Anita Sarkeesian "I'm not a fan of gaming" leaked 2010 video reveals

[Specter Von Baren]

Okay then.

Is this fanfiction? I like Peach and Zelda as characters, but half the stuff she says doesn't come up in the canon of their franchises at all. If Peach was seen in her respectful Princess role more often, rather than only being around long enough to be kidnapped and subsequently rescued, then I could understand the argument. But as she's portrayed in Mario games, she's simply the damsel in distress.
So Anita was right.

Or, this shows that other people played those games and got a completely different idea of the characters from Sarkeesian.

 

[runic knight]

Okay then.

Is this fanfiction? I like Peach and Zelda as characters, but half the stuff she says doesn't come up in the canon of their franchises at all. If Peach was seen in her respectful Princess role more often, rather than only being around long enough to be kidnapped and subsequently rescued, then I could understand the argument. But as she's portrayed in Mario games, she's simply the damsel in distress.
So Anita was right.

I have a question. In the Zelda franchise's Orcarina of time, what is the happy mask salesman doing before the game? No no, I know, it sounds like a stupid question (and sort of is) but through simple logic, one assumes he is living his life and probably just being a bit creepy. We know nothing about him outside of his small time in the shop that the player sees of him. We don't see him selling stuff to other people, we don't see him outside the shop. He is a lifeless vendor. As players, it would slow the game down to explore his life. The game is not about him but the player character. It is their adventure.
Why is this so upsetting when applied to the princess? Why do we, as player characters, need to see her ruling the land and doing what I can only imagine as bureaucratic, or figure head duties when as a player of the game I want to spend my time playing the game, not watching cut scenes about other characters?
Most of the problem with this sort of argument I addressed in my last post. There is a difference between the sort of games mario and zelda are compared to Mass effect or RPG's. The stories are not the point of the games, it is and has always been the gameplay. In every game, the stories are dirt simple excuses to let the players play. What you do here is ask why the game not designed to have deep stories and involved characters doesn't have a deep or involved female character. And what is worse, you are asking it solely because the character is female. You do see the irony of that yes? About treating the character different solely because of her gender and trying to encourage the game makers do the same?

 

[Crystalis1]

If you can "enjoy videogames but still criticize aspects of them ala sexism" then you can also "criticize anitas honesty without simultaneously criticizing the content of her arguments" Those of you who feel so strongly in trying to defend her that you lump the two together in an attempt to discredit the original poster, I think you are being disingenuous. When someone is trying to do good things and make changes for the better they have to do it in an honest and sincere way else they stand to do the cause more harm than good.

The only reason to accuse Sarkeesian of dishonesty is to attack her argument without addressing the content of her argument. Which is, as I've said, Ad Hominem, and should be disregarded. It is an argument without merit.

The reason it is without merit is there is no reason to believe she is dishonest or insincere. I find her credibility far less suspect than the credibility of her detractors.

No one who hates on Sarkeesian in these threads ever questions the credentials or honesty or sincerity of anti-Sarkeesian sources. No one fact-checks these people, no one investigates their sources, no one questions their authority. They are taken at their word, even though they give us no reason whatsoever to do so.

It is massively hypocritical to say that Sarkeesian is disingenuous without even bothering to see if anything the people attacking her say is accurate.

Ughhhh not another one...


Problems with her arguments....

Conflating subject vs object dichotomy into a discussion about objectification in the feminist sense... One deals with perception of reality the other with supposed harm of the objects... They do not mix

Selective editing of clips (starfox adventures for example) ,(this type of vidding is an area of expertise for her)

Wrong information about multiple game franchises

Equating saving a loved one to the loved one being a possession .... Insinuating that altruistic motivations do not exist...

Among many others.....



