The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

[ms_sunlight]

Whatever happened to not assuming malice when incompetence is a sufficient explanation?

I'm a great believer in never attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but just because something isn't malicious doesn't mean it's not problematic.

For what it's worth I donated $10 before the project reached its initial goal and before the backlash kicked off, because I enjoyed the Tropes vs. Women series about movie characters and I love the video game montage set to "Too Many Dicks". I do think however that the primary problem for portrayals of women in both movies and video games is underrepresentation. It's because there are so very few substantive women characters in comparison to men that there are fewer well-rounded and interesting examples and cariacatures and offensive stereotypes stand out so much more.

 

[BNguyen]

there are times in our society where the continued allowance of free speech to just anyone and harm society and culture if not moderated, such as this woman's videos.

You think she's a threat to society? Seriously? You seriously believe that?

When did the men of my generation become such unbelievable cowards?

She continues to talk of "bad character design or sexist character design" while mentioning nothing of why it is that way or that its by someone's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH to allow it to exist at all.

Just as it is her freedom of speech to criticize the product and other people's freedom of speech to say, "I disagree." Shock and awe! It works both ways!

In actuality, you are the one against freedom of speech because you want her to be censored because her very existence offends your delicate sensibilities.

Also, here's the truth: in the US, the first amendment only says that, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." As shocking as that might seem to some people, she is not Congress, nor is she trying to pass legislation. So what is your argument again?

She is condemning one form of free speech, in this case a man of group of males' right to create sexy female characters while promoting every female needs to be perfect and anything else is wrong because I don't see value in any character that doesn't meet my criteria.

But that's not what she's saying.

so apparently you haven't seen even one of her videos
And yes, anyone who tries to promote their own brand of self-righteousness in order to limit the scope of others - in her case, every version of the term "woman" in media is wrong and that only a specific type will do is right - thus anyone who tries to leave this little circle of tolerance will be condemned for being sexist.
She's basically telling people that any character format that includes even the smallest hint of sex appeal is wrong.
In her video "Feminist Frequency vs Bayonetta" she includes a short montage of ads geared towards men's sex appeal towards women to sell products but doesn't even mention one thing being wrong with it. She promotes equality for women in ads but doesn't seem to have a problem when it's an ad geared towards women. She is promoting double standards and doesn't even seem to realize it at all.

 

[3quency]

Snip

Okay, I reckon any more and we'll just be going in circles here. You've made a fair few good points and I can see your reasoning behind it (for the record, I considered RE5 to have unfortunate implications but never thought of it as racist).

I think ultimately, regardless of depictions and sexuality, it ultimately just comes down to tone in the end. I will agree that over-sexualised imagery isn't necessarily racist, it's more a case of how the creators intend you to react.

Schindler's List is actually a perfect example of this. Racism is depicted within, as are war-crimes and various other disturbing things. But the film is very clear in what side it is on. These actions are supposed to monstrous and the people enacting them are the villains.
And this is why things can see the flipside as well. If a somebody is shown being subjugated, objectified or something and it is either not commented on, or outright supported within the context of the game or whatever, it can definitely by seen as racist, sexist or what have you. Based on the intent of the creator, we can make these judgements.

But that's all I'm willing to say here, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. I don't see a problem with you speaking out against the videos here, the entire point is that there's a discussion to be had. I for one disagree with Yahtzee on a lot of politics, judging be some of his past statements (also he dislikes Joss Whedon, but that's a different matter entirely >)

Agree to disagree?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Oh, yeah, while we're at it, her standards for what counts as a "good portrayal of women in gaming" appears to be totally non-existent. If there's a good example of a female character, she picks some random trait like "is violent" and uses that to condemn the character as being not good enough, even though being violent in bloody True Grit is not exactly a drawback.

Oh no she doesn't like the portrayal of women in videogames!!!!

WAAAAAHHH!

