Again something that's on her to address, naturally. I know I will listen when/if she does (then get on her case if I notice inconsistencies to be resolved), and I have a feeling you will too.
Off course I will. But yeah until than I will have little respect for her. I remember when i first heard about her kickstarter on this forum. I was pretty apathetic, I thought that it could be interesting or not. Unfortunately the latter ended being true. What annoys me the most is that she ended up being yet another character making unbacked attacks at games. The whole violence in VG debate, which still wages on heavily in the media, has made me defensive towards this type of attacks so when those are made they better be based on some heavy evidence. Yet all she provided was "Games are not in a vacuum therefor...".
Problem is that she is not and indeed cannot make that argument. To be frank, it often doesn't even hold up if we confine our examination to a given franchise.
(...)
...Point being that we do not only see a portrayal of women as weak and/or victims even if we assume the ONLY media a person consumes is video games, limit our scope, confine the scope to single franchises or single games in many cases, or even just those franchises that make use of the damsel in distress plot devices.
That seems to imply that if we cannot even find the alleged trope in any one genre, then it cannot be a cultural issue. But that doesn't follow, since it is not necessary for all genres of videogames to show the same tropes in order to conclude that the tropes are prevalent in the overall culture. It makes even less sense to confine our view to any single franchise or game (which game or franchise? Why should this one be the important one?).
If that's what you got out of my post, I'm going to have to ask that you take a deep breath and read what I said and what I was responding to again. The point I was addressing made a claim regarding 'only seeing one portrayal of something since youth', which I took exception to (I despise absolute statements). I said that even if we confine our views to video-games (the subject matter), we wouldn't get that kind of singular representation (smaller data pool typically means less variation). The concept didn't rely on some 'if you cannot find the trope' concept. Quite the opposite, in fact. It relied on examining the context in which the trope appeared in. Is it indicative of the treatment of women in that title or the treatment of a woman? Or if you prefer: Does Zelda's capture negate the Gerudo warriors' status as strong independent women in that same title?
Stephen Sossna said:
It is almost comical to try to dismiss a series of videos that has examples from about 80 games by giving counter examples from about 8.
A) I was making a point about the use of an absolute argument which I said Anita did not and could not use
B) Fun fact: Anita used half of the examples I just used (Peach, Zelda, Lili, Angel) as part of the first two Damsel in Distress videos as support for her claims.
Stephen Sossna said:
So there is one game in the franchise that reverses the roles. Why does this one game change the entire cultural impact of the franchise? Princess Zelda has been covered more than adequately by the videos themselves. Sheik is actually especially sexist, as has been pointed out. So Psychonauts was balanced, conclusion?
Well first of all, Sheik was claimed to be sexist. That is an important distinction, especially when feminist thought is fairly varied in this regard and the rationale behind the claim is questionable (Ultimately Sheik's actions are Zelda's. It doesn't matter how she was dressed or what she was pretending to be, she did it). More to the point though: Again, a disempowered woman vs. disempowered women. We're focusing on the former and drawing conclusions about the latter. That's a methodological problem.
Stephen Sossna said:
Your points may be valid, but what is the conclusion? Are isolated examples enough to argue that the trope is not prevalent? It seems to me you would need a study that is quite a bit more extensive than this. Also note that in videogames, there is a notable difference between main characters and supporting cast, because the agency is markedly different. Furthermore, do games where you can select multiple different protagonists and can play as both genders (Borderlands, Mass Effect) actually tip the scales back in favor of women, or isn't it rather a neutral move that doesn't have an effect?
I never claimed it wasn't a prevalent trope. I'd have to be damned stupid to try, given that it is very prevalent indeed. I think it would be more accurate to say that I claimed that we're disproportionately emphasizing it, cherry picking from relevant context at worst, or suffering from confirmation bias to at least some degree. Lili is - for me - a persistent favorite example in this regard due to her being used as a Damsel in Distress example to emphasize the treatment of women despite the fact that the game treats everyone like that and actually has more male victims than female ones. It's the use of a non-sexist example to claim sexism because she technically fits the required criteria despite not lending herself to the point being made when the full context is actually known. The point is that the surrounding context is very important and if we want to draw conclusions about the way video games treat women we have to look at the game itself; not the treatment of character A, the treatment of character A compared to character B (Especially if one's a PC and the other an NPC), but the world's approach to the genders. Otherwise we risk invoking 'every housewife is a victory for the patriarchy' kinds of logic in our attempts to -rightly - prevent gender from being an obstacle.