Problems with Anita the person

Speaks out against cyber mobs.... In turn uses cyber mobs to silence critics

Speaks out against the beat em up game saying the only reason for it is fear and intimidation .... In turn endorses murder fantasy of a game developer

States she is a life long gamer .... Previously stated she knew nothing about games and was not a gamer and needed to learn a lot about them to make her slash vid

Denies the fact she is scamming people ..... Previously endorsed companies accused of scams

Speaks out against sex positive portrayal of women in video games.... Likes the scantily clad coplayers of those characters she speaks out against

States research wil requires countless hours of playing games .... In turn rips footage from YouTube

Among many others

If you aren't slightly suspicious by the pattern of activity and pattern of faulty arguments then I've got a bridge to sell you

Crystalis you should keep that list nearby so that you can copy and paste it as I imagine repeating that over and over could get quite dull.XD lol

Edit: also trill, if youl watch that video at 2:45 it states: "While this does not invalidate any of anitas arguements about the portrayal of women in videogames. it does prove that she is not actually a gamer" THERE YOU HAVE IT SIR!

You said earlier that you couldnt find a thread or video that wasnt attacking ad hominem well that video was right there in the first post.

I initially had a much longer lists of arguments against her point and backing evidence but I got tired of repeating myself... Maybe I'll make a video when I have more time.

Similar to what you said in the edit to trill.... No response invalidates her arguments..... It just means she doesn't have good evidence to support her views. No one with any integrity would change their view or accept one without enough solid evidence.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

Okay then.

Is this fanfiction? I like Peach and Zelda as characters, but half the stuff she says doesn't come up in the canon of their franchises at all. If Peach was seen in her respectful Princess role more often, rather than only being around long enough to be kidnapped and subsequently rescued, then I could understand the argument. But as she's portrayed in Mario games, she's simply the damsel in distress.
So Anita was right.

I have a question. In the Zelda franchise's Orcarina of time, what is the happy mask salesman doing before the game? No no, I know, it sounds like a stupid question (and sort of is) but through simple logic, one assumes he is living his life and probably just being a bit creepy. We know nothing about him outside of his small time in the shop that the player sees of him. We don't see him selling stuff to other people, we don't see him outside the shop. He is a lifeless vendor. As players, it would slow the game down to explore his life. The game is not about him but the player character. It is their adventure.
Why is this so upsetting when applied to the princess? Why do we, as player characters, need to see her ruling the land and doing what I can only imagine as bureaucratic, or figure head duties when as a player of the game I want to spend my time playing the game, not watching cut scenes about other characters?
Most of the problem with this sort of argument I addressed in my last post. There is a difference between the sort of games mario and zelda are compared to Mass effect or RPG's. The stories are not the point of the games, it is and has always been the gameplay. In every game, the stories are dirt simple excuses to let the players play. What you do here is ask why the game not designed to have deep stories and involved characters doesn't have a deep or involved female character. And what is worse, you are asking it solely because the character is female. You do see the irony of that yes? About treating the character different solely because of her gender and trying to encourage the game makers do the same?

The Happy Mask Salesman is not being used as an example of a great male video game character to counter claims that males don't get enough recognition in games. Hell, the games he appears in already have a male lead anyway.
Anita argued that Peach is a character who is constantly stuck in Damsel in Distress mode game after game. The rebuttal video attempted to show that Peach is deeper than that while drawing from nothing in the canon to back her assertion. If we did see Peach in her role as the leader of the Mushroom Kingdom or even as the protagonist from time to time (if anybody brings up Super Princess Peach, you'll hurt your own argument), then she could be more than a one-dimensional character who exists to be kidnapped and rescued.

The Happy Mask Salesman? He's a one-dimensional character. He finds and sells masks while being creepy. He serves a narrative purpose. But nobody would mistake him for a role model or anything. Until he gets his own spin-off like Tingle. Mario games are run and jump games with very little focus on characters. That's true. So why make a video that's half devoted to explaining how awesome the captured princess is in this same game? Doesn't this cut both ways?

 

[runic knight]

Okay then.

