in these kinda games. To them, its not racist unless it is brought up to them that it is. It also makes me wonder if the game developers were just substituting the AIDS virus with this zombie virus.

Unsettling Settler Societies

In Unsettling Settler Societies introduction, the authors write about how these settler societies are just European colonies.
"If we define 'settler societies' as societies in which Europeans have settled, where their descendants have remained politically dominant over indigenous peoples, and where a heterogeneous society has developed in class, ethnic and racial terms, then it becomes clear that the 'settler societies' must be seen as falling along a continuum rather than within clear and fixed boundaries"
I found that quote interesting because it basically stated that Europeans establish their settler societies and have their descendants continue and enforce the political power/laws over any minority or native peoples. They were able to create their own classes, based on the European class.
When they colonize their "new land", they start their history on that day, denying indigenous population's history. The pre-history is considered irrelevant and boundaries are established between native history and history. These settlers also bring with them the European classifications: merchants, laborers, slaves, etc. Along with those they have a class/race hierarchy. Settler societies are like mini-European states. It is like being able to view the "exoticism" of another country in the comforts of your own home. They would also establish political power, which had the power to rule over native people, who knew little to nothing about the European political power. The authors use the word "internal colonialism" to describe the political and economic restraints used on racial/ethnic minorities and indigenous people within these settler societies. European settlers were able to exploit and rule over new lands. This book was interesting because it explained how these settler societies were established and into how they saw the minorities and indigenous people.

Review: Video games and their music videos

For my review I am looking at a music video about a game. In this music video, women are shown as the type from the "male dreamworld" (as explained in the movie Dreamworlds 2). The music video ties in the playing of the game to the hot girls dancing in the club. This music video was later remade with a slightly different beat. In the newer version, it focuses more on the hot girls dancing than the game itself. In my review, I want to show how women's sexuality is used to make the game more appealing.
Original music video:


Second edit of the music video:


The first video had more to do about the game DotA. But throughout the video, they start to show scenes of night clubs and beautiful women. They relate playing a video game to being at a night club with beautiful women. This sends a message to people watching (mostly men) that this game is awesome. Like we learned in Dreamworlds 2, women are used in the media to attract viewers with their sexuality. They will wear skimpy clothes and act like men want them to.
The second video shows more about beautiful women than it does about DotA. What makes this funny is that the guy is singing about the game DotA, meanwhile the woman is dancing on the screen doing her thing. The game is rarely shown in the music video. This change got the attention of a bigger audience than the first. I've had my own friends tell me that they like the second video better because you get to see more of the dancing woman.
Most of the media out there has women displayed as a sexual image. It is used to sell to men, and show women at a young age how they are seen. In this video game intro, they show men as big muscular warriors and display women with skimpy outfits where they emphasize their bodies.


In those scenes. A woman is portrayed as a stealthy assassin, one who sneaks up and attacks someone when they are unprepared. The man however goes into battle with big weapons. One guy even has his arm chopped off, and he still fights! Gender images are shown in this intro clip. Men are the dominant warriors and women are shown as not being able to fight fair.
Video games and their music videos reinforce the media's view on genders. In our society, men are supposed to be displayed as warriors and women as dancers or related to something sexual. It is how our games and such sell.

Dream Worlds 2

In this movie, we saw how females are portrayed in the media. Females are used as sexual images for ads, music videos, and other things. In music videos, they portray women as male fantasies. This is because 90% of music videos directed, are directed by men. These music videos and ads show the "male dreamworld". In this dreamworld, females are seen as sex driven objects. A man barely does anything and gets a woman sexually obsessed with him. Females are also seen as nymphomaniacs. They desire men more than the men want them. Also, in this dreamworld women wear sexual clothing, the kind that men would want to see. This clothing is supposed to provoke sexual thoughts in men. They please men in clothing that leaves little to the imagination. Sometimes the women are portrayed as "hot lesbians". All of these portrayals of women in music videos and ads pressures women in society to become like what they see in the media.
Women in music videos will also become more sexualized. They are portrayed as wanting to be watched. They will then be portrayed as teases. But they will say no in some cases, but no does not mean no in the dreamworld. Initial refusal often leads to the wanting of the peruser. Women will be treated the way they are treated in music videos. This is seen as a norm in our society. A college study showed that 60% males and 40% females agreed that women provoke rape by their appearance. I believe it is wrong that women are pressured to conform to the women in these videos and ads. Seeing how women are treated in the media leads to these actions as norms. They can also lead to the mistreatment of women. If we change the way women are portrayed in the media, we can prevent the mistreatment and violence done to women.

Tough Guise

In this movie, we learned that our society defines tries to tell us what a "Real Man" is like. There are pressures from our culture to make males conform into a "Real Man". Men are limited to a box of expectations. If they do anything outside of this box, they may receive negative feedback or treated negatively. A male is supposed to be tough, dominant and in control if they want respect or to feel like a man. This leads to violence as a norm in men.
The media portrays violence as a norm. In movies, music videos, and other types of media, men commit acts of violence. When these acts are done, they receive little to none punishment. These acts of violence are put on to show a man's "tough guise". If they wanted to survive in society, these men would have to be tough. In our society, it is thought for men to be the dominant group. For these men to "fulfill" their role, they must become tough. They carry these actions out by becoming stronger, assert dominance, or even commit acts of violence. The media also de-genders violence. If does not make a big deal or mention if violence is caused by males, just because its a norm. But when females cause violence, it is considered almost a taboo. The media will explicitly mention if acts of violence are done by females. So basically, when a man produces violence, it is accepted. But when a woman produces violence, it is an outrage.
When violence is seen as a norm for men, it becomes seen as a threat when females commit violence. Our culture teaches men at a very young age that men have to prove their selves and get respect through violence and the "tough guy" pose. It is wrong that we accept violence as a norm for a man to prove he is a man. The media and culture play a big part in our lives and tell us that men must use violence, and sometimes sexual violence. It all comes down to masculinity equaling power, control, and dominance. Our society pressures men to become violent and dominant. This affects how men are seen and expected to act. Why must men become the "tough man" to be called a man? I believe the media in our culture teaches us and makes us believe we must act a certain way to be called a real man.

