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

[Dastardly]

Actually thats exactly what we are talking about. Apparently one female character gets killed & its a travesty, but the killing of hundred of thousands of male characters is not even of trivial interest.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, when Sarkeesian has already clearly sorted them. She's not talking about mowing down nameless NPCs, male or female. She's not talking about simply any and all violence against female characters. There is a fundamental difference between the types of violence being talked about here.

For instance, beating up Rogue in Marvel vs. Capcom doesn't show up on Sarkeesian's radar, because Rogue is characterized as strong and capable, and is on equal footing with the other characters in the game. She is not a victim, she is a willing participant in the violence.

Contrast that with two plot-centric characters dying. One male, one female. One is killed in his/her sleep, thus motivating the other to quest for revenge. The other dies a heroic death, striking down the villain with his/her dying breath. Now, being completely honest: Which gender usually gets assigned to each of those roles?

Nearly always, the "my death is simply a plot device in some other character's backstory" is given to females instead of males. And the "my death is a capstone in my own story, displaying my selflessly heroic qualities" is a death reserved for male characters most often. Sarkeesian is simply hoping to get us to genuinely ask why the math breaks down this way. Why isn't it at least a little closer to 50/50, and why shouldn't it be?

No, they aren't. Governance doesn't have a default, its determined by the ruling class. Its not like society slips & falls into Emporers... Because that would be silly.

You're taking an unnecessarily narrow use of the word "default." Here, it's simply (and very correctly) being used to mean "When folks aren't sure which gender the ruler of a country, or several countries, is, they generally assume it's a man." Why? Because, historically, if you list all the rulers of all the countries that exist or have existed, take a look at what percentage is male. Male is, socially speaking, the "assumed until proven otherwise."

 

[keniakittykat]

I'm impressed, she actually brings up some very good points and I found actually nothing to disagree with.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Long story short, nothing Sarkeesian says is attacking players.

Yes, she does, and you yourself just explained exactly why and how she does:

If I come across a house that is on fire, and do nothing, I'm allowing the fire to continue. If I throw a toothpick on the fire, I am contributing to that fire. If enough people throw enough toothpicks, the fire can (and will) get bigger -- or at least continue indefinitely.

If an individual contributes to an endemic problem, they are culpable for that contribution. To say one is "attacking a problem" is a convenient means to excuse collective guilt and to dodge criticism for having indicted an entire class of individuals. In this case, simply being a member of a target demographic is apparently enough; that's not an ill-founded indictment, since target demographics exist for a reason and there is obviously a market for what Ms. Sarkeesian refers to as "male empowerment fantasy" (and nor do I have a problem with that characterization), but pussyfooting around the issue to avoid criticism is a disingenuous tactic, to be diplomatic about it.

We live, like it or not, in a "free" market. The solution to this problem is pretty obvious: stop buying this shit. Corporations operate under the profit motive, not the social justice motive, and appealing to game companies to stop engaging in what is obviously a wildly profitable venture out of the goodness of their hearts and the righteousness of "the cause" is pissing in the wind. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just came outright and said it.

By the by, my captcha? "Agree to disagree". There's some irony.

 

[EyeReaper]

So... according to her, women should never die in a video game, because that's disempowering and sexist.

And here's a person that didn't watch the whole video. Because she said and explains, repeatedly, at the end that that's not what she trying to say.

Well done! How far in did you actually get?

Of course i didn't finish watching the video. i wasted ten minutes, I'm not gonna waste a half an hour on this drivel

10 minutes!? Man, I thought for sure you were someone that would only watch 4 or 5 minutes, jump to a conclusion, then rush to... inflict... your opinion onto others. But, instead, you waited TEN minutes! I have grossly underestimated you and I, deeply, apologize for that.

Well aren't you just an upstanding citizen. Someone give this guy a gold star.
See, I like to operate on the "Don't like, don't watch" and, as a feminist, I gave her a try.
I understand what she's saying, i just don't agree with it (Watch out, I'm "inflicting" my opinion here) so i stopped watching. Then, i figured "hey, might as well post what i thought, and see if others agree/disagree, and maybe have a rational, logical discussion." But no, instead I got you to reply, oh well, can't all be winners I guess.

