Tropes Vs. Women - Who will win?

[ríomhaire]

So part three of this series is out. Who wants to get down to some good old fashioned stupid internet arguments?

 

[Edeslash]

 

[ríomhaire]

That is, in fact, Anita Sarkeesian, yes.

 

[MFL]

Ms. Sarkeesian is not interested in rational debate. So no.

 

[ríomhaire]

Ms. Sarkeesian is not interested in rational debate. So no.

I said nothing about rational debate. It's time for stupid internet arguments! Unfortunately Anita can't be here today but I can white knight for her.

 

[Eejit]

She has a point, this phenomenon is even more prevalent in games than movies which also tends to have rather sexist portrayals of women (though damsel in distress has become somewhat less ubiquitous). I'm not sure how anyone can dispute it really, other than desperately trying to understate how common it is.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I thought she might've been onto something, then realized how much she skips between games. She's literally going back to the beginning of time and cherry picking (so I'd say it's not as prevalent as she makes it out to be). More importantly, she turned off comments for her vids, that rings a bell that she knows and doesn't care for criticism or counter arguments.

 

[Eejit]

Ah so you're focusing on how she presents the argument rather than the actual point of debate..?


If I was her I'd disable YouTube comments too btw, it would just be hysterical rage and bad trolling.

 

[MFL]

That is an incorrect assertation.

 

[DevonWC]

That's so silly.

 

[AtomicSpark]

Related:

 

[ríomhaire]

MFL. Ok so I'm summarizing my thoughts as I watch this video.

So he's saying that art has merit in any way other than art is an attack on the artform? An interesting perspective I've never heard of, and an utterly laughable position to take on the video game industry in its current form. Game can be art but the vast majority of games are created to serve the purpose of being fun for the player (or just to make money for the company making them to be even more cynical). How can saying games can be fun or be engaging be an insult on the medium when that is the intent and purpose of the vast majority of games produced? AAA games are not Citizen Kane or Requiem for a Dream, they're Michael Bay movies and the vast majority of indie games aren't any more deep.

Why's he starting to bring up stuff about censoring music records? She hasn't suggested censoring things once as far as I can recall. "In all of her videos thus far she has never specified a solution..." well yeah, she hasn't, she's just highlighting topics and bringing them up for discussion and awareness. "...because she wants to..." and then he loses me. What? Is he trying to imply she's trying to start boycotts before pushing for legislation? I really don't understand what he means by internalized censorship. Then voluntary censorship? What does that mean? Seems like an oxymoron. That she wants people to stop choosing to making stuff with these tropes? Well yeah, that's the entire point. Is that wrong? She's not calling for forced censorship of media, she's criticising it and if you want gaming to be called an artform you'd better well get used for it to be criticised as one.

Next part is on Anita being anti-sex. I don't know, I don't know her backround much. I've seen little of her work outside of the video games things and nothing in those videos make me think she's anti-sex so I can't say it. He doesn't actually give any quotes from her or her point of view here at all. He just asserts many things about her point of view and shows some clips of another woman also asserting Anita's point of view. Ok something Anita actually said here. She doesn't like the Slutwalks movement because she thinks in embraces slurs and the ideas behind them. I really don't think that makes her anti-sex. He then calls her conservative with a strange emphasis as if that's a bad word.

More on the censorship thing. Blocking ratings and comments on a Youtube video? Yeah I don't really give a shit. It's not like Youtube comments are going to be a bastion of rational discussion. The things about strategically allowing certain comments? That's a bit shitty actually. If it's true I don't like it. On the other hand, what the **** does this have to do with her message? Nothing about the actual content of her video or message she's doing has been said since the initial "saying art is useful is an attack on art" thing from the first two minutes. All of this is about Antia herself. I don't really give a shit about Anita. Is this whole thing just about her? I want to talk about the ****ing content of her videos. I probably should have watched this entire video before I started typing out these thoughts.

"Her motive? To prove that misogyny was a problem. If that proof had existed all along why hadn't she used it or allowed it before?" What? Did that man seriously just imply that Anita had to invent proof of misogyny? Like, as in, he thinks there isn't really proof of misogyny so she had to invent it? Just...what? And now he's accusing her of trying to make money from a Kickstarter. Jesus how horrible. Again the whole controlling comments thing is kind of shitty, but it's just more ad hominems here. He's just attacking the speaker instead of making any points about what she's actually saying.

"She didn't mention that the pornographic image that was used to vandalise her page was just one that was already on Wikipedia for educational purpose." ...because it's entirely ****ing irrelevant to anything. She also didn't mention the hair colour of the people in the photo or what type of camera it was taken on. Straws are firmly being grasped here to fill this video with anything that doesn't involve addressing anything Anita actually says.



So. Does anyone want to talk about the actual videos?

