#651 Edited by mtcantor (922 posts) -

No one is saying that it's exclusive to Japan. We're saying that the trope exists in American developed games, but it's far from prevalent.

You've been asked to make an argument for this several times now, as I've made an argument for it NOT being prevalent in American developed games, but you continuously seem to refuse, you keep saying we should wait for more videos, and you keep using the word "prevalent" like you're automatically right, and the burden of proof is on everyone who disagrees with you. Then when they do make an argument, you ignore it, and continue to call the trope prevalent.

I don't really feel like doing your work for you and researching all recent american games to cherry pick examples of the damsel trope to string this argument along further. Lord knows that if I did you would just find some other technicality to argue.

But, since you called me on the floor, I am happy to give a very recent example: Halo 4. Don't get much more western or modern than that.

I think we are getting hung up on the word "prevalent." I'm not saying (and neither is Sarkeesian) that it's in every game, or even in most games. Rather, it's in enough games that most (if not all) gamers know it pretty well. I mean, hell, they even made fun of it in Spelunky.

If your argument is that this trope is so rare, or so confined to a single culture's video games, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree. It's not all that rare, and even if it were a Japanese thing (which its not), the fact that Japanese games are as popular as they are in the western world proves that the trope is relevant.

#652 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

I don't really feel like doing your work for you and researching all recent american games to cherry pick examples of the damsel trope to string this argument along further.

So MY work is to both claim that it's not prevalent AND to claim that it's prevalent? And clearly, you shouldn't have to cherry pick examples of anything that is prevalent. That's the point.

But, since you called me on the floor, I am happy to give a very recent example: Halo 4. Don't get much more western or modern than that.

I'll refer you to my previous statement: "We're saying that the trope exists in American developed games, but it's far from prevalent."

I think we are getting hung up on the word "prevalent." I'm not saying (and neither is Sarkeesian) that it's in every game, or even in most games.

We're getting hung up on the word prevalent, because that's the point that I'm arguing. That word radically changes the severity of a issue, and using it when there isn't cause just artificially inflates the problem.

If your argument is that this trope is so rare, or so confined to a single culture's video games, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

And if you think that is my argument, then I don't think you understand what I've been arguing about.

At any rate, I'd think I've explained my point about as much as I care to. Unless you want to make an argument for the trope's current prevalence in modern games, then I think I'm done discussing the issue. We'll just wait for the next video, and take it from there.

#653 Posted by Jams (2956 posts) -

@nictel said:

Of course sexism is real but why of all things attack games like Mario and Zelda? Make men aware of sex trafficking, abuse of women in porn, underage and unwilling prostitutes. Lets as a collective all stop watching things like 'Girls gone wild'. Things that involve real issues not some weird theory about Zelda being "girly" vulnerable as soon as she changes form Sheik to her princess form..

See, that's what I'm talking about. There are still some terrible things going on in the world and Anita and her contributor's are concentrated something that's absolutely ridiculous compared to some serious problems out there like what nictel mentions. She doesn't even have to look outside the US to see some terrible things going on. She could have used that money to fund a non profit game that maybe educates people on sexual abuse or something similar. Instead, hey you know that game from 20+ years ago?

The people who made it used the tired old damsel in distress trope.

OH REALLY COOL?!? What about sex trafficking? What about the sexual abuse that's been going on in the Army, schools, etc?

#654 Posted by jgf (366 posts) -

@jams: You forgot world peace and world hunger :D. Hell not everyone needs to address the most serious problem there is. It bears a certain irony that you are aware of all those serious problems and yet find time and reason to argue about what a single women says in a youtube video.

#655 Edited by mtcantor (922 posts) -

At any rate, I'd think I've explained my point about as much as I care to. Unless you want to make an argument for the trope's current prevalence in modern games, then I think I'm done discussing the issue. We'll just wait for the next video, and take it from there.

Can't wait.

#656 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

That wasn't what the money was supposed to be used for, but perhaps she could have done that with the extra money.

You know what would be fun? A Damsel in Distress game told from the damsel's perspective. You're tasked with escaping from a tower, and there are lots of objects and things to interact with that look like possible methods of escape, but nothing seems to be working. Then, after about 20 minutes--while you're right in the middle of trying to figure out how to escape--the hero bursts into the locked door, and the game is over.

