Adventure Game Studio

I hadn't realised that the 3rd part of this series had already been released (I wasn't even aware that the 2nd part was out), so I just finished watching them both today, and was surprised there hasn't really been any discussion on it in these forums.

Now you probably want to watch them to know what is being talked about:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn4ob_5_ttEaA_vc8F3fjzE62esf9yP61
If you haven't seen any of them before, I think it'll take over an hours worth of your time.

I know there has been loads of horribleness surrounding the funding and development of these videos, but personally, I'm interested in them as a developer of games.
After watching, I had loads of thoughts and questions, so I figured it'd post them here as a way to get loads of different viewpoints.

First off, has there really been no game similar to the one she described at the end? It sounds familiar...or am I just thinking of the dozens of "male" versions of the game in existence?

Secondly, a lot of us are drawn here thanks to our love of the adventure games of the past, and our desire to recreate them. Is the only thing we can draw from those games the aesthetic and gameplay? Were the stories really so universally bad back then?

For my own part, my last MAGS game featured quite literally a Damsel in Distress- a songstress (I really love that word :D) you were listening to was abducted and taken to the king for nefarious, probably sexual purposes, and then you a random stranger, went on a quest to save her. If I felt the need for it, I maybe be able to throw a couple of arguments about my specific case defending the game, but what I want to ask, out of curiosity (I'm not dead set on making- or find the basic premise of it a necessary one- a Damsel in Distress game and trying to justify myself :D), is it possible, through carefully crafted story and narrative or whatever, to feature that- saving a friend, a girlfriend, a sister, a mother, or even a random female stranger as the goal or purpose of the game, without all the negativity inherited through this trope, or does cultural context and history and so on make it a totally lost cause?
According to the videos, the Damsel in Distress trope is employed to feed off of male empowerment fantasies at the expense of the woman. Would it be possible to remove such themes and ideas, while still having the player essentially, rescue a female. There are games where you must rescue a male friend or partner or something. If you just swapped those out for a female, would that automatically undermine the whole thing due to cultural context, or would it be plausible?
Interestingly, the video talks about ROM hacking (changing the sprites and text) to switch around the genders in console games. I've not played any of these games, but does the essential meaninglessness of the change to the game signify that yes, it does have more to do with the cultural context?

Also, finally, I realise that the perception of women in this medium will only advance through the work of developers that actively make games that challenge these stereotypes, but if I want to tell my own story, as long as I took to heart the issues presented and avoided them, is it really my job to be one of those advancing the medium developers?

I'm lazy, and likely not properly equipped to handle making such a game, and..I don't think I ever will. But it can't be anything other than a good thing to talk about this stuff!

I have seen her three new videos and some of the old ones, and I have to say I mostly agree with her. Although after watching the three new ones I felt that the three videos where the same and everything could have been put in just one short video.
It's true that she starts with a preconceived idea and uses games that support that idea to make her statement, this doesn't mean she is wrong. What I find really pathetic is all the video responses trying to prove her wrong, listing games with female protagonists or videos whose only argument is "Samus Aran". That ironically has been hipersexualised as a bimbo a million times.

Sorry for not answering your question, just wanted to say that.

There's no point denying that the damsel in distress is one of the most commonly employed tropes in game design - or any other story-telling medium for that matter.

Why? The short, simple answer is that mostly males make games, and we like to tell stories that are personal and relevant to us. Making the protagonist male is just closer at hand - and if the one you're saving can also be a romantic interest, you have an effective and functional dramaturgy right there.

What really bothers me is when designers resort to gender stereotypes, with no interest in exploring their characters' depth. If the female character is only a sexualized, weak, silly girl, and the male is only a strong, battle-hardened, emotionally inhibited lone wolf, then you have a problem. (Every action/adventure movie from the 80's and 90's.)

Or if only the male character is nerdy, knowledgeable and witty, and the female part is pretty and popular, waiting to be won over and finally accept the hero's shortcomings, thanks to his genuine, geeky charm. (Modern geek comedies, Big Bang theory and similar shows).

Or if the female is enigmatic and quirky, fleeting and singular, like a mythical hind in the forest, full of mental scars and commitment issues. (Garden State, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, lots of indie dramas).

A problem arises when designers try to remedy this by just reversing the gender roles, because that can appear patronizing instead. "See, in our game, the girl is super tough, and she beats up men! That's radical and correct, isn't it?" No it's not - you're just pointing out that women need some sort of special treatment to compensate for stuff.

I hated the way the female protagonist in "The girl with the dragon tattoo" was portrayed, because it was basically the typical victim turned revenger. The Swedish title was "Men who hate women", which is a pretty straight-forward title, but what we saw was a girl who (justifiably) hated men. Is writing a novel like that modern and forward-thinking? No, because it still discriminates. It still victimizes women and put them on some sort of morally superior pedestal.

Now, a truly modern, non-stereotypical story would have a young man be taken advantage of by various women, and end up taking revenge on them. Because if we want women to appear strong and independent, they too must be able to handle ending up on that end of the spectrum.

Sure, we can avoid the clichées and stereotypes the best we can, but as long as mostly men create games and design characters, male heroes will predominate, and they will be better explored and more deeply portrayed, and more often than not will the recipient of their assistance, and the target for their romantic efforts, and the prize for their endevours, be female.

It's like she says in the first video already, games are made mostly BY guys -- and FOR guys -- and as such, they are a realization of the "adolescent male power fantasies". "Damsel in distress" -- or any kind of objectifying/demeaning women -- is just one of the many negative tropes in games. Consider weapons. What's essentially intended as a tool of defense, in games becomes often the main -- or only -- means to progress in the story. Hence the popularity of Modern Warfare and Battlefield franchises, which results in subsequent installments being released every year.

The "damsel in distress" trope isn't specific to games only, though. It's still very present in movies and television -- and takes on a more demeaning form, I think. And I'm not just talking about the Spider-Man franchise, which is basically a re-enactment of Bowser kidnapping the Princess: MJ is constrained and all she can do is scream and wait for Peter to save her. What I'm really annoyed with is the plots where the character manages to set herself free somehow while the goon's not looking, and then -- with a plethora of heavy objects at hand -- she chooses to swat him with a proverbial daisy. Even if she manages to knock him over, she doesn't take the opportunity to knock him out to secure a safe getaway. Instead, she chases herself into a corner -- where the male brute, at his finest just seconds after taking a crowbar to the head/hot iron to the chest, seizes her again. Maybe I'm just weird, maybe I'm a psycho -- OR a closet feminist -- but I can't wait to see a girl let him have it :P

I don't think games are going to make any significant progress anytime soon. Other media may have, to a lesser or greater extend. Literature, for instance, made some significant progress since the time when Thomas Hardy's works -- in which women very often brought powerful men, often reducing them to poverty (Mayor of Casterbride), or even killing them (Tess of the D'Ubervilles) -- caused so much critical outrage that he gave up prose entirely. But let's face it: even today, we live in a world where guys are expected to buy the girl a drink :P

I found my own opinion on the matter pretty well-reflected and covered by this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Q5KD7zwBs). Might be worth to watch for anybody interested in the matter.

(Looks like youtube embedding is broken again - or am I doing it wrong?)

Quote from: DoorKnobHandle on Sat 03/08/2013 22:18:49
(Looks like youtube embedding is broken again - or am I doing it wrong?)

I'll do it for you.
[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/s5Q5KD7zwBs[/embed]


For future though, do it like so:
[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/s5Q5KD7zwBs[/embed]

Hah, thanks!

I swear I tried that >.>

Quote from: DoorKnobHandle on Sat 03/08/2013 22:18:49
I found my own opinion on the matter pretty well-reflected and covered by this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Q5KD7zwBs). Might be worth to watch for anybody interested in the matter.

I really agree with the opinions at the end of that video.

Feminist frequency videos, as one example, complain that women are used/killed off to motivate the male protagonist to act/revenge/action.
While yes this is true, personally, I would rather complain on how often that trope is overused in general and just kind of pulls towards the lazy writing problem. And secondly, pandering (or what they think is pandering) to male players - this is so freaking annoying. Not only because developers/publishers consider a lot of sexual pandering to be necessary while they don't concentrate on other aspects (such as gameplay), but I also get the sense that they think it will be the important factor and control my decisions (like liking or buying the game), like I'm some hormone driven uncontrollable sexual fiend. Though I guess there is a percent of the audience who act like that, mostly everybody else will have an opposite stance and actually find a negative aspect.

  As mentioned above, the target market is mainly younger guys.  I don't expect Cosmo magazine to run a 10-page editorial on monster trucks, much like I don't expect the mainstream games designed to appeal to young guys to somehow attempt to appeal to women.  Its also why many of the mainstream game plotlines are basic and lame, (sadly) most young guys don't want a deep story.  Even if Max Payne 4 tried to silence the critics, the "feminine" sidequest would be shoehorned in and poorly written.

I agree with Maddox: Sexism in Gaming (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sexism_videogames)

Edited: Agree with specific points of his, such as what do you expect when the target market is young dudes, and making an awesome game is better than complaining.  Disagree with anything about women only making boring games.

I think claiming that saving somebody, who is in trouble and who you deeply care about, is somehow an inherently objectifying act in itself, is just as utterly stupid as lazily basing a story entirely around such one single plot element to the point where it does become objectifying. So, even though Sarkesian means well and talks well and does say many good things, she also talks absurd bollocks on plenty of occasions to push her point as far as possible. Another example is her posing Mario as some kind of absolute idealogical root of whole gaming from which everything has grown.

As some people in the thread have already hinted, most problems with sexist story and character design are simply shit story and character design. Write good characters of both genders with care, and there is no sexism. Examples are countless. Take any well-written game designed by a clever designer who cares about what they are doing and you'll immediately find good female characters. Anachronox, Planescape: Torment, Legend of Kyrandia 2, Gray Matter, the list goes on. Notably, I think Daedalic have brilliantly made fun of the trope in Deponia, where it's ironically pushed to truly ridiculous lengths.

Lastly, Maddox is an ignorant idiot for suggesting games designed by women are doomed to be boring. I'm thrilled to bits by what Jane Jensen and Emily Short make. Hell, some of my favourite AGS games were made by ladies: Ola's Principles of Evil series and Akril15's Adventure series.

I just want to react to kconan:

Quote from: kconan on Sun 04/08/2013 17:07:22
I agree with Maddox: Sexism in Gaming (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sexism_videogames)

Maddox writes: "Some feminists think that if only more video games were designed by women, that it would solve this problem. Except there already are a lot of games designed by women and nobody is playing them."

There are a lot of games designed by women indeed, but they represent only a small part of all games. If you pick up a game, chances are it's going to be made by a man, so it's no wonder less people are playing women's games.

He also says: "That's because the types of games that women design largely have one thing in common: they're boring."

I don't know how this statement could possibly be anything else than sexist: why wouldn't women be able to make games that are as interesting as the ones made by men?

He then goes on to talk about games that fit his definition of "boring" such as Christine Love's don't take it personally, babe, it just ain't your story or Dys4ia (and let's not talk about King's Quest!) when those games are/were actually pretty popular (and thus, not considered boring by at least a good number of people).

Finally, there is this whole argument of "don't complain, make games instead," as if complaining wasn't a valid way to challenge the status quo, and as if every critic had the talent, skills and/or time to make video games. You don't need to make video games in order to have an impact on the evolution of the medium.

This, and a myriad of small things in that page (Dys4ia is a game, not a "game" with quotations marks; don't take it personally babe's main plot point is not about "high school students coming out of the closet" but about the evolution of the relationship we have with technology and privacy in the future, etc.) make me disagree with the guy on nearly everything he says.

Quote from: FlyingMandarine on Mon 05/08/2013 09:43:27
He then goes on to talk about games that fit his definition of "boring" such as Christine Love's don't take it personally, babe, it just ain't your story or Dys4ia (and let's not talk about King's Quest!) when those games are/were actually pretty popular (and thus, not considered boring by at least a good number of people).

Ok I don't agree with every single one of his points (I haven't played Dys4ia), but I believe that every "King's Quest" and other awesome games designed by women out there makes a case better than complaining does.  The target market is young guys, complaining doesn't change that.

His list appears to mostly boring games, but I of course disagree with his point that women can only make boring games.  Sadly, there aren't any popular and hugely successful ones that I know of outside of King's Quest.

I mostly agree with FlyingMandarine on Maddox but then I have a history of agreeing with French AGSers.

The "make games yourself then" is an egregious argument as is "no one likes games made by women". As if human decency and positive cultural values were determined by popular decree.

Also, "the market is male so games are made for men" misses the point by a nautical mile. The point here is not that we should be making games *for* women but rather that the current gaming culture is *hostile* to women and reinforces negative gender stereotypes. Even if games were exclusively played by men and women did not play nor had any desire to play them there would still be a problem. If one actually seriously analyses popular culture with a critical eye it becomes very apparent how androcentric it is. See the Bechdel Test for instance.

Having said that, I find Anita Sarkesian to be an incredibly poor critic and I disagree with her, and indeed feminism as a movement, on several issues. I just wanted to respond to the rebuttals posted here.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 05/08/2013 10:43:44
Also, "the market is male so games are made for men" misses the point by a nautical mile. The point here is not that we should be making games *for* women but rather that the current gaming culture is *hostile* to women and reinforces negative gender stereotypes.

It is the point, and explains WHY it is hostile to women.  If less teenage (and 20s) boys/men and more women bought and played popular, mainstream games there would be less Duke Nukems and stacked Lara Crofts.

I don't believe it is the point because it tacitly implies that men want Duke Nukem and its perfectly ok for them to want that. It tries to play the whole thing off as market forces and if more women played games then we'd have more My Little Pony games. It's insulting to men and women to suggest that is the case.

  I don't like what it implies either, but I know there are alot of guys out there in there teens and early 20s that will cheer on a Duke Nukem character.  That is a big market.  Basically, I just don't understand why a company ships out a Duke Nukem unless it believes money is to be made.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 05/08/2013 10:56:02
I don't believe it is the point because it tacitly implies that men want Duke Nukem and its perfectly ok for them to want that.

I agree. Like look at this:

[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/-e6XQMCeXqY[/embed]

Men want these types of games (mostly young men) because that's what interests them. Although I have no desire to play Lollipop Chainsaw, but I do see the sexual appeal. A few days ago I played Hunted: Demon's Forge. I actually played as the female, only because she was the archer type while he was the hack and slash type - which is more fitting of my gameplay style. I ended up quite enjoying every sexual pose she did as she squeezed between tight areas, or slowly lowers and raises her ass as she ducks under stuff. It made it a very enjoyable bonus.

After watching these videos here, it makes me wonder. Would I have wanted to play Hunted IF the man wasn't in the game and it was only her. I doubt it would've looked appealing to me. Just like how Tomb Raider looks unappealing to me whereas Uncharted doesn't.

There are actually a lot of women in the gaming market:

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/a5852d30d38fc5367fbd2ea42c8c4610/tumblr_mr13u8ToOt1rw70wfo1_500.png)

Quote from: kconan on Mon 05/08/2013 10:35:24
His list appears to mostly boring games, but I of course disagree with his point that women can only make boring games.  Sadly, there aren't any popular and hugely successful ones that I know of outside of King's Quest.

Say hello to Jade Raymond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Raymond).


also complaining that videogames are sexist towards woman depends. I know you can get some weird sexual satisfaction when sticking your 4 pieces long straigth tetris piece into the hole that waits for it, but it is very consensual (though they both lose and disappear in the end). So it's mostly about stories where characters are shallow and stereotypical. So what? People playing these games also don't mind fighting the same monster in randomly appearing battles over and over again to gain some more EXP to finally be able to fight against the next boss only to be forced to fight against minor foes again before defeating the next big boss. So people doing this might also be a little shallow.
So this mostly is true for RPGs, but in defense of them, I enjoy some Final Fantasy games, if not for the levelgrinding but for the story, so some RPGs have interesting stories and characters, so compaining about bad examples is like complaining that Monkey Island 4 was in 3D and an uninteresting, bad game.

  According to Wikipedia: "Lollipop Chainsaw is currently Grasshopper Manufacture's most successful title, selling more than 800,000 units worldwide."  I had never heard of the game until now.  I've played the No More Heroes games made by the same developer and most aspects of the games were fun, but some things were outright strange and annoying like charging your weapon.  Anyway, as long as publishers and developers are rewarded with sales I don't see trends changing.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 05/08/2013 11:08:24Men want these types of games (mostly young men) because that's what interests them. Although I have no desire to play Lollipop Chainsaw, but I do see the sexual appeal. A few days ago I played Hunted: Demon's Forge. I actually played as the female, only because she was the archer type while he was the hack and slash type - which is more fitting of my gameplay style. I ended up quite enjoying every sexual pose she did as she squeezed between tight areas, or slowly lowers and raises her ass as she ducks under stuff. It made it a very enjoyable bonus.

The problem becomes when it ends with you saying "Yes, I played Demon's Forge" and then only mention that way the woman moved between rocks, as the memorable part.

I actually couldn't tell if RyanTimothy's post was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or not.

Speaking as a female gamer, and one who likes to play serious titles, the whole making games specifically for women thing isn't what is needed really as Calin suggests.

Ryan said he enjoyed the bonus of the female protagonist in Hunted, however as a woman who enjoys a huge variety of video games I would have been really disappointed to see yet another sexualised female protagonist. I want the immersion experience in video games too, and I'm telling you if I was going into battle I'm not going in wearing a chain mail bikini, bending over, groaning and giggling every time I perform an action. I'm going in practical armour, and I'm going in with my brain functioning.

Femshep from Mass Effect was a brilliant character. She could have scars, she wore practical armour, she had a realistic body, she was just an exceptional character, and I think it's largely because they didn't bring arbitrary gender stereotypes into it. I mean sure they had female characters who were a bit OTT when it came to sex,(I dont have a problem with sexy men or ladies in games as long as there is some equality) but femshep was a character that allowed me to have a total immersion  experience in a game.

I'm not some special snowflake standing alone here either. My friends game, and we want to get excited about the new games coming out too that all you guys are excited about. We aren't any different. We play the same blockbuster games as you, but we walk away with a lesser experience because we have to watch our gender fail at the most basic of tasks, or become sexual fantasies. I mean why couldn't one of the GTA V characters be a woman? Why do we only see npc tropes? I'm not saying men wouldn't benefit from a few less gender stereotypes either, but this is mainly focussing on women. I mean when you think about Guybrush, he anything but a male power fantasy and he's one of the most beloved characters.

This picture has been floating around on Tumblr recently and it does show the lack of diversity in female characters excluding hair and skin tone (although the race issue is something else rather prevalent too.)

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lphej4C2Qg1qkb1m6o1_500.png)

I guess I have a lot of strong feelings on this subject because I strongly identify as a gamer and know many other women who do too, and so getting the argument of "Women aren't playing games, if they did maybe it would change" really irritates me. We do game, we have gamed, nothing changes. If we don't complain will things change? Probably not. And maybe more women would play if we were represented as actual people. It's a chicken and egg scenario because more women would game if games represented women properly, but they are saying they wont make them unless women play games? And these same people say they cant make games like that because men wont want to play a female character who isnt a naked contortionist but fail to understand why women don't want to play a roided up guy who saves a half naked blow up doll? It's a frustrating situation and I think its just pandering, easy money, and lazy writing that win 9/10.

Hopefully people can understand where I'm coming from and I'm sorry if this seems a bit ranty! Don't even get me started on impractical armour because I could go on for days lol.
 

Quote from: Myinah on Mon 05/08/2013 13:43:30
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lphej4C2Qg1qkb1m6o1_500.png)

But there are indeed examples of other women physical aspects in games... (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48558.0) ;)

Quote from: Myinah on Mon 05/08/2013 13:43:30
It's a frustrating situation and I think its just pandering, easy money, and lazy writing that win 9/10. 

  I don't think it will change for the mainstream games until game publishers and developers can no longer make the easy money of off portraying women as hourglass voluptuous, or they see - and it has to hit them in the face and not be seen as a risk - an opportunity to make more money by doing less of that and making changes like adjusting armor to be more practical for women.  For the major game companies, I don't imagine a cigar-chomping, knuckledragger CEO swilling beer in one hand while doing hammer curls in the other as he barks orders at a bunch of frat guy developers.  I think it comes down to easy money with less risk. 

  The bottom line has to be affected in terms of direct sales or a developer seeing the success of more practical armor in another game and understanding that this is money left on the table.  That Lollipop Chainsaw game, unfortunately, rewarded the developer with record sales.

I don't understand why you keep on bringing up this stuff about publishers and the money they make. It's a fairly obvious fact that I don't think anyone disputes.

The whole point of grass roots efforts like that of Ms. Sarkesian is to change public opinion and thus make such games unpalatable to consumers and thus un(less)profitable. If some of the few people in charge of such things also take notice then thats a bonus but it's hard to get someone to act against their own interest.

I don't think anyone really thinks that game makers themselves are intrinsically misogynist but rather that the society to which they pander is.

If I'm honest, the larger problem with game production is the lack of auteur driven development. Products designed by committee will naturally veer towards the norm, the safe, the status quo. And the norm is currently (and probably always will be) hostile to certain groups.

