Tropes vs Women SECOND VIDEO - "Damsel in Distress: Part 2"

[generals3]

You're tilting at windmills here. No one is saying "It's sure a problem that so many people tell the same story." The complaint is that it's often the only story getting told. Publishers get tons and tons of pitches for games with strong female characters, but they turn them away in favor of BroDude IV: The Bicep-ening. About half of the world is female, but not even a tenth of the gaming market features leading female characters.

So, yeah, tons of people will tell the same story over and over for centuries. It's how the world works. But what's happening here is the modern equivalent of "olden days," when all of the stories were written by men because men were the only ones allowed to learn to write. The result is a body of literature that is not representative of the world of its time.

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

 

[Tony2077]

i swear this stuff is like those religious people they see only what they want and everything else be damned

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's straight out of folklore, is evident in every narrative driven medium and has survived precisely because it's effective. I have a feeling that we're not as complicated as we'd like to believe. We can craft more convoluted stories, but we can't make ourselves care about those stories if they don't work for us on a base level.

Example: Did you play Metal Gear? What stands out in your memory as effective in that narrative? The political waffle? Or maybe when Meryl got shot?(it's a 15 year old game, if that's a spoiler... sorry?) If it's not the latter... I don't think I trust you as a person.

Folklore excells at knowing what is important to us, on that base level... I think.

There's really no denying that there are some basic, natural tendencies at work here. And, really, I don't think anyone's denying it to begin with. Instead, we are simply being asked why the video game market is so completely saturated with stories that appeal almost exclusively to a male's basic natural tendencies.

There's also other forces at work. We can't simply say, "Well, it's nature, nothing we can do about it." Firstly, that's not true. Nature influences social interaction, and social interactions solidify (or even reinforce) those natural tendencies, which then further influence social interaction, and so on... in the end, we get an artificially distilled version of the original slight influence. Secondly, we can certainly work against nature.

There's nothing 'natural' about using a toilet. There's nothing 'natural' about wearing bras or boxers. Yet just about everyone in Western civilization does these things. We learn to work against what is purely natural, put aside those urges, and do what is socially better.

Those things are just utilitarian though, use them or don't, they're not there to stimulate your mind. I still don't think you can make yourself care about a narrative that you don't care about.

Have you looked at the numbers? Men are still the vast majority of people both buying and making games(at least the games being discussed). It's no version of surprising that they come up with ideas that appeal to men(you know, 'cause they're men)... I get the feeling people are trying not to understand how much sense that obviously makes.

Games really are only good at combat and space traversal(at least currently). That's fuck all for a writer to work with really, so I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that they're lazy. If combat is your mechanic, and you have to stretch it out for hours(for thousands of kills), then you have to have a protagonist who could conceivably kill that much life. No room for much variety even amongst male characters there, they have to be grizzled, traumatised by something and/or plain sociopathic.

That's where justification tropes are going to come into play. I love Max Payne, I get it... his family gets murdered, he goes off the rails and a lot of people end up dead. You wouldn't say he has no reasons, even if you don't agree with the reasons he has. Uncharted doesn't work for me in this regard. I appreciate the gameplay, but I'm always thinking "I'm killing all these people... for treasure? That's not a good reason"... and it sucks me out of it.

Point being, good reasons are in short supply. The death of or endangerment of a loved one is high on the list for a good reason. Right now we're discussing how it's use is excluding people, when it's really about as universal as anything you could come up with... we all understand it and can empathise with it too.

So the problem is that the roles don't get reversed often enough? I think at this point we're back to the numbers, aren't we? We don't "need" anything, but it would probably be cool if the talent pool in the industry was more diverse.

 

[Dastardly]

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

 

[Tony2077]

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

they sell to the main consumer its stupid i know but when you people pull stuff out of your backside to defend your point it doesn't help your position any

 

[generals3]

I personally enjoy TV Tropes. As for the Damsel in Distress stuff, people realise it exists, but how many people realised how common and pervasive it is before seeing the huge number of examples that Anita discussed?

