Print

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

[Max White]

Could you point out these leaps in logic and where they happen? If I am making mistakes in logic, perhaps I'm not the best one to find them? Telling me I'm wrong just because of wild assumptions is useless, because it doesn't actually say anything other than I am wrong. You can't just say I'm wrong because I'm wrong.


I am saying that Anita isn't opposed to the fact that women are often shown as Damsels in distress, I am saying she is opposed to women  simply being Damsels in distress at all. If she had a problem with how often it happens, she would have presented it like that. Instead she chooses to present examples of it happening, to prove that it does happen, and we are meant to agree that it is bad.

[palsch]

I am saying that Anita isn't opposed to the fact that women are often shown as Damsels in distress, I am saying she is opposed to women  simply being Damsels in distress at all. If she had a problem with how often it happens, she would have presented it like that. Instead she chooses to present examples of it happening, to prove that it does happen, and we are meant to agree that it is bad.

Except that you are going against what she says herself. Take this passage;

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.

The parts I've highlighted are talking about how the trope is problematic because of the frequency and context of it's appearances. It's right there in the video.

I'll also note that at no point did she explicitly call the trope sexist. That part was all me.

[Graknorke]

The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false

How is women being physically weaker a myth? It's a real thing that exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

[Max White]

Except nowhere in that passage does she point out just how common the trope actually is. When she says it does not exist in a vacuum, she means that women get beaten in the real world, therefor beating up women in games is bad. That doesn't say anything about how common it actually is within games. She says games are increasingly important and influence. That doesn't indicate how common these tropes are.

She never says how often these tropes actually turn up, all she does is point out some examples and hope that we are fooled into believing it is  common.

Heck, maybe it is common! That isn't the point, the point is that Anita fails to point this out. If a tropes prevalence is important, then this is a fundamental failure on her behalf.

[palsch]

Except nowhere in that passage does she point out just how common the trope actually is. When she says it does not exist in a vacuum, she means that women get beaten in the real world, therefor beating up women in games is bad. That doesn't say anything about how common it actually is within games. She says games are increasingly important and influence. That doesn't indicate how common these tropes are.

I don't think you followed the link or remember the actual context.

That was entirely talking about the Damsel in Distress trope in the first video. Nothing about beating women.

And how would you like her to demonstrate that the trope is common? I mean, in my eyes the examples she gave and my own general gaming knowledge suggest that the trope is pretty damned common. I don't quite get how much more heavy lifting she needs to focus on what is a fairly trivially true point.

[Reelya]

That brings me to another quibble with her argument (or at least the overly sensationalized way she presents things).

She conflates how "a large percentage of the world's population" acts, with why tropes in video games are a problem. Totally ignoring that a sizable chunk of the world's population don't have running water or electricity and live in feudalistic semi-agrarian societies which barely have TV, let alone video games. She has yet to explain why the existence of regressive views of Saudi's or herders in Mongolia should mean that a westerner or Japanese teen playing Super Mario is undermining females self-dependence.

And, that 3rd page of the article on gay characters dying off - it still makes the case that it only happens because they're side characters, and that's what happens to side characters in narratives. And side characters are deliberately more "diverse", to try and make up for the homogeneity of main characters.

Now, this is especially relevant to the "why does this happen to women in games" question. Games, which are structured with a single protagonist rather than a team, are of course more prone to presenting everyone except the hero as expendable.

Again, making new games with more choice of protagonists solves that problem, rather than trying to "re-jig" existing formats or force gender-neutrality. And Anita, in only highlighting the lack of games with a solely female protagonist, misleads on the fact of the study that shows there are at least 300 games in the 7th-gen console cycle which give the choice of being female - that's 300 current games where the female isn't thrown under the bus.

[Glowcat]

When she says it does not exist in a vacuum, she means that women get beaten in the real world, therefor beating up women in games is bad.

Good fucking lord it's painful to read some of your interpretations. How about instead of... crazy... her actual feelings are:

There are some games that try to explore loss, death and grief in more genuine or authentic ways that do not sensationalize or exploit victimized women. Dear Esther, The Passage and To The Moon are a few indie games that investigate these themes in creative, innovative and sometimes beautiful ways. These more contemplative style games are a hopeful sign but they’re still largely the exception to the rule. A sizable chunk of the industry is still unfortunately trapped in the established pattern of building game narratives on the backs of brutalized female bodies.

Violence against women is a serious global epidemic; therefore, attempts to address the issue in fictional contexts demands a considerable degree of respect, subtlety and nuance. Women shouldn’t be mere disposable objects or symbolic pawns in stories about men and their own struggles with patriarchal expectations and inadequacies.

