So, I agree with pretty much everything in Anita Sarkeesian's Damsels in Distress video.

REZNoR_greed

New member
Jan 21, 2010
66
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
REZNoR_greed said:
in pretty much anything more recent than the NES, that is not the case.
Oh, come now. You HAVE to know you can't prove that one. The one-dimensional "save the princess" deal didn't end with the NES days or even close.
1. - pretty much, meaning not everything
2. - "save the princess" is the plot or goal. I'm talking about the actual character. you're making the same mistake Anita is.
3. - with the advance in technology comes the room for character substance and development. just because the princess needs rescuing doesn't mean that's all the depth there is to her character anymore.

minus ten points. try again.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it.
There are plenty of "real arguments" against his video.

For instance, he spends the majority of his video going against a strawman of her position that she is against men desiring to protect others just because they're men. When that is not her position at all. And not what the video is getting at at all.

He makes a lot of hyperbole about empathy and how this trope merely shows empathy in men to care about others. Ignoring the entire point of the video in which the Damsel in Distress is a double standard trope where women are damseled and men are enabled. That women are weak to the point of powerlessness and men are enabled and powerful.

Furthermore, in most stories in which men are saving female damsels in distress, little do they play into ideas of male empathy for the female characters. And are typically used as objects and excuses for males to go on power fantasy adventures to prove themselves. You do not hear of Mario expressing empathy and worry for Princess Peach. In fact I cannot think of too many examples in video games where a damsel in distress exists where empathy of the hero for the "damsel" is employed.
LiquidGrape said:
Allow me to link you an article which explains just how thunderf00t is wrong a lot clearer and a lot more coherently than I could hope to do:

Unless you've already grown comfortable with having dismissed my angle, of course. I mean, that 'free marketplace of ideas' as demonstrated on youtube truly is an irrefutable source of truth. [http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/]
Fantastic. This is going in my bookmarks.
Are you joking? "I have to rescue this person because they're important," "I have to rescue my girlfriend!" Are both valid when you consider why you want to rescue someone. This trope is used because there are more male protagonists than female protagonists and because of the cultural view of women. Is this view accurate and based on biology? For the latter, yes. For the former, I don't know. But I have yet to see evidence that is overwhelming enough to convince me either way. That being the case, I can't see this as particularly wrong.

Thunderf00t doesn't argue about all instances of Damsel in Distress. Merely the, "Hey, my girlfriend has been kidnapped and I need to rescue her!" What healthy relationship would not lead to the response of helping her? Thunderf00t clearly makes most of these points in his video already. But allow me. Why is it wrong is men are more driven to save women because of biology and cultural perception of women in our own culture or in the culture of the game?

And on top of that, there are plenty of games where men are kidnapped and men have to save them. Are they just excuses? No. They're motivation. It's not about making men empowered and women disempowered. It's about making the PROTAGONIST empowered and the source of motivation disempowered. Because the player needs an objective.

Most video games, especially the most basic, need an excuse to get the actual game rolling. Most of them were simple stories that were pretty paper thin. It wasn't sexism, just practicality.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
Bashfluff said:
You're linking to Free Thought Blogs, THE source of irrational feminist propaganda. I do not respect the quality of your source. If you yourself have any arguments, I'd be happy to entertain them. I'm willing to have a productive, respectful dialogue with you. Your source is not credible and I'm not going to sort through that drivel.

...as for bias in commercials? Yeah, it exists. What are you implying? That they're inaccurate because of how they're conducted? ALL market research? Some market research? Market research based on feminism or gender issues?

Research should be judged on its merits. If there are problems with how a study is conducted, then that should be pointed out. Data that is misused or cannot be used should be roundly criticized. But that's not all research. That's not even the majority of research.
We don't seem to be getting anywhere on the subject of advertising, I think. I believe you're arguing that raw data derived from market research pointing one particular direction excuses what consequences that data might produce, because the numbers don't lie when they say men in a particular demographic wants to see half-naked women find them irresistible if they use Axe body spray. Meanwhile, I try to point to the systemic and pervasive sexual dichotomies of society as something informing the public sector in negative ways.
I don't think we'll be able to bridge that gap, but let me know if I have misinterpreted you.

As for Sarkeesian/thunderf00t...how can we have a real, reasonable and respectful discussion if you refuse to consider a significant source for some of my arguments? You dismissed it out of hand without even perusing it. I suffered through thunderf00t's video, I'll have you know. Granted, I didn't respect the conclusions he came to, but I did *watch* it.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
REZNoR_greed said:
1. pretty much, meaning not everything
And "or even close" does not mean "everything."