Stephen Sossna said:
Asita said:
Heck, Sonic 2006 probably has one of the best examples of a damsel in distress in recent memory, but given Blaze the Cat and Rogue the Bat's roles within the game[footnote]Her own separate issues notwithstanding >_>[/footnote] you'd be hard pressed to derive a gender statement from Elise being a walking rescue mission.
Obviously you would be hard pressed to derive a gender issue from a single game, without even properly differentiating between the story level and the message level. But that doesn't mean that the statement isn't there when you put the game into a bigger picture.
The part you respond to here had returned to the original objection to the use of absolute statements about seeing 'only one portrayal of something', pointing out that even in more recently egregious titles making use of the trope, the absolute statement doesn't hold water, and that the game's use of more empowered females makes the use of the title to exemplify the disempowerment of women an iffy proposition at best. The game doesn't present women as disempowered. It presents Elise as disempowered. This ties into my claims of over-emphasizing and possible confirmation bias. If we treat Elise's nature as a Damsel in Distress as important and use it to draw conclusions about the treatment of women, then it behooves us to look at Rouge and Blaze's natures as well. Otherwise we aren't really looking at the big picture, we're just finding data to support our desired conclusions and ignoring that which doesn't fit those conclusions. It's like trying to determine if a d6 is weighted and disregarding all the ones and twos you roll as irrelevant.
She doesn't mention positive female characters (outside of that game she talks about that got transformed into StarFox Adventures, she certainly had a major hard-on for that one "Pretty cool right?"), for one of two very simple reasons.
A: It destroys her pre-conceived narrative she's trying to spew to anyone who will listen to her, so she ignores them intentionally to make her point seem stronger.
B: Being she isn't a gamer and obviously has incredibly limited knowledge of the subject material, simply doesn't KNOW they exist.
Both are equally likely.
Its not like the "damsel in distress" trope is exclusive to video games, its exists in every class of literature since the dawn of recorded time. Homer's Iliad has a damsel in distress in the form of Helen of Troy.
Also, she's pretty much exclusively picks on the Mario franchise...again because its likely its the ONLY one she has any form of decent knowledge about, which is made by JAPANESE developers. The Japanese have different views on sexism and women than the western world, this is clear from their anime.
So Anita's video series is basically, complaining about how the Japanese portray women in 1 very specific series of games, without even a SINGLE counter example to how other games treat women. Thats wholeheartedly disingenuous, at BEST.
For the record, my FIRST EVER experience with a female lead was Samus from Metroid, and upon seeing she was a women, my 8 or 9 year old self said "Oh cool, its a girl". Metroid remains one of my favorite series of all time, because I like women, so female leads are appealing to me.
Trust me when I say no one hates the cancerous personality that it Anita more then me when it comes to video game discussions or discussions on gender representation or participation. That said, this is just missing the point entirely. Like it or not, her initial video said she would find good examples in later issues of the series, so expecting too much of them now is expecting much. A better point may have been how she broke her own rules and instead wasted as much time on one trope as she did instead of moving on, or did not offer counter examples of said trope just for clarity sake.
The rest, regretfully, reveals you didn't bother to watch the videos. Go, watch the damn things if you actually intend to speak on the spubject and don't post again until you actually do. And no, I don't mean turning it on and watching for a minute then getting pissed, but watch and see what her points are. Trust me, she is so far gone your viewpoint here will only be justified, but you will look a lot less like you don't know what the hell you are talking about when you try to bring up the history of the trope in other medium (which, she does) or claim she only picks on Peach (which, she doesn't. Though she does go heavily after the mushroom kingdom pincess).
Seriously though, there is many good reasons to hate her project and to dislike her as a journalist/researcher. Don't undermine that by being lazy.
Well, I watched MOST of them...frankly they didn't hold my attention enough to watch them all through completely. However, she's talking about Mario in Ep. 1 and STILL talking about Mario in Ep 3...I didn't feel like much was being missed out on.
Also, "Later in the series"...?? It was my impression that #3 was the last one, which means she never actually did it, or that crappy StarFox Adventures alpha game WAS the example.
Thats fine that she brings up the history of the trope, but that doesn't change the fact its a really OLD trope...its also a very effective trope. Give the hero a reason to BE a hero...LOVE is a good way to create this drive to be a hero. After all, love is probably the strongest motivator in the all of human emotion, hence this specific "trope" is easy use.
I still stand by my claim that Anita is being purposefully disingenuous in order to make her point appear more valid then it is.
Let me start off by saying that was a really good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. That said, what she's arguing isn't that the representations are immediately affecting behavior, but that they're reinforcing negative stereotypes about women, which, after a prolonged period of time, can affect how women are viewed in society. If you only see one portrayal of something since youth, you're unlikely to argue the point, right? It's sociological theory, hard to find conclusive evidence one way or another, but it's a theory based on logical analysis.
