I'm going to make a little debunk post about sexism in videogames just because it's stuck in my head and don't want to start a new topic for something that actually very well fits in this topic. And I eagerly await rebuttals because i feel they can only be funny.
First of all: We established that the marketing may be sexist. However it is also well known and basic knowledge marketing is discriminatory by nature (and there is even a lot of literature which suggests it HAS to be). Whether it discriminates based on nationality, age, sex, personal interests, size of your wallet or whatever. Marketing doesn't like to treat people equally and rightfully so. Complaining about sexist targeting in the name of social equality is like complaining water is made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in the name of science. It makes no sense.
Secondly: keeping that in mind it is natural for a product to please a certain category of people. An easy game could be considered racist towards hardcore gamers (yes a group such as hardcore gamers can be considered a race, let's not confuse race with ethnicity). However we would all find it ridiculous to call these games racist, wouldn't we?
Thirdly: Considering the games are trying to please a certain set of costumers the way to determine whether a game is sexist is not by looking how characters are portrayed but the standards used to portray them. Take bikini armor MMORPG's for instance. They are aimed at a group of people who find male characters with fancy/classy/bad ass armors aesthetically pleasing and also find sexy armor on female characters aesthetically pleasing. Both genders are subject to the same standards: they are both being aimed at aesthetically pleasing the target costumer. What would be sexist is if the developers did not follow the same standards for both genders and would totally overlook the aesthetic part of male characters, which they don't.
Fourthly: The fact that men are overrepresented in the "strong character" area does not imply sexism. In a story driven game developers have to make a choice for the gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. for the characters. Imagine if developers had to be 100% politically correct? That would mean that you would have strong characters of every gender, every sexual orientation, every religion (if religion is relevant in the game), every ethnicity, etc. in every game. That's plainly unfeasible. The gaming industry is going to appear sexist because developers have to make choices and there is always going to a group which ends up being underrepresented. And what you also need to keep in mind is that you cannot take an average of characters in all games because every game is a separate entity. As such you need to look at whether or not a single game is sexist.
There, now please feel free to over-analyze and over-think this.
I suppose that the way you could look at this now is that the sexism of the marketing is bad for the industry in that it cuts down on the sales that could be had by marketing towards a broader demographic. These gamers calling for an end of these tropes are expecting a bit much, but they mostly just want to see more games not show women as just objects. Not to say it would get rid of the old style of games filled with stereotypes and tropes up the bum, but they simply want it to be that they won't have to search for hours to find a game that doesn't have the only female characters running around basically naked, or just completely useless otherwise.
The industry discriminates like any other industry would, but another demographic is asking for a chance to be apart of this market. That shouldn't be a bad thing to ask for that, and simply ask for something that panders to them a bit more. That's not to say we wouldn't get the games that we get now if this were to happen, or that we have lost all the types of games that we used to have when even fewer girls played. It's not taking from male gamers for female gamers to not be ignored, because no matter what you're in the game for, chances are the girl is going to want most(if not all) of the exact same things the guy wants while entering that genre of game, unless the guy just wants sexualization, in which he can stick to his porno games, but he shouldn't ***** when they make games that aren't just porn.
The main reason why girl gamers wanting a change are trying to make a shitstorm about it is because they industry has proved to only change when there has been a giant shitstorm.
I don't like Anita's video. It was boring, filled with one-sided arguments that are not all completely sound, and it didn't even seem like she was making a point(she says that's for the next video, but where is it?). She is not the leader that gamers wanting a change would be able to succeed with, however, what she is generally fighting for is a good thing all in all.
The dichotomy and disparity in things like media industries featuring the damsel in distress trope are much greater than the so called "biological reality". What is in the damsel in distress trope is an extreme stereotype with a historical precedence of women being prizes. Women may not be prizes in every instance that it is employed, but in far too many, and in the historical context there is a lot of trouble with it.
err... no.