Minus ten points.
2. "save the princess" is the plot or goal. I'm talking about the actual character. you're making the same mistake Anita is.
It was shorthanded language. Don't dodge the point with pedantry.

Minus ten points.
3. with the advance in technology comes the room for character substance and development.
And that's technically true, but talking about the potential for something doesn't mean it exists. Back that up[.

Minus ten points.
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
You're linking to Free Thought Blogs, THE source of irrational feminist propaganda.

I do not respect the quality of your source. If you yourself have any arguments, I'd be happy to entertain them.
An atheist site, huh?

You can respect the source or not, but you not respecting it does not prove anything. If you refuse to argue with it, you refuse to disprove it. I find Free Thought Blogs to be a high quality source of critical thinking. Not just of skepticism towards religion, but of ideas in society taken for granted in general.

You are not above Free Thought Blogs.
Bashfluff said:
This trope is used because there are more male protagonists than female protagonists and because of the cultural view of women.
Right, and that cultural view is sexist.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
Yes, I read that point. Like I said, I think the flaw in your argument is that you really don't seem to understand what sexism actually is.
Sure I do: noun
[mass noun]

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex:

Since i have explained how both males and females are made according to the same standards i don't see how it is sexism. Unless of course you are going full out "Considering female characters aesthetically pleasing in a different way than men is sexist!". In which case i could safely assume that the vast majority of the population is sexist and the word sexist might be replaced with "wobble" due to it being meaningless.

Having your female characters all have interactive jiggly tits is offensive and degrading because it perpetuates a negative stereotype about women, i.e. that they are little more than objects to be used for the amusement of men, with no dignity or agency of their own.
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. And he's also the only person who can know whether he or she finds that doing so takes away the dignity of the character.

How is that hard to understand in this day and age? It would be "silly and pointless" to have a black character who is your slave sidekick who you feed watermelon in order to restore his health, but somehow I don't think you'd be trying to defend that. Honestly, what is the difference?
You see this is what i don't get. How do you compare sexualization with slavery? Slavery is obviously negative, nobody wants to be one. However i don't think the same goes for being sexually appealing.

And to be honest, I wouldn't see the inherent problem with such a game (after all you didn't give a context and one specific idea can be implemented in so many different ways with so many different possible goals that you can't just say a concept is inherently wrong without any further information). Such a concept sounds ridiculous and probably wouldn't sell that well at all, but if someone feels like making it, they can be my guests.
 

Gormers1

New member
Apr 9, 2008
543
0
0
REZNoR_greed said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
REZNoR_greed said:
in pretty much anything more recent than the NES, that is not the case.
Oh, come now. You HAVE to know you can't prove that one. The one-dimensional "save the princess" deal didn't end with the NES days or even close.
1. - pretty much, meaning not everything
2. - "save the princess" is the plot or goal. I'm talking about the actual character. you're making the same mistake Anita is.
3. - with the advance in technology comes the room for character substance and development. just because the princess needs rescuing doesn't mean that's all the depth there is to her character anymore.

minus ten points. try again.
She is making it out to be that the main defining trait is that trope, wich there are very many examples of even today.

And the story for mario games havent really changed since the NES days.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
LiquidGrape said:
Bashfluff said:
You're linking to Free Thought Blogs, THE source of irrational feminist propaganda. I do not respect the quality of your source. If you yourself have any arguments, I'd be happy to entertain them. I'm willing to have a productive, respectful dialogue with you. Your source is not credible and I'm not going to sort through that drivel.

...as for bias in commercials? Yeah, it exists. What are you implying? That they're inaccurate because of how they're conducted? ALL market research? Some market research? Market research based on feminism or gender issues?

Research should be judged on its merits. If there are problems with how a study is conducted, then that should be pointed out. Data that is misused or cannot be used should be roundly criticized. But that's not all research. That's not even the majority of research.
We don't seem to be getting anywhere on the subject of advertising, I think. I believe you're arguing that raw data derived from market research pointing one particular direction excuses what consequences that data might produce, because the numbers don't lie when they say men in a particular demographic wants to see half-naked women find them irresistible if they use Axe body spray. Meanwhile, I try to point to the systemic and pervasive sexual dichotomies of society as something informing the public sector in negative ways.
I don't think we'll be able to bridge that gap, but let me know if I have misinterpreted you.

