The Big Picture: With Great Power

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

snip

Well I'll start by saying this post is late because I'm on holiday, have been for a few weeks now, and I'd prefer to spend my time seeing the sights and such rather than on the forums. So I don't think I'll reply again after this one, but I'll certainly read any replies you post

So, for reasons mentioned above I'll keep this fairly short and address the most important stuff. First, I don't think it really matters that loads of men die in games like God of War. It's not that anyone is saying that women shouldn't die or be captured in these games, it's rather that they should get to fill other roles at least as frequently as the Damsel in Distress one. Secondly, characters like Chell and Samus aren't really characters seeing as they entirely mute and entirely interchangeable with a male lead. The exception is Samus in the last Metroid, where she refuses to do just about anything until her boyfriend tells her to. The other characters you mentioned are all from fairly obscure or old games, showing how infrequently decent female leads turn up. Your mentioning of Mass Effect and Dragon Age, where you have to choose to be female and even then, your character is largely up to you. You'd never have to resort to the Bioware games, or any sort of game with gender selection to bring up dozens of decent leads from the last few years alone. Again, I do agree that 4chan, or perhaps the trolling community/culture is more accurate, is not representative of the gaming community, but on this issue they represent the loudest unified voice and I think that's the problem, since most onlookers will see the voice coming out of the gaming community being the misogynistic one with little else on that level unity challenging them.

 

[Miroluck]

Admittedly I'm not terrifically interested in video games,

The hell?.. With all due respect, why did you picked a gaming site, of all places, as a place to frequently be at, then?

She doesn't. Kind of the point I'm making.

Yes, your point is that she's a liar. I don't believe your assertion.

Lie is quite a common thing on the internet.

From the looks, we seem to be talking past each other where I'm talking about the hobbyist and others who would be playing games for enjoyment while Anita's main goal seems to be profit.

Ah yes, profit, the source of all evil.How dare that immoral bugbear not pay for them out of her own pocket, reducing her own food budget so she can donate to the world a bunch of videos she'll be called a liar and a thief for making.

Ah, the good old Shortpacked! school of caricature-based argument.

Ah yes, profit, the source of all evil.

The fact that person seeks profit from supposedly mind-changing project speaks tons of their true intentions.

How dare that immoral bugbear not pay for them out of her own pocket, reducing her own food budget so she can donate to the world a bunch of videos she'll be called a liar and a thief for making.

If person is truly passionate about something they WILL pay for that out of their own pocket. Truly passionate person would sell their house for project of such importance. (Nice ridicule there, by the way).

 

[JimB]

I hate the Bechdel test to be honest. I get the point of it, but I think far too many people use it, well, like you are trying to. It reveals a pattern of common traits within movies concerning female characters, yes. Everything inferred from that pattern though is the same subjective debate we have been having about similar patterns in games.

The number of women in movies who have conversations with other women about topics that are not men is not subjective.

I find flaw in your example. I know some people who have no ill will against gay people and argue against it because of religious, economic or personal beliefs concerning marriage itself.

I think you and I are at an impasse here: You define hate as an emotion, and I describe it as a behavior.

I also am curious where people are insulting, demeaning all women for profit.

If a female character (particularly the only female character, or when the ratio of male to female characters is two to one) is reduced to a caricature for the sake of appealing to male gamers, then women are being insulted.

You make it sound like you believe that no female character can portray negative traits or be in damsel situations without it being hateful.

Negative traits are fine. Negative female-trope traits are probably not.

I haven't been arguing that the pattern exists, I have been instead trying to discuss the reason for it.

I don't much care about the reason it exists; just the effect it has by existing.

Yes, but what happens after?

No idea. Foresight is not my strong suit. I'll deal with it when it comes up.

I don't apply a scale, I apply a simple question. Does trait X prevent a woman from purchasing, using or participating in the game because she is a woman?

If the argument is that they're not marketing to exclude women, they're marketing to include men, then we have to define what a man is. At the risk of sounding simple, a man can be defined as "not a woman," so marketing toward men is marketing intended to exclude women.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "how it hurts" people. Are you talking about female portrayal in games being insulting to some women, being damaging somehow overall or something else?

I'm talking about perpetuating stereotypes reinforcing themselves. The longer we continue to depict women as fuckdolls, the longer they'll be treated that way.

Clothing choices reflecting artistic style and market patterns are sexist?

They can be, yes.

They are character avatars designed and outfitted based on what will appeal the most to the demographic paying the most.

Then we're back to slavers somehow not contributing to the slaving problem because they're just filling a market demand, or, if you prefer a less touchy comparison, drug dealers not contributing to the drug problem because they're just filling a demand.

The idea is that if you look at patterns of created art alone that are prevalent in order to understand the mindsets of the creators, you will have a shallow and most likely incorrect view.

Oh. No, I'm talking about the general conversation that informs all of us, including the artists expressing themselves.

You'll find it very hard indeed to bring change the way you are going about it.

I won't change you, because you're the one arguing against me and arguments never convince the person you're arguing against. All either of us can hope to do is to convince the silent audience reading these posts.

Except what you think of as a sexist idea is not the same as the next person.

I do not need the guy standing next to me to agree with me in order to believe I'm right.

And what you want combated might be a trait another person enjoys in games.

I've known for a long time that between me and that "another person" you mentioned, only one of us can be happy, because our standards are exclusionary of one another's. I'm content with that. I'm not fighting on behalf of people who like the stuff I find offensive.

With all due respect, why did you picked a gaming site, of all places, as a place to frequently be at, then?

Because I enjoy the content of the entertainment here. You seem to be misreading my statement: When I say "I am not terrifically interested in video games," I am not saying "I am indifferent to video games." I am describing how highly I prioritize them in my life. I can object to the video game industry's sexism while still considering it a lesser evil than that girl in Afghanistan who got shot in the brain for trying to go to public school in defiance of the Taliban, who believe women are not allowed to learn things.

Lie is quite a common thing on the internet.

So is crappy English. That it is a common trait does not mean I have seen anything from Ms. Sarkeesian to suspect she can't spell.

The fact that person seeks profit from a supposedly mind-changing project speaks tons of their true intentions.

No, it means she wants to get paid for doing work. That is all it means. Something being financially successful does not make its creator categorically evil and/or deceitful. J.R.R. Tolkien making money off his books doesn't mean he was sneering at his readers behind their backs.

If a person is truly passionate about something, she will pay for that out of their own pocket.

Okay, and at what point did Ms. Sarkeesian ever say her passion is for games, to the point that she'd be silent for months or years while trying to save enough money to buy the games she needs for her project, letting a social evil go unanswered because she doesn't have the money to speak against it?

A truly passionate person would sell her house for a project of such importance.

And I suppose she would be playing the games on one of the many public X-Box stations set up for homeless people. Jesus Christ.

Nice ridicule there, by the way.

Thanks. It's not my best, but it's not my worst, either.

 

[Hyperactiveman]

But how Bob? How will we prove that we are the better mainstream oh great merciful leader of our people...

I kid, I kid but yeh very motivating and right on the money as always.

 

[Miroluck]

The fact that person seeks profit from a supposedly mind-changing project speaks tons of their true intentions.

Something being financially successful does not make its creator categorically evil and/or deceitful. J.R.R. Tolkien making money off his books doesn't mean he was sneering at his readers behind their backs.

Question is, had she started with intention of shedding light on sexist tropes in games and profit just came along, or getting money was the goal all along.

If a person is truly passionate about something, she will pay for that out of their own pocket.

Okay, and at what point did Ms. Sarkeesian ever say her passion is for games, to the point that she'd be silent for months or years while trying to save enough money to buy the games she needs for her project, letting a social evil go unanswered because she doesn't have the money to speak against it?

I meant passion for equal representation in media, not games themselves.

A truly passionate person would sell her house for a project of such importance.

And I suppose she would be playing the games on one of the many public X-Box stations set up for homeless people. Jesus Christ.

House part were not meant to be taken literally.

 

[runic knight]

I hate the Bechdel test to be honest. I get the point of it, but I think far too many people use it, well, like you are trying to. It reveals a pattern of common traits within movies concerning female characters, yes. Everything inferred from that pattern though is the same subjective debate we have been having about similar patterns in games.

The number of women in movies who have conversations with other women about topics that are not men is not subjective.

I know, that is why I said the pattern itself is fine. What that pattern means is where my complaint lies, that subjective interpretation.

I find flaw in your example. I know some people who have no ill will against gay people and argue against it because of religious, economic or personal beliefs concerning marriage itself.

I think you and I are at an impasse here: You define hate as an emotion, and I describe it as a behavior.

Not to sound like an ass on this one, but I have never heard hate defined as anything but an emotion or something directly relating to the emotion before. This is a sort of alien concept to me.

I also am curious where people are insulting, demeaning all women for profit.

