Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games Ep1

Part 1 sounds like an introduction to an essay, it never gets to any point in particular and the games cited are old, bordering irrelevant.

$158,922 has been donated...

Sometimes, this entire discussion feels completely fucking hopeless. Trying to convince a generation of males who have been consuming male-oriented video games and targeted by male-oriented advertising that maybe, just maybe they'll need to start letting girls into their treehouse can feel like ramming your head into a wall. Look at the comments section on this subject in any other, non-videogame centric media outlet, and it starts to paint a pretty ugly picture of our community. It's the same with the Kotaku comments section - any story about women, feminism, or minorities can't pass without legions of (white) (male) commenters picking it all apart. On top of that, look at the members of the chat and their reaction to a transgendered woman on the recent new releases live show. Absolutely shameful.

I know that there's a good chance this post will be quoted and pulled apart and somebody will accuse me of crying out "misogyny!", just like the last ten pages. I don't blame the staff and moderators for not touching these threads with a ten foot pole, because apart from a handful of pretty rational duders, they attract the absolute worst and most backward elements of the user base.

You don't say? Maybe...because that's what it is?

Do you realize that the people you're complaining about don't exist in this community (or at least are not vocal)? Most of the counter arguments to any sexism claim are usually for true equality and are tired of people making a mountain out of a mole hill and labeling everything sexist. We pick apart the posts because they're logically weak and don't stand a chance against true equality. But that always falls on deaf ears because radical feminist are hell bent on convincing everyone that sexism is in absolutely everything at all times without taking anything into consideration.

First of all, you cannot say "[an] anti-female bias does innately exist in society" and expect no one to think that you're talking about misogyny.

Secondly, I see the argument as one of nature vs nurture. Most women are perfectly happy to own the idea that females are naturally (i.e. born that way) better at verbal and social skills than their male counterparts. In fact, studies have been done that confirm that female infants are much more likely to look at a human face than a physical object, and vice versa for males.

http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

Males and females REALLY are born differently, and not every element of our personalities are based on how society forms us. Because of this truth, does it really seem all that absurd that the same natural verbal and social skills that benefit women in many ways, could also be responsible for naturally limiting them in others?

I once wrote a paper for class entitled "You Write Like a Girl" after hearing that women have a tendency to use a lot of indefinite modifiers in their writing--could, maybe, does, possibly, perhaps, might, etc--and noticing that I have a tendency to do the same thing. It's mainly because I've always believed in the old adage, you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I feel less assertive writing makes your argument more likely to persuade another. Women probably have an innate understanding of that as well, because they're naturally less assertive.

Now you could (see what I mean?) chalk that up to women not having any confidence in this cruel, male controlled, patriarchal society that women are subjected to. Conversely, you could just see it as women for the most part are naturally more likely to be social and place more of an emphasis on supporting their family emotionally, and men for the most part are more likely to be assertive, and place more of an emphasis on supporting their family financially.

Again, it's nature vs nurture, and I personally believe that nature plays the larger part.

@jams said:

What he said

No if you had read what parts are coming up, they each supposedly address a different trope. I made the same mistake as you assuming Part 2 was going to bring some kind of conclusion, some actual point rather than what may turn out to be a series of introductions to papers researched from Wikipedia. You can read about the project on Kickstarter.

She literally says that the next two videos will deal with the Damsel trope in greater detail. Did you actually watch the video?

So I've got this wrong, Part 1 is Part 1 to Damsel in Distress and there are 3 parts to this trope? [edit] I watched the video, stopped it with a minute to go, the kickstarter page indicated video no.2 would be a different trope.

Yeah. To be fair, she hasn't been entirely clear about how this is going to work, but from what it looks like, there are multiple parts per trope. The damsel trope is apparently broken up into three parts, one introducing it, one discussing modern games, and one discussing how the trope has been flipped or altered (probably more positive examples).

I wouldn't mind playing a game that has Zelda or Peach play the hero, it would be a nice break away from the norm. This was a good video to watch that breaks down some of those tiresome tropes of video game past, present and most likely future.

She got so much money that she expanded from 5 (I think) 6 minute videos to 13 20 minute videos, going super in depth on each trope.