After that, you're taken to a leaderboard that keeps track of everyone's game completion time, and every one of the times listed is exactly the same.

#657 Edited by LackingSaint (1698 posts) -

It's sad to me that so many people defend Anita's videos as great for opening discussion of the issue, and then write up snarky patronising posts in response to anyone that actually wants to make a counter-point. That's about all I have to say about the aftermath of this stuff.

#658 Edited by mtcantor (922 posts) -

That wasn't what the money was supposed to be used for, but perhaps she could have done that with the extra money.

You know what would be fun? A Damsel in Distress game told from the damsel's perspective. You're tasked with escaping from a tower, and there are lots of objects and things to interact with that look like possible methods of escape, but nothing seems to be working. Then, after about 20 minutes--while you're right in the middle of trying to figure out how to escape--the hero bursts into the locked door, and the game is over.

After that, you're taken to a leaderboard that keeps track of everyone's game completion time, and every one of the times listed is exactly the same.

That's actually pretty funny. Reminds me of Braid.

#659 Posted by JadeGL (612 posts) -

I think the point, in the broader sense if we follow Anita down the rabbit hole, is that a society that perpetuates these images in popular culture is allowing people to be viewed negatively and therefore making it easier for things like actual real abuse and harm to come to come to them. That's a huge step, I know. I doubt that people talking about these issues aren't also talking about things like female genital mutilation, abortion access, sex trafficking, prostitution, abuse in schools and the military, etc. I think that their point is that a society that has these ingrained notions of what the roles of men and women are make it easier for abuses to take place and be washed away with various excuses more easily. I think in a lot of ways, their approach is attempting to be much more holistic.

I can only guess that that is where her discussion and thought process may go. I have no idea. I am no expert on this type of viewpoint, but I get the impression that that is what she thinks the point of her discussion is.

#660 Posted by Jams (2956 posts) -

@jgf said:

@jams: You forgot world peace and world hunger :D. Hell not everyone needs to address the most serious problem there is. It bears a certain irony that you are aware of all those serious problems and yet find time and reason to argue about what a single women says in a youtube video.

yeah you're right :( I was being quite a hypocrite there wasn't I?

#661 Edited by doublestandards (16 posts) -

Why is this still on the front page of the forums?

#662 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

Why is this still on the front page of the forums?

Because people keep posting in the thread. Like you, for example.

#663 Posted by doublestandards (16 posts) -

@doublestandards said:

Why is this still on the front page of the forums?

Because people keep posting in the thread. Like you, for example.

oh look, someone trying to be witty over the internet.

I was just pointing out this thread has gone on long enough. Back and forth bickering over a youtube video (which is against the forum rules to post in the first place) is going to go nowhere.

#664 Edited by EnduranceFun (1114 posts) -

@doublestandards: It's funny, the mods let this thread stay open, but immediately locked another one posting a video response to Anita's because it 'lacked context.' The OP wasn't allowed to edit in anything and the mods contain that if you fail the first time, clearly you can never remake the thread ever again for some unknown reason.

#665 Edited by JadeGL (612 posts) -

I thought a lot of people responding thought that the video would be better posted in this thread (where the discussion was happening) versus starting a whole new thread. And it would be better here, considering you could watch the videos together. One was a direct rebuttal, so I think that makes sense to put it together with this and talk about them as a pair, and then include other videos as the conversation continues, or other articles. I mean, we posted Cliffy B's blog post here, where it makes sense, instead of starting a whole new thread, as well as the rebuttal that was written and posted a few pages ago talking about Japanese cultural in regards to these tropes.

#666 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@doublestandards: It's funny, the mods let this thread stay open, but immediately locked another one posting a video response to Anita's because it 'lacked context.' The OP wasn't allowed to edit in anything and the mods contain that if you fail the first time, clearly you can never remake the thread ever again for some unknown reason.

Really though, I don't think we should have loads of threads debating the same issue. I don't want different threads for each of the Tropes vs. Women videos either, so it's kind of the same thing.

I basically "own" the second post in this thread, though. If you point me towards the video, I'll be happy to edit it in to my post, where it can be easily seen.

#667 Edited by EnduranceFun (1114 posts) -

It's fine, was posted already, sorry for derailing the thread.

