Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games Ep1

i'm simply stating that if you're making the case for a specifically feminist reading of video games to be illegitimate, then you're implicitly making the case that feminism itself is illegitimate. now you're free to think what you want, and believe what you want- if you want to abolish feminism as a school of thought, good luck to you- but this REALLY isn't the place for that battle. and regarding male disposability: that's certainly a hell of a concept. in fact, girlwriteswhat might even be on to something, and your suggestion that it might be as prevalent as the 'damsel in distress' in video games is interesting. but guess what, the disposable male, and the damsel in distress aren't mutually exclusive, and i certainly wouldn't argue one is more offensive or egregious than the other. so i'm not sure what you're trying to prove by mentioning it- it certainly doesn't discredit any of sarkeesian's assertions. and sarkeesian's under no obligations to mention anything regarding males, as her focus is women in games. that might seem imbalanced to you- but seeing as her channel is called 'feminist frequency,' i'm not sure why you'd expect her to focus on male tropes whatsoever. maybe you should write girlwriteswhat and make the suggestion to her!

I agree that Peach was an interesting character to pick from in Super Mario Bros. 2, but I think designers should be left free to do what they want. If they want to put in a character who's a male, female, short, tall... it's their choice. There's no solution to the problem as you can't take away a designer's freedom of expression and force them to build a $50,000,000 game around a hyper-PC character, that's just wrong on so many levels. All Anita is doing here is putting out a very simple message, if at times fatuous, what else can you do? Eventually these discussions move on to something else because of that.

Yes, designers can do whatever they want and shouldn't feel obligated to change anything. If their vision is specific, they can certainly keep that vision as it is. I loved Gears of War, Bioshock, Halo and Uncharted. Those games are great and have male protagonists. Some even use the damsel in distress trope! But they also do a better job than some games of making their female characters believable, fun, and interesting.

As the gaming culture begins shifting, however slow that may be, designers would be doing a disservice to their audience of female gamers if they continue as they have been for the past 20 years. You can certainly keep making games for a certain set of people, but the audience itself is changing. More females are associating themselves as "gamers" and as that number continues to grow, they may be leaving a set of people behind who would gladly pay for a game that they may skip because they don't agree with a marketing campaign, a design choice, etc.

So either keep making games for one set of people or realize that the world of games and gaming culture is actually changing. Luckily the developers I buy games from seem to be getting this. :)

I a jalopy really like thunderf00t a lot, though there are things in his Fem vs Facts video I kind of disagree with (or that I don't think are strong arguments). I fully agree that the Damsel In Distress trope is a trope, and it exists due to traditional (some might say even anthropological) gender roles we used to survive against a hostile world. The difference is is that I just think it exists as that, not as a symbol of the alleged oppression of women. It oppresses women in the exact same fashion as it oppresses men, as traditional gender roles are wont to do. I would never say these gender roles are equal (or give people any agency in their own lives), but they are at least equitable (or ideally equitable).

I don't think thunderf00t is much of a gamer, so he's an interesting outside perspective on it. His defense of Double Dragon is interesting because it comes from the outside, it comes from "there is literally seven seconds of plot to this story" which when gamers or enthusiasts use it often gets derided. With all that said, thunderf00t's best videos are in defense of free speech, see his series on Islam and free speech, or the attempts to doxx or shut down his YouTube account. He's a great example of what staying completely rational can do to see things as they are rather than going on the whims of emotions. Plus his purely science videos are great too, makes you really enthusiastic about the wonders of the modern, free world. He's probably my second favorite youtuber next to integralmath.

Also pretty pleased to see Girlwriteswhat breaking through. She's an excellent gateway to actually looking at feminism based on the actions and attitudes expressed rather than just accepting the dogma and cowed by slander and accusations of malice.

@endurancefun:

yeah- this was the best response i've seen yet. but i don't think it's ironclad.

i haven't played double dragon neon, but i did think it was unfortunate (i said as much after i first watched the video) of her to call it 'regressive crap' seeing as the entire reason for that game's being was to pay a humorous tribute to a bygone era- everything is heavily exaggerated, and that ending simply confirms what i always suspected- the neon devs were poking fun at the whole thing. her inclusion of neon doesn't dismantle her whole case, but it is a foolish oversight.

but as far as the rest of the dude's arguments go- i think just as sarkeesian might be overestimating the average gamer's suspension-of-disbelief (that anyone would read peach as a role model is pretty silly), this guy is overemphasizing the player's attachment to throwaway characters (like the double dragon girlfriend). she gets punched in the gut, and that's sad...but i'm playing the game to beat up dudes, not rescue the girl or make sacrifices.

his hospital comment is sort of neither here-nor-there...i think it's a poor analogy, and you talk to most surgeons and they'll tell you that after awhile they view the human body and its organs more like an elaborate machine than a 'personality' they're operating on.

and his suggestion that she should make games is preposterous- she isn't a game dev. the critic vs. creator thing- that's a lazy critique. he's not wrong, but the same could be said of anyone commenting on ANYTHING. someone reviews a poor game and scores it harshly- the response would be WELL WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A BETTER GAME BUSTER. that sort of suggestion doesn't really get us anywhere.

and finally the sexual dimorphism thing- i find it all irrelevant. it's not like she was suggesting women have the same upper body strength as men. she said 'weaker'- that could be interpreted a multitude of ways. to construct a comparison of scientific objectionism vs. feminism is ridiculous. that's a whole other argument, and to hold sarkeesian answerable for all feminists across the planet and the internet is pretty absurd.