Actually "common" is not the right word. It implies a high ratio of occurence. One which Anita did not prove since she did not make any math involving "amount of games using the trope/total amount of games". She also cherry picked the genre of game. A statistical abomination if you wanted to make statistical claims. It would be like interviewing 1000 KKK members and claiming racism is omnipresent in the US based on that.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I really liked this video. You can see that she did her homework, showing a load of specific scenes for every trope she talked about. She also addressed some issues people had with her last video. I mostly agree with everything she said. I played some of the games shown here. Dishonored is my favorite game of the year, but it doesn't make me protective of it if there is a potential problem, and I agree it does perpetuate that "wife killed, save the girl" trope.

I don't see why people get upset about her, it looks like she is doing a good job. Yeah, it takes her time in getting the episodes out but they are almost half and hour and from that picture that she posted, there is a ton of games she went trough to get the information she needed.

While her research has been greatly improved for this video, and given the length of time between each video, I would've been annoyed if it was as weak as the last one.

Having watched the vast majority of the video, I can see she does raise some valid points, but only if you view the women as an object. In the 'revenge' scenarios, I imagine myself in the protagonists shoes and the actions I would commit in response. If someone I care about has been kidnapped/killed and I have the skills I would do EVERYTHING I could to get the person back. It is not as evil as Anita intends, because I saw an interesting subtext here...

Imagine you are walking down the street, you are all alone. As you walk past an alleyway, you hear a cry for help. A woman is getting attacked. In your hands is a weapons you are trained and very confident with. Should you intervene and save her, or should you walk on by so as not to 'damselize' her?

Now, same scenario, but the woman crying out for help is a family member, friend or loved one...

If Anita wants to be taken more seriously, she should make a game which proves her points, not taking apart video games. If you look at ANY MEDIA with a storyline, there will always be a victim, and there will always be a hero... Why she focuses on videogames, I cannot understand. It is the youngest medium, and in my eyes, there are far worse culprits.

 

[Dastardly]

You have got to be kidding me here. Are you really asking for affirmative action when it comes to who gets their creative works published? Cause last I checked the ability for an individual man or woman to publish their own content has only gotten easier on both a personal and professional level.

*sigh*

Do some research into the video game publishing world. There are a small handful of big publishers, and tons of struggling indie groups out there. For every smash indie it, there are a few dozen that fold without ever making it to market. Yeah, that's the same for everyone. But we're talking about the major players here: the big publishers.

Even so, who said anything about 'affirmative action.' And absolutely no one has said anyone should "stop men from sharing" their ideas or stories. Instead, we're simply saying if a publisher is currently having 10 games made, why is it that 9 of them have male leads?

You're obviously one of those people that seems to believe that for every game featuring a female, it means somewhere, some guy who was making another male-centric game got turned down for a job and is starving in a gutter somewhere. The fact is there's room for both. There's plenty of room. It's like a two bedroom apartment, and the male roommate gets his own room... but also wants to keep the rest of his stuff in the female roommate's room, and insist that he's being victimized every time she asks to move something a little.

WTF? I'd really like to know what shoebox pinhole you are staring in because most of the content I read in my leisure in terms of webcomics, art, and yes even video games are led by women.

List them. And then compare that list to the total content being produced and pushed. Drop in the bucket. Just because you live a little closer to that drop doesn't mean the rest of the world ain't thirsty. Your reply is so narrow in its views that I'm convinced you're a cyclops.

 

[generals3]

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Don't put words into my mouth. But it is ultimately the demand which drives the supply, if there is demand there is supply. That's why i used the word "potential costumer". Most companies conduct market researches to evaluate that potential costumer base, some may be too lazy and just follow market trends but it's not always the case and i doubt anyone knows the marketing practices of big gaming companies.

