The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

[ex275w]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

Yeah that was a issue that occurred a lot in early videogames, since they were ripping Donkey Kong off, which was a ripoff of King Kong. (Funny how that works) The new female character seems to be Cortana Rip-offs which just exposit and encourage the main character to do manly stuff.

Generic female love interests in movies also irk me because they seem like accesories to the main characters goals. (Like objects OMG! I am getting it)

As I said in a previous post, I do guess the problem is bad, lazy writing. Characters in fighting games are basically move sets with no regard to personality or anything else, which is why they tend to have the most sexist, racist and stereotypical characters in videogames.

 

[MrMan999]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

If the female character had all those things, yet still dressed like that, would it still be considered objectification?

The devil is in the details, but I'll assume for the sake of your post that you mean "The female character is deep, fully actualized, displays agency, and has a fully rounded character, but also looks really sexy" then I will say no, it is not objectifying.

It's a common misconception that feminists (or feminist sympathizers like myself; I do not presume to be one, as I am a white male and ergo, ever learning) don't like seeing women portrayed sexily. That would be like men saying they don't like their male protagonists being muscular, handsome, dashing and with a great head of hair. We all like seeing attractive people. There's nothing wrong with people being attractive.

It's when it gets to a point where you start to lose sight of the characters involved, when it becomes clear that the character is there as a prop to stimulate the audience and not to act as a fully realized character that you start wandering into questionable territory. I am sure that FF will go into greater detail, but that's my take on it.

Thats more an issue of lazy writing. Not intentional mysogyny.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

If the female character had all those things, yet still dressed like that, would it still be considered objectification?

The devil is in the details, but I'll assume for the sake of your post that you mean "The female character is deep, fully actualized, displays agency, and has a fully rounded character, but also looks really sexy" then I will say no, it is not objectifying.

It's a common misconception that feminists (or feminist sympathizers like myself; I do not presume to be one, as I am a white male and ergo, ever learning) don't like seeing women portrayed sexily. That would be like men saying they don't like their male protagonists being muscular, handsome, dashing and with a great head of hair. We all like seeing attractive people. There's nothing wrong with people being attractive.

It's when it gets to a point where you start to lose sight of the characters involved, when it becomes clear that the character is there as a prop to stimulate the audience and not to act as a fully realized character that you start wandering into questionable territory. I am sure that FF will go into greater detail, but that's my take on it.

Thats more an issue of lazy writing. Not intentional mysogyny.

The misogyny is rarely intentional. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. But the sexism is there, and shows itself in the form of these vacant, window-dressing characters on display your my titillation. It happens more often than I think a lot of us notice, and part of the objective of the video series is, I imagine, to examine this. What is, and what is not, objectification and sexist.

 

[MrMan999]

Thats more an issue of lazy writing. Not intentional mysogyny.

Well, authorial intent only counts for so much. I doubt that writers of ME2 intended me to feel exactly the way I did when I played it and all the different ways I read into the characters. But I did anyway. And it works the other way too. The most recent Call of Juarez game is really, really racist. Probably not intentional, but it's kind of hard to ignore.

The law of unintended consequences can be a real bastard sometimes. I try to judge actions and intent separately because I don't believe that you can predict all the consequences of your actions. But fact remains that sometimes things just screw up and you have to take responsibility for it.

Incompetent Writing is a *****.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

"Mansplaining" LMFAO. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in quite some time.

Apparently these neofeminists have never heard of an ad hominem fallacy. Then again maybe logic is just another tool of the oppressive patriarchy. LOL. OH GOD, MY SIDES HURT FROM THE LAUGHTER.

I think Nietzsche explained my sentiment best when he said that "at times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."

I cannot thank you enough for the support you're giving my case. I am not even being the least bit sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. It can be difficult, sometimes, to give examples or talk about the 'problem' if it's not sitting right there for people to see. If you would be so kind, please continue posting so that I can use you as an example of the problem I'm talking about.

You're welcome! Sure, I'll post some more... how about an explanation of what an argument ad hominem is, why it is a fallacy, and how I believe you've committed yourself to it?

An ad hominem argument is an argument that bases its rejection or acceptance of a certain proposition upon the facts regarding the person who has put forward the proposition, rather than arguing from the conceptual implications and presuppositions of the proposition itself.

For example: Plato is wise, therefore his theory of the forms is true.

Here the proposition that Plato's theories of the forms is true is argued for by appealing to premises that are irrelevant to the truth of the proposition. However, the argument can be made into a proper syllogism by adding a few premises:

1) Whoever is wise has true beliefs.
2) Plato believes in the theory of forms.
3) Plato is wise.
4) Plato has true beliefs (from 1, 3)
Conclusion: the theory of forms is true (from 2 and 4).

Of course, by doing this the problem shifts from a fallacy of reasoning to the questionable nature of the premises. (Someone who is unconvinced in the first place that Plato's theory of forms is true will likely remain unconvinced by this argument. They would then just question whether premises 1 and/or 3 are true.) There is still no analysis of what Plato's theory of the forms actually is.