 

[Tony2077]

this is my thoughts on the video "ok that sounds good oh wtf you were doing so well why did you have to shoot yourself in the foot"

 

[Dastardly]

If an individual contributes to an endemic problem, they are culpable for that contribution. To say one is "attacking a problem" is a convenient means to excuse collective guilt and to dodge criticism for having indicted an entire class of individuals.

You're simultaneously defining a class of individuals and then disregarding your own definition. And then you're placing guilt where it doesn't belong.

If you contribute to a problem, you are culpable for that contribution. Rightly so. If I don't realize I'm stepping all over your budding daisies while I take a shortcut through your yard, that doesn't make the daisies any less dead. And just because you point that out to me doesn't mean you're "attacking" me, or that you're thinking I'm some awful, miserable dick.

It means you're saying, "Hey. You may not realize this, but you're doing something destructive right there. I know it may seem harmless to cut through my yard, and many times it is, but in this case you're doing it in a way that crushes my daisies." Now, if I am, in fact, an awful, miserable dick, I will intentionally take offense at your critique. I will insist that I am, in fact, a victim of your vicious attacks -- I didn't mean to kill any daisies, so there's no reason for you to point out the fact that I did.

Suddenly I'm a victim of your insensitivity, because you dared say anything that would mean it might be a nice idea to adjust my path slightly.

In this case, simply being a member of a target demographic is apparently enough; that's not an ill-founded indictment, since target demographics exist for a reason and there is obviously a market for what Ms. Sarkeesian refers to as "male empowerment fantasy" (and nor do I have a problem with that characterization), but pussyfooting around the issue to avoid criticism is a disingenuous tactic, to be diplomatic about it.

If there was a magazine called "Racists Weekly," it's target demographic would be racists. Just because there is a target demographic doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with that demo's viewpoint. But, let's be very clear: That's not the kind of thing we're talking about at all. I'm just making a broader point. Just because there are people willing to buy it does not make it above reproach.

On this topic, though, Sarkeesian is not saying no one should make these stories, and that no one should ever buy them. Male empowerment fantasies exist because they appeal to males... but there are two other things to consider:

1. It is perfectly possible to create male empowerment fantasies without doing so at the expense of female characters.
2. It is also perfectly possible to create female empowerment fantasies.

And the problem is that Thing 1 and Thing 2 aren't happening as often as maybe they should. And we would do well to look into why (beyond "because people buy it!" -- see above).

We live, like it or not, in a "free" market. The solution to this problem is pretty obvious: stop buying this shit. Corporations operate under the profit motive, not the social justice motive, and appealing to game companies to stop engaging in what is obviously a wildly profitable venture out of the goodness of their hearts and the righteousness of "the cause" is pissing in the wind. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just came outright and said it.

She has. That's exactly what she's doing. This video isn't being sent to publishers. It being put in front of potential consumers. It's pointing out, "Hey, this is a problem in many games. Maybe it'd be helpful if we instead put our money toward games that aren't doing this?" Any guilt a viewer feels is internal in origin, because it's clearly not conveyed by the video itself.

(Now, a lot of the discussion surrounding the video involves extremists on both sides, and some people unwittingly attach the opposing side's extremism to the original content. This happens in a lot of discussions.)

Now, yeah, Sarkeesian makes it clear that she believes this problem is, well, a problem. She's specifically not pussyfooting around what she feels is a detrimental state of social norms. She's treating the problem as exactly what it is: sneaky, insidious, harmful. But she's being extraordinarily civil toward the medium itself and those who consume it.

To ask someone who is pointing out a problem to not talk about the problem as though it was a problem, lest they make the people who are participants in that problem feel bad? That is what would be dishonest "pussyfooting."