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

Everyone is looking for change. I'm still waiting for my dream MMO and RTS. And i've done my research however no quantitative studies popped up. And the opinions of people on blogs or gaming websites are extremely unlikely to be representative of the whole community.

The only actual scientific studies i have found suggested women were less interested in violence and competitiveness and more in social aspects in games. Which actually supports the theory they like the typical violent AAA game less than men. The only scientific studies out there, even if probably not conclusive because the methodology can be questioned, supports the decisions made by the industry.

But I'm convinced a market research would provide much better insight and thus am still waiting for people who make the same claim as you do to provide it to me. All i'm asking for is that you prove me wrong.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

You're assuming the status quo is not an optimum. All I want is evidence of that. I think i've asked it 4-5 times already on this forum: show me the market researches proving the status quo is wrong.

 

[Basement Cat]

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

I can assure you 47% of gamers are not women: This number gets bandied around a lot & its pure unadulterated nonsense. The survey we get this number from never gives us any methodolgy to how they came about determining this number which means people who play angry birds & fruit ninja while wainting for the bus, are given as much importance as someone who has spent $1,300 on a gaming rig & roughly $1,000 a year on AAA titles.

Its a nonsensical number with no meaning.

Could you please post citations to confirm your assertions?

I grok that there may be fewer women playing CoD than men, for example, but I don't see why that genre's numbers should be used to define the demographics.

Or is this one of those "They're not REAL Gamers" stances?

I play BioWare RPGs, sure, but mostly I play mighty Hidden Object games. Sounds like I'm not a "Gamer" by your definition.

This amuses me.

 

[Wyvern65]

The ESA studies are pretty easy to find doing a simple google. They are complied by an industry trade group

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2008.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

Oddly enough there appears to be no 2010 report. There may be earlier years but I didn't bother checking. It may simply use a different pattern for the URL.

They do break down stats for gender and type of game and platform and do provide rudimentary sourcing, but there's no gendered breakdown of subtypes. (ie 25% of gamers play action/rpg titles and 47% of all gamers are female but no breakdown on what percentage of the 25% of action gamers are female, etc.)

 

[Yuuki]

Could you please post citations to confirm your assertions?

I grok that there may be fewer women playing CoD than men, for example, but I don't see why that genre's numbers should be used to define the demographics.

Or is this one of those "They're not REAL Gamers" stances?

I play BioWare RPGs, sure, but mostly I play mighty Hidden Object games. Sounds like I'm not a "Gamer" by your definition.

This amuses me.

Could you please post citations to confirm YOUR assertions? When someone throws percentage like "47%" that makes absolutely no sense in a vacuum and has no attempts at breaking-down that percentage into exactly what kinds of games women are playing, that statistic is of absolutely ZERO use for developers because they already know who is playing their games and whom they're aiming their games at.

I'm give you an extremely obvious example - I'm a magazine editor/writer and I'm creating a magazine about performance cars. Some random agency tells me "47% of women read magazines!" and I'm all like "oh really? Great! I'll throw in a whole bunch of stuff for women too, like pink/purple-themed cars, girly interiors and maybe some adverts for beauty products to help sponsor my magazine!". And then I find out that 90% of the people buying my magazine are MALES and they have absolutely fuck-all interest in all the stuff I've thrown in there for women, especially the adverts which went to waste. That 47% was of ZERO help to me.

Get it now?

Now lets stop throwing that stupid-ass ESA percentage which is of absolutely no use to anyone, yeah? I'm willing to bet you that ESA most likely has far more raw data lying around but they chose not to publish it because it paints an extremely uncomfortable picture of exactly what kind of games the genders are playing.

 

[Basement Cat]

I'm willing to bet you that ESRB most likely has far more raw data lying around but they chose not to publish it because it paints an extremely uncomfortable picture of exactly what kind of games the genders are playing.

Get it now?

Nope. I don't think so.

Stating that they probably have more info than they're willing to reveal is an interesting point when without knowing what that very data that you're referring to is makes your determination to dismiss the ESRB sound biased.

