The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Bara_no_Hime]

Here we go, I hope you don't think I'm screaming at you with this post, that's not the intention.

She claims to be doing a critique of the entire video game industry. Therefore her only mentioning games she takes exception to is a poor critique. Even if she's 100% right about all the games she mentions, without some acknowledging of the prevalence/influence of the Damsel in Distress in the wider gaming environment, then it's a poor critique. If the trope is rare, then it is unlikely to have the influence the attributes to it.

See, this confuses me. What Anita did in her Damsel in Distress video was to use several noteworthy examples of the trope, and then list off something close to a hundred games that employed it in some way or another. She explained the trope using a few games, then mentioned briefly a number of games that used that trope.

Her issue - the DiD trope - is a minor element to most games it appears in. Therefore, anything in each game that isn't DiD is generally okay. However, DiD appears in a lot of games - which she objects to.

What doesn't make sense about that?

The thing that bothers me the most about her though is her ignorance or willful neglect when it comes to the context of the events she criticises. This come in several flavours. She talks about Dante's Inferno using cheap emotional hooks, while neglecting to mention that the game was poorly recieved.

... why does it being poorly received matter? She's demonstrating a trope. The fact that the game kinda sucked otherwise doesn't matter. It was an example of what that particular trope looks like.

The point is for Devs to recognize these tropes in their own works and become more sensitive to them. Anita says, repeatedly, that most of these tropes are used by habit without much thought. By drawing attention to them, she hopes that Devs will think about them before they choose to use them.

She criticises Duke Nukem Forever for being distasteful, a widely held criticism of the game.

... so you're upset because she agrees with others that it was distasteful? Why is her agreeing with others bad? Her point was that something that made it distasteful was the use of the tropes that she's talking about.

She seems to want to paint the entire gaming industry with the same brush, ignoring the varying quality and success of the titles she mentions.

If by "the same brush" you mean "using the same tropes" then... yes. That is the point of her video - that these tropes are very common. Still not seeing your issue.

She also presents examples of "objectification/disempowerment" without any of the ingame context for the events, even going so far as to claim that the context is irrelevant, the situation is demeaning to women because she says it is. The example of this that really stuck in my throat was Jenny's death in The Darkness (probably because it's the game I know best from her array of example).

Spoiler: Darkness spoilers just in case

The game goes to great lengths establishing that Jenny the the best/only good thing in Jackie's life. This does not disempower Jenny as a character. Her execution by Paulie is meant to hurt Jackie true (hence the "now I take form you" line), and it could be argued that she is an object from Paulie's perspective. She could be a dog, cat or computer, what matters to him is hurting Jackie. But he's the villain, we're not supposed to view his position and morality as being correct. But she's not an object to Jackie or the audience, she's the only person Jackie loves. This leaves revenge as the only this Jackie has left, especially as the Darkness continues to mess with him.

Anita's claim that avenging a slain loved one is only undertaken to repair the damage to the male ego is suggesting that men are only capable of thinking of women as property. An assertion that I find insulting as a man and can believe a woman could find equally insulting.

That is a standard issue of Women's Studies and Feminist Theory.

What she is failing to explain is that the "object" in these situations is almost never a male character. Think about it - name one game where a male character is the "object" in a similar situation.

However, she - and you, and I - could name hundreds of female characters.

This is such a basic element in Feminist Theory that Anita forgot to explain that aspect. She made a mistake. She's human. Get over it. She's not trying to manipulate you or mess with your mind. She simply forgot to state what is, to her, such an obvious fact that it would be like explaining that they sky is blue.

She also seems to often be not be arguing the issues she claims to be. Claiming female charcters are poorly written without comapring them to the male charcters in the same game (i think it was Bastion that she most famoulsy pulled this with). Or in her first video, when she's talkig about how male characters often escape on thier own when captured. She glosses over the fact that these male charcters tend to be the protagonists of the game in question, so it makes sense that they escape by themselves. The reason women rarely do this is because they are rarely the protagonist. But Anita was not discussing the lack of female protagonists in that video,

To your first point... Anita isn't talking about male characters. She's entirely focused on the female ones. So how the male characters are written does not matter to her.

You not like that, sure. But it doesn't mean her criticism of the female characters writing are invalid just because the males suck too. They are still BAD. She simply left out other bad stuff that didn't bother her as much.

As far as the escapes go - yes, of course she's upset by the lack of female protagonists. It wasn't the issue in that video, no, but it is connected. If there were more female protagonists, then more would escape on their own, and the trope wouldn't be as much of an issue. But that isn't the reality we live in.

You're upset because you feel that she's being "unfair" to the characters. But that's just it - they're fictional characters. She can't be unfair to them - they don't exist. She's pointing out an imbalance to the WRITERS in the hopes that they will be affected by her thoughts and perhaps change the way they write future characters. Perhaps by allowing female characters to escape on their own - either as protagonists, or through teamwork.

She is claiming industry-wide trends based on a few example with no indication of the greater context across the whole industry.

Her listing off dozens of games wasn't good enough for you?

I also assume that she is relying on the viewer to look at their own game library with the tools she gives them. That's why she provides examples and explains the tropes as her primary focus - so you can see the trends yourself.

She says right in the videos that there isn't any sort of industry wide conspiracy - just that game writers and devs don't know Feminist Theory. Thus she's explaining it to them so they understand her concern.

