Tropes vs. Women Episode 1: Damsel In Distress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lynata**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:By only publishing the worst of the worst she may be giving a false narrative and distorting the opposing viewpoint i.e. that anyone who disagrees with her can only result to vicious personal attacks on her, threats, etc. and she is removing any reasonable middle ground to further polarise the debate.

I'm not sure if this is a matter of skewed perception or scepticism on your part, but she did not "publish the worst", she published an unedited random screenshot to showcase the amount and nature of abuse directed at her.
I also thought that this would be the framework you were referring to, but I guess I misunderstood.

And judging from the screenshot, her detractors pretty much framed themselves.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Anita Sarkeesian choose her venue freely, she could have used any number of reliable hosting sites and made the videos available through her site. Instead she choose youtube knowing full well the limitations of that platform.

I would presume she chose youtube because it is the single-most popular video hosting site on the 'web, and thus the best way to reach maximum audience. Since it is informing/presenting that is her goal, this obviously takes precedence.

I think you're just trying to find something, anything to criticise because deep down you don't agree with the message. Why not discuss the message, then?

As for why she gets more abuse than others, personally I would suspect this has to do with her popularity. Other messages like hers just are not as well known, and thus less visited by those people who would leave negative comments.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:For someone who is trying to bring about systemic change through her videos it seems ironic, if not outright hypocritical, that she is a part of the system and the culture that she wished to change.

I think you're seeing more than there is to it - apparently interpreting criticism on male supremacy as an attack on all males.
I did not see any of her other videos, but I did not get that vibe from the one posted by OP at all.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:So if there is no evidence of sexism at all then how do we combat it if it is just a feeling? How do we know were to effectively target or make changes to social norms, mores and rules? Lines may be drawn individually but collecting and correlating them expose areas where work needs done and efforts focused.
Discrimination starts when two people who are more or less identical are treated differently because of some difference i.e. hiring between two people with identical experience and education. However in some cases people have no issue with discrimination when it favours them.

Indeed. If society truly wants equality, it should actually be rather easy to fight sexism simply because one only needs to point out differences and trends. Kind of like that video.
What I was referring to was more referring to how some people won't acknowledge the differences as being wrong or where they originate from, even where they are obvious to exist.

MetalOxide wrote:Also any guys find this offensive, or is it 'funny' because sexism towards men is a joke/does not exist? I for one find it sexist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKA2HrQL1n4

*watches video description* -> "if the sexes were reversed in this ad contemporary feminists would jump out of their pants to make another case of misogyny in our culture."
*watches video title* -> "misandric commercial"

Uh-huh...

What I'm taking away from reading all those comments in that video, as well as in this thread, is that apparently a whole lot of people do not actually perceive that there might be an issue in society, and then automatically jump into a defensive mode because they feel themselves unjustly attacked.
It's kind of sad how this detracts from the actual problem. Women shouldn't lump all men together into a single group just because some (or even a lot, depending on where you draw the line) are sexist. And men shouldn't throw themselves into a single group just because they alone don't feel they are not being sexist either. This is about individuals and how their opinions are shaped by the media.

In an ideal world, society would stand together to identify and oppose anyone who discriminates based on gender, skin colour, religion, nationality or party lines - regardless of their own affiliation. Unfortunately, human psychology results in favouring the creation of groups of uniform individuals, a holdover from our evolution. And that's why we are here now.

**Soladrin**

So, if theres more strong women in video games, does that mean we don't have to take the bill at restaurants anymore?

Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.

Also, if you want to blame something for all the misogyny and inequality between genders, blame the fething church. That's the thing that's kept this whole thing going in the first place.

**purplefood**

Soladrin wrote:

Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.

Not all but a hell of a lot...

**Madcat87**

purplefood wrote:
Soladrin wrote:

Also, is it just me or are almost all men in games also actually displayed like sex symbols? (burly, muscly men, often bare chested etc.). The only difference is, men don't give a gak.

Not all but a hell of a lot...

I'm sure it's been said at least once or twice now in this thread but those sexualised men in games is FOR straight men

**Monster Rain**

I've been hearing about this bit for quite some time now. So long, in fact, that I was surprised that this thing has only just now been released.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Melissia wrote:
The gaming culture, 40k included, is quite hostile to women.

Simply taking that as true, Anita Sarkeesian is not the person anyone should be looking to for advancing feminism. She's kind of an idiot. The video in the OP seems to be her least opinionated and highest quality work which really isn't saying much because it's not really worth the time it takes to watch. She's catching flak because she fits the mold of the stereotypical femnazi and now she's been thrown into the viral level of popularity cause she got paid $150000 to basically keep being that stereotype.

