Stephen Sossna said:
Well, thank you for the extensive answer runic. This will take a while to dig through.
And whose fault is that? In the end this is a chicken-and-egg type of conversation - who came first? We kinda don't know.
Sorry about the meaty reply. I tend to do that.
As for who's fault, it is purely hers. She is the one who presented herself using the same playbook as Jones, O'Riley and the countless others of that ilk. The is not a chicken and egg debate as the one putting the content out has full control of how they present themselves and by choosing to present herself as she has, responsibility for the negative consequences of that presentation are on her shoulders alone. Note, I am referring not to death threats or that garbage here, merely association with the likes above, and the general claim of her being a toxic personality to the overall discussion in the same vein as them.
Stephen Sossna said:
Thats semantics. An absolute statement isn't more rational than a relative one.
The problem is that they are statements at all. They should be arguments where a logic can be explained that show how the conclusion follows the premise. If all that is there is just the statement, that is a problem. Because of all the crap about claims versus arguments I mentioned before.
Stephen Sossna said:
You have a point about the quantitative issue, that much has already been agreed on. We'll see if that is recitified in further videos. However, you are completely throwing all social sciences out of the window if you say all statements that cannot be quantified are useless. Close to no factors that influence society and human interaction are quantified in any significant way. Also please stop trying to use emotive statements to manipulate the discussion.
I am not dismissing the entirety of social science because there are still ways we can take and apply data to support the hypothesis made within that sceince. The whole point of censuses, polls, and everything else is to get some base data from which to draw conclusions from. That is a big part of social science. Hell, political predictions are predictions made based in social science being applied, so one could easily make the case that if nothing else, social sciences are still trying to act as sciences in being predictive and then testing and fixing past mistakes. As I said before, we were not given data to support a premise, we were given a claim reliant on our belief in the person making it. That is not science at all, merely speculation on her part presented as if true.
Stephen Sossna said:
That is not how cultural effects work. They don't cancel each other out. Every single action is part of a complex net of causes and effects, even if there are things with a "larger impact" they don't override any smaller effect.
The "sweeping claims" that you are positing aren't ever made.
The standard of proof you are demanding is hypothetical and utterly impossible to attain with our current level of knowledge about the society at large.
Anything that sounds like a "sweeping claim" needs to be put into context, which in this case is social sciences. In the end, he conclusion: "Games affect culture, culture affects action", is not an unresonable one, despite our low level of knowledge concering such things.
No, I am asking for a demonstrated evidence in general. I presented the two opinions we seem to have of what her message really was and why there is still flaws with both. To me, because she feels the need to mention violence against women at all, she is implying a strong connection, if not cause and effect itself. To you, because you interpret it different, she is presenting a very minor effect if that. My points here were about what was wrong with either of them. If it was a strong connection, her video lacked evidence to support it. If little, it begged the question what is the point of making the connection at all when any effect they might have would be so miniscule compared to other factors. The mention of the other factors at all should have shown I am aware there is more to this then single issues, and my point was that if the effect games has is so little, without some way to understand at least a general idea of how effective it is, it is no better then saying rock music causes violent school shootings. It very well might play a factor there, but at such a small scale that we can not tell right now (as opposed to other factors that have some data to support, such as income, how they are raised, etc.) At that point what is being said is pure speculation that carries negative consequence with it (people attacking games or the tropes because they were lead to believe it increases violence against women). I hope you can understand what is wrong with that sort of behavior.
While I will agree that base claim you present is not an unreasonable one, it is unreasonable for her video to try to connect that to violence against women without evidence. The reason being as the claim itself, as you word it, is so vague that it comes off as useless. "Ok, so games affect our culture....what does that mean and to what effect?" It takes us right back to the problems I was going on about before. It says nothing of value that people don't already know (keep in mind, the sister debate with violence has always been about to what extend the effect was and if it warranted censorship because of it, not if it was there at all but it happened only faintly). And, as I said before, the presentation of the video leads the audience to assume based on emotional reaction rather then an argument for the case itself. Which in turn leads them obviously against the tropes and the games that use it if they against violence against women.
Stephen Sossna said:
There is literally no other way to look at complex issues other than through a narrow scope. Because, you know, the issues are complex. If you look at them as a whole, you usually end up saying nothing at all.
