Watched it (and the first one quite some time ago).
She raises good points, but I think story-telling in video games is also at fault, not to mention how much of our interaction with the video game medium is 'violent' in general. It is unfortunate.
The video really shines a light on some of the gakky themes video game 'writers' fall into time and time again. I'm ready for better story-telling for sure.
BlueDagger wrote: While an interesting topic, she could have got her point across in a bit more simplistic language. 90% of the time it felt like she was using big words just to sound more official which for me detracted from the point.
While an interesting topic, she could have got her point across in a bit more simplistic language. 90% of the time it felt like she was using big words just to sound more official which for me detracted from the point.
On the contrary, this is not just a first world problem, this is a GLOBAL problem.
And it is far more harmful than you realize. People across the world viewing women as nothing more than objects to be acted upon motivates many people to do horrific things to us, and pointing out that the media is perpetuating the problem is the first step to reducing it.
Melissia wrote: What "big words" are you talking about? I wasn't confused by what was being said.
I haven't watched any of the videos but people who aren't very familiar with terms used in sociology might have difficulty maybe? I'm not sure what language she uses if it's common or more professional.
Melissia wrote: What "big words" are you talking about? I wasn't confused by what was being said.
I haven't watched any of the videos but people who aren't very familiar with terms used in sociology might have difficulty maybe? I'm not sure what language she uses if it's common or more professional.
It's sort of TVTropes type language. "Damsel in Distress" and "Stuffed in the Fridge" come to mind. But both of those are fairly well known or easy to find on the internet, so I really don't know.
Im not that far in and it seems like she is just stating the obvious, nothing to inciteful here. For example, Around the 6 min mark, she mentions the "Stuffed in the fridge" like that is exclusive to women. There are plenty other instances outside of gaming and withing where the death of a love one, whether it be your sibling or parent or all together(Maybe even a village) is destroyed and used as motivation. She even states how the fact that the women are weak is part of their disirablity in the example, Yet she used Kingdom Hearts as one of the clips, The REASON sora went after her is because of a pre-existing relationship.
Edit: She also showed prototype, where the evil guys executed a women for the "Violence against women" segment, saying it was linked to gender. Um, No it wasnt, those guys killed everyone who was infected, including children.
That's kind of missing the point; I think the focus of the second video was a demonstration the problems that she described in the first video were still going on in modern times, and her describing how they have evolved since then.
Thus, while any single example might be excused, the trend in general is very questionable.
Melissia wrote: That's kind of missing the point; I think the focus of the second video was a demonstration the problems that she described in the first video were still going on in modern times, and her describing how they have evolved since then.
Thus, while any single example might be excused, the trend in general is very questionable.
It has always existed, To me it is like pointing to rocksand saying "These are rocks(No im not comparing women to rock, just making an example) And then she calls this Mysogyny at that is a day for her. She des not go into underlying problems or things along those line, Like why they keep using them, Maybe they keep using it beause men have been taught from a young age to protect females(Maybe it is encoded to our DNA at this point) so these video games are a natural extension of it. She gives no meaningful insight. also Yes you heard that right: His wife is his arm. Best unintentional joke in a long time
And yet, many people live in denial of it-- including numerous people on this very forum, based on previous feminist threads (including at least one poster in this very thread).
Imagine, to use your example, that certain people kept saying "rocks don't exist, you're exaggerating". Would you say that providing them pictures and descriptions of the existence of rocks is not a good rebuttal to these assertions?
Bringing a problem to light and making people more aware of it is the first step in solving it, especially for complex societal problems such as misogyny.
Melissia wrote: That's kind of missing the point; I think the focus of the second video was a demonstration the problems that she described in the first video were still going on in modern times, and her describing how they have evolved since then.
Thus, while any single example might be excused, the trend in general is very questionable.
It has always existed, To me it is like pointing to rocksand saying "These are rocks(No im not comparing women to rock, just making an example)
And then she calls this Mysogyny at that is a day for her. She des not go into underlying problems or things along those line, Like why they keep using them, Maybe they keep using it beause men have been taught from a young age to protect females(Maybe it is encoded to our DNA at this point) so these video games are a natural extension of it.
She gives no meaningful insight.
also
Yes you heard that right: His wife is his arm. Best unintentional joke in a long time
I don't know, but I always imagined that her first two videos would be about the tropes themselves, and then the third (Or whatever the final number would be) would be about the insight. I could be wrong.
And there are just way too many dirty jokes with the fact that his wife is his arm XD
There is a difference between thinking everyone knows something and actually taking the time to actually document said thing. If we just assume something is obvious and never talk about it or document it, it either appears that we a) actually don't know about it and/or b) end up perpetuating the issues involved.
It prompts discussion and consideration instead of navel gazing and making assumptions about what is known. Sometimes stating the obvious can be fairly radical, and sometimes we actually also can learn that what was assumed to be obvious actually wasn't at all.
And yet, many people live in denial of it-- including numerous people on this very forum, based on previous feminist threads (including at least one poster in this very thread).
Imagine, to use your example, that certain people kept saying "rocks don't exist, you're exaggerating". Would you say that providing them pictures and descriptions of the existence of rocks is not a good rebuttal to these assertions?
Bringing a problem to light and making people more aware of it is the first step in solving it, especially for complex societal problems such as misogyny.
In my experience, Their denial is just that that, Denial, they will refuse to accept it because it doesnt conform to their view. Like those who deny Evolution despite the evidence.
You dont start off a class with nothing but examples, you explain it the way through, unlike what she is doing. By just pointing it out w/o insight into it doesn't help you think about it.
Using rocks again, It was like if a geology teacher listed of qualitys of rocks and type, but waited until the end of the class year to tell you how they are made,
Very few actually do admit to their denial, they continue on.
My objections isnt to showing examples or that, IT is how the video works, Nearly 25 minutes of just examples is not good educating.
Lara Croft
Ok, what about Alex?
Aqua
LuLu
Elaine Marley
Bayonetta
Zoey
Alyx Vance
Sarah Kerrigan
The same Kerrigan who was possessed and had to have some sense knocked into her?
Jill Valentine
Watch the video; Jill was "possessed" and Chris was forced to do violence on her "For her own good"
Samus Aran
Aran lost all respect from a lot of people due to Other M.
Chun Li
Could look at it either way; the video stated that Fighting Games are usually pretty good about it, but on the other hand, Chun has never won a tourney, either Ada Wong
None of that comes even close to a counter to her point.
hotsauceman1 wrote: In my experience, Their denial is just that that, Denial, they will refuse to accept it because it doesnt conform to their view.
And people in denial need to be brought out of it in order to change their behavior. I fail to see a point to your objections.
Her point was that women are being brutally killed in Video games. And that they are being portrait in such away that they are "Damsels in Distress". That list of names are all female characters that Brutally murder men, Hell Sarah Carrigan pretty much commits genocide. And in the later expansion does it again in, because she thinks Her man is dead. Chun Li kicks everyone ass in street fighter all males I might add. So she can get to M.Bison and Kill him in order to avenge her dead father, who is male by the way.
And don't even get me started on the countless Male AI's I have had to watch Lara croft slaughter over the years. Alyx Vance? In HL2 EP1 she pretty much kills everything for one of gaming's best known characters Gordon Freeman. Ada Wong? a complete bad ass that doesn't mined helping release a few deadly viruses once in a wile too, oh wait for it, to avenge her dead husband.
There are just as many Kick ass female characters in gaming as there are men, and normally the women tend to have the most kills to there name as well, lets be honest the males in Video games are always seen as the protagonists, the bad guys. Hell maybe i should make a video stating how its a bad thing to always portray the man as the bad guys. And how the countless Killings of male Characters in Computer games is giving the "wrong" impression.
All she is doing is creating a problem that is not their, in order to generate Google add sense.
None of that comes even close to a counter to her point.
hotsauceman1 wrote: In my experience, Their denial is just that that, Denial, they will refuse to accept it because it doesnt conform to their view.
And people in denial need to be brought out of it in order to change their behavior. I fail to see a point to your objections.
Her point was that women are being brutally killed in Video games. And that they are being portrait in such away that they are "Damsels in Distress". That list of names are all female characters that Brutally murder men, Hell Sarah Carrigan pretty much commits genocide. And in the later expansion does it again in, because she thinks Her man is dead. Chun Li kicks everyone ass in street fighter all males I might add. So she can get to M.Bison and Kill him in order to avenge her dead father, who is male by the way.
And don't even get me started on the countless Male AI's I have had to watch Lara croft slaughter over the years. Alyx Vance? In HL2 EP1 she pretty much kills everything for one of gaming's best known characters Gordon Freeman. Ada Wong? a complete bad ass that doesn't mined helping release a few deadly viruses once in a wile too, oh wait for it, to avenge her dead husband.
There are just as many Kick ass female characters in gaming as there are men, and normally the women tend to have the most kills to there name as well, lets be honest the males in Video games are always seen as the protagonists, the bad guys. Hell maybe i should make a video stating how its a bad thing to always portray the man as the bad guys. And how the countless Killings of male Characters in Computer games is giving the "wrong" impression.
All she is doing is creating a problem that is not their, in order to generate Google add sense.
I agree with Blue somewhat, her diction seems stilted. Maybe it's a purposeful attempt to sound clinical or maybe she just isn't that great of a public speaker, but I can understand why it could be found off putting. Me, I just wanted to stop watching every time she moved her weirdo eyebrows.
On topic, a resounding meh from me, once again. I think there's a lot of room for improvement in video game writing, sure. I can even see that maybe we have more male leads than are really necessary. I generally prefer open world RPGs where you can choose your gender/race/ethnicity what have you over linear action adventures with a set lead, so maybe I don't see it as much.
But I will say that when she was on about the whole damsel in an icebox or whatever the hell - apparently a woman being willing to sacrifice her life to accomplish the mission is misogyny now? That I think is a bit silly.
I don't think that is the case. Countless male characters fall by the wayside to get the mission done, she is simply attributing greater significance to the female ones.
Bromsy wrote: I don't think that is the case. Countless male characters fall by the wayside to get the mission done, she is simply attributing greater significance to the female ones.
I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying what she had in her video
Though you do have to admit, whenever there is a escort mission/game, it's usually a gal whose helplessly holding your hand. In the Mainstream, at least.
None of that comes even close to a counter to her point.
hotsauceman1 wrote: In my experience, Their denial is just that that, Denial, they will refuse to accept it because it doesnt conform to their view.
And people in denial need to be brought out of it in order to change their behavior. I fail to see a point to your objections.
