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

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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 there is a market for a particular product (in this case, male power fantasy), and that product happens to be problematic, companies are going to exploit that market regardless. Culpability also falls upon the consumer for buying these products. I fail to see how this is particularly hard to understand.

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."

In this particular case, the analogical equivalent to what Sarkeesian is doing is saying "well, somebody keeps stepping on my daisies..." and eyeballing men. Her analysis is deconstructive and purely descriptive, fails to make any particular normative argument, and leaves indictment to the realm of hidden premises and implication.

It's all well and fine to point out a problem exists. It's also entirely meaningless to point out a problem exists, without contextualizing why that problem exists and what causes that problem in the first place; without that, any semblance of collective action to remedy that problem will, at best, remedy the symptom rather than the cause.

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.

So fucking what? This is supposedly a mature, rational discourse. Criticism, well-founded or no, is inevitable; ignore the latter category as the irrationality and ignorance of those speakers makes itself self-evident, and engage the former in order to refine one's own arguments and strive for consensus and collective action. Don't piss, moan, and use the former category of criticism to shield oneself from having to engage and respond to the latter.

She has. That's exactly what she's doing.

No, it isn't. One throwaway comment at the very end of a video that does not contextualize why those games in question are positive examples, or supporting that assertion, is poor support for that being what she is doing. That's particularly true when throughout the video previously, she uses arbitrary and self-serving limits to what context matters when examining these tropes and how they are used in games, and simply lists games without explaining in greater detail why, specifically, these games remain problematic despite their greater internal context. If her examples of problematic games lacks depth and credibility, how can her examples of not problematic games be treated as authoritative?

And, nowhere in the video in question does she urge players to stop buying games she deems problematic, or urge players to play games that aren't. Because, god forbid, she make a normative statement.

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."

Yet, I'm not doing that, and I suspect that because you deemed necessary to state that you assume I am. In absolutely no way am I suggesting silence fall on this issue. I'm suggesting we discuss it in a straightforward, assertive, and honest method, that yields a normative position and is constructive.

 

[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.

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!

Well, when you're right, you're right. I didn't provoke any rational thought did I? Maybe it was just a petty insult, but you seem to be the expert at those, so I'll take your word on it.

 

[AgedGrunt]

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?"

You are not prejudging an industry as a group that believes in sexism. The word is "cliche". A female victim being a plot device for a male hero is not an ugly, prevalent, sexist trope we need to question the validity of -- it's a tired cliche that, if abused, is just bad and bland writing. You are wrongly implying correlation between cliches and intent while unfairly arguing that saturation is hurting both art and viewers. That's academic reasoning but I rate it specious.

If a majority of people in this country voted to reinstate racial segregation, that might make it legal... but would it make it right?

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.

How in the wide, wide world of toast do you compare fictional themes to abortion and racism? You're right, many of us don't notice this stuff. Why? Because not all of us are obsessive analyzers and insecure with art and gender roles in society. Personally, the most detrimental effect in my life hasn't been any prevalent "trope", it's been the barrage of attitudes that superficially put attributes like race, gender and sexuality on the cover of issues. Indeed, it's prevalent on this site and with progressives in general.

I actually find it somewhat ironic that we're supposed to simultaneously ask these provoking questions about tropes vs. women and act accordingly without accidentally prejudging them on the basis of their gender, which we're not supposed to be doing in the first place. In other words, if there are more damsels than dudes in distress, who are you to tell women where their new place (presumably as heroines) should be?

 

[Shadowstar38]

...

...

I feel a lot of sexual tension here. Everyone step back and take a breath before things get weird.

In other words, if there are more damsels than dudes in distress, who are you to tell women where their new place (presumably as heroines) should be?

I'm pretty sure a majority of women would prefer one position over the other.

 

[raingod]

Religion is beside the point. Sarkeesian is obviously not talking to game makers, but rather trying to highlight the kind of lazy sexism that exists in the gaming industry. If you will, by highlighting the issue she might be influencing people to pass up on game containing this kind of lazy sexism in their stories, which in turn hurts profit.

Either way, Sarkeesians argument was one of social values and morality, it is disingenuous to suggest that things can't change because currently these games are making a profit.

Religion is not beside the point. We all came from different races/countries/cultures/religion. We will look at this from different points of view. Your morality will be mold by your culture with/without religion.

