Hi, podcast gang. I was listening to you last week and I felt compelled to respond to the discussion you had regarding the upcoming Tomb Raider game. I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel very strongly about the issues you raised and subsequently dismissed out of hand.
Susan seems to be forgetting that a game like Tomb Raider doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum. There are other forces at work here. Lara Croft has always existed as an idealized female written primarily for a male perspective. It's true that male characters experience violence. But historically, violence against males has not been sexualized the way violence against females have.
I'm nod "demanding that women be treated differently from men" as you guys put it in the podcast. In fact, I'd like to see women get better, more equal treatment. The trailer includes a moment where a bound Lara Croft is practically getting groped by one of the bad guys with the implication that he's going to have his way with her. Characters like Nathan Drake or Master Chief never have to worry about getting raped. Why should Lara Croft?
See, what I'm objecting to isn't the violence. I expect violence in games. Most women won't be trapped on an island and have to fight off wolves or drug-runners. Neither will most men! But 1 in 5 women in the USA will experience rape in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 71 men. That's what the CDC reported in their National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in 2010. So if, like you say, women live with the threat of rape every day, WHY SHOULD THEY IN A VIDEOGAME? It doesn't make the game more "real", it's just exploiting a very real problem for the sake of titillation and controversy.
The fact that the game is written by a woman doesn't excuse the problem. Women can write bad, exploitative fiction about females just as well as men can. Stephanie Meyer's career is testament to that.
So why does Lara Croft need a scene where there's the threat of sexual assault? Furthermore, why does the trailer need to focus on THAT? There's a scene in Casino Royale where James Bond's testicles are whipped as torture. That never showed up in the trailer for Casino Royale, I'll tell you that much. I'm not saying that it SHOULD have, but why couldn't the producers of Tomb Raider focus on Lara-as-Agent rather than Lara-as-Victim, as they do for Bond? They could have done a very cool montage of Lara learning to survive, fighting off a pack of wolves with a hunting knife, and taking out the enemies guerrilla style. Instead they chose to focus on her vulnerability AS A WOMAN in the climax of the trailer. That speaks to me as symptomatic of a larger societal issue, one that we as consumers shouldn't dismiss.
Thank you for reading.
Yes, certainly, there are characters where being a rape survivor is a crucial element of who they are. For some, it is even their core motivation. In the right hands, written with the proper thought and care and - in my opinion, and most crucially - honesty, yes, there is a place.
But as a short-hand for “justifying” why a character - specifically a female character - is who she is, or does what she does? I hate it. I’m inherently very suspicious of it, to the point of active hostility. I am leery of the prurient interest, and in the case of Lara specifically, I cannot escape feeling that is hard at work here. I read a quote where one of the developers, I believe, claimed that putting Lara in this position, under this threat, would make the player “want to protect her.” I found that both condescending and remarkably ignorant. Having not played the game, I can’t speak with any authority on it, but I find it hard to believe that was their motive to begin with.
But 1 in 5 women in the USA will experience rape in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 71 men.
Because the threat of sexual assault is realistic to the situation. Men use sexual assault as a way to frighten women *because it works.* It’s a threat that’s almost guaranteed to unnerve any woman and keep them cowed. Certain kinds of threats work better than others – threaten to harm a child, and that child’s parent will almost assuredly fall in line immediately. Threaten to rape a woman, and she, too, will almost certainly fall in line immediately. Especially if up until that point, the woman has experienced a fairly normal life.
There’s no reason for the threat to not be in the game. In a situation where she’s surrounded by very bad men, it narratively makes sense. Also, when coupled with the fact that the man who gropes her is also the first man that Lara kills, it carries a great deal of weight. As I said on the podcast, we take killing very much for granted in games, but in real life, being pushed to the point that you actually have to kill someone to save yourself is monumental. I entirely disagree that the situation is in there for titillation and exploitation. It’s in there because it’s something that Lara would legitimately encounter.
And no one *has* to play through it – male or female. This is a piece of entertainment, and it’s up to the consumer to decide if it’s something they want to encounter or not.
Also, when coupled with the fact that the man who gropes her is also the first man that Lara kills, it carries a great deal of weight. As I said on the podcast, we take killing very much for granted in games, but in real life, being pushed to the point that you actually have to kill someone to save yourself is monumental.If that is actually Lara's first kill and she spends the next few hours of the game dealing with what she's just done and not, say, clearing out every other living thing she sees (possibly while making one-liners) this actually makes sense.
Threaten to rape a woman, and she, too, will almost certainly fall in line immediately.Someone report that man to the police.
1. Damsel in Distress
2. The Fighting F#@k Toy
3. The Sexy Sidekick
4. The Sexy Villainess
5. Background Decoration
6. Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress
7. Women as Reward
8. Mrs. Male Character
9. Unattractive Equals Evil
10. Man with Boobs
11. Positive Female Characters!
12. Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games
"Let's discuss this."teeheehee
You want to be fucking useful to the trope and discussion?hahaha
You want to talk about actually helping women in reguards to video gamesBWAHAHAHA
The problem is that it's a terrible video to show to those people, and will do more harm than good, both in the sense of being so hostile to the point of trying to make you feel like a shit for enjoying any game mentioned, and a complete lack of "Let's discuss this."
Mention culture between east and west, how Japan itself is so hideously male-centric that it bleeds into all forms of their media, including their video games.Hey, I'd watch it. But if you do it, you're probably going to have a bunch of Movie Bobs calling you a racist (to say nothing of the Japanese).
Siliconera: Was Time and Eternity developed for guys Is this a game for girls? Parts of it feel like it’s a guys game, but in other parts there is a girl talk like when Towa talks about planning her wedding.
Kei Hirono, Producer of Time and Eternity: Actually it’s made for guys. When we created this game and when you look at the art, it’s the kind of female design that is pleasing to men, especially in Japan. This anime style is kind of geared toward guys in Japan. Within the game itself there is a healthy amount of "eros", you know, things that aren’t exactly for girls. We have never intended it to be for girls from the beginning.