Get it now?

 

[Wyvern65]

It's the ESA, not the ESRB. The studies are linked above and you could read them and see that they provide far more of a detailed breakdown than your simplistic magazine depiction but that might require effort which can't be done because . . . reasons.

 

[Yuuki]

I'm willing to bet you that ESRB most likely has far more raw data lying around but they chose not to publish it because it paints an extremely uncomfortable picture of exactly what kind of games the genders are playing.

Get it now?

Nope. I don't think so.

Stating that they probably have more info than they're willing to reveal is an interesting point when without knowing what that very data that you're referring to is makes your determination to dismiss the ESRB sound biased.

Get it now?

I haven't dismissed anything. 47% is most likely correct.

But if you have any kind of logic up there, please read my magazine example and understand that 47% on it's own is of absolutely no use to anyone. Especially not a game developer or publishing studio.

It's the ESA, not the ESRB. The studies are linked above and you could read them and see that they provide far more of a detailed breakdown than your simplistic magazine depiction but that might require effort which can't be done because . . . reasons.

Yep..reasons
And my magazine depiction isn't very simplistic at all. It's of perfect relevance and magazine editors actually keep their audience (and proportions) in mind when putting it together.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Here, you're stating the problem... and then just asserting it can't be fixed.

You're putting words in my mouth. To say an issue is polarized, is not equivalent to saying it is without resolution. Gender equality has been, and will continue to be, a generational struggle for its polarization. Gender issues are not going to simply disappear one night, week, month, year, or even decade, and that is primarily because opposition to equality is firmly entrenched, unwilling to change, and in power. At this point, the best to be done is educate individuals to accept gender equality at a young age so they can grow and achieve positions of power, while the entrenched reactionaries age and die.

And, yes, when a sweeping, generalized indictment is levied against an institution that exists predominantly by, of, and for men, it is against men. Especially when the unspoken corollary is that non-misogynist men are indicted for taking part in this institution.

 

[lowhat]

The fact that half of the world is made of women and only 1/10th of the games belonging to the category discussed here are women is irrelevant and the implication it is relevant would make a marketeer cry. What matters is the representation of women among the potential costumers. You aren't gonna blame the clothing industry for targeting women when selling skirts either.

And since women are allowed to play video games, 47% of the people who do are women after all, your comparison is wrong.

Wow. Talk about cart before horse. You seriously think that what we offer has no impact on who buys it? More men buy these games because they are sold to men. Then your "marketeers" use their magical hindsight to say, "More guys bought this guy-centric game. Guess that means our future games should be tailored toward guys."

Far more women play games now than used to. You're right to claim 47%. But right now, they're having to just settle for what is offered. Ask around sometime. They're looking for change. Do some searching. They want more female leads. They want stronger female characters. Google it and see.

You're defending the status quo by just pointing out that it's the status quo. And it's only the status quo because people keep behaving like it is. You're on the wrong side of a vicious cycle.

You write like a business is a charity, when in reality, businesses that do a poor job of marketing their product to an intended audience tend to go out of business. I don't understand why none of these feminists with an axe to grind on common video game designs are willing top put their time/money/effort on the line and make a female-centric game to prove how big the market for them is. Kickstarter could even eliminate the money considerations, and there are numerous examples of small teams designing successful games that sell hundreds of thousands or even millions of games.

Why doesn't Sarkeesian use some of that six figure booty to buy a copy of RPG maker and write an RPG that features themes and symbols which she approves of, and throw it on Greenlight where her notoriety would almost certainly get it greenlighted?

This whole issue is just ridiculous, it's basically a bunch of lazy brats demanding that someone else take the risk of a venture project rather than doing it themselves. Those damn sexist businessmen, how dare they not risk their money to start a company which offers low-recoil powertools with pink casing, it's pure misogyny!

 

[AlexWinter]

Hm, interesting points and notes, I wonder if she will bring up The Longest Journey later.