Yep.

She's been trololololing the internet for ages with this. It was an interesting social experiment, but for all the wrong reasons.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Soladrin wrote:
So, if theres more strong women in video games, does that mean we don't have to take the bill at restaurants anymore?
.

You mean you still take the bill? My girlfriend picks up the tab all the time.

**Ouze**

MetalOxide wrote:
Also I'm pretty sure that some of her male supporters are like this...

Please. I could care less about this woman, who I've never met and until yesterday only vaguely aware of her existence.

I'm offended by the idea that it's my natural reaction to send someone death threats, rape threats, and pornographic images because I have no control over myself if I'm "incited" by some woman somehow. I'm not a mindless brute with no control over my own reactions. When you guys hand-wave away some of stuff that's happened, it not only hurts her, it also cheapens us.

To put it differently, you guys who are saying she used to gaming community to raise a bunch of money should consider the fact that the gaming community's base, neanderthalic reactions were so predictable and disgusting to non-members that she was so easily able to milk the like the disgusting dupes that many proved themselves to be. It doesn't matter what she did with all those horrible comments after they happened, it matters that they happened to begin with. I guess that makes me a virgin white knight though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:
So, if theres more strong women in video games, does that mean we don't have to take the bill at restaurants anymore?

When my wife and I eat out, we usually pay depending on who's got more free cash at the time

**Sir Pseudonymous**

Ouze wrote:

I'm offended by the idea that it's my natural reaction to send someone death threats, rape threats, and pornographic images because I have no control over myself if I'm "incited" by some woman somehow. I'm not a mindless brute with no control over my own reactions. When you guys hand-wave away some of stuff that's happened, it not only hurts her, it also cheapens us.

To put it differently, you guys who are saying she used to gaming community to raise a bunch of money should consider the fact that the gaming community's base, neanderthalic reactions were so predictable and disgusting to non-members that she was so easily able to milk the like the disgusting dupes that many proved themselves to be. It doesn't matter what she did with all those horrible comments after they happened, it matters that they happened to begin with. I guess that makes me a virgin white knight though.

You're talking about the actions of a small minority noted for reacting to just about everything with vitriol and death threats. Why should anyone reasonable care about their gibberings in the slightest? They're not indicative of society, nor are they indicative of gamers. I'd even hazard that many of them are only adding their voices in to be part of the mob, because it's all just a big joke from where they're sitting. So ultimately, they're neither participants in the debate nor conclusively representative of their own beliefs, just white noise.

**Monster Rain**

ITT people pretend that the person in the video in the OP was singled out in some unique manner for abuse on the internet based on her sex.

I'll just let that sink in for a moment.

**Ouze**

ITT, people are oblivious to the fact that if a man posts something unpopular, he's unlikely to get threats to rape him.

I'll just let that sink in for a second.

**Monster Rain**

Ouze wrote:
ITT, people are oblivious to the fact that if a man posts something unpopular, he's unlikely to get threats to rape him.

I'll just let that sink in for a second.

First of all, I disagree.

You've never read any of Bieber's hate mail, have you?

Also, the content of said abuse is less relevant. Public figures, for whatever reason, get maximum vitriol on the internet. You know this. In addition, that was ironic use of a trope there given the thread title. Which leads to my next point:

Making her seem like the victim and mounting a steed in order to defend her honor seems to be a real-life example of the trope defined in the video in question. As someone who isn't going to do that, I say, even though I disagree with nearly every conclusion she draws, "feth 'em, Anita. Haters gonna hate."

**Ouze**

Monster Rain wrote:
You've never read any of Bieber's hate mail, have you?

I said unlikely, not impossible. Are you saying that you think anonymous threats against male and female public figures are equally likely to contain threats of rape?

Monster Rain wrote:
Also, the content of said abuse is less relevant. P

The content of the abuse is only irrelevant if you contend, as you do, that, that she wasn't singled out for abuse in some unique manner due to her sex. I think that's the literal definition of "unique", and I disagree with you.

I've already explained why motivations aren't what you claim they are. You may continue to ignore what I actually said in favor of what you'd prefer to pretend I said, but that's pretty intellectually dishonest. But, you know, whatever works for you.

**Soladrin**

Aaand no one seems to understand a joke when they see one.

**Ouze**

Ninja'd!