I won't claim to know the specifics of your ancestry. maybe yours doesn't count in the following.
most, if not all, of us have ancestors who subscribed to christianity or catholicism at some point in history, since those organizations pretty much tried to take over the world at one point, and kind of still are. whichever one they were into, the bible says that women are supposed to be submissive to men. (true, it also says, in the old testament at least, that they can be bought and sold, but that part didn't stick as well as time went on) it isn't that women were prizes, they were just expected to not be as active, and to be obedient. I wouldn't try to pass any of that off as not sexist.
however, I wouldn't say the DiD trope is a stereotype. more just a continuation of what we're just starting to break away from as being taught as tradition.
Sigh... what the hell, I guess I'll jump in (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times already but I'm not going to read through seven pages of the garbage that always floods in whenever someone mentions Sarkeesian.
Good post, with the following exception:
EstrogenicMuscle said:
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.
The way she (and you) presents the case is historically inaccurate. You never mentioned, and Anita barely mentioned that Dinosaur Planet had TWO protagonists - a male and a female - and the male character happened to resemble Fox McCloud. So while the effect of the higher-ups' decisions resulted in one less female protagonist and one more damsel in distress, it's incorrect to claim the cause was industry sexism. The decision to recast Fox in the lead role was to give the game some brand recognition and increase sales, and had the Starfox franchise had an iconic female character that could have easily slipped into the role it's much more likely the game would have retained the two protagonists.
Now, you can very well argue the lazy decision to sex up Krystal and make her a Damsel in Distress is evidence of industry sexism, and I'll happily agree with you there. I just disagree there were any sexist motivations for removing her as a playable protagonist.
the direct reward, maybe. the overall reward, however, is the restoration of order to the Mushroom Kingdom. you know, that thing she's the princess of.
I don't like Anita's video. It was boring, filled with one-sided arguments that are not all completely sound, and it didn't even seem like she was making a point(she says that's for the next video, but where is it?).
Somebody under the username EstrogenicMuscle either explicitly or implicitly agrees with, and doggedly defends the opinion of Anita Sarkeesian. No, really? That's your opinion. You don't say. I could've never guessed that in like, at least a billion years.
I do not buy entertainment products for the 'valuable moral lessons' that they impart.
If you want to cocoon yourself away from the rest of the world in a thick bland slurry of chewed-up and regurgitated where you are never confronted with things that you might find disagreeable, then fine. It's your life. That's your prerogative, and I am down with you living your life however which way you choose to live it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be all hunky-dory with the attempt to install a brand new orthodoxy over the ruins of the old one.
I don't like Anita's video. It was boring, filled with one-sided arguments that are not all completely sound, and it didn't even seem like she was making a point(she says that's for the next video, but where is it?).
...and you don't see anything wrong with an "analysis" that is filled with one-sided arguments that are barely sound, an analysis that doesn't even seem to have a point?
The gist of this project was to FIRST pin-up a giant message on the drawing board saying "videogames are sexist/misogynistic, developers are sexist/misogynistic" and THEN start doing the actual research into videogames that suit that conclusion. And if X videogame doesn't completely suit her conclusion, then either twist the information or omit huge parts of the plot/setting/characters out to only show what she wants to show to paint an incredibly simplified black-and-white picture.
Because that's how Anita thinks, in black & white. She's like a calculating robot (sounds like one too when you think about it ) with the emotional depth of a teaspoon, stuff goes into one end, is "analyzed" and comes out the other end as a series of 1's and 0's. She will most likely never grasp the subtleties of character relationships, forget about analysis lol.
Any character needing/receiving help from any other character automatically getting filed under "objectified!" is just one of the many clues that her brain is basically an on/off switch.
I personally don't give a shit about Anita (and neither does the videogame industry, thank heavens) but there is a problem when people think her analysis was anything but incredibly poorly done.
Sigh... what the hell, I guess I'll jump in (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times already but I'm not going to read through seven pages of the garbage that always floods in whenever someone mentions Sarkeesian.
Good post, with the following exception:
EstrogenicMuscle said:
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.
The way she (and you) presents the case is historically inaccurate. You never mentioned, and Anita barely mentioned that Dinosaur Planet had TWO protagonists - a male and a female - and the male character happened to resemble Fox McCloud. So while the effect of the higher-ups' decisions resulted in one less female protagonist and one more damsel in distress, it's incorrect to claim the cause was industry sexism. The decision to recast Fox in the lead role was to give the game some brand recognition and increase sales, and had the Starfox franchise had an iconic female character that could have easily slipped into the role it's much more likely the game would have retained the two protagonists.