Problem is that she is not and indeed cannot make that argument. To be frank, it often doesn't even hold up if we confine our examination to a given franchise. Princess Peach is probably the clearest cut example of a character whose nature practically revolves around being a Damsel in Distress (to the point of even echoing the classic criteria of being locked away in a tower castle by a dragon-esque character). What does this say about the treatment of women in the franchise? Well given the advent of titles such as Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (which is one of the few titles without a minimalist plot to boot)...not that much. Your party includes Goombella, Flurrie, Vivian and Ms. Mowz, to say nothing of how Luigi is himself promptly put at the villains' mercy, showing both that women are capable in their own right and that manhood isn't a magical key to resistance, respectively. Princess Zelda? She gets captured quite a bit but at the same time she's usually instrumental in preventing Ganon[dorf] from achieving his goals. If we want to look at Ocarina of Time alone, we also see Zelda ninjaing around as Sheik for most of the game and also have the certified badasses that are the Gerudo. Lili in Psychonauts? 22nd kidnapping victim in that game, 13 of which were male. Doesn't exactly speak to gender issues.
What about Angel in Borderlands? Iffy at best. On the victim end of the scale, Roland needs to be rescued earlier in that same game[footnote]
and is killed immediately after Angel
[/footnote], and on the empowered end of the scale you have more empowered women throughout the supporting cast, to say noting of Maya as one of the protagonists. Bioshock? Tenenbaum's the one who saves you near the climax of the game, it's one of the few franchises that indiscriminately use both men and women for enemies, Sofia Lamb is the principle antagonist of the second game, the most powerful enemies in that game (Big Sisters) are universally women, and the 'damsel' you spend that whole game trying to rescue ends up rescuing you and spends the rest of the game probably becoming the most badass character in the franchise[footnote]Elizabeth is more powerful, yes, but she's less action-y[/footnote].
Perhaps Persona 4? Nope. You're rescuing men and women alike without concern for their gender and a good deal of them join your party, including the one who directly invokes the Damsel in Distress stereotypes in the manifestation of her own insecurities. Mass Effect? Suffice to say that the two women you rescue in the first game (Liara and Tali) become bona fide badasses in their own right and go on to become some of the most politically powerful characters in the galaxy (Shadow Broker and an Admiral of the Quarian Fleet). Outside of them, you have the all-female Asari as one of the most powerful races in the galaxy (politically, technologically and physically (by way of biotic combat)), men and women filling all sorts of roles among the background characters and of course there's no discernible difference between MaleShep and FemShep (outside of appearance and voice acting, of course).
Heck, Sonic 2006 probably has one of the best examples of a damsel in distress in recent memory, but given Blaze the Cat and Rogue the Bat's roles within the game[footnote]Her own separate issues notwithstanding >_>[/footnote] you'd be hard pressed to derive a gender statement from Elise's nature as a walking rescue mission.
...Point being that we do not only see a portrayal of women as weak and/or victims even if we assume the ONLY media a person consumes is video games, limit our scope, confine the scope to single franchises or single games in many cases, or even just those franchises that make use of the damsel in distress plot devices.
Listing examples bucking the trend (to varying degrees), does not negate the trend, especially when it is still prevalent in many, if not most, media. Sarkesian is limiting the scope of her analysis to games, but the problem is societal, and is still a problem in many games. We wouldnt be having this conversation if it wasn't.
I could point out that above dug into some of the examples made by Anita herself and that what you have said here is not actually a claim of fact, but of accepted popular opinion. I don't recall a single examination that goes into actual numbers of damsels in games compared to rescued males, or games without the trope, or anything that really sets up what could be defined as a trend in the first place once you remove what people just accept is the case and instead look into real numbers there. But that seems a secondary worry about details here.
I wonder...
Given that games are a completely voluntary medium, and one highly reactive to supply and demand due to high cost of entry and high cost of production, and that you yourself say that it is a societal/cultural issue, why are we discussing the trope in games like we are at all?
No no, hear me out here. As a voluntary medium, the only thing stopping anyone from participating is the individuals themselves. But there has been an obvious gender bias in who buys games for the last couple decades. This in turn influences the demand and as a result the supply of games in terms of how they are made and marketed. Certain traits that sell well (male protagonist, for instance) sell better because those that are buying in the first place seem more likely to go for those as a general trend. The trend of individuals buying the game in the first place is what the companies look at to make the next patch. It is why Mario and Zelda games are so formulaic, because they can't change for fear of upsetting the cash cow that is the properties. Why people do choose some games over others, or to buy or not buy at all is probably related to social pressures that shape what they want or can allow themselves to want, though there may be some genetic aspect mixed in along gender's being predisposed to using tools more or less then social interactions, but that is all guess work for the time being. Point is, games are made to match demand (they are a product after all), and those that don't have as much demand (the many, many games that try to buck trends, be novel, the "outreach" games and what have you) don't sell well and as a result are harder to justify continuing to make them.
