The new Tropes vs. Women in Gaming video came out...

But that is also the problem. Because of all this political correctness bullshit people are afraid of saying what they really thing these days. Also everyone is different. While you think something is offensive some other guy thinks it is not. And while you maybe hurt by it other people will laugh.

In all we should accept everyone's opinion if he seriously thinks about it. and tries to argue why he thinks like that. If you just come into a discussions dn say: Ewww this bitch is stupid. or "you are full of shit" no one should take you seriously or even worthwhile to argue with.

I don't think I'm saying that. What I'm getting at is that the physical advantage of men does not fully explain or justify the extent to which women are dis-empowered in many game stories, especially ones where technological, magical, or even social abilities are more important than brute strength.

For the record though, I agree that it's silly for games that try to always put both genders on equal footing physically, and I think fighting games are a prime offender here (Sonya Blade probably couldn't realistically take down Scorpion or Sub-Zero!).

We almost never see physical dominance depicted realistically in any medium, because purely physical feats are, well, really dull. Even a lazy "power of heart" explanation for why the hero is able to overcome the villain is more interesting and climactic than "The hero won simply because he was bigger and stronger and beat the bad guy into a pulp."

In martial arts movies, the little guy is usually JUST as dangerous as the big guy (if not more dangerous), even though in real life, having a weight class advantage is a huge decider in a fight.

@lively: Art does not owe society ANYTHING. Video games, movies,and music are all forms of artistic expression protected under the first amendment. If you'd actually read her thesis, you'd know she suggests that the media is obligated to challenge, racism (sure) sexism (of course), but i kinda lost it when she mentioned capitalism as well.Instead she sees artistic expression as a way of indoctrinating the masses by filling them with subtext congruent with her own beliefs. She actually suggests that we do away with the "bad guy" trope and have television shows that deal with societal issues, and instead of having action or physical conflicts as a means of resolution, we have a sit down discussion, I'm dead serious. While sit down talks may be preferable in the real world, I don't want to see that shit on TV. It is not entertaining or engaging for the most part. I don't feel like having my shows turned into CSPAN. By the way, how many of you anita fanboys even used the word trope before her kickstarter NONE. If you assert that these tropes are inherently bad because the affect the way in which men view women, and women view themselves then you MUST also believe that violent video games should be eliminated or phased out because they too have a negative effect on human behavior... But you the majority of you don't think that. You blame the gun companies. You blame the parents for getting their kids guns. You blame psychological problems. Everything but the video games. You can't have it both ways. Sorry its all over the place, but i'm sick and tired of this woman and her shitty videos. She's wearing the same goddamn shirt from the first video. Coincidence, I think not, the videos were recorded on the SAME day. You can't tell me that it took her 2 months or whatever to edit that footage together. NO, she is staggering the releases in an attempt to maintain relevance and popularity.

Nah it was not made on the same day since she actually tried to debunk some criticism people had about her first video. Also what is rally funny. In her master thesis she actually has a chart how woman and men should be represented in media. Which basically are tropes as well. She has a perfect scenario she wants to see and everything that does not fit in her scenario she will call sexist and misogynistic.

However she hold it back for a while for sure. The next video you will see shortly before Gamescom.

You can oppose this video or Bill O'Reily all you want. And yes, they have points of their own. The topic of this thread however, is how the video was taken down because these opponents marked the video as spam. They criticize her for not allowing comments on her videos, yet do not offer her the same consideration?

It is not sexist to disagree with her. But it looks pretty sexist to say she shouldn't be allowed to speak.

The 1st amendment? Surely you realize she's not asking for her opinions to be legislated?

Some people are accusing her of wanting to indoctrinate others, but that's just an inflamatory way of saying she wishes our collective media represented better messages and examples for us. Nearly everything we consume has some sort of societal messages built into them, she just wishes they were better / different. She's not even asking for the elimination of violent / sexist stuff, she's just asking for a larger set of positive alternatives.

As for "getting rid of the bad guy trope", have you seen many Miyazaki films? They're actually kind of remarkable how even the antagonists are humanized, and aren't usually killed off like what happens to villains in most Disney films. I think having more stories in that vein wouldn't be a bad thing.

No, I very loosely know people who work with her and they've said she takes for goddamned ever to make a series.