Is this fanfiction? I like Peach and Zelda as characters, but half the stuff she says doesn't come up in the canon of their franchises at all. If Peach was seen in her respectful Princess role more often, rather than only being around long enough to be kidnapped and subsequently rescued, then I could understand the argument. But as she's portrayed in Mario games, she's simply the damsel in distress.
So Anita was right.

I have a question. In the Zelda franchise's Orcarina of time, what is the happy mask salesman doing before the game? No no, I know, it sounds like a stupid question (and sort of is) but through simple logic, one assumes he is living his life and probably just being a bit creepy. We know nothing about him outside of his small time in the shop that the player sees of him. We don't see him selling stuff to other people, we don't see him outside the shop. He is a lifeless vendor. As players, it would slow the game down to explore his life. The game is not about him but the player character. It is their adventure.
Why is this so upsetting when applied to the princess? Why do we, as player characters, need to see her ruling the land and doing what I can only imagine as bureaucratic, or figure head duties when as a player of the game I want to spend my time playing the game, not watching cut scenes about other characters?
Most of the problem with this sort of argument I addressed in my last post. There is a difference between the sort of games mario and zelda are compared to Mass effect or RPG's. The stories are not the point of the games, it is and has always been the gameplay. In every game, the stories are dirt simple excuses to let the players play. What you do here is ask why the game not designed to have deep stories and involved characters doesn't have a deep or involved female character. And what is worse, you are asking it solely because the character is female. You do see the irony of that yes? About treating the character different solely because of her gender and trying to encourage the game makers do the same?

The Happy Mask Salesman is not being used as an example of a great male video game character to counter claims that males don't get enough recognition in games. Hell, the games he appears in already have a male lead anyway.
Anita argued that Peach is a character who is constantly stuck in Damsel in Distress mode game after game. The rebuttal video attempted to show that Peach is deeper than that while drawing from nothing in the canon to back her assertion. If we did see Peach in her role as the leader of the Mushroom Kingdom or even as the protagonist from time to time (if anybody brings up Super Princess Peach, you'll hurt your own argument), then she could be more than a one-dimensional character who exists to be kidnapped and rescued.

The Happy Mask Salesman? He's a one-dimensional character. He finds and sells masks while being creepy. He serves a narrative purpose. But nobody would mistake him for a role model or anything. Until he gets his own spin-off like Tingle. Mario games are run and jump games with very little focus on characters. That's true. So why make a video that's half devoted to explaining how awesome the captured princess is in this same game? Doesn't this cut both ways?

So, you agree you are looking at the gender first, before any other trait or story element? Because by raising the complaint as you have, you pretty much reveal the sole reason you care is because of the gender of the character and an overall trend about games as a whole, rather then an individual examination. Congratulations, you are treating individuals (or in this case characters with trait of being female) like the entire member of their group based on the defining trait of gender. I think there is a word for that... one that is thrown around so often in these forums... I can't remember what it was.

As said before, ALL the main characters of those games are one-dimensional. Mario and Link have no character at all. The villains have the motivation of "we are evil, rawr". The princesses, by virtue of their titles at least, can be said to have some basic motivations for wanting the villains to be stopped (general self interest as usurped monarchs). Lets be honest here. The villain has little motivation for the power they seek or the princesses they capture in order to obtain that power. The hero has NO motivation to save the kingdom or rescue the princess outside of general hero qualityness. Later games help flesh that some, but when talking about the start of the trope in the game series, not so much.

Anita said that peach was a damsel time after time (factual statement, not an argument but whatever). She used this as the premise for her argument concerning Peach as solely a damsel, as disempowered, and ultimately as part of a trend that furthers the idea of culture's view and treatment of women. This conclusion is what the video addresses by dismissing the very idea that being captured somehow invalidates the rest of the character. And yes, even the shallow 1 dimensional characters of the games are still not actually doing all that. They have political power, they have resourcefulness when captured, they show basic attempts that could be expected, and sometimes even more then that. And that is all from what is still a sack of potatoes in a dress. that they can not escape capture is not a mark against them as characters at all, but rather as plot elements they were regionally constructed as. And no, because they are plot elements given gender does not mean what I am sure you are jumping to the conclusion on it meaning. Lets delve into why the stories have someone captured at all.