Her opinion is presented as gospel without any references or explanation as to why we should agree with her assertion.

Just like Yahtzee does. It's called being a Critic. That's how the job works.

She wrote a Critique. Critique essays (or videos) are opinions backed up with evidence. She has an opinion. She backed it up with examples from games (her evidence). However, since it is a critique, it is still an opinion essay - a supported opinion, but an opinion none the less.

You can disagree with Anita and not hate her. I disagree with Yahtzee all the time - I still draw valuable information from his reviews.

She makes unsubstantiated claims about violence against women in games influencing real world domestic abuse. If it's such a massive problem,where is the evidence?

Fifty years of Women's Studies research. It wasn't done on games, but on TV, films, and books. Look it up.

This is what I mean about people just not getting the Women's Studies angle. Those claims have been backed up to the point where Anita accepts them as facts - because, to a Women's Studies major, they are facts. Facts she had to learn to pass tests in college. Just like you had to learn the current beliefs of your major, whatever it is.

If this really is "Women's Studies 101", then I'm afraid it doesn't paint the field in a particularly good light.

Plenty of people don't like Women's Studies. I'm not a huge fan of them myself - I tend to think they see conspiracies where none exist. Anita is actually fairly mild for a Women's Studies major.

And yet, they do make a lot of good points.

This line of argument always strikes me as rather patronising. "Well it's not your fault you made this misogynist thing, but have no fear, I am more empathic than you, I have studied women's issues and will now educate about how wrong you've been." Now I'm not saying here that it's necessarily wrong, but if you genuinely want to change poeple's minds on an issue like this then tact is required. The confrontational, combative approach Anita uses is not the way forward, it just hardens the battlelines and makes dialogue harder.

Like I said, compared to an actual Women's Studies class, Anita is quite mild.

It's less "it's not your fault" and more "you probably have never considered this from this other point of view before". And is that really that patronizing?

The woman finds these tropes offensive, and she's trying to explain why as politely and thoroughly as possible. What is wrong with her explaining how she feels? Because that's what a Critique is - a detailed explanation of her reaction to a piece or collection of artwork.

**sigh**

If you really think she's being unreasonable, then why not research some Feminist Theory yourself? See what some of the basic Women's Study texts say (any college with a Women's Studies program should list some readings somewhere) and compare them to what Anita is saying.

She didn't make any of this up. This isn't her methodology. It's how she was taught. All she did was take what she learned and make some videos on YouTube applying her major to her hobby.

Edit:

Context matters.

That is your opinion.

See Movie Bob's recent video about how others disagree.

Finally, the villain being bad is fine. However, all villains victimizing women becomes sexist because of what it implies.

You say context matters. But when almost every single game uses the same context (ie villain bad and thus sexist) then it stops being about context. Context only matters if it changes something - if the context doesn't actually matter to the issue, then it doesn't need to be included.

 

[hexFrank202]

Here is the problem with Anita's videos. Plain and simple; in three paragraphs, with no further elaboration required. *ahem*

1; She makes decent points, she has interesting observations, but the conclusions she comes to based on those observations are very flimsy, hard to justify, and impossible to quantify.

2; While her surface rhetoric is mostly level-headed and non-inflammatory, her tone, posture and subtext is on the other hand VERY insulting, and VERY accusational. That's what makes her hard to argue against; she's throwing mud at your face, calling you a sexist pig, but you can't back her up against a wall and call her out on it very easily because she doesn't quite say it out loud.
And by God; just look at a screenshot of any of her videos. The look on her face is so goddamn smug and pretentious.

3; Bonus problem: for her unreasonably, ridiculously critical nature against (almost) nothing, and for her holier-than-thou attitude, she gets hatred. She then uses this hatred to PROVE her point in the first place.
It's the worst thing you can do in the entire world, and it is the harvest of great success that any troll longs for.
You go up to people and insult them, throw mud in their face, and accuse them of hating you.
Then they get pissed off because you're throwing mud in their face.
Then you capture their rage, go on stage and show it to prove how hated you are.

That's the very essence of trolling.

It's fucking annoying.

I mean look, her points aren't THAT bad, and I wouldn't say she's actually caused any kind of damage anywhere, and I don't hate her, it's just, guh. I've spent my entire gaming life loving it whenever I meet a girl who plays video games. I LOVE females playing games, and being in games. And so have pretty much any guy gamers I've known. But because the majority of hero avatars still have a dick, I'm supposed to call the whole operation a 'boy's club' and am apparently part of some misogynist conspiracy if I don't bow down and worship this woman's bullshit.

 

[irishda]

I find it terribly hilarious that this thread is a great counterpoint to the standard "Just because she says there's a problem doesn't mean there is one" line that usually gets brought up here.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Anita: These characters are examples of tropes.
Me: How?
You: That's not the point, the archetype exists.
Me: Saying that an archetype exists is not proof that a character fits into it, nor is it proof that the archetype itself exists or that it exists for the reasons or in the quantity that Anita suggests.

But that isn't what she's trying to prove.
She's showing you a trope (say, DiD) and then listing a bunch of characters that fall into that trope. She doesn't need to prove it - TVTropes.com already does that.

She explains the definition of a trope and then shows characters that fit it. Not just according to her, but according to the many, many "trope experts" on TVTropes.

She doesn't need to reprove what is already accepted fact. These characters are examples of the tropes. What she is explaining is why these tropes are harmful.