Now, you can very well argue the lazy decision to sex up Krystal and make her a Damsel in Distress is evidence of industry sexism, and I'll happily agree with you there. I just disagree there were any sexist motivations for removing her as a playable protagonist.
Its weird that so many people forget how many games get turned into other games for main ip's, just think of prince fluff, nobody cares that he lost his game and plays second fiddle to kirby.. poor prince fluff
That right here I think is the roots of all discussion and missunderstandings here. People use very different definitions of sexism and still try to argue with others about ist. Naturally, this isn't going to work.
Well, she did more research than Tamashii Hiroka did on her Girls In Games videos. You'd think someone who knows that much about Pokemon would be better as crosschecking facts.
Quick question? Why? Why is this woman getting so much attention? She made a kickstarter and a youtube series, why are we paying so much attention to her? Is she really that important? Come on.
Mainly because she is a perceived outsider criticizing video games. That is pretty much it. Whenever an outsider does that, everyone jumps on the hate train, regardless of the arguments presented. If it was one of "us" (and by "us", I mean overweight, hetero, cis-gendered, male 20-something), there wouldn't be nearly this level of continuing controversy.
I also think it has to do with the extremely negative perceptions of feminists (and women in general) in male-centric social circles (which is pretty much based only on strawmen and misinformation, btw), but I think that is more of a side-note than anything (though it does pop up a hell of a lot whenever any discussion about feminism or feminist theories occurs).
Misinformation huh? we will see about that:
Here is a lady giving full details on that. Oh by the way, sources are in the description, unlike certain person.
Men being strong is not valid biology. Men are weak, being less weak on average than women is not a point in their favor. People who train for strength are strong, and while differences exist, the gap is people who train vs people who don't, not men vs women.
I never said all men are strong, or all women are weak.
Just what you said, that men are generally stronger then women, because they have an easier time getting muscles as women.
What she dismissed as an obvious social myth.
No, inequality is inequality. Sexism is an entirely different word. Why would you use the word sexism to describe something which already has its own word; "inequality"? That's just sensationalism, using an extremely loaded word in order to describe a phenomenon which can be more accurately described by a less loaded one.
Some of it is biological. Some of it is sociological. The point of feminism is to reduce it.
It is currently possible now to reduce sociological stereotypes about women's weaknesses which are sexist. And in the future it might be possible to reduce any biological weaknessness of any human groups, male or female, with transhumanistic engineering. But at the movement, things like the damsel in distress are extreme stereotypes of biological realities that are harmful to women.
How is such a reality harmful to women? That reality has allowed them sit back and relax while men shed their blood on the battlefield. But i guess the biological realities which allow women to live longer, not be expected to die for king and country and generally live happier is just so harmful. Only people who think masculinity is some kind of divine trait would make such assumptions.
It only perpetuates it if you want it to. You do realize that gaming characters (male or female) are by default objects to be used by the player for his or her own amusement (so how you can suddenly assume that because tits can be juggled people will think this means the real life equivalent of gaming characters are just their toys is beyond me) ? And the character would have as much dignity as the player would give it. A player doesn't have to juggle tits, he can do so if he wishes to.
You've got such a naive way of looking at things, I don't even know where to begin. At this point I'm just fascinated someone could be so out-of-touch.
So the fact that the developers spent time and resources making their character's breasts interactive doesn't bother you at all? And it's only a problem if a player chooses to compromise the dignity of the female characters by batting their breasts around? You're saying it's perfectly fine and not indicative of any serious problems with the industry or society in general?
I'm left wondering what it would actually take for you to deem something 'sexist' in your own view. Like, seriously. What do you think would be sexist to put in a game? Or is your argument that sexism doesn't exist in media because the "women being depicted aren't real"? If that's the case I just... can't do this anymore. I'm exhausted. I give up trying to reason with you.
You've got such a naive way of looking at things, I don't even know where to begin. At this point I'm just fascinated someone could be so out-of-touch.
I prefer not to go out of my way to interpret everything in the worst possible way, indeed.
