An observation on tropes against the Female gender

[NuclearKangaroo]

there are certain things that appeal more to women and certain things that appeal more to men, theres nothing intolerant about that

Which is why the Hunger Games did so poorly.

Oh wait, it didn't, and the fact that a franchise aimed at women but containing action managed to be turned into some of the biggest movies in recent history flooded the internet with the delicious tears of dudebros who were somehow impacted by it.

Huh. Strange. It's almost like, if you market the same sort of thing to women, they...Actually like it.

But that can't be it, because it's distinctly against the narrative we've constructed on the internet for rationalising why we shouldn't do just that!

gossip magazines, car magazines, porn (some of which is aimed to women and some to men), barbies and toy cars, etc


we are a species with sexual dimorphism, we have physiological and psychological differences, and yes the hunger games did well (tough i definitively didnt cry, in fact i did like the sappy romance at all, but nice kills), but so did twilight

and in fact, if anything the hunger games might prove my point, since men and women both liked the movie for different reasons i believe

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

if it doesnt offend you why do you complain about it?

Applying that logic, does that mean you're actually offended by feminism?

i didnt mean you cant critize things that dont offend you, but to accuse something of sexist when nobody is actually offended is disingenuous

also yes i am often offended by feminism, like when literally who #2 says im more likely to be a rape apologist because i play games with girls in bikinis

you know how fucked up is that? these people dont know about rape, I KNOW someone who was raped, is not even close to me, but when i heard about it i was devastated, the entire day i couldnt take thought out of my head, and i was simmering with rage at the disgusting piece of shit who deserves nothing less than the darkest corner of hell itself for all eternity

and im a rape apologist? no, fuck you literally who #2 and your retarded "tropes vs women in gaming" videos, one thing was barfing your logical fallacies about sexism in games, another very different is accusing gamers of being rape apologists

also im not giving literally who #2 more hits on google, thats why im not using her real name

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

not really, more like, how can something offend you and yet you still watch it?

Quite easily. Not that it matters, though. My analogy is still apt, 'cause being offended doesn't factor into any of this.

maybe girls like these things because they dont see anything offensive about them, maybe they dont think the films discriminate agaisnt them...

First off, films per se do not discriminate against anybody. They may only convey discriminatory ideas.

Whether or not somebody is offended by something is not the criterion which determines whether or not this something is sexist, racist, misandrist, misogynist, misanthropist, harmful, or whatever else you want to come up with.

or maybe all the shirtless guys are brainwashing them with their abs

This dismissive little statement might be closer to the truth than you'd think. Certain romantic tropes are more popular with heterosexual females than with heterosexual males and vice versa. For the sake of brevity we will only look at heterosexual individuals in a more or less generalised manner.

Love triangles in which two physically fit males fight over one female, with the female being the self-insertion audience avatar, are very popular with women. From an evolutionary perspective this might have something to do with the fact that females are the child bearing gender. They invest heavily into their offspring in terms of fitness and have to make sure that their mate(s) have the right set of genes. Thus the scenario of two supernatural, handsome hunks fighting for their affection is the ultimate expression of this behavioural pattern. Even if it's just imaginary.

On the flipside we have the promiscuous male. The James Bond, James T. Kirk womaniser kind of guy who has another hot girl every other week. The popularity of this trope may be down to the relative lack of investment the male gender has to make when it comes to raising their offspring. If it doesn't work out you can always find another one. Nothing lost, nothing gained; quantity trumps quality in this case.

These tropes, in and of themselves, are neutral. Neither harmful, nor beneficial. It's the added cultural and societal baggage that makes them problematic. In Twilight's case it's the attachment of "purity culture" and everything that entails. Also some unfortunate implications.

this makes no sense

something insults you, but you still watch it

its a film aimed to girls, of course its designed to convey ideas that would appeal to women, i mean, at certain point you could argue its discriminatory, at the same level you could argue tampoms are

is not more "discriminatory" than a film aimed to men

 

[James Catling]

NuclearKangaroo, when feminists talk about something being sexist, they don't just mean "offensive to one gender". "Harmful to one gender" is a bit closer. If something reinforces negative stereotypes or harmful attitudes, it can be sexist without being offensive. Some feminists may well be offended by it, but they're offended because it's sexist, not the other way around.