I a jalopy? The fuck happened there?

Phone typing, kids. Don't get into it, it's a bad scene.

I guess I just think that because there was no maligned reason for representation in the past, we'll naturally see games cater more to women in the future, though I think in the end that just because a character is male or female, it doesn't really matter. I usually prefer playing as an abomination or fatass mutant character over anything else, there are certain types of characters I prefer. Likewise, I doubt women are any different, I'm sure like with men, some women actually prefer playing as a male character. One thing I am worried about is more games where you make your own character, which is almost the norm now... I like personalities, we see too much of the silent protagonist and "player character" tropes already. Alas, that is probably the way we're headed.

Yeah I agree @brodehouse on Thunderf00t, great perspective on taboo subjects.

you're a jalopy man, nobodies judging you. If you want to be a decrepit car that's you're right. Just don't make any dumb youtube videos about it.

Im not making a case for feminist reading of video games to be illigitimate just that it's open for discussion (for other users mostly), especially in a feminist video for how someones views could influence what she takes away from certain games. I don't know all that much about feminism, every post which goes something like 'you don't know what feminism is, if your against it your against womens rights' yada yada but most peoples issues stem from no one having a clear idea of what feminism is, every feminist has a different idea themselves and the general feeling of a focus on one genders issues over another which is inherently dangerous, anyway that hasn't really been the point of what I have been discussing just that discussing feminism in this case is entirely valid.

On to discussing the disposable male (which covers the objectification of men), I'l make this as clear as possible, when discussing the 'damsel in distress' you have to ask what the reasons are for the trope in the first place which she does in the video, everything from objectification of women to societies perception of gender roles, these are also not mutually exclusive to damsels in distress but they do play a massive role in the trope itself yet she does not explore male disposability/male gender roles in the same way when they are absolutely crucial to the issue at hand and I believe this reduces her video's educational value immensely. If your response is that she is only focusing on women then this and every video is more or less pointless as it is ignoring the reasons behind many of these tropes in the first place and calling her out on that should not be seen as irrelevant. Basically you can not discuss women's issues without examining men's roles in them and the reasoning behind them and vice versa, discussing sexism in a vacuum is pointless.

Feminism is the social movement or ideology for the betterment of the condition of women. I've found that no matter what other qualifiers is placed, that description is a solid fundament for explaining what feminism explicitly is. It's reinforced in the name feminism itself by way of etymology and construction. It's a social proposition for the betterment of the condition of women, it fits for all splinters and offshoots, whether its equity feminists, gender feminists, trans feminists, whathaveyou. I don't expect feminists to campaign for equal rights on behalf of men because that's not what feminism means. I would expect egalitarians would, by nature of the meaning of egalitarianism (equal). There's a lot of terrible definitions, like 'a feminist is someone who thinks a woman is a human being', that are categorically useless. The one that works is feminism is the ideology for the betterment of the condition of women.

This kind of bad stuff happened to atheism too, suddenly atheism was no longer merely the rejection of the existence of deities, it became about the trust in science and objective evidence based reasoning (which is not atheism, it's rationalism) and the movement to separate religion from government (that's secularism, not atheism). Suddenly, despite the word's construction making it clear what it's about, no one knew what atheism really was.

@brodehouse: Just try Wikipedia: "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women"

So without going deeper into the rabbit hole of what feminism really means I just want to explain by example, why I can relate to what was said in the tropes video.

I'm a male gamer and I like to play games as an immersive experience. Therefore I love games that let me play as characters that I can relate to. Some form of a guy like me with superhuman powers is always good ;). Also I like playing the hero and rescuing some princesses. So I actually like games with the damsel in distress trope in them.

On the other side I don't enjoy playing games as a female character, just because immersion does not work for me there. And thats why I can relate. If I were a women, it would be the other way round. I wouldn't like playing as a male superhero who rescues some damsel.

Just imagine every game ever made had reverted genders. There were not many games for me left to play.

This is what this video is about in my opinion. I don't want my male superhero games to go away, but adding some diversity can't hurt. Its not about either or. We can have both kind of games and be totally fine with it.

Again, "I can't debate with someone who believes that all feminists are somehow advocating the hatred or suppression of men."

I'm asking you to realize that a sole focus on the betterment of women will always lead to a suppression of men, just as a sole focus on the betterment of men would always lead to the suppression of women.

