Tropes vs. Women Protagonists
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you need to preface your comments with "most of my friends are feminists" to convince others that you are somehow have some authority on what feminists think, you probably don't have such authority. Its like saying "most of my friends care about gay rights". If you were homophobic, your standards for what does and doesn't count as pro gay rights would be lowered, so your friends who proclaim that they are "pro gay rights" might just be saying such to cover up their homophobia.Acrisius said:
You also misunderstand feminism at its core, or you did 4 months ago, and aren't yourself a feminist.
Feminism refers not to promotion of the female gender, but to the behaviors assigned to men and women via the masculine/feminine divide. For example, the cultural belief "A women's place is in the home" assigns women the housework and taking care of the children. Likewise, the cultural belief that men should do the work puts them in danger more often. feminism is the support for the elimination of this divide, and is not "about bringing men down and raising women up" as you call it.Acrisius said:
Also, your pity of people who agree with anything Sarkeesian says is condescending. Stop it. You don't like what she says because you don't agree with feminism, not because she is a radical feminist. While I myself go 50/50 on agreement with what she says, simply because of some fact checking errors and Sarkeesian taking a hard line position in certain gray areas, she isn't as controversial in feminism (and in general) as people make her out to be.
Additionally, for someone who claims that feminists make claims that people are indoctrinated, you sure do a lot of claims of indoctrination yourself.
Clearly, us feminists are misinformed and pitiable for believing in something you don't agree with, and when us feminists claim that women are misinformed by society and pitiable for disagreeing with something we believe in, a claim we do not make without good evidence except as a point against the irritating "My girlfriend agrees with me on my beliefs, so I must be pro women's rights!1!" point that makes us rely on points that are quite difficult to explain without calling them the "Uncle Tom"s of women's rights, we are wrong to do so.Acrisius said:
On why many don't accept feminism, and why feminism gets push back, and why some women don't accept feminism: Feminism is a hard truth to swallow. For women, it involves accepting that you have at some point or other been harmed intentionally or unintentionally by people, male or female, due to your gender for problems unlikely to be solved because they remain ingrained in our culture, stains left behind from when women got the vote and feminist progress stopped. This stands in contrast to continuing as you are, not requiring you to acknowledge that you have been harmed for your gender, making you not feel like a victim. Likewise, if you are male, it involves acknowledging that your actions may at some point or another, harmed women or contributed to harm of women intentionally or unintentionally. Acknowledging both the harm one has received intentionally or unintentionally for your gender and the harm one has contributed to or caused intentionally or unintentionally to others for their gender are not required by society. A person can easily surround themselves with people who agree with them on this issue, or people who feel no need to challenge the harm others give and receive for their gender, and never need to either care or discuss such issues. The absence of requirement to change and the negative feelings accepting such truths induce push people away from feminism in absence of clear, concise 100% certainty of the existence of a problem with an obvious solution, whether it be bills to vote against or laws to pass, as awareness of the existence of a problem in absence of a clear solution remains so unpleasant to acknowledge that we struggle to even look for solutions to problems.
I would have to slightly disagree with you there. I think that a female character can be sexually stimulating to the male demographic and still powerful and empowering. Besides that, her intelligence and fighting skill combined is something that made me add her to my very small list of female characters I like.Toriver said:
Here is the thing Shamus, a key point that pretty much torpedos everything those who want to "examine" this issue instantly and irrevocably, and is also why people have reacted to Anita on this level:
Men and Women aren't that differant and they want pretty much the same things. Yes, those strong female characters might titillate men, but then again girls want to be attractive to men (or each other if that's actually their thing) the same way that men want to be attractive to girls.
In fantasy both genders reach towards a physical ideal, portray their characters in what amount to fairly outlandish outifts at times, and have them doing over the top things.
We sit here and point to games like Lollipop Chainsaw, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, and others and say "well yeah, they are strong characters, but they also appeal to men so they don't count, especially given some of the attached innuendos", but your not considering that those characters are EXACTLY the kinds of characters most women will create for themselves, or for products aimed at women. Seriously, look at artwork produced by female fantasy artists, or actually read fantasy novels directed at women, and you will notice there are absolutly zero differances except maybe tonally in how the story is told. In the end you have some gorgeous babe (whether she sees herself that way or not) dressed in a way only a few people could pull off, kicking massive amounts of butt. Anita Blake, Rachel Morgan, Dante Valentine, and other popular female protaganists created by female writers for a primarily female audience (even if it has crossed over) make the point 100% better than I ever could, and pretty much demonstrate that there is no issue here at all.
