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.
Yeah no. The Olympic records clearly show the opposite. (unless the top female athletes under perform because they are showing they are women...) Let's not get overzealous shall we. Women and men will never be "equal" in its strictest sense because women and men are biologically different. (does not mean every difference we can observe now are not a consequence of certain social forces)
This is very compelling and logical to support because it centers around changing our conscious behaviors, and it's clear that many video games embrace this fully, such as having female soldiers in Gears of War, a more vulnerable Laura Croft in the Tomb Raider reboot, and even Samus Aran's genderless portrayal in the original Metroid games.
Since the premise is false following it is actually illogical. If the premise was a bit less overzealous it may be.
Video games are fictional and aimed at entertaining certain audiences. Reality is irrelevant to that. They just make what will sell.
It's clear however that Anita is not a liberal feminist though, because everything she mentions in her videos is tied to the influence of patriarchy. This marks her as a "Radical feminist" (A loaded word to be sure, but one that I believe has been rather unfairly maligned) who believes that either gender cannot achieve true equality until we examine the underlying system that we consider "normal" in our lives.
I guess one would first need to define "true equality". Because if it's equality of outcome i'd say the first task is to improve genetic engineering and transform the human race into a single sex blob.
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. 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.
So basically the definition of the word patriarchy has been completely butchered.
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.
Well yes in the settings those characters are put those traits are indeed the best ones.
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, mostly because to escape would call for masculine skills that she does not have, or even if she does have them (Sheik from Ocarina of time), is still prevented from doing so by the confines of the narrative.
Well off course in violent video games traits which are the most useful for actual fighting are going to be the most useful. You don't win wars by being vulnerable. This is why context matters. If you actually take the context into account you realize how out of touch your complaint is.
Even more troubling is the sexualization of females in games in ways that serve the player (fan service, skimpy outfits, press X to bone attractive character A) and don't suggest that females can have their own concept of sexuality. I don't believe this is intentional, but I do believe that we write it off as normal when it is really a construction that favors male viewers, and inadvertently belittles female players.
Again, well duh the sexualization serves the player... The whole game serves the player. A game is supposed to be enjoyed by the player as such it will be all about the player. And I would like to question the statement it belittles female players. There are plenty of female players who enjoy games with sexed up women and don't mind them at all. And the idea it favors male players may not be entirely false BUT again, isn't it normal since they are the main consumers? Don't all companies favor their biggest consumer segments?
If there is anything that you take from this thread, it's to remember that this is a woman who LOVES games, has grown up playing them, and cared enough to start a kickstarter in order to bring them into our cultural consciousness in a way which has never really been done before. Women like her have been in academics and been championed for their insight and ability to make us reconsider the meaning of stories and enhance our understanding of the human experience; and acting as if she's ruining our fun or doing it for attention is to do a tremendous disservice to games themselves.
For someone who loves games she sure has a nasty habit of showing us how she doesn't love them enough to play the games she supposedly "reviews".
And everyone can start a kickstarter. Delivering what is promised on the other hand... and it seems her delivery is far from being on par with what she promised.
Though it was understandable for many gamers to feel threatened by someone saying they wanted to change our games, the criticism she's received seems motivated by a need to protect what we view as "normal," and I think we need to seriously consider WHY we seem so unwilling to believe that what we see in our games and gaming communities is not normal.
Because the last time people said what we view as normal wasn't they tried to get violent videogames to be heavily regulated? (and aren't there already countries where blood is censored?)
And let's also not forget that what she says is often pure bogus.
The most important thing I want to make clear is this; I am not trying to make gamers feel wrong or sexist for playing or liking games of these type, I am not trying to say that the industry must change (Only that i believe it is in many gamers, both male and female's best interests to do so), and I am not suggesting that that instances of these behaviors could ever cause people to be violent, sexist, or misogynistic. Down that road lies censorship, which i will not travel for I know not where it ends.
Yet you agree with someone who said these tropes reinforce toxic attitudes towards women and said devs were being dangerously irresponsible for making games in which the protagonist has to kill a female loved one because of the amount of domestic abuse against women in RL (insinuating these games would normalize such behaviors in RL). Heck by your own statement Anita's complaints are on the road to censorship. Why would you like someone who's taking the path to censoring games?
My only goal has been the same as Anita's really, to open up as many gamers who are willing to the possibility that what many gamers have come to see as "normal" is in reality the result of a deeply ingrained set of values and beliefs about the world that have gone unchallenged for too long. But maybe if we stop treating each new iteration of Damsel in distress, or murdered loved one as just another rehash of the trope, and instead ask WHY it is so prevalent a trope, and WHY developers feel both the need to use it and to adhere strictly to it, we'll give them a compelling reason to evolve their stories.
I can say why, because men tend to act protectively when it comes to women. Having a women kidnapped or killed is a pretty good motivator for most men to go on a virtual rampage.