No, I snipped out the irrelevant fluff. Your analogy also fails, because neither I nor Sarkeesian has said video games will make anyone think women are all helpless victims. What we have said is that they, when they contain this kind of material, help perpetuate current, outdated gender stereotypes. That is to say that people who believe women are helpless victims will continue to think so. In conjunction with the rest of media it will also make all of us more likely to subconsciously assume women are less capable and more likely to be victimized than men. You know, just like Marlboro Man managed to make an entire generation think it was really cool to go smoking.

No, it is not irrelevant. That is misquoting for your convenience. Wait?! You mean to tell me we are not talking about video games? That is a weird title. Thank you for your example of Marlboro Man. That is what I was saying. It is popular, people buy it. Other companies are jealous, they copy it. It is simple as that. What is hard to understand?

Why are you asking me that? If this is your problem take it to Sarkeesian. The general idea when doing social critique is that you are talking to anyone who's willing to listen, which is what Sarkeesian seems to be doing. Obviously gamers will be a pretty big target group, since we are those that are the most affected.

See? Target audience.

Sweet! Anecdotal fallacy! [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal] Your boss happens to be a minority, just like mine, and the gender of our bosses is not relevant to this particular discussion. Either way they are still a statistical minority compared to all the male bosses out there.

Nice link. It is relevant. We are talking about gender equality. I gave that example to show you that there IS gender equality. And you gave an example, too. I don't know if it is just a minority. But it exist. And WE just gave examples.

 

[Otterish]

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.

I've been seeing a lot of people voice the opinion that troping kind of makes you jaded to all those kinds of things, but as a somewhat "hardcore" body-positive feminist (not a rad fem, yuck) I can say with pride that I think Fat Princess is absolutely adorable! Sure, I don't really think it's great to treat said princess as a literal object, but if you just recognize that it is a problem and it should be fixed doesn't mean the game is no longer fun. Here is a useful article (which may have already been posted, I didn't read every single page of this thread)right here: http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

Yes, it's from a website with "social justice" in it's name, but I promise it wont bite. The gist of the article is three main things to remember:

Acknowledge that the thing you like is problematic and do not attempt to make excuses for it. (aka, "...but it makes sense in this game because of the time period and blah blah blah")

Do not gloss over the issues or derail conversations about the problematic elements. (aka, "Why is this an issue when men are objectified as hulking muscle mass?")

You must acknowledge other, even less favorable, interpretations of the media you like. (preeeety much what a lot of people are not doing in regards to Anita's videos)


She isn't saying that those video games are bad, she is just pointing out things that are problematic and saying "we can do better than this tried old trope"

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

No, it is not irrelevant. That is misquoting for your convenience. Wait?! You mean to tell me we are not talking about video games? That is a weird title. Thank you for your example of Marlboro Man. That is what I was saying. It is popular, people buy it. Other companies are jealous, they copy it. It is simple as that. What is hard to understand?

You obviously did not understand my point. Go read what I wrote again, maybe you will understand it if you think about it a little more. And I've already pointed out that "profit is king" is no a relevant counter-argument to criticism against perpetuation of stereotypes.

Also I quoted you to the letter, I only cut out parts that were in support of your argument. It is not misquoting, unless I have altered what you actually wrote.

Nice link. It is relevant. We are talking about gender equality. I gave that example to show you that there IS gender equality. And you gave an example, too. I don't know if it is just a minority. But it exist. And WE just gave examples.

Anecdotal evidence is bad and relying on them to prove a point is even worse. Here's statistics for you: Of the 100 richest people in the world only 11 are women. 21 of 500 Fortune 500 CEOs are women, that's 4.2% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_CEOs_of_the_Fortune_500]. The ratio is identical in the Fotune 1000. Now you know that female bosses are a minority. It shouldn't be a shocker, because it is common knowledge.

So no, there is not gender equality.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

My question it you is what "percentage" of games have to have this problem before we're allowed to finally admit it's a problem. I mean, diseases reach "epidemic" proportions well before they've infected a majority of the people on the planet, or even in the area being described.

The fact is the trope in question is far more common than the opposite, corresponding trope (same situation, reversed genders). The unfavorable treatment of women in favor of men is more prevalent than the opposite, and that is the problem when I refer to prevalence. There is no requirement of what percentage of games must have it.

It's very common. That's clear from the number of high-profile games she is able to rattle off in so short a time. There are others, as well, and all of us (yourself included) could name a few more with a moment's thought. We seem to be moving the goalposts whenever convenient to allow ourselves to believe the problem isn't a problem.

 

[raingod]

... maybe you will understand it if you think about it a little more.

Nice.

