Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

[BRex21]

I'm trying to find the game but it's on no other sites . Can't really judge it if I can't even play it.
OT: This is no different than the usual beat up the president game that comes out whenver people hate the president.

Here you go, courtesy of a poster a few pages back. it's far less frightening than a few of the beat up the president/pundit/public figure games that i have seen before, its basically a photoshopped image, but judge for yourself.
I think its important that people read the second wall of text which ends with:

There is a disgusting large imbalance of men who get beaten up in games. let's add a lady to help balance things

However the escapist refused to print this part, or address the issues of how violence is seen when its against men, real or fictitious. He does not exactly make an elegant point, or even a particularly well delivered message, but it still deserved better than to be quote mined and distorted the way it was.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Tell us how Anita's fans did not spam 4chan.

Right after you prove to me that aliens don't exist. (Look! I can link Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance] too! I'm ready to have a constructive discussion on the Escapist, guise!)

...

The point is more that a couple posts on 4chan that are allegedly by AS are not conclusive evidence by any stretch of the imagination. If you have better evidence, than by all means submit it.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I'm convinced that no matter who the person is, the more press you give them, the more successful they will be. She doesn't bring enough value to the table for what she got paid, but creating a game where you assault her doesn't exactly communicate the message properly. Also it accomplishes so much the opposite of what is intended, that you could even think that it's all a big scam to promote Tropes v. Women.

I made some hats once and got almost double my yearly salary in the first two weeks alone, but I only received one or two death threats! Money earned is not always proportional to the time spent, overall value, quality, or any number of other factors. It's not fair, but it happens all the time. And jealously looks good on one one.

 

[BRex21]

From an evolutionary standpoint men have always been the competitors needing to be stronger and more able to fight and survive while women tended to survive best through passivity, that's evolution for you.

Ahahahahahahaha I didn't even see this. Do us all a favor and read up on hunter-gatherer societies before you try to whip out the

While i was specifically talking about mating behaviour, where men compete amongst each other for women providing mates only for physically superior males, while females were more likely to pass on their genes though non-confrontation. From the abstract of this report:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf

The Time To the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) based on human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is estimated
to be twice that based on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY). These TMRCAs have special
demographic implications because mtDNA is transmitted only from mother to child, while NRY is passed along from
father to son. Therefore, the former locus reflects female history, and the latter, male history. To investigate what
caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio rF=M = TF=TM in humans, we develop a forward-looking agentbased
model (ABM) with overlapping generations.

Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful
in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.

That's much better. The correct conclusion to draw from the study is not, however, that one gender is the "active" gender and the other gender is the "passive" gender. It's more that men have historically had a higher attrition rate than women. Which we pretty much already knew. It's important not to extrapolate conclusions from these studies that are not supported by the evidence.

Hmm, since the study specifically mentions both interpersonal violence between men competing for females, prowess as hunters in order to woo females and travelling in order to find places where they could compete, all of which i would define as typically active behaviours and would have required greater physical strength to claim a mate, i think its safe to say that active traits are a good definition for men.
It also specifically stated that women are most successful at passing on their genes in an environment of nonviolent and peaceful behaviour it is safe to say that their behaviour is certainly more passive than that of the men. I think its a perfectly rational conclusion to say that males competing for mates and females lack of competition makes this an active/passive relationship.

However if you want to go about this in the sense of hunter gatherers...
While some people maintain that neanderthals were simply dumber, it i commonly accepted that they died out due to applying a egalitarian division of labour that could not compete with the gender roles of modern humans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html?ex=1322974800&en=8035324427fdde48&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Basically a woman staying home not only provided for better protection of the fertile wombs and offspring, but allowed them to perform tasks to better aid men in the dangerous tasks of hunting large game.

Honestly, I was not impressed by the analysis in that article. We have better information than that re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment, and most such hunter-gatherer societies tend to have a significantly less absolute division of labor than the article implies.

didnt someone a few posts ago say something along the lines of you having a tendency towards "generally saying the other person is wrong without providing proof in return." And wasn't your response something along the lines of "prove it"
This right up above is it.

 

[BRex21]

doublepost

 

[Smeatza]

I am questioning whether there is actually a problem with video games themselves or whether the problem is with media in general (I personally think the latter), whether the sexism we see in modern media is consistant throughout all genres (amongst other variables) and whether it's productive to single out one particular type of media, therefore alienating many who enjoy it, rather than depicting it to be part of a larger problem.

No one said gaming is any worse than any other media.

And yet nobody even makes any references to any other type of media or sexism as a larger problem.