And hatred is a strong word, but I'm also asking you to see that you can't have an oppressed class (women) without an oppressive class (men), and you can't have an oppressive class without some degree of negative feelings being assigned to the oppressors.

"There are people on the fringes of all systems."

Here is a collection of quotes from feminists, past and present, that display a range of feelings towards men as a gender. These feelings include distrust, anger, resentment, dehumanization, and hate. Several of these people are political figures who hold--or who have held--government office. Others are prominent figures in the feminist movement. The video attempts to explain why anti-feminists choose to paint the feminist movement with such a broad brush.

Would you disown every one of them as people on the fringes of the feminist system?

Here is the long version of one of my favorite quotes. This doesn't come from some wacko on the internet with a blog, or some random you tube comment from an extremist, this is from the assistant dean of student life at Vassar college, as it appeared from an interview with Time magazine.

"Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of 'rape.' She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. 'To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him.' Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused [of rape] can sometimes gain from the experience. 'They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions.'"

The problem with this is that nothing more than simple belief in an oppressive patriarchal system, or rape culture, or objectification--all core tenets of modern feminism--is all that required to reach these conclusions that vilify an entire gender. Simply because most casual feminists who are not active in the feminist movement won't take things to this level, that doesn't excuse the socially destructive nature of simply telling women that they are oppressed, and men that they are oppressors.

You're missing the point, that many feel the movement was hijacked years ago and uses it to put forward their extreme ideals, to the denigration of men and women. This is a good video explaining that from a female, feminist viewpoint.

@endurancefun: I'm not american, so I have no recollection of the history of feminism in your country. But I totally agree with you that feminism has been and is misused and I dislike this as much as you.

But I don't see it misused in this particular video we are talking about. I have not seen any other videos of Anita. I just watched the video without any historical context, so I would say my view should be quite objective. Of course I may be wrong, but for now I don't see it.

wilfully pretending to misunderstand what feminism is allows misogynists to feel justified in their sheltered perspectives. that's what that sounds like without clarification.

@jgf: It's not the focal point of the video, no. But it's inevitably what becomes the focal point of these threads.

There is plenty of clarification in the two videos that I linked to in a post on the previous page (post 688). If you watch them and still feel that I am a misogynist who is "wilfully pretending to misunderstand what feminism is", then I'd be happy to watch a video that you claim better represents the true feminist movement.

Please do yourself a favor and watch her Christmas songs video. Many here--including myself--are arguing that while the representation of females in video games is certainly a topic worth talking about, Anita is not the women who should to be the voice of this issue.

@spaceinsomniac:

I'm asking you to realize that a sole focus on the betterment of women will always lead to a suppression of men, just as a sole focus on the betterment of men would always lead to the suppression of women.

And I am saying that I do not believe that and I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, and if I got into all the reasons why this thread would be derailed even further. If you really wanted to know, you could always send me a PM, if you're actually interested in what my reasons are. Needless to say, I think you can be equally fair to people in certain things without suppressing, denigrating or pushing another gender down. If a man and a woman come into a job interview and both have the same qualifications and no differences between the two, save gender, give both the same starting pay. Not that hard and I don't see how something like this would suppress one gender over another. Very basic uncomplicated example. I also believe that there are institutions that need to be redressed and gender inequalities that need to be swung from favoring women in things to being more fair to men, such as some family law courts that seem to work on older outdated ideas that favor women to the detriment of men. That's only fair in the same way. I work at a courthouse, I know that sometimes things work out poorly based on laws that were written a long time ago that should be re-evaluated.

Here is a collection of quotes from feminists, past and present, that display a range of feelings towards men as a gender. These feelings include distrust, anger, resentment, dehumanization, and hate. Several of these people are political figures who hold--or who have held--government office. Others are prominent figures in the feminist movement. The video attempts to explain why anti-feminists choose to paint the feminist movement with such a broad brush.

Would you disown every one of them as people on the fringes of the feminist system?

I guess my question for you is why I have to defend or critique what a selection of people say and determine where they lie on a continuum? How should I know? I'm not an expert and I don't follow this stuff any more than I think anyone else does. I know what I think and what I desire, that's it.

People have a right to say what they want or believe, just as I have a right to disagree or agree with them based on that. Just like I know that not all Republicans think that "legitimate rape" is a real thing. Or that all Catholics believe that abortion and contraception are wrong, based on the beliefs that are espoused by the leadership in Rome. Or that all people who disagree with feminism believe that "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Again, just because some people who may be high profile say things doesn't mean they represent everyone in their political or belief group. Again, it's easy to assume the worst of people that you disagree with, but I always try to assume that the people I disagree with just have a different point of view, not that they are part of a conspiracy or larger agenda.