I can see the point you are trying to make here, but I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. It is looking at a complex issue as though it is a matter of simple cause and effect. You said yourself, things are a complex web. It is that idea that has me calling Anita's scope narrow, as it implies the tropes cause violence against women in the same way people may claim violence in games equals more violence in real life. Furthermore, a narrow scope also applies to ignoring conflicting information and other hypothesis out there to explain things, something also done.
Stephen Sossna said:
The "people can discern games from reality" argument is totally misplaced here, as the argument is always about the message of the game, not what is happening inside the game.
Except it doesn't matter the message of the game when people can still understand it is not reality. And that is assuming people get the same message in the first place and that the message is indeed sexist in order to support the rest of the claim based off of it.
The problem here is twofold. First, it assumes there is a single message from the creators that is sexist in design when it almost certainly was not meant that way(I will bet most games have no intended message of "show women as inferior). Secondly, it assumes everyone who plays the game will interpret the message the same way as she does, when reality is obviously different and people get all sorts of different messages from the game, be it "Mario is communist" to "jump on bullets".
Stephen Sossna said:
The question if games are sexist or not is covered in the video series, you just refuse to accept the proof given, which is not the same as the claim being unproven. The claim "games influence culture" is already covered above in this response. So is the claim that culture influences actions.
No, the question is answered based on her opinion of what makes it sexist, nothing more. In fact, much of it is presented as though that is not a question in the first place. The idea of "This
is" when she presents things. Again, so much is based on people already agreeing with other aspects that she claims. I can point to dozens of people who do not agree that being captured renders the entirety of the rest of your life powerless and meaningless. I can point to people who broke down why it is wrong to presume sexism when the underlying pattern of the tropes are genderless and predictable. If I can point to these arguments or even make my own, it highlights that no, it is not something set in stone about them being sexist. I will grant you that when trying to make those claims, she comes the closest to presenting actual arguments, but those are never satisfied well, instead rushed through with the conclusion which is her personal interpretation instead of any meaningful discussion of them being sexist being used to prop up the next one.
Stephen Sossna said:
The only thing we haven't talked about is "is our culture actually sexist", which goes way beyond the scope of the thread, and the discussion is already complicated enough. I just want to point out that the argument "games reinforce an already sexist culture" is actually shifting the blame away from the games significantly.
It is also an example of the many times a personal opinion is used as a "truth" in order to base another claim off of.
Stephen Sossna said:
Obviously, anything you or I say about what claims are or aren't made in her videos is an interpretation of what she said. It would be completely pointless to discuss whose interpretation is correct, so let's stick with the way I phrased the issue.
Why not mine? The discussion at hand is her, thus interpretation of what she presents is important here, and can be argued based on presentation of her video and asking questions such as "if she did not mean to make the case, why add that portion to her video at all?" or other questions to try to see which interpretation is more likely. In fact, I tried being fair and addressed both of our interpretations before, and again above. I will concede it seems to be a tangent further removed still from the main one though, so I will instead merely relate it to her "not a gamer" things. Namely, that as someone who isn't a gamer, and relying heavily on claims over arguments, motivation is going to be called into question and that will influence interpretation.
Stephen Sossna said:
Well, it would require her directly address complaints, so no, I don't think it has. This was added more as an aside on why it may have been done as such. Trying to understand the reason for doing so instead of being clear.
Stephen Sossna said:
This sentence by you is nothing but emotional manipulation.
No, it is a simple, truthful statement. She is not a scholar, and if someone wished to present the topic in a scholarly fashion, they would not have relied on emotional manipulation and instead on arguments with merit. I am sorry if it upsets you, but you being upset, while an emotion, does not mean the statement here is emotionally manipulative. "Rather low of you to claim otherwise though." <--- that was an emotional manipulative sentence, solely trying to induce guilt or shame there." See the difference between the two statements, the first is an explanation of why her style is not scholarly, regardless the emotion that statement itself causes in you and the second is designed appeal to your emotions.
Stephen Sossna said:
You have no idea what her motivations are. As such this sentence is nothing but a poor attempt at an ad-hominem argument.