#668 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

So I'm sure at least several feminists are reading this thread, and while I've already explained my personal feelings on feminism, there's one issue in particular that I feel just doesn't make any sense at all.

[trigger warning]

I'm constantly seeing this--a trigger warning--being used by feminists on the internet before they address the subject of rape, which seems absolutely ridiculous. Even if I accept the idea that people don't want to be reminded of their own rape, how on earth is that helping anyone not be reminded of their rape, when the warning itself would clearly make people think about rape? Honestly, it seems about as effective as:

[don't think of a blue elephant]

It's just one more aspect of feminism that makes me shake my head.

#669 Edited by SweeneyTodd (22 posts) -

sure... why NOT make fun of rape victims? Could you include a little context?

edit: never mind, a quick perusal of your recent posts shows you're not worth anyone's attention.

#672 Edited by mtcantor (922 posts) -

@pitskits said:

@sweeneytodd said:

sure... why NOT make fun of rape victims? Could you include a little context?

edit: never mind, a quick perusal of your recent posts shows you're not worth anyone's attention.

Why is it ok to satire everyone but not rape victims?

(I'm trying to create a point here, I'm not promoting such a thing and I'm not for it).

There's an old rule in comedy that it should never be aimed at the powerless, because then it becomes cruel and hurtful.

#673 Posted by Sergio (1773 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@pitskits said:

@sweeneytodd said:

sure... why NOT make fun of rape victims? Could you include a little context?

edit: never mind, a quick perusal of your recent posts shows you're not worth anyone's attention.

Why is it ok to satire everyone but not rape victims?

(I'm trying to create a point here, I'm not promoting such a thing and I'm not for it).

There's an old rule in comedy that it should never be aimed at the powerless, because then it becomes cruel and hurtful.

Actually, I think in comedy, nothing is off limits, but some things are likely to get you in some trouble. Daniel Tosh, who I already find not funny for other reasons, got in trouble for rape jokes last year. Some comedians defended him.

#674 Posted by mtcantor (922 posts) -

@sergio said:

@mtcantor said:

There's an old rule in comedy that it should never be aimed at the powerless, because then it becomes cruel and hurtful.

Actually, I think in comedy, nothing is off limits, but some things are likely to get you in some trouble. Daniel Tosh, who I already find not funny for other reasons, got in trouble for rape jokes last year. Some comedians defended him.

Oh sure, nothing is off limits. Doesn't mean some jokes don't make you a a total asshole though.

By all means, I respect your rights to make all the rape jokes you want, I just reserve my own rights to judge you harshly for doing so.

#675 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@sweeneytodd said:

sure... why NOT make fun of rape victims? Could you include a little context?

edit: never mind, a quick perusal of your recent posts shows you're not worth anyone's attention.

Good LORD, I'm am NOT making fun of rape victims! That's a horrible thing to accuse anyone of, and absolutely NONE of that was meant as a joke. At the same time, I will say that I do believe no subject should be off limits when it comes to comedy, but that was NOT what I was doing there.

That is an honest question, and if someone has an answer, I would really like to hear it. I could understand perhaps using a trigger warning if you were going to post a graphic account of rape, but I see it being used before even the most basic casual discussion of the subject, and one that includes absolutely no details. That doesn't make logical sense to me.

If you post something that says [trigger warning] you might as well post [I'm going to talk about rape] instead, right? If not, then why not? How could one remind you less of rape than the other?

----

But to go back to the subject of of comedy for a moment, for anyone who says that they would NEVER laugh at rape, and that rape is something that should NEVER be joked about, I'll just leave this here.

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things that can happen to a person than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

#676 Edited by Darji (5295 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@pitskits said:

@sweeneytodd said:

sure... why NOT make fun of rape victims? Could you include a little context?

edit: never mind, a quick perusal of your recent posts shows you're not worth anyone's attention.

Why is it ok to satire everyone but not rape victims?

(I'm trying to create a point here, I'm not promoting such a thing and I'm not for it).

There's an old rule in comedy that it should never be aimed at the powerless, because then it becomes cruel and hurtful.

I heard that if you can not make fun of some minor group or culture than they are not socially accepted. So basically if you can not make fun of the disabled, black people, gay people, jews or whatever. then they are a social taboo.

#677 Posted by mtcantor (922 posts) -

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things to laugh about than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought of them.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

Don't you understand though? This is funny because he isn't mocking someone who is (in reality) a powerless victim. He is flipping it on his head. It's irony.

