Print

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

[Max White]

Well yes, and you should be allowed to. There shouldn't be the expectation that you must, but if you elect to then go for it! Enjoy! Point is...

There is a sexist social expectation that women must be damsels in distress, despite the fact that women make for interesting and engaging protagonists. This is unfair because it is disadvantaging women just to appeal to what men want to see in games.
/rational point
Therefor when ever a women is kidnapped is a sexist trope! Women shouldn't be damsels in distress! Look at all examples of games I have of women as damsels in distress! You can't escape the fact that games do not exist in a vacuum and it is sexist in a broader social context!

[palsch]

One is a choice that a person makes about what they wear.

The other is a consistent choice that game developers make about how to depict fictional characters in fictional stories.

I happen to think there is a difference here.


You are also really good at ignoring Anita's words. Again, from that last quote;

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

Relating this to criticising how individuals choose to dress is missing the point. It's more akin to criticising fashion magazines or other media that only choose to show women in skirts (with rare exceptions that everyone then points to to prove that they aren't sexist).

[Max White]

Wait, do you meant to say the problem with the other is that it is a "consistent choice that game developers make about how to depict fictional characters in fictional stories"
It is almost as if the problem isn't with the trope, but rather how consistent it is! Shock and awe!


And once again, Anita is saying the games aren't sexist, implying the tropes still are. The tropes are as sexist as a woman in a skirt, by themselves there is nothing wrong, it is the social expectation that it must always happen that is the problem. Don't blame the skirt tropes, blame the fashion magazines publishers.

[Loud Whispers]

Don't forget the consumers who create the market for it.

[Max White]

Ok yea, they are also a problem.
But it isn't as directly their problem. I find it harder to blame consumers for not buying games with interesting female protagonists when there are simply far less games with interesting female protagonists, and those that are often receive less funding both in terms of development and marketing.
If games being released were on an even platform for gender and people still avoided games with female protagonists then I would point the finger fully at the consumer, but even then it is part of a much broader and harder to tackle issue than discrimination within the industry.

[palsch]

Literally the first thing I wrote in response to you was this;

Once again again, tropes do not exist in a vacuum. They are their use in various media and the interactions between the stories and society. You can't divorce them from that.

So, in essence, yes they become sexist in and of themselves. Or rather, using them within this social context is sexist and I don't really know a way to live or work or create or whatever without doing it within this social context.

How would you go about creating a non-problematic or sexist Damsel in Distress or Woman in a Refrigerator? I don't really see a method short of full out subversion. Again, the nature of those tropes interacting with social context including their abundance in the media makes them sexist and problematic.



And once again I will say that making any inroads into changing the use of such tropes in video games will always start with having more people aware of them. The exact sort of work that Anita is doing in other words. Making people aware of the tropes - and that and why they are problematic - is a rather necessary step. So long as those aware of and point out such tropes are only a minority who are already marginalised by the industry you can't expect their use to be challenged effectively, let alone changed. Helping more people understand and notice what is going is just good sense.

[Max White]

Somethings use != somethings prevalence.
There is nothing wrong with just telling the story you want to tell, and if that features a male protagonist and female damsel so be it. Look at Braid, are you telling me that the damsel in distress was a sexist trope? I would say it was an ingenious use of a trope to explore some serious themes such as how our perception of a relationship may be different from another. The trope wasn't sexist.

It wasn't subversion, it was good story telling.

[palsch]

I'd say that Braid is the most obvious example of a subversion of the damsel in distress trope there is in gaming today - playing directly on the most recognisable and traditional game story and then completely twisting away from expectations - although obviously there is a lot more going on there as well. There is a problem where that is only apparent if you finish the game, which is actually a serious issue for a fair amount of media that subvert tropes as a plot twist (many rely on claiming to be subversions to get away with blatant exploitative pandering or fall into the parody cake problem).



Here is my problem; how often is a Damsel used because it is central to the artistic vision of the creator? How often is that story the motivating factor of creating the game? How often is it a required central aspect of a game? How often is it just a lazy excuse for motivation of generic male character at the expense of a generic female character?

