The portrayals never bothered me at all, I like all the characters in God of War in their own ways and Faye is the one I most hope to learn/see more of in the sequel. Anything else is inconsequential to me tbh. Fair enough to those who see it differently or have different preferences to me though, horses for courses I suppose.

@simmant : Wow... perhaps you should go and read the forum rules before hurling insults at folk trying to have a peaceable discussion... Just a thought, please don't call me anything unpleasant and unfounded...

@jadegl said:

Not to generalize what you said too much, but I would like to add that I feel like a big issue at play in many of these discussions is people underestimating the importance of how they might come across. I'm naive enough to believe most people in here are willing to look at something from different sides and respect each other's opinions, but I also think that the way they choose to express their opinion can significantly affect how others will respond.

I feel like a lot of good debate is wasted by people either being careless in how they express themselves or people seemingly not taking a step back and considering how much they might be reading into what someone else is saying.

This is a bit of a sidenote and I'm not sure it actually relates to what you said, but I often feel that the idea that people are set in their ways or disrespectful towards other opinions is based on how people communicate rather than an unwillingness to consider different perspectives. Not to imply you were making any claims in that regard, but well... I just wanted to add to the more general notion about how to have discussions like this. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. Carry on.

@jadegl: I agree with most everything you said, and have tried to reiterate multiple times that I don't want to dismiss other peoples viewpoints or call them wrong. However, I obviously disagree with some people, and so I've been trying to show them my rationale for why. I am open to being countered, if the people doing so actually try and expand on their thoughts as well. It's kind of the whole point of a discussion. And in doing so, certain people, mostly the one, has continuously thrown accusations and insults at me, calling me a misogynist because oh no, Abby has to be agreed with at all times and apparently can't defend herself.

As an addendum, I'd like to say that I think it is important that criticism come from an informed place, otherwise it comes off as disingenuous. It's a little more tricky when someone has to critique a game because it it often requires multiple hours of commitment to fully complete the story and then look at the entire package with a critical lens. If someone gets so turned off by a certain aspect of a game and doesn't want to keep playing it, they still have a valid opinion, but the criticisms to me lose some inherent credibility. It's like if someone read half a book and declared Snape to be an irredeemable shit head. You might be right based off the stuff that you have read so far, but you are missing the nuance of the character and his development. To again tie this back to God of War, watching the ending on Youtube gives a completely different experience then actually playing the game, because much of the characters get fleshed out while you are traversing the world and listening to Mimir, finding lore tablets etc... Not having that context can easily change how you view it.

One of the hard things for me when it comes to discussing social-related criticisms is that I'm as privileged as it comes for my area. I'm a white male, from an upper middle class Christian family, living in the US. So whether I agree or disagree with a criticism, or have some of my own, I feel my perspective is less relevant to the larger conversation. I mean it's relevant to those I'm talking to on a micro-level, but on the macro-level my take feels less pertinent because it isn't mine to give. It's like me having a take on the Koran when I've never read it. It's a bit meaningless.

All that said, here's my take! When I played the game, I didn't really notice gender playing a role until the ending with Freya. I guess a lot of that comes down to the fact that I can only recall Freya as the one female character, so there isn't much of a chance for gender to come up. Up to the end of the game, it felt like they had handled Freya really well. Even at the end, I didn't see a problem with Freya begging her son to do with her whatever he wanted. I can see a reality where a parent, so wrapped in guilt and with such a need to offer love to their child, would succumb to any of that child's whims, even death. The part that I actually had a problem with was Kratos killing Balder. I don't necessarily dislike the action in and of itself, but rather that the choice was taken out of Freya's hands. She had made a decision and Kratos had decided she was wrong and overrode her. It speaks to the idea of more powerful people, often in societies the 'more powerful' being men, assuming to know what is 'right' and 'wrong' and that those assumed to be 'lesser than', often in societies women, children, and at times the elderly, don't. So, the more powerful have to, at times, override the lesser, or so the idea goes. This would be fine if the game's narrative then moved Kratos into the role of a villain, or at least made him out to have made a morally poor or even grey decision. But I had gotten the impression from the game that the narrative was meant to side with Kratos, because killing ones parents is bad. That sentiment might be true, but taking power away from a person is also bad, especially when it speaks to years of inequality.

Also, I haven't seen but I hope people aren't being dicks to Abby. She simply voiced her opinion and doing so online, and not on a forum a podcast no less, is a terrifying thing considering the nature of assholes that live here with us. It's special type of terrifying when you are a woman or minority in general. I'm glad she felt comfortable enough to share the opinion, even if I don't totally agree with it.