This article provides further illumination: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One

Now let's take a look at your definition of "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.

Allow me to start off by saying that there is a difference between ordering a person to do something and telling a person what you think they should do. The first can only be done when you hold some power over the person so that you can force them to do the thing in question. A judge can order someone to do community service, but a neighbor can hardly order her neighbor to cut her lawn. One can certainly speak as though one has authority, but this is different from actually possessing authority and it is the latter that is required in order to give out orders. Anyone who speaks as though they were giving out an order but has no real power is just delusional and does not actually issue an order.

Telling a person what you think they should do is an expression of an opinion, and can take the form of a rational argument. Of course, one has the political and social freedom to ignore other people's arguments. However, if one wishes to claim that their position is true or superior to other positions one cannot dismiss these competing positions without a sound basis for doing so. At least not if one wishes to claim that one is rational.

Now the definition of "mansplaining" you've given above is clearly oriented towards de-legitimizing the ability of men to disagree with women. An explanation is distinct from an order. An explanation is just part of an argument. In fact, most arguments start with one person explaining why they think the other person's position is incorrect. While the other person may find this insulting, they can easily respond by explaining why they think that the first person's explanation is incorrect, and voila: you have an argument. While the term "explanation" might have the negative connotation of condescension attached to it, I'm afraid this is irrelevant to the question of which position is correct. That question must ultimately be decided by the logical form of the arguments and the conceptual implications of the premises involved in each position.

Now, bearing all this in mind, there are, as far as I can see, (and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) two ways of interpreting the definition of "mansplaining" you offered above:

1) Any instance in which a man disagrees with a woman is an instance of "mansplaining" simply in virtue of the fact that the man is disagreeing with the woman.

In most (if not all) instances in which a sincere disagreement arises, one party will think they have a better idea than the other.[footnote]The one exception to this is when one side presents a solely negative argument against the other. For instance, Socrates was famous for sincerely arguing against those who claimed to be wise while at the same time professing his own ignorance. (Well, at least the historical Socrates supposedly did this. Plato's used Socrates as a literary figure to express his own positive philosophical system, and unfortunately we mostly get our picture of Socrates from Plato due to the fact that Socrates wrote nothing himself.) One should also note that it is not really a sincere disagreement when people play devil's advocate.[/footnote] Thus when you say that "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," it seems you've committed yourself to the view that "mansplaining" is the simple result of disagreeing with a woman and being a man.

In the following sentence you state that by arguing with a woman a man is "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." On face value this seems to be a statement concerning psychological facts of the male individual in question. However, one could argue that it is social context that puts the man in this position of authority regardless of his particular mental states. If one makes this argument then it seems that one is committed to the conclusion that a man can actually be completely respectful of a woman's opinions in terms of his mental states, while still taking on a functionally condescending and counter-productive role due to the social context of the conversation. This would allow one to avoid making unfounded psychological generalizations.

In either case it is still an argument ad hominem because it suggests that whatever conclusion the man might argue for must be false due to the fact that the man is arguing for it, regardless of the content of the view. Construed in this way, your argument would seem to suggest that the exact same argument could be made against a position held by a woman by both a man and a woman, and that while in the latter case it might be productive and convincing, in the former it is counter-productive and unconvincing.

2) "Mansplaining" only occurs in specific instances when a man actually thinks he is superior to the woman.

If the point of "mansplaining" under this definition is just that men should avoid presenting their arguments in a condescending manner then that is fair enough. However, if this is the real implication for "mansplaining" then while one can rightfully use it to ask men to behave better in arguments, one cannot use it to dismiss or ignore the conclusion put forward by the a-hole in question. Unfortunately, it is still an argument ad hominem to suggest that a person's conclusion must be wrong because that person happens to be an asshole.

Were that not enough, this version of "mansplaining" has its own particular difficulties. The most preeminent among these difficulties is that in order to accuse a particular individual of "mansplaining" one must supply empirical evidence that they embody the psychological traits in question. Unless, of course, one assumes that all men are condescending to women as a matter of psychological law, in which case one must supply some evidence for this rather dubious fact. And even if one were to accomplish these goals, one still cannot dismiss the man's arguments for the reasons stated above.

Under either definition you still seem to be committing an argument ad hominem given your specific replies to Machine Man 1992. For instance:

Well, if negative reinforcement doesn't work, how about positive reinforcement? Surely there are plenty of female game designers and producers out there, maybe instead of complaining, Anita could say, use the loads of money she has to finance a game? Just a thought.

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'.

Now it's clear that he isn't telling anyone what to do, so it seems that your objection is to the very idea that a man might have a better idea than a woman. As one onlooker put it (which you didn't read because what he said was impolite):

He [Machine Man] never told her WHAT to do, he merely suggested, that, since she made a lot more money than she said she needed, that maybe she could use that money to further the cause she claims to support.