Whether you agree with Anita or not,  her decision to disable comments on her videos after being publicly funded to make them was/is a pretty 'meh' thing to do. Telling people how it is and closing off any chance of a debate is not the logical nor the mature way forward imo. Sure, she is likely to receive some bad comments but this also stops those who agree with her to share their thoughts, too. She has put herself on a public platform and should be scrutinised just like everybody else. I'm not saying she is wrong in her beliefs, she makes some valid points - I just feel that the conversation shouldn't be so one sided. Maybe I am wrong? I'm glad she's passionate about the whole thing, it's good to be passionate about something.

That said, if you actually examine the types of games that are uber popular these days, one would see that this trope is becoming almost irrelevant in areas of modern gaming. Just last year, the best selling console games were sport games, racing games and fps games - all of which do not tend to follow the damsel in distress trope. But no one seems to be discussing why most if not all of these fps games are based around American troops warring with the middle east, or why most if not all sports games only include male sport teams. That, to me, is a much more relevant discussion in modern day culture. We can examine as much as we like the misogynistic Marios or the satirical Duke Nukems (which by the way is a parody in itself), but the real issue, if you are desperate to look for one, is war and not only it's increasing prevalence in games, but the glorifying of it. I'd be much more worried about a desensitized nation than a bunch of "nerds" playing Super flamin' Mario.

I really try not to hold so much of a strong opinion on this matter, if hold one at all. Just thought I'd 'add' to this here debate. I like playing games. Of course there are games I think are shit - I just will not buy them. There will always be silly games. Don't like them? Don't play them. Yay for freedom of speech.

ps - I only use the word nerds subjectively. No offense, nerds  8-)

pps - Don't let your kids play pacman - they'll only become wife beaters for it!!1

ppps - I'm joking.

Am I the only one who thought these videos were well thought out, raised a good point, but were, really, really, boring and drawn out?

I think the fact that games are made to fit a market is sort of missing the point (sorry kconan), because surely it's the fact they are made to fit a market which doesn't understand that they are having games made to 'fit' them that is the issue.

e.g. If these videos were shown to all gamers, a lot might think to themselves "Oh yea, I have been playing horribly sexist games and never realised!". Which in turn might change the way they think about/buy games in general, which in turn might make developers develop games with a larger variety of tropes/stories/etc?

However, I think there should be a video which is more of a summary, that highlights the main points and the main games which are either side of the spectrum. Once the user has watched this more 'accessible' version of the argument, then the three videos that are currently available could be extra reading and a more in-depth version of the argument.

P.S. I must be a rare breed of 'man/bloke/male/etc' as I just really don't care about tropes and blah blah blah blah blah. If a game is/looks fun and enjoyable, I will buy it and I will play it. I really liked Beyond Good and Evil, what an awesome game, I also really like Zelda. I played Mass Effect 1 as a female, I played the second as a male, I could go on but I understand this is more about the mass market.

Quote from: calicoreverie on Mon 05/08/2013 17:06:09
Am I the only one who thought these videos were well thought out, raised a good point, but were, really, really, boring and drawn out?

They were boring and drawn out. You're not the only one  :smiley:

Quote from: calicoreverie on Mon 05/08/2013 17:06:09
a market which doesn't understand that they are having games made to 'fit' them that is the issue.

That's the thing - is it that they do not understand, or is it that they do not care? I'd go for the latter. It wouldn't really be all that fair to assume that people have been 'brainwashed' into playing these games. That's probably one of Anita's flaws - she gives gamers an overwhelming lack of credit. It's that Mario nostalgia for some, too, right? Maybe these games are making a come back eg super meat boy because some folks just like playing games reminiscent of the old Mario ones. She even admits herself that they're mostly copycat games.

Quote from: calicoreverie on Mon 05/08/2013 17:06:09
I really liked Beyond Good and Evil, what an awesome game

Omgzorz how can you like that game that portrays men as pigs?!

Quote from: calicoreverie on Mon 05/08/2013 17:06:09
I must be a rare breed of 'man/bloke/male/etc' as I just really don't care about tropes

Nah, it's not rare - that's why so many people actively disagree with her. Which brings us back to 'a large group of people just don't give a damn'.

Part of my problem with Sarkesian's videos is that they are about tropes.

Tropes are essentially "units" of story information. Stories have to be succinct and so they can't explain everything in detail.

So when a writer uses a trope he is basically saying "this part of the story is not that important, so I'm using this trope as a thing you can latch onto, understand and categorize very quickly so as not to waste time with it"

These tropes have been formulated over, quite literally, thousands of years and without them it would be almost impossible to tell a story. Tropes are not the problem here. The problem is that the tropes we have are androcentric and one-sided. I don't personally believe there is anything wrong with the damsel in distress, for instance, as a plot device. It conveys meaning to the audience quickly and can be elided when not that important.

Sarkesian's (and other's) mistake is to assume that tropes are the problem and they represent lazy story telling which I think fundamentally misunderstands what a trope is and its purpose.

Quote from: calicoreverie on Mon 05/08/2013 17:06:09
e.g. If these videos were shown to all gamers, a lot might think to themselves "Oh yea, I have been playing horribly sexist games and never realised!". Which in turn might change the way they think about/buy games in general, which in turn might make developers develop games with a larger variety of tropes/stories/etc?

That's an optimistic viewpoint, and it might work for some of the older male gamers.

For me personally as a gamer, I get tired of the lazy and unoriginal storytelling that goes hand-in-hand with most of these kind of games.   

I want to point out Anita did not disable comments to stifle debate, she disabled them because the comments become a breeding ground for death and rape threats against her. She has had a video game beat em up made of her just for daring to open the kickstarter for these videos.

She's not making these videos to say "I am the authority on this issue, that's it, no one talk about it anymore. *mic drop*" But in all seriousness when are youtube comments a place for serious debate? They aren't the best forum for a real discussion. If we want to debate the videos we can, just like we are right now in this forum. Reddit will have been debating the videos I'm sure.

I agree her delivery can be a little monotonous and patronizing, but she's clearly explaining concepts to people that may have never heard anything like this in their lives. Her videos are also designed to be used in a classroom setting or as a teaching aid for parents and kids. They aren't flashy, but they are rich in content and easy to pause and explain and so it makes more sense when you view them as a teaching aid.

I think it's important to remember that she's saying from the start she enjoys video games and that it's ok to critique something you love and say "This aspect is kind of lame, but I can't change that so I'm going to enjoy it as I have in the past, while still being aware that maybe this isnt the ideal."

I appreciate what you are saying about tropes, Calin. I hadn't thought about it that way before. I think the problem is that the damsel in distress trope is quite overused and does perpetuate the stereotype that women are less capable and valuable (as often the damsels have no identity aside from the damsel). But I understand why tropes are useful now.

There are great female characters out there that aren't tropes though so I just hope we see more April Ryans, Chells and Femsheps. And a lot of guys played femshep because of the fantastic voice actress too so it's not like guys won't play as a serious female character.

Quote from: Myinah on Mon 05/08/2013 18:02:17
I want to point out Anita did not disable comments to stifle debate, she disabled them because the comments become a breeding ground for death and rape threats against her. She has had a video game beat em up made of her just for daring to open the kickstarter for these videos.

Don't get me wrong, yes, I agree it is disgusting that people would make such threats against her. Who cares about the beat em up game, but making threats like that against anyone is shameful and should be dealt with swiftly and through the fullest extent of the law. This actually highlights the fact that these sites not policing this kind of thing is kind of backward, really. On the other hand, we have to remember that a majority of other popular Youtubers keep their comments open. They probably get some really bad stuff said to them, but the point is they keep them open. It might not be the best place for a debate but it still allows the author to get feedback from the viewer and engage with them. The ability is also there to delete hateful comments that bring nothing to the conversation. I'll bet also that she has thousands of fans that would stick up for her - rightly so, too.
'Trolls' and 'keyboard warriors' are in their abundance all over the internet. The key is to rise above it? I might be totally wrong but I just like to question stuff like that. I guess a debate is the best place for it!  :P

Anyway, I felt inclined to go back and watch some of 'Damsel in Distress: Part 3' again. I was a little surprised when she said:

Quotewords like parody and satire are often thrown around to describe or defend these comedic depictions of yet more helpless female characters. But a simple wink and nod to the audience, acknowledging the sexist trope while actively reproducing that trope, does not automatically grant a free pass to continue exploiting the trope.

Isn't that the whole point of satire? It's supposed to be ironic and funny. It's supposed to laugh at these ridiculous tropes.

Is anyone actually offended by this? Is this actually a bad thing?

What do you guys think?

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Mon 05/08/2013 09:38:00I think claiming that saving somebody, who is in trouble and who you deeply care about, is somehow an inherently objectifying act in itself, is just as utterly stupid as lazily basing a story entirely around such one single plot element to the point where it does become objectifying. So, even though Sarkesian means well and talks well and does say many good things, she also talks absurd bollocks on plenty of occasions to push her point as far as possible.

Exactly what I think.

Although I don't blame her, she is giving ammo to the dumbasses who think that feminism equals feminazism.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 05/08/2013 16:22:19
Whether you agree with Anita or not,  her decision to disable comments on her videos after being publicly funded to make them was/is a pretty 'meh' thing to do. Telling people how it is and closing off any chance of a debate is not the logical nor the mature way forward imo.

Eh... welcome to the internet? Have you seen the comment sections of videos/articles/blog entries that take a feminist standpoint? I bet Anita would love a constructive discussion, it's just that she probably got 99 rape threats for every constructive comment. Which in itself proves that there's a lot of work to be done when it comes to gender equality.

I don't see a need for a "damsel in distress" trope - for a plot device, you can just say that a person needs your help. The terms "damsel" and "distress" have connotations of helpless, personality-lacking but physically attractive female characters whose weakness has made them victimized by men.

However, I'm not sure how much you need to actively work against these stereotypes and clicheed tropes; I believe modern, plot-driven games (or movies or books) will gradually become more gender neutral, as a natural process. Just compare action movies from the 80's with those from today, and you'll see a vast increase in strong female characters.

Ryan Timothy; I'm not sure what you wanted to say with your last post. You admit that you're enjoying stereotypically sexualized female 3d-characters, and therefore... well, therefore what? Do you find the way the game designers have exploited her sexuality (to provide eye candy for male players) a good thing or a bad thing? Please explain.

Quote from: Myinah on Mon 05/08/2013 18:02:17
I agree her delivery can be a little monotonous and patronizing, but she's clearly explaining concepts to people that may have never heard anything like this in their lives. Her videos are also designed to be used in a classroom setting or as a teaching aid for parents and kids. They aren't flashy, but they are rich in content and easy to pause and explain and so it makes more sense when you view them as a teaching aid.

Hang on, I actively chose to watch those videos, and I found them boring but pained my way through as I could understand it wasn't all bad. Trying to use a boring video to teach a class of kids about something they don't really want to hear about sounds like a nightmare haha :D

One point, (which I believe was made by an idiot) which went something like: "If you want to see more games about females etc etc, go and make them.". This rings quite true to me unfortunately, although the point is made in a stupid way, obviously you don't need to go and make a game to be able to argue for games to change. However, surely the best way for her to get her point across would have been to focus (and heavily promote) the games that exemplify her point of view rather than those that don't. Rather than watching the videos and then feeling like playing Mario, she should of made the user want to go and buy Beyond Good and Evil or To The Moon etc.

Totally agree about the comments as well. If anything, turning them on would help prove her point even more.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 05/08/2013 18:33:11
Isn't that the whole point of satire? It's supposed to be ironic and funny. It's supposed to laugh at these ridiculous tropes.

Is anyone actually offended by this? Is this actually a bad thing?

What do you guys think?

The point at which she started discussing satire was really difficult for me. I don't think she could of got that more wrong, but I let it slide as she mostly stayed on the right track. I think comedy/satire is a completely different discussion and she should of left it out entirely, someone joking about sexism/sexist topics is TOTALLY different to someone on purposely being sexist, unknowingly being sexist or being sexist with intention of hurting someone else, pretty much end of!

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 05/08/2013 17:30:28
Sarkesian's (and other's) mistake is to assume that tropes are the problem and they represent lazy story telling which I think fundamentally misunderstands what a trope is and its purpose.

I didn't get that from what she said at all. The way I understood it, is that she doesn't think that tropes are the problem, nor that the "damsel in distress" is the problem.
The problem is the overuse of the trope in the context of the society in which we live in.
Since we live in a society in which 99% of the women have been sexually harassed at least once in their lives, where women get lower wages and still considered 'inferior' to men, the trope just enforces this sterotype and takes us a step backwards as a society, instead of going forward.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 05/08/2013 18:33:11
Isn't that the whole point of satire? It's supposed to be ironic and funny. It's supposed to laugh at these ridiculous tropes.

Is anyone actually offended by this? Is this actually a bad thing?

I don't think the question should be if somebody gets offended by this. The question should be "does this enforce the sterotype?".
I think that the answer is "it depends". If the goal of the trope is the satire itself, i.e to ridicule the existence of the trope, then it's a good thing. But, if the goal of the trope was to be used as a way to make the male player be more powerful, but then the developer added the joke in order not to appear like a jerk, then yeah, not such a good thing...
I agree that the difference is subtle and we can't always know the exact intent of the developer, so I prefer to give the developer the benefit of the doubt.

I basically agreed with most of the stuff she said, and didn't think the videos were boring.
I don't think the situation is as bad as she described it, though, and I do believe we are moving in the right direction, the situation for women is much better than it was 10 years ago (in my eyes), and I don't see a reason the trend won't continue.
However, I do think we as developers carry some responsibility to think of the context in which our games are played, and design our games accordingly.

Well, after a little more research into the extent of what Anita has had to put up with I have to say... I can  understand why she disabled the comments. That's a whole other debate anyway.

Quote from: tzachs on Mon 05/08/2013 20:16:39
The problem is the overuse of the trope in the context of the society in which we live in.

As far as I can tell the examples that she uses to base her argument on are sooo far removed from reality that it's hard to think that they will have any kind of moral impact on anybody. I think the underlining agenda here is to have more female protagonists. I know she claims it isn't, but it just feels so much like it is. On the subject of this, I think we can all be glad to hear that female protagonists are increasing. I totally agree with you that the situation on this is much better than it was 10 years ago - just like equality issues are so much better than they were 50 years ago. It isn't perfect, but it's better. with Anita's help, or without it, it certainly looks like this won't be so much of a problem in the future, too. I don't think that's being optimistic, either.

Quote from: tzachs on Mon 05/08/2013 20:16:39
I don't think the question should be if somebody gets offended by this. The question should be "does this enforce the sterotype?".
I think that the answer is "it depends". If the goal of the trope is the satire itself, i.e to ridicule the existence of the trope, then it's a good thing. But, if the goal of the trope was to be used as a way to make the male player be more powerful, but then the developer added the joke in order not to appear like a jerk, then yeah, not such a good thing...

Agreed.

I finally started watching the series, but the damsel in the fridge in the second episode made me yawn and I turned it off.
But I like how she always mentions the old Donkey Kong where a giant ape kidnaps your gilrfriend and you have to rescue her and in no way she mentions that this could be inspired by a classic movie with impressive imagery that the videogamemakers might wanted to recreate and might have used as a trope in itself, nope, it is the same old damsel in distress...

She has some points but she presents them very one sided. All the oldschool jump and runs she mentions basically had no story besides the kidnapped girl, that was a way to show how evil your tropeistic enemy is without having to kill someone on the nintendo system and having a revenge plot. And between the kidnapping and the rescuing there was a whole freaking game with no more story scenes, it's about stomping on heads of goombas and killing other enemies and other gameplay elements... I couldn't care less if I play these games as a male mario, a female character, an alien, a robot, a piece of meat, a pixel or a jumping sack filled with more sacks... so in the end it's a marketing decision if mario or peach sell better when printed on T-Shirts and there she has her point as I wouldn't wear a Peach shirt as she is trapped in her trope :P

Quote from: selmiak on Mon 05/08/2013 21:13:02
I finally started watching the series, but the damsel in the fridge in the second episode made me yawn and I turned it off.
But I like how she always mentions the old Donkey Kong where a giant ape kidnaps your gilrfriend and you have to rescue her and in no way she mentions that this could be inspired by a classic movie with impressive imagery that the videogamemakers might wanted to recreate and might have used as a trope in itself, nope, it is the same old damsel in distress...

If you're talking about King Kong, she does in fact mention that movie.  She references it as an example of the damsel in distress in film.

whoopsie, must have missed it in a second of microsleep :P

Quote from: Andail on Mon 05/08/2013 19:09:49
Ryan Timothy; I'm not sure what you wanted to say with your last post. You admit that you're enjoying stereotypically sexualized female 3d-characters, and therefore... well, therefore what? Do you find the way the game designers have exploited her sexuality (to provide eye candy for male players) a good thing or a bad thing? Please explain.

I meant that I have no issue playing as the female character in a game like Hunted, just to stare at her ass on every cutscene that she lifts a door, while she walks sideways between tight areas, or ducks under stuff. Do I want EVERY game to be like this? No. Heck no. But I certainly enjoyed the extra bonus of seeing that beautiful character doing provocative poses and such; so no, I never felt it was a bad thing at all, that a game developer made a game with sexual interest in mind. She wasn't a "girly" girl, but she did have a very attractive body (with unpractical armor lol). I didn't know anything about this game before playing it though, so I never bought it so I could stare at E'lara's ass every cutscene.

I know what I said was conflicting, where I find no interest in playing a game that has a female only protagonist but I played Hunted as the female - but only because of how much better she was at the bow. I've played games as the female protagonists, but the majority of them are games like Portal where she's a mute and basically genderless. But for 3rd person games or talking ones where it's just a female and no male sidekick, it just doesn't appeal to me. Probably because the majority of games I play are either RPG or shooters.

If Gears of War was played as a big butch woman or even a gorgeous skinny one, I never would've bought it.

The thing that bothers me about Anita Sarkeesian's views is that it seems as though she desires a world with genderless plots. It almost feels as though she's asexual. I somewhat understand where she's coming from though and I agree that it would bother me just as much too - but she never did talk about this directly. Males in entertainment are shown as heroic and strong, whereas females are shown as fragile, week, sexy and a stereotypical barbie. There's generally no middle ground with female characters. Where male roles in entertainment range from fat to skinny, ugly to attractive.

Even in the game Rage that I started playing yesterday, the majority of the men are either fat and/or ugly, but all the women I've seen so far are attractive and skinny (albeit, it's only the first two towns). It doesn't bother me because I prefer to see skinny attractive women, as that's what I want to see.

I can't be bothered to watch the 3rd part, but since it hasn't been mentioned in this thread: the latest Tomb Raider game. Not only is it amazing in almost every respect, it's heroine is a plausible, real, strong woman. Does she mention the game? Cause it doesn't appear in the lists of the 2nd or 3rd part.
Seems like a weird omission, given that it is a perfect example of what I guess Sarkeesian wants to see more of.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 06/08/2013 00:43:17
I can't be bothered to watch the 3rd part, but since it hasn't been mentioned in this thread: the latest Tomb Raider game. Not only is it amazing in almost every respect, it's heroine is a plausible, real, strong woman. Does she mention the game? Cause it doesn't appear in the lists of the 2nd or 3rd part.
Seems like a weird omission, given that it is a perfect example of what I guess Sarkeesian wants to see more of.

I don't believe she does mention Tomb Raider, possibly due to the irony of the original being exactly what she doesn't like about female protagonists :P

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 05/08/2013 16:22:19
Whether you agree with Anita or not,  her decision to disable comments on her videos after being publicly funded to make them was/is a pretty 'meh' thing to do. Telling people how it is and closing off any chance of a debate is not the logical nor the mature way forward imo. Sure, she is likely to receive some bad comments but this also stops those who agree with her to share their thoughts, too. She has put herself on a public platform and should be scrutinised just like everybody else. I'm not saying she is wrong in her beliefs, she makes some valid points - I just feel that the conversation shouldn't be so one sided. Maybe I am wrong? I'm glad she's passionate about the whole thing, it's good to be passionate about something.

I couldn't agree more. The series was mooted as something to provoke discussion, so it's unfortunate that she is actively blocking it. Yes, she's had a high amount of negative response on YouTube but passing it off as people online being misogynistic and hostile as she has isn't strictly true - although Anita makes some good points she doesn't give any time or credit to the opposing argument (at least that in the five or so videos I have seen) so her work ends up being basically an editorial rather than any kind of exploration of the issues.

I haven't seen the third video yet, and it's partly because her second video was.. quite poor. It was largely a list of female damsels who had been killed in video games, presented as evidence of a misogynistic streak in writing. There are several problems with this:

1) The death of a female character, particularly those she lists, is generally intended to provoke a negative response from the player and motivation to partake in revenge and give the player a sense of agency. Obviously real world violence against women is deplorable, but the purpose of fictional violence against fictional violence has no connection to it.

2) Violence is the main means of interaction in video games. This is itself for sensible reasons - for a game you need obstacles to overcome and the most immediate and relateable are physical threats of violence or other danger. Over the past decade the amount of violence driven games has remained steady (possibly even increased) but storytelling came back into the fore as an expected feature for any game. They vary widely in terms of quality BUT they generally fill their goal of tying the plot and gameplay together. So, if you have written a violent game, it's going to be a violent story, surely?

I think this is demonstrated when in her list she included Hotline Miami. There is a big problem with this...

Spoiler

..and it is the fact that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER who appears in the game is killed over the course of the game. Yes. Every single one. Including BOTH player characters.