Yahtzee's Zero Puncuation reviews are humorous in tone and objective. They're not in any way a professional or academic criticism of a game and are not meant to be taken as such.

They're critiques. And, swearing aside, all of Yahtzee's ZP critiques follow the style of a critique essay.

Besides, Anita is posting these things on YouTube. There is a certain informality going on here.

No, and that isn't relevant here. She's talking about videogames, even listing specific ones, not debating topics of feminism. She has compiled this list of tropes with videogames in mind, they are not mere extensions of Women's Studies ideas and I don't accept that as a defense if I'm able to conclude that in a particular instance she is objectively wrong about what a game is actually depicting.

She is applying Feminist Theory to video games.

And many critics make errors. Yahtzee has said things that were untrue during ZP because he missed some aspect of the game. Anita is human - she's gonna fuck up once in a while. However, a minor error does not invalidate her larger point, even if it might have an effect on a smaller point.

a blanket claim about tropes, sexism and misogyny paints creators of such content as at best lazy and unprofessional and at worst as people with morally reprehensible beliefs and in many examples of Anita's I'd argue against both.

No. They aren't. Her videos are attempting to educate. Like Yahtzee, she wants to affect change on the Dev level. She wants Devs to think about why they're using tropes instead of just using them because the games they loved did so. She is trying to bring her concerns to their attention. She is not accusing them of any wrong-doing - a point she specifically makes during her videos. Like, she looks at the camera and says that flat out.

I don't care what other people's opinions of Anita are, I take her arguments at their own merits and disagree with them on a point by point basis. The difference between Anita's tropes vs women videos and bob's escape to the movies or yahtzee's zero punctuation is that those contributions are humorous, if somewhat flawed, and presented entirely as opinion pieces. Anita has always asserted her beliefs being presented in these videos as fact, she calls them "research" and uses her status as self-designated pop culture critic and feminist as some kind of mark of credibility, but she fails to use sources or make any kind of in-depth analysis of the characters and games she lists and then writes them off.

This is infuriating, not because of claims of misogyny, not because of who she is or where she comes from, but because she asserts her opinion as fact and doesn't actually bother to explain it, then refuses to debate the point with anyone.

The research she's talking about is from Feminist Theory. Women's Studies experts have been doing research for 50 years or so on films, TV shows, and books. She's applying that research to video games. That's why she's acting like they're facts - because they were presented to her as such.

 

[OutsiderEX]

She's a liar and a fraud and none of that has anything to with the fact she's a woman.

If she was a man, no one would have any issue with calling her out for what she really is.

Isn't that sexist?

 

[UberPubert]

But that isn't what she's trying to prove.
She's showing you a trope (say, DiD) and then listing a bunch of characters that fall into that trope. She doesn't need to prove it - TVTropes.com already does that.

She explains the definition of a trope and then shows characters that fit it. Not just according to her, but according to the many, many "trope experts" on TVTropes.

She doesn't need to reprove what is already accepted fact. These characters are examples of the tropes. What she is explaining is why these tropes are harmful.

Major, major fallacy here: TVTropes is by no means an academic website. It's a fan written and edited website made for fun, not a credible source of information and certainly not of professional opinions. I would no sooner believe a citation of TVTropes than I would a citation of Wikipedia because actual credible sources on wikipedia have external links to check out for facts, the website itself is not a source. TVTropes has no such links and as such, I take nothing it says at face value, it is not "accepted fact".

They're critiques. And, swearing aside, all of Yahtzee's ZP critiques follow the style of a critique essay.

Besides, Anita is posting these things on YouTube. There is a certain informality going on here.

A certain implied informality is not a substitute for what she actually stated on her kickstarter page or for how she actually presents her case in her videos. Youtube is not a mark of illegitimacy, it's just another channel for ideas to be expressed; I have known college professors who publish lectures on youtube that are completely serious.

She is applying Feminist Theory to video games.

And many critics make errors. Yahtzee has said things that were untrue during ZP because he missed some aspect of the game. Anita is human - she's gonna fuck up once in a while. However, a minor error does not invalidate her larger point, even if it might have an effect on a smaller point.

And? I'm not excusing any of those critics, Yahtzee included, just because the mistakes I'm criticizing them for are common. But Anita's mistakes are weightier, not just because of her factual presentation, but because the statements being made are serious.

No. They aren't. Her videos are attempting to educate. Like Yahtzee, she wants to affect change on the Dev level. She wants Devs to think about why they're using tropes instead of just using them because the games they loved did so. She is trying to bring her concerns to their attention. She is not accusing them of any wrong-doing - a point she specifically makes during her videos. Like, she looks at the camera and says that flat out.

Yahtzee's videos are an attempt to entertain or provide consumer opinion, Anita's are to educate. And by making examples out of other videogames, saying they rely too much on tropes or reinforce misogynist stereotypes is a damaging claim, not constructive criticism, but a subjective interpretation of their work.

The research she's talking about is from Feminist Theory. Women's Studies experts have been doing research for 50 years or so on films, TV shows, and books. She's applying that research to video games. That's why she's acting like they're facts - because they were presented to her as such.