 

[Edeslash]

Stupid internet arguments aren't six paragraphs long.

might as well say something on-topic. She makes me feel fatigued. I can't listen to her voice or look at her facial expressions any more. and of course that was only barely on-topic.

 

[MFL]

On the other hand, what the **** does this have to do with her message?

If you want to have a stupid conversation about the portrayal of women in videogames, fine.

You, however, posted Anita Sarkeesian's videos. I refuse to contribute to the manipulation of a serious conversation for profit.

I probably should have watched this entire video before I started typing out these thoughts.

Yep.

 

[Eejit]

Sure is butthurt up in here. Point on the dolly to where Anita touched you.

 

[ríomhaire]

She has touched all of our hearts.

 

[Tacoeaterguy]

I think these videos are pretty well made. Sorry, not pretty. The videos don't need to be pretty for me to want to watch them or anything. I don't only care about the appearance of videos, I care about the subject and material of them too. I just don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, alright?

What I really meant to say was, I like the editing. Well, I don't like-like it. I just sort of like it as a whole, and love certain bits of it. I'm not in-love with it though. Okay?

I was surprised at how strong some of the points were in these videos though. Not that the points in feminist videos can't be strong, because that's not what I'm saying. Feminist videos can be just as strong as any other kind of video. In-fact, this series might have some of the strongest points I've ever seen, alright?

Overall I think the series gets an A so far. Though, I'm not giving it an A just because it's a feminist video if that's what you're thinking. They don't need my A-rating to make them feel any better about themselves.

I'm just going to go ahead and switch my rating to a B. Not because the letter B looks like a pair of breasts though, if that's what you're thinking. I'm not some breast-crazed lunatic or anything. That's not what I meant by it at all. I was just thinking that maybe the A rating was too high.

Of course I'm being very tongue-in-cheek right now. Well, not literally my tongue in a girl's cheek. I'm not saying all I care about is kissing females. I was just saying that everything in this post was meant to be taken as a joke. Not that feminism is a joking matter though, because that's not what I'm saying.

Spoiler

In all seriousness though, the editing in the series is great. But is it bad that I just don't care about this? Should I care? Why? I mean I'll admit that her points are all solid, but it's just all so bland and monotonous. I just want to play some video games is all.

Also

Spoiler

Is Half-Life sexist?

 

[Krynn72]

I made a post earlier on my phone, but I guess I forgot to actually hit "post reply" so I will do it again.

This seems like fun, been awhile since we've had a good 'ol hl2.net debate. In fact, since we turned into lame VT.net we haven't had any hl2.net debates that I can remember.

So I'll go ahead and play a bit of devil's advocate. Still have only seen the first video so far, so I'll just start by commenting on one thing that stuck out at me. When I watch the rest of the videos I'll come back and we can really get into this shit.

So yeah, one thing that struck me as "not right" in her video was her disappointment in the Mario and Zelda franchises for never making the Princess or Zelda the heroine. I mean, its one thing to want the gaming industry as a whole take a balanced approach to representing gender equality, but when a franchise has set themes and it's entire point is to build off that in unique and fun ways, why must changing the genitals of the main character be a part of it? It doesn't add anything to the game, the perspective would be exactly the same in these games. If we need to go that far in order to satiate the need for gender equality, should we also then every once in awhile turn Mario from an Italian white guy into a Paraguayan black guy? I think demanding a change like this for the sole purpose of being "fair" to all the people who aren't Italian plumbers or mute teenage long-eared white boys is just silly. We don't request the same of other media. We didn't have people upset that Gatsby was still white in the new version of The Great Gatsby.

And one other point, which may be further developed as I watch the rest of the videos, is the trope itself really a bad thing on its own? I can see the point where having every game use it can be offensive, making it seem like thats the situation all women find themselves in. But, lets say if ONLY Mario and Zelda games used it, would it still be a bad thing?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah it's well edited and researched, and yeah the portrayal of women in games is still painfully backwards in a lot of areas so it's hard to disagree with the main focus of her argument, but I had a little trouble taking her seriously when she kept putting everything in terms of simplistic tropes. Like really who the **** wants to have a serious conversation about women being "damselled" or "fridged"? Can we not talk like normal people or is that not realistic in a post-internet world? I also had trouble maintaining interest when she spent less time dissecting the attitudes behind the things she found objectionable or trying to broach a realistic solution than she did listing off overly specific game examples to bolster her ultimately very simple point. For instance, "Peach had the awesome ability to float for short distances which came in really handy, especially in the ice levels." How ****ing empowering! Who says you can't float for short distances with a vagina? Take that, patriarchy.

So yeah, one thing that struck me as "not right" in her video was her disappointment in the Mario and Zelda franchises for never making the Princess or Zelda the heroine. I mean, its one thing to want the gaming industry as a whole take a balanced approach to representing gender equality, but when a franchise has set themes and it's entire point is to build off that in unique and fun ways, why must changing the genitals of the main character be a part of it?