[close]

3) The list was very long... but all that proves is how many video games have been made in the past decade. Without any measure of context or comparison - say, what percentage of AAA titles featured a woman graphically being killed - the list is absolutely meaningless. To prove this (to myself largely, but I had been contemplating a vlog) I sat down and, off the top of my read, wrote down the male characters killed off to give the player character motivation over the same period of time in video games. It wasn't THAT easy since I'm a PC exclusive gamer, but I got 30 games and I'm sure there's a bucketload more on XBOX and PS.

As I've said, with violence the main means of interaction and agency, there have been just as many cases (if not more) of supporting male NPCs that the player forms a bond with who are then killed off. There are a lot of cut corners in making game storylines because they often have one writer who needs to turn it over quickly - it's more symptomatic of the industry than any particular view towards women.


So frankly, I find it a little frustrating that she makes videos with such odd, one sided arguments when there is definitely a solid argument of sexist attitudes in games and the gaming community. It feels like she resorts to strawmen on occasions when it really isn't necessary.

So I've watched a few more of her videos and can't believe how strongly feminist she is. Like this video:
[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/CrmRxGLn0Bk[/embed]

Why!? The whole Friends Lego for girls product. Why does she think girls can't play the other Lego? Clearly they AREN'T (statistically), so I see no issue in the attempt to make Lego more appropriate to what they currently play. I honestly don't see the issue here. It's not like the other Lego is advertised "for boys". If girls want to build airplanes, then build damn airplanes. The only issue obviously being that parents wouldn't ever buy the airplane set for their daughters with "girl" sets like this available. But still, she's pulling at everything that even remotely resembles a "separated sexes" world.

If she really wants to earn my vote, then start bitching that women pay less on car insurance.

Yea, that video was 95% rubbish. I think I could sum in 30 words what she took 10 mins to insanely patronisingly, one-sided-ly, 'explain' to me about LEGO. I think that's the last one I'll watch but I wish her luck with the various points I agreed with in her other videos.

So the adverts say "have an activia" but I really want some bacon. Do I:
- complain about the sexism of commercials
- buy the bacon and get over it

As a girl growing up in the 80s in Poland, I had the usual girly paraphernalia of dolls, doll's houses, prams, etc. At the same time, I also had scalextrics, trucks you had to build from parts, plane models and "little electrician" sets. And building blocks - not lego, obviously, but as good as. So my answer is: it is your parents' decision whether you play with pink-purply barbie or a remote controlled tank (had one, too). And then it is your choice, once you are old enough to choose whatever you like.

I bought Hannah Montana for the Wii (when I was way too old for it) and Fable III for the Xbox. Did the stereotypes skew my vision of the world? No! It was all my choice.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 05/08/2013 22:36:37
I meant that I have no issue playing as the female character in a game like Hunted, just to stare at her ass on every cutscene that she lifts a door, while she walks sideways between tight areas, or ducks under stuff. Do I want EVERY game to be like this? No. Heck no. But I certainly enjoyed the extra bonus of seeing that beautiful character doing provocative poses and such; so no, I never felt it was a bad thing at all, that a game developer made a game with sexual interest in mind.

Ok... well, the gender discourse isn't about what you personally have issues with, it's about how certain symbols and stereotypes (depictions of women in this case) affect our society at large.

Some things people need to stop repeating in this thread:
* "Sex sells and companies only cater to their buyers" - this is obvious, and nobody disputes it. It's a part of the problem. It's not the answer to the question "how do gender stereotypes affect the way we treat each other?"
* "I don't mind looking at nice asses" - again, obvious. All people do. It doesn't address anything we're discussing here, it's not even related to the question.

I personally believe in the power of symbols, even the most subtle ones. I believe we're profoundly affected by the tinies signals, if we keep being exposed to them.

Most posters here have testified that their personal opinions would never be influenced by stereotypes seen in games or movies, but most people also don't believe they're influenced by commercials when they shop for groceries. And then we haven't even mentioned yet how young, impressionable children are affected.

I once held a sex ed course (yeah, really) for my 8-9-graders, and the amount of misinformation, stereotypes and prejudices they harboured was staggering. It was so obvious how their views on women (and what they're supposed to look and act like) were more or less a direct product of mainstream media, and especially video games.

Andail thank you for saying that. I think we can all agree that adults capable of understanding the media and marketing can understand and make informed choices on their media consumption and be aware it is fantasy, not an accurate portrayal of real life and get that they are being presented information in a manipulative way. However, not everyone has that awareness, and children are especially vulnerable to the constant diet of stereotypes and sexual imagery that is now the background noise of our culture.

Ryan I'm surprised you were surprised that she's quite feminist. Her channel is called Feminist Frequency so I didn't think it would be a shock. And regarding the lego, I have no problem with there being a Lego set that is pink and "feminine" but she's trying to point out that the lego sets that have public service roles like fire fighters, police, etc have no female mini figs. Why not? Women are in every public sector serving their country and our kids should know that, boys and girls alike.

I see a lot of guys saying they wont play games as girls, but in the same breath saying girls should just play with the sets even though the mini figs are all boys. Are you not seeing the double standard? Girls do enjoy playing with Lego, but girls would like to have some mini figs of the gender they identify with the same as the guys. Equally by only having hair dressers, bakers and retail assistants in the female category it is sending a message to both genders on what they can do. Girls, you are hair dressers, and home makers and you like fashion. Guys, you don't do that stuff, that isnt for you. You are fire fighters and policemen.

Anecdotally I have a young male cousin who adored pink and a doll called Felicity Wishes. He took her everywhere and he would sing and dance and was basically this really happy little kid who told me he wanted to be a dancer and do make up. His parents just let him just be who he was because they love him and why should they tell him he cant like those things? The only real issue came when he got to school and was so horrendously bullied for not being "a proper boy" that he completely changed into what he was told he was supposed to be by his peers. When I asked him where Felicity was he said "I got rid of her. She's a girls toy. Boys dont like pink or dolls." He stopped dancing, stopped all the things that could have been considered feminine because he learned that displaying an interest in feminine things was bad if you were a boy. I think that is a shame. Maybe if toys were marketed more gender neutrally, and more parents explained that there are no "male" or "female" colours or jobs he would still be the completely free and happy kid he used to be.

Maybe people will disagree with me, but I think it is really difficult to talk about this subject without people getting defensive because change is hard. People like things to be as they always were. If there are more female characters then like Ryan said, he wont be buying those games because they simply wont appeal to him. It might feel annoying to a guy if suddenly the experience of games was taken down a level, even if it meant that his female peers went up significantly so they had a more similar experience overall. It comes down to people not liking to lose their privilege to allow others a better experience. I don't want to get into hyperbolic comparisons, but any change that has sought equality for people has been met with resistance from those who would lose a bigger slice of their already significantly larger pie.

But the discussion here has been interesting and I've enjoyed the debate thus far :)

I just want to say I love playing as women in games. If a game provides a choice in 99% cases I pick to play as a lady. The majority of the protagonists I write and design are women. This is my dark secret. Don't tell anyone please or they will expel me from The Masculine Manly Male Man Club.

I am with you qptain Nemo, its my dark secret too! I always choose the female when playing a game that lets me choose, my Femshep kicked ass.

I have always been labeled as the guy that would come out someday and everyone would say "oh sox, yer.. glad he finally came out, always knew he was gay!" but I'm not, in a very happy relationship with a beautiful woman and I LOVE boobs! ;)

I have just always enjoyed the things I have been told I shouldn't like pink fluffy things, unicorns (horses with swords on their heads!), dressing up and playing females in video games, and never really liked sports. for along time it used to really get me down and I would feel bullied for having a "feminine" view of the world, it was only in my adult years that I start to get over it and give the middle finger to anyone that had a problem with what I enjoy.

A lot of that bullying comes from other peoples points of view on what I should be and do based on my gender, and that seems to come from parenting and media.

*shrugs*

I don't have a problem with a male character helping a female character, but its nice to see some inventive writing. Too often the damsel is used as a lazy plot device to give the protagonist a reason to do something. There are millions of other things to write about so it would be nice to see a bit more creativity. The videos have helped make me think about one of my own creations in particular and I've kind of used it as a guide for "how not to write a main character!"

but this is just my view :)

Quote from: Andail on Tue 06/08/2013 08:58:31
I personally believe in the power of symbols, even the most subtle ones. I believe we're profoundly affected by the tinies signals, if we keep being exposed to them.

Most posters here have testified that their personal opinions would never be influenced by stereotypes seen in games or movies, but most people also don't believe they're influenced by commercials when they shop for groceries. And then we haven't even mentioned yet how young, impressionable children are affected.

I once held a sex ed course (yeah, really) for my 8-9-graders, and the amount of misinformation, stereotypes and prejudices they harboured was staggering. It was so obvious how their views on women (and what they're supposed to look and act like) were more or less a direct product of mainstream media, and especially video games.

Absolutely spot on point, which I also believe highlights the larger point of why I dislike a lot of her videos.

Andail is effectively saying that children are influenced by video games that (for example) portray a world with no women, or perhaps only thin woman with large breasts etc, however, no one has discussed how that problem is fixed, or sorted out. Just mentioning that there is a problem is not an effective way to fix a problem in a large amount of cases.

Which is why I think she should be highlighting and discussing what games are moving forward with the times, rather than harping on and on about boring tropes and stereotypes. They exist, get over it, moaning about them isn't going to change jack sh*t. Create a video aimed at kids that highlights cool games they can play (that don't portray gender stereotypes) and then if you want to include a classroom learning element, sneak it in there subliminally like an advert would.

Also, the LEGO argument is a classic example of moaning doing absolutely nothing to further her cause. Why not use all that massive amount of time she spent researching how rubbish LEGO was at creating a product for women to actually sit down and develop a product example for LEGO to go away and test. Present to them an idea for how she thinks it should be changed and try to get LEGO to actually go out into the world and try it out. I want to see some facts, figures, examples, not some one-sided opinion!

People have created inspiring female Lego sets off the back of it being brought to their attention. Sarkeesian bring attention to issues, there is nothing wrong with that. Showing people there is a problem isn't a bad thing. It allows other people to find solutions. She can see a problem and bring it to light without having the skills or power to fix it. Complaining doesn't solve problems, but it does bring them to peoples attentions and personally I dont see her videos as her just ranting about things. She is trying to show people there is an issue and then a few people watch them and say "Hey I can do something about that!"

Here are the minifigs (http://inhabitat.com/petition-calls-for-more-gender-equality-in-legos/) that are being petitioned :)

Quote from: calicoreverie on Tue 06/08/2013 14:13:15
Just mentioning that there is a problem is not an effective way to fix a problem in a large amount of cases.

Which is why I think she should be highlighting and discussing what games are moving forward with the times, rather than harping on and on about boring tropes and stereotypes. They exist, get over it, moaning about them isn't going to change jack sh*t. Create a video aimed at kids that highlights cool games they can play (that don't portray gender stereotypes) and then if you want to include a classroom learning element, sneak it in there subliminally like an advert would.

I agree.

I believe it's important to discuss things like this (and while she may have disabled comments, we're having quite the discussion about it here), but it's also important to try to come up with solutions.

I believe that her $150K of Kickstarter funds would have been better spent making her hypothetical game a reality:

[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/UZKtFfHIGrA[/embed]

She's not a game maker though. She's a feminist and a social scientist. She looks a popular culture from a feminist stand point. She isn't an artist or a game maker and she may not have an interest in making games. So why should she make one? She can consume a product and complain about it and ask for something different and it be valid without her having to make her own. If I don't like a meal at a restaurant I'm going to complain to the waiter and get the chef to fix it, I'm not going to walk into the kitchen and say "Well chef, you didn't cook this meal how I like it so I'm gonna have to cook it myself now." I don't have a food hygiene certificate for one, and two I am not interested in being a chef. 

The problem with saying "Don't complain!" or "If you dont like it fix it yourself!" Is that it is an incredibly reductive attitude. So someone with a full time job who likes video games isnt allowed to complain about them unless they make one themselves? How about we just end blogging and youtube as we know it? No one is taking issue with the huge number of review videos on youtube complaining about game mechanics or bad plots in games, but someone makes some videos pointing out a trend in games regarding sexism and suddenly it's all "She should just shut up and make her own game if it bothers her so much"?

Maybe I'm naive but I don't think that every time someone makes a complaint they have to the one to fix it. We are not all equally blessed in certain skill sets at the end of the day. Sarkeesian makes videos about feminism and runs Feminist Frequency. She isn't a game maker. Her not producing a game does not make her criticisms or arguments any less valid.

You know who is the solution to the problem? Game makers, especially those without a specific agenda. When we show that we can make games that are popular and fun without being sexist (which she did show with examples like Fez)then we pave the way for consumers to get used to that sort of content. We show publishers that these games can exist and be successful.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 14:23:02
People have created inspiring female Lego sets off the back of it being brought to their attention. Sarkeesian bring attention to issues, there is nothing wrong with that. Showing people there is a problem isn't a bad thing. It allows other people to find solutions. She can see a problem and bring it to light without having the skills or power to fix it. Complaining doesn't solve problems, but it does bring them to peoples attentions and personally I dont see her videos as her just ranting about things. She is trying to show people there is an issue and then a few people watch them and say "Hey I can do something about that!"

Here are the minifigs (http://inhabitat.com/petition-calls-for-more-gender-equality-in-legos/) that are being petitioned :)

Totally agree with that. In fact, I find myself thinking more about gender stereotypes when looking at game trailers etc, which is a good thing, and I am aware she is not just ranting :)

However, you only really enforce my point by showing me that link. If her video had mostly been about the link you described (and others perhaps?) then I would have genuinely enjoyed it, as I thought those female mini figs look absolutely awesome!

It's one thing to say that her video caused someone to go away and develop that idea (obviously a good thing), but it's another to suggest that it will sway the big corporations (which we have already seen in LEGO's case was a complete disaster as they just created a barbie cupcake making LEGO set because they are idiots). The trouble is, she needs to change the view of the people buying the LEGO, so that they either don't buy it or tell LEGO to start making the stuff like in the link before they do buy it.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 15:01:35
She's not a game maker though. She's a feminist and a social scientist... ...The problem with saying "Don't complain!" or "If you dont like it fix it yourself!" Is that it is an incredibly reductive attitude... ...Sarkeesian makes videos about feminism and runs Feminist Frequency. She isn't a game maker. Her not producing a game does not make her criticisms or arguments any less valid

I'm personally (I know that wasn't necessarily aimed at me) not saying she needs to go away and create a game or cook a meal, but don't make a video with 90% moaning about something being bad and 10% showing games which she likes, do it the other way around. Explain what the games she likes do better. Tell me where I can get better food etc.

You can still be a feminist and a social scientist and not just moan about what is bad about the world.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 15:01:35
You know who is the solution to the problem? Game makers, especially those without a specific agenda. When we show that we can make games that are popular and fun without being sexist (which she did show with examples like Fez)then we pave the way for consumers to get used to that sort of content. We show publishers that these games can exist and be successful.

I don't agree with that entirely. You need more than a few indie developers that make a minimal impact on gaming to change it. Much more importantly, you need to get to the consumers directly and begin to change their point of view as well, and frankly, she doesn't do this very well (if at all).

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 15:01:35
She's not a game maker though. She's a feminist and a social scientist. She looks a popular culture from a feminist stand point. She isn't an artist or a game maker and she may not have an interest in making games. So why should she make one? She can consume a product and complain about it and ask for something different and it be valid without her having to make her own. If I don't like a meal at a restaurant I'm going to complain to the waiter and get the chef to fix it, I'm not going to walk into the kitchen and say "Well chef, you didn't cook this meal how I like it so I'm gonna have to cook it myself now." I don't have a food hygiene certificate for one, and two I am not interested in being a chef. 

The problem with saying "Don't complain!" or "If you dont like it fix it yourself!" Is that it is an incredibly reductive attitude. So someone with a full time job who likes video games isnt allowed to complain about them unless they make one themselves? How about we just end blogging and youtube as we know it? No one is taking issue with the huge number of review videos on youtube complaining about game mechanics or bad plots in games, but someone makes some videos pointing out a trend in games regarding sexism and suddenly it's all "She should just shut up and make her own game if it bothers her so much"?

Maybe I'm naive but I don't think that every time someone makes a complaint they have to the one to fix it. We are not all equally blessed in certain skill sets at the end of the day. Sarkeesian makes videos about feminism and runs Feminist Frequency. She isn't a game maker. Her not producing a game does not make her criticisms or arguments any less valid.

You know who is the solution to the problem? Game makers, especially those without a specific agenda. When we show that we can make games that are popular and fun without being sexist (which she did show with examples like Fez)then we pave the way for consumers to get used to that sort of content. We show publishers that these games can exist and be successful.

You're right, she doesn't have to make any games in order to make these statements.  I'm not in any way trying to invalidate what she is saying.  I was really just saying I would love to play her hypothetical game, and that increasing the availability of these games would be more beneficial to her cause.

Don't get me wrong here.  I agree with many of her points, and I feel that she has every right to voice her opinion.  She is attempting to provide a much needed service in pointing out these issues.  And admittedly, she does mention some games that are doing it right.  I feel that side of it should have been explored more.  I also feel that more of such games will make a larger impact overall than simple discussion.

As for the restaurant analogy, I'd wonder why you were eating in a place where they serve food you don't like.  Sure, you can eat anywhere, but why not frequent an establishment that provides food that you enjoy, or complain that not enough of them exist?  I suppose that's part of the issue.  If there are only so many restaurants, and they are all providing lackluster food, then what else can you do but complain?  But there are other alternatives.  I feel she spends the majority her time attacking the negative rather than praising the positive.  That is, however, the focus of these videos: to attack tropes that are damaging to women.

I'm not saying she can't complain and point out these issues.  I'm saying that there may be more productive uses of her time and money.  But again, I'll reiterate that I agree with many of her points, and that I feel it is important to discuss these things.  Bringing attention to the issues is a valuable service.

In my restaurant analogy if we are making comparisons to the game industry, the majority of the popular restaurants would be making food I'm not totally happy with. Sure I can stay in a cook, or I can go to those fun little family run establishments that offer great food, but maybe sometimes I want to go to the same restaurant as all my guy friends and enjoy the food too. It's almost like the restaurant says "Guys eat rare steak, women eat salad!" and I'm saying, "Can I have some peri peri chicken? Or at least a medium steak?!"

I didn't mean to imply you disagree with her, and I wasn't targeting you in particular with my comment so I apologise if it came off that way :)

Myinah, I think all your posts in this thread pretty much mirror everything I'm thinking right now.

I've followed Anita Sarkeesian for a while. She does hold some pretty strong feminist views, and I don't absolutely agree 100% with everything she's said in her gaming videos. I think it's good to critically examine things you watch, however it's been a little painful to watch the ridiculously extreme criticism she's received for just about everything, including how she disabled comments on her youtube channel, used all the hate mail as a ploy for more Kickstarter money to get rich... I really don't understand why she upsets people so much. There are so many male game reviewers who are critical in the same way if not more (like Yahtzee, who I like), and yet I hear no criticism about them at all. It bothers me that we expect her to jump through all these additional hoops in order to garner any sort of respect (i.e. If she hates these games so much, why doesn't she just make her own game? If she hates these games so much, just don't play them, etc...)

Why can't we all just watch these videos as is, take a little from them we find interesting/insightful, and then move on? Why do we see these videos as an attack on who we are as gamers, but don't have this same reaction when we watch Zero Punctuation?

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 12:28:08
Ryan I'm surprised you were surprised that she's quite feminist. Her channel is called Feminist Frequency so I didn't think it would be a shock.

I wasn't surprised she was a feminist, I was surprised that how insanely opinionated and highly negative she was. She can't make one point without rolling her eyes. She really needs to work on her presentation and overall point.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 12:28:08And regarding the lego, I have no problem with there being a Lego set that is pink and "feminine" but she's trying to point out that the lego sets that have public service roles like fire fighters, police, etc have no female mini figs. Why not? Women are in every public sector serving their country and our kids should know that, boys and girls alike. I see a lot of guys saying they wont play games as girls, but in the same breath saying girls should just play with the sets even though the mini figs are all boys. Are you not seeing the double standard?

Thank-you. With your better approach to explain the point she was "trying" to make, you've helped me see what she was arguing. Of course though, unless all these fireman, police officers, etc sets all come with Lego men and not the non gender Lego character, then I'm still confused with why she's so upset with it being "for boys". If that's the case, she should've explained this by perhaps showing that all the Lego characters are painted male in these sets. I've grown up with Lego and all the sets my parents got me came with the non gender Lego face. The majority had male hair (or no hair with helmets), but there were also a few female characters too. So if Lego has changed this in the past 20 years and only have Lego men, then I understand her point that she didn't clearly make.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 12:28:08He stopped dancing, stopped all the things that could have been considered feminine because he learned that displaying an interest in feminine things was bad if you were a boy.

It happens in a work environment too. I work in a male only department of a factory (I actually have issues with it being male only with HR never hiring women for that department). I've had a few men harass me, calling me a woman or saying I'm feminine because I don't have the same interests as them. My interests pretty much consist of computers, video games, tv and movies. The coworkers were once talking about cars, sports and terrible 90s action movies whereas I had no comment on the conversations and did express that I had no interest in cars or sports, and that the movies they were talking about were quite rubbish. Which resulted in "That's because you're feminine", simply because I just don't have the stereotypical "masculine" interests. And for a while it became a regular insult - and calling me gay. Fortunately the immaturity has died down.