Now, going with all that I have discussed so far, which supports the idea being more cultural and social, why concentrate on a mirror that only shows the trends? Obviously if games are a product that simply fill a demand, and hell, a product that tries to fight that on occasion even, usually to sub par results, it is only showing what the culture itself wants. Furthermore, why make claims that said mirror causes negative effect (completely unproven) and continually try to correlate the game trends unliked to things such as violence against women, sexual assault and the like? If the goal is to change those negative things, one would better try to address the overall culture that influences the personal decisions that lead to the voluntary choices that affect the demand for the products. And if the goal is to demonstrate that games themselves do cause this harm, why does it do so at a distance, with emotionally manipulative tactics instead of evidence and argument, and why ignore that games are a business in the end and attempts to leap too far out the box can be disastrous, thereby making businesses less likely to deviate when it comes to major titles. All the more true when middle-tier games that try to test the waters tend to have poor reception in the first place.
If I make hand cuffs, and only certain sizes sell while the rest do not, I wont make the sizes that don't in the same volume or at the same pace as what sells. That they are being used more on males is an aspect of the culture itself that influences why some sizes are sold more then others. By making the cuffs though, am I contributing to a culture of sexism because my product is used more on males? Am I contributing to a police state culture? Something seems off, like a shifting of the blame to an easier target or a dodge of addressing the real issues to attack something they don't like. There is a reason this is compared to violence in video games argument, the parallels are obvious.
She doesn't mention positive female characters (outside of that game she talks about that got transformed into StarFox Adventures, she certainly had a major hard-on for that one "Pretty cool right?"), for one of two very simple reasons.
A: It destroys her pre-conceived narrative she's trying to spew to anyone who will listen to her, so she ignores them intentionally to make her point seem stronger.
B: Being she isn't a gamer and obviously has incredibly limited knowledge of the subject material, simply doesn't KNOW they exist.
Both are equally likely.
Its not like the "damsel in distress" trope is exclusive to video games, its exists in every class of literature since the dawn of recorded time. Homer's Iliad has a damsel in distress in the form of Helen of Troy.
Also, she's pretty much exclusively picks on the Mario franchise...again because its likely its the ONLY one she has any form of decent knowledge about, which is made by JAPANESE developers. The Japanese have different views on sexism and women than the western world, this is clear from their anime.
So Anita's video series is basically, complaining about how the Japanese portray women in 1 very specific series of games, without even a SINGLE counter example to how other games treat women. Thats wholeheartedly disingenuous, at BEST.
For the record, my FIRST EVER experience with a female lead was Samus from Metroid, and upon seeing she was a women, my 8 or 9 year old self said "Oh cool, its a girl". Metroid remains one of my favorite series of all time, because I like women, so female leads are appealing to me.
Trust me when I say no one hates the cancerous personality that it Anita more then me when it comes to video game discussions or discussions on gender representation or participation. That said, this is just missing the point entirely. Like it or not, her initial video said she would find good examples in later issues of the series, so expecting too much of them now is expecting much. A better point may have been how she broke her own rules and instead wasted as much time on one trope as she did instead of moving on, or did not offer counter examples of said trope just for clarity sake.
The rest, regretfully, reveals you didn't bother to watch the videos. Go, watch the damn things if you actually intend to speak on the spubject and don't post again until you actually do. And no, I don't mean turning it on and watching for a minute then getting pissed, but watch and see what her points are. Trust me, she is so far gone your viewpoint here will only be justified, but you will look a lot less like you don't know what the hell you are talking about when you try to bring up the history of the trope in other medium (which, she does) or claim she only picks on Peach (which, she doesn't. Though she does go heavily after the mushroom kingdom pincess).
Seriously though, there is many good reasons to hate her project and to dislike her as a journalist/researcher. Don't undermine that by being lazy.
Well, I watched MOST of them...frankly they didn't hold my attention enough to watch them all through completely. However, she's talking about Mario in Ep. 1 and STILL talking about Mario in Ep 3...I didn't feel like much was being missed out on.
Also, "Later in the series"...?? It was my impression that #3 was the last one, which means she never actually did it, or that crappy StarFox Adventures alpha game WAS the example.
