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

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
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.
You don't have to prove a source is not credible if it's already widely regarded as not credible. That only has to happen if the source hasn't been shown to be lacking credibility already. And you know what it shows when you show a source isn't credible? The validity of your information is in check. Many judges view that as game over. If your evidence is faulty, your argument falls apart.

Yes, arguments should be judged on their own merits. But consider this: most creationist sites post evidence that has been shown to be faulty. They've done this constantly and consistently for years. All of a sudden, they post a new article with new evidence. What do you think about that evidence? Do you think it's likely to be true or not? Are YOU going to waste your time with it? Predictive power. Your source is not credible, and I'm not going to waste my time with it. Defend it to someone else. I came here to talk with people. If you want to talk, feel free. If you don't, stop trying.
 

REZNoR_greed

New member
Jan 21, 2010
66
0
0
Yes. Now, do you actually feel you can demonstrate your claim, or do you find it as false as I do?
if you're familiar with videogames, I don't see why I even have to. and quite frankly, I'm not even sure you know what you're asking for.

EDIT: here we go. you pick the games with the trope, and I'll "back it up".
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
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.
Whether you think it is biological or cultural is independent of the fact it is sexist.

There are many racist facets of society that many people think are biological in origin.

I have not ignored a point of yours which addresses what I said. I need not get into a discussion about neurosexism to discuss whether something is sexist or not. According to many people on the matter of "biology", racist and sexist values are biologically innate.

I need not speak on the topic of biology to address whether something is sexist or not.

I've been avoiding the subject of evolutionary biology until now because that is a very hairy matter and is not required to prove my point. Also, however easy it is for women to grow muscle, and how much stronger women or men are on average and how society and biology might influence that, women are still perfectly capable of being strong. The Olympics prove that. In fact, whether the average woman is weaker than the average man, does not stop the fact that most women are perfectly capable and do not need to be represented as helpless.

There is a large difference between the average hormone levels in men and women and higher testosterone levels leading to easier muscle growth and stories leading to default female damsels. Slightly ease of growing muscle mass and height on average is not the same as helpless. Having shorter height, less ease of growing muscle mass, and having more fat deposits like large breasts do impede women from being as strong as men on average. But being helpless and dependent on men is much different.

Being empathetic and helping others is okay. Showing women having points of weakness is okay. Making them dependent on male character is not.
 

Requia

New member
Apr 4, 2013
703
0
0
Amaror said:
I pretty much quit the video as soon as she was dismissing Biology, as a mysogonistic myth.
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.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
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.
Whether you think it is biological or cultural is independent of the fact it is sexist.

There are many racist facets of society that many people think are biological in origin.

I have not ignored a point of yours which addresses what I said. I need not get into a discussion about neurosexism to discuss whether something is sexist or not. According to many people on the matter of "biology", racist and sexist values are biologically innate.

I need not speak on the topic of biology to address whether something is sexist or not.

I've been avoiding the subject of evolutionary biology until now because that is a very hairy matter and is not required to prove my point. Also, however easy it is for women to grow muscle, and how much stronger women or men are on average and how society and biology might influence that, women are still perfectly capable of being strong. The Olympics prove that. In fact, whether the average woman is weaker than the average man, does not stop the fact that most women are perfectly capable and do not need to be represented as helpless.

There is a large difference between the average hormone levels in men and women and higher testosterone levels leading to easier muscle growth and stories leading to default female damsels. Slightly ease of growing muscle mass and height on average is not the same as helpless. Having shorter height, less ease of growing muscle mass, and having more fat deposits like large breasts do impede women from being as strong as men on average. But being helpless and dependent on men is much different.

Being empathetic and helping others is okay. Showing women having points of weakness is okay. Making them dependent on male character is not.
...What?

So...let me get this straight:

It's not okay to rely on the exceptions when it's MY argument, but not when it's YOUR argument. Even if my argument is valid, it's still somehow sexist to think that women and men are different and that men might be stronger than women on average, and this shapes our view of women. That's ridiculous!