So the fact that the developers spent time and resources making their character's breasts interactive doesn't bother you at all? And it's only a problem if a player chooses to compromise the dignity of the female characters by batting their breasts around? You're saying it's perfectly fine and not indicative of any serious problems with the industry or society in general?
First of all how does it compromise the dignity of the female characters to begin with? On an objective scale it doesn't. Being able to juggle tits is just as compromising towards dignity as being able to make your character move around. Your character doesn't have an inherent dignity, it is a tool to be used by the player. It is the player who determines whether or not that character has dignity, and the player can decide the character has dignity even if he decides to juggle tits. If tits juggling was enforced than there could be the issue that players who think such an action with take away dignity would as a consequence be forced to play a character in a way which robs it from its given dignity. (given by the player) But if the decision is up to you than there is nothing wrong, if you think that juggling tits removes dignity and still decide to do so than you probably didn't think your character had a lot of dignity to begin with.
I'm left wondering what it would actually take for you to deem something 'sexist' in your own view. Like, seriously. What do you think would be sexist to put in a game? Or is your argument that sexism doesn't exist in media because the "women being depicted aren't real"? If that's the case I just... can't do this anymore. I'm exhausted. I give up trying to reason with you.
A game would be sexist if it follows an objective double standard. If for instance male characters were given 0 aesthetic attention while females a lot than it is clear the female characters are being objectified more than their male counterparts. The fact that there is aesthetic attention being given in a different way is natural. Otherwise the fact you see more bearded male characters as female characters could be seen as sexism too. And than sexism becomes a meaningless word which could be replaced by "wobble". An other example would be a game which undoubtedly tries to convince you women are nothing more than objects, however this is something that goes far beyond using bikini armor, juggling tits or even using the damsel in distress trope. You see japan once made a rape game, where the player could go around and grope women in several situations. Now that is wrong because in the game every single women is your sexual toy and only that. And the opinion of the women in the game are also totally disregarded in that setting. (and do note there is a difference between the playable character and side-characters. The playable character has no inherent dignity because it's your tool, the other characters however are not)
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.
Remember Rob Liefield? the artist that claims that he LOVES comic books and making drawings for the industry? yeah? well, that STILL doesn't excuse a poor and downright awful work he does.
Same case for Anita. Just because you like it doesn't mean you immune to criticism when you do a piss poor analizis.
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.
Once again, i will post the link to this database study:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp
Clink on "2012 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry" for a PDF that displays that women are almost the 50% of gaming audience in 2012.
BTW, they get their data from the NPD group
The industry is just being retarded. Specifically, the executives and publishers who FORCE the developers (you know, the ones with the "Artistic Integrity" BS) to NOT put a woman on the cover on even make her playable.
But that is a problem of recent years, but back in the NES days there wasn't much sexism either. Case in point:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2013/03/10/a-rebuttal-to-anita-sarkeesians-tropes-vs-women-episode-1-damsels-in-distress/
Remember the Zelda of the NES game (japan made game) to the Zelda from the Cartoon show (American made show)? Or do people remember that Ms.Pacman was an AMERICAN CREATED idea?
http://classicgames.about.com/od/arcadegames/p/Ms-Pac-Man-The-Unauthorized-History-Of-Arcades-First-Female-Hero.htm
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.
Define Peach and Mario as characters . I will wait.
...
...
...
Ok i will help you out, define ANY character and their personalities of the Mario franchise. Without using the spin offs where they actually get characters and a decent plot.
...
...
...
Still nothing? well, that is because they DONT have. And even if they DID, do their personalities defines them as "male" or "female"? it shouldn't. After all, real people have Free Will and can do anything they fucking want and BE whoever they want, so a man acting like a woman and viceversa doesn't mean a damn thing because EVERYTHING is possible, right. Specially since people can now change sex if they so desire, meaning that you body, LITERALLY, doesn't define you anymore, right?
And yet Anita, a Feminist, made this:
So apparently men are women are not equal as the Feminist seem to say, huh? i thought they were equal but what do I know, right? i am just too privileged to think straight anymore.
if the line between woman and man doesn't exist or can't even be DESCRIBED or CLASSIFIED, then why are these people complaining like if these characters are CLEARLY female or male? Didn't we say that body doesn't matter anymore?