@jasonr86: I like this reading of the final moments and agree with you on how it took choice away from Freya. That was a selfish act on Kratos' part, but he did it with good intentions. He was trying to show his son that the cycle of children killing their parents had to end, which coming from Kratos says a lot. "We must be better." The reason's I think they work narratively is because we know who Kratos is as a character. He was previously just a rage headed monster, so for him to acknowledge that thing can't keep happening says a lot about the things that influenced him to get to this point. It was shitty of Kratos to take the choice away from Freya, but Freya made it perfectly clear that he was going to suffer for what he had done. Kratos did it despite this.

EDIT: Also the fact that you think your input even in the macro level is somehow not as valuable speaks to how shitty the way we as a society handle discussing political issues. Your opinion should be considered the same as others, as long as you try and be informed about the topics you are discussing. The whole, you are a white guy so STFU and go sit in the corner mentality is stupid. You are your own white guy with your own perspectives on life and might not share the opinions of the guy two people over.

Come on duder. You're making what he said something that it isn't, and also acting like the mentality that you describe actually exists. If anyone puts white dudes in a corner, it's because white dudes are being shits about the topic at hand. At least, in general. There is very little traction (understandably so) for the "poor" white dude and his "poor", "unheard" opinions, especially within this hobby.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Obviously if people are being shitty and clearly there to stir up trouble, then yeah you should tell them to shut up. But I'm specifically talking about the line he says:

All I'm saying is that if you feel your opinion isn't valid, then we're doing something wrong. It's the same for the flip side; if you feel you're being insulted, talked down to, ignored etc... you should be fierce and defend your position. If someone came into this very thread (and some people have) and gave me a thorough reasoning why they feel that God of War does in fact treat it's women poorly, I have nothing but respect for that opinion. I might not agree with all of it, but I can definitely see their perspective and can use that and be hopeful that future games will in fact be better. "We must be better."

Yeah I don't think people's perspectives on the God of War video game franchise is comparable at all to people's perspectives on real identity politics...Anyone who has played God of War 2018 should be able to give their fair view on it...I mean, it's just a video game after all. but any white christian upper class person clearly doesn't have a clear perspective on what lower class minorities experience. Make sense? Generally speaking, I don't see how a more privileged person could give an equally valuable perspective on a much less privileged person.

@liquidprince:

For clarification, I put that opening paragraph in my post because I think it provides context for what followed. I suppose, it’s good to know the nature of the source for the opinion you are about to read.

My personal take on whether my view on something like gender politics is as meaningful as, for example, someone who identifies as female is that, given that my take is more academic and/or vicarious, then the relevance of that take loses credibility in a larger conversation. Here, on this forum thread, I think my take matters because we are a subset of a larger whole; video games enthusiasts. But if I were to speak on a grander scale to more people, say on something like the Bombcast, I might want to throw in a bunch of caveats before giving my take. Does that make sense? Basically, if I can’t speak to a problem from first-hand experience I feel uncomfortable being a voice in that problem’s criticism if my voice reaches many, many listeners. Plus, and again this is my personal take, but I think doing so is in and of itself taking power away from the disenfranchised by being their voice for them, especially considering that their voice is more powerful given that it’s first-hand.

But, you know, we’re on a forum with a limited scope and reach so I probably didn’t need to give that preamble. But it made me feel better!

This discussion is starting to move into a direction that is out of the scope of what it was initially intended. All I will say regarding the matter is as long as the person who comes from a more privileged background doesn't think they know better, or tries to speak on behalf of the less privileged then their opinion shouldn't be dismissed. We are all ultimately human, and can't necessarily choose where and how we grow up. But a person coming from a privileged background can still be a voice for change as valuable as anyone else.

@liquidprince said:

Context is important, but I think that we can remove it in certain situations, especially if we are grading things on a continuum in relation to other pieces of art, games, books, films, etc. Context is important if we are looking at one specific story and attempting to gain understanding of that one story. I am woefully unable to do this with this story, unfortunately. God of War has never been my bag. I'm not into character action games. I never have been. I've given it a mighty try, especially when Bayonetta came along, but in the end I still was just not into the gameplay. So, my main point is that this story, however it played out, is fine to like on it's own, even if it uses every pernicious trope in the book. A funny wrinkle in this is that Abby is way more qualified than I concerning this subject since she played the game to completion and even enjoyed it enough (despite her stated issues) to give it the fourth spot on her GOTY list. She is a qualified opinion in all things that matter. She played the game. I defer to her and to others who have formulated an opinion of the overall story, whatever those opinions may be.

Now, put that on the shelf for a moment. Tropes, or the picking out of tropes in a specific story, is important not only in that it is holding a magnifying glass up to the piece we're analyzing and trying to understand it better, but also in placing it in a continuum of pop culture media and attempting to discern patterns and trends overall. When you are a member of a marginalized group, this can jump out at you more, although you certainly don't have to be to see the patterns emerge. But, since I am a woman, I can speak from that place and I can tell you what I see as a trend.