#678 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -
#679 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things to laugh about than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought of them.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

Don't you understand though? This is funny because he isn't mocking someone who is (in reality) a powerless victim. He is flipping it on his head. It's irony.

I don't understand, no. "He isn't mocking someone who is a powerless victim?" What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the men that guy raped WANTED to be raped, or that they were not powerless in that situation? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what you mean here.

I would assume that the rapist was either much larger than them, or had a gun to their head. Either way, I think "powerless victim" seems to be right terminology.

#680 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

[edit] double post.

#681 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things to laugh about than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought of them.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

Don't you understand though? This is funny because he isn't mocking someone who is (in reality) a powerless victim. He is flipping it on his head. It's irony.

I don't understand, no. "He isn't mocking someone who is a powerless victim?" What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the men that guy raped WANTED to be raped, or that they were not powerless in that situation? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what you mean here.

I would assume that the rapist was either much larger than them, or had a gun to their head. Either way, I think "powerless victim" seems to be right terminology.

If you are a victim you are always the powerless. That is why yo are the Victim and not someone else.

#682 Posted by mtcantor (922 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things to laugh about than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought of them.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

Don't you understand though? This is funny because he isn't mocking someone who is (in reality) a powerless victim. He is flipping it on his head. It's irony.

I don't understand, no. "He isn't mocking someone who is a powerless victim?" What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the men that guy raped WANTED to be raped, or that they were not powerless in that situation? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what you mean here.

I would assume that the rapist was either much larger than them, or had a gun to their head. Either way, I think "powerless victim" seems to be right terminology.

I think it can be kind of complicated, but it all comes down to the idea of "When does comedy stop being positive, and start being just mean?"

Like, there is clearly a difference between comedy and cruel mocking. Maybe it's intent, but some would argue that's difficult, if not impossible, to really judge. The same words mean different things to different people, regardless of what the person speaking them was thinking at the time.

So, there's this old idea in comedy that you should target your jokes at the powerful and not the powerless. So, mocking someone who would traditionally be a rape victim is cruel. Mocking someone who would not traditionally be a rape victim is at least funnier. Whether or not it is actually funny depends a lot on who's listening and whatever baggage they have brought to the table.

But whatever, I'm done talking about this particular area of this issue. This is going nowhere good.

#683 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -

@mtcantor said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@mtcantor said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

If you laughed, or even smirked a bit, I forgive you. Just know that there are worse things to laugh about than rape, and it seems to be pretty easy to get an entire female audience absolutely roaring with laughter at the thought of them.

[I'm going to talk about someone mutilating your genitalia]

Don't you understand though? This is funny because he isn't mocking someone who is (in reality) a powerless victim. He is flipping it on his head. It's irony.

I don't understand, no. "He isn't mocking someone who is a powerless victim?" What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the men that guy raped WANTED to be raped, or that they were not powerless in that situation? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what you mean here.

I would assume that the rapist was either much larger than them, or had a gun to their head. Either way, I think "powerless victim" seems to be right terminology.

I think it can be kind of complicated, but it all comes down to the idea of "When does comedy stop being positive, and start being just mean?"

Like, there is clearly a difference between comedy and cruel mocking. Maybe it's intent, but some would argue that's difficult, if not impossible, to really judge. The same words mean different things to different people, regardless of what the person speaking them was thinking at the time.

So, there's this old idea in comedy that you should target your jokes at the powerful and not the powerless. So, mocking someone who would traditionally be a rape victim is cruel. Mocking someone who would not traditionally be a rape victim is at least funnier. Whether or not it is actually funny depends a lot on who's listening and whatever baggage they have brought to the table.

But whatever, I'm done talking about this particular area of this issue. This is going nowhere good.

I really dont care as long it is funny. I can laugh about something like the holocaust if its presented in a funny way for example. It all depends on how it is presented.

#684 Edited by ChillyUK7 (283 posts) -

The whole "damsel in distress" thing plays to the ages old male power fantasy. Typically our male ancestors were hunters, protectors, and providers. Naturally we've evolved to play out such things in our heads as a means of survival. How many times have we, as men, fantasized about saving the day during some anecdotal catastrophe where we were then looked upon as the object of some young women's eye? Of course pop culture throughout time will play on that, and as long as there is red blood in our veins it will never go away. However, it is incumbent to our continued evolution that we recognize such tropes, and try to be more sensitive.