Shit i almost forgot, you and others KEEP GOING with this "male empowerment" that its product of making the females being useless people that needs to be saved. Its that supposed to mean that games exist today THANKS to the people that gets hard-ons when they have to rescue a damsel? as opposed to, you know, the gameplay or the story (whenever there is one)? because its not like gamers gotta game or anything, they are CLEARLY for the naked bitches and not the gameplay, the very THING that makes games be games and that its usually the thing that makes the journey fun and less tedious, right?
Oh, and if there is someone in this thread who believes that having a damsel in distress IS the thing that make people play even the most awful games...
...think again
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.
As far as numbers on sales goes:
Super Mario Bros. (1985) 40.24 million
Mario Kart Wii (2008) 34.01 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2010) 29.09 million
Mario Kart DS (2005) 22.57 million
Super Mario World (1990) 20.61 million
Two games in which feature Peach as a playable character are in the top 5 most sold Mario titles. For all we know, Nintendo should probably consider the "spin off" as the "core" and CANON games. Hell, the Paper Mario and Mario RPG are the ones where the characters are ACTUAL characters, and not cardboards cuts on the "Core" games.
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.
Again, define what it means to be a "man" and what it means to be a "woman" besides phisical appareance. For all we know the protagonist could be robots with human shape and flesh, for all the "depth characters" they got.
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 here is the core of the problem that both you and Anita keep doing, and that is to assume a mystical "subtext" that they do it for their own agenda, rather than having ACTUAL disagreements with her. Instead of Anita mentioning the context of WHY the damsels are being kidnapped in the first place; like how Peach/Toadstool is kidnapped because her magic is the only thing keeping the Mushroom Kingdom from being conquered (they were turned into stone and only SHE can save them), and therefore, the most valuable asset that Bowser MUST be destroyed/captured to conquer the land as any strategist would do regardless if she is a woman or a man; Anita just forgets that context was even there in the first place and jumps to the conclusion ASAP that its because of sexism and nothing else.
I present to you, the FREE PDFs of the old manuals of the NES explaining the plot. Did Anita mention this discovery in her research? or....should i say...it didn't favor her agenda?
see? it goes both ways too. Specially when there is no proof in either side
Suspension of Disbelief is mostly used in the stories to accept the premise at first. Its not UNTIL the story becomes more apparent that its fake with inconsistencies and characters acting like cardboard cut outs, that the audience can see the strings of the author trying too hard. A normal person would at LEAST see the story for what it is with the characters as "real", with their own choice of personality and sense of dress, instead of a plot device or an object. But apparently, when Anita sees someone like Bayonetta (the video doesn't exist anymore BTW) it doesn't see a character FIRST, but a sex object first instead.
Here is someone doing a text blog about Metroid Other M sexism (the cherry on top of a game that sucks among all else) for FREE:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/lb_i.php?lb_id=13373815860B43920100&i_id=13384263550I62094100&p=17
At least that person CARES enough for the game and the series to understand the context provided by them, and least gets a substantial amount of research BEFORE concluding on the sexism of M:OM and Adam Malkovich being the REAL Protagonist of the game.
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.
As opposed to the writi-NO- THE FANTASTIC, PERFECT AND SHAKESPEAREAN WRITING of male protagonist that we ALL know that games have, right? they are totally NOT one dimensional or a caricature of a caricature of Vin Diesel of what a man is (or even is supposed to be), right?
Again, what "good" writting is there for males? and do these characters define what it means to be a "male" to begin with, or even "female"?
Hey Samus! so you are a female bounty hunter, huh? is it different from a male bounty hunter? is gender a problem in the distant future or galaxy you are located or even in different planets you explore? does gender means ANYTHING when survival its the most important aspect of your life of dangerous and alien enviroments? you don't know because nobody wrote about it yet or because gender doesn't matter? ah ok.
"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.
You head that right people! "friendzone" and other stuff are just concepts and theories that don't reflect reality. Let me illuminate you, in fact, let HER illuminate you:
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.
As opposed to the role of Midna on Twilight Princess where she helps you ALL the game, even on the final boss. Just like how Zelda ALSO helps you on the final boss too after she is freed.