But I'm pretty sure you'll find a reason to complain about that too.

Most of this thread is a good example of why feminists say "Shut up and listen." Hint: it's not a bullying tactic, and there's two parts to it. It's said when self-absorbed dudebros forget to do the latter part (and thus need to do the first since they're often pontificating against strawfemazis).

[Max White]

I don't think you followed the link or remember the actual context.

That was entirely talking about the Damsel in Distress trope in the first video. Nothing about beating women.

And how would you like her to demonstrate that the trope is common? I mean, in my eyes the examples she gave and my own general gaming knowledge suggest that the trope is pretty damned common. I don't quite get how much more heavy lifting she needs to focus on what is a fairly trivially true point.

If she is going to say a trope is too common, there is a burden of proof on her to say how common it is. She has over a hundred thousand dollars for this, she can't find a study or statistical analysis? She could fund one!

Point is, kidnapping or beating, she doesn't mention how common it is. She just says there is a trend, and that is about as meaningless as it gets!

Imagine somebody who had never played video games before and was concerned about the implications of these games. They have heard about this series of videos and decide to give them a watch. From Anitas videos, one might think that in all games women are kidnapped. You need to try judge the series from an objective viewpoint without your own opinions on the subject. Just because you know about something doesn't mean everybody does, and if the series fails to hit on an essential point then that is a massive failure.

Without this triviality it changes the message of the series. You keep saying that part of what makes a trope is how common it is, so if you don't present how common it is you don't have a trope.

[Reelya]

When she says it does not exist in a vacuum, she means that women get beaten in the real world, therefor beating up women in games is bad.

Good fucking lord it's painful to read some of your interpretations. How about instead of... crazy... her actual feelings are:

There are some games that try to explore loss, death and grief in more genuine or authentic ways that do not sensationalize or exploit victimized women. Dear Esther, The Passage and To The Moon are a few indie games that investigate these themes in creative, innovative and sometimes beautiful ways. These more contemplative style games are a hopeful sign but they’re still largely the exception to the rule. A sizable chunk of the industry is still unfortunately trapped in the established pattern of building game narratives on the backs of brutalized female bodies.

Violence against women is a serious global epidemic; therefore, attempts to address the issue in fictional contexts demands a considerable degree of respect, subtlety and nuance. Women shouldn’t be mere disposable objects or symbolic pawns in stories about men and their own struggles with patriarchal expectations and inadequacies.

But I'm pretty sure you'll find a reason to complain about that too.

Most of this thread is a good example of why feminists say "Shut up and listen." Hint: it's not a bullying tactic, and there's two parts to it. It's said when self-absorbed dudebros forget to do the latter part (and thus need to do the first since they're often pontificating against strawfemazis).

Duh, there's a very valid complaint about how she presents those "good" games.

She makes the case that the good examples are vanishingly rare - so the three examples she provided are the totality, or near totality. That's what "largely the exception to the rule" means. A "rule" means something always followed. She then immediately follows on to elucidate what that "rule" that informs all other games might be: "building game narratives on the backs of brutalized female bodies." Which is totally screwed up sensationalism, and very far from characterizing a core "rule" of video game development.

Nowhere does she state that 100's of games where you can choose to play a female protagonist exist just from the current generation releases, or the vast majority of male-centric games, where there are no "brutalized female bodies" at all. She gives a very strong impression that this couldn't possibly be the case, by presenting those two extremes as the only possibilities - with decently moraled games the "exception", and woman-murdering games the "rule".

You may know there are other options out there, but a viewer of her videos who is not well versed in gaming may not, and would assume she's describing the full range of possible gaming experiences.

[Glowcat]

Duh, there's a very valid complaint about how she presents those "good" games.

What does that have to do with her intentions or the "SHE'S NOT ALLOWING US TO BEAT UP WOMEN!!" hyperbole that's being tossed around here?

And yeah, I do see that to strongly make a case about tropes being prevalent she's going to need to produce some studies, though the best I can see her doing is bringing up all games that use or subvert the specific trope in question (which is supposed to be the focus of Part 3). But that has jack to do with all the other arguments that seem to be cropping up in this thread based on a disingenuously unfair interpretation of what she's been saying.

[Reelya]

Strawman much? Nobody's called for beating up women. The video #2 only came out around a week ago, and it's definite that nobody has argued that since then. Before that, it was the damsel discussion etc, and "beating up women" wasn't even a topic.

