Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beat Bandit]

As a plot device

that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.

So because when explaining what a damsel is without going further into her personal views means when she does later they don't count? Got it.

because as she keeps saying: the Damsel in Distress trope trades one character's competence and agency for the sake of another character's arc.

Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45

So it doesn't override it, it just gets rid of it for something else. Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

You just tried to draw an equivalence between Damsels in Distress and Dudes in Distress. But let's pretend that there weren't mountains more examples of Damsel in Distress than Dudes in Distress and pretend that this wasn't a huge point of the entire video series.

As a plot device

And this plot device is a boring and overused one that we should get away from... unless you genderswap in which case it's original. Got it.

Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.

Your family is not special.

She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.

Hell, I don't need to when you do for me.

[Brentai]

You're going to make me look very gullible, aren't you?

[A²]

Just confine the whole fucking mess to Guild Hall. It can't get any more fucking stupid in there.

[A²]

Note that I am calling this entire discussion stupid, in the sense that seeing a bunch of men flail around and try to discuss women's issues, and both sides do it poorly enough to be embarassing, is stupid.

I am not calling individual people stupid.

I clarify this, because I believe this discussion is, in fact, so stupid, someone would think I'm insulting them directly.

In which case, I will call you stupid.

[Brentai]

Not that I disagree, but we're gonna need something more than "stupid".

[Classic]

Beat, you're being a shit. I am going to try really hard to respond without being a shit in kind, but I am not making any promises.

As a plot device

that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.

So because when explaining what a damsel is without going further into her personal views means when she does later they don't count? Got it.

Wrong. Because she contradicts your characterization of her argument at about 3:11 in part 2, which I've told you before:

She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33 in part 2, and again at 3:11,

which is a reiteration of things she said in part 1:

Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45

because as she keeps saying: the Damsel in Distress trope trades one character's competence and agency for the sake of another character's arc.

Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45

So it doesn't override it, it just gets rid of it for something else. Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

You don't seem to understand the language that's being used here. "Agency" refers to a character's ability for their decisions to meaningfully impact the plot. Sarkeesian's definition of being DiD'd requires that the character not effect their own rescue, requiring another character to do it. When the narrative focuses on the rescue of the DiD'd character by the actions of another character, yes, the DiD is having their agency sacrificed (possibly temporarily) for the sake of another character's story arc. Positive traits associated with agency are diminished directly (here "traded" does not mean replaced, because these traits are matters of degree and something I don't think either of us want to force a crude binary upon. i.e. a character is not competent or incompetent, but has competency somewhere along a continuum of ability, or as something described relative to other characters in the story) and positive traits not associated with agency have less opportunity to be explored or be relevant when the narrative is spending the bulk of its time on the journey of an external rescuer character and not the DiD themselves.

e.g. Super Joe, however awesome he might be, is evidently less awesome than Radd/Rad/Ladd Spencer, who manages to effect Super Joe's rescue and complete Joe's mission. This example chosen specifically for having the gender politics portion of the problem removed.

You just tried to draw an equivalence between Damsels in Distress and Dudes in Distress. But let's pretend that there weren't mountains more examples of Damsel in Distress than Dudes in Distress and pretend that this wasn't a huge point of the entire video series.

As a plot device

And this plot device is a boring and overused one that we should get away from... unless you genderswap in which case it's original. Got it.

Sarkeesian is not complaining that it is boring. She's complaining that DiD reinforces regressive gender stereotypes.

Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.

Your family is not special.

I have no idea why you're quoting Friday at me as though her assertions change the content of what's being brought up, nor do I think "romantic interests" intersect with "family" for the purposes of this discussion.

She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.

Hell, I don't need to when you do for me.

Beats, everything you've complained about has been you either completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you or completely misunderstanding the positions laid out in the two Tropes Vs. Women in Videogames videos that have been made so far. Your "contradictions" are your own preconceptions and obstinate ignorance refusing to yield to someone trying to inform you.

[Büge]

Cymbal Head on NeoGAF actually wrote a helpful post to cover common objections to these Tropes vs. Women videos.

Objection: The video doesn't do enough to explain why the trope is harmful.