Fridging is super common in games, movies, television - pop culture and classical literature in general really. It's so common that when I see it I immediately go "Not this shit again" to myself. Now, the movie/tv show/whatever can overcome that initial mental outburst, but sometimes it doesn't and it's just a shitty plot point that devalues the character it is perpetrated on and the story overall. I would say that Arrow (TV show) has used it at least 3-4 times in the past 6 full seasons (and I am being very conservative in that estimate) and it has handled it well but also handled it very poorly. So even in the same show, we can see the trope perpetuated in a way that works out well and a way that works out poorly, but the main takeaway is that it is used soooooo damn much. The mind boggles. It makes me wonder if having a uterus in these shows is akin to always having bad guy catnip tied to your neck. Or a big sign that says "I am the protagonist's girlfriend, please murder me in front of him so he can have a season long character arc!"

uuuughhhhhhhh....

And I know that people are going to be all like "Hey, dudes got murdered/hurt/depowered too!" in that show, but the difference is agency. Spoiler for the first season of Arrow, but he sees his dad die in front of him. His dad, however, chooses to kill himself to allow his son, the main protagonist, to live. Men choose their fates, often in heroic stands, women have things done to them because of their relationship to the hero. That's a big difference, and I think it is important to be able to discern that difference. Of course, variations exist and nothing is all black and all white, but it's certainly an overriding trend throughout fictional works, no matter what they are.

Now, you may ask me, is it really a trend? I mean, I know that there is academic writing on it, but how often does it come up really?

Oh, a poop-ton my duders.

I actually went through the movies I have watched this year, informally of course. My husband and I use the Letterboxd app and we log all of our movies. This past year, we watched 301 movies (some rewatches included) and out of that, I estimated that between 10-15% had this trope. And this was only including deaths of female significant others, not other family members, and not instances of rape, assaults, or the female character being depowered. I also kept it to movies that I remembered having plots that hinge very much on those instances, not just as a small part or side plot. It's just all over the place. That doesn't include other tropes, damsels in distress, etc. To go through them all would be it's own blog series, and other people have done that and done it better. But the final thing I came away with was that it's an easy trope to use and use it people do. A lot.

I'll wrap this up with a quote that encapsulates my feelings on the matter, or at least the use of specific tropes overall. In an essay entitled "Men Explain Lolita to Me" by Rebecca Solnit, she closes by saying -

You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you. Because art makes the world, because it matters, because it makes us. Or breaks us.

I suggest reading it, even if it's not on this specific issue, because it is very informative and interesting. And that line kind of wraps up everything I could try to say, but in a much more succinct manner than I know I could manage to do.

I would also like to say, in general, that these discussions cause many lingering arguments that go in circles and circles and things can get downright heated, so let's try to keep focused if we can. Thanks duders.

@jadegl: You've said what I and others (and indeed, Abby) were all trying to say in the discussions surrounding this game. You said it better than perhaps any of us. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

(Edit: Also, 301 movies in a year?! I think I watch maybe one movie a week on average.)

That's one of those types of quotes that when you read it it feels like it nails your plight perfectly, but you don't consider the fact that it hits everyones plight. Everyone gets treated like shit in fiction, be it blacks or jews or asians or women or men or homosexuals or straight people or children or elderly or stupid people or smart people or whatever. The difference, as you point out, is that some people tend to get empowered more than others. If the argument for what's troublesome writing is based on how badly a group of people gets treated then you'll probably find that straight white males are the most repressed group of people on the planet, purely because of their prevalence. For every black person that gets treated bad in a movie there's ten no-name white henchmen getting violently humiliated.

There are absolutely legitimate issues when it comes to lack of well written characters representing all different kinds of people in fiction, but focusing on how bad each separate group gets treated doesn't lead anywhere constructive. It's tiring to see the same old garbage over and over, but it's important to remember that in most cases it's just mediocre writing, and usually it's a bucket in the ocean of a lot more mediocre writing.

@liquidprince: Just wanted to say that you've the right of it! Faye is a great character and you can really feel her wisdom and love for her family throughout the game. I think its pretty amazing how intricately woven her influence is throughout the entire story. The game literally starts with her asking Kratos to cut down the warded tree that allows Baldur to track them down. She masterminded everything!

I like 99% of your posts, duder, but this one is super weird and off base, IMO.

@sethmode: I'm just trying to point out that in the conversation about how art molds us as a society there's a room that we have stuffed to the brim with humongous elephants. If the goal is to have better representation in fiction we need to focus on empowering the ones that are left behind, not dig through the trash of poorly executed ideas, because that's just a giant can of worms.