**Soladrin**

Also, these just showed up on my twitter feed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4&feature=youtu.be <video she deleted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpodGi3y_V0&feature=youtu.be and that.>

**BrookM**

In some ways she reminds me of Jack Thompson or however you spell it. Let's just fling stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Sorry lady, but you're not gamer enough to tackle the subject properly.

Or is that too offensive?

**Amaya**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4&feature=youtu.be

Ignoring what she gets wrong about the actual game, where was she wrong?

1) Bayonetta does go into pornographic poses.
2) She does strip naked in order to go SSJ.
3) There was an ad campaign that involved stripping her down.

All of that is bad. Why can't you make a female character that isn't overly sexualized? This isn't just a case of, oh, X character is curvacious and has a pretty face, no, the entire game is fanservice to an extreme. It reminds me of Witchblade and the fanboy cries of "Well she's a powerful independent character!" How does that justify her being stripped down to near nothing constantly?

**LordofHats**

Only as an explanation I think she took that video down after negative reactions to it not because of what she says about Bayonetta, but because of her comment about women only trains where people started accusing her of supporting segregation of men and women (or at least that's the only reason I can see for her to take it down).

She probably took flak for commenting on stereotypes about Japanese culture too cause there's a lot of overlap in Gamers and Anime fans and she does present a incorrect and oversimplified presentation of Japan's problems with sexism (you want messed up gender relations, look no further). EDIT: And then applying those problems as though they're true for the US as well.

**Monster Rain**

Ouze wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
You've never read any of Bieber's hate mail, have you?

I said unlikely, not impossible. Are you saying that you think anonymous threats against male and female public figures are equally likely to contain threats of rape?

Monster Rain wrote:
Also, the content of said abuse is less relevant. P

The content of the abuse is only irrelevant if you contend, as you do, that, that she wasn't singled out for abuse in some unique manner due to her sex. I think that's the literal definition of "unique", and I disagree with you.

I've already explained why motivations aren't what you claim they are. You may continue to ignore what I actually said in favor of what you'd prefer to pretend I said, but that's pretty intellectually dishonest. But, you know, whatever works for you.

The litanies of hate from the internet vary from when the target is male or female. You'll note that her penis size or other male-oriented insults weren't used. The content of the net hate was such as it was because she happened to be female, not because of it. You seem to think that rape is the worst thing to threaten someone with, when there are public figures that deal with death threats on a daily basis.

You seem really emotional about this, so I'm not sure trying to have an objective discussion with you on this topic is worthwhile.

**Boggy Man**

There's no more wretched hive of scum and villainy that YT comments. I set up my adblock to weed it out years ago.

I've seen the same type of comments on cartoon shows, old songs, tv reruns... is it really indicative of anything other than "give trolls free reign and all you'll have on your site are trolls"?

**Ouze**

Monster Rain wrote:
The litanies of hate from the internet vary from when the target is male or female.

You should start a debate with Monster Rain from earlier in the thread. He was saying the exact opposite of you, specifically, "people pretend that the person in the video in the OP was singled out in some unique manner for abuse on the internet based on her sex. " Pretty funny, huh?

Monster Rain wrote:
The content of the net hate was such as it was because she happened to be female, not because of it.

Monster Rain wrote:
You seem to think that rape is the worst thing to threaten someone with, when there are public figures that deal with death threats on a daily basis.

I didn't actually say that (but have fun whaling on that strawman!). I think death threats are worse, which of course she also got in plentiful supply. Let me try and recap where we are here; Monster Rain #1 pointed out that women don't get harassed in a unique manner. I pointed out that was not really true, and then Monster Rain #2 kind of made my argument for me. I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore, since we have kind of a Schrodinger's Cat kind of situation now,

Monster Rain wrote:
You seem really emotional about this

Well, after reading your post, I am feeling an emotion, but it's mostly derision.

**Amaya**

Monster Rain wrote:

The content of the net hate was such as it was because she happened to be female, not because of it. .

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but you really failed at making a coherent point.

I'm assuming you meant that she received certain insults because she is female. She was not simply insulted because of her gender.

**Fafnir**

Amaya wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4&feature=youtu.be

Ignoring what she gets wrong about the actual game, where was she wrong?

1) Bayonetta does go into pornographic poses.
2) She does strip naked in order to go SSJ.
3) There was an ad campaign that involved stripping her down.

All of that is bad. Why can't you make a female character that isn't overly sexualized? This isn't just a case of, oh, X character is curvacious and has a pretty face, no, the entire game is fanservice to an extreme. It reminds me of Witchblade and the fanboy cries of "Well she's a powerful independent character!" How does that justify her being stripped down to near nothing constantly?