Heck, if the above point doesn't do it for you, take the time to read some abyssmal fan fiction written by teenage girls, and then tell me what your literal "Mary Sue" resembles. A big hint, it's going to probably nail at least a dozen or more of those "tropes" being complained about. Not because of women being conditions, but because it's how things are. It's also exactly the same thing you see with the he-men of fantasy.
Like it or not the bottom line is simple. Those who complain about tropes, or support people like Anita, are generally nerds who have no luck with girls at all, or happen to be in a relationship with a domineering woman (whether they admit it or not). The idea is that by taking an ignorant "anti-exploitation" angle they effectively make themselves more sympathetic, and thus more attractive to female attention... or pretty much please the woman they are with by making an over the top demonstration of how their attention doesn't wander.
Now there are exceptions to the above (no need to rant if you, or anyone else reading this happens to be one of them) which amount to someone simply being wrong without the underlying motive. That's still the general gist of things though, and why it's a non-issue.
Anita got attacked, and I think it came from BOTH genders (women are even more vicious than guys when it comes to things like rape threats, a point most people tend to overlook, I wouldn't be surprised if someof the most intense threats came from girls acting anonymously or in male guise), because what she's doing is basically a threat to fantasy in general, especially if she was to acheive the platform she was after (which sadly she did). The concern being her, and the deprived nerds she's catering to for attention and a pedestel creating a voice that might actually convince publishers that there is some validity to
what she's saying. The last thing we need is the perception that users want more political correctness in gaming, when it's already wrecking things, games aren't quite the avenue of free expession that they should be, and tend to walk a fine line of staying out of taboo territory unless it's only "taboo" in the sense that it's a recent avenue of attack for the political correctness brigade.
Men and Women aren't that differant and they want pretty much the same things. Yes, those strong female characters might titillate men, but then again girls want to be attractive to men (or each other if that's actually their thing) the same way that men want to be attractive to girls.
In fantasy both genders reach towards a physical ideal, portray their characters in what amount to fairly outlandish outifts at times, and have them doing over the top things.
We sit here and point to games like Lollipop Chainsaw, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, and others and say "well yeah, they are strong characters, but they also appeal to men so they don't count, especially given some of the attached innuendos", but your not considering that those characters are EXACTLY the kinds of characters most women will create for themselves, or for products aimed at women. Seriously, look at artwork produced by female fantasy artists, or actually read fantasy novels directed at women, and you will notice there are absolutly zero differances except maybe tonally in how the story is told. In the end you have some gorgeous babe (whether she sees herself that way or not) dressed in a way only a few people could pull off, kicking massive amounts of butt. Anita Blake, Rachel Morgan, Dante Valentine, and other popular female protaganists created by female writers for a primarily female audience (even if it has crossed over) make the point 100% better than I ever could, and pretty much demonstrate that there is no issue here at all.
Heck, if the above point doesn't do it for you, take the time to read some abyssmal fan fiction written by teenage girls, and then tell me what your literal "Mary Sue" resembles. A big hint, it's going to probably nail at least a dozen or more of those "tropes" being complained about. Not because of women being conditions, but because it's how things are. It's also exactly the same thing you see with the he-men of fantasy.
Like it or not the bottom line is simple. Those who complain about tropes, or support people like Anita, are generally nerds who have no luck with girls at all, or happen to be in a relationship with a domineering woman (whether they admit it or not). The idea is that by taking an ignorant "anti-exploitation" angle they effectively make themselves more sympathetic, and thus more attractive to female attention... or pretty much please the woman they are with by making an over the top demonstration of how their attention doesn't wander.
Now there are exceptions to the above (no need to rant if you, or anyone else reading this happens to be one of them) which amount to someone simply being wrong without the underlying motive. That's still the general gist of things though, and why it's a non-issue.
Anita got attacked, and I think it came from BOTH genders (women are even more vicious than guys when it comes to things like rape threats, a point most people tend to overlook, I wouldn't be surprised if someof the most intense threats came from girls acting anonymously or in male guise), because what she's doing is basically a threat to fantasy in general, especially if she was to acheive the platform she was after (which sadly she did). The concern being her, and the deprived nerds she's catering to for attention and a pedestel creating a voice that might actually convince publishers that there is some validity to
what she's saying. The last thing we need is the perception that users want more political correctness in gaming, when it's already wrecking things, games aren't quite the avenue of free expession that they should be, and tend to walk a fine line of staying out of taboo territory unless it's only "taboo" in the sense that it's a recent avenue of attack for the political correctness brigade.