They certainly don't represent my very basic ideas, so asking me about them is not going to get us anywhere. I am not a part of a larger movement, I am just a person who sees and experiences certain things and feels that we can do better as a society if everyone gets pulled forward, not just the people with money, the people who are a certain color, or a specific gender. All or nothing, no one left behind, all that. And I can only speak for me as an individual at the end of the day

Really what I am attempting to advocate was an idea mentioned in this piece by Steven Novella, also about discussions of sexism but in a different culture, namely the skeptic movement. It is called the principle of charity and it says exactly what I am trying to get across, but he sums it up much better than I could. Namely:

Before you set out to criticize someone’s claim or position, you should endeavor to grant that position its best possible case. Don’t assume the worst about your opponent, assume the best. Give them any benefit of the doubt. At the very least this will avoid creating a straw man to attack, or opening yourself up to charges that you are being unfair.

@endurancefun: Yeah and I'm aware of it, but I think it shouldn't become the focal point. Thats why im arguing here and thats why I'm defending this video.

@spaceinsomniac: I'll watch them so I get more context. But even if they are the worst things imaginable, it wouldn't change the content of the video we're discussing. I don't know Anita and I also don't really care. It should not matter anyway. In the video I watched she seems fairly reasonable though.

@spaceinsomniac: Ok, so now I watched the christmas song video. I can tell you I don't agree with her views in this one and she certainly overreaches with this rape thing. But what does this tell to me? It tells me that I don't share all of her views, especially the ones about christmas songs.

Going back to the video game stuff I can tell you one thing. If I would had to play every game that I played since the NES came out with reversed gender roles. Rescuing countless helpless dudes with my brave fighting women. I would be pissed by now. And if I made a video about this, it would certainly be way less calm and collected as the one we're discussing.

Don't have time to watch the whole thing so this is just from watching the first 5 minutes or so. I think she is missing the core reason why Nintendo turned Dinosaur Planet into a Star Fox game. It was because the Star Fox name has weight behind it. Changing the name to Star Fox Adventures and not having Fox be the character you are playing as would have been pointless. The entire sax music scene is atrocious.

No the christmas video just shows how delusional she is o other opinions or views. Its only her view how she sees thinks and it is never in any form objective. For example just wish that.

That in general is not even wrong. Everyone has their own opinion but she tries to make it every feminists opinion and a fact.

And for the video game part. Do you really care who you are playing? I really don't care if I play a woman or a man. I don't care if anyone of them is rescuing the other gender or killing them. I just want to enjoy an interesting story and game and I will not make comparisons to the real world.

That film was shite I'll give her that. My issue was more about never being on edge, I wasn't sure what the rules or limitations of the dreamworld and when and where the real world was effecting it. I've also never liked how womens fighting styles are always OTT back flipping rubbish, I don't think it's mysoginist to say women generally don't stand a chance against men in a fight, they are simply physically stronger and although strength isn't the be all end all of doing well in a fight it plays a big role, strength is just an asset it has no gender but tends to be more pronounced in the male gender, I know this is obvious but women always seem to get a free pass in this regard when portrayed as fighters/warriors etc in media, everyone would laugh if a 100 pound man was jumping around doing back flips and knocking out 6'4 body builders but for women it's cool or sexy (which isn't really the point of combat but whatever). Believe it or not I want to see more appropriate looking women in these roles like Brienne from Game Of Thrones (also see how Brienne has armour that doesn't direct arrows to her heart) or Mallory Kane from Haywire (which I haven't seen but they did cast an MMA fighter for the role which is par for the course for men but not women).

That is some fantastic advice, and I'd humbly request that you take it as well, play a bit of devil advocate, and look into the argument that the people who are actually in charge of the feminist movement--those fighting for women's causes in our nation's capital, those who write women's studies textbooks, those who are collecting statistics on rape and domestic violence--are far from egalitarian feminists. You clearly are an egalitarian feminist, which means this should concern you.

And please note that I am only an "anti-feminist" as the movement exists today, and due to the current direction of the movement.

Several pages ago, I wrote this:

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 [currently] concerned about the humanity of women, and the helpfulness or harmfulness of men in relation to women.

So, I would argue that I do assume the best, other than when proven wrong. You are a feminist, and you are not part of a movement. I would argue that if you did become involved in the actual movement of modern feminism, as a true egalitarian feminist, there's a good chance that you wouldn't like what you would find.

If you do wish to give me the benefit of doubt, I think the Christina Hoff Sommers video on this page would be an excellent start.

@spaceinsomniac: Well I think in the end you misunderstand what I mean and what the idea I am talking about means with regards to chairty. I have read articles links, watched videos posted and read most all of the posts in this thread with an open mind. In fact, there are quite a few criticisms I have agreed with and have talked about in previous posts. But opening up my mind and reading the materials doesn't mean that I will come to the same conclusion that you do.

I believe that most people here are good people that have their own ideas. Frankly I want to talk about the video games aspect of this, but we keep coming back to a larger issue that I feel that most people are ill-equipped to talk about, especially in this type of environment. One wrong typed word and all of a sudden the meaning is flipped or lost, and that makes for frankly lackluster communication. Written word can only go so far, and I find it lacking in these types of conversations. Which is why I find myself not wanting to delve much deeper than I already have.