I did say parallels, didn't I? Furthermore, I don't see how it is an ad hom to say she is ideologically motivated when she herself states as much in her kickstarter and her mission statement further reveals it as a biased look at sexism rather then a look at games and drawing a conclusion later. That is not an attack on her person instead of addressing her argument, that is an observation about her tactics and motivation. I feel you are getting upset because this and the last one seem more like a "no you!" response then anything else.
Stephen Sossna said:
That she is an outsider to the hobby is, as of now, a pretty sketchy proposition. Calling her "anti-game" is, again, emotional manipulation by you. So games where never meant to be held to the ideal of gender equality? Says who?
Anti-game is a phrase used here against the groups that have spearheaded against video games since the outcries against Kombat. It is not so much emotional as a label for the sake of simple understanding. The groups that rally against video games are generally called "anti-game" as a shorthand because of the idea of being for censorship as against games as a whole. While debatable how fitting it is, I have never seen someone complain about its use before and did not mean it as an emotional plug. Let me reword that to "anti-violence games" then, for the sake of clarity. therefore I was saying the argument has been used against people critical of games since their were people critical of games.
As for the last bit, rather disingenuous to word it so, but yes. The same way no book, movie or tv show is meant to be held up to that value. They
can if the creator decides to or the publishers will it. But no art or medium is meant to be upheld to it merely because it may offend you if it does not the same none of the above is meant to uphold to Christian apologetic because it may offend them. The point I was making here is that anita seems to be trying to uphold games to a standard they were not designed to fit in the first place. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to present it as though the games do not align with equality. They can align with equality without having to be upheld to it. They can have equality without being required to adhere to equality in ever facet of the product itself (in example here, story). Being a voluntarily bought product, with the sole decision resting on the consumer if they buy it or not, they represent equality. All people are equally allowed to buy and play the game and experience the game provided they can purchase the product. What you seem to be saying relates that any book, game or movie out there that does not agree to your standards of equal portrayal (this is why I called you dishonest here, as you confuse real life equality with gender portrayal in the games themselves.) they are by default not aligning with equality.
Stephen Sossna said:
Since I do not agree with you that she is merely making claims for the reasons stated above, this is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the discussion.
I will, however, say that I think your general take on differentiating arguments that need to be sound and claims that need to be believed seems alright. So in that sense, I agree with you.
Fair enough. I've covered the idea of her making claims compared to making arguments before and will later, might as well pass this by
Stephen Sossna said:
Yeah, somehow I doubt that is how it would go. But that is neither here nor there.
But, you can look into comparisons. I believe Extra Credits has done a couple episodes trying to tackle and discuss the issue of gender rationally. I think they made it out just fine.
Stephen Sossna said:
Alright, you have me convinced!
She really should adress exactly why she used the footage as she did. Has anyone asked, by the way?
Well, hard to when she doesn't address criticisms very well. But a number of people discuss the idea why. Personally I am of the mind of simple laziness. I wont read into whether of not it shows she didn't play the games here, but as the barest bones statement here, she stole the footage and never gave credit. This may also go into illegal territory sometime in the future as I heard she wishes to sell her videos as part of a school curriculum or something, thereby possibly voiding the claim to free use she has now (profits from videos may override the education clause, and either way she would need to source). But that is merely possibility there.
Stephen Sossna said:
I think all this context was adressed, and dismissed, in the videos. Because for whatever other features these characters may have, they are also damseled. The fact that it's always the women being the peacefull, counceling type while the male character is the active hero is part of why it's sexist.
The problem with this is that it ignores the base characters themselves. By nature of calling it sexist, it assumes they are what they are
because they are women. This can be argued however because they are what they are because of game design and story first. The reason they are not as active is not because they are women, but because they are not the main character. As such, this argument would be the same as saying the store clerks are discriminated against for being store clerks because they are peaceful, passive and not as active as the hero. When calling something sexist, the case has to be made it is done because of gender. While I will readily admit there are instances of that, the damsel being a damsel is not one of them. Especially not when the hero rescues others as well (toads, yoshi, kings, carpenters, villagers, whatever). The hero is the active one because that is what the player is playing. The game is the active part so of course the hero will be more active then the secondary characters in the hero's story. That is devoid of gender.