Encountering the American Holocaust

Ward Churchill. Encountering the American Holocaust: The Politics of Affirmation and Denial. Oppression, Privilege, & Resistance. McGraw-Hill, 2004. Pg. 93-107.

In our basic education system, we never learn about the American Holocaust. When kids are taught about Native Americans, they are taught about either peace between Native Americans and settlers or the “Indian Wars”. It was taught that pilgrims came over peacefully and lived with Indians. And if there was no peace, that savage natives were attacking them. What we didn’t learn is that the American settlers were the ones savagely hunting down or killing Native Americans. When Columbus discovered the New World, we were taught it was a good thing. What we didn’t learn was that Columbus brought genocide to the native population in the area. The American Holocaust is as severe as the Nazi Holocaust.

The main argument would be why is the American Holocaust denied? In the basic education system, we are taught that relations between Native Americans and settlers were not that bad. In reality, the Native Americans were killed, forced to assimilate, and other things. This information is denied and stated false though, as explained in Encountering the American Holocaust. The American Holocaust should not be denied, and would be as wrong as saying the same about the Holocaust of the Jews.

I think it is wrong to deny or hide something like this. When another country does something bad to another country, we learn it in our general education. But when it comes to genocide and killings in America, the information is denied, skewed or not taught in general classes. The fact that American settlers did what they did to Native Americans was really bad, but when people deny it or try to prove it differently, it can be just as bad. The American Holocaust was a bad event in American history, but it should not be hidden, denied or told differently. It should be recognized that Native Americans were victimized.

Racial Formation

Michael Omi and Howard Winant. Racial Formation. Oppression, Privilege, & Resistance. McGraw-Hill, 2004. Pg. 115-142.

“Race is a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to different types of human bodies”

When race is mentioned, it is used to show that people are different. It also classifies people based on biological characteristic features. Race was used to scientifically classify humans based on these biological characteristics. These classifications are then used to prove that races have advantages and disadvantages. This however leads to the misrepresentation of people. Racial formations are formed from classifications like this. Omi and Winant define racial formation as the sociohistorical process where racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed and destroyed. It is part of everyday life and classifies people based on race and things like racial stereotypes. Racial stereotypes limit our expectations of a race to their “classified” stereotypes. For example, the Model Minority Myth about how all Asians are good at math.

I believe the main argument in Racial Formation was to show how racial formations have evolved through time. They began with classifying races with science. Then from science they used politics. Both of these still discriminated against races. They would state that some races were of a “higher” evolution and others were not. Reading about how Jefferson used the scientific classifying of race, stating that the white man was better, just showed what racial formation was like that that time. This false logic led to discrimination against race, class, gender, along with other things.

The scientific way of classifying a race was wrong. A person’s biological characteristics can’t determine who they are and what they are like. Racial formation today classifies a race based on stereotypes and the mostly the media. The media sends out stereotypes that portray a race by their culture, clothes they wear, food they eat, etc. I think it is wrong to classify people by just race. It is misrepresentative and can give the wrong expectations for a person.

Five Faces Of Oppression

Iris Young. Five Faces Of Oppression. Oppression, Privilege, & Resistance. McGraw-Hill, 2004. Pg. 37-63.

Young's article, Five Faces of Oppression, explains five types of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Exploitation is used by the the establishment of a class system. Class systems are used to separate/classify people, which in turn leads to those in power discriminating against those without it. Marginalization causes racial oppression. This is when people are racially divided and it is determined who can work and who can't. Powerlessness is when people are oppressed simply by not having the power. Those in power exercise it over the powerless, giving them orders and telling them what they must do. Cultural imperialism is when the dominant group's experience and culture is established as norms. When the dominant group has the power, they oppress those who do not share their culture. The last oppression is Violence. Violence is used to oppress people through damage, humiliation or physical harm to a person. These five types of oppression are used to discriminate and assure dominance over those who are being oppressed.

I believe the main arguments in Five Faces Of Oppression was to categorize the five different ways the people without power are oppressed. In all five of these categories, the dominant group who oppresses people are the ones with power. Young's explanation of oppression shows us how a group who possesses power can control and keep down those who do not have power. Those who possess the power also gain it through ascribed status.

I agree with Young's argument that only those with power are the ones who can oppress. Without power, people cannot create class systems, determine who can work, have the power to tell people what to do, make others accept their culture or be allowed to commit violence. These are all traits that the dominant group in power has. Without power, people are subjugated to the five categories of oppression. I think it is wrong that those who control power use it to oppress others. Those who possess the power should try to help those without it.

As a minority, I can see and understand how the dominant group oppresses those without power. But as a male, I get a small sense of what it is like to be in the dominant group. I believe that racial, gender, class and other groups that I can identify with, can be applied to Young's argument. It is explained that these five types of oppression are applied to different groups, which in turn gives them different names; racism, sexism, classism, herterosexism, ageism, etc. The dominant group in our culture would be white and male. Young argues that those with power are the dominant group. In my case, I am not part of the dominant group when it comes to race, but I am when it comes to gender.