First off I think you think because the character is female and captured, it represents something more then it does. The problem is the character is not really female at all. Seriously, at what point is the gender important in any of the core games? Sack of potatoes and all that. The sack has basic plot function as being "RIGHTFUL RULER" who "HERO" has to return to power (are you a bad enough dude?). Now someone decided early on to put a wig and a dress on said sack and made it a franchise character, which means it gets pulled into the subsequent ones. In agreement so far?
See, the problem is, the character, what little they even have, stem from their plot purpose (RIGHTFUL RULER). Unless something happens to the rightful ruler, there is no plot and thus no story. The reason the game doesn't take place before or after the rightful ruler lost power is because stories tend to take place during the action. The reason the rulers are captured is because that allows it to be a quest to return things to the rightful state rather then a darker one of vengeance (Nintendo is still kid friendly now, so I don't expect that to change with core games).
Why they picked that story could be related to the simplicity of it, the ease to get into the gameplay, the thematic compatibility (getting stronger in Link's case, for instance) or just personal preference for the story of the hero who saves the day. Whatever reason, they choose Hero Save Ruler to start and because change can be scary, they stick with it. You've heard of the term formulaic, Mario and Zelda get called it all he time, and rightfully so.
Now, assuming you are reasonable enough to look at all that and go "yeah, I get it, no duh", the obvious question is "if it doesn't matter, why is it a princess then?" to which I have a few decent ideas why the creators may have made them female sacks instead of male, but I am more inclined to point back to that first paragraph where I call you out for looking at gender first and raising the complaint there alone. In the first mario game, you save 8 people. Only one is female. The others are captured citizens of the kingdom who tell you their rightful ruler is not there. Mario is trying to return the rightful ruler to power and saves 7 males (presumed because most people assume the open vested toads are male) to one female. But because you only see the female, you ignore that the 7 toads (you also rescue kings in mario 3, living stars, yoshi's in World and whatever else). At that point, you have to stop and realize any claims about peach apply across the board there. None of them have character, some are rightful rulers transformed, and all of them are just an excuse for the hero to exist for the player to play the game. Why is peach special other then she is a girl? Why is that special unless you are intentionally look for that trait to begin with? And no, the amount of female characters is not going to cut it. THAT is an overall trend in gaming and says nothing about the individual games that make up that trend any more then the trend of women to buy dresses as opposed to me says how sexist a dress maker is. Both are results of easy to understand factors as well, if you care to read a previous post I made in this thread about that.
The point to all of this is they choose a story about a hero saving the day to start the franchises with, within them, the heros save a lot of damn people. You are upset that they save a woman it seems. And that stems not from the games themselves, but from an overall trend (result of culture at large plus market, see other post, too long to get into it) and a personal interpretation of what them being saves means. Neither is proper justification for labeling the individual games, let alone the trope at large as sexist to begin with. It gets worse when such claims go into ideas of disempowerment or furthering a culture of one sort or another while dismissing or ignoring valid reasons for the trends or the personal interpretations other people might have had that differ greatly.

---side notes---
You mention the idea of a role model. When does the characters have to fit that role at all? Why would they? The very idea is ridiculous when the qualities of the character would be what people look for in a role model to begin with and could be anything. There might be someone out there who does see the creeper with the mask pack as a role model, who knows. It is not the character's fault nor responsibility to be a good one. Why would them being a role model at all matter? That said I can see Zelda, and even Peach possessing traits someone may look at well enough to see as a role model. But that is not the fault of the characters themselves put the individuals deciding what traits they want in role models in the first place. Besides, who says you have to have same gender role models?