The thing that's important to note in Bayonetta's character is the attitude she portrays. She's not being sexualized so much as she's embodying and owning her own sexuality. And considering the completely over-the-top nature of the game and the world it takes place in, this absolutely fits.

I think Bob Chapman (Game Overthinker) summed it up perfectly with this statement:

She wants it all right, she’s just pretty doubtful that you’re the one who’s going to deliver is what that basically says. And there you have it, the first videogame woman who’s been successfully and unashamedly built to not just be sexy, to not just be strong, but be sexually intimidating

The key thing that has to be kept in mind is whether the character is being portrayed as a sexual object, or whether that sexuality is just an aspect of the character. And despite the overt nature of her sexuality, it's only an aspect of Bayonetta.

I'll quote part of an essay I wrote on the game, since despite the somewhat unpolished nature of the paper itself, I feel it covers the points decently:

Bayonetta oozes sexuality, but she does so in a way that does not betray her status as a woman or depth as a character. There have been other characters who have plenty of sex appeal, but they’re rarely little more than sex symbols to be consumed. Most games tend to have their female characters represented in one of two ways: as either generally passive individuals who are vulnerable and approachable, or as cold and impersonal, with not much in the way of human characteristics. Essentially, female characters that are feminine are either vulnerable because of it (their femininity) and present the idea that they are attainable, or they are unattainable but un-wanting, essentially holding their sexuality at arms’ length, portraying the image of sexuality without actually conveying the ideals behind it. They’re unattainable to the audience, but only because they’re essentially asexual (sure, she wears hooker-boots and a string bikini into battle, but no one seems to bat an eye for some strange reason…). Bayonetta turns this concept on its head. She puts her sexuality on full display, almost every aspect of her design and movement is made to flaunt the fact that she acknowledges her sexuality. She’s certainly not very vulnerable either. Rather, she’s a very dominant figure. This is reflected in not just the interactions between characters (mainly between Bayonetta and Luka), but also in the way she moves in the game. Her movements may be careless and erotic, but they are also very refined and precise. She is a character that is always in control of her body and those around her. Many of her special attacks involve the use of torture instruments, which (kinky inferences aside) also imply a sense of dominance about her character. Even her character design helps to reaffirm this. In addition to the abundance of black, a naturally intimidating and dominant colour, in her design, her proportions, (which, according to Kenichiro Yoshimura “I have looked at many foreign models for reference in my line of work, and there are people actually proportioned like Bayonetta.”) also emphasize this aspect of dominance. Simply put, she’s tall, and her height is another aspect that she uses to assume a dominant presence throughout most of the game.

Bayonetta as a character goes way beyond a BDSM inspired satire of video-game over-the-top qualities (although she does that too), the notions of control that she inspires are one thing, but also the fact that she exemplifies a character who is shown to be sexually wanting, but also with high enough standards and an incredibly dominating presence allow her to make the audience feel sexually intimidated by her. She has the confidence, control and power that most female videogame characters that are sexually approachable lack.

While Bayonetta represents feminine empowerment through sexual dominance (done right), it’s not a template that can be used to great effect in most games without breaking the sense of disbelief irreversibly. She’s an over-the-top character in an over-the-top world. Representing the ideals of femininity and sexuality in games becomes a fair bit harder when trying to make characters that try to exist on more ‘realistic’ grounds.

**Formosa**

Game of thrones has a perfect example of a bad ass woman, not sexualized.. Who gives a crap she will kick ass, she also isn't (something that you personally cannot stand) a 100lb 5'1" super ninja one punching 230lb 6'5" dudes all over the place, I want more woman in movies and games like her and less black widow (avengers) less Charlie's angels, less total crap like those.

**Cheesecat**

I don't see what's wrong with having female characters being pure fan service, but it would be nice to see media in general (not just video games) make a stronger effort to deviate from gender stereotypes and/or make more realistic and believable characters.

**Slarg232**

LordofHats wrote:

Go look at the comments on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GISjqP6fpw

Here you have a girl making a video about stereotypes directed. There are more than a few insulting comments. And yet, she's receiving nothing comparable to what is being directed at Anita.

I did.

And then I posted on it.

And noticed that she APPROVES of all the comments on her video.

**Ouze**

Formosa wrote:
Game of thrones has a perfect example of a bad ass woman, not sexualized..

Are you talking about Brienne? Because yeah, she's pretty awesome.

**Compel**

I thought he was talking about Arya...

**Ouze**

Also pretty awesome.

**Formosa**

Both pretty awesome I agree, but yes brienne.

The casting for that show us spot on.