It’s out of the scope of this video to give a complete account and justification of feminist theory. It presupposes the principles of feminism, then deconstructs video games from that perspective. Perhaps she should have made a “Feminism 101” introductory video before starting the series proper, but there are plenty of other places to learn about such things.

Objection: She just points out a problem without offering solutions.

For many viewers who have never thought much about sexism in games, simply pointing out the problem may be a necessary first step. There’s an infinite number of conceivable ways to avoid using the trope, and she has no duty to enumerate them.

Objection: Too much of the video consists of a string of examples without analysis. Related objection: She shouldn’t criticize remakes for staying true to their source material.

Part of the argument (and indeed of feminist criticism in general) is that disempowering tropes accrete their influence via ubiquity. Giving a lot of examples serves to establish the ubiquity of the damsel in distress trope in video games. Remakes of games using the trope establish this as well. Yes, she could deconstruct each example individually, but that would make the video impractically long, and she’d be repeating herself for most of it.

Objection: Most games don’t employ this trope out of a deliberate sexism, it’s just lazy writing.

This is likely true. Now, perhaps it is worth examining why “save the helpless woman” is what people reach for when they want a lazy scenario, and why that might indicate (and perpetuate) harmful attitudes about women in society.

Objection: This youtube video is not a scholarly thesis.

You are correct, and it was never claimed as such, so your objection doesn't do anything useful for the conversation.

Objection: Disabling the comments on youtube is evidence that she isn’t interested in having a legitimate dialogue.

Disabling the comments on youtube is evidence that she doesn’t want to be harassed. And despite the comments being off, there seems to be quite a bit of discussion going on elsewhere. For example, on GAF.

Objection: The claim that sexism in video games leads to sexism in real life is analogous to the claim that violence in video games leads to violence in real life.

This misrepresents the nature of feminist criticism. It’s not a direct 1:1 causal relationship that is being argued, but the insidious and pernicious influence that popular culture has on people’s attitudes. A better analogy would be that violent video games create and perpetuate a society that is more tolerant of violence (say, as a solution to geopolitical problems).

Objection: These examples are taken mostly from decades-old games.

She promised a treatment of more recent games in the next episode. Let’s wait for it to come out before objecting on these grounds.

Objection: The video doesn't consider any games that subvert, break, or intentionally employ the trope as commentary.

She promised to do this in the next video. Let’s wait for it to come out before criticizing her on those grounds.

[A²]

Not that I disagree, but we're gonna need something more than "stupid".

We've already hit name calling and passive aggressive insulting in record time, and going by the track record of the last discussion, no one's opinion is changing on anything. At the end of the day, nothing will happen, no one's opinions will change, and Anita Sarkeesan will still have awful fashion sense.

Smother the entire thing in it's crib and wait a year or two for the 8th or 9th video to see if we've matured enough, or ran out the shitty parts of the discussion to have a decent discussion on it.

[Thad]

Speaking of tropes, I've come to realize over the years that if someone on the Internet responds to a comment with a sentence beginning with "So" or ending in "Got it", there is close to 100% probability that sentence is a strawman.

So

Got it.

So

Got it.

Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

Got it.

[Beat Bandit]

[Disposable Ninja]

If being in a fridge was good enough for Indiana Jones, I don't know why they aren't good enough for anyone else.

Hell, the best way to keep the girl from dying in Heavy Rain was to stuff her ass in the fridge.

[Brentai]

So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

[Bal]

I disagree with her mostly with regards to some of the examples she chooses and her apparent inability to keep certain facts straight (neither of which invalidate her broader point, obviously), but I am still wondering where that 150k went. Because it's not video quality, quantity, or fact checking.

[Büge]

So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

I'd ask myself "is it absolutely necessary that I use this plot device?"

[Bongo Bill]

So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

Do your best to be aware of the implications of that decision, giving due consideration in particular to the ones you don't intend. (Some sensitivity to logically invalid implications that are likely to be incorrectly perceived nevertheless would also be prudent.) Alter them creatively until you're comfortable releasing a product which makes or implicitly supports those assertions.

[Royal☭]

So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

This whole question becomes quite a conundrum. If you're cognizant of your story and the creative process enough to be aware of this plot point and its meanings, then it seems unlikely that you wouldn't be sophisticated and intelligent enough to do something else.