This is just a kind of coincidence, but currently in Japan, it’s a lot more difficult for men than women to get married, so we thought it would be kind of an interesting theme to deal with. Also, I just got married recently too so this came together along with this plot.
SE: Is that why Towa/Toki has Drake accompany her and sometimes Drake would peep on her when she’s taking shower?
KH: Yup. That kind of thing.
SE: Why did you make Princess Towa/Toki the main character in Time and Eternity instead of the Prince?
KH: We wanted to break the mold and step away from the current trend of male hero. We thought that it would be very interesting to have a heroine instead of a typical male hero, to have a female hero playable character who is strong. It’s a different take on a stale genre, the Japanese RPG genre.
SE: And how does Drake fit in?
KH: Generally speaking, don’t women drag men along anyway? Well, especially in Japan.
11. Positive Female Characters!
Oh, no, we don't get any discussion of culture, and we have to wait until episode 11 before we get 30 minutes of "Samus and Terra, except when this this and this happened"
The video series is of such hostility and nitpicking that it's going to focus on one or two small things to invalidate the character or game entirely.
She admits Zelda is sometimes shown more capable, and labels it with basically "Damsel that helps" which reads to me "It still counts as DiD, no matter what happens."OK. I re-watched some of it. Although immediately prior to the "helpful damsel" comment (would Link be a helpful damsel in Twilight Princess?) she does mention that Damsel in Distress is a trope that happens to characters, not (necessarily) the sum of a character's identity. Which seems to be confusing the issue, since it implies that a "helpful damsel" isn't somehow the architect of their escape because they use some outside assistance.
There's also zero attempt to show how to attempt to fight it or do betterDoes there have to be one? The express purpose of the video is to say, "This is a trope. This is why I don't like it and think it's harmful."
Specifically I’ve always wondered about the female protagonists of Masmune Shirow's work (note: I am only speaking of the actual Manga. Adaptations generally ruin the characters pretty badly).
as if seeing Double Dragon Neon is going to make a 32 year old man suddenly walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach, going "BIDEO JAMES SAID I COULD"The thing that was most annoying about the specific mention of Double Dragon Neon is that Marian gets the trope of good girl turned villain, light arrows (gives you the power to beat the last boss) and even [spoiler]actually gets the last hit on the final boss[/spoiler].
I've always wanted to give him credit for the way he actually writes his characters, especially considering the fact that he's Japanese.Derailing, yeah, but when you make something especially considering something you're saying "for an x." That's like saying the Tropes Vs. Series is intelligent and composed for a woman.
Specifically I’ve always wondered about the female protagonists of Masmune Shirow's work (note: I am only speaking of the actual Manga. Adaptations generally ruin the characters pretty badly).
Stand Alone Complet is way better than the manga, just saying.
Miyazaki is basically part 1 of my two part "JAPAN SO MUCH MORE SEXIST THAN US" sentiment.
In response to the growing otaku fetishization of cute female characters in anime and manga, Japanese animator and self-avowed feminist Hayao Miyazaki has stated:
It's difficult. They immediately become the subjects of lolicon fetishism. In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict [such heroines] as if they just want [such girls] as pets, and things are escalating more and more.
—Hayao Miyazaki, From "Why heroines in Miyazaki works: A collection of short excerpts"
She continues to speak of games and those who play them as if they suddenly pop into existence hating women. When she mentions Double Dragon, she says the name with the same amount of bile and venom you'd say the name of an STD, and then devotes a bit to how horrible it is that retro games with HD makeovers are coming back, treating the world to "this regressive crap all over again" , as if seeing Double Dragon Neon is going to make a 32 year old man suddenly walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach, going "BIDEO JAMES SAID I COULD"
In regards to the hostility. There's also zero attempt to show how to attempt to fight it or do better, beyond "Make female heroes more!" which as the above post for a Japanese game illustrated, uh, isn't a magic salve.
And are we supposed to just accept a shitty video that does nothing to help a rather volatile subject? You sound like you're angry that people are analyzing and taking apart a video...who's purpose is to analyze and take apart something else.
It's a shitty contribution to a serious cause, so yes I'm angry.
See, the thing is, while it points to the Neon remake, it then goes on to show about 15 or so videos from other versions of Double Dragon all depicting the same gut-punch to panty-shot opener.
The trope also needs less men who feel women need to sit back and let men talk about feminism, dear, we'll handle it, you just run along now, but that's another conversation entirely
Isn't Lyrai a woman?
It's fucking silly to have a discussion about women's rights with no women involved.
It's fucking silly to have a discussion about women's rights with no women involved.
I hate to say that this is the stupidest thing I've heard all week, but it is. That's like saying that because I don't drive a motorcycle I can't advocate for riders to have equal road rights and laws to projected them (I picked this topic out because you do ride).
I gotta say that that watching an entire forum of men discuss feminism on the internet one of the more aggravating things you can do on the internet. It drives me nuts when this subject comes up for INTENSE DISCUSSION but zero women are actually present or saying anything.
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?
It's hard to determine if I need to split this or not because this is very very stupid but at the same time I just woke up.
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?
It's germane to the discussion because it's precisely the thing Sarkeesian's been facing since she first announced the series. And because it's a Youtube video, so obviously there is at least one comments thread full of mouth-breathers out there.
Still not sure where the 160k went.
The worst part of looking for this video was all the horrid, horrid videos that only warrant Anita's complaints.
Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q#ws)
Let the shitstorm begin.
I thought the "other side" is that men in media are portrayed as boorish idiots, sex maniacs, and stupid thugs rather than the noble Nice Guys everyone knows they really are.
I am not saying it's not any less stupid an argument, but that's what I thought it was.
It's like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games, and then only looking at black people.TA, the series is called "Tropes Vs. Women". So it's really like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games as the relate to black people and then only looking at black people.