For example: The character Kanji, in Persona 4, has a character arc which revolves around the fact that he's afraid people will reject him for being interested in 'unmanly' hobbies like sewing. The fact that society pressures men against engaging in such activities doesn't actually offend me, but I still think it's wrong and should change. In other words, I find such attitudes sexist. Does this distinction make sense?

Regarding the rape-apologist thing: I haven't watched any of Anita Sarkeesian's videos, so I've just had to track down the bit I think you're talking about. 'Women as Background Decoration Part 1', around the 29:50 mark? She says that studies have found long-term exposure to hyper-sexualised images leads people to be more accepting of certain rape myths and sexual harassment. That doesn't boil down to "liking games with bikini girls makes you a rape apologist"; maybe more "spending all of your time playing games where women are largely sex objects will eventually make you more susceptible to some dubious beliefs". You might disagree with that - it did start with 'researchers have found', so you might want to ask who exactly found it - but why be offended by it? It's a psychological and cultural claim. It shouldn't be taken personally.

 

[Terminal Blue]

See, this whole thing is based on an assumption that because "chicks be lovin' dat Twilight, yo" all we need to do is throw some of the stupid bullshit from Twilight into games and women will play them and then gaming will be inclusive. Well, that's not actually true, is it? As the OP points out, Twilight only seems to attract female fans. It's not actually inclusive at all. If we made games more like Twilight, then it stands to reason that only women would play those games. That is not better, is it? That is not actually inclusive..

Twilight is pandering bullshit. It's about a main character who has absolutely nothing distinctive about her and puts no effort into achieving her goals but who simply gets whatever she wants because of plot convenience and her reverse-harem of magic hotties. It is selling lazy, poorly written wank material to horny teenage girls.

What is actually fucking incredible is that many people who seem perfectly capable of seeing Twilight for what it also seem to be somehow unaware that the game industry is doing exactly the same thing to them. What's shocking is that so many people are still eager to go to the wall at the mere idea that adolescent pandering is anything other than the highest and most pure form of artistic expression, that merely daring to criticise the utter failure of gaming as a medium to evolve beyond repetititive, gender-specific pandering somehow means you don't like gaming..

..You know, kind of like how not liking Twilight means you don't like literature.

 

[mecegirl]

While people can enjoy media from different genres, I dare to say that a significant portion of the women who like Twilight wouldn't like most video games anyway. Most video games in the AAA genre fall into action & adventure or sci fi & fantasy. So most developers/producers would do best to go after women who already enjoy those genres but in other mediums. So more Hunger Games than Twilight. Or urban fantasy novels, which tend to have idealized female characters battling demons and monsters, or hanging out with fairies(and consequently have a large female fanbase. An urban fantasy novel with a male protagonist is pretty rare.) What about reaching out to female fans of the horror genre? Or who like steampunk? Hell,Sleepy Hollow has just started its second season and it has a pretty widespread fanbase. What about BBC's Sherlock or Elementary? What about Dexter and Hannibal? Even Supernatural would be a better fit for this conversation. So for the life of me I can't understand why people keep bringing up Twilight as if romance(and not even good romance) is the only genre that women love.

 

[C. Cain]

Talking to you is surprisingly exhausting. It's like talking to a water wheel.
Either way, let me try to be as clear as possible.

this makes no sense

something insults you, but you still watch it

Being. Offended. Does. Not. Matter. At. All.

You can't wrap your head around the fact that some people subject themselves to watching something they find offensive?
Tough, but consider yourself lucky: it's a red herring.

It has no bearing on the issue of sexism whatsoever.

There is no need to discuss this further. Being offended = irrelevant.

Got it?

its a film aimed to girls, of course its designed to convey ideas that would appeal to women, i mean, at certain point you could argue its discriminatory, at the same level you could argue tampoms are

is not more "discriminatory" than a film aimed to men

A = Romantic trope. B = societal baggage (e.g. body image or purity culture). C = Discrimination (a concept you still don't seem to understand).

I described why A is popular. I explicitly stated that A is neutral. B can be harmful, subversive, or detrimental. B is then attached to A. See where this is going?

