Sorry. Wait, no. I'm not sorry. I'm really not sorry at all. Sorry I'm not sorry.
There's a lot of misconceptions about what she's saying in the video. A lot of strawman arguments about her video. And a lot of downright wrong and sometimes misogynists rebuttals of her videos.
On the other hand, I pretty much agree with pretty much everything in her video. Maybe not %100, but the very vast majority. Since there are a lot of videos attempting to, usually quite poorly explain why they disagree with her video, picking it apart piece by piece usually with strawman arguments and so forth.
I'm going to, piece by piece, explain why I agree with the various points she makes in the video.
0:45
One of the things I like about her introduction to the video, is that she states that it is very much possible to enjoy media that contains sexism, without approving of the sexism itself. A statement that has sadly, mostly fallen on deaf ears. As many of the arguments against her are on the argument that she feels and claims the opposite. A strawman argument that ignores the fact she said this, because it doesn't go along with their agenda against her.
I enjoy video games. I enjoy video games with sexism in them. That does not mean I do not think that video games can and should be improved upon in their gender representation.
Dinosaur Planet
There is nothing wrong with this example at all. And I agree entirely, the way in which Dinosaur Planet had a strong woman originally, only to eventually play second fiddle to Fox McCloud, is saddening to me. And an evidence of sexism that has long been in the industry, and still exists today. There has been recent talk about "Remember Me" and articles from Penny Arcade [http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had], about the industry purposely pushing female characters out of the way for male ones. Crystal, is a strong female character we lost because of this industry practice, and I lament it.
And, there is nothing historically inaccurate about her claim. This is a piece of video game history that happened.
And not only did it happen. But it is a fantastic starting example. To exemplify the point that women needing help or being put into compromising positions in games is not the problem. But how female empowerment is so often traded for male empowerment. Crystal goes from empowered to damsel. And from a subject, to an object.
A lot of people criticize her going into historical precedent for the damsel in distress trope. As it doesn't related to modern video games in the modern era. However, I think it is important to provide historical context in general. That also shows how she isn't singling out video games as having a problem, both merely taking part of a cultural trend that has pervaded all media for centuries. Many people blame Anita of being against video games and singling out video games for attack. In reality, she is just showing that video games are just another piece of media which partakes in this sexist trope. In fact, Damsels in Distress are still fairly common in Hollywood. Of course, just because this has a long history, and still happens in Hollywood, does not excuse video games. And does not mean that video games cannot be better than that.
It was also a great specific example to bring up the origins of Donkey Kong.
Her examples of which games Peach is or is not kidnapped are also accurate. The sports games and so forth are not the "core games". And the fact that Super Mario Bros. 2, where she is playable, is merely a re-skinning of Doki Doki Panic, only makes things more sad.
She goes on after this, to describe the subject object dichotomy. Which makes sense. Also, this is true. The damsel in distress trope, the biggest problem with it, is the double standard in which men tend to be given the status of subject, while women are robbed of it and relegated to the status of object. Not allowed to have their own agency.
"Most often becoming or reduced to, a prize to be won, a treasure to be found, or a goal to be achieved."
I agree with this assessment. Also, this is one very common statement that people who disagree with Anita, lazily take issue with. Such as thunderf00t's incredibly bitter strawman rebuttal which is pathetic and embarrassing to witness(it should be noted that both thunderf00t and TJ "The Amazing Atheist" have a strong vendetta against feminists and both of them are very defensive about white heterosexual male atheists and like to think they are a minority. And that being white men makes them every bit as much of a minority as being atheist.).
The lazy rebuttal?
"Or a loved one to be protected.Good God girl you are one sick puppy something something hyperbolic drivel about empathy."
Why is it lazy? It's a strawman argument and that completely misses the point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to help others, have empathy for others, wanting to protect those you care about. And this is not what Anita is attacking. In the majority of these games, female characters have cheap, one dimensional characterization, and are made as an excuse, not as characters in and of themselves. Nary is it implied that Mario and Peach care for each other. And the majority of these "damsel" characters, are females made to be helpless, without explanation other than them being women. With no other explanation for their helplessness and needing of saving, than being women. It is cheap, lazy characterization, and it is a double standard in which men are allowed to be heroes, save the day, and save others, while women are reduced to being helpless objects.
It is natural and good to want to help others. It is sexist to create a double standard where female characters are tended to be rendered helpless and in need of saving rather than men. And in the majority of the cases where the trope is applied, the female characters are treated more like objects than loved ones. Their feelings and desires and agency are not expressed.
"I've heard it said that in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball."