Lastly, aren't three of those twenty pictures images of the default BroShep?
There's rigid gender roles, oversexualization, heteronormativity, and all that same shit on both sides of the fence. Patriarchy hurts everybody. An instructional series that focuses on just one aspect of that is by definition incomplete. It's like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games, and then only looking at black people.
And no, that is not my proudest game series infatuation.
EDIT:
So how many of us aremuscular ruggedly handsomewhite men with brown short-hairs anyway?
I think it makes a good point on the sameyness of male protagonists in (1) current-gen (2) non-Nintendo console games,
I think it makes a good point on the sameyness of male protagonists in (1) current-gen (2) non-Nintendo console games,
Mario is a white guy with brown hair. Game Set Match, Thad. (http://i.imgur.com/yDMa29U.jpg)
She's trying to educate you about the negative aspects of female characters in video games, and in some respects she's cutting through the layers of 'good' female characters to show you parts of them that are horrible. That is the point of the video series.
Okay so is the beginning of the game still not about a woman being punched in the gut and hauled off?
In a list of recent knife-based attacks, she is specifically calling out the man who was defending himself from a guy with a gun. That is the issue.
If you don't think details or facts are as important to whatever she wants her point to be, congratulations, you're her perfect viewer.
In a list of recent knife-based attacks, she is specifically calling out the man who was defending himself from a guy with a gun. That is the issue.
If you don't think details or facts are as important to whatever she wants her point to be, congratulations, you're her perfect viewer.
Okay so is the beginning of the game still not about a woman being punched in the gut and hauled off?
Fucking covered this.
If you think nitpicking the minutiae of a 30-minute video without ever engaging the main point is effective debating, congratulations, you're a Men's Rights Advocate.
...
Like, I'm tired of the Double Dragon issue because it seems rather petty to try and discredit a 30-minute video by nitpicking one tiny part of it while saying absolutely nothing about the main points she brings up.
Like, I'm tired of the Double Dragon issue because it seems rather petty to try and discredit a 30-minute video by nitpicking one tiny part of it while saying absolutely nothing about the main points she brings up.
In the sense that it's the only really modern or low-profile game she mentionsTo be fair, the focus of this first episode is the trope as applied to her two pet series. Apparently, the second part is about more modern examples. Not so hot on how that will roll.
Yeah, Ted, did you read past the opening paragraphs? Because the takeaway is that it's not like Other M at all. It's not needless or exploitative -- the author argues that it's horrifying and haunting, but in the way that good storytelling is affecting; it makes you feel for Lara in a realistic way. It triggered her, but in a way that led to catharsis and understanding of her own experience.
At no point did Lara break down crying and some dude swoop in and save her.
The game’s not Tomb Raider. It’s I Spit on your Tomb.
I don't think I need to reiterate how "Its goal is to make money! It's not sexist/racist/homophobic!" is a great crock on it's own.
KiteTales doesn't seem to understand what a character or story arc is, or how by the game focusing on the player character and not the DiD's struggles in captivity the narrative is implicitly making the DiD's struggle or anxiety irrelevant.
[Not diverging from the topic] is actually good classroom practice my mom says. She's a teacher and she says that its best to only deal with one aspect of something at once for people to learn properly.That's the rough equivalent of begging people to "teach the controversy" over evolutionary theory (implying, that there is an academic controversy). Alright, to be fair, that is slightly hyperbolic. A better analogy would be suggesting talking about Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska and Piltdown Man, and the rampant misinformation bullshit of Owens in the first lecture of Biology 101. Or complaining that the first lecture doesn't provide the exhaustive list of 200+ years of findings confirming evolutionary theory.
the "side" of, "shut ups!" and "nu-uhs!" and "this oppression isn't that bad!" isn't being massively represented by every tweet and response video.Or (more likely) because Sarkeesian hasn't provided the "assumptions" that go into her worldview (e.g. there was a thing called "The Patriarchy" that conferred privilege to men over women and its legacy still exists even if its overt mechanisms do not).
This was a big red flag that popped up around two minutes into the video. It became clear after this that her argument against TvW was built on sand.
It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).
It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).
It doesn't have to fail. It could be an integral part of the game. The hostage might sabotage the enemy's fortress or escape on their own and meet the rescuer with valuable intel, or the hostage busts out and then the rescuer sneaks in to find an empty cell and then the rescuer gets captured and as the former hostage, you have to use your knowledge of the enemy's fortress to break back in and rescue the rescuer!
You could make it a two-player thing with split-screen or take turns or something.
I don't get why you're engaging in this "Ubiquitous vs. Banned" binary.
...simply condemn the early majority of a brand new medium...
Doesn't she make her, "you can enjoy this stuff even if you're critical of them" disclaimer in the first minute? Yeah. There it is.
for using cultural values that have been relevant to humanity for 90%+ of it's existence.Are you forgetting that the pre-history of homo-sapiens way outweighs the recorded history, which is all we can use to confirm tropes? I'm not sure we even have the evidence to make a guess at that assertion. More importantly, you can't be saying that this legacy somehow excuses (rather than explaining) the choice to use DiD?
So in what ways could you show someone (male or female) being kidnapped and have them still be an objective for the main protagonist, but still give the victim agency? How much time would a game need to spend to flesh out that character?
It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).
"Curiosity" is a good one, but maybe too broad.
If we don't have a problem with playing female main characters then they shouldn't have a problem with playing with male main characters.
If it has a large female playerbase then I don't see why they feel like they have to cater to women anymore since they seem to be doing fine. Or maybe they are lying and they want more female gamers?
Anyways I would just like to say that I'm getting tired of this kind of articles. If there were truly a lot of women who wanted to game, then why are the majority of the community here male and if you go to any other game forum or website, you will see mostly males.
We could say that plenty of American women want to play American football but yet you never see any real attempts for women to form their own NFL simply because there isn't enough demand for it. It is different for gaming but it's just an illustration. If women really wanted in, they would be in by now. They've been able to get everything else that they wanted.