And also, I would say that if we use the forms of logic that people are using in relations to feminism in regards to other -isms or political beliefs, we should be calling for a lot more people to turn away from them and find their own paths. There are a lot of leaders and participants in a lot of movements that say some crappy stuff. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water, but if I met someone in person and had an opportunity to converse with them and really talk to them, aside from hearing sound-bytes, you would bet I would get into a healthy debate with them.

Also, with where I work, I see a lot of the things you mentioned firsthand, domestic assault, rape, regular assaults, protection from abuse and harassment cases, not just through statistics (which every group again massages to their advantage, I never trust statistics without a lot of other sources to look at) and I think that colors my viewpoints as well.

oh I would love to actually have an interesting discussion about the female role in video games but i also think that Anita is the totally wrong starting point for this. I also believe that games without a real story like a Mario or Donkey Kong are the wrong games even to mention. We should dismiss every game that is not telling a story at all. That means most old and Nintendo games for example.

We should talk more about the current games and how they are portraying women today in general.

As for the rest. I can not take feminism seriously. We should not try to reach as much quality as possible for women we should do it for everyone. We should not start with women we should start with everyone. Woman and Men will always have advantages but also disadvantages if you try to compare them. You will not reach any form of equality if you make women a special case,

@darji: I am much more interested in what is in the next few videos. That is where we will see what her ideas on newer games are. But I still like the focus on the older games as a good starting point, especially since these games are still being made today in new forms and still follow the same story beats. It's comfortable for people, like grilled cheese and tomato soup, but I think some people would agree that those series could use an injection of new ideas.

This is why Super Mario Bros. 2 and Zelda: Link's Awakening are my two favorites out of those series. Both do different things than most of the other games in their respective series.

And maybe Anita isn't the best person to do this, but I don't think it would matter much who does it in the end, I still think they would be treated poorly by a certain group of people. None of the reactions so far have made me confident that if a different person were doing this, it would cause a different reaction. I mean, look at the reactions to various things in recent threads that are voiced by people normally beloved or respected by the video game community. They didn't get a benefit of the doubt, they were vilified too.

You really cant talk about this at the moment because it just became too much. Now we are talking instead of games of torture porn in the hitman Absolution trailer or the whole rape scene in Tomb Raider which in the end was totally harmless as well. Then you have the GOW incident and so on. Every time a woman is now portrayed in a video games these "feminists" are trying to find something wrong with it.

And Anita is very clever to actually use these reactions of annoyed gamers to her advantage. Anita is a person that does not even accept other opinions or is even willing to discuss these things ith actual gamers that want to talk about it and does not share the same opinion. For example she could easily get a Neogaf account since its heavily moderated there and talk about this stuff with actual people but she will never do that since heropinion is the only right thing in her opinion.

As for the old games. i think of them like fables and fairy tales which are basically the same. Back then no one thought about it. That is the reason why so much classic literature is the same, Games back then did not exist to tell a story but today games are becoming more and more story focus. And just to call a game like ICO or Developer like Ueda sexist just because he did not use a girl instead a boy is just stupid in my opinion.

Also she tries to make a female character always to have the same characteristics as well. She has an ideal picture how woman shold be presented in media and if this does not fit to her formula she will never acknowledge this character as a good representation in media like movies or now games.

I hate to point this out but isn't there something "off" about obsessing about finding bad behaviour in the hopes that someone makes a video to point out that this isn't a good thing? That seems as "bad" as what you just complained about.

Reactions on this are always going to be weird and controversial. Just look at the comments on Youtube for the guy who swapped Pauline and Mario. People are wishing some little girl to die so she won't grow up to be another video game feminist.

That's what I was trying to get at. Even the most innocuous stories are garnering a reaction that is just shows that it really isn't who is saying it, it's the what. Like that video. A guy did a nice thing for his daughter, what could anyone find wrong with that? Really?

Also, the reaction to Adam Sessler's review of the recent God of War. He gave it an overall average review, which seems pretty standard looking at Metacritic, but voiced his displeasure at a trophy name. Mind you, his review was already pretty average at that point, but he had an opinion about something and talked about it. How does that warrant an internet firestorm? It's not like he said "I am giving this game a bad review because of this trophy" or anything. He just mentioned it as bothering him.

This was her most watchable video, but I get the feeling that most people are already aware of how unfairly skewed damsel-in-distress situations are towards having female victims and male saviors.

You know, I have a few problems with the video.

First: "the belief that women are somehow a 'naturally weaker gender' is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth"

Or.. The truth. Sorry, but women ARE physically weaker than men. This isn't even close. Look at the Olympics. 200m Freestyle QUALIFYING times for man? 1:51:59. 200m Freestyle WORLD RECORD for women? 1:55:84. The fastest female swimmer EVER couldn't even COMPETE in the male Olympics.

What the argument propagates is the belief that being PHYSICALLY weaker somehow makes a person INFERIOR to the other, which is simply not true. A person's worth is not determined by their physical prowess, so trying to fight this "myth" isn't just silly (since it's a FACT) but just plain pointless.