Her point was that women are being brutally killed in Video games. And that they are being portrait in such away that they are "Damsels in Distress". That list of names are all female characters that Brutally murder men, Hell Sarah Carrigan pretty much commits genocide. And in the later expansion does it again in, because she thinks Her man is dead. Chun Li kicks everyone ass in street fighter all males I might add. So she can get to M.Bison and Kill him in order to avenge her dead father, who is male by the way.
And don't even get me started on the countless Male AI's I have had to watch Lara croft slaughter over the years. Alyx Vance? In HL2 EP1 she pretty much kills everything for one of gaming's best known characters Gordon Freeman. Ada Wong? a complete bad ass that doesn't mined helping release a few deadly viruses once in a wile too, oh wait for it, to avenge her dead husband.
There are just as many Kick ass female characters in gaming as there are men, and normally the women tend to have the most kills to there name as well, lets be honest the males in Video games are always seen as the protagonists, the bad guys. Hell maybe i should make a video stating how its a bad thing to always portray the man as the bad guys. And how the countless Killings of male Characters in Computer games is giving the "wrong" impression.
All she is doing is creating a problem that is not their, in order to generate Google add sense.
How many of those are playable characters?
In the MAIN story section.
The thousands of men that dies or The Majority of the women I listed, What where you referring too? because if its the women I listed then all but two Elaine Marley, and Alyx Vance. But then don't forget that;s just some names off the top of my head that I thought of on the spot. If i wanted to create a Video as this women has. I could come up with a list 10 times that long, but honestly this really is not worth the effort to do so. And yet I still don't see your point about the playable Character though. Playable or non playable they still portrait females in gaming Differently than the stereo typical female examples given to us by the video.
I think the concern is that the majority of characters in control of the story are male and the women are often dependent on males in order for something to be accomplished but as you've pointed out there's exceptions but they make up a minority of characters in video games, many people would like to see more video games go away from gender stereotypes.
Bromsy wrote: I don't think that is the case. Countless male characters fall by the wayside to get the mission done, she is simply attributing greater significance to the female ones.
I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying what she had in her video
Though you do have to admit, whenever there is a escort mission/game, it's usually a gal whose helplessly holding your hand. In the Mainstream, at least.
Yeah true enough, I my self have wanted to cause violence against EE in MGS2, when you have to drag her through those bloody underwater sections.
Generally, I think this chick is falling into the same category as the people who think violence in video games leads to real violence for me. Basically, someone who should not be listened to.
Is life perfect? No. Are video games violent and possibly misogynistic at times? Sure. Is the real world becoming more violent and more misogynistic as a result? No, because people don't let fething video games set their moral and philosophical compasses, and can differentiate between reality and crap happening on screen.
Bromsy wrote: Generally, I think this chick is falling into the same category as the people who think violence in video games leads to real violence for me. Basically, someone who should not be listened to.
Is life perfect? No. Are video games violent and possibly misogynistic at times? Sure. Is the real world becoming more violent and more misogynistic as a result? No, because people don't let fething video games set their moral and philosophical compasses, and can differentiate between reality and crap happening on screen.
We also need to take into account that this is a multi-part series of which this is just a small part. Not every female video game character will fall into the Damsel In Distress issue, and that is what this section covers. It even says it in the title and everything. It isn't supposing to tackle every issue all at once, and in only 25 minutes. It also isn't unusual to start with a simple subject and then build to more complex issues that require a foundation in the basics. 2+2 is fairly basic, but if you don't go over it you can't get to Algebra, and if you don't get Algebra you can't do Calculus.
Some of the characters listed may not be Damsels in Distress, but they sure will come up in other areas. I don't know the trope name for it, but some are 'men with breasts' for sure.
I think there's another category of gaming that's being forgotten here. We have games with strong male leads, and we have games with strong female leads (admittedly far fewer). The games that get the gender level right, however, are unfortunately the ones that have typically no story at all, or where the story isn't necessary or part of the gameplay. Sports games -especially things like Olympics tie-ins - now have male and female events, fighting games if you ignore background have female characters capable of pounding male characters into the dirt... then there are games that don't even feature humans at all and where gender is either not present or ambiguous, like Tetris or Angry Birds.
The issue is, storytelling in games is a good thing. So you need things like strong lead characters and motivation - and as it stands, there are still a lot of male gamers out there. The number of female gamers is rising but it's not exactly on an equal footing yet. The biggest thing I think is that action games appeal to men more, and these are the games we find developing a story to compliment the action.
Yeah this thing really didn't want to load for me last night XD
But yeah. Nothing really new that I think can be added her. I still think she has a horribly misguided view of exactly how and why these issues persist. Constantly throwing out the word 'insidious' and framing everything like a purposeful conspiracy to keep women down really isn't helping madame. I actually don't even think she thinks that but her videos all come off to me that way because of her poor word choice. What I do think is that she picks those words purposely because she wants to shock people which is kind of ironic given the way she criticizes the use of women characters to shock players XD. Then she played the "oh but I know they aren't evil card" to absolve herself of criticism in contradiction of her entire framing of the videos content. So pro tip: If you don't think there's an overt conspiracy to keep women down, maybe you shouldn't speak like there is one for the other 20 minutes of your twenty-five minute video.
I find her application of violence against women to be absurdly broad honestly. Her video makes it seem like she'd consider any scene depicted a woman being attacked as misogynist which is to me overly broad. But oh wait, the last five minutes are the opposite?
The weirdest part of the whole video is that it could have been five minutes long, because the last five minutes are the only part of the video worth watching and contradictory to the rest of the video. It's almost like she's just waiting for people to rage quit the video by loading the beginning with a poorly framed narrative and then bringing out her A game at the end XD I think that's called intellectual dishonesty or something fancy like that.
Yes. She did. She spends twenty minutes talking about these trends like they're part of some master scheme and then does the opposite in the last five. Talking about how developers try to 'trick' people with 'insidious' tropes isn't framing a narrative like its about a cultural stigma or bias. It's framing events like someone is conspiring against you.
In case you don't know:
Insidious
adjective
1. Intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
2. Stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
3. Operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.
The only other alternative is she's an idiot throwing our fancy words without knowing what they mean, which I doubt because the rest of her word choice reinforces this word until she does a front face heel turn in the last five minutes. Maybe she's just trying to cope with how she talks about things in all her other videos because complaining about the patriarchal conspiracy is kind of her show and she's clearly trying to be more toned back and reasonable in this series. She's just kind of bad at it.
Just because her message is agreeable is no excuse for shoddy presentation (especially with all the money she got to make it).
Bromsy wrote: Generally, I think this chick is falling into the same category as the people who think violence in video games leads to real violence for me. Basically, someone who should not be listened to.
Is life perfect? No. Are video games violent and possibly misogynistic at times? Sure. Is the real world becoming more violent and more misogynistic as a result? No, because people don't let fething video games set their moral and philosophical compasses, and can differentiate between reality and crap happening on screen.
Art - video games, for example - transmits culture, and culture encompasses our values. I think an argument that our views and values can't be affected by art is absurd on its face.
In taking into account whether a piece of art is promoting something, it's essential to look at how that thing is framed in the art. Video games often promote violence. The way they do this is by giving it a positive, or occasionally neutral, framing. The thing is... the violence they promote is almost always violence we, as a culture, already believe is OK. The bulk of positively-framed video game violence is probably in the form of violence by a soldier against other combatants - which our broader culture views as fine or positive - or otherwise self defense, which we also see as fine in general. Video games, like all art, help transmit and reinforce cultural views such as this one. On the flipside, violence that our culture generally sees as morally dubious is almost always framed that way in the game.
So, no, saying "video games don't promote violence!" is not true. Many do promote some kinds of violence, while vilifying other kinds. It's the same with any cultural value. I'm not sure that video games, as a rule, are particularly morally progressive.
Same thing with sexist attitudes, though they tend to be a bit more subtle and complex than ones towards violence. Art informs our world view, among other things.
The loved one turning into a monster has been a trope since forever, And is isnt exclusive to women, It could and has been guys.
The way she frames these it is like they use these tropes specifically to make violence against women ok. That is not, It shows a narrative where all hope is lost, where the hero has lost his humanity and that the world keeps taking from him and giving nothing in return.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The loved one turning into a monster has been a trope since forever, And is isnt exclusive to women, It could and has been guys.
Sure it could be, but it rarely is. The vast, overwhelming amount of times it happens, it is to the wife/girlfriend.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The way she frames these it is like they use these tropes specifically to make violence against women ok.
Or, more accurately, she frames it as if the vast majority of these tropes are used on females and acknowledges that it problematic, which it is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is not, It shows a narrative where all hope is lost, where the hero has lost his humanity and that the world keeps taking from him and giving nothing in return.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The loved one turning into a monster has been a trope since forever, And is isnt exclusive to women, It could and has been guys. The way she frames these it is like they use these tropes specifically to make violence against women ok. That is not, It shows a narrative where all hope is lost, where the hero has lost his humanity and that the world keeps taking from him and giving nothing in return.
Except the vast majority of times in video games, its a female.
Bad/sloppy writing and story development, something that plagues video games. Supposedly we have some real writers on these now... but it sure doesn't seem like it most of the time.
I use the common definition (the common definition is pretty much Websters bread and butter and theirs is: awaiting a chance to entrap). Hell the origin of the word is "insidiosus 'cunning', from insidiae 'an ambush or trick', from insidere 'lie in wait for'."
I guess its certainly passable if you don't care about the English language and how words exist in both a specific context and common context at the same time. But if I were to combine the word 'insidious' with the phrase 'tricking players' like she does I really shouldn't have to explain it. Its not even subtle.
You can plug your fingers in your ears and say "no" but her message is split in two different directions by poor word choice and one of those directions is silly and makes up the majority of the videos content.
Except the vast majority of times in video games, its a female.
The weird part is that 'Woman in the Fridge' isn't even a trope. It's a website. Gail Simone was called out within weeks of naming her 'Trope' by people pointing out that it is not exclusive to women. It happens to men all the time. Jason Todd anyone? Heck Batman gets the triple whamy cause it just recently happened to Catwoman and Damien Wayne too (actually this happens to Batman a lot). The trope is Stuffed in the Fridge, because it does happen to men all the time. It's practically the go to trope whenever a comic book wants to be shocking to drum up readership (Human Torch, Super Boy, Dona Troy, several Teen Titans and multiple X-Men boys and girls).