Have a good life and I hope someday you will wake up from this sexism delusion. It's just as bad as the blacks who pull out the racism card every time a black person dies in a game.(emphasis mine)
Where was everyone when Odin Sphere and Muramasa had good strong female characters and positive plot developments? Vanillaware's women have historically been pretty rad.
...writing like whiny nerds desperate to impress women.
You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him. Guy's got some credit in the bank. And if someone starts going on about the designs being unrealistic, well they're gonna have to look for their realism in games that aren't about people with magic powers fighting dragons. (I don't know what DC is about but it seems like it fits that sort of bill.)
[Vanillaware has unusually good female characters.]
You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him.
Please stop posting.
Women can be just as fucking awful about this issue as men can, they can be discriminatory towards men,
I'm not sure why the bile you should be directing to one writer is spilling over to all of Kotaku, but I don't have any real opinion of them.KotakuJason Schreier (http://jschreier.kinja.com/)'s opening volley was "THEY REALLY NEED TO STOP LETTING TEENAGE BOYS DESIGN THIS SHIT (http://kotaku.com/game-developers-really-need-to-stop-letting-teenage-boy-472724616)."
No, fuck you, [Jason Schreier]...
I see nothing wrong with Dragon's Crown. Full stop. Everyone in there is fantasy tropes turned up to 11, and I'm okay with that context. I don't believe George Katamari thinks all women are like that.And this is why Zara responded with the racist "Gollywog" Christmas card. A lot of fantasy tropes are frankly racist and sexist. The quality of Kamitani, Vallejo, Frazetta, whoever art doesn't change whatever problematic themes or tropes they play to. Further, Kamitani doesn't have to think "all women" are "like that" for something he draws or writes to be sexist. This nonsense kerfluffle (is it big enough to qualify for a shitstorm?) is a problem of what Kamitani did, not what he is, and as presumably rational participants in this discussion we should endeavor to keep it that way.
On a second note, what's wrong with flaunting it if you want to?...There's a basic fantasy trope, dress to distract!But the sorceress, elf, and amazon are fictional characters, drawn by men to titillate other men. There's nothing wrong with a character (or a person) having it and wanting to flaunt it, but again...
The problem comes when, in context...In this context, all three of the female characters in Dragon's Crown are drawn in brokeback poses. In an industry that's rife with these kinds of representations and the greater context of...
the woman is a tool, and nothing else. [WTF JAPANESE DEVELOPER GUY!?] There's something to be fucking offended by. And the guy doesn't even imply it, he sits there and says it straight out.Being something that happens all across the industry.
But no, that takes thinking, that takes reading, that takes a lot more effort than posting a picture of boobs and screaming so hard your adams apple vibrates.Now, this shouldn't be something that's offensive, or a problem here, but again, context:
To elaborate on my post above: Constantine, please stop posting. Your type is absolutely fucking toxic to this discussion,You're writing an uncompromising, angry rant that is apparently targeted at Constantine for telling you to
Which I grant, is shitty even if you're a step away from calling a huge portion of Kotaku's writers and readers (fake) white knights. But what is Constantine's "type"? I mean, the remainder of your complaints are eerily similar to what others have written to me as a criticism of feminism in general. They also complain that feminists reduce the discussion to, "Men are pigs, women are victims," (which is a straw man from detractors like Limbaugh) and that there is no hope of compromise with feminists (as though a group that's aiming for equality should compromise)....writing like whiny nerds desperate to impress women.Please stop posting.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/123768/Game%20pictures/sample-4cda6c87f80fd1f100d7ec82354b53d4.jpg)
[Vanillaware has unusually good female characters.]
You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him.
Duder, did you just suggest that Kamitani has somehow "bought" the right to make games with pandering characters (with or without criticism from his fans)? It sounds like you did.
So barbarians are usually half naked burly dudes, and we finally get a burly female barbarian and people complain about it, I just don't understandThat's because you're not paying attention to the complaints that are being generated.
The problem here is not that women are eroticized, the problem is that as a culture we don't have the visual language elements to eroticize men in the same way without it looking ridiculous (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/11/27/what-if-the-male-avengers-posed-like-the-female-one/malke-avengers-do-brokeback-pose/).But frankly this eroticizing shorthand is ridiculous on women too.
Let's look at Red Sonja (https://www.google.com/search?q=red+sonja&client=firefox&hs=F57&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bNGGUZKCNufzygGb3ICgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_). She isn't in her battle bikini to show off her musculature, the way that Conan the Barbarian (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=Conan+the+barbarian&oq=Conan+the+barbarian&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1086.3468.0.3692.19.8.0.9.9.0.135.739.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6aZcP8c4qDU)'s battle speedo does.
In fact they're probably getting offended just for the sake of being offended and that's no way to live.When you're assuming someone is getting offended for the sake of being offended, you're being an asshole.
Nah, that Amazon is definitely somebody's fetish.
Look, I like the elf and the amazon is pretty gross when drawn really closely to her actual design. Could the wizard stand to be a prettier pretty boy, I suppose he could. The dwarf if pretty dwarvy if you're into that.
What I'm saying is that most of the cast can be somebody's fetish and you don't even need to oversexualize them.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZpowlMk.gif)
Let's look at Red Sonja (https://www.google.com/search?q=red+sonja&client=firefox&hs=F57&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bNGGUZKCNufzygGb3ICgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_). She isn't in her battle bikini to show off her musculature, the way that Conan the Barbarian (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=Conan+the+barbarian&oq=Conan+the+barbarian&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1086.3468.0.3692.19.8.0.9.9.0.135.739.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6aZcP8c4qDU)'s battle speedo does.
Interestingly, Red Sonja's most popular appearance style is just the latest in her history (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wnHCRTQgHOQ/TtPd-CJBobI/AAAAAAAARHI/T2gT6TopXhg/s1600/3RedSonjas_100.jpg).
The point being, the entire cast are impossible freaks.You're not wrong with what you're saying but...