As for why the video? Well, could ask the actual creator? My thoughts though, besides to rebuke the initial attack on the games, characters and industry itself by a certain journalistic hack, it explains what people may read about the characters beyond the "captured so damsels so they represent how the game makers view all women and the audience will see them as inferior". it shows that even the shallow characters of peach and Zelda can be shown not just as more fully fleshed characters, but outright positive ones. Hell, Mario can be interpreted as a communist icon as well. The issue here is I have yet to hear that personal interpretation of the character be used to tacitly claim that they are contributing to a cultural communist dogma. The video undermines the idea that they can only be seen as a prize or damsel, therefore undermining the conclusions that anita draws from that assumption. If no, they are not always seen as damsels or inferior by the people playing the game, it sort of shoots the idea that the games contribute to a culture of misogyny in the foot.

 

[Stephen St.]

On the topic at hand, it seems that Ms. Sarkeesian had sort of adressed the points with the following set of tweets:

Looks like the army of angry gamer dudes are on the warpath again today bravely defending the status quo.

I?ve been told I?m ?not a gamer? ever since I can remember. My Game Boy was ?not for girls?. Computers were ?boys stuff?. I played anyway.

Ever since I began playing video games at age 5 I?ve been told I don?t belong. As a result my relationship with gaming has been complicated.

Like many women who game there have been periods in my life when the constant sexism and alienation have become almost too much to handle.

I?ve had a love/hate relationship with gaming over the years. I?ve even taken breaks. But I?ve always come back hoping it would get better.

Whenever I?ve felt disillusioned something amazing has come along like Portal, Mirror?s Edge or Gone Home that reminds me of what?s possible

In the past few years I?ve felt there has been some slow progress towards positive change and inclusivity in gaming. This gives me hope.

Which does support the theory that she indeed hasn't been a continuous "fan" of video games, but has always stayed interested in the genre. This is furthermore supported by the fact that, in 2010, she stated that she was not a fan, but would love to play videogames, if they had a different subject matter.

In conclusion, it seems like she as embellished her past relationship with the medium slightly in order to not come across as inherently hostile towards videogames. I don't see any evidence that she was and has remained predominantly hostile to gaming as a whole, though.

Neither is proper justification for labeling the individual games, let alone the trope at large as sexist to begin with.

The Problem with your line of argument, like most arguments on the topic, is that you seem to say that the logic goes somewhat like this: sexist character -> sexist game -> sexist trope -> sexist culture.

In fact, all these different layers have to be looked at individually. There is what is happening in the fictional world - the story. Then there is what this story means to the people experiencing it - the message. It should be obvious that the message can be sexist without the story or the characters being sexist themselves. It gets worse when you then group several similar stories into a genre, and then group genres into a culture. Maybe a story doesn't have a sexist message, but an overall genre of these stories does? Or maybe the culture is sexist without any of it's genres individually.

If you are adressing a criticism of a sexist culture, you need to actually argue on the cultural level. You cannot simply go down to the lowest level (the individual characters and their story) and argue that those, by themselves, aren't sexist.

Your final claim:

The video undermines the idea that they can only be seen as a prize or damsel, therefore undermining the conclusions that anita draws from that assumption. If no, they are not always seen as damsels or inferior by the people playing the game, it sort of shoots the idea that the games contribute to a culture of misogyny in the foot.

Is therefore wrong, or a non-sequitur. It is, in fact, the other way round: If a character, despite what else they can be seen as, can also be seen as a damsel in distress, then they are part of that trope. If the number of characters that are part of said trope exceeds a certain statistical significance, then that is indicative of a culture that identifies with the message of that trope. But even if there wasn't there could still be a collection of different tropes that leads to the same cultural message.

Point is: You need to deconstruct from the top down, not from the bottom up.

 

[VanQ]

You don't know how much research she did. So why are you arguing at all?

He is arguing because that is a very, very serious issue when it comes to something like a person's academic integrity. Research material, sources, studies, and solid evidence are extremely important.