So yes, I completely stand by her overall ideals, just not her execution and presentation. She shows too much emotion, rolling her eyes, smirking, face-palm, etc to be taken seriously without enraging me. I find her very attractive (I'm not talking visually) with how passionate she is about the stereotyping in the sexual roles. I would love to be with a woman who was as passionate about these things instead of the accepting type. Although she does take things a little too far, like for example this video (skip to 1min 3seconds):
[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/PD0Faha2gow[/embed]
As she explains these men, how are they being scumbags for trying to pickup women by offering to be their designated driver. I think it's a noble effort to get to know them and genuinely funny - and if the role was reversed, I would find it to be equal. Unless the message is that they just want sex, then I understand her point, but I don't see it that way. Heck, the one girl even puts her arm on him before he even offers. She also says they're trying to take advantage of these women but they don't look shitfaced drunk to me; looks like these ladies can make their own decision.

As for the next commercial, Twix, now I agree that he is a scumbag and so is the message. You can stare at the opposite sex all you want, just don't be drooling with your spouse beside you belittling her and making her feel unattractive. It's a terrible message that will simply make guys feel they're allowed to do this, that it's acceptable in society to make your spouse feel unworthy.

As for the "vent" Coors Light commercial, I don't see anything wrong with it other than that he's lying to her. I don't have any problems with a spouse hanging out with their friends. Drink, get shitfaced, etc just don't lie about it. Overall I don't see a problem with the message of this commercial as she knows where he is, just not the purpose of the visit.

Then her point of women becoming "just as raunchy like one of the guys" only shows that she must really dislike men. A comment like that has her saying that women would be pure and kind if it weren't for them trying to be like men. Now she's trying to separate women and men, basically shitting on all her previous points of trying to equalize the balance between men and women. I get confused by her.

Quote from: Myinah on Tue 06/08/2013 12:28:08If there are more female characters then like Ryan said, he wont be buying those games because they simply wont appeal to him.

What I meant by that, but I never actually said it, I don't want the majority of games to be solely one sex. I want the majority of games to have a choice like Mass Effect with the male or female Shepherd. But if it's strictly a female game, I then have very very little interest in it unless it's awesome. If I can play the male Marcus in Gears of War and my gf can play the game as a female Marcus, that would be ideal.

Quote from: waheela on Tue 06/08/2013 22:46:54
Why can't we all just watch these videos as is, take a little from them we find interesting/insightful, and then move on? Why do we see these videos as an attack on who we are as gamers, but don't have this same reaction when we watch Zero Punctuation?

Probably because Zero Punctuation generally pokes fun at a single game, not trying to change society and our lifestyle. Which is fine, just not easily done without receiving criticism and hatred.

As for disabling the YouTube comments and approval meter is obvious. We blindly follow society. If 99% of her votes are Dislike, many folk will just follow along without thinking for themselves what they honestly feel. The comments being disabled is simply because YouTube is filled with peckerheads.

Waheela thanks for that :)

This might be a bit TLDR feminism for some but here goes :)

Ryan I want to address your points without coming across as patronizing myself so know I'm just trying to be as clear as I can regarding an extensive and complex subject and if you already understand feminism in greater detail than I give you credit for please accept my apologies. I also want to preface this by stating I don't mean any of this as a personal attack on you. I think you sound like a good guy so hopefully you get that :)

I first think that maybe you have a problem with Anita's message to the point it feels like she's being more overly emotional in her delivery than she actually is. When I viewed it I personally couldn't see anything like what you described. To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads. Admittedly eye-rolling and a bit snarky, but that's pretty standard for a lot of youtube reviewers and vloggers. I didn't see anything OTT, but that's just me personally. I could see how she might seem patronizing but again I think that's down to personal interpretation.

You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you. I don't want to derail this thread and make it about sexism in general, but it would be helpful to understand feminism and sexism in our culture a little better, and also what environment sexism really creates for women in this world. It will be too much for me to get into in any real detail in this thread so if I'm unclear at any point I apologise.

The ads themselves are mildly sexist. I would roll my eyes if I saw them, but I wouldn't be making any complaints to advertising standards. The Mikes Hard Lemonade one is referencing the fact that the guy is trying to get both girls home, under the rather obvious pretence of being their designated driver. He's clearly not doing it to be noble, he's doing it to have sex, potentially even a 3 way. The girls dont appear drunk in the ads, but have been drinking, and while it is fine for a guy to hit on a girl at a bar, fine to make an introduction, the guy is only interested in them as sexual objects.

The coors light one has Anita discussing how marketers have tried to make women laugh at this poor caricature of a woman. A girl so stupid she doesn't realise her partner lied to her to go watch the game and drink beer. It's supposed to make us feel like we would never be that dumb, or that we're so cool about this stuff our man would never lie to us! Again, on its own it's mildly sexist and nothing I would kick up a fuss about.

However, when you begin to put all these little ads together it starts to show women are less respected in our culture. We are the butt of the joke, the nagging wife, the stupid girlfriend, the sex toy. These micro-aggressions barely register alone but they infiltrate our culture, reinforcing a message that women are sex objects until they become your sexless, boring, nagging wife. And that is just one of many messages. Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine. I like George Carlin's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc) thoughts on some of this. But also think about the sort of insults that you hear like pussy, bitch, c**t. All feminine words at their heart. The worst thing you can call someone is feminine, even when you cuss them out. These too are micro aggressions. Tiny things alone, but when you add them all up it shows a rather pernicious attitude towards women threaded throughout our society.

The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?" Being a woman is a scary thing sometimes, Louis CK (http://youtu.be/umc7BFEhWz0?t=58s) puts it better than I ever could, but we are basically raised to be on constant alert to give us the best chance of not being attacked and assaulted. I'm not saying being a man isn't hard or scary, but men don't generally have to worry about things like "Will this outfit I'm wearing suggest I'm asking for it?" and "It's getting dark out, I better get my rape alarm out in case I'm attacked on the way there." It has been heavily implied by society that if we wear the wrong things, drink alcohol, or simply walk alone at night and get attacked, we bear the responsibility for the attack because we should not have been drinking, occupying that space or wearing a short skirt. We were "asking for it".

These messages we are sent are very conflicting no? By media standards we have to be sexually attractive and available, but not actually have sex lest we be labelled a slut, or look too sexy in case we get attacked. I think it can make us quite defensive when we are out and about too. When a guy I don't know comes up to me in a bar sometimes I do feel intimidated even though he probably just wants to say hi. But if you have seen the awful PUA guides maybe you will understand why I might be anxious. There are men out there who think we are essentially theirs to be taken, that don't take no for an answer. Some guys can be manipulative and forceful and we don't know what we are getting, but we do know if we make the mistake of trusting the wrong one we will potentially be blamed for whatever happens to us! The sexist, victim blaming media and some bad eggs are really spoiling it for the genuinely decent men out there. Not to mention the guys who stealthily grope us on crowded public transport and in packed nightclubs, and the ones who yell "compliments" at us in the street.

Anyway I said I would try not to get off topic, but here we are :/

Regarding the Sarkeesian hating men thing, Anita doesn't hate men. Current feminism is egalitarian and usually referred to as inter-sectional feminism, recognizing that white women are not the centre of the universe. Women of colour by far have the worse deal, not to mention transwomen, but we also recognize that sexism hurts men too. We want equality for all, but that means that men will lose a bit of their privilege when the playing field is level and so some men get defensive and yell "FEMINAZI!" at the first sign of that loss. Radical feminism and man hating was a first wave thing that people love to drag up even though it hasn't be relevant for quite some time, and the few who do behave that way would be shunned by the rest of us in the same way most Christians would shun the Westboro Baptist Church.

Her comment about "women becoming as raunchy as men" was taken from the book she references, "Female Chauvinist Pigs." (Interesting read btw regardless of whether you identify as feminist or not.) She isn't saying being raunchy is bad or that men are bad, she means that some women have adopted sexist attitudes to elevate themselves above other women with their male peers. Kind of throwing the rest of us under the bus again in the context of "feminine = bad". It's kind of the ladette culture of "Look at me, men! I can drink pints and eat steak! I never cry and I curse like a sailor! Hell I even stare at tits and can be your ladybro wingwoman! Give me your approval! I'm one of yoooooou!" (Not to say women can't genuinely be a ladette, it's more the elevation aspect of it, portraying other types of women as inferior.)

Sarkeesian is really saying that these women are objectifying women (trope or not) and laughing at sexist jokes for male approval instead of standing with other women and saying "Hey, this isn't cool." She isn't saying raunchy men are bad. She even says that pointing out sexism does not make one popular right after she mentions it. I mean it's definitely true! I feel anxious discussing feminism here because I don't want to get flamed, but I see the AGS community at large to be thoughtful and open minded so I have been willing to open up and risk getting slammed lol.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if women are constantly portrayed as inferior, or as objects, and that it happens to often and so subtly we barely register it, it will begin to affect us. Again a lot of us are intelligent adults capable of making our own choices and understanding these adverts are incorrect while still laughing at them, but some people aren't. Some people don't think about these things and just sit there chuckling and thinking "Haha, yes! Women are like that!"

And of course we have impressionable kids who soak this stuff up like a sponge if no one intervenes, and as we know we can't always rely on parents to educate their kids on these matters. For instance I was walking home from the shops a while ago and a kid who must have been 10 or 11 yelled "Nice tits!" at me. I swear his bike had stabilisers he was that young. I was blown away that this had come from a child. I told him that it wasn't polite to talk to women that way, and that he should find a better way to talk to and compliment people. He seemed surprised I confronted him, but his response was to tell me I could suck his dick. I walked away shaking my head. I would have found it hilarious if it wasn't so deeply tragic. I'm sure he'll grow up to be a real charmer  (wrong)

But it begs the question, where did he learn this stuff? And saying they learn it from their friends doesn't really cut it because where did the friends learn it from? Adults, TV or some other form of media will be the answer. Unless he had tourettes, he knew to shout a comment in public about my breasts, he knew it would earn him respect from his peers and he knew that ultimately there was nothing I could do about it. Not unlike the grown men who yelled obscenities at me from a passing car when I was bending over to dig out some ivy from my front yard.

Again I fear I am getting off topic so I will try to wrap this up :)

I understand what you mean now you have clarified you would like there to be a male and female option in games, so that you could still play as male and that women could play as female. That would be great. I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. If I wasn't willing to play games as a male character I would have missed out on some wonderful games like Deus Ex, Half Life, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, Monkey Island etc... You would miss awesome games like Tomb Raider, Mirrors Edge, The Longest Journey, and Beyond Good and Evil. I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience? Sorry if I haven't understood again :)

So yeah, that's just a bit of an explanation and hopefully I haven't gone too off topic or offended everyone. I'm trying really hard not to paint any particular group with a broad brush because we are all individuals at the end of the day. I'm sure there are lots of holes and things I've failed to explain properly, so again sorry for that!

Quote from: waheela on Tue 06/08/2013 22:46:54
Why can't we all just watch these videos as is, take a little from them we find interesting/insightful, and then move on? Why do we see these videos as an attack on who we are as gamers, but don't have this same reaction when we watch Zero Punctuation?

To be honest, I don't follow any of these vlogs (never even heard of them).  But I have heard of this series, as it is being discussed around the web (probably because of her overly successful $150K Kickstarter).  That's why I comment on this and not the others, because it's a bit of a pop culture phenomenon right now, it falls under current events more than simply game criticisms.

I personally find her to be a bit grating, and overly negative.  I am sure many other vloggers are being very negative as well, probably far more than she.  But she is trying to push an agenda, and one that I agree with for the most part, so it frustrates me to see her delivery come out in the way that it has.  Men and women react differently to things, and I think that what she says comes across strongly and positively to women, but not to men (well, not to all men).  Many men do see it as an attack to an extent, and that's because her tone and content are generally doing just that.  At least that's how it feels to me, and again, I agree with her.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

I'll agree to this statement.  I do like sexy women, and don't see any reason why they shouldn't appear in advertising.  It is a good way to market to men, surely.  It does not, however, need to be combined with chauvinist messages to be effective.  I feel that there should be more advertising that markets to women in the same (well, reverse) way.  The issue, I think, is that it wouldn't be as effective.  At least, that's what I'm led to believe by the lack of such ads.

I personally didn't find too much wrong with the Mike's Hard Lemonade ad, for example.  They are attempting to market the drink to men, so showing sexy women will help.  Showing those sexy women being somewhat responsive to their advances will help as well.  I don't think there's anything wrong with hitting on a woman, or even attempting to negotiate a ménage à  trois.  As long as the women are aware and treated respectfully, then what's the issue?  They didn't look too drunk to make a clear and informed decision about these guys.  They didn't seem to be treated as objects, rather as sexual humans.  I could see that same ad in the reverse being no different.

I get frustrated when any depiction of a sexy woman is taken by women to be nothing more than a sex object.  Can she not be a sexy woman, a human being who has and perhaps exudes sexuality?  Why must all sexy portrayals of women be deemed objectifying?  I suppose that's because many men are chauvinists, and there are men out there who actually only want to be with a woman for her sexual properties.  But I would think (or hope) that most men are not like this, and that many men would value the woman as a human being who can provide not only sex, but good company and stimulating conversation, perhaps even a relationship.  Men are often all lumped together as being collectively chauvinist through videos like these, and that can be as damaging to society as the sexist portrayals of women.

The Twix ad is definitely showing some sexist attitudes.  The man lying to his wife and her acceptance of the lie are clearly indicative of an attitude that it's OK to lie to women, and tries to say that women are dumb enough to fall for it.  It was also sexist in that it implied that men are a bunch of drooling sex fiends and liars.  Sort of equal opportunity sexism, but sexist all the same, and more strongly against the women.  I didn't like that ad at all.

The Coors ad is mildly sexist, in the same way as the Twix commercial.  It paints the woman as being a bit dumb in not seeing through his lie, and alludes slightly to her possibly being a nag (otherwise the man would simply be honest with her).  It also paints the man as being continually deceptive, and engaging in stereotypically macho activities like watching the game.  Again, equal opportunity, and more strongly directed at the woman.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24
However, when you begin to put all these little ads together it starts to show women are less respected in our culture. We are the butt of the joke, the nagging wife, the stupid girlfriend, the sex toy. These micro-aggressions barely register alone but they infiltrate our culture, reinforcing a message that women are sex objects until they become your sexless, boring, nagging wife. And that is just one of many messages. Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine. I like George Carlin's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc) thoughts on some of this. But also think about the sort of insults that you hear like pussy, bitch, c**t. All feminine words at their heart. The worst thing you can call someone is feminine, even when you cuss them out. These too are micro aggressions. Tiny things alone, but when you add them all up it shows a rather pernicious attitude towards women threaded throughout our society.

You make a lot of good points, and I'm not going to discuss the entirety of your post because I largely agree with you.

I agree that when you put all of these small things together they can depict women as being less respected.  Getting back to the original damsel in distress videos, they did illustrate that there is (and has been) a trend in gaming towards that trope.  Individually, there may be nothing wrong with some the games.  Often times the damsel in distress is the most appropriate story for the game, but it is certainly not the only appropriate story for any game.  I'll agree with many before me here and say that sticking to this trope could be indicative of poor writing or the easy story, but I'll also say that sometimes it actually works, and there's nothing wrong with the trope in and of itself.  It's when it becomes overused to the point of overshadowing all of the other story types that it becomes an issue.

The example in her video that bothered me the most was Star Fox Adventures.  The original design for Dinosaur Planet looked appealing, and it boggles my mind to think of why it was abandoned and shoehorned into the Star Fox brand.  I mean, I understand that it made sense to try to tie it to a brand for the sake of brand recognition, but to fundamentally change the game in the way that they did is unnecessary and reprehensible.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24
I understand what you mean now you have clarified you would like there to be a male and female option in games, so that you could still play as male and that women could play as female. That would be great. I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. If I wasn't willing to play games as a male character I would have missed out on some wonderful games like Deus Ex, Half Life, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, Monkey Island etc... You would miss awesome games like Tomb Raider, Mirrors Edge, The Longest Journey, and Beyond Good and Evil. I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience? Sorry if I haven't understood again :)

I agree.  In many cases, especially with character driven games, there is a clear decision on the part of the developers to make the character either a male or female, and often times it is tied directly to the story they are trying to tell.  I do, however, understand where Ryan may be coming from, as we have seen that all too often a female representation of a character can be overly feminized to the point where a male might not be comfortable playing (much like the pink LEGO sets).  I don't think any of the games you mentioned would fall into that category, though, and I thank you for pointing out that there are good, positive representations of both genders in gaming.

You also make some good point Dactylopus. The dinosaur planet one in particular :) and I also agree sometimes the damsel is right for the story, but how you write her makes a world of difference, as shown by characters like Elaine Marley. Turned into a solid gold statue, still bags of attitude lol.

Also I wouldn't play a lot of the pink fluffy games that are marketed to women so I don't blame you. There is nothing wrong with anyone liking or playing those games male or female, but I tend to prefer more serious narratives. Also, can't believe I forgot this one, but if guys didn't play as a female protagonist they would be missing out on the Blackwell games! How could I forget Rosa?! Wouldn't that be tragic!

I personally have no problem with sexy women being used in advertising, but I think it is the way in which it is done sometimes, and the frequency that bothers me. And sexy women aren't just used to sell to men, they are used to sell to women too. I could find a plethora of implied nude or half naked shots of women in my magazine rack just from a couple of womens mags. Selling jeans? Topless woman bent over in a doggy style position biting her lip. Selling boots? Naked woman curled up hugging her knees with just the boots on. Selling make up? Naked woman with bright red lips biting her lip.

It's not clever or original, its just the same thing over and over. Women as sexual objects. I feel like it's difficult to say many of these images are of empowered women simply exuding sexuality because a lot of them are in submissive positions with no names or personality and a vapid expression on their faces. I'd say something like the sexy women in the diet coke adverts are showing sexually empowered women. They are exuding their desire for sex without being on all fours crawling around half naked. But we look at the shirtless guy in the ad and he's the one being objectified. The ad was a big hit because it was one of the first instances we ever really saw a guy being objectified in the same way as a woman.

I also think if we saw men being sexually objectified as much in advertising I would have less of an issue with how often it occurs with women. Boobs are like background noise in our society. Sort of like how the boobs in game of thrones were no big thing because we are used to seeing breasts everywhere, even in page 3 of our tabloid papers. But dicks?! Even Sex and the City did't show dong in amongst its plentiful boob and bush displays. I took no real issue with the boobs or sex scenes in Game of Thrones because they actually showed full frontal with both genders.

And also objectification in itself isn't always a terrible thing at appropriate times. It's annoying if I'm at work and a guy tell's me my ass looks great because at work I'm a professional, but I have no problem putting on a nice dress and going on a date or to a bar and being viewed as attractive. If a guy doesn't know me of course all he has to go on in that situation is my looks. Again in consensual one night stands or relationships based solely on sex, objectification isn't bad.

Anyway, as I said the Mikes Hard Lemonade ad didn't really bother me. It was more eye-rolling because of the lame frat boy stereotype and the pretty girls is so overplayed. Like they couldn't be bothered to think of a clever way to sell it so they just stuck in some hot ladies because men will buy if they think pretty girls will sleep with them. Don Draper would be disappointed!

TLDR; I like sexy women too, I have no issue with sex in advertising, but I do wish it was a little more equal in terms of the frequency we see males in these states of undress and sexual positions. I also wish ads could be a bit more creative. Sexy ads like the Mikes Lemonade one are never the most memorable because they are just like every other lazily written ad out there.

I hope no one feels demonized by my comments. I'm not an authority on the subject and I don't want to make guys feel like they can't sexualize women, or compliment a woman without being sexist because that's simply not the case! In any case I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness of the responses in this thread :) So used to seeing the conversations end before they've even started with much yelling!

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24
To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads.

Imagine it this way: I have my own YouTube channel, and since you can't see this fake video, imagine the stuff in asterisks being what I'm doing on camera. I show the Twix commercial. I then start to say:
"See how obviously angry and possessive this wife is? *face palm* Her husband can't even enjoy the view of these beautiful women without getting nagged at. She's so bad that he has to lie to her to prevent any kind of argument. *rolls eyes* Women need to be more open to the idea that men have desires and should be free to view whomever they want, just as they should as well. If she wanted the same kind of attention, perhaps she should be wearing a tank top and miniskirt like these women in this obviously warm weather instead of that dull church sweater. *tilt head upwards with pride*"

Of course these aren't my views, and I did over exaggerate my point as I simply couldn't find a decent commercial to use for a proper example. If I made this video, men like this man would see me delivering the message in a rational manner and would agree with my argument. They wouldn't see attitude in my expressions. On the other hand, most women would see me as being a complete chauvinistic ass, reading my facial expressions as over the top and even more aggravating than my views alone.

Anita isn't this extreme of course, but after watching the Mike's Hard commercial I get blind sighted by her facial reactions. It takes her over the top argument that he's a scumbag and makes her message even more aggravating to listen to. Shifting her eyes. Widening them. Raising her eyebrows. Everything about her delivery here gives her argument so much less weight. It's probably something along the lines of what Andail mentioned with picking up on subtle cues.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

She hasn't really expressed this at all, other than mentioning the Twix commercial needlessly having 3 models. I agree with her arguments of not having women shown in a degrading fashion, but from my perspective, I only see the men looking degrading (other than Paris Hilton, but that's her in a nutshell). In the Twix or Coors Light commercial, one could argue that these women being trusting is shown as degrading to their overall intelligence, I do not. Sure it shows them as being naive, but in all honesty, they're accepting they're spouse's word in trust. If you can't trust someone to this degree, you shouldn't be with them. Which is why it makes these men look like assholes.