We've been over this already.I'd argue that the Elf is also sexualized in that she's also put into a brokeback pose (http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/10460/2458078-dragon%27s+crown+elf.png), though it's an "action shot" and
amazon is pretty gross when drawn really closely to her actual designI am extremely disappointed by this opinion.
Well no, the fighter is pretty boring, I don't know who would play him.
Damsel in Distress: Part 2 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs#ws)
I made it almost four minutes in before rolling my eyes. I think that's an improvement on her work.
Now if she can just manage to release a single video without being a damsel at the hands of these terrible internet trolls (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/28/feminist-analysis-of-video-game-tropes-booted-off-youtube-within-hours/) we'll have some real progress.
Er, how is it her fault that a bunch of angry nerds flagged her video?
It wouldn't be worth mentioning if not for the fact that she's doing a series of videos where she regularly states that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45, and implicitly in the opening when she suggests that enjoying media does not preclude criticizing its problematic elements (nor does Sarkeesian suggest it should be retired in the video, though she does complain about its ubiquity).She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33 in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".
At this point, Beat Bandit's self-professed tolerance of hateful, ignorant comments is a pretty big example of why he should either A) Not be allowed to post in this thread or B) Be outright banned. We don't need such toxicity.
She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33No... she doesn't. I don't know what to say here, all she does is define a damsel in distress.
in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".About the time when she explains how damsels can have other character traits but it just "adds to the disappointment" or can choose to "be sassy", coming in at four minutes when she explains how even if the damsel has a useful trait or provides something at the end it doesn't count because it's just something on the side.
As a plot device, and not:She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33No... she doesn't. I don't know what to say here, all she does is define a damsel in distress.
that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
Because she's repeatedly explaining to the audience that the trope is still being used even if the character is a "helpful damsel" or a "feisty damsel". She's also saying that she's disappointed when fun, competent characters get "damselled" 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.in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".About the time when she explains how damsels can have other character traits but it just "adds to the disappointment" or can choose to "be sassy", coming in at four minutes when she explains how even if the damsel has a useful trait or provides something at the end it doesn't count because it's just something on the side.
I would consider that a good reason to roll my eyes. Too bad I actually meant closer to the two minute markThen why did you close-to-double the length of time you watched patiently?
when she shows off the cover of Beyond Good & Evil in the middle of talking about one of the rare current games that doesn't follow the trope.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.
(note: BG&E is a non-stop rule 63 damsel in distress story. First children, then a friendly agent, and finally your uncle for the majority of the story)
So we can agree to one thing at least: she contradicts herself enough that you can argue almost any point from what she says.She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.
So, we're going to do this with every new video.
How many episodes are we getting again? ::(:
As a plot deviceSo 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.that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
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 12:45So 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 deviceAnd 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.
Wrong. Because she contradicts your characterization of her argument at about 3:11 in part 2, which I've told you before:As a plot deviceSo 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.that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
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 12:45So it doesn't override it, it just gets rid of it for something else. Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.
Sarkeesian is not complaining that it is boring. She's complaining that DiD reinforces regressive gender stereotypes.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 deviceAnd 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.
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.Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.Your family is not special.
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.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.
Cymbal Head on NeoGAF actually wrote a helpful post (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49450068&postcount=3115) 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.
Not that I disagree, but we're gonna need something more than "stupid".
So
Got it.
So
Got it.
Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.
If being in a fridge was good enough for Indiana Jones, I don't know why they aren't good enough for anyone else.
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?
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.
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 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.
It's a guilty pleasure, like, well, killing things in video games, and a bunch of other shit people really shouldn't be encouraging.I'm disappointed Brent. Own up to how it's a "guilty pleasure" in the first place instead of trying to justify sticking to it because you felt guilty when someone pointed out that Damsels in Distress are ubiquitous and reinforce problematic shit through that ubiquity (which is what I assume your describing her videos as a "brow beating" means). You're not an emotionally stunted person who needs to lie to themselves about their motivations to sleep at night.
With regards to her points in the video, one struck me as particularly annoying. She pauses at one point to admit that many of these games contextualize the violence she's talking about, but that ultimately doesn't matter because violence against women is bad (reinforcing negative social norms RE: Women, etc.). Later, she says it's okay for women to die in stories, because taking that out completely would be ridiculous. Soooo... which is it? I wouldn't bother defended almost any of the games she showed (mostly because they're shit regardless), but claiming that context doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things and then saying later that, well, of course women die too so women in fiction can die seems contradictory to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
RE: Violence contradiction.
I think there is still a contradiction there. The aggregate misuse of the trope disallowing valid uses of the trope (as you and she seem to imply) should apply universally if it applies at all. She used Dishonored, for example. The Empress wasn't just killed to get you going, she was killed as part of a coup d'etat, and her daughter held captive to legitimize what would have been a politically unstable regency. That same conspiracy then frames you for the regicide, and lionizes the beloved former Empress as a martyr to justify the oppressive crackdown that follows. That's a pretty fucking good story, as far as I'm concerned. However, as presented in a montage with largely unjustifiable crap (most of which is crap for many other reasons besides), it's apparently all part of the same thing and not OK.
When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask "When?", because this aggregate effect you're describing still applies. Does she mean that they're only allowed to die of disease, age, and accidental injury?
RE: Hypothetic Damsel game
Well, with the second example of using the trope I gave, I don't give a shit if she stands out. When I played Super Mario Bros. I didn't care about saving the Princess at all, I just wanted to play the game. The game should stand out because it's a great game, and if you're making the kind of game where a completely generic damsel can work, then the way it will stand out will be through game play in any case.
I get that no media is released in a vacuum, but the moment a creator is discouraged from creating what they want to create (or feel like creating, sometimes there's a difference) because of external factors is the moment where Bullshit happens. Again, you don't get more Y made by trying to ensure less X is getting made. A creator's only responsibility is quality; how the work is received is another story, anyone is free to interpret or enjoy or be offended, but that's art for ya. Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics, so long as they are well crafted and an accurate reflection of your intent as a developer. Just like I would support anyone making a good game that doesn't involve rescuing a girl, or like I would support anyone not wanting to play any sort of game where a girl is rescued.
