Tropes vs Women SECOND VIDEO - "Damsel in Distress: Part 2"

[Dastardly]

... but the issue I'm referring to is that it seems there are voices who seem to think that forcing a change within the video games medium might help the society get over with, while it's more like the other way around.

While that would seem the logical choice, it's often not a realistic path. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. We're talking about a task that large. Moving a mountain. We can ignore each little pebble, believing we should focus on the mountain... or we can recognize that the mountain is just a collection of pebbles. Move one, and you're getting somewhere. Move enough, and the mountain moves with them.

Still the other thing I mentioned, which I also have a problem with getting, is that this trope is unrealistically common in fiction. That, I suppose, I could concede that it is related to the entire "power fantasy" thing, not only of men, but of women too, in a different way - for example, in college, playing sports and being a fit hunk gets you laid, while being the nerd type is less likely to, and I'm not blaming women for that, just making an observation.

But that's just it: these stories aren't written to appeal to what women believe a man should be. They're written from the male perspective, and intended to be played by men. We see this because 9.9 times out of 10, the playable character is male. When you choose which character in a story is playable, you are telling the audience "THIS IS YOU," as far as the story goes. You're literally telling them whose eyes to see this through.

So, yes, strong male characters can be appealing to women. But nothing about these particular characters suggests that played any part in their creation. In fact, many of these games don't seem to care for appealing to women very much at all (as evidenced by the all-male focus group problems we've seen brought to light recently).

 

[Dastardly]

Except that is an interpretation and the only way we would actually understand the intention is by actually having someone you know do some actual research and contact the writers and developers for their reasoning.

No, we're free to interpret. And this interpretation is entirely reasonable, and supported by what we see in the narrative. This isn't the kind of thing that must be proven beyond all doubt. If your story intentionally includes sexist elements, you're a jerk. If your story accidentally delivers a message that is sexist, you're bad at your job.

Also I didn't know that we had to force equality on people's imaginations and desire to share and tell their ideas and stories? Or limit the number of releases that at the end result represent a "trope".

I mean imagine if we applied this to authors or musicians or even the movie industry. Okay we had a song about slavery, can't have another musical artist share create their song about slavery. Got a movie about the afghanistan war, okay can't make another movie about all the political nuance that soldiers have to deal with during the war. See the problem? Anita is taking this as if there is some sort of amorphous blob that is creating all this content yet in reality these games are coming from different people who have taken the time and developed the game and the story that they want to tell. Why should we stop them because someone else made it before? The fact is we shouldn't, people should be able to create the content they want on the subject they want to express themselves.

You're tilting at windmills here. No one is saying "It's sure a problem that so many people tell the same story." The complaint is that it's often the only story getting told. Publishers get tons and tons of pitches for games with strong female characters, but they turn them away in favor of BroDude IV: The Bicep-ening. About half of the world is female, but not even a tenth of the gaming market features leading female characters.

So, yeah, tons of people will tell the same story over and over for centuries. It's how the world works. But what's happening here is the modern equivalent of "olden days," when all of the stories were written by men because men were the only ones allowed to learn to write. The result is a body of literature that is not representative of the world of its time.

 

[Estelindis]

Regardless of whether she's reading one or writing a whole book of them, TVTropes pages are all around awful sources of information, and shouldn't be taken seriously, at all. But really, that's all besides the point that she didn't even truly discuss anything; she said what the problem was, offered far too many examples, then brought up a mutation of the original problem and offered even more examples. Problem is, no one would have possible imagined denying the presence of "the Damsel in Distress" trope. Everyone knows it exists.

Giving persecuted people does nothing but giving them money. I think it's worth pointing out that "internet trolling" is also easily the most insignificant form of persecution, and is easily ignored by turning off your computer. I don't think there is a need to expound further than that.

At the end of the day, although what this lady may be doing is in theory for a good cause, her execution seems laughable at best.

I personally enjoy TV Tropes. As for the Damsel in Distress stuff, people realise it exists, but how many people realised how common and pervasive it is before seeing the huge number of examples that Anita discussed?

Being insulted on the internet is certainly not the worst form of persecution, but just because some or even many people have it worse than you does not mean that people are entitled to treat you badly or that others shouldn't help you. In a similar way, just because I or anyone else donated to Anita doesn't mean that we don't help other causes where people are in much worse trouble. Accordingly, I don't really see the point of the comparison.

