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

[generals3]

No, but it explains:

1) That these women's lives aren't more 'valuable' than men; these women are things that have been taken from men. That's one point nixed.

Which is a bizarre statement considering the argument you try to refute. Why is it women who are always taken from men and not men? Why would a dev choose to use a women to appeal to emotions instead of a man? It's because women are presented as being worth more.

2) You said that the word she's looking for is misandry? What on earth are you talking about? She outright says that these portrayals also are outright limiting representations of men; they are limitations on the roles we play and the ways we react to the loss of loved ones.

Correct but irrelevant to the part i was criticizing. She was referring to these female tropes as misogynistic. This while the trope is actually based on the whole idea that a woman's life is more precious. Maybe i missed the day that misogyny was defined as "caring for a woman's life more than a man's" but if we're going to socially judge the trope misandry is the word that she was looking for.

3) In terms of justification on a case-by-case basis, she may as well have outright said the following: the problem isn't that any individual game uses the damsel in distress trope, it's that the trope remains obligatory throughout the medium.

First of all, she didn't use the word obligatory. Which would have been a huge mistake since many games don't use it. It's widely used yes. But so what? It may get old, tiring, boring and it's fine to make those claims. But she shouldn't engage in ridiculous pseudo psychology and try to make the overuse of said trope appear "evil". I want devs to rely less on tropes because they can come up with stories which don't need them, not because it's "evil" and they forced them out and make stories which are potentially worse because they work less without the tropes.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

That's funny. There are many situations in which poor judgement will result in differing opinion.

 

[Erttheking]

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

That's funny. There are many situations in which poor judgement will result in differing opinion.

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

No, but it explains:

1) That these women's lives aren't more 'valuable' than men; these women are things that have been taken from men. That's one point nixed.

Which is also a bizarre statement which somehow destroys itself. Why is it women who are always taken from men and not men? Why would a dev choose to use a women to appeal to emotions instead of a man? Think about it and see why the argument destroys itself when taking into account the whole context.

These women aren't valued as people, they're valued as possessions, belonging to a man. Take that, along with the context of a history where women were traded and/or married off to men as possessions.

2) You said that the word she's looking for is misandry? What on earth are you talking about? She outright says that these portrayals also are outright limiting representations of men; they are limitations on the roles we play and the ways we react to the loss of loved ones.

Correct but irrelevant to the part i was criticizing. She was referring to these female tropes as misogynistic. This while the trope is actually based on the whole idea that a woman's life is more precious. Maybe i missed the day that misogyny was defined as "caring for a woman's life more than a man's" but if we're going to socially judge the trope misandry is the word that she was looking for.

If feminism is the radical notion that women are people, misogyny would involve seeing a women as less than a person. Like maybe as a possession. See my previous comment.

3) In terms of justification on a case-by-case basis, she may as well have outright said the following: the problem isn't that any individual game uses the damsel in distress trope, it's that the trope remains obligatory throughout the medium.

First of all, she didn't use the word obligatory. Which would have been a huge mistake since many games don't use it. It's widely used yes. But so what? It may get old, tiring, boring and it's fine to make those claims. But don't engage in ridiculous pseudo psychology and try to make the overuse of said trope appear "evil". I want devs to rely less on tropes because they can come up with stories which don't need them, not because it's "evil" and they forced them out and get stories which are potentially worse because they work less without the tropes.

You don't get extra points for being overly literal, it just makes arguing with you tiresome. You know what I mean: If there's a women in a video game, chances are she's a damsel in distress. Strewn about our cultural artifacts, does this trend say anything about how women are seen in our societies? I think it does. Is that message particularly friendly for women? Only if you consider patronizing women and taking away their agency 'friendly'.

 

[Eddie the head]

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

Yep it's amazing. Personal attacks don't help your point, and just cause a backfire effect on the people you use it on. Completely unhelpful for both sides. But demonizing people is a way to make yourself feel better about your opinions so it's not likely to stop.