Thats fine that she brings up the history of the trope, but that doesn't change the fact its a really OLD trope...its also a very effective trope. Give the hero a reason to BE a hero...LOVE is a good way to create this drive to be a hero. After all, love is probably the strongest motivator in the all of human emotion, hence this specific "trope" is easy use.
I still stand by my claim that Anita is being purposefully disingenuous in order to make her point appear more valid then it is.
I did admit she harps on Peach a lot. And no, if you check the original kickstarter, she planned on only 1 video per trope, with the 6th or so in the list suppose to be positive characters. Personally I think she is milking this as best she can with by delaying, allowing the shitstorm to kick up every time instead of blowing over and leaving her without somehting to milk, but that is just me.
That is a good trope, but if you look at the games pointed at most often (zelda, mario) love is less a factor at the start. The themes of them are more akin to the rightful ruler needs to be returned to fix the evil outbreaks that cause so much chaos. That the princesses are female doesn't even matter as much as the fact they are rulers here.
And I agree, she is a horribly disingenuous person and she is a toxic personality to discussions on gaming, gender and feminism. I just think you are raising points that have already been addressed a hundred times over and make your argument look lesser for your troubles.
Who questioned that the examples of tropes she gave were examples of the tropes?
Secondly: the conclusion the tropes are prevalent? Hah, her methodology does not allow to make such a conclusion. I'm sorry but that one is pure speculation as well. Call me again when she makes a statistical analysis to test the prevalence by using a sample of randomly selected games.
And thirdly: and even if this were to be somehow true the big question would remain: so what? If all her other claims are pure speculation whether or not these tropes are truly prevalent becomes a non-issue. Well... A non-issue on any other level than "the industry is not original".
Well, as Vegosiux has said, you have a point. The exact prevalence hasn't been proven.
Nevertheless, I feel that this line of arguing, while not logically incoherent or factually wrong, is somewhat dishonest, at least to yourself. Do you really think that things will even out when we take a look at more and more games? That in the end, we will discover that the trope is not prevalent? I, personally, have no reason to believe that the big picture will suddenly reveal a plethora of well-written active female characters. That just isn't in accordance with my gaming experience. So with all due respect, I think that if you look at gaming culture and conclude that it has no problem with marginalizing female characters, I think you are being dishonest to yourself. But that is just, like, my opinion.
Asita said:
If that's what you got out of my post, I'm going to have to ask that you take a deep breath and read what I said and what I was responding to again. The point I was addressing made a claim regarding 'only seeing one portrayal of something since youth', which I took exception to (I despise absolute statements). I said that even if we confine our views to video-games (the subject matter), we wouldn't get that kind of singular representation (smaller data pool typically means less variation). The concept didn't rely on some 'if you cannot find the trope' concept. Quite the opposite, in fact. It relied on examining the context in which the trope appeared in. Is it indicative of the treatment of women in that title or the treatment of a woman? Or if you prefer: Does Zelda's capture negate the Gerudo warriors' status as strong independent women in that same title?
Yeah, you got me here. Sorry for the improper reply. I still think what I said is relevant to your argument, even if it was technically adressed at a different point. Because really, we are all discussing the same issue, side-points nonwithstanding.
Asita said:
Well first of all, Sheik was claimed to be sexist. That is an important distinction, especially when feminist thought is fairly varied in this regard and the rationale behind the claim is questionable (Ultimately Sheik's actions are Zelda's. It doesn't matter how she was dressed or what she was pretending to be, she did it). More to the point though: Again, a disempowered woman vs. disempowered women. We're focusing on the former and drawing conclusions about the latter. That's a methodological problem.
I don't think the rationale is questionable at all, because for the issue at hand, which is the cultural impact of games, whether or not Sheik's actions are technically Zeldas within the confines of the story is irrelevant. From an outside perspective, Sheik and Zelda are different, and once Sheik "transforms" into a girl, she gets immediately disempowered. Sure, in the story specifically there are justifications for this. But if you put it in context with other DiD-based stories, the whole picture gets troubling. But it's a valid point to debate, the interpretation can probably go either way.
I don't think this is a very good case for a metholodical problem. We are quite pointedly not just drawing from a single example, but a multitude of cases. Looking at a multitude of cases is the only way to establish a cultural pattern. If that is referring to your points below, then i see what you mean, but that's more a problem of properly applying the method than it is a problem of the method itself.
Asita said:
I never claimed it wasn't a prevalent trope. I'd have to be damned stupid to try, given that it is very prevalent indeed. I think it would be more accurate to say that I claimed that we're disproportionately emphasizing it, cherry picking from relevant context at worst, or suffering from confirmation bias to at least some degree.