@ares42:There are two sides to that, I feel. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that we should take a more positive approach and focus on 'empowering the ones that are left behind' instead of measuring how much worse one group has it compared to the other. On the other hand, a lot of the mentioned tropes seem to be the result of some form of cultural conditioning. I don't think they're used to deliberately perpetuate certain ideas about certain groups of people. But they do nonetheless, because they're simply taken for granted, they're ingrained in our storytelling culture. There are plenty of people who simply don't see any issue, shrug and continue on their merry way, which is why you need to point at the trash and define those fundamental, but also problematic narrative choices that are often seen as non-negotiable or natural, but are also very easy to change to foster more inclusivity (if you just consider them before you start writing).

Kratos could totally be a woman, you know. ;-)

@loafofgame: I'm not trying to discourage people from criticizing poor character work. As I said there's absolutely valid arguments to be had there. What I'm saying though is that if you want to bring this into a bigger picture you have to look at the entire picture.

"But they do nonetheless, because they're simply taken for granted, they're ingrained in our storytelling culture. There are plenty of people who simply don't see any issue, shrug and continue on their merry way, which is why you need to point at the trash and define those fundamental, but also problematic narrative choices"

If you take this statement and actually think about it, not just in the scope of something like gender or race, but as an issue with how we tell stories there's an overwhelming amount of problematic things you can take issue with. Each of us are fine with most of these issues, we rationalize them away, but some of them we care more about and take issue with. This is why I believe you have to either ignore the bigger picture or look at the entire thing. You can't pick the issues you care about and say those are problematic while at the same time rationalize away the other 90% you're fine with.

Which issue did you see being dismissed? I saw you say "Everyone gets treated like shit in fiction", but I don't know what that refers to or what needs to be done to fix it.

@mavs: It was in reference to a quote that on surface seems like a poignant statement about how certain people gets treated in fiction, but that could be interpreted to encapsulate anyone and anything. As for how to fix it, we can't, and we shouldn't, it's a vital part of how we tell stories. If we eliminate any and all "problematic" parts in our stories all we're left with are bad stories. What we can do is try to do better when it comes to inspiring all kinds of people.

@ares42: if you had read the full article, you would know that the person writing it does not advocate getting rid of problematic ideas or tropes, and neither do I. In essence it’s just a statement attempting to encapsulate how people feel when faced with them so much in fiction, especially the fiction that is lionized by many. Also, it is a piece that talks about her experience of being told that shes wrong about an opinion (in this case sympathizing with Lolita in Nabakov’s Lolita) by people who think they know better. They totally miss the point and assume that she, the writer, just doesn’t “get it” when in fact she’s read it many times and just has a different feeling when reading and thinking about it. To ignore that deeper idea and focus on the assumption that somehow the writer, Abby or I want to get rid of these pieces of art is a bit disingenuous. You can critique something you like or even love. If anything, some of my favorite things include problematic tropes - Sin City comics, books by Ernest Hemingway or JG Ballard, old school Disney Movies and shorts, even professional wrestling for crying out loud! I feel I am confident enough in what I like to be able to see the wrinkles as well as the good and attempt to articulate that.

I was answering mavs question about how we should fix it, by saying we shouldn't. How is that making an assumption about yours or Abbys or anyone elses intentions ? Mavs presented the idea of it requiring a fix, so it's completely reasonable to address it.

Okay, so if that isn't an issue then what makes up the 90% of issues that are being rationalized away?

@ares42: you used the term “eliminate” which no one is advocating so far as I can see. Forgive me if that made me think that you were, in turn, thinking that people bringing these issues up are trying to eliminate them from the picture entirely. I don’t know why else that word would be used otherwise, honestly. But I’ll let Mavs answer or respond to that, since that was where your discussion was focused. But, in my opinion, I see the fix as exactly what people like Abby are doing in discussions, which is pointing out and critiquing something that jumped out at them. The more people discuss things openly and honestly, the more other people will consider maybe making different choices when they sit down and write a story. Or not, what people decide to do is up to them in the end, but it’s nice to think that they would think about what they’re saying and making and considering how it makes a portion of their audience feel. But I personally think that communication will lead to understanding. And you can’t understand how someone feels about something unless they tell you and you, in turn, listen to them. I’m saying this generally, not implying that anyone specifically here is not listening to what I or anyone else is saying.

@mavs: violence, sexualization, idolization of wealth and physical appearance, racism, classism, portrayal of handicapped people, drug abuse, etc etc, you get the picture. You might have an issue with all of these and many more, but most people just shrug them off and don't consider it a big deal.

@jadegl: I interpreted mavs use of the term fix to "how do we stop this from happening".