 

[AgedGrunt]

Sarkeesian is simply hoping to get us to genuinely ask why the math breaks down this way. Why isn't it at least a little closer to 50/50, and why shouldn't it be?

I understand she tries to open eyes, but at the same time I think "troping" can be unhealthy and leads to unnecessary scrutiny. Scanning art/creative work and criticizing unbalance is inherently wrong because it seems to suggest that there is a limit to how much can be similar before something is wrong about it.

I'm not overlooking or even rejecting notions of gender bias in just about every facet of life. I simply accept reality and live in a world that supports freedom of expression. That is the freedom for companies to make a million games about a damsel in distress, for example, and all that it asks is for people to exercise tolerance rather than surveillance and investigation.

Art can be a lot of things and have infinite unique meanings, but the one thing it can never be is wrong. That implies there is a right way, and it's doubly outrageous that it's being judged on something as contradictory as statistics. Advocating for change in art to balance the universe should be a cardinal sin to anyone's imagination. It is the ironic box Anita wants people to think inside of, because when you create something and ask yourself if it satisfies arbitrary standards and conforms to a view, you've lost your imagination already.

Anita may make plenty of observations, but if her message, her mission is perhaps to see gaming and media redeem itself with parity then she's flat-out wrong.

 

[Dastardly]

Well aren't you just an upstanding citizen. Someone give this guy a gold star.
See, I like to operate on the "Don't like, don't watch" and, as a feminist, I gave her a try.
I understand what she's saying, i just don't agree with it (Watch out, I'm "inflicting" my opinion here) so i stopped watching. Then, i figured "hey, might as well post what i thought, and see if others agree/disagree, and maybe have a rational, logical discussion." But no, instead I got you to reply, oh well, can't all be winners I guess.

To interject here: The issue is that what you claimed in your first post in this exchange was something that was specifically mentioned in the video. It was addressed directly, completely, and reasonably. You brought it up, and someone else pointed out (with unnecessary sarcasm, perhaps) that it was addressed if you'd finished the video.

And rather than simply say, "Ah, I see, this point would have been addressed. Now it has, and I amend my previous statement in light of the facts as they have now been presented," or perhaps, "Really? Well what excuse did she give for that?" (which at least addresses the possibility that your assumption was based on incomplete information), you defended your ignorance of that information. You planted you foot and said, "It doesn't matter that what I believe she said is the exact opposite of what she said. I'm going to continue arguing against what I assume she said."

She went on, in the video, to draw clear distinctions between violence that happens to women in games: women who are willing combatants, just like the men? It's the same thing. No problems at all. Ostensibly important female characters who are killed off for the sole purpose of being a male hero's revenge motivation (or similar situations, in which the death is simply a plot device for a male character arc)? That might be a problem, since it happens so extremely much (and only really seems to happen one way with any frequency).

 

[Kuomon]

Finally she gives arguments instead of merely patronizing. I must say I'm a lot happier with this episode than I was with the previous one, in spite of the fact that I find some of her choices questionable, the most egregious example being "Shadows of the Damned". It is definitely an easy target, but there is something to be said for a games awareness of the tropes it is using. Honestly I don't think she really understands SUDA 51 games beyond a surface level and thinks (regrettably like most of the internet) that it's all just quirky and odd.

 

[Dastardly]

I understand she tries to open eyes, but at the same time I think "troping" can be unhealthy and leads to unnecessary scrutiny. Scanning art/creative work and criticizing unbalance is inherently wrong because it seems to suggest that there is a limit to how much can be similar before something is wrong about it.

Again, it's not the art itself. It's not the story trope itself. It's how prevalent it is. And yeah, there is a saturation point beyond which one must wonder, "Just how deep does this belief go in this group?" If a majority of people in this country voted to reinstate racial segregation, that might make it legal... but would it make it right?

There is a problematic social norm in which "men are this, women are that," in a way that is generally unfavorable toward women. Not everyone holds the belief, but many act upon it at least tangentially. And that belief is bleeding into the art -- or, more specifically, into the business that drives the art.

