Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I don't accept it under the vagueness unless it stems directly from the specific examples.

And "drugs or alcohol" do not fall under it.

how SHOULD consent be defined in a way that would make any sense if it didn't require things like sober, un-coerced conditions?

There is this terrible term but unfortunately one that probably needs to be brought in here... it is called "Conspicuous Consent". I hate the term by the way because it is used WAAAAY TOO MUCH to defend rape or at LEAST rapey behavior.

LEGALLY what you are referring to GavJ is "Undue Influence" not "Duress".

But Undue Influence as a additional caveat of rape's definition to me works. We should just consider the Dictionary definition of rape to be limited and need to include undue influence.

[GavJ]

Yes reading up on that, it does sound more cleanly like what I mean.

[3man75]

Tropes vs. women is like looking up internet activism on Wikipedia. It helps to point to something but it's also to be taken with alot of salt. Yes, we have damsels in distress but it isn't to psychologically put women down. For example, i'm a Hispanic man (i'm in my 20's but can't drink but still a adult by law.) but i don't see many Hispanic protagonist in games or being portrayed well in movies.

Hell in some Hollywood movies Mexicans are portrayed as belligerent assholes with no education. An guess what? people pay for those movies because it's fun/entertaining. I think different plot points would be awesome in video games, movies, and books but doing it in a "politically correct" way is just censorship in another way IMHO.

Those are my 2-cents on Tropes vs. Women. Bye all and happy lives.

[alexandertnt]

Neither intent nor "Not being fun for some people" is required for something to be harmful.

[Neonivek]

Look Feminists get a very bad rap and most of it is undeserved... but Anita RARELY uses "Because patriarchy" (only alluding to it in a few easily ignorable lines).

She isn't saying that the Damsel in Distress trope is used because people want to put women down or because people think women are weak, it is because... uhhhh... hmmm... Ok she doesn't say why people like the damsel in distress trope other then "because it helps the main character"...

Uhhh... according to her videos why is it used?

Because I know why in "Windwaker" why Zelda was put on a bus (because her story was POOOORLY alluding to her needing to learn to take responsibility which she could only do as the princess).

Ohh wait I remember! because the Damsel is someone to save AND a prize... and that is basically where it ends other then games that try to emulate the classic videogame feel.

It is one of the areas I'd contest her in, mostly because it is degrading to these characters to simply devolve them to being simply trophies, but that is her view alright.

[Reelya]

Where i think there are definitely some problems with Anita's damsel theory as presented, is that she presents one single interpretation and we're expected to believe that this single interpretation is being reinforced by the games.

But of course there are multiple possible interpretations, and each person will project their own worldview onto the characters in order to interpret and make sense of the actions. So, whichever view people actually have will be reinforced, and you can't just say "there's this possible interpretation which is really bad therefore really bad thing is reinforced in everyone" unless you actually prove that this is exactly how the stated "everyone" is interpreting what is seen.

e.g. Mario the plumber, and Peach, the princess. Now, a feminist reading of this interprets it Anita's way, in that the masculine is active, and thus superior, and the female is passive and thus inferior. And that Mario is somehow seen as the "rightful owner" of Peach. but this is really debatable that kids view it like that:

Viewed on a class basis, Mario is the working class kid, Peach is the higher class woman. And in no analysis I ever heard of are plumbers the natural superiors of Princesses. A princess can also be taken a symbol of rulership / a nation. "Save the princess" is not really any different from "save the world/city/country". in all those cases, we don't take the savior as being superior or more important than the thing being saved. There's the concept of "duty" in all "saving the X" plots: the goal is saving the thing is because that thing is more important than the self. i.e. the life of a Princess is vastly more valuable than the life of a plumber.

Anita says that "saving" plots with a damsel reduce the damsel to be a "mere thing to be collected". Which is nonsense. The damsel's freedom is the ultimate goal, which puts it on par with other ultimate game goals - saving the world, country, city. etc. so if the goal of a game is "I must save my city" then the city is also reduced to a "mere thing to be collected"?

[alexandertnt]

Pretty sure the main issue isn't that "there exists a game" where a women is a damsel, but that "resucing women" is a normal, borderline expected game mechanic in video gaming. Infact, I am pretty sure thats the reasoning behind the name of the video's.

See for example the original Spelunky, where you could optionally (so not an "ultimate" goal) rescue the damsel (sitting there shouting "help"), which would give you one extra health at the end of the level. The Spelunky's remake let you chose the gender/species of your damsels, which sort of just emphasises the fact that the whole thing is a stock game mechanic.