I've seen @jadegl gently try to explain the femme perspective to the GB audience probably a dozen times across several years, and each time, their tone is as measured, calm, and kind as a saint's. Given that I have largely stopped visiting the forum in the last few years because of threads exactly like this one, I can only imagine how many more times they have performed this labor that I simply haven't been witness to. I'm in awe.

I am also extremely frustrated by what this means: for years, they have been repeatedly tasked with explaining the value of their perspective and their actual, lived experiences to so many people who would prefer to dismiss (and have dismissed!) their perspective and experiences entirely out-of-hand because these things challenge their very comfortable status quo, which currently provides them with excellent stuff they like, like all these games about The Hero's Strong Dad's Journey.

It's fucked up. This response, and the attitude that creates it, drives women and femmes out of this community. And if I, a white cis man, find it unpleasant and gross to be around by mere association, I can only imagine what it's like to not be a male here.

@jadegl: I think if we want to pull the picture all the way out and look at what I think is one of the core issues that all these sub topics stem from, is the issue of division. People who feel marginalized, talked down to, ignored or insulted obviously want to be vocal and protect themselves as they should, but I feel the way it goes about being done is often problematic.

Let's talk about feminism in a broad sense for a moment. The idea of feminism as it originally was formed was a noble goal, wanting equal rights for women in every sense of the word. But what its goal was and what it has become in the modern day are two completely different things. Modern day feminism for example often is about uplifting women at the expense of painting men as toxic, and masculine traits as toxic. And you either agree with every thing they say, or like I've been accused of by Simmant repeatedly in this thread, be called a misogynist. There is no room for discussion. A lot of people might proclaim that they aren't that kind of feminist, and that can be 100% true, but the overwhelming examples of girl power nowadays in media tries to paint women in a good light while simultaneously tearing down men. The Supergirl clip I posted earlier is one of a million different examples, and that's just in fiction. Opening this up to discussions between real people about topics like gender identity is whole other can of worms.

So this comes down to the core problem I stated above. The idea of Feminism is noble, but the reality is that it ends up creating an us or them mentality. Call me a naive ideologist, but I don't think equality will come from a place of division. If you want to treat people like equals, you have to see them as equals. If you just take the issues that exist in fiction for example and focus on them with a hyper specific lens of just how they applies to women, or black people, or gay people, or any other marginalized group, you will most likely have a valid point, because it is indisputable that there is a long history of these people being mistreated, insulted etc... But it then forms a separation. We should always be thinking about it in my opinion as an "all lives matter" situation. Every human deserves to be treated decently and with respect and people should try and see things from all perspectives. The reason this doesn't happen is because it requires a lot more effort to try and see something from multiple perspectives. It's easier to fight for one goal then try and understand multiple.

Here's a discussion which I think demonstrates the us or them mentality that is born of only trying to fight for your one hyper specific goal. You don't have to agree with Jordan Peterson on anything he is discussing, although I do feel he is very well informed on the topics he tries to discuss. But notice how the female interviewer is constantly trying to put words in his mouth or twist what he is trying to say to fit her narrative. It comes off as hostile and disingenuous and is exactly the type of us or them viewpoint that I have personally experienced in this very thread:

"Glad you admitted that the only reason you started this thread is because you didn't like that Abby dared level a very, very valid criticism against a game you like.

AGAIN, this is a very well established and heavily written about and discussed criticism of this game and it is a real problem, whether you are able to see it or not. Now that you've admitted it, can you please stop being a misogynistic jerk?"

or

"You are a misogynist, hands down. It is literally not possible to have the view you do about Abby and her opinion and not be. Please just accept that fact and go hang out on kotoku in action. I'm sure all their gamergate lite bullshit will be much more to your liking and you'll never have to worry about those damn women stepping out of their place and having takes about video games ever again."

Like this is absurd. I'm being attacked because I don't agree with Abby, being told to shut up and to go away. There is no value in seeing my viewpoint. I wasn't dismissing her viewpoint, but trying to expand on why I don't see it in the same way. The same thing happens in the video below and in numerous other places I could point out and is the core issue with creating this us versus them mentality. In trying to defend your viewpoint, you eventually are forced to attack the others.

Yes, sharing a Lobster Manbaby video is certainly the best way to establish that you aren't a misogynist.

If you are insinuating that he is a misogynist and therefore I am one as well by extension, disregarding every other thing I have tried to say in the process, then I think that's a pretty shallow and lame response. For the record, I do not think he is a misogynist, but he is a very well informed clinical psychologist who tries to explain that issues such as the gender pay gap are far more complex then a simple, girls unilaterally get paid less then men and that's just the truth. There are variety of psychological and sociological factors at play which influence how and why such differences in wages exist. Are they all justified, or are they all things that can't stand to change and evolve? Certainly not. Everything can change and evolve. But it's not a black and white situation, and anyone who wants to see it as such, again in a us versus them sort of situation is displaying willful ignorance.