Btw Sensitivity & censorship are two entirely different things in my book. If you wanna make a game, book, or movie about saving a princess you shouldn't feel insecure about expressing yourself artistically. Just be mindful that there may be men & women that experience your work.

It's less of a power fantasy and more of the age old 'male disposability' that is played into, we are partly hard wired and socially expected to put the needs of women above ourselves, this has and still does lead to the restriction of womens freedoms but it also has massively damaging effects on men who have real double standards put upon them in terms of self worth, men are simply expected to be tough, not to complain or show emotion and ultimately die for women if need be, if a man does not fulfill these roles he will be looked down upon by men and women alike, called a coward and 'not a real man', when has a woman ever had to prove that she is a 'real woman'? Again a woman who puts her needs above that of a man in a life or death situation will most likely never be scrutinised for it. So given all this is it any wonder it is always male characters who put themselves in danger to save a woman, I doubt many people, male and female, would be interested in spending an entire game trying to rescue a man in distress, no one would care about him. I would like to hear Anita's thoughts on male disposability, from the videos i've seen she never seems to delve into the issues surrounding men's gender roles/sexism toward men (then again very little gaming outlets tackle male sexism, it's dangerously one sided) and how they effect both sexes, it's simply summed up as men always reduce women to 'trophys, objects etc' when I believe there is far more to it. I'd check out girlwriteswhat, sorry if this is old news but I have recently stumbled upon her video's and she has made me aware of issues I have always known but never given much thought to.

#685 Edited by Jams (2956 posts) -

@chillyuk7: I always hated the "women and children first" bullshit (trope? hahaha). I wonder if equal rights feminist think that it's okay to be automatically chosen to survive because of their gender and men left to die because of theirs?

#686 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -

@jams said:

@chillyuk7: I always hated the "women and children first" bullshit (trope? hahaha). I wonder if equal rights feminist think that it's okay to be automatically chosen to survive because of their gender and men left to die because of theirs?

We should ask Anita but I am sure she is totally ok with that. Double standards for the win. It is the same with you do npt hit a woman. or you dont hit anyone with glasses. BULLSHIT XD

And no I dont hit woman infact I never have hit someone in my long life so far. But If I ever will hit someone I really do not care if its a woman or man or child. If this person actually can provoke me that much then this person who ever that is deserved it.

#687 Posted by Walker_after_dark (83 posts) -

That is an honest question, and if someone has an answer, I would really like to hear it. I could understand perhaps using a trigger warning if you were going to post a graphic account of rape, but I see it being used before even the most basic casual discussion of the subject, and one that includes absolutely no details. That doesn't make logical sense to me.

OK, I'll take you at your word that this is a genuine question, so I'll try to provide a genuine answer. The trigger warning tag is not used only by feminists and is not used only for discussions of rape. It is generally applied to any discussion of a strongly emotional or traumatic nature, such as depression, cutting, incest, suicide, childhood sexual abuse, bulimia, etc. Like putting a [NSFW] or [Spoilers] tag, it's a simple courtesy to let the reader know that the author is going to be discussing something of a potentially controversial nature. Like with those other tags, everyone has a different idea about what it means, so something that you might find very innocuous, someone else might have a very strong reaction to. Since they don't know, people tend to err on the side of caution, just like they tend to do with spoilers here. It's just about making some attempt to understand your reader's situation and having a little empathy for them, that's all.

#688 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@walker_after_dark said:
@spaceinsomniac said:

That is an honest question, and if someone has an answer, I would really like to hear it. I could understand perhaps using a trigger warning if you were going to post a graphic account of rape, but I see it being used before even the most basic casual discussion of the subject, and one that includes absolutely no details. That doesn't make logical sense to me.

OK, I'll take you at your word that this is a genuine question, so I'll try to provide a genuine answer.

...

Like with those other tags, everyone has a different idea about what it means, so something that you might find very innocuous, someone else might have a very strong reaction to. Since they don't know, people tend to err on the side of caution, just like they tend to do with spoilers here.