Lili is - for me - a persistent favorite example in this regard due to her being used as a Damsel in Distress example to emphasize the treatment of women despite the fact that the game treats everyone like that and actually has more male victims than female ones. It's the use of a non-sexist example to claim sexism because she technically fits the required criteria despite not lending herself to the point being made when the full context is actually known. The point is that the surrounding context is very important and if we want to draw conclusions about the way video games treat women we have to look at the game itself; not the treatment of character A, the treatment of character A compared to character B (Especially if one's a PC and the other an NPC), but the world's approach to the genders. Otherwise we risk invoking 'every housewife is a victory for the patriarchy' kinds of logic in our attempts to -rightly - prevent gender from being an obstacle.
Ok, that is a very fair point. I agree, I misunderstood you earlier. The full context needs to be considered and i can see how the tropes vs. women video series might have fallen short in that regard.
Asita said:
The part you respond to here had returned to the original objection to the use of absolute statements about seeing 'only one portrayal of something', pointing out that even in more recently egregious titles making use of the trope, the absolute statement doesn't hold water, and that the game's use of more empowered females makes the use of the title to exemplify the disempowerment of women an iffy proposition at best. The game doesn't present women as disempowered. It presents Elise as disempowered. This ties into my claims of over-emphasizing and possible confirmation bias. If we treat Elise's nature as a Damsel in Distress as important and use it to draw conclusions about the treatment of women, then it behooves us to look at Rouge and Blaze's natures as well. Otherwise we aren't really looking at the big picture, we're just finding data to support our desired conclusions and ignoring that which doesn't fit those conclusions. It's like trying to determine if a d6 is weighted and disregarding all the ones and twos you roll as irrelevant.
Ah, ok, I get your point now, thanks for clarifying that. Hmm, I am hard pressed to argue against that, your logic is pretty sound. Of course it is still a problem if all the characters are terribly stereotypical alá "the Damsel", "the femme fatale", "the charming Rougue" etc... (applying to both male and female characters). That is, just because a story has "strong women" doesn't mean it isn't using stereotypical and gendered tropes. But all in all, I mostly agree with you.
Well, as Vegosiux has said, you have a point. The exact prevalence hasn't been proven.
Nevertheless, I feel that this line of arguing, while not logically incoherent or factually wrong, is somewhat dishonest, at least to yourself. Do you really think that things will even out when we take a look at more and more games? That in the end, we will discover that the trope is not prevalent? I, personally, have no reason to believe that the big picture will suddenly reveal a plethora of well-written active female characters. That just isn't in accordance with my gaming experience. So with all due respect, I think that if you look at gaming culture and conclude that it has no problem with marginalizing female characters, I think you are being dishonest to yourself. But that is just, like, my opinion.
Well no, certain tropes are probably overused. But than again Anita's method didn't "prove" it and we knew that before she made her videos. (because if we didn't than it wouldn't be prevalent at all)
This said the picture anita's video portray are naturally misleading. Considering she focuses solely on games actually using the tropes making any conclusions regarding the prevalence of tropes using her videos is going to yield wrong results. In a way if we look at more and more games we will notice the trope is much less used than presented in the videos considering we're starting from a close to 100% point. (I would also like to note i'm not blaming Anita for that, her videos were aimed at games using the tropes so naturally those are the ones being mentioned)
And i never made any claims about how female characters are treated. This said I do feel many people are actually exaggerating. There are actually quite a lot of games with good female characters. The problem seems to lie with people's preferences. People seem to be very much into poorly written games (where if you're lucky both the protagonist and villain have some well fleshed out character so forget about the supporting cast) and than wonder why the female characters (usually relegated to supporting roles considering male protagonists are believed to sell better and consequently made much more often) are extremely poorly written.
It's like only being interested in BMW's, Aston Martins and Porsches and than complain about the price of cars.
He is arguing because that is a very, very serious issue when it comes to something like a person's academic integrity. Research material, sources, studies, and solid evidence are extremely important.
And you don't think for even a second, that it's an issue that she has not shown her research materials or sources at all? She's supposed to be presenting an educational video series that she intends to be used as study materials at a university level, by her own word. And yet you see no problem with the fact that she has provided zero evidence of her research or sources and you show no worry that her academic integrity is being questioned for a matter as serious as plagiarism? If you have ever belonged to any kind of educational institution such as a school, college or university, you would understand just how serious these allegations are and why people demand answers from her on that particular topic.
She has answered when asked about this matter, to the best of my knowledge, with silence. And that is never a good sign.