 

[T_ConX]

I want to agree with her about most of the stuff she covered. The writing and story in Hitman: Absolution, Duke Nukem Forever, Dante's Inferno, The Darkness I/II, Castlevania: LoS and a bunch of others was lazy and cliched, and I'm not going to defend any of those.

But when she starts going on about violence against women in video games, I just lost it. You do realize men are also victims of violence in these games, right? Sometimes they're even unwilling and/or helpless. You want to complain about Kratos wife and daughter in GoW, but what about when he's bashing a dudes head in as a sacrifice to the Fates? How about the fate of Maria in GTA3, which happens after the main character has already killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people, innocent and not. Let's throw a fit about Jessamine Kaldwin's death, and ignore all those disposable guards, most of whom did nothing wrong except come in for work that day. I haven't kept track, but I'm pretty sure my digital body count has an overwhelming male majority, 25 to 1 at least...

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

That's funny. There are many situations in which poor judgement will result in differing opinion.

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

I think if we sat down and had a discussion, we could agree that there are people who don't deserve to sit at the table with rational Human beings to discuss their points of view as being of equal merit to our own.

Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance. Take the KKK. Take Ann Coulter. Do you want to be responsible for giving ignorant people legitimacy by pretending they're rational adults?

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

Yep it's amazing. Personal attacks don't help your point, and just cause a backfire effect on the people you use it on. Completely unhelpful for both sides. But demonizing people is a way to make yourself feel better about your opinions so it's not likely to stop.

I've noticed something weird: the universe doesn't alter itself to make what I think less correct when I casually insult someone. Freaky, right?

 

[Erttheking]

"Sigh" thread is only two pages long and I already see entire posts completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster. This happens EVERY TIME!

This is why we don't don't get thoughtful debate out of this videos! People don't want to sit down and debate about it, they want to insult people for having the poor judgement to have a different opinion!

That's funny. There are many situations in which poor judgement will result in differing opinion.

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

I think if we sat down and had a discussion, we could agree that there are people who don't deserve to sit at the table with rational Human beings to discuss their points of view as being of equal merit to our own.

Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance. Take the KKK. Take Ann Coulter. Do you want to be responsible for giving ignorant people legitimacy by pretending they're rational adults?

Uh, last time I checked the people on this website weren't anywhere near notorious homophobes or racist murderers.

 

[sethisjimmy]

Very interesting. I like the point she made about developers being boxed in by their gameplay. For example - When is violence justified? Many would say either in self defense or to protect/avenge an innocent. Women are often portrayed and viewed as this type of "innocent" who needs protection and warrants revenge. So in a lot of these big violent action games, the easiest way to justify the violence in the gameplay is to have a women in danger, kidnapped, or killed, so the protagonist has a reason to go around killing everything he sees.

While I already gathered a lot of the information given in this video, and I'm a bit disappointed it took so damn long, I think she can consider it a success just for the amount of discussion it's doubtlessly going to create. The more this problem is at the forefront of people's thoughts the easier it will be to work towards a solution.

Also, poor Bionic Commando, lol. I hadn't heard of that plot twist but I didn't think it was that funny.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Uh, last time I checked the people on this website weren't anywhere near notorious homophobes or racist murderers.

You're confusing type for token. This discussion currently isn't about racism or homophobia.

 

[LetalisK]

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

I assume this is the part where you begin the rational conversation? After all, if you're going to point out a problem(more on this later), I assume you want to be part of the solution, correct? There is already at least one back and forth discussion going on about the video now and nothing is stopping you from making your own arguments and only responding to those that give you and your argument the forethought you and undoubtedly others come to expect from this discussion. (Edit: And because the internet is horrible with tone, let me qualify that there is not an ounce of sarcasm or flippancy in what I'm saying. I'm dead serious in inviting you to elevate the discussion, as is the rest of my post.)