Violent death in general seemed to have been disallowed, but ok, I'll bite, describe to me even a rough scenario of a woman in a video game suffering a violent end that would pass muster given the argument put forth so far. As for Dishonored, the death of the Empress gets everyone moving, because it's catastrophic for the country. Does the protagonist have a personal stake? Yes, but that doesn't cheapen the legitimate political intrigue that lead to her death, and the continuing intrigue as the various players jockey for power in the new order.
I was saying that in that hypothetical scenario I have decided to use the old save the princess scenario because I have a good game, but am not a good writer.
Still, good idea or no, I would be resistant to change it if pressured from outside, because as I indicated I just don't like to be told what to do.
When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask "When?", because this aggregate effect you're describing still applies. Does she mean that they're only allowed to die of disease, age, and accidental injury?
How about "The female character is given a satisfying character arc, and her death is for reasons other than motivating other male characters in the plot." Seriously, Bal, it's like the only way you can think a woman can die is if it's by a villain to motivate the lead character.So, in your world, is it more sexist because there would be absolutely 0 difference if there were an Emperor instead of an Empress and the game developer chose to make the character a woman? Because it seems like there's a no-win situation going on right now.
Ok, those are good, but that character better be really good, because to get that done she's going to have to be around for awhile. Also, I find it difficult to believe that the death of such a strong female character would fail to motivate any lead of whatever gender.
Constantine, I didn't even come up with the damsel being in the hypothesis in the first fucking place. I'm sticking to it because that's how it was phrased. Personally, it could be a magic rock you're after for all I care. I didn't "jump to the damsel", I'm just discussing the scenario proposed by Brentai in the first place. If I did put a damsel in a game like that, I would probably lamp shade it by having all the characters playing their parts like Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog). That would at least amuse me personally.
How about "The female character is given a satisfying character arc, and her death is for reasons other than motivating other male characters in the plot." Seriously, Bal, it's like the only way you can think a woman can die is if it's by a villain to motivate the lead character.So, in your world, is it more sexist because there would be absolutely 0 difference if there were an Emperor instead of an Empress and the game developer chose to make the character a woman? Because it seems like there's a no-win situation going on right now.
Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics
I'm starting to feel like attitudes toward the trope are much more the problem than the trope itself. The rescue fantasy is fairly unisex, I think. I don't feel any less good about rescuing Super Joe than I do about rescuing Peach. It's about helping people, really, and that's a positive plot point.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying.Let me go in another direction by paraphrasing one of Bal's earlier posts, because we're (this is my surprised face) pretty much on the same page of this one.
I think he's saying that you learn why the Empress was murdered over the course of the game, and it becomes clear that her gender has fuck all to do with anything.
See, I think this comes across as trying to skirt the issue. You wed the idea of external social forces trying to exert an influence over the story of the game, but then hand wave it all with "a creator's responsibility is quality." There comes a point where even a well made Damsel in Distress story is, still, a Damsel in Distress story. At this point in time, the Damsel in Distress trope is so prevalent and so overused that one would think that someone making a well-crafted game could at least craft a better quality narrative.
Ultimately, nobody in this argument is suggesting that somebody exert control over a person's game. Well, unless you're a publisher, in case you probably are, because, you know, publishers. But one should question why, if you're willing to acknowledge that Damsel in Distress is overused and problematic, it still becomes you're go to as a creator. From all the countless numbers of stories, motivations and characters you could put in your game, why would you choose one you would freely admit has problems?
QuoteBrentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics
Interesting response. A character I took pains to describe as "a heroine" had her status eroded to "princess". A lot of other comments I see also seem to trend toward the assumption that the woman has no role in the story other than to patiently wait to be rescued.
But still, would you then deny that it is an example of a woman's role being to be killed to propel the plot forward? I get that a bunch of political machinations and intrigue happens after her death, but it still sounds like this is an example of a woman being killed entirely to motivate the other actors in the story.Yes, I would absolutely deny it. That she dies is due to other actors in the story already having strong motivations, and well... I'm struggling with a diplomatic way to put this:
Or rather, it is only problematic in that it is overused.Well, the over use and how it reinforces or plays to (negative) gender stereotypes.
She is a strong character in that she is a good EmpressFrom what I understand the Empress isn't removed from the story at that point either... But... well... spoilers (http://dishonored.wikia.com/wiki/The_Heart)? And problematic all on its own. I'm willing to give Dishonored the benefit of the doubt (http://www.themarysue.com/but-alas-she-is-a-woman-how-dishonored-uses-gender-roles-to-tell-a-story/) because they're definitely trying to address systemic sexism and how it exists even in a society with a female monarch. But...
Dude, reality isn't a fiction crafted by a narrator.Pretend for a moment that the JFK assassination was a completely fictional event written for a video game, that in that game you play as the head of the Secret Service, and that the gameplay begins shortly after the assassination. Would this be "an example of a
Apples. Oranges.
In that game you play as the head of the Secret Service, and that the gameplay begins shortly after the assassination.ACTUAL ANSWER:
My main question is: If this is an example of what games are doing wrong with regards to female characters, how and why? Because from where I and a lot of other people are sitting it looks like it should be fine. Is there something we're missing?The point of including Dishonored, even if Dishonored represents a good game or a game where the trope is meaningfully subverted (though I'd bet that Sarkeesian has a fistful of problems with Dishonored above and beyond this use-of-trope), is to show how pervasive and unquestioned the trope is. Assuming Dishonored is to sexism what SpecOps: The Line is to fascist jingoism, they both only work as criticism of those tropes because they've got tropes to subvert, no?
they both only work because they've got tropes to subvert, no?That is a hell of an assertion. Would you care to follow through on that?Because, uh, boy...
they both only work as criticism of those tropes because they've got those tropes to subvert, no?That is a hell of an assertion. Would you care to follow through on that?Because, uh, boy...