Like an entire month for 20 minutes of footage.

I respectfully disagree. While, unlike most responses, she actualla manages to keep a respectul conversational tone, her analysis fails in pretty much the same ways.

"Sarkeesian says that Peach is worth less only because she is not as physically strong as Mario"

No, she doesn't. She says that Peach is subordinate to Mario because she can't take care of herself and is reduced to a pawn in the game. She becomes a goal. A reward.

"Peach is important! When she is kidnapped the kingdom collapses. The people who says she is not important are the ones that look down on her, not the developers.

Again, she misses the point. How can you tell that she is important? Has there ever been a game where she gets to display how able she is at ruling the kingdom? No. And no matter how many kart/party game she has been in, no matter how many millions og copies those game sold, she is never an active character in the main games. Peach is passive, and almost never the protagonist. And, when it really matters, she needs a man to take care of things.

"Peach is a typical damsel in distress, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's just her character"

Sure, if you regard it as an isolated case. But THE WHOLE point of Tropes vs. Women (and it's pretty clear from the name) is that it's not about individual cases in an individual game. It's about type of characters that has become an archetype for women in games.

It's just games, it's just business and should not be analyzed

This is a ridiculous statement. Of couse it should be analyzed and critiqued. How else is the medium suppose to evolve and learn? That doesn't stop anyone from enjoying games.

Show positive examples instead of complaining

No change has ever been accomplished by pointing out good exceptions among the genereal badness. Rosa Parks didn't stand up for human rights by proclaiming "exercise is good, so I'll just take the bike instead of the bus", but "I don't think it's okey that blacks and whites should have segregated seating on the bus.

What is displayed in the video is typical difference feminism. Men are men and women are women. She represents the view that women and men are different and thus the diffrences in the portayal of the sexes in games, as highlighted by Sarkeesian, is not a problem. Kind of antiquated, don't you think?

Sorry for any misspellings or grammatical errors, English is not my native tounge.

And WHO exactly is saying that in this thread? And by the way, it's not as if one side of this issue has a monopoly on abusing you tube in an attempt to silence someone that they don't agree with.

It's loathsome no matter who does it, but it doesn't add or subtract anything from any argument, no matter how much you want to group everyone who disagrees with Anita together.

That's a fair point. Again, I think much of her issue with female representation really comes down to violence. She already has suggested that she views aggression as a male characteristic, and with that being the primary method of conflict resolution in video games, I can see why she feels the way she does about video games in general.

I just wish we didn't have to wait until the end of her series to see what she feels are good examples of female characters in games. It's kind of like listening to someone rant about how music sucks, and listing band after band that you enjoy. You might agree with them some on some artists, and disagree with them with others, but after a while you just find yourself saying "okay then, what music do you think DOESN'T suck!?"

The few examples we were given in the last video were non-violent, but were hardly touched upon at all as to WHY they feature ideal treatment of female characters.

@almostswedish: Very well said! You really highlighted my biggest problem with these "rebuttal" videos; for the most part they're super nit-picky, yet not very well thought-out themselves, and reek of being whipped up in a hurry to satisfy demand for a YouTube response to a popular item.

@koolaid said:

I feel like her opponents simply offered her the same amount of consideration she offered them.

@spaceinsomniac: I don't agree with her video being taken down like that. But I do take issue with the fact that it was put back up within hours of being taken down, whereas other people will wait days or weeks before their videos get reviewed and put back up. Look at ShrineNI or blackfacekermits treatment on youtube.

This is well made and well argued, with deep consideration of counter arguments and strong responses to them. Iron Man 3 has this problem, too. There are thousands of ways to tell stories. Games should stop using the ones that make women into objects to be saved, to inspire revenge, or to mercy kill.

And some have. And she's getting to the counter examples. But you don't start an awareness and social justice campaign by pointing out the minority of times things have been done well. You point out the bad things and then point to possible solutions using examples from that same context.

I know some people will never stop arguing in bad faith because they are either actually sexist (vast minority), are anti-intellectual (some more), or are afraid that their entertainment media is being victimized and attacked, that this person is going to take away something they love (I assume the majority fall here), but it's really getting old.