They're not being portrayed as helpless because they're women. They're being portrayed as helpless because they're kidnapped. They're tapping into the desire of men to want to protect women. They're reminding us that they're weaker on average, and this also helps. This is not sexist. This is basic biology. This is not, "women need to be dependent on men".

You're reading far too much into this.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
Cool that you agree with someone on something I guess, but I tend to agree with someone else, and their response to her video, and I'll even give you a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj29-hepBiA

Enjoy, or don't, it's totally your choice.
 

Adeptus Aspartem

New member
Jul 25, 2011
843
0
0
I've just one problem with the discussion and that's the absolute controverse opinions on how a good female char looks like. Even Sarkeesians list i've seen in a video is really completly stupid.

She made a matrix out of "positive&negative /male&female"-traits and the female only had: Intuitive, Nurturing, Cooperative and Emotionally expressive as positive traits.

Stuff like: strong, active, self confident, rational and independant are only listen in the male part. That's completly bollocks. How can she expect the industry write a good female character if even she herself thinks women are not able to be more than mothers?
Also even as a man i find it horribly insulting to just generalize females as "lacking self confident" and "irrational".

What annoyed me with Sarkeesians approach to Peach is: Who is she to determine whats the "main game" and "side game"? Specially with the popularity of Mario Party, Mario Kart and Smash bros. The relationship between the players and Peach/Mario is also greatly shaped through these games.
In my case, i've probably spent more time in Mario Kart and Smash bros. than in "normal" Mario games, thus i rather fear Peachs smash than lookin' down on her as a helpless damsel.

Ps: Ah, found the video. He makes alot of good points.
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
You don't have to prove a source is not credible if it's already widely regarded as not credible.
It is "widely regarded as not credible" by male atheist anti-feminists who don't like the causes of women and people of color creeping in the anti-religion or religious skepticism cause. There are many who are comfortable with outspoken atheism being a while male only club.

Zinnia Jones is a highly intelligent and respectable person. And is far more educated and well spoken on matters of religion than TJ "The Amazing Atheist". While TJ tends to rely on extremely hyperbolic and emotional rebuttals against religion and religious people, Zinnia Jones is extremely calm and logical. And is among the most intelligent and informed speakers on the topic.

And yes, you do have to prove a specific example from a source is not credible even if it is "widely regarded as not credible".

Bashfluff said:
But consider this: most creationist sites post evidence that has been shown to be faulty.
And no matter how incorrect Creationism is, if you attempt to refute the argument based upon the site it is posted on, rather than the content arguing for creationism, you are making a poor and illogical argument against them.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
You don't have to prove a source is not credible if it's already widely regarded as not credible.
It is "widely regarded as not credible" by male atheist anti-feminists who don't like the causes of women and people of color creeping in the anti-religion or religious skepticism cause. There are many who are comfortable with outspoken atheism being a while male only club.

Zinnia Jones is a highly intelligent and respectable person. And is far more educated and well spoken on matters of religion than TJ "The Amazing Atheist". While TJ tends to rely on extremely hyperbolic and emotional rebuttals against religion and religious people, Zinnia Jones is extremely calm and logical. And is among the most intelligent and informed speakers on the topic.

And yes, you do have to prove a specific example from a source is not credible even if it is "widely regarded as not credible".

Bashfluff said:
But consider this: most creationist sites post evidence that has been shown to be faulty.
And no matter how incorrect Creationism is, if you attempt to refute the argument based upon the site it is posted on, rather than the content arguing for creationism, you are making a poor and illogical argument against them.
Why, hello, baseless claim! Are you prepared to argue that the larger atheist community is sexist and racist? I think you've gone straight into crazy town! I don't think I respect your opinions of who is calm or logical at this point in time SOLELY because of that fact. That's...that's pretty out there.