I think she should have spent more time on demonstrating that these things are "tropes" of gaming (because I agree that they are), rather than mostly describing the alledged trope.

[Neonivek]

One thing to remember Reelya is that Princess Toadstool has the ruler of the kingdom pretty much is about always going to be in the line of fire AS the ruler. Her condition is the condition of the kingdom and the only way to restore the kingdom is to thusly restore their rightful crown.

Basically she is the President.

Mostly because both Princess Toadstool and USUALLY Princess Zelda fall under what I call "Princess Queens" (Zelda being an outright princess and not a princess queen... three times in her games about... maybe twice).

Which in many ways is kind of interesting from a culture standpoint. Because while movies pretty much force girls into a princess role with responsibility being in the King's hand (with exceptions finally starting to appear). Princess Toadstool and Zelda? No they ruled the kingdom pretty much from the start.

Also what I find INCREDIBLY interesting Reelya is that well...

Princess Toadstool was once a typically feminine character, she likes things you would typically call "girly" around the time they started to develop her (Sewing, baking, cleaning, what have you). Today though she has stuck with that characterization for so long she actually manages to become a more original female character just because she never moved from that persona, the only changes is that she is a bit more sarcastic and laid back (Mostly because she knows she isn't in any real danger) and she occasionally just kicks butt herself. While characters of her type have typically started to disappear (Even My Little Pony doesn't have anyone who fits squarely into her archtype)

It has SOMEHOW actually managed to make her a more progressive character simply by never progressing... Because really she is a female character who likes the color pink, likes to cook, likes to bake, likes to dance, wears a large pink dress, loves gardening and flowers, she is soft spoken and polite, and ALL THAT!!! But she is also a very responsible character who looks after a kingdom, has a healthy interest in sports and other activities, and is considered equal to the male protagonists in everyway. She never had to become like Mario or Luigi to be considered an equal AND she is the one in control of her relationship.

She is never held down by her interests nor does she skirt around responsibility. Which I think is sort of an important counterpoint today.

Pretty sure the main issue isn't that "there exists a game" where a women is a damsel, but that "resucing women" is a normal

I'll tell you this now. It is never just a "woman"... or at least rarely. It is important to note who these Damsels are.

They are almost always someone close to the main character OR someone of importance or stature.

Rarely are games about saving some women who really has no importance or significance.

To me the Damsel plot is used for short hand. They are the quickest and easiest way to invest the player because, really... very little is as important AND personal.

But... of... course... Anita... doesn't.... highlight... any of that and completely misses the point later... DANG IT ANITA! Do better work!

[Reelya]

the prevalence of the Damsel trope stems from other incidental tropes:

- most adventure games are about saving something
- anthropomorphizing goals or concepts makes them easier to relate to
- the prevalence of male protagonists
- aimed at heterosexual audience (you don't need to explain "wife" or "girlfriend" to audiences, and why it would be desirable to save them if something happened to them).

The first two are just inherent to basic storytelling. You're going to have people who need to be saved in adventure games. That's just how it is. The second two are the demographic reasons it's usually a man saving a woman.

[Neonivek]

Shhh your poking holes in Anita's argument by simply making actual points instead of just looking at things and going "hey that's a thing" (I exaggerate, but Anita bugged me enough just let me poke fun, I am not being serious)

It is why Reelya I think her final example anyway is just the biggest "Totally missed the point" in her videos so far. It serves no purpose whatsoever because it just amounts to "don't use the damsel in distress trope".

Examples of it used right, differences between male and female protagonists, percentages of games that use it all could have helped.

Instead we get things meant to hyperbolize the damsel in distress trope but don't if you put thought into it:
"She could have been replaced by a dog!"
Me: "Yes... a lot of characters could easily be replaced by dogs... Crono from Chrono Trigger, could have been replaced by a dog. Sorry the role of a superfluous NPC character didn't live up to the hype"
Someone else: "ohh but you see she was making a point! That these Damsels in Distress mean that women are superfluous"
Me: "Games tend to make anyone who isn't the direct main character OR the villain superfluous... They have a much more limited narrative most of the time"
Someone else: "So then you think there is no problem with the Damsel in distress trope huh?"
Me: "No, there is certainly something wrong... Actually go and read my complaints I've had with depictions of female characters in media... Anita just doesn't do things well"

Edit: I'd like to state that when I said Princess Peach actually manages to be progressive in modern time... I am excluding the crud of Super Princess Peach. Also YES I am aware that technically in that game she was the only one who was able to control her emotions while Mario for example couldn't stop crying... But, lets just say I am sure most people don't remember that... So I am still not counting it.