Uh, what kind of sources are we talking? What claims were made in the Tropes vs. Women series that were lacking a proper source? The only thing that I can think of that requires a source would be the game titles, which are all listed.
And why would anyone in an academic setting be required to show research materials? You don't need to provide "evidence of your research", that is absurd. The evidence of your research is the work you produced. That work can then be judged on it's merits, but if you managed to create a masterpiece overnight, then certainly no-one is going to call you out because you didn't do enough research.
How you use your research and evidence goes into the concept of "evidence of your research".... Or is it true that you agree "claims were made in the Tropes vs. Women series that were lacking a proper source"?
I mean the source is your own words.... The words aren't altered in any way?
I mean if you agree with this then it contradicts your previous post but if you tell me that quote is taken out of context then you are proving your opposition true and how you use the source material matters....
As I've said before, her series really comes from the wrong place. It's not "I'm a girl, I play videogames, and sometimes they make me feel ostracized." it's "I'm a girl, I don't like videogames, and I want to take this industry down a peg." It's not analysis to reach a conclusion, it's starting with a conclusion and then looking for examples that support it.
The thing is, videogames have very much been a male catered form of media. It's not that she's entirely wrong. She was able to raise 150 thousand dollars for this series, so clearly there are women who want some kind of voice to be heard.I just think that side of the debate deserves a lot better representation than her.
The part of it that gets me isn't even that she doesn't play videogames, it's the REASON she says she doesn't play videogames. "Videogames are all violence and blood, girls dont like that stuff!" sounds like the reinforcement of gender roles to me.
Lets say i claim to be a surgeon. And based on that, i will go on and campaign for all surgeon tools to be chagned to scissors, claiming that i have been a surgeon for a long time and know how the tools work. Then later you find out that im not actually a surgeon. But i would just call out "argumentum ad hominem" and continue claiming i am a surgeon and thus know better.
As say it's a valid concern, if you look at the bigger picture.
If someone on Fox news deems videogames as evil, and has the influence to kill innocent people, yet claims to have never played a game, we would acknowledge this person lacks understanding of videogame culture, and is giving out advice to viewers that is biased, and harmful to both the industry, as well as the public, for ignoring the real reasons for problems such as violence.
How is this any different? You've a lady touting lousy feminist ideologies without the experience necessary to understand the reason why certain games are made and played the way they are. And she has a lot of people that actually believe everything she says. The cause on affect is the possibility of games and gamers being needlessly censored, stigmatised, or changed for the sake of a few conservatives whom can't take a bit of easily-to-be-ignored titillation.
Now, I'm not saying that we should throw everything she has said out the window. I'm certain there are elements of truth in her vids. But this video clearly confirms she's not the best representative for the role she is seeking; to be the spokesperson of anti-feminism in games.
To be fair she doesnt get much done anyway. She has done one episode, broken up into 3 segments in over 1.25 years
With the games she has played (or read about on a wiki) and footage she got elsewhere it really shouldn't have taken her that long, hell her clothing, hair, jewelry, and makeup are the same three the three videos meaning she shot them all at the same time and is releasing them slowly because... I have no idea.
Would be interesting to find out what is really taking her so long in making the videos people paid over a hundred grand for.
When you make videos of the same length and scope then you can tell me how long it "should" take, until then your opinion about her output means less than nothing.
generals3 said:
Mcoffey said:
Well that's one perspective. Anita would disagree. It doesn't mean her argument is any less valid.
The only way to make her argument any less valid would be by conducting a study which suggest she's false. That's because right now her argument has a "speculation" validity. And the only thing with less validity is something proven false.
But what annoys me is that she and her supporters act is if her points are more than speculation.
Her points seem to be based on sociological trends and analysis. I've seen similar hypotheses in my own research for my degree plenty of times. It's not new information, but it's no less valid now than it was then.
Then you must have seen some shoddy research. Proper research begins with a question not a statement. Lets say you want to study womens portrayal in video games. The question is how are women portrayed in video games? The hypothesis is they are portrayed poorly. The test is the observations of the games. The conclusion (Anita's) is that the evidence confirms the hypothesis.
The problem is that if the observations are misrepresented it invalidates her conclusion. This is a major problem in sociological studies, methodology usually comes into question first.
I only looked at it this way because you related it to studies in your own degree....and she is creating a curriculum around it which IMO requires solid evidence or logical conclusions.
Also if you don't think it should be analyzed this way then you should be going after an opinion for faulty evidence.... Skeptics like thunderf00t use this type of arguement because the ability to which you know something matters to people. The best way to deal with this argument is to show why her view is more correct than other popular views or to provide the source material(what was the scope of her research 10, 100, 1000, 100000 games) for others to review (were they randomized or were they selected with bias.... If 40 games were selected and 35 of them were date sims then bias would seem heavy)
Of course this is not possible to analyze since none of this information is available leaving her open to valid criticism.
