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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not pissed off.

It's how you come off to me.

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".

 Melissia wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not pissed off.

It's how you come off to me.

I apologize then. Anger was not what I felt.

 Melissia wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not pissed off.

It's how you come off to me.

Maybe it's best that you two agree to disagree on that point and get back to discussing the video and it's content.

 Melissia wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not pissed off.

It's how you come off to me.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Of course, but implication is everything.

You're intentionally reading implication that she specifically said wasn't there.

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.

Speaking of seeing things that aren't there...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 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."

 Slarg232 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Speaking of seeing things that aren't there...

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".

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

I am being polite.

I will not, however, start kissing ass-- instead I prefer to try to be as honest as possible.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 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.

The thread is not about me.

 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.

Where?

I will PM you, because I don't relaly want to drag this further off topic.

 Melissia wrote:


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

I'd argue against the notion that the female characters are merely possessions to them as well. For example, in The Darkness II,

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

 DoctorZombie wrote:
Her argument implies that men are never in a relationship out of love

No it doesn't. It implies that there are some very uncomfortable undertones in the way that love is being presented.

Love can be creepy when it is done wrong.

 Melissia wrote:

 DoctorZombie wrote:
Her argument implies that men are never in a relationship out of love

No it doesn't. It implies that there are some very uncomfortable undertones in the way that love is being presented.

Love can be creepy when it is done wrong.

Yes. There are whole horror novels dedicated to that.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

Lolipop chainsaw has both good and bad aspects to it. I'll leave it at that.

 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)

It's a parody of cheap b-movie zombie exploitation flicks.

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.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
stuff[

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.