I don't know who originally said this quote, but it is brilliant, and related to far more than merely the damsel in distress trope. In fact this is related to the whole "dating game", which which many men promote obscene and ridiculous theories about "alpha males", "friend zones" and other such nonsense. The idea that a man's worth is judged by how much sex he's having, and how desirable the women he's having sex with are seen by the average man. In societies' dating game, women are treated as a possession of value depending on their looks and number of sexual contacts. Which is extremely predatory and sad, but that's a topic for another time.
I also agree with her claim that not all damsels are created equal. And Zelda's role in Wind Waker is one of the more gender forward in the Zelda games. And indeed, Wind Waker is one of the better Zelda games in terms of gender representation. Also containing characters like Medli. Tetra and Medli are awesome. And have a decent amount of female agency, subverting the trope a bit.
And as she states, and I agree again and have already stated my reasons for why, the problem isn't so much of showing women as having weakness or flaws. But of ripping the ability and agency of female characters, often even ones who are canonically stated to be capable, for that of male leads. It should also be noted that this trope and the problems involved in it, are heavily related to the fact that women in games are underrepresented in general. The damsel in distress trope rips away the empowerment from female characters much in the way that publishers often try to rip away female representation from developers. Remember, Jim Sterling's point about magazine covers and so forth.
It is also good to see the contrast between female and male characters who are dis-empowered presented. The problem isn't that female characters are shown to be in compromising positions in games. In plenty of games, male characters are captured, incapacitated, and so forth. But in contrast with the damsel in distress trope, male characters are typically allowed some kind of agency in their own escape.
Later, here's the part I might take the most issue with, if anything. What she's doing is showing how the tropes are around, especially helped by many remakes. However, I think it comes off a bit counter-intuitive to her point about still being able to enjoy games with sexism in them. Overall I don't disagree, I love HD remakes, even if classic games had some sexist issues. And I'm a retro gamer in general. That being said, it does make me realize how new generation are going to continue to be exposed to the same old tropes. In this case, though, I would have broke away from the traditional example, and shown more modern games with the damsel in distress trope.
That is about the only decision in her video that I disagree with. Really.
So, I'm sorry I'm not sorry. Because she's right and I completely agree with her. Also, one common criticism of her video is that she's "playing captain obvious". And I agree that, yes, most of the stuff in her video should not be mindblowingly new to most people. Her points should be obvious. However, given how many people defensively and viciously disagree with her, I would say that stating the obvious is still quite important, because many people clearly do not see that her points are true.
There's a lot of misconceptions about what she's saying in the video. A lot of strawman arguments about her video. And a lot of downright wrong and sometimes misogynists rebuttals of her videos.
On the other hand, I pretty much agree with pretty much everything in her video. Maybe not %100, but the very vast majority. Since there are a lot of videos attempting to, usually quite poorly explain why they disagree with her video, picking it apart piece by piece usually with strawman arguments and so forth.
I'm going to, piece by piece, explain why I agree with the various points she makes in the video.
0:45
One of the things I like about her introduction to the video, is that she states that it is very much possible to enjoy media that contains sexism, without approving of the sexism itself. A statement that has sadly, mostly fallen on deaf ears. As many of the arguments against her are on the argument that she feels and claims the opposite. A strawman argument that ignores the fact she said this, because it doesn't go along with their agenda against her.
I enjoy video games. I enjoy video games with sexism in them. That does not mean I do not think that video games can and should be improved upon in their gender representation.
Dinosaur Planet
There is nothing wrong with this example at all. And I agree entirely, the way in which Dinosaur Planet had a strong woman originally, only to eventually play second fiddle to Fox McCloud, is saddening to me. And an evidence of sexism that has long been in the industry, and still exists today. There has been recent talk about "Remember Me" and articles from Penny Arcade [http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had], about the industry purposely pushing female characters out of the way for male ones. Crystal, is a strong female character we lost because of this industry practice, and I lament it.
And, there is nothing historically inaccurate about her claim. This is a piece of video game history that happened.
And not only did it happen. But it is a fantastic starting example. To exemplify the point that women needing help or being put into compromising positions in games is not the problem. But how female empowerment is so often traded for male empowerment. Crystal goes from empowered to damsel. And from a subject, to an object.
A lot of people criticize her going into historical precedent for the damsel in distress trope. As it doesn't related to modern video games in the modern era. However, I think it is important to provide historical context in general. That also shows how she isn't singling out video games as having a problem, both merely taking part of a cultural trend that has pervaded all media for centuries. Many people blame Anita of being against video games and singling out video games for attack. In reality, she is just showing that video games are just another piece of media which partakes in this sexist trope. In fact, Damsels in Distress are still fairly common in Hollywood. Of course, just because this has a long history, and still happens in Hollywood, does not excuse video games. And does not mean that video games cannot be better than that.