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24He's clearly not doing it to be noble, he's doing it to have sex, potentially even a 3 way.

I never meant noble as in a man helping walk an old lady across the street. I meant he asked in a respectful and courageous manner to introduce the idea and show his desire to get to know either of these ladies. I'm not disputing he doesn't want to have sex with either of them (or even a 3 way), I simply mean I feel he seems like he genuinely wants to get to know either of them.

I once heard on the radio, the DJ said "Men have a relationship to get sex. Women have sex to get a relationship.". I sadly agree with it in most cases - from the male perspective, or at least from my own. Sex and the physical bonding, ie: hugging, holding, kissing, etc, are the main driving points as to why I want a relationship. Everything else, from having the best friend you'll ever have, knowing everything about someone and caring for them beyond anything you could imagine, knowing or sharing their interests, loving them, that's the bonus. A most amazing and beautiful bonus that, which to me, completes the package (or relationship if package sounds too objectifying).

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine.

Isn't it the same with women where the worst thing you can be is masculine? I would think so anyway. Those are probably sexist views, but I don't see women and men as being the same. In all honesty, I actually feel women are the superior sex. I do. They're far more beautiful, caring, passionate, mature, outgoing etc (my own subjective opinion, obviously). But I do know that men are superior on many things though, things that the majority of women couldn't do with their natural anatomy.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?"

This is a hard topic to cover. There is no male equivalent to a bikini or miniskirt (I mean in terms of sexual attraction). Men are naturally designed to want to dominate and do their business with any woman they're attracted to. When a woman is wearing a skimpy dress or bikini, there's nothing more visually inviting and accessible, besides being naked. That's like swimming in a tank filled with friendly sharks, with meat wrapped around your body and then being surprised that these shark acted on impulse. Or even walking around the street with large sums of money in your hand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women shouldn't wear skimpy clothing. I'm just saying that there are guaranteed chances you will turn someone on. Which is likely why they wear these outfits, besides the comfort of being nearly naked. Rape shouldn't be on their mind when they choose their clothing, but "am I sending the wrong message?" should.

We could also take this discussion to the lighter version where the guy doesn't rape her, but seduces her to have sex just to release his sexual tension because of the clothing she's wearing. Then she feels used and wonders why the guys that show her interest are all assholes. Also thanks for the Louis CK vid, that was brilliant and enlightening.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24[kid yelling at you] But it begs the question, where did he learn this stuff?

That brings me to a argument I had with my older brother. I was arguing how my niece, his daughter, shouldn't be listening to the music she's listening to at her age. That she should be listening to kid appropriate music. The girl, at 4 years old, knows the lyrics to Sexy and I Know It. It was horrifying the first time I saw it. I was completely stunned. She was in her car seat with her headphones on (yes, she has an mp3 player with THESE songs on it) and she was at the "I've got a passion in my pants" part of the song singing along when she spread her legs open pointing at her crotch with an up and down hand gesture.

His argument is that she's going to hear the songs anyway, why not allow her to listen to them in front of her parents instead of having her think she needs to hide what she listens to... ummm.. because she's 4!!?? The only source she has to this music, at this age, is her damn parents. Needless to say there's no swaying his thoughts on proper parenting, he's very stubborn. Not to derail the conversation too much, but yes, parents are a huge influence in the majority of what habits or traits kids learn.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. [..] I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience?

Both of those, yes. And to be honest, I am indeed absolutely sexist. I would find it immersion breaking to see a woman wielding a large chainsaw gun and heavy armor while kicking and curb stomping massive opponents - it's bad enough that a guy is doing these things. Then you could argue that she could just be a physically large and strong woman, but if we're going to go that route and take sexual interest out of the character I'm playing as, I may as well just play as my own sex.

I've watched the videos on Tomb Raider and I couldn't accept the poor design choice of her constantly talking to herself "I just got to keep going" "I need to find a way out of here" "What kind of contraption is this?". This is what they generally do in female character games. I find it annoying. It seems they generally design women as chatty and excessively voicing their every thought. I'd rather it show your current "quest" in text rather than hearing her tell me herself, breaking the 4th wall. I'll likely buy it one day with a really good Steam sale though. Then Longest Journey and Beyond Good and Evil are just way too fantasy/childish for my liking (and honestly typical female games). Not to mention their annoying choice of voices. Why can't they find realistically average voices for females.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24
To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads.

Imagine it this way: I have my own YouTube channel, and since you can't see this fake video, imagine the stuff in asterisks being what I'm doing on camera. I show the Twix commercial. I then start to say:
"See how obviously angry and possessive this wife is? *face palm* Her husband can't even enjoy the view of these beautiful women without getting nagged at. She's so bad that he has to lie to her to prevent any kind of argument. *rolls eyes* Women need to be more open to the idea that men have desires and should be free to view whomever they want, just as they should as well. If she wanted the same kind of attention, perhaps she should be wearing a tank top and miniskirt like these women in this obviously warm weather instead of that dull church sweater. *tilt head upwards with pride*"

Of course these aren't my views, and I did over exaggerate my point as I simply couldn't find a decent commercial to use for a proper example. If I made this video, men like this man would see me delivering the message in a rational manner and would agree with my argument. They wouldn't see attitude in my expressions. On the other hand, most women would see me as being a complete chauvinistic ass, reading my facial expressions as over the top and even more aggravating than my views alone.

Anita isn't this extreme of course, but after watching the Mike's Hard commercial I get blind sighted by her facial reactions. It takes her over the top argument that he's a scumbag and makes her message even more aggravating to listen to. Shifting her eyes. Widening them. Raising her eyebrows. Everything about her delivery here gives her argument so much less weight. It's probably something along the lines of what Andail mentioned with picking up on subtle cues.

I agree.  This is what I was trying to get at when I was talking about how men and women will react differently to things.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

She hasn't really expressed this at all, other than mentioning the Twix commercial needlessly having 3 models. I agree with her arguments of not having women shown in a degrading fashion, but from my perspective, I only see the men looking degrading (other than Paris Hilton, but that's her in a nutshell). In the Twix or Coors Light commercial, one could argue that these women being trusting is shown as degrading to their overall intelligence, I do not. Sure it shows them as being naive, but in all honesty, they're accepting they're spouse's word in trust. If you can't trust someone to this degree, you shouldn't be with them. Which is why it makes these men look like assholes.

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

Ryan makes some excellent points here.  In fact, reading this made me realize what I was really trying to say, but I was perhaps a little afraid of being sexist myself.  I mean, I acknowledge the complaints that are being made about the women, and how they may be viewed as gullible in these commercials, but I actually think that the men are portrayed in a more negative light.  The only problem is that there is no overt indication that the men are the bad guys here.  In fact, the men get away with their deplorable behaviors.  I think that is why the ad is viewed as more negative to women, because women are the ones who are suffering the consequences.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?"

This is a hard topic to cover. There is no male equivalent to a bikini or miniskirt (I mean in terms of sexual attraction). Men are naturally designed to want to dominate and do their business with any woman they're attracted to. When a woman is wearing a skimpy dress or bikini, there's nothing more visually inviting and accessible, besides being naked. That's like swimming in a tank filled with friendly sharks, with meat wrapped around your body and then being surprised that these shark acted on impulse. Or even walking around the street with large sums of money in your hand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women shouldn't wear skimpy clothing. I'm just saying that there are guaranteed chances you will turn someone on. Which is likely why they wear these outfits, besides the comfort of being nearly naked. Rape shouldn't be on their mind when they choose their clothing, but "am I sending the wrong message?" should.

We could also take this discussion to the lighter version where the guy doesn't rape her, but seduces her to have sex just to release his sexual tension because of the clothing she's wearing. Then she feels used and wonders why the guys that show her interest are all assholes. Also thanks for the Louis CK vid, that was brilliant and enlightening.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I completely agree.  It is a very difficult topic.  Women will say that they should be able to wear whatever they want, and I agree with that as well, but they should be aware of how they are viewed.

Wearing little skimpy outfits is almost like wearing a sex object costume.  The men who openly objectify these women, through degrading cat calls or worse, are merely reacting to that costume.  I'm not saying it's OK to react in that way, these men are largely assholes.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be surprising in the least.  It should be expected to some degree.

Edit:  I've been having this discussion with others outside the forum, and wanted to clarify something.  Women shouldn't have to worry about how they will be perceived, but they should be aware.  It is never OK to rape or take advantage of a woman (or man), and I am in no way trying to say that a woman's choice of clothing indicates that she is asking for this type of reaction.  But a woman should be aware of the type of reaction that her choice will elicit.  She should make an informed decision.  When you go to a job interview, you dress in a way that evokes an air of professionalism.  That is what is appropriate for the way in which you would like to be viewed.  But what reaction will you get when when you go to a bar where there are a lot of intoxicated horny men, and you are dressed like a stripper or a streetwalker?  How will you be viewed in this situation?  Obviously you're not asking to be raped or abused, it would be foolish for anyone to assume this.  But maybe you are projecting a strong air of sexuality.  Not inviting objectification, but appearing nonetheless as an object of sexual desire.

All of this discussion can be very difficult, because men and women are inherently different.  They exhibit different behaviors, and have different understandings of what it all means.  I'm glad we're getting a lot of interesting responses here.  It's good to know there are a lot of open minded people on these forums who are willing to discuss these difficult issues.

Quote from: dactylopus on Thu 08/08/2013 04:29:09

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

Ryan makes some excellent points here.  In fact, reading this made me realize what I was really trying to say, but I was perhaps a little afraid of being sexist myself.  I mean, I acknowledge the complaints that are being made about the women, and how they may be viewed as gullible in these commercials, but I actually think that the men are portrayed in a more negative light.  The only problem is that there is no overt indication that the men are the bad guys here.  In fact, the men get away with their deplorable behaviors.  I think that is why the ad is viewed as more negative to women, because women are the ones who are suffering the consequences.

I don't think that any modern feminist today is saying that women are the only victims of a patriarchal society. There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles, like how they're less likely to get custody of the children in a dispute, how they have to pay more for insurance (as Ryan points out) and how they die more violent deaths, etc.

But modern feminism describes these issues as yet more symptoms of a flawed patriarchal system. Men lose custody disputes more often because they generally spend less time with their kids, since they focus on their careers instead (largely due to an outside pressure to succeed financially, or just conservative gender ideas). Men have to pay more for car insurance because men in general drive more recklessly, which sucks but then again is just another tragic consequence of how we are supposed to act and behave (young men are encouraged by each other to drive fast), and Ryan, I'm sure Anita would love to discuss this, since it's a perfect example of what she's trying to say (treating genders differently is destructive), but I guess she was simply focusing on games and media in that video.

Men die more violent deaths because men generally don't want women to participate in wars (they fear they couldn't concentrate with female soldiers around them...) and thus wars are historically fought between men. A typical modern feminist would love to have female soldiers as well, so it's not like feminism is only about protecting women at all cost.

Okay, this is getting a bit wordy, but I want to touch upon something that is being repeated everywhere, here and in comment sections throughout the web:

QuoteDo something constructive instead of whining! Create a game of your own, dammit!

This is absurd for two reasons:
1. Anita clearly isn't a game maker.
2. Anita isn't simply saying that we need more games with strong female characters, she's saying that we need to stop producing games with stereotypical gender roles. It's not like she can undo others' doings.

I mean, it would be a totally differnt thing if I made videos and started blogs complaining that games need more profound stories, because a) I'm a game designer, and b) by creating a game with a more profound story I'm actually remedying the situation. So that's simple. But saying that Anita should make a game and stop complaining is like telling an animals' rights activist that he can create his own laboratory, where he's free not to torture animals. While an interesting thought, it doesn't really undo the wrongdoings of others.

A lot of people here are saying that she doesn't provide a solution, she's just complaining. I think she's said quite clearly what the solution is: Stop depicting women stereotypically. It's not like she's telling people to invent some kind of brand new vaccine or something; it's actually a simple suggestion. "Hey, I see you're planning on giving your female character huge, gravity-defying boobs and a big cleavage. How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought."

Well put, Andail.

You're absolutely right that modern feminism attempts to put us all on an even playing field.  The label of 'feminism' actually comes across a little too strongly in one direction.  It would be much better if we could call ourselves something else that more clearly states the purpose, similar to how the debate about "gay marriage" became about "marriage equality."  Traditionally, feminism has been geared towards affecting women, and touched mainly on women's issues, but the truth is that these viewpoints have combined with other issues of gender inequality to become what we have today.  Often times, I believe that some men (and women) overlook that fact and focus mainly on either improving things for women or the threat of these views on men.

I agree as well that it is absurd to expect her to go make a game of her own.  I was, maybe, not clear enough on my opinion here, because I did mention her game idea and her $150K Kickstarter campaign.  I didn't mean that she should be making the game herself, just that $150K spent on that game would probably serve the cause better than a series of drawn out videos on the topic.  I might be wrong.  I do applaud her for her work on these videos, despite how I may feel about the actual videos themselves, because her complaints have highlighted important issues and stirred discussion.

I'm looking forward to the next part of her series.  The damsel in distress is only one of 12 different tropes she aims to discuss, so it should be interesting to see what else she has to say.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03
Okay, this is getting a bit wordy, but I want to touch upon something that is being repeated everywhere, here and in comment sections throughout the web:

QuoteDo something constructive instead of whining! Create a game of your own, dammit!

This is absurd for two reasons:
1. Anita clearly isn't a game maker.
2. Anita isn't simply saying that we need more games with strong female characters, she's saying that we need to stop producing games with stereotypical gender roles. It's not like she can undo others' doings.

I mean, it would be a totally differnt thing if I made videos and started blogs complaining that games need more profound stories, because a) I'm a game designer, and b) by creating a game with a more profound story I'm actually remedying the situation. So that's simple. But saying that Anita should make a game and stop complaining is like telling an animals' rights activist that he can create his own laboratory, where he's free not to torture animals. While an interesting thought, it doesn't really undo the wrongdoings of others.

A lot of people here are saying that she doesn't provide a solution, she's just complaining. I think she's said quite clearly what the solution is: Stop depicting women stereotypically. It's not like she's telling people to invent some kind of brand new vaccine or something; it's actually a simple suggestion. "Hey, I see you're planning on giving your female character huge, gravity-defying boobs and a big cleavage. How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought."

Yes, the first argument is painfully obviously wrong. We know this, it's been said by almost everyone in rebuttal, let's just put that down to someone not being able to formulate his/her argument very well.

Yes, she does indeed make a point, a point that could be explained in 30 seconds (very much like you have done in the above paragraph) that she instead decides to bury in 10 minutes of complaining and showcasing all the games she hates so much.

What the 'create your own game' remark should be saying is: SHOW US EXAMPLES of games that prove your point Anita for the MAJORITY of your video. Since Anita's point is only opinion (I don't ever see this social 'scientist' ever presenting facts or figures?) she can easily switch the positive/negative parts of her video around, in my opinion ;)

Anita doesn't provide a solution, in my opinion, because she is making points like "How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought." which plain and simply are aimed at totally the wrong place. She is not going to change the minds of huge gaming companies that make unrealistic breasts because as has been pointed out a billion times, what sells, sells. She needs to educate the CONSUMERS so that when they see unrealistic breasts, instead of thinking "Sweet, I love big jiggly boobs, I'll buy that!" they think, "Wow, that's a shoddy representation of a woman, what a crappy developer just trying to get my money with rubbish like jiggly boobs, I will not buy that!". Her videos are not aimed at consumers, so I don't think she's doing anywhere near as much good as she could be doing.

Funnily enough, the more I read comments from users on this board, the more I dislike Anita's videos (and I'm talking about the people defending her). I tend to agree with almost all defence of her because at the end of the day, she's doing nothing wrong with producing these videos and they will do some good for the world (I'm just nitpicking because I feel like it and it's my right to do so if I want to, in response to why I don't moan at Zero Punctuation (which is completely different anyway as it's for comedic value)). I just think it's funny that almost all of the people defending her put their points across in a better way, they are far less condescending, patronising and also enforce Anitas videos to the point where I think you should get in touch with Anita and tell her to add your points so that less people can complain about the videos!

This is one of these debates that inevitably expands out from the original issue into a huge political topic as a whole. I think it would be nice to get it back on track and focus more on the merits/issues with particular storytelling tropes, but first there are a few random points I'd like to address:

Quote from: Andail on Sat 03/08/2013 18:09:05
Now, a truly modern, non-stereotypical story would have a young man be taken advantage of by various women, and end up taking revenge on them. Because if we want women to appear strong and independent, they too must be able to handle ending up on that end of the spectrum.

I'm not convinced that would be all that progressive or all that non-stereotypical. I feel like there's a whole sub-genre of stories where the nice-guy beta-male is exploited by "strong women" (or one strong woman), before he realizes that women are bitches, and he fights back to reestablish his masculinity and rightful dominance and put them back in their place (though he may not always succeed). I think it goes without saying that the gender politics/sexual neuroses of this template are often a bit iffy. (It's also very old, e.g. the story of "The Merchant's Wife and the Parrot" in the Thousand and One Nights.)

There's a recent movie where a male doctor is duped and has his life ruined by a series of scheming women, until he manages to turn the tables and get out on top (in part by abusing his position and breaking his doctor's oath). I noted at the time of watching how uncomfortable the whole setup was, particularly with his antagonists being secret lesbians and he fighting for his "traditional family." (If you don't care about spoilers and want to know the name of the movie, click...)

Spoiler

Side Effects by Steven Soderbergh

[close]

Quote from: calicoreverie on Tue 06/08/2013 15:19:14
It's one thing to say that her video caused someone to go away and develop that idea (obviously a good thing), but it's another to suggest that it will sway the big corporations (which we have already seen in LEGO's case was a complete disaster as they just created a barbie cupcake making LEGO set because they are idiots).

Lego are far from idiots. The girl-oriented "Lego Friends" line was the result of trying to answer the question "Why are so few girls playing with Legos?" and involved serious and thorough research into how girls play and pick toys, and how adults choose which toys to buy for them (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html). What they came up with was successful both design-wise and commercially (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019033498_apeudenmarkearnslego.html).

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03
I don't think that any modern feminist today is saying that women are the only victims of a patriarchal society. There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles, like how they're less likely to get custody of the children in a dispute, how they have to pay more for insurance (as Ryan points out) and how they die more violent deaths, etc.

But modern feminism describes these issues as yet more symptoms of a flawed patriarchal system.

You might question how meaningful the notion of "patriarchy" is, if what we're talking about are cultural norms that impose undesirable constraints and expectations on both sexes, and are policed and perpetuated by women just as well as men.

Sure, lots of - perhaps most - popular culture appears to cater primarily to men, and that is unjust. Also, as a somewhat separate issue, lots of popular culture promotes regressive, demeaning or plain unhealthy views on gender roles, sexuality and body image. (Arguably no less in products made by women for women, such as the Twilight series, than in products made by men for men.)

I guess my issue with "patriarchy" is that it tends to set up men and women as opponents or even enemies, and I don't think that's necessarily the most constructive perspective if we're not talking about outright oppression.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03
Men lose custody disputes more often because they generally spend less time with their kids, since they focus on their careers instead (largely due to an outside pressure to succeed financially, or just conservative gender ideas). Men have to pay more for car insurance because men in general drive more recklessly, which sucks but then again is just another tragic consequence of how we are supposed to act and behave (young men are encouraged by each other to drive fast), and Ryan, I'm sure Anita would love to discuss this, since it's a perfect example of what she's trying to say (treating genders differently is destructive), but I guess she was simply focusing on games and media in that video.

Men die more violent deaths because men generally don't want women to participate in wars (they fear they couldn't concentrate with female soldiers around them...) and thus wars are historically fought between men. A typical modern feminist would love to have female soldiers as well, so it's not like feminism is only about protecting women at all cost.

Not sure whether you're giving your own analysis or a stereotypical feminist analysis there, but you're ascribing an awful lot to acculturation that is more likely explained in large part by actual biological differences between males and females. Differences in hormone balance (testosterone, for example, having been linked to aggression) lead to differences in "typical" behavior. Similarly, differences in size and muscle mass lead naturally to specialization where men become primarily responsible for hunting and warfare.

Also, since in our evolutionary past it would take a woman nine months of pregnancy + maybe a year of breastfeeding to produce one child - or in rare cases two, exceptionally three - while one man could inseminate many women in a short period of time, from a group survival standpoint an individual woman was less expendable than one man, and ought to be protected "for the good of the clan/tribe," i.e. gene pool. Presumably this differentiation in reproductive effort is ultimately the factor responsible, through natural selection, for the other physiological and behavioral differences between the sexes.

This is not to claim that "male dominance" is the natural order or that culture plays no part, but if we fool ourselves into thinking that it's only hidebound thinking that ensures "boys will be boys" and correspondingly for girls, we're bound to go wrong in our strategies for gender equality. (The, in my view misguided, criticism of Lego being a case in point.)

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 08/08/2013 18:02:36

Quote from: calicoreverie on Tue 06/08/2013 15:19:14
It's one thing to say that her video caused someone to go away and develop that idea (obviously a good thing), but it's another to suggest that it will sway the big corporations (which we have already seen in LEGO's case was a complete disaster as they just created a barbie cupcake making LEGO set because they are idiots).