And you don't think for even a second, that it's an issue that she has not shown her research materials or sources at all? She's supposed to be presenting an educational video series that she intends to be used as study materials at a university level, by her own word. And yet you see no problem with the fact that she has provided zero evidence of her research or sources and you show no worry that her academic integrity is being questioned for a matter as serious as plagiarism? If you have ever belonged to any kind of educational institution such as a school, college or university, you would understand just how serious these allegations are and why people demand answers from her on that particular topic.

She has answered when asked about this matter, to the best of my knowledge, with silence. And that is never a good sign.

 

[Stephen St.]

He is arguing because that is a very, very serious issue when it comes to something like a person's academic integrity. Research material, sources, studies, and solid evidence are extremely important.

And you don't think for even a second, that it's an issue that she has not shown her research materials or sources at all? She's supposed to be presenting an educational video series that she intends to be used as study materials at a university level, by her own word. And yet you see no problem with the fact that she has provided zero evidence of her research or sources and you show no worry that her academic integrity is being questioned for a matter as serious as plagiarism? If you have ever belonged to any kind of educational institution such as a school, college or university, you would understand just how serious these allegations are and why people demand answers from her on that particular topic.

She has answered when asked about this matter, to the best of my knowledge, with silence. And that is never a good sign.

Uh, what kind of sources are we talking? What claims were made in the Tropes vs. Women series that were lacking a proper source? The only thing that I can think of that requires a source would be the game titles, which are all listed.

And why would anyone in an academic setting be required to show research materials? You don't need to provide "evidence of your research", that is absurd. The evidence of your research is the work you produced. That work can then be judged on it's merits, but if you managed to create a masterpiece overnight, then certainly no-one is going to call you out because you didn't do enough research.

 

[carnex]

If she were facing an actual review board, or someone of authority, then showing her process might be important. She doesn't owe jackshit to the random fuckwads on the internet calling her a whore for being critical of video games.

As far as I can understand her expectation is that she will be taken seriously and her position and opinion will be treated as valid by general public. But in order to be taken seriously one must defend it's work from critics.

Any work that claims that have valid and scientifically deduced conclusion must be able to withstand scrutiny. Any work that does not claim valid research and background work is not worth anyone's time.

That said, not all critics have valid complaints. Most of them are just laughable as far as I'm concerned. But, never the less, that does not discredit all of them. Valid critics are still valid and deserve to be answered or thesis is to be discarded until new evidence is found.

 

[generals3]

If she were facing an actual review board, or someone of authority, then showing her process might be important. She doesn't owe jackshit to the random fuckwads on the internet calling her a whore for being critical of video games.

Right. So whenever gamers ask for evidence that VG's cause violence it's perfectly ok for people not to provide it? And I find it quite telling of your stance that you put everyone who asks for evidence in the group of people who used insults such as "whore". I never called her anything alike but i'd still like evidence that the DiD trope reinforces toxic and paternalistic views of women in RL and that when a protagonist is asked to kill the female character because she was possessed it somehow affects violence against women in RL.

Until than those assertions are nothing more than pure speculation and since her issue with these tropes is based on these speculations I can safely say the tropes she addressed are not an issue. At least not in the way she presents it.

 

[carnex]

No one of any authority is questioning the validity of her research. Just random nobodies on their blogs.

Oh, that's because no one of any worth isn't taking her seriously. If you want to be taken seriously by people whose approval you need to get scientific validity you have to follow certain steps. Step number one being to publish your work in peer reviewed journal. Than you are going to get attention of that type of community. People who do social research by the book and by scientific standards don't have time to entertain everyone's ideas, thus they have teams that sort works by validity prior to publishing those they deem worth of attention of academia.

She has chosen to publish hew work in public space. Her choice has certain consequences, one of which is that you will be publicly criticized by just about anyone, and another is that you won't be taken seriously by people who can give her work validity. It's entirely her decision and thus it's entirely her responsibility.

 

[Strazdas]

Sorry just calling something bs doesn't make it so.

When one purposely misrepresents themselves so publically, it becomes a valid concern.