The main critique from my end has been that her conclusions don't logically follow from her premises. She has nice premises and nice conclusions, but the bit in the middle is pure rhetoric. She uses flowery language to hide the seams. And she misrepresents real-world issues to a degree, so they better conform to her thesis.

My point with the examples she gives is that she's misrepresenting the scope of games that exist now - if you only followed her videos you'd believe there were 3 feminist games in existence, and that in every other game you could only play a male, and there was a literal massacre of the female form in every title. She said that games where you're not brutalizing female bodies are "the exception to the rule".

Just disagreeing with Anita doesn't mean someone is automatically a monster who wants to play games where you brutalize women, no more than disputing the assertion that "Hitler at babies" makes you a NAZI.

It also seems to be retconning the discussion with strawmen complaints to fit in with Anita's latest pronouncements - Anita releases new complaints about women getting beaten up in games, and oh, of course, everyone who has ever disagreed with Anita about anything must want to beat up women in video games - makes perfect sense.

[palsch]

Point is, kidnapping or beating, she doesn't mention how common it is. She just says there is a trend, and that is about as meaningless as it gets!

OK, let's change this a little; what would you consider them being common?

How common would you assume they need to be to have a social impact?

She conflates how "a large percentage of the world's population" acts, with why tropes in video games are a problem. Totally ignoring that a sizable chunk of the world's population don't have running water or electricity and live in feudalistic semi-agrarian societies which barely have TV, let alone video games. She has yet to explain why the existence of regressive views of Saudi's or herders in Mongolia should mean that a westerner or Japanese teen playing Super Mario is undermining females self-dependence.

Let's not pretend that these sexist attitudes are restricted to "feudalistic semi-agrarian societies". I mean, just the backlash to these videos alone are a decent demonstration of the sexism still underlying the exact culture she is addressing. This stuff still exists and still matters, no matter how progressive we consider our society.

Hell, that sort of assumption that we are progressive is in itself dangerous. We consider that sexism (or racism, or homophobia) is outdated and backwards and evil and so not anything we could ever possible be guilty of as progressive, enlightened allies. And then we fuck up and show our arses. Actually this is part of why I generally reject the label of feminist or ally or anything like that. Scalzi said it better though.

Again, making new games with more choice of protagonists solves that problem, rather than trying to "re-jig" existing formats or force gender-neutrality. And Anita, in only highlighting the lack of games with a solely female protagonist, misleads on the fact of the study that shows there are at least 300 games in the 7th-gen console cycle which give the choice of being female - that's 300 current games where the female isn't thrown under the bus.

I don't know where the "re-jig" and "force gender-neutrality" stuff comes from, but it's not the video. And remember that she isn't exactly doing a survey of all video games here. She is looking at a particular trope and it's instances in video gaming. Not to mention that the third video is supposed to look at role reversals and subversions.

[Graknorke]

I mean, just the backlash to these videos alone are a decent demonstration of the sexism still underlying the exact culture she is addressing.

I don't think that the backlash had anything to do with sexism, and more to do with the fact that she was criticizing the largest common interest on the internet.

It was less;
"Gaming is sexist"
"Stop infringing on my right to oppress women."

And more;
"Gaming is sexist"
"Go fuck yourself"

[Reelya]

Hell, that sort of assumption that we are progressive is in itself dangerous. We consider that sexism (or racism, or homophobia) is outdated and backwards and evil and so not anything we could ever possible be guilty of as progressive, enlightened allies. And then we fuck up and show our arses. Actually this is part of why I generally reject the label of feminist or ally or anything like that.

Regardless of whether there are some issues, it's not logically sound to conflate the Taliban with Western teenagers, which is what she basically does here. The Taliban are not playing Super Mario. This is my issue, she's over sensationalizing things by bringing in unrelated topics that conflate something that troublesome with something murderous. Completely different demographics. Is she really implying that archetypes likr Princess Peach in video games is adding to burden worldwide of ultra-repressive societies like Saudi Arabia, Taliban, etc?

[Max White]

How common would you assume they need to be to have a social impact?

I don't know, I'm not the one saying they are too common.
In my experience neither the Damsel nor the Fridge themselves are all too common. The only reason they even really cause a blip on the radar is because women are usually put in supporting roles, and supporting roles are subject to these plot devices rather than women. Get more female protagonists and you have a self correcting mechanism.

But then that goes back to what I have been saying all along. The problem isn't with the tropes, and attacking the tropes will never solve anything. The problem is with publishers and developers being scared to give us female protagonists because they are scared they won't appeal to a male audience, and that is sexist.


But if you want to say they are too common, you will need to give me a threshold. That is how burden of proof works.