Uuugh, this again? What am I doing, reading all of these perspectives? I know I always get a headache from it. Let me explain this, hopefully I can answer my own question...
I feel like most of this debate seems to be about changing other's perspectives, which would be fine if it's a non-issue, like tenmar said. 'No, I am right and you are wrong!' Maybe I'm just generalizing, but I'm getting frustrated by people wording everything in a way that kind of sounds accusing. And yes, I'm pointing the fingers at you guys.
Let me just reiterate what other posters might have already said: Just throw gender out of the window. There might be gender specific issues we deal with, but first let us create female characters that aren't meant to be sexualized. And make them characters first and foremost.
Really, the question should be how we can change this behavior in society. I think that's a tough one and I'm not sure how we can do it. We can only do it in baby steps and it will probably take multiple decades before we can reach equality in all media.
PS: Ugh, at least that feels a little better to get that off my chest.
I feel like most of this debate seems to be about changing other's perspectives, which would be fine if it's a non-issue, like tenmar said. 'No, I am right and you are wrong!' Maybe I'm just generalizing, but I'm getting frustrated by people wording everything in a way that kind of sounds accusing. And yes, I'm pointing the fingers at you guys.
Let me just reiterate what other posters might have already said: Just throw gender out of the window. There might be gender specific issues we deal with, but first let us create female characters that aren't meant to be sexualized. And make them characters first and foremost.
Really, the question should be how we can change this behavior in society. I think that's a tough one and I'm not sure how we can do it. We can only do it in baby steps and it will probably take multiple decades before we can reach equality in all media.
PS: Ugh, at least that feels a little better to get that off my chest.
@Therumancer: I was moderately with up until you started generalizing and putting down the people complaining. You did say there are exceptions, but it still struck as pretty ignorant of you.
Anyway, I generally agree with the main point, though I'm not sold on the political correctness thing (spend a while on the Escher Girl's tmblr and you get an idea that there is a certain gender bias to depictions, to the point where some artists don't even realize they're doing it.) Also, I don't think the similar way men and women portray male and female characters in their work invalidates the discussion. For one, you have the potential to discuss the reasons why they do this (cultural, psychological, and so on) and whether working to change it would be good for new, and potentially better, stories and characters. I would say that part of your argument works to answer the posed questions, though I imagine there's a fair bit of variability in how both men and women have shown they respond. After all, there's making an attractive women, and then there's floor length hair and pendulous breasts in skimpy outfits as one runs cross country and stabs large creatures, yet still being helpless when a bad man holds your arms behind your back. At some point you notice things getting a bit ridiculous.
I'd say a lot of it comes down to context and perception. Good reason for those clothes/strength/body shape/helplessness? You can get away with a lot if it doesn't clash too much. Who wondered excruciatingly why Gordon Freeman was the only young scientist in Half Life and why he could reliably use all those weapons as well, or better, than the trained military. There were pretty well established gameplay formats and cultural stereotypes of scientists for those questions, but take some of Fallout 3's story. Man or woman, at some point, regardless of your skills, you are rendered helpless by a flash grenade for several minutes, and you can do nothing to survive "deadly" radiation for 30 seconds no matter what protections you take. In all games, those sorts of uncontrollable context clashes can really grate.
Likewise, perceptions come in based on who you are, or, for example, when you play game after game after game where this formerly competent person becomes helpless, or every single female seems to be useless in helping themselves. Particularly in games, where you're more connected to the characters, you can build and carry a lot of perceptions through the games and some can get tiring. I'm more Otacon than Snake, but I get really tired of the useless wimpy nerd characters. I don't want to have games constantly making fun of someone that is fairly similar to me. I don't care if I see it once in a while. People are different and there are tons of them. Of course a game will feature some that are similar to me, or anyone else, but if that useless character that I had a lot in common with showed up in a third, half, or more of the games I wanted to play, then that would get old fast.
Anyway, I generally agree with the main point, though I'm not sold on the political correctness thing (spend a while on the Escher Girl's tmblr and you get an idea that there is a certain gender bias to depictions, to the point where some artists don't even realize they're doing it.) Also, I don't think the similar way men and women portray male and female characters in their work invalidates the discussion. For one, you have the potential to discuss the reasons why they do this (cultural, psychological, and so on) and whether working to change it would be good for new, and potentially better, stories and characters. I would say that part of your argument works to answer the posed questions, though I imagine there's a fair bit of variability in how both men and women have shown they respond. After all, there's making an attractive women, and then there's floor length hair and pendulous breasts in skimpy outfits as one runs cross country and stabs large creatures, yet still being helpless when a bad man holds your arms behind your back. At some point you notice things getting a bit ridiculous.