But we dont want to hear the truth or objective information on this "research" right? that would be silly.
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.
As opposed to males being represented properly BEYOND the 30 something years white - Anglo Saxon - scruffy bearded - males? that keep being used and over because, in the minds of the publisher, is what makes the game sell as opposed of OTHER factors in play? Bad writing is unisex, and before there can be ANY female being told properly, there has to be a healthy industry willing to LISTEN even the most common complains. But then again, since we are "entitled and whiny" i guess we have to #dealwithit
Remember, Jim criticizes publisher bullshit, not the developers or the gamers being sexist AND as being the reason of the sexism that exist in an industry that refuses to listen to ANYONE except their own delusions.
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.
Yes, but that is because they are subjected to things much much worse in the future than just being captured. Like having Raziel on Legacy of Kain realize that he is being manipulated whenever is convenient, thus all his actions are not his own EVER, its all staged openly for him to just move in x direction and do what they want, not what he wants. No agency there, but an illusion of it. At least by being captured you are PHYSICALLY incapable of doing anything, but the other option is worse because it toys with your head and you become a paranoid wreck because your choices don't matter and not your own.
What about the "manly" Kratos? he has rage issues to the point that he killed his own family by accident, and his anger blinds him of being able to choose logically at all. His "manliness" seems to be more of a detriment than a blessing or something to feel "empowered" from. Why would anyone want to BE like Kratos is beyond me, but at least is fun to play. No agency there either.
What about the COD protag-PFFF HAHAHAHAAHA, yeah right. Agency on COD, that's a laugh. What is next? Spec Ops: The Line? forget it.
So if you think that these people have actual agency over their actions, then i suppose that you will consider having a woman have "agency" over what sexual position she wants to get fucked next (because its the ONLY set of choices she is given), counts as having agency too.
Well, that is all everyone. We can definetly say that the thread is over now that i have officially reponded with my magnificent presence. Oh, and with the help of GWW, but that is besides the point, right? you don't read my post to see her poin-
(everyone rushes to watch her videos and ignore my post)
-ts. Fuck it.
Anyway, even if she ultimately has a point, guess what? join the line.
Along with people that want better writing, people that want less graphical fidelity as long the story and gameplay is fine, less DLC bullshit practices, less DMR, the people that wants their religion to be represented properly, fans who are "entitled" to have games as art, fans who are not "entitled" but are considered by everyone to be because whogivesafuckabout looking for answer anymore, the people that wants to erradicate casuals from being even CONSIDERED among gamers and thus forcing the developers to focus on the "real" gamers instead, the people that blah blah blah....
I didn't use Thunderf00t's video as a source. I used my own arguments informed by what I've seen and the research I've done. You used a source instead of discussing anything with me. Yeah, I don't think your source is the least bit credible. You'd go farther if you linked Fox News to me. And if your source is not perceived as credible, it's a waste or time to keep pushing it on me. Make some arguments. Discuss WITH me.
...
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that marketing exists the way it does as a reflection of what our society wants, in a sense. This research can show social attitudes that can be shown to be accurate or inaccurate. They can provide evidence towards ideas, IE, there being more male gamers than female, and they can be a valuable resource. I'm saying that sexism involves discrimination. Discrimination must involve unfair prejudice. This is--ideally--absent in market research. That's what makes it credible. If you want to argue about a particular study or some such thing, I'd be happy to entertain that it might be sexist. Or if you want to point to the people in charge of the research, saying that they're not working off of a complete set of data that might inform how they should market their products because of their sexist ideas, I might actually agree with you.
That is, more or less, what I'm saying. But I believe I consider it a more insidious and widespread problem than you do. For instance, I do believe there is a marked and systemic discrimination being perpetrated towards women in and around games. The fact that this industry has generated advertisements such as Hitman: Absolution's infamous latex nuns [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ_jhw5TuxA], Uncharted 2's "my girlfriend is too dumb to realise this is a game and not a movie" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0q3qcLkw1A] and Dead Island's collectible dismembered female torso (with breasts intact!) [http://www.gamespot.com/news/dead-island-riptide-zombie-bait-edition-revealed-6402426] could ever have been deemed acceptable says plenty about how games aren't just pandering towards the most base heterosexual male interests, but that it also does so at the exclusion of any other audience.