You know, I think Final Fantasy XV might be the closest we'll come to actual male sexualization in gaming. At least, I find it hard to believe that those character designs are primarily meant to appeal to straight men.
I don't find it... uncomfortable, really, just not very much to my tastes. I imagine if this were how the entire gaming landscape appeared to me then I'd have a pretty bitter feeling about it too.
You know, the more I think about it the more I would love to see somebody actually try to adapt Amano's designs straight across.
I can't even begin to imagine how they would look in motion. Which is half the reason I want to see someone try.
I'm adding all variants of "check your privilege" to my "instantly lasered from orbit by satellite built specifically for this purpose" when I become President of Space
You know, the more I think about it the more I would love to see somebody actually try to adapt Amano's designs straight across.
I can't even begin to imagine how they would look in motion. Which is half the reason I want to see someone try.
It's hard to tell what's funnier; the fact that she is scouring boring ass longplays for proof of misogyny with very little research otherwise, or that dorks on the internet hate her so much that they will scour the same boring ass longplays to prove that she used them.
How do you fuck up making fun of something as comical as Bayonetta?You don't fuck up making fun of it, you get literally every plot point you bring up wrong.
This video's highlights:
Spelunky having multiple options for damsels doesn't count because one of them is a dog and that just degrades women worse somehow, doesn't matter that there are also female PCs. Also is apparently reinforcing the negative gender role that women are often lost in caves.
When she reveals Eversion's incredibly deep and gender biased plot. And after that when she reveals that it's both sexist for having a princess damsel and for... having a female character who ends up being neither a princess nor damsel. With that hilarious punchline ending and all.
"Old games were the most sexist! Games never stopped being sexist! Modern games are the mostest sexistiest! New indie games are reintroducing sexism since I guess it wasn't there for a while because sexism didn't exist while Buffy was still on the air or something!"
Braid is the best game ever because you're not the hero saving the damsel. I mean, she is still being saved by a literal knight in shining armor, but it's not you so it doesn't count.
The only way to avoid sexism is if you control multiple characters all of which are genderless. Not games like Mass Effect and Saint's Row where you can play either sex and the story / writing works as well for either choice. Or even fucking Trine, the exact same idea except with humans instead of blocks / block-shaped creatures. Remember, safe sex never works, only abstinence.
Have we reached the point were we can disagree with Anita Sarkeesan and not be called a fedora-wearing MRA misogynist yet? Because Anita is still doing poorly, and that's not even counting the fact that she may not even be playing the games, but ripping LPs off youtube (http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html).
Have we reached the point were we can disagree with Anita Sarkeesan and not be called a fedora-wearing MRA misogynist yet? Because Anita is still doing poorly, and that's not even counting the fact that she may not even be playing the games, but ripping LPs off youtube (http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html).
While I do think proper credit is important, and if she is using then without permission or credit, that's bad, I think it's a bit silly to criticize her for not playing the games personally. As far as I know, that's not something she ever said she would do, and it's frankly kind of ridiculous to expect one person to play that many games herself in order to make YouTube videos about them.
Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce. I will be researching and playing hundreds of titles from across the gaming industry (including some truly awful games that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone!). Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content.
I think it's a bit silly to criticize her for not playing the games personally.
All of Ted's responses.Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.
All of Ted's responses.Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.
Obviously I don't take my responses to her videos seriously because I don't take her videos seriously. But how about you defend her with more than 'no u' and actually tell me what she means when she says those things, because it's what I'm hearing.
(protip: if your response to one of her topics is being unwilling to assert a point she is making unless the person who created the material tells you it's okay to think that's what she meant, you're probably not putting a lot of critical thought into your analysis.)
EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.
"Anita might not actually have the kind of knowledge of the subject that she needs to make her statements carry any weight."
Welcome to where I was back at video 1, you guys.
That's something you're taught to do in basic English composition, so uhh, sure?
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make (which are probably substantial). That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.Seconded.
whiteknighting
EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.
Seriously Ted?
This one isn't even a part of the actual conversation at hand anymore, but you're better than the sort who posts content, then decides they're actually way to busy to talk about it.
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make. That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make. That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.
This wouldn't work because I've seen stream chats of the Ubisoft E3 presentations. For some reason gamers really hate Aisha Tyler because she is a black woman.
No, he was saying if you switch Anita out with some random other person, we would be able to see if everyone hates her, or just her message. Replacing her with someone who also for some reason gets a lot of hate won't really get results.
[She is] still getting flak about "not knowing anything about games" from E3 2012 into this year, so yeah, gamers have a beef with Aisha Tyler for some unknown reason.
I'm sure this girl plays games and enjoys them but it's not her Thing. It's not her hobby. Take away gaming and she's still the same person, a feminist blogger.How is it different than:
I'm sure this boy plays games and enjoys them but it's not his Thing. It's not his hobby. Take away gaming and he's still the same person, a QA lead.And if it somehow were, why is this exactly the kind of subjective criterion that assholes love to move the goalposts for according to their whims?
Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.
Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.
I'll ask the same question more politely. Which do you guys think is more sexist? The hostility towards her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about, or the defensive reaction to support her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about?
I'm sure this girl plays games and enjoys them but it's not her Thing. It's not her hobby. Take away gaming and she's still the same person, a feminist blogger.How is it different than:I'm sure this boy plays games and enjoys them but it's not his Thing. It's not his hobby. Take away gaming and he's still the same person, a QA lead.
It doesn't matter if she's male, female, white, black, American, Japanese, Democrat, Republic, big-endian, or little-endian.
I don't think anyone is actually making the fake geek girl claim, just the claim that she isn't a gamer. Those are different things. She might be a gamer, but it doesn't seem like it.
It doesn't matter if she's male, female, white, black, American, Japanese, Democrat, Republic, big-endian, or little-endian.