Yay! Generalizations for all! So people who disagree with Anita are sexist, stupid, or think "ther gona take oor gamez!" I'm going to say that all feminists either secretly hate men, or can't get a man, or are stupid white knights who just want sex, or shameless self-hating men who are a disgrace to their own gender.

Am I doing it right?

If you want to discuss a topic, that's great, but throwing a bunch of labels at people you disagree with doesn't help your argument.

If you think all those statements are silly, then you can't be too bad.

@kierkegaard: Attack those who don't agree with you. Great logic there. Because if you disagree with Anita you are a sexist, or anti-intellectual.You know what i'm tired of? Anything that has any type of conflict. That trope is soooo played out. It just reinforces the idea that violence or disagreement is the only means of conflict resolution. I want to see a movie where people calmly take their turns, raise their hands and politely discuss politically correct and sensitive ways of rectifying the problems. That'd make for some riveting entertainment. What I think people take issue with is that Anita Sarkeesian sees media as a means of affecting societal change almost before the entertainment value and states that the media has a moral obligation to challenge the status quo of society. Symbolism, theme, and subtext occur organically in works. Anita suggests that games and other forms of media should be created with a meaning or theme predefined. The former is art, the latter is propaganda. Social justice and social equality are NOT the same thing. One is a punitive course of action in which the oppressed become the new oppressors. Robespierres Reign of Terror was social justice. Militant black panthers were about social justice. MLK was for social equality. Don't use those words lightly.

@drbobbint: I'd hesitate to call most of what comes out of the entertainment industry "art", I'd call it a product, most of which is just cynically thrown together based on what has already succeeded earlier (which often also have pre-defined meaning and themes!), and hardly deserving of being described as having "symbolism, theme, and subtext" introduced organically.

Aiming towards more relatable, inclusive human drama into stories (in my opinion) is more likely to take them closer to art than farther away from it.

Why the latter counts as propaganda just because Anita thinks it's a good idea escapes me.

** Random note: MLK talked about social justice a lot, the definition you trotted out sounds like it comes from right wing radio. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that :)

@spaceinsomniac:

I think maybe things have gotten a little out of hand here. If you go back to the first post of this thread, you will see how the OP was pointing out that the video was taken down after being reported as spam. The people who reported the video as spam is WHO I am talking about.

And yes, I think it helps her argument. The goal of this project is (in broad terms) to identify a hostile culture against women. When the mere posting of a video on that subject matter is met with such hostility that it is silenced… I mean, that's like shooting someone who is trying to argue there is a lot of gun violence in this country.

I posted a link to a video of a men's rights activist who had her videos flagged by people who disagreed with her. The goal of her project is (in broad terms) to identify hostile culture against men. But, when the mere posting of a video on that subject matter is met with such hostility that it is silenced…

Does that somehow help the argument of men's rights groups? This is a two-way street, and no, the fact that a few assholes take things too far does NOT somehow make anyone's argument stronger.

And please note that I do not consider myself to be a men's rights activist, nor do I consider myself to be a feminist.

You have to be one of the biggest hypocrites on Giant Bomb. There is no such thing as is in bold. Not everyone wants to be part of a SJW circlejerk and in the same breath as saying they should, dismissing all criticism as anti-intellectual, is so hypocritical that it'd make Aristotle's head explode.

This is the problem with these discussions and why they go on forever. Neither side will give up ground. However, while one side vomits out hatred the opposing side actually brings up valid arguments. They are sometimes argued well by other members, but are nonetheless constantly projected upon by the defending group who bring nothing to the table but presumptions. It's as if these users think they're above the argument and know they are right. If you really think like that, you need to take your head out of your ass.

That's the real problem, isn't it? People are more interested in being right than the truth.

If you could easily decide what is right or the truth and what not we would have not this discussion at all. Seriously there is no right or wrong here. All I know she is making stuff up and that is very far from the truth. So by your logic she is wrong because she is not telling the truth.