If you want to have a better understanding of his position, you should look into his discussions about the differences between equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity. To give a quick summary, it posits that in the most egalitarian societies, where men and women have equality of opportunity, women and men tend to gravitate towards certain occupations. In his Scandinavian example, it's a ratio of 1:20 women becoming nurses and 1:20 men becoming engineers. Given that they have equality of opportunity leads them to certain occupations and this is supported by empirical evidence. Which isn't to say that women cannot or should not become engineers or men nurses, just that when given the choice, certain genders gravitate towards certain occupations. Equality of opportunity is a desirable goal that we as a society should strive to move towards, but equality of outcome is a whole different argument. If you want to listen to very similar arguments as the one above, but without a disrespectful host who is constantly trying to twist his words, then the following video is a little better. Again, you don't have to agree with anything he's saying, but to label him and by extension me as a misogynist simply because I don't think certain issues are so black and white is a shallow rebuttal.

I’m not going to label anyone in this thread but Jordan Peterson is absolutely a misogynist, like are you kidding me. Dude has a very skewed view of women if you spend more than 10 minutes looking into what he has said. Not to mention he’s batshit crazy.

Would you care to give an example of something he's said that would make him "absolutely a misogynist?" A single example would suffice. I'm just trying to understand how anyone who has actually tried to listen to him can come to this conclusion.

@liquidprince: Jordan Peterson is absolute fucking garbage and he has nothing of value to say about any topic. He is a vile shitbag preying on the insecurities of white men who can't stand to see the world changing around them and can't understand why their views aren't just accepted as reality anymore to make millions. If you believe a word he says or think he has even a single good point, you should never have started this thread because you are too fucking brainwashed about women and feminism to ever have anything resembling a reasonable discussion. It's great that you posted those videos though so now we can drop all pretenses that you weren't, from the start, trying to shame a women for having an opinion, because regardless of any other opinions put forth in this thread, it's clear that's all you were ever really after.

Just out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that the best way to show you aren't a misogynist was to post multiple videos of a well known misogynist and to go on a rant about "what feminism has become"? Might I suggest that a better option would have been shut up, stop listening to shitty white dudes who make you feel good, actually listen to the people who have gone to great lengths to try to explain it and read a even single fucking word about modern feminism from an actual modern day feminist.

@liquidprince: Him recommending enforced monogamy as a cure for men violently attacking and killing women because they couldn’t get laid.

His whole weird Jungian philosophy is based on ”order” being the masculine and ”chaos” being the feminine.

He’s a regressive traditionalist who wants to go back to the time when women where housewives and didn’t complain so much. Like I said his view on women and what their role should be in society is sexist and it is fucked up.

I love every time you post because you prove more and more how close minded and myopic your thought process is and how you can't stand to have anyone disagree with what you find to be fundamentally true and yet really isn't. You're trying to shut other people up by pretending that you have the moral high ground and know better and anyone who doesn't bow to your infinite wisdom is lesser and a misogynist. Funny thing is you're all air and no substance. You continually cite this ephemeral and vague notion of, "this is a well known and well documented discussion" and yet don't actually try and pull from that supposed pre-existing discussion to make any valid points here. You're not trying to have a discussion, you're just blah blah, this discussion proves your wrong, blah blah, you're a misogynist blah blah finger in my ears. You are exactly the type self righteous toxic personality that is slowly turning what feminism actually stands for into a thing that is corrupted and revolting. The true feminist ideal is a beautiful goal and something that we should strive for. Equality, not just for women against men, but of humans regardless of race, gender, religion etc... but you essentially are the worst example of the thing you supposedly stand for. A toxic sad person with nothing to share but hate. And I'll post another video where someone asks Jordan a very salient question regarding this issue that you are at the center of and gets a salient response back:

When this thread has devolved into whining about feminists, and posts with videos by scum like Jordon fucking Peterson, you know it’s done. It really says what the actual underlying issue with this entire topic was from the jump.

Which is what? That I don't think Abby should have an opinion? If so, that's laughable at how stupid it is and again ignores what I'm actually saying in the text of posts to create a gross over simplification that is easier for people who might disagree with me can digest. It's easier to label me a misogynist and ignore any points I'm making about why I thought the women of God of War were very nuanced and well done and believeable, then it is to formulate a proper response. There are people in here, @jadegl being one that is a stand out, that have argued their points on why they think, like me in fact, that it is not a simple matter of, these characters are shit and have no value or these characters are great and you're all wrong. Tropes exist and can have value, and how that may or may not apply to God of War was the entire point of the discussion. People like Simmant have added literally nothing to the discussion, have twisted my words and put words into my mouth and have insulted me for really no gain. At least if their was some wisdom I could glean from the insults, nuggets of why that passion exists, it might have been worthwhile. But there is nothing of value there.