...snip...​

And you are, in fact, saying, that HIS suggestion is not wanted nor needed and that he shouldn't even be allowed to voice it, simply because he has a PENIS, which is exactly what you accuse HIM of doing (you accused him as dismissing HER on the grounds of her having a vagina and an XX-configuration).
Hypocrisy much?

Also, it appears you are incredibly sexist. You dismiss others on the grounds that they are born with a y-chromosome, and nothing else. You did not counter his argument, or his suggestion but rather went straight for the balls.

I agree that he was being overly offensive, but you certainly didn't respond to his criticism by ignoring him.

Now if I have somehow misunderstood your position, then please feel free to correct me. I am merely operating on the information contained in your posts. I would not presume to explain to you the meaning of your own position. Nor am I ordering you to accept my argument, I am merely presenting a criticism.

However, I will not deny my condescending tone. It tends to come out when I think people are using fallacious reasoning in order to self-righteously dismiss other people's positions. So you can also feel free to ignore the entire content of everything I just said and reject my position as an instance of "mansplaining".

 

[ex275w]

As I said in a previous post, I do guess the problem is bad, lazy writing. Characters in fighting games are basically move sets with no regard to personality or anything else, which is why they tend to have the most sexist, racist and stereotypical characters in videogames.

I'm gonna stop you right there.

Fighting games actually do have quite the narrative and backstory to their characters, however there is a problem. That problem is actually translating what the player has done to the relation to being canon to the next sequel in the franchise.

The one big challenge with fighting games is that they want the player to win with the character they like to play. However, the challenge comes when you need to decide which ONE character actually took down the antagonist in the game cause the character you liked to play might not have been the one to beat Bison, Seth or Tengu or any other boss in fighting games. So that results in for the player fractured stories which to understand the big picture often requires actually following the narrative which means reading the instruction booklets and make the connections from the previous game to the recently released game. Fighting games like it or not as a franchise actually have some of the HARDEST narratives to actually write in video games especially when you want to keep using the same character and only those who are either fans of the franchise or people who sit down and research the subject will actually understand just how complex the characters are and how they all connect to the narrative.

The second problem is that because of this complication it is much easier to simply overlook all this and think that fighting games don't have a story or narrative which means that the media and fans will often make parodies of fighting games and their characters. Now I love a good parody but when you add this next factor it becomes a problem. When you have people who honestly believe that characters from fighting games are sexist or racist by using the FAN works instead of actually doing the research then that is where the problem begins. The person who is using said fan works as evidence instead of actually doing the research and looking up the characters is what makes fighting characters seem to be nothing more than a pair of boobs and the developers to be sexist.

Now I'm not a huge fighting game guy, you won't see me with a dedicated joystick or taking part in tournaments but I am the type of guy that LOVES to actually sit down and read the instruction booklet(what can I say, 20+ years of gaming growing up since the 5200 kinda does that to you) and there was always a story and explanation of the characters so I can understand who they are, their motivations and how they are connected to the game. The depth of fighting games is actually there but it is the failure of the media and "researchers" who actually can't take the time to understand the complications of writing for a fighting game and not perform due diligence to understand the characters and narrative as created not by the fans but by the developers by reading the narrative just as much as playing through the narrative.

Simple question, have you actually tried looking up the instruction booklet or wiki for games like Dead or Alive or Soul Calibur and then actually play the story and see how if any of the story you experienced translates into the sequel?

I read the Soul Calibur II and Mortal Kombat Biographies.

Let's break this down a little:
a) Sequels in fighting games can end up muddling the storyline, I agree. This ends up with a Mortal Kombat situation, where you need to know 20+ complete characters to know the scope of the story. Only each game adds more elements and retcons, making it have sense is REALLY HARD.
b) You could also make a disjointed, wacky storyline were nothing happens and nothing gets resolved, but this is the epitome of lazy writing. Marvel vs Capcom for instance has 3 games with no connection between them story wise.
c) Researchers do concentrate on Ivy and Taki when character like Xianghua or Cassandra exist. I do concede that point. Also they don't research a lot.
d) Designers do prioritize on having a good, balanced fighting game instead of an epic drama a la Dragon Age. This makes sense, since the appeal of fighting games is the fighting.
e) Reading about T. Hawk's story doesn't make him less of a racist caricature for me. (Especially since I am Mexican)
f) I learned that Ivy is apparently a noble in Soul Calibur, why exactly does she have those clothes when she can fight as well in some nice noble clothes.

 

[Lilani]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

I think Stephen Fry best explains it in this video here. He talks about the changes in how the people of Germany referred to Jewish people in language before and during World War II. Calling them "lice," "vermin," and "subhumans" over radios and in letters, allowing the people to psychologically separate themselves from the cruelty of what was happening. Toward the end he recites part of a letter from a German officer who worked at a death camp to his wife, and it's just incredible how human and ordinary it sounds even though he is quite plainly talking about Jews being brought in to be killed.