From my perspective the majority of "facts" being pulled out of nowhere are coming from the anti-FemFreq crowd, but then I guess that's just my bias showing. If you want to disagree with someone, at least agree with what they've actually said, don't falsely attribute opinions just so you can knock down another strawman.

see it is not really easy or?^^ But I could again link the video where a feminist shows that most of their statistics in their textbooks are just wrong and false. Or the fact that domestic violence is not mostly a woman problem. Earlier I showed a report that the Percentage in the UK is 60:40

...and I could bring up a giant list of patently false statistics coming out of the mens-rights community, but you never brought them up, so I would have no reason to do so. I don't intend to defend statistics that I never even cited, and are largely outside of the issues we're arguing relating to the original video.

Can't believe this still riles people up. There's actually a real simple answer to all of this:

Men and women are equals, but different. There is a difference between the genders, but no gender should have better rights than the other.

Also, video is stoopid. She clearly has a agenda, and graspes after strawes to prove a point that she has made fact in her own mind. It's lame.

So here's a good link that shows the adjusted wage gap for women vs. men, and it does show that when you control for job type and responsibilities, the gap is closer than if you don't adjust for those factors.

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap

The gap still favors men by a small amount. Still, that's promising that it's that close. I also watched the video posted earlier in the thread featuring Dr. Christina Hoff where she complains about certain misrepresented statistics (like the idea of the 76% pay gap), as well as the marginalization of conservative feminists.

I think she has a lot of interesting points to say about how liberal groups are sometimes are limited by their ideologies and don't cooperate with conservative and libertarian women's groups, and that women accomplish the most when they work together across the political spectrum.

That aside, it doesn't really invalidate Anita's cultural complaints about how limiting a lot of our pop culture is. Even Dr. Hoff admitted that we need to make room for the 20% or so females (and males, by extension) that fall outside normal gender expectations and behaviors, and we need to find ways to tell them that even they have a place in society.

Yes everyone has a place in our society or should have but we should not change things just because it could offend some people.

I guess you could also turn that around and say that you shouldn't be afraid of change just because it could offend some people.

You can turn and twist everything like you want it to be. As I said there is no truth or right and wrong.

I guess I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my family about the whole Gay Marriage issue. They were trying to make the argument that because straight people are the majority, Gay people should stay quiet, and schools shouldn't even tell children that gays exist, and the good of the majority should always outweigh the minority.

I was making the argument that the amount of good gained by telling gay people they have a place in life is greater than the amount of discomfort straight people feel about having to hear about gay people.

By a similar sort of thinking, I don't care if 80% of women want to be in a thoroughly traditional, old-fashioned sort of relationship and don't want to or need to hear about being "empowered", it's worth it to try to reach that other 20% and try to give them some positive role models on how to live a happy life when you aren't happy with what the majority is prescribing (and as a disclaimer those percentages are hypothetical).

Now now, sarcasm isn't a very good tool for discourse, if you want to accuse me of being a moral relativist just say so.

WE have thee role models in video games but since this is not the main market why should developer listen to the minority and risk less sales? Video games are not there to make a political statement. It is a business. In the end people will vote with their wallet and that is the thing developer and publisher will produce.

Well there I don't disagree with you. If I was a stock holder I probably wouldn't want them to do anything different. It doesn't mean I can't complain about it and wish things were better.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think Anita presents any facts other than examples that may have the trope, "Damsel in Distress," she's actually wrong on one instance, but that's not really the point. The rest is pure opinion and leaps of logic. The problem is that some of it is wrong. I don't see a problem when people point out when something is wrong, either factually or by omission. I couldn't point out every wrong thing she said because I haven't played all the games she mentions, so I had to take her word for it, only to see people who have played the game call her out for taking things out of context and misrepresenting things. Simply doing a super-cut of the trope really only shows that the trope exists and doesn't back up claims that it's pernicious, sexist, or somehow has anything to do with violence against women. Those who agree with her will simply see what they want to see regardless of the lack of evidence.

The conjecture she comes up with reminds me of South Park.

1. Trope.
2. ???
3. Misogyny!

I think you're better off ignoring anything brought up having to do with men's rights or feminism in general because it actually detracts from discussing her actual work.

If you watch just one of Anita's older videos, I recommend this one. In it she describes a simple test about whether a movie has female representation. Basically, it goes like this:

1. Does your movie have more than one female character with names?

2. Do they ever talk to each other?

3. Do they talk to each other about something other than a man?

If the answer is no to any of these, it doesn't necessarily mean your movie is bad, it just means that there isn't a strong female presence, or if there is, they only seem to be there to talk about the men in the movie.