That's still wrong. If she's getting facts wrong, ignoring greater context and misapplying terms and ideas then I don't care who she got them from, she's wrong, and I'll continue to make criticisms of her work.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Major, major fallacy here: TVTropes is by no means an academic website. It's a fan written and edited website made for fun, not a credible source of information and certainly not of professional opinions. I would no sooner believe a citation of TVTropes than I would a citation of Wikipedia because actual credible sources on wikipedia have external links to check out for facts, the website itself is not a source. TVTropes has no such links and as such, I take nothing it says at face value, it is not "accepted fact".

First off, that's not a fallacy, major or otherwise. You can state that the source is not academically respectable, but the fact remains that TVTropes.com is the most comprehensive list of media and the tropes therein. I mean, technically video games aren't academically respectable sources either (although it would be nice to see them accepted as such).

My point was this: she isn't the one stating that those characters belong to those tropes. Hundreds of other people have said so first (on TVTropes and elsewhere).

If they are commonly accepted as trope examples, then she doesn't need to prove it. Sky is blue and all that.

I'll continue to make criticisms of her work.

Fine. All I ask is that you criticize HER work. Claiming she has failed to support things that are clearly supported by Feminist Theory or common knowledge (ie TVTropes.com) is wrong because those aspects of her work are supported - just not by her, because she never TRIED to support them (because she assumed them to be already supported).

Anita isn't perfect - not by any means - but even if you disagree with her statements, she still deserves your respect. Even if she made errors, she still deserves your respect. Debate against her - disagree with her - but treat her like a human being while you do so.

 

[wulf3n]

I would say that the first thing is pretty much beyond debate. I think that there's far too much evidence to show that there are a great deal of sexist attitudes and tropes very much prevalent in various forms of popular culture for that to be denied.

I would, however, say that the second point is definitely worth debating. I personally very much believe that it does have a negative impact on society, but I think that such an argument has yet to be substantially proven, mostly because it's difficult to prove something like that. So it's a subject worth debating.

I agree completely

However, I find that most people who are critical of Anita Sarkeesian are far more fixated on the first point than the second one.

I would disagree. While there are a number of people who think shes evil for well... I don't know, most of those I see trying to discuss the issue aren't them.

When somebody says that video games are sexist and that it's a bad thing, the first instinct of someone who disagrees is to insist that they aren't sexist. They might argue that example A or B of a strong female character is a counter-example, disproving the assertion. And those examples are great, but it can't be argued that they aren't a significant minority in the industry.

There's really 3 points being argued here which is what throws a lot of people off.

1) Video games are sexist
2) It's a bad thing.
3) There's a disparity of gender representation in games.

The issue here is that points 1 and 3 are true, whereas point 2 is something of an opinion right now. This is a common approach to an argument, throwing facts in with an opinion, because people can't argue against the facts, therefore they can't argue against the opinion either.

Another part of the issue is that "sexist" has become synonymous with "bad" but really it just means an assumption based on gender.

See me without a beard and assumed I shaved... Sexist.

When people don't argue that video games aren't sexist, they might instead choose to deflect the argument in another direction, often by questioning the character or reliability of the person making the argument.

Some may yes.

What I want people to do is argue whether or not the prevalent sexism in games is a bad thing, because while a lot of the people who disagree probably think that it isn't a bad thing, they'd much rather argue something else, probably because arguing that rampant sexism in their favored hobby isn't a bad thing kind of makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable. And that's fine, it's an uncomfortable subject. But it has to be discussed or else every argument is going to just devolve into the same usual pointless cul-de-sacs that don't actually address anything of value.

Again, "bad" here isn't clearly defined. One could argue that "bad" simply means less inclusive? When i see the term I assume it refers to the influence sexist games has on the person, and how that translates to real life.

If we were to argue this point without clearing up the definition, we would never reach an agreement because we're not arguing the same thing.

I will say that a fair number of feminists will sometimes simply take the second point for granted. That establishing that something is sexist is enough and that the sexism is inherently assumed as bad. This is just as incomplete an argument and should also be avoided, mostly because all it does is invite the pointless arguments I just described.

Yeah.

But back to your initial question, because as I said, it is a good question worth debating.

I would say the sexism present in video games is a bad thing partially because it reinforces negative stereotypes and gender roles that are already present in society. I'm not saying that a sexist video game will make someone sexist, just that if a person already has underlying sexist beliefs or perspectives, seeing those beliefs or perspectives mirrored by an external force is generally very reassuring. We are pack animals, and thus we respond very positively when others agree with us, often to the point of delusion. This is why Fox News is intensely popular. The people who watch it don't care that it lacks integrity or journalistic merit, they just like that it agrees with them and feel like it validates their own beliefs knowing that someone else independently drew the same conclusions.

Similarly, if a person tends to think of women generally as a sex object first, typically evaluating them based on whether or not they would want to have sex with them before evaluating them in other ways, and they see characters that are built almost exclusively to register on that scale alone and respond positively to that objectification, it can normalize that behavior and cause a person to feel entitled to their instinctive sexual evaluation. Even in cases of strong or multi-dimensional female characters, a lot of the time you'll see straight male fans often talk about how they think they're sexy. Not that there's anything wrong with thinking a character is sexy, but the fact that it's often the first and sometimes only appraisal of a female character is rather demeaning and suggests that it's the only aspect that matters.

I see the argument "It reinforces negative stereotypes" and my first thought is "does it?" What does reinforcing a stereotype mean? Are we talking harder to convince otherwise? or take greater action because of that stereotype?