It's pretty much what we are complaining about. Female characters are mostly there to be eye candy and not characters in themselves. That's the sexist part. The sad thing is this defensive backlash is not limited to 14 year olds. Go and look at the facebook answers to the video tropes vs moviebob there you will see grown men in university and various professions denying that women have a place in gaming and that we are 'trying to force our way in and ruin things'

So a tiny proportion of the people who were flaming her (which is a tiny proportion of the gaming community in general) weren't teenagers who shouldn't be expected to know any better?
It's still unreasonable to judge the entire gaming community based on this then.

The portrayal of women in video games only furthers this. They are there as a reward something to rescue, something that is pretty to look at. It teaches guys that women exist for them and this is why we see the trend of guys thinking women owe them something for being nice to them or even just playing a multiplayer game on the same server.

Sometimes, I don't think you could even say this is the case the majority of the time with any real certainty. Looking at my collection of video games, dating back to PS1 era, only the WWE games feature sexist portrayals of women in my eyes (and that's because it's based on live entertainment that's inherently sexist).
The bit in bold is just completely untrue, you have no reason to believe that trend has anything to do with sexist portrayals in media, especially seen as that trend has existed long before modern media as we know it.
You also have no reason to assume the modern men think women owe them something for being nice. It would be much more reasonable to assume that it's confusing to guys that a dickhead male could be more attractive than a polite well balanced male. Considering I find polite, well balanced women more attractive than dickish ones, I can understand where the confusion comes from. It seems more like a matter of not understanding human beings/sexuality in general, rather than just females.

It's a whole mess of misogyny that needs to be untangled before video gaming can move forward.

I disagree, and I think making developers afraid of putting anything out there that might offend any minority only serves to move gaming backwards, to a point where no serious issue can be creatively addressed as people are just too afraid of negative backlash.

The appearance thing is important because a lot of male gamers (I'm definitely in no way saying all) see women as a body. Just look at the guy who called Felicia Day a booth babe. He assumes that because she is a woman she got where she is because of her looks not because she is clever or witty. There is a thread on this very forum accusing a woman of attention seeking for daring to wear makeup while showing off her pc in a youtube video. This is a problem in nerd culture, a women's worth is their body. We are tits and ass and that's all we will ever be until something changes.

The bottom line is she wouldn't have got where she is today if she wasn't attractive, again that is a problem with our western culture as a whole, not nerd culture, not video gaming itself, and should be treated as such.
This entire paragraph is a massive generalsation with no evidence anyway. How you can seriously speculate on the psychological workings of literally hundreds of thousands of men, when no two human beings think in exactly the same way, is mind boggling to me. For example, I would think that many males that are part of this "nerd culture" are intimidated by females and it would seem like a big slap in the face to lump those guys in your sexism assumptions.
Plus there is nothing wrong with enjoying one's sexuality, which includes fantastical representations of said sexuality.

In any case my point still stands, some people would consider a well written character that dresses provocatively sexist, some people would call a cliched female character that dresses frumpily sexist, and a million shades of gray inbetween.

I guess we aren't allowed to solve any problem until we have solved world hunger by your rationale.

$160,000 could increase the quality of life for thousands of people living in poverty, hell it could save the lives of hundreds of children, that otherwise would have died from preventable causes. Instead it's going towards making a series of internet videos complaining about the state of rich westerner's entertainment.
I do not consider both those problems to be of equal importance.
I just hope that Ms. Sarkeesian is honorable enough to donate the excess money to a charity where it can actually do some real good, UNICEF would be perfect for her to donate to.

 

[Frission]

/snip

Breaking news: "Youtube a haven for murderers?!", "Is the Internet making our children kill?!", "Judge overdoses on Aspirin" more news at 6.

The whole thing was probably started by white knights. Yes, there are way worse stuff on the internet. I think the reason why there's such a reaction is because if it's being beaten up, we can assume it might have come and been enjoyd by a wide variety of people on the opposition. In this case, however it was probably a "gamer". It makes people look bbad. Pretty much that.

Frankly I don't care who she is. Personally I just find the existence game weird by itself.

A game about punching someone is pretty graphic. Not like say just saying "die <person" as a message. Someone took time and effort to make it . He's probably not right in the head. As I said the game probably won't cause anything, but it's still pretty disturbing.

I can't really explain why it's not like GTA. I just think the maker of both those games had different intentions. GTA is slightly more vague and was made for enjoyment, whereas the game targeted one person and was slightly more malevolent.

 

[BRex21]

but I only received one or two death threats!

I have to ask, is this literal? Because I have seen plenty of ridiculous reactions, but death threats over fictitious hats is something that could actually generate interest for me. It just seems so... excessively pointless.