If you're intelligent and self-aware enough to realize this plot point is a problem, then you'd probably be creative enough to either ditch it, flip it or find something intelligent to say with it.

[Brentai]

Thinking that way.  My new problem is that I see a way to just sidestep the whole scenario, but I don't want to do it because I don't want to capitulate to what feels like browbeating.  That's my actual instinct, I'm not just trying to start up a new fight.

I'm not altogether sure I would have done it if I had thought of it before, either, because at the end of the day I like damsel in distress scenarios.  It's a guilty pleasure, like, well, killing things in video games, and a bunch of other shit people really shouldn't be encouraging.

[Royal☭]

I disagree with her mostly with regards to some of the examples she chooses and her apparent inability to keep certain facts straight (neither of which invalidate her broader point, obviously), but I am still wondering where that 150k went. Because it's not video quality, quantity, or fact checking.

I hear the "Where did the money go" complaint a lot and it seems rather petty. Mostly because she asked for $6,000, got way more because the trolls brought attention to her, and did you actually back it? Let's be realistic, she asked for a fairly modest sum for what was originally 5 videos probably at her regular Feminist Frequency length, around 7 minutes. Unless you personally gave her $150k to make these videos, it's kind of low to keep bitching about it. With that said, let's do (highly assuming) maths!

First off, her original proposal on the Kickstarter called for 12 videos, the first of which would be the only one dealing with Damsels in Distress. It's now obvious that this subject actually covers three videos, which would push the numbers of videos up to 15. The first video took 9 months to get here. The second video took 2 months. If we assume the two months is closer to the schedule, that means the video series will take an additional 28 months to complete. So, 9 + 28 = 37 months, or about 3 years. So roughly $50k a year. Which would seem great if she just lived off that, wouldn't it?

Now, let's try breaking it down per video. If we accept the 15 video conceit, then that's about $10k per video. The two videos released average at about 24 minutes per video. And that's just the edited video. Who knows how many hours of work go into the pre-production of making a video. Plus, she's paying for a producer, who I would guess is the guy filming, lighting and editing, so every hour of work this guy gets paid. And if he's a decent producer, he's not doing it for cheap. Add to that the cost she's sending out for video effects by a video production company called Black Math. She could easily be spending a lot on just those two production values alone.

And all of that is before you get into her creating classroom curriculum, filling out Kickstarter rewards, money spent towards lights, a camera and all the game consoles and games necessary to actually study the medium. Making videos ain't cheap. Especially when they start breaking the 20 minute mark. There's a lot of popular video blogs on YouTube that average at about 10 minutes, and they can't be the quality they are without a team of people and sponsorships. Keep in mind, I have no direct info, and can only estimate based upon the information available on her Kickstarer page, but it seems unlikely that she's just wasting the money on blow or whatever and instead has probably put it towards making this video series for the next 2 years of her life.

[Bal]

I don't think she's wasting the money, I just think she doesn't know how to use it effectively. It's very likely more than she's ever had at one time, and spending money well is harder than it sounds. However, person sitting with picture in picture is something that can be done live with a webcam and a twitch channel. Spring for a 15 dollar xsplit license and you can stream game footage easily too. When I say "where did the money go" I mean "this isn't quality video, there's no fact checking, it looks basically the same as before, what the fuck?".

I can't see how you're getting to 10k per video, given the videos we've been getting, and the interval between videos leaves little room for excuses with regards to the simple (and ultimately unimportant to the broader message) mistakes she makes. The problem is, those mistakes make everyone who does know what she fucked up think "Where does she get off telling me what's wrong with my favorite videos game when she clearly doesn't know shit about them?". This makes it hard for her argument to be taken seriously by anyone who was not already in agreement, which is fucking pointless. You don't need to spend 150k, or 6k for that matter, on people who are already sold.

So I am left pondering. Either do something really impressive and airtight with that extra $144k, or give the remainder to an aligned charity or something.

Also, just to make it clear, I didn't back her, because I thought she was kind of an unfocused hack to be honest, so I don't feel like MY money is being misused, I just think the money could be much better used, and it's not right now.

[Ted Belmont]

Also, don't forget taxes and Kickstarter/Amazon's cut.