I argued that [demographic] seeks out [A]. They can only get [A] if they also take . They decide to consume [A] and inadvertently consume at the same time. Whether or not they see for what it is doesn't matter. Whether or not they realise that is even attached to [A] doesn't matter. All that matters is that was consumed, and that's what draws the criticism.

Your counterargument? To paraphrase:

It's [medium] aimed at [demographic1], of course it's designed to convey [A] that would appeal to [demographic1]. I mean at a certain point you could argue it's [C], by the same token you could argue that [products] for [demographic1] are [C] as well. It's no more [C] than [medium] aimed at [demographic2].

What precisely are you trying to tell me?

 

[Loonyyy]

See, this whole thing is based on an assumption that because "chicks be lovin' dat Twilight, yo" all we need to do is throw some of the stupid bullshit from Twilight into games and women will play them and then gaming will be inclusive. Well, that's not actually true, is it? As the OP points out, Twilight only seems to attract female fans. It's not actually inclusive at all. If we made games more like Twilight, then it stands to reason that only women would play those games. That is not better, is it? That is not actually inclusive..

Twilight is pandering bullshit. It's about a main character who has absolutely nothing distinctive about her and puts no effort into achieving her goals but who simply gets whatever she wants because of plot convenience and her reverse-harem of magic hotties. It is selling lazy, poorly written wank material to horny teenage girls.

What is actually fucking incredible is that many people who seem perfectly capable of seeing Twilight for what it also seem to be somehow unaware that the game industry is doing exactly the same thing to them. What's shocking is that so many people are still eager to go to the wall at the mere idea that adolescent pandering is anything other than the highest and most pure form of artistic expression, that merely daring to criticise the utter failure of gaming as a medium to evolve beyond repetititive, gender-specific pandering somehow means you don't like gaming..

..You know, kind of like how not liking Twilight means you don't like literature.

I'm honestly suprised by how visceral the reaction is to Twilight, and how much it draws on what might be called social justice or feminism, by those who typically reject those concepts everywhere else. We're told Twilight is bad because it promotes stalking, because it defends abuse, because it's the product of a perverse view of sexuality created by the intersection of romance tropes and some conservative Mormon beliefs, most of which I think has merit, but most of which I've already seen, often from feminists and women. Yet critiquing video games, or films in general, or anything that seems more male dominated, or at least, male targetted, along those lines is reading too much into things, or bringing in something external, or just flat out wrong. It's kind of fucked up.

Without a lot of ideas which are more feminist than not, it's hard to really damn something like Twilight. I mean, it's kind of boring, the protagonist doesn't do anything, but that's not enough for it to be that bad. Hell, lots of movies do that, and they don't get the same crap. The abuse, the stalking, the purity, these are reasons to damn it. And a lot of this does come down to ideas about sexual liberation, about domestic abuse. I think there's a lot of convenience here.

Twilight is a romance, aimed at women, and naturally, a whole lot of guys don't like it, and they're happy to use these arguments because they already didn't like it. It's a lot harder to say these things about something you actually like. It's far more uncomfortable when you're wondering about why there's a lapdance in Last Light, or at the very least a strip show(IIRC the lapdance is optional. Of course, it's really easy to end up in it by accident and then wonder what's going on. I was there for a couple minutes until I realised it wasn't a trigger for the next objective, which is round the corner). It's more uncomfortable when you're wondering about what the creators of say Metalocalypse think about people you care about, or even you, when a plot thread, unironically ends with "Let's not do that, it's gay.". Or why the creators of one of your favourite television shows decided to insert a series of graphic rape scenes. Or why the video for a song you like by a group of men feels the need to be largely sexualised images of women. A lot of people are perfectly comfortable with feminist ideas of critique or analysis when it's not aimed at anything they like, usually, only when it's aimed at things associated with women.

 

[C. Cain]

Yet critiquing (...) films in general, (...) along those lines is reading too much into things, or bringing in something external, or just flat out wrong.

(...)

Hell, lots of movies do that, and they don't get the same crap.

I dispute these claims. You won't get an in-depth critique from the yay or nay review in your local newspaper, but film criticism on the whole is not as shallow as that.

 

[deadish]

I just a minor revelation.

Bella from Twilight will give most feminist fits. She is everything someone like Anita Sarkeesian will hate.