[Phmcw]

Let's preface this whit a simple statement : Ethics in a lot of porheminent American documentaries sucks. Michael Moore is the most proheminent example : he make a narrative, and purge his discourse of anything that doesn't fit it. It doesn't make his work worthless and certainly contributed to his success, but it nontheless make it much less informative than the average documentary (look at the exellent http://www.festivalmillenium.org/en for examples of good documentaries).

In a similar way, Sarkeesian's ethics sucks. She make documentaries against videogames and developpers, just like moors made some against the recreative weapon industries of the united states and the privatized public health system of America.

Now the difference I personally see between those two, is that Moor tackle an important subject against highly disfunctional fields, and that I'd compare it to wartime propaganda. Not my favorite source of information, but important for the fight. While Sarkeesian is doing navel gazing at a professional level.

Now, games always included women in their plot, and the roles were topically less gender-locked than in other media. Lara croft is woman Indiana Jones, Princess have been rescruing princes since 1992, there has always been women in command in all strategy games I've played. Even in the straightest "damsel in distress" game I've played (prince of persia 1) the princess save you once. You're even before even rescruing her.



Gavj, actually read the link I provided. And out of curiosity, haven't you been to college? Aren't you part of a group that party? Did you ever have casual sex?

[Reelya]

Games are a mixed bag. For example I found a list The 50 Greatest Heroines In Video Game History and that by necessity leaves out a lot of other female characters / protagonists that I can think of. How easy would it to make a list of top 50 female action stars in movies without really scraping the barrel? And games by their interactive nature are more suited to customization to the player's needs. And this shows up in the 50% of games where you can choose a gender. With movies, it's more like "this movie is about dudes, but we threw a token girl in. You wanted the girl to be the main? Tough luck". But plenty of games give you that option.

The market drives action films and games in pretty much the same way as regards to demographics. More women are playing games now and that's going to tip the balance and "guy games" will be a thing of the past?  Well a LOT of women watch movies, and have done since literally day 1 of movies. Are "guy movies" going away? No. Because guys like the big budget stuff with special effects. And most girls really aren't so amazed by that stuff like guys are. It doesn't MATTER how non-sexualized or empowered a female action hero is, many more guys are going to see that. Think of Aliens. Ripley isn't sexualized at all. Yet it's still a "guy movie".

I came across a new (to me) narrative that seems to be getting more common - to claim that judging some games to be "shit" is sexist. Basically you now can't say that e.g. Candy Crush is a shit game because that's sexist because women like it, and you clearly feel "threatened" by the success of casual games that women like, like Candy Crush or Farmville. The argument then goes that Candy Crush players are 100% as much real gamers as people who play anything else.

I personally think this is getting a bit silly. We can judge graphics, sound, animation, story as elements of quality. But apparently judging things on "gameplay" has now become taboo because it's not "inclusive". Analyzed on quality of gameplay, Farmville is barely a game at all. It's the reality television of gaming. And I don't think it's sexist to make a judgement about people who love really shitty television.

[alexandertnt]

I attend University and have yet to see or hear anything about this, because of this I have disregarded this drunken-college-sex-party thing as a silly stereotype you see in some movies. Regardless, Thinking that any of these things are "normal" or "common" doesn't mean squat, something GravJ has already explained.

Criticising video games =/= being "against" video games. This borders on the "if your not with us your agasint us" train(wreck) of thought.

[Phmcw]

Criticising video games =/= being "against" video games. This borders on the "if your not with us your agasint us" train(wreck) of thought.

Nothing against you guys, but at this point I have enough of this dialogue of the deaf. I'm out.

[Reelya]

Criticising video games =/= being "against" video games. This borders on the "if your not with us your agasint us" train(wreck) of thought.

I think you're projecting an all-or-nothing deal there. So we're not allowed to discuss or analyze or disagree with even a single point Anita raises?

Phmcw wrote " She make documentaries against videogames and developpers"

She definitely attacks developers. She makes quite incendiary statements about their intentions a number of times. That cannot really be argued against.

Phmcw also said "against videogames". I don't think he meant "against all videogames, all the time" that's reading far too much into it. She is definitely against the games she mentions in the videos: a large number of games she makes negative comments or allusions to, and ZERO positive statements about those games. e.g. Ico for the Playstation which is a highly critically regarded game with a well-characterized female co-protagonist becomes just another "damsel" game in her tirade about how such games demean women.

If you review a film and only say bad things about it, and nothing good, then it's not a stretch to say your review was "against" that film. in the same sense Anita's videos are clearly against the games she mentions, much more than the are "for" those games (which is to say: she say nothing in their favor and only attacks them)