The Damsel in Distress trope is a default, go-to model for creating a video game. And that is a problem because we are talking about a trope that feeds into sexist attitudes and re-enforces sexist narratives in society. If you have a story that has value enough to justify feeding into that, fine. But how often do people actually think about that?

Let's use another example. Someone on another site who is working on a novel was recently made aware of the Bury Your Gays trope which they previously weren't aware of at all. They had just killed off the one gay character in their novel. They went back and looked at the story and character to see if they justified the inadvertently problematic killing. They decided it was required for the novel to work. They didn't deny that it was problematic or that people might have issues with it. They just decided the story needed it to hold together and that they would work to craft the book to minimise the impact of the trope.

Would such awareness and consideration of the social context of such tropes not be a good thing in games? And so isn't a series examining and explaining such tropes a good idea?

[Soadreqm]

Once again again, tropes do not exist in a vacuum. They are their use in various media and the interactions between the stories and society. You can't divorce them from that.

Could you explain something for me? You're saying that a trope's usage is an inherent part of the trope; that the "Damsel In Distress" trope is not only about distressed damsels, but also requires that damsels be in distress in like every other work. (This IS what you are saying, yes?) Does this imply that if the trope was used without the cultural framework, it is not actually the trope? If a game in which a lady gets into a pickle and must be rescued by the protagonist was made in a society where this was not particularly prevalent, would this count as an instance of the trope? If the trope became less popular, would it in fact cease to exist, being replaced by a different trope about women in peril but only occasionally? What would you call such a trope?

[Rolan7]

EDIT: Just to be clear, Anita makes the same points. From the first video;

The pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective or entirely incapable also has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves and the specific games they inhabit. We have to remember that these games do not exist in a vacuum, they are an increasingly important and influential part of our larger social and cultural ecosystem.

The reality is that this troupe is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. It’s a sad fact that a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men.

The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

See Max, I think we basically agree.  No one is saying all video games are sexist, or that every sexist game is even bad!  Anita's point is that harmful gender tropes are too pervasive in popular games.  Which is why she has to jump between so many games: she's trying to these tropes are in lots of big, influential games.  Not ALL games, and she doesn't try to prove the games don't have redeeming attributes.  Just that they contain these tropes which, while fine on a case by case basis, are a harmful thing to be so common.

And yeah, I hope she does make a video about how the emotionless, scarred and muscled hulk is an unhealthy fantasy for men.  It's related, and *maybe* it would help with the ridiculous perception that she hates men.

So Rolan, you actually going to give an opposition about my points or are you just going to continue saying men are brutes and Anita gets rape threats means I'm wrong?

Never said either of those things, and this is way past unproductive.

[Loud Whispers]

Never said either of those things, and this is way past unproductive.

2: Have they sent YOU rape threats and made face-smashing flash games of YOUR image?

[Rolan7]

So Rolan, you actually going to give an opposition about my points or are you just going to continue saying men are brutes and Anita gets rape threats means I'm wrong?

Never said either of those things, and this is way past unproductive.

2: Have they sent YOU rape threats and made face-smashing flash games of YOUR image?

Nowhere in that statement did I say all men are brutes, or indicate that Anita's rape threats make you wrong.  That statement was in response to you claiming that everyone on the internet gets the same amount of harassment and that it has nothing to do with her feminist position.

And I made a much better argument in the sentence directly after, which you didn't quote. I later apologized for providing (a valid example which countered your idiotic statement but was also) an emotional attack on you.  I'm sorry for offending you back there, but you still can't argue a point.  Please stop replying until you can actually address points with relevance, and kindly abstain from misstating the positions of others as cheap shots.

[GlyphGryph]

Could you explain something for me? You're saying that a trope's usage is an inherent part of the trope; that the "Damsel In Distress" trope is not only about distressed damsels, but also requires that damsels be in distress in like every other work. (This IS what you are saying, yes?) Does this imply that if the trope was used without the cultural framework, it is not actually the trope? If a game in which a lady gets into a pickle and must be rescued by the protagonist was made in a society where this was not particularly prevalent, would this count as an instance of the trope? If the trope became less popular, would it in fact cease to exist, being replaced by a different trope about women in peril but only occasionally? What would you call such a trope?

