So let's start off. His first point, about the Dragon Dragon Neon. He tries to make the point that since a woman, at one point during the game, crotch-shots the boss, that's it's obviously not sexist in the way she describes. What he neglects to mention is the fact that this is the only time she does anything, and is only done after the main (male) character does literally everything else, trying to save her after she gets captured by a goon. She only hits the boss to show how weak he is, that he can be beaten by a woman, after the main character defeats him, showing the level he's been reduced to.
Moving on. He talks about games not being meant specifically to be oppressive. He's right. That doesn't change the fact that they are. They're made to be fun to play...for men. So that the companies can make a profit by appealing to what they consider to be the more important demographic.
Moving on. He seems to be implying that because she says that the damsel in distress role isn't a particularly positive one for women, and is extremely, exceedingly, prolific, that she doesn't understand relationships. But that's completely missing the point. The point is that; where are the games in which it's a guy in distress, and the guy's girlfriend who has to save him? I know it happens often enough in plenty of stories that I've read that it's a perfectly valid plot device, just like damsel in distress. That's not the issue. The issue is when it's so overwhelmingly used, and makes it so that, for the player, the girl becomes the goal and the prize, and thus objectified, thereby promoting unhealthy relationships.
Moving on. Easily recognized logical fallacy time, yay! This time, kids, it's the 'black-or-white' logical fallacy; presenting two options when, in reality, there are more. In this case, the additional option is, you know, calling the police and letting the trained professionals handle it, instead of going out, risking getting yourself killed, and the person you love still being in jeopardy. That's the healthy relationship; controlling your initial urges in order to ensure the maximum chance for their safety. But lets backtrack a second. He's making the assumption here, that the damsel in distress plotline is a given. That it's basically required; the only way to have this story take place. It could just as easily be the guy punching you in the face and taking a valued object; in fact, that would be just about the same in every way. Which is where the idea of objectification comes from. *gasp* Hey look it ties into itself like that! Weird, isn't it? Or hell, injecting you with a very slow-acting poison and taunting you with the antidote would work too. Oh look, more turning of the idea on it's ear; he's trying to use ad hominem to say that she's wrong because she doesn't view the character in the game as if it was a real-life person, but let me ask; do you? Yes, obviously if a loved one is hurt, you want to help them. But this isn't a loved one being hurt. This is a game, in which a character's loved one is being hurt. You have no attachment to them. Thus, they become a goal, not a loved one. Thus, they become an object, not a person.
Moving on. Oh boy, more logical fallacies! Gather 'round, kids! This time, it's a good one! Ah, the classic strawman, taking the argument out of context, into a place where it's not meant to be used and has little relevance(though it does apply, hilariously enough, just not in the way he thinks it does; patients are objects, in most ways, to doctors. Valuable, important objects that mean someone dies if you break them, but for the duration of the stay, you're an object. In return, you get to live. Not a bad trade-off, for a necessary service. Unlike sexism, such a thing is nigh-impossible to break, because in order to get better, if you don't have the knowledge yourself, you have to
Moving on. More of the same, more of the same. Blahblahblah claiming her point is that you shouldn't save abducted people when it's actually that you shouldn't use that as a plot device so damned much, blahblahblah...Weird, a lot of this seems familiar for some reason.
Moving on. I don't want to touch this. Not with a really long stick. It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me why this next part is so very false and terrible, and thus I find it hard to explain. If you want me to, I can try, but for the moment...ech.
Moving on. The reason these games are like they are is because the game designers think this is the best way to make money. Yes, gamers can be very sexist. So, the solution, is to point out the sexism in games, so people complain about it and stop buying those games, so they don't make money, so they change, so they don't imprint sexist values on future generations. Oh boy, and he's saying that she's promoting sexism because she likes to wear makeup! OH BOI! How wonderful, him attacking her for her appearance. Just like rapist victim-blamers do. Yes, I'm making that analogy. It's a valid one here, because they're both sexist. And then strawman argument that manages to attack her personally-bravo for that, that takes skill right there-; maybe, just maybe, she's insecure about herself personally, and uses makeup to make herself feel better, just like all the beauty magazines and shit try to make happen? Now, I doubt that this is the case, but if it was, then he's just being an asshole. A bigger asshole, I should say. She never made any reference to makeup and the like on women in real life for a reason. Because it's not the same, and people know this. He knows it too, he just doesn't care.
Alright, let's address his constant use of the word 'patriarchy'. It's a buzzword. It's also not what she's talking about. She's talking about an overarching cultural norm and pervasiveness in our society that perpetuates sexism. Not some conspiracy theory.
Moving on. Claiming she's not taking the right approach, I've already pointed out why this is a good approach above, and she is indeed trying to be an empowered woman; empowered doesn't mean 'masculine' as many people think it does. Marketing games in a hostile market isn't exactly an easy task, nor is it what she's got training it.
Moving on. YES WE UNDERSTAND PROFIT THANK YOU, YOU CAN SHUT UP ABOUT IT NOW. Wait, he just randomly claims that games without sexism in them aren't viable? What? I know for a fact that that's not true. Also how about the fact that I really doubt she makes any substantial amount of money from her videos. But yes, we need to take things one step at a time; women aren't interested in games because games are antagonistic towards them. Thus, making games for woman won't turn out as well as for men.
So stop making games antagonistic towards women.Moving on. Alright, this makes very little sense, and I'm not fully capable of understanding why 'not a feminist' and 'member of the evil conspiratorial patriarchy' are the same thing. But yes, Mulan is set in a sexist culture and shit, that's the point of the movie, and yes, the movie is, in fact, somewhat sexist! Anyway. See, what he doesn't get is she's not saying 'it's only favorable in masculine personalities', she's saying 'these are positive traits, these are negative ones, and this is what they're most commonly associated with'. She's pointing out that society attributes only a very few to women, not perpetuating it.
Moving on. Okay, if you're going to take that literally, alright, I can half buy it. But the problem is, she's talking in the modern sense. A woman can drive a tank as well as a man. A woman can run a business as well as a man(if allowed to get into the position with the right qualifications etc. etc.). She's not talking about bloody arm-wrestling contests. So much misdirection you lob around here, sir!
Moving on. The rest of the video is basically worthless insults and ego-preening, so I think I'm done. What she says, is demonstrably, not, as he puts it, 'bollox'. What he says, on the other hand?
Well, it's bollox.
Anyhow my point wasn't "just give up" it was simply "I cannot be that bad, because if it was then there is no point".
and with that my "not my problem" time is back on. Which given how things went in here, I should be scolded for leaving "not my problem".
You're right, you should be scolded. It's a passive attitude that allows thing to perpetuate. I hate to have to make the analogy, but it's the strongest one, and therefore the one most likely to make you stop and actually think; America during WWII. It wasn't our problem.
Just because something doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean you shouldn't bother with it. That's an apathetic, immoral attitude.
Author
Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' (Read 302674 times)