No, Jeffers is absolutely correct. It's an ad hominem argument at its core, and even then not a very exciting one.

I mean, you could at least invoke Godwin's law.

Edit: And "valid concern", what the hell? This isn't a matter of national security for Christ's sake.

Lets say i claim to be a surgeon. And based on that, i will go on and campaign for all surgeon tools to be chagned to scissors, claiming that i have been a surgeon for a long time and know how the tools work. Then later you find out that im not actually a surgeon. But i would just call out "argumentum ad hominem" and continue claiming i am a surgeon and thus know better.

 

[Stephen St.]

Lets say i claim to be a surgeon. And based on that, i will go on and campaign for all surgeon tools to be chagned to scissors, claiming that i have been a surgeon for a long time and know how the tools work. Then later you find out that im not actually a surgeon. But i would just call out "argumentum ad hominem" and continue claiming i am a surgeon and thus know better.

Unfortunately, you would still be arrested for committing false equivalence.

 

[generals3]

Let me start off by saying that was a really good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. That said, what she's arguing isn't that the representations are immediately affecting behavior, but that they're reinforcing negative stereotypes about women, which, after a prolonged period of time, can affect how women are viewed in society. If you only see one portrayal of something since youth, you're unlikely to argue the point, right? It's sociological theory, hard to find conclusive evidence one way or another, but it's a theory based on logical analysis.

The thing though is that I think the impact is overstated. Unless you never go out of your house and actually interact with women I doubt the impact of these tropes is anywhere near significant. Heck even having a woman contradicting the stereotypes inside your household should severely outweigh the image you may get from these games. Usually people don't really take games seriously and base their views on what they see in it. The only scenario i can think of in which this impact would be significant is if the individual has access to no other information. And I doubt there are many people who never interact with women out there and if they don't... will their views have any significant impact on society/people anyway?

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

She wasn't saying that she doesn't like video games and doesn't want to play them. She's saying in that video that she's frustrated by the amount of games aimed towards something about of the gun-shooty violence games. I am, indeed, tired of all the dude-violence in my games. And it can drive me to lethargy seeing the disparity that often exists.

I'd like to see more games like Touch Detective, which is neither starring mister macho man, nor is the game particularly violent. Then again the game didn't get that great of reviews, so maybe I shouldn't be using that specifically as an example(I love Touch Detective, though, no matter what anybody says).
I don't care what anybody says, I tell you! Touch Detective is amazing!

Anyway, despite the fact I've been playing video games since I was 4 years old. I've also made similar statements. Like "I really want to be a fan of video games, but I'm tired of putting up with this". I don't like video games for video games sake, just like I don't like movies for the sake of just watching a movie. I like video games that I like and I like movies that I like. This whole "gamer" concept seems silly to me, anyway. Saying you're a gamer or not a gamer seems like saying you're not a musicer. Everybody likes music, movies and games.

But I also think that the OP does have a great point. What does it matter?

 

[Zenn3k]

I've called her a hack since day 1, I still call her a hack.

The simple fact she couldn't be bothered to name even ONE strong female protag' when there are dozens and dozens of them was the first and most obvious clue. You do a 3 part series and can't even name drop something like Metroid (Samus) or Lara Croft's recent reboot (which removed much of her sexualization)??

HACK!

 

[Dragonbums]

I've called her a hack since day 1, I still call her a hack.

The simple fact she couldn't be bothered to name even ONE strong female protag' when there are dozens and dozens of them was the first and most obvious clue. You do a 3 part series and can't even name drop something like Metroid (Samus) or Lara Croft's recent reboot (which removed much of her sexualization)??

HACK!

I mean...she is talking about issues with woman's portrayal in videogames.

Why would she mention the few women that are actually properly portrayed.

That's not the topic she's addressing.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Actually, she's mentioned strong female protagonists. And she happens to be quite fond of Chell from Portal and Faith from Mirror's Edge.