If a female character (particularly the only female character, or when the ratio of male to female characters is two to one) is reduced to a caricature for the sake of appealing to male gamers, then women are being insulted.

First, a female character does not represent all females just because she is a female character. The entire idea here seems to hinge on that assumption to start with, but beyond that, how often is it truly the case that female characters are reduced to caricatures based on gender? Keep in mind that for it to count the majority of characters can't also be caricatures (as then the female character is still handled the same regardless of gender, albeit in a different expression based on diverse caricature). And how can you distinguish the motivation of character styles or attributes? You can make the claim that a female character was made shallow to appeal to a male demographic, but a claim to know why a decision was made requires more support then just the decision itself. "It is so because it is so" is not enough, and claims to know motivations tend to devolve into that most off the time.

You make it sound like you believe that no female character can portray negative traits or be in damsel situations without it being hateful.

Negative traits are fine. Negative female-trope traits are probably not.

But if someone uses a negative trope, all they are doing is applying negative traits to a character archtype. You would define entire tropes as wholly hateful merely because they are negative in your eyes.

I haven't been arguing that the pattern exists, I have been instead trying to discuss the reason for it.

I don't much care about the reason it exists; just the effect it has by existing.

The effect you describe is that it makes your friend feel bad. I can list countless examples of other things that make people feel bad, from fandoms to religion to politics. The effect you are trying to stop is that someone will be hurt/offended, a hopeless, unfair fight.

Yes, but what happens after?

No idea. Foresight is not my strong suit. I'll deal with it when it comes up.

a poor idea. Pretend that sexism in games is a symptom of a larger issue with the medium. Right now you've been trying to diagnose the issue. I wouldn't trust the opinion of a stranger too far, though I might humor it. I'll stop trusting them entirely if they showed any sign of not having a damn clue about the repercussions of their actions though. You pretty much admit here you don't have a game plan or a well defined idea of what to do, only a vague intent of improving things based on your own definition of what would make it better.

I don't apply a scale, I apply a simple question. Does trait X prevent a woman from purchasing, using or participating in the game because she is a woman?

If the argument is that they're not marketing to exclude women, they're marketing to include men, then we have to define what a man is. At the risk of sounding simple, a man can be defined as "not a woman," so marketing toward men is marketing intended to exclude women.

No. My question is are women as a gender prevented from buying, using or enjoying the product. Not being marketed to does not count any more then it is prejudiced that Football is not marketed towards my personal tastes. A product is marketed in a way that highlights the traits it possesses and appeals to the audience most likely to buy it. These appeals are genderless, with reaction to them defining any gender bias. Big explosions and skimpy dressed women are responded to by a male audience more, but showing those aspects in advertising, basically saying the game is this, does not in any way stop a woman from buying or even enjoying it based on her gender. Any individual woman may dislike it based on personal taste or preferences, but that is not sexism, that is personal preference. It is a societal and social construct that says women will dislike seeing women in skimpy clothes the same as it is one that says men will dislike seeing men in them. Cultural influence is telling the gender what to like/dislike, including the traits of the game in question. How is it sexist to have a game with a character in skimpy clothes when the only reason it is "bad" for women is a cultural influence dictating a gender norm in the first place.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "how it hurts" people. Are you talking about female portrayal in games being insulting to some women, being damaging somehow overall or something else?

I'm talking about perpetuating stereotypes reinforcing themselves. The longer we continue to depict women as fuckdolls, the longer they'll be treated that way.

I don't recall many games portraying women as such, rather as titillation instead. But even still lets assume there are many. Ok, now, where is the evidence that that supports your claim that a stereotype within a game or media perpetuates that stereotype rather then being merely a reflection of that stereotype at any given time? Hell, you are aware that women have been gaining rights and respect as human beings regardless of the stories that use tropes and the like, yes? Hell, in history itself, it is almost as though tropes of female characters in stories have had no damn impact stopping women from gaining rights and equality. I mean, they obviously existed long beforehand, and exist now, yet rather then perpetuating things, women seem to maintain a steady progess.
furthermore, what are you talking about women being treated as fuckdolls in the first place? are you referring to the overall culture we live in and how segments do treat them as such? If so, you are going to have to do a better job tying it together in a causal link to how females are portrayed. And please, while you are at that, make sure to disprove my competing idea that portrayal is more a reflection of cultural reality, desires and/or expectations rather then a strong influence on how women are treated.

Clothing choices reflecting artistic style and market patterns are sexist?

They can be, yes.

Can be does not mean always or even often are. How can they be, and are the ways they can be the fault of the clothing makers or society and culture itself?

They are character avatars designed and outfitted based on what will appeal the most to the demographic paying the most.

Then we're back to slavers somehow not contributing to the slaving problem because they're just filling a market demand, or, if you prefer a less touchy comparison, drug dealers not contributing to the drug problem because they're just filling a demand.

Slavers actively violate the rights of other human beings in the name of profit. I don't recall a video games being quite so evil in that regard, making the comparison a bit ridiculous. Drug dealers violate the law and actively create the drug problem in order to profit off of it. I don't recall video games breaking too many laws in that regard nor creating a problem to profit off of. I do see what you are trying for here. Would this be a better example perhaps?
A firework seller. There is a legal market available and a steady demand for them. There is a problem in the city of noise from some people lighting fireworks in the middle of the night. The seller is profiting even though some who use the product may do so in a way that annoys other city residents. Would you agree that is the sort of scenario you are trying to compare this to? If so, is it really the fire work seller's fault for the noise? would it be fair to shut him down for the misuse of his product by others?

The idea is that if you look at patterns of created art alone that are prevalent in order to understand the mindsets of the creators, you will have a shallow and most likely incorrect view.

Oh. No, I'm talking about the general conversation that informs all of us, including the artists expressing themselves.

alright I guess. Sort of lost the point of this tangent within the larger conversation though.

You'll find it very hard indeed to bring change the way you are going about it.

I won't change you, because you're the one arguing against me and arguments never convince the person you're arguing against. All either of us can hope to do is to convince the silent audience reading these posts.

I am aware I can be thick, but I am not unswayable. That said, I was referring to the silent audience here. You will find it harder to sway minds of the undecided going about it this way.

Except what you think of as a sexist idea is not the same as the next person.

I do not need the guy standing next to me to agree with me in order to believe I'm right.

But you sort of do when you want things to change. Otherwise you are just the asshole on the train, screaming at passengers and reading bible verses. Refusing to acknowledge not everything thinks the same as you do or sees an issue from the same stance is sort of universally reviled, unless it is a stance the audience already agrees with.

And what you want combated might be a trait another person enjoys in games.

I've known for a long time that between me and that "another person" you mentioned, only one of us can be happy, because our standards are exclusionary of one another's. I'm content with that. I'm not fighting on behalf of people who like the stuff I find offensive.

Except, they aren't. Games are a product, and one that can and does come in variety. What you seem to be trying to do is say that "another person" there can't enjoy his game, but you get to enjoy the ones you like. when they no doubt say "well, you shouldn't play that game I don't like", who gets to be right? That's right, neither of you would be. Forcing your personal beliefs on other people is bad. I shouldn't have to explain that one. Especially when the motivation for doing it is an unproven claim about causing harm from people who can easily avoid it if they dislike it.
This is no different then every sex negative religious jackass I have ever heard of. The sort who wanted books banned because they were "hurt" by the subject matter, even though they could just not read the damn things.


I think this here sums up a lot of this discussion here and my own philosophy regarding the debate.

Honest question, or at least a question that is more honest than a gotcha: If someone made a video game like DOA about male characters who wear only banana hammocks and whose bulges bounce up and down in gelatinous slow motion with every step and whose butt cheeks make light clapping noises around their thongs, would you feel uncomfortable and excluded?

Not at all. I would feel it was not made for me and would not buy it, but I would not feel that the product was in some way preventing me from buying it or not using it. My own tastes and preferences would be what prevented me from buying it or not using it, but that is not a fault of the developers.

That a product is not made for me is not a sign the developers hated me, are sexist or bigoted, nor think I represent my gender. It just means the product has aspects to it I dislike and that is fine. Someone else might like it and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others nor the law, I can not in good conscious say they can't like it.

 

[Miroluck]

I hate the Bechdel test to be honest. I get the point of it, but I think far too many people use it, well, like you are trying to. It reveals a pattern of common traits within movies concerning female characters, yes. Everything inferred from that pattern though is the same subjective debate we have been having about similar patterns in games.

The number of women in movies who have conversations with other women about topics that are not men is not subjective.

Objective or not, it wouldn't be terribly hard to fool that test. Just film one scene where two named female characters talk about anything other than men (just to appease audiences that watch out for this), and bam - instant pass, even if rest of the picture is sexist garbage.

Yes, but what happens after?

No idea. Foresight is not my strong suit. I'll deal with it when it comes up.