As for the problem, the only thing* that could be said to be completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster(whom I assume you mean Anita Sarkeesian, not IceForce who didn't actually given an opinion about the video) is the anger thrown at those at Youtube that spam reported her video. The worst they can be accused of is jumping to conclusions, unless you think spam reporting a video one disagrees with is a meaningful form of discussion?(This is neither sarcastic nor flippant either, some people do consider something like that to be a meaningful engagement) This is my roundabout way of saying "What demonization?"

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

 

[Tony2077]

So, hi, first time in one of these threads. That was painful. I can't tell if people are being serious or not in their positive response to the video. That was sickeningly stupefying. Her points were terrible, her objectivity was terrible and her analysis was atrocious. She takes scenes out of context, out of relevance, and twists and mutilates them until they fit her point of view. That was not good. That was not balanced. That felt like a schoolchild's homework being read out to me. To then compare that to the endemic crime of domestic violence was grotesque and I truly cannot believe she's being taken seriously.

I don't want to join the group of people that resort to sexist slurs, but I certainly will not be joining the fanatics who support her.

i agree she seem to go off on a tangent sometimes there is a point there but sadly it wasn't the main thing she talked about

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I think we had the same idea, but I just thought "what the hell would be so bad about that?"

 

[Erttheking]

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

I assume this is the part where you begin the rational conversation? After all, if you're going to point out a problem(more on this later), I assume you want to be part of the solution, correct? There is already at least one back and forth discussion going on about the video now and nothing is stopping you from making your own arguments and only responding to those that give you and your argument the forethought you and undoubtedly others come to expect from this discussion. (Edit: And because the internet is horrible with tone, let me qualify that there is not an ounce of sarcasm or flippancy in what I'm saying. I'm dead serious in inviting you to elevate the discussion, as is the rest of my post.)

As for the problem, the only thing* that could be said to be completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster(whom I assume you mean Anita Sarkeesian, not IceForce who didn't actually given an opinion about the video) is the anger thrown at those at Youtube that spam reported her video. The worst they can be accused of is jumping to conclusions, unless you think spam reporting a video one disagrees with is a meaningful form of discussion?(This is neither sarcastic nor flippant either, some people do consider something like that to be a meaningful engagement) This is my roundabout way of saying "What demonization?"

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

What about the post above mine where he claims that because one person didn't like the video he's going to worry for our species and where he also claimed any hate for the video would be irrational?

 

[Kartoffelmos]

No, but it explains:

1) That these women's lives aren't more 'valuable' than men; these women are things that have been taken from men. That's one point nixed.

Which is a bizarre statement considering the argument you try to refute. Why is it women who are always taken from men and not men? Why would a dev choose to use a women to appeal to emotions instead of a man? It's because women are presented as being worth more.

Yeah, why wouldn't they use men? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the industry's issues with homosexuality, could it? As Anita said, a lot of these stories are about the main character recovering from a loss of masculinity because he failed to perform his patriarchal duty as a protector of women. Having the main character's love interest (who gets damsel'd) be a man conflicts with that particular idea because a) being gay is frequently seen as less masculine, and b) men are "supposed" to be the protectors, not the victims.

I sure as hell don't like it, and I wish we had more video game heroes who weren't straight, but there it is. It's the kind of situation that is both damaging to men and women, and it all comes from the same source. Trying to make the argument that only men suffer from this, and in a totally backwards way (that men are protrayed as less important? What?), is missing the point.

 

[Vegosiux]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I don't get it, why? Based on disagreements with Anita Sarkeesian? Why's that, in and of itself, to be demonized? I really don't think we should be polarizing here to that extent, that "disagreeing with A.S." should mean "bigoted scum of the earth".

 

[generals3]

These women aren't valued as people, they're valued as possessions, belonging to a man. Take that, along with the context of a history where women were traded and/or married off to men as possessions.

Which is a horrible assumption to make. The male protagonists doesn't cry because he lost a possession, he cries over the loss of a female he dearly loved. People tend to care more about people than objects and since the trope is used for optimal emotional responses the idea they are being assimilated to objects can only be the result of a severe negative bias. There is literally no reason whatsoever to assume the women are being portrayed as "possessions", so why would you make that assumption?

