Print

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

[Max White]

To be fair I wouldn't describe these videos as bland. The bit where she feels repeating the same line over and over to prove that it applies to more than one game to make some emotional appeal to people who don't understand what anecdotal evidence is can get a little long, but it isn't so bad. She is somewhat charismatic, and attempts humor every now and then.

I guess I was at all points questioning why she was saying what she was saying and do I agree, as you should with all works of this nature, so that might have kept me a little more engaged than the average viewer? Still it had the bells and whistles.

But yea, she has a weak premise, lack of actual data, and abuses the English language like it is a chew toy.

[Bauglir]

abuses the English language like it is a chew toy.

So far, the biggest complaint in this thread that I've seen has been that she exaggerates for emotional appeal's sake. So, given this particular quoted hyperbole...

[Max White]

One way to think about Damsel’d characters is via what’s called the subject/object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act and objects are acted upon. The subject is the protagonist, one the story is centered on and the one doing most of the action. In video games this is almost always the main playable character and the one from whose perspective most of the story is seen.

So the damsel trope typically makes men the “subject” of the narratives while relegating women to the “object”. This is a form of objectification because as objects, damsel’ed women are being acted upon, most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found or a goal to be achieved.

Except that is using sentence structure to try and justify calling something sexist. If I use the term "I like you" then 'I' is the subject and 'you' are the object. I am acting upon you in a way.
Except that doesn't mean I am objectifying you in the way we mean when we talk about discrimination. Simply being acted upon is not the same as objectified.

This is an attempt to reduce men to simple domineering creatures. There is no way that a male character is seeking to save a female character because of any emotional attachment, sense of duty or morality. It is because she is just a prize to be won.

[Bauglir]

Except that is using sentence structure to try and justify calling something sexist. If I use the term "I like you" then 'I' is the subject and 'you' are the object. I am acting upon you in a way.
Except that doesn't mean I am objectifying you in the way we mean when we talk about discrimination. Simply being acted upon is not the same as objectified.

She's not talking about grammar. The concept of subject/object exists beyond the scope of formal language structure, though the latter can often be used to highlight the concept of the former. When women, in general, serve no purpose to the story except to be sought after (regardless of the reasons for the protagonist, which can be as noble as you like), there is a problem with the construction of those stories. What part of that claim is something you object to?

This is an attempt to reduce men to simple domineering creatures. There is no way that a male character is seeking to save a female character because of any emotional attachment, sense of duty or morality. It is because she is just a prize to be won.

She certainly didn't say that. It was a paragraph about how women are treated by stories, with a single mention of other characters who are men. You're hearing what you want to, and little more, as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I want to be clear, she could certainly have communicated with more strictly accurate language, and obviously there's a burden on a person who constructs an argument to be clear about it. But her word choices were, as far as I could tell, well within acceptable limits for what was never a technical discussion and what functions as a primer for people familiar with gaming but not with feminism. The degree of hostility I'm seeing here is disturbing for something that's pretty damn bland in its goals, and between the bizarrely specific nitpicking and what very nearly seems like willful misunderstanding, I don't have much interest in criticizing the videos because there are so many worthless complaints being lobbed along with anything that could be productive.

[Max White]

So when female characters exist only to be saved, it is a problem, yet when male characters exist only to be defeated it is fine? Super Mario was an incredibly simple story, should resources have been used just to give Peach some sort of depth where nobody else had any?

The implication was still that men save women because they see women are prizes to be won, with no consideration for anything like the actual game.

[Bauglir]

Male characters don't exist only to be defeated. Mario exists for other reasons, for instance.

Super Mario was an incredibly simple story, should resources have been used just to give Peach some sort of depth where nobody else had any?

Now, this is a particularly stupid question, so it's getting more space than it probably deserves. You should know by now that not many people (and nobody here) is arguing that each and every game should be a paragon of feminist ideology. Simple games with little depth are a perfectly legitimate thing to make. Super Mario is an example of a trend. That means that it is not the problem. Changing Super Mario would, at best, make it stop being an example, but others would exist. This also means that plenty of games are allowed not to give resources to female characters, because if the trend were toward balanced roles then a few games bucking that trend would not themselves constitute a trend. So, no, I don't think resources should have been used to give Peach some depth as a character in Super Mario Bros. If they had been, that would've been fine, but I certainly wouldn't demand it. Hell, being kidnapped could even have kept being her schtick as a character! That's a perfectly fine running gag.

But... not when it's such a staple plot of the genre. Not when it's almost always women who serve as the goal or reward. Not when women as competent heroes are in such short supply that Samus being a woman is considered a legitimate twist ending. Notice how all these problems have to do with trends? Yeah.

The implication was still that men save women because they see women are prizes to be won, with no consideration for anything like the actual game.

No, the implication was that games are written that way with no implications one way or the other for the motives of the man who's doing the saving in-game. As I said, you're reading into this what you want to hear.

[Max White]

Simple games with little depth are a perfectly legitimate thing to make. Super Mario is an example of a trend.