So, basically, you're employing bolshevist logic? "Our job is to ruin the established order and that's it. Someone else will take care of rebuilding process". Yeah, that approach sure did tsarist Russia a favor.

 

[JimB]

Question is, had she started with intention of shedding light on sexist tropes in games and profit just came along, or getting money was the goal all along?

They are not mutually exclusive goals.

I meant passion for equal representation in media, not games themselves.

And how long should she be left unable to speak for want of finances and therefore unable to try to fix the problem, all to satisfy your idea that money is evil and only a self-destructive martyr can have good intentions?

I know, that is why I said the pattern itself is fine. What that pattern means is where my complaint lies, that subjective interpretation.

It sounds like to me you object to anyone making any statement ever if there's any possibility of it being incorrect. I don't. I have faith in my deductive abilities, and even if I am wrong about a movie being sexist just because it only has one female character in a cast of fifteen named character, so what? Who is harmed by trying to get more women jobs in Hollywood?

Not to sound like an ass on this one, but I have never heard hate defined as anything but an emotion or something directly relating to the emotion before. This is a sort of alien concept to me.

You don't sound like an ass. It's a definition I hold to because I'm tired of evil motherfuckers putting their gay kids into camp to be straight and torturing them for months and years while earnestly insisting they don't hate gay people or their children.

First, a female character does not represent all females just because she is a female character.

She does if she's the only female character in the game, because the game is the world. Until Princess Daisy came along, Princess Toadstool was the only woman in the entirety of the Mushroom Kingdom, and she's just a palette swap for Toadstool anyway.

The entire idea here seems to hinge on that assumption to start with, but beyond that, how often is it truly the case that female characters are reduced to caricatures based on gender?

Anyone whose title is "princess" is a good start, since I'll bet you almost none of the kingdoms they're princess of have a king or a queen.

But if someone uses a negative trope, all they are doing is applying negative traits to a character archetype.

A character archetype defined by the idea that women have roles that must be reinforced, yeah.

The effect you describe is that it makes your friend feel bad.

And it makes me feel bad, and it makes me feel ashamed of my video game collection every time my seven-year-old niece comes over, and it contributes to an environment of men shaming women for being women (see the fake gamer girl controversy), and it contributes to an environment of people who argue with no apparent irony that a woman who criticizes the games industry has committed a crime which can only be redressed by raping her to death.

A poor idea.

Maybe, but it's all I got.

Right now you've been trying to diagnose the issue. I wouldn't trust the opinion of a stranger too far, though I might humor it. I'll stop trusting them entirely if they showed any sign of not having a damn clue about the repercussions of their actions, though.

You never trusted or agreed with me in the first place, so I haven't really lost anything with my admission.

My question is are women as a gender prevented from buying, using or enjoying the product.

What counts as prevention to you? Is it anything less than physical restraint, than someone from EA putting a gun in a female gamer's face and telling her he'll kill her if she turns on that copy of Madden Football 20XX?

I don't recall many games portraying women as such, rather as titillation instead.

Implied fuckdolls?

Okay, now, where is the evidence that that supports your claim that a stereotype within a game or media perpetuates that stereotype rather then being merely a reflection of that stereotype at any given time?

Alcoholics Anonymous. That is my proof. "Fake it 'til you make it," they say; say "I don't want to drink" until you believe it. It's the same underlying principle of the power of positive thinking. "What my mouth says, my ears hear," is a folksier way of putting it, but they all boil down to we convince ourselves of our truth every time we open our mouths.

Hell, you are aware that women have been gaining rights and respect as human beings regardless of the stories that use tropes and the like, yes? Hell, in history itself, it is almost as though tropes of female characters in stories have had no damn impact stopping women from gaining rights and equality. I mean, they obviously existed long beforehand, and exist now, yet rather then perpetuating things, women seem to maintain a steady progress.

When were women granted the right to vote, again? It's been less than a hundred and fifty years, anyway. And you're telling me that a collective belief behind the inferiority of women, one reflected through stories that cast women as inferior to men and as defined by their relationships to men, plays no part in that environment of oppression?

What are you talking about women being treated as fuckdolls in the first place?

I'm talking about defining them by their sexual attributes and valuing them primarily or exclusively on how sexually attractive they are to men.

Can be does not mean always or even often are.

No, but I brought it up in terms of video games trends, whereas your phrasing was so universal I felt I couldn't support it would a qualifier.

How can they be, and are the ways they can be the fault of the clothing makers or society and culture itself?

They can be dependent on the message they send, and the question of fault is a weird one since I don't know how the makers can exist as things distinct from the societies and cultures they belong to.

Slavers actively violate the rights of other human beings in the name of profit. I don't recall a video games being quite so evil in that regard, making the comparison a bit ridiculous.

I'm not comparing levels of evil. I'm comparing levels of participation and support.

I am aware I can be thick, but I am not unswayable.

I don't think you're thick. It's just the way these things work. Nearly every word you've said to me has been to refute my own words, and each word has reinforced your own perception of your point, like a brick being laid in a wall. You are invested in proving me wrong, and that limits your own ability to agree with me. The same is probably true of me.

But you sort of do when you want things to change. Otherwise you are just the asshole on the train, screaming at passengers and reading bible verses. Refusing to acknowledge not everything thinks the same as you do or sees an issue from the same stance is sort of universally reviled, unless it is a stance the audience already agrees with.

That's a matter of presentation, not of conviction.

Forcing your personal beliefs on other people is bad.

I can't force my beliefs on anyone. I have neither the power nor the authority. I haven't been lobbying for legislation here; I've been talking about my own beliefs and what I want to happen. Saying I'm forcing anything on anyone is just plain hyperbole, particularly when this is a medium I have no control over where anyone who doesn't want to read my words can scroll pass them, set themselves to ignore my profile, or close the window. Anyone who is reading this is doing so of their own free will.

I shouldn't have to explain that one.

I don't know about you, but I live in the United States of America, a democracy. The entire point of democracy is that the majority forces its beliefs on the minority. Maybe it's just a product of the way I've been raised, but I can't help scoffing at the idea that forcing beliefs on others is somehow evil.

Objective or not, it wouldn't be terribly hard to fool that test. Just film one scene where two named female characters talk about anything other than men (just to appease audiences that watch out for this), and bam - instant pass, even if rest of the picture is sexist garbage.

So far as I'm aware, neither the test's creators nor I ever claimed the test is all-inclusive of any and every sexist trait. It only illustrates a very easy way of detecting bias.

So, basically, you're employing Bolshevist logic?

I'm employing the understanding that my ability to conceive of the future is more limited than most people's, and that my limitation does not free me of my moral obligation to use what tools I do have to do the best I can, as dictated to me by my own conscience.

 

[Gindil]

She doesn't. Kind of the point I'm making.

Yes, your point is that she's a liar. I don't believe your assertion.

That she lies? Her two videos are chock filled with lies by omission and she began it with not including a discussion about Saber to which the entire internet could look at her source material and point out her lies. Then we all seem to forget that Dinosaur Planet was the same "rescue the princess" plot that Starfox Adventures was. Instead of rescuing Princess Kite, we rescue Princess Krystal and Saber morphed into Fox. Again, no sexism. Nintendo made a decision to move from N64 to Gamecube changed some characters to a new franchise and everyone played (or didn't play) the new game until Anita brought it up because TVTropes is her bible here. And when I look at God of War, Ninja Gaiden, etc. point after point goes into saying she will destroy any context if it doesn't fit her narrative. She relies on special pleading and her own biases. You want to believe she isn't a liar? Okay... Your choice.

The point here is that if she's going to do the research and look into the past history of gaming, you have to stay objective and not let your bias come into play.

Even if I accept that bias has tainted her work (and I suppose I may as well, since I still haven't seen the videos), it doesn't mean her ultimate conclusion is factually incorrect. Flawed methodology can still lead to the correct answer, just for wrong reasons.

Cherry picking the examples to fit her narrative makes her answer even more suspect. If she's going to say that Shigeru Miyamoto is sexist for locking up females in crystals for trying to save their worlds, she might want to bring more proof than rhetoric and constant use of the words "misogyny" and "patriarchy".

She hadn't told them anything and she hadn't said what she was playing or nothing.

Oh, Christ. You're going to sit here and tell me that she couldn't have played the games because she didn't take months to do so, and when I point out the months which logically would have been used for just that purpose, you're going to argue that she wasn't playing games because she didn't Tweet her progress every night? Why would you have believed her claims anyway, since you've already dismissed her as a liar?

I'm going to tell you that informing your audience goes a long way in helping people understand the process into connecting with your fanbase and not pissing them off. I've dismissed her as a liar for different reasons than pissing off her fanbase. That's just one of the many ways I would not win friends and influence people.

From the looks, we seem to be talking past each other where I'm talking about the hobbyist and others who would be playing games for enjoyment while Anita's main goal seems to be profit.