I didn't come here to defend TJ, because there's a lot to hate. But I find his content to be occasionally stimulating. He's more error-prone than he used to be, and I don't watch him as much nowadays, but I think he's entertaining and logical. Being emotional does not make you less intelligent. It just changes the delivery.

I'm not attempting to refute any argument by saying your source isn't credible. No one argues by saying, your source isn't credible, therefore your argument is wrong. They say, your source isn't credible, therefore your evidence is likely to be faulty, so I see a compelling reason not to respect your evidence until you give me a more credible source. In a formal debate, that's enough to sink you. Yes, people do win arguments like that in a formal arena. Here, I'm only going to tell you to go back and try again.


I've told you that I'm not here to debate about your source. Either give me some arguments or stop arguing with me. You've failed to do so. Go away.
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
Even if my argument is valid, it's still somehow sexist to think that women and men are different and that men might be stronger than women on average, and this shapes our view of women. That's ridiculous!
The biological reality is technically sexist in that things such as low testosterone levels appear to show a disadvantage in obtaining muscle mass. As well large breasts are a major detriment to physical strength.

Sexism is inequality between men and women. 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.

Also, male "damsels" are a much bigger exception than strong women in real life. "Damsels" in the media tend to be exceptionally and unrealistically weak, simple, and badly characterized. There are millions of extremely strong women in real life, and billions of moderately strong women.

Bashfluff said:
You're reading far too much into this.
You are trying to justify gross sexist stereotypes with slight biological averages.

Women on average has less muscle mass and larger fat deposits(particularly in the breasts and buttocks) than men.

That does not justify the damsel in distress trope or make it any less sexist.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
Even if my argument is valid, it's still somehow sexist to think that women and men are different and that men might be stronger than women on average, and this shapes our view of women. That's ridiculous!
The biological reality is technically sexist in that things such as low testosterone levels appear to show a disadvantage in obtaining muscle mass. As well large breasts are a major detriment to physical strength.

Sexism is inequality between men and women. 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.

Also, male "damsels" are a much bigger exception than strong women in real life. "Damsels" in the media tend to be exceptionally and unrealistically weak, simple, and badly characterized. There are millions of extremely strong women in real life, and billions of moderately strong women.

Bashfluff said:
You're reading far too much into this.
You are trying to justify gross sexist stereotypes with slight biological averages.

Women on average has less muscle mass and larger fat deposits(particularly in the breasts and buttocks) than men.

That does not justify the damsel in distress trope or make it any less sexist.
No. Sexism involves discrimination. Discrimination involves unjust treatment. You don't even know what sexism is.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Why do I disagree with most every opinion the woman has regarding sexism? Simple, she presents every example as sexism and refuses to acknowledge that behind every decision in video games has a plethora of reasons why a decision was made. Main protagonist is more often male? Can't have anything to do with companies following suit with what sells well, focus groups based on their target demographic or the lack of over-analysis of the characters by people like Anita to the point to avoid any sort of backlash for a screw up, it is easier to use a guy. Nope, has to be presented so that it is sexistly motivated and we should all feel bad for playing the games.

She recites basic facts well enough. What the trope is, what the trope does, hell, even some history of the trope. That is fine. The weight she gives the thing though, the implications of its use, the almost passive aggressive nature in which she attacks games through it, it is silly. A lot of what she complains about she paints as somehow guiding little girls into being damsels, with the tropes used being wrong because she can see it in that light. Myself, as I have said more then once before, think a trope is just a tool, not sexist by default, and that most games that use it do so not because of a sexist bias against women or a discrimination against what women can do, but rather as the result of business, story telling and personal creative decisions. Yet none of that gets touched on in any of her videos, instead presenting the argument that the only thing there is is sexism.

