Print

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

[i2amroy]

I guess my problem is simply that I don't find much merit in the particular type of critique she is espousing, since it only works to convince those who already at least partially share your beliefs. As it is her video is full of her showing a clip and then an equivalent of her basically stating "this is sexist". She gives me no reasoning or support, she simply states something and expects me to agree. Those who already agree with her will then say "yes, that's all right", and those who currently disagree with her will say "she's wrong". The end result would be very similar to if I went and saw a movie and when asked my opinion on it I said "it's bad" without any reasoning behind it. Now I might go on to tell you why it was bad, maybe it had bad characterization or the plot was simple, and she starts to barely touch on this near the end, but the majority of her examples are simply her showing a clip and then stating that it somehow contributes to her overall message.

The problem isn't with her message, but it's with her delivery. If she wants to critique games then she should critique them and tell us why they support her conclusion. If she wants to convince others of the how bad the problem is then she should attempt to convince us, and if she wants to document history then she should document it, but right now all I am seeing is a halfhearted or incomplete effort to do something. Whatever it is she is trying to do she didn't go far enough towards. Give me arguments, give me explanations, give me reasonings, give me bias, give me whatever you want, but give me something dang nabit! Elsewise all you are doing is wasting my time on a mediocre video that is difficult to respond to because it hasn't committed itself to anything. If she was to give at least one reason for how each game contributes to the overall idea of sexism the thing as a whole would be fine, but right now there are a bunch of her examples that don't have any reasons as to how they contribute to her overall point which, to quote my old english teachers, would make them "worthless junk". Everything in your essay or video should have a point, else you are just wasting time and confusing your audience. So she either needs to go farther and connect all her examples, or she needs to cut out the ones she isn't connecting.

[penguinofhonor]

That is a pretty dishonest example Penguin.
If you are presenting pro-slavery literature, you will find that people enjoying being enslaved is generally offensive regardless of the slaves race, gender or sexuality. Slavery is just not a nice thing.
Being rescued, however, is generally a positive thing, thus only the most insane of sexist nutbags will ever et offended at a girl saving a boy. Thus, if there is nothing wrong with a girl saving a boy, and we are treating gender equally, there is nothing wrong with a boy saving the girl.
The trick here is the 'and we are treating gender equally'.
There is nothing wrong with the boy saves girl story, the problem is that the industry isn't treating gender equally.

Yeah, that's true. There would be no way to make the slavery deal not offensive, while there is definitely a way to make damsels in distress not offensive.

I was mostly just trying to point out that you can justify any stupid-ass thing within the narrative, but it probably shouldn't have been phrased as such a direct comparison to the damsel in distress topic then.

[Neonivek]

"The black people in pro-slavery literature aren't happy with their owners because they're racist stereotypes, they're happy because their owners treat them so well. It's in the narrative!"

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

What I am saying is that in failing to understand narrative structure you fail to understand why these tropes exist. If you fail to understand why they exist then any discussion of them in terms of sexism starts to fail because you are inferring in the wrong dirrection.

'm going to state this as plainly as I can because you've pretty much made this same argument every time these videos have been brought up: This isn't a critique of whether the story is coherent.

Here is the thing. If you make the story incoherant, you failed.

But it very rarely does. That's the point

Ok lets take that statement and instead work by games where the main character is male and where the main character is female and force them to be equal.

Then what do we have?

Its not the fact that big-breasts women exist, the issue that people have is the reason that video game women have big breasts.

No it isn't even the reason. My main source of aggrevance is when their appearance is used against their character.

A sexy character who looks sexy isn't the problem. A character who looks sexy when she shouldn't is the issue.

the problem is that the industry isn't treating gender equally.

Yes but first you also have to unpack WHY that happens.

You get a lot of really terrible games (Dear goodness Soul Calibur...) but then you realise that a certain number of games come out that MUST use those tropes because you cannot avoid them due to who the market is.

If the vast majority of games are about male characters you inherantly get this inbalance.

For example Crystal losing her game to a male character? It had nothing to do with her gender, in fact it was likely her gender that allowed her to be in the game as it gave Fox a counterpart. It was because Starfox was popular and didn't have a game in a while, while Dinosaur planet was a risky venture.

Her ending up in a skimpy outfit, however, can be something you can look at.

The problem isn't with her message, but it's with her delivery. If she wants to critique games then she should critique them and tell us why they support her conclusion

Honestly I think she isn't trying to really give real in depth analysis. Right now she is sort of easing people in by shocking them.

I am sure in her next video she will actually be going in depth and explaining her reasoning. Since the way she is speaking it seems more "introduction". In otherwords she is trying to put you in the right frame of mind for her other videos.

-----

I am actually finally watching it right now.

[Solifuge]

Sorry to interrupt (I'm not yet caught up, and apparently we're on racism now?), but in regards to the OP:

I actually discovered Anita Sarkeesian a few weeks ago, and don't find her quite as ridiculous as some of you seem to. In fact, I really enjoyed her spot on the history of Legos and their disappointing new "Legos For Girls" initiative. The gender segregation of toys, and how these relate to the establishment of social roles in childhood has always been of interest to me, and her video came across as both well-informed and entertaining, and even a bit thought-provoking.