Second, having the girl being saved by the hero doesn't make women weaker than the hero. EVERYONE is weaker than the hero. That's why he's the hero! The hero just punched, kicked, jumped, shot and outsmarted an army of often highly trained, better equipped dudes to save the girl. The hero isn't the "every man" so proving that the hero > random girl he thinks is cute does NOT prove that all men > women.

Ultimately, I think the idea that this is malicious is what I disagree with. The Damsel in Distress trope is LAZY. There's a reason most of the games she used are old, little to no story action games. Damsel in Distress is an easy to understand, simple to get across motivation for a player. Saving someone is something heroic, having it be someone PERSONALLY related to the hero is even better. And women are picked because the willingness to protect a woman in ingrained in our genes. Those 9 months of pregnancy and all those predators ensured that men that WEREN'T overly protective of women during the formative stages of our species didn't get a chance to procreate. A few hundred generations don't offset eons of evolution there.

I agree that Damsel in Distress trope sucks I wish it was used less. But the examples she used aren't HARMFUL. Just BORING.

The funniest thing is she got $158,922 for her Kickstarter because she was a "damsel in distress".

I think an interesting point of comparison for this is Carol Clover's book Men, Women & Chainsaws, which was similar to Tropes vs Women in that it took a serious, critical look at issues of gender in a genre/medium that was popularly considered to be low art (or not art at all), trash, not worth bothering with, not worth taking seriously etc. And that is an attitude that a lot of people still take towards video games, including gamers.

Men, Women & Chainsaws basically looks at gender-specific tropes, like the Final Girl, in horror movies and the recognisable patterns in the way that male and female characters are written. She doesn't come out and say "this movie is sexist and this movie is feminist", she just presents lots of relevant examples of the tropes and analyses what they mean in terms of social context and audience response. And yet for some reason, the book didn't engender a screaming mass of people going, "Stop looking at this stuff! Gender doesn't even matter! Men are treated badly in horror movies too! Why are you even talking about this? There are worse problems in the world!" Maybe because it was published in 1992, before the internet was really a thing.

What actually happened was the book was pretty well-received, though criticised by some people, and still gets used a lot today in film studies courses, and is a useful platform for discussions about gender in horror movies. It's possible to talk critically about something you love, and if you disagree with elements of what a critic is saying, the solution is not to attempt to tear them into pieces and call them a hack and a scam artist and imply that they probably have daddy issues and that they're obviously too stupid to understand the stuff that they're talking about and that they're probably not a real gamer anyway they're probably just a big fakey-fake fake artist. With bad earrings.

You could just, you know, put forward your own argument. Try it. Could be fun.

The really bizarre thing in all this is all the people jumping into the thread and yelling that we don't need to talk about gender in games. OK ... so don't? You're not government-mandated to post in this thread, or any thread related to sexism/feminism/gender in gaming. Why are you so furious at the idea of other people talking about something that you don't want to talk about?

Oh, and if you couldn't be bothered to watch the video but for some reason want to discuss it anyway, here are a few things that you should know if you don't want to embarrass yourself:

1) She specifically mentions that Krystal was one of two playable characters in Dinosaur Planet.

2) This is Part 1 of the discussion of the Damsel in Distress trope. She plans to talk about modern games - including Super Princess Peach - in future videos.

3) She emphasises the fact that the damsel in distress did not originate in gaming, and gives a brief history of its origins and the more prominent/influential examples of its use.

4) She doesn't use the words "sexist" or "misogynist" once.

5) She specifically says that these tropes aren't inherently bad, and that it's possible to like something and also be critical of it.

6) She never asked for $150,000. She asked for $6000. She also gave her backers regular updates on what the money was being spent on and they seemed pretty happy with it all. If you donated to the project and weren't happy with what you get, then feel free to post your gripes, but be aware that you're criticising the cosmetic aspects of something as opposed to the arguments put forward in it. If you didn't donate to the project, then find something else to gripe about. Or, you know, try saying something interesting or constructive.

1. Yes the thing he did for his daughter is cute but it does not prove anything nor should it be a symbol or evidence why women don't play videogames.. And that is what is being made out of the story.

2, He actually rated the game down because of this. But this is not even the reason for the firestorm. The reason is that he got this totally wrong and that it has nothing to do with the violence against woman. Also the trophy shows up over 2 minutes after the fight. And its for Orrcus choosing friendship instead of his mothers wishes. And that is what Bros before hoes means. House in House M.D. for example used this phrase as well in this show. There is nothing wrong here nor is it sexist. Also it was really funny to see how he praises a game like Saints Row 3 a lot which even has a whored mode. And he never ever mentioned it back than as well.

He just went with this trophy because he could get more clicks that way.

Another video destroying her lack of research:

Wow this was really good. Thx for the video.

The first video was a nice thing done by a guy for his daughter. His daughter, from what I gather, wanted to play as the female. I have seen no one say that it is emblematic of anything besides "Hey, little girl likes playing as girl, duh" and that it would be cool if there were more choices in games. Maybe people are making more of it and I just missed it, but most of the articles (not the comments of the articles) that I have read just focus on the actual story of the father and daughter.