I'd say a lot of it comes down to context and perception. Good reason for those clothes/strength/body shape/helplessness? You can get away with a lot if it doesn't clash too much. Who wondered excruciatingly why Gordon Freeman was the only young scientist in Half Life and why he could reliably use all those weapons as well, or better, than the trained military. There were pretty well established gameplay formats and cultural stereotypes of scientists for those questions, but take some of Fallout 3's story. Man or woman, at some point, regardless of your skills, you are rendered helpless by a flash grenade for several minutes, and you can do nothing to survive "deadly" radiation for 30 seconds no matter what protections you take. In all games, those sorts of uncontrollable context clashes can really grate.
Likewise, perceptions come in based on who you are, or, for example, when you play game after game after game where this formerly competent person becomes helpless, or every single female seems to be useless in helping themselves. Particularly in games, where you're more connected to the characters, you can build and carry a lot of perceptions through the games and some can get tiring. I'm more Otacon than Snake, but I get really tired of the useless wimpy nerd characters. I don't want to have games constantly making fun of someone that is fairly similar to me. I don't care if I see it once in a while. People are different and there are tons of them. Of course a game will feature some that are similar to me, or anyone else, but if that useless character that I had a lot in common with showed up in a third, half, or more of the games I wanted to play, then that would get old fast.
Well, it's not quite Shamus, nor is this thread quite the right place to discuss it, but http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=9145Acrisius said:Also thisGoaThief said:
Well at least there is half the protagonist of the Resident Evil seriw who allow us to play strong independent femelle character that are not just a pair of ass and tits.... Not that they are without flaw... But still way better than what most Triple A franchise offer... And they are doing since the 90's
http://images.wikia.com/residentevil/images/a/a9/Jill_Valentine_B.S.A.A..jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2218/221067-claireredfield1_lg.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5822/residentevil5conceptart.png
http://images.wikia.com/residentevil/images/a/a9/Jill_Valentine_B.S.A.A..jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2218/221067-claireredfield1_lg.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5822/residentevil5conceptart.png
Women are not being failed by the games industry, to say otherwise is nothing short of sensationalist.
Yes there are a very small minority of games that portray or glamourise sexist trends (for both sexes), but the vast majority of games do not, hell the majority of games (it would seem to me) don't even feature human characters.
This article is the equivelant of saying "FILMS ARE SEXIST BECAUSE I CAN'T WATCH A STRONG MALE PROTAGONIST IN ALIEN"
Yes there are a very small minority of games that portray or glamourise sexist trends (for both sexes), but the vast majority of games do not, hell the majority of games (it would seem to me) don't even feature human characters.
This article is the equivelant of saying "FILMS ARE SEXIST BECAUSE I CAN'T WATCH A STRONG MALE PROTAGONIST IN ALIEN"
Excellent article as usual by Shamus.
I do question the unigender games. Fallout 3 is my favorite game to come out in the last 10 years or so, and you can pick your gender. It has next to no significance. But when this happens it gets argued that it's a male role with a female tacked over it (As mentioned with Velvet Assassin, Mirror's Edge).
If that argument gets made then I have to ask the inherently sexist question of what women want to do. Because if we're implying that running around exploring, solving puzzles, and fighting are guy territory (sexist) then we quickly enter the realm of Barbie Horse Adventure. Either girls want to participate in the beat down, or they want to sit on loveseats and crochet.
I do question the unigender games. Fallout 3 is my favorite game to come out in the last 10 years or so, and you can pick your gender. It has next to no significance. But when this happens it gets argued that it's a male role with a female tacked over it (As mentioned with Velvet Assassin, Mirror's Edge).
If that argument gets made then I have to ask the inherently sexist question of what women want to do. Because if we're implying that running around exploring, solving puzzles, and fighting are guy territory (sexist) then we quickly enter the realm of Barbie Horse Adventure. Either girls want to participate in the beat down, or they want to sit on loveseats and crochet.
On female characters, my belief is that they should at least be competent/useful in some way or form. Like, you might diss a frilly medic character, but in my eyes as long as she's good at her role of healing and has some interesting things to say then I'm not going to be too angry at them. Or you could have a Damsel In Distress scenario, but later on you find out that she's either successfully broken out (or at least made several attempts) or that she's trying to infiltrate the enemy base and has been able to relay info to the good guys.