Which brings us to the other major problem that makes this a bad thing, which is the way it affects women. I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume that you may be a nerd. As a nerd, you no doubt have seen a great deal of nerd stereotypes and tropes in the media. Pocket protectors, asthma, inability to talk to people, particularly women... you know the drill. And I'm sure whenever you see those stereotypes or tropes, it bothers you, at least to some degree. You may think "Real nerds don't act like that" or "Not all nerds are socially awkward or weak". And if you've felt that way, oftentimes you might feel very much pleased to see nerdy characters that subvert or ignore those tropes or stereotypes. So why is that? It's partially just because you'll probably have an easier time relating to that character, but it's more than that. You feel like that character can act as a sort of fictional ambassador. Someone to show those who don't actually know any nerds what nerds can actually be like. Someone to show other nerds that you don't have to be a certain way or that being a nerd isn't always a negative thing. It feels like it sends a better message out to the rest of the world.

Now, imagine instead of being a nerd, you were a woman or black or Asian or gay. Being a nerd isn't quite on the same level because many nerds are not often negatively affected by inherent prejudice in society, but I draw the comparison to help put you in the mindset of someone who experiences that kind of alienation on a regular basis in ways that directly impact your life, usually negatively. Imagine feeling like an entire culture is being exposed to versions of your identity that are severely limiting and negative. Worse, imagine that a great deal of people will argue that those stereotypes or tropes don't exist, don't harm anything, or even sometimes that they are actually accurate. It can be very disparaging, particularly when there are also still systems within a society that negatively impact members of certain groups or cultures.

Maybe I'm just an aberration, provided what ever stereotype they wish to view/perpetuate of me doesn't negatively effect their perception of reality, I don't really care.

So sexism in video games is bad because it suggests that sexist behavior is normal and OK,

Does it though?

it alienates feminists and women in general,

Yes.

sexism is still institutionally reinforced in many ways that negatively impact the well-being of women in our society,

Does it?

and there's really no good reason not to change it.

Nor do those with the power have any incentive to do so it would seem.

 

[UberPubert]

First off, that's not a fallacy, major or otherwise. You can state that the source is not academically respectable, but the fact remains that TVTropes.com is the most comprehensive list of media and the tropes therein. I mean, technically video games aren't academically respectable sources either (although it would be nice to see them accepted as such).

My point was this: she isn't the one stating that those characters belong to those tropes. Hundreds of other people have said so first (on TVTropes and elsewhere).

If they are commonly accepted as trope examples, then she doesn't need to prove it. Sky is blue and all that.

It's an appeal to a false authority. TVTropes isn't a fact oriented site or manned by experts on any subject, it's a fan site for discussing and writing about perceived tropes in fiction. The opinions written on the site are no more legitimate than anyone else's and I'm not accepting their testimony as indisputable evidence. The fact that people (myself and others) argue about the legitimacy of the characters as examples of tropes in is in itself an indication of the site's subjectivity - it's just one person's opinion against another.

Fine. All I ask is that you criticize HER work. Claiming she has failed to support things that are clearly supported by Feminist Theory or common knowledge (ie TVTropes.com) is wrong because those aspects of her work are supported - just not by her, because she never TRIED to support them (because she assumed them to be already supported).

Anita isn't perfect - not by any means - but even if you disagree with her statements, she still deserves your respect. Even if she made errors, she still deserves your respect. Debate against her - disagree with her - but treat her like a human being while you do so.

Common knowledge isn't always fact-based knowledge, a well-known rumor is still just a rumor, an objective statement about a character or what "trope" they belong to is false until proven true, (usually just needs a simple chat with the creator). Anita is absolutely free to speak her mind on whatever she wishes but so long as she (and others) continue to present their opinions as fact I will continue to dispute their claims insofar as I actually care to, and any assumption made on her part about being right is in no way a defense against me refuting her argument as wrong.

Regardless of all this, understand that - in the end - I consider Anita Sarkeesian as an equal human being. I disagree with her opinions and methods and claims and I think her attitude sucks but at no point do I actually think she's unworthy of the same decency I grant everyone else. In other words, I disagree with what she has to say but I think she has every right to say it.

 

[Megalodon]

See, this confuses me. What Anita did in her Damsel in Distress video was to use several noteworthy examples of the trope, and then list off something close to a hundred games that employed it in some way or another. She explained the trope using a few games, then mentioned briefly a number of games that used that trope.

But here's the thing, she doesn't list close to a hundred games in the video, she just says that the trope appears in hundreds of games, there's no list to back it up. If she lists them somewhere else, then why aren't they in the video, or a link in the video description?

Her issue - the DiD trope - is a minor element to most games it appears in. Therefore, anything in each game that isn't DiD is generally okay. However, DiD appears in a lot of games - which she objects to.

What doesn't make sense about that?

At it's simplest, a lack of numbers. Anita seems to be taking issue with the video game industry as a whole over its treatment of women. Therefore an approximation of the percentage of games featuring the DiD trope would have been useful in judging just how endemic this apparently damaging trope is. Say 200 games featuring DiD were made between 1980 and 2000. If 1000 games total were made in that period then her claim that the trope is a serious issue carries more weight than if 10000 games were made in that time. If a low proportion of total games feature the trope, then it isn't endemic and is unlikely to have a major influence on people's perceptions (if games actually do that).

... why does it being poorly received matter? She's demonstrating a trope. The fact that the game kinda sucked otherwise doesn't matter. It was an example of what that particular trope looks like.