But the kicker is that it that's in other media. In video games it really is almost exclusive to women, and she doesn't even bring this up. It's kind of a damning point to be overlooked (especially since she talked about games existing in a larger cultural context for a little bit).
LordofHats wrote: I use the common definition (the common definition is pretty much Websters bread and butter and theirs is: awaiting a chance to entrap).
The fact that there are other definitions beyond the common would seem to mean that the others are used, and have a time and a place. If we never used them we wouldn't need to differentiate between the common and uncommon usage.
LordofHats wrote: I guess its certainly passable if you don't care about the English language
You can't complain about someone being smug and insidious and treat other posters in such a manner. Get it together, you are better then this. On the other hand I am not, so if you have me telling you that you might be getting a bit to emotional in your language and phrasing, you might want to step back and take a breath. You can make you point without being insulting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: You can plug your fingers in your ears and say "no"
Do you not see that you are coming off exactly that was as well?
Quite interesting. I think that for all that people like to hold games up as equally valid alternatives to films, literature etc a lot of their storytelling is still facepalm-worthy. Basically simplistic, unoriginal plots with, by extension , simplistic and unoriginal characters. I can't really remember when I last cared about a video game character.
I'd certainly agree that a lot of video games' depictions of women are hopelessly stuck in the past, but I also agree with what was said in the video about how the same can easily apply to men in games (i.e. the sheer amount "space marine" types who solve problems by shooting them). I say this as someone who does think that games should be called art...it's just that I think that when it comes to storytelling only a few are truly noteworthy.
LordofHats wrote: The weird part is that 'Woman in the Fridge' isn't even a trope. It's a website.
It can be both. All tropes start somewhere and got there name from something. Just because something got a title recently doesn't mean we can automatically dismiss it.
Honestly, the only thing I hated in the video was how she kept repeating herself when she was going over the different tropes; Girlfriend is Murdered, Hero must save her soul. Girlfriend is Murdered, Hero must save her soul. Girlfriend is Murdered, Hero must save her soul. Girlfriend is Murdered, Hero must save her soul.
Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable. Otherwise, her message is basically lost in the shifting electrons of the Internet.
DoctorZombie wrote: Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable. Otherwise, her message is basically lost in the shifting electrons of the Internet.
Other than maybe effecting change by shining a light on the problems for others (who may be writers) to see and understand.
I attended a panel at a convention I was at recently, and this kind of thing has had a huge impact on other industries already. Its only a matter of time until games fall in line.
Also, that is a really poor way to look at anything.
Do you not see that you are coming off exactly that was as well?
I thought about this for awhile and in the end decided I am a little emotional. And I should be. I find Anita Sarkessian's entire methodoloy insulting.
What I see is an individual with an uninsightful at best and poorly framed at worst view of gender bias. She seems to revel in sending mixed messages either through poor wording or an intent to confuse and she got paid a ridiculous sum of money to make twelve videos about a subject where I'm not sure she even really knows what she wants. It's been nearly a year and she's only produced two videos of 'meh' quality with a shallow level of research. While seemingly able to perform basic research, she still makes errors that someone who researched the subject honestly should have noticed and makes sweeping generalizations par for the course (but more than happily backs away from them when they go to far). It permeates her work, but now that she's in the spotlight she's toning it down and being as basic about the subject as she can and being as subtle about what she really thinks as she can. She makes it worse by beating it into you after she's already made her point.
That's insulting both because she's as dishonest with the viewer as she is with herself by portraying her shame as intellectual, and she doesn't even hide it well. It's insulting to me, you, and anyone whose ever watched her videos and made more insulting when it is ignored because shes right in principle if not in her method. Call me pedantic I guess. It seems plain as day to me. That's a very frustrating place to be.
Ahtman wrote: It can be both. All tropes start somewhere and got there name from something. Just because something got a title recently doesn't mean we can automatically dismiss it.
It's not recent. It happened nearly twenty years ago. I don't even dismiss it. I find her presentation inaccurate and the outcome bewildering because a useful and insightful point could have been made but was not and was instead replaced with "*points finger* this is wrong." Golf clap everybody she pointed out something was wrong joining the club of everyone who bothers to care.
The most often the rebuttal I see on this subject is that video games aren't any different from the rest of culture, and here she's stumbled into the very example the shows how wrong that notion is. Steve Rogers, Jason Todd, Damien Wayne (hell Bruce Wayne), Uncle Ben, Cyclops, Kitty Pryde and Colossus have gone back and forth on this several times have all been Stuffed in the Fridge. It happens in books even more. Ironically for Sarkessian its common in books by female authors about female characters especially in juvenile fiction, see Kelly Armstrong (she actually does it several times), Claudia Gray, and Rachelle Mead, Jessica Shirvington, Courtney Moulton, and Suzanne Collins and that's just off the top of my head! And the kicker? Most of the victims were men. After <Person> in Distress Stuffed in the Fridge might well be the second most commonly used motivation in fiction.
Narrowing that trope down to just women was pointed out as fallacious when it was first named because in media it happens all the time to both genders but not in video games! Because of the common trends of narrative in video games it happens nearly exclusively to women (I can only think of two male examples both from Elder Scrolls Oblivion off the top of my head). It's the perfect point to stab at the problem of how women get treated in video games and directly attacks the most common argument used to brush the issue aside but she doesn't make it even though she should have seen this if she were really researching the subject rather than just finding examples to support her misdirected view of the material.
Instead she misrepresents the trope as being exclusive to women (while also arguing the video games don't exist in a bubble) and ignores this while babbling on about insidious tricks that deceive players like video games have some hive mind and their out to get us. It's bizarre. Making that argument would have been hook line sinker and she completely passed it up for something only slightly right.
Instead she misrepresents the trope as being exclusive to women (while also arguing the video games don't exist in a bubble) and ignores this while babbling on about insidious tricks that deceive players like video games have some hive mind and their out to get us. It's bizarre. Making that argument would have been hook line sinker and she completely passed it up for something only slightly right.
There is a hive mind alright, and it continually feeds us terrible narratives is games!
You'd think all those brains together could come up with better stuff.
Really your point, such as it even exists in the first place, is nonsense. You misinterpreted her statement. Perhaps unintentionally. Perhaps not. But either way, you misinterpreted it.
Bromsy wrote: Generally, I think this chick is falling into the same category as the people who think violence in video games leads to real violence for me. Basically, someone who should not be listened to.
Is life perfect? No. Are video games violent and possibly misogynistic at times? Sure. Is the real world becoming more violent and more misogynistic as a result? No, because people don't let fething video games set their moral and philosophical compasses, and can differentiate between reality and crap happening on screen.
Art - video games, for example - transmits culture, and culture encompasses our values. I think an argument that our views and values can't be affected by art is absurd on its face.
In taking into account whether a piece of art is promoting something, it's essential to look at how that thing is framed in the art. Video games often promote violence. The way they do this is by giving it a positive, or occasionally neutral, framing. The thing is... the violence they promote is almost always violence we, as a culture, already believe is OK. The bulk of positively-framed video game violence is probably in the form of violence by a soldier against other combatants - which our broader culture views as fine or positive - or otherwise self defense, which we also see as fine in general. Video games, like all art, help transmit and reinforce cultural views such as this one. On the flipside, violence that our culture generally sees as morally dubious is almost always framed that way in the game.
So, no, saying "video games don't promote violence!" is not true. Many do promote some kinds of violence, while vilifying other kinds. It's the same with any cultural value. I'm not sure that video games, as a rule, are particularly morally progressive.
Same thing with sexist attitudes, though they tend to be a bit more subtle and complex than ones towards violence. Art informs our world view, among other things.
So you will of course then point out the studies that prove that 'art' vis a vis video games change our behaviors then? The many cases where Hitman fans become brutal murderers for hire? The Postal fans who are out setting bums on fire? When someone starts espousing a viewpoint - in this case that attitudes in video games change the behaviors of those who play them to match those of the video game - which has been proven wrong, categorically, it should be a warning sign to pump the breaks and stop listening to that person. This isn't a difficult topic. There have been numerous threads on this on this forum alone, let alone in the wider world of gaming.
People can tell the difference between video games and real life. People can play a game where dubious things happen, without those things ever affecting their behaviors. Pretending otherwise is idiocy of the highest order at worst, or someone disingenuously pushing an agenda at best.
- there is merit in pointing out misogynist trends in the video game industry. When you start believing that those trends cause other people to become more misogynist because you are saving a princess and not your little brother, you stop being someone worth listening to.
Bromsy wrote: Generally, I think this chick is falling into the same category as the people who think violence in video games leads to real violence for me. Basically, someone who should not be listened to.
Is life perfect? No. Are video games violent and possibly misogynistic at times? Sure. Is the real world becoming more violent and more misogynistic as a result? No, because people don't let fething video games set their moral and philosophical compasses, and can differentiate between reality and crap happening on screen.
Art - video games, for example - transmits culture, and culture encompasses our values. I think an argument that our views and values can't be affected by art is absurd on its face.
In taking into account whether a piece of art is promoting something, it's essential to look at how that thing is framed in the art. Video games often promote violence. The way they do this is by giving it a positive, or occasionally neutral, framing. The thing is... the violence they promote is almost always violence we, as a culture, already believe is OK. The bulk of positively-framed video game violence is probably in the form of violence by a soldier against other combatants - which our broader culture views as fine or positive - or otherwise self defense, which we also see as fine in general. Video games, like all art, help transmit and reinforce cultural views such as this one. On the flipside, violence that our culture generally sees as morally dubious is almost always framed that way in the game.
So, no, saying "video games don't promote violence!" is not true. Many do promote some kinds of violence, while vilifying other kinds. It's the same with any cultural value. I'm not sure that video games, as a rule, are particularly morally progressive.
Same thing with sexist attitudes, though they tend to be a bit more subtle and complex than ones towards violence. Art informs our world view, among other things.
So you will of course then point out the studies that prove that 'art' vis a vis video games change our behaviors then? The many cases where Hitman fans become brutal murderers for hire? The Postal fans who are out setting bums on fire? When someone starts espousing a viewpoint - in this case that attitudes in video games change the behaviors of those who play them to match those of the video game - which has been proven wrong, categorically, it should be a warning sign to pump the breaks and stop listening to that person. This isn't a difficult topic. There have been numerous threads on this on this forum alone, let alone in the wider world of gaming.
People can tell the difference between video games and real life. People can play a game where dubious things happen, without those things ever affecting their behaviors. Pretending otherwise is idiocy of the highest order at worst, or someone disingenuously pushing an agenda at best.