I don't get the hate. Maybe I missed something though? :/

[Ogdibus]

.

[Neonivek]

I don't hate her at all.

I was just explaining why people would.

And honestly the only weak points of her discussion on videogames that I can find has to do with marketing and narrative structure. With marketing where she often doesn't understand why certain things panned out the way they did (for reason completely unsexist) and for narrative structure she often puts characters into victimised roles when their roles were dictated to them just by how a story is told.

Not that she cannot make good points within that sphere, just that if there are anything you could argue with her about, it would be anytime she enters that sphere.

---

Also I am disapointed! I was promised a comparison between male and female damsels... but instead I got a comparison between Male Main characters and Female Side characters.

Dang it board!

Come ON Anita I know genuin Male damsels (who arn't also the main character) exist! You had gold right there but you fumbled the ball. For example in Kings Quest 7 upon saving Edgar he almost single handedly defeats the villain, only to fail due to the female villains decieving him, and then must be rescued by the the female protagonist and brought back to life.

It shows the difference in expectation in terms of how they are supposed to handle themselves.

[Max White]

Also I am disapointed! I was promised a comparison between male and female damsels...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The most major difference is that female damsels don't have eyebrows.

[i2amroy]

Also I am disapointed! I was promised a comparison between male and female damsels...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The most major difference is that female damsels don't have eyebrows.

You sirs are awarded one internet for your bringing of the light of humor into this dark place. Try not to kill each other splitting it.

[Glowcat]

And honestly the only weak points of her discussion on videogames that I can find has to do with marketing and narrative structure. With marketing where she often doesn't understand why certain things panned out the way they did (for reason completely unsexist) and for narrative structure she often puts characters into victimised roles when their roles were dictated to them just by how a story is told.

How would a systemic inequality between genders not be sexist when that's pretty much the definition of sexism? Whatever the reasons behind it, the end result is still women being portrayed in a negative light (maybe slightly less so these days), with a negative effect on female gamers and their interest in certain video games, and thus a problem that needs pointing out and discussing.

[i2amroy]

And honestly the only weak points of her discussion on videogames that I can find has to do with marketing and narrative structure. With marketing where she often doesn't understand why certain things panned out the way they did (for reason completely unsexist) and for narrative structure she often puts characters into victimised roles when their roles were dictated to them just by how a story is told.

How would a systemic inequality between genders not be sexist when that's pretty much the definition of sexism? Whatever the reasons behind it, the end result is still women being portrayed in a negative light (maybe slightly less so these days), with a negative effect on female gamers and their interest in certain video games, and thus a problem that needs pointing out and discussing.

I think he was more attempting to state that some of her examples turned out the way they did due to unsexist reasons, not the sexist reasons she is implying in her video.

[Neonivek]

How would a systemic inequality between genders not be sexist when that's pretty much the definition of sexism?

No you also have to add "Unfair" to that.

There is a systematic inequality that is sexist but first you have to free it from the systematic inequality that IS sexist.

Where she is weakest is when she hasn't seperated these ideas or when she intentionally leaves out details to prove a point or makes up things to do the same.

Comparing Male leads to female damsels is probably the best example. She could have mentioned that ultimately anyone could have filled that role but that a steriotypical female damsel was seen as the best fit and thus the game may be inadvertingly be implying that women are the best choice for that role. When she doesn't say that it gives the impression that she doesn't understand story structure. Instead she chose to compare a male lead (someone who must save themselves at that point) to a character who isn't in the same role.

Which is where I draw issue.

thus a problem that needs pointing out and discussing.

I never implied otherwise. It is more that her arguements in those area are weaker.

And honestly the only weak points of her discussion on videogames that I can find has to do with marketing and narrative structure. With marketing where she often doesn't understand why certain things panned out the way they did (for reason completely unsexist) and for narrative structure she often puts characters into victimised roles when their roles were dictated to them just by how a story is told.

How would a systemic inequality between genders not be sexist when that's pretty much the definition of sexism? Whatever the reasons behind it, the end result is still women being portrayed in a negative light (maybe slightly less so these days), with a negative effect on female gamers and their interest in certain video games, and thus a problem that needs pointing out and discussing.

I think he was more attempting to state that some of her examples turned out the way they did due to unsexist reasons, not the sexist reasons she is implying in her video.

Yes O_O that is exactly it.

[Max White]

Well, when marketing leads to a Super Mario game where you can play as peach, she dismisses it as not really counting.
When the same marketing causes a female protagonist to be replaced by a male one, it suddenly counts.

I mean it isn't as bad as I am making it out to be here, she does to some level acknowledge the game, but you have to measure things with the same stick, you know?
If we are going to say something is sexist because of its content regardless of what business went on to make that happen, then we should stick to that standard.

[alexandertnt]

Ok lets take that statement and instead work by games where the main character is male and where the main character is female and force them to be equal.