That's the whole point.
Again, you're operating on the assumption that she doesn't play and enjoy videogames, that she's just some outsider poser type shoving herself into a discussion that doesn't involve her...based on what, exactly?
I think the way you should be looking at this ted is that she presented herself in a way that made people from even this fairly well adjust group of gamers believe that she was an outsider looking in.
We got the commentator we deserve, but not the one we need.
her message doesn't fucking matter any more... not damsels in distressher message isn't about damsels in distress, it's been to say, "HEY PEEPS! This shit is pretty weird and insular and problematic!"
All I want right now is to find someone who can dispel that level of extra contention... same dismissal if it had come from Bruce Sarkeesian.At this time, the person who dispels that level of extra contention is a hypothetical Rule 63 Sarkeesian (who may also moonlight as the BatMan?). When you previously suggested Sarkeesian's "academic" tone (airquotes because I am not sure what tone she accomplishes) was the problem your go-to replacement for Sarkeesian was Aisha Tyler (who does have a hell of a lot more charisma).
I'm sure there's probably more than 50% of chucklefucks out there who would still be reacting the same wayI'm not so optimistic, but I'm not sure how to test this now that FemFreq has done this thing.
... "not a gamer"..."Not a gamer" is among the more charitable responses to this series. Consider this:
Well hell, I'm all for women's equality and I think ass-and-titties as a selling point for media is distasteful and I'm actually embarrassed of how flat and uninteresting I am beyond being a "gamer". Somebody send me tens of thousands of dollars on Kickstarter and we'll see if my video series goes over better.
I'm not making fun of it, I just can't spell it.
Consider me mildly peeved that a topic I personally have a lot of investment in is getting shat all over because the current spokesperson for it is completely fucking it up.
Consider me mildly peeved that a topic I personally have a lot of investment in is getting shat all over because the current spokesperson for it is completely fucking it up.
I'm not making fun of it, I just can't spell it.
That would be a valid excuse if her name weren't literally all over this discussion, including this very thread.
Lyrai: I agree with you on the larger point that Anita SarkeeZian....
Uh I don't think DC movie franchises are very similar to the feminist movement.
Looking back on it I don't think the setback is quite as bad as I had feared at first. It is a setback - people like to say "Well at least she got people talking about it" and that's true enough, but those people are talking about it and coming to the conclusion that it's not a serious issue and let's not talk about it any more - but it's definitely fixable, even recoverable in a positive way. The main concern is that the people who could turn it into a positive aren't going to want to because, well, they don't want to be in the position that Anita's in, whatever way they might define that.
See how it is once the other eight or nine videos come out. It's not like she's gonna stop doing everything wrong.
Looking back on it I don't think the setback is quite as bad as I had feared at first. It is a setback - people like to say "Well at least she got people talking about it" and that's true enough, but those people are talking about it and coming to the conclusion that it's not a serious issue and let's not talk about it any more - but it's definitely fixable, even recoverable in a positive way.
The main concern is that the people who could turn it into a positive aren't going to want to because, well, they don't want to be in the position that Anita's in, whatever way they might define that.
Which situation was Sargasso one again?
Agreed. At the very worst, she's provided a series of object examples of pitfalls to avoid.
Which situation was Sargasso one again?
When Anita started the kickstarter, it got swarmed with Redditors and their ilk, complete with "fuckin whore" and the like. It helped increase the money it was getting several hundredfold.
Eversion makes use of save-the-princess imagery: that Nehema is the goal, even though by the fiction of the game Zee Tee is just going to visit her.Given that the forms Nehema takes are presented as flower people (which are hermaphroditic) and spoiler[spoiler]terrifying tooth and tentacle monsters[/spoiler] the only stuff that's actually "gendered" about them is that Nehema wears a dress?
Joke: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal)God dammit. You've made me lose another hour of my life to TVTropes.
Things like "A smiley face is recognised as male by default, and has to be given female features to be seen as female".
Things like "A smiley face is recognised as male by default, and has to be given female features to be seen as female".
This doesn't stand much of a chance of going anywhere until we get to a point where actual human females will be recognized as female without 'adding female features'. Such as make-up, stylized hair and big, hooped earrings.
Certainly I don't think the manufacturer tried to push gender roles at all until maybe the late 80's
Shhh, don't tell anybody that a very male writer said the exact same thing in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/arts/video-games/grand-theft-auto-v-is-a-return-to-the-comedy-of-violence.html).
“Movies are about telling the same lies over and over again,” Michael says at one point. “You know, good beats evil, things happen for a reason, attractive people are interesting.”
Video games tell their own lies to their players: you’re powerful, you’re smart, you’re important, your problems can be solved if you just keep trying. And Grand Theft Auto V is one of the most beautiful, seductive lies yet uttered by our youngest creative medium.
Why would Gamespot care if you cancelled your GTAV order?Probably this person doesn't know that Gamespot and Gamestop are two different companies or even two different words.
I nearly choked on a tim tam when I read this. Funniest thing i've seen today.Why would Gamespot care if you cancelled your GTAV order?Probably this person doesn't know that Gamespot and Gamestop are two different companies or even two different words.
So, the Gamespot review for GTA 5 was written by a woman, mentions the game is a bit misogynistic - in that there are basically zero female characters, and what depictions exist are in the format of billboards for perfume so you can "smell like a bitch" and the like - and gave it a 9/10. The internet is reacting predictably. I thought this was a nice one, from the reviewer's twitter feed:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUTJDh0CEAAf0m9.jpg:large)
We're still on day zero, though, so this one's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Can't watch the video but JRPGs have a long history of gender-based armor/accessories and it's almost always explicitly for women. Dragon Quest is especially bad, where the only non-class restrictions are on stuff like dresses and hairpins; there are no male-only equips.Dragon Quest has male-only equipment. There's not much of it, but it is there. Things like boxers. There's more in 9, which has lots of clothes.