- there is merit in pointing out misogynist trends in the video game industry. When you start believing that those trends cause other people to become more misogynist because you are saving a princess and not your little brother, you stop being someone worth listening to.
However, there are studies that say that video game players do tend to think of the world a little more violently than those who don't. Not that they act any more violently.
Unlike her previous video, I liked this one. She presented interesting ideas and it felt like it was well researched. It did get a little too wordy at times but I'm she wanted to be thorough. Her most interesting point is that these tropes seem fine in a vacuum but represent a disturbing trend of a perceived ownership of women.
What I find amusing is that there are certain posts that dismiss her ideas based on grievances with her style and wording. Dismissing an argument just because of style is missing the point.
Soladrin wrote: Don't really care about the actual topic anymore at this point.
Always an auspicious start to a post.
Soladrin wrote: I'm mostly just wondering how she is taking this long to get these tiny videos out, and where all that money was actually spent.
There's plenty of people on youtube who don't even have 5% of her budget but get better quality and longer videos out daily.
This is the absolute worst meme about this whole project that occurred last thread; and it needs to die.
Her goal was $6,000. Kickstarter is not a store - if people wish to pledge more than that to support her vision and her franchise, it's irrelevant what her actual cost vs profit is. She is delivering exactly what was promised and what consenting adults chose to pay for, at the dollar amount they valued, in a free and fair open market. If she wants to spend $6,000 on the video series, DVD, stickers etc and put every single penny in excess of that directly into her pocket, she is legally, ethically, and morally in the right to do so.
Do you go into Walmart and complain to a cashier that this bag of rice cost way less than $2 to make? If not, what's the difference, fundamentally?
---
So far as the video in question, it seems like the editing is a little better, as far as the clips themselves.
I don't think the female soldier was intended to be humorous in Wreck-It Ralph, or as a parody. Rather I think it actually reflects the slow changing of gender power dynamics that she claims to crave, so not sure why she's bagging on it instead of praising it.
And yes, I'm posting as I watch it, work is sort of busy tonight.
DoctorZombie wrote: Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable. Otherwise, her message is basically lost in the shifting electrons of the Internet.
I would be interested to see an example of an 'ideal' story with characters which showcased equal gender role and avoids all the tropes she complains of.
I cant say i am a fan of her first video (which i watched part of before getting bored and turning it off) and ive not been able to watch the second yet as i only have my phone atm, but from the comments here it doesnt seemlike things willl have improved much either in terms of style or content.
I would be interested to see an example of an 'ideal' story with characters which showcased equal gender role and avoids all the tropes she complains of.
Pretty much every 'make your own protagonist' RPG out there?
I would be interested to see an example of an 'ideal' story with characters which showcased equal gender role and avoids all the tropes she complains of.
Pretty much every 'make your own protagonist' RPG out there?
Sorry, i should clarify that i meant her idea for a script, especially in one of the genres she apparently complains there are few such stories around.
I would be interested to see an example of an 'ideal' story with characters which showcased equal gender role and avoids all the tropes she complains of.
Pretty much every 'make your own protagonist' RPG out there?
Sorry, i should clarify that i meant her idea for a script, especially in one of the genres she apparently complains there are few such stories around.
Well, I imagine that Splatterhouse would have been just as cool if Jen was the one who put on the mask and became the frenzied killer trying to save her boyfriend/little sister/whatever.
From what I can tell, Sarkesian is a bit of a pacifist and doesn't appear to like violent solutions to problems to begin with, even in a video game or other forms of entertainment.
Which is fair enough, but it does seem to color her thinking. I don't entirely agree with her on the nature of video game violence, but certainly the issue of objectifying women is a very big problem within the video game industry.
The main thing that bothers me abut her perspective is that she is stuck in the early 80s research-wise. She argues from the very same point extreme violence-in-video-games critics argue by claiming that video games have a direct impact on how men actually realize real women outside of games. She proves being unable to provide any actual proof for this assumption and therefore, this, as a central point of hers, is completely void. You can't just go out and claim something because you "strongly think" it is...this just shows that you lack an idea of how things *actually* work and makes you look very unprofessional.
Furthermore, she still fails to realize really basic understandings of the very trope she speaks of - it doesn't work as well the other way around because...it doesn't work as well the other way around. Men are considerably different from women in that regard, they are highly more likely to be motivated by such a situation. Men are far easier to involve emotionally by much easier devices. Women need believable, complex characters to identify with them or their motivation (2000'ish studies on emotional involvement in literatur and TV) whereas men just...need one emotional strong point. Enter damsel in distress. And what is the, by a long shot, target audience for most of the games she presents? Men. Complaining about male-centered stories in a game market where the most promiment core branches are mainly consumed by men is...naive.
Again: unprofessional research presented as being professional.
And at min 19:00 she just goes straight downhill. She presents extremely one-sided and even wrong data without a single piece of actual info to back them up and makes a direct relation between violence in video games and real life violence. Again: she pretends being on intellectual high grounds and a professional researcher but in fact is just pretentious as hell and is seemingly ok with spreading misinformation and poorly researched facts.
As others have already pointed out: where exactly is the reason for her need of the hefty amount of money she pretended to need to produce this series? There are others, similar projects on YouTube working at a considerably smaller budget and I cannot see how her videos are even close to ressemble the value of the amount of money she asked for.
In the end, all she does with this video is further increasing the gap and stirring up anger. She does not even offer constructive advice or a perspective / alternative on how to tackle story telling. She just hints at the third episode and, read it here first, will just talk about those games being very small exclusions to the rule she established in the previous two videos.
She continues to be unprofessional, pretentious, arrogant and righteous and in the end, I don't see anything good coming from a poorly researched, one-sided report on a matter.
Sigvatr wrote: As others have already pointed out: where exactly is the reason for her need of the hefty amount of money she pretended to need to produce this series? There are others, similar projects on YouTube working at a considerably smaller budget and I cannot see how her videos are even close to ressemble the value of the amount of money she asked for.
Her goal was $6,000. Kickstarter is not a store - if people wish to pledge more than that to support her vision and her franchise, it's irrelevant what her actual cost vs profit is. She is delivering exactly what was promised and what consenting adults chose to pay for, at the dollar amount they valued, in a free and fair open market. If she wants to spend $6,000 on the video series, DVD, stickers etc and put every single penny in excess of that directly into her pocket, she is legally, ethically, and morally in the right to do so.
Do you go into Walmart and complain to a cashier that this bag of rice cost way less than $2 to make? If not, what's the difference, fundamentally?
Soladrin wrote: Don't really care about the actual topic anymore at this point.
Always an auspicious start to a post.
Soladrin wrote: I'm mostly just wondering how she is taking this long to get these tiny videos out, and where all that money was actually spent.
There's plenty of people on youtube who don't even have 5% of her budget but get better quality and longer videos out daily.
This is the absolute worst meme about this whole project that occurred last thread; and it needs to die.
Her goal was $6,000. Kickstarter is not a store - if people wish to pledge more than that to support her vision and her franchise, it's irrelevant what her actual cost vs profit is. She is delivering exactly what was promised and what consenting adults chose to pay for, at the dollar amount they valued, in a free and fair open market. If she wants to spend $6,000 on the video series, DVD, stickers etc and put every single penny in excess of that directly into her pocket, she is legally, ethically, and morally in the right to do so.
Do you go into Walmart and complain to a cashier that this bag of rice cost way less than $2 to make? If not, what's the difference, fundamentally?
---
So far as the video in question, it seems like the editing is a little better, as far as the clips themselves.
I don't think the female soldier was intended to be humorous in Wreck-It Ralph, or as a parody. Rather I think it actually reflects the slow changing of gender power dynamics that she claims to crave, so not sure why she's bagging on it instead of praising it.
And yes, I'm posting as I watch it, work is sort of busy tonight.
I guess I'll just disagree with you on that then. I don't see how this is a meme either, that doesn't even make sense. She collected money only for the purpose of creating this series, looking at what she's putting out I'd say she isn't even using the 6000 she asked for. Taking 2 months to make a video like this is a disgrace.
She collected the money and then people kept giving her money afterwards-- they were not coerced . They knew she already had everything collected that she asked for, they knew she didn't promise to do anything else with the money they were giving. Once she fulfills all pledges, what she does with the remainder is up to her. That's how Kickstarter works.
And she is in the process of fulfilling the pledges by producing the videos she said she would produce. Anything beyond the 6000 USD she asked for was, effectively, a gift, and she was under no obligation to up the ante, as it were, just because people kept giving her more gifts
Melissia wrote: And she is in the process of fulfilling the pledges by producing the videos she said she would produce. Anything beyond the 6000 USD she asked for was, effectively, a gift, and she was under no obligation to up the ante, as it were, just because people kept giving her more gifts
Seeing as the high level backers were supposed to receive DVD copies of the series by December 2012 I'd like to think that she isn't still "producing the videos", and that the backers have the items they were expecting to receive.
As far as I'm aware, anything beyond the $6000, unless there were stretch goals added indicating higher quality/extra features based on how much extra was raised, is basically a donation. I can see there is a very small number of stretch goals, but no idea on what their worth was. Aha, it seems the production quality one was $20,000.
I think it's a side show that people debate over to distract from the issue. Keeping to the content of the videos would be nice.
Just had a look at her LEGO videos; what a load of gak. She sits there pointing out the "problem" with LEGO marketing to boys, yet provides zero evidence why LEGO should do the contrary. Could it not be the case that in the 80's demographics shifted, young girls wanted to play with the plethora of cartoon tie in toys and other exclusively girl toys MLP, Polly Pocket and other stuff that vaguely claws at the surface of my mind.
Her problem is that girls don't want to buy the "boys" stuff, but how is that LEGO's fault? It's not LEGO's job to take on gender stereotypes at the risk of it's business. Then when LEGO tries to include girls she gaks on them and says that they aren't trying hard enough. I don't think she knows what she wants... oh no wait I do, it's to blame companies for the decisions that parents and society as a whole make.
Melissia wrote: You misinterpreted her statement. Perhaps unintentionally. Perhaps not. But either way, you misinterpreted it.
That it could even be misinterpreted is enough to prove my basic my point; Her work is shoddy in quality.
Dismissing an argument just because of style is missing the point.
When an argument is made up of poorly repeating the thoughts and insights of others who came before you, it should be dismissed (and she doesn't even offer much insight). And Sarkessian was dismissed before the Kickstarter controversy for this very reason. Sarkessian has offered nothing I haven't already heard and she doesn't even offer it well.
