Father Time said:
FriendlyFyre said:
I made an account just so I could post this, so know that I believe what I have to say is important for each and every man and women who reads it.
I tried to break it up into readable chunks so your eyes don't glaze over, but please just read it because I can't summarize everything I'm trying to say in a tl;dr.
Thanks to re-watching her videos and a little bit of independent research I now understand her, and why it's so important that gamers of both sexes think deeply about what she saying. Because she's not only trying to tell us that a trope is sexist, she's asking us to understand that the reason for this is that we've accepted a fundamentally biased idea of the world. And this bias while it may seem harmless has led us to believe certain tropes are "normal," when in fact they are evidence of a larger abnormal trend in the world.
What do you mean by tropes aren't normal? We're talking about patterns in fiction. What would be normal for that?
FriendlyFyre said:
Something they may not know however is that these qualities are already aspects of a pre-existing ideology, "Liberal feminism." They focus on the individuals' right to do and say things, with the empowering belief that once a woman can do anything a man does, and without her gender being mentioned, she is able to survive in the world just as well as he is.
This is very compelling and logical to support
Assuming there are no disadvantages to being a men. We could get rid of anyone bothering a woman over petty gender roles or whatever but that doesn't necessarily mean will stop taking crap for being a nurse for instance.
FriendlyFyre said:
Patriarchy refers to a couple factors including men being in positions of power, our media being male dominated, male centric, but most importantly it describes how our world functions by emphasizing which kind of traits are both USEFUL and ENCOURAGED to have.
Do you know what an actual patriarchy is? A society where power is handed down to men and only men. A democracy where women are allowed to run can't be a patriarchy, and you can have a patriarchy with a female dominated media or whatever.
I know it's an alternate definition but this alternate definition of patriarchy seems to morph and shift to fit whatever the feminist is arguing at the very moment. I've seen it used interchangeably with "the existence of gender roles" as if it's impossible to have gender roles without a patriarchy.
FriendlyFyre said:
It is a bias so subtle that we forget that there is any other way to live our lives, and so dangerous that it can lead us to demonize feminists just for wanting to create a more equal world.
But I don't think these games are making it less equal for anyone.
FriendlyFyre said:
Surprisingly, you are familiar with these traits. Strength (both physical and mental) is one; another is resilience, coolness under pressure, rationality, and perseverance. You might notice that these are often common traits of protagonists in games, from Solid Snake, to Donkey Kong, to Master Chief. This is because in our patriarchal world, these traits are shown to be the most effective to both survival, and success.
Or they're the qualities that make a good fighter and most games revolve around physically hurting your opponents, even cartoonish ones where you punch them. In modern times strength is not necessary in most jobs.
FriendlyFyre said:
You'll also notice that traits associated with femininity, including being emotionally open, vulnerability, caring, or cooperative, are rarely shown to be useful in game scenarios, even though they can add depth to a character.
This is what Anita is talking about when she says the Damsel in Distress is harmful, because it normalizes the notion that a female can't escape their captors
.
As if someone's going to play a game and make a blanket statement about the physical capabilities of all women from that story. Never mind that they're usually kidnapped by a powerful final boss that has an army of hechmen you beat up earlier. And what about women that actually get kidnapped? What if I make my damsel based off a real event is that still normalizing it? I think people realize that kidnappings can and do happen to both genders so I doubt it'll normalize it that much.
To be frank I don't buy it and I haven't heard much convincing that it's the case.
In my view it's not having women be kidnapped that reinforces gender roles it's having the damsels be dainty wittle flowers. The fact that Peach springs to mind the minute you think of the damsel doesn't help.
Thanks for the comment, here's my arguments.
1. We think tropes are normal because we understand them as devices that have existed long before us, but if you understand that tropes are like stereotypes, they didn't just come from thin air, they were created to express something about the world. Problem is that some of what these tropes represent is a very biased view of the world and when this is perpetuated under the guise of "normal" we learn the trope without understanding it's implications.
The pattern in fiction for instance that assigns such value to virginity and virgins' blood is troubling because it often turns sex into a game of control where one side has to protect the other. While this may create a compelling story dynamic, it also limits the narrative role that any virgins can actually play because they are always in danger of being kidnapped, killed, or otherwise threatened.