A trope requires a certain level of cultural momentum. However, it can be niche. Tropes go from mainstream to niche, and form niche to extinct, surprisingly often. Instances from then out can be instances of the trope, by building on the cultural heritage in an attempt for resurgance, but generally if it arises from a cultural background where the behaviour is not a trop then no, it's not an instance of the trope (except, maybe, when viewed through the lens of a culture where it is, but that's not what I think you're asking here).

There is a difference between the Damsel In Distress trope and a damsel who happens to be in distress, and that difference is the culture that surrounds it.

It's like memes - memes go extinct, they lose their cultural relevance, and they stop being memes. Something that could be an instance of a meme but doesn't come from the same cultural background.. isn't. (though it can be appropriated to be so)

[kaijyuu]

Just popping in to mention that my fiancee, who is a woman, likes playing sexy female characters. I despise the Blood Elves in World of Warcraft, yet she quite likes them; they're "petite" (I'd say anorexic) elves with skimpy outfits.

Female characters looking sexy is not a good nor bad thing; it's neutral. Only the expectation of all female characters looking sexy is bad.


Though as a side note, if a game purports being "realistic" or anything along those lines, the women probably shouldn't be wearing skin tight catsuits. Just sayin'.

[Loud Whispers]

Nowhere in that statement did I say all men are brutes, or indicate that Anita's rape threats make you wrong.

Which is why every single one of your posts has been laden with emotionally charged bullshit, completely ignoring any of the points I have made or just you getting embroiled in confusion and saying 'this is your fault, you do not know how to write.'

I talked about how Anita has given interviews where she has created this image of a 'gaming culture' and called it misogynistic and evidence for a large sexist society, using trolls on the internet to represent them.
You started saying she didn't say all gamers are trolls, nor halo players trolls, then you said I was making bullshit implications. Of course, you were right in the former, and that's because that wasn't the point I was making.
Then you started going on about how 'Have they sent YOU rape threats and made face-smashing flash games of YOUR image?' [sic].
Then you conflated it with terrorism.
Then you said my point about how you should 'Go buy the games that interest you,' was irrelevant without justifying why supporting the game studios that do what you say is irrelevant.
Then you said my question about why video game designers should not have free reign over their game designs was irrelevant without justifying why.
Then you made an oversimplistic view on male characters which is also wrong, and used that to justify your point that women and men are absolutely incapable of recognizing attractive features.
Then you said you could argue 'my position,' whatever that is, better than I, despite providing no argument. Then I provided my argument, and you refuted nothing.

  That statement was in response to you claiming that everyone on the internet gets the same amount of harassment and that it has nothing to do with her feminist position.

And that is not the statement I made. My statement was that all internet personalities have the same treatment, yet only in this case do we see people looking at it and saying things like 'this suggest to me that video gamers are more sexist than they admit,' and only in this case do we see people holding it on a pedestal over all others.
Do you understand what trolling is? They are saying sexist things because she is feminist, is followed by feminists, and they know it will piss them off. Anyone who's worth their weight in internet knows this. An internet personality attracts a hateful following as much as a fanbase, and anything they invest importance in will be used against them.
This pattern has been around for a decade.

And I made a much better argument in the sentence directly after, which you didn't quote. I later apologized for providing (a valid example which countered your idiotic statement but was also) an emotional attack on you.  I'm sorry for offending you back there, but you still can't argue a point.

0/10
Not even mad
Your examples have been utter trite, and I've already refuted them. I'm sorry you don't know how to have an actual discussion. Or rather, I'm not sorry really, just generally apathetic about it. Go do whatever you wish.

  Please stop replying until you can actually address points with relevance, and kindly abstain from misstating the positions of others as cheap shots.

You:

• Haven't made any relevant points.
• Haven't addressed relevant points.
• Have only made emotional arguments.
• Have only misstated the points that make you mad.

If I were as vindictive as you, I would tell you to get out of this thread.