Ah yes, profit, the source of all evil. How dare that immoral bugbear not pay for them out of her own pocket, reducing her own food budget so she can donate to the world a bunch of videos she'll be called a liar and a thief for making.

rolls eyes

You missed the point entirely. What that was meant to say was that a profit motive draws different conclusions from people than one of pure passion. In this case, her profit motive relies on her finding problems with the industry instead of a search on how to improve the industry. So when she's looking for problems, it's not good for everything else in the gaming industry. Case in point, her current prolonged series with Tropes vs Women. Has ANYTHING changed in the two years? We're still being marketed with Damsel in Distress being a problem in the gaming industry. Yeah...

Its seems her agenda, as I've found, is to fabricate controversy while pleading to others that she's the victim.

Unless you have some kind of proof that she went up to some guy on Youtube and said, "I hope you get raped," thus prompting him to respond, "No, I hope you get raped," then she did not initiate a goddamned thing and she is, in fact, the victim.

Remember those videos you ignored in the beginning? Now those chickens are coming home to roost. People took screenshots of the 4chan spamming which isn't out of character for her. Also, in her own posts, some of the people are from 4chan talking about /v/. And no, they aren't connected except that they go to a forum that spammed her link. Also, her having an unmoderated Kickstarter page while tweeting to trolls to come at her? Yeah... She wanted those responses, she's had that training from her communications and marketing degrees and she used the anonymity of 4chan to hold a gun to her head. But since 4chan deletes their threads after a while, I can't go to them now. But the videos show why she would do this.

Yes you are. You just said she's not a real gamer because she's not passionate about stories.

Nope. I just wanted to know what genres and what type of gamer she is based on her past experience. Every gamer is different. So if she was such a gamer since an early age, what did she like, why did she like it, and what was the differences between these games and others that she didn't like? That's the same reason I like MB giving me details on the minutiae of games, but hate when he goes Nintendo fanboy such as the case of Other M. I know to enjoy the details but he and I don't mix on what makes a good game. Anita keeps a very controlled atmosphere from Sarkeesian Inc. The only thing you get is press releases and even those say she has no clue about games when you read them. She's complained about one game because a woman doesn't wear a helmet and biker gear while having the power to change gravity. How in the world do I take someone seriously who can't understand video games on a basic level?

So nothing else matters except gender. Good to know.

Gender and the specific fucking context I mentioned about how it's always the women who are written as helpless victims who apparently have the powers of a motherfucking god but still can't keep from being trapped in a room while some dude from fucking nowhere finds a beating stick and becomes more powerful than the goddess by extricating her from the difficulty she couldn't.

*rant*
Because it's not the motherfucking woman that's always in distress in games unless you want to go out and look for those fucking examples

Those are just the big examples that are supposedly all over the industry that no one had a problem with until Anita Sarkeesian brought it up! And here you are, the ONLY thing you care about is that a gender in a story is affected. That's it. The only reason we go back and forth is because in your head, the only reason that Zelda got kidnapped because she's a girl. This is not true at all. She has agency as a princess. She is a royal heir to the throne and Link is a common adventurer. Yet here we go again that you can't be bothered to look at the actual plot relevance that Zelda has had in every game since its inception. You just can't see her as anything more than a female in some shoddy example of a damsel in distress, forgetting everything she's ever done for her kingdom to just say she's always kidnapped. Why don't you do me that big favor of just looking at the damned plot? Or looking at how stories are created? The gender doesn't matter at all and you making a complaint that just because a woman gets kidnapped means somehow her worth in every other aspect is diminished is just not the case and it's a huge example of cognitive dissonance if I've ever seen one. It's not "Oh, she's kidnapped because she's the most powerful girl in the land!" or "That's my childhood friend, I gotta save her" with you. It's more like "Dammit, why do I have to save another princess?" and it's really negative to say the least. She's gotten progressively more powerful and yes, she needs help nowadays and doesn't wield the sword. Yes, she gets captured and restores the realm to safety. Yes, her father in some cases is sitting around twiddling his thumbs while the princess works hard to give Link songs and to meet the right people. But I'll be damned if Zelda doesn't put the events into play that lead to the downfall of the villain even before she's kidnapped and that's pretty spectacular that a GIRL is able to do so much without striking the final blow.

*/rant*

Right. Someone made a choice to say, "She is not the PC." Why did they make that choice?

I'm not getting into the gender thing again...

All I'm saying is that storywise, it's the exact same thing just with gender reversed. It doesn't say anything about the women being weak, it's just literally the same exact story but a male Zelda and a female Link. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying all you want is a female Link because that would make the most sense if you want an adventure as Zelda. Nowadays, that can be done, but as I keep mentioning over and over, it's the same story but a different gender and I'd like more focus on something more interesting than just gender swaps. If you can have a different adventure as a female Link because she has a smaller frame, that'd be interesting. If you can have different powers as a male Link than a female one and play it two players, that be fun. But just a gender swap? Pass.

So a female Link following the same path the male Link has is too repetitious? Then why aren't you complaining about how the last, what's it been, fifteen games now? have all been the same damned thing as the first one, the same formula and the same progression of events?

Why does Windwaker, Twilight Princess, and Link to the Past have the same beats? Because Nintendo is lazy in storytelling. Shigeru Miyamoto has basically said that he wants as little story as possible* and just wanted to focus on game mechanics:

I?ve talked to (Galaxy director Yoshiaki) Koizumi about that a lot, but this time I?d like to go with as little story as possible. I?ve always felt that the Mario games themselves aren?t particularly suited to having a very heavy story, whereas the Zelda series is something that lends itself more naturally to that idea. We?ve differentiated a little bit between those two, because the Zelda games have had an in-depth story whereas the Mario games have not. Mr. Koizumi is the type of person who, whenever we?re working on a new Mario game, he always wants to bring more story elements into it, as he did with Super Mario Galaxy. But in talking with him this time, he agrees and feels that with Galaxy 2, there won?t be a need for as deep of a story.

And that's been the point... Miyamoto is lazy. He uses the Monomyth to help tell the same basic story while making the game fun to play. He's not a sexist misogynist asshole as Anita wants to imply. He just uses a certain structure to tell the same stories over and over. Kind of like repeating Macbeth doesn't make anyone in the audience a murderer of kings.

* http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/06/shigeru-miyamoto-interview/

For seven years?

Yes. Her kingdom was shattered and two entire species of intelligent beings nearly went extinct. That is incompetence.

Right... Saving people and doing the best you can in times of need means you're incompetent.

For having the courage to face a world and hide a Triforce? For saving sages and princesses while also creating a sword that has her blessing that she gives to the chosen hero?

I don't know what these two refer to.

First Zelda game, and the overall mythos in general.

The casting of the characters is not.

As I pointed out above, Miyamoto is lazy.

Zelda is hardly helpless, even in the first episode of the series: she's captive, sure, but she ends up that way not because she's a powerless victim but because she:
1. Refuses to run from her kingdom
2. Refuses to capitulate.

And fails to defend herself effectively.

Doesn't mean she's less of a character for spreading the word and having Impa look for a hero.

[a bunch of stuff about games not Ocarina of Time

Okay, Gindil, seriously, I'll say this again: You said that Zelda, acting under the guise of Shiekh in Ocarina of Time, accomplished as much good as Link and was as heroic as he. So I'm going to ask you again: What did she do that supports your claim?

I just told you and you ignored it because she's not the one to defeat Ganon so you don't care. No point in rehashing the same basic arguments when her accomplishments are dismissed.

After thirty-five videos, I just have to say she's not good at this.

But after however many games she's played, she's not allowed to make similar assumptions. Got it.

She still got the stories of Dishonored wrong that people have to point out how she lied about that as well as the Darkness. Oh and don't get me started about Gears of War and how she talks about Maria but can't be bothered to point out Tai Kaliso's death before you see her. Tai shoots himself in the head with a shotgun from the months of torture he went through. Maria had four years of the same torture and eventually Dom dies as well. And even then, the first game has Marcus (one of the main PCs) being held in prison to which Dom helps him out. Oh and let's not forget that Marcus was trying to save his own father because his father was in imminent danger and he disobeyed orders.

And that's just two of the games that she got wrong. I could make a video pointing out the story elements she got wrong and have it go over 30 minutes by just putting the scenes back into context. So when I say she's bad at this, she's not doing anything more than confirming her own bias.

The male wears a loin cloth. And the dwarf looks like a dwarf. You might just want to look it up.

I'll assume that means the female character is drawn to be sexy while the men are drawn to be powerful, then.

Nope, you have a short dwarf with a beard. It balances out.

Beating Smithy as a woman that likes pink is a bad thing.

I do not have any idea how you got there from what I said. You were arguing that Princess Peach is a character with as much protagonism as any of the men in the group (who outnumber her four to one, incidentally), so when I point out that she completely abandons protagonism to wait to be saved for the entire first half of the game, you interpret that as a dig on wearing pink?