As for Sarkeesian/thunderf00t...how can we have a real, reasonable and respectful discussion if you refuse to consider a significant source for some of my arguments? You dismissed it out of hand without even perusing it. I suffered through thunderf00t's video, I'll have you know.
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.

But I don't think that's what you're saying.

Why is it objectionable for you to find the idea of the people you find desirable ALSO find you desirable? I don't see how that's sexist. You could have the same ad about gay people and it would still work. It's pretty damn cool for the people you find sexually stimulating to find you as stimulating to them.
 

Requia

New member
Apr 4, 2013
703
0
0
Bashfluff said:
LiquidGrape said:
Bashfluff said:
Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...
The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it. But I say that the free marketplace of ideas have spoken and deemed his video at the very least, mostly accurate.
His points are basically thus: The new Double Dragon ends with Marian punching the bad guy in the balls, irrelevant, she's got no agency in the matter regardless.

Double dragon has a 7 second plot, again irrelevant, while its important to understand the causes of problems that doesn't change the fact that its a problem, and Anita never claims that game designers are intentionally portraying women badly (at least with respect to this specific trope).

A very long section on a Mens rights issue with DiD. Again irrelevant, Mens rights issues are not normally in opposition to feminism, in a lot of cases they are in direct alignment (for example, plots where the woman is useless and the man is only useful because he's violent).

Anita said different things in the past: People are in fact allowed to change their minds. I might turn out to be too generous to Anita here, but unless she brings up those opinions again she should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The whole sexual dimorphism with respect to strength thing. Technically correct and meaningfully wrong, men are weak, being less weak than women isn't meaningful. Men who train for strength are strong, but so are women who train for strength, not as strong as the men who train for strength, but its the 'who train for strength' that's relevant to being strong. It's very much a social construct in teh modern age because women have the same opportunity as men to be strong.

He also harps on the upper body strength figure, but that's not actually terribly useful outside a grapple, bias towards the bench press and biceps size is another social construct; something given to us by decades of poor portrayals of the human body by the media and toy companies[footnote]The average action figure has biceps that would set a world record (not including synthol) if the figure was 6 feet tall.[/footnote] Real world strength is mostly the trunk (much less gap here) and grip strength (women do better at some grip tasks, worse at others, depending on if the task favors small or large hands).

Edit: grammer
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
And on top of that, there are plenty of games where men are kidnapped and men have to save them.
That is a minority of games. Hence why the trope is called "damsel in distress". The idea of the Damsel in distress would not even exist were it not bent in its gender representation. There is quite certainly a disparity in the way male and female characters are treated.

In particular, damsels in distress usually come with giving gender double standard types of rewards and are implied to not have their own normal motivations.

There are men who "save" other men. But it is tending to be portrayed differently than men saving women. And women saving men is a rarity. And in with a lot of the damsel in distress there, again, tends to be a lot of terrible characterization and implication. Such as the sexualization of frailty.

Ion from Tales of the Abyss would be one rare example of a male "Damsel". But even he is given strong characterization, motivation, power and resolve. Ion affects the story and causes several major things to happen. And his lack of will to fight is explained. If Ion were a female, he would be a stronger example of a damseled character like that of Zelda in the Legend of Zelda. Ion is indeed more like Zelda than Princess Peach.

However, characters like Ion are rare and the exception to the rule. And because of his characterization, Ion is one of the better "damsel" characters written. Your team's reasoning for rescuing him is well understood and defined, and he is easily of his own motivations and desires. And there isn't a sexualization of his frailty.

However, if more characters were like Ion, the Damsel in distress trope wouldn't be as problematic. As it stands, however, there is a double standard and disparity in which characters like Ion are the exception.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
You're linking to Free Thought Blogs, THE source of irrational feminist propaganda.

I do not respect the quality of your source. If you yourself have any arguments, I'd be happy to entertain them.
An atheist site, huh?

You can respect the source or not, but you not respecting it does not prove anything. If you refuse to argue with it, you refuse to disprove it. I find Free Thought Blogs to be a high quality source of critical thinking. Not just of skepticism towards religion, but of ideas in society taken for granted in general.

You are not above Free Thought Blogs.
Bashfluff said:
This trope is used because there are more male protagonists than female protagonists and because of the cultural view of women.
Right, and that cultural view is sexist.
What about it being atheistic? I'm an atheist. Many other atheists steer clear of that place. It's garnered a reputation for being that FROM the largest atheist community.

I'm not going to sort through a website titled, "TEH GOVUMMENT IS LYING TO US ABOUT NATIONAL WARMIN!"