If feminism is the radical notion that women are people, misogyny would involve seeing a women as less than a person. Like maybe as a possession. See my previous comment.

See above.

You don't get extra points for being overly literal, it just makes arguing with you tiresome. You know what I mean: If there's a women in a video game, chances are she's a damsel in distress. Strewn about our cultural artifacts, does this trend say anything about how women are seen in our societies? I think it does. Is that message particularly friendly for women? Only if you consider patronizing women and taking away their agency 'friendly'.

My apologies about the little semantics remark.
You make an interesting point about how these tropes may be reflexions of our views in real life. However, this would also destroy Anita's pseudo-psychological activism considering it suggests a reversed causality. However, I think you're approaching this in the way which creates the most negative possible portrait of the trope/views of women. The reason why women are usually used as the victims is because women are generally physically less strong and thus in a violent video game setting less "powerful" (and thus most likely to be captured) and because the loss of a woman's life is still seen as more tragic as a man's (which has been a constant throughout history). However in Real Life violence is not the sole source of agency (unlike in those videogames) as such we shouldn't even draw a too negative picture about the views on women in RL on that aspect. I would even go as far as saying that this trope is more likely to damage men than women. (reference to how domestic violence is more likely to be blamed on men by the Justice System)

 

[DaedricDuke]

So, hi, first time in one of these threads. That was painful. I can't tell if people are being serious or not in their positive response to the video. That was sickeningly stupefying. Her points were terrible, her objectivity was terrible and her analysis was atrocious. She takes scenes out of context, out of relevance, and twists and mutilates them until they fit her point of view. That was not good. That was not balanced. That felt like a schoolchild's homework being read out to me. To then compare that to the endemic crime of domestic violence was grotesque and I truly cannot believe she's being taken seriously.

I don't want to join the group of people that resort to sexist slurs, but I certainly will not be joining the fanatics who support her.

It looked like she was trying to be the Amazing Atheist and try use elitist humor (That moment when face palmed was painful) instead of addressing why her view should be taken into consideration. And when she started talking about violence against woman? I just felt like saying "this is about video games not America".

There's too many fanatics already and it's good thing we don't have another.

 

[LetalisK]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I think we had the same idea, but I just thought "what the hell would be so bad about that?"

See, now I'm not sure if your "the lot of them" is referring to people who disagree with Anita Sarkeesian or those that thought it was a good idea to mass report her video. Perhaps I'm looking too much into this, but it's entirely possible for someone to share the same opinion as someone who would spam report her video(the in-common opinion being that Anita is wrong), yet does not support the action of spam reporting her video. I'm not sure if you're drawing a distinction between the two given your previous comment.

 

[generals3]

Yeah, why wouldn't they use men? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the industry's issues with homosexuality, could it? As Anita said, a lot of these stories are about the main character recovering from a loss of masculinity because he failed to perform his patriarchal duty as a protector of women. Having the main character's love interest (who gets damsel'd) be a man conflicts with that particular idea because a) being gay is frequently seen as less masculine, and b) men are "supposed" to be the protectors, not the victims.

I sure as hell don't like it, and I wish we had more video game heroes who weren't straight, but there it is. It's the kind of situation that is both damaging to men and women, and it all comes from the same source. Trying to make the argument that only men suffer from this, and in a totally backwards way (that men are protrayed as less important? What?), is missing the point.

Most male gamers are heterosexual and thus more likely to identify with the pain felt by the loss of a female partner than a male one. That's just marketing (making a story more likely to work with the main demograhic).

I also really hate how she twists "failure to protect a loved one" into "loss of masculinity". Everyone wants to protect their loved ones. It's not because it's a male protagonist that suddenly it's about masculinity.

And if you think i'm trying to claim these games are detrimental to men you're wrong. I merely stated that if you engage in poor pseudo psychology at least don't do it in the most twisted way and remain logical. I don't think games hurt anyone or any gender.

And yes, men's lives are portrayed as less important. That's quite obvious by how trivial a man's death is in games compared to a woman's death. (in general)