2. There ARE disadvantages to being a man, but the thing about patriarchy is that it encourages us to see these as weaknesses and evidence of our lack of "manliness." For instance, we rarely consider vulnerability a good thing because it suggests weakness, when in fact vulnerability is something many men feel but fear expressing because they will be called "pussies" or told to "man up"
This is exactly what you implying with the nurse example, that men shouldn't have to fear acting un-manly, but because patriarchy encourages us to put down fellow men as a way to feel in control, the cycle will continue. This is the biggest disadvantage men face, because they don't realize how detrimental it is and how it creates an image that many feel inadequete to, but can't express it for fear of being called a "*****"
3. I've experienced the confusion what patriarchy is exactly, but I don't blame Feminism for being unclear about this. I think Liberal Feminists particularly shy away from using patriarchy as a term and talk about gender roles because they are more concrete example of inequality, even though they ultimately come back to it. But i would still beg to disagree. It has nothing to do with men passing down power, and even a female dominated media can be patriarchal if the women act only in accordance with masculine behaviors.
According to Allan G. Johnson, Patriarchy is contingent on four factors:
- It is male dominated--which doesn't mean that all men are powerful or all women are powerless--only that the most powerful roles in most sectors of society are held predominantly by men, and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women
- Organized around an obsession with control, with men elevated in the social structure because of their presumed ability to exert control (whether rationally or through violence or the threat of violence) and women devalued for their supposed lack of control--women are assumed to need men's supervision, protection, or control
- Male identified: aspects of society and personal attributes that are highly valued are associated with men, while devalued attributes and social activities are associated with women. There is a sense of threat to the social structure of patriarchies when these gendered associations are destabilized--and the response in patriarchy is to increase the level of control, often by exerting control over women (as well as groups who are devalued by virtue of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or class).
- Male centered: It is taken for granted that the center of attention is the natural place for men and boys, and that women should occupy the margins. Public attention is focused on men. (To test this, take a look at any daily newspaper; what do you find on the front page about men? about women?)
4. First off, your opinion. Second off, tell that to the female gamers who get offensive messages, challenged to prove they aren't "faking," or play a game with a female character whose armor seems designed for someone who wants her to look sexy, and not normal.
Third off, we need to really stop using these words that imply direct causation because it takes free will out of the equation. It is not that game featuring the damsel in distress make guys more likely to think women are helpless, it is that the repeated use of it enforces the idea that is is
normal
I believe that gamers who don't' see problems with these phenomenon are not sexist or misogynistic, but merely haven't considered whether a guy rescuing a girl is a "normal" scenario, or one which has been constructed to fulfill a certain male fantasy.
5. Okay, so games emphasize strength as a way to overcome obstacles. Why do you think many of these games don't offer
alternatives? You'd say it doesn't make any sense because gameplay dictates how you play a game, but do you think there is something a little biased about how the creators specifically tries to "empower" the player, rather then teach them something? You say empowerment is fun, beating up an opponent is fun, but WHY is that? Why can't learning something in a game be just as fun as beating it? You may think this is nonsensical, but consider how a game like Spec Ops: The Line was able to create just an engaging experience while actively telling you the whole time that beating the game wasn't going to make you happy. Think of all the people who complained that it took choice away, took control away, and how it wasn't a successful game for doing that, even though it's now one of the most talked about ones on the market.
6. This importance of a powerful final boss is a thing we need to really examine. Games often depend on setting up the confrontation between you and some force that you have to
overcome, and in order to give the player a reason to do this, the character has to have a reason. It could be any reason, but we see time and time again that developers chose to put another character in danger, or even kill them outright so they appear justified in seeking revenge. What's common is that this restricts how much impact on world this character has, and females seem to be chosen for this in particular because they are either important to the character, or have some significance to the world.
The problem is that no matter how much that significance is, masculine narratives too often downplay that signifficance in order to show how the hero "Is the only one who can save the princess"
7. What's wrong with daintyness? Some women like pink, and flowers, and stuffed animals. Some women like soccer, gothic lolita, and arm wrestling. It's not her daintyness that makes a woman unable to escape from the villain, it's the way the narrative doesn't allow any of her skills or traits to be any use. Because if she escaped, then the villain would look weak, and the hero wouldn't have a reason to face them. It's why Peach can't trick the guards, hide in the shadows, and then parachute down with her floating ability even though it seems just a likely in the mario universe as him flying with a raccoon tail.
Because the narrative of the game forces everything to be on Mario, even when there's no reason they can't both share the spotlight.
), Bayonetta, Lara Croft, Aya Brea, pretty much every playable woman in Resident Evil, pretty much every fighting game woman, and more than that!