Also I quoted you to the letter, I only cut out parts that were in support of your argument. It is not misquoting, unless I have altered what you actually wrote.

But you altered it. "I only cut out parts that were in support of your argument." So, you can't say, "I quoted you to the letter".

Anecdotal evidence is bad and relying on them to prove a point is even worse. Here's statistics for you: Of the 100 richest people in the world only 11 are women. 21 of 500 Fortune 500 CEOs are women, that's 4.2% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_CEOs_of_the_Fortune_500]. The ratio is identical in the Fotune 1000. Now you know that female bosses are a minority. It shouldn't be a shocker, because it is common knowledge.

So no, there is not gender equality.

So you mean TWO (2) examples will WIN your argument that there is NO GENDER EQUALITY? Really? Isn't this like a fallacy, too?

 

[Wyvern65]

Goalpost moving noted. I responded directly to an argument made by you using an exact quote and now . . . I have to respond to another argument, that is what you /really/ meant by prevalence which I was supposed to know because. . . reasons.

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?

Anita does not make this argument. As I stated (and can be easily verified) she quite plainly claims we should be 'past' this trope by now. As in not using it.

I don't know what percentage, because I don't know it's a real problem, because there's no peer reviewed research that I know of (and social science is not my thing so feel free if you do) that proves any of what she is claiming is a problem (overuse of tropes) is an /actual/ problem.

I'm not the one making any claims here so I'll be damned if I have to provide any proof.

That is what science is. Hypothesis, testing, evidence, proof of hypothesis.

She is doing creation science: This is a thing which is bad. (Because I say so) [start with conclusion assumed]

And yes I know she's 'critiquing' not 'doing science' but when you say a thing is /harmful/ you MUST provide some evidence that it is or no one will pay you the slightest mind, nor should they. That your intuition says there is a connection is not sufficient. That you feel excluded because there aren't enough equal representations of a trope (or that the trope exists at all) to suit your requirements is an argument for nothing. That it's logically plausible is not enough.

Show me /some/ evidence that these tropes are bad as anything other than shoddy and lazy storytelling and I might consider it is a thing that needs changing for Anita's reasons.

And yes, I will continue to insist that if you say the mere presence of something in a medium is bad then the amount of it present in the medium as a whole actually does matter, because if the argument is against using any gendered trope in a story you've just severely limited the artistic expression rights of a hell of a lot more people than those who just make games and discarded a large percentage of all of our literary history.

I am not against equal representation of protagonists. I'm not against women in gaming. What I am against are Anita's tactics which differ from Jack Thompson's not one iota, and the feminists are lapping it up in the gaming community because it's what you /want/ to believe is true in her case.

In Jack's . . . not so much.

 

[Lady Larunai]

Anecdotal evidence is bad and relying on them to prove a point is even worse. Here's statistics for you: Of the 100 richest people in the world only 11 are women. 21 of 500 Fortune 500 CEOs are women, that's 4.2% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_CEOs_of_the_Fortune_500]. The ratio is identical in the Fotune 1000. Now you know that female bosses are a minority. It shouldn't be a shocker, because it is common knowledge.

So no, there is not gender equality.

/facepalm of doom

Okay, lets take this from the top... what you've just done is called equality of outcome, which is not equality at all: Don't let the word equality in the title fool you. What you've tried to do is to point out that because women do not make up 50% of something it must be sexism, or a lack of equality: Its not.

The absense of women, does not denote exclusion.

Equality, real equality is refered to as equality of oppurtunity: Everyone has the same oppurtunities, to live & let live, to succeed or fail based on there own merits. You cannot look at the people at the top & say "its not fair that men get put to the top." Those men did not get "put" anywhere: They worked, they schemed & they sacrificed to get to the position they are in... They bet on the right horse at the right time, they followed through, they adapted & they cleaned up. Of course for every many who played the game & made it there are hundreds of thousands who did not.

Because i can add to this at least 1 of the 11 richest women was put there when she inherited her fathers fortune (not that it means much when she is complete *****)

It is also a little unfair to state there is inequality in the top 100 when you look at the age of the majority of them and see they are well over 60 years old an were making these fortunes about 20 - 40 years before there was equality in the workplace, even going on an equal pay in the workplace estimate of 1970ish and anti sex discrimination in 1984 .. it takes us a while to play 30 -40 years of catchup when starting from what is basically scratch

 

[AgedGrunt]

In other words, if there are more damsels than dudes in distress, who are you to tell women where their new place (presumably as heroines) should be?

I'm pretty sure a majority of women would prefer one position over the other.