I always thought it was bloody strange how she keeps saying princesses are damsels in distress when a princess is such an archaic title now. They were literally the children of rulers who were raised to be sold as sex slaves in exchange for favorable alliances with other nations. That's the fucking brass tacks of what a princess was.
If anything, being rescued by an Italian plumber from a giant turtle monster is far better than a princess would have normally received.
But fuck context, right? The only reason she's in this position is clearly because she's a woman... not because she's a person with a traditionally high ransom value.
As I've said before, her series really comes from the wrong place. It's not "I'm a girl, I play videogames, and sometimes they make me feel ostracized." it's "I'm a girl, I don't like videogames, and I want to take this industry down a peg." It's not analysis to reach a conclusion, it's starting with a conclusion and then looking for examples that support it.
The thing is, videogames have very much been a male catered form of media. It's not that she's entirely wrong. She was able to raise 150 thousand dollars for this series, so clearly there are women who want some kind of voice to be heard.I just think that side of the debate deserves a lot better representation than her.
The part of it that gets me isn't even that she doesn't play videogames, it's the REASON she says she doesn't play videogames. "Videogames are all violence and blood, girls dont like that stuff!" sounds like the reinforcement of gender roles to me.
It's starting to look like a clear example for the "Ends Justifying Means: Yea or Nay?" ethical discussions, with the "Ends" being "More inclusive, less sexist video games." and the "Means" being "Nebulous Plagiarism (using Let's Play video without attribution)", "Misrepresentation of evidence (examples she uses)" (which, ironically, many of her detractors are also quite guilty of when they try to refute her points) and "Misrepresentation of the researcher (Public: "I'm a Gamer too!" Private/Classroom: "I don't like video games.").
Personally, I'd love to have games that weren't so blatantly sexist and games that starred female protagonists. I would love to explore a game where the way to solve problems wasn't tear the enemies face off then piss down their throats, or BOOM! HEADSHOT!. A game which asked the question "How would a woman solve this problem?" and then gave me the tools to solve it as a woman would is a game I would be fascinated by. So I'm on board with the general idea of opening the industry up for these kinds of games, and I agree that showing the blatant sexism in the industry now is vitally important to doing that.
But when the messenger is giving us so many metaphorical bullets to shoot herself with (using the Let's Play without attributions, telling classes that she's not a gamer while then telling the public that she's a life-long gamer, some fairly flimsy examples of sexism in old video games and casually accusing game designers of overt and outright sexism - see her claims about the Nintendo dude) it becomes far too easy for conservative gamers to simply ignore the problem and continue on as they always have. They can simply say that because Anita was dishonest, nothing she pointed out can be trusted and we can just ignore the whole thing. In the end, she might end up being her own worst enemy in this.
Which would suck, because it would mean that people (with more credibility) trying to do something like this in the future will find it much harder as they will have to prove not only their points but that their credibility is impeccable and irrefutable. That's probably going to be Anita's legacy in the gaming community - as a barrier to future discussions on this topic, not as a trailblazer.
Whether it's ad hominem or not a person's ethos is an essential part of any rhetorical endeavor, which her videos very much are. But nobody will read this anyway because the default setting for anybody on the escapist is to tell the poster of a thread they are stupid for even bringing it up regardless of what it is about *drops mic*.
The sad thing is I actually support what she was trying to do, but it was clear she was not the person for the job from the start. She cherry picked the comments she made famous, used the worst examples and baited like hell to get more. Completely unprofessional and she should not be representing a taco truck let alone a gender.
Holy shit. This is the first time I've actually seen one of these kind of threads. Usually you only see them when the topic is about religion, guns, whatever.
It's mostly just two extremist sides who will never change their arguments or look at any posts they don't completely agree with having a big pissing match at each other, trying to make the "other side" of the debate look like fucking horrible people for even daring to love/hate her. Either Sarkeesian is a saint, or she's evil incarnate. That's all that gets posted, with the people who are neutral and actually want to discuss the issue being lost in the flood of hate. This will continue to just be the same passive aggressive posts over and over again until the thread is locked. Again.
I'm suggesting this thread be locked for good. This isn't going to end well. And I'm not going to state my opinion on the matter. At all.
The sad thing is I actually support what she was trying to do, but it was clear she was not the person for the job from the start. She cherry picked the comments she made famous, used the worst examples and baited like hell to get more. Completely unprofessional and she should not be representing a taco truck let alone a gender.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