It was also a great specific example to bring up the origins of Donkey Kong.
Her examples of which games Peach is or is not kidnapped are also accurate. The sports games and so forth are not the "core games". And the fact that Super Mario Bros. 2, where she is playable, is merely a re-skinning of Doki Doki Panic, only makes things more sad.
She goes on after this, to describe the subject object dichotomy. Which makes sense. Also, this is true. The damsel in distress trope, the biggest problem with it, is the double standard in which men tend to be given the status of subject, while women are robbed of it and relegated to the status of object. Not allowed to have their own agency.
"Most often becoming or reduced to, a prize to be won, a treasure to be found, or a goal to be achieved."
I agree with this assessment. Also, this is one very common statement that people who disagree with Anita, lazily take issue with. Such as thunderf00t's incredibly bitter strawman rebuttal which is pathetic and embarrassing to witness(it should be noted that both thunderf00t and TJ "The Amazing Atheist" have a strong vendetta against feminists and both of them are very defensive about white heterosexual male atheists and like to think they are a minority. And that being white men makes them every bit as much of a minority as being atheist.).
The lazy rebuttal?
"Or a loved one to be protected.
Why is it lazy? It's a strawman argument and that completely misses the point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to help others, have empathy for others, wanting to protect those you care about. And this is not what Anita is attacking. In the majority of these games, female characters have cheap, one dimensional characterization, and are made as an excuse, not as characters in and of themselves. Nary is it implied that Mario and Peach care for each other. And the majority of these "damsel" characters, are females made to be helpless, without explanation other than them being women. With no other explanation for their helplessness and needing of saving, than being women. It is cheap, lazy characterization, and it is a double standard in which men are allowed to be heroes, save the day, and save others, while women are reduced to being helpless objects.
It is natural and good to want to help others. It is sexist to create a double standard where female characters are tended to be rendered helpless and in need of saving rather than men. And in the majority of the cases where the trope is applied, the female characters are treated more like objects than loved ones. Their feelings and desires and agency are not expressed.
"I've heard it said that in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball."
I don't know who originally said this quote, but it is brilliant, and related to far more than merely the damsel in distress trope. In fact this is related to the whole "dating game", which which many men promote obscene and ridiculous theories about "alpha males", "friend zones" and other such nonsense. The idea that a man's worth is judged by how much sex he's having, and how desirable the women he's having sex with are seen by the average man. In societies' dating game, women are treated as a possession of value depending on their looks and number of sexual contacts. Which is extremely predatory and sad, but that's a topic for another time.
I also agree with her claim that not all damsels are created equal. And Zelda's role in Wind Waker is one of the more gender forward in the Zelda games. And indeed, Wind Waker is one of the better Zelda games in terms of gender representation. Also containing characters like Medli. Tetra and Medli are awesome. And have a decent amount of female agency, subverting the trope a bit.
And as she states, and I agree again and have already stated my reasons for why, the problem isn't so much of showing women as having weakness or flaws. But of ripping the ability and agency of female characters, often even ones who are canonically stated to be capable, for that of male leads. It should also be noted that this trope and the problems involved in it, are heavily related to the fact that women in games are underrepresented in general. The damsel in distress trope rips away the empowerment from female characters much in the way that publishers often try to rip away female representation from developers. Remember, Jim Sterling's point about magazine covers and so forth.
It is also good to see the contrast between female and male characters who are dis-empowered presented. The problem isn't that female characters are shown to be in compromising positions in games. In plenty of games, male characters are captured, incapacitated, and so forth. But in contrast with the damsel in distress trope, male characters are typically allowed some kind of agency in their own escape.
Later, here's the part I might take the most issue with, if anything. What she's doing is showing how the tropes are around, especially helped by many remakes. However, I think it comes off a bit counter-intuitive to her point about still being able to enjoy games with sexism in them. Overall I don't disagree, I love HD remakes, even if classic games had some sexist issues. And I'm a retro gamer in general. That being said, it does make me realize how new generation are going to continue to be exposed to the same old tropes. In this case, though, I would have broke away from the traditional example, and shown more modern games with the damsel in distress trope.
That is about the only decision in her video that I disagree with. Really.
So, I'm sorry I'm not sorry. Because she's right and I completely agree with her. Also, one common criticism of her video is that she's "playing captain obvious". And I agree that, yes, most of the stuff in her video should not be mindblowingly new to most people. Her points should be obvious. However, given how many people defensively and viciously disagree with her, I would say that stating the obvious is still quite important, because many people clearly do not see that her points are true.