I agree, but I'll take it one step further by saying that she completely misses the point by choosing to ignore the very obvious reason this probably won't happen: profitability. Of course this is kind of a thorny issue since cashing in on the tried and true might not be seen as a very valid excuse, creatively or morally, but game development is a business and studios are closing down at an alarming rate even with less risky endeavors. Regardless, this could have generated an interesting discussion on why these types of games are less palatable to mainstream audiences, and whether larger developers who aren't beholden to a publisher (kickstarter?) could be trying to push more games like these through the system to create a larger precedent for future mainstream titles. But nope, instead she just makes a few waffly assertions that "hey there should be more games with wimmins in!" and pretty much leaves it at that. The fact that she expects for there to be a core Mario or Zelda title starring the princesses, two series which are well known to adhere to tradition and pander to their fanbases, makes me think that she's just posturing for effect instead of actually trying to make any kind of realistic suggestion. Meanwhile, all of the positive examples of games with female protagonists she mentions are either indie games, which pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want, or mainstream titles which notoriously undersold, and yet she doesn't see fit to dwell on this.

Ultimately, it's an informative and somewhat entertaining video series, but I have trouble stomaching the fact that it's meant to be done from a "systemic, big picture perspective" when she glosses over so many pertinent things and kind of fails to really bring any incisive analysis to the table.

Also her eyebrows freak me out.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

A 'feminine' game could probably sell well. It just has to be a good game, because that's the part that even matters to gamers.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

I love how she cherry picks certain games, particularily from Japan. Which differs from the west in many things, including game design.

 

[Bad^Hat]

She does bring up a pretty wide breadth of games, including many western examples (the mercy killing ones made me pretty uncomfortable), but the way she chooses to focus on a lot of Japanese games is kind of weird, since she's not really taking into account their own cultural issues with gender inequality. Again, another interesting angle that's left undiscussed, because most of the time it's enough for her to just slap examples on the screen and say "look at this bad thing."

A 'feminine' game could probably sell well. It just has to be a good game, because that's the part that even matters to gamers.

You'd be surprised how many people are out there who'll refuse to play a game on the basis that the character is female/black/fat/not another muscular grisly boring-ass anglo-saxon mother****er.

 

[Krynn72]

The thing about the mercy killings though... is that there's plenty of dudes being mercy killed too. They may not be the "endgame" event as often, but there's plenty of male characters in games who beg you to kill them too. The same can be said for a lot of the things she seems upset over.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Maybe violent video games aren't for some people? Yet they keep playing them and complaining. Not that people shouldn't complain, but I guess some can make money off of doing so. Or maybe it's some sort of masochism.

 

[Bad^Hat]

The thing about the mercy killings though... is that there's plenty of dudes being mercy killed too. They may not be the "endgame" event as often, but there's plenty of male characters in games who beg you to kill them too. The same can be said for a lot of the things she seems upset over.

I think it's a little different when it's your character's love interest since it evokes images which are, in many cases, probably intentionally provocative. That said, I did notice she sensationalized in parts, for instance referring to the mercy killings as "domestic violence," which just makes me think she's appealing to an emotional response in the same way the games she's decrying are.

Really though, images of violence against women are still more shocking than against men in many cases, and media creators know this, which is why they're often presented in such a dramatic way and used as easy character motivation. In the case of many games exemplified in the videos, the logic probably goes (at a guess) that it makes more sense for a male character to lose his female spouse because the stereotypical reaction of a man experiencing this kind of loss is to get angry and proactively seek revenge/redemption, whereas the stereotypical reaction of a woman experiencing loss is to get sad and then die alone. (Also, game developers are still too touchy about gay relationships to include them prominently unless it's an optional choice, and even then it gets fan backlash.)

I think games have a lot of stereotypes they still need to grapple with that aren't related to violence, but I also don't think that trying to give female characters the exact same treatment as their male counterparts is always going to be the best solution (see: strong female characters). Having said that, games as a medium are still maturing relatively slowly, and developers are still testing the boundaries of which topics can be explored and how to tread that new ground sensitively - or not, in some cases. Even so, I feel like excellent narrative driven games like Walking Dead or Last Of Us, which treat bleak subject material with actual maturity instead of just grit, will probably always be the exception instead of the rule, and that has more to do with the nature of games and what people actually want out of them than it does the industry's ability to advance the medium as an artform, so maybe the best we can hope for for strong/well represented female characters, in the majority of cases at least, is just that she's the one with the gun/sword/implement of destruction instead of a man.

And I guess maybe that they avoid the whole almost-rape thing like in Tomb Raider, because let's face it they just put that shit in there for shock value.