Objectification and dehumanization may not directly lead to oppression or cruelty, but it is certainly a frightening step toward the correct mindset for doing such things. And it's not really the type of thing that becomes clear until hindsight sets in.

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

That's the thing though. Objectification results in a greater willingness to treat someone as less than human because that's how you come to see them.

And I quoted you because I thought you would be interested in the video, too

 

[itsthesheppy]

snip

I wish there was a more verbose means of replying to you (I feel like your essay-length response perhaps warrants something a bit more verbose) but I feel that I only have so much to say in response.

You seem to be alluding that because I thought he was speaking condescendingly about a woman because he was a man and thought himself superior, I dismissed his arguments. This was not the case. As you may or may not have read in the post where I dropped the term, I explained that what he was doing could be inferred as mansplaining, and then went on (for two paragraphs) to explain why his reasoning was flawed. Moreover, the fact that he was (in my feeling) constructing his entire objection based on this perceived superiority, compelled me to address it as my focus because it was the spring from which the waters of his objection flowed.

So you see, your accusation of ad hominem dismissal falls a little off the mark. I did not say he was not worth listening to purely because he was 'mansplaining', as though that were merely an accent and I thought that people from his neighborhood couldn't form coherent thoughts. It was, rather, a dismissal based on the fact that he was composing his objections based on that feeling of male primacy, and I also took the time to break down my objection in a more specific manner.

Also:

I agree that he was being overly offensive, but you certainly didn't respond to his criticism by ignoring him.

I don't have to respond to him. As far as I'm concerned he's welcome to say and do whatever he likes. There's nowhere that says I have to give him the time of my day if I feel he's not being respectful.

In summary: you're mistaken that I was dismissing him because of 'mansplaining'. I merely indicated that it was what he was doing; that it was perhaps the source of his opposition, and that said opposition did not stand up to scrutiny. I even made a point to indicate that it was very possible he did not consciously believe that he was superior and being condescending, but that it was the message that was coming across.

 

[ex275w]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

I think Stephen Fry best explains it in this video here. He talks about how subtle changes in how the people of Germany referred to Jewish people in language before and during World War II. Calling them "lice," "vermin," and "subhumans" over radios and in letters, allowing the people to psychologically separate themselves from the cruelty of what was happening. Toward the end he recites part of a letter from a German officer who worked at a death camp to his wife, and it's just incredible how human and ordinary it sounds even though he is quite plainly talking about Jews being brought in to be killed.


Objectification and dehumanization may not directly lead to oppression or cruelty, but it is certainly a frightening step toward the correct mindset for doing such things. And it's not really the type of thing that becomes clear until hindsight sets in.

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

That's the thing though. Objectification results in a greater willingness to treat someone as less than human because that's how you come to see them.

And I quoted you because I thought you would be interested in the video, too

Thanks for the video!

I just have a question, where does one step the line between protection or affection into objectification? Goin to something that objectifies positively "That girl is pretty like a flower!" (somethign corny like that) to "Make me a sandwich, woman!"

Is having something like an escort mission in a videogame or a plot where you protect/rescue a woman objectify that woman. Is the problem with videogames that they seem to only do that or just put women as a set of tits that occasionally move.

Is objectification inherently wrong, or the problem is what objectification may lead to believe?

 

[T_ConX]

Even after watching the video, I still have a problem with this thing a whole.

Not because I don't see a problem with sexism in video games. I think there is, and I'm probably part of the problem. It's true, I have done things in video games simply to satisfy my hormonal urges. I've chosen to play as female characters in games with 3rd person cameras simply so I could have a constant view of their backside. I've stressed over the customizable wardrobes of female characters. I've installed mods for Oblivion that... that... let's leave that one alone.

No... My problem with this is the whole 'Give me money so I can make internet videos' thing. It's not that I have a problem with Vloggers. Hell, I actually respect the ones that are talented enough to make a decent living out of it. It's when you feel the need to go to Kickstarter to cover your expenses that I have ask a question...

What are your expenses?

If you take one look at her other videos, it's plainly obvious that she puts a bit of work into her projects. The video is clean, smartly cut, and the script is clearly well though out. By vlogging standards, she's at the top of the pile. Arguably, this kind of quality doesn't come cheap...

Her original goal was for $6000 for five videos, each 10-20 minutes long. That comes out to $1200 a video, and $60-$120 a minute. I can see why she needs some money, but I just don't see why she needs that much...

Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce. I will be researching and playing hundreds of titles from across the gaming industry (including some truly awful games that I wouldn?t wish upon anyone!). Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content.

Oh, so we're paying her to play video games. Hundreds of video games, it would seem. That's nice.

But we're not even talking about $6000 anymore, are we? No, we're talking over $150,000. What is a vlogger supposed to do with that kind of scratch?