Yet, Bella and the Twilight series is immensely popular among the female gender. Twilight, and by extension the character Bella, is commercially viable - the operative phrase being "commercially viable".

This isn't a case of the bad male gender oppressing the female gender. Twilight was written by a women - a now very wealthy women. Males aren't the ones dragging females to these movies to be "educated", rather it's girlfriends that are dragging their reluctant boyfriends and daughters dragging their fathers to these movies.

In the light of all this, perhaps SJW are barking up the wrong tree if they are interested in getting more of the female gender into gaming.

Um... Anita made a video about why we should all hate Twilight ages ago. What's your point?

That we should not be listening to people like her if we want more of the female gender buying games?

She is pretty much out of touch with what the vast majority of the female population wants.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

That's a very insightful post. I agree.

In case it's not obvious, I somewhat overplayed my reaction for dramatic effect there. I don't actually "hate" Twilight all that much, I don't think it's going to turn a generation of girls into abused housewives largely because most of its audience seem to be teenagers and we all like a lot of embarassing shit when we are teenagers.

But I do know that it is not some great mystery as to why Twilight is popular. It is popular because it panders to its audience. It gets inside the insecure, oversexed (but also intensely worried about social acceptance) minds of teenage girls and gives them exactly what they want. It says, "hey, maybe you feel confused and lost and powerless over your own destiny and maybe you can't imagine yourself as an actual competent hero, but don't worry, because powerful men will look after you and give you everything you want and through loving them unconditionally (and having babies, babies are cute!) you will ultimately grow to be a stronger person".

But the feminist question here is actually who told these girls they couldn't be competent? Why is it so much easier for young women to buy into the fantasy that big strong men will come along and make everything better than it is to imagine that they could have control over their own lives. Why is that image so seductive and is endlessly repeating it necessarily good for us as a culture?

Feminism generally means going deeper than the surface level of "this is how it is", it means asking why it is as it is. Ask teenage boys and girls how they feel and they'll probably come out with fairly similar things. Confused, uncertain about the future and lacking control over their own lives, so why is it that teenaged boys go off and pick up a game controller and get told "no really, you are powerful, you are the big powerful man with the big powerful gun who blows everyone away and protects the love interest and her boobs" while women retreat so easily into this world of "don't worry, it's easier not to be in control, just let men run your life for you and if you're inoffensive enough they will always look after you". Are we really saying that is just an accident?

 

[C. Cain]

That we should not be listening to people like her if we want more of the female gender buying games?

Why would we even want them to purchase games if all they get is the video game equivalent of Twilight?
Not buying games at all seems to be the better course of action if your only alternative amounts to buying terrible games.

She is pretty much out of touch with what the vast majority of the female population wants.

That's akin to saying that physicians who criticise Vodka Red Bull for being unhealthy are out of touch with what the vast majority of the young adult nightclub population wants.

 

[wulf3n]

surely the most extremist defenders of social justice will bark some stupid garbage like "they have internalized oppression" or something like that

its called internalised misogyny

I've always found that to be such a bizarre concept, and often comes across as "People are free to choose, provided they choose the same thing as me".

The highest profile example I can think of is the kerfuffle between Sinead O'connor and Miley Cyrus [http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/02/sinead-oconnor-miley-cyrus-open-letter/]

 

[Terminal Blue]

The highest profile example I can think of is the kerfuffle between Sinead O'connor and Miley Cyrus [http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/02/sinead-oconnor-miley-cyrus-open-letter/]

While I don't particularly approve of Sinead O'Connor's intervention there[footnote]Famous people will say dumb things in public to get them in the media because that services their careers? Say it ain't so.[/footnote] I find it really interesting that you assume Miley Cyrus actually "chose" anything. She isn't some garage act who is just in it for the music man, she's a Platinum-selling manufactured pop act. She has choreographers who choose her dance moves for her. She has stylists who choose her outfits, she has production teams who make her music videos. She has a whole industry (overwhelmingly dominated by men in the decision making roles) making a fuckton of money out of selling her music and persona to people like you. Where does "choice" even come into that?