Anyone who wants to come in here and claim that I think Abby should shut up, or doesn't know what she's talking about or she's a woman who should go in the corner need to really shut up. I respect Abby and her opinions enough to know that she should be able to withstand criticism leveled against her thoughts just as much I can respect any reasonable and criticism laid against mine.

Habitual lurker here, but had to create an account just to say - this is maybe the best sentence I've read so far this year.

Amen. Jordan Peterson and this whole wave of "intellectual dark web", pseudo-intellectual, evolutionary biology folks have such a fundamentally fucked up view of the world, and their ability to dig their hooks into large numbers of insecure white men is nothing short of terrifying.

@liquidprince Also "all lives matter"? Duder, sincerely, be better than that. Everyone absolutely deserves decency and respect, but to pretend that women and POC don't face unique challenges that require special attention is ignorant at best. This might be the type of situation where reading more writing from different identities would help.

But also, it's important to note that no one is perfect, and just because you might not understand all of this just yet, it doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone has the capacity to learn and change and become more empathetic to people of different backgrounds, it just takes a willingness to really listen.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification of the point I'm trying to get across, which by the way I myself claimed might come across as naive ideology. As it specifically related to works of fiction and art, I said that if a trope is negative and toxic, it should be looked at from every viewpoint. But people, even in this thread have said something to the effect of, "well maybe when men have years of suffering as much as women have we can talk about that issue." Talking about it as though it's some kind of long term competition of who has been treated more shitty in their life time. You don't make life better by vilifying one side and lionizing the other. If something is worthy of criticism, it should be criticized with equal ferocity for all side. It's what I was talking about when I said it creates an us versus them mentality which in turn will always lead to aggression and fighting.

Sweet Jesus, this escalated spectacularly.

On topic: I enjoyed Jade's posts quite a bit. I've been wondering what's up with tropes before, and how to write a good story without overusing tropes that are so prevalent because they're so immediatly relateable. The death of a loved one is such a powerful event that it makes sense why it's so often the fuel that drives a character to go through this journey. Reading a blog on this very site about how a story in a Final Fantasy game becomes straight up incoherent when they fail to execute tropes in a clean way, made me get an appreciation for tropes as the building blocks of a good story. But naturally, as we see them used more and more, we get tired of them, even if they are used in a competent way.

Personally i don't watch all that much movies or series so i'm easily propelled forwards by a story, not knowing all the similar instances of a similar story. But when you watch over 300 movies per year and you keep seeing the same story play out across again and again, i can see how annoying it gets when these same tropes keep popping up. Especially when the rules are different depending on the victim.

Off topic:

It always fascinates me how a guy like Jordan Peterson urges people to develop their moral compass around the bible's teachings because he believes that book tells us how we should behave, but then lashes out against those that lend an ear to the most vulnerable ones in society. Wasn't Jesus in his copy of the bible?

If John leads a happier life as Sarah, and makes the difficult step to come out as transgender and live that way , i don't see how you can have anything but respect for that decision. Refusing to accept this and placing the individual urge for absolute freedom of speech above treating your neighbors with respect is not christian at all. I read that his mantra is 'life is suffering' and we should learn to accept this, but i don't see why that has to be the meaning of life for everyone. It comes across like he's playing to an audience of people that are in a rut and are looking for a voice to listen to. I'm sure that religion can be of use in this case, but the world at large doesn't need to adhere to these same christian values. I don't need religion to have a functional moral compass.

The problem with all those youtube links is that i want to keep my youtube functional so i can't click on them.

Short of turning this into a discussion about Jordan Peterson, I'll just say that that isn't really what he talks about at all. In fact there a lot of videos where he has transgendered folks who agree with him on what he discusses. And for you to criticize what you think he supposedly talks about without actually watching a youtube video and listening to it in an open mind is kind of weird. You criticize but don't actually know what you're criticizing because you're afraid he'll what, pollute your youtube recommendations?