So this comes back to what I have been saying that there is nothing wrong with the tropes themselves, and yet some people, Anita included, seem to think there is.

If somebody had never played the Super Mario games and watched the series, they would have an unfounded negative view of the game. The Tropes Vs Women series make it seem like any time these tropes are used it is being done in a way that is demeaning to women. This is false.

[Bauglir]

Then I suppose we have vastly different interpretations of the work we've both seen. Either way, that hardly seems to justify the hostility and petty insults.

[Neonivek]

abuses the English language like it is a chew toy.

So far, the biggest complaint in this thread that I've seen has been that she exaggerates for emotional appeal's sake. So, given this particular quoted hyperbole...

It may be the biggest but it isn't necessarily the one with the most gravity.

[jrmy]

Simple games with little depth are a perfectly legitimate thing to make. Super Mario is an example of a trend.

So this comes back to what I have been saying that there is nothing wrong with the tropes themselves, and yet some people, Anita included, seem to think there is.

If somebody had never played the Super Mario games and watched the series, they would have an unfounded negative view of the game. The Tropes Vs Women series make it seem like any time these tropes are used it is being done in a way that is demeaning to women. This is false.

that's not right, though, is it? iirc anita isn't saying these tropes are necessarily inherently damaging to women. I believe what she's saying is more like "here're some tropes where women don't have agency that are also absurdly popular in videogame narratives".

[Max White]

Well firstly the tropes alone don't mean women don't have agency in the games that use them. Zelda gets kidnapped often, but in all the more recent games she still had agency. She still planned out how things were going to happen and directed Link. She was a damsel in distress, but she still had agency.
Older games such as the first and second are a little different, but they suffer from 'Too simplistic for anybody to have depth' syndrome. As soon as they had the technical capabilities to give Zelda more to do, they did.

Secondly, she says they are absurdly popular, but she doesn't make a case for it. Heck when she first mentioned the idea of women being both fridged and damseled I couldn't think of a single example. Past the games she mentioned, none of which I have ever played, I can't think of any time I have ever seen that, but she says it is popular so it must be, right?
Maybe it is! I don't play many AAA games, so I make for a very, very bad example, but the point is I still have no idea exactly how common any of these tropes are. Ok I know the damsel is popular, I ave played enough games for that, especially older ones, but how is somebody who has never played any game before in their life meant to know how popular any of these tropes actually are?

The way it is presented, somebody would very easily believe the majority of games have innocent women being killed by the male protagonist for drama, but I haven't seen it nearly as much as it is exclaimed. It is true that using descriptive language you will never be able to give 100% of people a good idea just how common something is, but if you are going to claim their is an epidemic you should try to give something objective.

[Bauglir]

As I said, her work presumes familiarity with gaming culture, but not with feminism. That's the demographic she's aiming at. She's not setting out to provide evidence that these things are widespread because it's assumed that the viewer will, upon considering it, accept prevalence as something that's true. If your experience differs, that's great, but it doesn't mean she's failed at her goal.

Demanding objective proof of trends is a difficult proposition - it'd be nice, but it sounds like your standard would require a huge (and thus expensive and time-consuming) study, and its methodology for classifying things would likely wind up being dismissed by anybody who doesn't like the conclusion anyway. It's certainly beyond the scope of a $100,000 Youtube series whose author is already being harassed for taking too long and too much money, especially when it isn't the goal.

Again, my own perspective on what she was trying to do. I could always be wrong, since I don't know her exact thought process. This just sounds like somebody dismissing a physics paper because it never proves a conservation law.

[Loud Whispers]

As I said, her work presumes familiarity with gaming culture, but not with feminism. That's the demographic she's aiming at.

Despite her intentions otherwise?

[Bauglir]

Really? Huh. I'll have to watch it again, sometime. Meanwhile I guess I'll have to concede she wrote it for the wrong audience.

[Neonivek]

Wait a minute something is wrong

She's not setting out to provide evidence that these things are widespread because it's assumed that the viewer will, upon considering it, accept prevalence as something that's true

That is dishonest! and honestly compared that you LIKE Anita's videos (I assume since you are defending it so strongly) there is no bigger insult you can pitch towards it then just outright saying that she is providing the barest of evidences with the intent that people will go "makes sense" and take it as true.

You are basically saying that she does the exact same thing as people who quote fake statistics.

Demanding objective proof of trends is a difficult proposition

Demanding she back up her claims with honesty would be a good start, understanding the themes and messages trying to be conveyed in the game would be another.

Now there is always room for interpretation, a good lawyer's job is to look at the evidence and present it in the best possible way in their favor. Yet that isn't what she is doing.

And the shame is ultimately, and the reason why I am most disappointed, is that there was simply no need for her to do any of that. We know there is horrible gender imbalance and abused tropes. We all can probably look in our own collections and pull out a collection of these instances. Anita herself has a megaton of videogames, her tastes are rather typical, so there really is no reason she shouldn't have these examples prepared ahead of time. There is no need to bend anything.