Protagonism isn't a word. You must be referring to her "character" which is pretty feminine. She's still a girly girl that doesn't always like being told what to do and sneaks away from her retainers to go and save the world. That's still a character. Me commenting that she has healing powers is ignored because she's constantly powerless to Koopa but once that's dealt with, she actually has agency and yet that's ignored because she loses power because obviously there's some other nonsensical argument here that I fail to see how that says anything about her as a woman.

If you actually paid attention, Bowser had JUST kidnapped Peach, so she's not weeping in a corner in SMRPG. She's on Bowser's back for one part of the tutorial and then you have Booster that wants to marry her. It's not like "Oh hey, she's captured, she stopped being feminine" is an actual thing here and that's what I pointed out. She still has a character and that's what you're missing entirely just because she's captured.

Using emotions is offensive?

Gaining super powers based on emotion, like weeping so much it causes beanstalks to grow, when they could have been based on learned skills applied with self-control is kind of offensive, yeah. It's a joke, and a fairly harmless one, but still kind of offensive.

We're still talking about Japan, right? The same country with arcade games based on the kancho? Or a game based on flipping over tables? Do you really think that a game based on stereotypical ideas of women's emotions is something they're going to care about in the more prudish US? Come on... There has to be the realization that perhaps a FEW of the sensitivities of gender are just overblown here...

They were kings of their lands that Bowser overthrew to rule them all. Those are still characters just like Toad and Yoshi.

If someone without a name or an arc in a story is a character, then the word "character" has just been stretched to the point of uselessness.

Well, sure. It's called "primary" characters for the main actors (in this case the PC) and "secondary" characters for everyone else. The story revolves around the primary character and the secondaries fill in the other roles. Those of the people that create conflict, others that solve the conflict, and even more to be the townspeople in distress. But of course, people forget that tidbit in regards to stories but it doesn't mean that making the person in distress a male or female has much of a difference except for how people respond to the characters emotionally.

Of course bad things can happen. Bad things are required to happen. Without bad things, there's no conflict, and without conflict there's no plot. What I object to is that in every game, Zelda is incapable of fixing the bad things, facing the conflict, and resolving the plot. She can only hope Link will do it for her. She is bad at her job as ruler.

... Wow... A ruler needs help from her people and that makes her a bad ruler. Interesting thought process...

It's why I criticized you before about how you're not seeing a plotline outside of the very same "Damsel in Distress" scenario you seem to think is only for women. It's not.

Conviction for crimes and jail sentences in America are not only for black people, but when we see how disproportionately black people are likely to be convicted and sentenced, it becomes a problem.

Right... And I'm to believe a woman that says that women are a ball in the game of patriarchy without showing how we live in a patriarchical society or how the ball analogy qualifies for women. That just seems pretty damn sexist against women that you can only interpret a character one way.

 

[Miroluck]

Question is, had she started with intention of shedding light on sexist tropes in games and profit just came along, or getting money was the goal all along?

They are not mutually exclusive goals.

That is convinient, very convinient indeed. "Of course I'm honest fighter for equality. Please pay no attention to giant golden calf monument in my back yard".

I meant passion for equal representation in media, not games themselves.

And how long should she be left unable to speak for want of finances and therefore unable to try to fix the problem,

She was already able to speak. And about such important issues, too - such as that robots in beer commercials lack willpower, or sexism in LEGO.(Guess what? They have no will because they are robots, and robots don't have any will of their own by definition).

all to satisfy your idea that money is evil and only a self-destructive martyr can have good intentions?

Ideas are not needs - they don't need to be satisfied. And no, I don't think that money is evil because they're not. It's love of money that is evil.

Not to sound like an ass on this one, but I have never heard hate defined as anything but an emotion or something directly relating to the emotion before. This is a sort of alien concept to me.

You don't sound like an ass. It's a definition I hold to because I'm tired of evil motherfuckers putting their gay kids into camp to be straight and torturing them for months and years while earnestly insisting they don't hate gay people or their children.

People do bad things so you change meaning of words at your leisure? Sure, seems legit.

The effect you describe is that it makes your friend feel bad.

And it makes me feel bad, and it makes me feel ashamed of my video game collection every time my seven-year-old niece comes over, and it contributes to an environment of men shaming women for being women (see the fake gamer girl controversy), and it contributes to an environment of people who argue with no apparent irony that a woman who criticizes the games industry has committed a crime which can only be redressed by raping her to death.

and it makes me feel ashamed of my video game collection every time my seven-year-old niece comes over,

Why? It seems to me that you've done nothing to be ashamed of. Unless you proudly display your "visual novel" games, or refuse to hide jiggle physics titles (if either are in your posession).

My question is are women as a gender prevented from buying, using or enjoying the product.

What counts as prevention to you? Is it anything less than physical restraint, than someone from EA putting a gun in a female gamer's face and telling her he'll kill her if she turns on that copy of Madden Football 20XX?

Well, considering how EA was acting last year or so, your supposedly far-fetched metaphor may not be that far from possible reality.
And yes, anything less than forbidding retailers to sell games to female customers is not really prevention.

Okay, now, where is the evidence that that supports your claim that a stereotype within a game or media perpetuates that stereotype rather then being merely a reflection of that stereotype at any given time?

snip
It's the same underlying principle of the power of positive thinking. "What my mouth says, my ears hear," is a folksier way of putting it, but they all boil down to we convince ourselves of our truth every time we open our mouths.

That doesn't work with everyone.

But you sort of do when you want things to change. snip

That's a matter of presentation, not of conviction.

Presentation is not excellent, then.

So, basically, you're employing Bolshevist logic?

I'm employing the understanding that my ability to conceive of the future is more limited than most people's, and that my limitation does not free me of my moral obligation to use what tools I do have to do the best I can, as dictated to me by my own conscience.

BEEP BOOP have to use as much words as possible that proves my intellegence. Did you have to answer with all the brevity and distinctness of a law textbook?

 

[runic knight]

I know, that is why I said the pattern itself is fine. What that pattern means is where my complaint lies, that subjective interpretation.

It sounds like to me you object to anyone making any statement ever if there's any possibility of it being incorrect. I don't. I have faith in my deductive abilities, and even if I am wrong about a movie being sexist just because it only has one female character in a cast of fifteen named character, so what? Who is harmed by trying to get more women jobs in Hollywood?

The harm is how you are going about doing it. You are aware that words like "sexist" have harsh stigmas in our society, yes? You are trying to push a change by guilting and condemnation of a trait that you even admit you might not be applying correctly. Furthermore, no woman or man should get a job just because it satisfies some ntoion of balance of genders in that career. That is like making a guy a nurse even if he lacks the ability or skill just because he is a guy and there is an unrepresentation of guys in nursing.

Not to sound like an ass on this one, but I have never heard hate defined as anything but an emotion or something directly relating to the emotion before. This is a sort of alien concept to me.

You don't sound like an ass. It's a definition I hold to because I'm tired of evil motherfuckers putting their gay kids into camp to be straight and torturing them for months and years while earnestly insisting they don't hate gay people or their children.

If you feel that way, why are you justifying your stance with the same logical pitfalls? The reason those asshats are wrong is both moral and logical. You follow the same logical flaws though.

First, a female character does not represent all females just because she is a female character.

She does if she's the only female character in the game, because the game is the world. Until Princess Daisy came along, Princess Toadstool was the only woman in the entirety of the Mushroom Kingdom, and she's just a palette swap for Toadstool anyway.

No, she still doesn't. At best she might represent females within that world, though that is still a far cry from representing all women in reality itself. Mario is the only man in the mushroom kingdom beside his brother and wario, does that mean he represents all men and the view the creators have of them in reality?

The entire idea here seems to hinge on that assumption to start with, but beyond that, how often is it truly the case that female characters are reduced to caricatures based on gender?

Anyone whose title is "princess" is a good start, since I'll bet you almost none of the kingdoms they're princess of have a king or a queen.

I remember saving 7 kings in Mario three, off the top of my head. Also there is king bowser. I do get the point you are raising about how princesses are used more then any other royalty. The problem here is that it is used by culture more often, not games. The excessive marketability of the princess is overused, I will grant you, but that seems more a discussion of culture and influence of it rather then games who merely see that aspect of culture and reflect it within the games made.

But if someone uses a negative trope, all they are doing is applying negative traits to a character archetype.

A character archetype defined by the idea that women have roles that must be reinforced, yeah.

Not quite. As again, it is not ALL women that are defined by the individual example in any story.

The effect you describe is that it makes your friend feel bad.

And it makes me feel bad, and it makes me feel ashamed of my video game collection every time my seven-year-old niece comes over, and it contributes to an environment of men shaming women for being women (see the fake gamer girl controversy), and it contributes to an environment of people who argue with no apparent irony that a woman who criticizes the games industry has committed a crime which can only be redressed by raping her to death.