A person can learn more about gender bias by reading this for an hour than they will watching her point her finger at all the bad things for forty minutes.
No one on KS has ever been behind on their estimated date for projects before. She is the only one. Surely she must be a con artist that forced people to hand over money.
Out of curiosity, how many here are backers of the project and get backers updates?
MrDwhitey wrote: Believe it or not, I actually agree with you, I find it slightly absurd that these are taking so long.
However I thought the main point of all this is to debate the points she's trying to put across.
No worries, your last post I may have mis-read then.
My own personal take on it is this;
Her delivery is still not particularly engaging. Her listing examples in a monotone voice, and her actual facepalm came across as stilted and insincere. She also seems to labour her points a significant deal.
She trots out the "women in the refrigerator" as a trope, and fails to tell the audience that the trope has evolved "stuffed in the fridge" after it was found that both genders were affected by it in significant numbers. Withholding this fact from her audience is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty. She used this trope in a prior video too and there were numerous responses along the same lines that I have raised.
She rails against the trend of games becoming grittier and women suffering more because of it. Maybe she missed many examples of games were the male characters are tortured, maimed, murdered etc. To say that women are more affected by this trend in gaming is twisting the facts to suit her argument.
I take issue with her claim that romance in games only stems from captive females. Especially when she lists examples (Max Payne Infamous 2, etc.) were there is a pre-existing relationship. Her own personal view seems to be that women are only desirable when dis-empowered, she does not consider that other factors may be at play here, that people thrown together in high stress situations often develop close bonds from the danger faced and the shared experience. Also she does not account for the fact that some (like Princess Peach) are essential to the running of a kingdom or the like and that having order restored is a desirable result, regardless of the gender of the captive.
Anita seems quite happy to take any act against a women out of context to fit her agenda, and then tell her audience that because of said agenda context does not matter anyway. If a man harms a woman its bad, if a woman is cursed/grafted onto a monster and wants to die then "she asked for it" which sends out the wrong message. It's showing that even when female characters make a choice (i.e. they are acting and not being acted upon) that is not good enough for Anita.
She spends a significant portion of the video telling us how video games are helping spread misogyny across the world (omitting that countries with the worst violence against women don't have a lot of access to video games), and then contradicts that by saying that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between violence and depictions in media. To say that she is being dishonest and framing facts to suit her agenda is being generous.
Is there a problem with how women are portrayed in media - yes, that being said the media has a significant problem in many cases with creating characters that have more than two dimensions (and the occasional plot twist) and writing original compelling plots. For the most part screenwriters seem to play to the lowest common denominator.
Should it be changed - yes
But she seems to be overstating her case somewhat, and trying to make this a much larger issue than it actually is, especially when she tries to tie video games to a wider assault on women and as a reason for violence against them. It seems to me that she has taken existing research on the portrayal of females in other media and simply applied it to video games, and found examples. To date there has been little critical analysis, and this seems to me to be a series that seeks to document the issue rather than examine it in such a way as to suggest ways to change the issue. It's money for old rope, but good on her for spotting a gap in the market and filling it.
Medium of Death wrote: Just had a look at her LEGO videos; what a load of gak. She sits there pointing out the "problem" with LEGO marketing to boys, yet provides zero evidence why LEGO should do the contrary
This applies to all of her videos. She never uses actual evidence to back her theories up. She does use a, admittingly, well-fitting load of videos to portay an issue, but she is stuck at a very poor argumentation level by showing the examples and then immediately going straight to a stimulus - reponse model...child gets input, child does the same in real life. She's stuck in the alte 80s / early 90s with her set of mind.
The sad thing is that I kinda appreciate what she does in general - she takes a closer look at video games and how they are designed and how poor story telling is nowadays. That's really awesome and I'd appreciate any serious attempt at such a move. The problem is that she immediately jumps to conclusions whenever she can and that's what tears her video's quality down by a long shot. If she was able to take a step back and try to have a more objective view on the matter, she might make some really good videos. The proper way would be to portray the Damsel in Distress as typical for video games, then go on and show that video games are a central part of our culture, then make the relation to how movies / TV work and what effect studies on those proved, then show up possible (!) effects of consuming media with debatable content.
Video 1: What is Damsel in Distress?
Video 2: Video Games in pop culture
Video 3: Practical implications
Leave out propaganda bullshat, add in properly researched facts and tadaaa, you got a really good web series, precisely portraying a (possible) problem.
But I guess her "HERP DERP SEXISM IS EVERYWHERE LOLOL" approach attracts much more viewers and, of course, requires MUCH less effort.
About the "She only asked for 6000$!" argument: let's just for one second, assume that this was true. 6000$. That's 2000$ per video. 2000$. Now, tell me, where did this money go? High production quality? Where? Did she use proper studies (they cost a lot)? Nope. Did she have some interviews with people from the video games industry? Nope. Did she start an own study? Nope. Even if she only used those 6000$ (not counting ad revenue from YouTube btw), where did those go? Her video are, as of now, at a low quality level content-wise. She did the very same thing anyone on Youtube could do without any additional funding at all. She just cut some clips together and commented on an issue using only herself as a source. How is that even borderline professional?
Ahtman wrote: No one on KS has ever been behind on their estimated date for projects before. She is the only one. Surely she must be a con artist that forced people to hand over money.
Out of curiosity, how many here are backers of the project and get backers updates?
I don't recall anyone saying that she was a "con artist". Unless you wish to substantiate that it reads very much like a deflection.
Many kickstarters have, often for issues with suppliers, raw materials, transport, quality control etc. Her project was comparatively small in scope. It didn't require a product to be manufactured, other than copies of a DVD to be made. It is 11 months after her kickstarter concluded and to date only two videos have been released. For someone who wants to be taken seriously this is not an encouraging sign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: About the "She only asked for 6000$!" argument: let's just for one second, assume that this was true. 6000$. That's 2000$ per video. 2000$. Now, tell me, where did this money go? High production quality? Where? Did she use proper studies (they cost a lot)? Nope. Did she have some interviews with people from the video games industry? Nope. Did she start an own study? Nope. Even if she only used those 6000$ (not counting ad revenue from YouTube btw), where did those go? Her video are, as of now, at a low quality level content-wise. She did the very same thing anyone on Youtube could do without any additional funding at all. She just cut some clips together and commented on an issue using only herself as a source. How is that even borderline professional?
Even though I am critical of the work produced I don't think that it is fair that there is constant commentary concerning where the money invested went. She proposed a kickstarter, and it was funded. People contributed what they felt was a worthy amount (in part due to 4chan's 'contributions').
If I was to speculate on where the money did go then it may have gone on academic reading and research. In some fields publications are protected by subscription and paywalls which are often prohibitively expensive for a layperson with only a passing interest in the subject.
I don't want to point by point your entire post, but I did agree with some criticisms you said.
Her delivery is poor, especially for someone who has done quite a lot of projects similar to this.
She often uses words she should not. I say this not to imply she's stupid, as been done here, but because many of her viewers will not understand at least some language of that complexity. Most professional speechwriters try to keep their complexity to 9th or 10th grade at most.
So far as the other stuff, I'm not so sure. To say whether or not video games influence real world violence is one of those fool's errands, where each side of the argument can easily produce tons of studies supporting them. I'd have to rate it "indeterminate" and would neither agree with nor disagree with either camp.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't recall anyone saying that she was a "con artist". Unless you wish to substantiate that it reads very much like a deflection.
This isn't the only place anyone has ever discussed this, and this isn't even the only thread we have had on dakka about it. Also the 'no one used those exact words' argument is pretty thin. It isn't that hard to get to 'con artist' from constant complaints that someone took a bunch of money from people under false pretenses. If the best you have is a semantic argument, then perhaps accusing others of deflection is the least of your concerns.
Sigvatr wrote: About the "She only asked for 6000$!" argument: let's just for one second, assume that this was true. 6000$. That's 2000$ per video. 2000$. Now, tell me, where did this money go? High production quality? Where? Did she use proper studies (they cost a lot)? Nope. Did she have some interviews with people from the video games industry? Nope. Did she start an own study? Nope. Even if she only used those 6000$ (not counting ad revenue from YouTube btw), where did those go? Her video are, as of now, at a low quality level content-wise. She did the very same thing anyone on Youtube could do without any additional funding at all. She just cut some clips together and commented on an issue using only herself as a source. How is that even borderline professional?
Why are we "assuming" that it is true she only asked for $6,000? It's right on the project page to fund the project. It's not like, a matter of opinion which is debateable.
So far as the other stuff, there are tons of other kickstarters that have exceeded their goal right here on Dakka Dakka's News & Rumors page. Where are you there, Investigator Sigvatr of the Kickstarter police, asking Tre Manor why he needs so much money to cast metal figurines which aren't that expensive in raw materials? Why aren't you asking the Robotech people how much they paid for the license, and tooling? Why aren't you up in Mantic's face asking how much they paid their sculptors, and why did they charge a penny more than that?
Sigvatr wrote: The main thing that bothers me abut her perspective is that she is stuck in the early 80s research-wise. She argues from the very same point extreme violence-in-video-games critics argue by claiming that video games have a direct impact on how men actually realize real women outside of games. She proves being unable to provide any actual proof for this assumption and therefore, this, as a central point of hers, is completely void. You can't just go out and claim something because you "strongly think" it is...this just shows that you lack an idea of how things *actually* work and makes you look very unprofessional.
Furthermore, she still fails to realize really basic understandings of the very trope she speaks of - it doesn't work as well the other way around because...it doesn't work as well the other way around. Men are considerably different from women in that regard, they are highly more likely to be motivated by such a situation. Men are far easier to involve emotionally by much easier devices. Women need believable, complex characters to identify with them or their motivation (2000'ish studies on emotional involvement in literatur and TV) whereas men just...need one emotional strong point. Enter damsel in distress. And what is the, by a long shot, target audience for most of the games she presents? Men. Complaining about male-centered stories in a game market where the most promiment core branches are mainly consumed by men is...naive.
She continues to be unprofessional, pretentious, arrogant and righteous and in the end, I don't see anything good coming from a poorly researched, one-sided report on a matter.
You've never actually been in a debate, have you? The Speaker/reporter/what not will always show only their side of the story. It's up to the reader/listener/other speaker to provide the other side of the debate. Her only real flaw is that she refuses to have criticism of these videos, which can be looked at in several ways:
1) She wants people to wait until all the videos are done.
2) She doesn't want to talk to a bunch of people from the internets (Since we all know how that turns out).
3) She's an evil conniving wench that's out to steal men's souls.