As for the execution, it seems fine to me so far, but I look forward to it getting (even) better. While you are, of course, entitled to your views on the quality of her work, my original post to you was intended to suggest that Anita is not particularly accountable to you (any more than to any other denizen of the web), and is in fact more accountable to her backers. This backer is happy.

 

[Dastardly]

Frankly, I personally do feel comfortable speaking in terms of that dichotomy.

...and Scientologists are comfortable speaking in terms of Thetans, but it hardly makes them less imaginary.

First, the issue of feminism, particularly representation of women in media, has been strongly polarized for decades -- most definitely since the advent of third-wave feminism. There is a pro- camp, and there is an anti-camp, and then there are the apathetic who are not involved, and unlikely to become involved. This is particularly true among men.

Here, you're stating the problem... and then just asserting it can't be fixed. It's like saying, "Well, here you've got a flat tire. And over here, your radiator's busted. Best just move on." Is it difficult to change minds on issues like this? Damn right. But it's infinitely more difficult if we don't even try.

Second, apathetic individuals are unlikely to seek out media such as Sarkeesian's, on its particular topic and in its particular venue, and be motivated to response. It's a matter of response bias, and yes it is a problem of circularity -- a given individual is not going to seek this out unless they're already are motivated to do so, and as such it's unlikely to spur action in which that individual does not already partake.

It's not for the apathetic. It's for those who are interested, to gain more information about the issue. And then many of them will encounter and discuss these things with the apathetic... and maybe one or two nuggets will stick with them from each discussion. And then, a long time from now, they've undergone a gradual change. A softening of their viewpoint, which is then more open to other things.

You're acting like we're looking for ten million grubby sexists to watch this video and prostrate themselves before Sarkeesian in wholeheartedly apology for their wicked ways. You're right, they probably will never watch the video. And neither will folks that don't really care. But more than zero people will watch it. And those people? They know more than zero people, and they'll talk to them.

As I said in a previous post, we need to remember that any mountain is just a collection of tightly-packed pebbles. Move one, and you won't see much difference... but move enough, and the mountain moves with them.

The problem you don't address is, the self-perpetuating nature of the problem itself. What Sarkeesian labels as "male power fantasies" are perpetuated in the game industry because they sell. The target audience, despite changing demographics over the last decade, is young adult men -- and because these titles sell well among the target audience, there's no motivator among players in the game industry to rock the boat. That is an indirect indictment against men, for consuming this media and perpetuating the problem.

It's not indirect at all. It's a direct indictment of the entire social establishment that locks us in this cycle (for now). It's not just men. There are women on staff at these companies, and they play along. But even "against men," it's not all men. I'm a man, and I don't feel indicted by this. I'm not one of those men.

She's not attacking a gender. She's attacking a mindset that prioritizes one gender over another. Now, logic dictates that if a particular status quo favors a particular group, it will more likely be embraced more easily by members of the favored group. Still, that's vastly different from an "indictment against men."

 

[generals3]

You're tilting at windmills here. No one is saying "It's sure a problem that so many people tell the same story." The complaint is that it's often the only story getting told. Publishers get tons and tons of pitches for games with strong female characters, but they turn them away in favor of BroDude IV: The Bicep-ening. About half of the world is female, but not even a tenth of the gaming market features leading female characters.

So, yeah, tons of people will tell the same story over and over for centuries. It's how the world works. But what's happening here is the modern equivalent of "olden days," when all of the stories were written by men because men were the only ones allowed to learn to write. The result is a body of literature that is not representative of the world of its time.

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

 

[Tony2077]

i swear this stuff is like those religious people they see only what they want and everything else be damned

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's straight out of folklore, is evident in every narrative driven medium and has survived precisely because it's effective. I have a feeling that we're not as complicated as we'd like to believe. We can craft more convoluted stories, but we can't make ourselves care about those stories if they don't work for us on a base level.

Example: Did you play Metal Gear? What stands out in your memory as effective in that narrative? The political waffle? Or maybe when Meryl got shot?(it's a 15 year old game, if that's a spoiler... sorry?) If it's not the latter... I don't think I trust you as a person.

Folklore excells at knowing what is important to us, on that base level... I think.