Watched the video and it had some good points. In the end though, I just wanna enjoy video games, not analyze them this deeply, so myself and The Master of Unlocking shall go back to blasting zombies with a shotgun.

If this stuff constitutes "radical feminism" to you, there's a very, very scary world of feminist critical theory waiting out there for you. Read up on the theory of the gaze, look into Carol Adams, bell hooks [sic], or anything like that. Sarkeesian is quite benign in comparison.

Funny, a lot of us would say the radical feminists you then go on to complain about don't exist in this community. ;-)

You mean the two people who said something followed by masses of people telling everyone to be respectful? Yeah, I remember that

The notion of arguing for "true equality" while in the same breath arguing that the cultural history and historical representation of women is irrelevant, is to me, more disgusting than someone who is an open sexist or racist.

It's a complete fallacy to suggest that you're for equality but also against the feminist movement-- the feminist movement is an equality movement. This notion of adopting this stance of "equality" exists solely to render critical thought moot-- it's an anti-historical and anti-critical stance. And what makes it so disgusting is that it's couched in the framework of altruism, when it couldn't possibly be further from that.

I've also found it quite funny that in my personal experience when I've come across people who are against the feminist movement but purport to be for a greater "equality" (lot of those people in my University as it turns out) they all happen to be white men.

I think this was a better constructed video and argument then her past videos. I like that it was more on facts and less on reaching for an agenda. I also like how she does not point fingers and try to paint the other side as a villain.

The goal i would think is to raise awareness that these things happen and not that there is some evil man nation keeping the women down. So if all the videos are like this i would say good job minus the fact that it seems easily re-searchable information that would not demand such a budget she has for this.

@rockyraccoon37: The 'feminist movement' has been around for over a century and its current form or relevancy is arguable. It's pretty childish to get angry over someone not thinking it's egalitarian and there is plenty of evidence to support that view.

I would like to point out for everyone calling her video well researched; Dinosaur Planet always had a male main character. His name was Sabre, and he looked a hell of a lot like fox as it was. Yes, Krystal was playable, but it's not like they just took a female helmed game and turned it to one with a male protagonist for shits and giggles.

So yeah, she kind of fucked that one up.

White men hold all the power, are terrified of losing it. News at 11.

okay dude cite your evidence

@punkxblaze: She says that Krystal was one of two playable characters in the video.

She also fucked up on Doki Doki Panic. It's a myth that Nintendo though it was too hard for Americans, the truth is that they rushed out Lost Levels and when it came to actually releasing Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, they worked it into a marketing scheme with a Japanese company. All the characters are mascots, it is not an IP. It's strange how many people blindly believe this as when you think about it, Nintendo jerking around its main franchise, even in the 90's, is completely unlike them.

Edit: She does kind of, you know, only show footage of Crystal and makes no mention of Sabre. As if to imply Crystal was the only character? Playable character can mean different things other than main character too.

@deadmoscow: Do you have a source that says feminism should be regarded as egalitarian at all times? The only places that would discuss such a question would raise eyebrows on either side, anyway.

You two just had to bring race into this, didn't you. My lord.

@punkxblaze: The point wasn't that a guy was made the hero. She mentioned that Krystal was one of two playable characters. The point was that a playable character who was a female was turned back into a "damsel in distress" meaning she went from having power to make her own destiny to having none and being dependent on others. I don't see how you can debate that, that's a fact. Now you can argue that they did that for more marketing reasons, but it doesn't change that a hero character was turned into a victim at some stage in the game development process.

Again, you can argue why it happened, but it happened. I don't think the reasons are nefarious, but it's food for thought.

@punkxblaze: She mentions that Krystal was one of two playable characters in the video.

So yeah, you kind of fucked that one up.

Why yes I do - the Merriam Webster Dictionary. "The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." If Merriam Webster raises too many eyebrows, I submit additional definitions. For additional thoughts on the matter, read this blog post.

Any discussion of feminism (and by extension the idea of a patriarchal society) is, by necessity, going to have to point out the unfair advantages enjoyed by white males throughout history.

@deadmoscow: We are not discussing the definition of feminism, we are discussing what feminists actually represent.

This thread is not about white men or the patriarchy. Personally, to bring them up comes off as baiting other users.