As an individual you don't speak for the majority. That's not implying one position is more favorable than another, but telling the majority what it wants (or should want) to see is wrong.

Sure, I don't really think it's great to treat said princess as a literal object, but if you just recognize that it is a problem and it should be fixed doesn't mean the game is no longer fun.

Acknowledge that the thing you like is problematic and do not attempt to make excuses for it. (aka, "...but it makes sense in this game because of the time period and blah blah blah")

Do not gloss over the issues or derail conversations about the problematic elements. (aka, "Why is this an issue when men are objectified as hulking muscle mass?")

You must acknowledge other, even less favorable, interpretations of the media you like. (preeeety much what a lot of people are not doing in regards to Anita's videos)

She isn't saying that those video games are bad, she is just pointing out things that are problematic and saying "we can do better than this tried old trope"

I appreciate everything you're saying (especially how you say it), but if you claim a work of fiction should be fixed so it's not problematic, we may have to just agree to disagree; I find that way of thinking problematic. It sounds less like "we can do better" and more like "we have to correct this because it's not sitting well with us".

Please don't get me wrong; flame away where deserved (the late Hitman trailer was a prime target). However, we should stop short of making this a class-action case against industry and (if you are some people) consumer communities, which are seen by some as a active/passive enablers supporting a misogynistic society.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

But you altered it. "I only cut out parts that were in support of your argument." So, you can't say, "I quoted you to the letter".

Did it in any way change the actual statement you made? If not, it is not a misquotation. Removing the supporting argument is a common method for brevity of conversation and space saving, otherwise you'd never be able to quote a scientific study without including the entire study.

So you mean TWO (2) examples will WIN your argument that there is NO GENDER EQUALITY? Really? Isn't this like a fallacy, too?

In the specific example you made? Yes. See, my two examples are both statistical and one of them is sourced (and the other easily verifiable), as opposed to your pure anecdote.

 

[raingod]

In the specific example you made? Yes. See, my two examples are both statistical and one of them is sourced (and the other easily verifiable), as opposed to your pure anecdote.

I mean YOUR example is a fallacy, too. Just because you gave 2 statistical example that can be verified that is in your favor, it doesn't mean your argument is already correct. Do you even know how those rich people got rich? Their hard work and perseverance is reduced to a statistic that there is no gender equality because most of them are men. Really? You use a statistical data about how people who are hard working, innovative and maybe did everything they can to become rich to prove your point about gender equality. That is kinda sad. Please shutdown your PC that has Windows installed in it.

 

[LAGG]

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?"

It's the same when people say "9 out of 10 games are First Person Shooters, it's so boring".

First, it's not true, because the sample is not representative of the total.
Second, inside the Cherry Picked sample, 9 out of 10 doesn't of Sturgeon's Law.
Third, 67.5% of all statistics is made up in the spot.

Don't wanna play games with rehashed unimaginative plotlines, tropes, or in First Person? The OTHER GAMES exist, you're just looking in the wrong places.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I mean YOUR example is a fallacy, too. Just because you gave 2 statistical example that can be verified that is in your favor, it doesn't mean your argument is already correct. Do you even know how those rich people got rich? Their hard work and perseverance is reduced to a statistic that there is no gender equality because most of them are men. Really? You use a statistical data about how people who are hard working, innovative and maybe did everything they can to become rich to prove your point about gender equality. That is kinda sad. Please shutdown your PC that has Windows installed in it.

So you are suggesting that the fact that only 4.2% of CEOs in the largest 1000 companies in the USA are women is not an indication of inequality but rather an indication that men are, in fact, superior to women? Because that's really the only other way to interpret those numbers. Either the fact that 1 in 20 of CEOs is a woman is a sign of inequality (of opportunity) or you must somehow reach the conclusion that far fewer women than men has what it takes to be a CEO.

By the way, nice attempt at a strawman.

 

[raingod]

So you are suggesting that the fact that only 4.2% of CEOs in the largest 1000 companies in the USA are women is not an indication of inequality but rather an indication that men are, in fact, superior to women? Because that's really the only other way to interpret those numbers. Either the fact that 1 in 20 of CEOs is a woman is a sign of inequality (of opportunity) or you must somehow reach the conclusion that far fewer women than men has what it takes to be a CEO.

By the way, nice attempt at a strawman.

Hahaha. Strawman. Hahaha. I didn't suggest anything. And your understanding of what I said is kinda narrow. All of your argument boils down to, "a man is on top because he stopped a woman from being on top". Kinda narrow minded are we?