And what does this have to do with anything? You are connecting stuff here as though games cause that with no actual evidence other then they correlate. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because games are creatively bankrupt and uses ideas you dislike does not mean that those ideas are the cause of trolls on the internet. Hell, look up comments about atheists online if you want to see similar rancor. Also, you ignore the large amount of legitimate criticisms of her by pointing at the worst of her detractors as examples of the whole. They are not representative of the whole any more then I can point to the woman with the blog about castrating every man is representative of feminism. Your arguments of late have been slipping in relevance and have been steadily going towards emotionally charged statements like this.
I have several sisters, nieces and women as friends. Many of them love games, including the ones with traits you find unappealing. None seem to feel shamed for being a woman to start with, even before I bring up, once again, how a person's reaction to a media they don't have to participate in is not a good reason to try to stop it any more then religious persecution of rock music, D&D or sex has been.

A poor idea.

Maybe, but it's all I got.

The idea of "we have to do something" is not a good one, it is an act of desperation. The situation is not so dire we should resort to panic. Maybe come up with a better idea or at least a more thought out intent and direction.

Right now you've been trying to diagnose the issue. I wouldn't trust the opinion of a stranger too far, though I might humor it. I'll stop trusting them entirely if they showed any sign of not having a damn clue about the repercussions of their actions, though.

You never trusted or agreed with me in the first place, so I haven't really lost anything with my admission.

Trust and agree are different. I may not agree with you, but I can trust where your advice comes from if I can sympathies with its source. At the start, I could because I believed you had other people's best interest at heart, even if I thought you were going about it in a misguided way. Your last few posts have been changing that though, with strongly implied ideas of satisfying your own ego over finding the best solution and ignoring the rights or desires of other people just because they disagree. Hell, you seem to be revealing a mindset of an "us" and "the enemy" that I find disturbing.

My question is are women as a gender prevented from buying, using or enjoying the product.

What counts as prevention to you? Is it anything less than physical restraint, than someone from EA putting a gun in a female gamer's face and telling her he'll kill her if she turns on that copy of Madden Football 20XX?

Anything preventing a woman from buying it because she is a woman. Telling retailers not to buy it, preventing them from playing online, treating them differently then other players (this being, they get a different product or experience then male buyers). As far as I am aware, none of that has happened. No, using traits that some or even most women may dislike is not the same, as it is only their personal distaste that prevents them, not the game itself. a simple test is ask yourself, if a woman liked all that stuff enough to buy the game, would she have a different experience or be discriminated against in buying or playing the game?

I don't recall many games portraying women as such, rather as titillation instead.

Implied fuckdolls?

Dolls that are never fucked are hard to imply are fuckdolls. Implied desirable and attractive though over glorification would probably be the closest you could get.

Okay, now, where is the evidence that that supports your claim that a stereotype within a game or media perpetuates that stereotype rather then being merely a reflection of that stereotype at any given time?

Alcoholics Anonymous. That is my proof. "Fake it 'til you make it," they say; say "I don't want to drink" until you believe it. It's the same underlying principle of the power of positive thinking. "What my mouth says, my ears hear," is a folksier way of putting it, but they all boil down to we convince ourselves of our truth every time we open our mouths.

AA also relies on a religious idea from which to gain strength to defend against temptation and often seems borderline cultist in how behavior is altered through community. It is not just repetition, it also involves peer pressures, acceptance of a dogma and the like. Positive thinking, again, has more to it, though is closer. Not surprisingly, it is also less effective and is a known field of fraudsters and lazy. The further you get to just repetition, the less effective it is in doing what you claim.
Also, again, I call up simple history where in spite of an overabundance of stories with those traits you hate, women have made steady progress. And, not surp[surprisingly, the media portrayal of them have changed as they made such progress, suggesting that rather then causing the stereotypes, media more reflects it

Hell, you are aware that women have been gaining rights and respect as human beings regardless of the stories that use tropes and the like, yes? Hell, in history itself, it is almost as though tropes of female characters in stories have had no damn impact stopping women from gaining rights and equality. I mean, they obviously existed long beforehand, and exist now, yet rather then perpetuating things, women seem to maintain a steady progress.

When were women granted the right to vote, again? It's been less than a hundred and fifty years, anyway. And you're telling me that a collective belief behind the inferiority of women, one reflected through stories that cast women as inferior to men and as defined by their relationships to men, plays no part in that environment of oppression?

I am saying the stories are not the driving force so spending your time blaming them is a pointless waste of it. I'll go with the assumption here that game stories actually add to the collective belief that women are inferior for the sake of this point. The bible is full of such stories, yet most first world Christians do not use them to say women are inferior. The Koran has many of them, yet most Muslims in the first world don't think of women as lesser or property. It is the influence of pressures about the stories that does that. The culture itself that tells people that the stories are right and explains the "moral" of them as societal norms. Stories in and of themselves can not do that.

What are you talking about women being treated as fuckdolls in the first place?

I'm talking about defining them by their sexual attributes and valuing them primarily or exclusively on how sexually attractive they are to men.

so, an overall cultural view and influence then? And do I have to go over how women characters in video games don't have to represent the entirely of womankind?

Can be does not mean always or even often are.

No, but I brought it up in terms of video games trends, whereas your phrasing was so universal I felt I couldn't support it would a qualifier.

Trends that you have no data or statistics on aside from personal experiences but fair enough

How can they be, and are the ways they can be the fault of the clothing makers or society and culture itself?

They can be dependent on the message they send, and the question of fault is a weird one since I don't know how the makers can exist as things distinct from the societies and cultures they belong to.

That they can't is sort of my point. They are part of culture and represent it as well as reflect it. If there is an aspect in culture you think is sexist (say, highlighting a woman's sexuality), then your target should be the aspect within society and culture itself rather then pointing at a part of it and saying "there, that is sexist".

Slavers actively violate the rights of other human beings in the name of profit. I don't recall a video games being quite so evil in that regard, making the comparison a bit ridiculous.

I'm not comparing levels of evil. I'm comparing levels of participation and support.

Levels and support that are voluntarily and not forced on others nor cause such harm to others. I should have made that aspect clearer.

I am aware I can be thick, but I am not unswayable.

I don't think you're thick. It's just the way these things work. Nearly every word you've said to me has been to refute my own words, and each word has reinforced your own perception of your point, like a brick being laid in a wall. You are invested in proving me wrong, and that limits your own ability to agree with me. The same is probably true of me.

I am invested in sorting out the logic, a slight difference. I can agree with you on a number of things, it is just the aspects I see of logical inconsistency that I am arguing against for the most part.

But you sort of do when you want things to change. Otherwise you are just the asshole on the train, screaming at passengers and reading bible verses. Refusing to acknowledge not everything thinks the same as you do or sees an issue from the same stance is sort of universally reviled, unless it is a stance the audience already agrees with.

That's a matter of presentation, not of conviction.

Yes. I am trying to say that your presentation could be far, far better and that conviction is not always a good thing

Forcing your personal beliefs on other people is bad.

I can't force my beliefs on anyone. I have neither the power nor the authority. I haven't been lobbying for legislation here; I've been talking about my own beliefs and what I want to happen. Saying I'm forcing anything on anyone is just plain hyperbole, particularly when this is a medium I have no control over where anyone who doesn't want to read my words can scroll pass them, set themselves to ignore my profile, or close the window. Anyone who is reading this is doing so of their own free will.

And anyone who doesn't want to play a game with a skimpy character does not have to either. Why does it cause hurt and have negative consequences, forces cultural influence on women when a game does it, but your (and other people's) attempts to label the industry and proclaiming your desires for change is not an aspect of trying to force change?

I shouldn't have to explain that one.

I don't know about you, but I live in the United States of America, a democracy. The entire point of democracy is that the majority forces its beliefs on the minority. Maybe it's just a product of the way I've been raised, but I can't help scoffing at the idea that forcing beliefs on others is somehow evil.

No, it doesn't. The majority can not force its beliefs on the minority when it violates the law or the rights of the minority. There are protections against that, otherwise we would all be christian and still have slaves. My opinion is forcing beliefs without good cause on others is wrong, hence my condemnation of your actions when I saw it as such. Besides, you scoffed at the idea that it mattered the majority opinion on what is sexist, yet you obviously don't think it is right that the norms that you consider sexist are allowed to go freely.

 

[JimB]

That she lies?

That's the one, yes.

You want to believe she isn't a liar? Okay. Your choice.

Spare me the condescension, will you? I know exactly what my choices are, just as I know it's your choice to believe she is a liar.

Cherry picking the examples to fit her narrative makes her answer even more suspect. If she's going to say that Shigeru Miyamoto is sexist for locking up females in crystals for trying to save their worlds, she might want to bring more proof than rhetoric and constant use of the words "misogyny" and "patriarchy."