No, in debate you can dismiss sources that are not credible. You know why? Because it's a waste of everyone's time. Yeah, me not debating the points in it doesn't prove anything. Just like any other source that isn't credible, like Fox News. Well, it does prove one thing: I don't think it's credible and I'm not going to have anything to do with it.

I am above it. Just like Fox News. Just like any other trash passing itself off as credible.

I don't know if that cultural view is sexist. I've said it myself. Not merely from the idea that women are weaker or anything like that, although on average they tend to be physically weaker in areas, and if you deny that the sexes tend to have differences between each other, you can sod off. That's a fact. I'm referring to how the culture views women in its own culture. I don't know if the women of the culture of America or Japan tend to fall into these categories or stereotypes, whether it's because of their upbringing or not. I can't comment on it, and I would ask you not to unless you have a better source than Free Thought Blogs.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
And on top of that, there are plenty of games where men are kidnapped and men have to save them.
That is a minority of games. Hence why the trope is called "damsel in distress". The idea of the Damsel in distress would not even exist were it not bent in its gender representation. There is quite certainly a disparity in the way male and female characters are treated.

In particular, damsels in distress usually come with giving gender double standard types of rewards and are implied to not have their own normal motivations.

There are men who "save" other men. But it is tending to be portrayed differently than men saving women. And women saving men is a rarity. And in with a lot of the damsel in distress there, again, tends to be a lot of terrible characterization and implication. Such as the sexualization of frailty.

Ion from Tales of the Abyss would be one rare example of a male "Damsel". But even he is given strong characterization, motivation, power and resolve. Ion affects the story and causes several major things to happen. And his lack of will to fight is explained. If Ion were a female, he would be a stronger example of a damseled character like that of Zelda in the Legend of Zelda. Ion is indeed more like Zelda than Princess Peach.

However, characters like Ion are rare and the exception to the rule. And because of his characterization, Ion is one of the better "damsel" characters written. Your team's reasoning for rescuing him is well understood and defined, and he is easily of his own motivations and desires. And there isn't a sexualization of his frailty.

However, if more characters were like Ion, the Damsel in distress trope wouldn't be as problematic. As it stands, however, there is a double standard and disparity in which characters like Ion are the exception.
And? You ignore my other points in the post which address this. Why are women the Damsels? It appeals to us biologically. It appeals to us culturally. Is that sexist? I wouldn't assert that it is. Males get the rewards because they're the protagonists, not because they are men.

As for the sexualization of frailty?

...so? Many aspects of what we find appealing sexually as far as fetishes go tend to involve domination and submission. I find being weak and helpless to be appealing because I'm a gay submissive. Is that sexist?
 

Gemore

New member
Sep 15, 2010
131
0
0
I have said before its a big mistake to dismiss her points. that said i take issue with her (alleged capitalising on the gate) and her focus on games of older generations. the reason she focused on that is that there is significantly more modern games with relevant female characters/less damsel in distress scenarios. No its not perfect yet but hell every MMO ever lets you play a male or female and im fairly sure almost all of those have NO DIFFERENCES (in power/abilites) except appearnce (though the clothing appearnce is a another point entirely)
 

Silenttalker22

New member
Dec 21, 2010
171
0
0
I am sorry. Sorry that you feel her video holds weight. The subject exists, but her take is so unbelievably slanted and selective against whatever doesn't agree with her. It's painfully obvious. Her reasoning sounds like reason to people that don't know what reason sounds like.
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
No, in debate you can dismiss sources that are not credible.
You can dismiss a source as not credible if you can prove it is not credible.

You, as of currently, have dismissed the source as not credible without making any rebuttal to the claims.

It doesn't matter what site information is posted on. It may still be true or not true. It is much like the ad hominem attack. A person may be unintelligent, and you may say she or he is unintelligent. But calling a person unintelligent does not disprove their point. A fool may say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But the statement energy cannot be created or destroyed is true no matter where it is said or who says it.

Bashfluff said:
Just like any other source that isn't credible, like Fox News.
Fox News is a very much not reputable news source and many things on Fox News are made up.

That does not mean everything on Fox News is false and can be outright dismissed.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
I pretty much quit the video as soon as she was dismissing Biology, as a mysogonistic myth.
However, i do agree, that the damsel in distress is quite often used i videogames and it is quite often that a male is going to rescue a women. While that fact should change, the damsel is distress, is basically just another form of writing. It can be effective in certain situations , but it isn't universal.