Box office / business for
Eraserhead (1977)
Budget
$20,000 (estimated)

IMDB

$20,000 in 1977
Has the same buying power as:
$75,846.53 in 2012

[link]Inflation Calculator, Bureau of Labor and Statistics[/link]

Anita, I now expect your videos to be TWICE AS GOOD as Eraserhead.

 

[Colin Bagley]

Many years ago I played through Metal Gear Solid 2. After completing it, it unlocked a cutscene viewer where you can rewatch every video in the game. It came with a feature where you could substitute characters in the scene with any other character model in the game. Including Office Woman. One of the hostages models in the game is a frumpy-looking, short-ish, middle-aged woman wearing grey suit that modestly covered her probable munt.

Now for my actual point:

I went through every cutscene, swapping out the most impressive character in the scene for Office Woman. I vividly remember watching Office Woman jump from RAY to RAY, shooting them to bits with an SMG, then tearing apart with her bare hands and robo-tentacles (Instead of the main baddy).
I Also remember laughing hysterically at this.

I remember this whenever I see this general call to include a wider range of female characters in gaming, in the same roles that butch men do.* My point is, Office Woman can be featured doing this kind of thing. But only if you want everybody to laugh at the ludicrousness of it all.


*(I'm assuming that's what you want, because otherwise you're just asking to remove all the super models, which you seem to imply is all the women. And if they were to do that, then you'd still be complaining based on a total lack of ANY female characters.)

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Can't help but admit to being a bit disappointed by this episode- I was hoping that Bob was FInALLY getting around to doing an episode on the TV Tropes Wiki, which he has referenced in passing several times in the past. But oh well, this was still an interesting episode, even if it IS ground he's already covered before.

There is nothing I hate so much as internet gamer rage. It's literally repulsive his vile some people can act when someone does something as "heinous" as express the opinion that there may be some kind of flaw in some aspect of their chosen hobby. Sometimes I'm embarassed to call myself a gamer...

 

[Lilani]

Thanks for the video!

I just have a question, where does one step the line between protection or affection into objectification? Goin to something that objectifies positively "That girl is pretty like a flower!" (somethign corny like that) to "Make me a sandwich, woman!"

Is having something like an escort mission in a videogame or a plot where you protect/rescue a woman objectify that woman. Is the problem with videogames that they seem to only do that or just put women as a set of tits that occasionally move.

Is objectification inherently wrong, or the problem is what objectification may lead to believe?

Well, I'd like to say the line is usually pretty clear, but honestly these sorts of things just tend to creep up on society. And then they become so normal that your personal gauge of what is and isn't appropriate becomes pretty unreliable. Again, those who held those views didn't see a problem with them until hindsight set in.

I guess the best way to keep things in check is to never shut yourself off from the opinions and objections of the whomever you're referring to. I'm sure the Jews in Germany expressed objections to how they were being talked about, but it was allowed to go on because the people using those terms didn't care what they had to say about it.

So tell that girl she looks pretty like a flower if you feel that is appropriate, but be open enough that you notice if she happens to take offense. Some girls may not like flowers, but then some girls may not mind the "Make me a sandwich!" jokes if the situation is right.

As for the escort mission example, I think it really depends on the intended message and theme of the situation. A woman being helpless isn't inherently sexist, just as a guy being helpless isn't inherently sexist. Everybody is helpless at some point in their life, it is a perfectly human situation to be in. The difference lies in the context--are they being portrayed as somebody temporarily in over their head, or are they being portrayed as somebody who wouldn't be able to do anything without help?

And if they are just a very needy person, it should be made clear that trait is exclusive to that individual character. Yes, there are real women out there who spend their lives looking for a man who will take care of them. And that is a valid character type to use. But it only becomes a problem if it's made to seem as though all women in the world are like that. Which on the surface seems like a difficult thing to accomplish, but if the only women in your game are the needy type, then it doesn't become so hard to see. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the mission is focused on the person being an individual in a unique situation, rather than "the person in escort mission 22."

It all wraps back around to dehumanization. When you take the human and individual elements out of a situation, that is when generalizations and stereotypes become rampant.

 

[ex275w]

Snip?

Well, I'd like to say the line is usually pretty clear, but honestly these sorts of things just tend to creep up on society. And then they become so normal that your personal gauge of what is and isn't appropriate is pretty unreliable. Again, those who held those views didn't see a problem with them until hindsight set in.

I guess the best way to keep things in check is to never shut yourself off from the opinions and objections of the whomever you're referring to. I'm sure the Jews in Germany expressed objections to how they were being talked about, but it was allowed to go on because the people using those terms didn't care what they had to say about it.

So tell that girl she looks pretty like a flower if you feel that is appropriate, but be open enough that you notice if she happens to take offense. Some girls may not like flowers, but then some girls may not mind the "Make me a sandwich!" jokes if the situation is right.

As for the escort mission example, I think it really depends on the intended message and theme of the situation. A woman being helpless isn't inherently sexist, just as a guy being helpless isn't inherently sexist. Everybody is helpless at some point in their life, it is a perfectly human situation to be in. The difference lies in the context--are they being portrayed as somebody temporarily in over their head, or are they being portrayed as somebody who wouldn't be able to do anything without help?