The entire reason he became well known or controversial in the first place was that he didn't like the idea that Canadian law was threatening to treat not calling someone their preferred pronoun as a criminal act. It wasn't that he had ever refused or would ever refuse to respect anyone enough to call them what they preferred to be called, but the law was so unclear about what the boundaries were, that putting something like that into criminal law was an extremely slippery slope. An example of how it was a slippery slope is, you can ask any number of different people what they feel is their gender or how many genders they think exist: some people say two, but I have heard claims as far as 80 genders. Eighty. Even divorcing the idea of gender biology from the idea of gender identity, how would you possibly enforce a law when no one has any definite answer on how many genders exist, and how you need to refer to any of them in terms of the singular, plural etc.. The idea that someone could potentially get in trouble with the law because someone else says they identify as a wolf and their preferred pronouns are wim and wam is a bit ludicrous. For something to be put forth as law, there needs to be a level of common sense and self evidence, and without clear delineated rules, you can't really have the threat of criminal punishment.

Anyways, regarding your point that was actually on topic, you're saying exactly what I have said multiple times in this thread: the pain of losing someone whether a parent, sibling, friend etc... is such a universal emotion that most everyone can relate to it. So it's a trope that will always be used as a motivation for whomever the protagonist is for ages to come. If there is something wrong with the trope, or if a certain piece of fiction handles it very poorly, I can see how it might be the subject of criticism. I just don't think that the trope was poorly used in God of War.

How does it keep getting worse?

I don't really see how it is except for the fact that any talk regarding the state of feminism, gender identity or anything sensitive really seems to be outside the realm of amiable discussion. I've not dismissed anyone's views, have striven to keep my conversation polite and constructive and the natural flow of conversation has lead to a place outside of the scope of the initial conversation; which isn't exactly unexpected. There does seem to be a real, "agree with us or you're a misogynistic pig" thing going on here though, which I guess should have been expected as this is a gaming website, not a place for discussing gender politics, even if they do relate thematically to the discussion.

To make this clear one final time, this thread was not made with intention to dismiss Abby's views or say that she's wrong or that women should shut up blah blah blah. I wasn't the one that brought that to this discussion. Those were accusations that were leveled against me, despite my only intention being to express my opinion that the women in God of War were in my opinion handled very well. I came into this expecting people to disagree, but not to start labeling and insulting me. This is honestly the reason why forum activity has started to drop off, as mentioned in another thread going around, because having amiable discussions regarding any topics that aren't superficial seem to be getting near impossible here.

The more fundamental question is whether art has a duty to conform to contemporary morality (or morality in general) and if art criticism based on "justice" and ressentiment has any real value beyond the pleasure of reveling in the vindictive bitterness of perceived victimhood.

I think it's pretty reasonable to not spend a few hours on unrelated videos to figure out whether internet person 1 was right or internet person 2 was right. Especially when i entered the thread to get some thoughts about GoW & tropes after listening to the deliberations. I'm clearly no Peterson expert so my initial thoughts on the guy are likely flawed and you're free to ignore my view therefore, but there's nothing that makes me feel like heyy... i need to submerge myself into these videos of him & related youtubers all through 2019.

On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law". In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech.

I think this is just shitty behavior. You can raise your concerns about how a law is implemented, without making a point of intentionally hurting people to make a stand against this law.

But where ever you pulled that quote from, it's a lie of omission, or a half truth. He was a Professor at UFT and as far as is known never denied any trans person the basic right of referring to them with their preferred pronouns. In fact there are numerous videos of him where he is speaking with a panel of people and on the panel are trans people, for which he asks how they would like to be addressed. The main issue he had was when it was implemented into Canadian law that not referring to people with their preferred pronouns became a criminal act tantamount to hate speech. His main criticism of this was that the law does not sufficiently describe what words need to be used to refer to what people and in what situations. It's all just a vague notion that if you address someone incorrectly and that person gets offended, they can file a complaint against you that could go into your criminal record as a person espousing hate speech. If there is only one video of the three that I posted that you'd like to give a chance to, might I suggest the third and final one, where I have set it to start at the precise moment the Asian gentleman asks a salient question regarding this very issue, followed by an elderly woman who also asks a question relevant to this discussion. That is if you can risk for a moment sullying your Youtube recommendations. Although I think if that is a legitimate fear for you, watching it in private mode will stop it from entering the recommendations of your main account.

Of course this was started by a lobster head. Cant believe people actually use the "you cant say anything about him until you watch these 4 hour videos".

I don't really care if people want to tear into Jordan Peterson and call him Satan incarnate. I have no personal attachment to the man. But can you really shit all over him over what is essentially hearsay? If you feel comfortable tearing into someone without actually knowing the specifics of what that person was saying, and taking it on faith that everyone else who shits on him is correct, all the more power to you. I'm glad you're opinion is so informed.

So if you care about all those issues, you should care about representational issues as well? If we're linking everything then it seems like we can't leave anything out.

When I asked about fixing issues, I was wondering what you expect people to do before they can care about the issues that are being discussed in this thread. But since everything is taken together, I would also ask: how should people tackle issues with representation in fiction?