There's really no denying that there are some basic, natural tendencies at work here. And, really, I don't think anyone's denying it to begin with. Instead, we are simply being asked why the video game market is so completely saturated with stories that appeal almost exclusively to a male's basic natural tendencies.

There's also other forces at work. We can't simply say, "Well, it's nature, nothing we can do about it." Firstly, that's not true. Nature influences social interaction, and social interactions solidify (or even reinforce) those natural tendencies, which then further influence social interaction, and so on... in the end, we get an artificially distilled version of the original slight influence. Secondly, we can certainly work against nature.

There's nothing 'natural' about using a toilet. There's nothing 'natural' about wearing bras or boxers. Yet just about everyone in Western civilization does these things. We learn to work against what is purely natural, put aside those urges, and do what is socially better.

Those things are just utilitarian though, use them or don't, they're not there to stimulate your mind. I still don't think you can make yourself care about a narrative that you don't care about.

Have you looked at the numbers? Men are still the vast majority of people both buying and making games(at least the games being discussed). It's no version of surprising that they come up with ideas that appeal to men(you know, 'cause they're men)... I get the feeling people are trying not to understand how much sense that obviously makes.

Games really are only good at combat and space traversal(at least currently). That's fuck all for a writer to work with really, so I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that they're lazy. If combat is your mechanic, and you have to stretch it out for hours(for thousands of kills), then you have to have a protagonist who could conceivably kill that much life. No room for much variety even amongst male characters there, they have to be grizzled, traumatised by something and/or plain sociopathic.

That's where justification tropes are going to come into play. I love Max Payne, I get it... his family gets murdered, he goes off the rails and a lot of people end up dead. You wouldn't say he has no reasons, even if you don't agree with the reasons he has. Uncharted doesn't work for me in this regard. I appreciate the gameplay, but I'm always thinking "I'm killing all these people... for treasure? That's not a good reason"... and it sucks me out of it.

Point being, good reasons are in short supply. The death of or endangerment of a loved one is high on the list for a good reason. Right now we're discussing how it's use is excluding people, when it's really about as universal as anything you could come up with... we all understand it and can empathise with it too.

So the problem is that the roles don't get reversed often enough? I think at this point we're back to the numbers, aren't we? We don't "need" anything, but it would probably be cool if the talent pool in the industry was more diverse.

 

[Dastardly]

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

 

[Tony2077]

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

they sell to the main consumer its stupid i know but when you people pull stuff out of your backside to defend your point it doesn't help your position any

 

[generals3]

I personally enjoy TV Tropes. As for the Damsel in Distress stuff, people realise it exists, but how many people realised how common and pervasive it is before seeing the huge number of examples that Anita discussed?

Actually "common" is not the right word. It implies a high ratio of occurence. One which Anita did not prove since she did not make any math involving "amount of games using the trope/total amount of games". She also cherry picked the genre of game. A statistical abomination if you wanted to make statistical claims. It would be like interviewing 1000 KKK members and claiming racism is omnipresent in the US based on that.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I really liked this video. You can see that she did her homework, showing a load of specific scenes for every trope she talked about. She also addressed some issues people had with her last video. I mostly agree with everything she said. I played some of the games shown here. Dishonored is my favorite game of the year, but it doesn't make me protective of it if there is a potential problem, and I agree it does perpetuate that "wife killed, save the girl" trope.

I don't see why people get upset about her, it looks like she is doing a good job. Yeah, it takes her time in getting the episodes out but they are almost half and hour and from that picture that she posted, there is a ton of games she went trough to get the information she needed.

While her research has been greatly improved for this video, and given the length of time between each video, I would've been annoyed if it was as weak as the last one.

Having watched the vast majority of the video, I can see she does raise some valid points, but only if you view the women as an object. In the 'revenge' scenarios, I imagine myself in the protagonists shoes and the actions I would commit in response. If someone I care about has been kidnapped/killed and I have the skills I would do EVERYTHING I could to get the person back. It is not as evil as Anita intends, because I saw an interesting subtext here...

Imagine you are walking down the street, you are all alone. As you walk past an alleyway, you hear a cry for help. A woman is getting attacked. In your hands is a weapons you are trained and very confident with. Should you intervene and save her, or should you walk on by so as not to 'damselize' her?