And if they are just a very needy person, it should be made clear that trait is exclusive to that individual character. Yes, there are real women out there who spend their lives looking for a man who will take care of them. And that is a valid character type to use. But it only becomes a problem if it's made to seem as though all women in the world are like that. Which on the surface seems like a difficult thing to accomplish, but if the only women in your game are the needy type, then it doesn't become so hard to see. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the mission is focused on the person being an individual in a unique situation, rather than "the person in escort mission 22."

It all wraps back around to dehumanization. When you take the human and individual elements out of a situation, that is when generalizations and stereotypes become rampant.

Ok, in this context I can see why women have a problem with the industry. Looking at individual games it may not be a problem, but expanding your scope, patterns emerge. Games that I consider have good female characters (Ghost Trick, Psychonauts, Phoenix Wright) have a female co-lead who needs to be rescued.

Still I would say its because games have bad writing since the industry doesn't have an emphasis on story that movies or books have. A good game can have a bad story, and since videogames take a lot of time, story is what is usually sacrificed and end up treading cliches that were old when King Kong came out.

 

[Oskamunda]

Didn't really plan for this to be potentially TLDR, but it kind of kept writing itself.

I honestly can't hear the whole "but men are depicted with unrealistic bodies, just like women!" without thinking about this [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/12/31] Penny Arcade comic.

Yes...this. The problem that Bob glosses over is that men ARE expected to have the same godlike physiques as women--at least in the circles and classes we are told that matter--and if you don't rock a sixpack, then you are very specifically targeted by billions of advertising dollars for workout diets/machines/facilities and your social peers for your ugliness/wheatbelly/lack of focus or determination/whatever else. Our society is becoming ever more Greek in that way: we are becoming more and more obsessed with our physical image, and more proactively judging ANYONE who does not fit in with our expectations. Towards the end there, even the Romans started obsessing over baths.

You could say that this is just an expression of class separation, but we have to remember that almost all Roman and Greek bathhouses were free and public. Gymnasiums were similarly free, and the athletes competed and practiced nude specifically to encourage God-bods. I call them God-bods because that is exactly what they were: an attempt by man to honor the Gods they believed in by emulating their perfect forms. People who were not at their physical peak were regarded not as poor, but as ungodly. Even Dionysus and/or Bacchus were not excluded from this requirement; it is only in more modern times that we have made those deities corpulent and middle-aged in a very concerted effort to attach certain behaviors and lifestyles to certain body types in an attempt to use Chaucerian Physiognomy to separate "good" people from "bad" people. Even those qualifications of what makes people "good" or "bad" have become increasingly subjective over the last hundred years, and so the separation has shifted towards class distinctions: if you look this good, it is because you can afford to, and that makes for a more potentially attractive mate on two levels--looks and money.

I have to suppose, Bob, that you don't get out much into the social environment. There is just as much, if not more judging of men going on than women. Whenever I go out, I see gads of men chatting up women of all body types...because every man wants to get laid or have companionship, and there's an individual fetish for every one of us alive; that is to say, you have ass-men (subcategories of small-, big-, athletic-, and apple-), tit-men, legs-men, neck-men, hair-men, big-girls-men, eyes-men, etc., etc. To a very large degree, it is how the woman dresses and presents herself as opposed to her physical attributes. Not so for men. The men who are bald, too old, have worked very hard lives and have skin like leather, the men who can't afford a dentist and so are missing a tooth here or there, the men who are fat, the men who don't have the right amount of bling, the ones who drink too much...these men are judged and ostracized by both men and women. They can only exist in social strata that are similar to themselves, or that are populated by less-judgemental people...who are also typically judged by men and women. I would say, from personal, real observation of people in the wild, that the pressure on men and women to look a certain way is roughly equalized.

What's worse, is that women who do not look a certain way are just considered to be less attractive. Men who do not look a certain way are considered not to be men.

I don't think that depiction of men or women in video games is a problem at all; it's an artist's rendering. To be more specific, it is a continuation of artists' renderings that have been in existence for thousands of years. Our very evolution has encouraged these body expectations: women grew larger breasts because the women with larger breasts were more often chosen by the males, and those were the genes that were passed on (and no bologna about lactation--modern science has debunked the assertion that bigger breasts provide more milk)--women developed an enlarged clitoris to encourage front-to-front intercourse so that lovers could look each other in the eye (and so that women could focus on more attentive lovers as men focused on bigger breasts). Our biology is based on these things. When a twelve-year-old sees T&A in a movie, TV show, advertisement, or video game and begins to make judgments about body types, it's not because the media format is telling him to do so, it's because his body is telling him to do so. As the child matures, the expectations will level out by a large margin as fantasy continues to collide with reality--and if they make it to middle age driving that red convertible and still thinking rock-hard torpedo tits are the shit, well, what do we always say about those buffoons? What are you, TWELVE??