 

[Chemical Alia]

but I only received one or two death threats!

I have to ask, is this literal? Because I have seen plenty of ridiculous reactions, but death threats over fictitious hats is something that could actually generate interest for me. It just seems so... excessively pointless.

Yeah, but it was on the Steam forums, so I don't know if that really counts for much v:

 

[blackrave]

"Of course, the great irony here is that the vicious response is not only giving Sarkeesian's cause way more publicity than it would have otherwise gotten, but does more to illustrate the problem of misogyny in nerd/gamer culture way more than a video series ever could."

Call me paranoid, but this moment makes me believe that most of this "vicious response" might be fabricated by her supporters (or on her behalf)
Think about it, how much publicity and money would she get if nobody would pay attention to her?
But now she is winner- got shitload of money and "proof" that gaming community is full of misogynists.
And this is beyond suspicious :/

P.S. And for those who actually backlashed on her: Use your fucking brain for a moment and understand that rage just makes these people more popular, ignorance is our greatest weapon against them.

 

[Gennadios]

I'm late to the party, but the title is misleading. Should say "Flash game invites players to beat up Tropes vs Women Creator"

 

[Kahunaburger]

From an evolutionary standpoint men have always been the competitors needing to be stronger and more able to fight and survive while women tended to survive best through passivity, that's evolution for you.

Ahahahahahahaha I didn't even see this. Do us all a favor and read up on hunter-gatherer societies before you try to whip out the

While i was specifically talking about mating behaviour, where men compete amongst each other for women providing mates only for physically superior males, while females were more likely to pass on their genes though non-confrontation. From the abstract of this report:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf

The Time To the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) based on human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is estimated
to be twice that based on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY). These TMRCAs have special
demographic implications because mtDNA is transmitted only from mother to child, while NRY is passed along from
father to son. Therefore, the former locus reflects female history, and the latter, male history. To investigate what
caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio rF=M = TF=TM in humans, we develop a forward-looking agentbased
model (ABM) with overlapping generations.

Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful
in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.

That's much better. The correct conclusion to draw from the study is not, however, that one gender is the "active" gender and the other gender is the "passive" gender. It's more that men have historically had a higher attrition rate than women. Which we pretty much already knew. It's important not to extrapolate conclusions from these studies that are not supported by the evidence.

Hmm, since the study specifically mentions both interpersonal violence between men competing for females, prowess as hunters in order to woo females and travelling in order to find places where they could compete, all of which i would define as typically active behaviours and would have required greater physical strength to claim a mate, i think its safe to say that active traits are a good definition for men.

Eh... a lot of the conclusions drawn by the article are a good example of why it's important to draw a distinction between what the data supports and what the researchers think the data could support or might support. The data supports a higher rate of male attrition than female attrition, but is pretty non-specific re: what's driving that rate. So it's important to avoid accepting plausible explanations for the attrition gap as absolute fact and also to avoid over-generalizing or over-systematizing the behaviors described in these plausible explanations.

Honestly, I was not impressed by the analysis in that article. We have better information than that re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment, and most such hunter-gatherer societies tend to have a significantly less absolute division of labor than the article implies.

didnt someone a few posts ago say something along the lines of you having a tendency towards "generally saying the other person is wrong without providing proof in return." And wasn't your response something along the lines of "prove it"
This right up above is it.

To hugely over-simplify, the body of anthropological evidence shows that our species is pretty flexible when it comes to division of labor, so statements like "because modern humans exploited the environment more efficiently, by having men hunt large game and women gather small game and plant foods, their populations would have outgrown those of the Neanderthals" strike me as over-simplification, and quite likely an over-simplification of the book itself. I don't know if you have current access to Springer articles, but if you do this [http://www.springerlink.com/content/818053311426192m/] is relevant and widely cited. If you don't have access, even the abstract is pretty useful.

But you don't have to ask me for this information - you can find it on your own. I'm engaging in this discussion under the assumption that you're actually interested in having a discussion, not in trying to prove some sort of preconceived notion re: gender roles.

EDIT: To clarify, if you're actually interested in this subject, the linked article is useful but case studies (some which cite it, which is a good starting point for finding articles that have to do with gender egalitarianism or lack thereof in hunter-gatherer societies) are much more so if you want to get an impression of diverse hunter-gatherer strategies/economies. The TL;DR for all this is that people are complicated and often adapt our societies around our economic/ecological situation.

 

[BRex21]

but I only received one or two death threats!