Look I don't particularly agree with her either but she has a right to say these things, - a right to make videos about it, and a right to start a kickstarter to fund those videos.

And people have a right to give to that kick starter and did in large numbers even before the sexism shit-storm.

All I've seen from you guys is a bunch attempts to invalidate those rights purely because you disagree with her. Either ignore her or actually engage with her on a mature level. If you can't do either of those things then you validate her point of view and make us gamer guys look worse.

there are times in our society where the continued allowance of free speech to just anyone and harm society and culture if not moderated, such as this woman's videos. She continues to talk of "bad character design or sexist character design" while mentioning nothing of why it is that way or that its by someone's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH to allow it to exist at all. She is condemning one form of free speech, in this case a man of group of males' right to create sexy female characters while promoting every female needs to be perfect and anything else is wrong because I don't see value in any character that doesn't meet my criteria.

You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

150k does feel like an inordinate amount of pay-off for what is being produced, especially if you're like me and don't think there is much substance in anything she has done as of yet(not a big fan of the tone either, tbh...horses for courses)...I could see how that could rub someone the wrong way.

At the same time though...it's half of what Wayne Rooney makes in a frickin' week...it's a crazy world.

Off to see Prometheus, peace.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Hey, quick question that I just don't have the time to go through seventeen pages to look through.

Since all the examples were white, and those power fantasies weren't made for me as a black dude (given I can never look like that)... can I still complain? Or is it since they are still male, it matters more than not being my race? and if that's the case, doesn't the fact that they are female matter more than the body type?

I'm not trying to troll, but this is the flip side of the argument that I also deal with on a daily basis. I figure if we can knock them both out at once, we can stop dealing with this on all sides.

I'm ashamed that I left Isaiah Mustafa off the list of sexually objectified male figures in popular media outside video games. A great example of a female sexual fantasy being re-appropriated and used to sell something to men and their female partners. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Oh, yeah, while we're at it, her standards for what counts as a "good portrayal of women in gaming" appears to be totally non-existent. If there's a good example of a female character, she picks some random trait like "is violent" and uses that to condemn the character as being not good enough, even though being violent in bloody True Grit is not exactly a drawback.

Oh no she doesn't like the portrayal of women in videogames!!!!

WAAAAAHHH!

Look I don't particularly agree with her either but she has a right to say these things, - a right to make videos about it, and a right to start a kickstarter to fund those videos.

And people have a right to give to that kick starter and did in large numbers even before the sexism shit-storm.

All I've seen from you guys is a bunch attempts to invalidate those rights purely because you disagree with her. Either ignore her or actually engage with her on a mature level. If you can't do either of those things then you validate her point of view and make us gamer guys look worse.

there are times in our society where the continued allowance of free speech to just anyone and harm society and culture if not moderated, such as this woman's videos. She continues to talk of "bad character design or sexist character design" while mentioning nothing of why it is that way or that its by someone's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH to allow it to exist at all. She is condemning one form of free speech, in this case a man of group of males' right to create sexy female characters while promoting every female needs to be perfect and anything else is wrong because I don't see value in any character that doesn't meet my criteria.

You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

150k does feel like an inordinate amount of pay-off for what is being produced, especially if you're like me and don't think there is much substance in anything she has done as of yet(not a big fan of the tone either, tbh...horses for courses)...I could see how that could rub someone the wrong way.

At the same time though...it's half of what Wayne Rooney makes in a frickin' week...it's a crazy world.

Off to see Prometheus, peace.

Also, let's never forget she only asked for $6k, and the other 97-98% of what she's made was freely donated by people who want to support her. Not like you can blame her for that. Even if there was something to blame her for, which there is not.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

Am I alone in finding the whole concept of "sexualy objectified" to be a load of oversensitive wank?
At least the way people use it. I can understand getting pissed about being treated as nothing more then a walking-talking sex doll(Or turned on by it if youre fucked up like me). But it seems people trow about the term "Sexual object" at any kind of sex appeal.
I would like to inform you all that just because someone thinks youre sexy, this does not mean that they think you are less then human.