Which leads us to the next point. Game developers are not consciously reinforcing stereotypes and body expectations because they believe in them, but rather because they sell. A major game costs tens of millions of dollars to develop these days, and the developer and the financiers MUST recoup their investment. Every month we see some developer lay off a dozen or more workers or a small dev house close its doors forever because they only sold two hundred thousand copies of the game they made, rather than the two hundred and ten thousand they needed to. In such a financially hostile environment, i.e. one where a smaller percentage of the population have significant (if any) amounts of disposable income to drop on an entertainment product, the gamemakers can rarely afford to take risks. So they don't. They go with the titillation, because that's where they can make enough money to do riskier things in future projects. A lot of the time, they never even get to that point of stability, and just keep releasing the same stuff so they can stay afloat.

The only way to not be affected by these things is to simply choose not to be affected by these things...to know that they have been with us as long as human beings have walked this Earth, and that maturity yields wisdom. Let us also not forget who these trolls are who hate on women not made of silicone and how old they are likely to be, and also not forget about G.I.F.T. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT] (formally known as the Online Disinhibition Effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect]).

Oh and if there's something i have to say about this project that hasn't been said already
Well then i'll just leave this here and you can see for yourselves

Here's the nugget here. It's all about the benjamins. You see, there's this thing called the Glass Ceiling [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling], and although it has largely been broken, it will never truly die until the fathers of its philosophy are, themselves, dead. It dishonors those women and minorities who really struggled in this last century by raising Glass Walls in its place. I don't think that the Suffragettes would take too kindly to Ms.Sarkeesian (I use Ms. as opposed to Mrs. as I assume that she has trouble finding men who will put up with her, and that even if she DID, she would elect not to marry them, as some feminists believe that marriage is a chauvinist pair bonding scheme used to exult the importance of taking a woman's maidenhead, objectifies them as barter chips to increase the land and holdings of father figures, and also reinforces the outmoded idea that women need to be taken care of by men and that their only roles in a nuclear family or even society as a whole are those of a janitor, cook, and sex slave...is that sexist of me?) and her points of view...but we all know that she doesn't really even believe them herself, don't we? Those Glass Walls are very profitable, and in this age of 24 hour homegrown internet media, the squeaky wheel gets the moola.

I suppose the biggest irony in all of this is that her argument (and arguments like it) are self-defeating. A XX-year-old (How old IS she, by the way? It seems a card she holds very tight to the vest...possibly because she doesn't want to lose that 18~24 demographic that brings in most of her money by aging? Just a thought.) woman who owns and maintains her own website that doesn't rely on external google ads for revenue who can film in HD because of her professional-grade equipment and professional-grade studio and professional-grade editing hardware/software/capability AND uses it to vociferously decry the effects of sexism upon the fairer gender? Really? She's the one saying women are mistreated and objectified? Maybe if I had a nice rack I could weasel some of those opportunities into my life (SEE WHAT I DID THERE???). Nah, just kidding...her post-pro and webmastering and such are probably all done by men she exploits on her staff (SEE WHAT I DID THERE AGAIN???). I also find it interesting how she presents herself: nice makeup, nice haircut, nice attire, perfectly clear skin (I wonder how much of the money her fans donate goes into making her look as attractive to men as she could possibly look)...all in all, a very professional appearance. Tell me, do feminists usually wear ruby red lipstick and hoop earrings? I thought that was against the whole paradigm.

Anyway, the point is this: She should be grateful we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Feminine Mystique and that she lives in a time and a world and a country where women have the freedom to engage in activities like hers. One hundred years ago she would have been beaten and told to remember her place, and a thousand years ago she would have been rape fodder for simply not being born a man...and if she were an African woman today, she would be more likely to be raped than learn to read [http://www.irinnews.org/Report/84909/SOUTH-AFRICA-One-in-four-men-rape] AND would have to be told by other feminists that wearing an anti-rape device is a form of enslavement [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008347-10391704.html]. Yeeeeeep, sounds like the argument defeats itself.

P.S.
I waited for my wife to come home from work (in our single-income, two children household) so she could approve of this before I posted it.

 

[Lilani]

Ok, in this context I can see why women have a problem with the industry. Looking at individual games it may not be a problem, but expanding your scope, patterns emerge. Games that I consider have good female characters (Ghost Trick, Psychonauts, Phoenix Wright) have a female co-lead who needs to be rescued.

Still I would say its because games have bad writing since the industry doesn't have an emphasis on story that movies or books have. A good game can have a bad story, and since videogames take a lot of time, story is what is usually sacrificed and end up treading cliches that were old when King Kong came out.