And as for her major videos, she's going to make an entire video or even video group dedicated to it someday on Tropes vs. Women.

 

[generals3]

Well that's one perspective. Anita would disagree. It doesn't mean her argument is any less valid.

The only way to make her argument any less valid would be by conducting a study which suggest she's false. That's because right now her argument has a "speculation" validity. And the only thing with less validity is something proven false.

But what annoys me is that she and her supporters act is if her points are more than speculation.

 

[Asita]

Let me start off by saying that was a really good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. That said, what she's arguing isn't that the representations are immediately affecting behavior, but that they're reinforcing negative stereotypes about women, which, after a prolonged period of time, can affect how women are viewed in society. If you only see one portrayal of something since youth, you're unlikely to argue the point, right? It's sociological theory, hard to find conclusive evidence one way or another, but it's a theory based on logical analysis.

Problem is that she is not and indeed cannot make that argument. To be frank, it often doesn't even hold up if we confine our examination to a given franchise. Princess Peach is probably the clearest cut example of a character whose nature practically revolves around being a Damsel in Distress (to the point of even echoing the classic criteria of being locked away in a tower castle by a dragon-esque character). What does this say about the treatment of women in the franchise? Well given the advent of titles such as Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (which is one of the few titles without a minimalist plot to boot)...not that much. Your party includes Goombella, Flurrie, Vivian and Ms. Mowz, to say nothing of how Luigi is himself promptly put at the villains' mercy, showing both that women are capable in their own right and that manhood isn't a magical key to resistance, respectively. Princess Zelda? She gets captured quite a bit but at the same time she's usually instrumental in preventing Ganon[dorf] from achieving his goals. If we want to look at Ocarina of Time alone, we also see Zelda ninjaing around as Sheik for most of the game and also have the certified badasses that are the Gerudo. Lili in Psychonauts? 22nd kidnapping victim in that game, 13 of which were male. Doesn't exactly speak to gender issues.

What about Angel in Borderlands? Iffy at best. On the victim end of the scale, Roland needs to be rescued earlier in that same game[footnote]

Spoiler: Late Borderlands 2 Spoiler

and is killed immediately after Angel

[/footnote], and on the empowered end of the scale you have more empowered women throughout the supporting cast, to say noting of Maya as one of the protagonists. Bioshock? Tenenbaum's the one who saves you near the climax of the game, it's one of the few franchises that indiscriminately use both men and women for enemies, Sofia Lamb is the principle antagonist of the second game, the most powerful enemies in that game (Big Sisters) are universally women, and the 'damsel' you spend that whole game trying to rescue ends up rescuing you and spends the rest of the game probably becoming the most badass character in the franchise[footnote]Elizabeth is more powerful, yes, but she's less action-y[/footnote].

Perhaps Persona 4? Nope. You're rescuing men and women alike without concern for their gender and a good deal of them join your party, including the one who directly invokes the Damsel in Distress stereotypes in the manifestation of her own insecurities. Mass Effect? Suffice to say that the two women you rescue in the first game (Liara and Tali) become bona fide badasses in their own right and go on to become some of the most politically powerful characters in the galaxy (Shadow Broker and an Admiral of the Quarian Fleet). Outside of them, you have the all-female Asari as one of the most powerful races in the galaxy (politically, technologically and physically (by way of biotic combat)), men and women filling all sorts of roles among the background characters and of course there's no discernible difference between MaleShep and FemShep (outside of appearance and voice acting, of course).


Heck, Sonic 2006 probably has one of the best examples of a damsel in distress in recent memory, but given Blaze the Cat and Rogue the Bat's roles within the game[footnote]Her own separate issues notwithstanding >_>[/footnote] you'd be hard pressed to derive a gender statement from Elise's nature as a walking rescue mission.

...Point being that we do not only see a portrayal of women as weak and/or victims even if we assume the ONLY media a person consumes is video games, limit our scope, confine the scope to single franchises or single games in many cases, or even just those franchises that make use of the damsel in distress plot devices.