I always knew it was about empathy and compassion, but like I said, it didn't make sense to me to be using it for the most basic of non-detailed discussions concerning the topic. Comparing it to spoiler warnings, though, and the thought that everyone has different ideas concerning when it should be used, that makes much more sense to me. It's a good analogy, it was a good explanation, and I thank you for sharing your answer.

@chillyuk7 said:

It's less of a power fantasy and more of the age old 'male disposability' that is played into, we are partly hard wired and socially expected to put the needs of women above ourselves, this has and still does lead to the restriction of womens freedoms but it also has massively damaging effects on men who have real double standards put upon them in terms of self worth, men are simply expected to be tough, not to complain or show emotion and ultimately die for women if need be...

I recently starting looking into these topics as well. For years, I considered myself a feminist male--or at least someone who in most respects supported the feminist movement--but it was this video that changed my mind.

It's kind of long--but it's very interesting and informative throughout--and it does a fantastic job of illustrating an example of something absolutely wonderful that feminism has done, and how completely unfair, unbalanced, and downright WRONG it is that their efforts are only focused on women.

Or perhaps just watch this part of this video. It will take less time to view, and it's an example that hits much closer to home.

Feminism is NOT an equal rights movement. It's not an egalitarian movement. It is solely focused on one gender, even when that focus comes at the expense of another. If anyone watches these videos and cares to argue otherwise, I'd be happy to entertain the discussion. It's a fascinating subject.

#689 Posted by jgf (366 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac (and others): You're totally derailing this thread. This isn't about war against or pro ultra feminism. Supremacy of men or women. Its simply about common tropes in videogames. Especially the "damsel in distress" one.

This trope is well known among gamers and there is no way denying its existence. Whatever conclusions one draws from this observation, that can and should be discussed. Even the video did not say that games applying this trope are inherently bad. It simply stated facts that are worth thinking about, at least in my opinion. Or did I miss the part where she said "burn all mario games"?

But somehow this - what I would call fairly neutral - video lured some gamers out of their caves that try to fight their imagined holy war against it. Dude its a video, about tropes in games. Not more, not less.

#690 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3325 posts) -

@jgf: This entire series of videos is an examination of video games through a feminist lens, and is posted on a you tube channel called feminist frequency. Because of these facts, I do not consider an examination of feminism and feminist theory itself to be derailing the thread.

If she is talking about an oppressive patriarchal system--as she did in her very first video--there is no way that challenging that concept should be considered to be derailing the thread.

#691 Posted by ChillyUK7 (283 posts) -

We arent derailing the thread, we are having a discussion about the trope and other influences that contribute and explain it, also as SpaceInsomniac said her channel is called feminist frequency so calling feminism into question is entirely legitimate. I keep hearing that discussing sexism in games are what videos like this are for but as soon as we do, or more accurately, challenge her views we are suddenly "derailing" the thread, sorry but what kind of discussion did you expect? e.g. Yes this is a sexist trope, it is bad, the end...

#692 Posted by mellotronrules (1170 posts) -

...her channel is called feminist frequency so calling feminism into question is entirely legitimate. I keep hearing that discussing sexism in games are what videos like this are for but as soon as we do, or more accurately, challenge her views we are suddenly "derailing" the thread, sorry but what kind of discussion did you expect?

i think the idea is to relate what you're saying back to video games, this being in the general discussion of a video games website. discussing sarkeesian's video is on-topic, as she is expressly dealing with video games. perhaps a feminist interpretation, but video games nonetheless. it's great y'all support girlwriteswhat- but unless she's written or spoken about video games, i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by invoking her perspectives. you're welcome to attempt to 'debunk' the entire concept of feminism, but this really isn't the place for that discussion.

#693 Edited by jgf (366 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Granted, not every word she says is golden, nor are mine or yours. But her main points stick. And please don't judge a book by its cover. How her channel is named, I couldn't care less. Its the content that interests me.

Is she a feminist? Surely, but only a reasonable one (She doesn't sound like men are the worst scum on earth or so). Does that matter anyhow or change the facts she presented? I don't think so.

#694 Edited by PulledaBrad (607 posts) -

Breaking down video game tropes isnt going to help. No one likes to lectured at and I dont believe that it will change anyones mind to preach at them. I believe to get a more feminine slant to this industry people like Anita need to start encouraging females to educate themselves in computer programming. Its mostly a male dominated area of education, but Anita, and those like her, could help break the stigma that goes with being a "computer nerd". More female programmers = more females working on games from the ground up = a better representation of females in games..