O'Connor's point was very obviously not "Oh noes! You shook your ass in a way I dislike, now you are shunned from the woman-clique!" She was pointing out that there is a whole industry out there which takes women with extraordinary (or mediocre) talents and markets them primarily based on their bodies. The music industry was there and doing much the same thing before Miley Cyrus was a sperm. It will probably do the same thing long after she stops being hot or novel enough, goes into meltdown and becomes tabloid-bait. She didn't "choose" that, at absolute best she "accepted" it.

 

[Erttheking]

(...) People don't follow that advice when they criticize CoD, or reality television, or Big Bang Theory, all popular titles criticized for being bad for various reasons (...)

are you seriously implying something is bad because is not feminist?

(...)

I'm not EternallyBored, but two things:

Firstly, no, that's not what s/he seems to be implying. S/He's criticising the concept of argumentum ad populum. I.e. popularity and quality are not causally related.

Secondly, I can only speak for myself, but yes. Things are bad because they are not feminist (feminism being defined as advocating and supporting the rights and equality of women).

besides, what i think the OP means is that, how can something be sexist, and at the same time be largely enjoyed by the people towards it is supposedly sexist

That's exactly what EternallyBored is addressing.

Either way, how can something be bad for your health and at the same time be largely enjoyed by the people towards it is supposedly harmful?

not really, more like, how can something offend you and yet you still watch it?

maybe girls like these things because they dont see anything offensive about them, maybe they dont think the films discriminate agaisnt them...

or maybe all the shirtless guys are brainwashing them with their abs

Because a lot of girls don't see Edward's behavior as abusive and stalkerish. And that scares the shit out of me.

dude you dont get to tell people how they should feel, thats insane

I'm sorry, but if a woman thinks that Edward Cullen being an abusive stalker asshole is hot, then she is ignorant to the ways of the world. The "It's their opinion" defense only goes so far. For example, (You're gonna hate me for using such an extreme example but I'm sticking by my guns) a Muslim man not feeling any guilt for murdering his daughter after she was raped. WHICH HAPPENS! A LOT!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meimei-fox/the-horror-of-honor-killi_b_5826286.html

I don't care if that's the way he thinks, the way he thinks is WRONG!

There are women in the world that think when they get raped it was THEIR fault! Is that just the way they think!?

dude:

a) you are talking about freakin' murder

b) twilight is fiction, fantasy, a complete fabrication, why shouldnt people indulge in their fantasies?

My point still stands. There are plenty of people who consider unhealthy habits to be perfectly normal, and I'm not about to tip toe around it just because it's the way they think.

Because something fiction is not an excuse to paint something bad as something good. To pull out a random example, a Cuban friend of mine had the displeasure of reading a horribly written fanficiton, that ended with a full on government take over. Without the consent or knowledge of the people. By an outside source. Presented as a GOOD thing. He went ballistic because it was romanticizing the same shit his parents had to flee their home country to get away from. It shows what people to find acceptable, and it scares the shit out of me that Stephine Meyer is saying "Being abused it ok if the person doing it to you is really hot". I'm not advocating for censorship, but if you think that Twilight isn't promoting unhealthy ideas, then you are wrong.

you kill people/mosnters/something in like 90% of video games, and movies also often involve killings and/or violence

and yet you dont see people going on a killing spree over that, if virtual killings arent unhealthy, virtual sexism, must be the same

And most of the time they have the people being killed be murderous assholes (Thus their killings are justified), or they have the person doing the killing BE a murderous asshole (Thus they're not like us and we shouldn't aspire to be like them). You will never see a game where a person runs down the street, gunning people down, and have him being portrayed as an un-ironic good guy that we should aspire to be like. That's the difference between the two, the way the narrative frames it. Meanwhile, Twilight, Edward's behavior is portrayed as completely normal and healthy, so unless you already knew to keep an eye out for it, you might think it really is normal and healthy. The most effective kind of propaganda is the most effective one. (Also, does all propaganda ever not work?)