I'm not overlooking or even rejecting notions of gender bias in just about every facet of life. I simply accept reality and live in a world that supports freedom of expression.

If 9 out of 10 games on the market were about how awesome abortion is, or had themes that tied back to that, wouldn't you start to wonder if there was some kind of weird abortion fixation in the games industry? If it was something that noticeable, we'd all see it... but that is the problem with this issue: it's accepted as normal, so we don't even notice that it's happening.

No one is saying "Stop making THAT GAME." They're saying, "Why don't we ALSO make OTHER GAMES, and give them the same financial and media support? Why don't we at least TRY IT and see if it sells?"

 

[Wyvern65]

It's not the story trope itself. It's how prevalent it is.

And this is one of my biggest beefs with Anita's video. There's no way anyone viewing it can tell how prevalent it is because she simply composes a list of games from the past 15 years with no context and says "here's the trope, it's bad."

What percentage of games actually use this trope? It's a question that matters a heck of a lot in terms of how 'problematic' this actually is.

Do you know? I sure don't. She /should/ because she's the one arguing it is overused and is supposed to have done research.

EDIT: In point of fact I'm mischaracterizing her argument too charitably. She actually says rather casually near the beginning of the video that we should be past using this trope AT ALL by now.

 

[Yuuki]

They're saying, "Why don't we ALSO make OTHER GAMES, and give them the same financial and media support? Why don't we at least TRY IT and see if it sells?"

This statement confusing me because countless developers are working on new and interesting games as we speak and have been doing so for years.
Something being "common" in a medium as huge as the entertainment industry doesn't mean that it encompasses all, or even the majority.
It's just a chunk of games, a chunk of games which Anita is pointing out and during her more tinfoil-hat wearing moments, going as far as to say that sexism in that portion of games could be linked to real-life sexism against women (just like gun crime, eh?).

 

[GloatingSwine]

She has. That's exactly what she's doing. This video isn't being sent to publishers. It being put in front of potential consumers. It's pointing out, "Hey, this is a problem in many games. Maybe it'd be helpful if we instead put our money toward games that aren't doing this?" Any guilt a viewer feels is internal in origin, because it's clearly not conveyed by the video itself.

No, it's really not.

I agree with Jen Bosier on Forbes to a degree, Anita Sarkeesian comes off in this video as an outsider to gaming making superficial judgements based on initial impressions of games. She's not talking to potential consumers, because potential consumers of videogames as they stand have greater knowledge of them than she does and can see the problems with her arguments.

Though I would actually argue that this goes deeper. The problem with Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are a problem with thinking about media in terms of tropes. Tropes are intellectual poison which attempt to persuade you that a certain element is always the same thing no matter how it fits in to the context of the work it appears in as a whole. Thinking in terms of tropes is unavoidably the shallowest form of analysis, it impedes understanding rather than assisting it.

Anita has fallen into a trap, a trap which is evident in her videos, she substitutes pointing at a thing and saying "this is Thing" for examining the thing and the way it is presented in the work it appears in and how and why it is being used. This is why she presents examples of obvious parody (eg. Shadows of the Damned) as examples of the things they are parodying, because an analysis from the point of tropes cannot tell the difference.


If you want a more structured version of this argument, go to the font of all shit, TV Tropes, and look up some media. The more a piece of media is generally held to have literary merit, the less TV Tropes will have to say about it.

 

[Krixous]

It got removed? Now what are we going to have pointless fights over that change nothing and do nothing to influence the dissenting opinion? The forum might just cease to exist.

videogames random fandom versus random fandom ummm what type of cheese is the best in the world.

 

[TallanKhan]

This second episode was a substantial improvment on the first and I found it fairly enjoyable. I didn't agree with everything she said mind you, particularly with reference to the mercy killings plot device, as while I agree there are problems with the way it is often handled, I don't believe its fundamentally a mysoginistic plot device.

One thing I would say for future videos though is I wish her points would be a little more concise.