The point is for Devs to recognize these tropes in their own works and become more sensitive to them. Anita says, repeatedly, that most of these tropes are used by habit without much thought. By drawing attention to them, she hopes that Devs will think about them before they choose to use them.

The reception of a game matters because it is also an indication of the state of the gaming community. She seems to want to treat the entire industry as one gestalt entity, judging the entire industry by a few specific examples. If she was being fair she would acknowledge that Dante's Inferno used this cheap emotional ploy, but it was not the premier example of video game storytelling. While criticising the indidvidual game is fine, she should use it as a yardstick to measure the enitire industry.

... so you're upset because she agrees with others that it was distasteful? Why is her agreeing with others bad? Her point was that something that made it distasteful was the use of the tropes that she's talking about.

Firstly I'm not upset, I think the use of DNF is another case of her using bad games to implicate the entire industry. Like with Dante's Inferno, the reception of these games matters. Her overarching assertion is that sexism is rampant in the industry, then DNF doing poorly would suggest that the sexism problem among gamers at least, is less severe than if it broke sales records.

If by "the same brush" you mean "using the same tropes" then... yes. That is the point of her video - that these tropes are very common. Still not seeing your issue.

No, I meant judging all games based on the bad ones. The implication is that all games are capable of is the cheap emotional hooks used by Dante's Inferno, ignoring games that attempt to create actual emotional investment in thier characters. To use a potentially controversial example, when your sibling/LI is kidnapped in Act 3 of DA2, the intention is that you know and care about the character involved, thanks to the characterisation earlier in the story, and so are emotionally invested in thier rescue.

snip

That is a standard issue of Women's Studies and Feminist Theory.

The standard issue of Women's Studies and Feminist Theory is to claim that men are only capable of viewing women as property? I hope I've misunderstood you here. Or is it to ignore context so that it is a problem when villains act like villains? I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're getting at here.

What she is failing to explain is that the "object" in these situations is almost never a male character. Think about it - name one game where a male character is the "object" in a similar situation.

However, she - and you, and I - could name hundreds of female characters.

Which situation do you mean, the generic damsel or the loved one hurt by the villain to punish the protagonist?
For the former: Father Vittorio (Hitman 2), Master Li (Jade Empire), Inquisitor Drogan (Space Marine), Zimos (Saints Row 3) and Ted Gunderson (Fallout New Vegas)

For the later (which is undeniably harder, for both male and female): Companions in Ultima 5 (although some of them may be female, the most iconic three are male), Carlos (Saints Row 2).

This is such a basic element in Feminist Theory that Anita forgot to explain that aspect. She made a mistake. She's human. Get over it. She's not trying to manipulate you or mess with your mind. She simply forgot to state what is, to her, such an obvious fact that it would be like explaining that they sky is blue.

But if she meant this series to be taking Feminist Theory out of the classroom (as I beleive she has claimed before) then her first port of call should have been establishing her terms.

To your first point... Anita isn't talking about male characters. She's entirely focused on the female ones. So how the male characters are written does not matter to her.

You not like that, sure. But it doesn't mean her criticism of the female characters writing are invalid just because the males suck too. They are still BAD. She simply left out other bad stuff that didn't bother her as much.

But it should matter to her, because if both genders are written equally poorly than a strong case can be made that the media isn't sexist, it is just badly written. This seems simple to me, if both genders are treated equally badly by the writer how can the portrayl of women be sexist, intentional or accidental?

As far as the escapes go - yes, of course she's upset by the lack of female protagonists. It wasn't the issue in that video, no, but it is connected. If there were more female protagonists, then more would escape on their own, and the trope wouldn't be as much of an issue. But that isn't the reality we live in.

But here's the thing, bringing up the protagonist being captured isn't really relevant to the DiD trope, as the protagonist can't really suffer the loss of agency that she uses to classify a DiD. The way she portrays it is more along the lines of "men get to escape on thier own, women have to wait to be rescued", wheras its really "protagonists escape, supporting cast get rescued".

You're upset because you feel that she's being "unfair" to the characters. But that's just it - they're fictional characters. She can't be unfair to them - they don't exist. She's pointing out an imbalance to the WRITERS in the hopes that they will be affected by her thoughts and perhaps change the way they write future characters. Perhaps by allowing female characters to escape on their own - either as protagonists, or through teamwork.

Not really I'm annoyed that she's trying to bludgeon her ideology into things where it doesn't really fit. Again, if her point was "we need more female protagonists" then I would agree, but instead her point is "DiD is sexist, demeaning to women and I don't like it", which is not a stance I agree with.

Her listing off dozens of games wasn't good enough for you?

But she doesn't list examples, she just says thay there are dozens, then talks about her handful of examples (again, numbers and lists would have been nice).

I also assume that she is relying on the viewer to look at their own game library with the tools she gives them. That's why she provides examples and explains the tropes as her primary focus - so you can see the trends yourself.

Funny thing, when I did this, I struggled to find what she was talkiing about (specifically DiD), the closest I got was The Bard's Tale, which is a distince staire and subversion. I know my personal taste doesn't matter jack, but it does make me wonder about the wisdom of classifying the games industry as single entity.

She says right in the videos that there isn't any sort of industry wide conspiracy - just that game writers and devs don't know Feminist Theory. Thus she's explaining it to them so they understand her concern.