On female protagonists, the most important thing is to not beat the audience over the head with "SHE'S A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMEN GAIS" and simply have her be at least a tolerable character who is good at what she does (As in, she doesn't get knocked out through a bop in the head in the cutscenes after fighting through five waves of goons). She can be somewhat snippy with males within reason but it doesn't give her the reason to be a *****:
Captain Beefsteak: "Haw, you finally got your tiny little ass back eh, sweetcheeks?"
Janey Blasterton: "Yes I have, along with proof for that bounty. Pay up."
Of course, considering the fact that I'm a heterosexual male who admittedly has no problem with looking at the female body, I might be the wrong person to answer this question.
On female protagonists, the most important thing is to not beat the audience over the head with "SHE'S A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMEN GAIS" and simply have her be at least a tolerable character who is good at what she does (As in, she doesn't get knocked out through a bop in the head in the cutscenes after fighting through five waves of goons). She can be somewhat snippy with males within reason but it doesn't give her the reason to be a *****:
Captain Beefsteak: "Haw, you finally got your tiny little ass back eh, sweetcheeks?"
Janey Blasterton: "Yes I have, along with proof for that bounty. Pay up."
Of course, considering the fact that I'm a heterosexual male who admittedly has no problem with looking at the female body, I might be the wrong person to answer this question.
I think there's a distinction we have to make here if we're going to discussing what makes a good female lead who goes against the stereotypes.
Strong physically =/= strong mentally.
And strength isn't everything. Nor is the character having to be good at their job. People can have some weakness. If your female character has no weakness, they become a Mary Sue, and that's just as bad. However, what we see, is in an attempt to make female characters more relatable, or less intimidating, writers give them huge, glaring flaws, usually flaws that males feel they can cover for. Strong female lead who can crush skulls left and right but still has emotional soft spots the size of Canada? That's a trope. A big one.
I'm hoping Anita Sarkeesian sheds some light on this general point in a way that most people can understand, because alot of people seem to have it go over their heads.
Strong physically =/= strong mentally.
And strength isn't everything. Nor is the character having to be good at their job. People can have some weakness. If your female character has no weakness, they become a Mary Sue, and that's just as bad. However, what we see, is in an attempt to make female characters more relatable, or less intimidating, writers give them huge, glaring flaws, usually flaws that males feel they can cover for. Strong female lead who can crush skulls left and right but still has emotional soft spots the size of Canada? That's a trope. A big one.
I'm hoping Anita Sarkeesian sheds some light on this general point in a way that most people can understand, because alot of people seem to have it go over their heads.
But again, as Shamus pointed out, if things were reversed it would be like all games are filled with Justin Beiber, Edward Cullen, and Fabio. Yes, women like myself are playing, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to see a female lead that is actually geared toward us every now and then. Just imagine your entire gender either being relegated to the sidelines or looking as though they've just been pulled out of a strip club, or just go see Magic Mike to get that nice feeling of awkwardness that occurs when you realize you're experience something that wasn't quite meant for you.Dreiko said:
And no, not all games are that marginalizing, and I hate to sound accusatory but it's just so easy for you to say things like "just because the protagonist is male doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, too." You haven't grown up playing games and one day came to the realization you can count on one hand the number of characters your gender that you actually give two shits about. You haven't grown up playing games wondering why the only time a female you can look up to takes the stage, she's very underclothed compared to the male cast. You don't know how bewilderingly exciting it can be when you finally find a great character you can relate to--one that is well-written and is the same gender as you. You may not see it as much of a problem, but I'm afraid it kind of is a pretty big problem, actually.
So please, don't tell me I should just pretend like I don't care that men get all the glory games because I do. I do care. No it doesn't ruin every gaming experience when I'm not represented by a female, but at the very least I'd appreciate it if we'd stop pretending everything is fine when if you look at it objectively, things are really not fine at all. The very fact that we are well into the 21st century and absolutely cannot get our heads around the idea of how to present women in media without making them brainless objects or sex toys I think is pretty clear sign that we are very far from doing fine in this area.
Tenmar/Kekkonen1: You two do realize that your whole argument about femshep was spawned by a quote which, when taken into context with it's preceeding paragraphs, was clearly using the abbreviation "ME" to refer to "Mirror's Edge," and not "Mass Effect?" I just thought I'd point that out:Tenmar said:
Reading comprehension ftw!vhailorx said:
To my knowledge some sort of "scene" like this was discussed at some point with Sigourney Weaver with the later films, it was not a "writers" or "directors" decision or call, it was something that Sigourney wanted to do herself. I suppose in resurrection the idea was "sure" why the hell not.DioWallachia said:
This "theme" is something that was predominant in the first Alien film, birth trauma, female anxiety, so on and so forth... there are tons of critical analysis of the topic.