Now, same scenario, but the woman crying out for help is a family member, friend or loved one...

If Anita wants to be taken more seriously, she should make a game which proves her points, not taking apart video games. If you look at ANY MEDIA with a storyline, there will always be a victim, and there will always be a hero... Why she focuses on videogames, I cannot understand. It is the youngest medium, and in my eyes, there are far worse culprits.

 

[Dastardly]

You have got to be kidding me here. Are you really asking for affirmative action when it comes to who gets their creative works published? Cause last I checked the ability for an individual man or woman to publish their own content has only gotten easier on both a personal and professional level.

*sigh*

Do some research into the video game publishing world. There are a small handful of big publishers, and tons of struggling indie groups out there. For every smash indie it, there are a few dozen that fold without ever making it to market. Yeah, that's the same for everyone. But we're talking about the major players here: the big publishers.

Even so, who said anything about 'affirmative action.' And absolutely no one has said anyone should "stop men from sharing" their ideas or stories. Instead, we're simply saying if a publisher is currently having 10 games made, why is it that 9 of them have male leads?

You're obviously one of those people that seems to believe that for every game featuring a female, it means somewhere, some guy who was making another male-centric game got turned down for a job and is starving in a gutter somewhere. The fact is there's room for both. There's plenty of room. It's like a two bedroom apartment, and the male roommate gets his own room... but also wants to keep the rest of his stuff in the female roommate's room, and insist that he's being victimized every time she asks to move something a little.

WTF? I'd really like to know what shoebox pinhole you are staring in because most of the content I read in my leisure in terms of webcomics, art, and yes even video games are led by women.

List them. And then compare that list to the total content being produced and pushed. Drop in the bucket. Just because you live a little closer to that drop doesn't mean the rest of the world ain't thirsty. Your reply is so narrow in its views that I'm convinced you're a cyclops.

 

[generals3]

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Don't put words into my mouth. But it is ultimately the demand which drives the supply, if there is demand there is supply. That's why i used the word "potential costumer". Most companies conduct market researches to evaluate that potential costumer base, some may be too lazy and just follow market trends but it's not always the case and i doubt anyone knows the marketing practices of big gaming companies.

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

Everyone is looking for change. I'm still waiting for my dream MMO and RTS. And i've done my research however no quantitative studies popped up. And the opinions of people on blogs or gaming websites are extremely unlikely to be representative of the whole community.

The only actual scientific studies i have found suggested women were less interested in violence and competitiveness and more in social aspects in games. Which actually supports the theory they like the typical violent AAA game less than men. The only scientific studies out there, even if probably not conclusive because the methodology can be questioned, supports the decisions made by the industry.

But I'm convinced a market research would provide much better insight and thus am still waiting for people who make the same claim as you do to provide it to me. All i'm asking for is that you prove me wrong.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

You're assuming the status quo is not an optimum. All I want is evidence of that. I think i've asked it 4-5 times already on this forum: show me the market researches proving the status quo is wrong.

 

[Basement Cat]

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

I can assure you 47% of gamers are not women: This number gets bandied around a lot & its pure unadulterated nonsense. The survey we get this number from never gives us any methodolgy to how they came about determining this number which means people who play angry birds & fruit ninja while wainting for the bus, are given as much importance as someone who has spent $1,300 on a gaming rig & roughly $1,000 a year on AAA titles.

Its a nonsensical number with no meaning.

Could you please post citations to confirm your assertions?

I grok that there may be fewer women playing CoD than men, for example, but I don't see why that genre's numbers should be used to define the demographics.

Or is this one of those "They're not REAL Gamers" stances?

I play BioWare RPGs, sure, but mostly I play mighty Hidden Object games. Sounds like I'm not a "Gamer" by your definition.

This amuses me.

 

[Wyvern65]

The ESA studies are pretty easy to find doing a simple google. They are complied by an industry trade group

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2008.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

Oddly enough there appears to be no 2010 report. There may be earlier years but I didn't bother checking. It may simply use a different pattern for the URL.

They do break down stats for gender and type of game and platform and do provide rudimentary sourcing, but there's no gendered breakdown of subtypes. (ie 25% of gamers play action/rpg titles and 47% of all gamers are female but no breakdown on what percentage of the 25% of action gamers are female, etc.)