Oh and unrelated but thinking an angry feminist girl who makes videos on the internet is enough of a threat to society that we should reconsider freedom of speach is just sad and stupid.

 

[chronobreak]

Has MovieBob even been in this thread yet? Or, as I've seen him do before, is he just going to make his comments without defending them? Come on, now. There are more problems with this Kickstarter than people trolling, be them of the ethical or integrity variety.

Not only can you vote with your wallet, but you can also report the Kickstarter if you have a real problem with the methodology or integrity of the project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/report/new

 

[itsthesheppy]

Am I alone in finding the whole concept of "sexualy objectified" to be a load of oversensitive wank?
At least the way people use it. I can understand getting pissed about being treated as nothing more then a walking-talking sex doll(Or turned on by it if youre fucked up like me). But it seems people trow about the term "Sexual object" at any kind of sex appeal.
I would like to inform you all that just because someone thinks youre sexy, this does not mean that they think you are less then human.

Oh and unrelated but thinking an angry feminist girl who makes videos on the internet is enough of a threat to society that we should reconsider freedom of speach is just sad and stupid.

You're not the only one to label feminist issues as 'oversensitive wank'. you're actually in the strong, overwhelming majority in that opinion. That's part of the problem. But at least you're in good company. Well... perhaps not 'good' company, but certainly voluminous company.

 

[Blunderman]

Agree to disagree?

Yes, indeed. Thank you for the discussion.

As a side note, I don't particularly like Joss Whedon either.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

Am I alone in finding the whole concept of "sexualy objectified" to be a load of oversensitive wank?
At least the way people use it. I can understand getting pissed about being treated as nothing more then a walking-talking sex doll(Or turned on by it if youre fucked up like me). But it seems people trow about the term "Sexual object" at any kind of sex appeal.
I would like to inform you all that just because someone thinks youre sexy, this does not mean that they think you are less then human.

Oh and unrelated but thinking an angry feminist girl who makes videos on the internet is enough of a threat to society that we should reconsider freedom of speach is just sad and stupid.

You're not the only one to label feminist issues as 'oversensitive wank'. you're actually in the strong, overwhelming majority in that opinion. That's part of the problem. But at least you're in good company. Well... perhaps not 'good' company, but certainly voluminous company.

When did I say all feminist issues were like that? Did you just read the first phrase of what I wrote? I just think "sexualy objectified" is used way too often and way too lightly.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I find that people who hand wave guys being sexualized in media forget or over look that the pressures men put on women (yes, they are there) are the pressures that they put on fellow men. We can all say that most of porn was made for men, by men. And we are a fitting demographic of maleness at this stage of life, as most of us are over weight and can not serve as a genital double for a horse. But who do we cast as the few men in the world who are really fit and abnormally huge.

It isn't to say that we aren't sexualizing women. and it isn't to say that it is not bad. I'm not handwaving it away. What I'm saying is that when you make it about one group, you lessen the impact for everyone else. Like my previous post, if I really cry out that MovieBob for the most part put up white people so I'm exempt from the point, a good number of you who aren't like me would go 'really? another group being whiny?!' even if I'm just one guy.

If we dealt with the concept as a whole, instead of Bob or others kind of admit it happens, but it's more egregious because one segment has dealt with it for so long... we'd make make some headway. This tactic, however, divides us all. And instead of wanting to rally with the women so they can be less hypersexualized, I kind of want to go into my own camp and beat the war drum to why (as a Black male) haven't I had my power fantasy fulfilled. And I'm sure of video gaming female cousin will eventually want to know why her fantasy of being a strong black female wasn't fulfilled. Then the gays, native Americans, Eskimos (I honestly don't know if that's a racial slur now), Buddhist, Hindus.... Everyone will become a political party instead of one people rallying for fairness.