Okay, I'll just go ahead and ask: What proof would you accept? Is there any?

I'm going to tell you that informing your audience goes a long way in helping people understand the process into connecting with your fanbase and not pissing them off.

You

No. You know what? I'm out. I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or not, but you keep changing the subject and insisting the change was your point all along, and I'm just--I'm done. I'm not doing this with you any more.

That is convenient, very convenient indeed.

No more or less convenient than your baseless assertion that making money is an evil comparable to blasphemy against a God who just led your entire people out of generations of bondage.

She was already able to speak.

Not with the authority that comes of having played hundreds of games.

It's love of money that is evil.

That's ridiculous. Nothing is good or evil except when it inflicts harm disproportionate to the good it does. Love of money is inherently neutral until applied.

People do bad things so you change meaning of words at your leisure?

No, I change the standard of measurement so people can't fall back on their invisible, undetectable, immeasurable feelings as somehow being a more true version of events than the direct, observable, concrete results of their actions.

Why?

My niece wants to play Final Fantasy X-2 because it has pretty girls on the cover. Fine, whatever, she's seven and is allowed to be shallow. I don't want her playing it because I don't want her to learn from the gameplay that playing dress-up is a source of superpowers, from the story that her choice of career should be determined by what's most convenient for her boyfriend, and from the direction of the cut scenes that her ass is the first thing anyone will see of her and is therefore her most important attribute. She wants to play any of my Megaman games and I don't want her to learn that only male characters populate the world and can be action stars. She wants to play Lego Star Wars II and I don' want her to learn that Leia is the only female in the entire galaxy. She wants to play blah blah blah and I don't want her to learn yadda yadda yadda.

Anything less than forbidding retailers to sell games to female customers is not really prevention.

What is it, then?

That doesn't work with everyone.

When did I ever say that any trait can be applied to every single member of the currently seven billion and something members of the human species?

BEEP BOOP have to use as much words as possible that proves my intelligence.

I have nothing to prove to you, Miroluck, and if you think I do, that says a lot more about your insecurities than it does about mine.

Did you have to answer with all the brevity and distinctness of a law textbook?

I've written and deleted five different responses to this, because I really have no idea what "have to" means in this context. I don't "have to" say anything, and I don't "have to" say it in any particular fashion; nor does anyone else. I say what I feel compelled to say, and I say it in the way that best pleases me. Does that answer your nonsensical question?

You are aware that words like "sexist" have harsh stigmas in our society, yes?

And if enough people agree with me to make an actual difference, then the publishers should probably consider the complaint. If not enough people agree to make a difference, then I'm just a lunatic dog howling at the moon and who cares what I think anyway?

You are trying to push a change by guilting and condemnation of a trait that you even admit you might not be applying correctly.

I am conceding the possibility that I'm wrong, yes. I do that just because I like to be precise, though. I have, in the past, conceded the possibility that there might be a CIA conspiracy against me personally, tainting my water supply with mind-altering drugs specifically for the purpose of damaging my intellect so I can't threaten their future plans; I conceded it not because I think it's at all likely to be true, but because the possibility does exist within physical reality. Likewise, it is physically possible I'm wrong about the industry being sexist. I don't think so, though.

Furthermore, no woman or man should get a job just because it satisfies some notion of balance of genders in that career. That is like making a guy a nurse even if he lacks the ability or skill just because he is a guy and there is an under-representation of guys in nursing.

When you tell me why it's necessary for Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Chekhov, and Scotty to all be male, what personality traits or storylines they have that can only be told if the character is male, then I will stop pointing out how weird it is that Uhura the only woman aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise.

At best she might represent females within that world, though that is still a far cry from representing all women in reality itself.

I didn't say she represents all females in the world; I said she is the only female in the world. As such, any traits she has are representative of all women because she's the only woman around to be represented. I argue that she represents women in the real world because as she is the sole representative of the double-X chromosome in the Marioverse (at least prior to Princess Daisy), I have no basis to assume anything else. I cannot assume a more diversified understanding of women until I've seen some evidence of it.

Mario is the only man in the Mushroom Kingdom beside his brother and Wario; does that mean he represents all men and the view the creators have of them in reality?

You already provided two other men, so no. You also forgot Bowser and, at least as of Super Mario Bros 2, Toad.

I remember saving seven kings in Super Mario Bros 3, off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, I forgot all about those guys. My bad.

The problem here is that it is used by culture more often, not games.

The video games industry is a specific part of culture. I can't tackle "culture" as the enormous, all-encompassing thing you seem to mean it to be, just because it's too big for me to ever get my hands around. The video games industry is small enough that I can possibly make a difference.

You are connecting stuff here as though games cause that with no actual evidence other then they correlate. Correlation does not equal causation.

If the video games industry is a culture of its own, then we as a culture are not doing enough to fight the things I've described, and I say we all own responsibility for that.

Also, you ignore the large amount of legitimate criticisms of her by pointing at the worst of her detractors as examples of the whole.

I'm ignoring them because I'm not talking about them. Legitimate criticism is inherently not sexist, so it has nothing to do with the sexist environment I oppose.

I have several sisters, nieces and women as friends. Many of them love games, including the ones with traits you find unappealing. None seem to feel shamed for being a woman to start with.

I'm glad for you and for them, but they're not my motivating force here.

Maybe come up with a better idea or at least a more thought out intent and direction.

If you have an idea, I'll listen to it. In the meantime, this is what I got.

At the start, I could because I believed you had other people's best interest at heart, even if I thought you were going about it in a misguided way. Your last few posts have been changing that though, with strongly implied ideas of satisfying your own ego over finding the best solution and ignoring the rights or desires of other people just because they disagree.

My ego has nothing to do with it. I assume I'm right because I have to; because if I assume I'm wrong, then I can't interact with the world because whatever I believe is wrong and I'll have to cede all my agency to some authority without which I'm helpless. I can't do that. I assume I'm right, and I use myself as a metaphor for anyone who agrees with me because if I claim I have the support of others, then I'm being the kind of dickleak who tries to impress people with the armies of phantoms behind him, and I hate those people, so I won't do it.

As for "ignoring the rights of others:" Oh, whatever. If my making arguments on an internet forum is violating anyone's rights, then it's a hard fucking world we live in where speaking an opinion is a violation of another's rights, and I may as well get used to being a tyrant who tramples human sovereignty, because communication of ideas is apparently nothing less than fascism.

Hell, you seem to be revealing a mindset of an "us" and "the enemy" that I find disturbing.

Anyone who opposes my goals is, by definition, my opponent. I'm not sure I ever used the word "enemy" except in a direct quote of an aphorism, though.

Anything preventing a woman from buying it because she is a woman. Telling retailers not to buy it, preventing them from playing online, treating them differently than other players (this being, they get a different product or experience than male buyers).

I think your definition of the word "discrimination" is so specific as to be nearly useless.

Dolls that are never fucked are hard to imply as fuckdolls.

Any time a character is presented as a compilation of sexual traits, sexual intercourse is a necessary part of it, so.

AA also relies on a religious idea from which to gain strength to defend against temptation and often seems borderline cultist in how behavior is altered through community.

I'd say that's pretty much what community does, yeah. I don't necessarily attach any negative stigma to that--alteration of behavior is only bad if the behavior is altered to be bad--so no insult is implied.

Also, again, I call up simple history where in spite of an overabundance of stories with those traits you hate, women have made steady progress.

I know women are better off now than they have been in the past (well, not in Ohio, but never mind). I just think public opinion is a hurdle to be overcome rather than some irrelevant factor disconnected from the problem.

I am saying the stories are not the driving force so spending your time blaming them is a pointless waste of it.

I'm not sure I ever said they're a driving force. Contributory factor, sure, but driving force?

And do I have to go over how women characters in video games don't have to represent the entirely of womankind?

If it makes you feel better, sure, knock yourself out.

Trends that you have no data or statistics on aside from personal experiences but fair enough.

That's right, I don't. I am not a scientist, and I don't know where those studies are or if they even exist. I have never claimed to be a scientist, either. If a scientist is the only source of information you'll accept, then let me know and I'll quit wasting your time talking to you about this stuff.

And anyone who doesn't want to play a game with a skimpy character does not have to either. Why does it cause hurt and have negative consequences, forces cultural influence on women when a game does it, but your (and other people's) attempts to label the industry and proclaiming your desires for change is not an aspect of trying to force change?

All I can do is contribute my voice to a chorus. The effect is dependent upon how loud that chorus is, and that, in turn, is determined by how many people agree with me. I cannot force anyone to agree with me; I can only convince them. If trying to convince people is a form of force, then I am an unapologetic monster, because I will not stop saying that I think I'm right for fear that someone might agree with me.

The majority cannot force its beliefs on the minority when it violates the law or the rights of the minority. There are protections against that, otherwise we would all be Christian and still have slaves.