Lego are far from idiots. The girl-oriented "Lego Friends" line was the result of trying to answer the question "Why are so few girls playing with Legos?" and involved serious and thorough research into how girls play and pick toys, and how adults choose which toys to buy for them (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html). What they came up with was successful both design-wise and commercially (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019033498_apeudenmarkearnslego.html).

Agreed, but you're missing my point as I was too broad with that statement, my bad. What I mean is that yes, LEGO will make something that sells (let's not go down that route again as we all know something needs to sell). LEGO are idiots in the respect that in an effort silence feminists they thought that a pink cupcake making machine was going to work. I mean, come on. (Yes, I'm well aware silencing feminists is a broad statement, but that HAD to be at least ONE of the goals of that LEGO set.)

I really don't think so. They weren't trying to placate them. They didn't need to, since feminists didn't have any particular beef with Lego prior to this, AFAIK; it's all in reaction to this new line.

I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).

Ryan's statements sort of exemplify this. "I like girls in sexy outfits, the don't mind doing it, no one is forcing them, they get paid, everyone is happy" or alternatively "It's just an advert, what harm can it cause?". It's a difficult thing to get across to people because it's so ingrained in our culture and seems so banal and harmless on the micro scale.

It's also hard to apply a kind of pseudo-libertarian perspective as some tend to do with something like pornography for instance. The reasoning goes that a women can do whatever she likes with her body and, providing it sells, porn should have no boundaries providing people are willing to perform in the films. No one is being coerced into doing anything they don't want to do so where's the harm,right? But would that really be best for society as a whole?

Also, a note on 'patriarchy' as a term. It does not imply that men are necessarily actively oppressing women by choice or that there is some kind of antagonism there. The patriarchy is not a group of powerful men or indeed men as a gender. The patriarchy is a description of the power structure within society and the gender norms associated therein. Men are also hurt by the patriarchy as Andail rightly pointed out

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 08/08/2013 19:13:17
I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).
[...]
Also, a note on 'patriarchy' as a term. It does not imply that men are necessarily actively oppressing women by choice or that there is some kind of antagonism there. The patriarchy is not a group of powerful men or indeed men as a gender.

:-\

What? Are you implying that the oppressors I was speaking of are necessarily male? I made no such assertion.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 08/08/2013 19:13:17
I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).

I think Calin brings up a really great point here. I think Myinah, might have brought it up too. The people who have privileges in our society usually don't even realize they have them. When we learn about it, we tend to dismiss it because it doesn't affect our lives or we've never seen any negative effects from it within our social circles. It's the same for me, too, in some respects. I am embarrassingly unaware of race issues most of the time because I'm whitebread and have never had to deal with any of the repercussions of being someone of color in the US.

Want to address some of the tone arguments (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument) bubbling in this thread-- Overly focusing on Anita's facial expressions, or the infamous "why not call it ____ instead of feminism/patriarchy?" question. Those are time-wasting diversions from the actual issues that are fairly plainly presented by Anita/feminism. Reassess why you're put off by those things.



Also, completely aside from the issues, want to commend Anita on keeping her superhuman cool in the face of unimaginable backlash and threats. Meltdowns aren't uncommon (http://www.destructoid.com/phil-fish-has-meltdown-on-twitter-rashly-cancels-fez-ii-258869.phtml) for highly-criticized people on the internet. No clue how she's avoided it.

I'm afraid the real issue here is the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't issue" relatively common with most of the "cultural studies".

• You saw Sylvester / Arnold / Chuck Norris bleeding endlessly on the floor ? It's the cult of machism !(Patriarchy)
• You saw Sarah M. Gellar doing the same ? It's the proof we love to watch women suffer ! (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=32993.0) (Patriarchy)

This high-level bitching is useless, sterile and can't be use in order to rationnaly solve any gender issue. (I agree there's a lot of problems related to women condition, I'm not denying it)

• A video game is targetting a male (whatsoever it means) audience ? It's sexism ! (Patriarchy)
• A video game is targetting a female (whatsoever it means) audience ? It's full of stereotypes ! (Patriarchy)

In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes.

• Mario died a zillion times saving the princess ? It's the damsel in distress trope (Patriarchy)
• Mario didn't give a damn ? It showed how we tacitely agree with violence against women ! (Patriarchy)
• Peach saves Mario ? Despiction of Women as slave/male'tool ! (Patriarchy)
• Princess Peach didn't give a damn ? It's the bad vamp/bitch trope ! (Patriarchy)
• They both save Luigi in a cooperative mode ? They kill poor throopas in a violent game !(Patriarchy)

Using a cultural study grid, you can always find something. Mainly because they systematically fail at Popper's criterias.

Now, if you disagree with me, it's because you're anti-french :P

• I'm not !!! : It's on the unconscious, proof that i'm right  (Anti-french=racism=Patriarchy)
• Dan, don't be a jerk, you know me, I'm not !!! That over-reaction prove it ! (Patriarchy)
• Hey you bozo, I'm french too !!! You're a self-hatred french ! (Patriarchy)
• Ok, then I am !!! I told you so !!! I won !!! (Patriarchy)

Peace. May Blade Runner be with you.

Since when is analysis the same as bitching? How is it damning anything? There are games deserving of damning, but nobody's ripping Mario to shreds, just using it as a simple example of how some of these tropes manifest.
The idea with feminism is that patriarchy and misogyny are all over the place and bleed into everything, but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it. Media awareness is a good thing.
Oh, and condescendingly butting in thinking you and you alone have discovered "the real issue here" is preeettty patriarchal.

Dudes gotta stop flipping out whenever a feminist identifies sexism in something. It's critique, not a boycott. Did you know feminists are still allowed to enjoy something even if they know it's problematic? So are you.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 08/08/2013 19:40:48
What? Are you implying that the oppressors I was speaking of are necessarily male? I made no such assertion.

If the "we" who are the oppressors are men + women = practically everybody (you already disavowed that you were referring to "a group of powerful men"; I assume the same goes for "a group of powerful men and women"), that would seem to imply that the oppression is therefore invisible to all of us and so entirely notional.

I'm trying to point out the contradiction because I think "patriarchy" is intimately bound up with a particular understanding of gender issues where men (and certain women who have "false consciousness" or are traitors to their sex, as the whole "Female Chauvinist Pig" concept implies) are oppressors and the rest of women are the oppressed. And that's an appropriate model in some cases! But given the progress of women's rights and status in our society over the last hundred years, I think in many cases it doesn't really fit very well (any more), and is more of a barrier to understanding and to rallying support for change than it is a useful concept.

Quote from: waheela on Thu 08/08/2013 19:45:35
The people who have privileges in our society usually don't even realize they have them. When we learn about it, we tend to dismiss it because it doesn't affect our lives or we've never seen any negative effects from it within our social circles. It's the same for me, too, in some respects. I am embarrassingly unaware of race issues most of the time because I'm whitebread and have never had to deal with any of the repercussions of being someone of color in the US.

Ani DiFranco said "privilege is a headache that you don't know that you don't have." Sure, there's something to that. (As for the race thing, I think that's what Obama was recently trying to articulate when he commented on how black people saw the Trayvon Martin case and the Zimmerman verdict, from a perspective born of a lifetime of experiencing harassment and police indifference.)

However...

Quote from: Trapezoid on Thu 08/08/2013 20:32:41
Want to address some of the tone arguments (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument) bubbling in this thread-- Overly focusing on Anita's facial expressions, or the infamous "why not call it ____ instead of feminism/patriarchy?" question. Those are time-wasting diversions from the actual issues that are fairly plainly presented by Anita/feminism. Reassess why you're put off by those things.

This is why the concept is controversial. Calls of "privilege," "derailment!" and so on are so often used as a way to dismiss the comments and concerns of those not in the approved "victim" or "oppressed" category. In the discussion, lack of privilege becomes privilege in itself!

My position is as a traditional liberal, favoring equality and freedom for all men and women, and committed to the idea of rational, universal debate as between equals in order to bring society forward in a democratic fashion. (While acknowledging that this is an idealization.)

Feminist groups have developed intricate theories and a whole jargon (which the Geek Feminism Wiki conveniently documents; they would no doubt class me as a "concern troll") to exclude, in practice, anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them from needing to be heard or considered. Although they vociferously deny it, this is a power-tactic to control debate (similar to many of the tactics they decry), and I find it inimical to liberal principles. I also think it reflects an hermetic impulse that serves to marginalize them from the mainstream. (After all, it's people who don't already agree with everything they say that they need to convince.) It's a crying shame that not all decent women and men want to call themselves feminists, and I think the blame for that is about 50-50 smears by their opponents on the one hand and shooting themselves in the foot on the other.

I do want to get back to the original topic, though. I don't have time to write at length right now, but some bullet points:

(Probably) non-controversial points

• We should definitely aim for better and more varied representations of women in computer games
• More women in more important positions in the industry would hopefully help with that, and would be a good thing in itself

(Maybe) more interesting opinions

• Sexualized portrayals are not inherently bad. Enjoying the portrayal of sexy people is perfectly natural
• However, ubiquitous sexualization is unhealthy on a personal and societal level, and the commercialization and exploitation of sex (because "sex sells!") demonstrates the problem when capitalism intersects with lizard-brain instinct (see also: junk food, gambling addiction, ...)
• Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates
• OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works
• It's hard to come up with and tell a story, and the thing with tropes like "damsel in distress" is that they work
• A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 05/08/2013 10:43:44As if human decency and positive cultural values were determined by popular decree.

I'm not certain, but I hope that this was meant to be satirical, or at least ironic. Because otherwise I have no bloody idea what the freaking hell you're blithering about here. Cultural values are absolutely determined by popular decree, and it's by such that they are changed. What's considered "human decency" is based almost exclusively on these same cultural values.

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Mon 05/08/2013 09:38:00Maddox is an ignorant idiot for suggesting games designed by women are doomed to be boring.

Did anyone actually expect anything less than this from Maddox? His points generally have some validity, but the majority of what he says is designed to be inflammatory.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 05/08/2013 10:56:02...and if more women played games then we'd have more My Little Pony games. It's insulting to men and women to suggest that is the case.

What's truly ironic here is your usage of the My Little Pony franchise given the whole brony movement. The Friendship is Magic franchise probably (source: personal experience) has a broader male fanbase than its female followers. I cite personal experience: when I went to see the Equestria Girls movie at the theater, there were more single adult men in the room than young girls, their parents, and single adult women combined. One event is unlikely to be viably demonstrative, but I'm too lazy to look up any proper statistical data at 3 AM.

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 05/08/2013 11:10:58There are actually a lot of women in the gaming market:

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/a5852d30d38fc5367fbd2ea42c8c4610/tumblr_mr13u8ToOt1rw70wfo1_500.png)

What's funny about this image is the fact that the woman depicted clearly is not a gamer, as can clearly be seen from the positioning of her hands. The man sitting beside her is holding the controller exactly as any of us who play games would do. She is holding her controller as if it is a week-old rotting fish.

Quote from: Andail on Mon 05/08/2013 19:09:49

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 05/08/2013 16:22:19Whether you agree with Anita or not,  her decision to disable comments on her videos after being publicly funded to make them was/is a pretty 'meh' thing to do. Telling people how it is and closing off any chance of a debate is not the logical nor the mature way forward imo.

Eh... welcome to the internet? Have you seen the comment sections of videos/articles/blog entries that take a feminist standpoint? I bet Anita would love a constructive discussion, it's just that she probably got 99 rape threats for every constructive comment. Which in itself proves that there's a lot of work to be done when it comes to gender equality.

Eh... welcome to the internet? The fact that the majority of comments are not constructive or even strictly representative of the poster's true feelings on the actual issue at hand is not (IMO) a strong rationale for disabling comments altogether. I second the notion that the exposure to these comments would do more to reinforce her point than the detriment done by closing them off and appearing completely closed-minded. Preventing feedback, valid and viable or not, seems to me an equally aggressive tactic to those posting the trollish comments in the first place.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I honestly feel the same way, and I've recently discovered that about a girl I've known for over a decade. A few years ago we became extremely close, and I developed feelings toward her. At the time her dress was much more modest and casual. As it happened, she got a boyfriend and our friendship fell somewhat by the wayside. Throughout the past few years (while she dated this same guy, things got pretty serious between them) her dress has become much more sexually provocative and explicit. I've only recently become consciously aware of the fact that I thought of her less and less as a person I cared about (admittedly this was in part due to the changes in the dynamic of our friendship, but I recognize her attire as playing a role as well), and more as a sexual object. It wasn't until I made efforts to reengage the friendship that I truly realized how much her personality had changed over the years...to the point that I wouldn't want to be in a serious relationship with her today.

It's silly to the point of being obscene, but "modest is the hottest" is something I personally find to be genuinely applicable. Provocative dress floods the male brain with hormones that elide rational thought or true emotional connection. That's not to say that women shouldn't be able to dress how they choose, or that there isn't a proper time and place for dressing that way, but if a woman is seeking a relationship (as opposed to casual sex), then she should at least be aware of what she's wearing.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24I feel anxious discussing feminism here because I don't want to get flamed, but I see the AGS community at large to be thoughtful and open minded so I have been willing to open up and risk getting slammed lol.

The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

Quote from: Myinah on Wed 07/08/2013 01:47:24I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if women are constantly portrayed as inferior, or as objects, and that it happens to often and so subtly we barely register it, it will begin to affect us. Again a lot of us are intelligent adults capable of making our own choices and understanding these adverts are incorrect while still laughing at them, but some people aren't. Some people don't think about these things and just sit there chuckling and thinking "Haha, yes! Women are like that!"

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale. By and large the problem as I see it is that people are lazy. They don't want to exert effort to actually think for themselves, and so they blindly follow behind and jump on whatever the latest bandwagon happens to be. Of course there are plenty of people who are too hipster for that and consider themselves thinkers because they make the decision not to follow the trend, without even stopping to actually think about the issues.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this. Given the opportunity, most people will not be able to adequately explain why they prescribe to this point-of-view or that. I have engaged in debates with friends to later discover that they are incapable of defending their stance. Even something as trivial as why a particular TV show or movie is good or bad. A lot of my friends aren't able to back-up their opinions.

When it comes to stereotyping women, I think the trend continues. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but there is no catch-all for any group because as humans we are individuals. I personally find sexist jokes funny most of the time. And racist jokes. And gay jokes. I tend to find these jokes funny, not because I am just blindly prescribing to these stereotypes though. As you said, I can understand why they're incorrect but still laugh at them. The idea that a person is inferior because of anything other than who they are as a person is completely laughable to me. I also find religious jokes to be generally funny, despite my beliefs. I'm not going to get butt-hurt over it. The funniest jokes are generally the ones that are true anyway.

---

As to the topic at hand, I don't have anything useful to say as I'm not going to watch the videos because they simply don't interest me. I'm aware of what they are, and I've been made aware of what they say. Out of every game design I've ever conceived, the damsel-in-distress trope has never even come up. In fact one particular project I've been working on for several years has a (hopefully) strong female character who isn't a love interest, and she even takes the lead at some points. I definitely agree, and can see that games are sexualizing women, but I just don't buy those types of games in the first place. As rarely as I actually sit down to play a game, that's not really what I'm looking for. If I really wanted to I could Google my own porn, guys.

Wow, anti-frenchers are early this morning.
Yeah I know, Satan is everywhere because people don't believe in Satan.

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
Since when is analysis the same as bitching?

In that particular case, the concept of "bitching" and "analysing" are almost recovering the same phenomenon. That's why I use the word "bitching".

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
[...] but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it.

No it won't. That's precisely the very essence of the examples I gave earlier. It's on the nature of cultural studies. Any attemps to modified what was previously criticised, if noticed, will magically make the cursus morph into something else. Just look how fast the same Buffy morphs from "empowerment" to "An illustration on how society love to see women suffers".

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
Oh, and condescendingly butting in thinking you and you alone have discovered "the real issue here" is preeettty patriarchal.

Predictable ad hominem crap. Illustrating very well why I maintained that cultural studies tend to be useless, sterile and not leading to any possible rational solution (hence it's bitching). In that case to serious and concrete gender issues. Being right is soooo patriarchy ? Making statements without believing them is soooo feminist ?!?

Anyway, you just gave me a very good illustration of " In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes. [/b]".

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
Dudes gotta stop flipping out whenever a feminist identifies sexism in something. It's critique, not a boycott.

Therefore you're not looking for concretely appliable solutions ? (hence "bitching" ?). I'm a feminist (amongs many other political positions of mine) in that sense that i'm looking for better social positions/conditions for women. You're not.

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
The idea with feminism is that patriarchy and misogyny are all over the place and bleed into everything [...]

There's other definitons, less "cultural studies", less religious. You're a religious biggot. Your Satan is just call "patriarchy". Unless you state "by the positive" what was expected, it's olny university-grade bitching. But it's going to be patriarchy, right ?

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/08/2013 08:44:49
It's a crying shame that not all decent women and men want to call themselves feminists, and I think the blame for that is about 50-50 smears by their opponents on the one hand and shooting themselves in the foot on the other.

I agree, and actually do see myself as a feminist.  I just wish there was a term for it that implied equality for everyone a little more concisely, because, as Andail points out:

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03
There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles

Patriarchy affects both men and women, and my support of feminism is support for more equality in gender roles.  This means women should be paid what men are paid for the same jobs, and men should pay the same low rates as women for car insurance.  Equality, preferably by enriching the lives of the underprivileged, is the goal.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/08/2013 08:44:49
Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates

Think about, yes.  But I don't feel they have any responsibilities beyond awareness.  I'll change this to echo an earlier statement:
Skimpy clothing has the potential to effect great changes in mens thinking and attitudes, and that gives women a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates.
Again, think about, yes.  But they have no responsibility to dress more conservatively because of this.  Another example would be pop stars like Britney Spears.  Many women and girls see her as a role model, and believe that because of this she has a responsibility to project a certain behavior.  I feel she only has a responsibility to think about, to be aware of her possible impact.  At the end of the day she is an artist, and she should be free to express herself in any way she sees fit.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/08/2013 08:44:49
OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works

I'll absolutely agree with this statement.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/08/2013 08:44:49A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?

In answer to the first question here, I believe that the answer is yes.  We do need more modern tropes.  I sadly have no idea what they should be, but I do feel the need for them.  I also believe that they will come as culture grows, and as more varied examples are provided.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 09/08/2013 09:38:47

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 05/08/2013 11:10:58There are actually a lot of women in the gaming market:

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/a5852d30d38fc5367fbd2ea42c8c4610/tumblr_mr13u8ToOt1rw70wfo1_500.png)

What's funny about this image is the fact that the woman depicted clearly is not a gamer, as can clearly be seen from the positioning of her hands. The man sitting beside her is holding the controller exactly as any of us who play games would do. She is holding her controller as if it is a week-old rotting fish.

I was about to roll my eyes in the middle of your first sentence, before you mentioned the controller, as I thought you were going to make a completely different argument.  I hadn't noticed the positioning of her hands, but now that I do, it is actually pretty funny.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 09/08/2013 09:38:47

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 08/08/2013 04:01:46Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I honestly feel the same way... It's silly to the point of being obscene, but "modest is the hottest" is something I personally find to be genuinely applicable. Provocative dress floods the male brain with hormones that elide rational thought or true emotional connection. That's not to say that women shouldn't be able to dress how they choose, or that there isn't a proper time and place for dressing that way, but if a woman is seeking a relationship (as opposed to casual sex), then she should at least be aware of what she's wearing.

I agree with this as well.  I tend to be a little more conservative about my own sexuality.  For example, I am not interested in one night stands or casual sex.  I wouldn't want to sleep with someone unless I was either in a relationship with them, or such a relationship was a likely outcome.  As such, I perceive a woman dressed provocatively as not being my type.  She is 'sluttier' than I am, and would probably be more interested in a similarly 'slutty' man.

Quote from: LUniqueDan on Fri 09/08/2013 09:53:01
In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes.

I agree with you that pretty much anything could be argued to be patriarchal or anti-feminist.  I'll also state that sometimes it's actually appropriate, as are many of the ideas in these videos.

dactylopus: I'm curious what argument you thought I was going to make (about the image, no need to keep quoting it). (laugh)

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 09/08/2013 10:29:29
dactylopus: I'm curious what argument you thought I was going to make (about the image, no need to keep quoting it).

I thought it was going to be the old argument that she doesn't look like a gamer.  It's not that I thought you would feel this way, just that I've heard it a lot about different things and it seemed like that was where you were going in the first half of the sentence.

Such comments are sadly common, like how girls in cosplay as comic book characters don't look like they'd actually read the comics, or the Idiot Nerd Girl meme (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/idiot-nerd-girl):

(http://t.qkme.me/3racv6.jpg)

I feel like I have contributed to this thread enough at this point, but I wanted to say that I think the term you are looking for Dactylopus is egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism). I personally identify with egalitarianism, but I gladly accept the term feminist (inter-sectional) too because while in many ways things have improved significantly for women in the western society (although we still have a long way to go), there are clearly still issues that need addressing and this term reminds us that we are looking at issues of inequality pertaining to the oppression of women.

When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: LUniqueDan on Fri 09/08/2013 06:58:18
I'm afraid the real issue here is the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't issue" relatively common with most of the "cultural studies".

No, it's called a complex issue. Just because there are no easy answers doesn't mean you can disqualify the entire field. Everything that demands a deeper analysis will yield conflicting answers. If you want an absolute right or wrong answer, you can turn to mathematics (or AGS coding).

Quote
This high-level bitching is useless, sterile and can't be use in order to rationnaly solve any gender issue.