 

[3quency]

As a side note, I don't particularly like Joss Whedon either.

D:<

Oh it is on.

 

[Schadrach]

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

Yes, mansplaining, where we invent a pejorative for "disagreeing with a woman while male" to use as a silencing tactic.

You know, if we reverse the genders on it, it sounds exactly like what she's raised a large sum of money to do, strangely enough. But then, it can't be some variety of 'splaining when she does it, because the whole point is to be able to use it as a blanket silencing tactic when someone from the wrong demographic disagrees.

That it's such a common thing for men to see her criticism as attacks on them, personally, makes me think that for a lot of people, what she says or intends to say is hitting very home with some folks. You see, the difference is that she is criticizing tropes in popular culture. What many people in this thread and beyond are doing is criticizing her, personally, and suggesting that their ideas are superior. Based on no evidence whatsoever. There is a difference between those two things.

At no point did I suggest that her criticism was personal or directed at me as an individual (which would be ridiculous, as we've never spoken), merely that it was functionally equivalent to 'splaining.

As for evidence, it's not like these are her first videos ever or anything. She has a pretty decently large library of them she's created in the past, including the series "Tropes vs Women" that this series is presumably a sequel to. Her research is shoddy, half the time it seems like she doesn't even bother to watch/read/listen to/play the thing she's discussing, she jumps to conclusions like analysis is a form of double-dutch, and frankly, she's an idiot.

Going to do some pronoun swaps to your previous quote:

Anita tells a man (or group that is presumed by her to be predominately male)(or anyone else, I suppose) that she has a better idea about what he/they are trying to do, or say. Putting herself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual/group, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic, it is condescending.

No, really, that does sound *exactly* like what she does.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Am I alone in finding the whole concept of "sexualy objectified" to be a load of oversensitive wank?
At least the way people use it. I can understand getting pissed about being treated as nothing more then a walking-talking sex doll(Or turned on by it if youre fucked up like me). But it seems people trow about the term "Sexual object" at any kind of sex appeal.
I would like to inform you all that just because someone thinks youre sexy, this does not mean that they think you are less then human.

Oh and unrelated but thinking an angry feminist girl who makes videos on the internet is enough of a threat to society that we should reconsider freedom of speach is just sad and stupid.

You're not the only one to label feminist issues as 'oversensitive wank'. you're actually in the strong, overwhelming majority in that opinion. That's part of the problem. But at least you're in good company. Well... perhaps not 'good' company, but certainly voluminous company.

When did I say all feminist issues were like that? Did you just read the first phrase of what I wrote? I just think "sexualy objectified" is used way too often and way too lightly.

Perhaps. Though in this case we don't exactly know what specifically she might say is or isn't objectification, so there's no point really talking about in in this particular case. As in, how it pertains to her (as yet unmade) video series.

Objectification is a matter of degrees. We'd really have to be talking specific examples.

 

[itsthesheppy]

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

Yes, mansplaining, where we invent a pejorative for "disagreeing with a woman while male" to use as a silencing tactic.

You know, if we reverse the genders on it, it sounds exactly like what she's raised a large sum of money to do, strangely enough. But then, it can't be some variety of 'splaining when she does it, because the whole point is to be able to use it as a blanket silencing tactic when someone from the wrong demographic disagrees.

That it's such a common thing for men to see her criticism as attacks on them, personally, makes me think that for a lot of people, what she says or intends to say is hitting very home with some folks. You see, the difference is that she is criticizing tropes in popular culture. What many people in this thread and beyond are doing is criticizing her, personally, and suggesting that their ideas are superior. Based on no evidence whatsoever. There is a difference between those two things.

At no point did I suggest that her criticism was personal or directed at me as an individual (which would be ridiculous, as we've never spoken), merely that it was functionally equivalent to 'splaining.