Stephen Sossna said:
Oh, so the success of the franchise also hinged on making the main hero male, putting the former female hero in a skimpy dress and putting her into a crystal to be rescued? If that is the case, that about proves the point that the gaming culture is sexist.
Success? No. You said yourself, social science is not so simple. Buying habits are looked into and patterns are seen though, and when put beside market research, trends arise that companies are more willing to follow. When these trends show true, those that do follow succeed and carry on, while those that do not become less and less.
The traits of hero being male does not mean success, merely in the past more male hero's succeed as games then female, so fewer female games were made because they didn't sell well. It is a cycle. Now this would be a chicken and the egg thing, yes. if you are interested in my take of it and how I think it is best to address it I had a thread up, you could probably give it a read if interested. I try to tackle the whole issue of women and games in a less then narrow scope.
Stephen Sossna said:
I have no idea. How many? What about Kratos, Dante, etc. pp.?
What about them? I know Kratos rescued sailors, a ship captain, spartans and others. Granted, he rescued them only to use them/kill them for his own purpose but it was not gender motives in the rescue. But my point here is that no, you don't have any idea, you are assuming and ignoring the entirety of the rest of the data. You are picking the data you like to support your conclusion. That is why I called it cherry picking.
Stephen Sossna said:
Focusing on one specific trope a character embodies, alongside his other features, isn't a shallow characterization. It is looking at a story from a specific cultural angle. This is commonplace in literary and film analysis.
How is making a conclusion that is clearly her own conclusion based on the signs shown beforehand being "dishonest"? The conclusion might be wrong, but it isn't dishonest.
Back to what I said before about assuming the character is rescued because of the gender rather then game design or other elements. That is what is wrong with it. Also, when you ignore the story or plot purpose of the character, especially in a game where stories are told to the player though gameplay, you are being shallow in your characterization. The reason they are passive is for the player's sake, not because of their gender. when you look at gender first, then to the trope, yet refuse to acknowledge basic elements of the story itself, it comes off as trying to dig evidence to support a conclusion already decided upon. That is terrible journalism. And that is what she did. She had her conclusion first, she said it during the kickstarter. Looking to prove sexism in games and tropes. At that point i is dishonest to call it anything besides an open bias.
Stephen Sossna said:
Consider my statement retracted.
No problem.
Stephen Sossna said:
I don't really know what you are getting at here. It's a combination of two tropes and she showed combinations of these two tropes. What is this "emotioanlly loaded and strongly personal" topic linked to the combination of two tropes? Why would there be an "argument for the connection"? The connection is a simple fact: Both tropes appear in the same work and are interlinked.
violence against women is emotionally loaded. Many people know someone who has suffered due to this or have experienced it themselves, therefore dragging it into a topic unrelated, hell, even into a topic trying to relate to larger culture effects, is underhanded as it is treated like a quick way to stress the serious of the issue and force people to be emotionally invested, as they would react emotionally to the idea that something is related to that. The tropes being connected to violence against women has not been made as an argument, instead it was presented as associated but with only the vaguest given reason for that.
Stephen Sossna said:
Maybe I need to rewatch the video to see what you mean, but it seems to me you are saying showing the two tropes connected is bad because people might draw conclusions from that without these conclusions being stated in the video? Isn't that assuming people are patently unreasonable?
You misunderstood what I was referring to. I was referring to associated the two tropes of "damsels" and "mercy killing" with "real world violence against women"
Stephen Sossna said:
I do agree with you to a point. I just don't agree with your interpretation and framing of what is said. I don't like everything about the video series. It has some pretty significant flaws (missing quantification of the examples is one), and I think Ms. Sarkeesian is a questionable character. What I am going to argue strongly against, however, is any attempt to label a video that, in my opinion, drew attention to a significant issue of current gaming culture, as pure speculation.
I stand by my statement before of Anita being a cancer on the discussion of the topic she tries to cover with her video series. The videos do nothing new for the discussion and actively harm it because of how she overshadows the talk of the issues in games themselves. There have been many before that covered the topic better in word and in video. Sad they are overshadowed why Anita as well.
I'll leave you with the video I mentioned above. Give it a watch and see if you can understand why I prefer a discussion like this over any of Anita's.
http://blip.tv/extracredits/true-female-characters-5874704
I think I'll give it a go.