I have to ask, is this literal? Because I have seen plenty of ridiculous reactions, but death threats over fictitious hats is something that could actually generate interest for me. It just seems so... excessively pointless.

Yeah, but it was on the Steam forums, so I don't know if that really counts for much v:

As much as YouTube or 4chan.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Shes been using it to make the 'gaming community' look like a great evil.

They do that themselves just fine haha.

But none of that is what I'd consider hard evidence. It's pretty much just theorycrafting.

 

[BRex21]

From an evolutionary standpoint men have always been the competitors needing to be stronger and more able to fight and survive while women tended to survive best through passivity, that's evolution for you.

Ahahahahahahaha I didn't even see this. Do us all a favor and read up on hunter-gatherer societies before you try to whip out the

While i was specifically talking about mating behaviour, where men compete amongst each other for women providing mates only for physically superior males, while females were more likely to pass on their genes though non-confrontation. From the abstract of this report:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf

The Time To the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) based on human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is estimated
to be twice that based on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY). These TMRCAs have special
demographic implications because mtDNA is transmitted only from mother to child, while NRY is passed along from
father to son. Therefore, the former locus reflects female history, and the latter, male history. To investigate what
caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio rF=M = TF=TM in humans, we develop a forward-looking agentbased
model (ABM) with overlapping generations.

Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful
in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.

That's much better. The correct conclusion to draw from the study is not, however, that one gender is the "active" gender and the other gender is the "passive" gender. It's more that men have historically had a higher attrition rate than women. Which we pretty much already knew. It's important not to extrapolate conclusions from these studies that are not supported by the evidence.

Hmm, since the study specifically mentions both interpersonal violence between men competing for females, prowess as hunters in order to woo females and travelling in order to find places where they could compete, all of which i would define as typically active behaviours and would have required greater physical strength to claim a mate, i think its safe to say that active traits are a good definition for men.

Eh... a lot of the conclusions drawn by the article are a good example of why it's important to draw a distinction between what the data supports and what the researchers think the data could support or might support. The data supports a higher rate of male attrition than female attrition, but is pretty non-specific re: what's driving that rate. So it's important to avoid accepting plausible explanations for the attrition gap as absolute fact and also to avoid over-generalizing or over-systematizing the behaviors described in these plausible explanations.

The study i posted also points out genetic traits such as our surviving female ancestors having lighter and more frail skeletons relative to their earlier ancestors, showing how the "rugged skeletons", the ones the article associates with neanderthals, are a less desirable trait, this would be consistent with a female role farther form dangerous physical work. It would also be consistent with modern women having lighter musculature thinner bones and greater risk for bone and joint issues that started this conversation.
You are also using an abstract, a heavily oversimplified version with NO ACTUAL DATA LISTED, as your source. Talk about grasping at plausible explanations. I would much rather take the men with doctorates word for it that they can understand the data of their own research than your understanding of an abstract.

Honestly, I was not impressed by the analysis in that article. We have better information than that re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment, and most such hunter-gatherer societies tend to have a significantly less absolute division of labor than the article implies.

didnt someone a few posts ago say something along the lines of you having a tendency towards "generally saying the other person is wrong without providing proof in return." And wasn't your response something along the lines of "prove it"
This right up above is it.

To hugely over-simplify, the body of anthropological evidence shows that our species is pretty flexible when it comes to division of labor, so statements like "because modern humans exploited the environment more efficiently, by having men hunt large game and women gather small game and plant foods, their populations would have outgrown those of the Neanderthals" strike me as over-simplification, and quite likely an over-simplification of the book itself. I don't know if you have current access to Springer articles, but if you do this [http://www.springerlink.com/content/818053311426192m/] is relevant and widely cited. If you don't have access, even the abstract is pretty useful.

But you don't have to ask me for this information - you can find it on your own. I'm engaging in this discussion under the assumption that you're actually interested in having a discussion, not in trying to prove some sort of preconceived notion re: gender roles.

The study you are citing is not only 20 years older than the one I posted but it is cited in papers that specifically refer to the system of gender roles surviving into today's culture:
http://dornsife.usc.edu/wendywood/research/documents/Wood.Eagly.2002.pdf
and ones that refer to "egalitarianism" as equal but different, wherein men hunt and women gather. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/28530/1/0000327.pdf
Neither of which disproves that there WAS variance in the gender role but the existence of that variance in no way disproves that the most successful system was that of specific gender roles and in fact some of the conclusions support it. Since the best you have is studies that prove variance existed and more modern studies,even those related to the one you posted, have shown one specific model, that of gender roles, to be the most successful, I think you just proved my point.