What? What's "high-level bitching"?

Quote

• Mario didn't give a damn ? It showed how we tacitely agree with violence against women ! (Patriarchy)
• Peach saves Mario ? Despiction of Women as slave/male'tool ! (Patriarchy)
• Princess Peach didn't give a damn ? It's the bad vamp/bitch trope ! (Patriarchy)
• They both save Luigi in a cooperative mode ? They kill poor throopas in a violent game !(Patriarchy)

Has anyone ever said this? Or are you just coming up with imaginary scenarios because they fit your theory? Can you link to a feminist/gender theory debater who said these things?

Quote from: Monkey_05_06
I second the notion that the exposure to these comments would do more to reinforce her point than the detriment done by closing them off and appearing completely closed-minded. Preventing feedback, valid and viable or not, seems to me an equally aggressive tactic to those posting the trollish comments in the first place.

Except that in this case, the comment section became a breeding ground for bullies to encourage each other to come up the worst possible threats. Such mob mentality is better nipped in the bud.

Quote
The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this.

Just wanted to express my disagreement with the statements quoted - no further comments, really. If you want to come across as arrogant and disdainful, be my guest.

Also, this whole "we shouldn't call it feminism, we should call it egalitarianism" is a bit insulting to the femininst movement.
Up until 100 years ago, women couldn't vote, couldn't inherit and were practically considered legally incompetent. This didn't change thanks to a bunch of self-contented men saying they prefer the term "egalitarianism", no it was really hard work by feminist organisations.

You can't just say that you prefer everyone to have equal rights and expect that to change anything. It's called feminism because that's where the focus is, that's where its roots are.

And Myinah described aptly why their work isn't done yet. [/list]

Quote from: Myinah on Fri 09/08/2013 11:43:04I wanted to say that I think the term you are looking for Dactylopus is egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism). I personally identify with egalitarianism, but I gladly accept the term feminist (inter-sectional) too because while in many ways things have improved significantly for women in the western society (although we still have a long way to go), there are clearly still issues that need addressing and this term reminds us that we are looking at issues of inequality pertaining to the oppression of women.

Egalitarianism is the closest, I suppose, but isn't specifically related to gender equality.  That's why I didn't use it earlier.  It'll work well enough, though.

Quote from: Myinah on Fri 09/08/2013 11:43:04When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

These are most certainly feminist issues, or women's rights issues, or more generally, civil rights issues.  I am in no way trying to argue otherwise.  I can see how they relate to the discussion in a very broad sense but we're getting further and further away from the discussion on tropes.

Quote from: Andail on Fri 09/08/2013 12:37:14Also, this whole "we shouldn't call it feminism, we should call it egalitarianism" is a bit insulting to the femininst movement.
Up until 100 years ago, women couldn't vote, couldn't inherit and were practically considered legally incompetent. This didn't change thanks to a bunch of self-contented men saying they prefer the term "egalitarianism", no it was really hard work by feminist organisations.

You can't just say that you prefer everyone to have equal rights and expect that to change anything. It's called feminism because that's where the focus is, that's where its roots are.

Fair enough.  I'm not in any way trying to insult feminists (I would be insulting myself).  I am fully aware of the rights that feminists fought for and won, I'm not an imbecile.  Yes, it was hard work, and yes, there is still more work to be done.

To explain where those comments were coming from:  I felt like the conversation was drifting into broader issues of gender inequality, not just improving things for women, but for men as well.  As has been said, patriarchy perpetuates gender roles and gender inequality, and both men and women suffer as a result.  This, I feel, is an egalitarian issue in the general sense.  Each individual aspect may relate to women's rights (equal pay, abortion) or men's rights (child custody, insurance), but the overall goal of equality and reducing the disparity between the genders is egalitarian.

I didn't mean any harm by those comments, and I apologize if any harm was inflicted.  Risking a tone argument here, I'll say that I think more men would be on board with feminist ideals if we could all identify as egalitarians.  I'm not speaking for myself, because I have no problem identifying as a feminist.  I am merely pointing out how powerful language can be.  The word feminism can be seen to (even though it doesn't) imply a superiority of women as a goal.  This can be especially true when considering some of the radical feminists of the past, those who have contempt for and openly hate men.  Feminism has come a long way, that's absolutely true, but I know men who get that 'feminazi' connotation from the word, and I'm merely suggesting that on some issues, using the word egalitarian may actually lead to a conversation rather than a gut reaction.

I'm not trying to derail the conversation here, though.  I got swept up with the discussion, as most of us did.  Snarky did a good job of trying to steer us back on course:

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/08/2013 08:44:49I do want to get back to the original topic, though. I don't have time to write at length right now, but some bullet points:

(Probably) non-controversial points

• We should definitely aim for better and more varied representations of women in computer games
• More women in more important positions in the industry would hopefully help with that, and would be a good thing in itself

(Maybe) more interesting opinions

• Sexualized portrayals are not inherently bad. Enjoying the portrayal of sexy people is perfectly natural
• However, ubiquitous sexualization is unhealthy on a personal and societal level, and the commercialization and exploitation of sex (because "sex sells!") demonstrates the problem when capitalism intersects with lizard-brain instinct (see also: junk food, gambling addiction, ...)
• Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates
• OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works
• It's hard to come up with and tell a story, and the thing with tropes like "damsel in distress" is that they work
• A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?

I agree with pretty much everything said here, and feel that this is where the real discussion on the "Tropes vs Women" videos belongs.

Quote from: Andail on Fri 09/08/2013 12:37:14

Quote from: monkey_05_06The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this.

Just wanted to express my disagreement with the statements quoted - no further comments, really. If you want to come across as arrogant and disdainful, be my guest.

I'll grant you that I was being extremely arrogant, but for the most part I actually stand by what I said. People, at least in this country, if not simply too lazy to think for themselves, I think we can agree are horrifically undereducated. When I attended my first semester of college (last year, I've put it off for some time), I was appalled at the level of work that was being deemed "college level". I took the mandatory English course online (Composition & Rhetoric I), which was terribly unfortunate because it meant that I had to actually read every interaction with my classmates. Reading their papers for peer review was far worse. The professor acknowledged to me privately that I was at a level far beyond the rest of the class, but that because of it she would hold me to a higher standard.

In all honesty the course should have been considered remedial, and not for college credit. The whole experience only strengthened my negative views about people (in general) as intellectuals. Around these forums I don't really feel that the same applies. This community is a terribly small subset of the human population though, and even fewer of us still actually arrive here from the U.S. My opinion on the matter is arrogant, and it's definitely biased, but it has been reinforced throughout my life by experience.

As to the comment about the open-mindedness of the AGS community, I actually feel that in general the community as a whole does try to keep an open mind. But there are still some instances where opposing the popular view isn't met by, "I disagree with you, but appreciate that as your opinion," and instead something more along the lines of, "What kind of mentally deficit, sub-human creature are you to dare to disagree with us? You're an [censored]." (I do appreciate the irony of accusing someone else (albeit generically) of throwing around insults about mental proficiency when I myself stated that most people are less than imbeciles...)

It's not in every occurrence, it's not in every debate, or every topic. It's not always directed at me, and hell there's probably times when I've been the one doing it (e.g., I refuse to relent on my vendetta about code indentation). This was just my way of, how did Dan put it, "high-level bitching".

As long as there are people who resent that feminism still exists and see these videos merely as a generic prompt to ramble on about how they know better than those ivory tower women and their "experiences", it's gonna be hard to stay on topic. Also, dudes in this thread talking about what they find attractive, for some reason. Sigh.

Quote from: Myinah on Fri 09/08/2013 11:43:04When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

When all those things exist, it strikes me as rather sheltered to look at the word "feminism" and get all scurred by the "fem" part. It's more backseat-driving. Dudes setting up pointless hoops for feminism to through, and pretending they'd be on board if only this, if only that. Don't be that guy!

Quote from: LUniqueDan on Fri 09/08/2013 09:53:01
Wow, anti-frenchers are early this morning.
Yeah I know, Satan is everywhere because people don't believe in Satan.

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
Since when is analysis the same as bitching?

In that particular case, the concept of "bitching" and "analysing" are almost recovering the same phenomenon. That's why I use the word "bitching".

Quote from: Trapezoid on Fri 09/08/2013 07:52:20
[...] but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it.

No it won't. That's precisely the very essence of the examples I gave earlier. It's on the nature of cultural studies. Any attemps to modified what was previously criticised, if noticed, will magically make the cursus morph into something else. Just look how fast the same Buffy morphs from "empowerment" to "An illustration on how society love to see women suffers".

You act like one person's reading of one piece of fiction suddenly becomes a consensus in the entire feminism community. Here's a tip: there is no feminist community! And even if there were, feminist critique is an exercise. Like I said, it's not a boycott. It's rarely meant to tell anyone what they should and should not enjoy, except in the harshest of cases.

QuoteAnyway, you just gave me a very good illustration of " In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes. [/b]".

Why do you think anyone is calling for 100% kosher? Why do you think it's a contest?
All forms of critique, social or not, can involve at least as many "rules" as you seem to think feminists are calling for. Do you think if Roger Ebert had his way, all movies would just be a list of things he thinks are good? No, because critique is not a rulebook, and you don't need to act so dramatically every time a feminist suggests something might have problematic undertones.

Quote
Therefore you're not looking for concretely appliable solutions ? (hence "bitching" ?). I'm a feminist (amongs many other political positions of mine) in that sense that i'm looking for better social positions/conditions for women. You're not.

Discussion, awareness and the call for deeper analysis of media are worthy pursuits. EVERYBODY agrees with "better social positions/conditions for women"-- that's not special. That's like saying "I don't SUPPORT rape." Like it's a matter of vote. Like there's no ingrained psychology we need to dismantle. Wouldn't that be nice.

While we all wait for her next set of videos, I thought I'd post this TED talk given by Anita Sarkeesian:

[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/GZAxwsg9J9Q[/embed]

I didn't realize that there was such a massive campaign against her.  This certainly explains why the comments were turned off on her videos, and gives me more reason to support her cause.

These videos have created a phenomenon, propelling Anita to the forefront of the discussion on women's representation in video games (and media).  This is a great thing, because it gives the overall movement a voice.  Anita is no longer just a feminist blogger on YouTube, she is becoming a spokesperson.  With all of the support she is receiving, she is also becoming the kind of voice that people will actually listen to.

I tentatively disagree. She's high profile and people are aware of her, but her arguments are often poorly constructed and researched which is unfortunate. These are things that do deserve to be discussion points, but when she offers up extreme arguments that are easily countered (strawman arguments, if you will) it's difficult for her to be taken seriously by a lot of people. It's equally unfortunate that there's a perception among some of her supporters that taking issue with any of her videos is a sign of misogyny (a word bandied about far too readily these days)

I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I tentatively disagree. She's high profile and people are aware of her, but her arguments are often poorly constructed and researched which is unfortunate. These are things that do deserve to be discussion points, but when she offers up extreme arguments that are easily countered (strawman arguments, if you will) it's difficult for her to be taken seriously by a lot of people.

People often say this. I really don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you give me some examples of which arguments you think are poorly constructed/researched?

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Quote from: waheela on Thu 15/08/2013 18:28:37

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Welcome to the internet Anita, you must be new here.

I can guarantee (using the same scientific backing as Anita's arguments) that Rebecca Black has got and will still get far more trolling than Anita.

Ignore it, move on, they'll grow up/get bored eventually. Making a page like that probably just spurs them on more.

Death and rape threats are not something to be taken lightly. There is a difference between regular dumb ass trolling and threatening violence. They know her face, they know her name and I'm certain 4chan doxxed her so they know where she is. It seems ridiculous to just be like "Pfffft, no big deal, everyone gets trolled online." I'd be scared. I think it was brave of her to continue the campaign in spite of the threats. I'd be terrified one of those guys really was a psycho who would make good on a threat.

And like Waheela said, just because you don't see something, doesnt mean it didn't occur. I saw the comments on the trailer for her kickstarter project. They were sickening. Criticism is not the same as a violent threat. Why do people think its acceptable? "Oh, it's the internet, just take it on the chin! They'll get bored!" How do you know that? How do you know one of them isn't going to actually carry out the threats? There are some sick individuals in the world. Violence against women is not uncommon.

You know what else, being silent has never solved bullying and harassment in my experience. In isolated incidents maybe, but this isn't just about Anita, harassment against women is prevalent online, and it just allows it to continue unchallenged. I think showing that these things happen is important. I think taking a stand is important. As a community, the more people who say "That's not cool. Don't do that shit." the less people will do it. Social pressure affects change. There will always be a few jerks, but if the gaming community actually said "Guys this is fucking awful, stop it!" then maybe it would lessen considerably. If people just twiddle their thumbs while people send harassing messages like "I'm going to impregnate you and force you to have a late term abortion." (From the Jenny Hanniver (http://kotaku.com/this-is-the-issue-i-brought-up-in-jezebel-as-well-the-1148658640) story regarding rape threats on Xbox Live.)It's not acceptable to threaten someone like that as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day she doesn't want to subject her pages to a stream of violent threats for the sake of one or two intelligent comments. It's not like by disabling youtube comments she's somehow disabled free speech or criticism of her videos. We are discussing her now so what's the big deal? I think it's better she disable them than it become a stream of vile abuse. That doesn't do anyone any good. There are response videos with open comments so people can have their say there if youtube comments are so essential to this whole debate. Or youtubers can make a response video as many have.

I would also like to have the good counter arguments recommended to me for the sake of balance. I'm not inclined to sift through many angry response videos to find a few kernels of good content so if anyone has any of these good counter points they can direct me too I'd appreciate it.

Quote from: calicoreverie on Thu 15/08/2013 18:54:15

Quote from: waheela on Thu 15/08/2013 18:28:37

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Welcome to the internet Anita, you must be new here.

I can guarantee (using the same scientific backing as Anita's arguments) that Rebecca Black has got and will still get far more trolling than Anita.

Ignore it, move on, they'll grow up/get bored eventually. Making a page like that probably just spurs them on more.

I kinda agree with Myinah on this. By ignoring threats, you are indirectly sending the message that these threats are normal, acceptable and shouldn't be challenged. Ignoring problems don't make them go away.

Quote from: Myinah on Thu 15/08/2013 22:32:50
Death and rape threats are not something to be taken lightly. There is a difference between regular dumb ass trolling and threatening violence. They know her face, they know her name and I'm certain 4chan doxxed her so they know where she is. It seems ridiculous to just be like "Pfffft, no big deal, everyone gets trolled online." I'd be scared. I think it was brave of her to continue the campaign in spite of the threats. I'd be terrified one of those guys really was a psycho who would make good on a threat.

And like Waheela said, just because you don't see something, doesnt mean it didn't occur. I saw the comments on the trailer for her kickstarter project. They were sickening. Criticism is not the same as a violent threat. Why do people think its acceptable? "Oh, it's the internet, just take it on the chin! They'll get bored!" How do you know that? How do you know one of them isn't going to actually carry out the threats? There are some sick individuals in the world. Violence against women is not uncommon.

You know what else, being silent has never solved bullying and harassment in my experience. In isolated incidents maybe, but this isn't just about Anita, harassment against women is prevalent online, and it just allows it to continue unchallenged. I think showing that these things happen is important. I think taking a stand is important. As a community, the more people who say "That's not cool. Don't do that shit." the less people will do it. Social pressure affects change. There will always be a few jerks, but if the gaming community actually said "Guys this is fucking awful, stop it!" then maybe it would lessen considerably. If people just twiddle their thumbs while people send harassing messages like "I'm going to impregnate you and force you to have a late term abortion." (From the Jenny Hanniver (http://kotaku.com/this-is-the-issue-i-brought-up-in-jezebel-as-well-the-1148658640) story regarding rape threats on Xbox Live.)It's not acceptable to threaten someone like that as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day she doesn't want to subject her pages to a stream of violent threats for the sake of one or two intelligent comments. It's not like by disabling youtube comments she's somehow disabled free speech or criticism of her videos. We are discussing her now so what's the big deal? I think it's better she disable them than it become a stream of vile abuse. That doesn't do anyone any good. There are response videos with open comments so people can have their say there if youtube comments are so essential to this whole debate. Or youtubers can make a response video as many have.

I would also like to have the good counter arguments recommended to me for the sake of balance. I'm not inclined to sift through many angry response videos to find a few kernels of good content so if anyone has any of these good counter points they can direct me too I'd appreciate it.

I've seen plenty of sickening comments on plenty of YouTube accounts belonging to people of either male or female gender, fact.

My solution, which is rather cost effective, is to do the best you can by ignoring it (feel free to report to twitter/youtube by all means! Ban comments if you want less evidence though I guess?), move on and hopefully they will get bored and hopefully they won't murder you.

You provide a lot of points I agree with, in fact, I agree with everything you say.

But please explain your solution to the problem.

My game features a dude in distress, so feminist points for me. Yay!
Having said that, the only damsel in the entire game is a flirty cougar who is most definitely a sex object. Feminist points lost. Boo!
So sue me, most of the game was written in my horny years.

The greatest evidence that people are a little too ready to demonize Anita is that anybody's actually defending YouTube comment sections. YouTube comments are notoriously worthless even when the complacency of dudebros isn't being challenged. Turning off the comments means absolutely nothing of value lost. Consider why you suddenly care.

After the first sentence, I thought it was going to be a sort of 'whine and play the victim' type of a talk.  After listening further, I realized that wasn't exactly the case.  She's not playing the victim, she is the victim.

When the talk was concluded, I did understand more why she turned off the comments.  The horrible threats she was receiving were beyond the normal YouTube reaction.  I still think that keeping the comments open would serve well to expose the kind of bigotry on the internet, on YouTube, and in gaming culture, but I understand why she deactivated them and I have no further complaints about that point.

Having said that, I disagreed with 2 comments she made in the TED video.

She said: "Its not 'just boys being boys.'  Its not 'just how the internet works.'"

The sad reality is that it is boys being boys, and it is how the internet works.  On the internet, no matter who you are (male or female) you will receive awful degrading and threatening comments, mostly from 'boys.'  I say 'boys' here rather than men, even though the large percentage of them will be grown men.  The reason I say 'boys' is because these men lack the maturity to handle themselves appropriately, and enjoy the anonymity of the internet when it comes to spouting vile thoughts.  The attacks are not exclusively made upon women, as these 'boys' are equal opportunity bigots.  Everyone will get their fair share of hate on the internet.

None of that was said to excuse that behavior in any way.  These 'boys' are wrong, no matter who they are attacking.  One can accept the attacks and choose to ignore them (as most of us will), or speak out against them.  Speaking out tends to inflame the situation, increasing the amount of hate, which is why most of us don't.  But I felt that she has developed a thick skin, otherwise she would not have discussed the issue in that TED Talk, and she wouldn't be continuing her video series.

So you can say she just needs to get over it, or accept it, but I think she's handling it appropriately.

I'll agree with Jared, though, and say that she's not always the best at constructing and researching her points.  I feel that she only tackles the issue from one side, but then again, that's her angle.  More statistics and numbers would do wonders in illustrating her point of view.  So, while she may not be the best choice for a spokesperson in regards to women in games, she has become a popular voice.  As such, I will support her efforts, and hope that she will be able to hear the more constructive criticisms and improve her approach.

Quote from: waheela on Thu 15/08/2013 18:28:37

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I tentatively disagree. She's high profile and people are aware of her, but her arguments are often poorly constructed and researched which is unfortunate. These are things that do deserve to be discussion points, but when she offers up extreme arguments that are easily countered (strawman arguments, if you will) it's difficult for her to be taken seriously by a lot of people.

People often say this. I really don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you give me some examples of which arguments you think are poorly constructed/researched?

One that really got me was using Hotline Miami is an example in her videos, as a 'damsel' that needs to be rescued and one that is 'killed off'. It doesn't make much sense aside from the most superficial level, where a guy rescues a woman at one point. Rescuing the woman is not the goal of the game (the level takes place near the start of the game and your assignment is actually to kill everybody in the house) You play a demented sociopathic killer who decides, seemingly arbitrarily to take mercy on the one character (who, yes, is the one female character in the game) It's worth noting that she doesn't express direct gratitude for the rescue - she stays in the hero's house since she apparently has nowhere else to go, but avoids him for half the missions and sleeps in another bed. She IS killed at the halfway point, but literally every single character in the game dies so using that as the basis for any claims of sexism in the game is ridiculous.

Another one leaping to mind is her strange argument that Elaine Marley is not an example of a positive, feminist character because she is not a playable character. Elaine is one of my favourite characters in the world of gaming and could definitely carry her own game and is always both a feminine AND strong character. (The only time you can argue she wasn't was in COMI where she does genuinely need rescuing but it's due entirely to a bizarre set of circumstances that is 100% Guybrush's fault)

Many people have noted factual errors in the stories she recounts. The main one I remember is her story of the development of StarFox Adventures being riddled with errors - the game was to have dual protagonists, and it was not co-opted into a new StarFox game because of 'fears gamers would not play a female protagonist' but simply because the StarFox creator liked the look of the game and wanted to put his own characters into it.