#695 Edited by jgf (366 posts) -

@pulledabrad: It raises awareness of the issue and therefore it helps.

#696 Edited by mellotronrules (1170 posts) -

More female programmers = more females working on games from the ground up = a better representation of females in games..

while i'd agree with what you wrote above, i don't think it's unreasonable to ask all people, men included, to be a little more thoughtful in their representations of characters. it's win-win for everyone- women will no longer get the short end of the stick when it comes to believable/enjoyable characters, and gamers in general will get stories and/or characters with (presumably) higher quality writing.

#697 Edited by ChillyUK7 (283 posts) -

@mellotronrules said:

@chillyuk7 said:

...her channel is called feminist frequency so calling feminism into question is entirely legitimate. I keep hearing that discussing sexism in games are what videos like this are for but as soon as we do, or more accurately, challenge her views we are suddenly "derailing" the thread, sorry but what kind of discussion did you expect?

i think the idea is to relate what you're saying back to video games, this being in the general discussion of a video games website. discussing sarkeesian's video is on-topic, as she is expressly dealing with video games. perhaps a feminist interpretation, but video games nonetheless. it's great y'all support girlwriteswhat- but unless she's written or spoken about video games, i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by invoking her perspectives. you're welcome to attempt to 'debunk' the entire concept of feminism, but this really isn't the place for that discussion.

She is a feminist and her views reflect that obviously, you cannot sweep that under the rug and forget it when discussing her content and how being influenced by that way of mind could effect her interpretation of video game tropes. You do not have to specifically talk about video games for your content to be relevant to it, and male disposability is directly relevant to how men are portrayed in video games especially the 'damsel in distress' trope (thats why I provided a video which outlines the concept far more eloquently than I ever could) yet Anita barely touches on the concept and doesn't explore it even though it directly relates to the games she is discussing, this major component of how men are portrayed in games and how that effects women in games as well, off topic? The worst that can happen by discussing this will raise awareness of the issue among gamers and hey, she may even make a video containing her views on the subject and yes, how it relates to games.

#698 Posted by EnduranceFun (1114 posts) -

Interesting rebuttal video.

#699 Edited by JadeGL (612 posts) -

The problem with where the thread is going is that a straw man is being built up of what feminism "really is" and a lot of us may feel that that is not the point. I can't debate with someone who believes that all feminists are somehow advocating the hatred or suppression of men. I think most people like me who say that they are feminists or agree with some feminist ideas don't feel that way at all and all explanations to the contrary are being pushed aside as if there aren't multiple things that people can believe under an umbrella of an -ism. There are people on the fringes of all systems. I guess I would say that I have a much more classical idea of what it means when I say "feminist" than what some people may want to debate. That's why I haven't really gotten into all this talk as it's been progressing. I really don't have anything to say about that, but I do have things to say where video games are concerned.

I would point out that it is very easy to build up a bogeyman and tear it down instead of the much harder thing which I think is to look at the things we love, games, movies, literature, and actually look at it from a different perspective than we may have originally considered.

I will explain what I mean with my own experiences concerning one of the games she mentioned - Super Mario Bros. 2. I love this game. It is not only my favorite Mario game, but it is my favorite game period. Why is that? Yes, it's because the mechanics of running and jumping are fun, the levels are interesting, there are creative monsters and it captured my imagination as a child. But there is another HUGE thing that makes this game my favorite. It opened my eyes to a world where I could choose a female character. That was a huge thing for me at the age of 6-7. I had never had that opportunity before. I loved games, I played a ton of games, but I can't recall a time before that where I had been afforded that opportunity. It was a big deal. I think a lot of people may forget just how strong those ideas are and how they can affect one's life. The great thing is that now games are much better than they were in 1980s and I get to make that choice a lot more. I think it's one of the reasons why I tend to gravitate towards games that let me be who I want to be, gender included. And it all started with something that a lot of people may not give much thought to.

That's why things like this are important to me, because they were important to me as I grew up and I assume they will be important to other girls who are introduced to games and gaming culture.

#700 Posted by SweeneyTodd (22 posts) -

Exactly, JadeGL. It's really hard to have a rational discussion with people about feminism when they are willfully misinterpreting what that even is.