Slightly off topic, I never liked the term feminist, as it seems to imply female dominance instead of equality.

I like equalist better.

Spoiler

Har har har. But I'm serious.

I agree so hard with you right here! I keep thinking that the term feminism gives some people the wrong idea about feminism but every time I want to use Equalist instead all I can think of is getting my bending taken away.

OT: Anita pisses me off. Her voice, her face, her big hoops, her attitude, most of her videos... but this one was actually... not terrible. I'm looking forward to the 3rd part and I imagine that when viewed as a whole the three parts will actually come off as halfway decent instead of shallow and biased.

 

[Vegosiux]

I personally enjoy TV Tropes. As for the Damsel in Distress stuff, people realise it exists, but how many people realised how common and pervasive it is before seeing the huge number of examples that Anita discussed?

Being insulted on the internet is certainly not the worst form of persecution, but just because some or even many people have it worse than you does not mean that people are entitled to treat you badly or that others shouldn't help you. In a similar way, just because I or anyone else donated to Anita doesn't mean that we don't help other causes where people are in much worse trouble. Accordingly, I don't really see the point of the comparison.

As for the execution, it seems fine to me so far, but I look forward to it getting (even) better. While you are, of course, entitled to your views on the quality of her work, my original post to you was intended to suggest that Anita is not particularly accountable to you (any more than to any other denizen of the web), and is in fact more accountable to her backers. This backer is happy.

Anita didn't discuss anything, the general problem I see in her videos is that she's not speaking to people, she's speaking at people. You don't "discuss" anything by going "You tell 'em, girl!" on people.

And that's where the point comes from that while her reasons might not be all too bad, the method with which she goes around it is not the best, she could have done that better. As I mentioned before in this thread, maybe by somehow sneaking in a proper, two-party discussion - I hate to play the money card here, but with the amount she got, she could pull that off, and it would be an improvement to her work and arguments.

Of course, it's not like I'm saying she should have done it, or that she can't decide for herself what she does, but I still think, she has the resources for it, and had she done it, the outcome would have been better. As you said, she's not exactly accountable to me or anything, but with the resources she has, she could have done better.

I know that with that amount of money (with which I could live for years without working, mind), I'd try to create something more...wholesome than compiling a list and talking about how every entry on the list has this same thing about them. Just my opinion on the matter, of course.

I am one of those people who already know the stuff she talks about, funnily enough, the fact that I knew about it actually was a factor in me deciding to see what she's got.

And yes, this video is better than the first one. As someone mentioned earlier though, oddly enough it looks like as if it was made at the same time as the first one, as she looks exactly the same, clothes, makeup and all, so the delay is kind of strange.

 

[raingod]

She doesn't like the story where a guy saves a girl in danger? She doesn't get the idea that the women are used as leverage because they are IMPORTANT to the men? Huh...

The problem could be bad writing; copying plots from popular literature and such. But the thing that she didn't discuss is the target audience. The target audience of video games are mostly (and sometimes MAINLY) guys. So they design it to what guys would like. She missed the point that video games are PRODUCTS. Products that are sold. Of course you want your products to sell, so you design or tailor it to your audience. If the product is tailored for a general audience like the game LocoRoco, you won't see the tropes that she discussed. You have to see that video games are products that are sold. Yes, I know. Being a product doesn't give you right to make women in your plot helpless and such. But that is more of laziness or unoriginal storytelling. But who is the target audience of Anita's video? Answer that then you will get my point. She's complaining that women are mistreated in video games that are tailored for men. Why didn't she give kudos to games that treats women correctly? I must admit that the video was cringe worthy not because of what she was talking about but because of bad writing and presentation. Saying it over and over doesn't add impact. "If you don't like the food, cook it yourself", is what my mother used to say. Give examples of good video games or if you can, make one. I bet, at the start of this project, you will think of the TARGET AUDIENCE.