Except she doesn't seems to do a very good job, having watched her videos, I couldn't tell you with any clarity what "Feminist Theory" is.

Just like Yahtzee does. It's called being a Critic. That's how the job works.

Yahtzee isn't trying to claim anything about the nature of the games industry. He makes comedy reviews, the primary purpose of which is to entertain, not to inform people about his preferred soapbox ethical issue.

She wrote a Critique. Critique essays (or videos) are opinions backed up with evidence. She has an opinion. She backed it up with examples from games (her evidence). However, since it is a critique, it is still an opinion essay - a supported opinion, but an opinion none the less.

And here we have the issue, her evidence is suspect, the lack of context to the events she mentions, the lack of any evidence to her claims about games influencing real life. The sparse and poor quality of her evidence make me inclined to dismiss her opinion.

She makes unsubstantiated claims about violence against women in games influencing real world domestic abuse. If it's such a massive problem,where is the evidence?

Fifty years of Women's Studies research. It wasn't done on games, but on TV, films, and books. Look it up.

This is what I mean about people just not getting the Women's Studies angle. Those claims have been backed up to the point where Anita accepts them as facts - because, to a Women's Studies major, they are facts. Facts she had to learn to pass tests in college. Just like you had to learn the current beliefs of your major, whatever it is.

And if her goal was to educate the layperson, then her first port of call should have been establishing the veracity of her base assertions and defneing her terms. If I had to talk to a layperson about my work (microbiology), I would have to ensure that they understood the basics of bacterial biology, quorum sensing, virulence determination etc. otherwise, they would not understand a word I said. This comes back to the question of who Anita is making these videos for, if she aims to fill an echo chamber that already agrees with her, she's doing fine, but if she meant to address people outside of feminist academia, she's done a pretty bad job..

Plenty of people don't like Women's Studies. I'm not a huge fan of them myself - I tend to think they see conspiracies where none exist. Anita is actually fairly mild for a Women's Studies major.

Bloody hell, that's kinda scary.

It's less "it's not your fault" and more "you probably have never considered this from this other point of view before". And is that really that patronizing?

From that perspective, I would agree that it isn't massively patronising. Personally I get a more confrontational vibe form Anita and her presentation, hence my previous post. I maintain, if her motives are honest, then there are better ways to put forward her points.

You say context matters. But when almost every single game uses the same context (ie villain bad and thus sexist) then it stops being about context. Context only matters if it changes something - if the context doesn't actually matter to the issue, then it doesn't need to be included.

Yes it matters. If we assume Anita is right and the plot of games influences the real world, then wouldn't associating sexist behaviour with villians, who are not meant to be emulated, be a good thing? They're the characters we're supposed to hate, and enjoy their downfall, so wouldn't sexist behaviour by them paint sexism as a bad thing?

 

[QuantumWalker]

@Bara_no_Hime: I see you are still denying that deliberately omitting information relevant to a discussion about gender representation in video games isn't cherry picking. Allow me to re-address our exchange from yesterday in light of your comments today.

She's deliberately skewed a definition so that it only apply to instances where women in games are not able to defend themselves. In doing so she eliminates the need for her to acknowledge that their are female characters who are put in harmful situations but overcome them.

... but that's not what she's doing.

She's not saying that instances where women fight back don't exist.

She's saying that she APPROVES of those instances, and so doesn't need to talk about them.

It isn't Cherry picking (by the definition you provided) when you leave it out because you LIKE it.

Let's look at the definition I posted and compare what you're saying to what Anita is putting forth in her videos.

• 
  Cherry Picking a.k.a. suppression evidence fallacy:
  Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one?s own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises.

Since you dismissed my other example let me try another one. Here are her words from her video series.

A particularly egregious example [of a "euthanized damsel"] can be found in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) when after you?ve rescued Maria Latore it?s implied that the protagonist suddenly shoots her because she is talking about stereotypically ?girly things?.

Clip- Grand Theft Auto III
"I broke a nail, and my hair is ruined! Can you believe it? This one cost me $50!" [Gunshot]

The writers deliberately wrote her character to annoy the player so in the end, the violence against her becomes the punch line to a cheap, misogynist joke.

Here is what the developer of the game Rockstar have say about that scene

Source
Q: Did Claude kill Maria at the end of GTAIII?" - Mastah27

Certainly gun shots were fired, but nobody is sure as to exactly what happened.

And a later post clarifies this statement

Source
Q: At the end of Grand theft Auto 3, did Claude actually shoot Maria?

We're not sure about this. Some think he did, and some think he didn?t. Certainly in an original version of the script, Maria had a longer, really annoying speech, but then someone in the audio department wisely put an end to that. Quite what that means for Maria, who can say.

So tell me why Anita's second statement about their being any certainty that the gunshot was aimed at Maria holds any water. Because according to the creators of the series it's up to fan interpretation. And like I said about their being facts within analysis and critique. If the author says something about the story it is fact. Fan interpretation does not trump authorial intent.

If the authors say that their is no concrete answer than Anita should not present her's as truth. If she had framed her statements to acknowledge the uncertain nature of the gunshot and target that would be one thing but she operates on the assumption that Maria in unquestionably the target. Ergo she is cherry picking information to present a situation in the way she wants too.

If she isn't mentioning it, it's because she has no problem with it. She's only being critical of the parts she doesn't like.