It all depends on how you look at it.
Do I agree with her? On a basic level, yeah; more diversity in games would be awesome (Not just women, but Hispanics/Africans and everyone else).
Oh, and thanks for lumping all Men into the "We must white knight the pretty damsels!" category.
And at min 19:00 she just goes straight downhill. She presents extremely one-sided and even wrong data without a single piece of actual info to back them up and makes a direct relation between violence in video games and real life violence. Again: she pretends being on intellectual high grounds and a professional researcher but in fact is just pretentious as hell and is seemingly ok with spreading misinformation and poorly researched facts.
How do you know it's wrong? Do you have any studies to show that it's not? Or do you just disagree with it, and therefor it's wrong? Have you done any research, poor or otherwise, into the matter?
Because condescendingly saying someone's trying to take the intellectual high ground and using "useless/wrong facts" is just as bad as what she is supposedly doing.
Ahtman wrote: This isn't the only place anyone has ever discussed this, and this isn't even the only thread we have had on dakka about it. Also the 'no one used those exact words' argument is pretty thin. It isn't that hard to get to 'con artist' from constant complaints that someone took a bunch of money from people under false pretenses. If the best you have is a semantic argument, then perhaps accusing others of deflection is the least of your concerns.
I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing that you are erecting a strawman from my words to tilt at. I never suggested that there was anything improper about her motivations, I never implied in any way that she used "false pretenses" to generate revenue. What I said was that for someone trying to discuss a serious issue and make a name for herself showing that she cannot meet the deadlines that she set for herself, with finances well beyond what was budgeted then she is not generating a positive image for her, or her message. That is hugely different to what you are suggesting. Clearly there is no deflection on my part.
As far as your point that other places have discussed this perhaps you should take it up with these other places. I am responsible for my own words. Not theirs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: So far as the other stuff, I'm not so sure. To say whether or not video games influence real world violence is one of those fool's errands, where each side of the argument can easily produce tons of studies supporting them. I'd have to rate it "indeterminate" and would neither agree with nor disagree with either camp.
Thank you.
My point about video games was not to prove or dis-prove that violent video games cause more violence. My point was that on the one hand she claims that they are a device that helps entrench attitudes about women and help to fuel violence against women, but she herself makes the point that there is no direct cause and effect relationship and that humans are not simply beholden to the messages that we receive from media. It is contradictions such as this which undermine her own arguments.
I'm sorry if my earlier post wasn't clear on that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As far as your point that other places have discussed this perhaps you should take it up with these other places. I am responsible for my own words. Not theirs.
Ignoring all the other facepalm worthy goofiness you just dropped, you do realize that you aren't the only one in this thread, and that every reply is not a love letter crafted just for you, right? Did you ever consider you weren't the person being replied to? Did it occur to you that maybe no specific individual was being replied to, but the general arguments being presented by one side?
Ahtman wrote: Ignoring all the other facepalm worthy goofiness you just dropped, you do realize that you aren't the only one in this thread, and that every reply is not a love letter crafted just for you, right? Did you ever consider you weren't the person being replied to? Did it occur to you that maybe no specific individual was being replied to, but the general arguments being presented by one side?
Well then, my most humble apologies!! I had always thought that when quoting someone it was a good indication that you are in fact replying to that person and not some non-specific internet entity, or some general point. You'll understand my obvious confusion why you quote me, twice use my own words to form your argument, and then say "you".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't recall anyone saying that she was a "con artist". Unless you wish to substantiate that it reads very much like a deflection.
This isn't the only place anyone has ever discussed this, and this isn't even the only thread we have had on dakka about it. Also the 'no one used those exact words' argument is pretty thin. It isn't that hard to get to 'con artist' from constant complaints that someone took a bunch of money from people under false pretenses. If the best you have is a semantic argument, then perhaps accusing others of deflection is the least of your concerns.
Now that we're resolved that shall we get back to the topic at hand?
So you are saying that if the language and content gets complicated, like discussing general trends and themes sparked from specific ideas in response to a statement in a multi-person conversation you will get petty and have trouble following. At least you are honest about it.
DoctorZombie wrote: Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.
Ahtman wrote: So you are saying that if the language and content gets complicated, like discussing general trends and themes sparked from specific ideas in response to a statement in a multi-person conversation you will get petty and have trouble following. At least you are honest about it.
If that's what you got out of what I said then more power to you.
You confuse the term debate with "stating a personal view on an issue and selling it as facts". As you correctly stated, this is not a debate. She isn't interested in a debate (at least not in this form). This is understandable, given the massive negative outlash her videos caused among our fellow immature video viewers. I would be fine with her selling stuff as her opinion, but she frequently promotes it as a factual issue - which simply isn't the case as portrayed above.
Oh, and thanks for lumping all Men into the "We must white knight the pretty damsels!" category.
I did not. Stick with what I actually post. I merely said that men, on average, do react stronger to such a scenario than women do. If you feel that this applies to you as well or not, be it that way, that's your individual view / perception.
How do you know it's wrong? Do you have any studies to show that it's not? Or do you just disagree with it, and therefor it's wrong? Have you done any research, poor or otherwise, into the matter?
Yes, I have, iirc in the last thread on this issue. Unlike her, I have to deal with studies of all kinds on a daily basis. I translate, review and, to a lesser degree, host own studies.
Ouze wrote: So far as the other stuff, there are tons of other kickstarters that have exceeded their goal right here on Dakka Dakka's News & Rumors page. Where are you there, Investigator Sigvatr of the Kickstarter police, asking Tre Manor why he needs so much money to cast metal figurines which aren't that expensive in raw materials? Why aren't you asking the Robotech people how much they paid for the license, and tooling? Why aren't you up in Mantic's face asking how much they paid their sculptors, and why did they charge a penny more than that?
Do I care for other Kickstarters? Iirc, this is about this specific one, not about some random tabletop kickstarter. Keep it to this one then, but feel free to point me out if I should say the same about others kickstarters.
DoctorZombie wrote: Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.
DoctorZombie wrote: Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.
Medium of Death wrote: Just had a look at her LEGO videos; what a load of gak. She sits there pointing out the "problem" with LEGO marketing to boys, yet provides zero evidence why LEGO should do the contrary. Could it not be the case that in the 80's demographics shifted, young girls wanted to play with the plethora of cartoon tie in toys and other exclusively girl toys MLP, Polly Pocket and other stuff that vaguely claws at the surface of my mind.
Her problem is that girls don't want to buy the "boys" stuff, but how is that LEGO's fault? It's not LEGO's job to take on gender stereotypes at the risk of it's business. Then when LEGO tries to include girls she gaks on them and says that they aren't trying hard enough. I don't think she knows what she wants... oh no wait I do, it's to blame companies for the decisions that parents and society as a whole make.
I watched that one. It is awfully silly- LEGO is simply selling where the majority of their profits come from.
The only way it could not ever be misinterpreted is if it wasn't in English.
I've made perfectly clear arguments that have been misinterpreted by others. So have you. We are humans, a race of incredibly biased people, and we speak in English, a delightfully imprecise language, and NOTHING that you say cannot be somehow misinterpreted.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't recall anyone saying that she was a "con artist".
Solid video. It's not particularly new ground, but it is quite elucidating and disappointing to see all these examples brought together. I look forward to her next episode, and I'd like to see episodes beyond the Damsel in Distress syndrome.
Her delivery is poor, especially for someone who has done quite a lot of projects similar to this.
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
She's far from monotone and I suspect if you had a man there speaking in such measured but unvarying tones there wouldn't be a peep of criticism, especially since that criticism seems to usually be explicitly designed to avoid discussing the content.
Ouze wrote: So far as the other stuff, I'm not so sure. To say whether or not video games influence real world violence is one of those fool's errands, where each side of the argument can easily produce tons of studies supporting them. I'd have to rate it "indeterminate" and would neither agree with nor disagree with either camp.
I wanted to reply to this, because having just watched the video (being unable to do so until now thanks to our communist Internet rationing policies, for you Americans) I found she made an uneasy shift later in the video from talking about violence against helpless women in video games to real-world violence without laying down the foundation for a causal link. A bit later on, though, she really laid down what I was saying earlier in the thread - that, as pieces of art, culture, video games can shape our world view and values.
I invite you to consider what would have to be argued for this to not be the case. Essentially, one would be arguing that art cannot affect people's views and that culture is not shaped to an extent by art. Unless you can argue that - and I think doing so would paint an incredibly bizarre picture of the human mind as some impermeable fortress through which no idea may penetrate without prior approval - it's nonsensical to say that a piece of art - in this case, video games - can't influence a person. Sarkeesian herself never argues that watching violence makes you violent or watching misogyny makes you misogynist - she even says right in the video that people don't have that monkey see, monkey do approach to media. What these things can do is fortify - or, on the flip side of the coin, challenge - cultural beliefs, and in so doing change or fortify our current cultural values.
I think arguing otherwise is not only completely absurd, but utterly disrespects all art, interactive or otherwise.
Maybe she'd have met a better reception arguing the flipside of the case, that art can be used as a vehicle for cultural change by exposing people to new ideas, to present the unfamiliar in a manner that can be grasped.
Oh, and as a note I guess you could also argue that art can affect our values, but that our values don't affect our actions, which would be good for a laugh I guess. If art can affect our values or view of the world and our values inform our actions then of course art can cause violence. It's an indirect link, not a direct one.
Fafnir wrote: Solid video. It's not particularly new ground, but it is quite elucidating and disappointing to see all these examples brought together. I look forward to her next episode, and I'd like to see episodes beyond the Damsel in Distress syndrome.
With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games, exploring female character stereotypes throughout the history of the gaming industry. This ambitious project will primarily focus on these reoccurring tropes:
Damsel in Distress - Video #1
The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
Background Decoration - Video #5
1st Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!
Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6
Women as Reward - Video #7
Mrs. Male Character - Video #8
Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9
Man with Boobs - Video #10
Positive Female Characters! - Video #11
2nd Stretch Goal Achieved!
Let's Bump up the Production Quality!
3rd Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!
Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum
Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
As do I. It was not at all hard to follow what she had to say, although I know of many people who went in to her videos trying to find something to be offended by, like they often do with anything feminism-related.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
As do I. It was not at all hard to follow what she had to say, although I know of many people who went in to her videos trying to find something to be offended by, like they often do with anything feminism-related.
Speaking of, I was pleasantly surprised when she said "It paints women as helpless and men as braindead beatsticks" or something like that. It was in the last five or so minutes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.
Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)
Fact: No woman President yet.
Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.
Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
Speaking of which, looks like we have another one that does exactly this:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
It gets better towards the end when she actual gets the more analytic part, but other than that, nope.
You learned nothing of value because you went in not wanting to learn, instead wanting to be entertained. Apparently that's all women are good for, to you.
Recognizing recurring patterns does not require a scheme in place to exist, in fact, I imagine that it is often the opposite i.e. they occur because people don't pay that much attention.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.
Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)
Fact: No woman President yet.
Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.
Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.
What does this have to do with video games? The implication I got from her was that the developers intentionally added darker stuff in their games in order to try to lessen the social status of women.
Did I misinterpret that? I tend to do that when the word "insidious" is used. As well as other terms I can't be bothered to retype.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
Speaking of which, looks like we have another one that does exactly this:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
It gets better towards the end when she actual gets the more analytic part, but other than that, nope.
You learned nothing of value because you went in not wanting to learn, instead wanting to be entertained. Apparently that's all women are good for, to you.
No, I learned nothing because she said nothing new. I already have all the information she supplied. I was expecting more.
Are you implying I'm a misogynist? I'm really not.
Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.
Nothing she can say is new. We've been saying it for fething DECADES now.
I'm not pissed off. I was expecting something a little more analytical, something that reached back into literature or film. Why are they like this? Why is the stuffed in a fridge trope so popular? Is there a precedence? It could not have just spawned from that one green lantern comic, there had to be something cultural that spawned that.
The what does this have to do with games response was to do with Slarg's list. And my issue is not the assertion that there is misogyny in the game industry, but more to do with the implication that the game industry is trying to spread it.
the implication that the game industry is trying to spread it.
You never actually paid any attention to what was being said, it seems.
The games industry is not intentionally trying to spread it. But it is spreading it nonetheless. It was not said that there was some shady characters in a dimly lit boardroom going about thinking "how can we best oppress women".
the implication that the game industry is trying to spread it.
You never actually paid any attention to what was being said, it seems.
The games industry is not intentionally trying to spread it. But it is spreading it nonetheless.
Of course, but implication is everything. Words like insidious tends to do that. Call me paranoid, but when I hear insidious, I always think of there being some great scheme involved.
Here's what I found when I searched for insidious
in·sid·i·ous
/inˈsidēəs/
Adjective
1) Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects: "the insidious effects of stress".
2) Treacherous; crafty: "an insidious alliance".
Could just be a case of using too strong a word, however.
Cheesecat wrote: Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.
Misogyny pisses me off, wherever it is. The idea that men are the default and women are somehow "special" (in the sense of "the special bus") pisses me off. The idea that The idea that I have to cowtow to men and kiss ass just to get them to understand that being sexist is bad involved pisses me off. The idea that it's acceptable to dismiss a woman's argument BECAUSE she's a woman pisses me off. The idea that a woman has to entertain a man for him to pay any attention to her pisses me off.
And all of these ideas have been expressed, intentionally or otherwise, by various posters in this thread.
The idea that it's acceptable to dismiss a woman's argument BECAUSE she's a woman pisses me off. The idea that a woman has to entertain a man for him to pay any attention to her pisses me off.
And all of these ideas have been expressed, intentionally or otherwise, by various posters in this thread.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.
Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)
Fact: No woman President yet.
Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.
Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.
What does this have to do with video games? The implication I got from her was that the developers intentionally added darker stuff in their games in order to try to lessen the social status of women.
Did I misinterpret that? I tend to do that when the word "insidious" is used. As well as other terms I can't be bothered to retype.
What she is saying is that Developers intentionally add darker stuff done to women to the game to move the story forward, and they are unintentionally causing a sort of "lessened social status".
For example;
"Princess Peach (A woman) cannot save herself, Mario (a man) has to".
"Zelda (A woman) cannot save herself, Link (a Man) has to"
"Ophelia (a Woman) cannot save herself, Eddie Riggs (a man) has to".
"Rachel (A woman) cannot save herself, Ryu (a man) has to".
"Cortana (a woman.... thing) cannot save herself, Master Chief has to."
"Eleanor ( a woman) cannot save her, Delta (a Man) has to."
"The Empress (A woman) cannot save herself, Corvo (a man) has to."
"Jenn (A woman) cannot save herself, Rick Taylor (A man) has to."
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.
Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.
Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)
Fact: No woman President yet.
Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.
Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.
What does this have to do with video games? The implication I got from her was that the developers intentionally added darker stuff in their games in order to try to lessen the social status of women.
Did I misinterpret that? I tend to do that when the word "insidious" is used. As well as other terms I can't be bothered to retype.
What she is saying is that Developers intentionally add darker stuff done to women to the game to move the story forward, and they are unintentionally causing a sort of "lessened social status".
For example; "Princess Peach (A woman) cannot save herself, Mario (a man) has to". "Zelda (A woman) cannot save herself, Link (a Man) has to" "Ophelia (a Woman) cannot save herself, Eddie Riggs (a man) has to". "Rachel (A woman) cannot save herself, Ryu (a man) has to". "Cortana (a woman.... thing) cannot save herself, Master Chief has to." "Eleanor ( a woman) cannot save her, Delta (a Man) has to."
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
Ah, now that does make sense. Hasn't this already been ingrained in our culture though? It is a fairly common theme in fiction.
For instance -
Lucy Westenra - Infected by Dracula, had to die to save her humanity.
Brunhilde - cursed by a god, and had to be saved by Siegfried
Any of those medieval tales about dragons and knight's in shining armor (the origin of the damsel in distress concept, I believe. Hells bell's how I hate those stories...).
And so on.
To me developers are merely suffering from the symptoms of something that has been around for a very, very long time.
On the contrary, every one of those ideas have been expressed, intentionally or otherwise (I try not to assume either way...), in this thread.
Sexism, racism, and other forms of deeply held are pervasive and, yes, insidious. Most of the time, people don't even realize they're doing it. Men almost never realize they're being sexist until it's pointed out to them. Hell, I myself have noticed that I react differently to Blacks than Whites or Hispanics-- not intentionally. I was raised around Whites and Hispanics, and that's what I'm familiar with, so Blacks are (in the strictest sense of the word) intimidating simply for being different. Human nature often draws people in to like groups and to shun diversity, but it's just instinct, and can and should be ignored in this case. Hell, sometimes I have to try to convince myself that not all men are sexist arseholes, and that it's actually worth trying instead of just becoming a bitter misandrist. I try to correct my behavior and treat everyone equally and politely regardless of what my instincts tell me (and they can be loud at times), but I'm not perfect. Neither are you at all perfect.
Stating that there were sexist undertones is not comparable, however to your interpretation of the term "insidious". That is confusion between different cultural backgrounds, neither of which is necessarily wrong.
Cheesecat wrote: Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.
Cheesecat, I appreciate you're trying to help, but at the same time I think you need to understand that criticising women because our "tone" is wrong in some way (too emotional, too harsh, too angry) is a time-honoured way of dismissing our arguments. It's also a really bad standard to hold a discussion on power inequality to, because the side on the receiving end of the inequality, the side who is affected negatively and personally by these issues, may obviously find discussion of them a bit closer to the bone.
I think you could help more by calling out the people who attempt to dismiss others based on their tone being "wrong".
Cheesecat wrote: Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.
Misogyny pisses me off, wherever it is. The idea that men are the default and women are somehow "special" (in the sense of "the special bus") pisses me off. The idea that The idea that I have to cowtow to men and kiss ass just to get them to understand that being sexist is bad involved pisses me off. The idea that it's acceptable to dismiss a woman's argument BECAUSE she's a woman pisses me off. The idea that a woman has to entertain a man for him to pay any attention to her pisses me off.
And all of these ideas have been expressed, intentionally or otherwise, by various posters in this thread.
I understand why it would make you angry but my point is that speaking in a less heated tone might make some of us more agreeable with you (don't worry about me though I generally agree with your arguments it's just my concern is your tone), like when I go into some debates some
posts just completely infuriate me but I try to be still polite to them (although sometimes I can't even do that) and respond why I disagree but then again I don't expect to change their minds and I tend to view arguments as a way of exchanging ideas rather than as winning or losing.
Cheesecat wrote: Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.
Cheesecat, I appreciate you're trying to help, but at the same time I think you need to understand that criticising women because our "tone" is wrong in some way (too emotional, too harsh, too angry) is a time-honoured way of dismissing our arguments. It's also a really bad standard to hold a discussion on power inequality to, because the side on the receiving end of the inequality, the side who is affected negatively and personally by these issues, may obviously find discussion of them a bit closer to the bone.
I think you could help more by calling out the people who attempt to dismiss others based on their tone being "wrong".
I don't disagree with the message I just disagree with how the message was delivered, what I'm saying is when someone's in disagreement it's often easier to convince them when it's done in a more neutral tone rather than a more emotional one. I'm more likely to agree with someone if
they're polite and friendly to me than someone who is bitter towards me.
To repeat myself: I am being polite, Cheesecat. You're dragging the thread off topic, however; the thread is about sexism in the gaming industry in general, and Sarkesian's video discussion of the "Damsel in Distress" trope in specific.
Melissia wrote: On the contrary, every one of those ideas have been expressed, intentionally or otherwise (I try not to assume either way...), in this thread.
You're also insinuating that if I were to start kissing ass that this would change anything, which I would assert is wrong.
You're right if someone is already in disagreement with you then it very unlikely they're going to change their mind anyways as often these are beliefs they've held for a long time, also what do you mean by kissing ass?
One thing I was pleasantly surprised about is the time she spent talking about the idea that the male characters basically have their masculinity under threat and are trying to reclaim it, partly through dominance generally asserted through violence. I thought that segment would've got some traction here.
I was also surprised to find that she didn't really seem to level any criticism at violence at all. I'd expected her to say something critical of it given some of the posts in the thread.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I was pleasantly surprised about is the time she spent talking about the idea that the male characters basically have their masculinity under threat and are trying to reclaim it, partly through dominance generally asserted through violence. I thought that segment would've got some traction here.
I was also surprised to find that she didn't really seem to level any criticism at violence at all. I'd expected her to say something critical of it given some of the posts in the thread.
Yes, I noticed that too. That was a nice analytical point. However, I'd counter that the reason why could simply be due to a strong sense of justice. For example, Arya Stark, female character from the Song of Ice and Fire series of books devotes her life to getting revenge against the Lannisters for the destruction of her family, even go so far as to become an
Spoiler:
assassin for the House of Black and White
I'd argue against the notion that the female characters are merely possessions to them as well. For example, in The Darkness II,
Spoiler:
Jackie Estacado is willing to go to hell and save Jenny from the darkness, effectively damning himself in the process and being trapped in the underworld for all eternity. That's one heck of a sacrifice for a "possession."