And the more light is shed on these matters, the more there seems to be an effort to silence that discussion. (Note: not a reference to you.) Thunderf00t's video is a perfect example, as he descends into cherry-picking isolated examples of semi-positive representations of women in games as if to say "look! There are no issues! I can find a handful decent characters and have therefore successfully refuted any argument to the contrary!"
His very first point, the alleged "inversion" of Double Dragon: Neon, consists of him attempting to make an out-of-context sight gag, which by no means contradicts the rest of the game's treatment of its one significant female character as an object to be won by the player, as though this is a remarkable and meaningful example of female empowerment. It smacks of disingenuity, although that is more or less what I have come to expect from thunderf00t, so that didn't surprise me.
What surprised me was just how transparent his fundamental argument was: These games cannot possibly be sexist, because they were made to make a profit. Thunderf00t explicitly attempts to disassociate games from the societal trends which informs them, and indirectly argues that everything is fair game when there is money to be made. His argument, ironically, stems from a fundamental unwillingness to consider the historical context, of how women have only just recently been able to break into the industry in somewhat significant numbers. He puts the onus of change on those who haven't possibly been able to impact development in any meaningful way, because they have never been considered a legitimate audience. I might actually agree with him that there was no conscious "subjugation of women" involved in the making of Double Dragon. Why? Because women were most likely not even considered during the making of Double Dragon. This line of thinking, which insists that discrimination must be something intentional and deliberated, produces this torrent of "simple plots" thunderf00t refers to as though they were an inevitable fact of working with limited resources.
Oh, and I also liked the snide aside when he tried to legitimise the damsel in distress as the product of a "healthy relationship". Because cor, if you take issue with a healthy relationship, what kind of person are you? Once more: calling for empathy without calling on historical context. Not to mention his ridiculous hospital analogy, which completely misses the mark in how it suggests hospitals exist to satiate the need of the doctor, not the patient.
His argument that mute protagonists facing lethal challenges serve to render the *male* characters objects is equally ridiculous, as it ignores two simple facts: the mute protagonist is inherently empowered through play, and the lack of an expressed personality is meant to allow the player to project himself onto that role more directly. Gordon Freeman will die violent deaths several times on your average playthrough of Half-Life 2. That doesn't make him any less of a wish-fulfillment figure.
His critique of Sarkeesian's choice of makeup, as though this was some damning indictment of how she lacks basic self-awareness to make these obvious equivocations, was the moment I knew he didn't know what he was talking about. At no point has Sarkeesian ever implied that she considers cosmetics something detrimental to woman integrity and serving patriarchal interests, so his claims that there is an ironic flip-side to her argument with regard to the Damsel trope peters out like a deflating balloon. This is where his inferring of fringe theory comes into full effect.
His interjection on sexual dimorphism is also quite one-dimensional, as thunderf00t seems to believe Sarkeesian was referring to base physical potential rather than more general expressions of strength. Which are very much social constructions.
A point I will somewhat concede, however, is that Sarkeesian's desire to see more characters fit into her perception of positive female stereotypes is counter-productive. At the same time, in her defense, the reason she draws from these masculine and feminine negatives/positives in describing these characters is most likely because there is a significantly greater amount of positive male characters on display in popular media, and thus these traits have become intimately associated with masculinity in fiction.
Lastly, talking about discrimination in games, I haven't even mentioned queer and ethnic minority groups, whom I feel compelled to mention because feminism without intersectionality pretty much means...nothing. Which is actually an issue I've had with Sarkeesian's commentary thus far, in that it seems predominantly tailored towards a very safe, white feminist audience. Not that safe, white feminists cannot occasionally contribute to meaningful discourse, but considering the discrimination inherent even within feminist circles themselves...we need to make more room for queer women of colour, is what I'm saying. I know I've had my eyes opened quite a bit listening to personal accounts of how they experience a near-complete erasure within the medium.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) with the emotional depth of a teaspoon, stuff goes into one end, is "analyzed" and comes out the other end as a series of 1's and 0's. She will most likely never grasp the subtleties of character relationships, forget about analysis lol. 