The reason I like this so much is because the test is simple to think about, and a surprising amount of mainstream movies fail it, while the same movies would mostly pass a male version of the same test. Heck, don't even watch the video if you don't like Anita's tone, but try to apply the test to movies (or videogames!) you know and see how many pass. It's a simple demonstration of how much of our entertainment is dominated by portrayals of men who are the main movers and shakers, and women who are just there in a supporting role.

Eh, there are examples of people being sexist, anti-intellectual, and needlessly alluding to the first amendment in this thread. So many posts are spent trying to make these few see reason that very little real discussion can be had.

I really was not trying to say all people who level disagreement against the arguments made in this video fall into these categories. I was trying to say that anyone arguing in bad faith, in a deceitful or self-deceptive manner looking to protect themselves rather that find what is true in the matter, fall into those categories.

These arguments that are usually irrelevant and often lazy and disrespectful, are not the only responses in here, but their existence annoys me and I wanted to point to it. Part of changing things is pointing out when people are talking out of their asses.

Think I covered the whole "I'm labeling all who disagree with me" thing above. Your attempt at sarcastic possibility is actually pretty close to what the most interesting games explore. Some of The Walking Dead is about resolving conflicts with words and peaceful actions. Journey is about working together. Cooperation in games is truly the vanguard in multiplayer because, when done right, it feels so much more rewarding and human than killing other people. 12 Angry Men, an oldie, involves no violence, just jurors talking, and is absolutely riveting.

All storytelling has a moral obligation. Even if a storyteller does not acknowledge that, his or her story will be judged on moral standards. Anita suggests no form all stories should take, but simply rejects forms that intrinsically disempower more than half of the world's population.

And, as others have said, your definition of social justice is how those opposed to it, not those who promote it, define it. That seems wrong headed to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

I know it's obnoxious to link like that, but I looked back at that before answering just to check. I'm pretty sure that the categories of arguments I described are either deceptive or self-deceptive, so they fit that definition.

Again, I didn't dismiss all criticism, just those types of criticism. If you ignore the trolls, they will never learn. I think people can learn not to make stupid arguments like, in this thread, people who said she needs a good shag, that we shouldn't analyze games, or that she's trying to censor our fun times.

My perspective is that no trope, no common trend in storytelling is good because it is common. Things are good that show ample respect and humanization toward their subjects. Bad things can exist, but we should call them out as bad and work to make them exist less and less, not through bans or boycots, but through education and dialogue.

I think Anita is educating. It's powerful to see examples piled on top of each other and think of game stories outside of their justifying contexts. As she said, it's the fact that these are tropes, that they are common patterns amongst stories in games, that is a problem. No matter how much sense it makes in each singular game, the pattern across all games is disturbing and should change.

This is another interesting video on that topic:

I don't buy into the fact that mild stereotyping needs to be stamped out. Bad faith is a dumb fallacy that essentially posits any opposition as "self-deceiving," and it largely is a feminist concept. If it's something that needs to change for any reason, give the reason. There is no actual evidence to suggest that it is bad. It doesn't matter in real terms if it "normalizes" or "reinforces" beliefs. If you want to pick on bad writing clichés that's fine but it's obvious that Anita only picks on the 'tropes' she does as they weakly relate to feminist issues.

Your opinion is your opinion. Disregarding all criticism and focusing on unfounded viewpoints that may exist among trolls is foolish to say the least. It's an incredibly weak argument; of course some men are sexist and some games are too, but that doesn't make it okay to hate on the medium or gamers who don't want to stamp out even the most periphery of anti-female thought. It's not only a waste of time, but creates unnecessary division.

I personally totally disagree that "good things" show respect and humanization. That is not how art works, because art imitates life, which is in of itself not always respectful or humane.

I'm actually not seeing many mainstream movies that would fail it. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, Fast and the Furious 6 and Hangover 3 seem to be the only two movies from the Top Box office list, and both don't have any depth in the characters male or female.

If you ignore the trolls, they will never get what they want, which is someone to argue with them and get pissed off. That's what they do. They're trolls.

Well just thinking of some current examples, Star Trek Into Darkness would probably fail it, as I don't think Carol Marcus and Uhura ever speak.