Then what do we have?

I am not quite sure what you mean here, but no one is forcing anything. Only identifying sexism.

You see, I completely agree that there is a marketing reason for why this happens in video games and I understand this. Its still sexist.

No it isn't even the reason. My main source of aggrevance is when their appearance is used against their character.

A sexy character who looks sexy isn't the problem. A character who looks sexy when she shouldn't is the issue.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I said "why" I was implying the inclusion of sexy characters for fanservice and sexual appeal (the "hot skimpy-armored babe", which is fairly common) from a "game-as-anentertainment-product" POV, not "why" in the context of the story.

Comparing Male leads to female damsels is probably the best example. She could have mentioned that ultimately anyone could have filled that role but that a steriotypical female damsel was seen as the best fit and thus the game may be inadvertingly be implying that women are the best choice for that role. When she doesn't say that it gives the impression that she doesn't understand story structure.

I think the point is that so many games do this that a female is often the go-to choice for game designers (which also construct the story structure to fit).

[Neonivek]

You see, I completely agree that there is a marketing reason for why this happens in video games and I understand this. Its still sexist

That isn't exactly my point the point is that the imbalance occurs for non-sexist reasons (In otherwords if a ray suddenly unsexistified the world... It would still be a terrible unbalance). First you have to remove what isn't sexist about it and then get at the core issues.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I said "why" I was implying the inclusion of sexy characters for fanservice and sexual appeal (the "hot skimpy-armored babe", which is fairly common) from a "game-as-anentertainment-product" POV, not "why" in the context of the story

No I understood what you meant.  I just mean that the inclusion of fanservice for fanservice isn't the issue in it of itself.

When it is a destructive rather then something used to round out the character. If you wanted to include a sexy character because you think the audiance would like a sexy character, that isn't inherantly wrong. There is something else there that makes it sexist.

So first you remove the idea that "Sexy women is terrible", then you remove "Making women sexy is terrible", THEN you remove "adding desirable features to this character is wrong" then you look at fanservice in games and you start to really understand what the issue is. Fanservice is often against the female character or to make offensive female characters or prolonging offensive ideas of sexyness.

Mind you I am hardly solid in my own beliefs, I am trying to make the idea that women should be treated with more respect in the media while at the same time not slut shaming them for their own bodies while at the same time understanding the difference between existance and saturation AND the idea that women are often as attracted to these tropes as men. Which is very difficult for me to do.

I am actually feeling ill from saying up too late... so I am probably not going to respond much more.

[Solifuge]

Well, when marketing leads to a Super Mario game where you can play as peach, she dismisses it as not really counting.
When the same marketing causes a female protagonist to be replaced by a male one, it suddenly counts.

You do realize that in Super Princess Peach, her special power is her Super-PMS? She literally invokes violent magical mood-swings to kill enemies and solve puzzles. Yes the idea is ridiculous, and could be funny if not for the fact that this is how they choose to portray the only female hero of the Mario series. Really now.

And honestly the only weak points of her discussion on videogames that I can find has to do with marketing and narrative structure. With marketing where she often doesn't understand why certain things panned out the way they did (for reason completely unsexist) and for narrative structure she often puts characters into victimised roles when their roles were dictated to them just by how a story is told.

Isn't a story that relegates its major female characters to victimized or disempowered roles kinda, er, guilty of portraying its female characters as disempowered and/or victims? Like, tautologically speaking?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't get how that makes for a weak point. I mean, I played Wind Waker too, and I really liked Tetra. And when I played it, though I didn't have words for disempowerment at the time, but I remember being disappointed when she stopped being a Badass Pirate Captain, and got turned into a princess, and was effectively booted from the heroic quest. I mean, her bravado, snark, and guile made her awesome... but that all disappeared when she was turned into a demuring froo froo magical girl. And that's kinda the responsibility of the writers, yeah? I mean, this isn't a result of random events or the player's will or whatever, this is the content creator's choice in how to portray her, and the end result of the story.

The same thing happens to the Bird Girl in Windwaker (I forget her name >_< when magic and prophecy force her transformation from lovable and bumbling action hero to distant supportive role for the Hero-dude, as she is forced to become a Sage for the rest of time.

And hell, don't even get me started about Metroid and Samus! I liked Samus Aran because she was a badass space bounty-hunter. Her talents and badassery were what was core to her identity, and the fact that she was also a woman was an incidental background detail. Though of course the devs still shoehorned their fanservice in as easter eggs and whatever, her general appearance wasn't sexualized at all, which is still a complete rarity in the industry.

...and then, motherfucking Metroid: Other M happened... "MoM." Samus put in a wet skintight catsuit, wistfully sighing every 5 minutes about babies and bottle-ships and shit. Getting distracted by thoughts of her handsome and square-jawed Commanding Officer on the battlefield, whom she becomes increasingly dependent on. Complete fucking bullshit. That's not the Samus I remember.

So yeah, sexism in games is real, it can ruin good characters and stories, and does not lend itself to furthering gender equality.