 

[Mid Boss]

So... according to her, women should never die in a video game, because that's disempowering and sexist.

And here's a person that didn't watch the whole video. Because she said and explains, repeatedly, at the end that that's not what she trying to say.

Well done! How far in did you actually get?

Of course i didn't finish watching the video. i wasted ten minutes, I'm not gonna waste a half an hour on this drivel

10 minutes!? Man, I thought for sure you were someone that would only watch 4 or 5 minutes, jump to a conclusion, then rush to... inflict... your opinion onto others. But, instead, you waited TEN minutes! I have grossly underestimated you and I, deeply, apologize for that.

Well aren't you just an upstanding citizen. Someone give this guy a gold star.
See, I like to operate on the "Don't like, don't watch" and, as a feminist, I gave her a try.
I understand what she's saying, i just don't agree with it (Watch out, I'm "inflicting" my opinion here) so i stopped watching. Then, i figured "hey, might as well post what i thought, and see if others agree/disagree, and maybe have a rational, logical discussion." But no, instead I got you to reply, oh well, can't all be winners I guess.

Oh so your "So... according to her, women should never die in a video game, because that's disempowering and sexist." comment was meant to inspire... discussion?

I have committed a crime before man and God for having deprived us what would have been a deep, rational, conversation between mental titans. Surely you would have been at a disadvantage for having only "wasted" 10 minutes watching this "drivel". Though, I'm sure you would have held your own. Because I believe in you!

 

[Somnambulistic]

I found the second episode okay, and I'm interested in seeing the 3rd. However, I keep feeling as though Ms. Sarkeesian keeps missing a substantial point. These stories are about helplessness. Man or woman would feel the same about their loved one being taken. Any one of those stories could be sex changed into a female protagonist with a male loved one in distress.

"Beatrice's Inferno", anyone? Hell, I'd play it. xD

They don't have to be female, but the majority of the audiences that are supposed to be buying these games are young hetero males. Games are marketed with that guy in mind. If it's going to be a guy in distress in one of these games, it'll be his best friend. Sex = changed. You can still have the same narrative.

I don't feel like the women in the games in her examples were reduced to cheap plot devices. I think there was symbolism. It may be repetitive that so many games use it over and over and over again, but it's still there. Especially in that game where the guy's wife was his bionic arm. That's freaking awesome. She's right there by his side, beating ass and literally is a part of him now and is helping him survive and succeed.

The message intended most likely wasn't that that's all she could do or all she was worth was to be a tool to support him and that was it. There was more to it than that. I don't understand what's so bad about a male character depending or leaning on a female character, so that he isn't doing it all alone. Yes, she's support in the context of the story, but it shows that he still needs her. Doesn't that count for anything?

If it was his male best friend in that position, it could be a really intense bromance which could get misinterpreted as homosexuallity, which would be a gamble with their target audience which is something the companies that put out these games might not want to go into because it could mean a loss of revenue. However, having the in distress character being male isn't impossible, see "Captain America: The First Avenger" for example with Bucky. Using a female character isn't really a gamble. A female is easy to identify as a loved one. Think about it when someone says "wife" what do you immediately know about the protagonist and his relationship to her? Not just that they're married, but that he loves her a lot right?

It's not justifying it by any means, because yes it's repetitive and it would be spiffy to get something fresh and new, but it is something to consider.

The bottom line is, I feel like Miss S, ignores the point of a lot of these stories and the overall context of them and why they are what they are. I would love to see any of her examples gender flipped. I'd play the hell out of them and be first in line for "Beatrince's Inferno". >:3

 

[Innegativeion]

Too bad the comments are disabled again, because I would've liked to communicate to her that this video is MUCH much better than her first.

Seems less aggressive, better communicates her standpoint and actual issue she's addressing, points out that the developers aren't necessarily to blame, explains that it is the trend and not the isolated incidents that are the problem, cedes that media has an infulence but not a cause effect relationship with consumers.

Good on her for that.


In any event, I still don't think she needed all that kickstarter money to make it. Heh.