The Great Gatsby might pass it, but only just barely, because I think Daisy and her friend make small talk about something random (not related to Tom Buchanan or Gatsby) at some point.

Iron Man 3 barely passes, again because of a very brief small talk between Pepper and Tony's old girlfriend right before the house blows up.

Now, all these movies easily pass the male version of the test, because there are more male characters than female characters, and they're actively solving the problems at hand, and talking about things other than their relationships.

Note that all the original Star Wars movies, the Lord of the Rings films, and the Batman movies fail this test (and a good number of Disney and Pixar films too!).

I am utterly amazed how much the internet is infatuated by this women for either good or bad reasons. Looks like all the same users are back from the #1reasonwhy stories, "mens rights", "I have it so hard being a middle class white male". Gimme a break guys.

@endurancefun: Her examples in these videos are not mild stereotyping, they are women=objects to rescue, mercy kill, or go into a vengeful rage over the death of.

Here's the reason (I'm going to spend too much time doing this, so thank me in advance). Look at the top ten games in sales last year that had stories (according to NPD). I'm just going to do some general gender role analysis.

9. Lego Batman 2: Kids game, 48/64 playable characters are male.

8. Modern Warfare 3: All playable characters are male. One NPC is female. She is captured and must be rescued

7. Borderlands 2: Has playable female and male characters. Includes a scene where a female boss requires you to euthanize her.

4. Assassin's Creed 3: The death of Connor's mother motivates him. The series has always done a better job at racial and gender depictions than most, and it's feminist hunter character in Connor's homestead is a good example here.

3. Halo 4: The main campaign is based around Master Chief, amidst much alien complexity, trying to save Cortana, who eventually sacrifies herself for the greater good. The co-op missions revolve around a female specialist who is both captured and nearly killed, but lives to the end.

1. Black Ops 2: The main villain's sister is first burnt and disfigured and then, years later, killed accidentally by a grenade. Her death is his main motivation. Codename Karma either dies, unleashing a virus, Or is saved by the player. The President of the United States is named Marion. It's a great choice to cast a woman in that role.

Okay, that took way too long. Here's the thing. Borderlands 2 is the only game where you play as a woman in the main campaign here, and it is a choice to do so. Every game outside of Lego Batman (because I didn't look it up, but I assume there isn't any misogyny there) has a woman in peril, in need of rescue, or killed. Each other these uses this death as motivation for the player or the antagonist.

Clearly it's a trend. Why is it a problem? Because people are choosing to write these stories for millions to play. You can choose to write a story in hundreds, thousands, of ways. Why are the top selling games killing women to motivate male characters? Is there a good answer to that question? I can't think of one. Can you?

Any thinking person encountering any story chooses to relate to characters or to situations. We want to engage and care. If games are asking us to mostly engage and care about men because they do things, and pity women who did so that men can do those things, that's not a realistic depiction of how the world works. It's skewed. It's off. It's sexist.

It keeps the prevailing attitude that women cannot defend themselves, are not strong, alive. It's one of the reasons it took until this year for the United States to allow women to fight in combat zones.

Media is fantasy, no matter how realistic its stories. Why not make up stories that overcome the problems in the real world? Why mire your stories in the same problems we have, especially if in doing so you do not offer a solution, but use them as "legitimate" storytelling techniques? Why justify something that creates harm?

Because it's worked before, and it sells. I think that's probably reason enough for the publishers.

Also, I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I predict people will pounce on a few things in your post, like women in combat zones being a good idea, and the idea that stories shouldn't reflect reality (I think they should, sometimes).

Can you qualitatively describe why it's disturbing and needs to change without having to resort to an unsubstantiated leap of logic to back it up?

Simply saying that it is common doesn't help. Needing to be rescued doesn't equate to being disrespectful or dehumanizing, or even that they're characterized as weak as others suggest. The use of the trope isn't inherently bad just because one says it is.

I disagree with the notion that we should ignore the context in order to judge something as a problem.

Edit: Ok, reading your other post, I don't know if I can take you seriously if you're alluding to games having misogyny. I'm not sure if people making these arguments know what that word means.

All this boils down to is the majority of game stories are llazy and childish. There are very few examples of good story telling in games.