There is also the aspect where she tries to present something common as something special when it is done to a female, an ironically sexist act in itself. A female character is shallow, 2 dimensional? Well, take a minute to look at other characters in the story and the type of character it is. Mario and zelda series? Not a lot of complexity there in any character. Not sure bowser and mario have deep character arcs. Hell, in some zelda games the Princess of Hyrule has more depth and personality then the series' main hero. Or how about a secondary/support character doesn't get as much development as the protagonist. Sexism, or just how story telling often works?
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
Why, hello, baseless claim! Are you prepared to argue that the larger atheist community is sexist and racist? I think you've gone straight into crazy town!
No, I think there is a vocal piece of people in the atheist, skeptic, and anti-religious "community" of sorts that is very fond of white and male privilege and highly critical of being faced with the reality of male privilege and white privilege.

I do not believe the majority of atheists believe this way. I do not believe the majority of atheists are against Free Thought Blogs. But even if they were, it would not prove that Free Thought Blog is any less correct. To argue that they are wrong because the majority of atheists disagree with them would be argumentum ad populum.

What I do think is that a large portion of the people who are against that site who are outspoken atheists, are people who do not like it because they feel it threatens their sensibilities as white and male.
Bashfluff said:
No. Sexism involves discrimination. Discrimination involves unjust treatment. You don't even know what sexism is.
Now we're getting into semantics debates. Some people have narrow definitions of terms like this, and some have definitions.

As is stands, the damsel in distress trope plays extremely into the stereotype of women as weak. Slightly weaker on average does not mean weak and it does not mean helpless.

And the trope at large robs women of agency. While giving it to male characters. That is discrimination.

Women are very much actively discriminated against in the current video game industry. And the damsels in distress trope is a piece of the poor representation of women. Women have plenty of strength that plenty of games refuse to show. Both mental and physical.

Sexism is, to me, the devaluing of women and femininity in society. Seeing women as lesser and less capable than men. Sexism is, how we, as a society, tend to send the message that women are lesser beings than men. Less intelligent, less strong, no matter how hard they try. And sexual objects beholden to the fantasies of men and not their own.
runic knight said:
Simple, she presents every example as sexism and refuses to acknowledge that behind every decision in video games has a plethora of reasons why a decision was made.
Except that she does. So you're wrong.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
Why, hello, baseless claim! Are you prepared to argue that the larger atheist community is sexist and racist? I think you've gone straight into crazy town!
No, I think there is a vocal piece of people in the atheist, skeptic, and anti-religious "community" of sorts that is very fond of white and male privilege and highly critical of being faced with the reality of male privilege and white privilege.

I do not believe the majority of atheists believe this way. I do not believe the majority of atheists are against Free Thought Blogs. But even if they were, it would not prove that Free Thought Blog is any less correct. To argue that they are wrong because the majority of atheists disagree with them would be argumentum ad populum.

What I do think is that a large portion of the people who are against that site who are outspoken atheists, are people who do not like it because they feel it threatens their sensibilities as white and male.
Bashfluff said:
No. Sexism involves discrimination. Discrimination involves unjust treatment. You don't even know what sexism is.
Now we're getting into semantics debates. Some people have narrow definitions of terms like this, and some have definitions.

As is stands, the damsel in distress trope plays extremely into the stereotype of women as weak. Slightly weaker on average does not mean weak and it does not mean helpless.

And the trope at large robs women of agency. While giving it to male characters. That is discrimination.

Women are very much actively discriminated against in the current video game industry.
Right. People like you are the reason the secular community has such a bad name. I reject your baseless analysis of the opposition to Free Thought Blogs, and the extremism of your position has left a bad taste in my mouth. Please refrain from trying to discuss anything else with me.
 

Gormers1

New member
Apr 9, 2008
543
0
0
Bashfluff said:
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.
In other words they are protagonists because they are men. The capable ones. While the woman is the reward. It very often is sexist. Above all though, it is a very overdone trope that generally constitues a boring story.
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?
That doesnt really have much to do with sexism. An example of something kind of sexist would be perpetuating a stereotype that all submissive gays (in bed) are weak and helpless.
 