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I was pleasantly surprised about is the time she spent talking about the idea that the male characters basically have their masculinity under threat and are trying to reclaim it, partly through dominance generally asserted through violence. I thought that segment would've got some traction here.
I was also surprised to find that she didn't really seem to level any criticism at violence at all. I'd expected her to say something critical of it given some of the posts in the thread.
Yes, I noticed that too. That was a nice analytical point. I'd argue against the notion that the female characters are merely possessions to them however. For example, in The Darkness II,
Spoiler:
Jackie Estacado is willing to go to hell and save Jenny from the darkness, effectively damning himself in the process and being trapped in the underworld for all eternity. That's one heck of a sacrifice for a "possession."
Her argument implies that men are never in a relationship out of love, but to own their partner because they can.
As well, she can't really make the claim that the United States or the "First World" is still really a patriarchy. In the US men and women have equal rights through several constitutional amendments. A significant portion of the work force is now female, so much so that couples are starting families much later in life.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I was pleasantly surprised about is the time she spent talking about the idea that the male characters basically have their masculinity under threat and are trying to reclaim it, partly through dominance generally asserted through violence. I thought that segment would've got some traction here.
I was also surprised to find that she didn't really seem to level any criticism at violence at all. I'd expected her to say something critical of it given some of the posts in the thread.
Yes, I noticed that too. That was a nice analytical point. However, I'd counter that the reason why could simply be due to a strong sense of justice. For example...
The problem I have with that argument is if it was just "a strong sense of justice" then it wouldn't need to be the lover of the main character who was threatened. They would pursue their strong sense of justice in response to that threat to other people, too. Also, if it was not related to masculinity you would presumably see the trope applying the other way around, where a female main character goes to rescue her boyfriend. That's extremely rare, though, even in games with a female main character.
Also, I think it's worth noting that since art is subjective you can take multiple messages from it, even at the same time. Many overlapping interpretations can be valid.
It's also good to keep in mind that these messages don't have to be deliberately placed in the story (and when it comes to a story, very few authors will be thinking "I want to make something sexist"). A lot of them are just so prevalent in our cultures that even the authors don't necessarily know they're there. That's important - Sarkeesian isn't accusing anyone of deliberately plotting against women.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I was pleasantly surprised about is the time she spent talking about the idea that the male characters basically have their masculinity under threat and are trying to reclaim it, partly through dominance generally asserted through violence. I thought that segment would've got some traction here.
I was also surprised to find that she didn't really seem to level any criticism at violence at all. I'd expected her to say something critical of it given some of the posts in the thread.
Yes, I noticed that too. That was a nice analytical point. However, I'd counter that the reason why could simply be due to a strong sense of justice. For example...
The problem I have with that argument is if it was just "a strong sense of justice" then it wouldn't need to be the lover of the main character who was threatened. They would pursue their strong sense of justice in response to that threat to other people, too. Also, if it was not related to masculinity you would presumably see the trope applying the other way around, where a female main character goes to rescue her boyfriend. That's extremely rare, though, even in games with a female main character.
Doesn't Lollipop Chainsaw have a female protagonist who saves her boyfriend? Or did I just open something I shouldn't have? But yes, you do have a point.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Doesn't Lollipop Chainsaw have a female protagonist who saves her boyfriend? Or did I just open something I shouldn't have?
But yes, you do have a point.
I believe it also has an achievement for looking up the main character's skirt
(disclaimer; I have not played the game)
I haven't played Lollipop Chainsaw, so I can't tell you.
Remember that none of these themes means the game is bad or wrong or anything like that. Really, there's a ton of art in our culture. It's the aggregate that's the problem. And yes, most or all of the problematic themes/tropes in video games exist in other parts of our culture.
The positive effect of discussion like this is it can cause people to question those tropes instead of taking them for granted, and even avoid or subvert them in their own art. All that is the goal. It's not about judging anything or anyone.
That was a pretty good video, liked the points it brought about...a bit shocked at some of the reactions the speaker has invoked in people though, slightly disturbing in some cases. Bonus points for the use of a Persona 4 Arena clip in the video, that game is awesome.
Her delivery is poor, especially for someone who has done quite a lot of projects similar to this.
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.
She's far from monotone and I suspect if you had a man there speaking in such measured but unvarying tones there wouldn't be a peep of criticism, especially since that criticism seems to usually be explicitly designed to avoid discussing the content.
I can only speak for myself, but for myself, this is not true. I think it's an OK series, I watched all of it, as with the previous ones, and I think she's doing a workmanlike job. So far as the a man being immune from being criticized for poor presentation and delivery, I invite you to look at Darrell's failed Kickstarter from Beasts of War. If you don't want to read 4 pages of that, he was roundly savaged, mostly for his poor production and delivery and being "boring".
I mean, you're saying she's "far from monotone" but then saying "if you had a man there speaking in such measured bur unvarying tones" - I mean, that is what monotone means. So it sounds like you sort of agree with me. Anyway, I felt her delivery was passionless and clinical, and it's weird because obviously someone who takes the time to launch such a concept and make it happen has some passion for their project. Maybe she doesn't want to be seen as shrill if she gets excited.
I watched all of this video, and all of the last one. I don't watch wargaming videos of any kind and rarely stuff like this so I guess she's doing better than most as far as I go. She taught me in that previous video what "objectified" actually means (not my fuzzy sort-of definition as previous to watching it), and explained in cogent terms why it's equally bad for men, so she's got that going as well.
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
No, it doesn't. It's just a wrong statement that's been proven wrong by science for similar topics such as violence in TV and video games. The only case where this *could* apply (and note the "could" as we do not have significiant results yet) is when people are already very prone to having such an attitude.
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
No, it doesn't. It's just a wrong statement that's been proven wrong by science for similar topics such as violence in TV and video games. The only case where this *could* apply (and note the "could" as we do not have significiant results yet) is when people are already very prone to having such an attitude.
Doesn't it help perpetuate that form of social conditioning though? Not saying it will, just putting that theory forward.
Do this enough times, and at the back of someone's mind it starts making connections to "Womans, always need savins."
No, it doesn't. It's just a wrong statement that's been proven wrong by science for similar topics such as violence in TV and video games. The only case where this *could* apply (and note the "could" as we do not have significiant results yet) is when people are already very prone to having such an attitude.
Doesn't it help perpetuate that form of social conditioning though? Not saying it will, just putting that theory forward.
Yes, and that is a very important point. While Anita makes a wrong direct relation between video game characters / treatment of women, she isn't all wrong about it. She just tackles the issue from the wrong side. In my previous post, I showed how a good web series on the matter would be structured and such a structure would allow showing up the actual, potential, relations between video games and real life behavior. A simple game of mind shows what I speak of:
The thesis "Sexism in video games leads to sexism in real life!" is very polemic and sounds reasonable at first sight as "learning by model" is the learning model most people are familiar with. We all have been going through this step when we were babies...it's how we learn to speak (among other things). Thus such a simple Stimulus -> Response theory is easy to understand...and sells well. Now, let's turn it around. How does "No sexism in video games leads to no sexism in real life!" sound to you?
The truth is: it's somewhere in between. And that's a truth most people do not like. It's no "right" or "wrong", it means that if you want to get to the bottom of it, you need to really invest time and effort in the issue. And it doesn't sell as well. I am not specifically referring to Anita again, this refers to all media. If you regularly follow news in newspapers and TV, what thesis is more likely to appear on the news? "Video games make our children become killers!" or "Video games help developing social skills!" (they do, in special situations, with a significant value, but that's another issue). Bad news sell better than good ones and bad ones stick to our mind a lot better than good ones. People like to complain about stuff because it solidifies our personality by projecting fears etc. at peers (among others). But again, different issue. It's just that all these things are deeply connected to each other and make this a very interesting, but complex topic...that cannot be treated seriously by an extemely biased web series. Would you rely on Fox News if you want to know about the democrats' new political direction?
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. As stated above, making a direct relation to real sexism is wrong. The main actual point is that video games are mass media by now, similar to TV, the computer and the internet. They are a solid part of our culture and thus also reflect its attitudes etc.
"Yes, and they are sexist because we are sexist!"
...could be a direct conclusion one could make now. And again: short circuit thinking and wrong. Just like all mass media, video games aren't one big chunk of games. They have a lot of different genres, same as TV shows. And just as TV shows, they have different audiences. Most games that Anita presented were action-ish games...games that are, by a long shot, favored by men...cue in what I said in my previous post. Anita completely ignores the economical part of the entire issue. She mainly comes from her, excuse me, typically idealistic feminist background and ignores the main reason for why we have such things in video games: money. Damsel in Distress is, in the Western culture, one of the most famous archetypes in all media, be it literature, movies, video games etc. Would you consider classic Greek dramas sexist? And on top of that, you got male brains coded to protect women (VERY rough, but again, another huge issue). Simple story device that helps you selling games to your main target audience? Any company / author would be foolish to not use it. It's the easy way out. Catering to women is a lot more difficult. A lot of women liked Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect...because of, according to them, the complex characters and well-written story. Men liked it for...the complex characters and well-written story (with a bigger focus on the latter). It has a huge story. Well-thought out (NOT talking about the piece of crap that was Dragon Age 2) and detailed. Compare it to games like DMC or most other games Anita presented: simple, linear story. Save the girl. Women are less attracted to it, but men are satisfied with such a simple explanation. The game sells, mission done with minimal effort. Instead of writing hours and hours and hours on a story, you use the most simple script you can think of. If it sells well, it does well and will continue to do so.
Now, back to your initial question, and sorry for the long windup, but I wanted to give a more in-depth view on it from a more rational perspective:
Video games reinforce certain stereotypes children / people already know from their own socialisation / different media. They, however, are not responsible for it. Plus, if we take the results from video game violence, we also see that the actual effect is pretty small and not significant. (excluding a certain "risk group". There are other, a lot more important, factors to consider if we want to know about potential influence factors.
If Anita was really interested in the issue, she'd get in contact with gaming studios and help designing her own vision of a strong-female fronted video game, e.g. via Kickstarter. She would use the money to start some studies on the matter, to see if there truly is a problem or if there aren't. Her explanations might sound reasonable to some people, but without empirical evidence to back it up, they are...completely worthless.
Phew, hoped that shed some light on the issue from a different perspective =)