Pretty sure you just pulled a logical fallacy there mate. It's called false equivalence. Different situations, different circumstances, different outcomes.

is not a false equivalence mate, the bottom line of your argument is that the portrayal of something in a piece of fiction can affect someone's behaviour in real life

also check carefully games with violence, in some of them, the hero is shown using excessive force or taking the violent route before trying any other way to solve a problem, violence is glorified, the ultimate justice bringer, when in real life, that just isnt the case

people arent stupid mate, we know the difference between fiction and reality, or atleast most of us do

Ok, I need to to say it. We need to forget about Jack Thompson. Him constantly ranting about how video games would turn us all into murderers has made us way too hyper sensitive to criticism. Media does affect the way that people act, if it did we wouldn't have had that anorexia epidemic! A good deal of cases of anorexia are caused by women seeing the unrealistic model like proportions seen on TV all the freaking time. Media CAN influence the way that people act. The thing is it does it in subtle ways! It doesn't turn people into killers, it subtly affects their behavior in ways like "Oh, calling women bitches is ok," or "Wow, that girl had sex with three people? She's a slut" because media depicts it that way. And yes, there are plenty of sites that back me up on the anorexia thing. And if they can influence on that area, other areas are logically possible.

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/media-body-image-and-eating-disorders

http://www.mirror-mirror.org/body-image-in-the-media.htm

http://www.something-fishy.org/cultural/themedia.php

Sadly I have to disagree. People are very, VERY stupid. The Human race is a massive disappointment in that regard. Christ, a good third of the population of my country wants homosexuality to be illegal. Not homosexual marriage, the mere act of being attracted to the same gender is something that they want to be able to charge people with. No smart race would've produced something like that.

 

[C. Cain]

(...)

Sadly I have to disagree. People are very, VERY stupid. The Human race is a massive disappointment in that regard. (...) No smart race would've produced something like that.

A disappointment compared to what, if you don't mind me asking?
So far we failed to discover any other species that rivals our mental capacity.

Granted, the average person may not live up to the ideal of human development, but that doesn't mean we as a species are therefore stupid.

Either way, I suppose this is a case of disappointment borne out of unduly high expectations.

 

[Erttheking]

(...)

Sadly I have to disagree. People are very, VERY stupid. The Human race is a massive disappointment in that regard. (...) No smart race would've produced something like that.

A disappointment compared to what, if you don?t mind me asking?
So far we failed to discover any other species that rivals our mental capacity.

Granted, the average person may not live up to the ideal of human development, but that doesn't mean we as a species are therefore stupid.

Either way, I suppose this is a case of disappointment borne out of unduly high expectations.

A disappointment compared to the expectations we created out for ourselves. My country likes to call itself "The land of the brave and the free". That we have "Freedom and liberty for all." Except it turns out quite a few people in my country are paranoid fuckwits, more than happy to have corporates mess around with our lives "because Capitalism" and Freedom and liberty for all only applies to certain people.

So...yeah, I suppose that when you're told for the first fifteen years of your life that the human race is pretty good, brave, noble etc, it's kind of a crushing disappointment when you learn the truth. And I guess the main problem is that so many people believe that we ARE just that great, when we really aren't.

To quote Men In Black "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

 

[C. Cain]

- snip -

Fair enough. I think we're alright for what we are, even if we don't manage to live up to our unrealistic aspirations.

 

[Loonyyy]

Yet critiquing (...) films in general, (...) along those lines is reading too much into things, or bringing in something external, or just flat out wrong.

(...)

Hell, lots of movies do that, and they don't get the same crap.

I dispute these claims. You won't get an in-depth critique from the yay or nay review in your local newspaper, but film criticism on the whole is not as shallow as that.

You're right, I should clarify myself a bit. It's in particular spaces that this comes up. When people bring up female representation, or heaven forbid, the Bechdel test, there are very particular responses. Or when someone criticises the politics of films which glorify militaristic attitudes, or that say, blockbusters like Transformers can be stupid, racist, sexist, and jingoistic all at the same time. It's just a movie. It's just a dumb action movie. Turn your brain off. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Stop trying to make controversy. You're just looking for attention. There are lots of good critics, but all too often, when I see them online, they're slammed as SJWs, or pretentious, or biased, or whatever the latest way is of putting one's fingers in one's ears and singing loudly. Film has less of a problem with this than gaming, to my eye at least, but try mentioning the Bechdel test, or anything of the sort, and see what happens.

At the same time, it's apparently suprising that Twilight is problematic, or this is apparently a novel observation that hasn't been around since Kirsten Stewart first held her mouth slightly open whilst Robert Pattinson refused to emote. Apparently this is where all those people who leaned towards feminism or anything of the sort went wrong, apparently this is what they overlooked.