EstrogenicMuscle

New member
Sep 7, 2012
545
0
0
Bashfluff said:
Right. People like you are the reason the secular community has such a bad name.
Likewise, I think that your defensive attitude towards the realities of male privilege is giving secularism a bad name and is scaring off women from the cause.

There are many women who are alienated by the sexism they have experienced in the "skeptic community".
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Tenmar said:
That is almost exactly what I have said in other threads, like this, in the past.

If there was anything worth of a "/thread", it is what you said. No, Strawman, even though I've see plenty of people throw that around at arguments even though they aren't that, because the facts are just too damning and should change their minds, but they are too stubborn to change because there is no way they are wrong.

As you said, and I have pointed out before, she said she wants developers to stop using the trope altogether. Then it boggles my mind that then people defending her try and calm others down by saying that she isn't out to take your games away. Of course she is, if people like that style of game, and she some how gets developers to stop making such games(hell will freeze over before that anyway), that means she is taking away the types of games that some people like.

And finally, I'll reiterate what you said in that she doesn't show sources and she blatantly ignores facts in front of her. She has a huge bad habit of saying, "I've heard it said that....." or "it is shown that...." but then she doesn't show who said what she is saying or where what is shown has been proven as fact.

It's obvious there are stupid people that attack her on reasons that aren't factual, but people on her side have to admit that they have stupid people on their side as well.

Considering the video that Thunderfoot made(which is all too true), in his comment section I encountered some insanely stupid supporters of Anita that made comments like, "Stop saying that women can be sexist too, because women can't be sexist because they don't have equality or the majority say, just like minority races can't be racist." I of course told such people how they are obviously wrong, and got back, "No, shut up, stop the lies, women can't be sexist and a member of a minority can't be a racist."

In the end, I'm tired of the whole topic. After this, let's just ignore Anita and her swindled money, stop defending her non-work/research, and face the fact that you've been had by an extreme feminist that isn't in it for the facts, only to move her cause forward.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
runic knight said:
Simple, she presents every example as sexism and refuses to acknowledge that behind every decision in video games has a plethora of reasons why a decision was made.
Hmm, she seems to have done just what you said she doesn't do, but I'm interested as to why you think she doesn't. And I don't think "storytelling convenience" counts. Billy and Jimmy, Mario and Bowser, etc., they all had paper thin characterisation, but they still had a chunk more than Peach, Daisy, Marion. They used to splash this info in instruction manuals and on the arcade cabinets. It was not equivalent or even close. The fact that they, according to the folk wisdom here, did not need such characterisation is even more baffling.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
As you said, and I have pointed out before, she said she wants developers to stop using the trope altogether. Then it boggles my mind that then people defending her try and calm others down by saying that she isn't out to take your games away.
Because those two are in no way equivalent.

Well, unless you think that "damsel in distress" means ALL TEH GAEMZ.

In which case, I don't even know what to say.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
EstrogenicMuscle said:
Bashfluff said:
Right. People like you are the reason the secular community has such a bad name.
Likewise, I think that your defensive attitude towards the realities of male privilege is giving secularism a bad name and is scaring off women from the cause.

There are many women who are alienated by the sexism they have experienced in the "skeptic community".
If the women bring in your ideology in the secular community, they can stay out. No skin off my bones.

Gormers1 said:
Bashfluff said:
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.
In other words they are protagonists because they are men. The capable ones. Yes, its sexist.
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?
That doesnt really have much to do with sexism. An example of something kind of sexist would be perpetuating a stereotype that all submissive gays (in bed) are weak and helpless.
They're protagonists because they're men because the perception is that most gamers are or were men and most people like to play as their own gender. That's not inherently sexist. It's true! If most gamers aren't men, then sure, that's an unjustified assumption, but it's not sexist. Not even a little bit.

That's my point! It has nothing to do with sexism.