Should what she likes or doesn't like dictate the scope of her research? If strong and valid examples exist that contradict her view or offer a counter argument should she ignore them because she doesn't find them valuable to her conversation?

I almost hope I misunderstood you somehow, because if I understood correctly, you're pissed at her not mentioning the good things that she likes... why? If she has no complaints about good stuff... then why would she bring it up? It's a CRITIQUE. Like Yahtzee says - the point of a critique is to complain about the stuff you don't like.

Their is a misunderstanding. I am not pissed at her for anything. I am disappointed that someone running a supposedly academic and well researched series is making so many basic mistakes. And being a critique does not excuse her from having to substantiate her arguments and provide clear examples. Even Yahtzee has to make his points clear or people don't get what he is saying and calls him out for being incoherent.

If she makes a video called Tropes FOR Women, then sure. But the entire point of these videos is to talk about the bad stuff. So OF COURSE she's only talking about the bad stuff. That's her TOPIC.

To talk about the good stuff would be OFF TOPIC. By definition.

This project will examine the tropes, plot devices and patterns most commonly associated with women in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective

This is the statement that Anita has opened every one of her videos with. Where does it say that this series will only focus on the bad things? If you go on the title as an indicator of subject matter than you'll love this little pamphlet I have titles "A Modest Proposal"

The big picture is that these tropes are not always used to oppress women. Not every female damsel is designed to be a sexist or misogynist image. It has never been off topic to discuss counter arguments regarding the examples she uses. You seem to be basing the validity of her statements on how many games she referenced. But this type of quantitative research says nothing of whether or not all damsels are sexist or if the problem is as severe as she says it is; it just says that they exist and that she doesn't like them. Despite three videos their is still reasonable doubt as to the validity of her claims for the pervasiveness and presence of this idea.

I was concerned before because I thought that the people claiming Cherry picking didn't understand how literary arguments worked. Now I think they don't understand how topics work.

I was too. But since I have taken the time to learn what cherry picking is I feel like I have a good grasp on it's use in this situation. And it should be said again, the tropes vs women series is not a literary argument or analysis. This is meant to be a cultural critique aimed at highlighting the presence of narrative devices within video games and their supposed impact on our culture. She can use literary analysis when examining the stories of these games, but their are other forms of analysis necessary when trying to connect these ideas to a social framework.

Next you'll be asking me to define the word "it". There's a Clinton joke for you. Goodnight.

No, because I assume that both you and I are intelligent enough to understand how to define and use pronouns in the English language.

 

[wulf3n]

Anita isn't perfect - not by any means - but even if you disagree with her statements, she still deserves your respect. Even if she made errors, she still deserves your respect. Debate against her - disagree with her - but treat her like a human being while you do so.

Regardless of all this, understand that - in the end - I consider Anita Sarkeesian as an equal human being. I disagree with her opinions and methods and claims and I think her attitude sucks but at no point do I actually think she's unworthy of the same decency I grant everyone else. In other words, I disagree with what she has to say but I think she has every right to say it.

What I find most interesting regarding your discussion, is that you [afaik] have never treated Anita with disrespect.

It's telling of the level of "bad blood" ingrained with this issue, that an argument isn't taken on it's own merit, but is instead lumped with those who attack, not criticise.

 

[UberPubert]

What I find most interesting regarding your discussion, is that you [afaik] have never treated Anita with disrespect.

It's telling of the level of "bad blood" ingrained with this issue, that an argument isn't taken on it's own merit, but is instead lumped with those who attack, not criticise.

The worst part is that I don't think we'll ever be able to totally separate the bad blood from the real issue. It's an ingrained part of the narrative, now.

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

Jeez! The lady doesn't even to say anything any more to prove her point, you're all doing it for it. It is insane how threatened people are by this woman, who by all accounts on here is completely wrong apparently so she shouldn't be a problem, right? Has she been hired by every game studio everywhere to ensure you don't get the games you want?

What's worse is that many here gripe at her technique or her lack of context, but I still haven't seen one post that contains a valid counter argument to her points. I don't think she's said anything amazing or particularly perceptive, but she's certainly hit a nerve and no one has an answer for her beyond slurs and petty attacks on her methods that no one actually seems to better in response.

 

[wulf3n]

but I still haven't seen one post that contains a valid counter argument to her points.

Then you need but to open your eyes

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

but I still haven't seen one post that contains a valid counter argument to her points.

Then you need but to open your eyes

Open them for me then. I'll start you off:

There's not a problem with the depiction of women in video games because...

 

[wulf3n]

Open them for me then. I'll start you off:

There's not a problem with the depiction of women in video games because...

Define problem?

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

Open them for me then. I'll start you off:

There's not a problem with the depiction of women in video games because...

Define problem?

Oh just the usual adherence to young white male expectations and wants:

Overtly objectified; often poorly clothed for their vocation to enhance sex appeal; female player characters a rarity and many games developers will not feature such characters engaged in any sort of physical intimacy with a male character.

There's a few let's see how you do.

 

[wulf3n]

Open them for me then. I'll start you off:

There's not a problem with the depiction of women in video games because...

Define problem?

Oh just the usual adherence to young white male expectations and wants:

Overtly objectified; often poorly clothed for their vocation to enhance sex appeal; female player characters a rarity and many games developers will not feature such characters engaged in any sort of physical intimacy with a male character.

There's a few let's see how you do.

A description of things, but I'm not seeing where it is a problem.