I think you're very right, in all of that. Many developers still haven't found that balance when it comes to developing games with stories and characters. They are pushed toward deadlines before they're ready, which causes them to cut corners. And, let's face it, it is a lot easier to sell a well-functioning game with flat characters than it is to sell a game with well-rounded characters but plays like shit. It happens in movies, too--people often won't mind what they're watching as long as it's presented well. Just look at the Transformers movies. The characters are flat and awkward, but it's big and shiny and 'splody so the masses don't care.

And I think Psychonauts is a good example of a female in need of rescue. She proves herself to be strong and independent in the first part of the game, but then she happens to get overwhelmed. And I was fine with that, it happens sometimes. Yes it was sort of a stereotypical situation, but she is a good character and the game itself is sort of a parody of stereotypes so it just felt right.

On the other hand, I see old westerns do the whole damsel in distress storyline and it makes me want to puke my guts up. The women are so sappy and helpless, and never get anything done without a man's intervention.

Again, being helpless is perfectly human. But if that's all there is to the character, then the audience is going to be insulted, and rightfully so.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Ahem:
You imbecile:
He never told her WHAT to do, he merely suggested, that, since she made a lot more money than she said she needed, that maybe she could use that money to further the cause she claims to support.

It's not because she is a weak and brittle women with a gaping vagina that hinders her from thinking, it's because she came in a shitload of money and using at least some of that money to finance female game developpers would not only make for good PR, but also make her seem legit.
And do her "cause" some FUCKING GOOD
BUT he suggested that she do that IN ADDITION to her videos.

Problem is, people gave her the money to make videos. It would be profoundly dishonest to do anything else beyond making videos (and associated tasks like promoting them / updating her web presence etc.) with that money.

Besides, feminism isn't a single "cause". I believe every woman should have free, easy access to contraception and abortion, but not everyone who's a feminist agrees. So, if someone gave me money to make a video, it would be plain wrong to give their money to a pro-choice organisation or contraception provider without consultation.

 

[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.

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.

Urm, blameless might be strong. Has it not been established that certain sites were spammed with this in an attempt to gain attention and stir up some contraversy?

I don't think the reason a lot of people don't like her is because she gots paid, and I don't think that most of the men criticising her are just jumping on a feminist because they must be silenced. I really doubt that it's because she's a feminist, it seems likely to me that it's because she has a generally shitty disposition...which she does.

She really could explore whatever issues she needs to without the bile, and without the judgemental and superior attitude. She could also stand to acknowledge when she's making guesses as to reasons and motivations, because it seems that she feels she knows everything there is to know.

Point being. I reckon a different approach(or woman at the helm) would have garnered a very different reaction. Think more Louis Theroux, rather than Michael Moore.

While I won't accuse you of such things, I want to make it clear that one could take away from what you say above to mean "It's not that she's a feminist, it's that she's uppity and saying things I don't like." Notably in the section I bolded above. To you, perhaps that sounds like a perfectly objective stance to take. And perhaps it is that you just don't like her style very much. That's all fine.

Suggesting that there's an ounce of injustice at work because someone you do not personally enjoy is being funded an amount of money by her supporters is simply wrongheaded. There is no problem, there. People are free to spend their money as they please; she will put out work you are free and in fact welcome to ignore at your leisure, whereupon you will in all likelihood to totally unaffected. A butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina will probably have more direct effect on your life.

So the question begs: why involve yourself? Movies are produced all the time with budgets that stagger the imagination, covering topics I myself find repulsive, written, acted and directed by individuals I disagree with. So Iavoid them. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they want to produce stuff that I personally consider shlock, and if people want to spend money to watch it, that's their problem, not mine.

Concisely, where's the beef? Nobody is asking you to pay a dime. Nobody is asking you to watch anything. The existence or non-existence of this particular corner of the internet has only the affect on you that you choose it to have. So why are you here? Why are you involving yourself in this conversation? What stake do you have? Plant your flag and we'll have something substantial to talk about. Is it wrong that she got funded the money? Why? Is it wrong that she's voicing her criticism? Why?

It's not that she says things I don't like, I didn't say that...I said I'm not a fan of the way she says the things she says(and, ok...occasionally the things she says, which I have made it clear I think is her right to say). You see how that's different?

This is a public forum, I don't need your permission to involve myself in any conversation, nor do I need to meet your standards(seriously, what the hell?). You seem to be confused by my not picking a side and yelling...now that would be pointless, and not something we're short of. I've involve myself because I think I've said something that other people weren't saying. I'm offering other explainations as to why some people are finding this distasteful, something that I thought would be refreshing if anything. I do so because certain people are lobbing the term "women-hater" around too readily, as if it serves to do anything other than stunt conversation. I would sooner accuse them of misplacing their anger than of being willfully sexist.

She is singular, a woman, she is not representative or symbolic of women everywhere(luckily). A strike against her does not a bigot make.

You are right in assuming I don't have much of an emotional stake in this, but that disqualifies me how? How is that bad at all? Out of interest, what's your stake in this? Why are you so involved? I think I'm 3 posts deep in this thread, you've posted way more.

Prometheus was good.