A lot of the targets she picks are also beyond soft. It's been pointed out that Dragon's Lair (if that was the title) was a very strange example, since the knight himself is scarcely a positive male character. Now, I understand that there is a rare, justified double standard here - that rounded female characters are of MUCH more importance to fiction than male because they have been so rare. But I think regardless you need to evaluate the role of males in a game's fictional world before condemning it's portrayal of women - some, in fact over the years probably most, games have simple, cartoonish visions of all humanity. Yes, in Double Dragon the girl exists purely to get punched in the stomach and kidnapped - but Jimmy and Billy Lee likewise exist solely to punch other men who look equally as lopsided and troglodytic as themselves. The recent Dragon's Crown has received a lot of attention for the Sorceress and Amazon models being grossly distorted and oversexualised, while the barbarian and dwarf models are just as bad.

Quote from: waheela on Thu 15/08/2013 18:28:37

Quote from: Jared on Thu 15/08/2013 13:51:27
I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

No, I'm saying that it's hard for me to judge because I've only heard references to it from her. I'm glad she saved it on a page so I can actually read it and evaluate it. I feel I stand corrected, as she has legitimate grievances here. Particularly here in Australia the media tend to over-react to online 'trolls' so I take these claims with a pinch of salt, but the domestic abuse simulator is quite sickening.

Quote from: Jared on Fri 16/08/2013 05:43:15
Many people have noted factual errors in the stories she recounts. The main one I remember is her story of the development of StarFox Adventures being riddled with errors - the game was to have dual protagonists, and it was not co-opted into a new StarFox game because of 'fears gamers would not play a female protagonist' but simply because the StarFox creator liked the look of the game and wanted to put his own characters into it.

Hmmm, I went back to the first Damsel in Distress video to see if I could find what you were talking about, but I couldn't find anything in the video to back up what you were saying. In the video, she says the following:

Let's start with a story of a game that no one ever got to play. Back in 1999 game developer RARE was hard at work on a new original title for the Nintendo 64 called “Dinosaur Planet”. The game was to star a 16 year old hero named Krystal as one of the two playable protagonists. She was tasked with traveling through time, fighting prehistoric monsters with her magical staff and saving the world. She was strong, she was capable and she was heroic.

In addition to this, nowhere in the video does she say that this occurred because of "fears gamers would not play a female protagonist". She merely says Miyamoto joked that it would make a good third installment of Star Fox, and so development began.

Quote from: Jared on Fri 16/08/2013 05:43:15Another one leaping to mind is her strange argument that Elaine Marley is not an example of a positive, feminist character because she is not a playable character. Elaine is one of my favourite characters in the world of gaming and could definitely carry her own game and is always both a feminine AND strong character. (The only time you can argue she wasn't was in COMI where she does genuinely need rescuing but it's due entirely to a bizarre set of circumstances that is 100% Guybrush's fault)

Again, here's all she says on this:

There is a clear difference between sexist parody and parody of sexism. Sexist parody encourages the players to mock and trivialize gender issues while parody of sexism disrupts the status quo and undermines regressive gender conventions. So for instance when wannabe pirate Guybrush Threepwood finally reaches the kidnapped Elaine Marley in the 1990 adventure game The Secret of Monkey Island, she already has a plan to escape and he ruins it with his attempt to rescue her. The joke ends up being directed at the protagonist, rather than making fun the damsel'ed woman... While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story. Sadly, there are very few games that really explore this idea.

I don't see anywhere in this where she is criticizing Marley for not being a positive, feminist character. She is saying that despite this being a game that breaks away from the "damsel in distress" trope, it is still a game centered around a male character that focuses more on deconstructing the player's assumptions of what a male hero should be. This is her interpretation at least, and we're welcome to disagree with her opinion on this. I do feel however, that you misrepresented what she said in her video a little.

Quote from: Jared on Fri 16/08/2013 05:43:15
One that really got me was using Hotline Miami is an example in her videos, as a 'damsel' that needs to be rescued and one that is 'killed off'. It doesn't make much sense aside from the most superficial level, where a guy rescues a woman at one point. Rescuing the woman is not the goal of the game (the level takes place near the start of the game and your assignment is actually to kill everybody in the house) You play a demented sociopathic killer who decides, seemingly arbitrarily to take mercy on the one character (who, yes, is the one female character in the game) It's worth noting that she doesn't express direct gratitude for the rescue - she stays in the hero's house since she apparently has nowhere else to go, but avoids him for half the missions and sleeps in another bed. She IS killed at the halfway point, but literally every single character in the game dies so using that as the basis for any claims of sexism in the game is ridiculous

I do actually agree with you on this. Having played Hotline Miami, I don't really think of it as a prime example of the "damsel in distress" trope, although I can see how it may be interpreted that way. I feel this one's a bit opinion-based though, and not really something one could use as a prime example of why Sarkeesian's videos are poorly constructed and researched.

Quote from: Jared on Fri 16/08/2013 05:43:15
But I think regardless you need to evaluate the role of males in a game's fictional world before condemning it's portrayal of women - some, in fact over the years probably most, games have simple, cartoonish visions of all humanity. Yes, in Double Dragon the girl exists purely to get punched in the stomach and kidnapped - but Jimmy and Billy Lee likewise exist solely to punch other men who look equally as lopsided and troglodytic as themselves. The recent Dragon's Crown has received a lot of attention for the Sorceress and Amazon models being grossly distorted and oversexualised, while the barbarian and dwarf models are just as bad.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think you're missing the point of her videos, which is to examine the tropes, plot devices and patterns within games pertaining to women specifically on a big picture scale. I don't really think deconstructing male roles within a few of the more cartoonish games she discusses pertains to the overall pattern of women's roles in video games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

A counter-argument...of sorts.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 16/08/2013 22:49:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

A counter-argument...of sorts.

Do you agree with this video, LimpingFish? Or are you playing devil's advocate?

Genuine question here. Why is it that Miss Sarkeesian's videos are so easily misinterpreted by, what I could see, a major lot of people? I read/watched a bunch of lectures, thesis and research papers, also I checked - always out of curiosity - to see the reaction of the people when I could. So generally it's not something that happens with a well researched and constructed lecture - even a controversial one that touches the status quo. If the point and message of a lecture get mostly through to all parties (pro and detractors alike), it means it was correctly written. That's my personal observation though.
I'm rather confused (and probably naive) of the difference between the message that people seem to get and what Miss Sarkeesian actually says.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 16/08/2013 22:49:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

A counter-argument...of sorts.

Only watched the first 10 minutes, but I think I understand the two arguments.

The feminist one actually seems slightly better argued. But completely missing the part were the weak and ineffective female breaks that 20 foot tall armoured man with the gigantic punch to the balls is pretty bad. I think the man really goes not question enough, and takes too many feminist beliefs as correct without testing them, and therefore really fails to counter her arguments well enough.

Reminder of what Myinah posted on the second page: "Her videos are also designed to be used in a classroom setting or as a teaching aid for parents and kids. They aren't flashy, but they are rich in content and easy to pause and explain and so it makes more sense when you view them as a teaching aid."

Basically, it's like creationists barging in on lecture about the evolutionary history of Amazon parrots, and complaining that it's not convincing them that evolution is real in the first place. That is not the talk's function.

Her videos aren't meant to make a convincing argument--they're not Loose Change or Ancient Aliens--they're a pretty basic application of feminist media critique to video games. She's really not saying anything that other people haven't been saying for years about movies, television, books.
It's just extra touchy because GaMeRz are, well, touchy about their timesink of choice. Think about how easy (and entertaining) it is to troll provoke gamers by saying "Games Aren't Art." That insecurity, coupled with ignorance of the history of feminist theory and a general unfamiliarity with the sound of a woman speaking, leads to a weird and over-passionate urge to take her down.

But that does not seem to be most people problems with her arguments, Trapezoid.
Most people seem to find that her analysis were just shallow and cherry picked.

E: Pointless rant was pointless. I really don't know why I bother (laugh)

Quote from: wisnoskij on Sat 17/08/2013 22:20:31
But that does not seem to be most people problems with her arguments, Trapezoid.

Oh, nobody's gonna admit that's why they're upset with her, or even be conscious of it. They'll think up some other reason via the magic of Rationalization. :)

(I know this not because I'm a feminist but because I'm a guy. I've in the past been the snotty contrarian, made uncomfortable by feminism and attempting to assign logic to my discomfort after the fact.)

Quote from: wisnoskij on Sat 17/08/2013 20:32:57

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 16/08/2013 22:49:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

A counter-argument...of sorts.

Only watched the first 10 minutes, but I think I understand the two arguments.

The feminist one actually seems slightly better argued. But completely missing the part were the weak and ineffective female breaks that 20 foot tall armoured man with the gigantic punch to the balls is pretty bad. I think the man really goes not question enough, and takes too many feminist beliefs as correct without testing them, and therefore really fails to counter her arguments well enough.

Okay, Anita was one level of preachy condescension, but that thunderf00t guy was something beyond. I too could barely watch 10 minutes of his video, and his constant repeating of the woman punching the giant lich thing irked me at its dishonesty. In Double Dragon Neon, the game being talked about, the final boss is that guy, after beating it up, you punch it off a cliff, and the credits roll, with the it in the background. After about 5 minutes, by which time most people would've exited the game,  the credits finish, the lich-thing almost reaches the floor, says "I'll get you, Billy and Jimmy!", except the girl is there, and she "punches it in the balls". The screen fades, and your final concept art is unlocked: Billy carrying his adoring girlfriend who he just saved.

So yeah, that doesn't disprove anything Anita said about that particular trope, she even mentioned that occasionally the damsel does her token end-of-game "defence".

The discussions here have been kinda odd. Nobody seems to deny that there is a certainly level of misogyny (or at least male-centric targeting to the detriment of women) in games, but loads of people really seem to dislike the way Anita expresses herself.

I've seen a few people (and that thunderf00t guy) commenting on her pink clothing, makeup and girly earrings - compared to her old videos. I imagine she changed this to enforce to the viewer that she is in fact a true female in a world of sexual dimorphism. Where she's trying to show to the viewer that she IS clearly a female and accepts the differences between men and women. If she were wearing all gray with no makeup, people would likely then say "She's a lesbian or misgendered female; therefor her points are moot".

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03
Men have to pay more for car insurance because men in general drive more recklessly, which sucks but then again is just another tragic consequence of how we are supposed to act and behave (young men are encouraged by each other to drive fast)

The problem with this is that you're also believing in the sexist views that men drive more recklessly than women. The other factor that insurance companies use to base these sexist views of men vs women drivers are speeding tickets. It's shown that men receive more speeding tickets than women, but this is where I get upset. I know several dozen women that tell me they've never received a speeding ticket. Not because they don't speed and don't get pulled over, but merely because the police officer let them off with a warning. When I have asked dozens of men, I rarely hear of them receiving a warning.

My belief on this is that the majority of police officers are men. Men are generally more lenient and polite towards women. This is my own personal beliefs because I notice it in myself as well.

In the dozen years I've been driving and received many many speeding tickets, I've actually only received one warning instead of the actual ticket. In this one instance the police officer was actually a woman (the first woman police officer I've ever encountered on the road). It can't be a coincidence.

When I was 18, there was this girl I worked with who was a year younger. She was in 2 massive car accidents (one where her car swerved and hit another car, then pushed them both off the road where her car flipped and was completely totaled). Both accidents were her fault. But the thing that pissed me off was that after these accidents, even a year later to allow for rate adjustments, she was still paying 1/3 of what I was paying - where I had zero accidents or tickets.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 08/08/2013 10:33:03I'm sure Anita would love to discuss this, since it's a perfect example of what she's trying to say (treating genders differently is destructive), but I guess she was simply focusing on games and media in that video.

I wasn't actually serious about her debating this issue, I was mostly saying her discussions are completely "feminist" and that if she took a neutral position on things, I may actually have more respect for her.

Edit: On a side-note, I've recently learned she was born in Ontario, which is pretty cool. ;)

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sun 18/08/2013 02:39:45My belief on this is that the majority of police officers are men. Men are generally more lenient and polite towards women. This is my own personal beliefs because I notice it in myself as well.

Well if we are being ultra politically correct here. I think it would be more prudent to have the belief that society in general imbues women with less responsibility, and that is the reason for a reduced number of tickets. Not that men seek out authority and action filled jobs, and treat women with more politeness (while not seeking out more action in their driving habits).

(Edited by moderator)

monkey_05_06 wrote a post, since deleted:

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 18/08/2013 07:06:37

Quote from: waheela on Fri 16/08/2013 16:43:21While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story.

What? Did she really say this? [offensive comment]

"Nope. Can't be feminist unless a female is the protagonist and defeats all the male characters by herself without any assistance from any male characters. Derp derp herp." (wrong)

:-\

Now put it in your signature forever, plzkthxbai.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 18/08/2013 07:06:37

Quote from: waheela on Fri 16/08/2013 16:43:21While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story.

What? Did she really say this? [offensive comment]

"Nope. Can't be feminist unless a female is the protagonist and defeats all the male characters by herself without any assistance from any male characters. Derp derp herp." (wrong)

:-\

Wow, you really said this, go to hell.

There's nothing offensive about what she said. There are games that subvert or play with the trope, but still exist within the constructs of male-oriented storytelling. A game can contribute to the forest of misogyny even if it's not a particularly misogynistic tree. That's hardly saying "Burn in Hell Ron Gilbert." It's more akin to the way that a feminist movie can still fail the Bechdel test, a test which aims to expose an overall trend, not to vilify individual films.

Oh wow, I was keeping out of this one. Looks like I broke my word to myself.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 18/08/2013 07:06:37

Quote from: waheela on Fri 16/08/2013 16:43:21While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story.

What? Did she really say this? [offensive comment]

Don't say that. Even in jest, don't say that.

And is it so wrong to ask for more games with a female lead, that focuses on them being the badass, instead of a badass or lumbering male who gets upstaged by a lady? Why not play as an Elaine Marley, planning out the metaphorical monkeys in a dress (not exactly that situation, as it is a joke that needs obscuring to work, but other stuff)? Is it that much to ask that the woman be in the spotlight, rather than in a supporting role?

While the delivery isn't perfect, so what, the sentiment is clear. "I would like to play as a woman more often in an inspiring role". She didn't ask for LESS of anything, nor for WOMAN BEATS THE MENS. She asked for more heroic women. Heck, the example game she states is an example of subversion (instead of deconstruction) of the trope in action.

Heck, that's something I can get behind. There are certain groups of people that never get representation in videogames - for instance, I can count the number of fat heroic protagonists in games on one hand. They sometimes (SOMETIMES!) get representation as a plucky sidekick (Hello Paige of Beyond Good and Evil), but being in the spotlight? Never. It wouldn't sell. Noone wants to play as that.

And for women, it's more than that. It's being relegated to the back seat, to the supporting role, 90% of the time when you're 50% of the population. There just aren't that many heroic female protagonists compared to the number of male ones, and what she is saying is "I would like more representation for my gender, please. I'd like a bigger slice of that hero pie for my gender." while the male heroes are gorging themselves on the 90%+ of the hero pie and saying "YOU HAVE A SLICE DON'T YOU?! DON'T COMPLAIN."

And if "I would like some more female heroes, not just female npcs that are badass, though that is a cool thing too." is a particularily worthy sentiment to respond with a rape joke, then I'm not sure what planet I'm living on.

Jesus Christ. Why do people have to make even the most simple requests an attack on them?

"herp derp i want mans to be hero save the world from evil wimminz coz they be stoping our man stuf" is just as ridiculous.

Noone is suggesting that.

Noone.

They just want more capable female protagonists, as varied as the ones males get to have.

Is that so hard to understand?!

Moderator note:

monkey's comment was out of line even as a joke, and moderator action has been taken. The post has been deleted and the offending line edited out of the responses.

Rape threats, even idle, facetious ones, are in clear violation of the forum rule: "No threats or aggressive hate speech." They will not be tolerated.

Other participants, there's no need to directly respond further to a provocation.

Quote from: Scavenger on Sun 18/08/2013 07:56:56
While the delivery isn't perfect, so what, the sentiment is clear. "I would like to play as a woman more often in an inspiring role". She didn't ask for LESS of anything, nor for WOMAN BEATS THE MENS. She asked for more heroic women. Heck, the example game she states is an example of subversion (instead of deconstruction) of the trope in action.

Still. 3 videos to present that sentiment, even if the "Damsel in Distress" trope is an interesting subject that takes its share of time to talk about, confused more people than it should. I say her videos are functional for that extent. Neither good nor bad. Just functional. Although I wished more thorough revisions on her drafts to put more weight on points people seem to have missed. To me, it gives the feeling she didn't prooftest her lecture enough with the target audience, but only with some people who already was agreeing with her sentiment.

Quote from: Nefasto on Sat 17/08/2013 18:35:57
Genuine question here. Why is it that Miss Sarkeesian's videos are so easily misinterpreted by, what I could see, a major lot of people? I read/watched a bunch of lectures, thesis and research papers, also I checked - always out of curiosity - to see the reaction of the people when I could. So generally it's not something that happens with a well researched and constructed lecture - even a controversial one that touches the status quo. If the point and message of a lecture get mostly through to all parties (pro and detractors alike), it means it was correctly written. That's my personal observation though.
I'm rather confused (and probably naive) of the difference between the message that people seem to get and what Miss Sarkeesian actually says.

To answer your question, I think people project their own ideas about what she is saying based on knowing beforehand that she's a feminist and she's critiquing their one true love (gaming and gaming culture). It was very obvious to me this was the case when watching LimpingFish's video. There were a lot of points in which Thunderf00t's arguments boiled down to "some feminists say this, so this is what Sarkeesian thinks and says. She is so stupid". I think this is one of the reasons why this quote was misinterpreted so heavily in this thread:

While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story. Sadly, there are very few games that really explore this idea.

She is very clearly discussing the trope in this quote, not the heroine. Yet immediately people jump to the conclusion that Sarkeesian is saying Elaine Marley is not a strong female character because of this. I think people unconsciously do want to misunderstand and thus discredit her on some level, because she is criticizing something we hold very close to our hearts. I notice I had the same reaction to some of her critiques too. ("How can she say this about that game!? That was such a good game!")

Another quote from Sarkeesian:

This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it's more problematic or pernicious aspects.

Quote from: waheela on Sun 18/08/2013 17:38:46
To answer your question, I think people project their own ideas about what she is saying based on knowing beforehand that she's a feminist and she's critiquing their one true love (gaming and gaming culture). It was very obvious to me this was the case when watching LimpingFish's video. There were a lot of points in which Thunderf00t's arguments boiled down to "some feminists say this, so this is what Sarkeesian thinks and says. She is so stupid".

Well. That surely explains it about the dectrators' side. Though I also saw the other type of misinterpretation where there are people who interpreted it has a true sign that video games using the Damsel in Distress trope are the cause why women are downgraded, the cause of domestic violence or all the ugly things that are done to women.
Or I also saw that some people are considering that any game using that trope is automatically lazy and/or bad.
And this despite the fact that Miss Sarkeesian never said such things. But I guess the psychology behind this kind of misinterpretation is the same.

Quote from: waheela on Sun 18/08/2013 17:38:46
While these types of games are a refreshing departure from the standard formula, and something I'd generally like to see more of, the focus is still squarely on the male characters and so at their core these games are really deconstructing the player's assumptions about the traditional hero archetype. A true subversion of the trope would need to star the damsel as the main playable character. It would have to be her story. Sadly, there are very few games that really explore this idea.

I will be a bit pedantic about some details on that part. It won't dismiss her point, but there are some little mistakes that are mostly semantic. The first part of that quote isn't really a deconstruction ('Shadow of the Colossus' is more of a deconstruction than the situation with Elaine); it is mostly accepted as a true subversion. What she calls a "true subversion" is actually an inversion and, depending on how it's written, it can jump into a different trope that isn't contained by the Damsel In Distress one. More details on this page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingWith/DamselInDistress) about how to play with that trope.
But again, the point stands.

Quote from: waheela on Sat 17/08/2013 17:47:33
Do you agree with this video, LimpingFish? Or are you playing devil's advocate?

Sorry, I over-looked your post earlier.

As to your question, no I don't, and yes I was, in so much as I was offering an alternative point of view. I don't subscribe to either argument, as they stand. I do however think that Sarkessian may have an agenda, perhaps even a self-serving one, which may result in her over-egging the sexism pudding, and lead to her painting a slighty misleading portrait of the game industry and of game players.

And that's...just not cricket.

Great post, Nefasto, and thanks for the link to the TV Tropes page.

It seems that there are many ways in which this trope can actually work, and some in which I feel its use is completely justified, but I think you'll find that Sarkeesian would only like to see the inverted trope.  This makes sense, since her real goal is to see more strong female characters in the main protagonist role of video games.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 19/08/2013 01:27:40
I do however think that Sarkessian may have an agenda, perhaps even a self-serving one, which may result in her over-egging the sexism pudding, and lead to her painting a slighty misleading portrait of the game industry and of game players.

And that's...just not cricket.

Interesting. Could you explain in more detail? I'm not sure I follow you completely.

I believe that what he's getting at is this:

Anita's agenda is to see more games with positive female protagonists, and possibly also to see less games that victimize women.  To pursue this agenda, she has made this series of videos to illustrate how women are negatively portrayed in video games.  His argument is that she has perhaps stretched these claims as far as she can in the pursuit of these goals, and that this has somewhat misrepresented the severity of the situation.

That's not to say that she doesn't have points, but that she's taking these points to the extreme in hopes of achieving her goals.

I'm not sure I would completely disagree, because while I support most of her arguments, I do think that sometimes she seems to be finding problems where the issue may be somewhat negligible.  She also seems dismissive of (or unwilling to discuss) any games that treat the trope fairly without providing a strong female player character, which is her agenda.