The second was a guy who loves games voicing his reaction to something he experienced. He didn't say it was a fact ingrained in stone, he had en emotional reaction to something that he found distasteful. That's it. Other people have had this reaction too so even if it is not malicious (I think it's just stupid, but trophy names are stupid either way) it certainly was a failure to convey their humor to portion of the audience. And they're changing the name of the trophy, so they must have had more reactions come to them than just one or two reviewer's opinions concerning the name.

Addendum - Can't find anything really about the "Whored mode" of Saints Row the Third where Adam Sessler is concerned. He didn't write the G4 review at least. However, I did remember people saying it was a crappy name for a mode, and I even found this nugget in the Giant Bomb review. So I wouldn't say that game got a pass either.

Competitive multiplayer is pretty much out altogether, and in its place comes the Whored Mode. Awful, awful title aside, this is essentially the Horde mode from Gears of War, with waves of zombies, luchadores, sexy nuns, weaponized furries, and whatever the hell else coming at you in various rounds of combat.

On another note, God of War is a much more self serious title from what I gather, and most people understood the frat boy humor of Saints Row and expected that coming into the game. I mean, you're whacking people with dildo bats! It's played for humor and it succeeds more often than it fails. I don't think you can compare the two games when one is reveling in it's silly humor and the other isn't. It's all about context. Even so, apparently he had a reaction to it that was strong enough to mention in his video.

There are a lot of factual errors and left out information in this video. Most of the games are very old and do not reflect games today. Considering the time and money that went into these videos i felt that she did not do a good job.

And i find it hard to take someone who disables ratings and comments seriously.

Even worse, many feminists will claim that women aren't a naturally weaker gender, and then do absolutely nothing when it comes to speaking up against the laws and requirements created by the feminist movement that DEMAND society to treat women as a naturally weaker gender.

http://www.stopvaw.org/determining_the_predominant_aggressor

http://firechief.com/briefs/chicago-female-firefighters-sue-20110817

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html

@devovitsuasartes said:

There are people in this thread putting forward their own arguments. Maybe you should reply to them, instead of focusing on those who keep harping on the money, or claiming that this topic isn't worth talking about.

No, she uses a word that is infinitely worse: "patriarchy." There can be a simple instance of sexism or misogyny in a given example, but "patriarchy" says that sexism and misogyny are everywhere, women are oppressed, men are privileged, and that is a fact that cannot be argued. If you do disagree, you are at best a privileged white male who doesn't know what he's talking about, at worst a sexist and misogynist, or perhaps you're a women who doesn't understand just how oppressed you really are.

At this point I'd like to paraphrase a quote from Christina Hoff Sommers "If women in America are an oppressed class, it would be the first time in history that an oppressed class was better educated and lived longer than their oppressors."

Sorry, I just don't have the skills of a pop culture critic to measure up to the intellectual juggernaut that is Anita Sarkeesian. This is the stuff that Kickstarter funds? Really? I thought the point was to fund "creative projects," not some dime-a-dozen internet pundit with an intellectually bankrupt premise.

hmm watched it then watched Thunderf00ts rebuttle Id have to say I agree with thunderf00t I also noticed something why does a woman that talks about the objectification of women have her eye brows professionally plucked or braided and wear liberal amounts of makeup?

Also why is it objectification is seen as instantly bad? last I checked if we didn't objectify things when humans first came around we'd likely not have survived as a species.

P.S: I also can't trust someone that describes their job as a pop culture critic...

It's to fund whatever you want as long as you can argue its creative intent. Here's from the kickstarter site:

"Kickstarter is a funding platform for creative projects. Everything from films, games, and music to art, design, and technology. Kickstarter is full of ambitious, innovative, and imaginative projects that are brought to life through the direct support of others."

Under that definition, this series fits under the film category. I also don't get this argument because those that bring it up didn't put money behind in the first place so the argument doesn't hold water. The people that actually have any license to complain about the result of the funding are those that funded it.

@spaceinsomniac Errrm ... do you know what the word patriarchy means?

I'll save you the trip to Wikipedia. "Patriarchy" refers to a social system where males hold the majority of power, whether economic or political. So a country where the majority of company CEOs and senators/MPs are male would be a patriarchy. An industry that is creatively dominated by - and marketed towards - males would also be patriarchal. A counterexample would be a lion pride, which consists of a matriarchal social system; male lions sit around at home watching the cubs, while lionesses do the hunting and secure the resources that keep the pride alive.

If you hear the word "patriarchy" and assume it means "gah, evil conspiracy of men secretly plotting to keep the world in their grasp and prevent women from gaining any kind of power" then you're being oversensitive and wilfully resistant to learning new ideas. That's not my problem, and it's certainly not Anita Sarkeesian's problem.

What I'm taking away from this: the Wind Waker still looks unbelievably gorgeous at 10 years old.