Sure it can, in a democracy. In a democracy, anything can be changed by a vote. What you're describing is a republic, which has core tenets that are not subject to alteration.

Besides, you scoffed at the idea that it mattered the majority opinion on what is sexist, yet you obviously don't think it is right that the norms that you consider sexist are allowed to go freely.

That I think a majority forcing its will on a minority is an acceptable tactic does not mean I agree with every instance of that tactic being employed.

 

[Miroluck]

That is convenient, very convenient indeed.

No more or less convenient than your baseless assertion that making money is an evil

I have never said that making money is evil.

comparable to blasphemy against a God who just led your entire people out of generations of bondage.

What does that have to do with anything?

She was already able to speak.

Not with the authority that comes of having played hundreds of games.

Playing hundreds of games gives me authority? Over whom?

People do bad things so you change meaning of words at your leisure?

No, I change the standard of measurement so people can't fall back on their invisible, undetectable, immeasurable feelings as somehow being a more true version of events than the direct, observable, concrete results of their actions.

"Invisible, undetectable, immeasurable feelings", huh? Why have you used attacks on Sarkessian as an argument for her position on sexism in gaming being right, then? After all, those attacks only hurt her "invisible, undetectable, immeasurable" feelings?

Anything less than forbidding retailers to sell games to female customers is not really prevention.

What is it, then?

Forbidding retailers from selling to female customers, as I have already mentioned in a quote above.

Did you have to answer with all the brevity and distinctness of a law textbook?

I've written and deleted five different responses to this, because I really have no idea what "have to" means in this context.

I'll rephrase the question:
Why have you answered with all the brevity and distinctness of a law textbook?

I don't "have to" say anything, and I don't "have to" say it in any particular fashion; nor does anyone else. I say what I feel compelled to say, and I say it in the way that best pleases me. Does that answer your nonsensical question?

I asked you why are your answer is so verbose, and your next answer is just as verbose. Why are your answer is so long yet doesn't tell me anything? - is what I'm asking.

You are trying to push a change by guilting and condemnation of a trait that you even admit you might not be applying correctly.

snip
I have, in the past, conceded the possibility that there might be a CIA conspiracy against me personally, tainting my water supply with mind-altering drugs specifically for the purpose of damaging my intellect so I can't threaten their future plans;
snip

Now we know why are you agreeing with Sarkessian - both of you tend to believe in conspiracies.

At the start, I could because I believed you had other people's best interest at heart, even if I thought you were going about it in a misguided way. Your last few posts have been changing that though, with strongly implied ideas of satisfying your own ego over finding the best solution and ignoring the rights or desires of other people just because they disagree.

snip

As for "ignoring the rights of others:" Oh, whatever. If my making arguments on an internet forum is violating anyone's rights, then it's a hard fucking world we live in where speaking an opinion is a violation of another's rights, and I may as well get used to being a tyrant who tramples human sovereignty, because communication of ideas is apparently nothing less than fascism.

Well, you do seem to think that having different opinion on Sarkessian's videos is hurting gender equality somehow, so... hypocrisy much?

 

[JimB]

I have never said that making money is evil. [...] What does that have to do with anything?

You are the one who brought up the golden calf. If you are not comparing making money to defying the will of God, then mentioning it was a very weird choice on your part.

Playing hundreds of games gives me authority? Over whom?

Over the topic of the games you're discussing.

"Invisible, undetectable, immeasurable feelings," huh? Why have you used attacks on Sarkessian as an argument for her position on sexism in gaming being right, then? After all, those attacks only hurt her "invisible, undetectable, immeasurable" feelings?

Speech is an action. It is measurable and observable.

I asked you why are your answer is so verbose, and your next answer is just as verbose.

Nevertheless, my answer is my answer, and if you can't parse its meaning, permit me to suggest you find a dictionary to illuminate what the words that confuse you mean.

Now we know why are you agreeing with Sarkessian: Both of you tend to believe in conspiracies.

This is just bad form. You can only make this assertion by cutting the second half of the paragraph where I explicitly say I don't believe it's the case, and that's blatantly what you did. Shame on you.

Well, you do seem to think that having a different opinion on Sarkessian's videos is hurting gender equality somehow, so...hypocrisy much?

What you infer that I think has almost no relation to what I think. I offer no judgment on whether disagreeing with Ms. Sarkeesian's opinions hurts gender equality; they might or might not, since opinions will inform actions and actions do affect gender equality, but I can't judge the effects of actions taken by entirely hypothetical people. All I've said to anyone in this thread is that I think anyone who disagrees with her conclusions is wrong. If you disagree with her conclusions and still take efforts not to be sexist, then good for you. Enjoy basking in the serenity of a clean conscience.

 

[Miroluck]

I asked you why are your answer is so verbose, and your next answer is just as verbose.

Nevertheless, my answer is my answer, and if you can't parse its meaning, permit me to suggest you find a dictionary to illuminate what the words that confuse you mean.

I don't need a dictionary to tell what you've been saying. You have said that you can't predict the future perfectly, but you still have (oh, sorry - "feel obligated") to try and fix things.

My only objections was that:
1) That is dangerous philosophy to live by;
2) It would be nice if you would give an answer that an average person would give, instead of being all lawyer-like.

 

[JimB]

You have said that you can't predict the future perfectly, but you still have (oh, sorry: "feel obligated") to try and fix things.

Actually, you're understating it. I said I can't conceive of the future. I mean, I'm aware that it exists, that today will eventually be tomorrow and the circumstances of that day will be different from this, but I am only dimly capable of imagining what those differences will be, or how my actions will shape those differences. I often feel like everyone else has this power to connect dots that I can't even see, and the ability is so fundamental to everyone else you don't even bother talking about it because it would be as weird as talking about how great it is to have skin or something.

That is a dangerous philosophy to live by.

I've actually thought about that in the past, and I've decided I have to let my track record be my guide here. I have lived this way for thirty-something years and I'm still around, still breathing, still out of prison, the patient of no major surgeries and the subject of no ongoing criminal investigations, so my instincts seem to work out pretty well for me. I think they have earned my faith in them.

It would be nice if you would give an answer that an average person would give, instead of being all lawyer-like.

Tough. My answer is not average and I am not average, and I won't pretend either without a much better reason than
you disliking the conversation you chose to initiate in the first place.

 

[JimB]

Ooo-h, bu-uuurn!

Miroluck, if you genuinely think that me offering you the verbal equivalent of a shrug was intended as a burn, then you understand me so poorly you're not even talking to me at all, but rather some imaginary version of me who exists only in your head and whose motivations I don't share or even understand (though at a guess, I'd say the JimB who exists in your head is driven by spite).

Of course not, that would hurt your autism.

Nice job using a neurological disease over which I have no control as an insult against my character. While you're at it, would you like to use my sexual orientation or the color of my skin to insult me?

Well done, sunshine! Take your reward!

Believe it or not, Miroluck, I am being neither ironic nor sarcastic when I say that if my refusal to dumb down my posts threatens you, then I am honestly sorry for the way life has treated you that leads you to feel this way. I am even sorrier that your insecurities run so deep you need to attack not only me but the very concept of individualism for the sake of scoring points in an internet discussion, and I hope you overcome this crippling debility you seem to labor under.

 

[Miroluck]

Nice job using a neurological disease over which I have no control as an insult against my character. While you're at it, would you like to use my sexual orientation or the color of my skin to insult me?

Unlike sexual orientation or race, that neurological disease have been used too many times as a "Get out of trouble free" card by all kinds of internet assholes.

 

[JimB]

Unlike sexual orientation or race, that neurological disease have been used too many times as a "Get out of trouble free" card by all kinds of internet assholes.

Except I've never once made that claim. To the contrary, I've gone on lengthy rants [http://forums.white-wolf.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1046726] that people who use a psychiatric diagnosis as a shield against criticism or responsibility for their actions are being grossly offensive. I've never even said I'm autistic when, so far as I know, I'm not. You are, nevertheless, using a disease process (and one I've never claimed I have) as an insult. If you insist on insulting me--and you obviously do, since you've abandoned any attempt to discuss the actual topic--then at least have the intellectual integrity to insult me for things I've actually said and things I actually have control over, not genetic defects I've never even claimed to possess.

 

[Miroluck]

Believe it or not, Miroluck, I am being neither ironic nor sarcastic when I say that if my refusal to dumb down my posts threatens you,

Typing sheets of text is not a sign of intellegence. It is, however, a sign of an English major with minor in Philosophy (or something equally useless), pseudo-intellegent who fancies himself a philosopher.

I am even sorrier that your insecurities run so deep you need to attack not only me but the very concept of individualism for the sake of scoring points in an internet discussion, snip

I actually honestly believe that concept of "special is better" is utter crock.

Getting back on topic, author of discussed video, of course, do not have any useless degrees, he is totally honest and do not need to bend the truth or use verbal equivalent of CAPSLOCK to prove his point.