As for evidence, it's not like these are her first videos ever or anything. She has a pretty decently large library of them she's created in the past, including the series "Tropes vs Women" that this series is presumably a sequel to. Her research is shoddy, half the time it seems like she doesn't even bother to watch/read/listen to/play the thing she's discussing, she jumps to conclusions like analysis is a form of double-dutch, and frankly, she's an idiot.

Firstly, I didn't say you said that. I said you were acting as if you were. And not just you specifically, but a great deal of the people who are opposing this. I will say that it's not the 'functional equivalent' of the term I mentioned. You're comparing apples and oranges. She's criticizing pop culture; you're criticizing her, specifically. Which you're welcome to do, just as much as I'm welcome to tell you that you're being a condescending jerk.

As for your opinion about the content of the work she has produced so far: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." And you're welcome to it. Nobody is asking you to spend a dime to support it, or even watch it. Why not just ignore it? However, you have no evidence to suggest that these future videos will be of the same quality. You're welcome to jump to that conclusion but... oops, do you see what I did there?

 

[Lieju]

So, you're basically saying that despite the majority of games being certain way, if you can find some niche games, it's not a problem how things are in the mainstream media. Sounds to me like you're cherrypicking here. It's you who are pointing at few games going 'See, we don't actually have problem because these obscure things exist'.

I don't choose the games I play based on how hot the women in the game are. Well, apart from certain kinds of games. But when I play games I tend to choose them based on the genre, and how good gameplay they have etc.

Again, this is not about how there shouldn't be attractive women in video-games, or that there should be no sexy female characters. Stop trying to pretend this is an argument about that.

You're the one who said "but those aren't main stream" so you're the one who's cherry picking. Cherry Picking is exclusionary. I'm including everything which is the opposite of Cherry Picking if you're having a problem with definitions.

No, I'm looking at all the games, and what the major trends in there are.
You are the one ignoring those trends in favor of examples that happen to support your argument (such as it is).

This is entirely about "women should be seen as attractive". The reason is that regardless of what type of women was in the game the views of the men playing them would be pretty much the same. They'd instantly become sex objects in the minds of some and his argument would still be the same. The argument of women are being objectified as needing to be this that or the other is ultimately women should be seen as sexy, which usually become women should be seen at all.

So now you're saying that men do not care about what women look like?
Okay, let's say men will be sexually aroused by anything with breasts.
Fine. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it would be nice having wellrounded, diverse female characters.

BTW, I need to ask; do you know what 'objectification' means?
That's the problem, not that some people find them attractive.

Actually, I don't care. This discussion is going around in circles, so I'm rapidly losing interest. I'll admit you're right: men don't care what women look like, and if we start to worry about how women are protrayed in media it will just lead to a world where women are just forced to be hidden away and treated like objects. Of course, then you'd have the people who have a fetish for totally covered women, so I guess we'll be better off shipping all women to Mars.

 

[Luciella]

Yeah, look at say a lot of men from women's romcoms and chick flicks, and guess what they're all perfect, probably muscular, thin white males with perfect hair. Women are getting a ridiculous image of men from Justin Bieber, One Direction and Twilight yet no one complains because there are bigger problems to do with the same fucking subject. To be honest, I see this whole thing this way:

LOL
What do u mean no one complains??
The internet is all about trashing and whining about Biber and Twilight. There is not a single day where i dont see a meme or a comment made by men saying that its trash, the vampires are -gay, tropes, not real- or everything is a retardness.

Not even that, there is not a single week when i dont hear once or twice a guy face to face trashing it, and a girl face to face feeling all happy about bieber or/and twilight.

Or the scene where all women made an expresion at the abs of Thor in the movie.

Regardless its trash or not, its simply fan service.
If men CANT live with it and whine endlessly about it, regardless how few products like that are around (and that hollywood just found out there is a big market for women and that it gives a lot of money -they seriously just found out?-....¿?)
Why women should not complain about game stereotypes?

 

[TaboriHK]

I rarely completely agree, and I completely agree.