Just to recap, it was something Sigourney wanted to do. *Shrug* There it is. Sigourney kind'a a freak.
Cameron uses this often in his fashioning of narrative. To save on typing I am of the mind to say that there are predominantly two succussful types of female protagonist narrative in the western or Greek vein. A Joan' de Arc, in which the protagonist is effectively "broken" if she gives up the goods, her virtue is ludic and a source of her power. The other is clearly the motherhood, female tiger protecting the young. It's simple. Straight forward. People get it.
...and that is important, if one is trying to make a living... at writing...
The first leverages a certain female "economy" of desirably... this shit is so "documented" it's not even funny... is it real, like a "thing"? Maybe a little less so today than it has been in the past in certain parts of the world.
Can you take her home to meet mom? Isn't just whistle'n Dixie.
The second is a different kind of leverage but yet one of desirability. In mate selection the aptitude of a female to "step up" when a man is down for the count is simply "attractive". Especially for men who are more socially or familial oriented. For a teenager probably not so much, but for the purposes of the Aliens film, there is a tremendous amount of chemistry that is captured. Hell, even Vasquez steps up when Ripley becomes emotional in front of the men.
Trick is, it works better because it is a female that is integrating herself with a crew, something that "narratively" she had done before in the previous film. She gains "something" from each member of the crew, ultimately she faces down her own "personal" tragedy of loosing her daughter to the hyper sleep. Straight forward, done well, makes sense, grit feels right... characters feel right... complex narrative, even a simple premise, can still be done well.
I don't know where your at with it, but been following the convo thought I would chime in. Cheers.
The Anita thing is pretty dubious. By what I gathered she is interested in T.V. predominately in production of a female-centric program. A sort of Ophrah or The View, as an income source. The fact she hit video games up as a segue to this over-arching goal seems obvious. Heck people on the escapist create articles and post videos on nonsense all the time as an income source.
If she was interested in actually creating a product, I would of kicked in a couple bucks or even volunteered to work on the project. She clearly is not interested in creating an actual game, just selling a notion that content creators "should be" meeting a hither-to unmentioned expectation of some demographic for some reason... I would of been infinitely more impressed with some actual "example" of some work (she had done), rather than a pretty weak paper dick riding Joss Whedon for a M.A. thesis and some videos of dubious academic merit. It looked like a scam to make a quick buck... lot's of communities on the interwebz get the types.
Not worth getting to worked up about... not much serious work been done, other than in the debunking of nonsense... which is surprisingly labor intensive.
Except saying "Ripley was a man first" is a lie, since the characters were drafted to work for either sex. That aside, it's not cheating, as her character did change since the original script. But hey, overly simplistic ignorance FTW, right?DioWallachia said:
I gave up caring since you were repeatedly dodging my requests. Meh. Is it really a shame? It seems like you're just spoiling for an argument, which is why you accused Sarkesian of just crying sexist on everything. I guess if you are spoiling for a fight, waiting until I gave up and then passive-aggressively posting something is the way to go about it, but you had many opportunities to actually answer me before that. But if you're looking for honest and/or open discourse, you've demonstrated you're against it. This is why you keep attacking Sarkeesian over things she doesn't do, instead of things she does.
This is why the criticisms of Shaimus Young get my respect, and yours do not. I don't even agree with Shaimus completely, but his points are fair and honest.
That in no way answers the claim of sexism, however. If you did a wall of text along those lines, it's not a shame I missed your wall of text.
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it generally requires some substance to work with. You failed to provide substance.
Firstly, I would like to guide you to my second post in this topic, so as to give you a fuller idea of my position and so I won't have to repeat stuff:Lilani said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.389604.15634151
Alright, beyond that, I agree that your perspective is reasonable and understand where you're coming from. I don't mean to make light of those troubles you've faced and whatnot. I'm, in the end, just using my own limited perspective on the matter, my own logic and the way I make sense of things. I think this situation has persisted cause many more have figured what I just did myself, as it is a very intuitive thing to figure.
Ah well, males were the core influence in making games something that could become what it is now so I guess they earned with that an undue representation in the medium to go with it. I think that era is about to end and we're entering one of more diversity in many new and fun ways.