She kind of dodges the reason why that game was turned into a Starfox one, and by omission implies that sexism had something to do with it. I didn't care for that. When a new IP of somewhat dubious appeal (generic 3rd person platformer) gets repurposed as a sequel in an established franchise, the reason is invariably that the game might actually make a profit under the franchise name.

@herbiebug: Does that explain why Krystal's no longer playable or why she's been relegated to the damsel-in-distress role or why they sexified her appearance? Because that's what approximately 100% of her complaints regarding Star Fox Adventures were.

The text book definition - "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment." This I just grabbed from Wikipedia, but it's the gist.

Here's the rub, I think most women today are technically feminist or hold feminist ideas and it's not even a big deal. You go out and get a job and an education, you strive to achieve your goals, and you believe you should be treated fairly based on what you do? That's the crux of feminism, it's just so ingrained in young women now that it's not even a thing. We don't even barely consider that feminism, it's just being a decent and useful human being and wanting to be treated fairly.

Now I see a lot of people saying in this very thread that feminism is about man hating, and frankly I feel that that is baiting people like me who would consider themselves feminist in a broad sense and certainly don't hate men. Talk about lumping groups of people together in an antagonistic way.

I find it ironic when someone states that we need to re-define the outdated games industry, but uses a dictionary to define themselves. At the same time, feel free to regurgitate conspiracy theories about white men. Hypocrisy clearly does not exist in this reality.

We are getting off-topic now. Anita only states facts in her video, bringing up the old 'feminism is egalitarianism according to a dictionary' argument always derails these threads. Not telling anyone to stop, but there it is.

@endurancefun: I guess that was to me. You mentioned talking about what feminists actually represent. That's a definition. That's it, that's the extent of what the bogeyman feminism means to me. It means I get a better chance than some of my ancestors. Instead of being a "domestic" that can't get into the United States because a pig bit her fingers as she lay in her crib as a child, I got to go to a good school and work a job I like and play video games. That's it. Anything else is attributing nefarious goals where none exist. And like I said, most people are pretty cool with the basic ideas that were the original starting point of the feminist movement. 30 year old women like me are examples of it everyday.

Like all movements, there are fringe elements, and those fringe elements do not speak for everyone. Much like the Democratic or Republic parties can have people who disagree with each other and at the end of the day they're still under the same basic umbrella.

I don't agree with everything said in this video. I don't agree that we need to take a hammer to anything or that anything needs fixing. But I think talking about and thinking about stuff is cool. I think learning different perspectives is cool. I have learned a lot in my life and the most important thing I think I learned was to not be a close-minded fuckwit. Not that I always succeed, I'm a human being with notions and biases and beliefs, but I try.

@jadegl: I hope you're not implying I'm a "close-minded fuckwit." There's room for criticism on the feminist movement and primarily it is about the fact that it may serve preferential treatment over equality. This clearly not does fit the textbook definition. This says nothing of the millions of feminists as individuals or overall, or of myself for pointing out this argument.

Ultimately feminism is simply a political movement, once we start applying emotions to situations, it clouds our judgement. There are plenty of places to discuss these things but this thread seems like a poor choice.

@endurancefun: No not at all. I literally was close-minded about certain things (and probably can find things I am close-minded about if I try hard enough) and I find that growing up and older has made me not so much. For instance, my family is rabidly of one political persuasion, and I find as I grow older I ride the middle much more. Just an example.

I just find that some people are attempting to paint all "feminists" with a brush that isn't fair. I never want preferential treatment.

For instance, the WNBA is not a great idea in that it is not monetarily successful. The NBA keeps it solvent, and that's not fair. If people wanted to see it, it should be able to survive on it's own. We shouldn't keep something going on life support just because it makes people feel good. I can feel good about being a woman without having equal sports leagues, thank-you-very-much. That's just a tiny thing but it's an example.

@jadegl: Oh, okay, glad we cleared that up.

Except for the fact that it's not. Feminism is an -ism, it is a one way concern about a solitary group. The feminist movement--and that is an important distinction, because I truly believe that most feminists who are not a part of a moment are simply in favor of women's rights, as any decent person should be--is concerned about the humanity of women, and the helpfulness or harmfulness of men in relation to women.