On an aside: I can specifically find the study you cite can i? That seems rather difficult considering the lack of information i was given and the fact that i am not you. Quick What kind of bird did i see today, it was brown!
You refereed to the study as: re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment. Searching for this minus one "sapient" yielded nothing, as did searching for it verbatim, it shares only a couple of words with the ACTUAL study you are using as the basis of your argument which gives me a near impossible task of figuring out what you are actually referring to.
I would also have to ask, why do you need me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Women VS Tropes links were in fact spammed on 4chan, why don't you look it up yourself. It seems to me you just think you should be entitled to a lower standard and if you are asking me to fill your side of an argument why are you even here?

 

[BRex21]

They do that themselves just fine haha.

But none of that is what I'd consider hard evidence. It's pretty much just theorycrafting.

Her posting that she is troll baiting isn't hard evidence? along with the screen caps of her post still not enough to convince you? Yet her posting photo shopped images and saying they came from troll is proof enough.
Seriously you are condemning male gamers for the actions of a handful of individuals AND calling them sexist, do you have some sort of hypocrisy proof shield?

 

[Zaleznikel]

OOPS I found that "picture that no one can find on the internet [http://mondodiablo.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/mondo-diablo-episode-345-tropes-vs-women-with-anita-sarkeesian/]". And if I'm reading Kahuna correctly, those posts are asking for proof that Anita Sarkeesian herself in all her man-and-video-game-hating glory posted those links and spammed 4chan.

Because no 4chan poster would stoop so low as to post/spam something inflammatory to get a rise out of the "legion," as they like to call themselves.

*eyebrow*

I'm also curious about how "Unfortunately...many games tend reinforce sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women" turned into "RAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWRRR THE GAME INDUSTRY SUCKS AND HATES WOMEN AND I WANT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING NICE IN YOUR LIFE."

One is what she said. The other is what a bunch of people assumes she means. There must be a solid reason for that (that isn't ad hominem attacks on her), right? Especially because she says that she will cover positive representations of women too.

The point I want to make is that no one knows what exactly what she is going to talk about. That's up to her. I can extrapolate from previous videos that she will make some valid points, some not-so-valid points, and that she will really only scratch the surface or not analyze deeply. Or maybe she'll prove me wrong in this case and provide deep insight and thoughtful analysis.

I took a class last semester on this sort of study at university, and yes, a lot of it tended towards "Reading Too Much Into Things: 101." That being said, it provides a really interesting and different way at looking at the world, current events and civil rights issues. It's a little complicated for me to explain at the moment, but I think what Sarkeesian's ultimate goal is to move this sort of viewpoint away from academia and it's weird, vague terms (Normativity, intersectionality, Privilege) and make it more accessible, which I think is an admirable goal. In order to do this, though, people must be open to it. So I hope that you will be.

 

[rbstewart7263]

OOPS I found that "picture that no one can find on the internet [http://mondodiablo.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/mondo-diablo-episode-345-tropes-vs-women-with-anita-sarkeesian/]". And if I'm reading Kahuna correctly, those posts are asking for proof that Anita Sarkeesian herself in all her man-and-video-game-hating glory posted those links and spammed 4chan.

Because no 4chan poster would stoop so low as to post/spam something inflammatory to get a rise out of the "legion," as they like to call themselves.

*eyebrow*

I'm also curious about how "Unfortunately...many games tend reinforce sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women" turned into "RAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWRRR THE GAME INDUSTRY SUCKS AND HATES WOMEN AND I WANT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING NICE IN YOUR LIFE."

One is what she said. The other is what a bunch of people assumes she means. There must be a solid reason for that (that isn't ad hominem attacks on her), right? Especially because she says that she will cover positive representations of women too.

The point I want to make is that no one knows what exactly what she is going to talk about. That's up to her. I can extrapolate from previous videos that she will make some valid points, some not-so-valid points, and that she will really only scratch the surface or not analyze deeply. Or maybe she'll prove me wrong in this case and provide deep insight and thoughtful analysis.

I took a class last semester on this sort of study at university, and yes, a lot of it tended towards "Reading Too Much Into Things: 101." That being said, it provides a really interesting and different way at looking at the world, current events and civil rights issues. It's a little complicated for me to explain at the moment, but I think what Sarkeesian's ultimate goal is to move this sort of viewpoint away from academia and it's weird, vague terms (Normativity, intersectionality, Privilege) and make it more accessible, which I think is an admirable goal. In order to do this, though, people must be open to it. So I hope that you will be.

She really only ackowledges I think two women in games as positive. faith and chell. She even goes after cortana and the girl from silent hill 2???? meh whatever.lmao