@devovitsuasartes: Yes, I'm well aware of the dictionary definition of the word Patriarchy. So what exactly are you arguing? Lets make it easy, I'm going to list some possible feminist interpretations of what results from living in a patriarchal system, and you tell me where you disagree.

1) A patriarchal system means that there are more men running the government than women.

2) A patriarchal system means that men are less likely to be concerned with the issues that affect women.

3) A patriarchal system means that men are socially privileged.

4) A patriarchal system means that women are socially disadvantaged or oppressed.

5) A patriarchal system means that women are more likely to be discriminated against because of their gender than men.

6) A patriarchal system means that men are less likely to sympathize with a women who feels that she is disadvantaged or oppressed.

7) A patriarchal system means society is more likely to condone rape culture, objectification, and a general mistreatment of women.

Now, do you REALLY think that Anita Sarkeesian--a women who lost her shit because of the the song "All I Need for Christmas is You"--would disagree with ANY of those statements?

@spaceinsomniac: Does it matter? Why are you trying to second-guess her beliefs when she didn't state them explicitly in the vid? Is it maybe because you couldn't find anything contentious in the video so you're A) attacking her for things she said in much, much older videos instead and B) trying to prove to everyone that she's a craaaaaaazy radical feminist so they shouldn't listen to her even when she's making calm, rational, logical points?

Tell you what. Come back to me when you can make a point against something said in Tropes vs Women in Video Games (Damsel in Distress Part 1) that doesn't require you talking about one of her older videos, or talking about the production values, or the Youtube comments being disabled, or the evil glint that you thought you saw in Anita Sarkeesian's eye that proves she's really a man-eating she-beast. Come back to me when you can say anything remotely original or constructive that isn't born out of personal prejudice or overblown paranoia. Then you just might be worth paying attention to.

Yes. Yes it does. You're arguing that I'm exaggerating the feminist definition of patriarchy, and I am arguing that I am not. Of course it matters.

Lets take these one at a time.

talking about one of her older videos - How the hell is it not relevant to talk about her past work? Everyone keeps saying that this is only the first in a series, so you have to wait to see the rest before you can make a full judgement. That fine, and I agree with that, but it's a two way street. Her past work can only HELP explain who she is, what she believes, and how she sees issues concerning gender. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

or talking about the production values - Production values are fine. I don't care about the money anyway. It's how kickstarter works.

or the Youtube comments being disabled - I personally have no issue with this. It's an issue worth noting, but not focusing on.

or the evil glint that you thought you saw in Anita Sarkeesian's eye that proves she's really a man-eating she-beast - yes, because that's clearly what I'm arguing here. Please note that sarcasm doesn't always translate over the internet, so I'm telling you right now that the previous sentence was intended to be heavily sarcastic.

As a matter of fact, I've even said some positive things about her first video in this series, and I've also already said that this is a discussion that we should be having, even though I do REALLY wish that someone else was tackling the subject instead.

The actual point that I'm making: Women who are active in the feminist movement see patriarchy as social system that oppresses females and benefits males. This can be seen more specifically in the seven examples that I listed, which you feel that somehow--for the purposes of this argument--don't seem to matter.

Lets look at those again:

1) A patriarchal system means that there are more men running the government than women.

2) A patriarchal system means that men are less likely to be concerned with the issues that affect women.

3) A patriarchal system means that men are socially privileged.

4) A patriarchal system means that women are socially disadvantaged or oppressed.

5) A patriarchal system means that women are more likely to be discriminated against because of their gender than men.

6) A patriarchal system means that men are less likely to sympathize with a women who feels that she is disadvantaged or oppressed.

7) A patriarchal system means society is more likely to condone rape culture, objectification, and a general mistreatment of women.

And now what I originally wrote:

There can be a simple instance of sexism or misogyny in a given example, but "patriarchy" says that sexism and misogyny are everywhere, women are oppressed, men are privileged, and that is a fact that cannot be argued. If you do disagree, you are at best a privileged white male who doesn't know what he's talking about, at worst a sexist and misogynist, or perhaps you're a women who doesn't understand just how oppressed you really are.

And finally this:

There can be a simple instance of sexism or misogyny in a given example, but "patriarchy" says that [5] and [7] are everywhere, women are [4], men are [3], and that is a fact that cannot be argued. If you do disagree, you are at best [2, 6], at worst [7], or perhaps you're a women who doesn't understand just how oppressed you really are.

In regards to patriarchal or matriarchal societies:

I think an important point is that in many anthropological or sociological contexts is that gender isn't even really the issue.

Patriarchal societies are largely deemed as competitive societies meaning positions of power are not always inherent and one has to earn it. Generally, men tend to do better in those types of environments. Matriarchal societies are more communal with power distribution equally distributed inherently.

You also have older feudal societies which were patrilineal. Rare tribal socities that were matrilineal.

But it isn't an exacting thing either. Monarchy's, for example, can have both patriarchal or matriarchal characteristics.