Men and women both have disadvantages, privileges, and obligations that they face throughout their lives. Some are natural, and some are social. But a problem arises when a group is concerned with eliminating every possible disadvantage that one gender might face, while simultaneously protecting every privilege and advantage that benefits them.

It's even more frustrating to see the feminist movement put female advantage under the umbrella of "benevolent sexism," claim it to be further evidence that they're oppressed, and then do absolutely nothing to work towards a change that would disadvantage any women, no matter how egalitarian that change might be.

In other words "Oh Susan, this awful sexist society we live in makes me sick. I just moved my children over 1200 miles away from my ex-husband, who is their father. I did it without his agreement or even his knowledge. Then when he forced me into a courtroom, all I had to say is that I did it for a job opportunity, and the case was over. I'm the mom, and that's it. There was no further explanation needed. It was your classic case of benevolent sexism."

"I know exactly what you mean. It sickens me too, Sarah. So, what's on our feminist agenda for today?"

"Well, I was walking through the local college computer lab today, and I noticed almost everyone was male, so I made these signs that say 'Women in computing: The future is too important to be left to men!' and we're going to put them up all over the school."

And even if you are of the belief that men are still more socially privileged than women, I seriously doubt that you could make a strong argument that they are legally privileged. Legally speaking, men are at rather large disadvantage, one that feminism--an "equality movement"--doesn't seem to care about in the least.

I would also hope that you'd be able to see that eventually, a social and political movement advocating one gender and ignoring another will always lead to anything but "equality."

Cliff Bleszinski wrote a blog entry on the controversy behind the video if anyone's interested.

Not to ad hominem her, but has anyone noticed how many times she blinks? It does open up the oppertunity for some hilariously awkward screenshots though

One theory was that at the beginning of her Kickstarter campaign, she had people posting links to her campaign on 4Chan to troll for...trolls.

Then she blocked comments to all her sites to funnel all hate comments directly to her Kickstarter page.

She's also claims that there were attacks on her out of nowhere when her Kickstarter launched, but she's been receiving and deleting negative comments for years.

I personally found it suspicious that she calls herself a gamer and talks about reviewing games but, she didn't own any games and knew so little about gaming she had to ask people which games she should buy.

She also claimed in one of her older videos that in Fable 2 the older sister dies, so the male hero will have a reason for getting revenge.

If she knew anything about Fable 2, she would have known you can play as a female, and the main quest is about saving the world.

David Jaffe wrote about the video on his Twitter, interestingly enough.

guys she was wrong about fable 2, so clearly everything she says from now until the end of time is discredited.

let's assume you're correct and she "trolled for trolls" for personal financial gain...what do you care? what does it matter? does it suddenly make all her arguments about women and video games invalid? seems to me you should be mad at trolls for being trolls, because a) being a troll is a personal choice, much like being a jerk and b) they're the ones generating attention for her, according to your theory.

Thanks for that completely pointless sarcasm filled rant.

thanks for the heads up on that! i generally find myself in disagreement with jaffe most of the time, but i respect the hell out of him, and he makes salient points about the production values. kickstarter man- it's a bit of a powderkeg waiting to happen. but that's a separate issue, i suppose.

That motherfucker needs to quit twitter and write in a real blog. I can't be piecing together 25 fucking tweets that form only 1 answer.

yeah it's brutal to read with the twitter formatting.

@endurancefun said:

Would've of been cool if you quoted the tweet so we didn't have to scour his account for the tweet in relation...

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but the tl;dr was

he generally agreed with her sentiment, but doesn't understand/accept where the money went. the presentation left him wanting.

Scratch that first comment. Yeah I'm reading through the tangled web now and it would've been to hard to quote, the man should write a blog! I guess he's just trying to answer to everyones criticism. The thing I like is Jaffe's not even against the message and people are still wanting an argument, its like either you 100% love the video or you're a minsogynst. Good call on him calling it out, the only production upgrade that seems to of been done is the intro motion graphics.

Yeah Jaffe's main complaint wasn't the ideas, but the presentation. I can agree with that. I certainly don't mind the academic approach, which I think is what the video is going for, but that doesn't make it the most entertaining thing. I expected it to be that way, but I think humor would certainly help too. To borrow a phrase from a very famous work if fiction "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."